Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Have U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan Been Successful if bin Laden is Alive?; Will Fingerprints Stop Terrorists From Entering the Country?
Aired September 10, 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 tonight:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: We are now at high risk of a terrorist attack. Now we are at level three.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Feeling threatened, a day before the anniversary of September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We are very concerned about a full range of terrorist activities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: One year later, is the U.S. winning the war on terror?
Plus, a controversial new security check: Just who's getting fingerprinted?
And from Florida to New Hampshire to points west, Primary Day is a primary concern.
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight, the terrorist threat from al Qaeda rises from Yellow to an Orange alert, signifying a high risk of a terror attack.
And it's election day in Florida. You know what that means: that's right, voting problems. But first, there is an alert that is neither Yellow nor Orange but pure red, white and blue, here comes the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
Citing threats to U.S. facilities in Asia and worries about suicide attacks on U.S. interests in the Middle East, Attorney General John Ashcroft today raised the nation's terrorist threat to a high state of alert. Vice President Cheney was moved to a secure location.
President Bush met today with the prime minister of Portugal. No doubt he pressed his case for ousting Saddam Hussein. But "The Washington Post" reports that the administration is abandoning what was once a primary rationale for war: allegations that the Iraqi leader is tied to terrorism.
On "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney claimed Iraq was tied to terror attack on Americans. But according to today's "Washington Post," the CIA has found no evidence that such a connection even exists.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: What was once a primary rationale -- the primary rationale is that Saddam is developing nuclear weapons, to which Democrats say, let the U.N. deal with it. That's not a good enough answer. I think you better come up with a new one, or one at all.
BEGALA: How about if Cheney maybe just tells the truth once a week?
CARLSON: Actually, I think that is the truth. You don't think it is? I'd be surprised.
BEGALA: He said -- the CIA says it's not necessarily. No, he lied.
CARLSON: The congressional committee is finally done probing professional housekeeper and Democratic fund-raiser Martha Stewart. Now it's the Justice Department's turn. The House Energy and Commerce Committee wants a criminal investigation into whether Stewart and her attorneys made false statements about her sale of ImClone stock.
The committee has evidence that casts substantial doubt on Martha's story, say congressmen. Congressman James Greenwood insisted this afternoon that Martha Stewart played just a small part of the larger investigation into corporate wrongdoing.
But, he added, the committee still had serious, unresolved questions about Stewart's business practices, specifically her widely published pop-over recipes, some of which the congressman claimed produced pastries that no matter what you do, always collapse. That's about the level that...
BEGALA: Which is outrageous.
CARLSON: It makes the Salem witch hunts... BEGALA: I'm not. I don't know anything about Martha Stewart. She may be innocent, she may be guilty. But she's certainly the victim of a terrible...
CARLSON: She may be a Democrat.
BEGALA: ... a political media circus. Those guys ought to be ashamed.
CARLSON: Never done it before. Kind of strange.
BEGALA: Not since Clinton left.
When Dick Cheney left Halliburton, he received a generous early retirement package, despite the fact that he didn't qualify for it under his contract. Cheney pocketed a total of $45 million in his five years of working at Halliburton, highlights of his tenure including laying off 10,000 people, cutting retirees' health benefits, and, after he left, watching the stock collapse faster than President Bush eating a pretzel.
The "New York Times" reports that hundreds of Halliburton retirees are now seeing their pensions cut in half. One expert called the policy scandalous. Republican congressional investigators will not subpoena Cheney. Why go after someone who screwed thousands of people when they can simply harass Martha Stewart?
CARLSON: Actually, Paul, as you know, it's the trial lawyers who did that, bankrupting Halliburton, because of the asbestos claims. That's absolutely the truth. That is absolutely true. Halliburton is in trouble because of asbestos claims, not -- many of which are totally phony, just like many asbestos claims are. As you know.
BEGALA: Mr. Justice, public defender? These are legitimate claims and Cheney...
CARLSON: Some of them are. Most of them aren't.
Saddam Hussein expelled the United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq nearly four years ago. Nearly four years since Iraq rushed to build nuclear weapons, the U.N. did virtually nothing to stop him. Now it is becoming clear why.
The U.N. had more pressing problems to deal with than preventing a bloodthirsty dictator from blowing up western civilization. It had to contend with the issue of Switzerland's flag. Switzerland, which recently applied for membership in the U.N., has a square flag. The United Nations rules require member flags to be rectangular. Diplomats huffed, memos flew, a phony impasse ensued. But we're delighted to report tonight that the log-jam has been broken. Switzerland has joined the world body, square flag intact.
The United Nations is now free to tackle more important decisions like choosing a new shade of wallpaper for the Security Council men's room.
BEGALA: Why weren't they in there all along?
CARLSON: What, the new wallpaper?
BEGALA: Switzerland. The wallpaper will be fine.
CARLSON: Because they were a neutral country, and they decided...
BEGALA: Neutral on being in the...
CARLSON: ... like the Vatican and the flag issue. At the U.N., things like that matter. It is a very, very important body, the U.N. They want rectangular flags, Paul. They're not going to accept anything less.
BEGALA: I guess that's why our president's going there this week.
Tomorrow is, of course, September 11. CROSSFIRE will not air. It's not a day for partisan debate. CNN will instead bring you special programming for this special day.
Millions of Americans will be in churches and synagogues and mosques. Our vice president, however, has chosen an interesting way to commemorate the tragedy. In addition to granting interviews to legitimate news organizations including CNN, he's going to appear on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Rush Limbaugh is a man who once called 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, quote, "the White House dog." He said that a Mexican won the New York marathon because an immigration agent was chasing him. He reported a rumor that, quote, "Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton," unquote. Is this a proper place for a national leader on what should be a national day of unity?
CARLSON: Blah, blab, blah, blah, blah. For weeks you criticized the administration for not publicizing its case about Iraq. He's taking it to millions of people, some of whom listen to that radio show, and you're criticizing him for doing that. Stick your criticism, Paul. Stick with it, man.
BEGALA: He should be uniting, not dividing us. He should be better than going on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
CARLSON: He is explaining the rational for war. And I don't care where he explains it. If he explains it in the Iraqi national newspaper, it's good. More information is better. I thought that was your line.
BEGALA: He should come on CROSSFIRE, which is an honest...
CARLSON: I agree with that.
BEGALA: Instead of going to blowhard radio...
CARLSON: I agree with that, too. BEGALA: He should be ashamed of himself.
CARLSON: There was a time that Americans looked to Walter Cronkite to make sense of a confusing world. Unfortunately, that time has passed. Now it was Walter Cronkite who is confused.
In an interview with CNN's "LARRY KING" last night, the former news reader explained the terrorist attacks of September 11 very definitely may have been caused by American foreign policy, presumably U.S. support for Israel.
Apparently unaware that Mohamed Atta was a graduate student from an affluent family, Cronkite described the terrorists as revolutionaries fighting on behalf of the poor, with some justification, he added. These people, quote, "are not going to live forever in the shadow of the riches that we display in our movies and our travels around the world, in our airlines and our shipping."
In other words, when you have nice airlines, you can't blame people for wanting to crash them into buildings.
BEGALA: Oh, shame on you.
CARLSON: That's Walter Cronkite's position.
BEGALA: Walter Cronkite is a national treasure, and for you to take an hour-long interview...
CARLSON: I read the whole thing.
BEGALA: Congratulations. Did your lips move while you read it? It's still unfair to take these things out of context.
CARLSON: He said it; it's appalling.
BEGALA: He's a great man.
CARLSON: President Bush made a courtesy visit to Afghanistan's embassy this afternoon, marking the country's post-September 11 liberation from the Taliban. At the very beginning, the administration warned us that the war on terrorism would be a long one.
But no surprise, some of the president's critics are asking: Are we there yet, squirming in their seats, while others are whining about taking the next step.
In the CROSSFIRE today, Congressman Jim McDermott, a Democrat from the state of Washington; conservative Republican Congressman Roy Blunt.
Thank you for joining us.
BEGALA: Thank you for joining us to discuss what is very serious business. Everybody knows, want to make sure our viewers know we have an orange threat today, a high threat level. In addition to that, you read "The New York Times" this morning, and we learn that al Qaeda is reconstituting its leadership, that at least 85 percent of al Qaeda trainees are still at large.
Are we winning the war against al Qaeda, congressman?
REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MISSOURI: Well, we've had a year. We've had a better year than I thought, in the terms of the kinds of things we stopped and the kinds of things that haven't happened because of that. We clearly disrupted their network, their communication network, their leadership network. We still have work to do, you know.
When the president first talked to the country about this, he said this would go on for a decade. I think it possibly could.
But we've had a year that I think we should all be grateful and fortunate for. I would have never guessed, frankly, Paul, a year ago that we would be this fortunate this long.
We're all concerned about the next few days and the next few months, but thank goodness we haven't had a repeat between September 11 and today in what's the most target rich society in the world because we're so free and open.
BEGALA: Can we consider our efforts successful if Osama bin Laden is alive?
BLUNT: I don't think this really is determined by whether Osama bin Laden is alive or not now. Where is he if he's alive? He certainly doesn't seem to be much of a threat personally right now. This was never -- never should have been about one person.
It's about this -- there is a spirit of terrorism that purveyed so much of the world now and how those of us who believe in freedom can figure out how to stand up against that terrorism and not lose our freedom.
So I don't think it should be judged that way. Osama bin Laden is not going to live forever. What is really important is the generation from now what has happened to this movement against free people living in free societies.
CARLSON: Congressman McDermott, it's fashionable among some Democrats to mock the color coding terror alert system, but isn't the story here the dog that didn't bark? There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the last year, despite fears there would be. And if the primary goal of the war on terror is to protect the U.S., it's been successful, hasn't it?
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Well, you know, some people say if you clap your hands, there won't be any elephants in the backyard. That...
CARLSON: Their expectation would never be elephants in the backyard. There was a real expectation of terrorist attacks, and there haven't been. MCDERMOTT: We've been told there were going to be terrorist attacks. We've been told again and again, but it's like Aesop's fable, you yell wolf long enough, people start to say, who believes this? And I really think that at this point, it has very little impact when they do what they did today.
CARLSON: I'm surprised, Congressman, to hear you compare the real threat of terrorism to a fable.
But let me ask you this, then: a year ago Osama bin Laden controlled the country of Afghanistan. He had thousands of people working for him, millions of dollars, he acted with impunity. That's all gone now. We don't know if he's dead or alive but he no longer controls his own country. Seventeen hundred or so al Qaeda members are in custody. This is not a success?
MCDERMOTT: Well, if you look at Afghanistan today, you have to ask yourself what is a success? I mean, you've got the United States special forces acting as a bodyguard for the president, because he's had an assassination attempt. They assassinated the vice president. They got warlords operating all through the country. I think you have to say it's a very limited success that we've had there.
CARLSON: If you're not an Afghan woman, I guess it's pretty easy to say that.
BEGALA: Congressman Blunt, I think Congressman McDermott makes a good point. I don't think anybody -- you and the Republicans, President Bush, you're not ready to declare success and victory in Afghanistan yet, are you?
BLUNT: Not in Afghanistan or against the war on terror. You know, we've got a lot to do in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have been subjugated in an incredible way. The women of Afghanistan have been so disadvantaged. You know, you have young girls going to school for the first time who aren't really all that young: 10, 12, 13, 14 years old who never got to go to school.
That country is turning around but it's been a country in turmoil because of terrorism, because the way they fund terrorism with drug money, because of this, again, this culture of hatred and irrational unaccepting of anything different than the one way you say people have to live.
BEGALA: One of the reasons that Taliban rose was because after the mujahedeen drove the Soviets out, the United States no longer was very interested in what happened in Afghanistan.
And right now, in fact, there are so few American forces in Afghanistan that effectively, Hamid Karzai only controls Kabul. Aren't you worried that if we pull forces out of there, perhaps for an enterprise in Iraq, that we're going to repeat the same error of the past and turn Afghanistan again back over to the Taliban and al Qaeda?
BLUNT: I do think there was a walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviets left by the -- on the part of free peoples around the world. I don't think we have to stay in Afghanistan as long as our allies are staying. They're staying there. We did our share. We did way more than our share of the fighting. They're now doing their job and have come in and have accepted a large responsibility for trying to transition from a country beset by terrorism and war to one by peace. There are plenty of forces that will be left there, Paul, even as we leave. And I think from our going in that was one of the things that was understood.
It is one of the challenges in Iraq. If we do Iraq without allied support, what kind of commitment do we have to stay as long as somebody needs to stay? That's why the president's efforts in the last few days with our allies and his efforts this week with the U.N. And the presentation he makes there, I think, will be so important.
CARLSON: Congressman, with all due respect, I felt like your last answer but your assessment of the situation in Afghanistan was a little glib. I want to give you a chance to restate it.
A year ago, Afghan women could be beaten in public for going to school. Now they're free. Isn't that an improvement? An improvement brought about by the Bush Administration of the United States?
MCDERMOTT: It certainly is an improvement for the women of Afghanistan. But you've got to remember that of American policy, we put the Taliban there. We gave the money to the..
CARLSON: I beg your pardon?
MCDERMOTT: ... Pakistanis.
CARLSON: You're breaking news here, Congressman. I don't think this has ever been reported before in the United States.
MCDERMOTT: Oh, yes, it has been. We funded the Taliban through the Pakistanis, and all that money -- we could have cut off that money and stopped what was going on. We knew what was going on there. All we wanted was a stable, quiet Afghanistan so we could put a pipeline down through there. That's really what we were up to.
CARLSON: That's quite a -- That's quite a theory.
BLUNT: Paul, I know I'm not asking the questions, but during the eight years of the Clinton administration, do you think we funded the Taliban? Is that what Jim is saying here?
BEGALA: You have to ask the congressman.
MCDERMOTT: Our foreign policy has been a mess in Afghanistan from the point that we walked away from --
BLUNT: But did we fund it is a different question?
CARLSON: That's the allegation you made. Didn't he?
BEGALA: It's an important fact, under President Carter and then President Reagan, we funded the mujahedeen, the freedom fighters, as Charlie Wilson of Texas used to call them...
CARLSON: Mr. McDermott is making this your thesis...
BEGALA: ... some of them were Taliban.
CARLSON: Did President Clinton fund the Taliban? That's the allegation you made. Is it true?
MCDERMOTT: The United States government's policy of giving money to Pakistan and letting them take charge of whatever happens in Afghanistan essentially put us as the people behind it.
BEGALA: We're going to have to break for a moment. But both of you, hold your thoughts and hold those seats. In a minute, we're going to ask our guests if it is time for the United States to go after Saddam Hussein.
And then later, the good, the bad and the very ugly about primary elections around the country.
And our quote of the day is a preview of what all of us can expect to see tomorrow.
CARLSON: Congressman McDermott, Paul asked why we're beating the war drums against Iraq. Simple answer: because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We know that now. We knew that four years ago, though. Members of Congress knew it.
I want to read you a resolution that you voted for. You voted for it on August 3, 1998. Here's what it says: "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security... therefore the President," that would be President Clinton, "is urged to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
You gave President Clinton, a Democrat, a fellow Democrat, a blank check to contain Saddam Hussein and do what we needed to do to stop the threat. Why won't you give the same to this president, a Republican?
MCDERMOTT: We've had no problems with deterrents. What we're talking about here is a preemptive strike, and this administration keeps changing the ground. First they're going to get the al Qaeda connection. They've got to do this because of al Qaeda. Then they drop that and now we've got weapons of mass destruction.
Everyone knows that they've had biological weapons, that they've had chemical weapons, they use them. But they have never used them against us when we came in. They have never used them outside the -- what it shows is caution. This man is not crazy. He understands what would happen to him if he used this...
CARLSON: But Congressman, let me re-read this to you. "Is urged to take appropriate action." You urged President Clinton to do whatever is necessary. I want to know what -- what should we do? What should the United States do to confront this threat of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq?
MCDERMOTT: Well, first of all, you can't go alone. And the president seems determined that he's going to go no matter what, and certainly he's got a bunch of advisers who believe that. I think you have to go to the U.N. And if you don't have the U.N. behind you in whatever kind of requirements you make for weapons inspections, you simply cannot declare war on them and go after them. Otherwise you will have the whole Arab world in flames, as well as the rest of the world against us.
BEGALA: Congressman Blunt, many of the critics, myself included, really are concerned about the lack of focus. When our president came and said, "We're going to be committed to this war on terrorism," you said so in the first segment of the show, for the long haul. We cheered.
Now he wants to open a new front against Iraq, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee spoke on this in this morning's "New York Times."
Here's what Bob Graham of Florida had to say: "I think the key to whether we can accomplish this diminution of international terrorism is: stay the course, keep focused on what our primary objective is -- the elimination of international terrorism. Avoid the allure of distractions. At this point, I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals or reducing the threat of international terrorism."
Even the Bush White House in the "Washington Post" today admitted they cannot draw any link between Iraq and terrorism against Americans. Why then must we go to war with them now?
BLUNT: I want to see what the president has to say at the United Nations on Thursday. I think that our goal here should be these networks of terrorism, and I think the president also said those countries that support them.
And it is -- whether it is Middle Eastern terrorism or terrorism against the United States, I think it is clear that Saddam Hussein encourages that.
Jim said following up on that resolution that I believe he and I both voted for. I haven't checked my vote on that, but I think I voted for it as well. We bombed Iraq in December of 1998, so to say that nothing happened once we gave Clinton that authority is a little off base. We had a pretty intensive weekend, at least...
BEGALA: I can remember what some of your Republican colleagues did when President Clinton launched that attack?
BLUNT: Oh, I remember.
BEGALA: They viciously attacked him.
BLUNT: And of course, you remember, Paul, the day we chose to do the bombing was ... BEGALA: The joint chiefs advised him to.
BLUNT: That happened to be, also, the day that there was an impeachment vote on the House floor. But the point is we...
BEGALA: That didn't deter you all, did it?
BLUNT: ... and he bombed the country, so he did follow up on that resolution. You know, there are all kinds of 1998 to 2000 comments by Tom Daschle, by Bill Clinton, by others about Iraq and the danger of Iraq. I think we know it was dangerous then.
We do know they have these weapons of mass destruction. I think it is significant that they weren't used in the Iraqi war, but we don't know what's happened since then. And we need to know what has happened since then.
We do know that the U.N. Resolutions have been violated. Our inspectors haven't been allowed in. We also empowered the president at an earlier time to do what was necessary to enforce those resolutions. That may be what he very well focuses on this week.
This violation after violation of the international community, saying to Saddam Hussein, we want to know what you're doing and when you're doing it and where you're doing it so we can monitor. That's not an unfair request if, in fact, this person has any interest in peace for his country or for the world.
CARLSON: No, Mr. McDermott, we're almost out of time. But quickly, for four years the U.N. has done nothing as Saddam Hussein has essentially given it the finger, why do you think the U.N. is capable or willing to do anything to keep Saddam from harming the United States?
MCDERMOTT: We have to go and raise the question. I mean, you can't stand back and say, well, they haven't done it. Well, we're part of that group. I mean, we are part of the United Nations, aren't we? We can go and put forward a resolution and see if we can get the votes.
This government right now is a government looking for a reason to go to war. First it's al Qaeda. Then it's mass destruction weapons. The next thing it will be, we've got to protect the oil supplies. I mean, because if we lose the oil supplies in the Middle East and it spreads down into Saudi Arabia -- You watch, you watch. They will find a reason to generate going there.
CARLSON: Okay. Sadly we're out of time.
BLUNT: Surely we weren't looking for a reason a year ago.
CARLSON: Of course.
BLUNT: They gave us the reason. We weren't looking for that reason.
BEGALA: You think this has to do with September 11? This is something Vice President Cheney said...
CARLSON: We are out of time.
BLUNT: We weren't looking to go to war against al Qaeda. al Qaeda attacked us.
CARLSON: Okay. Thank you, both, very much for joining us. Hope you'll come back and continue this. Thank you.
Will this be the night Janet Reno finally drives her red pickup into obscurity? Still to come, a look at how today's primary elections could shape the final picture in November.
Also a show of hands, or at least fingers for national security.
In our quote of the day, one of the main participants looks ahead to tomorrow's day of remembrance. We'll be right back.
As Paul already noted, CROSSFIRE will take tomorrow off as CNN devotes daily coverage to America's day of remembrance. President Bush will lead the country in paying tribute to the victims. He'll visit the Pentagon, the site of the World Trade Center and the Pennsylvania field where United Flight 93 went down. His assessment of what's ahead for himself, the country, is our quote of the day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tomorrow is going to be a hard day for a lot of Americans. It's going to be a day of tears and a day of prayer, a day of national resolve. It also needs to be a day in which we confirm the values which make us unique and great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: I think a lot of Americans will be caught off guard by how emotional day tomorrow is.
BEGALA: I don't know if we'll be caught off guard. It is an emotional day. I hope Dick Cheney will cancel his appearance on Rush Limbaugh and focus on uniting this country...
CARLSON: Well, thank you for injecting venom into a perfectly nice sentiment.
BEGALA: I'd attribute partisan venom to Rush Limbaugh.
CARLSON: No, actually you did.
Are cell phones hazardous to your health? Connie Chung has the latest findings next in the CNN "News Alert."
Later, will Mr. Smith be leaving Washington? We'll consider the possibilities of this primary day.
When it comes to national security, what's wrong with a few ink stains? We'll ask those questions; we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Tomorrow, certain visitors to the United States will be asked to give us their fingerprints and to let authorities photograph them. Because it is a national security precaution, we can't say exactly who will be asked. According to the State Department it's most likely to be 16- to 45-year-old men from 26 nations where terrorism is deemed to be a concern.
Don't ask which ones, they're classified. But Muslim nations are assuming they're on the list and they're upset. Next in the CROSSFIRE, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute; and former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing.
CARLSON: Mr. Zogby..
JAMES ZOGBY, PRESIDENT, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Mr. Carlson.
CARLSON: More confused than ever by your objections tonight. The United States wants to create a database of visitors of this country who come from countries with al Qaeda cells in them, countries that are known to have people that are hostile to the United States, countries that are known to harbor terrorists. What in the world could be wrong with that?
ZOGBY: Well, I think you ought to ask the State Department and you ought to ask the INS. And you ought to ask the FBI, because they all oppose this particular procedure. Number one, we don't have the ability to ingest the information.
Number two, we're looking for a needle in a haystack, and it's pretty dumb to add more hay to the stack when that's what you're trying to do.
We're going to get 100,000 fingerprints and photographs and have no database to compare them against. The notion, I think, that exists that the attorney general tried to create is, we'll get the fingerprints, stick it into a computer and like in science fiction, boom, terrorist comes up. We don't have these people in a database. We don't know who they are.
CARLSON: Exactly.
ZOGBY: No. But getting innocent people and doing this and creating three lines in an airport: Americans, non-Americans and Arabs is not going to help.
CARLSON: First, I knew -- First of all, before we address your cry of racism and discrimination...
ZOGBY: No, no, no.
CARLSON: Let's just get at my question...
ZOGBY: It is bad law enforcement and INS. doesn't want it because they can't do anything to ingest the...
CARLSON: First of all, without even asking for evidence to their claim that they don't want it, let me just say...
ZOGBY: We met today.
CARLSON: Doubtless you did. Isn't the Justice Department attempting to build the database, whose lack -- that you say we don't have? Isn't that the point? And they can take it...
ZOGBY: A database of everyone that come to the country, not a database of terrorists. The effect is, look...
CARLSON: The countries that harbor terrorists.
ZOGBY: There is a better way to do it. And what the INS has proposed and the State Department has proposed is number one, beef up INS staff and counselor officer staff, and do it at point of application of the visa in the country of origin. Take time, process the information and maybe you can do it. It may work. If you did it and you did it universally.
But if you do it the way they're planning on doing it, you're are going to number one, get information that you can't use and, two, create the appearance of profiling at airports, which is why the State Department opposes it, INS opposes it and FBI opposes it. We ought to be letting law enforcement drive this and not have a small cabal in the Justice Department keep coming up with these PR stunts...
CARLSON: The Justice Department is law enforcement.
ZOGBY: But there are political guidelines to the Justice Department that don't run into...
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Hello! You know why? Because you all really need me.
BEGALA: Yes, we do.
TOENSING: You do need me.
BEGALA: In principle, I don't have a problem with this policy. That may surprise you. But I have practical concerns. For example, the Justice Department spokesman said today that people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Libya would automatically be photographed and fingerprinted.
None of those countries contributed hijackers to September 11. Saudi Arabia contributed 14. Why not the Saudis?
TOENSING: First of all, let me tell you why you need me, because nobody seems to understand how this process works. There is already a database, a database of 100,000 names of felons or 100,000 fingerprints of felons, and several thousand fingerprints of terrorists. So what happens is, with the people who are put aside to be fingerprinted -- it's a computer thing, it isn't like the old ink thing that was in the past. This is a computer data program where you put your two fingers down and within a minute they can find out if they are one of the 100,000 felons who are wanted, or several of the thousand terrorists fingerprints having been collected from foreign intelligence services and caves in Afghanistan, I mean, all over the place.
Do you remember the cry right after September 11, how could two people on the CIA wanted list ever get into this country? Why didn't they catch them at the border? Well, this is exactly the program that does it. Already they've had this program in effect for just 100,000 felons, database to connect people up with that. They have averaged 75 felons a week trying to get into the United States. You're way off in the way that you're talking about how it works.
ZOGBY: The INS today, Victoria...
TOENSING: It's the INS who is still, you know, writing letters to the terrorists to tell them they can stay.
BEGALA: That's why I think talked about it the way I did...
TOENSING: The INS, yeah.
BEGALA: Instead of the John Ashcroft giving you pieces.
TOENSING: The commissioner is gone.
ZOGBY: You can discredit the people in law enforcement and they've made mistakes. It is largely because they're underfunded, understaffed and are being given too many conflicting guidances like this one, that won't work.
TOENSING: Why is it conflicting if you've got a database?
ZOGBY: If you catch people who are here as visa violators, and you conflate that with terrorist suspects, you do what the Justice Department is doing right now: create the impression that we're making American safe. Law enforcement people are saying to us that this stunt is not going to make us safer or more secure.
What the State Department says if, you beef up counselor services and you give us the ability to do these fingerprints on the ground when people apply for visas, they can...
CARLSON: That sounds like a marvelous idea. I'd be for that. Absolutely. But you haven't addressed what I think is a very compelling point, the idea, as Victoria Toensing just said, that 70 -- I think you said 70 -- felons a week have been stopped at the border. Now I don't want to hurt the feelings of our felonious visitors here, but what's wrong with -- what's wrong with that?
ZOGBY: Nothing is wrong with it. But none of them have anything -- my friend, none of them have anything to do with terrorism. CARLSON: How do you know?
ZOGBY: Well, I know that because we met with the INS today, and we talked to them about the entire process as it worked. None of the people who have been detained so far as a result of this process have anything to do with terrorism.
Are we fighting terrorism -- Are we fighting terrorism, or are we trying to create a new boondoggle.
TOENSING: I talked to the Justice Department today, and I do understand how -- and I do understand how it works. They haven't had the terrorist database in place. It is just going to take place this week. They have had the 100,000 felons in place for the last six months, and they've averaged 75 a week.
Now, the other part of the program is...
BEGALA: I want you to address Jim's point about adding hay to the hay stack. When, for example, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber...
TOENSING: They've already got the hay stack.
BEGALA: Excuse me, let me ask the question. Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber, came from Great Britain. Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, came from France. Jose Padilla came from Chicago; John Walker Lindh came from Marin County, California.
TOENSING: Jim's going to be very happy. I know your point. I know where you're going. Jim's going to be very happy, because just in the initial stages are they going after the high risk countries. Philippines, you know, they'll be looking at people from every place where al Qaeda has...
BEGALA: But you would go after Saudi Arabia, wouldn't you?
TOENSING: Absolutely would I add Saudi Arabia.
BEGALA: Why hasn't Ashcroft?
TOENSING: But, that -- there are the five countries, but there are also people who are going to be asked to go over there based on other criteria, one of them being country of origin, another their travel pattern and specific intelligence information. It's not just people from those five countries; it's going to be other people that are also being asked to do it.
And once they get into the program, if there is a high risk person getting in here, they have to re-register and say when they're leaving the country.
CARLSON: Okay. Unfortunately, we are totally out of time. We need to fingerprint Paul and that takes time.
Victoria Toensing, Mr. Zogby, thank you both very much.
Coming up, one of our viewers fires back a surefire way to lose weight. He calls it the CROSSFIRE diet.
Next, why voting is going into overtime in Florida and other delights of this primary election day. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the prettiest portion of Washington, D.C.; that would be the George Washington University.
The Republican takeover of Congress comes one step closer today as voters in a number of states select candidates for the fall elections. Once again Florida's in jeopardy of becoming a national joke. Despite spending $32 million on chad-less touch screen voting machines, there are problems reported from one end of the state to the other, if you can imagine.
Governor Jeb Bush ordered polls to stay open an extra two hours until 9 Eastern to help us survey the damages in the major races in Florida and beyond.
Please welcome Democratic strategist Peter Fenn and Republican consultant Charlie Black.
BEGALA: Charlie, let's just tee it up. As my friend Tim Russet said famously, Florida, Florida, Florida.
Jeb Bush and the banana Republicans prove again they can't run an election, right?
CHARLIE BLACK, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: Well, the elections are run at the county level. The counties decide what kind of machines to buy. They're responsible for training the people and running the elections. The first thing this morning, we hear about all these problems in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach: Democratic counties, run by Democrats. I don't know what the problem is Paul. I can have Katherine Harris investigate it, if you want me to.
BEGALA: I'm glad you mentioned Katherine Harris, because Katherine Harris is today campaigning for a congressional seat. This is what "The Orlando Sentinel" said about Katherine Harris, charged with interpreting election law. You may remember she stole the election from Al Gore and gave it to Bush.
Here's how she interpreted the election law this year: "Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who presided over Florida's disputed 2000 vote count as the state's chief elections officer, stepped down abruptly Thursday after admitting she violated the election law."
Now the judge, P. Kevin Davey, a Florida circuit judge, is hearing the case on this, says, "The irony is not lost on the court that she sent out a bunch of notices that said, 'You've got to resign if you're a public officeholder,' and didn't resign herself. She didn't read those, I guess."
This is a national joke. Isn't she?
BLACK: Well, what is the party affiliation of that judge? Do you remember that, Paul?
BEGALA: At least he's not a joke.
BLACK: He's a Democrat. You have a requirement, you have a resign to run law that if you file for another office, you have to resign the office you currently hold. She technically didn't do it on time.
BEGALA: Technically.
BLACK: She did it and she's in, and then the Democratic judge is not going to keep her from coming to Congress. She's a shoe-in; she's going to be a Republican congresswoman...
BEGALA: How wonderful. She's a poster child for the banana Republicans.
BLACK: She'll be sitting right here on this show defeating you in debate.
BEGALA: We're going to stock up on makeup. Katherine, come right here; we've got extra Maybelline for you.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST: She's the Martha Stewart of politics, I think is what we've got here.
CARLSON: She makes excellent pop-overs.
BEGALA: You started to pick on the Democrats.
FENN: Here is what she did. She gave a great speech, though, last January to the national political conservative group that you helped found, Charlie. And she said -- the title was "Election Reform and Voter Fraud: Issues That Aren't Going Away."
Well, boy, you've got that right, don't you?
CARLSON: I want to talk about the tragedy in Florida. For eight long years Democrats defended Janet Reno through Waco and all of her various incompetencies and said, you know, she's a strong, powerful, competent woman.
Here she runs for the primary for the Democratic slot for governor in Florida. She doesn't do well. It turns out nobody really likes her and Democrats abandon her for this character Bill McBride, nobody's heard of, never been elected to anything.
FENN: This fellow Bill McBride that the Bush campaign is terrified about, that they're running ads against that Bill McBride?
CARLSON: But please address this; they abandoned her. First, I think it's cruel. And second, if she's so qualified, why aren't Democrats standing up for her? FENN: You're standing up for Janet Reno.
CARLSON: Why not?
FENN: This is going to be a close race. Janet Reno did not raise as much money as she probably should have. She got outspent on television, which means a lot in Florida. This is a very tight race; the union folks endorsed McBride. So he's come on strong. I mean, this is going to be a tight race and, you know...
CARLSON: But you really need another rich lawyer, honestly.
FENN: Another trial lawyer, really?
What I loved about this was that -- it was the way that the -- in California, of course, the brilliant strategy of Gray Davis was to knock out an in the primary Richard Riordan, the mayor of Los Angeles, by going after him and got there by getting the weakest candidate.
Now these folks in Florida thought, well, we'll do the same thing. We'll try go after McBride and see if we can knock him out, because we think -- I'm not sure that she was the weakest candidate. But if she was...
CARLSON: It's just a fake. I agree.
FENN: They may make this guy by attacking him. So I don't know. The Bushes are really in trouble. And you heard his comment today; Bush was talking about Democrats have trouble voting in Florida. That was a brilliant statement. That will be held up in the next few...
BEGALA: As I recall, it's your home state, right? The Tarheel state, North Carolina.
BLACK: Yes, indeed.
BEGALA: Big primary there on the Democratic side. But on the Republican side, one candidate, and that candidate is Elizabeth Dole. And Mrs. Dole has run for office before; we all remember her campaign for the presidency two years ago, where she got fewer votes than Gary Bauer. How is she going to beat somebody from our own solar system if she couldn't beat Gary Bauer?
BLACK: Well, she is going to be a friend of viewers. Erskine Bowles, who is likely to win the Democratic primary today, he spent a ton more money than the other Democrats in the primary. She is very popular.
FENN: I bet you a cold beer and a hot steak on that one.
BLACK: Well, you're on. You're on. Elizabeth Dole is very popular. She's universally known and liked in North Carolina. She's getting support across the board against Bowles, including from a significant number of Democratic women. She's going to win, I don't even think it will be close in November. BEGALA: Wait until most Democratic women learn that in 1999, in truth today, as I trust, she has embraced privatization of Social Security. They're going run from her like the devil runs from holy water, aren't they, Charlie?
BLACK: Well, I think she might be for individual accounts. She's not for privatization.
BEGALA: That is privatization.
BLACK: No, it's not. It is ability to take some of your tax money at your choice...
BEGALA: And give it to Ken Lay at Enron and hopes that he takes good care of it.
BLACK: That's your money that you pay in, Paul. It's not somebody else's money.
CARLSON: Peter Fenn, one of the most confusing, baffling races in the country is in New York for governor. The governor is a Republican, Republican Governor George Pataki, and he's going to beat the Democrat, Carl McCall. How is this possible?
The "New York Daily News" gave some insight into how Carl McCall was a newspaper writer and some of his old columns appeared recently. I want to read you one urging free heroin and other affirmative action for felons.
This one attacking people's support for co-ed baseball. He calls them "limp-wristed men who don't know the ruggedness of baseball, or burly women libbers who are more men than women."
I'm wondering how Carl McCall is going to explain that to the gay voters of New York?
FENN: You went pretty far back on that one: 1974. I mean, you weren't even born then, were you, Tucker?
CARLSON: Actually, now, Peter, Peter, that's not evasion. He said that.
And I'm just wondering: "burly women's libbers who are more men than women?" Come on.
BEGALA: You remember George W. Bush was saying, "Honest, officer, I only had one beer." We responded to that.
CARLSON: Come on. In another column he calls Santa a bigot, okay? The guy is so far out there.
FENN: Where are you coming with this? This is issues?
BLACK: You've got no answers. The poor guy wasn't going to win anyhow, so it's okay.
FENN: Check this guy out. He's doing all right.
CARLSON: Santa is a bigot, you think?
FENN: Everybody thought he was going to lose.
BEGALA: I'm sorry. I want Charlie's prediction on the New Hampshire center primary: Bob Smith, incumbent Senator John Sununu, a young congressman. Who's going to win?
BLACK: Congressman Sununu has been ahead throughout. Senator Smith's been gaining to the end. It could be close. I really expect Sununu will win. But if it's a low turn-out, Senator Smith might pull it out.
BEGALA: In fact, if Washington, D.C., is a write-in state, are either of you going run? Are you going to run as a Republican write- in candidate for mayor of D.C., Charlie?
BLACK: It's too late. I missed the write-in.
FENN: I voted. It's right here. I had trouble with the ballot, so I had to take it back. I thought it was Florida.
BEGALA: Charlie Black from the Republican party. Peter Fenn from the Democratic party. Thank you both. Two of the best in the business.
Next, it's your turn to fire back at us, and the Canadians are still looking for Tucker Carlson's scalp. Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: If you'd like to fire back at CROSSFIRE, e-mail us at crossfire@cnn.com. Make sure to include your name and home town.
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback," and boy have you fired back at us.
Steven Arias of Glendale, California, writes: "We seem to be hell-bent in attacking Iraq before the November elections and want the world to follow us. I'm not sure if the Iraq situation is a 'this dog won't hunt' or 'wag the dog' scenario."
Well, it is wag the dog. That's what it is.
CARLSON: But you know there's a dog involved. You're on to something, Steven.
Okay, next up. Fred Solen writes in about my pronunciation: "Tucker, Canadian P.M. Gene Cree-tin? It's Jean Cre-tee-ann. Did you attend the George Bush School of International Diplomacy and Advanced Pronunciation?"
Fred it will always be cretin to me. Jean cretin.
BEGALA: I know Jean Chretin.
CARLSON: Jean cretin. BEGALA: Aurita Long of Blytheville, Arkansas, writes: "I really do enjoy the new CROSSFIRE with input from the audience." There you go gang; it's all you. "I especially like Paul Begala for his quick, witty remarks and his ability to laugh at himself."
Actually, Aurita, I'm laughing at Tucker, not at me. But thank you for that thought.
CARLSON: Hey, who picks these e-mails anyway. And he's very handsome, very sexy man.
Okay, Liz from Boston writes: "Every evening I watch CROSSFIRE while preparing dinner and every evening I lose my appetite listening to Bob and Tucker. Watch out Jenny Craig! To date I have lost ten pounds on my `CROSSFIRE diet.' Who knew listening to right-wing rhetoric could be good for your health? Thanks CROSSFIRE!"
Well, you're welcome, Liz. We aim to make you sick here on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: Yes, sir. What is your hometown and your question?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Josh Weboga (ph) from North Woodmere, New York.
So, Paul, will we ever have an answer to this color alert system, or will somewhere over the rainbow will this system, maybe use hard facts or does the CIA stand for the Central Intuitive Agency?
BEGALA: I do think -- I'm not one to defend President Bush and John Ashcroft. I think they're doing the best they can to give us information. If it were me, and it's a tough call, but if I were to advise them, I would say give us a little bit more information, not less. But it's a tough call. My heart goes out to them, actually.
CARLSON: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm Jeff Basey (ph) from Columbus, Ohio.
My question is to Paul. Saddam Hussein has unleashed chemical and biological weapons on his own people and is acquiring weapons or materials used for nuclear weapons. Is leaving this man in power really the best policy for the U.S. and our allies?
BEGALA: Yes, I think over the long-term he needs to go. But don't forget, the North Koreans have more advanced weapons than -- and the Iranians have more advanced weapons, and we're not going to war with them.
Our focus should be on al Qaeda.
CARLSON: This is great.
BEGALA: al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 Americans...
CARLSON: Right. BEGALA: ... a year ago tomorrow. We should stop al Qaeda and going to war with Iraq, the experts say, but diminish our ability to stop al Qaeda.
CARLSON: Excuse me. Let me get a word in edgewise to sum up Paul's reasoning. It is, we have caught the rapist. Should we prosecute him? There are a lot of rapists out there. No, let's let him go because there are a lot of threats in this world. Look it's a threat; we've identified it, and I think we need to deal with it.
BEGALA: If that makes it easier for al Qaeda to strike us again, which it will...
CARLSON: There's no evidence that that's true. Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, I'm Tanya O'Diehl (ph) from Columbus, Ohio, and my question is for both of you guys.
When Tim McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, did we become suspicious of white Americans? Is there a double standard going on here?
BEGALA: It was a right-wing white American, by the way. It was not a liberal.
CARLSON: I got fingerprinted at the airport after that.
BEGALA: Actually, it's a very fair point. It was a right-wing white guy who blew up the Murrah building.
CARLSON: We can identify; we know exactly the countries from which the hijackers came and to leave ourselves defenseless against those countries when we know there's a threat there is ludicrous.
Tim McVeigh has nothing to do with it. Sorry.
BEGALA: Until September 11, he was the worst terrorist in American history.
CARLSON: Hey, I'm not defending Timothy McVeigh for what he is.
BEGALA: He was home grown and people ought to...
CARLSON: Well, that goes without saying.
BEGALA: So we're going to target right-wing white guys.
From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night from CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us here next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.
"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN News Alert.
We'll see you later.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
