Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Will Torricelli's Drop Out of the Senate Race Help Swing Power to the Republicans?; Doubts, Question Remain Regarding Facts on Iraq
Aired September 30, 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. From the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight: The Torch goes out, but will all Democrats get burned?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ROBERT TORICELLI (D), NEW JERSEY: Don't feel badly for me, I changed people's lives. I'm proud of every day of it. And I wouldn't change a bit of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Losing patience with the men in Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: But they have lied over and over and over again. But there ought to be a penalty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But from Main Street to Capitol Hill, doubts and questions still about a war with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We must plan for and think through the day- after scenarios.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight, The Torch has been doused. Also, we'll talk to a congressman who said the United States government gave Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons, But first it's time for news. It's time for our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
Just when you thought the saga of Bob Torricelli couldn't possibly get more embarrassing, Senator Torricelli himself speaks. He did late this afternoon in a bizarre, rambling, self-congratulatory, very, very long speech, during which he noted almost parenthetically that he's dropping out of his doomed re-election bid in New Jersey. Torricelli said nothing about the influence peddling scandal that ruined his career, or about increasingly credible allegations that he obstructed a federal investigation, threatened a witness, and bragged about his close friends in organized crime.
Instead, he talked about his life's countless achievements from the age of five to the present, literally. And then he started crying. "When did we become such unforgiving people," he wailed with tears in his eyes. Before he finally left the stage, Senator Torricelli did make a request. "Don't feel badly for me," he asks. Thanks, but there was never any chance of that.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Kick a man when he's down, Tucker.
CARLSON: You know if he was down, I wouldn't kick him. If he just apologized and got off the stage I would say that was tasteful. But he didn't.
BEGALA: He did a selfless thing for his party. Ahead of his own (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Good for Bob Torricelli.
Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington, however, has raced hackles at the White House by saying on a trip to Baghdad, " I think the president would mislead the American people." Now of course the far right wing is milking those unwise, unfortunate, inappropriate comments for everything that they're worth. But my guess is the Bushes are a lot more worried about comments made today by Republican war hero Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Hagel dismissed the notion that a war in Iraq would be a cake walk and stressed the importance of diplomacy, while calling for what he called, "... a healthy wariness," before going off to war. Now I think a healthy wariness is a much more dignified and appropriate way to remind Americans to question what their government tells them about a war.
CARLSON: See, I don't think you have to be, as you put it, from the far right wing to think that what Congressman McDermott did was revolting at a time of war. To sit in the capital of an enemy's country and denounce his own country, that's wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I said they're milking, which they are. But I said it was inappropriate, as is unwise, unwarranted.
CARLSON: Milking it enough. Milk away, I'd say.
From our has-been celebrities who dabble in politics department -- and it's a big department -- Barbra Streisand joined Barry Manilow and some 3,500 democratic contributors in Los Angeles for a Sunday night of song, nostalgia and political excess. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt gushed his thanks for Barbra's recent fax filled with -- along with a number of embarrassing misspellings, political advice, including tidbits like, "Get off the offensive and go on the defensive."
She has a career as a political consultant awaiting her. But the best was yet to come. Streisand changed the words to her old hit "The Way We Were" to "lovely democratic memories of the way we were." Art and politics never looked more unattractive together.
BEGALA: Barbra Streisand is a patriot. She's a terribly bright person. I'm glad that she's active, as opposed to the poster woman for the Republican party, Bush's appointee to the Kennedy Center Board, Bo Derek.
CARLSON: Do you know that she...
BEGALA: Our Silicon Valley, right?
CARLSON: She couldn't spell Dick Gephardt's name correctly in a fax to Dick Gephardt. She misspelled his name.
BEGALA: So she forfeited the first amendment right?
CARLSON: Of course not.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Your descriptions were "terribly bright." I am questioning that.
BEGALA: She makes a lot of sense. And I'm glad she's a great patriot.
CARLSON: It's embarrassing.
BEGALA: Excuse me, may I continue?
The debate over whether the White House is intentionally using the issue of war in Iraq to boost Republicans' prospects in the upcoming midterm elections is over. Courtesy of Jay Carney of "TIME" magazine, we now have proof.
White House political aide Carl Rove, who has no background, no experience, no expertise in foreign policy, is boasting to friends about the prospect of war, saying "TIME" magazine, "Let me put it this way, if you want to see Baghdad, you'd better visit soon."
One Republican senator finally spelled it out for us, again in "TIME." "There are some high-level people in the White House, Carl Rove being the main driver, who are using this war for politics. Case closed.
CARLSON: I'm not sure what case. You have in some unnamed quote from some unidentified person, and then you have Carl Rove...
BEGALA: You (UNINTELLIGIBLE) quotes all the time, and...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I certainly do. And I'm sure Jay's right too; he's an excellent reporter. But then you have Carl Rove saying we're going to attack Iraq. Is this news?
BEGALA: Read the papers more often, man. This is widely known this fact that we're going to attack Iraq.
CARLSON: This is horribly inappropriate for a political hack to be making foreign policy.
BEGALA: Just recognizing reality.
CARLSON: During his televised self-emulation tonight, Senator Robert Torricelli paid tribute to three of his closest friends in the world. They were Bill Clinton -- no surprise there -- fellow Senator John Corzine, and current New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, with whom Torricelli said he speaks nearly everyday.
The last bit of news came as no surprise to students of Jim McGreevey, who is now involved in his own scandal. Last month, Governor McGreevey appointed professional leftist Amiri Baraka as poet laureate of New Jersey, a job that state desperately needs. That's one of his first public readings.
Baraka recited a poem entitled, "Somebody Blew Up America," which accuses Jews of orchestrating the attacks of 9/11. "Who knew the World Trade Center was going to get bombed? Who told 4,000 Israeli workers of the twin towers to stay home that day? Why did Sharon stay away?"
And so, Torricelli now bad poetry. New Jersey has suffered enough.
BEGALA: So Tucker, we're beating on singers and actresses and directors. Now we're beating on a poet. Let me ask you...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I'm beating on the Democrats who accused Jews of blowing up the World Trade Center. That's anti-Semitism.
BEGALA: Why? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) matters to you.
After declining under President Clinton, the number of Americans who lack health insurance is again on the rise under President Bush. Statistics released today show that 1.4 million more Americans lost their health coverage last year, bringing the total number of uninsured Americans to 41.2 million.
One expert quoted in the "Washington Post" remarked today that if we couldn't cover everyone when we had big federal surpluses, there's little chance of doing so now that we have big deficits. President Bush, of course, has no proposals to provide health insurance for all Americans, but he would like you to know that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man who we have to go to war with right now. Doesn't that make you feel better?
CARLSON: I wonder what's a worse evil, Paul?
BEGALA: Evil, yes.
CARLSON: Actually, he is an evil man. And I wonder how you feel about making political use of the suffering of your fellow Americans who don't have health insurance? It's not a political issue, Paul. It's a tragedy.
BEGALA: No, it's a tragedy that Bush hasn't addressed and it's obviously a political issue. How are we going to address it?
CARLSON: You're blaming the economy, which is clearly not in the shape it was three years ago, solely on the president. And I think most people watching know that that's ridiculous.
BEGALA: He has no proposal to expand health care coverage. All he wants to do is tell us, evil, evil. Well, guess what, that's a PhD in Duh.
CARLSON: Well he is evil.
BEGALA: He is evil, of course he is. But how about a health bill?
Senator Robert Torricelli and the Democrat being party today faced the unpleasant reality and made the best of a bad situation. Torricelli dropped his reelection effort in New Jersey, which altered (ph) the Democratic Party now to put a stronger candidate up against a Republican who seems to be pretty much out of step with every issue that voters in the garden state really care about.
Here to talk about today's political bombshell are Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn and Terry Jeffrey, the editor of "Human Events."
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Peter Fenn, now we all agree, and I know you even agree that Robert Torricelli was a horrifying embarrassment to the party he claims to represent. But let's go back to ancient history on Saturday, when Senator Torricelli, who is accused of physically threatening a federal witness and being friends with people in the Mafia and obstructing a federal investigation, on this very Saturday he spoke for your party in the radio rebuttal to the president of the United States.
Earlier last week -- and I want to read to you what Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader, said about the now-disgraced Senator Torricelli. "We've never seen a race" -- meaning Torricelli's race to keep his seat -- "that has more stake than what is happening right now." That is in New Jersey. "This is the fight that will determine the future of this country.
Now how embarrassed is Tom Daschle about saying that about Bob Torricelli? Seriously.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: About saying that at a political rally for Bob Torricelli?
CARLSON: No, honestly, that's embarrassing.
FENN: No, that's not embarrassing at all. Listen, I think Bob Torricelli did the right thing. A year ago on this show I criticized him, a lot of people have criticized him for what he had done. He has faced the music and he's faced it right up front.
So I think the fact is that we're going to have now a Democratic candidate who will decide the next probably 24 hours who it's going to be. And we're going to have a spirited fight in New Jersey. And my guess is that the Democrats will keep that seat.
CARLSON: And you may be right. You may actually be right.
But before we move on completely, let's just address some of the unanswered questions. Now on Saturday we knew with a shadow of a doubt that the senator had taken these suits, probably taken tens of thousands in cash, literally, to lobby on behalf of a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for a foreign government, to get money from North Korea, a criminal terrorist state.
Democrats knew, that that's true.
FENN: No. Listen, if you look at...
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: First of all, what we know and what we don't know is still up for grabs here. There's a lot ands, ifs or buts here. But the other thing, if you look at this, you can see -- look, Jane Swift. We knew she took a helicopter at state expense because she wanted to get home earlier to see her kids. Well she...
CARLSON: But she admitted it.
FENN: Right. And she didn't want to leave, but she left her governorship. And she said she's not going to run for re-election. I mean, you know, sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they do bad things, right? And he's facing the music.
BEGALA: Terry Jeffrey, in fact he is. Let me give you a little welcoming gift here. They're tissues because there is not a dry eye in the House at the Republican National Committee. This is your worst nightmare.
Torricelli, because of his ethical transgressions was in a lot of trouble. I'll say it was a very selfless act, though. I admire any politician that puts his principles ahead of his ambition, and Torricelli did that today. And now your party is out of whack.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, Paul, if you just want to look at it in cold political terms, actually I think he gave the Republicans an opportunity to nationalize the election by explaining once again to the American people that the democratic party is demonstrating for all of us that they will put the pursuit of power over ethical principle and the rule of law...
BEGALA: By resigning from the race?
JEFFREY: Yes. No, this is just like when the senate Democrats voted that Clinton was not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice even though he was. This is like Al Gore trying to gain the electoral -- wait a minute. This is exactly like Al Gore trying to gain the electoral process by selectively pursuing recounts in a few Florida counties.
It is like what the Senate Ethics Committee did in July, when they whitewashed Torricelli. Let me give you a fact. Here's a fact.
FENN: Are we going back to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) here? Where are we going with this?
JEFFREY: The Senate Ethics Committee in July issued a letter they'd given to Torricelli of their investigation of his wrongdoing. This is what they said. "After evaluating the extensive body of evidence before it in your testimony, the committee is troubled by incongruities, inconsistencies and conflicts, particularly concerning actions taken by you which were or could have been of potential benefit to Mr. Chang.
Now Paul, what's an incongruity and inconsistency between evidence and testimony? I suggest that's perjury. The Senate Ethics Committee would not release his testimony. The Democrats backed him. Daschle said he was innocent. He was their candidate.
They wanted this guy to be elected and tell...
BEGALA: Terry, he's gone. He's gone from the political (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
JEFFREY: You guys wanted this guy out there.
FENN: You want to talk about Bob Torricelli for the next five weeks?
JEFFREY: Yes.
FENN: Feel free. Feel free.
JEFFREY: You guys wanted this man...
FENN: We'll talk about the economy...
BEGALA: One at a time.
FENN: We'll talk about 1.1 million more people in poverty. We'll talk about health insurance. We'll talk about prescription drugs. And you talk about Torricelli, it's fine.
JEFFREY: You're not asking the question, though.
FENN: What's the question?
CARLSON: Jeffrey, let me ask it of you, then. As of this morning, when we woke up and before we knew that Mr. Torricelli was leaving the race, we still new all these facts about him. Implications that he committed serious felonies. We don't know for certain that he did, but there's a lot of evidence that he did.
Why do Democrats defend him tirelessly? I really want to know.
FENN: I'll tell you. They didn't prosecute him. They refused to prosecute him. Let me just say this.
If they thought in New York that they could get him in court, prosecute him and convict him, they would have gone and done it. They dropped it. What we have here is a guy who did some bad stuff. I'm not sure it's legal or illegal.
You know, clearly, he's not going to get prosecuted for it. But he's gone. He's off the political landscape in New Jersey.
CARLSON: Wait a minute, unless you're convicted you're defended by Democrats?
JEFFREY: I dare the Democrats on the Senate Ethics Committee to release Senator Torricelli's testimony so the entire country can decide whether they were covering up for perjury because they'd rather have a perjurer in the United States Senate than lose their majority.
CARLSON: Exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: When Dick Cheney...
JEFFREY: This guy may have committed perjury in a Senate committee.
BEGALA: One at a time.
FENN: When Dick Cheney releases the documents that the GAO wants, when this administration...
JEFFREY: I'm for releasing it. Release it.
FENN: Well I'm glad you are, but most of your people are not.
BEGALA: Three words: History. He's out, it's over. Let's move on.
The candidate for the Republican party, let's talk about him. The candidate for the Republican party is a guy by the named of Forrester, which apparently is not his job, it's his name. His job is some kind of way to overcharge for pharmaceutical drugs, as I understand it. Torricelli, today in his speech, described him to the state and it's pretty unfortunate and unflattering. You may need one of these tissues by the time you finish -- look at the -- this is what Torricelli on leaving had to say about his opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TORRICELLI: That a woman's right to choose was fundamental in the Constitution of the United States. That environmental protection was the fundamental issue that should unite all people in New Jersey. That gun control was essential to secure the safety of our citizens in their homes. Doug Forrester believes in none of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: OK. He is your candidate. He has no issue now with Torricelli out. He's got no experience, no record, no clue, no chance, right?
JEFFREY: Let me (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Paul. If the question is, do I agree with candidate Forrester on this and the issues, the answer is no. I disagree with him on a lot of the issues. But there is a bigger issue here.
The issue is whether the United States Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats, cares about the truth, cares about the rule of law, or whether they'd rather maintain their majority at the expense of promoting someone who very well may have committed perjury to them this year.
FENN: Well if he committed perjury, if he did all these terrible things that you said, shouldn't he be gone?
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: Here's the key point: what we're talking about here is campaigning on the issues. And this is exactly what's going to happen now in New Jersey. It's not going to be in the gutter. It's going to be a campaign about the issues the American people care about.
JEFFREY: You don't think it's an issue whether United States senators are crooks or not?
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let's take a quick break here. We'll be back with some bickering in just a second. We'll ask our guests what Torricelli's decision means for democratic control of the senate. Is it possible to embarrass Democrats? That's our debate later.
Even in Baghdad, beware of visiting congressmen bearing gifts.
And our quote of the day comes from a one-time mayor who wouldn't mind a new job. We'll explain that. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TORRICELLI: I most certainly have made mistakes. There'll be those who have concluded that those mistakes bring justice to this moment because there is a price to be paid. When did we become such an unforgiving people?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That of course was Senator Robert Torricelli, who announced today he'll be leaving the U.S. Senate to open an antique store. But instead of letting New Jersey voters decide who should represent them in the Senate, backroom politicians -- those of course would be Democrats -- today forced Mr. Torricelli out of the race, and they hope off the ballot.
How long will it be now until Tom Daschle vacates the Senate Majority Leader's office? That's our question. In the CROSSFIRE to answer it, Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn, "Human Events" Editor, Terry Jeffrey.
BEGALA: Terry Jeffrey, breaking news, news flash. Torricelli is not running. He will not be on the ballot. You don't have Bob Torricelli to kick around anymore. So...
JEFFREY: Actually, the truth is...
BEGALA: That's what I want to ask you, though.
JEFFREY: Sure.
BEGALA: We don't agree on anything, but we will agree that you're a very smart leader of the conservative movement. Who do you fear the most? Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg? Robert Menendez, the congressman from northern New Jersey? He's Cuban-American, great success story there. Who do you fear the most?
JEFFREY: The most formidable candidate among those people obviously would be Bill Bradley. The problem is, Paul, anybody who steps in now, and I think the reason they didn't announce their prospective candidate now, is that person is going to carry the taint of Torricelli and the alleged corruption against him.
Also, in the attempt of the New Jersey Democratic Party to rig the electoral process, the truth is we don't know if Torricelli is going to get off the ballot. The governor said he's going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The law says after you get within 48 days of the election, he's stuck on the ballot.
So this is Florida all over again. The Democrats want to go to a state supreme court to rewrite the election rules retroactively.
FENN: Terry -- OK, so you think it was wrong for Jane Swift to quit, to leave? Because she was...
CARLSON: Jane Swift is the Republican governor, of course, of Massachusetts.
FENN: Governor of Massachusetts who left because of a little problem in her past.
JEFFREY: Right.
FENN: And she decided she couldn't win and she left.
JEFFREY: Do you want me to surprise you? Let me surprise you. I think there were serious questions about whether Mitt Romney was a carpetbagger in Massachusetts. I think if you're going to run for governor of a state you ought to live there. I think there were serious questions about whether Mitt Romney lived in Utah, and I think they should have been examined.
CARLSON: Well wait...
FENN: But Republicans came to his defense.
CARLSON: I understand. Before we...
FENN: He's getting on the ballot. They don't care where he paid taxes.
CARLSON: The point -- I know you'd rather talk about Massachusetts than your friend Mr. Torricelli, but you had dismissed during the last segment this sort of out of hand, as if it was no big deal, the fact that the Senate Ethics Committee never called a single witness in its investigation into Mr. Torricelli. It's controlled of course by Democrats, and I wonder why you wouldn't be in favor of releasing the transcript of his interview...
FENN: Actually, I'll surprise you again on this. I thought they should release it...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I mean it obviously...
FENN: Well, it was in closed session and stuff. But I think they should release it. I said that before too. I don't see -- you know, look, it seems to me -- look, in something like this -- and, again, I said it on this show a year ago when I criticized Torricelli -- I think these kinds of thing should be opened. This is why we have laws that say you have to follow (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
JEFFREY: But let's look at the reason the Democrats -- the Democrats did not release that testimony because they wanted to cover up for Torricelli, because they wanted to keep him on the ballot. They thought he had a better chance of winning as an incumbent than anybody else they'd get on the ballot at that point.
And denying the truth and covering up for a senator who is corrupt was more important to them because of...
(CROSSTALK) FENN: Here's the problem. This is glass houses is what it is, because you've got folks in your White House. You've got Cheney, who will not release documents about...
CARLSON: Who brags about friends in the Mafia? Come on, please.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY: No, no, no. Let's talk about...
FENN: If we're talking about full disclosure, you have...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: We're going to pull back the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Just a minute.
Terry, I want to ask you instead about something a lot more fundamental, which is the control of the Senate. This is why Torricelli said today and it is why he pulled out of the race, right? Look around the country now. You have Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas 10 points down. He has a scandal of a deeply personal nature that has hurt him politically.
In Iowa, Tom Harkin is now ahead by 20 points in the "Des Moine Register" poll. Ron Kirk in Texas is up four. In New Hampshire, the Governor, Shaheen, is dead even with Sununu. You guys are losing all around the country, aren't you?
JEFFREY: And this is why Tom Daschle was melting down on the Senate floor last week. The Democrats clearly are afraid they're going to lose their Senate majority. And, as I said before, they're willing to back Torricelli and they're ready to cover up for his testimony in the Senate Ethics Committee because maintaining the Senate is more important to Democrats than the truth and the rule of law.
Let's see that testimony and see whether he told the truth and whether he lied under oath in the Senate.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: You get the last word. You can keep going through the commercial break, but Terry Jeffrey, Editor of "Human Events" (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank you both very much. That was great.
Next, worries about a possible war with Iraq. Who's right, the administration's war hocks or those nagging voices of caution that just won't go away? Next, in our "Quote of the Day," what a former mayor would like to do if they ever catch Osama bin Laden. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. As you may have guessed, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has another job in mind. But you may be surprised to learn it isn't the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington. In his new book, "Leadership," Giuliani writes about what he told President Bush just days after September 11.
The president asked, "What can I do for you?" In our "Quote of the Day," his honor replied, "I told him if you catch this guy bin Laden, I'd like to be the one to execute him." Of course the president said, "I'm sorry, but I already have too many requests."
BEGALA: Those were the days when we had a president who was focused on catching Osama bin Laden. I supported that wholeheartedly. I still support it. I wish we'd go back to those days, because he's still out there, apparently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... I read the script I thought, I wonder how Paul was going to twist this for his sick little political ends. And I couldn't think of how you would do it.
BEGALA: The guy killed 3,000 people. Rudy wants to execute him. God bless Rudy Giuliani. He should be the director of homeland security. It shows how Bush is so insecure that he won't put the most competent person in there because maybe Rudy might (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: This is demented. Will you save this tape, pleases? I want to look at this later.
BEGALA: You'll learn something. Watch it carefully.
Next, a Bush (ph) puts off an execution. Anderson Cooper will tell us why in the CNN News Alert.
And later, he's got the missiles, we've got the pictures and the technology to take them out. But is it a good enough reason to go to war with Iraq?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. White House and congressional negotiators are hoping to agree by Wednesday on language for a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, but serious voices, both Republican and Democratic, continue to question the rush to war. Next in the CROSSFIRE, Congressman Bob Filner, a Democrat of California, one of those questioning the war, and Virginia Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, strong supporter.
CARLSON: Congressman Filner, I want you to take a look. You may have seen it in the Anderson Cooper news alert a moment ago. I want you to take a look at the video that was released today of Iraq firing -- Iraqi forces firing a missile at an American airplane in the no-fly zone. Now, apparently, that's from last year, but similar incidents have taken place literally dozens of times over the last two days, and almost perhaps exactly the same time Iraqi forces were firing at American airmen, trying to kill them, Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington state was in Baghdad denouncing the president of the United States. His exact words, "I think the president would mislead the American people." Now, that's appalling and out of bounds behavior, isn't it?
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, you know, the congress people who are in Baghdad have to do what they think is best for their constituents and for America, and they were doing what is best. And they believe and I agree with them, that this war that is so imminent could make us less safe as a nation and not more safe. We have to, I think, exhaust all of the options that the United Nations gives. A unilateral preemptive strike will alienate us from the rest of the world, will make us less safe and will not allow us to keep up this war on terrorism, which is so important.
CARLSON: Now, congressman, you may not have understood my question, so I'm going to give you another chance. I want you to listen to what Senator John McCain said about the appalling thing that Congressman McDermott said and I want you to reassess your assessment. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: If Congressman McDermott and Congressman Bonior wanted to go to the floor of the House and question the president's credibility, go right ahead and do it. Don't go to Baghdad and do it. You are helping the Iraqi government sell to the Iraqi people their hatred of the United States of America. And it's wrong, and I -- I honestly do not understand it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now, again, we are presently at war. Not in the future, presently at war with Iraq. They are firing missiles at Americans right now, and for these Democrats to go to Baghdad and play the Jane Fonda routine, you're going to defend that?
FILNER: Well, what you're saying, Tucker, and what Senator McCain is saying is exactly what we as Americans had better be on guard with. That is, people who are expressing opposition to, disagreement with, dissent from what our government and our president is doing are going to be characterized as un-American, un-patriotic, hating America, not loving America, putting our troops in danger.
That is hogwash. What America is about -- what America is about is about debate. And you are not allowing a debate to be done on its merits by calling someone un-patriotic and calling someone...
CARLSON: They did it through Baghdad. You're aware of that. They were in Baghdad when they said that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Congressman Cantor, I want to give you the opportunity to praise the patriotism of one of your fellow Republican members of the House of Representatives, Amo Houghton, senior Democratic -- or senior Republican, rather, he's from New York. This is what he said in "Roll Call," the Capitol Hill magazine -- newspaper today. "I have serious reservations, I really do. I don't think we ought to go pell- mell into a conflict with Iraq when we haven't proved the al Qaeda connection. I really wonder if Iraq has a real connection with al Qaeda, or if this is not just a side show."
Are you going to attack his patriotism?
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), VIRGINIA: Yeah, I think the world of Amo Houghton, but I happen to disagree with him severely on this issue. There's no question -- you know, the president has laid out the case. He made his bill of particulars to the United Nations a few weeks ago, and in fact, this is what the Democrats have been asking for.
I mean, in fact, you know, the president started off earlier this year with, I think, an intent to take this to after the election, but somehow we want a debate, and I think it's a good thing. I think it is a good thing that we're here debating this issue. This ought to be talked about before the election.
And in my view, we cannot act fast enough. The risk of inaction is far greater than that of not. I mean, you've got a maniacal dictator. He's brutal. He has murdered his own people. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
And with the al Qaeda connection, you see that Secretary Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice this week have said, we have credible evidence now to show that upper echelon al Qaeda officials or terrorists are in Baghdad. They are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with Saddam Hussein, and we -- no one even needs to look past September the 11th to know the real risk involved now with somebody like Saddam Hussein.
BEGALA: Let me ask you then, why -- you mentioned our president laying out the case, and he did so at the United Nations on September 12. He never tried at his speech at the U.N., a thoughtful speech, a lengthy speech, never tried to draw a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq, because the best intelligence leaks that we see in the newspapers are that there is no such thing. If there was, why didn't the president mention it at the U.N.?
CANTOR: This -- the president made a bill of particulars, in my mind, that was extremely convincing that we need to proceed against Saddam Hussein. He is a danger to the world. We have got credible evidence, Paul. You've seen the secretary of defense, Condoleezza Rice say that. The president has said that.
FILNER: Is there any difference between the threat that he was, say, a year ago or he'll be next year as opposed to right now, except for the fact that there's an election in five weeks? Do you think there's any connection there?
CANTOR: There was something called -- there is something on September the 11th that occurred, that, honestly, I want to ask you, are you willing to face a Saddam Hussein with nuclear capability, or should we act now before he executes on that and takes out not 3,000, but perhaps 300,000 or three million people?
FILNER: You're accusing him of taking out the 3,000?
CANTOR: Well, he is absolutely capable, and we know that he is talking with al Qaeda...
FILNER: Why didn't we know this on September 12? Why didn't we know it on September 13? Why didn't we know on September the 14th? Why did it wait until, as Andrew Card said, "let's roll out these new ideas, not in August, but we'll do it in September when people are yelling..."
CANTOR: You can go and impugn the president's character all you want, but the bottom line is the Americans...
FILNER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) impugning the president's character?
CANTOR: The American people trust George W. Bush on this. He has had the information. He is weighing it. And we will take action at the appropriate time.
FILNER: I have read -- I have been at all the classified briefings. I didn't hear one evidence that there was an imminent threat that has to be dealt with at this moment. In fact, that question was asked of our briefers, and nobody said there was. This -- we have time to get U.N. resolution. We have time to get -- we have time to get the world's opinion.
CANTOR: Do you really think that a U.N. resolution and inspectors are going to do any good? Come on!
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Mr. Filner, I'm so glad you brought that up.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Dr. Filner, professor Filner, Mr. Filner, PhD. You have said what a lot of Democrats are saying, which is we need to get our European friends onboard, and I just want to -- I actually have found a photograph of our European friends who were demonstrating in Madrid yesterday, and here's what they look like. If we could put that up on the screen. Well, perhaps we can't.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Oh, there they are. Those are our European friends, and they're dressed as suicide bombers.
FILNER: Come on, Tucker.
CARLSON: No, come on you, Mr. Filner. Now, my question to you is, why is it necessary for the Spanish, for instance, or the Belgians or the Germans, one of whose government officials compared the president to Adolf Hitler a couple of weeks ago, to sign off on this before the United States takes steps to defend itself?
FILNER: Because if we don't have a world coalition against terrorism, we cannot win that war. The president has been telling us for over -- for a year now, that is the -- that is the war we must fight. That requires intelligence. That requires financial, you know, transactions to watch. That requires world opinion with us. If you think this demonstration was going on that was you had so much problems with, wait until you see what happens if we have a preemptive unilateral strike. All over the world -- and you think -- you think it's going to happen -- what do you think the Arab -- the Muslim and Arab community is going to say if we occupy Baghdad?
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: How long is that occupation going to last? Can you tell me that?
CANTOR: This myth of the Arab street, now com on. That same argument was used during Afghanistan and we saw once we went in, the only language these people understand is the awesome might of the United States military.
We have solved the Afghani problem, right? We have solved the Afghani problem. But we certainly have taken out the Taliban.
BEGALA: Let me give you a chance. I've said more stupid things on this set than anybody would in 100 years. But I'm going to give you a chance to walk that balk a little bit, because I don't think you really meant to say that Arabs don't understand anything but force, right?
Look, I say dumb things every night.
CANTOR: Paul, I said the only things these terrorists and these terrorist states understand is the awesome might of the United States military.
BEGALA: You can still criticize on our set. There's no problem.
But let me pick up the point, Congressman Filner made. In order to get al Qaeda, we do need help from the Germans with al Qaeda, were we know al Qaeda has cells.
We do need help from the Spanish where al Qaeda has cells. We need help in the Arab Muslim world, in the Asian Muslim world. Without that help we can't get al Qaeda, can we?
CANTOR: There's no question, it certainly would be nicer and easier if everyone was on board in the beginning. But you know what? They'll be on board. This president will lead. We will go and take this fight to protect the American people. He has gone to the U.N., he has said, Yes, we will try and unite the international community and show them the evidence to see that their people are at risk just as we are. And, yes, --
FILNER: What if they don't agree with us? CANTOR: If they don't agree with us, then we have got to take the matter and protect the American people. Absolutely. We don't need to ask anyone's permission to protect American lives.
FILNER: That's true except what if we are taking steps that will make American lives un-safer and more at risk?
CANTOR: We are risking American lives by doing this.
CARLSON: That is a question that hangs in the air. Perhaps we'll answer it when we return.
And in a minute, our studio audience will join the Iraq debate in a moment. But next, we'll ask about one of our guests about charges he's made the U.S. helped arm Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.
During an interview last week, one of our guests suggested that Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States in the 1980s.
California Democrat Congressman Bob Filner is in the CROSSFIRE, along with Virginia Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.
BEGALA: Gentlemen, thanks for staying with us through the break. I want to ask you, Congressman Cantor, about a really stunning article in Time magazine came out today.
Jay Carney, a very top flight journalist there, wrote a story called "General Rove," talking about Karl Rove, calling him a general. And this is what Time magazine said quoting a Republican senator, talking about Karl Rove. Put it up on the screen for you.
"There are some high-level people in the White House, Karl Rove being the main driver, who are using this for politics, says a Republican senator whose message to his colleagues is, 'Don't be baited. Don't let Rove hook you.'"
Congressman Cantor, can it be that my friend Karl Rove is using war for political ends?
CANTOR: Again, Paul, I don't want to get into impugn anyone's character.
This is a very serious issue, obviously. This is something that needs to be debated and I will take my hat off to the loyal opposition party, the Democrats, who demanded that we debate this issue. The president was again, on a roll and we were talking about going into Iraq and the Democrats said, Well, we need to make the case. You need to tell us why we need to act so quickly. When the president did just that, he went to the United Nations, he made his case, he dispatched his diplomatic court to make the case across the globe, and we are now having a debate.
Yes, I wish it would have occurred earlier. I'm not the president, I'm on his timetable. He had all of the information. But the bottom line is this is an appropriate debate. We certainly want to have this debate before the election and so the electorate will know.
So the electorate will know whether we're going to war and whether the candidates that they're going to ballot box and elect are for the war or not.
FILNER: The president and the vice president, every cabinet member go to the fund-raisers and say, Elect the Republican candidate because the president needs him to go to war.
Doesn't that -- isn't that overpoliticizing this debate?
CANTOR: Unfortunately, I've not had any of those in my district to raise money for me.
CARLSON: Mr. Filner, now I know you probably don't want to defend this, Dr. Filner, PhD, you were on C-SPAN on September 24 and the question was raised about Saddam Hussein's possession of -- quote -- chemical and biological weapons, and you jumped in and you said this -- , quote -- We gave it to him, meaning we gave him chemical and biological weapons.
You didn't say the ingredients, you said those weapons and I want you to give you an opportunity to gravel and take back that rash, untrue statement.
FILNER: Well, you know, you called it a lie on the next show.
CARLSON: I'm willing to believe it's a mistake.
FILNER: No, I need an apology from you, Tucker. If you had read -- if you would read other things beside "National Review," you might know...
CARLSON: I read the "Newsweek" September 19.
FILNER: You might know that it's common knowledge. Here's the thing from "Newsweek." "How we respect helped create Saddam."
CARLSON: I read that story and it doesn't say that, Mr. Filner, as you know.
FILNER: What it says is the United States Department of Commerce with the then-Reagan and later Bush administrations' approvals, allowed the sale and the transfer of biological ingredients that could make anthrax, botulism, West Nile, all those things, plus all kinds of other materials because we wanted
CARLSON: For peaceful purposes.
FILNER: No, because we wanted them to win the war against Iran.
CARLSON: The "Newsweek" piece, just to clarify for the record, does not say that those materials went to Iraq from the United States with the intent to be made into biological weapons.
FILNER: Sure it did.
CARLSON: I just read the piece, Mr. Filner, it doesn't say that.
FILNER: But when they did use it, for example on the Kurds, what did we say? Absolutely nothing.
CARLSON: There was no use of biological weapons against the Kurds.
FILNER: Yes there were.
CARLSON: Those were chemical weapons.
FILNER: We'll say chemical and biological weapons. OK, I'll retract, chemical and biological weapons.
We gave it to him, he used it, we didn't say a word because we were supporting him at that moment. We've got to be careful who in this world we support, because right now, all of a sudden, he's gone from our friend to our biggest enemy that we have to defeat this moment before November 5, because otherwise the Democrats might win the election.
CARLSON: That's an outrageous, outrageous allegation.
BEGALA: Before we let Tucker explain how Saddam Hussein had peaceful use for anthrax., I want to bring our audience into this.
CARLSON: I just don't believe the United States government gave biological weapons to Saddam. That's just untrue.
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, I'm Dmitri Seals (ph), I'm from Staten Island, New York. I've got a question for Congressman Cantor, which is: Is there any reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is more dangerous to the United States now than he was a year ago? Why this timing?
CANTOR: Well, I mean, look at what the situation we've been put in now. We suffered September 11.
We're uncovering all the new evidence about al Qaeda and the connections with Saddam Hussein, and the bottom line is we have no entry or access into this country which is exactly the point about the U.N.. inspectors.
Who believes, really, that Saddam Hussein is going to allow inspectors in to find something? So, we don't know. We aren't on the inside, but, yes, he is a demonstrated murderer and someone who has weapons of mass destruction who poses a real threat to the security of the American people.
FILNER: He is a threat. We should disarm him. And are you saying that the former -- the former inspectors had absolutely no impact? They destroyed virtually all of the chemical and biological weapons he had at the time.
CANTOR: In seven or eight years of playing cat and mouse with Saddam Hussein, they were denied access and eventually thrown out by Saddam Hussein, so come on.
FILNER: Look, I think the world community, as you pointed out, the world is different since September 11. I think the United Nations will take a different tact with a lot more behind -- and we need -- we need to let the U.N. process work. If it turns out that Saddam will not allow that, that's another issue. We are going to war with -- in a unilateral, preemptive strike that will open up a Pandora's box that will allow every other nation in the world to make the same...
CANTOR: That's not true.
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: What about Russia going into Chechnya? What about India and Pakistan?
CANTOR: Those are not analogous to the situation. The damage will be done...
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: Why are they any different?
(CROSSTALK)
CANTOR: If we go in and put our faith in the U.N. inspections team that Saddam Hussein is going to welcome into his country, and then they're going to come out 60 days later and say there's nothing there.
FILNER: That's not what will happen.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... one more question from the audience.
Yes sir, do you have a question for the congressmen?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Vito (ph) from Orlando, Florida. My question is for Congressman Filner.
Why do some of the same Democrats who supported an attack on Iraq in 1998 under former President Clinton now oppose it? Is Saddam less of a threat today than he was then? CARLSON: Mr. Filner, did you vote for the Iraq Liberation Act?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: You did. Oh, OK.
FILNER: You know, what we voted for at that time was exactly what I would support now. That is, giving support to the opposition parties, allowing opposition to grow, trying to frame the democratic issues, trying to make sure that he is disarmed from chemical and biological weapons.
Nobody voted in 1998 on the Democratic side for a preemptive, unilateral strike at this moment given the evidence that we had.
The evidence is not much different now. September 11 has occurred.
I don't think the president ought to be taking advantage of that to put our young men and women in harm's way when we haven't exhausted all of the international avenues open to us and all of the diplomatic avenues open to us to reduce that threat.
Let us not risk American lives. Let's not risk American money.
How long are we going to have to be in there? I've seen estimates of a decade. I have seen estimates of 100 to $200 billion. The American people have to debate this.
BEGALA: In 1998, of course, facts changed on the ground. Saddam refused access to weapons inspectors. America had a four-day airstrike. Republicans attacked President Clinton then for being too tough on Saddam Hussein.
What has changed on the ground in Iraq in the last year that necessitates this war?
CANTOR: Well, I think, again, it is the reality that the American people woke up to on 9/12/2001.
I mean, we are facing a threat unlike which we ever thought was possible. And with this kind of brutal dictator in Saddam Hussein, coupled with the extraordinary reach of the international terrorists and the evidence, the incredible evidence, that we now have linking the two, how can we wait? Because if...
FILNER: There are half a dozen other countries, dictators that have
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: ... equally as brutal and have atomic weapons that they can deliver to us.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Congressman Bob Filner, Democrat from California, Congressman Eric Cantor, Republican from Virginia.
Thank you both very much for a civil debate.
Next, one of our loyal Canadian viewers "Firesback" an e-mail that is sure to drive Tucker Carlson nuts. That's worth staying tuned for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
The end of our show, the very democratic part, with a small "d": "Fireback." We invite you to "Fireback," you do.
First up, Susan Hahn from Portland, Oregon writes: "I hate to say this, but as a Democrat I'D be hard-pressed to vote for Al Gore again." SO would I, Susan. "If a third candidate came along, I'd Look seriously at the alternative. Please give us a viable candidate in 2004."
Well Susan Hahn, we have. He was on our show last Wednesday night, his name is Al Sharpton, preferred by more Democrats than Tom Daschle. Sharpton 2004.
BEGALA: If you're scoring at home, it was 4.3 seconds before Tucker could get to Al Sharpton, his favorite candidate.
CARLSON: He is. I love Al Sharpton.
Cheryl in Linden, Michigan writes: "Paul, what character on `The West Wing' would you say most represented you job in the Clinton administration? And wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president with as much intelligence and wisdom as President Bartlett? Oh to dream!" Cheryl writes.
You know, I was not the guy who left his pager with a hooker. That was the Stephanopoulos character -- just kidding. That's a joke, Georgey!
No, the "Washington Post" said that Josh Lyman was supposed to be based on me; but he's losing his hair, and I don't see it.
CARLSON: Yes, no resemblance.
"As a Canadian," writes Louise Grenier of Canada, "long-time friends of the U.S, I must say thank you Mr. Begala for a voice of reason in a time when President Bush is gung-ho to go to war at any cost. The present administration cannot be trusted to give the American people or the world a true and accurate account of the imminent Iraq presents."
I don't fully understand that e-mail, but I think she's saying she gets most of her information about our country from you.
BEGALA: No wonder she's so intelligent.
CARLSON: Which is -- goes to my general criticisms about Canada, which I love, but feel a little sorry for.
BEGALA: She's a genius. Like all Canadians, she's a brilliant woman.
Nicole Bennett in Gainesville, Florida writes: "Dear Tucker, I watch your show every day, and I don't care too much about politics. That's right, I'm watching you, my scruffy-haired little conservative slice of pie. Your colleagues on CROSSFIRE may know about matters of the state, but I bet you know more about matters of the heart. You certainly steal mine every night at 7:00."
Whew! Hot stuff!
CARLSON: Two words: unlisted phone number.
BEGALA: Yes sir, what's your question or comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Gerald Bell (ph). I'm from Washington, D.C. via New Jersey.
And the primary is over, Senator Torricelli appears to be not resigning and going to finish his term in office. What recourse does the governor of New Jersey have? And more importantly, what can the people expect in the form of a candidate for the Democratic -- for the Democratic election?
BEGALA: Well, like everything in America now, this will wind up in the courts.
But the best guess from people I've talked to in New Jersey, who know the state's election law, say that the state party's executive committee will select a candidate to replace Torricelli's name on the ballot. That's the best guess.
CARLSON: We don't know who it's going to be, but we can be certain that it will be someone better than Congressman -- or Senator Robert Torricelli. So we're pleased about that.
BEGALA: I think Tucker wants Al Sharpton on the ballot there.
CARLSON: He represents -- he embodies the values of the Democratic Party. That's why I like him.
Yes, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Marjorie Margolis (ph) and I'm from Sharon, New Hampshire, and I have a question for both of you.
Why does the media allow Bush's Iraq war to dominate the news instead the demolition of our economy since the tax rebates and the total dominance of gas hogs on the highways?
CARLSON: OK, well now I understand you're upset about SUVs, but if you weigh your irritation at the Ford Explorer versus the prospect of thousands of Americans risking their lives in a war abroad, I think you see that the latter is slightly more important; no offense to your concern.
BEGALA: It is important, but as the campaign season heats up, we're going to be covering everything.
By the way, in about two or three weeks my new book is coming out. The title: "It's Still the Economy, Stupid," so look for that.
From the left, I am Paul Begala. 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 right now.
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
Power to the Republicans?; Doubts, Question Remain Regarding Facts on Iraq>
Aired September 30, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. From the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the CROSSFIRE tonight: The Torch goes out, but will all Democrats get burned?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ROBERT TORICELLI (D), NEW JERSEY: Don't feel badly for me, I changed people's lives. I'm proud of every day of it. And I wouldn't change a bit of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Losing patience with the men in Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: But they have lied over and over and over again. But there ought to be a penalty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: But from Main Street to Capitol Hill, doubts and questions still about a war with Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We must plan for and think through the day- after scenarios.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening, and welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight, The Torch has been doused. Also, we'll talk to a congressman who said the United States government gave Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons, But first it's time for news. It's time for our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
Just when you thought the saga of Bob Torricelli couldn't possibly get more embarrassing, Senator Torricelli himself speaks. He did late this afternoon in a bizarre, rambling, self-congratulatory, very, very long speech, during which he noted almost parenthetically that he's dropping out of his doomed re-election bid in New Jersey. Torricelli said nothing about the influence peddling scandal that ruined his career, or about increasingly credible allegations that he obstructed a federal investigation, threatened a witness, and bragged about his close friends in organized crime.
Instead, he talked about his life's countless achievements from the age of five to the present, literally. And then he started crying. "When did we become such unforgiving people," he wailed with tears in his eyes. Before he finally left the stage, Senator Torricelli did make a request. "Don't feel badly for me," he asks. Thanks, but there was never any chance of that.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Kick a man when he's down, Tucker.
CARLSON: You know if he was down, I wouldn't kick him. If he just apologized and got off the stage I would say that was tasteful. But he didn't.
BEGALA: He did a selfless thing for his party. Ahead of his own (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Good for Bob Torricelli.
Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington, however, has raced hackles at the White House by saying on a trip to Baghdad, " I think the president would mislead the American people." Now of course the far right wing is milking those unwise, unfortunate, inappropriate comments for everything that they're worth. But my guess is the Bushes are a lot more worried about comments made today by Republican war hero Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Hagel dismissed the notion that a war in Iraq would be a cake walk and stressed the importance of diplomacy, while calling for what he called, "... a healthy wariness," before going off to war. Now I think a healthy wariness is a much more dignified and appropriate way to remind Americans to question what their government tells them about a war.
CARLSON: See, I don't think you have to be, as you put it, from the far right wing to think that what Congressman McDermott did was revolting at a time of war. To sit in the capital of an enemy's country and denounce his own country, that's wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I said they're milking, which they are. But I said it was inappropriate, as is unwise, unwarranted.
CARLSON: Milking it enough. Milk away, I'd say.
From our has-been celebrities who dabble in politics department -- and it's a big department -- Barbra Streisand joined Barry Manilow and some 3,500 democratic contributors in Los Angeles for a Sunday night of song, nostalgia and political excess. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt gushed his thanks for Barbra's recent fax filled with -- along with a number of embarrassing misspellings, political advice, including tidbits like, "Get off the offensive and go on the defensive."
She has a career as a political consultant awaiting her. But the best was yet to come. Streisand changed the words to her old hit "The Way We Were" to "lovely democratic memories of the way we were." Art and politics never looked more unattractive together.
BEGALA: Barbra Streisand is a patriot. She's a terribly bright person. I'm glad that she's active, as opposed to the poster woman for the Republican party, Bush's appointee to the Kennedy Center Board, Bo Derek.
CARLSON: Do you know that she...
BEGALA: Our Silicon Valley, right?
CARLSON: She couldn't spell Dick Gephardt's name correctly in a fax to Dick Gephardt. She misspelled his name.
BEGALA: So she forfeited the first amendment right?
CARLSON: Of course not.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Your descriptions were "terribly bright." I am questioning that.
BEGALA: She makes a lot of sense. And I'm glad she's a great patriot.
CARLSON: It's embarrassing.
BEGALA: Excuse me, may I continue?
The debate over whether the White House is intentionally using the issue of war in Iraq to boost Republicans' prospects in the upcoming midterm elections is over. Courtesy of Jay Carney of "TIME" magazine, we now have proof.
White House political aide Carl Rove, who has no background, no experience, no expertise in foreign policy, is boasting to friends about the prospect of war, saying "TIME" magazine, "Let me put it this way, if you want to see Baghdad, you'd better visit soon."
One Republican senator finally spelled it out for us, again in "TIME." "There are some high-level people in the White House, Carl Rove being the main driver, who are using this war for politics. Case closed.
CARLSON: I'm not sure what case. You have in some unnamed quote from some unidentified person, and then you have Carl Rove...
BEGALA: You (UNINTELLIGIBLE) quotes all the time, and...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I certainly do. And I'm sure Jay's right too; he's an excellent reporter. But then you have Carl Rove saying we're going to attack Iraq. Is this news?
BEGALA: Read the papers more often, man. This is widely known this fact that we're going to attack Iraq.
CARLSON: This is horribly inappropriate for a political hack to be making foreign policy.
BEGALA: Just recognizing reality.
CARLSON: During his televised self-emulation tonight, Senator Robert Torricelli paid tribute to three of his closest friends in the world. They were Bill Clinton -- no surprise there -- fellow Senator John Corzine, and current New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, with whom Torricelli said he speaks nearly everyday.
The last bit of news came as no surprise to students of Jim McGreevey, who is now involved in his own scandal. Last month, Governor McGreevey appointed professional leftist Amiri Baraka as poet laureate of New Jersey, a job that state desperately needs. That's one of his first public readings.
Baraka recited a poem entitled, "Somebody Blew Up America," which accuses Jews of orchestrating the attacks of 9/11. "Who knew the World Trade Center was going to get bombed? Who told 4,000 Israeli workers of the twin towers to stay home that day? Why did Sharon stay away?"
And so, Torricelli now bad poetry. New Jersey has suffered enough.
BEGALA: So Tucker, we're beating on singers and actresses and directors. Now we're beating on a poet. Let me ask you...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I'm beating on the Democrats who accused Jews of blowing up the World Trade Center. That's anti-Semitism.
BEGALA: Why? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) matters to you.
After declining under President Clinton, the number of Americans who lack health insurance is again on the rise under President Bush. Statistics released today show that 1.4 million more Americans lost their health coverage last year, bringing the total number of uninsured Americans to 41.2 million.
One expert quoted in the "Washington Post" remarked today that if we couldn't cover everyone when we had big federal surpluses, there's little chance of doing so now that we have big deficits. President Bush, of course, has no proposals to provide health insurance for all Americans, but he would like you to know that Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man who we have to go to war with right now. Doesn't that make you feel better?
CARLSON: I wonder what's a worse evil, Paul?
BEGALA: Evil, yes.
CARLSON: Actually, he is an evil man. And I wonder how you feel about making political use of the suffering of your fellow Americans who don't have health insurance? It's not a political issue, Paul. It's a tragedy.
BEGALA: No, it's a tragedy that Bush hasn't addressed and it's obviously a political issue. How are we going to address it?
CARLSON: You're blaming the economy, which is clearly not in the shape it was three years ago, solely on the president. And I think most people watching know that that's ridiculous.
BEGALA: He has no proposal to expand health care coverage. All he wants to do is tell us, evil, evil. Well, guess what, that's a PhD in Duh.
CARLSON: Well he is evil.
BEGALA: He is evil, of course he is. But how about a health bill?
Senator Robert Torricelli and the Democrat being party today faced the unpleasant reality and made the best of a bad situation. Torricelli dropped his reelection effort in New Jersey, which altered (ph) the Democratic Party now to put a stronger candidate up against a Republican who seems to be pretty much out of step with every issue that voters in the garden state really care about.
Here to talk about today's political bombshell are Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn and Terry Jeffrey, the editor of "Human Events."
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Peter Fenn, now we all agree, and I know you even agree that Robert Torricelli was a horrifying embarrassment to the party he claims to represent. But let's go back to ancient history on Saturday, when Senator Torricelli, who is accused of physically threatening a federal witness and being friends with people in the Mafia and obstructing a federal investigation, on this very Saturday he spoke for your party in the radio rebuttal to the president of the United States.
Earlier last week -- and I want to read to you what Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader, said about the now-disgraced Senator Torricelli. "We've never seen a race" -- meaning Torricelli's race to keep his seat -- "that has more stake than what is happening right now." That is in New Jersey. "This is the fight that will determine the future of this country.
Now how embarrassed is Tom Daschle about saying that about Bob Torricelli? Seriously.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: About saying that at a political rally for Bob Torricelli?
CARLSON: No, honestly, that's embarrassing.
FENN: No, that's not embarrassing at all. Listen, I think Bob Torricelli did the right thing. A year ago on this show I criticized him, a lot of people have criticized him for what he had done. He has faced the music and he's faced it right up front.
So I think the fact is that we're going to have now a Democratic candidate who will decide the next probably 24 hours who it's going to be. And we're going to have a spirited fight in New Jersey. And my guess is that the Democrats will keep that seat.
CARLSON: And you may be right. You may actually be right.
But before we move on completely, let's just address some of the unanswered questions. Now on Saturday we knew with a shadow of a doubt that the senator had taken these suits, probably taken tens of thousands in cash, literally, to lobby on behalf of a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for a foreign government, to get money from North Korea, a criminal terrorist state.
Democrats knew, that that's true.
FENN: No. Listen, if you look at...
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: First of all, what we know and what we don't know is still up for grabs here. There's a lot ands, ifs or buts here. But the other thing, if you look at this, you can see -- look, Jane Swift. We knew she took a helicopter at state expense because she wanted to get home earlier to see her kids. Well she...
CARLSON: But she admitted it.
FENN: Right. And she didn't want to leave, but she left her governorship. And she said she's not going to run for re-election. I mean, you know, sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they do bad things, right? And he's facing the music.
BEGALA: Terry Jeffrey, in fact he is. Let me give you a little welcoming gift here. They're tissues because there is not a dry eye in the House at the Republican National Committee. This is your worst nightmare.
Torricelli, because of his ethical transgressions was in a lot of trouble. I'll say it was a very selfless act, though. I admire any politician that puts his principles ahead of his ambition, and Torricelli did that today. And now your party is out of whack.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, Paul, if you just want to look at it in cold political terms, actually I think he gave the Republicans an opportunity to nationalize the election by explaining once again to the American people that the democratic party is demonstrating for all of us that they will put the pursuit of power over ethical principle and the rule of law...
BEGALA: By resigning from the race?
JEFFREY: Yes. No, this is just like when the senate Democrats voted that Clinton was not guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice even though he was. This is like Al Gore trying to gain the electoral -- wait a minute. This is exactly like Al Gore trying to gain the electoral process by selectively pursuing recounts in a few Florida counties.
It is like what the Senate Ethics Committee did in July, when they whitewashed Torricelli. Let me give you a fact. Here's a fact.
FENN: Are we going back to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) here? Where are we going with this?
JEFFREY: The Senate Ethics Committee in July issued a letter they'd given to Torricelli of their investigation of his wrongdoing. This is what they said. "After evaluating the extensive body of evidence before it in your testimony, the committee is troubled by incongruities, inconsistencies and conflicts, particularly concerning actions taken by you which were or could have been of potential benefit to Mr. Chang.
Now Paul, what's an incongruity and inconsistency between evidence and testimony? I suggest that's perjury. The Senate Ethics Committee would not release his testimony. The Democrats backed him. Daschle said he was innocent. He was their candidate.
They wanted this guy to be elected and tell...
BEGALA: Terry, he's gone. He's gone from the political (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
JEFFREY: You guys wanted this guy out there.
FENN: You want to talk about Bob Torricelli for the next five weeks?
JEFFREY: Yes.
FENN: Feel free. Feel free.
JEFFREY: You guys wanted this man...
FENN: We'll talk about the economy...
BEGALA: One at a time.
FENN: We'll talk about 1.1 million more people in poverty. We'll talk about health insurance. We'll talk about prescription drugs. And you talk about Torricelli, it's fine.
JEFFREY: You're not asking the question, though.
FENN: What's the question?
CARLSON: Jeffrey, let me ask it of you, then. As of this morning, when we woke up and before we knew that Mr. Torricelli was leaving the race, we still new all these facts about him. Implications that he committed serious felonies. We don't know for certain that he did, but there's a lot of evidence that he did.
Why do Democrats defend him tirelessly? I really want to know.
FENN: I'll tell you. They didn't prosecute him. They refused to prosecute him. Let me just say this.
If they thought in New York that they could get him in court, prosecute him and convict him, they would have gone and done it. They dropped it. What we have here is a guy who did some bad stuff. I'm not sure it's legal or illegal.
You know, clearly, he's not going to get prosecuted for it. But he's gone. He's off the political landscape in New Jersey.
CARLSON: Wait a minute, unless you're convicted you're defended by Democrats?
JEFFREY: I dare the Democrats on the Senate Ethics Committee to release Senator Torricelli's testimony so the entire country can decide whether they were covering up for perjury because they'd rather have a perjurer in the United States Senate than lose their majority.
CARLSON: Exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: When Dick Cheney...
JEFFREY: This guy may have committed perjury in a Senate committee.
BEGALA: One at a time.
FENN: When Dick Cheney releases the documents that the GAO wants, when this administration...
JEFFREY: I'm for releasing it. Release it.
FENN: Well I'm glad you are, but most of your people are not.
BEGALA: Three words: History. He's out, it's over. Let's move on.
The candidate for the Republican party, let's talk about him. The candidate for the Republican party is a guy by the named of Forrester, which apparently is not his job, it's his name. His job is some kind of way to overcharge for pharmaceutical drugs, as I understand it. Torricelli, today in his speech, described him to the state and it's pretty unfortunate and unflattering. You may need one of these tissues by the time you finish -- look at the -- this is what Torricelli on leaving had to say about his opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TORRICELLI: That a woman's right to choose was fundamental in the Constitution of the United States. That environmental protection was the fundamental issue that should unite all people in New Jersey. That gun control was essential to secure the safety of our citizens in their homes. Doug Forrester believes in none of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: OK. He is your candidate. He has no issue now with Torricelli out. He's got no experience, no record, no clue, no chance, right?
JEFFREY: Let me (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Paul. If the question is, do I agree with candidate Forrester on this and the issues, the answer is no. I disagree with him on a lot of the issues. But there is a bigger issue here.
The issue is whether the United States Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats, cares about the truth, cares about the rule of law, or whether they'd rather maintain their majority at the expense of promoting someone who very well may have committed perjury to them this year.
FENN: Well if he committed perjury, if he did all these terrible things that you said, shouldn't he be gone?
(CROSSTALK)
FENN: Here's the key point: what we're talking about here is campaigning on the issues. And this is exactly what's going to happen now in New Jersey. It's not going to be in the gutter. It's going to be a campaign about the issues the American people care about.
JEFFREY: You don't think it's an issue whether United States senators are crooks or not?
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let's take a quick break here. We'll be back with some bickering in just a second. We'll ask our guests what Torricelli's decision means for democratic control of the senate. Is it possible to embarrass Democrats? That's our debate later.
Even in Baghdad, beware of visiting congressmen bearing gifts.
And our quote of the day comes from a one-time mayor who wouldn't mind a new job. We'll explain that. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TORRICELLI: I most certainly have made mistakes. There'll be those who have concluded that those mistakes bring justice to this moment because there is a price to be paid. When did we become such an unforgiving people?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That of course was Senator Robert Torricelli, who announced today he'll be leaving the U.S. Senate to open an antique store. But instead of letting New Jersey voters decide who should represent them in the Senate, backroom politicians -- those of course would be Democrats -- today forced Mr. Torricelli out of the race, and they hope off the ballot.
How long will it be now until Tom Daschle vacates the Senate Majority Leader's office? That's our question. In the CROSSFIRE to answer it, Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn, "Human Events" Editor, Terry Jeffrey.
BEGALA: Terry Jeffrey, breaking news, news flash. Torricelli is not running. He will not be on the ballot. You don't have Bob Torricelli to kick around anymore. So...
JEFFREY: Actually, the truth is...
BEGALA: That's what I want to ask you, though.
JEFFREY: Sure.
BEGALA: We don't agree on anything, but we will agree that you're a very smart leader of the conservative movement. Who do you fear the most? Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg? Robert Menendez, the congressman from northern New Jersey? He's Cuban-American, great success story there. Who do you fear the most?
JEFFREY: The most formidable candidate among those people obviously would be Bill Bradley. The problem is, Paul, anybody who steps in now, and I think the reason they didn't announce their prospective candidate now, is that person is going to carry the taint of Torricelli and the alleged corruption against him.
Also, in the attempt of the New Jersey Democratic Party to rig the electoral process, the truth is we don't know if Torricelli is going to get off the ballot. The governor said he's going to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The law says after you get within 48 days of the election, he's stuck on the ballot.
So this is Florida all over again. The Democrats want to go to a state supreme court to rewrite the election rules retroactively.
FENN: Terry -- OK, so you think it was wrong for Jane Swift to quit, to leave? Because she was...
CARLSON: Jane Swift is the Republican governor, of course, of Massachusetts.
FENN: Governor of Massachusetts who left because of a little problem in her past.
JEFFREY: Right.
FENN: And she decided she couldn't win and she left.
JEFFREY: Do you want me to surprise you? Let me surprise you. I think there were serious questions about whether Mitt Romney was a carpetbagger in Massachusetts. I think if you're going to run for governor of a state you ought to live there. I think there were serious questions about whether Mitt Romney lived in Utah, and I think they should have been examined.
CARLSON: Well wait...
FENN: But Republicans came to his defense.
CARLSON: I understand. Before we...
FENN: He's getting on the ballot. They don't care where he paid taxes.
CARLSON: The point -- I know you'd rather talk about Massachusetts than your friend Mr. Torricelli, but you had dismissed during the last segment this sort of out of hand, as if it was no big deal, the fact that the Senate Ethics Committee never called a single witness in its investigation into Mr. Torricelli. It's controlled of course by Democrats, and I wonder why you wouldn't be in favor of releasing the transcript of his interview...
FENN: Actually, I'll surprise you again on this. I thought they should release it...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: I mean it obviously...
FENN: Well, it was in closed session and stuff. But I think they should release it. I said that before too. I don't see -- you know, look, it seems to me -- look, in something like this -- and, again, I said it on this show a year ago when I criticized Torricelli -- I think these kinds of thing should be opened. This is why we have laws that say you have to follow (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
JEFFREY: But let's look at the reason the Democrats -- the Democrats did not release that testimony because they wanted to cover up for Torricelli, because they wanted to keep him on the ballot. They thought he had a better chance of winning as an incumbent than anybody else they'd get on the ballot at that point.
And denying the truth and covering up for a senator who is corrupt was more important to them because of...
(CROSSTALK) FENN: Here's the problem. This is glass houses is what it is, because you've got folks in your White House. You've got Cheney, who will not release documents about...
CARLSON: Who brags about friends in the Mafia? Come on, please.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFREY: No, no, no. Let's talk about...
FENN: If we're talking about full disclosure, you have...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: We're going to pull back the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Just a minute.
Terry, I want to ask you instead about something a lot more fundamental, which is the control of the Senate. This is why Torricelli said today and it is why he pulled out of the race, right? Look around the country now. You have Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas 10 points down. He has a scandal of a deeply personal nature that has hurt him politically.
In Iowa, Tom Harkin is now ahead by 20 points in the "Des Moine Register" poll. Ron Kirk in Texas is up four. In New Hampshire, the Governor, Shaheen, is dead even with Sununu. You guys are losing all around the country, aren't you?
JEFFREY: And this is why Tom Daschle was melting down on the Senate floor last week. The Democrats clearly are afraid they're going to lose their Senate majority. And, as I said before, they're willing to back Torricelli and they're ready to cover up for his testimony in the Senate Ethics Committee because maintaining the Senate is more important to Democrats than the truth and the rule of law.
Let's see that testimony and see whether he told the truth and whether he lied under oath in the Senate.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: You get the last word. You can keep going through the commercial break, but Terry Jeffrey, Editor of "Human Events" (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank you both very much. That was great.
Next, worries about a possible war with Iraq. Who's right, the administration's war hocks or those nagging voices of caution that just won't go away? Next, in our "Quote of the Day," what a former mayor would like to do if they ever catch Osama bin Laden. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back. As you may have guessed, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has another job in mind. But you may be surprised to learn it isn't the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington. In his new book, "Leadership," Giuliani writes about what he told President Bush just days after September 11.
The president asked, "What can I do for you?" In our "Quote of the Day," his honor replied, "I told him if you catch this guy bin Laden, I'd like to be the one to execute him." Of course the president said, "I'm sorry, but I already have too many requests."
BEGALA: Those were the days when we had a president who was focused on catching Osama bin Laden. I supported that wholeheartedly. I still support it. I wish we'd go back to those days, because he's still out there, apparently.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... I read the script I thought, I wonder how Paul was going to twist this for his sick little political ends. And I couldn't think of how you would do it.
BEGALA: The guy killed 3,000 people. Rudy wants to execute him. God bless Rudy Giuliani. He should be the director of homeland security. It shows how Bush is so insecure that he won't put the most competent person in there because maybe Rudy might (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CARLSON: This is demented. Will you save this tape, pleases? I want to look at this later.
BEGALA: You'll learn something. Watch it carefully.
Next, a Bush (ph) puts off an execution. Anderson Cooper will tell us why in the CNN News Alert.
And later, he's got the missiles, we've got the pictures and the technology to take them out. But is it a good enough reason to go to war with Iraq?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. White House and congressional negotiators are hoping to agree by Wednesday on language for a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, but serious voices, both Republican and Democratic, continue to question the rush to war. Next in the CROSSFIRE, Congressman Bob Filner, a Democrat of California, one of those questioning the war, and Virginia Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, strong supporter.
CARLSON: Congressman Filner, I want you to take a look. You may have seen it in the Anderson Cooper news alert a moment ago. I want you to take a look at the video that was released today of Iraq firing -- Iraqi forces firing a missile at an American airplane in the no-fly zone. Now, apparently, that's from last year, but similar incidents have taken place literally dozens of times over the last two days, and almost perhaps exactly the same time Iraqi forces were firing at American airmen, trying to kill them, Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington state was in Baghdad denouncing the president of the United States. His exact words, "I think the president would mislead the American people." Now, that's appalling and out of bounds behavior, isn't it?
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, you know, the congress people who are in Baghdad have to do what they think is best for their constituents and for America, and they were doing what is best. And they believe and I agree with them, that this war that is so imminent could make us less safe as a nation and not more safe. We have to, I think, exhaust all of the options that the United Nations gives. A unilateral preemptive strike will alienate us from the rest of the world, will make us less safe and will not allow us to keep up this war on terrorism, which is so important.
CARLSON: Now, congressman, you may not have understood my question, so I'm going to give you another chance. I want you to listen to what Senator John McCain said about the appalling thing that Congressman McDermott said and I want you to reassess your assessment. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: If Congressman McDermott and Congressman Bonior wanted to go to the floor of the House and question the president's credibility, go right ahead and do it. Don't go to Baghdad and do it. You are helping the Iraqi government sell to the Iraqi people their hatred of the United States of America. And it's wrong, and I -- I honestly do not understand it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Now, again, we are presently at war. Not in the future, presently at war with Iraq. They are firing missiles at Americans right now, and for these Democrats to go to Baghdad and play the Jane Fonda routine, you're going to defend that?
FILNER: Well, what you're saying, Tucker, and what Senator McCain is saying is exactly what we as Americans had better be on guard with. That is, people who are expressing opposition to, disagreement with, dissent from what our government and our president is doing are going to be characterized as un-American, un-patriotic, hating America, not loving America, putting our troops in danger.
That is hogwash. What America is about -- what America is about is about debate. And you are not allowing a debate to be done on its merits by calling someone un-patriotic and calling someone...
CARLSON: They did it through Baghdad. You're aware of that. They were in Baghdad when they said that.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Congressman Cantor, I want to give you the opportunity to praise the patriotism of one of your fellow Republican members of the House of Representatives, Amo Houghton, senior Democratic -- or senior Republican, rather, he's from New York. This is what he said in "Roll Call," the Capitol Hill magazine -- newspaper today. "I have serious reservations, I really do. I don't think we ought to go pell- mell into a conflict with Iraq when we haven't proved the al Qaeda connection. I really wonder if Iraq has a real connection with al Qaeda, or if this is not just a side show."
Are you going to attack his patriotism?
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), VIRGINIA: Yeah, I think the world of Amo Houghton, but I happen to disagree with him severely on this issue. There's no question -- you know, the president has laid out the case. He made his bill of particulars to the United Nations a few weeks ago, and in fact, this is what the Democrats have been asking for.
I mean, in fact, you know, the president started off earlier this year with, I think, an intent to take this to after the election, but somehow we want a debate, and I think it's a good thing. I think it is a good thing that we're here debating this issue. This ought to be talked about before the election.
And in my view, we cannot act fast enough. The risk of inaction is far greater than that of not. I mean, you've got a maniacal dictator. He's brutal. He has murdered his own people. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
And with the al Qaeda connection, you see that Secretary Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice this week have said, we have credible evidence now to show that upper echelon al Qaeda officials or terrorists are in Baghdad. They are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with Saddam Hussein, and we -- no one even needs to look past September the 11th to know the real risk involved now with somebody like Saddam Hussein.
BEGALA: Let me ask you then, why -- you mentioned our president laying out the case, and he did so at the United Nations on September 12. He never tried at his speech at the U.N., a thoughtful speech, a lengthy speech, never tried to draw a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq, because the best intelligence leaks that we see in the newspapers are that there is no such thing. If there was, why didn't the president mention it at the U.N.?
CANTOR: This -- the president made a bill of particulars, in my mind, that was extremely convincing that we need to proceed against Saddam Hussein. He is a danger to the world. We have got credible evidence, Paul. You've seen the secretary of defense, Condoleezza Rice say that. The president has said that.
FILNER: Is there any difference between the threat that he was, say, a year ago or he'll be next year as opposed to right now, except for the fact that there's an election in five weeks? Do you think there's any connection there?
CANTOR: There was something called -- there is something on September the 11th that occurred, that, honestly, I want to ask you, are you willing to face a Saddam Hussein with nuclear capability, or should we act now before he executes on that and takes out not 3,000, but perhaps 300,000 or three million people?
FILNER: You're accusing him of taking out the 3,000?
CANTOR: Well, he is absolutely capable, and we know that he is talking with al Qaeda...
FILNER: Why didn't we know this on September 12? Why didn't we know it on September 13? Why didn't we know on September the 14th? Why did it wait until, as Andrew Card said, "let's roll out these new ideas, not in August, but we'll do it in September when people are yelling..."
CANTOR: You can go and impugn the president's character all you want, but the bottom line is the Americans...
FILNER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) impugning the president's character?
CANTOR: The American people trust George W. Bush on this. He has had the information. He is weighing it. And we will take action at the appropriate time.
FILNER: I have read -- I have been at all the classified briefings. I didn't hear one evidence that there was an imminent threat that has to be dealt with at this moment. In fact, that question was asked of our briefers, and nobody said there was. This -- we have time to get U.N. resolution. We have time to get -- we have time to get the world's opinion.
CANTOR: Do you really think that a U.N. resolution and inspectors are going to do any good? Come on!
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Mr. Filner, I'm so glad you brought that up.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Dr. Filner, professor Filner, Mr. Filner, PhD. You have said what a lot of Democrats are saying, which is we need to get our European friends onboard, and I just want to -- I actually have found a photograph of our European friends who were demonstrating in Madrid yesterday, and here's what they look like. If we could put that up on the screen. Well, perhaps we can't.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Oh, there they are. Those are our European friends, and they're dressed as suicide bombers.
FILNER: Come on, Tucker.
CARLSON: No, come on you, Mr. Filner. Now, my question to you is, why is it necessary for the Spanish, for instance, or the Belgians or the Germans, one of whose government officials compared the president to Adolf Hitler a couple of weeks ago, to sign off on this before the United States takes steps to defend itself?
FILNER: Because if we don't have a world coalition against terrorism, we cannot win that war. The president has been telling us for over -- for a year now, that is the -- that is the war we must fight. That requires intelligence. That requires financial, you know, transactions to watch. That requires world opinion with us. If you think this demonstration was going on that was you had so much problems with, wait until you see what happens if we have a preemptive unilateral strike. All over the world -- and you think -- you think it's going to happen -- what do you think the Arab -- the Muslim and Arab community is going to say if we occupy Baghdad?
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: How long is that occupation going to last? Can you tell me that?
CANTOR: This myth of the Arab street, now com on. That same argument was used during Afghanistan and we saw once we went in, the only language these people understand is the awesome might of the United States military.
We have solved the Afghani problem, right? We have solved the Afghani problem. But we certainly have taken out the Taliban.
BEGALA: Let me give you a chance. I've said more stupid things on this set than anybody would in 100 years. But I'm going to give you a chance to walk that balk a little bit, because I don't think you really meant to say that Arabs don't understand anything but force, right?
Look, I say dumb things every night.
CANTOR: Paul, I said the only things these terrorists and these terrorist states understand is the awesome might of the United States military.
BEGALA: You can still criticize on our set. There's no problem.
But let me pick up the point, Congressman Filner made. In order to get al Qaeda, we do need help from the Germans with al Qaeda, were we know al Qaeda has cells.
We do need help from the Spanish where al Qaeda has cells. We need help in the Arab Muslim world, in the Asian Muslim world. Without that help we can't get al Qaeda, can we?
CANTOR: There's no question, it certainly would be nicer and easier if everyone was on board in the beginning. But you know what? They'll be on board. This president will lead. We will go and take this fight to protect the American people. He has gone to the U.N., he has said, Yes, we will try and unite the international community and show them the evidence to see that their people are at risk just as we are. And, yes, --
FILNER: What if they don't agree with us? CANTOR: If they don't agree with us, then we have got to take the matter and protect the American people. Absolutely. We don't need to ask anyone's permission to protect American lives.
FILNER: That's true except what if we are taking steps that will make American lives un-safer and more at risk?
CANTOR: We are risking American lives by doing this.
CARLSON: That is a question that hangs in the air. Perhaps we'll answer it when we return.
And in a minute, our studio audience will join the Iraq debate in a moment. But next, we'll ask about one of our guests about charges he's made the U.S. helped arm Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.
During an interview last week, one of our guests suggested that Saddam Hussein obtained biological and chemical weapons technology from the United States in the 1980s.
California Democrat Congressman Bob Filner is in the CROSSFIRE, along with Virginia Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.
BEGALA: Gentlemen, thanks for staying with us through the break. I want to ask you, Congressman Cantor, about a really stunning article in Time magazine came out today.
Jay Carney, a very top flight journalist there, wrote a story called "General Rove," talking about Karl Rove, calling him a general. And this is what Time magazine said quoting a Republican senator, talking about Karl Rove. Put it up on the screen for you.
"There are some high-level people in the White House, Karl Rove being the main driver, who are using this for politics, says a Republican senator whose message to his colleagues is, 'Don't be baited. Don't let Rove hook you.'"
Congressman Cantor, can it be that my friend Karl Rove is using war for political ends?
CANTOR: Again, Paul, I don't want to get into impugn anyone's character.
This is a very serious issue, obviously. This is something that needs to be debated and I will take my hat off to the loyal opposition party, the Democrats, who demanded that we debate this issue. The president was again, on a roll and we were talking about going into Iraq and the Democrats said, Well, we need to make the case. You need to tell us why we need to act so quickly. When the president did just that, he went to the United Nations, he made his case, he dispatched his diplomatic court to make the case across the globe, and we are now having a debate.
Yes, I wish it would have occurred earlier. I'm not the president, I'm on his timetable. He had all of the information. But the bottom line is this is an appropriate debate. We certainly want to have this debate before the election and so the electorate will know.
So the electorate will know whether we're going to war and whether the candidates that they're going to ballot box and elect are for the war or not.
FILNER: The president and the vice president, every cabinet member go to the fund-raisers and say, Elect the Republican candidate because the president needs him to go to war.
Doesn't that -- isn't that overpoliticizing this debate?
CANTOR: Unfortunately, I've not had any of those in my district to raise money for me.
CARLSON: Mr. Filner, now I know you probably don't want to defend this, Dr. Filner, PhD, you were on C-SPAN on September 24 and the question was raised about Saddam Hussein's possession of -- quote -- chemical and biological weapons, and you jumped in and you said this -- , quote -- We gave it to him, meaning we gave him chemical and biological weapons.
You didn't say the ingredients, you said those weapons and I want you to give you an opportunity to gravel and take back that rash, untrue statement.
FILNER: Well, you know, you called it a lie on the next show.
CARLSON: I'm willing to believe it's a mistake.
FILNER: No, I need an apology from you, Tucker. If you had read -- if you would read other things beside "National Review," you might know...
CARLSON: I read the "Newsweek" September 19.
FILNER: You might know that it's common knowledge. Here's the thing from "Newsweek." "How we respect helped create Saddam."
CARLSON: I read that story and it doesn't say that, Mr. Filner, as you know.
FILNER: What it says is the United States Department of Commerce with the then-Reagan and later Bush administrations' approvals, allowed the sale and the transfer of biological ingredients that could make anthrax, botulism, West Nile, all those things, plus all kinds of other materials because we wanted
CARLSON: For peaceful purposes.
FILNER: No, because we wanted them to win the war against Iran.
CARLSON: The "Newsweek" piece, just to clarify for the record, does not say that those materials went to Iraq from the United States with the intent to be made into biological weapons.
FILNER: Sure it did.
CARLSON: I just read the piece, Mr. Filner, it doesn't say that.
FILNER: But when they did use it, for example on the Kurds, what did we say? Absolutely nothing.
CARLSON: There was no use of biological weapons against the Kurds.
FILNER: Yes there were.
CARLSON: Those were chemical weapons.
FILNER: We'll say chemical and biological weapons. OK, I'll retract, chemical and biological weapons.
We gave it to him, he used it, we didn't say a word because we were supporting him at that moment. We've got to be careful who in this world we support, because right now, all of a sudden, he's gone from our friend to our biggest enemy that we have to defeat this moment before November 5, because otherwise the Democrats might win the election.
CARLSON: That's an outrageous, outrageous allegation.
BEGALA: Before we let Tucker explain how Saddam Hussein had peaceful use for anthrax., I want to bring our audience into this.
CARLSON: I just don't believe the United States government gave biological weapons to Saddam. That's just untrue.
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, I'm Dmitri Seals (ph), I'm from Staten Island, New York. I've got a question for Congressman Cantor, which is: Is there any reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is more dangerous to the United States now than he was a year ago? Why this timing?
CANTOR: Well, I mean, look at what the situation we've been put in now. We suffered September 11.
We're uncovering all the new evidence about al Qaeda and the connections with Saddam Hussein, and the bottom line is we have no entry or access into this country which is exactly the point about the U.N.. inspectors.
Who believes, really, that Saddam Hussein is going to allow inspectors in to find something? So, we don't know. We aren't on the inside, but, yes, he is a demonstrated murderer and someone who has weapons of mass destruction who poses a real threat to the security of the American people.
FILNER: He is a threat. We should disarm him. And are you saying that the former -- the former inspectors had absolutely no impact? They destroyed virtually all of the chemical and biological weapons he had at the time.
CANTOR: In seven or eight years of playing cat and mouse with Saddam Hussein, they were denied access and eventually thrown out by Saddam Hussein, so come on.
FILNER: Look, I think the world community, as you pointed out, the world is different since September 11. I think the United Nations will take a different tact with a lot more behind -- and we need -- we need to let the U.N. process work. If it turns out that Saddam will not allow that, that's another issue. We are going to war with -- in a unilateral, preemptive strike that will open up a Pandora's box that will allow every other nation in the world to make the same...
CANTOR: That's not true.
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: What about Russia going into Chechnya? What about India and Pakistan?
CANTOR: Those are not analogous to the situation. The damage will be done...
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: Why are they any different?
(CROSSTALK)
CANTOR: If we go in and put our faith in the U.N. inspections team that Saddam Hussein is going to welcome into his country, and then they're going to come out 60 days later and say there's nothing there.
FILNER: That's not what will happen.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... one more question from the audience.
Yes sir, do you have a question for the congressmen?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Vito (ph) from Orlando, Florida. My question is for Congressman Filner.
Why do some of the same Democrats who supported an attack on Iraq in 1998 under former President Clinton now oppose it? Is Saddam less of a threat today than he was then? CARLSON: Mr. Filner, did you vote for the Iraq Liberation Act?
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: You did. Oh, OK.
FILNER: You know, what we voted for at that time was exactly what I would support now. That is, giving support to the opposition parties, allowing opposition to grow, trying to frame the democratic issues, trying to make sure that he is disarmed from chemical and biological weapons.
Nobody voted in 1998 on the Democratic side for a preemptive, unilateral strike at this moment given the evidence that we had.
The evidence is not much different now. September 11 has occurred.
I don't think the president ought to be taking advantage of that to put our young men and women in harm's way when we haven't exhausted all of the international avenues open to us and all of the diplomatic avenues open to us to reduce that threat.
Let us not risk American lives. Let's not risk American money.
How long are we going to have to be in there? I've seen estimates of a decade. I have seen estimates of 100 to $200 billion. The American people have to debate this.
BEGALA: In 1998, of course, facts changed on the ground. Saddam refused access to weapons inspectors. America had a four-day airstrike. Republicans attacked President Clinton then for being too tough on Saddam Hussein.
What has changed on the ground in Iraq in the last year that necessitates this war?
CANTOR: Well, I think, again, it is the reality that the American people woke up to on 9/12/2001.
I mean, we are facing a threat unlike which we ever thought was possible. And with this kind of brutal dictator in Saddam Hussein, coupled with the extraordinary reach of the international terrorists and the evidence, the incredible evidence, that we now have linking the two, how can we wait? Because if...
FILNER: There are half a dozen other countries, dictators that have
(CROSSTALK)
FILNER: ... equally as brutal and have atomic weapons that they can deliver to us.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Congressman Bob Filner, Democrat from California, Congressman Eric Cantor, Republican from Virginia.
Thank you both very much for a civil debate.
Next, one of our loyal Canadian viewers "Firesback" an e-mail that is sure to drive Tucker Carlson nuts. That's worth staying tuned for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
The end of our show, the very democratic part, with a small "d": "Fireback." We invite you to "Fireback," you do.
First up, Susan Hahn from Portland, Oregon writes: "I hate to say this, but as a Democrat I'D be hard-pressed to vote for Al Gore again." SO would I, Susan. "If a third candidate came along, I'd Look seriously at the alternative. Please give us a viable candidate in 2004."
Well Susan Hahn, we have. He was on our show last Wednesday night, his name is Al Sharpton, preferred by more Democrats than Tom Daschle. Sharpton 2004.
BEGALA: If you're scoring at home, it was 4.3 seconds before Tucker could get to Al Sharpton, his favorite candidate.
CARLSON: He is. I love Al Sharpton.
Cheryl in Linden, Michigan writes: "Paul, what character on `The West Wing' would you say most represented you job in the Clinton administration? And wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president with as much intelligence and wisdom as President Bartlett? Oh to dream!" Cheryl writes.
You know, I was not the guy who left his pager with a hooker. That was the Stephanopoulos character -- just kidding. That's a joke, Georgey!
No, the "Washington Post" said that Josh Lyman was supposed to be based on me; but he's losing his hair, and I don't see it.
CARLSON: Yes, no resemblance.
"As a Canadian," writes Louise Grenier of Canada, "long-time friends of the U.S, I must say thank you Mr. Begala for a voice of reason in a time when President Bush is gung-ho to go to war at any cost. The present administration cannot be trusted to give the American people or the world a true and accurate account of the imminent Iraq presents."
I don't fully understand that e-mail, but I think she's saying she gets most of her information about our country from you.
BEGALA: No wonder she's so intelligent.
CARLSON: Which is -- goes to my general criticisms about Canada, which I love, but feel a little sorry for.
BEGALA: She's a genius. Like all Canadians, she's a brilliant woman.
Nicole Bennett in Gainesville, Florida writes: "Dear Tucker, I watch your show every day, and I don't care too much about politics. That's right, I'm watching you, my scruffy-haired little conservative slice of pie. Your colleagues on CROSSFIRE may know about matters of the state, but I bet you know more about matters of the heart. You certainly steal mine every night at 7:00."
Whew! Hot stuff!
CARLSON: Two words: unlisted phone number.
BEGALA: Yes sir, what's your question or comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Gerald Bell (ph). I'm from Washington, D.C. via New Jersey.
And the primary is over, Senator Torricelli appears to be not resigning and going to finish his term in office. What recourse does the governor of New Jersey have? And more importantly, what can the people expect in the form of a candidate for the Democratic -- for the Democratic election?
BEGALA: Well, like everything in America now, this will wind up in the courts.
But the best guess from people I've talked to in New Jersey, who know the state's election law, say that the state party's executive committee will select a candidate to replace Torricelli's name on the ballot. That's the best guess.
CARLSON: We don't know who it's going to be, but we can be certain that it will be someone better than Congressman -- or Senator Robert Torricelli. So we're pleased about that.
BEGALA: I think Tucker wants Al Sharpton on the ballot there.
CARLSON: He represents -- he embodies the values of the Democratic Party. That's why I like him.
Yes, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Marjorie Margolis (ph) and I'm from Sharon, New Hampshire, and I have a question for both of you.
Why does the media allow Bush's Iraq war to dominate the news instead the demolition of our economy since the tax rebates and the total dominance of gas hogs on the highways?
CARLSON: OK, well now I understand you're upset about SUVs, but if you weigh your irritation at the Ford Explorer versus the prospect of thousands of Americans risking their lives in a war abroad, I think you see that the latter is slightly more important; no offense to your concern.
BEGALA: It is important, but as the campaign season heats up, we're going to be covering everything.
By the way, in about two or three weeks my new book is coming out. The title: "It's Still the Economy, Stupid," so look for that.
From the left, I am Paul Begala. 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 right now.
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
Power to the Republicans?; Doubts, Question Remain Regarding Facts on Iraq>
