Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
National Terrorism Alert Goes Up; Interview With Saddam's Bomb Maker
Aired February 07, 2003 - 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:
The national terrorism alert goes up.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The U.S. intelligence community has indicated that the al Qaeda terrorist network is still determined to attack innocent Americans, both here and abroad.
ANNOUNCER: So what should you do?
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Take the time now to get informed.
ANNOUNCER: Plus, what should the Bush administration do about Iraq?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY: The issue of whether or not war comes is say matter that Saddam Hussein will decide.
ANNOUNCER: Plus, the man who spent decades helping Saddam Hussein go nuclear.
Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
Live, from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Our nation's terrorism alert level has been raised to code orange, signifying a high risk of a terrorist attack. That is up from yellow, which stands for an elevated chance of attack.
We will discuss the threat with a man who chaired an important commission on homeland security. Also we'll ask a couple of guests whether the Bush administration's coming confrontation with Iraq helps or hinders our war against al Qaeda territories.
But first, the best darn political briefing in television, the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."
As I mentioned a moment ago, for only the second time ever the president today raised the national terror threat from elevated to high. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made the announcement this afternoon.
The high alert was prompted by reports that al Qaeda terrorists are planning a mass casualty attack against Americans, possibly using chemical, biological or radiological weapons.
According to the president's proposed budget, Mr. Bush wants to spend $41 billion on homeland security next year. That figure includes not only Secretary Ridge's department, but spending across the entire federal government. By contrast, the president is asking for $100.6 billion in tax cuts next year.
Usually, I try to end these political alerts with a little joke, but I just don't think there's anything funny about the fact hat our president believes cutting taxes is more than twice as important than protecting you and I from a terrorist attack.
TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: I have to say, Paul, the idea that if there's a terrorist attack against the United States, the fault of President Bush's tax cut, which is the implication of what you just said, is so completely over the top.
Moreover...
BEGALA: What I said is what I said. I didn't say anything was his fault.
CARLSON: Federal spending is not always the measure of a commitment to something. Simply because one program has more money than the other doesn't mean that one program is more than the other. It's not an absolute measurement, as you know.
BEGALA: Actually, I know very different. I know that where your heart lies, there to shall your treasure be.
Budgets are expression of our national will and our national priorities and this president is certainly not responsible for a terrorist attack , good God, but he will be responsible for his budget priorities. He thinks we should have $100 billion in tax cuts and $40 billion in homeland defense.
I'd rather reverse them. A hundred billion dollars to protect the homeland and only $40 billion for tax cuts.
CARLSON: I must say -- I wish you would -- maybe on another show you could tell me specifically what you think he ought to be spending money on for homeland security that's he not.
BEGALA: I will.
CARLSON: We'll address that.
BEGALA: I will.
CARLSON: Chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei arrive in Baghdad. Thanks to Secretary of State Colin Powell, they now know Saddam Hussein has been mocking them as they work. A senior U.N. official says the pair will push for three key components of inspections: private interviews with Iraqi scientists, one happened today, the use of U-2 spyplanes and Iraq's enforcement of legislation prohibiting companies from making weapons of mass destruction.
Back at the U.N., meanwhile, Great Britain is expected to draft a new Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq if this weekend's mission fails. Not that the resolution is likely to do much good. Diplomats tell CNN that despite the overwhelming evidence against Iraq, many Security Council members would continue to oppose removing Saddam Hussein. As usual, the strong resistance comes from France and Germany, which means it could be time to reveal the trump card.
As "The Onion" put it today, Has it been explained to the Germans that the Iraqis are Semites too.
BEGALA: "The Onion," of course, being a satirical...
CARLSON: That's right.
BEGALA: ...online newspaper that's very funny.
It is true that the French and the Germans have been maddeningly, frustratingly unhelpful. But we need them not to win a war in Iraq. We need them for this war against al Qaeda that I keep harping on, because there are al Qaeda cells in those countries. If we alienate those governments too much, I am worried that they're -- for their domestic political reasons, they'll be less helpful on the terrorist war as well and that's a disaster.
CARLSON: They have -- that's a legitimate concern. They have their own good reasons for joining us in the war on al Qaeda and everyone believes they'll continue to do that.
BEGALA: I don't know that every one believes that. They do have good reasons and I hope they do, but I hate to press it.
Here is what our president said in his State of the Union address when he talked about controlling federal spending.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow and that is a good benchmark for us. Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: But President Bush is actually increasing his own budget for the White House, not by 4 percent, as he promised, but by a whopping 9.3 percent, obviously more than twice the amount he's increasing the rest of the budget.
He also, of course, broke his word on funding education. He's also giving just a 2 percent increase to medical research and even underfunding, as I mentioned before, homeland security, boosting that budget by 7.4 percent, far less than even the White House's 9.3 percent.
When asked about his broken promises, Mr. Bush quoted from Otter from "Animal House" who said "Hey, you screwed up. You trusted me."
CARLSON: I agree with you that the budget is too big, as someone who thinks the federal government is too big. I sort of agree.
However, the whining about spending on the Department of Homeland Security comes primarily from members of Congress, almost all of them Democrats, not all, but mostly Democrats, who are mad because their districts and states didn't get enough pork.
And it seems that to play politics with something this important is pretty low.
BEGALA: And that's what the president is doing, I agree. The president is playing politics. Those congressmen and senators are right. They want the money to protect their citizens.
CARLSON: Oh, Paul. You know (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
BEGALA: That's the job of the federal government is the international....
CARLSON: You don't believe that.
BEGALA: ...terrorist conspiracy. It is our federal government's job to protect us.
CARLSON: But individual senators, including Mrs. Clinton of New York, are saying, Look -- and we each had a long statement on this very subject this week -- are saying, Look, we need more money for this program, that program within our states that are not related to terrorism. They're using this as a way to bring money to their states.
BEGALA: And doubling the increase for the White House. That's not politics?
CARLSON: Attack it on substance and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
BEGALA: That is the substance.
CARLSON: For the past two years, the NAACP has staged a boycott of South Carolina. Until the Confederate flag is removed from the grounds of the capitol building in Columbia, the group is demanding that all Americans avoid all businesses in the state. That means no going to restaurants, hotels, gas stations or convenience stores, no taxi cabs or car services. No commerce at all. Those are the rules.
It's a much fanfare, Senator John Edwards, loudly and self righteously promised that he would join the boycott. This has turned out to be a problem, since Edwards needs to spend money in South Carolina in order to win the key presidential primary there.
It hasn't taken long for politics to trump principle. Tomorrow afternoon, Edwards is holding an event at Charleston at the William Aiken House, the longtime home of a notorious Confederate politician, agitator and slave owner. In other words, Edwards, someone who claims to care deeply about the hurtful symbolism, is going to speak at what amounts to a Confederate shrine. Good luck explaining that to the NAACP.
I can't wait.
BEGALA: Well, I can't wait for Senator Edwards. We've extended invitation after invitation. I talked to his campaign manager again today. Let's see John Edwards come on. If he can't stand up to Tucker Carlson, he's not going to be able to stand up to George W. Bush.
So come on, John Edwards. Come join CROSSFIRE.
Our friends at the Death Penalty Information Center report that Florida, recently released its 23rd wrongly convicted man from death row. Rudolph Holton spent 16 years on death row. He was freed after a court found that crucial evidence pointing to another perpetrator had been withheld from his defense team.
Holton is the 103rd American in all who's been exonerated and freed from death row since 1973. Now just days before Holton's release, Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced plans to abolish the office that oversees deaths penalty appeals in his state. Lawyers in that office had been instrumental in winning Mr. Holton's release as well as helping other men wrongly convicted and facing death.
Governor Bush is said to believe death penalty cases are better handled by volunteer lawyers. He said if all the best lawyers are tied up defending innocent people who have been sentenced to death, we might not have enough lawyers if my big brother has to go back to the Supreme Court and steal another election.
So that's -- he's got his priorities straight at least. Family first.
He never said that. I made it up.
CARLSON: I've said it before, Paul, and I mean this in the spirit of love. But I think it's time to get some psychiatric help.
The election thing, Gore lost, you can be happy or sad about it, but it happened. It wasn't stolen from him. Even Gore doesn't say it was stolen from him. BEGALA: That court case was a travesty.
CARLSON: IT's time to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We can talk after the show.
Senator Hillary Clinton has promised she will not be a candidate next year in 2004 and she probably won't be. On the other hand, a new poll shows Mrs. Clinton far and away her party's favorite. In a theoretical matchup, registered Democrats said she would crush every one of her fellow Democrats by a huge margin. She beat, in their opinion Joe Lieberman nearly three-to-win. Democrats love her. Pit Mrs. Clinton against John Kerry and she wins by more than 30 points. She's even more popular than ideological soul mate, Al Sharpton.
Are polls like this enough to change Senator Clinton's mind? A story in "The New York Post" today suggests, Yes, indeed there are. Democrats strategists say that if President Bush looks vulnerable later this year, Mrs. Clinton won't be able to resist. She'll jump into the race rather than waiting until perhaps 2012 and she'll be 65 and too old to run.
Here is hoping they're right. A Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would be a blessing for conservatives every where. For journalism, it would be marvelous. For America itself, run, Hillary, run. And before you do, please come on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: I hate to disappoint you, but she's not going to run. That disappoints me, too. But she's got a commitment to the people of New York. She going to serve in the Senate there. She may run one day. It does break my heart that we will never get to see the debate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush. I would pay money for that one, man. I would love to see it. She would beat like a borrowed mule, red-headed stepchild, like a bad piece of meat. She would whip his ass!
CARLSON: I would love it. Her speaking extemporaneously always bears fruit.
Now that the nation's terrorism alert level has gone up, what practical steps can all of us take to protect ourselves? We'll get some expert answers in a moment.
And then we'll debate whether raising the threat level will do anything than make people nervous. And it does do that.
Later, the administration claims Iraq is working on a nuclear weapon. We'll meet the man who once directed the program, Saddam's own bomb maker joins us in a moment. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. With the terrorist threat level now raised to High and more clouds gathering over Baghdad, many Americans are wondering what they should do.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge today called on Americans to, quote, "remain aware and remain alert," unquote and to take such actions as devising a family communication plan to be in touch in case of an emergency.
And law enforcement sources tell CNN recent intelligence suggests that there could be an attack on the East Coast of the United States. Intercepted messages specifically mentioned subways and hotels, but no particular city.
Here to talk about the high threat of the terrorist attack, please welcome former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore. In 1999 he chaired a national commission that looked at America's preparedness for a terrorist attack. Governor Gilmore.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Governor, the federal government has said that Americans need to take steps to keep lines of communication open should there be a terrorist attack. Most people I know are confused, however, about what they can do to protect themselves physically. Can you give us any specific things people can do?
JIM GILMORE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: Well, I think we need to focus on what this was today. I think that the team on Homeland Security was rolled out. You saw attorney general, the secretary, you saw the director of the FBI and the goal here was to reassure the people by coming forward with a whole series of communications.
And that's different from the question of, Gee, what can the average citizen go out there and do? There really are two separate issues. But the goal today it seemed to me was to communicate with the public, to communicate with the locals and the state officials and to communicate with the terrorists.
What can the individuals do? I think Secretary Ridge indicated that individuals need to be thoughtful about this, need to communicate within their families and be alert to what's going on around them. Particularly at this time of elevated status.
But in terms of everybody changing their whole lives around, that's just what the terrorists want us to do and I don't think that's what's being asserted and I don't think that's what we should be doing.
BEGALA: One of the things that was in one of the wire stories that I read today talked about soft targets. Indeed, CNN's reporting suggests that perhaps hotels, subways-- these are considered soft targets by people in the trade because they're not government facilities or military facilities. Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institute, and he talked about this recently and this is what he had to say.
"There's a lot of private infrastructure in this country -- chemical facilities, trucking companies that carry toxic materials, skyscrapers that house thousands of people whose air circulation systems could be attacked or used as distribution mechanisms for anthrax. These kinds of infrastructures," O'Hanlon says, "are not being protected. The administration has done very little in most of these areas, seemingly wanting to trust the private sector to take care of these problems on their own."
Have we done enough to protect these soft targets?
GILMORE: Soft targets just means that it's something that isn't expected to be attacked and that's of course, what terrorists do. They try to pick out things that aren't necessarily protected.
Can we protect everything in the United States that a terrorist can attack and instill fear? Of course not, and that will be the challenge.
BEGALA: Do you think things have changed enough after 9/11? I don't. I just don't think we've done enough...
GILMORE: I think things have gotten better. I think things have up proved a great deal. And we were issuing reports. And after 9/11, these reports have been focused on and a lot has been done.
BEGALA: Your report was well before 9/11. You were one of those people warning us. To your great credit.
GILMORE: The key point though is there's going to have to be a bridge between private enterprise, private people who own all this infrastructure, port facilities, railroads, telephones, electrical power lines. Could be anything.
And here's the point. I think it's going to require the American people to understand that if someone wants to do a sneak attack on us in the dead of night like cowards they can probably hit something. So the goal it seems to me is to protect the country to the greatest extent possible and then to understand we're going to live with risk and we should not throw away our civil liberties, and we should not bow to the threats of terrorists. We should continue to live our lives as free Americans.
CARLSON: But we're not only living with risk. We're also living with anxiety because if the federal government says, Look, we're going to be hit as it said many times, there's not a lot you can do about it which is the subtext of the message. That makes people less likely to want go outside and it affects the economy among many things. People don't go want to go to hotels, they don't want to go on the subway, they don't want to travel by air.
GILMORE: I don't think that we should be sending any kind of communication to the American people that they shouldn't go about their daily lives and I don't think that this press conference did send a message like that.
Americans are going to have to understand that they're part of the whole team. The federal government, the state governments and the localities are all going to go to work to try protect not just infrastructure, but people. At some point in time you have to go overseas and destroy these people who try come out and kill Americans. And I think that's what the president... CARLSON: But, Governor, don't you think it would be psychologically more effectively, anyway, to couple the warning with a suggestion for the tangible steps each person can take to make him of herself safer?
GILMORE: I think Governor Ridge tried to do a bit of that today. Once again, the reality is that today was a big communication with the American people. It was about telling the American people that we have reason to believe that the threat is increased without trying to give the specifics which they may not even have, Tucker.
All they're doing is intercepting heavier communication which is a warning sign. They sent a message -- I think not in the conference, but in the system that they designed to the states and to the locals.
More communication, better structures are being set up to give better information. I met with Admiral Abbott over at the White House. They are setting up these kinds of systems for the first time to share information appropriately.
And a message to the terrorists, which is we're alert, we understand that this is a dangerous period. The American people are going to be alert and vigilant about this. And if you try something like this, you have a high chance of not succeeding. And that's a deterrence factor.
CARLSON: Amen. Well, Governor Gilmore, thanks very much.
BEGALA: Thank you, sir.
GILMORE: Thank you.
CARLSON: This afternoon, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York told New Yorkers, quote, "live your lives and leave the worrying to professionals." In a moment, we'll ask a couple of guests what the professionals ought to be worrying about.
Later the man who wrote the book about trying to help Saddam acquire nuclear weapons. We'll be joined by Saddam's bomb maker. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're announcing today's uptick in the national terrorism alert. Attorney General John Ashcroft specifically warned that al Qaeda may be interested in so- called soft targets, such as apartments, hotels, sports arenas and amusement parks. Ashcroft said other possible targets include the nation's economic, transportation and energy systems, plus targets of symbolic value. That pretty much includes everything in the continental United States.
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE to debate the government's response to terrorist threats, former California Democratic Congressman Vic Fazio and former Republican National Committee communications director Cliff May, who is now with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
BEGALA: Thank you both for coming back.
Cliff, a moment ago Tucker and I were arguing. We are paid to do that, but we'd do it for free. And one of the things he said is I challenge you to show me exactly where you would increase the homeland defense budget, and let me do that. Let me put it up on the screen for you.
This was an amendment that the Democrats offered in the Senate, pretty much as first order of business when Congress came back in January. They asked then country to spend more on state and local assistance to combat terrorism, more on border security, more on airport security, port security, nuclear and energy, security, mass transit, FBI, water security and on and on. All in all, it was a $5 billion amendment to add to the 40 or so billion we already spent. It seemed to me eminently reasonable. Wasn't it a mistake for the Republicans to kill that?
CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: I think this is going to be a subject of debate for a long time, how much we need to increase spending. You can say that's the right amount, or I can say to double that or triple that, or quadruple that...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: But you also know that the government needs to be able to digest the funds and put them to good use, rather than to bad use. So I think it's a reasonable debate. I'm glad you're on the side of spending more money for security, national security, in other ways, but I don't think you can really second-guess all the procedures that have gone through for this.
CARLSON: Now, Congressman Fazio, you are already hearing Democrats say that the announcement today was a kind of preemptive cover for the agencies involved in case there is a terrorist attack. I want you to think back to last year, when Democrats immediately hopped on the news that the administration had knowledge that there were al Qaeda or terrorist -- potential terrorists training in flight schools. This is what Tom Daschle said at the time. "Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information? What specific actions were taken by the White House in response?" Alleging or implying some sort of conspiracy.
In light of that political attack, can't you see why the administration would be apt to put out a warning?
VIC FAZIO, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I think the administration is putting out a warning because they don't want people to be asking, didn't you know it was about to happen? But I think what is much more difficult is to keep people calm and keep them involved in the economy. Nobody wants to see a contraction in the same matter we saw after 9/11. That is a tremendous blow to the economy, but I am much more focused on the inability even to work with state and local governments. They put $2.5 to $3 billion of their own money in the face of this economic problem all of them are facing directly, and they are really the only people who have really made improvements since 9/11.
We're a year and a half after that event, and we're not much better off than we were at that time. We've made some gains, but nowhere near as much as we should have, and I also agree with the Governor Gilmore, what are we go doing to work with the private sector, with our public facilities, the ports, the airports, the nuclear plants? None of this has happened.
CARLSON: What's wrong with the state -- I know you're talking about California, because the governor of California is mad about this, but what...
FAZIO: No, I'm talking about the country.
CARLSON: ... what's wrong with the state taking responsibility for some of its security? That doesn't strike me as...
FAZIO: States are doing what they can, but the problem is the states have to balance their budget. They can't run the kind of deficits that this administration is running with impunity. They're having to rob Peter to pay Paul.
BEGALA: The whole purpose of the federal government, if nothing else, is to protect us from external foreign threats, and this is a foreign threat. It should be the job of the federal government, and I think, maybe unlike other Democrats, I think the Bush administration today did the right thing for the right reasons. I don't think it was a CYA deal. I think they're doing the best they can to give us information, not so much to panic us, but enough for us to prepare. I give them every benefit of the doubt on this, maybe because I used to work in a government and my heart goes out to them in these kinds of times.
But I look at their budget, and again, I don't see the priorities. I believe we are facing a life and death struggle with terrorism -- and I know you do, that's why you set up your organization, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. But here's what we're doing in our budget: Our president says we need to spend $41 on homeland security. I'd be the first one to sign up if it was 81. But look what he's spending on the tax cut here, $100. Now, a lot of that tax cut goes to me, OK? By the grace of CNN, I'm in the top of 1 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I much, much rather have our national government protect our lives first and worry about a tax cut later. Why do they have these priorities, Cliff?
MAY: Well, I think one reason, what you're seeing here, you talk about reducing tax rates as spending money, and it's not necessarily, it's a different economic view. If you in -- if you try to get more economic activity going out there in the country, that means there's more business, there's more employment, that means there's more tax revenues and more money coming in.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let's understand. After Reagan cut tax rates back in the early 1980s, we pretty much doubled the revenues that came into the government. So the last thing you want to do is -- doubled it. Doubled it.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: He raised taxes four times after he cut them once. That's why revenues went up.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Now we're arguing about supply side of the 1980s. I think maybe we should take a commercial break, come back, and continue (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the '70s. That's right.
BEGALA: In just a minute we're going to ask our guests, though, if President Bush is just maybe, maybe, so obsessed with Iraq that he may not be dealing effectively enough with al Qaeda.
Later, we'll ask a confidant of Saddam Hussein just how close the Iraqi dictator is to getting the bomb. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. President Bush today told reporters the standoff with Iraq is, in his words, "a defining moment for the U.N. Security Council." But, while he has ordered U.S. forces to head for the Persian Gulf, the president downplayed the threat from North Korea, saying he believes that crisis can be solved diplomatically.
In the CROSSFIRE, Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and former California Congressman Vic Fazio.
CARLSON: Congressman Fazio, you often hear people say that taking on Saddam Hussein would not be justified. Let me offer up one potential justification. In 1993, Iraqi intelligence attempted to assassinate former President Bush. In response, President Clinton did virtually nothing. He launched 23 tomahawk missiles to no effect. Really sort of a craven act.
Isn't that enough alone, when you try and kill an American president, even a recently retired one, that's not acceptable and you should not continue as a head of state. Can we agree on that?
FAZIO: Well, I think we can agree that there are real threats to not only former presidents, but to many people in the region and around the world that emanate from Iraq. I think Hans Blix and our Secretary of State Mr. Powell did an excellent job in the last two weeks of really laying out the threat. And I think most persons now see it. The only question is, what's the proper response? And I certainly, looking back, think that the first President Bush really handled the gathering of the multilateral forces far more effectively than his son. But we're making progress. The president announced today he'd go back to the U.N. one more time to try to get another unifying resolution.
I certainly applaud that. At some point, we may have to act, and I don't think it will necessarily be through the U.N. I hope it will be. Because the real cost of this war is not going to be the 30, 60, 90 days of military conflict. It's the many years afterward that we may have to bear all ourselves. The nation building, which I know is not a popular term, will have to take place in Afghanistan and in Iraq and hopefully not in other countries in the region, which could be involved in the military action, too.
BEGALA: Cliff, last night on "LARRY KING" former President Clinton said something I strongly agree with, actually. He said President Bush doesn't need to go back to the U.N. If he does, I think Vic's right, it's nice, it's good. There is no obligation under international law, certainly not under American law to do so.
But he's doing so I think for good reasons. But also because his credibility has been so diminished by his misstatements of fact. Look at the CNN poll this week. Forty-nine percent of us, nearly half of his people, believe that our present would knowingly present evidence that he knows is false. And 58 percent of us, the vast majority of Americans, think our president would conceal evidence from us that goes against his position.
Our crisis has a confidence as he's trying to lead us into war. Doesn't he?
MAY: I don't think so, because if you look at the polls, I guess they're kind of confused and they do have the questions asked. About 67 percent in any poll you look at say they trust the president to do the right thing and they believe that the president is justified to use military force against Iraq.
By the way, it's also important to point out -- I'm not disagreeing with you -- we now have I believe 18 European nations to who have signed to be with us. The two nations -- and quite a few others. I mea, Australia, Turkey, Israel. The nations that haven't, the governments that haven't are Germany and France. And it would be a shame if they're not with us, although it will remind people that on D-day in World War II, the governments of Germany and France were not with us either.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Amen. And Vic Fazio, isn't it clear now, given all the evidence the president and the secretary of state and the vice president and others have put out there, it's really clear that there is an actual connection between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda. There's no denying that, is there? FAZIO: Well, I think it's still not as well documented as we need to make it. We're far more convinced of the biological and chemical threat than the nuclear threat, which I think we'd all agree is much greater in North Korea, where we're taking a diplomatic approach. But I do think we need to continue to work on the al Qaeda connection because, in fact, the real war against terrorism is going to be much longer and more intractable than any activity in Iraq.
MAY: Could I just make a brief point? A very important point. We have a heightened alert today. We have a heightened alert why, because we're afraid of Iraqi agents or because we're also afraid of terrorists from al Qaeda, from Hamas, and other organizations?
The fact of the matter is the jihadists -- OK. So now we're talking about an al Qaeda connection to Saddam Hussein. That answers your question. We know from what we're afraid of right now that there is.
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) connections in Iran, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Yemen Why aren't we going into those countries?
MAY: Let's do it.
BEGALA: We're going to stop it there. Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you both very much. We appreciate it.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Next, he's the highest-ranking government scientist ever to get out of Iraq and live to tell the tale. He'll tell it right here on CROSSFIRE in just a moment. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington. Iraqi scientists are finally talking with U.N. weapons inspectors. Their first private meeting came only yesterday. Three more scientists were interviewed today.
No doubt our next guest can sympathize with their reluctance. Before getting away, he was Saddam Hussein's personal nuclear adviser. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the book aptly titled, "Saddam's Bombmaker." Please welcome Khidhir Hamza to the CROSSFIRE.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: First, thank you for joining us.
KHIDHIR HAMZA, AUTHOR, "SADDAM'S BOMBMAKER": Thank you.
BEGALA: How did a nice guy like you wind up trying to make nuclear bombs for Saddam Hussein? HAMZA: Oh, it starts usually on national security grounds. Israel was having a large nuclear weapons program, and the idea was to have some kind of deterrence to that program. A few nuclear weapons, two or three. I was sent to France to buy a reactor, which I did. And the purpose was...
BEGALA: After being educated here at MIT, right?
HAMZA: Yes, of course. The idea was that eventually it would take 20 years, 30 years to get the nuclear weapon done. In the meanwhile, we would get all kinds of money to build the infrastructure, science, and technology infrastructure for Iraq. That was the point.
BEGALA: And you began this thing with no moral qualms whatsoever.
HAMZA: Initially, actually we thought eventually we'll have to sit down at a peace table and we'll have a card of our own to get better terms. With the Israelis holding all of the cards, we'll have no way to bargain with them. But Israel is so small. Three population centers (ph).
If we have two, three nuclear weapons, we have the equivalence of the Israeli arsenal. And as such, we could be able to get some better terms. It was never meant to be used. But the Gulf War told us that Saddam would use it if he's going to go (ph).
He asked us to make one nuclear weapon when the war about to commence. What would he do with it? One nuclear weapon. You cannot test it. You lose it if you test it.
So the only thing he told us, he's going to drop it on somebody. That's what he was going to do. And this we knew was an insane scenario. We didn't even want to be involved in it. After that I left.
CARLSON: If we could just back up a second. You said just a moment ago that you went to France to buy a nuclear reactor. You explain this in some detail in your book. And I just want to put it up on the screen and paraphrase it.
You said, "We went to France to buy a nuclear reactor. On the face of it, our cover story didn't pass the smell test. But we learned again and again nobody cared. Everyone wanted our money. The French were first in line."
"Saddam already cinched the reactor deal in principle with Prime Minister Jacques Chirac" -- still in power -- "undoubtedly as a quid- pro-quo for oil concessions in Iraq, Iraqi imports of French cars, the award of a lucrative contract to develop a lake resort outside Baghdad, and promises to purchase French military planes."
You make it sound like France knew what you were going to use these materials for. Do you think that's the truth? HAMZA: We already had the reactor. We were three nuclear physicists and we were not using that reactor -- utilizing it fully. So when we asked the French for a much larger reactor, much more sophisticated, they said, how many nuclear physicists do you have? We said three. They started laughing.
We already had the reactor. Why do we need another much larger reactor for three guys? What would they do with it?
CARLSON: Right. So you're saying -- just to make certain I have this absolutely right -- that France, the self-described conscience of the world, knowingly gave or sold materials to Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Is that what you're saying?
HAMZA: Yes.
CARLSON: How do you feel about that?
HAMZA: Actually, the same experience I had in Germany. And we went in 1987 and we asked -- actually, we needed to build bomb parts, so we asked -- we were trying to buy a foundry from them. And I was again heading a team to negotiate with (UNINTELLIGIBLE), a major German concerns (ph) to buy a large foundry. It was such sophistication, dealing with very high temperature metals, which is uranium, mostly.
And when they asked, we gave them some minor excuse. We want to do it for such and such minor metals. They started laughing again.
The laugh told us something. Told us they knew and they meant to let us know that they knew, but we shouldn't worry. They are going to sell it anyway. And they gave us an offer for $120 million to sell the plant.
They laughed to let you not worry, because if they don't let you know that they know, you might drop out at the last minute when you get scared that they know. OK, they are going to, somehow one way or the other, jeopardize the deal or not deliver. No, they told you ahead of time. We know what you want it for. OK? Give us the deal and we'll give it to you, and you need not worry.
BEGALA: Let me ask you about -- I think it was 1981, early '80s. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear power plant, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as I recall. If Israel had not destroyed that plant, would you have had a bomb for the Gulf War?
HAMZA: Israel -- actually, what Israel is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us -- we were 400 when...
BEGALA: Four hundred?
HAMZA: Scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium.
BEGALA: But still, you would have had -- there was a report in 1991 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Gulf War that you were six months away from a bomb. Had the Israelis not destroyed that nuclear facility, which most of the world thought was a terrible idea at the time, and obviously I think it was a wonderful idea, you would have had one by 1991 when American troops were going in to liberate Kuwait.
HAMZA: Oh, we were going to have one anyway, yes, by 1990. And that was the same scenario where that wasn't presented to us. Make one nuclear weapon and that's it. The idea is here, one reactor easily destroyable in the long range, making actually very difficult to make the inspectors come again under six months. The French were there.
It was difficult for us to cheat using that reactor. So the Israelis assumed there is no overall inspection. There's nobody looking over our shoulders when we use that reactor. And they estimated we'll make seven kilograms of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed (ph) it out.
Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year.
BEGALA: That will have to be our last word. Chilling last word, and the book is chilling as well. Hang on with us, actually. We're going to keep you for one more segment. I'm sorry.
In a minute, we're going to ask Dr. Hamza what Saddam Hussein is really like in person. And later, one of our viewers wonders if there is a fourth member of President Bush's axis of evil. Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are talking with Khidhir Hamza, who was once the personal nuclear adviser to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He has written about it in a fascinating new book call called "Saddam's Bombmaker."
CARLSON: Mr. Hamza, knowing what you know -- and you know a lot -- you know Saddam Hussein personally -- do you support an American- led war to remove him from power?
HAMZA: Actually, yes. There's no fix to the problem Saddam created. In a sense, inspection is not going to disarm him, because what you need with the inspections to be successful, especially in monitoring that he doesn't get armed again, is that you need the transparency in government. People should be able to talk. Inspectors and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should have free access to government and what are the institutions. You should be able to go anywhere. Iraq's system of government is impossible. So what you have here, even if you take what he has now, which it's impossible to keep him from rearming, so actually, there's no fix for this.
Removing him, regime change is the only solution to this problem. Otherwise you will have -- what you have is containment, which is what gave you 9/11. Containment to create a lot of frustration. The Iraqi people will suffer. People will sympathize with their suffering, and it will create a lot of back fueling (ph) to the U.S. And eventually you'll get the nucleus of another group that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorist acts against the U.S.
So it is not a solution that eventually in the long range will bring back the U.S. into the region in a favorable way.
BEGALA: Let me ask you about 1991. Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear bomb. He did have chemical and biological weapons. He did not use them against American troops, not because I think he's a nice guy -- he certainly doesn't come off very nicely in your book -- but because he was deterred by the force of the American military. Will deterrence work again if we invade Iraq, or will we be hit with chemical and biological weapons?
HAMZA: No. Actually, he used them indirectly. What he did is placed them in the path of U.S. troops coming toward Baghdad. And it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some of them. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) explosions, which blew up a lot of gasses and around the American troops is probably the cause for the Gulf War syndrome now. Of course, you don't see it much in the American (UNINTELLIGIBLE), despite the recourse you have.
You see 10 times as much among the Iraqis in the region. Iraqi hospitals are full of people with cancers and all kind of diseases from the chemical weapons Saddam placed, presumably in the path for American troops. It was going (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them.
BEGALA: He will use them if we have another war?
HAMZA. The planning now, the Pentagon planning is to take care of this. There's a lot of planning to prevent...
CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are completely out of time. Mr. Hamza, that was genuinely interesting. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.
HAMZA: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Next in "Fireback," some unsolicited fashion advice. Is it ever solicited? We'll explain. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback." Glen Marshall of Cary, North Carolina writes: "Does the Bush administration now consider the stock market as part of the axis of evil? Any more of their lame economic policies and they'll do to the stock market what they intend to do to Iraq."
Well, good point. I like that, Glenn.
CARLSON: Yes, good point, Glenn. Obviously a John Edwards voter.
Paul Lyon of Toledo Ohio writes, "The only time you ever hear the French say oui-oui is when they've wet their pants after the latest military victory for their opponent."
BEGALA: Now wait. Hold that name up there.
CARLSON: Exactly.
BEGALA: Lyon? It looks mighty French to me. Paul might be...
(CROSSTALK)
Brent Hubbard of New Orleans, Louisiana, which is full of French men and women, "I have an idea for military strategy against Iraq," writes Brent. "We should attach a flotation device around Paul Begala's body so the Navy can use his forehead as an aircraft carrier."
I am prepared to serve. Thank you very much. Be sure to tip your waitresses.
CARLSON: You're not going to dodge that draft. OK.
Brian Douglas of New York City writes, "Tucker, are you finally going color blind? Your outfits are starting to match. I see you've got a new rug too. Don't think we don't know this."
You know, Paul, I made the mistake one night on the air admitting that this is in fact a wig.
BEGALA: A beautiful wig.
CARLSON: That's a joke. But people didn't realize it was a joke and, yes...
BEGALA: It's not a wig.
Yes, sir, what's your question or comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Peltz (ph) from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Is it hypocritical of the federal government to elevate our terror alert threat today without properly elevating the homeland security budget, which could properly protect Americans today?
BEGALA: It's unwise, put it that way. I do think, as I said before, I think they're doing the right thing about warning us. I don't think they're playing around here. But I wish our budget reflected the very serious condition...
CARLSON: But wait a second. I mean there's nothing -- as Paul himself pointed out earlier, there's nothing about this administration that's stingy about spending. So you've got to believe -- and in the absence of evidence, I do believe -- that this is the amount they think is necessary.
BEGALA: They're very stingy on everything except tax cuts for the rich. They're stingy on education, on health care, on basic research.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Rick Bernstein (ph), St. Louis, Missouri. Politics aside, why do the other great powers, such as France and Germany, Russia and China, not perceive the same military threat from Iraq as we seem to?
CARLSON: Well I think they do perceive it. Because as we learned tonight, France and Germany both sold components to Iraq for its own nuclear weapons program. So they both have a keen understanding of the threat of Iraq. I think for four different reasons, they're opposed to it.
We did a whole show on this last night. But I wouldn't say that any of those countries has America's interest or the world's interest foremost in its heart or mind.
BEGALA: One of the hardest things about being president is trying to get all those other countries to come along. I frankly think our president has not done as well as his father did. He didn't do as well as President Clinton did, bringing the world community to the war in Kosovo.
CARLSON: France and Germany haven't done as well. That is the difference. But to blame the United States for their (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ulterior motives is wrong.
BEGALA: They had ulterior motives in the last Gulf War and in Kosovo, and we overcame them from presidential leadership with Bush Senior and Clinton.
CARLSON: So it's our fault that they are totally immoral? OK.
BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Not a fan of France. But we'll be here Monday 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
Bomb Maker>
Aired February 7, 2003 - 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:
The national terrorism alert goes up.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The U.S. intelligence community has indicated that the al Qaeda terrorist network is still determined to attack innocent Americans, both here and abroad.
ANNOUNCER: So what should you do?
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Take the time now to get informed.
ANNOUNCER: Plus, what should the Bush administration do about Iraq?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY: The issue of whether or not war comes is say matter that Saddam Hussein will decide.
ANNOUNCER: Plus, the man who spent decades helping Saddam Hussein go nuclear.
Tonight on CROSSFIRE.
Live, from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Our nation's terrorism alert level has been raised to code orange, signifying a high risk of a terrorist attack. That is up from yellow, which stands for an elevated chance of attack.
We will discuss the threat with a man who chaired an important commission on homeland security. Also we'll ask a couple of guests whether the Bush administration's coming confrontation with Iraq helps or hinders our war against al Qaeda territories.
But first, the best darn political briefing in television, the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."
As I mentioned a moment ago, for only the second time ever the president today raised the national terror threat from elevated to high. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made the announcement this afternoon.
The high alert was prompted by reports that al Qaeda terrorists are planning a mass casualty attack against Americans, possibly using chemical, biological or radiological weapons.
According to the president's proposed budget, Mr. Bush wants to spend $41 billion on homeland security next year. That figure includes not only Secretary Ridge's department, but spending across the entire federal government. By contrast, the president is asking for $100.6 billion in tax cuts next year.
Usually, I try to end these political alerts with a little joke, but I just don't think there's anything funny about the fact hat our president believes cutting taxes is more than twice as important than protecting you and I from a terrorist attack.
TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: I have to say, Paul, the idea that if there's a terrorist attack against the United States, the fault of President Bush's tax cut, which is the implication of what you just said, is so completely over the top.
Moreover...
BEGALA: What I said is what I said. I didn't say anything was his fault.
CARLSON: Federal spending is not always the measure of a commitment to something. Simply because one program has more money than the other doesn't mean that one program is more than the other. It's not an absolute measurement, as you know.
BEGALA: Actually, I know very different. I know that where your heart lies, there to shall your treasure be.
Budgets are expression of our national will and our national priorities and this president is certainly not responsible for a terrorist attack , good God, but he will be responsible for his budget priorities. He thinks we should have $100 billion in tax cuts and $40 billion in homeland defense.
I'd rather reverse them. A hundred billion dollars to protect the homeland and only $40 billion for tax cuts.
CARLSON: I must say -- I wish you would -- maybe on another show you could tell me specifically what you think he ought to be spending money on for homeland security that's he not.
BEGALA: I will.
CARLSON: We'll address that.
BEGALA: I will.
CARLSON: Chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei arrive in Baghdad. Thanks to Secretary of State Colin Powell, they now know Saddam Hussein has been mocking them as they work. A senior U.N. official says the pair will push for three key components of inspections: private interviews with Iraqi scientists, one happened today, the use of U-2 spyplanes and Iraq's enforcement of legislation prohibiting companies from making weapons of mass destruction.
Back at the U.N., meanwhile, Great Britain is expected to draft a new Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq if this weekend's mission fails. Not that the resolution is likely to do much good. Diplomats tell CNN that despite the overwhelming evidence against Iraq, many Security Council members would continue to oppose removing Saddam Hussein. As usual, the strong resistance comes from France and Germany, which means it could be time to reveal the trump card.
As "The Onion" put it today, Has it been explained to the Germans that the Iraqis are Semites too.
BEGALA: "The Onion," of course, being a satirical...
CARLSON: That's right.
BEGALA: ...online newspaper that's very funny.
It is true that the French and the Germans have been maddeningly, frustratingly unhelpful. But we need them not to win a war in Iraq. We need them for this war against al Qaeda that I keep harping on, because there are al Qaeda cells in those countries. If we alienate those governments too much, I am worried that they're -- for their domestic political reasons, they'll be less helpful on the terrorist war as well and that's a disaster.
CARLSON: They have -- that's a legitimate concern. They have their own good reasons for joining us in the war on al Qaeda and everyone believes they'll continue to do that.
BEGALA: I don't know that every one believes that. They do have good reasons and I hope they do, but I hate to press it.
Here is what our president said in his State of the Union address when he talked about controlling federal spending.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow and that is a good benchmark for us. Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BEGALA: But President Bush is actually increasing his own budget for the White House, not by 4 percent, as he promised, but by a whopping 9.3 percent, obviously more than twice the amount he's increasing the rest of the budget.
He also, of course, broke his word on funding education. He's also giving just a 2 percent increase to medical research and even underfunding, as I mentioned before, homeland security, boosting that budget by 7.4 percent, far less than even the White House's 9.3 percent.
When asked about his broken promises, Mr. Bush quoted from Otter from "Animal House" who said "Hey, you screwed up. You trusted me."
CARLSON: I agree with you that the budget is too big, as someone who thinks the federal government is too big. I sort of agree.
However, the whining about spending on the Department of Homeland Security comes primarily from members of Congress, almost all of them Democrats, not all, but mostly Democrats, who are mad because their districts and states didn't get enough pork.
And it seems that to play politics with something this important is pretty low.
BEGALA: And that's what the president is doing, I agree. The president is playing politics. Those congressmen and senators are right. They want the money to protect their citizens.
CARLSON: Oh, Paul. You know (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
BEGALA: That's the job of the federal government is the international....
CARLSON: You don't believe that.
BEGALA: ...terrorist conspiracy. It is our federal government's job to protect us.
CARLSON: But individual senators, including Mrs. Clinton of New York, are saying, Look -- and we each had a long statement on this very subject this week -- are saying, Look, we need more money for this program, that program within our states that are not related to terrorism. They're using this as a way to bring money to their states.
BEGALA: And doubling the increase for the White House. That's not politics?
CARLSON: Attack it on substance and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
BEGALA: That is the substance.
CARLSON: For the past two years, the NAACP has staged a boycott of South Carolina. Until the Confederate flag is removed from the grounds of the capitol building in Columbia, the group is demanding that all Americans avoid all businesses in the state. That means no going to restaurants, hotels, gas stations or convenience stores, no taxi cabs or car services. No commerce at all. Those are the rules.
It's a much fanfare, Senator John Edwards, loudly and self righteously promised that he would join the boycott. This has turned out to be a problem, since Edwards needs to spend money in South Carolina in order to win the key presidential primary there.
It hasn't taken long for politics to trump principle. Tomorrow afternoon, Edwards is holding an event at Charleston at the William Aiken House, the longtime home of a notorious Confederate politician, agitator and slave owner. In other words, Edwards, someone who claims to care deeply about the hurtful symbolism, is going to speak at what amounts to a Confederate shrine. Good luck explaining that to the NAACP.
I can't wait.
BEGALA: Well, I can't wait for Senator Edwards. We've extended invitation after invitation. I talked to his campaign manager again today. Let's see John Edwards come on. If he can't stand up to Tucker Carlson, he's not going to be able to stand up to George W. Bush.
So come on, John Edwards. Come join CROSSFIRE.
Our friends at the Death Penalty Information Center report that Florida, recently released its 23rd wrongly convicted man from death row. Rudolph Holton spent 16 years on death row. He was freed after a court found that crucial evidence pointing to another perpetrator had been withheld from his defense team.
Holton is the 103rd American in all who's been exonerated and freed from death row since 1973. Now just days before Holton's release, Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced plans to abolish the office that oversees deaths penalty appeals in his state. Lawyers in that office had been instrumental in winning Mr. Holton's release as well as helping other men wrongly convicted and facing death.
Governor Bush is said to believe death penalty cases are better handled by volunteer lawyers. He said if all the best lawyers are tied up defending innocent people who have been sentenced to death, we might not have enough lawyers if my big brother has to go back to the Supreme Court and steal another election.
So that's -- he's got his priorities straight at least. Family first.
He never said that. I made it up.
CARLSON: I've said it before, Paul, and I mean this in the spirit of love. But I think it's time to get some psychiatric help.
The election thing, Gore lost, you can be happy or sad about it, but it happened. It wasn't stolen from him. Even Gore doesn't say it was stolen from him. BEGALA: That court case was a travesty.
CARLSON: IT's time to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We can talk after the show.
Senator Hillary Clinton has promised she will not be a candidate next year in 2004 and she probably won't be. On the other hand, a new poll shows Mrs. Clinton far and away her party's favorite. In a theoretical matchup, registered Democrats said she would crush every one of her fellow Democrats by a huge margin. She beat, in their opinion Joe Lieberman nearly three-to-win. Democrats love her. Pit Mrs. Clinton against John Kerry and she wins by more than 30 points. She's even more popular than ideological soul mate, Al Sharpton.
Are polls like this enough to change Senator Clinton's mind? A story in "The New York Post" today suggests, Yes, indeed there are. Democrats strategists say that if President Bush looks vulnerable later this year, Mrs. Clinton won't be able to resist. She'll jump into the race rather than waiting until perhaps 2012 and she'll be 65 and too old to run.
Here is hoping they're right. A Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would be a blessing for conservatives every where. For journalism, it would be marvelous. For America itself, run, Hillary, run. And before you do, please come on CROSSFIRE.
BEGALA: I hate to disappoint you, but she's not going to run. That disappoints me, too. But she's got a commitment to the people of New York. She going to serve in the Senate there. She may run one day. It does break my heart that we will never get to see the debate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush. I would pay money for that one, man. I would love to see it. She would beat like a borrowed mule, red-headed stepchild, like a bad piece of meat. She would whip his ass!
CARLSON: I would love it. Her speaking extemporaneously always bears fruit.
Now that the nation's terrorism alert level has gone up, what practical steps can all of us take to protect ourselves? We'll get some expert answers in a moment.
And then we'll debate whether raising the threat level will do anything than make people nervous. And it does do that.
Later, the administration claims Iraq is working on a nuclear weapon. We'll meet the man who once directed the program, Saddam's own bomb maker joins us in a moment. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. With the terrorist threat level now raised to High and more clouds gathering over Baghdad, many Americans are wondering what they should do.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge today called on Americans to, quote, "remain aware and remain alert," unquote and to take such actions as devising a family communication plan to be in touch in case of an emergency.
And law enforcement sources tell CNN recent intelligence suggests that there could be an attack on the East Coast of the United States. Intercepted messages specifically mentioned subways and hotels, but no particular city.
Here to talk about the high threat of the terrorist attack, please welcome former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore. In 1999 he chaired a national commission that looked at America's preparedness for a terrorist attack. Governor Gilmore.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Governor, the federal government has said that Americans need to take steps to keep lines of communication open should there be a terrorist attack. Most people I know are confused, however, about what they can do to protect themselves physically. Can you give us any specific things people can do?
JIM GILMORE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: Well, I think we need to focus on what this was today. I think that the team on Homeland Security was rolled out. You saw attorney general, the secretary, you saw the director of the FBI and the goal here was to reassure the people by coming forward with a whole series of communications.
And that's different from the question of, Gee, what can the average citizen go out there and do? There really are two separate issues. But the goal today it seemed to me was to communicate with the public, to communicate with the locals and the state officials and to communicate with the terrorists.
What can the individuals do? I think Secretary Ridge indicated that individuals need to be thoughtful about this, need to communicate within their families and be alert to what's going on around them. Particularly at this time of elevated status.
But in terms of everybody changing their whole lives around, that's just what the terrorists want us to do and I don't think that's what's being asserted and I don't think that's what we should be doing.
BEGALA: One of the things that was in one of the wire stories that I read today talked about soft targets. Indeed, CNN's reporting suggests that perhaps hotels, subways-- these are considered soft targets by people in the trade because they're not government facilities or military facilities. Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institute, and he talked about this recently and this is what he had to say.
"There's a lot of private infrastructure in this country -- chemical facilities, trucking companies that carry toxic materials, skyscrapers that house thousands of people whose air circulation systems could be attacked or used as distribution mechanisms for anthrax. These kinds of infrastructures," O'Hanlon says, "are not being protected. The administration has done very little in most of these areas, seemingly wanting to trust the private sector to take care of these problems on their own."
Have we done enough to protect these soft targets?
GILMORE: Soft targets just means that it's something that isn't expected to be attacked and that's of course, what terrorists do. They try to pick out things that aren't necessarily protected.
Can we protect everything in the United States that a terrorist can attack and instill fear? Of course not, and that will be the challenge.
BEGALA: Do you think things have changed enough after 9/11? I don't. I just don't think we've done enough...
GILMORE: I think things have gotten better. I think things have up proved a great deal. And we were issuing reports. And after 9/11, these reports have been focused on and a lot has been done.
BEGALA: Your report was well before 9/11. You were one of those people warning us. To your great credit.
GILMORE: The key point though is there's going to have to be a bridge between private enterprise, private people who own all this infrastructure, port facilities, railroads, telephones, electrical power lines. Could be anything.
And here's the point. I think it's going to require the American people to understand that if someone wants to do a sneak attack on us in the dead of night like cowards they can probably hit something. So the goal it seems to me is to protect the country to the greatest extent possible and then to understand we're going to live with risk and we should not throw away our civil liberties, and we should not bow to the threats of terrorists. We should continue to live our lives as free Americans.
CARLSON: But we're not only living with risk. We're also living with anxiety because if the federal government says, Look, we're going to be hit as it said many times, there's not a lot you can do about it which is the subtext of the message. That makes people less likely to want go outside and it affects the economy among many things. People don't go want to go to hotels, they don't want to go on the subway, they don't want to travel by air.
GILMORE: I don't think that we should be sending any kind of communication to the American people that they shouldn't go about their daily lives and I don't think that this press conference did send a message like that.
Americans are going to have to understand that they're part of the whole team. The federal government, the state governments and the localities are all going to go to work to try protect not just infrastructure, but people. At some point in time you have to go overseas and destroy these people who try come out and kill Americans. And I think that's what the president... CARLSON: But, Governor, don't you think it would be psychologically more effectively, anyway, to couple the warning with a suggestion for the tangible steps each person can take to make him of herself safer?
GILMORE: I think Governor Ridge tried to do a bit of that today. Once again, the reality is that today was a big communication with the American people. It was about telling the American people that we have reason to believe that the threat is increased without trying to give the specifics which they may not even have, Tucker.
All they're doing is intercepting heavier communication which is a warning sign. They sent a message -- I think not in the conference, but in the system that they designed to the states and to the locals.
More communication, better structures are being set up to give better information. I met with Admiral Abbott over at the White House. They are setting up these kinds of systems for the first time to share information appropriately.
And a message to the terrorists, which is we're alert, we understand that this is a dangerous period. The American people are going to be alert and vigilant about this. And if you try something like this, you have a high chance of not succeeding. And that's a deterrence factor.
CARLSON: Amen. Well, Governor Gilmore, thanks very much.
BEGALA: Thank you, sir.
GILMORE: Thank you.
CARLSON: This afternoon, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York told New Yorkers, quote, "live your lives and leave the worrying to professionals." In a moment, we'll ask a couple of guests what the professionals ought to be worrying about.
Later the man who wrote the book about trying to help Saddam acquire nuclear weapons. We'll be joined by Saddam's bomb maker. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're announcing today's uptick in the national terrorism alert. Attorney General John Ashcroft specifically warned that al Qaeda may be interested in so- called soft targets, such as apartments, hotels, sports arenas and amusement parks. Ashcroft said other possible targets include the nation's economic, transportation and energy systems, plus targets of symbolic value. That pretty much includes everything in the continental United States.
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE to debate the government's response to terrorist threats, former California Democratic Congressman Vic Fazio and former Republican National Committee communications director Cliff May, who is now with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
BEGALA: Thank you both for coming back.
Cliff, a moment ago Tucker and I were arguing. We are paid to do that, but we'd do it for free. And one of the things he said is I challenge you to show me exactly where you would increase the homeland defense budget, and let me do that. Let me put it up on the screen for you.
This was an amendment that the Democrats offered in the Senate, pretty much as first order of business when Congress came back in January. They asked then country to spend more on state and local assistance to combat terrorism, more on border security, more on airport security, port security, nuclear and energy, security, mass transit, FBI, water security and on and on. All in all, it was a $5 billion amendment to add to the 40 or so billion we already spent. It seemed to me eminently reasonable. Wasn't it a mistake for the Republicans to kill that?
CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: I think this is going to be a subject of debate for a long time, how much we need to increase spending. You can say that's the right amount, or I can say to double that or triple that, or quadruple that...
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: But you also know that the government needs to be able to digest the funds and put them to good use, rather than to bad use. So I think it's a reasonable debate. I'm glad you're on the side of spending more money for security, national security, in other ways, but I don't think you can really second-guess all the procedures that have gone through for this.
CARLSON: Now, Congressman Fazio, you are already hearing Democrats say that the announcement today was a kind of preemptive cover for the agencies involved in case there is a terrorist attack. I want you to think back to last year, when Democrats immediately hopped on the news that the administration had knowledge that there were al Qaeda or terrorist -- potential terrorists training in flight schools. This is what Tom Daschle said at the time. "Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information? What specific actions were taken by the White House in response?" Alleging or implying some sort of conspiracy.
In light of that political attack, can't you see why the administration would be apt to put out a warning?
VIC FAZIO, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I think the administration is putting out a warning because they don't want people to be asking, didn't you know it was about to happen? But I think what is much more difficult is to keep people calm and keep them involved in the economy. Nobody wants to see a contraction in the same matter we saw after 9/11. That is a tremendous blow to the economy, but I am much more focused on the inability even to work with state and local governments. They put $2.5 to $3 billion of their own money in the face of this economic problem all of them are facing directly, and they are really the only people who have really made improvements since 9/11.
We're a year and a half after that event, and we're not much better off than we were at that time. We've made some gains, but nowhere near as much as we should have, and I also agree with the Governor Gilmore, what are we go doing to work with the private sector, with our public facilities, the ports, the airports, the nuclear plants? None of this has happened.
CARLSON: What's wrong with the state -- I know you're talking about California, because the governor of California is mad about this, but what...
FAZIO: No, I'm talking about the country.
CARLSON: ... what's wrong with the state taking responsibility for some of its security? That doesn't strike me as...
FAZIO: States are doing what they can, but the problem is the states have to balance their budget. They can't run the kind of deficits that this administration is running with impunity. They're having to rob Peter to pay Paul.
BEGALA: The whole purpose of the federal government, if nothing else, is to protect us from external foreign threats, and this is a foreign threat. It should be the job of the federal government, and I think, maybe unlike other Democrats, I think the Bush administration today did the right thing for the right reasons. I don't think it was a CYA deal. I think they're doing the best they can to give us information, not so much to panic us, but enough for us to prepare. I give them every benefit of the doubt on this, maybe because I used to work in a government and my heart goes out to them in these kinds of times.
But I look at their budget, and again, I don't see the priorities. I believe we are facing a life and death struggle with terrorism -- and I know you do, that's why you set up your organization, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. But here's what we're doing in our budget: Our president says we need to spend $41 on homeland security. I'd be the first one to sign up if it was 81. But look what he's spending on the tax cut here, $100. Now, a lot of that tax cut goes to me, OK? By the grace of CNN, I'm in the top of 1 percent.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: I much, much rather have our national government protect our lives first and worry about a tax cut later. Why do they have these priorities, Cliff?
MAY: Well, I think one reason, what you're seeing here, you talk about reducing tax rates as spending money, and it's not necessarily, it's a different economic view. If you in -- if you try to get more economic activity going out there in the country, that means there's more business, there's more employment, that means there's more tax revenues and more money coming in.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Let's understand. After Reagan cut tax rates back in the early 1980s, we pretty much doubled the revenues that came into the government. So the last thing you want to do is -- doubled it. Doubled it.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: He raised taxes four times after he cut them once. That's why revenues went up.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Now we're arguing about supply side of the 1980s. I think maybe we should take a commercial break, come back, and continue (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the '70s. That's right.
BEGALA: In just a minute we're going to ask our guests, though, if President Bush is just maybe, maybe, so obsessed with Iraq that he may not be dealing effectively enough with al Qaeda.
Later, we'll ask a confidant of Saddam Hussein just how close the Iraqi dictator is to getting the bomb. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. President Bush today told reporters the standoff with Iraq is, in his words, "a defining moment for the U.N. Security Council." But, while he has ordered U.S. forces to head for the Persian Gulf, the president downplayed the threat from North Korea, saying he believes that crisis can be solved diplomatically.
In the CROSSFIRE, Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and former California Congressman Vic Fazio.
CARLSON: Congressman Fazio, you often hear people say that taking on Saddam Hussein would not be justified. Let me offer up one potential justification. In 1993, Iraqi intelligence attempted to assassinate former President Bush. In response, President Clinton did virtually nothing. He launched 23 tomahawk missiles to no effect. Really sort of a craven act.
Isn't that enough alone, when you try and kill an American president, even a recently retired one, that's not acceptable and you should not continue as a head of state. Can we agree on that?
FAZIO: Well, I think we can agree that there are real threats to not only former presidents, but to many people in the region and around the world that emanate from Iraq. I think Hans Blix and our Secretary of State Mr. Powell did an excellent job in the last two weeks of really laying out the threat. And I think most persons now see it. The only question is, what's the proper response? And I certainly, looking back, think that the first President Bush really handled the gathering of the multilateral forces far more effectively than his son. But we're making progress. The president announced today he'd go back to the U.N. one more time to try to get another unifying resolution.
I certainly applaud that. At some point, we may have to act, and I don't think it will necessarily be through the U.N. I hope it will be. Because the real cost of this war is not going to be the 30, 60, 90 days of military conflict. It's the many years afterward that we may have to bear all ourselves. The nation building, which I know is not a popular term, will have to take place in Afghanistan and in Iraq and hopefully not in other countries in the region, which could be involved in the military action, too.
BEGALA: Cliff, last night on "LARRY KING" former President Clinton said something I strongly agree with, actually. He said President Bush doesn't need to go back to the U.N. If he does, I think Vic's right, it's nice, it's good. There is no obligation under international law, certainly not under American law to do so.
But he's doing so I think for good reasons. But also because his credibility has been so diminished by his misstatements of fact. Look at the CNN poll this week. Forty-nine percent of us, nearly half of his people, believe that our present would knowingly present evidence that he knows is false. And 58 percent of us, the vast majority of Americans, think our president would conceal evidence from us that goes against his position.
Our crisis has a confidence as he's trying to lead us into war. Doesn't he?
MAY: I don't think so, because if you look at the polls, I guess they're kind of confused and they do have the questions asked. About 67 percent in any poll you look at say they trust the president to do the right thing and they believe that the president is justified to use military force against Iraq.
By the way, it's also important to point out -- I'm not disagreeing with you -- we now have I believe 18 European nations to who have signed to be with us. The two nations -- and quite a few others. I mea, Australia, Turkey, Israel. The nations that haven't, the governments that haven't are Germany and France. And it would be a shame if they're not with us, although it will remind people that on D-day in World War II, the governments of Germany and France were not with us either.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Amen. And Vic Fazio, isn't it clear now, given all the evidence the president and the secretary of state and the vice president and others have put out there, it's really clear that there is an actual connection between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda. There's no denying that, is there? FAZIO: Well, I think it's still not as well documented as we need to make it. We're far more convinced of the biological and chemical threat than the nuclear threat, which I think we'd all agree is much greater in North Korea, where we're taking a diplomatic approach. But I do think we need to continue to work on the al Qaeda connection because, in fact, the real war against terrorism is going to be much longer and more intractable than any activity in Iraq.
MAY: Could I just make a brief point? A very important point. We have a heightened alert today. We have a heightened alert why, because we're afraid of Iraqi agents or because we're also afraid of terrorists from al Qaeda, from Hamas, and other organizations?
The fact of the matter is the jihadists -- OK. So now we're talking about an al Qaeda connection to Saddam Hussein. That answers your question. We know from what we're afraid of right now that there is.
BEGALA: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) connections in Iran, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Yemen Why aren't we going into those countries?
MAY: Let's do it.
BEGALA: We're going to stop it there. Thank you.
CARLSON: Thank you both very much. We appreciate it.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Next, he's the highest-ranking government scientist ever to get out of Iraq and live to tell the tale. He'll tell it right here on CROSSFIRE in just a moment. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you from the George Washington University here in downtown Washington. Iraqi scientists are finally talking with U.N. weapons inspectors. Their first private meeting came only yesterday. Three more scientists were interviewed today.
No doubt our next guest can sympathize with their reluctance. Before getting away, he was Saddam Hussein's personal nuclear adviser. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the book aptly titled, "Saddam's Bombmaker." Please welcome Khidhir Hamza to the CROSSFIRE.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: First, thank you for joining us.
KHIDHIR HAMZA, AUTHOR, "SADDAM'S BOMBMAKER": Thank you.
BEGALA: How did a nice guy like you wind up trying to make nuclear bombs for Saddam Hussein? HAMZA: Oh, it starts usually on national security grounds. Israel was having a large nuclear weapons program, and the idea was to have some kind of deterrence to that program. A few nuclear weapons, two or three. I was sent to France to buy a reactor, which I did. And the purpose was...
BEGALA: After being educated here at MIT, right?
HAMZA: Yes, of course. The idea was that eventually it would take 20 years, 30 years to get the nuclear weapon done. In the meanwhile, we would get all kinds of money to build the infrastructure, science, and technology infrastructure for Iraq. That was the point.
BEGALA: And you began this thing with no moral qualms whatsoever.
HAMZA: Initially, actually we thought eventually we'll have to sit down at a peace table and we'll have a card of our own to get better terms. With the Israelis holding all of the cards, we'll have no way to bargain with them. But Israel is so small. Three population centers (ph).
If we have two, three nuclear weapons, we have the equivalence of the Israeli arsenal. And as such, we could be able to get some better terms. It was never meant to be used. But the Gulf War told us that Saddam would use it if he's going to go (ph).
He asked us to make one nuclear weapon when the war about to commence. What would he do with it? One nuclear weapon. You cannot test it. You lose it if you test it.
So the only thing he told us, he's going to drop it on somebody. That's what he was going to do. And this we knew was an insane scenario. We didn't even want to be involved in it. After that I left.
CARLSON: If we could just back up a second. You said just a moment ago that you went to France to buy a nuclear reactor. You explain this in some detail in your book. And I just want to put it up on the screen and paraphrase it.
You said, "We went to France to buy a nuclear reactor. On the face of it, our cover story didn't pass the smell test. But we learned again and again nobody cared. Everyone wanted our money. The French were first in line."
"Saddam already cinched the reactor deal in principle with Prime Minister Jacques Chirac" -- still in power -- "undoubtedly as a quid- pro-quo for oil concessions in Iraq, Iraqi imports of French cars, the award of a lucrative contract to develop a lake resort outside Baghdad, and promises to purchase French military planes."
You make it sound like France knew what you were going to use these materials for. Do you think that's the truth? HAMZA: We already had the reactor. We were three nuclear physicists and we were not using that reactor -- utilizing it fully. So when we asked the French for a much larger reactor, much more sophisticated, they said, how many nuclear physicists do you have? We said three. They started laughing.
We already had the reactor. Why do we need another much larger reactor for three guys? What would they do with it?
CARLSON: Right. So you're saying -- just to make certain I have this absolutely right -- that France, the self-described conscience of the world, knowingly gave or sold materials to Saddam Hussein to build a nuclear weapon. Is that what you're saying?
HAMZA: Yes.
CARLSON: How do you feel about that?
HAMZA: Actually, the same experience I had in Germany. And we went in 1987 and we asked -- actually, we needed to build bomb parts, so we asked -- we were trying to buy a foundry from them. And I was again heading a team to negotiate with (UNINTELLIGIBLE), a major German concerns (ph) to buy a large foundry. It was such sophistication, dealing with very high temperature metals, which is uranium, mostly.
And when they asked, we gave them some minor excuse. We want to do it for such and such minor metals. They started laughing again.
The laugh told us something. Told us they knew and they meant to let us know that they knew, but we shouldn't worry. They are going to sell it anyway. And they gave us an offer for $120 million to sell the plant.
They laughed to let you not worry, because if they don't let you know that they know, you might drop out at the last minute when you get scared that they know. OK, they are going to, somehow one way or the other, jeopardize the deal or not deliver. No, they told you ahead of time. We know what you want it for. OK? Give us the deal and we'll give it to you, and you need not worry.
BEGALA: Let me ask you about -- I think it was 1981, early '80s. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear power plant, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as I recall. If Israel had not destroyed that plant, would you have had a bomb for the Gulf War?
HAMZA: Israel -- actually, what Israel is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us -- we were 400 when...
BEGALA: Four hundred?
HAMZA: Scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium.
BEGALA: But still, you would have had -- there was a report in 1991 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Gulf War that you were six months away from a bomb. Had the Israelis not destroyed that nuclear facility, which most of the world thought was a terrible idea at the time, and obviously I think it was a wonderful idea, you would have had one by 1991 when American troops were going in to liberate Kuwait.
HAMZA: Oh, we were going to have one anyway, yes, by 1990. And that was the same scenario where that wasn't presented to us. Make one nuclear weapon and that's it. The idea is here, one reactor easily destroyable in the long range, making actually very difficult to make the inspectors come again under six months. The French were there.
It was difficult for us to cheat using that reactor. So the Israelis assumed there is no overall inspection. There's nobody looking over our shoulders when we use that reactor. And they estimated we'll make seven kilograms of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed (ph) it out.
Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year.
BEGALA: That will have to be our last word. Chilling last word, and the book is chilling as well. Hang on with us, actually. We're going to keep you for one more segment. I'm sorry.
In a minute, we're going to ask Dr. Hamza what Saddam Hussein is really like in person. And later, one of our viewers wonders if there is a fourth member of President Bush's axis of evil. Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are talking with Khidhir Hamza, who was once the personal nuclear adviser to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He has written about it in a fascinating new book call called "Saddam's Bombmaker."
CARLSON: Mr. Hamza, knowing what you know -- and you know a lot -- you know Saddam Hussein personally -- do you support an American- led war to remove him from power?
HAMZA: Actually, yes. There's no fix to the problem Saddam created. In a sense, inspection is not going to disarm him, because what you need with the inspections to be successful, especially in monitoring that he doesn't get armed again, is that you need the transparency in government. People should be able to talk. Inspectors and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should have free access to government and what are the institutions. You should be able to go anywhere. Iraq's system of government is impossible. So what you have here, even if you take what he has now, which it's impossible to keep him from rearming, so actually, there's no fix for this.
Removing him, regime change is the only solution to this problem. Otherwise you will have -- what you have is containment, which is what gave you 9/11. Containment to create a lot of frustration. The Iraqi people will suffer. People will sympathize with their suffering, and it will create a lot of back fueling (ph) to the U.S. And eventually you'll get the nucleus of another group that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) terrorist acts against the U.S.
So it is not a solution that eventually in the long range will bring back the U.S. into the region in a favorable way.
BEGALA: Let me ask you about 1991. Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear bomb. He did have chemical and biological weapons. He did not use them against American troops, not because I think he's a nice guy -- he certainly doesn't come off very nicely in your book -- but because he was deterred by the force of the American military. Will deterrence work again if we invade Iraq, or will we be hit with chemical and biological weapons?
HAMZA: No. Actually, he used them indirectly. What he did is placed them in the path of U.S. troops coming toward Baghdad. And it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some of them. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) explosions, which blew up a lot of gasses and around the American troops is probably the cause for the Gulf War syndrome now. Of course, you don't see it much in the American (UNINTELLIGIBLE), despite the recourse you have.
You see 10 times as much among the Iraqis in the region. Iraqi hospitals are full of people with cancers and all kind of diseases from the chemical weapons Saddam placed, presumably in the path for American troops. It was going (UNINTELLIGIBLE) them.
BEGALA: He will use them if we have another war?
HAMZA. The planning now, the Pentagon planning is to take care of this. There's a lot of planning to prevent...
CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are completely out of time. Mr. Hamza, that was genuinely interesting. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.
HAMZA: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: Next in "Fireback," some unsolicited fashion advice. Is it ever solicited? We'll explain. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time now for "Fireback." Glen Marshall of Cary, North Carolina writes: "Does the Bush administration now consider the stock market as part of the axis of evil? Any more of their lame economic policies and they'll do to the stock market what they intend to do to Iraq."
Well, good point. I like that, Glenn.
CARLSON: Yes, good point, Glenn. Obviously a John Edwards voter.
Paul Lyon of Toledo Ohio writes, "The only time you ever hear the French say oui-oui is when they've wet their pants after the latest military victory for their opponent."
BEGALA: Now wait. Hold that name up there.
CARLSON: Exactly.
BEGALA: Lyon? It looks mighty French to me. Paul might be...
(CROSSTALK)
Brent Hubbard of New Orleans, Louisiana, which is full of French men and women, "I have an idea for military strategy against Iraq," writes Brent. "We should attach a flotation device around Paul Begala's body so the Navy can use his forehead as an aircraft carrier."
I am prepared to serve. Thank you very much. Be sure to tip your waitresses.
CARLSON: You're not going to dodge that draft. OK.
Brian Douglas of New York City writes, "Tucker, are you finally going color blind? Your outfits are starting to match. I see you've got a new rug too. Don't think we don't know this."
You know, Paul, I made the mistake one night on the air admitting that this is in fact a wig.
BEGALA: A beautiful wig.
CARLSON: That's a joke. But people didn't realize it was a joke and, yes...
BEGALA: It's not a wig.
Yes, sir, what's your question or comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Peltz (ph) from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Is it hypocritical of the federal government to elevate our terror alert threat today without properly elevating the homeland security budget, which could properly protect Americans today?
BEGALA: It's unwise, put it that way. I do think, as I said before, I think they're doing the right thing about warning us. I don't think they're playing around here. But I wish our budget reflected the very serious condition...
CARLSON: But wait a second. I mean there's nothing -- as Paul himself pointed out earlier, there's nothing about this administration that's stingy about spending. So you've got to believe -- and in the absence of evidence, I do believe -- that this is the amount they think is necessary.
BEGALA: They're very stingy on everything except tax cuts for the rich. They're stingy on education, on health care, on basic research.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. Rick Bernstein (ph), St. Louis, Missouri. Politics aside, why do the other great powers, such as France and Germany, Russia and China, not perceive the same military threat from Iraq as we seem to?
CARLSON: Well I think they do perceive it. Because as we learned tonight, France and Germany both sold components to Iraq for its own nuclear weapons program. So they both have a keen understanding of the threat of Iraq. I think for four different reasons, they're opposed to it.
We did a whole show on this last night. But I wouldn't say that any of those countries has America's interest or the world's interest foremost in its heart or mind.
BEGALA: One of the hardest things about being president is trying to get all those other countries to come along. I frankly think our president has not done as well as his father did. He didn't do as well as President Clinton did, bringing the world community to the war in Kosovo.
CARLSON: France and Germany haven't done as well. That is the difference. But to blame the United States for their (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ulterior motives is wrong.
BEGALA: They had ulterior motives in the last Gulf War and in Kosovo, and we overcame them from presidential leadership with Bush Senior and Clinton.
CARLSON: So it's our fault that they are totally immoral? OK.
BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Not a fan of France. But we'll be here Monday 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
Bomb Maker>
