Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Is Bush Succeeding in Making His Case to Invade Iraq?; Has the Administration Taken Significant Steps to Protect America Since 9/11?

Aired September 09, 2002 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala; on the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE, making the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We know he has this capability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: And making it urgent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have no choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: But there's still opposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Basically, it will turn the world into the Wild West.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Handing out grades for handling September 11 and everything that came after.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Bush administration, unfortunately, gets a C-minus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Who else gets what and why? And, there she is, and there she is, why a court is picking Miss North Carolina tonight on CROSSFIRE; from the George Washington University James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight it's report card time as we approach the first anniversary of September 11. Also, battling beauty queens and a backstabbing ex-boyfriend, but before we get to the swimsuit competition, here are the finalists for the best political briefing in television, clear the runway for the CROSSFIRE political alert.

It was show and tell along the U.S. Canadian border today in Detroit. President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien watch border guards check out some pre-selective 18-wheelers in a demonstration of technology that's supposed to keep the bad guys from getting across the border. But let the good guys go through quick. Presumably, there's also show and tell behind closed doors as well.

The president spent 30 minutes talking to the Canadian leader about Iraq. He also called the U.N. Secretary General of NATO, plus the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, and he was trying for Egypt. Do you suppose he'll ever talk to the American people? Remember us?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: But I thought you wanted him to go rally world opinion. Look, the president went and spoke to Jean Chretien in Canada, OK. That is a hard thing.

CARVILLE: Spoke to him in Detroit.

CARLSON: No, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: He's making an effort. You ought to give him credit for it. He's president of the United States.

CARVILLE: It's a democratic city.

CARLSON: Yes, he's a bloodthirsty dictator whose used poison gas against his own people and is seeking to threaten the western world with nuclear weapons, but in addition to all of that, Saddam Hussein is also a pretty weird guy, at least according to his mistress.

Later this week, ABC News will air an interview with Parasuo Lampsos (ph) who says she was Saddam's long-time girlfriend. Saddam, she says, is a narcissist who takes Viagra, talks to himself in the mirror, dyes his hair, and listens to Frank Sinatra. In other ways, however, he is not at all like a member of Congress.

To relax, Saddam likes to don a cowboy hat and watch videos of his enemies being tortured. He once tried to have his son assassinated. At least twice he gave money to Osama bin Laden. He raises pet gazelles and when hungry eats them. In other words, not only is he the single biggest threat to world civilization, he would make a terrible son-in-law and ABC News has proved it.

CARVILLE: Absolutely. I tell you what, that's weird news man.

CARLSON: Yes.

CARVILLE: Has the Bush administration timed the debate over war with Iraq to coincide with the November elections? Vice President Cheney calls this suggestion reprehensible, but Mr. Vice President, look at the facts.

Back on January 18, White House political operatives Carl Rove talked to the national committee. He wanted to take the issue of national security to voters in the election and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) presentation on campaign strategy begins with three words: "focus on war."

And in Saturday's New York Times, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admits the timing of the administration launch of its strategy to convince the public of an attack on Iraq was necessary, would be determined "from a marketing point of view." The vice president is right, all this sounds reprehensible.

CARLSON: Well, it's not like he blew up an aspirin factory after being caught with his girlfriend but the point is he's making the case publicly and that's what you called him to do and I think he's a doing a good job.

CARVILLE: All of this had to be made 60 days before an election. Why not last January? Why not next January?

CARLSON: You know it hurts Democrats.

CARVILLE: No one's ever been able to answer questions. Of course, I know that.

CARLSON: Good, I'm glad you admit it.

CARVILLE: They're politicizing the war. They think it will hurt Democrats. I think it's just the opposite. The imminent threat is they're going to lose the election in November.

CARLSON: The Massachusetts governor primary is a little more than a week away and the race is getting ugly. Democrat Warren Tolman has leveled a series of devastating charges against his closest opponent, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Tolman's allegations are serious, devastating, even vicious. Unfortunately for Reich, they're all totally true. Tolman's new Web site actuallybob.com details Reich's multiple positions on a single issue, school vouchers for instance. It also contains reviews of Reich's 1997 memoir locked in the cabinet.

One from the Chicago Tribune describes Reich's misinterpretations as "so pervasive as to seem downright pathological." Reich, of course is outraged. "I'm frankly surprised he would stoop to this," Reich growled, calling the attacks "the worst form of old-style dirty tricks." Reich went on to demand that Tolman immediately cease quoting him accurately.

CARVILLE: You know what, I got to tell you. CARLSON: It's an outrage.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: If it's an outrage, the outrage is quoting book reviews. If you took what all these TV comments had to say about CROSSFIRE and put them on a Web site, we'd look pretty bad too, but they don't know a damn thing.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: No. If you run for office, it would take all the snide comments, idiotic TV critics whoever they are, say about this show, no because...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: I mean the idea that you're going to attack a man running for public office on what some snide review said.

CARLSON: No, it was inconsistencies in his book.

CARVILLE: That's ludicrous. There's nothing like real life to get your attention off politics or whatever your job happens to be. Tonight, there's some very good news for former Clinton adviser turned television commentator George Stephanopoulos.

At 7:02 this morning, his wife Alexandria Wentworth gave birth to Elliott Anastasia (ph) Stephanopoulos, her forth to be called Ellie (ph). So often in CROSSFIRE "Political Alert" we have snide remarks. These aren't: George and Alexandria, congratulations.

CARLSON: Oh, amen, congratulations. I say that too.

CARVILLE: When we bring babies into the world it's a good thing.

CARLSON: Yes, I'm for babies anyway. All good things must come to an end and after tomorrow's round of primaries, you probably won't have some familiar faces to kick around anymore. The latest polls in Florida show former Attorney General Janet Reno has danced away her once commanding lead sadly, but political novice Bill McBride is only two points ahead, meaning it all comes down to turnout, which considering that it is Florida, is a little scary.

In New Hampshire, Republican turned Independent turned Republican again turned something else Senator Bob Smith could lose to Congressman John Sununu. The state's oracle, that would be the Manchester Union Leader says Sununu will win maybe, which is of course true, and unfortunately you can't forget the write-in election for D.C. mayor. Incumbent Anthony Williams was thrown off the ballot because of fraudulent signatures on his petitions sparking a write-in challenge from resident demagogue Willie Wilson. It may be days before we know the results. Vote early, vote often, that's our motto and we're sticking with it.

CARVILLE: Who is Willie Wilson? CARLSON: Not someone you'd want to run our fair city, that's my feeling.

CARVILLE: Our fair city? Actually you live in Alexandria, don't you?

CARLSON: That's right.

CARVILLE: Who is the mayor of Alexandria?

CARLSON: I don't know but...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You don't know the mayor.

CARLSON: We're going to have the congressman from Alexandria on and we'll ask Jim Moran. In a moment, we'll ask him, both our guests about the political timing of an attack against Iraq. In our Point of the Day, an old hand at dealing with Iraq talks back to his critics. And later, we head for the Miss America Pageant. Pull out your bathing suits. You can do that at home, and bring along your attorneys. You can't do that at home but try. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. President Bush is lobbying international leaders. Top administration officials from the vice president on down are working the press, but is anybody getting the message that Saddam Hussein is best taken out now before he starts lobbing nuclear weapons into his neighbors and possibly our backyards?

Joining us from Capitol Hill is Virginia Democratic Congressman James Moran, also California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Welcome.

CARVILLE: Congressman Rohrabacher, what is it about right now as opposed to five months ago or five months from now, that makes it imminent that we have this discussion 60 days before an election?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: We should be having this discussion because this should be fundamental to American foreign policy and it's a fundamental issue. Let me just say that I believe the press is doing a great disservice to the American people by submitting it to them in the form of let's take Saddam Hussein out or whatever.

The bottom line is the United States should be very proud of what we've done in Afghanistan. We've helped the people there free themselves from the Taliban. We can use the same formula in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is actually less popular in Iraq that the Taliban were in Afghanistan, so if we just help those people liberate themselves with support and some air support and some Special Forces, we can get this job done and we need to make sure the American people understand that we can be a force for freedom in this world and we can make it a more peaceful world at the same time. CARVILLE: Congressman, everybody would like for America to be a force of freedom but I think what concerns people is what about it that this thing has now taken on a sense of urgency during an election season? Why wasn't this sense of urgency conveyed to the American people seven, eight months ago, or why can't we wait and defer and take this thing up in January? What piece of intelligence information do we have now that makes this thing so imminent and so urgent?

ROHRABACHER: I don't think we have to have a piece of intelligence. I don't personally have any intelligence that says we need to act right now but I would think that the sooner we get Saddam Hussein, who has a blood grudge against the people of the United States. You know ten years ago, we made a decision to act against him. We didn't finish the job. Now, if he gets his chance, he will kill thousands of Americans. Why take that chance when we can just side with the people of Iraq, help them get rid of their oppressor and they'll be better off and we'll be better off for it?

CARLSON: Now, Congressman Moran for weeks at least, maybe months, Democrats in the absence of any real position on Iraq have said show us the evidence that Saddam poses an imminent threat to the United States. Evidence, as you saw, came out today. If you read the first sentence of the AP on it from London: "Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in a few months," and it goes on to explain the evidence behind that statement. If that's not an imminent threat, I wonder what is.

REP. JAMES MORAN (D), VIRGINIA: Well, they could but so could a lot of other countries. North Korea has far more capability than Iraq has. They do have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and they have the ability to deliver them. We've got over 30,000 troops plus family members in immediate range of their weapons in South Korea but we're not going after North Korea.

Iran has far more capability than Iraq in terms of weaponry and missiles to deliver them. This is to some extent a grudge that some people from the earlier Bush administration still harbor but particularly the vice president.

CARLSON: Congressman.

MORAN: Why we're doing this now two months before a midterm election I can't explain it. What we need to do is to get multilateral support, do it in a thoughtful and effective way, not make this into a partisan issue which is what the president has done.

CARLSON: Excuse me. Well, it's what you're doing. You threw out, I think, a very serious and fairly low charge. So, first I want to know what evidence do you have, this is what you described as a grudge, A; and B, I want to know why since 1998 when President Clinton described Saddam's arsenal as basically an imminent threat to the United States, I want to know why Congress hasn't been more upset about the capabilities Iraq has been gathering in those years.

MORAN: Well, I think we are. That's why we have had the no-fly zone. That's why we protected the Kurds. That's why we have been trying to destabilize Saddam's regime. The problem is that he terminates everybody that might be a threat to him. You know, I totally agree that Saddam should be deposed. There's no question about that. All we're talking about is the timing.

Saddam is responsible for one of the six genocidal regimes of the 20th Century and he should go in everybody's interest but why we are doing that now, why we are raising his stature when we should be diminishing it, why we are giving reason for our allies or at least presumptive allies to find some common bond among each other contrary to the interest of the United States is more than I can figure out. You know going to the United Nations now is what he should have done in the first place.

The process that has brought us here is what really raises some questions, and I don't think it's been helpful. It has given the Arab world reason to raise Saddam's stature as a conceivable hero to some of them. I think it's undermined the president's credibility to some extent. More importantly, it's managed to distract us from the war on terrorism, which is real and I don't think is particularly connected to the need to get rid of Saddam. That's why I think it must be a grudge.

CARVILLE: Congressman Rohrabacher, you're an experienced Afghanistan hand, I think it would be fair to say. I think that Congressman Moran brings up an interesting point here. This has taken the war on terrorism off the front page; put Iraq back on the front page. We're going to deflect troops and everything. Does it bother you that this attack and this up and coming we believe to be war with Iraq is going to take our focus away from fighting al Qaeda who is who we know poses a distinct threat to the United States?

ROHRABACHER: We need to get rid of Saddam Hussein by helping the people of Iraq liberate themselves from that monster as soon as is humanly possible. Every minute he is there, he will murder more of his own people and the chances are that he has the possibility that he does of committing some sort of act against the United States.

We need to end that as soon as possible. That's what's good for the Iraqi people and when you compare this to Afghanistan, you're right I know what happened in Afghanistan. There were people who had trepidations about that too, and I will tell you right now the Taliban had perhaps ten percent support in Afghanistan because of the religious nature. Nobody in Iraq supports Saddam Hussein.

So now is the time and as soon as possible we should get rid of this man by helping the Iraqis do it. And, by the way, as I think it was Secretary Schulz said, if there's a rattlesnake in your front yard, and especially if he's already bitten somebody ten years ago, you don't wait for him to bite you before you cut its head off.

MORAN: This has been our objective for 10 years, Dana.

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the last point. Congressman Moran, I'll give you a chance to respond to that. I think one of the concerns you have is this is deflecting us from our attention against someone, some rattlesnake, that bit us about a year ago. Do you want to expand on that? Do you think this does take away from our focus on the war with al Qaeda?

MORAN: I do, James, and I don't think it's comparable to Afghanistan. We got the Taliban because they were harboring al Qaeda but we didn't get the leaders of al Qaeda. That's what we went after. Back ten years ago, we didn't get Saddam either, and I'm not sure we're going to get him this time, and how many dead Iraqis makes Iraq better off, I don't know. I'd like to see not only the evidence for why we have to move immediately but why it is a higher priority than completing this war on terrorism.

CARLSON: Wait a second.

MORAN: The fact is we can't win the war on terrorism if we go after Saddam because it's going to unite the Arab world. They can't give us and won't give us the information that we need in terms of intelligence to be able to go and get rid of these al Qaeda cells if we unite them.

CARLSON: Wait. Congressman Moran.

ROHRABACHER: The Arab leaders tell us behind the scenes just like a lot of our other European leaders tell us behind the scenes they know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They will be very pleased if we take the leadership but, again, unless the United States leads the way nobody else is going to follow. We have hand wringers over in Europe. We can not rely on other people to protect our security and preserve the freedom in this world.

CARLSON: Congressman Moran.

MORAN: He's right about the leadership. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CARLSON: Well, wait a second. Wait, I want to ask you a question here. I want to quote. Hold on. Congressman, I want to quote from the Falls Church News Press, the prestigious paper for which you wrote an op-ed on August 27. I want to read back to you a line and I don't understand. Maybe you can explain it. "We should be able to make that case" (the case about the invasion of Iraq) "to the rest of the world and legitimize our actions."

Now the implication of your piece is that unless Belgium and France agree, then our war against Iraq is illegitimate. Now that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Is that what you meant to say?

MORAN: You're drawing a conclusion that Belgium and France...

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

MORAN: ...are acquainted with -- they may be some of our allies. The fact is we have none of our allies except for England with us right now.

CARLSON: So it's illegitimate for us to protect ourselves unless our allies agree with it? Is that the point you're making?

MORAN: I think we should be acting in our best interest and when virtually none of our allies want us to move forward, it means we are going to have to not only go this alone, it's our people, our resources on the line, but then we're responsible for rebuilding the country. We have estimates it's going to take ten years to do that, over $150 billion.

Why are we doing this? If we've got sufficient evidence that he is a threat to the rest of the world, the rest of the world should be part of the process of getting rid of him, and I don't think our Arab leaders are going to be cooperating if the Arab world is united against the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Congressman Rohrabacher, I'm going to give you the last word. We're almost out of time here.

ROHRABACHER: OK. We don't need the European allies on our side and this really undermines the whole argument for multilateral action that we always have to depend on the weak sister to come along. No, the only people we need on our side are the people of Iraq and they've suffered under this monster.

They're willing to fight beside us and willing to fight by themselves if we'll give them logistic support and we should do for them what we did for the people of Afghanistan. We helped the people of Afghanistan defeat the tyranny of the Taliban. Let's help the people of Iraq defeat the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

MORAN: It didn't work ten years ago. We should do it differently now so it will work once and for all.

CARLSON: We are out of time Congressmen. Congressman Rohrabacher from California, Congressman Moran from Northern Virginia, thank you both very much. We appreciate it. Still to come, one of the juiciest controversies to hit the Miss American Pageant since they dumped Bert Parks, much juicier in fact.

Also, do these guys really need to put out report cards about the response to September 11? And, our Quote of the Day is from someone who doesn't like Monday morning quarterbacks. Who does? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: I like assigning grades. I like pointing fingers. Fathers ought to be allowed to defend their sons.

CARVILLE: They should. I don't have a problem with saying that. I also don't have a problem with finger pointing either.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Sometimes I point my finger that it's not exactly this finger that way but another finger another way.

CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). A new released Osama bin Laden tape is making the rounds. Connie Chung has details next in a CNN news alert. Later, some victims' families grade the nation's response to September 11. And later, the naked truth about this year's Miss America Pageant. Don't miss it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from New York, Washington University (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bottom and beautiful downtown Washington D.C. A group that represents some of the families of the September 11 victims today gave the Bush administration a C-minus for his job over the last year. The group is happy with the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan, but that didn't make up for the low marks the group gave the administration's handling of domestic security and civil rights. Next in the CROSSFIRE is Families of September 11 president, Steven Push.

Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Mr. Push, thanks for joining us. And I read your homeland security report card and it struck me, as a long time resident of Washington, very much like report cards I've seen from, I don't know, NARAL or the Tobacco Institute, I mean very much a special interest report card, which is not in itself bad. But I wonder if you're not squandering the special moral authority you have.

STEVEN PUSH, PRESIDENT, FAMILIES OF SEPTEMBER 11: This is not a special interest report card. It's a public interest report card. The entire nation has an interest in homeland security and we feel that someone has to keep an eye on the government and make sure that they're moving forward in making the improvements that are necessary to keep us safe.

CARLSON: Well, I -- of course, I agree with you, that someone does need to -- that I just wonder if you're the man. Since I think you're 20 years in public relations, but there -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- but there are grades here -- for instance, you gave the Bush administration incomplete on obtaining Congressional international support for military force to oust Saddam Hussein. What's the connection between your expertise and that of your group and this issue?

PUSH: We're citizens and citizens have a right to petition their government.

CARLSON: Of course, they have a right. I'm just saying why should we take it seriously. That's all I'm...

PUSH: You should take it seriously because there is no other group that has been more seriously affected by the September 11 attacks and nobody that's more motivated to spend the time to really understand what's going on. This is not a debate only for experts. It's also a debate for citizens. And we -- what I learned from September 11 is that it's not enough to just vote and pay your taxes and not commit any crimes to be a good citizen. And in fact, if I had spent more -- if I had more interest in these issues 10 years ago, my wife may still be alive right now.

CARVILLE: Just to -- your wife was on the United flight that crashed in the Pentagon.

PUSH: Yes, she was.

CARVILLE: It -- one of the things here is that a lot of people, myself included, said we should have a commission to look into that.

PUSH: Absolutely.

CARVILLE: Some people have said that. Would you feel like that your wife's life would -- her death would be more meaningful if we profited from this, if we just found out as opposed to a whitewash, which is being proposed by some people in the administration?

PUSH: If we don't learn what is possible to learn from this attack, and use that information to help prevent other people from going through what we're going through right now, I will feel my wife's death was in vain.

CARVILLE: I don't blame you. I mean we had a commission right after Pearl Harbor. I mean it -- but I have not heard -- have you heard one rational, decent argument why we should look into this, and not to say that anybody did anything criminal or anything like that, but where mistakes were made and how we can prevent them?

PUSH: I have not heard one good reason for not doing an independent commission.

CARLSON: Well, actually, I mean I agree with you and I -- sadly, I guess, James too. I'm procommission. I think more information is always better than less, so good for you. But here's the problem I have. I think you're wielding a bit of a moral cudgel here because you do have this special status as a survivor of someone who was murdered on September 11. So you -- here, you give Dianne Feinstein an F because she opposed the commission. You also give one to Trent Lott. Does that mean they are pro-terror or anti-victim?

PUSH: No.

CARLSON: That seems awfully heavy-handed, if you say their names.

PUSH: No, not at all, but they have -- they have steadfastly, publicly, spoken out against doing an independent commission and given some of the most ludicrous reasons I can think of to do it. Trent Lott's reason for opposing the independent commission is to say that well, other anti-terrorism commissions have been done in the past and we didn't pay any attention to those recommendations. We just put them on the shelf and they collected dust so why should we do another?

CARLSON: OK, but wait. I mean I agree -- again, I...

PUSH: And he said that.

CARLSON: Oh come on!

(CROSSTALK)

PUSH: He said that on television and his staff said that to us and to the families who went to visit his...

CARLSON: Well, listen, here's my...

CARVILLE: But you're getting stupid...

CARLSON: I disagree -- I disagree with Dianne Feinstein. I disagree with Trent Lott on this question. I agree with you. But the implication that they're acting out of some base motive, I mean you have a fair disagreement. They argue that there are -- the secrets that might get out in the process of conducting this commission. That's one of the arguments and it's a valid argument. For the secret, it's valid. By giving them an F, you make it sound like they're against the victims; they're against making America safer. It's just too heavy-handed. You don't see what I mean?

PUSH: Well, I graded on a curve and they...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I though you were a PR guy not a...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... algebra. I'm not against algebra, but I just couldn't do it.

CARLSON: And look where you ended up.

PUSH: I think -- I find they're -- I find that they're just providing excuses. I don't think...

CARLSON: What's their motive then? Deep down, what do you think it is?

PUSH: I think deep -- well, I think in Dianne Feinstein's case, she's concerned that if another commission comes along, and discovers something that the intelligence committees didn't discover, it will reflect poorly on the intelligence committees. I think in Trent Lott's case, he's concerned that we'll be embarrassing discoveries that will embarrass the administration.

CARVILLE: Well, there could be, in fact -- again, this by discovery, they came up to embarrass the Clinton administration. There might be some kind of embarrassment -- but I mean the fact that somebody might get embarrassed -- the embarrassing damn thing is that all these people got killed; when according to everything we know there was certain information. Your wife among them -- again you agree with me -- I have not heard one halfway convincing argument as to why we shouldn't do this other than people might get embarrassed.

PUSH: In fact, I do have 20 years experience in public relations. And as a public relations executive, my advice to the administration is to do an independent commission and get all the bad news out right away. Instead, we're getting monthly updates. First, it's Moussaoui, then we find out about the Phoenix Memo. Then, we find out about two of the hijackers were known by the CIA to have attended a conference in Malaysia with other terrorists. Then we find out that those two guys -- yesterday, we found out that those two guys who the CIA knew about were living in the United States and they were rooming with an FBI informant. And the agent that was running that informant didn't even know about it.

CARVILLE: Well, we should do more than.

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Really quickly, one of the great tragedies of groups like yours, not yours, but groups like it, is they kind of branch out fair too wide and start getting involved in some other issues not your main and original purpose. Tell me you're not going to do that and start grading people on gun control or something like that.

PUSH: We're not going to do that. My concern is strictly learning whatever I can from my wife's death and the deaths of the 3,000 other people and applying that to seeing that other families don't have to go through what we're going through.

CARLSON: OK, Mr. Push, thanks very much for joining us.

CARVILLE: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: We appreciate it. Still ahead, your chance to "Fireback" at us. The Canadians, as usual, no surprise to regular viewers are mad and on they're on the attack. But next, two beauty queens from the Tar Heel State -- their tar heels aren't what people are talking about. We'll tell you what is. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. One of those unavoidable rites of fall is upon us, but this year the Miss America Pageant has more going for it than truth, beauty and the American way. Back in June, dark-haired Rebekah Revels was crowned Miss North Carolina. Blonde runner-up, Misty Clymer, her real name, walked out of the picture but not for long.

Revels gave up her title after an ex-boyfriend threatened to release topless photographs of her. Misty Clymer became Miss North Carolina, but Revels had second thoughts and a good lawyer. Both of them are now going through preliminaries while state and federal courts back in North Carolina sort through the main event, Revels lawsuit to gain regain her title.

In the CROSSFIRE, from Louisville, Kentucky, Miss America of 2000, Heather French Henry and here in Washington is Miss America of 1999, Nicole Johnson.

Welcome.

NICOLE JOHNSON, MISS AMERICA 1999: Thank you. It's great to be here.

CARLSON: Thank you.

JOHNSON: Thank you. Hi there.

CARVILLE: I guess we can all stipulate that this boyfriend is one of the truly despicable people in the Western Hemisphere.

JOHNSON: I would agree with that.

CARVILLE: I will leave -- we'll leave Saddam Hussein -- we'll leave it there. But what did this woman really -- did she do anything wrong?

JOHNSON: Well, I think -- in my opinion, she's a victim. The boyfriend is the one that...

CARLSON: Right.

JOHNSON: ... seems to have done something wrong.

CARVILLE: Didn't he...

JOHNSON: It's something that she couldn't have helped.

CARVILLE: Right.

JOHNSON: But it's a very sad and very difficult situation that she's now in.

HEATHER FRENCH HENRY, MISS AMERICA 2000: I agree with...

CARVILLE: Yes, but...

FRENCH HENRY: I agree with Nicole. I just want to express that agreement with her that, you know, she was in an abusive -- an emotionally abusive relationship with a man who clearly is still abusing her indirectly by claiming he has photos. And to date, there are no photos in evidence yet.

CARLSON: Well, wait a second, Heather French Henry. It does -- two questions. First, I can't help but notice that a lot of Miss America contestants wind up naked on film. Is there...

JOHNSON: A lot?

CARLSON: Now -- at least once reason...

FRENCH HENRY: Really, Nicole, I'm not sure that we've gone down that road.

JOHNSON: No, I think we only know about one.

FRENCH HENRY: Yes, I'm not sure that you're talking about the right organization.

CARLSON: Well, James subscribes to the men's magazines. Wasn't there another one?

FRENCH HENRY: Oh, Mr. Carville!

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: OK, I beg your pardon. All right, OK. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

CARVILLE: Now, honestly, I want to come back to it. What the Miss America pageant -- why don't they just let her back in and say this is just some kind of a terrible misunderstanding here? This woman really didn't do anything wrong.

JOHNSON: Well, I think the...

FRENCH HENRY: Well, I think perhaps that would be an option.

CARVILLE: Well, OK, go ahead. You can go and then we'll go...

JOHNSON: Sorry about that. I got -- I think that perhaps would have been an option, however Miss Revels, she resigned her position back in July, once the photos or the e-mails were sent about announcing that these photos were around somewhere. So that changes the whole scope of the argument because she willfully resigned. She wasn't forced. She wasn't drugged to -- somewhere to sign a statement. And I think that changes things.

CARLSON: Heather Henry, do you agree with that?

FRENCH HENRY: Well, you know, there are pros and cons to both sides. I actually think that the title should be returned to Miss Revels because I do believe that they were -- she was told it was in her best interest to resign. And having no evidence, maybe she got bad legal advice or no legal advice. I believe she was put in a precarious situation and I believe that the title should be returned.

Although, I do feel sorry for the first runner-up, Misty Clymer. Both young women believe they have the right to the title of Miss North Carolina, clearly. And that puts them in an unfortunate circumstance.

CARLSON: Wait a minute! I thought the Miss America Pageant was all about, you know, being independent and self-contained, et cetera, in which I've heard you say, in last five minutes, is that this woman is a victim and she was victimized by her boyfriend. You don't think she knew that she was getting her picture taken or how exactly is she a victim?

FRENCH HENRY: Well, we are not quite sure exactly in what circumstance the picture was taken since there is no evidence of the picture. No one has seen the picture. She has stated that she was merely undressing when the picture was taken. Now, what intent that ex-fiance had at the time, we're not sure of. But the fact that he has not come forward with the picture and it hasn't subpoenaed, leaves us to the question, maybe he's still mentally abusing this young woman and wishes to continue this to ruin part of her life, this dream of hers.

JOHNSON: But I think the issue is beyond the abuse that she undoubtedly received and is still receiving from this young man. The fact is that she did resign from the position and because of that, then the first runner-up was awarded the opportunity, signed the contract. And Miss Revels doesn't have a signed contract, so that changes it.

CARVILLE: All right, OK, but let's try to get out of the courtroom here and get back and talk about -- all right, I didn't even know that Miss Americas undressed. You know, I thought all you women just stayed in your closet (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But at any rate, what is the -- isn't there a clause that you to sign, a moral turpitude, something like that? What is that?

JOHNSON: You do, basically, but it's very vague and it says that, you know, upstanding character and high morals, that you will abide with the organization and kind of fitting that whole American ideal that Miss America is often associated with. It doesn't -- but you know, as -- I guess as the court said, that Miss Revels didn't -- was in any kind of way violating that contract.

CARVILLE: But you would agree that what she did -- you would agree that what she did didn't violate, however broad that thing is.

JOHNSON: Yes.

FRENCH HENRY: Well, I...

CARVILLE: Would you agree with the same thing?

FRENCH HENRY: I agree that she -- if Nicole is saying this -- that we as an organization are not to be placing judgment on what is moral or immoral. I think that's the wrong perception that we have. And I don't believe that we can judge this young woman not given the correct circumstance of the photo, whether she was indecent, whether she was moral or immoral.

CARLSON: Well, wait a -- Heather French Henry, let me just read -- I want to read you a quote. This was in the "New York Times" the other day.

FRENCH HENRY: OK.

CARLSON: It's from Christine Damico and she's gone to virtually every pageant since 1943, a professional fan you might say.

FRENCH HENRY: OK.

CARLSON: Here's her take on it. She says -- "That poor Rebekah should be allowed to compete because she hasn't done anything wrong. Topless photographs? Who cares? What's immodest about that compared to parading around stage in a swimsuit?" That's sort of an interesting question. I mean this is a pageant in which women sort of go around revealing the way they look.

FRENCH HENRY: Well, first of all, I think...

CARVILLE: I think a woman's outfit is a lot more revealing than a woman's swimsuit.

CARLSON: Well, I think it's appealing. I'm not -- that's not the point. I mean is it that -- I mean is it really that much an outrage, I guess, is my question.

FRENCH HENRY: Well, I think what we're talking about here is, if, you know -- if she posed for a picture, if she was paid to pose nude for a picture, clearly, that is in the contract -- against those rules. And if she signed that then she does know that she violated that. But in a circumstance like this, where she clearly did not know the picture was being taken, I don't think you can compare this to a swimsuit competition because clearly, when you talk about parading, we're talking about 15 seconds on stage judging physical fitness in a swimsuit. It's a totally different -- I don't think you can compare apples and oranges in that aspect.

JOHNSON: And I...

CARVILLE: Nicole, give us (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

JOHNSON: And also, you know, another element about the swimsuit and the parading aspect is that you have to abide by certain rules and regulations so they're trying to make that as modest as possible and as, you know, de-sexy...

CARLSON: Well, there's your ratings problem right there.

JOHNSON: Well, listen -- this could be true, but nevertheless, I mean, it is worse to be posed in a -- to be revealed in a photograph than the swimsuit competition...

CARLSON: In the closet.

JOHNSON: ... because that's really not revealing.

CARVILLE: Let me tell you this. I have a -- would have a -- you all have been excellent guests. You are very, very bright women. You bring a lot of credit to yourselves and the Miss America Pageant. Thank you very much for being on...

CARLSON: Amen.

CARVILLE: It's an honor to have two Miss Americas.

CARLSON: Heather French Henry and Nicole Johnson, thank you, both, very much. We appreciate it.

CARVILLE: You bet.

CARLSON: Next, a Texan takes a break from brush clearing and fires back at us. We'll be right back.

ANNOUNCER: If you'd like to "Fireback" at CROSSFIRE, e-mail us at CROSSFIRE@CNN.com. Make sure to include your name and hometown.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE, the official television program of the Miss America Pageant. Well, close, anyway. We tried. We had two Miss Americas on, but from Miss America to "Fireback," let's see what some of you out there in TV land have got to say us to. All right, here we go.

"How can we be sure the president won't decide to take a month off in the middle of the war to clear a little brush? Speaking as someone who has cleared considerable East Texas brush, anyone who says they enjoy it might not tell the truth about other things either." Melvin, Houston, Texas. Actually, he's right. And in fact, if I'm correct on this, and I know I'll get somebody to let me know, there's an East Texas place called The Big Thicket.

CARLSON: Yes.

CARVILLE: You wouldn't want to be clearing nothing out of there.

CARLSON: Well, I suspect Melvin is a professional brush clearer.

CARVILLE: Let me tell you, if the president needs to clear some brush, it -- I got a farm out in Shenandoah County and he can just go whack away at that...

CARLSON: I don't think he's going to. Kory from Toronto, Canada writes: "Tucker, I think I have the answer to why Canadians are such sanctimonious goodie-goodies. Generation after generation of liberal Democrat draft dodgers form the U.S. have been breeding their yellow jeans into our citizens. Please stop sending them. We have enough problems up here."

You know, in a way, Canada is to the U.S. what Australia used to be to England. We send them our rejects, they send us their comedians.

CARVILLE: You know, I'll tell you something...

CARLSON: It's...

CARVILLE: I got to tell you something. I like Canada. I like Canadians.

CARLSON: Well, I think it is a great country.

CARVILLE: I love Canada. I mean I know these great people up there. Well, I like them. They're fun people.

CARLSON: It's kind of a sad country.

(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: It's very cold. It's very cold up there.

CARVILLE: It gets cold sometimes, but hell, they can take it. They're tough people, man. I like them a lot. I love Canadians. Well -- and I hope a lot of you watch CROSSFIRE too.

"What happened to Bush's vow to `get bin Laden?' I guess we are going to forget about that and Enron and cut some trees down and start a war with Iraq!" Cyndie Stock, Katy, Texas.

CARLSON: Well, there are a lot of Houston area comments here tonight.

CARVILLE: They got a lot of deep thinkers out there.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Actually, I'm not that critical. I mean, I know they're trying to get bin Laden, but I just assume get all out and play the people and stop from getting us. And I think they will get him. I hope they do.

CARLSON: Amen. Me, too. Chris from Hawaii writes: "Why are we going after Iraq when France is so much closer?" And you know, I have been making that case since day one.

CARVILLE: I love France.

CARLSON: And France has cheese.

CARVILLE: You know, I love Canada and I love France. What can I say?

CARLSON: Unlike Iraq. Yes, sir. A question from the audience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Tucker. Hi, James.

CARVILLE: Hey!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name's Michael...

CARVILLE: Are you going after the Canadians tonight or no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Michael Peers (ph). I'm a student at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. I'm originally from Massachusetts. This is just a question about the Miss America Pageant. Don't you think the media has put too much emphasis on these false idols of American culture?

CARVILLE: I don't know. Looking at them tonight, they...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Actually, they didn't seem false at all. I thought they were lovely and smart and impressive and pulled together and kind of appealing. I mean I don't know. CARVILLE: I don't know.

CARLSON: I think a lot of American women are like that and that's why America is a great country...

CARVILLE: I like Canadians and I love American Women. From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: Yes, from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night, that would be Tuesday night, for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN News Alert.

Good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com