Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

The Politics of Doing Things Bush's Way, Gore's Way or Blair's Way; Who Should Say What You Want in the Privacy of Your Hotel Room?

Aired September 24, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Going after Saddam or going after votes?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm confident there are a lot of Democrats here in Washington D.C. who understand that Saddam is a true threat.

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus.

ANNOUNCER: The politics of doing things the president's way, Al Gore's way or even Tony Blair's way.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Our purpose is disarmament. No one wants military conflict.

ANNOUNCER: He's gone but not forgotten. Can he possibly get elected again?

And who should say what you want in the privacy of your hotel room?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight we prove the Traficant for Congress campaign is alive. But is it well?

Also, the people trying to require hotels to lead us not into temptation.

But first, we're going to tempt you with the best little political briefing in Washington: our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." The Bush administration today lowered the terrorist threat assessment from Orange, which mean as high level of threat, to Yellow, which means an elevated threat. Elevated in this case is lower than high for those of you scoring at home. The threat level was raised to Orange on September 10.

The Bush administration officials say that that level may be raised once more if intelligence information suggests further al Qaeda attacks, or if Americans once again focus on the Bush recession and indicate they plan to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: I might just make a small prediction. When and if there is another terrorist attack on American soil in which Americans are killed, you will regret saying what you just said.

BEGALA: That they lowered the terrorist threat level today?

CARLSON: You will regret calling it political when, in fact, there is a real threat, as you know.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair presented parliament and the world with evidence of Iraq's active detailed and growing effort to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After going over a 50-page assessment of Iraq's capabilities, Blair defied anyone to say the international community is being unreasonable and demanding that Iraq be disarmed.

Saddam's lackeys immediately rose to the challenge. One of the dictator's advisers called the prime minister's evidence "a hodgepodge of half-truths, lies and naive allegations." The adviser then issued his own hodgepodge of half-truths, lies and naive allegations. Chief among them, the fantasy that U.N. weapons inspectors will have, "unfettered access whatever they want to do."

I don't believe them.

BEGALA: The Blair speech was remarkable because he laid out a set of arguments and facts. He didn't just stand there the way our president seems to do and just rah rah cheerlead and thump his chest. He actually made a reasoned case.

I happen to disagree, but it's reasonable, as you may have noticed.

CARLSON: In support of our president.

BEGALA: He actually used facts and statistics and arguments, which is new. Something we haven't gotten from our president.

I mean here's a quick midterm on the Bush economy. The Census Bureau today reported that poverty in America rose last year for the first time in eight years, increasing by 1.3 million Americans. Household income, which had risen steadily during the Clinton years, fell 2.2 percent last year alone.

Now when George W. Bush took office the Dow was at 10,587. Today, it closed at a four-year low, 7,683, down a whopping 37.8 percent. Unemployment two years ago was 4.2 percent, now it's 5.7, up 36 percent. And the $281 billion surplus is now a $157 billion deficit.

Two million Americans who had jobs when Bush was inaugurated are out of work today, all of which means one thing: it's a great time for an unprovoked war.

CARLSON: Actually, I wouldn't argue with you that the economic data doesn't look good, but to say that we're going to war as a result in a "Wag the Dog" scenario really is offensive. There is a real threat, and Democrats ought to formulate a position on how to respond to it, it seems to me.

BEGALA: I want to hear their argument. I want to hear the Republican argument for threat.

CARLSON: In breaking news, from the United Nations tonight Secretary General Kofi Annan has announced that the U.N. may have a bureaucracy problem. Records show that over the past two years the U.N.'s 52,000 employees have convened a total of 15,484 separate meetings, issuing close to 6,000 reports. Not one of which was read by anyone.

The total cost for the paper shuffling, more than $2 billion, and that does not include the cost of sending U.N. troops around the world to stand idly by and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) populations hack each other to death with machetes.

Annan, thankfully, wants reform. The secretary general has said that he plans to convene a plenary session of the Executive Board of the Fourth Director Subcommittee on the reform of subcommittees, which is but the first of several bodies tasked with developing a comprehensive program to study the issue. A preliminary vision statement is expected by the end of the decade.

BEGALA: I love when right-wingers are making two simultaneous arguments. One, the U.N. is worthless; two, we have to enforce all of the U.N.'s laws.

CARLSON: Not this right-winger. I could care less. I don't think that's a valid argument. I think it's -- I'm totally not interested in it. I think we ought to do what's in the interest of this country. And that's the single criterion.

BEGALA: This is how you're different from our president. At least you're consistent in your content for the U.N. Twice now.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush has presided over Florida in perhaps maybe even fraudulent elections. Jeb's foster care system is so incompetent that a child was literally lost in Florida.

Schools are overcrowded, crime is up, employment is down and Jeb Bush is running an ad bragging that one of his central accomplishments as governor was, get this, installing a used traffic light in tiny Baker County, Florida. Now the school budget in Baker County is so tight that officials have had to cancel field trips and cut back even on school supplies for the kids.

But analysts do point out the ad's metaphorical power. After all, what could be a better symbol of Bush Republicanism than a stop light?

CARLSON: I'm not sure I really understand the metaphor but, as you know, the counties that had voting problems were controlled by Democrats. And three counties that had voting problems in the election and this time in the midterm is all controlled by Democrats. How's that Jeb's fault?

BEGALA: He said he'd fix the system, that's how.

CARLSON: And Democrats were better.

Ask any Democrats -- speaking of -- in Washington who the Democratic Party's nominee in 2000 ought to be, and you'll hear Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Ask any North Carolina voter the same question, however, and you're likely to get a much different answer.

A poll last week in that state found that only 31 percent of residents want Edwards to run for president. So who do Democrats outside the Beltway prefer as a nominee in 2004? Two words: Al Sharpton. A recent Zogby poll of registered Democrats showed the Reverend Al leading Senator Edwards, as well as fellow Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, and even Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Sharpton 2004, the Democratic Party finally faces the truth. Amen. I'm voting for him; I support him. I think he's the perfect embodiment of your party and what it stands for.

BEGALA: Well, he's clearly your favorite Democrat. I think that says more about you than the Democrats.

The Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott says that by the end of next week Congress may be ready to act on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Majority Leader Tom Daschle, however, sounds a note of caution, saying there is still a long way to go in the resolution's wording.

It may depend on Bush's willingness to listen and consider changes. Now can they act that much out of character with Congress or with the international community?

In the CROSSFIRE to debate this, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and former Republican Congressman Bob Walker of Pennsylvania.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Thank you for joining us.

Now I would say, and this is a pretty hard field to pick from, but I would say the single most irresponsible charge many Democrats are making in the last month is that the president, President Bush, is acting out of political concerns in a kind of wag the dog scenario with Iraq, trying to draw attention away from the economy.

I wonder, though, as someone who works for Tony Blair, what Tony Blair's motivation might be in saying virtually the same things our president is saying and really against his own political interest, hurting himself in this party by saying this. Why would he say them if they weren't true?

STAN GREENBERG, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: First of all, I don't accept the original premise.

(CROSSTALK)

Most Democrats are taking this as a serious issue. Saddam Hussein is a serious threat. It's a serious issue. It poses important questions of our security.

And the questions they raise are quite important, including the ones that Vice President Gore raised yesterday. The prime minister -- thank god for the prime minister -- thank god for Tony Blair, thank god for Britain. Because having instinctive supportive allies like this are critical to us. They were after 9/11 and they are now.

And, frankly, he's made the case -- and I think Paul was right on this -- he's made the case both on -- he's made it on the facts and the conditions that are I think largely consistent with what the American people want, I think largely consistent with the kind of questions the Democrats have been raising.

CARLSON: Well see I was going to play you a long sound bite of the prime minister explaining what exactly the threat is and how many chemical weapons Iraq has (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'll just read you one point that I think is the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of it. This is Tony Blair.

"There is no way to disarm Saddam Hussein without removing him by force." It gets right to the center of it. This is the same thing our president is saying. Why is it valid when Tony Blair says it, but invalid when President Bush says it?

GREENBERG: Well, the three things that Tony Blair did today: one, he laid out the facts, which I accept. But he did two other things. He said that there needs to be a mandate from the United Nations. This has to have legitimacy of a multi-lateral action with the sanction of the United Nations.

Now without that, this kind of action won't have the kind of global support. And, frankly, if it's a go-it-alone policy, we're going to have to face not just the struggle in the conflict itself, we're going to have to face a postwar situation where the American taxpayers are bearing all the costs of this.

The price of not bringing the world with us. The price of not having legitimacy in this kind of attack, which I support, you know, at some point. But the price of not having legitimacy is very high for the American people, and I think Tony Blair put those conditions on. The other was he said explicitly this is not about regime change. This is about disarmament. He would like to see him removed, but he said very explicitly this is about disarmament, not regime change.

BEGALA: Well, Congressman Walker, Tony Blair's speech today was impressive and it laid out a bunch of facts; none of them new. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. We've known that for a long time.

He has chemical weapons. We've known that for a long time. But we have had a policy of deterrence and containment that has worked for a long time. What has changed on the ground that compels us to vote on this in America days or weeks before a congressional election?

BOB WALKER, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSMAN: For one thing, Saddam Hussein has upped the amount of terrorism that he's supporting in the world. The fact is that he is paying the families of the people who do suicide bombings in Palestine...

BEGALA: Where? In Israel, but as much as I love Israel, they don't threaten America, right?

WALKER: That is a threat to America. Wherever terrorism is operating and so on, and where Saddam Hussein is pursuing it, it is in fact a threat to the world and it's a threat to us. In addition, I mean since we know that he possesses chemical weapons and since we know he possesses biological weapons, what assurance do we have if he's willing to pay terrorist bombers that at some point he won't also hand them the tools to use against Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and so on?.

Those are real threats that exist out there because this monster is in power.

BEGALA: I agree with all of that, but there's I think a larger threat that faces America. Not Israel, not Britain, as much as I respect and love those countries. And that's al Qaeda.

It is why yesterday three different four-star generals testified on this matter before the Congress. As much as I love and admire Tony Blair, I'm much more interested in what American generals say. And here's what -- let me quote one of them.

General Joseph Hoar, he's a four-star general from the United States Marine Corps. Nobody's idea of a wimp. And here's what he says.

"My view is that we should slow down and be cautious and be sure we get it right. Our government failed to define correctly the nature of the Vietnam War, and we all know the results." So General Hoar says ban the election; let's get this right and slow down and be cautious. Why is he wrong?

WALKER: Well, the fact is that we are moving on a very cautious path. And the president has done so. The president has outlined the case against Saddam Hussein. He has gone to the U.N. and asked for action; he's going to the Congress and asking Congress to take action. Those are the right kinds of steps to be taken. But what we can't do is ignore the fact that worldwide terrorism includes al Qaeda, but also includes the monsters like Saddam Hussein. And this administration is determined to take on the problem where the problem exists.

And one of those problems is certainly Saddam Hussein and his regime. And we ought to take him out.

CARLSON: Mr. Greenberg, it strikes me that Democrats do a grave disservice to the country when they pretend that the central issue in the mid-term election is an economic issue, or one of a series of economic issues. All of which are important, but don't you agree they pail by comparison to the threat of war?

GREENBERG: No. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I think were very judicious about when they make certain kinds of judgments. They will make a judgment about the economy, about corporate behavior, about protecting Social Security and a broad range of issues in these elections.

What they do believe and what they are proud of since 9/11 is that we've addressed some very big issues, including the response in Afghanistan, the increase in the military budget as part of that, without there being a fallout on partisan (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank god we haven't had that kind of partisan bickering.

They don't want to see it imposed in this issue. I don't think any implication by the president when talking about the Democrats, or the Democrats when talking about the president, that this is being pursued by -- on partisan grounds. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the president's position or either party.

CARLSON: But when Paul Begala says this is an attempt by the president to -- for political gain to go to war, isn't that destructive?

GREENBERG: The bigger problem we have here is a problem of seeking multilateralism and international support when one gets into trouble and needs the help. Because you pay a big price for that.

Because as we moved to the end of August, it wasn't just that the president was faltering in the polls on a broad range of issues. He was also losing international support. He has now said he'll go to the Congress. He now says he'll go to the United Nations because he needed (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

GREENBERG: Well, but he's paid the price on Kyoto. He's paid the price for the international tribunal. He's paid the price on trade.

Suddenly he discovers he needs the world, needs to have a legitimate support for this kind of option. Now he chooses his moment to be multilateral, but usually it's a bravado...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: OK. Well we're going to have to take a quick break. Congressman, you get the first word when we come back. And we will be right back in a minute.

We'll ask our guests about Al Gore's touching, poignant, utterly useless attempt to inject himself into the Iraq debate.

Later, man the barricades. There's an effort to take dirty movies out of your hotel room.

In our quote of the day, a contributor to the nation's newspaper shreds any doubt about his impartiality. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: ... in the fall election. Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who once led his party's campaign onto the Senate said, "I do believe the issue of terrorism in Iraq will be very much on the mind of the voters going into election day."

The Republicans at least are being honest that they're trying to push this for their own gain.

WALKER: Well that's not what's being said in that quote at all. The timing of this is in large part because I don't think that we ought to allow Congress to go home without authorizing the president to do what's necessary in order to handle the problem in Iraq.

BEGALA: Why didn't you tell George Bush Senior that when, in 1990 he allowed you all to go home to have your election and then come back? You were a leading member of the House Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Could you tell me about that?

WALKER: And we told him that there needed to be a vote in the Congress and so on. And he decided...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But he put it off until after the election.

WALKER: No, but the point is that what we were already engaged in was building up the forces and doing all the things that were necessary. The coalition was already in place. At that point, the Democrats who were in control of Congress didn't want to do it in a timely way.

In my view, it is far more important to have this on the record so that the president does have the authorization he needs to move aggressively if aggressive action is needed. I think it would be irresponsible for Congress to go home and not take up the Iraqi resolution. And the fact is, most of the Democratic leaders in the Congress agree with that.

They don't want to go home without taking this up either. So the timing is one of making certain that we do the right thing at the right time and not because there's politics involved in it.

CARLSON: Mr. Greenberg, you remember it, when Al Gore was considered one of the deep foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic party. An expert on arms control, et cetera, et cetera.

Fast forward till yesterday. He gave a speech that, when you read is carefully, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm going to give you one example. This is a direct quote.

"We should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access -- Saddam's access -- to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons -- in the very next sentence -- of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Those two sentences back to back contradict each other. The first one says get the world community to take away weapons of mass destruction, the very next sentence says it's impossible, he'll have to be removed. Who wrote this? What's going on here?

GREENBERG: Well I know you want to focus on these two sentences. But I read the speech -- I read this speech, I watched this speech. But, you know what, it was a breath of fresh air. Because what he said -- what both Democrats are saying and Republicans were saying that need to be aired prior to the kind of vote that you're talking about raising quite serious questions.

You know, for example, if you proceed in a unilateralist way and don't build up that kind of support, what is the price that we pay? We know in the Persian Gulf War that our coalition partners, they bore those costs.

Right now we're going to bare 100 percent of those costs. And we start building up costs of $100 billion, $200 billion and go back to the American people and say we had a chance to do it a different way...

CARLSON: But there's a deeper question. Mr. Greenberg, I think you'll agree about how much does it cost. I agree that it was a breath of fresh air in that it was a complete reversal from what Mr. Gore used to believe.

In 1991 he went on CNN and he said the following: "We should have bent every policy. We should do it now to overthrow that regime and make sure Saddam Hussein is removed from power." He's a fire breathing right-wing maniac in 1991.

GREENBERG: Well thank God he used his standing to raise the questions that he raised in the speech. For example, if the state collapses in Iraq and we have an Afghanistan-type situation with weapons of mass destruction, what is the consequence for stability and terrorist access to those weapons? Do we understand the issues and those consequences? That is a serious question for national security, consistent with waging a war on terrorism.

And I'm glad he used his credibility on this issue to address the question.

WALKER: I'm having trouble with the fact that, is this a breath of fresh air or he has credibility? I mean this isn't how he voted in the Senate when we had an international coalition together, when the president had come to the Congress and made his case. And still Al Gore voted a decade ago against doing anything to take out Iraq out of Kuwait.

BEGALA: I mean just in fairness of the facts, Congressman, he's one of the few leading Democrats in the Senate who supported President Bush.

(CROSSTALK)

WALKER: Precisely.

BEGALA: Now that's just a slur. He voted for the Gulf War. But the point of his speech, and the point of the general's testimony yesterday and many other generals, is this: You conflated the risk of al Qaeda with Iraq. I separate it and the American people separate it too. They agree with Al Gore.

The CNN-"USA Today" Gallup poll asked the American people. Here's what they say: "Who is a greater threat to America?" Osama bin Laden, 50 percent of the American people; Saddam Hussein, 28.

So the generals, Al Gore and the American people all agree that the greater threat comes from Osama bin Laden. Why aren't we after Osama? Why are we getting off course?

WALKER: A few generals say that. And the fact is that you should not base policy on what you have to do in foreign policy.

BEGALA: On the people who know best.

WALKER: No, on the...

BEGALA: We should get a former baseball team when we're in Texas and let him decide if he knows better than generals.

GREENBERG: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) administration was saying this to "The New York Times" before they were brought together.

WALKER: And we're polling that, it tells you it is. The worst thing you could possibly do in developing a policy is to rely upon polling data as your only criteria and so on. I know.

But the fact is that even you will say that momentary polls are not exactly that on which you ought to base long-term policy. This is a very serious issue.

BEGALA: I got to cut you off on that important point. And I have to let that be the last word, though. Congressman Bob Walker -- former Congressman from Pennsylvania. Stan Greenberg, Democratic pollster and strategist, thank you very much. It was a good debate. A quick programming note. To stay updated on the Iraq situation, join CNN weekdays at noon Eastern for a new program: "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ," hosted by our own Wolf Blitzer. It debuts tomorrow.

Still ahead on CROSSFIRE, the cellblock strategy. Stay with us for an update on the Traficant for Congress bandwagon.

And later, if the blue noses get their way, the channel selection on your hotel's TV may go down.

And our quote of the day is from someone who is not afraid to look at the Bush administration and tell it like it is. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back.

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and best-selling author Tom Friedman is one of the few in corporate media who has the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes. In an interview, Friedman spoke a painful but powerful truth about the war hawks in the Bush administration.

Quote: "I think these guys are bought and paid for by big oil and they're going to do nothing that will in any way go against the demands and interests of the big oil companies."

And what Friedman says of Emperor Bush deserves our quote of the day. Quote: "I don't think he's a particularly complex human being. There is a real silly frat boy side to him."

Amen, brother Friedman. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

CARLSON: Now listening to a columnist do an interview, where somebody tape records his words, really is like catching an actor on the street and asking his views on something. You learn how truly banal and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) kind of cliched their thinking process is.

I like Tom Friedman. He makes (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Not even (ph) very clever.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live from the George Washington University here in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.

But getting us into your living room is nothing compared to what it's going to take to get Jim Traficant into the first session of the 108th Congress next year. He is running as an independent for his old Ohio congressional district, where he was Congressman for 17 years.

But he's also living at a federal prison in Pennsylvania.

For an update, we take you to Youngstown where we're joined by Jim Traficant's campaign manager James Bunosky. Mr. Bunosky, thank you for joining us, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

JAMES BUNOSKY, TRAFICANT CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Really sort of a two-part question: A, shouldn't you get out of prison before you run for Congress; and B, do you think even Democratic voters in Youngstown, forgiving as they obviously are, are going to vote for a man in a jumpsuit?

BUNOSKY: Absolutely. I'll give you an example why. Back after the conviction we were able, within a three-week time frame, we gathered over 3,700 signatures when negativity was running at the very highest.

BEGALA: Now Congressman -- I mean, Mr. Bunosky, we tried a few minutes ago, right before we went on the air to call Congressman Traficant so we could get his input as well, just to see firsthand how the campaign is going.

Let me play the tape, and then we'll get you to respond.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: Yes, hi, my name is Tucker Carlson, I'm calling from CNN's CROSSFIRE in Washington and hoping to reach former Congressman James Traficant, if you can put him on the line.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No sir, we can't. The reason why is all -- any media needs to be cleared through what we call an executive assistant first. You actually have to have, like, an appointment or something set up, OK?

CARLSON: Well, we actually have previously discussed this with Congressman Traficant when he was on our show before he was convicted of felony charges. He invited us to call him in prison.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, he can't do that. He doesn't have those rights, OK?

BEGALA: He is, in fact, running for reelection, though, and I'm wondering if you're not going to let him talk on the phone, would you at least let him put his toupee back on for his campaign photographs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No sir, I'm telling you you have to call tomorrow and talk to the executive assistant.

BEGALA: OK, his executive assistant...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ryder (ph), do you think...

BEGALA: Well, Officer Stoebel (ph), thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BEGALA: It seems the feds, Mr. Bunosky, have your guy kind of behind the 8 ball, right? They won't even let him talk to the media, can't campaign, he can't go door-to-door, can't even win wear his toupee, for God's sake.

How are you going to win?

BUNOSKY: They don't let Jim Traficant do anything. But the bottom line is, he's got so much support in this area and across the country, there's no stopping this man.

He's a living legend in the Youngstown area, and he's becoming a national legend throughout America.

CARLSON: Well how is he -- you know, no man is a legend to his wife. Tell us about Mrs. Traficant -- maybe some rare men are. Is Mr. Traficant a legend to his wife, and what does his wife think of the idea of him running from behind bars?

BUNOSKY: Mrs. Traficant has always supported her husband in everything he does. He's been a great husband to her, great family man. He's a great family man to this entire 17th district, and he's a great family man to America.

BEGALA: Well, in addition to that he's now, of course, living with a cellmate. Do you have the endorsement of the cellmate, Jim because I think that's -- I used to be a campaign strategist -- this is the person who knows him best now. Is that going to happen, do we get the endorsement of the cellmate?

BUNOSKY: Jim Traficant -- anybody that's ever had any dealings with Jim Traficant knows that he's a man of the people. If you have a problem, Jim Traficant will look into it. Jim Traficant will solve the problem, whether you live in the 17th Congressional District or whether you live anywhere else in the country.

If you don't get anywhere with your Congressman...

(CROSSTALK)

BUNOSKY: Pardon me?

BEGALA: Or, say -- there's a lot of guys in that federal penal institution there in White Deer, Pennsylvania.

By the way, let me ask a mechanical question. You've got about $30,000 -- I'm told from reports -- in campaign donations. Does that include the kickbacks that Traficant received, or are you not allowed to use that in the campaign?

BUNOSKY: Jim Traficant is getting money now from all over the country -- legitimate money. And Jim Traficant is going to run a campaign from behind bars. And he is going to be reelected and it's going to be a fantastic story for not only American but around the world.

CARLSON: And (UNINTEILLIGIBLE) do you know Jim Traficant? Have you met him and are you getting a salary?

BUNOSKY: I am not getting a salary, I'm volunteering my time. Yes, I do know Jim Traficant. He's one of the finest individuals -- one of the finest humanitarians I have ever met in my life, that's why I'm doing this. I would never do it for anybody other than Jim Traficant.

CARLSON: Oh my god. Mr. Bunosky, we thought we loved Jim Traficant here on CROSSFIRE. We've met someone who likes him more and that's you. Good luck in your campaign and thanks very much for joining us.

BUNOSKY: Thank you very much for having me.

CARLSON: Still to come, more barking from our vast Canadian viewership.

But next, forces that want to strip the porn from your hotel room.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

Lonely business travelers know the routine. Check into the hotel, check out the mini bar, find the card that lists the TV channels and the porn. Consumers of pornography, as they're euphemistically known, account for at least half of the pay-per-view orders in hotel rooms. They pump about half a billion dollars into the industry, also a euphemism. Is it too costly to pull the plug on X-rated roomservice? That's out debate in the CROSSFIRE tonight.

Our First Amendment attorney and former Larry Flynt defender Alan Isaacman.

Here in Washington is Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America.

BEGALA: Thank you both for joining us. Sandy, let me start with you. We often disagree but you're usually on the side of the angels. Tonight though, in trying to take porn out of adult peoples' hotel rooms, you seem to be on the side of the hookers. The hookers love this because lonely men won't just stay in their pathetic hotel rooms, they'll go down to the bar and pick up hookers, right?

SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Well that's a very interesting arguement. That's a good one, Paul.

BEGALA: Thank you.

RIOS: It doesn't work.

BEAGALA: Thank you. So but you're not...

RIOS: The problem is it's not just nudity. It used to be you'd see nude women, and that's...

BEGALA: You never see nude women.

RIOS: But you used to. But now it's the worst kind. Now it's very hard-core porn. And what we're talking about penetration where the camera shows up close -- we're talking about multiple partners, we're talking about oral sex. In fact just today, let me just tell you what's playing in Washington hotels today. "Young Horney" -- excuse me, if you have children, please cover their ears.

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: OK, there you go. "Young Horny Asian Girls," "Crotch Hunt Special," "Spring Break Panty Hoes," "Kinky Couple Sex Games," "Ultra Oral Open Wide."

Now, that sounds funny, but let me just tell you the danger here. The problem is that 85 percent of serial killers are involved in pornography.

BEGALA: What? What?

RIOS: 85 percent of serial murders have been involved seriously in pornography. So have a few -- police will tell you people that molest children, rape them, kidnap them, 100 percent of them are involved in pornography.

BEGALA: Well, but they probably drink milk, too, right? That doesn't mean that there's a causal link.

RIOS: No but, Paul, listen. That's a fair question. Not everybody that uses pornography, of course, molests and kidnaps children.

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: But everybody that molests and kidnaps children uses pornography. There is a correlation. It doesn't mean that if you look at it, you're going to do that. But everybody that does that, they will tell you a lot of these rapist will use pornography to prepare themselves for the act. Some of them will even use it in the act.

And so we're talking about a very serious problem. I don't think there's anybody in America who doesn't understand how serious this is, Paul. Our kids are getting kidnapped, and raped, and murdered and dismembered. Why? Because men are feeding their minds -- and women, too, but mostly men -- on this kind of the worst of the worst pornography. It's being featured around the country in hotels and it's got to stop.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Isaacson -- apparently represent some of the companies that have adult -- Isaacman -- who have adult entertainment in rooms. That's of course legal. You're allowed to do that. Good for you. I guess what I object to most strenulously, though, is the First Amendment cover that porn merchants use. Putting them in the same category as say reporters who risk their lives covering war.

One of the -- as I understand it -- one of the three prongs the Supreme Court decision in the Miller case that allows pornography is that the porn has to have serious political, artistic, scientific meaning. And I wonder what the serious meaning of "Crotch Hunt Special," or whatever that Sandy Rios just listed is.

ALAN ISAACMAN, FIRST AMENDMENT ATTY: Well the third prong that you just refered to of the Miller Test, is a prong that requires you to look at the work as a whole. You don't just judge it by one line. I mean I could take something out of context as well.

For example, in almost every hotel room in the country, can you find the following language. Quote, "Thy two breasts are like two young rows that are twins which feed among the lillies." That's from the Song of Soloman. Now...

(CROSSTALK).

ISAACMAN: The Bible's protected, just like anything that's not obscene is protected. There's a Miller Test that defines obscenity. If some of these videos are obscene, they're against the law, they should not be there. You can't just take a title of a video and say it's obscene because you don't like the title.

CARLSON: Well give me an example -- I've always wondered this. What -- can you give me a concrete example of what's obscene? Not a theoretical but give me an example that what -- a depiction of what would be obscene?

ISAACMAN: Well, you know, part of the problem I think -- in answering your question -- is that obscenity is awfully vague and we know what Potter Stewart said and that is he knows it when he sees it. That's about as good as a Supreme Court justice could do for that.

But to give you an example, I could tell you what isn't obscene and that's -- what isn't obscene is most of the fare -- in my opinion -- that you see in the hotel rooms on their TV sets because they're subject to editing by lawyers, and by content providers and bu broadcasters.

RIOS: Alan, what are you talking about?

(CROSSTALK)

ISAACMAN: You won't find bestiality on there.

RIOS: Oh, gee thanks, I feel better now.

ISAACMAN: You're not going to find any of those kinds of things.

RIOS: Alan, I'm sorry but you're wrong about this. What's happening right now On Command and LodgeNet are two of the worst. They have this stuff on satellite, that is the worst of the worst.

A couple in Cincinnati recently went in and put a camera on the television and rented two of the movies, left the room and delivered that video to the prosecutor in their county. And it is against the law for hotels to traffic in this kind of obscenity.

Obscenity, as you already pointed out, is not protected by the First Amendment. And this stuff is the worst of the worst. Maybe you haven't been in a hotel room in a long time.

Now, the smaller chains perhaps do not carry this yet because, as I understand, On Command and LodgeNet target the larger chains like Marriott and that is actually the hotel chain that's been recently targeted and they're pulling it.

BEGALA: In fact, let me ask you about Marriott. They are going to pull it out? They were the subject of a fascinating "Wall Street Journal" story some time ago, where somebody in Utah was being prosecuted on this. The Marriott family, a distinguished Republican family, leading family in Utah found out that they're one of the largest purveyors of porn there and the guy got off -- he also was acquitted -- because of his argument that the Marriott chain had been the purveyors here.

RIOS: Well, the Marriott chain, as a whole, just to clarify -- some of them are privately owned, privately franchised . But the two that have been targeted so far are pulling it. Because it is illegal. There's a federal law that says you cannot traffic, you cannot allow pornography to be taken across state lines.

It's not up to Sandy to tell us what's legal or not.

RIOS: You tell us then.

ISAACMAN: What you're talking about -- what's available in the hotel room is exactly the same content that's available to almost every home in the country that is hooked up to a cable network such as AT&T or Comcast or to a satellite service like dish or direct broadcast.

RIOS: That's right. And that may very well be illegal as well, Alan. That's something -- you know what? For eight years that law has not been prosecuted, but I'm telling you that the federal law says that you cannot carry this stuff over interstate lines with a common carrier.

Is there a connection between Utah and porn, why so much porn in Utah?

RIOS: I don't know. Ask -- I tell you, I think it's a disgrace in the case of Marriott. They've got a bible, a book of Mormon and the biography of Mr. Marriott who talks about his family values while at the same time they're offering "Young Horny Asian Girls." And I don't understand that. There's a disconnect.

BEGALA: I salute you for pointing out that hypocrisy, though. Good for you.

Sandy Rios, thank you for joining us. Alan Isaacman in Los Angeles, thank you as well, sir, for an interesting debate.

BEGALA: Next, in our "Fireback" segment, we'll hear from a viewer who thinks we need a woman's touch. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment. We open up the show to your concerns, opinions, even obsessions.

Here we go, to the e-mail.

First up, Gene Carton from St. Louis writes, "Before Saddam Hussein will allow unfettered access to potential weapons sites, I predict that Tucker Carlson will become a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat."

Indeed, Gene, I'll be running on the transgendered ticket before that happens. You're not going to see it.

BEGALA: I'd like to see you as a transgender.

CARLSON: I don't even know what that is.

BEGALA: I'll put up the downpayment for the operation, Tucker.

Liz in Wilmington, Delaware writes, "Finally, a voice of reason and sanity. Thank goodness Al Gore, whom we the people elected, has come out against the Bush war with Iraq. We can only handle one war at a time."

CARLSON: She's still mad about the Delaware show we did, I guess.

OK, next up. Don Andrich of St. Albert, Alberta in a foreign country we call Canada writes, "As a Canadian, I'm upset at the influence U.S. have on my well being."

Selfish, selfish, Don.

"Your government's complete focus on Saddam and his buddies and ignoring the economy has driven my stock prices down," he writes, "I should not have invested in pets.com."

Sorry, Don. Investing's dangerous.

BEGALA: Joe Condin in Ludlow, Massachusetts writes, "I think you boys on Crossfire need to bring in Judge Judy to moderate. "

Well it's certainly. .

CARLSON: I think we'd scare Judge Judy, to be honest. We'd spank Judge Judy. OK, to the audience. Yes sir, what's your question or comment?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Ryan McEwen (ph) from Warren, Maine. Have the American people been presented with an entirely biased view of Mr. Traficant? We've already elected a former pro-wrestler, a singer- celebrity, numerous confessed alcohol and drug abusers. Why not a convict? At least there's a measure of accountability and aren't the critics just curbing American freedom?

CARLSON: I'm not going to address your larger question about whether people behind bars can serve in the Congress. But I will say, to your question about whether America has a rounded view of him, If you want the full story on James Traficant, you come to CROSSFIRE.

BEGALA: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Fair and balanced on James Traficant.

BEGALA: He's a CROSSFIRE fave. We love him, we want him to come back as often as he can. We just can't get through the guards.

Yes sir? What's your name and question or comment?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chris Kezner (ph) from San Jose, California.

Why not allow social morals to determine what people watch instead of governmental organizations in judicial cases?

BEGALA: You sound like a true conservative.

CARLSON: Well, in effect -- that's in effect what happens. There are many counties in this country that are dry that don't sell alcohol.

It's a lot of, you know, mores are determined at the county level for the most part still and that's a good thing.

BEGALA: I think they should be, in this case, determined at the individual level.

Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Hal McGrady (ph) from Columbus, Ohio. As an independent voter in a country that's pretty equally divided, I'm waiting for some Democrat to step forward and distinguish the Democrats from the Republican position.

Now, Mr. Begala, who's in the best position to do that today?

BEGALA: Other than me, of course. No, I'm just kidding of course.

I think Al Gore gave a very thoughtful and, I thought, extremely patriotic speech yesterday doing his duty as the person who got more votes than the other guy, laying out the argument against Bush's policy, and I admire that. CARLSON: He's capable of giving a good speech, Al Gore, but he didn't give it yesterday, unfortunately. Kasinich (ph) -- Dennis Kasinich (ph) of Ohio is taking a principled left-wing stand I don't agree with, but at least he means it.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night -- Wednesday night -- for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN "News Alert."

See you tomorrow.

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





Blair's Way; Who Should Say What You Want in the Privacy of Your Hotel Room? >


Aired September 24, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Going after Saddam or going after votes?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm confident there are a lot of Democrats here in Washington D.C. who understand that Saddam is a true threat.

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus.

ANNOUNCER: The politics of doing things the president's way, Al Gore's way or even Tony Blair's way.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Our purpose is disarmament. No one wants military conflict.

ANNOUNCER: He's gone but not forgotten. Can he possibly get elected again?

And who should say what you want in the privacy of your hotel room?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Ahead on CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Tonight we prove the Traficant for Congress campaign is alive. But is it well?

Also, the people trying to require hotels to lead us not into temptation.

But first, we're going to tempt you with the best little political briefing in Washington: our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." The Bush administration today lowered the terrorist threat assessment from Orange, which mean as high level of threat, to Yellow, which means an elevated threat. Elevated in this case is lower than high for those of you scoring at home. The threat level was raised to Orange on September 10.

The Bush administration officials say that that level may be raised once more if intelligence information suggests further al Qaeda attacks, or if Americans once again focus on the Bush recession and indicate they plan to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: I might just make a small prediction. When and if there is another terrorist attack on American soil in which Americans are killed, you will regret saying what you just said.

BEGALA: That they lowered the terrorist threat level today?

CARLSON: You will regret calling it political when, in fact, there is a real threat, as you know.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair presented parliament and the world with evidence of Iraq's active detailed and growing effort to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After going over a 50-page assessment of Iraq's capabilities, Blair defied anyone to say the international community is being unreasonable and demanding that Iraq be disarmed.

Saddam's lackeys immediately rose to the challenge. One of the dictator's advisers called the prime minister's evidence "a hodgepodge of half-truths, lies and naive allegations." The adviser then issued his own hodgepodge of half-truths, lies and naive allegations. Chief among them, the fantasy that U.N. weapons inspectors will have, "unfettered access whatever they want to do."

I don't believe them.

BEGALA: The Blair speech was remarkable because he laid out a set of arguments and facts. He didn't just stand there the way our president seems to do and just rah rah cheerlead and thump his chest. He actually made a reasoned case.

I happen to disagree, but it's reasonable, as you may have noticed.

CARLSON: In support of our president.

BEGALA: He actually used facts and statistics and arguments, which is new. Something we haven't gotten from our president.

I mean here's a quick midterm on the Bush economy. The Census Bureau today reported that poverty in America rose last year for the first time in eight years, increasing by 1.3 million Americans. Household income, which had risen steadily during the Clinton years, fell 2.2 percent last year alone.

Now when George W. Bush took office the Dow was at 10,587. Today, it closed at a four-year low, 7,683, down a whopping 37.8 percent. Unemployment two years ago was 4.2 percent, now it's 5.7, up 36 percent. And the $281 billion surplus is now a $157 billion deficit.

Two million Americans who had jobs when Bush was inaugurated are out of work today, all of which means one thing: it's a great time for an unprovoked war.

CARLSON: Actually, I wouldn't argue with you that the economic data doesn't look good, but to say that we're going to war as a result in a "Wag the Dog" scenario really is offensive. There is a real threat, and Democrats ought to formulate a position on how to respond to it, it seems to me.

BEGALA: I want to hear their argument. I want to hear the Republican argument for threat.

CARLSON: In breaking news, from the United Nations tonight Secretary General Kofi Annan has announced that the U.N. may have a bureaucracy problem. Records show that over the past two years the U.N.'s 52,000 employees have convened a total of 15,484 separate meetings, issuing close to 6,000 reports. Not one of which was read by anyone.

The total cost for the paper shuffling, more than $2 billion, and that does not include the cost of sending U.N. troops around the world to stand idly by and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) populations hack each other to death with machetes.

Annan, thankfully, wants reform. The secretary general has said that he plans to convene a plenary session of the Executive Board of the Fourth Director Subcommittee on the reform of subcommittees, which is but the first of several bodies tasked with developing a comprehensive program to study the issue. A preliminary vision statement is expected by the end of the decade.

BEGALA: I love when right-wingers are making two simultaneous arguments. One, the U.N. is worthless; two, we have to enforce all of the U.N.'s laws.

CARLSON: Not this right-winger. I could care less. I don't think that's a valid argument. I think it's -- I'm totally not interested in it. I think we ought to do what's in the interest of this country. And that's the single criterion.

BEGALA: This is how you're different from our president. At least you're consistent in your content for the U.N. Twice now.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush has presided over Florida in perhaps maybe even fraudulent elections. Jeb's foster care system is so incompetent that a child was literally lost in Florida.

Schools are overcrowded, crime is up, employment is down and Jeb Bush is running an ad bragging that one of his central accomplishments as governor was, get this, installing a used traffic light in tiny Baker County, Florida. Now the school budget in Baker County is so tight that officials have had to cancel field trips and cut back even on school supplies for the kids.

But analysts do point out the ad's metaphorical power. After all, what could be a better symbol of Bush Republicanism than a stop light?

CARLSON: I'm not sure I really understand the metaphor but, as you know, the counties that had voting problems were controlled by Democrats. And three counties that had voting problems in the election and this time in the midterm is all controlled by Democrats. How's that Jeb's fault?

BEGALA: He said he'd fix the system, that's how.

CARLSON: And Democrats were better.

Ask any Democrats -- speaking of -- in Washington who the Democratic Party's nominee in 2000 ought to be, and you'll hear Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Ask any North Carolina voter the same question, however, and you're likely to get a much different answer.

A poll last week in that state found that only 31 percent of residents want Edwards to run for president. So who do Democrats outside the Beltway prefer as a nominee in 2004? Two words: Al Sharpton. A recent Zogby poll of registered Democrats showed the Reverend Al leading Senator Edwards, as well as fellow Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, and even Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Sharpton 2004, the Democratic Party finally faces the truth. Amen. I'm voting for him; I support him. I think he's the perfect embodiment of your party and what it stands for.

BEGALA: Well, he's clearly your favorite Democrat. I think that says more about you than the Democrats.

The Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott says that by the end of next week Congress may be ready to act on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Majority Leader Tom Daschle, however, sounds a note of caution, saying there is still a long way to go in the resolution's wording.

It may depend on Bush's willingness to listen and consider changes. Now can they act that much out of character with Congress or with the international community?

In the CROSSFIRE to debate this, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and former Republican Congressman Bob Walker of Pennsylvania.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Thank you for joining us.

Now I would say, and this is a pretty hard field to pick from, but I would say the single most irresponsible charge many Democrats are making in the last month is that the president, President Bush, is acting out of political concerns in a kind of wag the dog scenario with Iraq, trying to draw attention away from the economy.

I wonder, though, as someone who works for Tony Blair, what Tony Blair's motivation might be in saying virtually the same things our president is saying and really against his own political interest, hurting himself in this party by saying this. Why would he say them if they weren't true?

STAN GREENBERG, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: First of all, I don't accept the original premise.

(CROSSTALK)

Most Democrats are taking this as a serious issue. Saddam Hussein is a serious threat. It's a serious issue. It poses important questions of our security.

And the questions they raise are quite important, including the ones that Vice President Gore raised yesterday. The prime minister -- thank god for the prime minister -- thank god for Tony Blair, thank god for Britain. Because having instinctive supportive allies like this are critical to us. They were after 9/11 and they are now.

And, frankly, he's made the case -- and I think Paul was right on this -- he's made the case both on -- he's made it on the facts and the conditions that are I think largely consistent with what the American people want, I think largely consistent with the kind of questions the Democrats have been raising.

CARLSON: Well see I was going to play you a long sound bite of the prime minister explaining what exactly the threat is and how many chemical weapons Iraq has (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'll just read you one point that I think is the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of it. This is Tony Blair.

"There is no way to disarm Saddam Hussein without removing him by force." It gets right to the center of it. This is the same thing our president is saying. Why is it valid when Tony Blair says it, but invalid when President Bush says it?

GREENBERG: Well, the three things that Tony Blair did today: one, he laid out the facts, which I accept. But he did two other things. He said that there needs to be a mandate from the United Nations. This has to have legitimacy of a multi-lateral action with the sanction of the United Nations.

Now without that, this kind of action won't have the kind of global support. And, frankly, if it's a go-it-alone policy, we're going to have to face not just the struggle in the conflict itself, we're going to have to face a postwar situation where the American taxpayers are bearing all the costs of this.

The price of not bringing the world with us. The price of not having legitimacy in this kind of attack, which I support, you know, at some point. But the price of not having legitimacy is very high for the American people, and I think Tony Blair put those conditions on. The other was he said explicitly this is not about regime change. This is about disarmament. He would like to see him removed, but he said very explicitly this is about disarmament, not regime change.

BEGALA: Well, Congressman Walker, Tony Blair's speech today was impressive and it laid out a bunch of facts; none of them new. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. We've known that for a long time.

He has chemical weapons. We've known that for a long time. But we have had a policy of deterrence and containment that has worked for a long time. What has changed on the ground that compels us to vote on this in America days or weeks before a congressional election?

BOB WALKER, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSMAN: For one thing, Saddam Hussein has upped the amount of terrorism that he's supporting in the world. The fact is that he is paying the families of the people who do suicide bombings in Palestine...

BEGALA: Where? In Israel, but as much as I love Israel, they don't threaten America, right?

WALKER: That is a threat to America. Wherever terrorism is operating and so on, and where Saddam Hussein is pursuing it, it is in fact a threat to the world and it's a threat to us. In addition, I mean since we know that he possesses chemical weapons and since we know he possesses biological weapons, what assurance do we have if he's willing to pay terrorist bombers that at some point he won't also hand them the tools to use against Jerusalem or Tel Aviv and so on?.

Those are real threats that exist out there because this monster is in power.

BEGALA: I agree with all of that, but there's I think a larger threat that faces America. Not Israel, not Britain, as much as I respect and love those countries. And that's al Qaeda.

It is why yesterday three different four-star generals testified on this matter before the Congress. As much as I love and admire Tony Blair, I'm much more interested in what American generals say. And here's what -- let me quote one of them.

General Joseph Hoar, he's a four-star general from the United States Marine Corps. Nobody's idea of a wimp. And here's what he says.

"My view is that we should slow down and be cautious and be sure we get it right. Our government failed to define correctly the nature of the Vietnam War, and we all know the results." So General Hoar says ban the election; let's get this right and slow down and be cautious. Why is he wrong?

WALKER: Well, the fact is that we are moving on a very cautious path. And the president has done so. The president has outlined the case against Saddam Hussein. He has gone to the U.N. and asked for action; he's going to the Congress and asking Congress to take action. Those are the right kinds of steps to be taken. But what we can't do is ignore the fact that worldwide terrorism includes al Qaeda, but also includes the monsters like Saddam Hussein. And this administration is determined to take on the problem where the problem exists.

And one of those problems is certainly Saddam Hussein and his regime. And we ought to take him out.

CARLSON: Mr. Greenberg, it strikes me that Democrats do a grave disservice to the country when they pretend that the central issue in the mid-term election is an economic issue, or one of a series of economic issues. All of which are important, but don't you agree they pail by comparison to the threat of war?

GREENBERG: No. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I think were very judicious about when they make certain kinds of judgments. They will make a judgment about the economy, about corporate behavior, about protecting Social Security and a broad range of issues in these elections.

What they do believe and what they are proud of since 9/11 is that we've addressed some very big issues, including the response in Afghanistan, the increase in the military budget as part of that, without there being a fallout on partisan (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank god we haven't had that kind of partisan bickering.

They don't want to see it imposed in this issue. I don't think any implication by the president when talking about the Democrats, or the Democrats when talking about the president, that this is being pursued by -- on partisan grounds. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the president's position or either party.

CARLSON: But when Paul Begala says this is an attempt by the president to -- for political gain to go to war, isn't that destructive?

GREENBERG: The bigger problem we have here is a problem of seeking multilateralism and international support when one gets into trouble and needs the help. Because you pay a big price for that.

Because as we moved to the end of August, it wasn't just that the president was faltering in the polls on a broad range of issues. He was also losing international support. He has now said he'll go to the Congress. He now says he'll go to the United Nations because he needed (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

GREENBERG: Well, but he's paid the price on Kyoto. He's paid the price for the international tribunal. He's paid the price on trade.

Suddenly he discovers he needs the world, needs to have a legitimate support for this kind of option. Now he chooses his moment to be multilateral, but usually it's a bravado...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: OK. Well we're going to have to take a quick break. Congressman, you get the first word when we come back. And we will be right back in a minute.

We'll ask our guests about Al Gore's touching, poignant, utterly useless attempt to inject himself into the Iraq debate.

Later, man the barricades. There's an effort to take dirty movies out of your hotel room.

In our quote of the day, a contributor to the nation's newspaper shreds any doubt about his impartiality. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: ... in the fall election. Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who once led his party's campaign onto the Senate said, "I do believe the issue of terrorism in Iraq will be very much on the mind of the voters going into election day."

The Republicans at least are being honest that they're trying to push this for their own gain.

WALKER: Well that's not what's being said in that quote at all. The timing of this is in large part because I don't think that we ought to allow Congress to go home without authorizing the president to do what's necessary in order to handle the problem in Iraq.

BEGALA: Why didn't you tell George Bush Senior that when, in 1990 he allowed you all to go home to have your election and then come back? You were a leading member of the House Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Could you tell me about that?

WALKER: And we told him that there needed to be a vote in the Congress and so on. And he decided...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But he put it off until after the election.

WALKER: No, but the point is that what we were already engaged in was building up the forces and doing all the things that were necessary. The coalition was already in place. At that point, the Democrats who were in control of Congress didn't want to do it in a timely way.

In my view, it is far more important to have this on the record so that the president does have the authorization he needs to move aggressively if aggressive action is needed. I think it would be irresponsible for Congress to go home and not take up the Iraqi resolution. And the fact is, most of the Democratic leaders in the Congress agree with that.

They don't want to go home without taking this up either. So the timing is one of making certain that we do the right thing at the right time and not because there's politics involved in it.

CARLSON: Mr. Greenberg, you remember it, when Al Gore was considered one of the deep foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic party. An expert on arms control, et cetera, et cetera.

Fast forward till yesterday. He gave a speech that, when you read is carefully, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm going to give you one example. This is a direct quote.

"We should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access -- Saddam's access -- to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons -- in the very next sentence -- of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Those two sentences back to back contradict each other. The first one says get the world community to take away weapons of mass destruction, the very next sentence says it's impossible, he'll have to be removed. Who wrote this? What's going on here?

GREENBERG: Well I know you want to focus on these two sentences. But I read the speech -- I read this speech, I watched this speech. But, you know what, it was a breath of fresh air. Because what he said -- what both Democrats are saying and Republicans were saying that need to be aired prior to the kind of vote that you're talking about raising quite serious questions.

You know, for example, if you proceed in a unilateralist way and don't build up that kind of support, what is the price that we pay? We know in the Persian Gulf War that our coalition partners, they bore those costs.

Right now we're going to bare 100 percent of those costs. And we start building up costs of $100 billion, $200 billion and go back to the American people and say we had a chance to do it a different way...

CARLSON: But there's a deeper question. Mr. Greenberg, I think you'll agree about how much does it cost. I agree that it was a breath of fresh air in that it was a complete reversal from what Mr. Gore used to believe.

In 1991 he went on CNN and he said the following: "We should have bent every policy. We should do it now to overthrow that regime and make sure Saddam Hussein is removed from power." He's a fire breathing right-wing maniac in 1991.

GREENBERG: Well thank God he used his standing to raise the questions that he raised in the speech. For example, if the state collapses in Iraq and we have an Afghanistan-type situation with weapons of mass destruction, what is the consequence for stability and terrorist access to those weapons? Do we understand the issues and those consequences? That is a serious question for national security, consistent with waging a war on terrorism.

And I'm glad he used his credibility on this issue to address the question.

WALKER: I'm having trouble with the fact that, is this a breath of fresh air or he has credibility? I mean this isn't how he voted in the Senate when we had an international coalition together, when the president had come to the Congress and made his case. And still Al Gore voted a decade ago against doing anything to take out Iraq out of Kuwait.

BEGALA: I mean just in fairness of the facts, Congressman, he's one of the few leading Democrats in the Senate who supported President Bush.

(CROSSTALK)

WALKER: Precisely.

BEGALA: Now that's just a slur. He voted for the Gulf War. But the point of his speech, and the point of the general's testimony yesterday and many other generals, is this: You conflated the risk of al Qaeda with Iraq. I separate it and the American people separate it too. They agree with Al Gore.

The CNN-"USA Today" Gallup poll asked the American people. Here's what they say: "Who is a greater threat to America?" Osama bin Laden, 50 percent of the American people; Saddam Hussein, 28.

So the generals, Al Gore and the American people all agree that the greater threat comes from Osama bin Laden. Why aren't we after Osama? Why are we getting off course?

WALKER: A few generals say that. And the fact is that you should not base policy on what you have to do in foreign policy.

BEGALA: On the people who know best.

WALKER: No, on the...

BEGALA: We should get a former baseball team when we're in Texas and let him decide if he knows better than generals.

GREENBERG: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) administration was saying this to "The New York Times" before they were brought together.

WALKER: And we're polling that, it tells you it is. The worst thing you could possibly do in developing a policy is to rely upon polling data as your only criteria and so on. I know.

But the fact is that even you will say that momentary polls are not exactly that on which you ought to base long-term policy. This is a very serious issue.

BEGALA: I got to cut you off on that important point. And I have to let that be the last word, though. Congressman Bob Walker -- former Congressman from Pennsylvania. Stan Greenberg, Democratic pollster and strategist, thank you very much. It was a good debate. A quick programming note. To stay updated on the Iraq situation, join CNN weekdays at noon Eastern for a new program: "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ," hosted by our own Wolf Blitzer. It debuts tomorrow.

Still ahead on CROSSFIRE, the cellblock strategy. Stay with us for an update on the Traficant for Congress bandwagon.

And later, if the blue noses get their way, the channel selection on your hotel's TV may go down.

And our quote of the day is from someone who is not afraid to look at the Bush administration and tell it like it is. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back.

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and best-selling author Tom Friedman is one of the few in corporate media who has the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes. In an interview, Friedman spoke a painful but powerful truth about the war hawks in the Bush administration.

Quote: "I think these guys are bought and paid for by big oil and they're going to do nothing that will in any way go against the demands and interests of the big oil companies."

And what Friedman says of Emperor Bush deserves our quote of the day. Quote: "I don't think he's a particularly complex human being. There is a real silly frat boy side to him."

Amen, brother Friedman. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

CARLSON: Now listening to a columnist do an interview, where somebody tape records his words, really is like catching an actor on the street and asking his views on something. You learn how truly banal and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) kind of cliched their thinking process is.

I like Tom Friedman. He makes (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Not even (ph) very clever.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live from the George Washington University here in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.

But getting us into your living room is nothing compared to what it's going to take to get Jim Traficant into the first session of the 108th Congress next year. He is running as an independent for his old Ohio congressional district, where he was Congressman for 17 years.

But he's also living at a federal prison in Pennsylvania.

For an update, we take you to Youngstown where we're joined by Jim Traficant's campaign manager James Bunosky. Mr. Bunosky, thank you for joining us, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

JAMES BUNOSKY, TRAFICANT CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Really sort of a two-part question: A, shouldn't you get out of prison before you run for Congress; and B, do you think even Democratic voters in Youngstown, forgiving as they obviously are, are going to vote for a man in a jumpsuit?

BUNOSKY: Absolutely. I'll give you an example why. Back after the conviction we were able, within a three-week time frame, we gathered over 3,700 signatures when negativity was running at the very highest.

BEGALA: Now Congressman -- I mean, Mr. Bunosky, we tried a few minutes ago, right before we went on the air to call Congressman Traficant so we could get his input as well, just to see firsthand how the campaign is going.

Let me play the tape, and then we'll get you to respond.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: Yes, hi, my name is Tucker Carlson, I'm calling from CNN's CROSSFIRE in Washington and hoping to reach former Congressman James Traficant, if you can put him on the line.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No sir, we can't. The reason why is all -- any media needs to be cleared through what we call an executive assistant first. You actually have to have, like, an appointment or something set up, OK?

CARLSON: Well, we actually have previously discussed this with Congressman Traficant when he was on our show before he was convicted of felony charges. He invited us to call him in prison.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, he can't do that. He doesn't have those rights, OK?

BEGALA: He is, in fact, running for reelection, though, and I'm wondering if you're not going to let him talk on the phone, would you at least let him put his toupee back on for his campaign photographs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No sir, I'm telling you you have to call tomorrow and talk to the executive assistant.

BEGALA: OK, his executive assistant...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ryder (ph), do you think...

BEGALA: Well, Officer Stoebel (ph), thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BEGALA: It seems the feds, Mr. Bunosky, have your guy kind of behind the 8 ball, right? They won't even let him talk to the media, can't campaign, he can't go door-to-door, can't even win wear his toupee, for God's sake.

How are you going to win?

BUNOSKY: They don't let Jim Traficant do anything. But the bottom line is, he's got so much support in this area and across the country, there's no stopping this man.

He's a living legend in the Youngstown area, and he's becoming a national legend throughout America.

CARLSON: Well how is he -- you know, no man is a legend to his wife. Tell us about Mrs. Traficant -- maybe some rare men are. Is Mr. Traficant a legend to his wife, and what does his wife think of the idea of him running from behind bars?

BUNOSKY: Mrs. Traficant has always supported her husband in everything he does. He's been a great husband to her, great family man. He's a great family man to this entire 17th district, and he's a great family man to America.

BEGALA: Well, in addition to that he's now, of course, living with a cellmate. Do you have the endorsement of the cellmate, Jim because I think that's -- I used to be a campaign strategist -- this is the person who knows him best now. Is that going to happen, do we get the endorsement of the cellmate?

BUNOSKY: Jim Traficant -- anybody that's ever had any dealings with Jim Traficant knows that he's a man of the people. If you have a problem, Jim Traficant will look into it. Jim Traficant will solve the problem, whether you live in the 17th Congressional District or whether you live anywhere else in the country.

If you don't get anywhere with your Congressman...

(CROSSTALK)

BUNOSKY: Pardon me?

BEGALA: Or, say -- there's a lot of guys in that federal penal institution there in White Deer, Pennsylvania.

By the way, let me ask a mechanical question. You've got about $30,000 -- I'm told from reports -- in campaign donations. Does that include the kickbacks that Traficant received, or are you not allowed to use that in the campaign?

BUNOSKY: Jim Traficant is getting money now from all over the country -- legitimate money. And Jim Traficant is going to run a campaign from behind bars. And he is going to be reelected and it's going to be a fantastic story for not only American but around the world.

CARLSON: And (UNINTEILLIGIBLE) do you know Jim Traficant? Have you met him and are you getting a salary?

BUNOSKY: I am not getting a salary, I'm volunteering my time. Yes, I do know Jim Traficant. He's one of the finest individuals -- one of the finest humanitarians I have ever met in my life, that's why I'm doing this. I would never do it for anybody other than Jim Traficant.

CARLSON: Oh my god. Mr. Bunosky, we thought we loved Jim Traficant here on CROSSFIRE. We've met someone who likes him more and that's you. Good luck in your campaign and thanks very much for joining us.

BUNOSKY: Thank you very much for having me.

CARLSON: Still to come, more barking from our vast Canadian viewership.

But next, forces that want to strip the porn from your hotel room.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

Lonely business travelers know the routine. Check into the hotel, check out the mini bar, find the card that lists the TV channels and the porn. Consumers of pornography, as they're euphemistically known, account for at least half of the pay-per-view orders in hotel rooms. They pump about half a billion dollars into the industry, also a euphemism. Is it too costly to pull the plug on X-rated roomservice? That's out debate in the CROSSFIRE tonight.

Our First Amendment attorney and former Larry Flynt defender Alan Isaacman.

Here in Washington is Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America.

BEGALA: Thank you both for joining us. Sandy, let me start with you. We often disagree but you're usually on the side of the angels. Tonight though, in trying to take porn out of adult peoples' hotel rooms, you seem to be on the side of the hookers. The hookers love this because lonely men won't just stay in their pathetic hotel rooms, they'll go down to the bar and pick up hookers, right?

SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Well that's a very interesting arguement. That's a good one, Paul.

BEGALA: Thank you.

RIOS: It doesn't work.

BEAGALA: Thank you. So but you're not...

RIOS: The problem is it's not just nudity. It used to be you'd see nude women, and that's...

BEGALA: You never see nude women.

RIOS: But you used to. But now it's the worst kind. Now it's very hard-core porn. And what we're talking about penetration where the camera shows up close -- we're talking about multiple partners, we're talking about oral sex. In fact just today, let me just tell you what's playing in Washington hotels today. "Young Horney" -- excuse me, if you have children, please cover their ears.

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: OK, there you go. "Young Horny Asian Girls," "Crotch Hunt Special," "Spring Break Panty Hoes," "Kinky Couple Sex Games," "Ultra Oral Open Wide."

Now, that sounds funny, but let me just tell you the danger here. The problem is that 85 percent of serial killers are involved in pornography.

BEGALA: What? What?

RIOS: 85 percent of serial murders have been involved seriously in pornography. So have a few -- police will tell you people that molest children, rape them, kidnap them, 100 percent of them are involved in pornography.

BEGALA: Well, but they probably drink milk, too, right? That doesn't mean that there's a causal link.

RIOS: No but, Paul, listen. That's a fair question. Not everybody that uses pornography, of course, molests and kidnaps children.

(CROSSTALK)

RIOS: But everybody that molests and kidnaps children uses pornography. There is a correlation. It doesn't mean that if you look at it, you're going to do that. But everybody that does that, they will tell you a lot of these rapist will use pornography to prepare themselves for the act. Some of them will even use it in the act.

And so we're talking about a very serious problem. I don't think there's anybody in America who doesn't understand how serious this is, Paul. Our kids are getting kidnapped, and raped, and murdered and dismembered. Why? Because men are feeding their minds -- and women, too, but mostly men -- on this kind of the worst of the worst pornography. It's being featured around the country in hotels and it's got to stop.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Isaacson -- apparently represent some of the companies that have adult -- Isaacman -- who have adult entertainment in rooms. That's of course legal. You're allowed to do that. Good for you. I guess what I object to most strenulously, though, is the First Amendment cover that porn merchants use. Putting them in the same category as say reporters who risk their lives covering war.

One of the -- as I understand it -- one of the three prongs the Supreme Court decision in the Miller case that allows pornography is that the porn has to have serious political, artistic, scientific meaning. And I wonder what the serious meaning of "Crotch Hunt Special," or whatever that Sandy Rios just listed is.

ALAN ISAACMAN, FIRST AMENDMENT ATTY: Well the third prong that you just refered to of the Miller Test, is a prong that requires you to look at the work as a whole. You don't just judge it by one line. I mean I could take something out of context as well.

For example, in almost every hotel room in the country, can you find the following language. Quote, "Thy two breasts are like two young rows that are twins which feed among the lillies." That's from the Song of Soloman. Now...

(CROSSTALK).

ISAACMAN: The Bible's protected, just like anything that's not obscene is protected. There's a Miller Test that defines obscenity. If some of these videos are obscene, they're against the law, they should not be there. You can't just take a title of a video and say it's obscene because you don't like the title.

CARLSON: Well give me an example -- I've always wondered this. What -- can you give me a concrete example of what's obscene? Not a theoretical but give me an example that what -- a depiction of what would be obscene?

ISAACMAN: Well, you know, part of the problem I think -- in answering your question -- is that obscenity is awfully vague and we know what Potter Stewart said and that is he knows it when he sees it. That's about as good as a Supreme Court justice could do for that.

But to give you an example, I could tell you what isn't obscene and that's -- what isn't obscene is most of the fare -- in my opinion -- that you see in the hotel rooms on their TV sets because they're subject to editing by lawyers, and by content providers and bu broadcasters.

RIOS: Alan, what are you talking about?

(CROSSTALK)

ISAACMAN: You won't find bestiality on there.

RIOS: Oh, gee thanks, I feel better now.

ISAACMAN: You're not going to find any of those kinds of things.

RIOS: Alan, I'm sorry but you're wrong about this. What's happening right now On Command and LodgeNet are two of the worst. They have this stuff on satellite, that is the worst of the worst.

A couple in Cincinnati recently went in and put a camera on the television and rented two of the movies, left the room and delivered that video to the prosecutor in their county. And it is against the law for hotels to traffic in this kind of obscenity.

Obscenity, as you already pointed out, is not protected by the First Amendment. And this stuff is the worst of the worst. Maybe you haven't been in a hotel room in a long time.

Now, the smaller chains perhaps do not carry this yet because, as I understand, On Command and LodgeNet target the larger chains like Marriott and that is actually the hotel chain that's been recently targeted and they're pulling it.

BEGALA: In fact, let me ask you about Marriott. They are going to pull it out? They were the subject of a fascinating "Wall Street Journal" story some time ago, where somebody in Utah was being prosecuted on this. The Marriott family, a distinguished Republican family, leading family in Utah found out that they're one of the largest purveyors of porn there and the guy got off -- he also was acquitted -- because of his argument that the Marriott chain had been the purveyors here.

RIOS: Well, the Marriott chain, as a whole, just to clarify -- some of them are privately owned, privately franchised . But the two that have been targeted so far are pulling it. Because it is illegal. There's a federal law that says you cannot traffic, you cannot allow pornography to be taken across state lines.

It's not up to Sandy to tell us what's legal or not.

RIOS: You tell us then.

ISAACMAN: What you're talking about -- what's available in the hotel room is exactly the same content that's available to almost every home in the country that is hooked up to a cable network such as AT&T or Comcast or to a satellite service like dish or direct broadcast.

RIOS: That's right. And that may very well be illegal as well, Alan. That's something -- you know what? For eight years that law has not been prosecuted, but I'm telling you that the federal law says that you cannot carry this stuff over interstate lines with a common carrier.

Is there a connection between Utah and porn, why so much porn in Utah?

RIOS: I don't know. Ask -- I tell you, I think it's a disgrace in the case of Marriott. They've got a bible, a book of Mormon and the biography of Mr. Marriott who talks about his family values while at the same time they're offering "Young Horny Asian Girls." And I don't understand that. There's a disconnect.

BEGALA: I salute you for pointing out that hypocrisy, though. Good for you.

Sandy Rios, thank you for joining us. Alan Isaacman in Los Angeles, thank you as well, sir, for an interesting debate.

BEGALA: Next, in our "Fireback" segment, we'll hear from a viewer who thinks we need a woman's touch. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment. We open up the show to your concerns, opinions, even obsessions.

Here we go, to the e-mail.

First up, Gene Carton from St. Louis writes, "Before Saddam Hussein will allow unfettered access to potential weapons sites, I predict that Tucker Carlson will become a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat."

Indeed, Gene, I'll be running on the transgendered ticket before that happens. You're not going to see it.

BEGALA: I'd like to see you as a transgender.

CARLSON: I don't even know what that is.

BEGALA: I'll put up the downpayment for the operation, Tucker.

Liz in Wilmington, Delaware writes, "Finally, a voice of reason and sanity. Thank goodness Al Gore, whom we the people elected, has come out against the Bush war with Iraq. We can only handle one war at a time."

CARLSON: She's still mad about the Delaware show we did, I guess.

OK, next up. Don Andrich of St. Albert, Alberta in a foreign country we call Canada writes, "As a Canadian, I'm upset at the influence U.S. have on my well being."

Selfish, selfish, Don.

"Your government's complete focus on Saddam and his buddies and ignoring the economy has driven my stock prices down," he writes, "I should not have invested in pets.com."

Sorry, Don. Investing's dangerous.

BEGALA: Joe Condin in Ludlow, Massachusetts writes, "I think you boys on Crossfire need to bring in Judge Judy to moderate. "

Well it's certainly. .

CARLSON: I think we'd scare Judge Judy, to be honest. We'd spank Judge Judy. OK, to the audience. Yes sir, what's your question or comment?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Ryan McEwen (ph) from Warren, Maine. Have the American people been presented with an entirely biased view of Mr. Traficant? We've already elected a former pro-wrestler, a singer- celebrity, numerous confessed alcohol and drug abusers. Why not a convict? At least there's a measure of accountability and aren't the critics just curbing American freedom?

CARLSON: I'm not going to address your larger question about whether people behind bars can serve in the Congress. But I will say, to your question about whether America has a rounded view of him, If you want the full story on James Traficant, you come to CROSSFIRE.

BEGALA: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Fair and balanced on James Traficant.

BEGALA: He's a CROSSFIRE fave. We love him, we want him to come back as often as he can. We just can't get through the guards.

Yes sir? What's your name and question or comment?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chris Kezner (ph) from San Jose, California.

Why not allow social morals to determine what people watch instead of governmental organizations in judicial cases?

BEGALA: You sound like a true conservative.

CARLSON: Well, in effect -- that's in effect what happens. There are many counties in this country that are dry that don't sell alcohol.

It's a lot of, you know, mores are determined at the county level for the most part still and that's a good thing.

BEGALA: I think they should be, in this case, determined at the individual level.

Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Hal McGrady (ph) from Columbus, Ohio. As an independent voter in a country that's pretty equally divided, I'm waiting for some Democrat to step forward and distinguish the Democrats from the Republican position.

Now, Mr. Begala, who's in the best position to do that today?

BEGALA: Other than me, of course. No, I'm just kidding of course.

I think Al Gore gave a very thoughtful and, I thought, extremely patriotic speech yesterday doing his duty as the person who got more votes than the other guy, laying out the argument against Bush's policy, and I admire that. CARLSON: He's capable of giving a good speech, Al Gore, but he didn't give it yesterday, unfortunately. Kasinich (ph) -- Dennis Kasinich (ph) of Ohio is taking a principled left-wing stand I don't agree with, but at least he means it.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night -- Wednesday night -- for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN "News Alert."

See you tomorrow.

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





Blair's Way; Who Should Say What You Want in the Privacy of Your Hotel Room? >