Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Are Democrats Dodging the Iraq Issue?; Should Taxpayers Pay Clinton's Legal Bills?; Libertarians Earn Campaign Money With Sexy Calendars

Aired September 18, 2002 - 19:00   ET

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

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: President Bush asks Congress, are you with me against Saddam?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think reasonable people understand this man is unreasonable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: But would the Democrats rather debate Iraq, or change the subject?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I defy anyone to come and present a record more abysmal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Plus: Libertarians as you've never seen them before.

And: Do the taxpayers really need to reimburse some of the impeachment alumni?

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, undressing for votes, some Libertarians go libertine.

Also, it's payback time for some members of the Clinton administration, but the Republicans don't want to pay up.

But first, you got to pay attention to the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

At the first public hearings after months of secret sessions, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees basically said they have been too rushed to do a really good job of investigating that failures that led to September 11. They joint committee found no smoking gun, but there were plenty of important puzzle pieces no one ever put together. As early as '94 we knew the terrorists wanted to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. In '98 we knew Osama bin Laden was plotting something involving airplanes, New York and Washington. In July 2001 we knew bin Laden's hotheads in the U.S. were taking flying lessons.

It all seems so obvious now.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: And I'd like to know more about it.

CARVILLE: I would too. And I think there ought to be a thorough investigation that would happen over the last 10 years or 15 years. It is a shame that we had to rush something like this, this tragic thing. We need some answers to this. And I'm glad you and I agree with that.

CARLSON: I hate to agree with you, but I do.

Voters have repudiated yet another former member of the Clinton administration. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich finished a distant second in the four-way Democratic primary for Massachusetts governor. He came very close to finishing third.

Massachusetts Treasurer Shannon O'Brien won the right to be crushed this fall by Republican nominee and former Winter Olympics guru Mitt Romney.

Reich joins Janet Reno in the growing list of Clinton administration alumni forcibly returned to private life. It took Reno a full week to admit she lost Florida's Democratic primary for governor.

And speaking of those doomed to electoral failure, Al Gore was in Florida today. Gore should have been teaching Democratic voters how to correctly mark a ballot. But no, he wasn't; instead he was preparing for yet another losing presidential bid. The saga continues, and it gets sadder by the day.

And I know you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Speaking of the Clinton administration, what is President Clinton's wife doing now? What is her job?

CARLSON: I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Oh, she won an election by how much? By how much?

CARLSON: By quite a large margin.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... Richardson is going to be the next governor of New Mexico.

And by the way, there's a poll in Florida showing that McBride is within five. He's going to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle reminded the country that President Bush's economic record is, in Daschle's words, "abysmal and atrocious." In a show-and-tell on the Senate floor, Daschle pointed out that during the Bush administration the country has lost 2 million jobs, stock values have lost $4.5 trillion, economic growth has slowed to 1 percent, health care costs and foreclosures are up, and the federal surplus has all but vanished.

Republicans rush to change the subject, saying Democrats shouldn't be critical without offering alternatives. Here's my alternative: vote Democratic.

CARLSON: Now they're asking rhetorical questions.

What is the Democratic plan...

CARVILLE: Let me tell you what it is. Put first class people in charge like you had in the Clinton administration, take off the tariffs on steel and lumber, get fiscal responsibility back in order and get rid of the part of the tax cut that goes to people make over $400 million...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: and go back to investments like...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: One of the worst things about being a disgraced politician awaiting a lengthy prison term is that it can be hard to find a paying job. On the other hand, there is always radio.

That was Buddy Cianci's reasoning. Cianci, the long-time mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, was convicted recently of racketeering and is due to report soon to federal prison, where he'll probably spend more than five years in an orange jumpsuit.

But in the meantime, he'll be the drive-time host of WPROM AM 630 Providence. It's a familiar role for Cianci who, in the 1980s, worked at another AM station. At the time he had been convicted of beating his estranged wife's boyfriend with a fireplace log and then urinating on him.

Pretty embarrassing, but it didn't bother talk radio listeners. Nothing does.

Senator Torricelli, take note: No matter what happens, a radio job awaits.

CARVILLE: Why are you picking on buddy? (CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Here in D.C. they're finally done counting the write- in votes from last week's election for mayor. The current mayor Anthony Williams received 91 percent of the vote, but the real story may be the other 9 percent.

It's awfully interesting. Among those getting at least one write-in vote were Mickey Mouse, singer Willy Nelson and, believe it or not, CROSSFIRE's own Tucker Carlson.

Voters only had to write in names, they didn't have to explain what they were thinking.

CARLSON: I'll actually have you know, James, that God got a vote, too. And this is -- I don't want to run for office, but people call, you respond.

CARVILLE: Are you saying that Tucker and God come in the same...

CARLSON: I'm saying since I'm the only one qualified to run, I may. I'll keep you posted on that.

CARVILLE: As you well should.

CARLSON: A voice of the people.

CARVILLE: Exactly.

CARLSON: In terms of the world, relax. Congress is considering a rule change that could make your lives less complicated and less prone to national scandal. The bipartisan proposal would prohibit lawmakers from having inappropriate relationships with any intern over whom they have direct authority.

You'll notice that the proposed rule is rather narrow. It would not have prohibited the relationship between Congressman Gary Condit and Bureau of Prisons Intern Chandra Levy, nor would the rule apply to members of the executive branch -- presidents, for example, and their interns.

Not that it matters now; White House interns have been safe for over a year.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... a member of Congress have sex with, say, an orangutan? Would that be against it?

CARLSON: Yes, that's right. But not an intern. A consenting orangutan.

CARLSON: James, we have some breaking news right now out of Buffalo, New York, where six men accused of being members of an al Qaeda terrorist cell were in court today. Court has just adjourned.

CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti joins us with the latest -- Susan.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The purpose of this hearing, Tucker, was to decide -- for the court to decide whether to grant bond to these six men who are charged with providing material support to al Qaeda.

The government has accused these men of going to Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2001, specifically for training at an al Qaeda camp. While there is no decision yet this day, the government tried to prove that these people should not be released because, in the view of the government, they are a risk of flight and a danger to the community.

And among other things, I will point out one piece of evidence the government revealed, the content of an e-mail sent by one of the defendants back in July of this year. And he said in part, quote: "The next meal will be very huge. No one will be able to withstand it, except for those with faith."

Again, the judge has not made a decision yet. The defense has a chance to put on its evidence tomorrow afternoon.

Back to you, Tucker.

CARVILLE: Thank you, Susan.

CNN has learned that tomorrow the Bush administration will send Capitol Hill a use of force resolution it wants Congress to pass. President Bush is having trouble convincing the rest of he world that it's better to attack Iraq first and worry about weapons inspections later.

Can he force Congress to do it his way?

First in the CROSSFIRE, Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and New York Republican Congressman Peter King.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Congressman Frank, thanks for joining us.

I'd like to read you an editorial that appears in this week's "New Republic, often called the conscience of the Democratic Party..

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: That will save me a couple of bucks.

CARLSON: Yes, it will. You should get it. It's worth reading.

Here's part of what it says: "Washington's leading Democrats have neither take be a forthright position on invasion of Iraq, nor seriously answered the Bush administration theory of preemption that justifies it. No one can honestly say he or she is a Democrat because of what the party believes about the greatest threat facing the U.S. The Democrats are a party of bystanders, a party without a position on the issue that matters most." FRANK: Well, there's a little truth in the argument. No one can say that he or she is a Democrat because of the position they took on Iraq unless he or she has only been a Democrat for a couple of months. I mean, obviously people belong to political parties who have for a broad range of issues.

With regard to Iraq, there's division among Democrats. There are some who are critical of any invasion. There are others who are supportive. I think the great bulk of Democrats are taking the positions that we wish the president would accept the possibility that he's winning short of an invasion, which means hundreds of thousands of lives put in jeopardy and hundreds of billions of dollars being expended.

That is, I think the president ought to be saying, look, I may be ready to claim victory because he may be able to say he finally got Saddam Hussein to get serious about an inspection, and an inspection that would then lead to confiscation of weapons that he had in violation of resolutions.

We don't know whether he plans to do that or not, but I think it's worth trying to find out.

CARLSON: But Congressman, with all due respect, that is not so much a position as a critique of the president's position.

FRANK: But the position we are taking, it is a position. That's one of the silliest semantic arguments of the week, and I guess I'll skip over it. The point is this: Many of us believe...

CARLSON: I appreciate that, Congressman. I'll take that as a compliment.

FRANK: You may.

And what our position is that -- my position has been, yes, the U.N. resolutions that said Saddam Hussein should not have the weapons and should be subject to inspections are important. I have supported bombing and sanctions in support of those.

Now that he has, in fact, said, OK, I'm ready to sort of comply, I think we should take him at his word and threaten not to invade him no matter what, and not to say that our job is to get rid of him, but to say that we will now push for a U.N. resolution that will hold him to what he said, and if he violates it, then we will contemplate what to do next.

CARVILLE: I've got to make a confession here. When I decide to become a Democrat, I don't think I'd ever heard of Iraq. I'm pretty sure I hadn't, but I may have. Maybe wasn't even a country by that time.

FRANK: Of all the things I thought I would be doing when I succeeded Father Drynan (ph), hearing your confession wasn't one of them.

CARVILLE: You got it now. I'll stop it there before we both get into trouble.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Congressman, I don't have a problem with America using force. I don't have a problem with any of that.

But what I do want to know is, what is it that we know today that makes this so imperative that we didn't know last January, or makes it that we couldn't do this next January? What is the thing, the piece of information that has come to our knowledge that has set this off?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I think it's part of the ongoing process in the war against terrorism. The fact is that this was on the president's agenda. Now that Afghanistan is somewhat under control, this is an integral part in the war against terrorism. There are other countries, but let's do this one first. Let's go after Iraq. Because if we don't do it now, we have to do it later. And let's do it now...

CARVILLE: If we find out he was involved in September 11, or he was doing that, I'm for this thing so much I'll jump out.

What evidence do we have today that he -- as I understand it, according to the CIA, this thing about meeting in Vienna or Prague is not true.

What is it that we know today?

KING: No, I'm not relying on that at all. I'm saying the record is there. The fact is that even if nothing new happened over the last six months, that's still reason to go in. As Bill Clinton said four years ago, this a real danger.

The danger has to be worse today. He's had four years without inspections. And we should have learned from September 11 that if we don't preempt, we run the risk of being attacked.

CARVILLE: We don't know about him and terrorism. We just know he's just kind of a...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... if a person has weapons of mass destruction and there are terrorist groups in the world it's important that we get this one under control. That's basically it.

CARLSON: Congressman Frank, the United Nations passed its first resolution demanding Iraq end its weapons of mass destruction programs April 3, 1991. Iraq, of course, ignored that. It was followed by subsequent resolutions, after resolutions, after resolutions. Nothing has happened.

I wonder why you have seem to have confidence in the U.N.'s ability to make Saddam stop...

FRANK: I said I think George Bush is underestimating his own success. I give Colin Powell a lot of credit.

I think the fear of being invaded may finally have gotten to him. I don't know that for sure, but it's worth testing. And we were trying. We had pressure, we had economic sanctions, we had the bombings, all which I supported.

Now we have Saddam Hussein in the face of a determination to invade him saying, OK, now we'll do it. I think that would be a success. What troubles me is that the administration appears not to want to have him say yes.

I don't know if he means it, but do think it is worth trying to find out before you commit yourself to an invasion, in which large numbers of people are killed and in which a large amount of money is expended.

And then I have my problem with what Peter said. He said, well, we've got to preempt if they have weapons.

Well, you don't stop with Iraq. If you apply that formula, what about Iran? What about North Korea? What about the other two-thirds of the axis of evil of George Bush? And then there are other countries. What about Syria?

Where do we stop with this? I think we say, look, we will enforce these resolutions, and I think the president deserves some credit.

What troubles me is that when Saddam took what might be a first step in the right direction, that seemed to trouble the administration more than when he was being totally defiant. I think Donald Rumsfeld is now more worried about Colin Powell than he is about Saddam Hussein.

CARVILLE: Congressman...

CARLSON: I think if you reconsider that, you'll recognize that's not a plausible thing to say.

CARVILLE: If the president, who believes the Russians, who says that he's looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and seen his soul and he's a good man and can be trusted. And if we take him at his word, the Russians will not go along with no U.N. Security Council resolution until six months because he wants to give this a chance to work.

So would you favor an invasion of Iraq without a resolution by the U.N. Security Council?

KING: No, I don't necessarily disagree with everything that Barney said. And I don't know if the administration would necessarily would, either.

I think the resolution we're going to see is one that calls for inspections with real teeth, intrusive inspections. And to me, I think what the administration is saying is they don't expect Hussein to comply. He's never complied in the past. And rather than being played for suckers, let's go for the resolution that calls for inspections, but have that combined with military force if he reneges, and also have it with armed forces going and have military forces available to implement the inspections.

So I don't necessarily think they're rejecting Hussein, they just don't believe him. And I think when they get the resolution...

FRANK: Here's the problem, Peter. The president has been saying up to now, and others have been saying -- there were three things I heard Rumsfeld and others saying, well, it's not inspection, it's disarmament. I agree, it's inspection and disarmament, but it's not necessarily regime change.

And that's my problem, that the president appeared to have been saying, what we're going to have to do is change the regime. Now Saddam Hussein is a terrible man. If I read that he died an hour ago, I'd be very happy. But so is Assad in Syria. So is that nut still left in Libya. The Iranians are still run by very bad people.

So that's my problem. Once we say that we're going to set up this criteria and it has to be regime change, you get into problems.

If we are talking about trying enforce inspection and then disarmament, given what inspection might turn up, then we would have an agreement.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... might die and make Barney happy here before long.

CARLSON: And then we'll change the subject and ask our congressmen about the Democrats' all-out attempt to change the subject.

Later: a Libertarian take on political calendars. It's certainly more eye-catching than a campaign poster.

And our "Quote Of The Day" comes from a man who we'd never accuse of being a fan of Saddam Hussein.

We'll be right back

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(AUDIO/VIDEO GAP)

KING: ... I don't support that right now. I think the failure...

CARVILLE: Was the president going to come up there and say, I'm a man of my word? I mean what I say, I say what I mean?

KING: He may well. The president strongly believes it. I don't. CARLSON: Congressman Frank, Senator Daschle got up today and attacked the administration for all that's wrong with the economy. The underlying assumption is the Bush administration's responsible for it.

You probably read this piece Joseph Stieglitz, former chairman of President Clinton's counsel of economic advisers. In "The Atlantic," here's the key quote: "It would be nice," he writes, "for us veterans of the Clinton administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden downturn in the economy, which coincided so closely with his taking charge. But the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier."

This is true, isn't it?

FRANK: Yes.

CARLSON: Well good. Then how can Senator Daschle blame all that's wrong on the economy on an administration that's...

FRANK: First, I don't believe Senator Daschle blamed all that was wrong in the economy.

But the question is, importantly, what specifics you do. For example, it is true that the corporate scandals have been ongoing, but it was the Democrats who took the lead on this. In fact, the Democrats in the House offered a bill very much like the one George Bush signed. And when we offered it, it was voted down by the Republican majority. Virtually everything that was finally in the bill pre-WorldCom was voted down by the Republicans.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans' approach to the recession last year was to pass a tax bill through the House, which fortunately the Democratic Senate killed, which would have given a retroactive tax break to Enron, of all people.

So the answer is, we have been trying to do things. We have been for corporate accountability when the Republicans were not. Paul Sarbanes had a very good bill that was getting stalled by Phil Gramm and the others until the roof fell in on them. That's one example of the Democrats trying to be responsible.

CARLSON: If tax cuts are part of the problem -- and I know that's your position, and I think it's Senator Daschle's position -- then why hasn't Senator Daschle and the Democratic leadership pushed to end them, roll them back?

FRANK: Well, you're just misquoting what I said.

The tax cut I referred to in particular was the Republican House proposal that would have given a retroactive tax break by repealing the corporate alternate minimum tax...

(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: ... Bush tax cuts.

FRANK: But I didn't mention that one.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Well, I'm asking about them now.

FRANK: OK, but I want to get back to your previous bad question, and then I'll get to your more reasonable one.

And the point is...

CARLSON: You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

FRANK: No, what I'm saying is that Senator Daschle, in fact, killed that tax cut. I'm being directly responsive.

Senator Daschle and the Senate Democrats killed this retroactive tax break for Enron, and I'm glad they did.

As to the others, many of us have filed legislation to undo part of the tax cut. And by the way, I think we have a serious problem with this tax cut.

When the tax cut was passed I thought it was too large at the time. Some didn't. But since it was enacted in 2001 we have had a commitment of a large amount of money to fight the war in Afghanistan, of homeland security, of now trying run Afghanistan, now maybe of an invasion of Iraq.

I do not see how you can possibly say that if the tax cut was the appropriate amount a year ago, that now that we are committed to spending well over half a trillion dollars that wasn't then anticipated, it's still the right amount. That's shockingly irresponsible.

CARVILLE: Congressman, there was a story that entrepreneur start-up businesses is at their lowest point in God knows how long, and the chief reason is the escalation in health care costs.

What are three things the Bush administration has done to get these health care cost under control that are rising at about 14 percent a year?

KING: Well, certainly the bill we passed on prescription drugs which we passed in the House; the Senate still hasn't passed one.

CARVILLE: But that didn't have anything to do with business health care costs, that they're going up 14 percent.

KING: Well that's all the more reason why you should have tax benefits for small business so they can compensate for what they're losing as far as the health care costs. Also, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) encourage small business people to provide health care to their employees.

The fact is that this is all part of an overall economic issue -- and I disagree with Barney on this -- I do believe the tax cuts provide growth you need in the economy, that we need more tax cuts, we need a capital gains...

CARVILLE: Why, when the Clinton administration raised taxes, the economy took off?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'll explain that to you. They got the benefit of the increase in the economy that began in the last...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Revenues were going up a year before they even took place.

CARLSON: Unfortunately we are completely out of time. Congressman King, Congressman Frank, thank you both very much.

Still ahead: Shameless millionaires who claim you owe them millions more. Want hints? They're not Republicans. Indeed, they're the Clintons.

Later: a campaign tactic that's sure to get looks, but will it get votes? We'll ask the person who's doing it.

And our "Quote of the Day" is from someone who doesn't need to be convinced that Saddam Hussein is an international menace.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Former President George Bush says he was wrong about something, and it's his only regret. In an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn the former president says he and every other leader was wrong in thinking that Saddam Hussein would be gone after the Gulf War.

But Mr. Bush also says the international coalition that won the war would have shattered if he'd ordered the troops to go to Baghdad and get rid of the Iraqi leader.

In our "Quote of the Day," the former president sums up his feelings about Saddam Hussein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him. But he's got a lot of problems, but immortality isn't one of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: You can see the entire interview with former President Bush tomorrow on CNN "AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN."

CARLSON: When people send assassins out to kill you, I think it's fair if you have hatred in your heart for them. You don't begrudge him hatred in his heart?

CARVILLE: No. You know, somebody gassed all those people and everything. I'm like Barney. If he croaked tonight, I wouldn't be -- I'd read the morning paper and have an extra cup of coffee.

CARLSON: That is a great -- so that's the Democratic strategy, hope he croaks tonight.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what the Democratic strategy is. The Democratic strategy is, get first class economic people, get rid of this protectionism, get rid of the large aspects of the tax cut.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You're amusing me. It is amusing.

Next in the CNN News Alert, a cancer scare for a member of President Bush's Cabinet.

Later: He's out of the White House, but still wants a direct pipeline to your wallet.

And: exposing members of the Libertarian Party.

It's going to be a great show. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

The law says if you are a target of an independent council investigation and aren't convicted of wrongdoing, the government will refund your legal fees.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush got hundreds of thousands of dollars after the Iran/Contra probe. But now that members of the Clintons administration want reimbursement for bills run up for bills run up by years of Republican witch hunts, guess what, the Republicans are crying, it's so unfair.

In the CROSSFIRE now, former federal prosecutor and independent counsel Michael Zeldin and defense attorney Zack Burkman.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: All right, Michael Zeldin, in the first two years out of office, Bill and Hillary Clinton will have grossed about, according to "Newsweek," $40 million.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FMR. INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Good for them. CARLSON: Now, I know...

CARVILLE: Doesn't it just please you to no end?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I am not -- you know, he has a legal right to buck-rake and raise this money in the vulgar way he is. And he also apparently has the legal right to get reimbursed by the federal government. And other presidents have done it before for much lesser amounts.

But don't you think there's something revolting about a rich guy taking $3.3 million from taxpayers?

ZELDIN: No. Not at all.

CARLSON: Are you an attorney?

ZELDIN: Yes.

CARLSON: Oh well, OK.

No, but explain why. Explain why.

ZELDIN: The independent counsel statute says if you meet three tests, you get reimbursed. They apply for the money. When I was independent counsel, all of our targets applied for money. They all got money. Not all of the amount that they applied for, but they got a portion of it that we felt was appropriate under the circumstances.

That will be the process followed here. The independent counsel will make her review. The Justice Department will makes its review. And the judges will decide what's appropriate.

That's the test. That's the statute. No one is above or below the law.

CARLSON: I totally understand that. But I think you're missing two points.

One, the Clintons don't have to take the money or apply for it if they don't want to. And two -- and I think more to the point -- this money, if they get it -- will come from the Justice Department, which is now fighting a war on terrorism in this country and abroad.

Why should money that could go to fighting terrorism go to a couple that made $40 million in the last two years.

ZELDIN: Because there's no means test in this statute. There was never a means test when...

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: Excuse me. When President Bush was reimbursed $250,000 in Iran/Contra, when President Reagan was reimbursed...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... $2 million for a speech.

CARLSON: They don't meet the standard in the statute...

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: They did. They got reimbursed.

CARVILLE: How many people in the Clinton administration were convicted of wrongdoing on the job?

ZACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: Not enough.

CARVILLE: Just give me a number.

BURKMAN: I don't have a number.

CARVILLE: I've got one: One. One.

How many in the Reagan administration? I've got a number, do you have one?

BURKMAN: how is that relevant to the discussion?

CARVILLE: How many? You got a number?

BURKMAN: I've got the number.

CARVILLE: Thirty-one. The Reagan administration was 31 times more corrupt than the Clinton administration. You know how much money you spent investigating people in the Clinton administration?

How much money? How much money did Starr spend?

BURKMAN: Bill Clinton, first of all...

CARVILLE: How much money did Starr spend investigating Clinton?

BURKMAN: Starr spent about $31 million...

CARVILLE: No, $70 million. Seventy million dollars investigating a matter of consensual (ph) sex, and it's an outrage.

BURKMAN: Bill Clinton, for the grief and hardship that bill Clinton, your guy, caused this country, he should be ashamed of himself to ask the taxpayers for more money.

And I'll tell you worse than that. On February 27, 1999, Bill Clinton said -- it was in all of the papers, I checked my files -- he said he would not ask the taxpayers for reimbursement. Now he's going back on his word.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Thirty-one people in the Reagan administration... BURKMAN: But what do you think of that?

CARVILLE: Because I think he was talking about the Lewinsky think.

You're damn right he's going to ask for it on Whitewater. It was nothing...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: They're bundling their requests. They're not -- it's not just -- they're not isolating -- it's not just independent counsel, it's not just congressional investigation. You're not entitled to reimbursement for counsel in a congressional investigation. They know that.

But what hey have done is they folded all the bills together very quietly without telling anyone. And it's ironic, because Clinton is fraudulent to the end.

CARVILLE: After 31 people were convicted, how much did Reagan get for one speech? Two million dollars, one speech.

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: Under the statute -- and I was the independent counsel who reviewed the applications in my case -- under the statute they have to parse every aspect of the investigation, every dime, every hotel spent by their attorneys, and we review each and every item and we make an item-by-item, dollar-by-dollar assessment.

CARLSON: But that's not really the issue...

(CROSSTALK)

()

ZELDIN: No, you have to let me finish the point. You said they've melded together, in a deceitful way, their application. That's impossible under this statute. The statute requires that they specify what they are applying for, and they did not apply for the Lewinsky money.

And so they meet the tests of the statute...

CARLSON: I totally believe you. They have the slickest lawyers in America. I don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Let me grant you that what they're doing is legal.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I totally understand. I'll grant you that, OK.

ZELDIN: Just apologize.

CARLSON: I want you -- not in a million years.

Let me ask you one thing first. You heard Jack make reference to a lie that Bill Clinton told -- I think it's lie 15,926. We actually have it on tape. And it was not just in reference to the Lewinsky matter because it was 1999, years after Whitewater.

And here's exactly what the then-president said.

Here he is on "LARRY KING LIVE."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I may be entitled to it, but my instinct is not to do it. But I've literally never had a discussion about it. My instinct is not to do it. You know, I've been very fortunate, I've had this legal defense fund. People have helped me pay for my legal fees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: You don't even -- you don't even show him asking the question.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm worried about your health, James.

Mr. Zeldin, here's my question to you again. It's not a question of whether they're allowed -- I'm allowed to pick my nose in public, but I don't because it's unattractive.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: In that -- hush, question -- in that clip, you could see that the president was embarrassed by the suggestion he would ask taxpayers to pay for his legal bills.

ZELDIN: He said his instinct is not to request. He raised $7 million of an $11 million bill which he did not -- he paid $11 million for his lawyers. He is seeking $3.5 million.

CARLSON: He has the money, why not?

ZELDIN: Because the statute doesn't require him to do that.

BURKMAN: He's not entitled under the statute to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: If somebody showed a clip of someone answering a question and didn't show the question the person was asked, would you say, judge, I object.

(CROSSTALK) BURKMAN: Here comes the truth. He is not -- Bill Clinton is not entitled under the statute to reimbursement because the statute reads, if these are crimes for which you could be otherwise prosecuted -- in other words, if the U.S. attorney could go after you for these things, theoretically, you are not entitled to reimbursement. For any of the crimes in Whitewater that he would have been charged with, a U.S. attorney or the Department of Justice could go after him.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: As much as I love this subject, we're concerned about James' health. Thank you both very much for joining us.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Coming up: your chance to "Fireback" at us. One of our viewers is worrying about paying the national bills.

And then: grab some coffee, join us for a little slice of Libertarian cheesecake. That's right, semi-nude Libertarians. Don't miss it.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. Here at CROSSFIRE we keep abreast of the issues. We track candidate's political assets and we uncover interesting political trends.

We also use a lot of puns.

Frankly, we've also discovered that sex sells, as have some members of the Libertarian Party.

It's safe to say the most eye-catching thing about a North Carolina State House candidate, her Web site isn't her platform. But Rachel Mills didn't stop there. She put together a revealing calendar featuring herself and 11 other lovely Libertarian ladies.

Rachel Mills joins us now from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome.

RACHEL MILLS (L), LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE: Hi.

CARVILLE: Rachel, just a little political housekeeping here. As a Libertarian you would not have any pornography laws that don't relate to child pornography, would you?

MILLS: Child pornography?

CARVILLE: You'd would outlaw child pornography, but would have no other pornography laws, right?

MILLS: Oh, right. As long as you're not hurting anybody or taking their stuff, you know, why is it the government's business?

CARVILLE: What about marijuana?

MILLS: Marijuana, I think honest science proves that it's harmless just like alcohol, in the same way.

CARVILLE: So what is -- I actually think it was a pretty kind of -- tell us, you got 11 other Libertarian women to pose, I want to say it was in a bathing suit; not even a two-piece bathing suit, a one- piece bathing suit, right?

MILLS: Not exactly bathing suits. Actually, we posed in bra and panties. In some of the pictures, the costuming was added afterwards.

CARLSON: Well, Rachel Mills, here's my problem with it. I mean, I'm all for bra and panty calendars, but as a long-time on-and-off Libertarian candidate -- not candidate -- voter. Often vote for Libertarian candidates, people always say, well, gee whiz, the Libertarian Party frankly, a bunch of cranks with weird personal lives. Kind of a fringe party.

I'm not sure a semi-nude calendar helps me make the point that, no, it's a serious party.

MILLS: Well, no it wouldn't for you, Tucker because we are personally liberal and economically conservative. So you'll find, Tucker, that you'll agree with us on financial issues. And James, you will agree with us on personal issues. Am I right?

CARVILLE: Well, I certainly agree with the calendar. I'll tell you that right now. We're all for that calendar.

CARLSON: Rachel, I went to your Web site hoping for nudity, and instead found this. Let me read it to you: "Introducing the North Carolina Ladies of liberty. Their turn-ons are long walks on the beach, candle-lit dinners and free-market economies."

And I'm wondering, which free-market economy turns you on most? Does Hong Kong just send you over the top? Tell us about that.

MILLS: You know, right now I like Russia, actually, because they just passed a 13 percent flat tax, and their economy is soaring. You know, it's...

CARLSON: That does it for you?

MILLS: That does it for me.

Their economy has grown at like a rate 5 percent while we're struggling in this quagmire. It's sad that we're not leaders anymore, but we can at least follow a good example.

CARVILLE: Rachel, I'll tell you what I admire about you, is Tucker and Bob Novak sit here and defend millions of dollars that pharmaceutical companies, cigarette companies and God knows what else, and Enrons contribute to the Republican Party. Yet they find it offensive that you're picking up 20 bucks by posing for a calendar. I think you are for more good government than the entire Republican Congress they have up there, and I congratulate you on a fun, harmless way to raise money for your campaign.

MILLS: Thank you very much James. This is truly grassroots. I don't think anyone can criticize me for raising 20 bucks at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLS: No, no, you two are going to have to play nice in the sand box, one at a time.

CARLSON: James is trying to group me with the forces of calendar repression, the anti-calendar side, and I'm not there. But I wonder when, you know, if it doesn't, in some sense, demean you as a female candidate -- I'm speaking as a long-time, pretty committed feminist, here -- demean you as a female candidate to be posing. You don't see a lot of men there in their little briefs selling calendars of themselves.

MILLS: Well, I'd love to do a "Sons of Liberty" calendar very soon. I'm all for equal opportunity and freedom of expression.

CARVILLE: Let me say this: If I was as good looking as you was, I would pose for a calendar. I don't think anybody wants to see an almost 58-year-old man pose for a calendar. But I congratulate you. I wish more politicians would pose for calendars to get campaign contributions as opposed to going to all these special interest groups.

CARLSON: Well Rachel, do you have fears that this kind of fund- raising, the semi-nude kind, will raise objections from the campaign finance advocates? Will McCain-Feingold allow this?

MILLS: I've already checked with the State Board of Elections, and they said that this is the same as giving someone a signed picture of the president when they send a contribution. This is no different, and they are fine with it.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what Rachel, you are the best. We enjoyed having this segment with you, and we'll be looking forward -- we'll know what the day is every day at CROSSFIRE because we'll have your calendar.

Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Next on our calendar, it's our "Fireback" segment. One viewer imparts fashion advice. It's a theme here on CROSSFIRE.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment, our little experiment with democracy. You write in and tell us what you think, and as usual you have. Alice O'Hare from Tucson writes about our segment the other night about the woman who turned in three people she believed were terrorists: "Hats off to the lady from Shoney's who did exactly what our president and other officials have been telling us daily: If you hear or see anything strange, contact the authorities. She should get a medal."

The president, just to clarify, did not tell people to eat at Shoney's, just in case there's some confusion.

CARVILLE: I'll say this, I think if I saw three guys -- I have to say this -- of obvious Middle East descent talking about blowing those things up, I'd get on the horn and call it in. Yes, I'd call somebody and say, hey. I don't think so.

"Can our great nation afford a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq and the Bush tax cut all at once?", Andrew Sullivan, Boston, Massachusetts.

Actually, these clowns want to spend another $2 trillion privatizing Social Security too, Andrew, so it's a lot more they want to do because they're going to wreck the economy again just like -- and don't worry, there will be a Democrat back there in 2004...

CARLSON: You know, I wish did want to privatize it. Unfortunately, they're too cowed.

Next up, Paul Arnold from Victoria, British Columbia writes: "Being a Canadian conservative and a regular member of our CROSSFIRE audience, I have been disturbed by recent comments made by Tucker -- that's me. "Please ignore our illustrious prime minister" -- Jean Chretien. "A recent poll suggests that over 75 percent of Canadians want him to retire. Let's hope that he'll listen to us sooner rather than later."

Paul Arnold, this is the problem with having a prime minister whose name no one can pronounce.

CARVILLE: You know, Tucker. If I was -- you hate all foreigners. And I'll tell you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You know what? They do a dog gone good job, just like France is a great country. I love all people.

"Tucker, your hair is totally out of control. Have you ever considered using some of Trent Lott's hairspray?" Laura Harrison, Richmond, Virginia.

Trent Lott uses Super Glue.

Here it is Tucker! Look up there, and turn around. That's what you would look like with Trent Lott's hair.

But Trent Lott uses Super Glue. He doesn't use hairspray. CARLSON: You know what? I need a new wig. That's what it comes down to. I need a new hairpiece.

CARVILLE: I don't use that stuff, and you see how good I look.

CARLSON: Yes, you look fantastic.

We have a question. Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Silvia (ph). I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota.

I was just wondering, how can women in politics be taken seriously if they're taking their clothes off?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know, I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive. I thought Rachel Mills had a lot of interesting things to say. I haven't seen her in her bathing suit, but if she's attractive, it doesn't make her message any less plausible.

CARVILLE: My message is this: that PAC contributions, special interest contributions from these powerful corporations and these powerful cigarette companies and everything else have done a hell of a lot more harm to this country than women taking their clothes off, I'll guarantee you that.

CARLSON: OK.

Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, my name is Tiffany Joselyn (ph) from Clark University in Western Mass.

I just recently came to D.C. to intern, and I'm curious if you think a policy prohibiting relations with interns is really just an unnecessary jab at a ridiculous subject, or will it actually work to increase morals in our government?

CARLSON: I think it's pretty amusing. It really is like, you know, you're not allowed to take your clothes off at red lights. OK, that's a law.

CARVILLE: I want to have one against Congressman and orangutans, but I guess they won't pass that.

From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

See you tomorrow 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





Pay Clinton's Legal Bills?; Libertarians Earn Campaign Money With Sexy Calendars>


Aired September 18, 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: President Bush asks Congress, are you with me against Saddam?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think reasonable people understand this man is unreasonable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: But would the Democrats rather debate Iraq, or change the subject?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I defy anyone to come and present a record more abysmal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Plus: Libertarians as you've never seen them before.

And: Do the taxpayers really need to reimburse some of the impeachment alumni?

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University: James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, undressing for votes, some Libertarians go libertine.

Also, it's payback time for some members of the Clinton administration, but the Republicans don't want to pay up.

But first, you got to pay attention to the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

At the first public hearings after months of secret sessions, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees basically said they have been too rushed to do a really good job of investigating that failures that led to September 11. They joint committee found no smoking gun, but there were plenty of important puzzle pieces no one ever put together. As early as '94 we knew the terrorists wanted to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. In '98 we knew Osama bin Laden was plotting something involving airplanes, New York and Washington. In July 2001 we knew bin Laden's hotheads in the U.S. were taking flying lessons.

It all seems so obvious now.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: And I'd like to know more about it.

CARVILLE: I would too. And I think there ought to be a thorough investigation that would happen over the last 10 years or 15 years. It is a shame that we had to rush something like this, this tragic thing. We need some answers to this. And I'm glad you and I agree with that.

CARLSON: I hate to agree with you, but I do.

Voters have repudiated yet another former member of the Clinton administration. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich finished a distant second in the four-way Democratic primary for Massachusetts governor. He came very close to finishing third.

Massachusetts Treasurer Shannon O'Brien won the right to be crushed this fall by Republican nominee and former Winter Olympics guru Mitt Romney.

Reich joins Janet Reno in the growing list of Clinton administration alumni forcibly returned to private life. It took Reno a full week to admit she lost Florida's Democratic primary for governor.

And speaking of those doomed to electoral failure, Al Gore was in Florida today. Gore should have been teaching Democratic voters how to correctly mark a ballot. But no, he wasn't; instead he was preparing for yet another losing presidential bid. The saga continues, and it gets sadder by the day.

And I know you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Speaking of the Clinton administration, what is President Clinton's wife doing now? What is her job?

CARLSON: I don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Oh, she won an election by how much? By how much?

CARLSON: By quite a large margin.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... Richardson is going to be the next governor of New Mexico.

And by the way, there's a poll in Florida showing that McBride is within five. He's going to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle reminded the country that President Bush's economic record is, in Daschle's words, "abysmal and atrocious." In a show-and-tell on the Senate floor, Daschle pointed out that during the Bush administration the country has lost 2 million jobs, stock values have lost $4.5 trillion, economic growth has slowed to 1 percent, health care costs and foreclosures are up, and the federal surplus has all but vanished.

Republicans rush to change the subject, saying Democrats shouldn't be critical without offering alternatives. Here's my alternative: vote Democratic.

CARLSON: Now they're asking rhetorical questions.

What is the Democratic plan...

CARVILLE: Let me tell you what it is. Put first class people in charge like you had in the Clinton administration, take off the tariffs on steel and lumber, get fiscal responsibility back in order and get rid of the part of the tax cut that goes to people make over $400 million...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: and go back to investments like...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: One of the worst things about being a disgraced politician awaiting a lengthy prison term is that it can be hard to find a paying job. On the other hand, there is always radio.

That was Buddy Cianci's reasoning. Cianci, the long-time mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, was convicted recently of racketeering and is due to report soon to federal prison, where he'll probably spend more than five years in an orange jumpsuit.

But in the meantime, he'll be the drive-time host of WPROM AM 630 Providence. It's a familiar role for Cianci who, in the 1980s, worked at another AM station. At the time he had been convicted of beating his estranged wife's boyfriend with a fireplace log and then urinating on him.

Pretty embarrassing, but it didn't bother talk radio listeners. Nothing does.

Senator Torricelli, take note: No matter what happens, a radio job awaits.

CARVILLE: Why are you picking on buddy? (CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Here in D.C. they're finally done counting the write- in votes from last week's election for mayor. The current mayor Anthony Williams received 91 percent of the vote, but the real story may be the other 9 percent.

It's awfully interesting. Among those getting at least one write-in vote were Mickey Mouse, singer Willy Nelson and, believe it or not, CROSSFIRE's own Tucker Carlson.

Voters only had to write in names, they didn't have to explain what they were thinking.

CARLSON: I'll actually have you know, James, that God got a vote, too. And this is -- I don't want to run for office, but people call, you respond.

CARVILLE: Are you saying that Tucker and God come in the same...

CARLSON: I'm saying since I'm the only one qualified to run, I may. I'll keep you posted on that.

CARVILLE: As you well should.

CARLSON: A voice of the people.

CARVILLE: Exactly.

CARLSON: In terms of the world, relax. Congress is considering a rule change that could make your lives less complicated and less prone to national scandal. The bipartisan proposal would prohibit lawmakers from having inappropriate relationships with any intern over whom they have direct authority.

You'll notice that the proposed rule is rather narrow. It would not have prohibited the relationship between Congressman Gary Condit and Bureau of Prisons Intern Chandra Levy, nor would the rule apply to members of the executive branch -- presidents, for example, and their interns.

Not that it matters now; White House interns have been safe for over a year.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... a member of Congress have sex with, say, an orangutan? Would that be against it?

CARLSON: Yes, that's right. But not an intern. A consenting orangutan.

CARLSON: James, we have some breaking news right now out of Buffalo, New York, where six men accused of being members of an al Qaeda terrorist cell were in court today. Court has just adjourned.

CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti joins us with the latest -- Susan.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The purpose of this hearing, Tucker, was to decide -- for the court to decide whether to grant bond to these six men who are charged with providing material support to al Qaeda.

The government has accused these men of going to Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2001, specifically for training at an al Qaeda camp. While there is no decision yet this day, the government tried to prove that these people should not be released because, in the view of the government, they are a risk of flight and a danger to the community.

And among other things, I will point out one piece of evidence the government revealed, the content of an e-mail sent by one of the defendants back in July of this year. And he said in part, quote: "The next meal will be very huge. No one will be able to withstand it, except for those with faith."

Again, the judge has not made a decision yet. The defense has a chance to put on its evidence tomorrow afternoon.

Back to you, Tucker.

CARVILLE: Thank you, Susan.

CNN has learned that tomorrow the Bush administration will send Capitol Hill a use of force resolution it wants Congress to pass. President Bush is having trouble convincing the rest of he world that it's better to attack Iraq first and worry about weapons inspections later.

Can he force Congress to do it his way?

First in the CROSSFIRE, Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and New York Republican Congressman Peter King.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Congressman Frank, thanks for joining us.

I'd like to read you an editorial that appears in this week's "New Republic, often called the conscience of the Democratic Party..

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: That will save me a couple of bucks.

CARLSON: Yes, it will. You should get it. It's worth reading.

Here's part of what it says: "Washington's leading Democrats have neither take be a forthright position on invasion of Iraq, nor seriously answered the Bush administration theory of preemption that justifies it. No one can honestly say he or she is a Democrat because of what the party believes about the greatest threat facing the U.S. The Democrats are a party of bystanders, a party without a position on the issue that matters most." FRANK: Well, there's a little truth in the argument. No one can say that he or she is a Democrat because of the position they took on Iraq unless he or she has only been a Democrat for a couple of months. I mean, obviously people belong to political parties who have for a broad range of issues.

With regard to Iraq, there's division among Democrats. There are some who are critical of any invasion. There are others who are supportive. I think the great bulk of Democrats are taking the positions that we wish the president would accept the possibility that he's winning short of an invasion, which means hundreds of thousands of lives put in jeopardy and hundreds of billions of dollars being expended.

That is, I think the president ought to be saying, look, I may be ready to claim victory because he may be able to say he finally got Saddam Hussein to get serious about an inspection, and an inspection that would then lead to confiscation of weapons that he had in violation of resolutions.

We don't know whether he plans to do that or not, but I think it's worth trying to find out.

CARLSON: But Congressman, with all due respect, that is not so much a position as a critique of the president's position.

FRANK: But the position we are taking, it is a position. That's one of the silliest semantic arguments of the week, and I guess I'll skip over it. The point is this: Many of us believe...

CARLSON: I appreciate that, Congressman. I'll take that as a compliment.

FRANK: You may.

And what our position is that -- my position has been, yes, the U.N. resolutions that said Saddam Hussein should not have the weapons and should be subject to inspections are important. I have supported bombing and sanctions in support of those.

Now that he has, in fact, said, OK, I'm ready to sort of comply, I think we should take him at his word and threaten not to invade him no matter what, and not to say that our job is to get rid of him, but to say that we will now push for a U.N. resolution that will hold him to what he said, and if he violates it, then we will contemplate what to do next.

CARVILLE: I've got to make a confession here. When I decide to become a Democrat, I don't think I'd ever heard of Iraq. I'm pretty sure I hadn't, but I may have. Maybe wasn't even a country by that time.

FRANK: Of all the things I thought I would be doing when I succeeded Father Drynan (ph), hearing your confession wasn't one of them.

CARVILLE: You got it now. I'll stop it there before we both get into trouble.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Congressman, I don't have a problem with America using force. I don't have a problem with any of that.

But what I do want to know is, what is it that we know today that makes this so imperative that we didn't know last January, or makes it that we couldn't do this next January? What is the thing, the piece of information that has come to our knowledge that has set this off?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I think it's part of the ongoing process in the war against terrorism. The fact is that this was on the president's agenda. Now that Afghanistan is somewhat under control, this is an integral part in the war against terrorism. There are other countries, but let's do this one first. Let's go after Iraq. Because if we don't do it now, we have to do it later. And let's do it now...

CARVILLE: If we find out he was involved in September 11, or he was doing that, I'm for this thing so much I'll jump out.

What evidence do we have today that he -- as I understand it, according to the CIA, this thing about meeting in Vienna or Prague is not true.

What is it that we know today?

KING: No, I'm not relying on that at all. I'm saying the record is there. The fact is that even if nothing new happened over the last six months, that's still reason to go in. As Bill Clinton said four years ago, this a real danger.

The danger has to be worse today. He's had four years without inspections. And we should have learned from September 11 that if we don't preempt, we run the risk of being attacked.

CARVILLE: We don't know about him and terrorism. We just know he's just kind of a...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... if a person has weapons of mass destruction and there are terrorist groups in the world it's important that we get this one under control. That's basically it.

CARLSON: Congressman Frank, the United Nations passed its first resolution demanding Iraq end its weapons of mass destruction programs April 3, 1991. Iraq, of course, ignored that. It was followed by subsequent resolutions, after resolutions, after resolutions. Nothing has happened.

I wonder why you have seem to have confidence in the U.N.'s ability to make Saddam stop...

FRANK: I said I think George Bush is underestimating his own success. I give Colin Powell a lot of credit.

I think the fear of being invaded may finally have gotten to him. I don't know that for sure, but it's worth testing. And we were trying. We had pressure, we had economic sanctions, we had the bombings, all which I supported.

Now we have Saddam Hussein in the face of a determination to invade him saying, OK, now we'll do it. I think that would be a success. What troubles me is that the administration appears not to want to have him say yes.

I don't know if he means it, but do think it is worth trying to find out before you commit yourself to an invasion, in which large numbers of people are killed and in which a large amount of money is expended.

And then I have my problem with what Peter said. He said, well, we've got to preempt if they have weapons.

Well, you don't stop with Iraq. If you apply that formula, what about Iran? What about North Korea? What about the other two-thirds of the axis of evil of George Bush? And then there are other countries. What about Syria?

Where do we stop with this? I think we say, look, we will enforce these resolutions, and I think the president deserves some credit.

What troubles me is that when Saddam took what might be a first step in the right direction, that seemed to trouble the administration more than when he was being totally defiant. I think Donald Rumsfeld is now more worried about Colin Powell than he is about Saddam Hussein.

CARVILLE: Congressman...

CARLSON: I think if you reconsider that, you'll recognize that's not a plausible thing to say.

CARVILLE: If the president, who believes the Russians, who says that he's looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and seen his soul and he's a good man and can be trusted. And if we take him at his word, the Russians will not go along with no U.N. Security Council resolution until six months because he wants to give this a chance to work.

So would you favor an invasion of Iraq without a resolution by the U.N. Security Council?

KING: No, I don't necessarily disagree with everything that Barney said. And I don't know if the administration would necessarily would, either.

I think the resolution we're going to see is one that calls for inspections with real teeth, intrusive inspections. And to me, I think what the administration is saying is they don't expect Hussein to comply. He's never complied in the past. And rather than being played for suckers, let's go for the resolution that calls for inspections, but have that combined with military force if he reneges, and also have it with armed forces going and have military forces available to implement the inspections.

So I don't necessarily think they're rejecting Hussein, they just don't believe him. And I think when they get the resolution...

FRANK: Here's the problem, Peter. The president has been saying up to now, and others have been saying -- there were three things I heard Rumsfeld and others saying, well, it's not inspection, it's disarmament. I agree, it's inspection and disarmament, but it's not necessarily regime change.

And that's my problem, that the president appeared to have been saying, what we're going to have to do is change the regime. Now Saddam Hussein is a terrible man. If I read that he died an hour ago, I'd be very happy. But so is Assad in Syria. So is that nut still left in Libya. The Iranians are still run by very bad people.

So that's my problem. Once we say that we're going to set up this criteria and it has to be regime change, you get into problems.

If we are talking about trying enforce inspection and then disarmament, given what inspection might turn up, then we would have an agreement.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... might die and make Barney happy here before long.

CARLSON: And then we'll change the subject and ask our congressmen about the Democrats' all-out attempt to change the subject.

Later: a Libertarian take on political calendars. It's certainly more eye-catching than a campaign poster.

And our "Quote Of The Day" comes from a man who we'd never accuse of being a fan of Saddam Hussein.

We'll be right back

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(AUDIO/VIDEO GAP)

KING: ... I don't support that right now. I think the failure...

CARVILLE: Was the president going to come up there and say, I'm a man of my word? I mean what I say, I say what I mean?

KING: He may well. The president strongly believes it. I don't. CARLSON: Congressman Frank, Senator Daschle got up today and attacked the administration for all that's wrong with the economy. The underlying assumption is the Bush administration's responsible for it.

You probably read this piece Joseph Stieglitz, former chairman of President Clinton's counsel of economic advisers. In "The Atlantic," here's the key quote: "It would be nice," he writes, "for us veterans of the Clinton administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden downturn in the economy, which coincided so closely with his taking charge. But the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier."

This is true, isn't it?

FRANK: Yes.

CARLSON: Well good. Then how can Senator Daschle blame all that's wrong on the economy on an administration that's...

FRANK: First, I don't believe Senator Daschle blamed all that was wrong in the economy.

But the question is, importantly, what specifics you do. For example, it is true that the corporate scandals have been ongoing, but it was the Democrats who took the lead on this. In fact, the Democrats in the House offered a bill very much like the one George Bush signed. And when we offered it, it was voted down by the Republican majority. Virtually everything that was finally in the bill pre-WorldCom was voted down by the Republicans.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans' approach to the recession last year was to pass a tax bill through the House, which fortunately the Democratic Senate killed, which would have given a retroactive tax break to Enron, of all people.

So the answer is, we have been trying to do things. We have been for corporate accountability when the Republicans were not. Paul Sarbanes had a very good bill that was getting stalled by Phil Gramm and the others until the roof fell in on them. That's one example of the Democrats trying to be responsible.

CARLSON: If tax cuts are part of the problem -- and I know that's your position, and I think it's Senator Daschle's position -- then why hasn't Senator Daschle and the Democratic leadership pushed to end them, roll them back?

FRANK: Well, you're just misquoting what I said.

The tax cut I referred to in particular was the Republican House proposal that would have given a retroactive tax break by repealing the corporate alternate minimum tax...

(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: ... Bush tax cuts.

FRANK: But I didn't mention that one.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Well, I'm asking about them now.

FRANK: OK, but I want to get back to your previous bad question, and then I'll get to your more reasonable one.

And the point is...

CARLSON: You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

FRANK: No, what I'm saying is that Senator Daschle, in fact, killed that tax cut. I'm being directly responsive.

Senator Daschle and the Senate Democrats killed this retroactive tax break for Enron, and I'm glad they did.

As to the others, many of us have filed legislation to undo part of the tax cut. And by the way, I think we have a serious problem with this tax cut.

When the tax cut was passed I thought it was too large at the time. Some didn't. But since it was enacted in 2001 we have had a commitment of a large amount of money to fight the war in Afghanistan, of homeland security, of now trying run Afghanistan, now maybe of an invasion of Iraq.

I do not see how you can possibly say that if the tax cut was the appropriate amount a year ago, that now that we are committed to spending well over half a trillion dollars that wasn't then anticipated, it's still the right amount. That's shockingly irresponsible.

CARVILLE: Congressman, there was a story that entrepreneur start-up businesses is at their lowest point in God knows how long, and the chief reason is the escalation in health care costs.

What are three things the Bush administration has done to get these health care cost under control that are rising at about 14 percent a year?

KING: Well, certainly the bill we passed on prescription drugs which we passed in the House; the Senate still hasn't passed one.

CARVILLE: But that didn't have anything to do with business health care costs, that they're going up 14 percent.

KING: Well that's all the more reason why you should have tax benefits for small business so they can compensate for what they're losing as far as the health care costs. Also, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) encourage small business people to provide health care to their employees.

The fact is that this is all part of an overall economic issue -- and I disagree with Barney on this -- I do believe the tax cuts provide growth you need in the economy, that we need more tax cuts, we need a capital gains...

CARVILLE: Why, when the Clinton administration raised taxes, the economy took off?

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'll explain that to you. They got the benefit of the increase in the economy that began in the last...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Revenues were going up a year before they even took place.

CARLSON: Unfortunately we are completely out of time. Congressman King, Congressman Frank, thank you both very much.

Still ahead: Shameless millionaires who claim you owe them millions more. Want hints? They're not Republicans. Indeed, they're the Clintons.

Later: a campaign tactic that's sure to get looks, but will it get votes? We'll ask the person who's doing it.

And our "Quote of the Day" is from someone who doesn't need to be convinced that Saddam Hussein is an international menace.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Former President George Bush says he was wrong about something, and it's his only regret. In an interview with CNN's Paula Zahn the former president says he and every other leader was wrong in thinking that Saddam Hussein would be gone after the Gulf War.

But Mr. Bush also says the international coalition that won the war would have shattered if he'd ordered the troops to go to Baghdad and get rid of the Iraqi leader.

In our "Quote of the Day," the former president sums up his feelings about Saddam Hussein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him. But he's got a lot of problems, but immortality isn't one of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: You can see the entire interview with former President Bush tomorrow on CNN "AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN."

CARLSON: When people send assassins out to kill you, I think it's fair if you have hatred in your heart for them. You don't begrudge him hatred in his heart?

CARVILLE: No. You know, somebody gassed all those people and everything. I'm like Barney. If he croaked tonight, I wouldn't be -- I'd read the morning paper and have an extra cup of coffee.

CARLSON: That is a great -- so that's the Democratic strategy, hope he croaks tonight.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what the Democratic strategy is. The Democratic strategy is, get first class economic people, get rid of this protectionism, get rid of the large aspects of the tax cut.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You're amusing me. It is amusing.

Next in the CNN News Alert, a cancer scare for a member of President Bush's Cabinet.

Later: He's out of the White House, but still wants a direct pipeline to your wallet.

And: exposing members of the Libertarian Party.

It's going to be a great show. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

The law says if you are a target of an independent council investigation and aren't convicted of wrongdoing, the government will refund your legal fees.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush got hundreds of thousands of dollars after the Iran/Contra probe. But now that members of the Clintons administration want reimbursement for bills run up for bills run up by years of Republican witch hunts, guess what, the Republicans are crying, it's so unfair.

In the CROSSFIRE now, former federal prosecutor and independent counsel Michael Zeldin and defense attorney Zack Burkman.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: All right, Michael Zeldin, in the first two years out of office, Bill and Hillary Clinton will have grossed about, according to "Newsweek," $40 million.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FMR. INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Good for them. CARLSON: Now, I know...

CARVILLE: Doesn't it just please you to no end?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I am not -- you know, he has a legal right to buck-rake and raise this money in the vulgar way he is. And he also apparently has the legal right to get reimbursed by the federal government. And other presidents have done it before for much lesser amounts.

But don't you think there's something revolting about a rich guy taking $3.3 million from taxpayers?

ZELDIN: No. Not at all.

CARLSON: Are you an attorney?

ZELDIN: Yes.

CARLSON: Oh well, OK.

No, but explain why. Explain why.

ZELDIN: The independent counsel statute says if you meet three tests, you get reimbursed. They apply for the money. When I was independent counsel, all of our targets applied for money. They all got money. Not all of the amount that they applied for, but they got a portion of it that we felt was appropriate under the circumstances.

That will be the process followed here. The independent counsel will make her review. The Justice Department will makes its review. And the judges will decide what's appropriate.

That's the test. That's the statute. No one is above or below the law.

CARLSON: I totally understand that. But I think you're missing two points.

One, the Clintons don't have to take the money or apply for it if they don't want to. And two -- and I think more to the point -- this money, if they get it -- will come from the Justice Department, which is now fighting a war on terrorism in this country and abroad.

Why should money that could go to fighting terrorism go to a couple that made $40 million in the last two years.

ZELDIN: Because there's no means test in this statute. There was never a means test when...

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: Excuse me. When President Bush was reimbursed $250,000 in Iran/Contra, when President Reagan was reimbursed...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: ... $2 million for a speech.

CARLSON: They don't meet the standard in the statute...

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: They did. They got reimbursed.

CARVILLE: How many people in the Clinton administration were convicted of wrongdoing on the job?

ZACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY: Not enough.

CARVILLE: Just give me a number.

BURKMAN: I don't have a number.

CARVILLE: I've got one: One. One.

How many in the Reagan administration? I've got a number, do you have one?

BURKMAN: how is that relevant to the discussion?

CARVILLE: How many? You got a number?

BURKMAN: I've got the number.

CARVILLE: Thirty-one. The Reagan administration was 31 times more corrupt than the Clinton administration. You know how much money you spent investigating people in the Clinton administration?

How much money? How much money did Starr spend?

BURKMAN: Bill Clinton, first of all...

CARVILLE: How much money did Starr spend investigating Clinton?

BURKMAN: Starr spent about $31 million...

CARVILLE: No, $70 million. Seventy million dollars investigating a matter of consensual (ph) sex, and it's an outrage.

BURKMAN: Bill Clinton, for the grief and hardship that bill Clinton, your guy, caused this country, he should be ashamed of himself to ask the taxpayers for more money.

And I'll tell you worse than that. On February 27, 1999, Bill Clinton said -- it was in all of the papers, I checked my files -- he said he would not ask the taxpayers for reimbursement. Now he's going back on his word.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Thirty-one people in the Reagan administration... BURKMAN: But what do you think of that?

CARVILLE: Because I think he was talking about the Lewinsky think.

You're damn right he's going to ask for it on Whitewater. It was nothing...

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: They're bundling their requests. They're not -- it's not just -- they're not isolating -- it's not just independent counsel, it's not just congressional investigation. You're not entitled to reimbursement for counsel in a congressional investigation. They know that.

But what hey have done is they folded all the bills together very quietly without telling anyone. And it's ironic, because Clinton is fraudulent to the end.

CARVILLE: After 31 people were convicted, how much did Reagan get for one speech? Two million dollars, one speech.

(CROSSTALK)

ZELDIN: Under the statute -- and I was the independent counsel who reviewed the applications in my case -- under the statute they have to parse every aspect of the investigation, every dime, every hotel spent by their attorneys, and we review each and every item and we make an item-by-item, dollar-by-dollar assessment.

CARLSON: But that's not really the issue...

(CROSSTALK)

()

ZELDIN: No, you have to let me finish the point. You said they've melded together, in a deceitful way, their application. That's impossible under this statute. The statute requires that they specify what they are applying for, and they did not apply for the Lewinsky money.

And so they meet the tests of the statute...

CARLSON: I totally believe you. They have the slickest lawyers in America. I don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Let me grant you that what they're doing is legal.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I totally understand. I'll grant you that, OK.

ZELDIN: Just apologize.

CARLSON: I want you -- not in a million years.

Let me ask you one thing first. You heard Jack make reference to a lie that Bill Clinton told -- I think it's lie 15,926. We actually have it on tape. And it was not just in reference to the Lewinsky matter because it was 1999, years after Whitewater.

And here's exactly what the then-president said.

Here he is on "LARRY KING LIVE."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I may be entitled to it, but my instinct is not to do it. But I've literally never had a discussion about it. My instinct is not to do it. You know, I've been very fortunate, I've had this legal defense fund. People have helped me pay for my legal fees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARVILLE: You don't even -- you don't even show him asking the question.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I'm worried about your health, James.

Mr. Zeldin, here's my question to you again. It's not a question of whether they're allowed -- I'm allowed to pick my nose in public, but I don't because it's unattractive.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: In that -- hush, question -- in that clip, you could see that the president was embarrassed by the suggestion he would ask taxpayers to pay for his legal bills.

ZELDIN: He said his instinct is not to request. He raised $7 million of an $11 million bill which he did not -- he paid $11 million for his lawyers. He is seeking $3.5 million.

CARLSON: He has the money, why not?

ZELDIN: Because the statute doesn't require him to do that.

BURKMAN: He's not entitled under the statute to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: If somebody showed a clip of someone answering a question and didn't show the question the person was asked, would you say, judge, I object.

(CROSSTALK) BURKMAN: Here comes the truth. He is not -- Bill Clinton is not entitled under the statute to reimbursement because the statute reads, if these are crimes for which you could be otherwise prosecuted -- in other words, if the U.S. attorney could go after you for these things, theoretically, you are not entitled to reimbursement. For any of the crimes in Whitewater that he would have been charged with, a U.S. attorney or the Department of Justice could go after him.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: As much as I love this subject, we're concerned about James' health. Thank you both very much for joining us.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Coming up: your chance to "Fireback" at us. One of our viewers is worrying about paying the national bills.

And then: grab some coffee, join us for a little slice of Libertarian cheesecake. That's right, semi-nude Libertarians. Don't miss it.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. Here at CROSSFIRE we keep abreast of the issues. We track candidate's political assets and we uncover interesting political trends.

We also use a lot of puns.

Frankly, we've also discovered that sex sells, as have some members of the Libertarian Party.

It's safe to say the most eye-catching thing about a North Carolina State House candidate, her Web site isn't her platform. But Rachel Mills didn't stop there. She put together a revealing calendar featuring herself and 11 other lovely Libertarian ladies.

Rachel Mills joins us now from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome.

RACHEL MILLS (L), LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE: Hi.

CARVILLE: Rachel, just a little political housekeeping here. As a Libertarian you would not have any pornography laws that don't relate to child pornography, would you?

MILLS: Child pornography?

CARVILLE: You'd would outlaw child pornography, but would have no other pornography laws, right?

MILLS: Oh, right. As long as you're not hurting anybody or taking their stuff, you know, why is it the government's business?

CARVILLE: What about marijuana?

MILLS: Marijuana, I think honest science proves that it's harmless just like alcohol, in the same way.

CARVILLE: So what is -- I actually think it was a pretty kind of -- tell us, you got 11 other Libertarian women to pose, I want to say it was in a bathing suit; not even a two-piece bathing suit, a one- piece bathing suit, right?

MILLS: Not exactly bathing suits. Actually, we posed in bra and panties. In some of the pictures, the costuming was added afterwards.

CARLSON: Well, Rachel Mills, here's my problem with it. I mean, I'm all for bra and panty calendars, but as a long-time on-and-off Libertarian candidate -- not candidate -- voter. Often vote for Libertarian candidates, people always say, well, gee whiz, the Libertarian Party frankly, a bunch of cranks with weird personal lives. Kind of a fringe party.

I'm not sure a semi-nude calendar helps me make the point that, no, it's a serious party.

MILLS: Well, no it wouldn't for you, Tucker because we are personally liberal and economically conservative. So you'll find, Tucker, that you'll agree with us on financial issues. And James, you will agree with us on personal issues. Am I right?

CARVILLE: Well, I certainly agree with the calendar. I'll tell you that right now. We're all for that calendar.

CARLSON: Rachel, I went to your Web site hoping for nudity, and instead found this. Let me read it to you: "Introducing the North Carolina Ladies of liberty. Their turn-ons are long walks on the beach, candle-lit dinners and free-market economies."

And I'm wondering, which free-market economy turns you on most? Does Hong Kong just send you over the top? Tell us about that.

MILLS: You know, right now I like Russia, actually, because they just passed a 13 percent flat tax, and their economy is soaring. You know, it's...

CARLSON: That does it for you?

MILLS: That does it for me.

Their economy has grown at like a rate 5 percent while we're struggling in this quagmire. It's sad that we're not leaders anymore, but we can at least follow a good example.

CARVILLE: Rachel, I'll tell you what I admire about you, is Tucker and Bob Novak sit here and defend millions of dollars that pharmaceutical companies, cigarette companies and God knows what else, and Enrons contribute to the Republican Party. Yet they find it offensive that you're picking up 20 bucks by posing for a calendar. I think you are for more good government than the entire Republican Congress they have up there, and I congratulate you on a fun, harmless way to raise money for your campaign.

MILLS: Thank you very much James. This is truly grassroots. I don't think anyone can criticize me for raising 20 bucks at a time.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLS: No, no, you two are going to have to play nice in the sand box, one at a time.

CARLSON: James is trying to group me with the forces of calendar repression, the anti-calendar side, and I'm not there. But I wonder when, you know, if it doesn't, in some sense, demean you as a female candidate -- I'm speaking as a long-time, pretty committed feminist, here -- demean you as a female candidate to be posing. You don't see a lot of men there in their little briefs selling calendars of themselves.

MILLS: Well, I'd love to do a "Sons of Liberty" calendar very soon. I'm all for equal opportunity and freedom of expression.

CARVILLE: Let me say this: If I was as good looking as you was, I would pose for a calendar. I don't think anybody wants to see an almost 58-year-old man pose for a calendar. But I congratulate you. I wish more politicians would pose for calendars to get campaign contributions as opposed to going to all these special interest groups.

CARLSON: Well Rachel, do you have fears that this kind of fund- raising, the semi-nude kind, will raise objections from the campaign finance advocates? Will McCain-Feingold allow this?

MILLS: I've already checked with the State Board of Elections, and they said that this is the same as giving someone a signed picture of the president when they send a contribution. This is no different, and they are fine with it.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what Rachel, you are the best. We enjoyed having this segment with you, and we'll be looking forward -- we'll know what the day is every day at CROSSFIRE because we'll have your calendar.

Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Next on our calendar, it's our "Fireback" segment. One viewer imparts fashion advice. It's a theme here on CROSSFIRE.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment, our little experiment with democracy. You write in and tell us what you think, and as usual you have. Alice O'Hare from Tucson writes about our segment the other night about the woman who turned in three people she believed were terrorists: "Hats off to the lady from Shoney's who did exactly what our president and other officials have been telling us daily: If you hear or see anything strange, contact the authorities. She should get a medal."

The president, just to clarify, did not tell people to eat at Shoney's, just in case there's some confusion.

CARVILLE: I'll say this, I think if I saw three guys -- I have to say this -- of obvious Middle East descent talking about blowing those things up, I'd get on the horn and call it in. Yes, I'd call somebody and say, hey. I don't think so.

"Can our great nation afford a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq and the Bush tax cut all at once?", Andrew Sullivan, Boston, Massachusetts.

Actually, these clowns want to spend another $2 trillion privatizing Social Security too, Andrew, so it's a lot more they want to do because they're going to wreck the economy again just like -- and don't worry, there will be a Democrat back there in 2004...

CARLSON: You know, I wish did want to privatize it. Unfortunately, they're too cowed.

Next up, Paul Arnold from Victoria, British Columbia writes: "Being a Canadian conservative and a regular member of our CROSSFIRE audience, I have been disturbed by recent comments made by Tucker -- that's me. "Please ignore our illustrious prime minister" -- Jean Chretien. "A recent poll suggests that over 75 percent of Canadians want him to retire. Let's hope that he'll listen to us sooner rather than later."

Paul Arnold, this is the problem with having a prime minister whose name no one can pronounce.

CARVILLE: You know, Tucker. If I was -- you hate all foreigners. And I'll tell you...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You know what? They do a dog gone good job, just like France is a great country. I love all people.

"Tucker, your hair is totally out of control. Have you ever considered using some of Trent Lott's hairspray?" Laura Harrison, Richmond, Virginia.

Trent Lott uses Super Glue.

Here it is Tucker! Look up there, and turn around. That's what you would look like with Trent Lott's hair.

But Trent Lott uses Super Glue. He doesn't use hairspray. CARLSON: You know what? I need a new wig. That's what it comes down to. I need a new hairpiece.

CARVILLE: I don't use that stuff, and you see how good I look.

CARLSON: Yes, you look fantastic.

We have a question. Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Silvia (ph). I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota.

I was just wondering, how can women in politics be taken seriously if they're taking their clothes off?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know, I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive. I thought Rachel Mills had a lot of interesting things to say. I haven't seen her in her bathing suit, but if she's attractive, it doesn't make her message any less plausible.

CARVILLE: My message is this: that PAC contributions, special interest contributions from these powerful corporations and these powerful cigarette companies and everything else have done a hell of a lot more harm to this country than women taking their clothes off, I'll guarantee you that.

CARLSON: OK.

Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, my name is Tiffany Joselyn (ph) from Clark University in Western Mass.

I just recently came to D.C. to intern, and I'm curious if you think a policy prohibiting relations with interns is really just an unnecessary jab at a ridiculous subject, or will it actually work to increase morals in our government?

CARLSON: I think it's pretty amusing. It really is like, you know, you're not allowed to take your clothes off at red lights. OK, that's a law.

CARVILLE: I want to have one against Congressman and orangutans, but I guess they won't pass that.

From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson.

Join us again tomorrow night for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

See you tomorrow 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





Pay Clinton's Legal Bills?; Libertarians Earn Campaign Money With Sexy Calendars>