Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Discussion Whether Trent Lott Statements Are Right or Wrong; Was Releasing North Korean Missle Carrying Ship Wise?
Aired December 11, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: last week Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 run for president. Now it comes out Lott did the same thing more than 20 years. Since Thurmond ran as a segregationist, were the Senate Republican leader's comments racist? And is his job on the line?
North Korea has nuclear weapons and gets caught shipping scud missiles to Yemen. So why is the U.S. going after Iraq?
And, if Saddam Hussein were to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., would President Bush hit back with the big one?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
(APPLAUSE)
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight, will Trent Lott get his old job back as Senate majority leader, or have Republicans enjoyed him about as much as they can? We'll talk about that, scud missiles and the latest on Iraq. But first, as we do every day, we bring news distilled to its very essence, the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
The White House tells Yemen, you want scuds, you got scuds. More than a dozen North Korean scud missiles were found yesterday on a ship bound for Yemen. Yemen first denied any connection with the weapons, then it did an about face and admitted, in fact, they're our scuds. We bought them; we'd like them back.
Bowing to an interpretation of international law, the Bush administration released the ship. Defenders of the decision point out that none of the missiles in question is capable of reaching the U.S. or its allies. And that, despite all odds, Yemen is becoming an increasingly dependable ally in the fight against al Qaeda, many of whose operatives are believed to live in that country.
It may also be that there is more going on here than meets the eye in Washington, as there often is. And in this case there had better be. PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Yeah, I'm with you. What we know right now is not trivial. I can't wait to hear what Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who served the first President Bush, and Frank Gaffney, who served President Reagan have to say about this. This will be a good debate later on tonight.
CARLSON: Me too.
BEGALA: It has taken him six days of prayerful pondering, but our president, through his spokesman today, endorsed the progress America has made on civil rights in the last half century. But while taking that courageous step, Mr. Bush still refused to utter even a peep of criticism of Mississippi Republican Senator and segregation fan Tront Lott despite Lott's racist statement of last week. In fact, Bush expressed complete support for Senator Lott as GOP leader in the Senate.
It did not take Mr. Bush, if you'll recall, six days to denounce late night comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, when he said the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards -- and perhaps dropping bombs from 30,000 feet was cowardly. So here's the rule, I guess. If you're a comedian on a show called "Politically Incorrect," Mr. Bush will hold your feet to the fire if you say something outrageous. And if you're the Republican leader of the United States Senate and you've repeatedly made racist remarks, George W. Bush thinks you're his kind of guy.
CARLSON: So I guess the point is Bush is a racist, too. The Democratic Party has gotten, I think, a lot of mileage out of racial division and inciting race hatred. And maybe this will help again. I know you're betting on it. Good luck.
BEGALA: Pining for the good old days of segregation, that's what Trent Lott did.
CARLSON: To imply that the president is a racist is pretty low.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I said he has extraordinary tolerance for people with bigoted opinions. Bob Jones University, now Trent Lott and his comments.
CARLSON: Actually, if you think Trent Lott endorses segregation, why don't you just ask him? He'll say pretty clearly, I'm against it.
BEGALA: He won't come on the show because he's a coward.
CARLSON: That may or may not...
BEGALA: He is a coward. He won't come on CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: The fact is, he has said, I'm against segregation.
BEGALA: And he said also that those were the good old days. CARLSON: So unless you have a window into his -- it was a dumb thing to say, but to say that the president is a racist somehow because of it...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I never said that about the president, Tucker, you did. I did not.
CARLSON: Right.
For close to a year, Democrats in Congress demanded the administration create a panel to investigate the intelligence failures that may have led to September 11. Last month, President Bush did just that, appointing retired Democratic Senator from Maine George Mitchell to co-chair the commission. Now, days after accepting, is resigning.
His reasons: serving the country, Mitchell said, would take too much time. And more to the point, it would require him to give up his lucrative gig as a cigarette lobbyist. Helping to prevent future terrorist attack would be nice, but, in the end, not as nice as making money from the tobacco industry.
BEGALA: George Mitchell is a former federal judge, he's a former United States senator, he's a former majority leader of the Senate. He has served his country for most of his life.
CARLSON: And now he's a cigarette lobbyist.
BEGALA: Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting. Unlike Henry Kissinger, who's the chairman of the committee, George Mitchell takes conflicts of interest seriously. He has corporate (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I suspect Henry Kissinger does, but we don't know because Dr. Kissinger won't release his client list.
CARLSON: That's good that you're defending this. He could just quit...
BEGALA: You defend Henry Kissinger?
CARLSON: We're talking about George Mitchell.
BEGALA: Who has a higher ethical standard than Henry Kissinger.
CARLSON: Who could just quit the law firm and stop taking money from big tobacco, but he doesn't want to because it's too lucrative.
BEGALA: Or he could what Henry Kissinger is doing, keep taking money from dirt bag corporations and covering up 9/11, that's Kissinger's job.
CARLSON: You attack Kissinger as a means of defending this. That's ridiculous.
BEGALA: For not rising to Mitchell's level of ethics. We should not have been surprised.
CARLSON: Why don't you just defend the guy rather than attacking someone else?
BEGALA: The normally airtight Bush White House has been leaking contradictory information about Steven Friedman, the Wall Street veteran thought to be President Bush's choice to head the National Economic Council. Now, since the Bushy's first floated Mr. Friedman's name late last week, supply side true believers have been clubbing the poor guy.
There have been leaks that Mr. Friedman may have problems unwinding his personal fortune. Maybe he has health issues, the leaks say. But, of course, having controversial finances and coronary artery disease never stopped Dick Cheney, so, no, that's not the real problem. No, the problem is that Mr. Friedman is a former partner of Bob Rubin, one of the main architects of the Clinton boom. The Bushies are bound and determined not to return to those terrible Clinton days of peace and prosperity.
CARLSON: I think -- and even if it requires some sort of professional, maybe psychiatric help -- it's time to work through the process of getting over the Clinton years, A. B, you never heard me mock any member of the Clinton administration for his or her physical ailments or disabilities. And to make fun of Dick Cheney's heart problems, gee whiz.
BEGALA: I used the exact phrase Cheney uses, coronary artery disease. He has it, he manages it, he lives with it. Friedman has much smaller health problems and they're clubbing him. Why? Because he worked with Bob Rubin.
CARLSON: But to mock the guy because his heart is in trouble, come on.
BEGALA: No, I knock him because his heart is hard.
CARLSON: Tom Bates is mayor of Berkeley, California. Officially, he's a strong supporter of free speech. This isn't surprising, since Berkeley is, of course, the home to the original free speech movement, the much celebrated struggle for the freedom to use the "F" word in public. Like most liberals, Bates is happy to lecture you for hours about the vital importance of the first amendment and the centrality of what he calls the free exchange of ideas.
Like most liberals, Bates doesn't really mean it. On election night last month, Mayor Bates was seen stealing and attempting to destroy 1,000 copies of the Berkeley student newspaper. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the first amendment, which had the bad sense to endorse his opponent. When confronted, Bates denied everything.
Now, facing a police investigation, he has confessed. But only sort of. Bates still won't say why he did it or if he's done it before or anything else. As his spokesman later explained, that would be taking free speech a little too far. BEGALA: Now that's a valid point. I think that -- a lot of times I've said stupid things to the newspaper and wanted to run around to the neighbor's doorsteps and swipe them. But, you know, when you do something like that, you've just got to take the punishment in the press. Mayor Bates would be wise to listen...
CARLSON: Yeah, or go to jail, actually.
BEGALA: And still more news on race and Republicans. Incoming Republican Governor elect Sonny Perdue of Georgia defeated Democrat Roy Barnes last month on the strength of the white backlash against Barnes's successful drive to remove the confederate battle flag from its former position of prominence on the Georgia state flag.
Apparently, many Georgia Republicans seem to agree with Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. Maybe they pine for the days of segregation. But Mr. Perdue may wait until the year 2006 to fulfill his central campaign pledge to let Georgians vote on the flag. One reason, President Bush doesn't want the issue on the ballot when he runs for reelection in 2004.
You see, Bush won't criticize Trent Lott for making racist remarks. He wouldn't criticize the bigotry of his buddies at Bob Jones University, and he won't criticize the racist symbol on the Georgia flag. Now what happened to straight talk from the guy who said he was a uniter, not a divider?
CARLSON: So not only is Bush a racist again, because the governor of Georgia, who didn't win on the flag issue, as you well know...
BEGALA: Of course he did.
CARLSON: ... he won because the teachers were mad at Governor Barnes. But that's a whole separate...
BEGALA: I've only won two statewide elections, Tucker. So I'm sure you know better about Georgia than I do.
CARLSON: Actually, I do know more about that race, apparently, than you do, because it wasn't on the flag issue, as you know. But the bottom line is...
BEGALA: That's so preposterous, Tucker. You're embarrassing yourself.
CARLSON: ... to blame white racist voters, all white people in Georgia are racists, the president is a racist, I hope that incendiary remarks like that, racial divisive remarks like that, get your party somewhere. Because actually I think they're unattractive and wrong.
BEGALA: I hope you'll make this deal: you state your position, I'll state mine. Don't tell me that I say Bush is racist. Don't tell me that I say Georgians are racist.
CARLSON: You implied three times today that various people were racists.
BEGALA: Just do me this favor, Tucker. Don't state my positions for me. I'll state mine -- that's what they pay me for -- you state yours.
CARLSON: Well then don't make weasily insinuations. Just say so. If you think he's a racist, say so. Don't imply his racist buddies and he tolerates them. Just say he's a racist, or don't say it all.
BEGALA: I told you what I think. Pay attention.
Coming up on CROSSFIRE, would you buy a used quote from this man? It turns out Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist bid for the presidency was a repeat performance. And now even some conservatives are saying it's time to bring the curtain down.
And at first, Yemen disavowed those scud missiles. Now it says, yeah, they're ours. You've got a problem with that? Well, should we? Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott's peculiar nostalgia for segregation captured headlines last week, when he said America would have been a better place if arch segregationist Strom Thurmond had defeated Harry Truman back when he ran for president in 1948. When a furor erupted, Lott first claimed a poor choice of words. He later offered an apology.
Now we learn Senator Lott may have chosen his words very carefully, indeed, because he used almost identical words in the past when he campaigned with Thurmond on behalf of Ronald Reagan back in the 1980. Senator Lott claims he was just trying to express his support for policies of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But the Thurmond campaign in 1948 was a single issue campaign and the issue was segregation, not big government.
To talk about race, Republicans and Trent Lott's mouth, the Reverend Al Sharpton joins us from New York. Here with us at George Washington University, former Congressman Bill McCollum, a Republican from Florida.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Thank you both. Thank you, Bill.
BILL MCCOLLUM, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Good to be with you.
CARLSON: Now, Reverend Al Sharpton, thanks for joining us. I admit that these remarks that Senator Lott made were weird and confusing and potentially repugnant to the extent that they imply he endorses segregation. But the fact is he says he doesn't endorse segregation. So isn't that the key issue? The remarks make him sound like a racist, but he says very clearly, I'm not a racist and I repudiate the racist past of my state and of the senator I was talking about. So I don't understand, what are you upset about?
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Well, I think that the fact is that he didn't just make an off-color remark. People are trying to act like he just said something out of line. To say that he wished the country had elected a segregationist ticket, one issue campaign, segregation, and then he sit at the head of the Republican Party, the majority party in the Senate that will review federal judges being confirmed, U.S. attorneys being confirmed, this is a frightening occurrence for those of us that had parents that in '48 couldn't even vote and had to sit in the back of the bus.
This is not just an off-color remark. We're talking about somebody in power talking about he wished this was in power .
CARLSON: But wait a second. Al Sharpton, he has said, that is not what I said, that's not what I meant to say, that's not what I believe. Do you not believe him? Keep in mind, he said this in front of television cameras. It's not like he was caught secretly plotting here.
SHARPTON: He can't say he didn't -- Tucker, he can't say he didn't say it. You have the tape that he said it. You also have the tape that he said it before. You can you go to any local penitentiary and any crook will say, I didn't mean it, I'm sorry. But you still pay for what you do.
Mr. Lott said it, he said it again. He ought to pay for what he said. He should step aside. No one is saying if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position, if the Republican Party wants to sincerely reach out to people as they claim they have, and as you almost nightly claim they want to, they certainly have an opportunity here by saying, for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside since he either has very segregationist views or he at least has a repeated problem of being misunderstood when he endorses segregationists.
BEGALA: Now, Bill McCollum, first, thank you for joining us. It's awfully gracious of you to take the time. I'd like to play the tape and let you see for yourself, let the audience see for themselves, rather than me characterize Senator Lott's words. This is what Trent Lott said last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Now, first, I don't think that leaves very much ambiguity. And second, you don't think America would have been better if Strom Thurmond had defeated Harry Truman, do you?
MCCOLLUM: No, I don't, Paul. I think it's a huge political gaffe. I think there's no question it's inexcusable that Trent Lott said those words. But I don't think anybody who actually knows Senator Lott ,and has known him over the years, whether Republican or Democrat, black, white, Hispanic, whatever, would ever believe that Trent Lott is, A, a racist, or, B, that he really meant it in the sense that it would go back to segregation period. I just have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
And I truly hope that it doesn't cause him to be forced out of the leadership, which I think he's doing a very good job with otherwise. We need, as a nation on race, to be spending time with bipartisan efforts -- that I'm sure the Reverend Sharpton would agree with -- early childhood education, opportunities for black males who are in prison in far too large of numbers to have job training and opportunity. Things that we can come to bond on. And we don't need the political (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that comes out of this. But I...
BEGALA: I think -- I'm sorry -- I think you make a good point, that people ought not try to judge Senator Lott's heart. We don't know what's in his heart. I have no idea if he's a racist or not. I want to believe you. I don't know him. I believe you when you say he's not.
MCCOLLUM: Well, I do know him, and I know he's not.
BEGALA: I take that. But we can judge his words, and they were racist, because he repeated them 20 years ago. This is what he said 20 years ago, reported in "The Washington Post" today. "Thurmond declared" -- this is at a rally for President Reagan -- "we want the federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states. For many supporters and opponents of civil rights, the phrase 'states rights' stood for the right of states to reject federal civil rights legislation. After Thurmond spoke, Lott told the group, 'You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
Now it seems to me like this is actually what he really believes. That we would be better had Truman lost to a segregationist and segregation policies had been followed.
MCCOLLUM: Well, that's what I meant about a political gaffe, because it gives an opening for Democrats, it gives an opening for those who want to think the worst to take advantage of it and to talk about it. And I can understand and respect the fears of African- Americans, who do certainly feel and remember the days when things were different.
And I believe that a lot of progress has been made. And I can't for one minute condone going back in any way. But do I think, on the other hand, that this is being blown out of proportion. This was being done at the birthday celebration of a 100-year-old United States senator, who has himself converted to being very pro civil rights in modern times, who is revered by Democrats and Republicans alike with high integrity in modern times. And we're harkening back to 1948 because Trent Lott made a mistake in what he said.
But, nonetheless, I do not for one minute believe that Lott should go, nor do I believe that he is a racist, nor do I believe that we should be characterizing his remarks as racist. But we should be criticizing him for making them.
CARLSON: Now, Reverend Sharpton, it troubles me, as I'm sure it troubles you, that this has become a partisan issue. And let me give you an example of what I mean. Former President Bill Clinton, throughout his eight years in office, repeatedly made reference to his mentor, personally and politically, and that's J. William Fulbright, a long-time senator from Arkansas who was, of course, a segregationist. Who signed the southern manifesto in 1956 attacking Brown versus Board of Education, the supreme court decision that allowed black children go to school with white children.
I didn't hear Democrats raise a fuss when President Clinton said this segregationist is my hero, my mentor. Why?
SHARPTON: I think, first of all, you can't make one the other. No one in America doubts I would disagree with President Clinton if I felt he was wrong. But I didn't hear President Clinton say that I wish that Fulbright and the signers of the southern manifesto had won the presidency of the United States, and that's why we have problems now because they didn't.
I agree with Mr. McCollum. We've made progress since then. I agree with you we made progress. The one that seems to doubt that we've made progress is Trent Lott, because he said we wouldn't be having all of these problems had we had this segregationist in '48.
So that is very frightening to people that are now wondering what are we going to do about all of these black males in jails, Bill? And what are we going to do about healthcare and education? Exactly what you said we ought to be worried about, it makes us worry even more when someone that feels that all of these are problems that could have been solved if we had just stayed in the back of the bus and made a segregationist the president.
MCCOLLUM: Well, Al, I think the key to this, though, is that I don't for one minute believe -- despite the words and the appearance that are obviously negative and shouldn't be out there -- I don't for one minute believe that Trent Lott thinks that it would have been great to have had this man at the time in 1948 with a segregationist view be president. What he said in his apology I think is genuinely sincere. And that is that he was referring to all those things about his fiscal conservatism and his conservative politics, which are historically the same as Lott's and mine and so forth.
SHARPTON: The party that Strom Thurmond ran on was not a party of fiscal conservatism, it was not a party of defense. It was a party on segregation now, segregation forever. And I think we can't...
MCCOLLUM: You're right, absolutely.
SHARPTON: We can't (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And to say that we can't believe that Trent Lott said that, he said it. I mean, it's not read my lips, it's read my lips, look at my voice, look at the video. I mean he said it.
MCCOLLUM: That's the political gaffe, Al, that he made. He was really thinking in terms of the present and the Senator Thurmond we've known for the last 20 or 30 years, not the one that goes back over 50 years.
SHARPTON: But he said '48. He didn't say...
MCCOLLUM: I know what he said.
SHARPTON: He should have been at the party. Happy birthday, Senator Thurmond. But that doesn't mean we have to say in '48, when he was a different Thurmond, he should have been president. No one disagrees to give a 100-year-old man a birthday party. But to say when he was advocating racism that he should have been the head of the country, and, my god, because we didn't elect him we've had problems ever since, that's not wishing an old man a happy birthday.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Well, Reverend Sharpton, we're going to get in some more detail into who exactly is advocating racism and who isn't. I know you'll want to stay tuned, Mr. Sharpton, for that.
When we return with out guests, are Republicans ready to get rid of their Senate leader? Then, North Korea sells smuggled scud missiles to Yemen. Does that make the White House focus on Iraq harder to explain? We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. There is growing nervousness in Republican circles tonight about the prospect of Trent Lott returning to his position of Senate majority leader after his notoriously clumsy attempt to compliment the 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Democrats, meanwhile, are, of course, pleased, convinced that racial polarization will work to their political advantage.
We're back with our guests, Reverend Al Sharpton in New York, and here in Washington, former Republican Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida.
BEGALA: Thank you both, gentlemen, for staying with us.
Congressman McCollum, it seems your party does have a problem, certainly in the south, but maybe across the country with African- Americans. They traditionally haven't performed very well. I think President Bush has tried to do what he can politically, to his great credit, to reach out to African-American voters. But look at how he undermines it or how the party does. He appeared at Bob Jones University in a campaign event. A place that says horribly bigoted things about my Catholic faith. Also didn't allow black and white kids to date each other there. His brother Jeb, when he first ran for governor of your state of Florida, was asked, what would you do for blacks if you win? He said, probably nothing.
The Georgia flag is a very divisive issue there, where the new Republican governor elect won by campaigning on it. And now this with Trent Lott. Your party has a serious, substantive problem on issues of race, doesn't it?
MCCOLLUM: Well, first of all, historically, the Republican Party, as you know, Paul, has been a party of racial equality and a party that advanced that cause. That's the foundation and the historical foundation. There were more Republicans in the United States Senate when the civil rights act was voted on who voted for that act than did Democrats.
And in recent times, we've been a party which might be out of step with some of the so-called leaders of the black caucuses and some of the Democrats on this. But things like school choice we've been a leaders on. And school choice is a way for young black students and kids to get out of the urban schools that they're in that are failing and into an opportunity where they can actually advance themselves. A very significant...
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: But these were mistakes. It was wrong for Bush to go to Bob Jones University. It was wrong for his brother to say he wouldn't do anything for black people.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCOLLUM: I think considering all politically bad messages and bad signals, and they don't comport with the kind of message that we want to get out there. And I would concur with those as not being smart. But there have been a lot of things, by the way, that Governor Bush has done that have been very positive relative to this.
He had a great program -- he supported, for example, this pre-K assuage of an amendment to our Florida constitution in this last election, and now is busy processing funding for it, where you take 4- year-olds and give them the opportunity to get into school very much like Miller did -- Senator Miller did when he was governor of Georgia. And I think it's very important to know that often times the good things that somebody like Jeb Bush does don't get reported on and people continue, especially in your own party, Paul, to want to repeat, for obvious reasons, all the negative things that helped draw more black votes to the Democrats if they hear it, as opposed to the things that would do otherwise and show that, in fact, the Bush family has done a lot for the African-American community.
CARLSON: Now Reverend Sharpton, just to put this whole story into some context, Trent Lott is, of course, not the first person to make racial inflammatory remarks. A couple of years ago in New York you were at the center of controversy between a Jewish store owner in Harlem and a black store owner.
This is what you were quoted as saying in "The New York Times." This was from an radio interview quoted in "The New York Times." "I want to make it clear," said Reverend Sharpton to the radio audience and to you here, "that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother, so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street."
Now that was obviously a racist and wrong statement. And I believe you apologized.
SHARPTON: No, first of all...
CARLSON: But you were running for president. Why not be more forgiving, right?
SHARPTON: ... Tucker, I said I shouldn't have referred to the interloper's race, because he had violated several things in the community. I did not say that we were not going to have whites have equal treatment on 125th Street. I didn't say they should be in the back of the bus. I didn't say people that want to kill whites should be running Harlem. That is what the party that Strom Thurmond...
CARLSON: Exactly.
SHARPTON: You can't compare me talking about one store owner to a man saying a segregationist should have been the president.
CARLSON: Here's what I'm saying, Reverend Al. I'm saying that people -- a number of years ago, Jesse Jackson was quoted making a slur on Jewish Americans, a pretty bitter one. He apologized. People took him at his word that he wasn't an anti-Semite.
SHARPTON: But, Tucker, you are trying to minimize...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... that you're not a racist.
SHARPTON: You're trying to minimize what was said.
CARLSON: No I'm not.
SHARPTON: We're not talking about a slur. We're saying this man, who is going to head the majority party in the Senate, says that this man should have been president and we've had problems ever since. Jesse Jackson didn't say that some anti-Semitic party should have been running the United States.
This is not a slur. This is a clear policy statement.
CARLSON: Al Sharpton, and he is saying that his statement does not reflect the policy you're ascribing to. He does not support segregation. SHARPTON: He said it.
CARLSON: Why don't you take him at his word, just as people took you at your word when you attacked white people and Jesse Jackson (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
SHARPTON: He even needs then to have some kind of psychoanalysis if he keeps saying things he doesn't mean. Or he needs to deal with that he has some very latent, neurotic racial feelings that keep coming out and the rest of the world keeps catching him.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: My problem is I do take him at his word, when, again and again, he says we would have been better off as a segregationist president. I believe that that's what he believes. Wouldn't your party be better off, led in Senate, by just -- so many Republicans that have such strong records on race. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, or Richard Lugar or -- I mean, almost anybody but this guy Lott. Why not dump him and get new some blood in there? Bill Frist...
MCCOLLUM: I'm sure there are people who think that, but I'm going to tell you, I believe that Trent Lott is doing a fine job. I don't believe for a minute, as I said in the beginning, that he has a racist bone in his body. I believe that what he meant is what he said he meant and that is that he believes that Strom Thurmond stands today, and he has for at least 30 years, for fiscal conservatism, for basic conservative principles, not segregation and equality of opportunity for all Americans.
That's what he meant to say by that -- by complimenting him. Now, do we kick him out of office just for his words? I think his deeds are more important. Trent Lott's record has been positive. There's been nothing else aside from these two descriptions that we've had with Strom Thurmond where I know of that anybody could ever say he's done anything, that would in the remotest sense be labeled as racist or indicating that he's not qualified to be our majority leader.
So I think this too will pass. I think he'll stay as majority leader. And I believe we'll be able to bond back again and get on with the things I said in the beginning...
SHARPTON: Bill, you may be right. Bill, you may be right there for 30 years Strom Thurmond has done that, but 54 years ago which is what Trent Lott referred to, he was advocating segregation and racism. We're not talking about 30 years ago. Mr. Lott took us back 54 years ago and some of us are not going back there.
BEGALA: Well, Reverend Sharpton, thank you for joining us from New York.
Bill McCollum, former Republican congressman from Florida, very gracious of you, especially, Bill, to come on tonight. I'm very grateful to you. Now, this programming note. Keep in mind, Trent Lott himself will be on CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE" at 9 p.m. Eastern to respond to questions about his very controversial comments.
Coming up here on CROSSFIRE though, the president has made a decision about vaccinating Americans for smallpox. Connie Chung will have the details in a minute in the CNN "New Alert."
Then, we will explore why the Bush administration is so fixated on Iraq while one of the other axis of evil nations, North Korea, is exporting SCUD missiles. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
BEGALA: While a U.S. ship obligingly releases North Korean SCUD missiles to Yemen on President Bush's orders, critics are wondering what happened to Bush's policy of preemption? Has George W. Bush wimped out? We will ask our guests next in the CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live, as we do every night here, at the George Washington University, home of the Colonials in Washington, D.C.
CNN broke the story a shipment of Scud missiles aboard a ship from North Korea was stopped last night by Spanish forces and boarded by U.S. weapons inspectors. U.S. officials thought the missiles might be bound for evil doers, but after first denying an knowledge of them, the government Yemen said they legally purchased the missiles.
The White House says the U.S. had no legal reason to seize the Scuds, so it sent the ship on it's ways. The Spanish say they are perplexed by the American decision and they're not alone. Let's see what our guest thinks about it.
Joining us are two terrific experts, Frank Gaffney, president of Center for Security Policy, and form are United States secretary of state the honorable Larry Eagleburger. Thank you both for joining us.
Secretary Eagleburger, the United States intercepts a ship filled with North Korean Arms on they way to Yemen, and let's it go because the administration States says the international law demands it.
What do you make of that?
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I don't like it much but I think it was probably the right decision. As far as the law is concerned, I don't know which way is right. But if we are trying to get the Yemenis to cooperate with us on the war on terrorism and so forth. As I say, I don't like it much but I say probably it was the right decision. And if -- if we can keep an eye on the Yemenis to make sure they don't do anything with those missiles, I'll live with it, but I don't like it. And I know my friend over here who forgot to shave today will have a different view on that, will have a different view of it. I'm not happy about it but I think it probably was the legal thing to do.
CARLSON: But here's this country, Yemen, that has an unstable government, doesn't have total control over its borders and apparently is loaded with al Qaeda operatives. Is it a good idea to have weapons like this floating around a country like that?
EAGLEBURGER: No, it's not a good idea. But No. 1, this the last, supposedly the last, this is a the last shipment of it, they have beau coup of them already, I suspect. I am not sure whether there are a lot al Qaeda floating the around the place or not. The president himself -- why am I trying to defend him? I think it was a lousy decision but probably the best decision the circumstances. That's the best I can tell you.
BEGALA: Frank Gaffney, first thank you for joining us.
EAGLEBURGER: You may change your mind after a while.
BEGALA: Senator Bob Graham, of Florida, is a Democrat who chairs currently and didn't pass the Senate Intelligence Committee. He spoke about this this morning, and had I thought a rather dire analysis of the situation.
Let me play you what he said this morning on CNN and ask you to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL), SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The destination apparently was Yemen. Yemen next to Afghanistan may be the second largest center of al Qaeda in the world. This indicates how important it is that we move the war on terrorism to these other places where there is substantial al Qaeda presence specifically and beginning with Yemen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: The fact that we're giving the Yemenis a pass when they are perhaps arming al Qaeda, doesn't that speak to the nonsense that we've subjugated our policy against al Qaeda to this war against Iraq? Isn't that why we gave them that pass because we need them to back us when we attack Iraq.
FRANK GAFFNEY, SECURITY POLICY ANALYST: No, I think the administration's theory is we need them as part of the war on terror. Their thought is we whacked an al Qaeda operative in Yemen not so long ago. And I think their belief is there's more there, and we'll get their help to go whack some more of them later.
I'm with Larry Eagleburger, and both of us will feeling comfortable about that up to a point. It was a lousy decision. I don't think it has the redeeming virtue of being the right decision simply because what this signals, not only to Yemen but to Syria to Iran, to Libya, to Sudan, to say nothing of our friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is that you can buy as many of these missiles from these proliferating lunatics in particulars in North Korea as you want. And not only will we give you safe passage, we'll actually provide U.S. Navy convoys for you.
This is madness because none of these countries that I've just mentioned I believe is really with us in this war on terror. And some may be playing more of a double game than others, but we certainly ought to be very careful when we start legitimating the contracts that the North Koreans are engaged in as they proliferate weapons of mass destruction or at least the means of delivering them, all over the world.
BEGALA: Doesn't that then degrade our president's credibility? He goes out and gives these wonderful Texas cowboy speeches, straight talk and plain talk about evil doers and good. You're with us or you're against us. And he confronted with the complexities and the subtilties of the real world. And he can't match his rhetoric, and now he look like he's hat and no cattle.
GAFFNEY: I do worry about his credibility and I'll tell you particularly about it right now. Because this is the day that they unveiled the new strategy of countering proliferation which talks about intercepting and destroying proliferating activities. And that, unfortunately, is so completely akimbo (ph) from what they've just done on this ship ,that I think his credibility is seriously eroded.
CARLSON: You made the point, I think I'm quoting you, "Huewy (ph)." What did you mean by that?
EAGLEBURGER: It's so clear I don't know why I have to go further. You made point yourself, not on purpose I know, but this is a very complicated world right now including the war on terrorism. And this administration facing this thing was between a rock and a hard place, if you will, on the question of whether they're going to be able to be get and maintain any sort of cooperation from the Yemenis or not. Not only the Yemenis but others as well.
I don't think it goes as far as Frank has said by opening the doors to all of these others. I think they decided what they had to do in this case, because they are hoping to continue to get cooperation out of the Yemenis, was to take a pass on this one. As I said I didn't like it, but it is a complicated case. I don't think it reflects any at all on the president and his ability to conduct this war, if you will.
What I do think is the case, however, is that we have to all of us understand that we're going to have to all of us get tighter and tougher and the president of the administration as well on this whole war on terrorism. I do not agree with you on the issue that Iraq draws the attention away from that war, but do I agree on the other hand that we have not paid enough hard attention to the war on terrorism as well as paying attention to Iraq. And in that case, in that event I think the administration must pay more attention to the general question of the war on terrorism. And I'm not sure we're doing enough. CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll take up the question with our guest. The White House has threatened to let nukes fly if Saddam leashes weapons of mass destruction. Good idea or not?
And "Fire Back" from on outrage from viewers over the growing Trent Lott flap. We'll tell you what it is. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. He isn't mentioning Iraq by name, but the White House has issued a strategy document warning any nation using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies will face massive retaliation. That, of course, means with nuclear weapons.
Was this a wise warning? Let's ask our guests. Here with us, former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger and Frank Gaffney, president of Center for Security Policy.
Gentlemen thank you for stay with us. This is "The New York Post," in it's understated Rupert Murdoch way "We'll nuke you." "U.S. warns Iraq, Bush use WMD at your parole." Now, It may be news to the right wing cranks at the "New York Post" but this is a 50 years of American doctrine, isn't it? I'm not a big Bush defender but I say good for "W." This is what he should be telling the Iraqis, if they mess with our troops with their weapons of mass destruction there will be hell to pay. Isn't that the right thing to say, frank?
GAFFNEY: I think it is the right thing to say. As you say, there's a considerable lineage here. It's the kind of thing that underscores the gravity of the decision that Saddam Hussein may well be poised to make. It ought to be accompanied by planning that makes it as difficult him, physically difficult for him to use these weapons as possible.
I think it does underscore one point, though, And we ought to be clear about it. We need to attend, we're talking about things we need to be focusing on. One of the things we need to attend, we are talking about things we need to focusing on, one of the things we need to attend on is the credibility of our deterrent.
And after over a decade now of not testing nuclear weapons, there's got to be some reason why increasingly people are talking about we better go back and check them to make sure they work. We've done a lot of experimentation without actually testing them. I think we need to be doing a test and I think that would be send a very powerful message to Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: Secretary Eagleburger, a group is not apparently not sending a powerful message to Saddam Hussein are the inspectors. Only seven of them in the country, as you know. They just got one helicopter. Some of them haven't even had background checks. Most significant, I think, and others think, Iraq has not yet supplied a list of scientists who worked on weapons of mass destruction programs and the U.N. has not demanded it. Is this whole inspection regime turning out to be a joke?
EAGLEBURGER: No, it hasn't turned out to be a joke yet. And I'm prepared to say we ought to give it a little time to see. But at the same time I'm quite concerned about the attitude of the inspectors so far, the leadership of the inspectors. I think there's some new inspectors that I gather just arrived today or yesterday. They need a lot more. They need all of the things you're talking about and they need a lot more equipment and they need to move faster than they are moving.
So but I would say to you is it doesn't look particularly hopeful at the moment, but at the same time, you know, I think if we've got to give the U.N. and the inspector regime a couple of weeks to get their feet on the ground and see how they do. And if they don't do well, they ought to understand as well as everybody else in the U.N. that that's going to give President Bush precisely the ammunition he's going to need to thumb his nose at the rest of the U.N., and say I've done everything I can to try to work in a cooperation with you. If you can't do it we are going to have to move.
CARLSON: Will we be at war by mid February?
GAFFNEY: It would be mission impossible.
CARLSON: Will we be at war by Valentines Day?
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: I think we better be. If it's later than that, we're out of business until the following year.
EAGLEBURGER: No later then that by any means. Look, maybe it's mission impossible, all I am saying, however, is if this administration having gone now to where I think it should have gone much earlier to the question of going to the U.N., and saying we're going to try to work this multi-laterally. If having gone that far, it makes no sense to have done that and then not give the U.N. at least a modest amount of time to try and see whether the inspectors can come up with anything.
GAFFNEY: I think we've given them that time.
(CROSSTALK)
EAGLEBURGER: Wait a minute. My point is they may not come up with anything at all. Then they're going to have to face the issue deciding how they are going to go ahead any ways.
GAFFNEY: I think they're out of time and so are we.
BEGALA: And so are we. Well, we are out of time on this program.
Former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger thank you very much for joining us.
EAGLEBURGER: I managed to get the last word again.
BEGALA: You do.
Frank Gaffney, thank you again for joining us.
Please, gentlemen, come back.
Coming up in our "Fire Back" segment, you heard what Trent Lott had to say and you've heard what we say about Trent Lott, now it's your turn to fire back, and you do. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE time now to "Fire Back." Lots of e-mail about Trent Lott and his statements and this time about the Democrats' response or lack thereof.
Brendon Watson, in New York. "Paul, what's wrong with your stupid party? You can't trumpet yourselves as the party of '50s and '60s Civil Rights when your leaders in 2002 are so timid in responding to racist statements like Lott's. Lyndon Johnson, himself a Senate majority leader, would never have put up with such cowardice."
You know, the Democrats were very timid. That's a good point. They are beginning to come out a little bit more today, Tom Daschle, John Kerry began to say what they should have said six days ago.
CARLSON: Maybe tomorrow night we can do a show on Lyndon Johnson's racial views. I think that would be a terrific show.
BEGALA: Signed the Civil Rights Act, signed Voting Rights Act.
CARLSON: That would be worth doing.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Matthew Covey of Fort River, New Jersey writes, "I had a dime for every time Senator Daschle has said something stupid I would be a rich man. He has never apologized for any of his stupid remarks. Senator Lott apologized for his comments. Stop making such a big deal when it isn't."
The key is here is electoral politics. This actually will help the Democrats. I believe that, I hate to say it, but I think it will.
BEGALA: Stupid is one thing. Racist is another.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Liz from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Pennsylvania. I just want to make the comment that Paul, just because Bush didn't criticize Lott on his comment doesn't make him a racist, just because Trent Lott's comment might have been racist.
BEGALA: Right. It makes him a coward. He is not a racist. George Bush doesn't have a racist bone in his body, not a one. He is lovely man on issues of race, and his heart is as big as Texas but he's a coward. He won't take on Trent Lott. He wouldn't take on Bob Jones University. He wouldn't say the Georgia flag which has a racist symbol on it was wrong. He is too timid, instead of following his heart, which I believe is pure on that issue.
CARLSON: It's interesting.
BEGALA: He's a coward.
CARLSON: We'll do many, many shows on this but you'll see as this presidential season approaches, Democrat after Democrat sniffing the shoes of Al Sharpton in search for the nomination. That will happen and we will chronicle it for you on here on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: I have no idea what Al Sharpton...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I just want Bush to grow a spine. Grow a spine, George.
From the left I am Paul Begala. Good night from CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow for yet more CROSSFIRE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Wrong; Was Releasing North Korean Missle Carrying Ship Wise?>
Aired December 11, 2002 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: On the left: James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: last week Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 run for president. Now it comes out Lott did the same thing more than 20 years. Since Thurmond ran as a segregationist, were the Senate Republican leader's comments racist? And is his job on the line?
North Korea has nuclear weapons and gets caught shipping scud missiles to Yemen. So why is the U.S. going after Iraq?
And, if Saddam Hussein were to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., would President Bush hit back with the big one?
Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
(APPLAUSE)
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight, will Trent Lott get his old job back as Senate majority leader, or have Republicans enjoyed him about as much as they can? We'll talk about that, scud missiles and the latest on Iraq. But first, as we do every day, we bring news distilled to its very essence, the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
The White House tells Yemen, you want scuds, you got scuds. More than a dozen North Korean scud missiles were found yesterday on a ship bound for Yemen. Yemen first denied any connection with the weapons, then it did an about face and admitted, in fact, they're our scuds. We bought them; we'd like them back.
Bowing to an interpretation of international law, the Bush administration released the ship. Defenders of the decision point out that none of the missiles in question is capable of reaching the U.S. or its allies. And that, despite all odds, Yemen is becoming an increasingly dependable ally in the fight against al Qaeda, many of whose operatives are believed to live in that country.
It may also be that there is more going on here than meets the eye in Washington, as there often is. And in this case there had better be. PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Yeah, I'm with you. What we know right now is not trivial. I can't wait to hear what Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who served the first President Bush, and Frank Gaffney, who served President Reagan have to say about this. This will be a good debate later on tonight.
CARLSON: Me too.
BEGALA: It has taken him six days of prayerful pondering, but our president, through his spokesman today, endorsed the progress America has made on civil rights in the last half century. But while taking that courageous step, Mr. Bush still refused to utter even a peep of criticism of Mississippi Republican Senator and segregation fan Tront Lott despite Lott's racist statement of last week. In fact, Bush expressed complete support for Senator Lott as GOP leader in the Senate.
It did not take Mr. Bush, if you'll recall, six days to denounce late night comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, when he said the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards -- and perhaps dropping bombs from 30,000 feet was cowardly. So here's the rule, I guess. If you're a comedian on a show called "Politically Incorrect," Mr. Bush will hold your feet to the fire if you say something outrageous. And if you're the Republican leader of the United States Senate and you've repeatedly made racist remarks, George W. Bush thinks you're his kind of guy.
CARLSON: So I guess the point is Bush is a racist, too. The Democratic Party has gotten, I think, a lot of mileage out of racial division and inciting race hatred. And maybe this will help again. I know you're betting on it. Good luck.
BEGALA: Pining for the good old days of segregation, that's what Trent Lott did.
CARLSON: To imply that the president is a racist is pretty low.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I said he has extraordinary tolerance for people with bigoted opinions. Bob Jones University, now Trent Lott and his comments.
CARLSON: Actually, if you think Trent Lott endorses segregation, why don't you just ask him? He'll say pretty clearly, I'm against it.
BEGALA: He won't come on the show because he's a coward.
CARLSON: That may or may not...
BEGALA: He is a coward. He won't come on CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: The fact is, he has said, I'm against segregation.
BEGALA: And he said also that those were the good old days. CARLSON: So unless you have a window into his -- it was a dumb thing to say, but to say that the president is a racist somehow because of it...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I never said that about the president, Tucker, you did. I did not.
CARLSON: Right.
For close to a year, Democrats in Congress demanded the administration create a panel to investigate the intelligence failures that may have led to September 11. Last month, President Bush did just that, appointing retired Democratic Senator from Maine George Mitchell to co-chair the commission. Now, days after accepting, is resigning.
His reasons: serving the country, Mitchell said, would take too much time. And more to the point, it would require him to give up his lucrative gig as a cigarette lobbyist. Helping to prevent future terrorist attack would be nice, but, in the end, not as nice as making money from the tobacco industry.
BEGALA: George Mitchell is a former federal judge, he's a former United States senator, he's a former majority leader of the Senate. He has served his country for most of his life.
CARLSON: And now he's a cigarette lobbyist.
BEGALA: Excuse me for talking while you're interrupting. Unlike Henry Kissinger, who's the chairman of the committee, George Mitchell takes conflicts of interest seriously. He has corporate (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I suspect Henry Kissinger does, but we don't know because Dr. Kissinger won't release his client list.
CARLSON: That's good that you're defending this. He could just quit...
BEGALA: You defend Henry Kissinger?
CARLSON: We're talking about George Mitchell.
BEGALA: Who has a higher ethical standard than Henry Kissinger.
CARLSON: Who could just quit the law firm and stop taking money from big tobacco, but he doesn't want to because it's too lucrative.
BEGALA: Or he could what Henry Kissinger is doing, keep taking money from dirt bag corporations and covering up 9/11, that's Kissinger's job.
CARLSON: You attack Kissinger as a means of defending this. That's ridiculous.
BEGALA: For not rising to Mitchell's level of ethics. We should not have been surprised.
CARLSON: Why don't you just defend the guy rather than attacking someone else?
BEGALA: The normally airtight Bush White House has been leaking contradictory information about Steven Friedman, the Wall Street veteran thought to be President Bush's choice to head the National Economic Council. Now, since the Bushy's first floated Mr. Friedman's name late last week, supply side true believers have been clubbing the poor guy.
There have been leaks that Mr. Friedman may have problems unwinding his personal fortune. Maybe he has health issues, the leaks say. But, of course, having controversial finances and coronary artery disease never stopped Dick Cheney, so, no, that's not the real problem. No, the problem is that Mr. Friedman is a former partner of Bob Rubin, one of the main architects of the Clinton boom. The Bushies are bound and determined not to return to those terrible Clinton days of peace and prosperity.
CARLSON: I think -- and even if it requires some sort of professional, maybe psychiatric help -- it's time to work through the process of getting over the Clinton years, A. B, you never heard me mock any member of the Clinton administration for his or her physical ailments or disabilities. And to make fun of Dick Cheney's heart problems, gee whiz.
BEGALA: I used the exact phrase Cheney uses, coronary artery disease. He has it, he manages it, he lives with it. Friedman has much smaller health problems and they're clubbing him. Why? Because he worked with Bob Rubin.
CARLSON: But to mock the guy because his heart is in trouble, come on.
BEGALA: No, I knock him because his heart is hard.
CARLSON: Tom Bates is mayor of Berkeley, California. Officially, he's a strong supporter of free speech. This isn't surprising, since Berkeley is, of course, the home to the original free speech movement, the much celebrated struggle for the freedom to use the "F" word in public. Like most liberals, Bates is happy to lecture you for hours about the vital importance of the first amendment and the centrality of what he calls the free exchange of ideas.
Like most liberals, Bates doesn't really mean it. On election night last month, Mayor Bates was seen stealing and attempting to destroy 1,000 copies of the Berkeley student newspaper. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the first amendment, which had the bad sense to endorse his opponent. When confronted, Bates denied everything.
Now, facing a police investigation, he has confessed. But only sort of. Bates still won't say why he did it or if he's done it before or anything else. As his spokesman later explained, that would be taking free speech a little too far. BEGALA: Now that's a valid point. I think that -- a lot of times I've said stupid things to the newspaper and wanted to run around to the neighbor's doorsteps and swipe them. But, you know, when you do something like that, you've just got to take the punishment in the press. Mayor Bates would be wise to listen...
CARLSON: Yeah, or go to jail, actually.
BEGALA: And still more news on race and Republicans. Incoming Republican Governor elect Sonny Perdue of Georgia defeated Democrat Roy Barnes last month on the strength of the white backlash against Barnes's successful drive to remove the confederate battle flag from its former position of prominence on the Georgia state flag.
Apparently, many Georgia Republicans seem to agree with Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. Maybe they pine for the days of segregation. But Mr. Perdue may wait until the year 2006 to fulfill his central campaign pledge to let Georgians vote on the flag. One reason, President Bush doesn't want the issue on the ballot when he runs for reelection in 2004.
You see, Bush won't criticize Trent Lott for making racist remarks. He wouldn't criticize the bigotry of his buddies at Bob Jones University, and he won't criticize the racist symbol on the Georgia flag. Now what happened to straight talk from the guy who said he was a uniter, not a divider?
CARLSON: So not only is Bush a racist again, because the governor of Georgia, who didn't win on the flag issue, as you well know...
BEGALA: Of course he did.
CARLSON: ... he won because the teachers were mad at Governor Barnes. But that's a whole separate...
BEGALA: I've only won two statewide elections, Tucker. So I'm sure you know better about Georgia than I do.
CARLSON: Actually, I do know more about that race, apparently, than you do, because it wasn't on the flag issue, as you know. But the bottom line is...
BEGALA: That's so preposterous, Tucker. You're embarrassing yourself.
CARLSON: ... to blame white racist voters, all white people in Georgia are racists, the president is a racist, I hope that incendiary remarks like that, racial divisive remarks like that, get your party somewhere. Because actually I think they're unattractive and wrong.
BEGALA: I hope you'll make this deal: you state your position, I'll state mine. Don't tell me that I say Bush is racist. Don't tell me that I say Georgians are racist.
CARLSON: You implied three times today that various people were racists.
BEGALA: Just do me this favor, Tucker. Don't state my positions for me. I'll state mine -- that's what they pay me for -- you state yours.
CARLSON: Well then don't make weasily insinuations. Just say so. If you think he's a racist, say so. Don't imply his racist buddies and he tolerates them. Just say he's a racist, or don't say it all.
BEGALA: I told you what I think. Pay attention.
Coming up on CROSSFIRE, would you buy a used quote from this man? It turns out Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist bid for the presidency was a repeat performance. And now even some conservatives are saying it's time to bring the curtain down.
And at first, Yemen disavowed those scud missiles. Now it says, yeah, they're ours. You've got a problem with that? Well, should we? Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott's peculiar nostalgia for segregation captured headlines last week, when he said America would have been a better place if arch segregationist Strom Thurmond had defeated Harry Truman back when he ran for president in 1948. When a furor erupted, Lott first claimed a poor choice of words. He later offered an apology.
Now we learn Senator Lott may have chosen his words very carefully, indeed, because he used almost identical words in the past when he campaigned with Thurmond on behalf of Ronald Reagan back in the 1980. Senator Lott claims he was just trying to express his support for policies of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But the Thurmond campaign in 1948 was a single issue campaign and the issue was segregation, not big government.
To talk about race, Republicans and Trent Lott's mouth, the Reverend Al Sharpton joins us from New York. Here with us at George Washington University, former Congressman Bill McCollum, a Republican from Florida.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Thank you both. Thank you, Bill.
BILL MCCOLLUM, FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Good to be with you.
CARLSON: Now, Reverend Al Sharpton, thanks for joining us. I admit that these remarks that Senator Lott made were weird and confusing and potentially repugnant to the extent that they imply he endorses segregation. But the fact is he says he doesn't endorse segregation. So isn't that the key issue? The remarks make him sound like a racist, but he says very clearly, I'm not a racist and I repudiate the racist past of my state and of the senator I was talking about. So I don't understand, what are you upset about?
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Well, I think that the fact is that he didn't just make an off-color remark. People are trying to act like he just said something out of line. To say that he wished the country had elected a segregationist ticket, one issue campaign, segregation, and then he sit at the head of the Republican Party, the majority party in the Senate that will review federal judges being confirmed, U.S. attorneys being confirmed, this is a frightening occurrence for those of us that had parents that in '48 couldn't even vote and had to sit in the back of the bus.
This is not just an off-color remark. We're talking about somebody in power talking about he wished this was in power .
CARLSON: But wait a second. Al Sharpton, he has said, that is not what I said, that's not what I meant to say, that's not what I believe. Do you not believe him? Keep in mind, he said this in front of television cameras. It's not like he was caught secretly plotting here.
SHARPTON: He can't say he didn't -- Tucker, he can't say he didn't say it. You have the tape that he said it. You also have the tape that he said it before. You can you go to any local penitentiary and any crook will say, I didn't mean it, I'm sorry. But you still pay for what you do.
Mr. Lott said it, he said it again. He ought to pay for what he said. He should step aside. No one is saying if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position, if the Republican Party wants to sincerely reach out to people as they claim they have, and as you almost nightly claim they want to, they certainly have an opportunity here by saying, for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside since he either has very segregationist views or he at least has a repeated problem of being misunderstood when he endorses segregationists.
BEGALA: Now, Bill McCollum, first, thank you for joining us. It's awfully gracious of you to take the time. I'd like to play the tape and let you see for yourself, let the audience see for themselves, rather than me characterize Senator Lott's words. This is what Trent Lott said last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: Now, first, I don't think that leaves very much ambiguity. And second, you don't think America would have been better if Strom Thurmond had defeated Harry Truman, do you?
MCCOLLUM: No, I don't, Paul. I think it's a huge political gaffe. I think there's no question it's inexcusable that Trent Lott said those words. But I don't think anybody who actually knows Senator Lott ,and has known him over the years, whether Republican or Democrat, black, white, Hispanic, whatever, would ever believe that Trent Lott is, A, a racist, or, B, that he really meant it in the sense that it would go back to segregation period. I just have absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.
And I truly hope that it doesn't cause him to be forced out of the leadership, which I think he's doing a very good job with otherwise. We need, as a nation on race, to be spending time with bipartisan efforts -- that I'm sure the Reverend Sharpton would agree with -- early childhood education, opportunities for black males who are in prison in far too large of numbers to have job training and opportunity. Things that we can come to bond on. And we don't need the political (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that comes out of this. But I...
BEGALA: I think -- I'm sorry -- I think you make a good point, that people ought not try to judge Senator Lott's heart. We don't know what's in his heart. I have no idea if he's a racist or not. I want to believe you. I don't know him. I believe you when you say he's not.
MCCOLLUM: Well, I do know him, and I know he's not.
BEGALA: I take that. But we can judge his words, and they were racist, because he repeated them 20 years ago. This is what he said 20 years ago, reported in "The Washington Post" today. "Thurmond declared" -- this is at a rally for President Reagan -- "we want the federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states. For many supporters and opponents of civil rights, the phrase 'states rights' stood for the right of states to reject federal civil rights legislation. After Thurmond spoke, Lott told the group, 'You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
Now it seems to me like this is actually what he really believes. That we would be better had Truman lost to a segregationist and segregation policies had been followed.
MCCOLLUM: Well, that's what I meant about a political gaffe, because it gives an opening for Democrats, it gives an opening for those who want to think the worst to take advantage of it and to talk about it. And I can understand and respect the fears of African- Americans, who do certainly feel and remember the days when things were different.
And I believe that a lot of progress has been made. And I can't for one minute condone going back in any way. But do I think, on the other hand, that this is being blown out of proportion. This was being done at the birthday celebration of a 100-year-old United States senator, who has himself converted to being very pro civil rights in modern times, who is revered by Democrats and Republicans alike with high integrity in modern times. And we're harkening back to 1948 because Trent Lott made a mistake in what he said.
But, nonetheless, I do not for one minute believe that Lott should go, nor do I believe that he is a racist, nor do I believe that we should be characterizing his remarks as racist. But we should be criticizing him for making them.
CARLSON: Now, Reverend Sharpton, it troubles me, as I'm sure it troubles you, that this has become a partisan issue. And let me give you an example of what I mean. Former President Bill Clinton, throughout his eight years in office, repeatedly made reference to his mentor, personally and politically, and that's J. William Fulbright, a long-time senator from Arkansas who was, of course, a segregationist. Who signed the southern manifesto in 1956 attacking Brown versus Board of Education, the supreme court decision that allowed black children go to school with white children.
I didn't hear Democrats raise a fuss when President Clinton said this segregationist is my hero, my mentor. Why?
SHARPTON: I think, first of all, you can't make one the other. No one in America doubts I would disagree with President Clinton if I felt he was wrong. But I didn't hear President Clinton say that I wish that Fulbright and the signers of the southern manifesto had won the presidency of the United States, and that's why we have problems now because they didn't.
I agree with Mr. McCollum. We've made progress since then. I agree with you we made progress. The one that seems to doubt that we've made progress is Trent Lott, because he said we wouldn't be having all of these problems had we had this segregationist in '48.
So that is very frightening to people that are now wondering what are we going to do about all of these black males in jails, Bill? And what are we going to do about healthcare and education? Exactly what you said we ought to be worried about, it makes us worry even more when someone that feels that all of these are problems that could have been solved if we had just stayed in the back of the bus and made a segregationist the president.
MCCOLLUM: Well, Al, I think the key to this, though, is that I don't for one minute believe -- despite the words and the appearance that are obviously negative and shouldn't be out there -- I don't for one minute believe that Trent Lott thinks that it would have been great to have had this man at the time in 1948 with a segregationist view be president. What he said in his apology I think is genuinely sincere. And that is that he was referring to all those things about his fiscal conservatism and his conservative politics, which are historically the same as Lott's and mine and so forth.
SHARPTON: The party that Strom Thurmond ran on was not a party of fiscal conservatism, it was not a party of defense. It was a party on segregation now, segregation forever. And I think we can't...
MCCOLLUM: You're right, absolutely.
SHARPTON: We can't (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And to say that we can't believe that Trent Lott said that, he said it. I mean, it's not read my lips, it's read my lips, look at my voice, look at the video. I mean he said it.
MCCOLLUM: That's the political gaffe, Al, that he made. He was really thinking in terms of the present and the Senator Thurmond we've known for the last 20 or 30 years, not the one that goes back over 50 years.
SHARPTON: But he said '48. He didn't say...
MCCOLLUM: I know what he said.
SHARPTON: He should have been at the party. Happy birthday, Senator Thurmond. But that doesn't mean we have to say in '48, when he was a different Thurmond, he should have been president. No one disagrees to give a 100-year-old man a birthday party. But to say when he was advocating racism that he should have been the head of the country, and, my god, because we didn't elect him we've had problems ever since, that's not wishing an old man a happy birthday.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Well, Reverend Sharpton, we're going to get in some more detail into who exactly is advocating racism and who isn't. I know you'll want to stay tuned, Mr. Sharpton, for that.
When we return with out guests, are Republicans ready to get rid of their Senate leader? Then, North Korea sells smuggled scud missiles to Yemen. Does that make the White House focus on Iraq harder to explain? We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. There is growing nervousness in Republican circles tonight about the prospect of Trent Lott returning to his position of Senate majority leader after his notoriously clumsy attempt to compliment the 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Democrats, meanwhile, are, of course, pleased, convinced that racial polarization will work to their political advantage.
We're back with our guests, Reverend Al Sharpton in New York, and here in Washington, former Republican Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida.
BEGALA: Thank you both, gentlemen, for staying with us.
Congressman McCollum, it seems your party does have a problem, certainly in the south, but maybe across the country with African- Americans. They traditionally haven't performed very well. I think President Bush has tried to do what he can politically, to his great credit, to reach out to African-American voters. But look at how he undermines it or how the party does. He appeared at Bob Jones University in a campaign event. A place that says horribly bigoted things about my Catholic faith. Also didn't allow black and white kids to date each other there. His brother Jeb, when he first ran for governor of your state of Florida, was asked, what would you do for blacks if you win? He said, probably nothing.
The Georgia flag is a very divisive issue there, where the new Republican governor elect won by campaigning on it. And now this with Trent Lott. Your party has a serious, substantive problem on issues of race, doesn't it?
MCCOLLUM: Well, first of all, historically, the Republican Party, as you know, Paul, has been a party of racial equality and a party that advanced that cause. That's the foundation and the historical foundation. There were more Republicans in the United States Senate when the civil rights act was voted on who voted for that act than did Democrats.
And in recent times, we've been a party which might be out of step with some of the so-called leaders of the black caucuses and some of the Democrats on this. But things like school choice we've been a leaders on. And school choice is a way for young black students and kids to get out of the urban schools that they're in that are failing and into an opportunity where they can actually advance themselves. A very significant...
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: But these were mistakes. It was wrong for Bush to go to Bob Jones University. It was wrong for his brother to say he wouldn't do anything for black people.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCOLLUM: I think considering all politically bad messages and bad signals, and they don't comport with the kind of message that we want to get out there. And I would concur with those as not being smart. But there have been a lot of things, by the way, that Governor Bush has done that have been very positive relative to this.
He had a great program -- he supported, for example, this pre-K assuage of an amendment to our Florida constitution in this last election, and now is busy processing funding for it, where you take 4- year-olds and give them the opportunity to get into school very much like Miller did -- Senator Miller did when he was governor of Georgia. And I think it's very important to know that often times the good things that somebody like Jeb Bush does don't get reported on and people continue, especially in your own party, Paul, to want to repeat, for obvious reasons, all the negative things that helped draw more black votes to the Democrats if they hear it, as opposed to the things that would do otherwise and show that, in fact, the Bush family has done a lot for the African-American community.
CARLSON: Now Reverend Sharpton, just to put this whole story into some context, Trent Lott is, of course, not the first person to make racial inflammatory remarks. A couple of years ago in New York you were at the center of controversy between a Jewish store owner in Harlem and a black store owner.
This is what you were quoted as saying in "The New York Times." This was from an radio interview quoted in "The New York Times." "I want to make it clear," said Reverend Sharpton to the radio audience and to you here, "that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother, so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street."
Now that was obviously a racist and wrong statement. And I believe you apologized.
SHARPTON: No, first of all...
CARLSON: But you were running for president. Why not be more forgiving, right?
SHARPTON: ... Tucker, I said I shouldn't have referred to the interloper's race, because he had violated several things in the community. I did not say that we were not going to have whites have equal treatment on 125th Street. I didn't say they should be in the back of the bus. I didn't say people that want to kill whites should be running Harlem. That is what the party that Strom Thurmond...
CARLSON: Exactly.
SHARPTON: You can't compare me talking about one store owner to a man saying a segregationist should have been the president.
CARLSON: Here's what I'm saying, Reverend Al. I'm saying that people -- a number of years ago, Jesse Jackson was quoted making a slur on Jewish Americans, a pretty bitter one. He apologized. People took him at his word that he wasn't an anti-Semite.
SHARPTON: But, Tucker, you are trying to minimize...
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: ... that you're not a racist.
SHARPTON: You're trying to minimize what was said.
CARLSON: No I'm not.
SHARPTON: We're not talking about a slur. We're saying this man, who is going to head the majority party in the Senate, says that this man should have been president and we've had problems ever since. Jesse Jackson didn't say that some anti-Semitic party should have been running the United States.
This is not a slur. This is a clear policy statement.
CARLSON: Al Sharpton, and he is saying that his statement does not reflect the policy you're ascribing to. He does not support segregation. SHARPTON: He said it.
CARLSON: Why don't you take him at his word, just as people took you at your word when you attacked white people and Jesse Jackson (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
SHARPTON: He even needs then to have some kind of psychoanalysis if he keeps saying things he doesn't mean. Or he needs to deal with that he has some very latent, neurotic racial feelings that keep coming out and the rest of the world keeps catching him.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: My problem is I do take him at his word, when, again and again, he says we would have been better off as a segregationist president. I believe that that's what he believes. Wouldn't your party be better off, led in Senate, by just -- so many Republicans that have such strong records on race. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, or Richard Lugar or -- I mean, almost anybody but this guy Lott. Why not dump him and get new some blood in there? Bill Frist...
MCCOLLUM: I'm sure there are people who think that, but I'm going to tell you, I believe that Trent Lott is doing a fine job. I don't believe for a minute, as I said in the beginning, that he has a racist bone in his body. I believe that what he meant is what he said he meant and that is that he believes that Strom Thurmond stands today, and he has for at least 30 years, for fiscal conservatism, for basic conservative principles, not segregation and equality of opportunity for all Americans.
That's what he meant to say by that -- by complimenting him. Now, do we kick him out of office just for his words? I think his deeds are more important. Trent Lott's record has been positive. There's been nothing else aside from these two descriptions that we've had with Strom Thurmond where I know of that anybody could ever say he's done anything, that would in the remotest sense be labeled as racist or indicating that he's not qualified to be our majority leader.
So I think this too will pass. I think he'll stay as majority leader. And I believe we'll be able to bond back again and get on with the things I said in the beginning...
SHARPTON: Bill, you may be right. Bill, you may be right there for 30 years Strom Thurmond has done that, but 54 years ago which is what Trent Lott referred to, he was advocating segregation and racism. We're not talking about 30 years ago. Mr. Lott took us back 54 years ago and some of us are not going back there.
BEGALA: Well, Reverend Sharpton, thank you for joining us from New York.
Bill McCollum, former Republican congressman from Florida, very gracious of you, especially, Bill, to come on tonight. I'm very grateful to you. Now, this programming note. Keep in mind, Trent Lott himself will be on CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE" at 9 p.m. Eastern to respond to questions about his very controversial comments.
Coming up here on CROSSFIRE though, the president has made a decision about vaccinating Americans for smallpox. Connie Chung will have the details in a minute in the CNN "New Alert."
Then, we will explore why the Bush administration is so fixated on Iraq while one of the other axis of evil nations, North Korea, is exporting SCUD missiles. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
BEGALA: While a U.S. ship obligingly releases North Korean SCUD missiles to Yemen on President Bush's orders, critics are wondering what happened to Bush's policy of preemption? Has George W. Bush wimped out? We will ask our guests next in the CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live, as we do every night here, at the George Washington University, home of the Colonials in Washington, D.C.
CNN broke the story a shipment of Scud missiles aboard a ship from North Korea was stopped last night by Spanish forces and boarded by U.S. weapons inspectors. U.S. officials thought the missiles might be bound for evil doers, but after first denying an knowledge of them, the government Yemen said they legally purchased the missiles.
The White House says the U.S. had no legal reason to seize the Scuds, so it sent the ship on it's ways. The Spanish say they are perplexed by the American decision and they're not alone. Let's see what our guest thinks about it.
Joining us are two terrific experts, Frank Gaffney, president of Center for Security Policy, and form are United States secretary of state the honorable Larry Eagleburger. Thank you both for joining us.
Secretary Eagleburger, the United States intercepts a ship filled with North Korean Arms on they way to Yemen, and let's it go because the administration States says the international law demands it.
What do you make of that?
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I don't like it much but I think it was probably the right decision. As far as the law is concerned, I don't know which way is right. But if we are trying to get the Yemenis to cooperate with us on the war on terrorism and so forth. As I say, I don't like it much but I say probably it was the right decision. And if -- if we can keep an eye on the Yemenis to make sure they don't do anything with those missiles, I'll live with it, but I don't like it. And I know my friend over here who forgot to shave today will have a different view on that, will have a different view of it. I'm not happy about it but I think it probably was the legal thing to do.
CARLSON: But here's this country, Yemen, that has an unstable government, doesn't have total control over its borders and apparently is loaded with al Qaeda operatives. Is it a good idea to have weapons like this floating around a country like that?
EAGLEBURGER: No, it's not a good idea. But No. 1, this the last, supposedly the last, this is a the last shipment of it, they have beau coup of them already, I suspect. I am not sure whether there are a lot al Qaeda floating the around the place or not. The president himself -- why am I trying to defend him? I think it was a lousy decision but probably the best decision the circumstances. That's the best I can tell you.
BEGALA: Frank Gaffney, first thank you for joining us.
EAGLEBURGER: You may change your mind after a while.
BEGALA: Senator Bob Graham, of Florida, is a Democrat who chairs currently and didn't pass the Senate Intelligence Committee. He spoke about this this morning, and had I thought a rather dire analysis of the situation.
Let me play you what he said this morning on CNN and ask you to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL), SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The destination apparently was Yemen. Yemen next to Afghanistan may be the second largest center of al Qaeda in the world. This indicates how important it is that we move the war on terrorism to these other places where there is substantial al Qaeda presence specifically and beginning with Yemen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BEGALA: The fact that we're giving the Yemenis a pass when they are perhaps arming al Qaeda, doesn't that speak to the nonsense that we've subjugated our policy against al Qaeda to this war against Iraq? Isn't that why we gave them that pass because we need them to back us when we attack Iraq.
FRANK GAFFNEY, SECURITY POLICY ANALYST: No, I think the administration's theory is we need them as part of the war on terror. Their thought is we whacked an al Qaeda operative in Yemen not so long ago. And I think their belief is there's more there, and we'll get their help to go whack some more of them later.
I'm with Larry Eagleburger, and both of us will feeling comfortable about that up to a point. It was a lousy decision. I don't think it has the redeeming virtue of being the right decision simply because what this signals, not only to Yemen but to Syria to Iran, to Libya, to Sudan, to say nothing of our friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is that you can buy as many of these missiles from these proliferating lunatics in particulars in North Korea as you want. And not only will we give you safe passage, we'll actually provide U.S. Navy convoys for you.
This is madness because none of these countries that I've just mentioned I believe is really with us in this war on terror. And some may be playing more of a double game than others, but we certainly ought to be very careful when we start legitimating the contracts that the North Koreans are engaged in as they proliferate weapons of mass destruction or at least the means of delivering them, all over the world.
BEGALA: Doesn't that then degrade our president's credibility? He goes out and gives these wonderful Texas cowboy speeches, straight talk and plain talk about evil doers and good. You're with us or you're against us. And he confronted with the complexities and the subtilties of the real world. And he can't match his rhetoric, and now he look like he's hat and no cattle.
GAFFNEY: I do worry about his credibility and I'll tell you particularly about it right now. Because this is the day that they unveiled the new strategy of countering proliferation which talks about intercepting and destroying proliferating activities. And that, unfortunately, is so completely akimbo (ph) from what they've just done on this ship ,that I think his credibility is seriously eroded.
CARLSON: You made the point, I think I'm quoting you, "Huewy (ph)." What did you mean by that?
EAGLEBURGER: It's so clear I don't know why I have to go further. You made point yourself, not on purpose I know, but this is a very complicated world right now including the war on terrorism. And this administration facing this thing was between a rock and a hard place, if you will, on the question of whether they're going to be able to be get and maintain any sort of cooperation from the Yemenis or not. Not only the Yemenis but others as well.
I don't think it goes as far as Frank has said by opening the doors to all of these others. I think they decided what they had to do in this case, because they are hoping to continue to get cooperation out of the Yemenis, was to take a pass on this one. As I said I didn't like it, but it is a complicated case. I don't think it reflects any at all on the president and his ability to conduct this war, if you will.
What I do think is the case, however, is that we have to all of us understand that we're going to have to all of us get tighter and tougher and the president of the administration as well on this whole war on terrorism. I do not agree with you on the issue that Iraq draws the attention away from that war, but do I agree on the other hand that we have not paid enough hard attention to the war on terrorism as well as paying attention to Iraq. And in that case, in that event I think the administration must pay more attention to the general question of the war on terrorism. And I'm not sure we're doing enough. CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll take up the question with our guest. The White House has threatened to let nukes fly if Saddam leashes weapons of mass destruction. Good idea or not?
And "Fire Back" from on outrage from viewers over the growing Trent Lott flap. We'll tell you what it is. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. He isn't mentioning Iraq by name, but the White House has issued a strategy document warning any nation using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies will face massive retaliation. That, of course, means with nuclear weapons.
Was this a wise warning? Let's ask our guests. Here with us, former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger and Frank Gaffney, president of Center for Security Policy.
Gentlemen thank you for stay with us. This is "The New York Post," in it's understated Rupert Murdoch way "We'll nuke you." "U.S. warns Iraq, Bush use WMD at your parole." Now, It may be news to the right wing cranks at the "New York Post" but this is a 50 years of American doctrine, isn't it? I'm not a big Bush defender but I say good for "W." This is what he should be telling the Iraqis, if they mess with our troops with their weapons of mass destruction there will be hell to pay. Isn't that the right thing to say, frank?
GAFFNEY: I think it is the right thing to say. As you say, there's a considerable lineage here. It's the kind of thing that underscores the gravity of the decision that Saddam Hussein may well be poised to make. It ought to be accompanied by planning that makes it as difficult him, physically difficult for him to use these weapons as possible.
I think it does underscore one point, though, And we ought to be clear about it. We need to attend, we're talking about things we need to be focusing on. One of the things we need to attend, we are talking about things we need to focusing on, one of the things we need to attend on is the credibility of our deterrent.
And after over a decade now of not testing nuclear weapons, there's got to be some reason why increasingly people are talking about we better go back and check them to make sure they work. We've done a lot of experimentation without actually testing them. I think we need to be doing a test and I think that would be send a very powerful message to Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: Secretary Eagleburger, a group is not apparently not sending a powerful message to Saddam Hussein are the inspectors. Only seven of them in the country, as you know. They just got one helicopter. Some of them haven't even had background checks. Most significant, I think, and others think, Iraq has not yet supplied a list of scientists who worked on weapons of mass destruction programs and the U.N. has not demanded it. Is this whole inspection regime turning out to be a joke?
EAGLEBURGER: No, it hasn't turned out to be a joke yet. And I'm prepared to say we ought to give it a little time to see. But at the same time I'm quite concerned about the attitude of the inspectors so far, the leadership of the inspectors. I think there's some new inspectors that I gather just arrived today or yesterday. They need a lot more. They need all of the things you're talking about and they need a lot more equipment and they need to move faster than they are moving.
So but I would say to you is it doesn't look particularly hopeful at the moment, but at the same time, you know, I think if we've got to give the U.N. and the inspector regime a couple of weeks to get their feet on the ground and see how they do. And if they don't do well, they ought to understand as well as everybody else in the U.N. that that's going to give President Bush precisely the ammunition he's going to need to thumb his nose at the rest of the U.N., and say I've done everything I can to try to work in a cooperation with you. If you can't do it we are going to have to move.
CARLSON: Will we be at war by mid February?
GAFFNEY: It would be mission impossible.
CARLSON: Will we be at war by Valentines Day?
(CROSSTALK)
GAFFNEY: I think we better be. If it's later than that, we're out of business until the following year.
EAGLEBURGER: No later then that by any means. Look, maybe it's mission impossible, all I am saying, however, is if this administration having gone now to where I think it should have gone much earlier to the question of going to the U.N., and saying we're going to try to work this multi-laterally. If having gone that far, it makes no sense to have done that and then not give the U.N. at least a modest amount of time to try and see whether the inspectors can come up with anything.
GAFFNEY: I think we've given them that time.
(CROSSTALK)
EAGLEBURGER: Wait a minute. My point is they may not come up with anything at all. Then they're going to have to face the issue deciding how they are going to go ahead any ways.
GAFFNEY: I think they're out of time and so are we.
BEGALA: And so are we. Well, we are out of time on this program.
Former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger thank you very much for joining us.
EAGLEBURGER: I managed to get the last word again.
BEGALA: You do.
Frank Gaffney, thank you again for joining us.
Please, gentlemen, come back.
Coming up in our "Fire Back" segment, you heard what Trent Lott had to say and you've heard what we say about Trent Lott, now it's your turn to fire back, and you do. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE time now to "Fire Back." Lots of e-mail about Trent Lott and his statements and this time about the Democrats' response or lack thereof.
Brendon Watson, in New York. "Paul, what's wrong with your stupid party? You can't trumpet yourselves as the party of '50s and '60s Civil Rights when your leaders in 2002 are so timid in responding to racist statements like Lott's. Lyndon Johnson, himself a Senate majority leader, would never have put up with such cowardice."
You know, the Democrats were very timid. That's a good point. They are beginning to come out a little bit more today, Tom Daschle, John Kerry began to say what they should have said six days ago.
CARLSON: Maybe tomorrow night we can do a show on Lyndon Johnson's racial views. I think that would be a terrific show.
BEGALA: Signed the Civil Rights Act, signed Voting Rights Act.
CARLSON: That would be worth doing.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Matthew Covey of Fort River, New Jersey writes, "I had a dime for every time Senator Daschle has said something stupid I would be a rich man. He has never apologized for any of his stupid remarks. Senator Lott apologized for his comments. Stop making such a big deal when it isn't."
The key is here is electoral politics. This actually will help the Democrats. I believe that, I hate to say it, but I think it will.
BEGALA: Stupid is one thing. Racist is another.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Liz from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Pennsylvania. I just want to make the comment that Paul, just because Bush didn't criticize Lott on his comment doesn't make him a racist, just because Trent Lott's comment might have been racist.
BEGALA: Right. It makes him a coward. He is not a racist. George Bush doesn't have a racist bone in his body, not a one. He is lovely man on issues of race, and his heart is as big as Texas but he's a coward. He won't take on Trent Lott. He wouldn't take on Bob Jones University. He wouldn't say the Georgia flag which has a racist symbol on it was wrong. He is too timid, instead of following his heart, which I believe is pure on that issue.
CARLSON: It's interesting.
BEGALA: He's a coward.
CARLSON: We'll do many, many shows on this but you'll see as this presidential season approaches, Democrat after Democrat sniffing the shoes of Al Sharpton in search for the nomination. That will happen and we will chronicle it for you on here on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: I have no idea what Al Sharpton...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I just want Bush to grow a spine. Grow a spine, George.
From the left I am Paul Begala. Good night from CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow for yet more CROSSFIRE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Wrong; Was Releasing North Korean Missle Carrying Ship Wise?>
