Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Are France and Germany Sabotaging America's Policy in Iraq?

Aired February 10, 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: In the crossfire tonight, NATO says no. Russia says "nyet." France and Germany say forget about it. And with friends like these, he's got enemies, too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; Saddam Hussein regards the Iraqi people as human shields, entirely expandable, when their suffering serves his purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Plus, we'll talk to the original "Bachelor" about real life after reality TV. Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

Live from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to the who's your friend edition of CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, NATO tells Turkey, good luck with the Iraqi chemicals weapons coming across your border.

Meanwhile, France, Germany and Russia continue doing their best to defend Saddam Hussein. The world has gone completely crazy and we'll debate it with two key members of Congress.

Then, the man who turned down Trista for Amanda. We'll ask the original "Bachelor," Alex Michel, if he has any regrets.

But first, the part of the show you'll never regret watching: our CROSSFIRE political alert.

Several European countries today vetoed NATO efforts to defend Turkey in the event of a war with Iraq. Turkey shares a border with Iraq. It asked for equipment to shoot down incoming Iraqi missiles and more pressingly, protect itself against Iraqi biological and poison gas attacks.

No dice, said France, Germany and Belgium. If you're going to side with the evil Americans in this war, you'll have to suffer the consequences.

France and Germany, both of which knowingly sold weapons components to Iraq to build a nuclear bomb, think Saddam is just fine where he is. They're made quite a bit of money from him. They oppose removing him from power.

The effect is to leave Turkey, which is NATO's only predominantly Muslim member, undefended in the face of peril.

France and Germany say this is the morally correct thing to do. Such are the ethics of old Europe, apparently.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Now as one who's a great critic and skeptic of this war, it's unconscionable for those NATO members to turn their back on Turkey. They are at risk. I don't think a war is justified. I don't think we ought to go in and fight one. But irrespective, Turkey is at risk.

It kills me. I'm going to make a pledge never to agree with you again tonight, Tucker. But I think you're right about this. The Europeans are wrong.

CARLSON: I hope you make a further pledge -- you're OK with this, but that you will that you will never use France and Germany and their resistance to our plans as an example of why we shouldn't go forward.

They have no moral authority to say anything

BEGALA: First of all, I never -- I do think that President Bush's inability to rally the world opinion the way his father did, the way President Clinton did in Kosovo, has been a failure with the presidential leadership.

CARLSON: But why would you want to rally the opinion that off the mark? They are unreasonable.

BEGALA: We have to lead, Tucker. We have to lead the world. We have to move them from being off the mark to being on our side.

CARLSON: People who would do that are...

BEGALA: That's what Ronald Reagan did. That's what Bush Sr. did, that's what Bill Clinton did. That's what Junior has failed to do.

Well, Iran announced it has begun mining uranium and is preparing to start a nuclear power plant with the help of President Bush's soul mate, president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Iran sits on an ocean of oil, of course, and no peaceful need for nuclear power. It also has chemical and biological weapons, is a major supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Mr. Bush to condemn his Russian buddy, Puti-Put, as he calls Putin, for helping the Iranians.

After all, Halliburton had an office in Tehran while Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. And just weeks before he went on the ticket with Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney was lobbying against sanctions on Iran.

Cheney's firm also sold oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein.

In his defense, Mr. Cheney stresses he never sold anything to North Korea, the third nation in the axis of evil, perhaps because no Korea has no oil.

CARLSON: Actually that's completely false. I don't know if you know it or not. Halliburton never sold anything to Iraq.

A company that Halliburton bought had previously sold...

BEGALA: Halliburton owned two subsidiaries, based in London that sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein. Look it up.

CARLSON: Paul, Paul. But Paul -- Paul, I understand that. Before Halliburton bought it. Dick Cheney had nothing do with that. And your implication that somehow we're being soft on Iran because Halliburton had business dealings with Iran is insane.

BEGALA: But Cheney...

CARLSON: Let me finish.

BEGALA: Cheney lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

CARLSON: In what sense is the White House soft on Iran? It included it in the axis of evil, and I think you mocked it at the time, or said it was over the top rhetoric. And now you're attacking the White House, for not taking a hard enough line on Iran. Pick a position, pal.

BEGALA: Here's my position. Dick Cheney betrayed our national interests when he sold oil field equipment to the Iranians and he lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

CARLSON: He betrayed our national...

BEGALA: He betrayed our national interests. I'm not implying that, I'm stating it as a fact because he did. That is irresponsible.

CARLSON: It took a Democratic presidential candidate to do it but at least someone in politics had finally admitted the obvious. The Democratic Party has no coherent position on Iraq; it has nothing useful to say about the single most important issue in the world.

Don't take my word for it. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean pointed this out over the weekend during a campaign trip to Ohio.

At least three of his opponents, Dean said, voted to authorize unilateral force in Iraq. All three, senators John Kerry and John Edwards and Congressman Dick Gephardt now act like they never cast that vote. Or, as Dean put it, quote, "voting in favor of a resolution and coming out here and kind of pretending in Iowa you're against the war," which, of course is exactly they've done. Unfortunately for Dean, it was all downhill from there, however. Moments later, according to the "Des Moines Register," Dean claimed that Saddam Hussein's threat to use chemical weapons against American troops is not an imminent threat to Americans, whatever that means.

At least the first part of the speech made sense, though.

BEGALA: You know, it's interesting to sort of watch him trying to pick out and read the tea leaves, which Democrat do you fear the most. And I don't think it is Howard Dean.

CARLSON: There's no political here at all, Paul. I think there needs to be a real debate on Iraq. And Democrats haven't provided one, through cowardice or inaction. Maybe they just don't know what they think. But it's a shame. Because need it. And they have been absent when the time to debate is issued.

BEGALA: We have had -- We have had a very vigorous debase on this show and others. In the Congress we have. The president, however, has made up his mind. I think it's unwise and warranted, but we're going to war. And I think Democrats who speak out against that are right.

CARLSON: Democrats have never put out a serious case against it. It's all been whining, oh, we need a resolution from Congress, one from the U.N., more inspections.

Nobody in Congress, virtually -- Joe Lieberman to some extent -- but other than him and a few others, almost no Democrats have seriously addressed the question and it's a terrible shame. I think it's a moral failure. It really is.

BEGALA: Well, I think it's your failure to go and look at what these Democrats have said. They have made, I think, a strong case that the president is pursuing the wrong policy in Iraq.

Well, our president, speaking of him, on domestic issues flew to Nashville today, where he talked up his so-called compassion agenda.

It's become a common scene, like on June 17 of last year when President Bush held a photo-op at The Villages at Carver, an Atlanta housing project founded by HUD's Hopes Six program. President Bush lavished praise on the program. The White House featured a photograph of it on their web site.

But as the "Atlanta Journal Constitution" reports, President Bush is eliminating funding for the very program that funds The Villages at Carver. Part of a pattern.

Just last week Mr. Bush visited the Boys and Girls Clubs, whose budget he's cutting by $10 million.

He also cut funding for the Even Start literacy program, which he praised in New Mexico. He cut funding for an ethanol program he praised in Iowa. He cut funding for a University of Pittsburgh bioterrorism center he had praised in Pennsylvania. He even cut funding for a program that helps kids with cancer at Evanson (ph) Hospital in Atlanta, which moved him to tears when he visited that hospital.

When asked how he could speak straight faced about compassion for the poor, while crippling their programs in his budget, Mr. Bush replied, read my lip service.

One bright spot, of course, all across America underprivileged children are learning the meaning of a very big word, hypocrisy.

CARLSON: I must say, I'm glad that you found something that President Bush wants to cut, some part of his budge that he wants to reduce. I'm heartened to hear that. It's a big budget, way too big.

But to say that he's crippling services for the poor is hyperbole and overstatement to such a large and irresponsible extent. I think you undermine your own case when you use words like that.

BEGALA: I haven't when I got through case by case by case of Bush kissing the program and then killing it. It's the kiss of death. You know, all across America now, charitable groups are saying to the president, please don't come here.

CARLSON: Right.

BEGALA: Because he's such a hypocrite, Tucker.

CARLSON: The measure of love...

BEGALA: He wants to cut them, cut them. If he wants to praise them, praise them. But don't do both. That's so hypocritical.

CARLSON: The measure of love is not federal dollars...

BEGALA: Yes, it is.

CARLSON: ... but to say he's crippling short services to the poor is...

BEGALA: He took that program down zero in Atlanta. Zero. That's crippling it.

CARLSON: Made they didn't need federal dollars. Ever consider that?

BEGALA: Yes, ask them. They did.

CARLSON: There are about two million cats and dogs in the state of Colorado. And almost all of them are pets. But that could change soon.

Legislation pending in the Colorado state house would turn those pets into, quote, "companions" with the legal rights. If you love animals, and you should love animals, this probably sounds like great news. It did to me at first. But you may be surprised to learn that the bill is being backed, not by animal lovers or by veterinarians, who strongly oppose it. Legislation is the creation of surprise, surprise, the trial lawyers.

Here's the idea. Once pets become companions, they can legally become the victims of malpractice, which trial lawyers love. If the bill passes, lawyers will be able to collect up to 100 grand a piece from vets for every dog that dies.

The cost for veterinary care will rise, just as it has in human medicine. On the other hand, the average trial lawyer will be able to afford yet another first class golf outing to Barbados.

And of course, that's the real point. It always is.

BEGALA: No, the real point is that some people want to hold themselves above the law. I'll tell you, if some veterinarian butchers my dog, by God, I'm going to sue his (expletive deleted) off.

And that's going to be just tough luck if you don't like it.

CARLSON: Veterinarians are actually really decent people.

BEGALA: So they are. So are trial lawyers.

CARLSON: I wouldn't think they would want to put themselves above the law.

BEGALA: So are trial lawyers who try to protect people who are killed or maimed...

CARLSON: When they do it for free, I'll believe you.

BEGALA: Veterinarians don't do it for free. Does that make it bad?

Tucker Carlson takes a stand against capitalism. Let's save this tape.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney today launched a blistering attack on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in response to the Republican leader's letter questioning the patriotism of America's union workers.

DeLay's name appears on a letter raising money for an anti-union special interest group. The letter says, quote, "Big labor bosses are willing to harm freedom-loving workers, the war effort and the economy to acquire more power."

Sweeney called the letter, quote, "a vile act," unquote, and called on Mr. DeLay to recant and apologize.

Teamsters President Jim Hoffa called DeLay's words an insult to him and to the 1.4 million members of the Teamsters.

DeLay now says the letter was a mistake. And like all conservatives, tried to blame someone else. In this case, Tom DeLay blamed a staffer.

A spokesman for Mr. Delay says if we give him a few more days, he'll think of a way to blame President Clinton.

CARLSON: You're right. DeLay did take it back. And it was probably a little overheated but last year in Oakland, Calif., the longshoreman's union refused to help scan cargo coming into the port for radiation. OK?

We're very worried in this country about a dirty nuke, or about nuclear weapons in general. The customs workers were very upset that the union prevented these packages from being scanned, but they did it anyway. And I think it's a perfect example of a union working against the national interest.

BEGALA: If the national interest is at stake, the president can put troops there to screen those to protect us. Tom DeLay's attack...

CARLSON: You're defending that. I mean come on.

BEGALA: ... it was over the top. This is the new right wing strategy. Disagree with us, we attack your patriotism.

CARLSON: Nobody on this show said that on the right.

BEGALA: No one says you did. I said Mr. Delay did that.

CARLSON: I never heard a single person in Washington ever...

BEGALA: Tom DeLay did, in these comments.

CARLSON: he didn't write that, he said. I'm saying that RIGHT now. I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism.

BEGALA: Well, in a minute we will ask a CNN analyst, NATO, most successful military alliance in history is now on the verge of breaking apart over Iraq. We'll ask two members of Congress whether we should go to war with Iraq and if so, how, when, why and with whom?

Later, the man who bared his soul and broke women's hearts on one of primetime TV's hottest shows and no, I'm not talking about Aaron Brown. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

The split between the United States and old Europe grew wider today when the elderly, increasingly irrelevant nations of France, Russia and Germany tried to prevent NATO from defending Turkey against possible attacks from Iraq. If you could even imagine.

NATO Secretary General reports emergency consultations tonight have proceeded, in his words, very heated debate.

Has NATO itself become an impediment to security? That's our question. Stepping into the crossfire tonight to answer it is CNN analyst Ken Pollock. He's director of research for the Brookings Institute Sabon Center for Middle East Policy.

BEGALA: Good to see you.

How bad is this rift in NATO? Is it worth potentially rupturing the greatest military alliance in history over whether we go to war in Iraq?

KEN POLLOCK, CNN ANALYST: I don't think I'd really put it that way, Paul. I think that's actually begging the question.

There's a rift both between the United States and NATO, and there's a rift within NATO. And in fact, the rift within NATO right now is much bigger than that between the U.S. and the European countries.

In point of fact, the administration is by and large correct that the Europeans are siding more toward the administration. The French, the Germans, the Belgians have staked out a position which most of the European countries are uncomfortable with. And you're seeing increasing support for them.

So you've got a break within NATO, which talking to Europeans, they think is actually a much greater concern in terms of the long- term health of the European Union, than they do in terms of the transatlantic relationship.

BEGALA: Can we write off particularly the French, the Germans, I guess the Belgians, when we know, and we do, that there are al Qaeda cells in France and in Germany and we need their help to capture, cripple and kill every member of al Qaeda?

POLLOCK: Well, I think you're -- you're conflating two different issues. I agree with you that the war on terrorism and the war on al Qaeda is probably the more imminent threat. And that's why I've said, I think, that that's the one that has to take precedence, or I think that we're going to have to go to war with Iraq sooner rather than later, that's the one I would like to see answered first.

But there is a different issue here. Which is the administration has made it clear they're going to do Iraq first. They're going to go to war with Iraq. That's the threat that they want to address first.

And then the question then becomes for the French and the Germans, why is it that they want to split the alliance over this? I think, in retrospect, it's going to be very hard for history to justify this decision.

And I think when this is all said and done, Saddam Hussein is a horrible, evil dictator, my guess is that the Iraqi people are going to be very grateful to be liberated. And in the end it's going to be very hard for France and Germany to suggest that this was somehow a principled position they took, when I think history is going to record this as probably being something that was worth doing. CARLSON: Well, it also -- It seems to me just from watching it, back to what's going on at NATO today, that what Germany, and France or Belgium are attempting to do is sort of actually sort of moral blackmail against Turkey. And say, look, you know, we're not going to help you defend yourself against chemical weapons if you are going to go along with the United States.

Do you think that's what's happening?

POLLOCK: Well, I look at it a little bit differently. I certainly agree with both of you in terms of it's just repugnant the way that they're handling this specific issue. You can agree or disagree with whether or not it's important to go to war with Iraq and go to war with Iraq right now.

But protecting Turkey is a no-brainer. And I think that it is repugnant for them to be using this issue to try to make a larger political point. There are other ways in which all of our allies, but particularly the French and Germans could register that point.

I think this is one where they should have said, you know what, there may be a war coming, it may have an impact on Turkey. We are part of NATO, NATO is there to protect every member and that includes Turkey.

CARLSON: But here's -- the idea that the United States ought to pay close attention to what France and Germany think. Here's the problem that I have with that.

On Friday night we had Saddam's bomb maker, Dr. Ham Sahan (ph), who said in no uncertain terms both companies in France and Germany, with the knowledge of the government, knowingly sold nuclear weapons components to Saddam Hussein's government. I was there, he said.

Knowing that, why did we pay attention to the opinions of France and Germany in the first place? I'm confused.

POLLOCK: Well, Tucker, remember, we're not blameless in this either.

CARLSON: Have we done that?

POLLOCK: Well, we sold Saddam the anthrax and we kind of looked the other way.

CARLSON: Is there any evidence that anthrax was ever turned into a biological weapon, any at all? Any evidence of that?

POLLOCK: Did they weaponize it? Yes, absolutely. They put it into missiles.

CARLSON: The anthrax they received from the United States?

POLLOCK: The anthrax string that they have came from the United States. You know, through the 1980s, Tucker, I think you can make an argument it was important for the United States to give... CARLSON: Well, wait, are you saying that the United States government knew that that anthrax was going to be used for biological weapons?

POLLOCK: I think that we were turning a blind eye to what Saddam was doing.

BEGALA: Which is essentially what Ken Adelman, who served President Reagan in arms control, said Friday night when he came on this show.

CARLSON: Wait a second. To say we -- I want to know who. I mean, what American government official allowed anthrax to go to Saddam Hussein? I mean, that seems to me you ought to be in prison for that?

POLLOCK: I'm too young to know the answer to that question. You probably have other guests who can give you an answer on that one.

BEGALA: Let me come back to Turkey. Because you did see Tucker and I agree vigorously about the need to defend Turkey.

Is this all about America? Or is there some problem that the Europeans have with Turkey? They dissed them on an application to join the European Union, it seems to me at a time when we should be embracing our allies in Turkey. Is there also a Turkish problem that the Europeans have, not just an American problem?

POLLOCK: I think there's clearly a Turkish-European issue which gets beyond this. And I think that certainly, the actions of France -- and French and Germans have taken isn't going to help that problem.

The Turks want desperately to be a member of the EU, and French and Germans and others have put one roadblock after another in their way. And we've been the good guys in this, trying to press the EU to bring the Turks on board.

My guess is that what the French and Germans are mostly doing is trying to demonstrate their pique at us by vetoing this move.

But, yes, it certainly can't be ruled out. And my guess is that tomorrow all the newspapers in Istanbul and Ankara and elsewhere in Turkey are going to play this as yet another Franco-German snub of Turkey, not a Franco-German snub of the United States.

BEGALA: But at least an American endorsement of Turkey. I'm looking for some glimmer of hope in this debacle. At least Turkey will know that America is still its ally.

POLLOCK: I think the Turks know full well that we are its ally. And actually, I give the administration credit there. I think the administration has done a very good job of dealing with Turkey over the last two years. Explaining to it its needs, bringing the Turks along in ways that they can feel comfortable about coming along.

BEGALA: Ken Pollock. And the name of the new book? POLLOCK: "The Threatening Storm."

BEGALA: "The Threatening Storm." Making the case for a war against Iraq.

My old colleague from the Clinton Administration, Ken Pollock. Thank you very much, sir.

In a minute, we'll ask two members of Congress about the seemingly inevitable war with Iraq.

And later, he had 25 gorgeous women to choose from and, no, not Tucker Carlson. Millions of TV viewers looking over his shoulder. We'll ask the real bachelor, Alex Michel, what he's doing now. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

While President Bush juggles Iraq, the U.N. and now NATO, Congress is being Congress, of course.

But as members hold hearings on the president's budget and assemble bills to put the administration's policies into action, how much are they being distracted by the possibility of a war with Iraq?

Stepping into the crossfire tonight to debate it, two congressmen, California Democrat Bob Filner of San Diego and Missouri Republican Roy Blunt.

Good to see you. Good to see you.

BEGALA: Thank you, both, gentlemen. Congressman Blunt, do me a favor and rank these foreign policy priorities for me: Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iraq, Iran. Which is the most imminent threat to America's national security?

REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MISSOURI: You know one of the reasons I really like to come on is I'm always intrigued by the first question and how caught off balance I am.

BEGALA: I'm glad I don't have to answer it. I'm not trying to be cute. It's a question our president has to answer, though. And you're one of his top advisers in the senior Republican Congress.

BLUNT: I'm not sure there is not an answer that applies to all of those. I think they all have to be handled at the same time and they all have to be handled in slightly different ways.

And that's the president's challenge, that's our challenge as a country. And that's the debate that goes on every day in the White House as to how we deal with these things, what's the priority for today in terms of the imminence of challenge that those various challenges present. I think it's clear that right now the Iraqi challenge is great. I think Secretary Powell made that case well the other day at the United Nations. And we see a significant alliance ready to move with us to do whatever we have to do.

Our best chance not to have to do anything militarily is for Saddam Hussein to believe we're totally prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate these weapons that he has from the threat that they present to us and the rest of the world.

CARLSON: Congressman Filner, Democrats are in a pretty good position. Republicans were in that position for a number of years where they don't have to make foreign policies, they can critique it.

But I'd like for you to make it if you could. How do we disarm Saddam Hussein? You're in total control. What do you do?

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't think anybody disagrees in America that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and should be disarmed.

And I want to make clear before I go into my answer that the American military is the greatest military in the world. It's going to win the war. And in fact thousands of the troops come from my own hometown of San Diego and they all know I support them totally.

But this is not...

CARLSON: Even your children, too.

FILNER: I know. But this is absent -- a war absent an imminent threat I think that Paul was just trying to prove, and absent the authority of the United Nations, will make America less safe and will make the world less safe. And if we have time I will prove that today.

CARLSON: OK. But I -- no doubt you will and I'm not even contesting your position yet. But I still want you to answer the question, how do we disarm Saddam Hussein?

FILNER: I think we're on the right track. I think the Germans and the French have the right answer. In fact, there is nothing that Saddam can do with all those inspectors running around, with all the satellites going around that Powell showed and all the pictures being taken and all the things being intercepted, there is nothing he can do. He is not a threat to America today.

BEGALA: Let me come back to Congressman Blunt. Here's the worry that a lot of us have, at least that I have, is that this remarkable fixation that we have now on Iraq has distracted our president, our intelligence agencies, our military so much that it has empowered our enemies in other places, in North Korea, to restart their nuclear program, in Iran to restart their nuclear program, in al Qaeda to reconstitute their terrorist program.

These are all evil people who want to harm us no matter what. But now they see a window of opportunity while we're distracted on Iraq.

And you know, the president seems to want a war with Iraq in the worst way and I'm worried that that's how he's going about it.

BLUNT: I think, Paul, though, what my friend Bob talked about was without the authority of the United Nations, this is really about whether the United Nations has any authority or not.

The United Nations has put these mandates on Iraq. They have violated them over and over and over again. This is really about whether the United Nations becomes a meaningful force in the future.

And now many nations will join us on what has to be done around the world and in the neighborhood, particularly once it becomes clear we're going to do this. I think the idea that we're not paying attention to these other things is wrong.

I see enough and know enough from briefings that we have that we know a lot about what is going on. We're still totally focused on that. This is an imminent part of the danger right now that we face.

It's clear that Saddam Hussein continues to violate the rule of civilized nations through the U.N. and the U.N. apparently may not be willing to do anything about it.

I hope at the end of the day they are, but how many times you have to violate the U.N. edicts before the U.N. takes it seriously?

FILNER: Well, that's for the United Nations to decide. But the world that would arise is we went in without United Nations authority, is a world that I think will make us all less safe.

We have been struggling for years and years, very difficult to have collective security through the United Nations.

A world in which we have decided on our own to take out Iraq, and we can do it, is a world where might makes right, where our moral position that we have built up over decades and decades that gives us authority as Americans, where we'll have a world which anybody can do whatever they want because we have done it. We have set the precedent and that's a bad precedent.

BLUNT: Under the Clinton administration, we went into Bosnia without United Nations authority. I don't remember you being critical of that at the time.

FILNER: I was, actually, but...

BLUNT: NATO authority. Is that a replacement for United Nations authority or is United Nations authority the soul determiner of whether this is an appropriate action...

FILNER: It is not the sole determiner, but what kind of world do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a world in which we are trying to be peaceful through this discussions or do we want a world whoever decides that has the might at the world can invade. CARLSON: You answered the question, Congressman Filner. You said we want to live in a world in which Saddam Hussein is disarmed. And everybody agrees with that. And yet I've you three times and you have answered how specifically should we disarm? You said we'll go the route of France and Germany, neither of which is serious about disarming Saddam...

FILNER: Yes they are...

CARLSON: So how, more inspections?

FILNER: I think the inspections process showed it could work. The last time around it had disarmed -- independent observers say roughly 90, 95 percent of everything he had was actually destroyed.

We have the means. Powell showed it. We have the means to root out these weapons and the U.N. inspectors through the process that has been in place and can be strengthened as the French and Germans want, can disarm him. We can do it.

That process can take -- Saddam ain't going to do anything while those inspectors are there. And there is no imminent threat to the United Nations. And as Paul pointed out, we, as a nation, and we in Congress, I'll tell you, can't do very much else while Iraq situation. We cannot do education, we cannot do health, we cannot do housing. We're doing war and that's all we're doing.

BEGALA: We've got to do a commercial. Keep your seat, Congressman Filner. Congressman Blunt, please stay with us.

In a minute, we're going to take you to CNN Center in Atlanta for an update of the nationwide terrorism alert.

And then, we'll ask these two congressmen about the home front. Is our government doing all it can to protect us from the terrorist attack?

And about a year ago millions of viewers tuned in for weekly update on this man's love life. Now that he's out of the spotlight, Alex Michel tells us whether "The Bachelor" has changed his life. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: We have been debating issues of war and peace here in CROSSFIRE with Missouri Republican Congressman Roy Blunt, he is the House majority whip, and California Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California.

CARLSON: Congressman Filner, Democrats have been getting -- have had sort of a list of demands for the president before going to war in Iraq. They said you need a congressional resolution, they got one. You need a U.N. resolution. He got one. They said you need to make your case to the American public. I want to show you the result of the case he has made. This is a poll that just came out tonight. CNN-"USA Today" Gallup. The Bush administration has made a convincing case on Iraq, 56 percent say yes. The results of this, a companion poll also out tonight favors sending U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power, 63 percent say yes.

We can argue over exactly what those numbers mean, whether it is hard support, soft support, I'm not sure how hard it is. Nevertheless, 63 percent, he's made his case, hasn't he?

FILNER: Well I think the president has fooled a lot of people and in fact, you know, the Powell -- the Powell performance was very good.

I would ask you to read this week's "Newsweek," by the way, in which basically takes the -- all the photos and everything and obliterates the case that Powell makes. So I hope people will read that and have maybe a slightly different view that it wasn't as powerful as first appeared.

But, look, the president has a bully pulpit. He has, so far, convinced people. The Democrats have not made significant -- have not made the case fully enough to the American people. And we have failed in that regard, I think.

CARLSON: Then just one quick question, very fast. You said he's fooled a lot of people. Why do you suppose he's fooled people? What's his motive?

FILNER: He has -- look, he wants to do certain things. He came to power to do certain things. The American people I don't think were ready for that. But when September 11 occurred, under the cover of that event, he has done a lot things including taking away civil liberties, including removing lots of programs of health and education and housing.

He has done what Reagan wanted to do in a much more. actually better -- in a more profound way that is they have moved us all to worry about war. They have moved us all to assume that Iraq is the imminent threat. What are they -- going to take all money from the budget the use for that. And the American people will not have any money for the kinds of things that they worry about every day, education, health care and housing.

BEGALA: Actually, I have a slight disagreement with Congressman Filner because I want to show you -- and of course, before you got into politics, as I recall, you ran a bible college, right?

BLUNT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bible college, but it was a Baptist university.

BEGALA: A Baptist university. You'll recall the gospel according to Matthew where we were taught, where your heart lies, there too your treasure shall be. Let's look at where our president's putting our treasure in our budget. It's not simply into war.

Forty-one billion dollars goes to Homeland Security. That's across the whole government, not just Secretary Ridge's department, but $100 billion goes to tax cuts, primarily for the rich. We are at war. We do face a terrorist threat. Why are we spending $100 billion on tax cuts and only $41 billion on protecting people's lives?

BLUNT; Well, you know, first of all, let me say -- first of all, let me say if you ask the American people whether they have confidence in Colin Powell or "Newsweek," I think they'll come down on the side of Colin Powell on that issue.

And the idea that the president of the United States ran for office, which is I think what you said, Bob, so he could take away people's civil liberties is pretty offensive.

FILNER: No, I did not say that.

BLUNT: I guess we'll have to look at ...

FILNER: I said that because September 11 happened, they're able to do things...

BLUNT: No, you said he ran for office with an agenda, and one of those agenda items was to take away people's civil liberties. That's ...

FILNER: OK, I amend that to say that because of September 11, they're able to do things that they would never have gotten away with. I have hundreds of people in my district who are under arrest because -- and without any indication of why, no ability to go to a lawyer, they have been taken away from their families. I think that is un- American and the president is doing it under the cover of September 11.

BEGALA: I do want you to answer the question about (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Why do we spend more than twice as much on tax cuts than on homeland defense?

BLUNT: You know, in the last eight years we doubled the federal budget on education. We raised that budget by 18 percent last year; this year it is going to go up a couple of percent. I think that means over the last two years it will have gone up by 20 percent.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: ... homeland security versus tax cuts. Education and other things we can have another show on. But homeland security gets $41 billion. Tax cuts gets 100, why?

BLUNT: That's another debate about whether or not tax cuts for the American people can do a better job to grow the economy with their money or the government can. I think the American people can.

BEGALA: You're comfortable with those priorities?

BLUNT: Those priorities are not mutually interchangeable. That's the idea that every time you cut taxes, somehow that money never gets back to the government because people don't do productive things with it. That's just -- I just don't agree with that, Paul, at all. You have to look at where the increases are in the budget, and education has gone up 20 percent in the last two years. That's a big increase.

CARLSON: Unfortunately, Congressmen, we're completely out of time. Congressman Roy Blunt, thank you very much. Congressman Bob Filner from San Diego, thank you.

A defender of all Europe has surfaced in the old south. He'll fire back later in the show.

But next, we put reality television in the CROSSFIRE with the original "Bachelor" Alex Michel. He'll join us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. You know, it has been said that all is fair in love and war. We have talked about war. Now let's get to the important stuff, love. Been about a year since Alex Michel got his 15 minutes of fame. And a little more than six episodes of ABC's reality show, "The Bachelor," during which millions of people watched as Alex worked his way, tough job that it was, through a field of 25 beautiful, eligible women until he finally had to choose between two, Amanda and Trista. The series ended with our friend Alex down on one knee offering that rose to Amanda, which she accepted. Now he's ready for the next step into the CROSSFIRE. Please welcome the original "Bachelor," Alex Michel.

Thank you, sir. Good to see you.

CARLSON: How are you doing? Thanks very much for joining us.

ALEX MICHEL, "THE BACHELOR": My pleasure.

CARLSON: Let's get right to the motive. Why did you do it? You think, you know, people you watch them on "Jerry Springer," these people probably have a lot of free time on their hands, anyway. You, by contrast, went to Harvard and Stanford, had a paying job, producers approach you and say, would you like your love life on camera, and you said yes. What were you thinking when you said that?

MICHEL: I just -- I thought it would be a great adventure. I thought there was a good chance that I would find love, although in a strange way. People have met in stranger ways, and I thought that women who had the same sense of adventure might be people that I had something in common with.

CARLSON: But here is the problem. You get up there with Amanda. And I think I speak for millions of American women when I say this...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You get up there with Amanda and you make this agreement not simply between the two of you, but really between all of TV world, every viewer watching, and you say I'm going marry her, but you don't.

MICHEL: I didn't say I was going to marry her.

CARLSON: But you implied it. I like you a lot.

MICHEL: I did say I like you a lot.

CARLSON: Are you still in contact with her?

MICHEL: I am.

CARLSON: But you're not getting married, are you?

MICHEL: I'm not going to discuss my personal life.

BEGALA: Oh, no, wait a minute! Wait a minute!

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Guys, did all of you see this guy's personal life on national television? Come on, Alex!

MICHEL: I feel that I've already been extremely generous with everyone in TV land with my personal life. I invited them in for a six-week process, but at a certain point I've got to cut them off and live in private.

BEGALA: OK, what would a person not do on television? OK, pick a mate, you know, OK, that's fine. But where do you draw -- apparently on CROSSFIRE, you don't want to tell us if you're still seeing Amanda, but...

MICHEL: That's where I draw the line.

BEGALA: What would you not do on TV?

MICHEL: There is lots that I would not do on TV, but it does seem that, you know, many people would do almost anything.

BEGALA: We see these washed-up celebrities like eating worms and stuff like that on these other shows, like that you wouldn't?

MICHEL: That I would not do.

BEGALA: You're not a worm eater.

MICHEL: No.

BEGALA: Good for you.

CARLSON: Well, people get pushed into all sorts of things. We work in television. We know how diabolical producers are. Tell us about your producers. What did they push you to do when you were on the show?

MICHEL: Not much, actually. They really were trying as hard as they could to have a real romance come out of it. They thought that too much meddling would sort of jeopardize that, and they didn't tell me who to pick, they didn't tell me what to say.

CARLSON: The metaphysical question, though, how real can it be, though, the romance, if it is on camera?

MICHEL: Well, it certainly puts a strain on it, a certain unreality. But actually I felt like I had my hands full as it was and I didn't have enough mental space to worry about the cameras. I was worried about the women.

BEGALA: Well, I can imagine with 25 women surrounding you. By the way, did you keep the ring? Do you still have the ring?

MICHEL: I can't tell you about that either.

BEGALA: Oh, come on! OK, let me ask about a different show. It is apparently a popular one as well, "Joe Millionaire."

MICHEL: Apparently popular. You've been watching it?

BEGALA: OK, I'm living for it, man. And it's apparently, like all dates, based on a lie. Right? The women think that he's rich. How is that different from every other -- Tucker, for example, told his wife he had won the Victoria Cross for gallantry. Turns out he shopped once at Victoria's Secret. Not the same thing, but enough to get a date. Right? Is that just a more grandiose lie than all the rest of us schleps tell?

MICHEL: Yes, well, I don't necessarily approve of that show. I mean, I think it is a lot of fun for the viewer, but I'm sure it can't be that much fun for the women or the guy. He seems a little tortured, though he should have thought about that beforehand. And I don't think they're going to be too happy when they find out.

But everyone says that reality TV is sort of the end of western civilization, and my feeling is we have been hearing this for years. I mean, "The Gong Show" was the end of western civilization, "Family Feud." And my feeling is, compared to another sitcom about a frazzled employee in a working situation with a canned laugh track, reality TV has something in common with documentary films. Not a lot, but something, and people are finding it compelling to watch real people they can relate to go through intimate and real emotions that they call each other the next day, they talk about it around the watercooler, that's just like what my boyfriend did, and blah, blah, blah.

CARLSON: Well, if I can just correct you, actually "The Gong Show" was the end of western civilization. But Trista, who was the woman you didn't pick, I've heard, went on to get her own show, "The Bachelorette." Do you regret in light of that that you didn't pick her? You could -- you would be a real powerhouse in reality television if you did that.

MICHEL: No. I think I made the right choice for me.

CARLSON: Would you do it again? Would you go on another reality show?

MICHEL: I wouldn't go on another one, but if I were back in that same spot again, I would have done it. I mean, there were definitely pros and cons, but overall, it was an incredible life experience that I learned a lot from. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BEGALA: So what are we doing next? Do we have cameras follow people through their divorce? I guess that's probably not as much fun but...

MICHEL: Yes, I'm sure we'll see that.

BEGALA: That's the next step.

MICHEL: That may be the decline of Western civilization.

CARLSON: Speaking of the decline of Western civilization and its symptoms, online date, match.com, I believe, you're the spokesman for.

MICHEL: I am.

CARLSON: Do you use online dating, personally?

MICHEL: I haven't lately. But I approve of it.

Literally, I cannot think of a product that I would rather, because it's something people still feel uncomfortable with. It has a little bit of a stigma but I think for no reason. I mean I think this is actually an advancement. We're bringing back the fine art of love letters. People get to know each other in a less stilted environment. You know, you can actually be systematic about who might be right for you rather than going with that this schmo you met in the pub.

BEGALA: But you can tell even bigger lies online, right? I mean, you know, I told my wife before we got married, I was an astronaut, I'd won the Nobel Prize, by the way, in chemistry. She's not watching so don't tell her any different. But you can say anything online, right?

MICHEL: Well, people -- you can say anything over coffee, too. I mean, it's real dating and what match.com provides is a forum to meet each other in a safe way without giving away your phone number or e-mail address at first and get to know people at first. And, you know, I think you can tell during an e-mail correspondence if somebody is on the up and up.

CARLSON: Then if it is so good, then why don't you use it?

MICHEL: Well, I can't talk about my personal life.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: It's like if the politician came on and said, Well, I don't want to talk about politics, Tucker. I mean, your whole personal life was on national television every week.

MICHEL: That's right. But, you know, I didn't sign up for a lifetime of being that bachelor.

CARLSON: Well then, tell us, then, as someone who espouses online dating, what do you get your online date for Valentine's Day?

MICHEL: A new computer. An ergonomic keyboard. A really cool mouse.

CARLSON: You know, it really is the end of western civilization, isn't it?

MICHEL: You know, candies, flowers.

BEGALA: What is wrong with the old-fashioned taking a girl to a bar, getting her drunk, lying your ass off and hoping to getting lucky. I mean, that's -- that's made America great, isn't Alex?

MICHEL: Well that can be done with someone you met online.

BEGALA: OK.

MICHEL: It's like people use it just as a way to meet new people. But a lot of people are actually looking for love and finding it. Seventy-five couples a month get married that met on match.com. The thing works.

CARLSON: Better than "The Bachelor" apparently.

Alex Michel, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

MICHEL: Thank you.

BEGALA: Thanks a lot. Alex Michel.

CARLSON: Next in "Fireback," more fan mail from the far, frozen north. We're speaking, of course, of Canada. And won't believe what the Canadians are saying now. It is shocking. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Our "Fireback" segment, where we throw up the hatches and let your opinions flow in. And they do.

First up, Mark Alan Taggart from North Carolina writes, "Hooray for Old Europe! These countries, France and Germany, have the shared historical perspective of experiencing the horrors of invading troops firsthand and realize that war is only to employed when danger is immediate and imminent and all other diplomatic means have been exhausted."

Well, I think that France plan has been tried before and that's exactly why ignoring an imminent threat gets you into trouble.

BEGALA: The question is, is it imminent? And that's what we're debating tonight.

Aaron, in Paducah, Kentucky, the Atomic City, writes, "Paul, I'm a 13-year-old and I was wondering how you became an anchor on CROSSFIRE. I'm liberal and the only one in my school, yet I often win debates. Being an anchor on your show is a dream of mine."

Aaron, three words: raise your sights. You don't need -- I mean, you should grow up to want to be the president, not a talk show host.

CARLSON: Oh, how disillusioning. You're like his Michael Jackson. He admires you. Come on.

Dan Traverse of Kamloops, British Columbia, clearly a made-up town, writes, "Tucker, I speak for me and at least three other Canadians when I say that in spite of the wig and the bow tie, we like you."

BEGALA: See how nice the Canadians are?

CARLSON: Thank you, Dan. Boy, that kind of warms me.

BEGALA: Charles Davis in San Marcos, California writes, "Paul, I too would love to see a Hillary/Bush debate." We talked about this the other night. "Unfortunately, it would be unconstitutional. Bush would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment."

Outstanding. It is true. George W. Bush, I know George W. Bush. He's a good man, but he's not half the woman Hillary Clinton is, so...

CARLSON: He's a better debater than Al Gore thought he was turned out.

BEGALA: Yes, he is. He certainly is. Yes, sir?

CARLSON: Sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, I read recently in the newspaper that there is rumor that there is going to be another reality show called "America's Choice," where they choose people, kind of American idol style to run for president. And then eliminate call-in to eliminate getting down to one final candidate.

I was wondering if you think this is good for our democracy, getting more people involved or is this just a mockery?

CARLSON: Well, I think Ross Perot tried that on "LARRY KING" a couple of cycles ago and it turned out to be bad. So, given that model, I'm against it.

BEGALA: I think anything that brings more people into the process is a good thing, to tell you the truth. I mean, I'm willing to try anything to increase voter turnout.

CARLSON: Really? I want voters who are informed and sort of know something.

BEGALA: That's the elite view. I trust the American people.

CARLSON: I trust them too. I just...

BEGALA: I think there's a hell of a lot more wisdom among the average nonvoter in mainstream America than there is the people voting in Congress today.

CARLSON: That's completely untrue. The issues are complicated. You ought to know what you're talking about before you vote.

BEGALA: That's the elitism of the experts. Don't listen to them. It's our country. We should run it.

Yes, ma'am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Sarah Hanan (ph) from Juneau, Alaska. From our geographic position, North Korea is a real threat. Do you think the Bush administration is ignoring North Korea and what do you think North Korea will do once Iraq takes some action?

CARLSON: Well, you heard a deeply untrue thing said on the show tonight, and that is that North Korea, because the United States was focused on Iraq, built its nuclear weapons program.

Actually, North Korea has been --we know for a fact -- has been building its program for something like eight years. It's a huge problem. It's a complicated problem. And I'm not sure. And I've never talked to anybody who knows exactly what to do about it.

BEGALA: But there is no doubt, make no mistake about it, we have enemies around the world and they move on us when they think we are distracted. We are currently now distracted with a threat I believe is less imminent than North Korea or al Qaeda...

CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BEGALA: ...and those enemies are taking advantage of that. There's no doubt.

Yes, sir?

CARLSON: Very quickly. We're almost out of time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, I'm Wae-Lee (ph) from Cirros (ph), California and I was wondering: NATO is based upon the fact that an attack on one nation is an attack on all. So wouldn't the other member nations be obligated to defend Turkey?

CARLSON: Well, of course, they absolutely and that's the debate tonight. But it turns out that international, multinational organizations can devolve into jokes really quickly, as the U.N. unless people are really vigilant about it.

BEGALA: But with the right leadership they can work it out. That's how we won the Second World War. We need to reunite NATO.

From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet more CROSSFIRE.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night.

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





Iraq?>


Aired February 10, 2003 - 19:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: In the crossfire tonight, NATO says no. Russia says "nyet." France and Germany say forget about it. And with friends like these, he's got enemies, too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; Saddam Hussein regards the Iraqi people as human shields, entirely expandable, when their suffering serves his purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Plus, we'll talk to the original "Bachelor" about real life after reality TV. Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

Live from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to the who's your friend edition of CROSSFIRE.

Tonight, NATO tells Turkey, good luck with the Iraqi chemicals weapons coming across your border.

Meanwhile, France, Germany and Russia continue doing their best to defend Saddam Hussein. The world has gone completely crazy and we'll debate it with two key members of Congress.

Then, the man who turned down Trista for Amanda. We'll ask the original "Bachelor," Alex Michel, if he has any regrets.

But first, the part of the show you'll never regret watching: our CROSSFIRE political alert.

Several European countries today vetoed NATO efforts to defend Turkey in the event of a war with Iraq. Turkey shares a border with Iraq. It asked for equipment to shoot down incoming Iraqi missiles and more pressingly, protect itself against Iraqi biological and poison gas attacks.

No dice, said France, Germany and Belgium. If you're going to side with the evil Americans in this war, you'll have to suffer the consequences.

France and Germany, both of which knowingly sold weapons components to Iraq to build a nuclear bomb, think Saddam is just fine where he is. They're made quite a bit of money from him. They oppose removing him from power.

The effect is to leave Turkey, which is NATO's only predominantly Muslim member, undefended in the face of peril.

France and Germany say this is the morally correct thing to do. Such are the ethics of old Europe, apparently.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Now as one who's a great critic and skeptic of this war, it's unconscionable for those NATO members to turn their back on Turkey. They are at risk. I don't think a war is justified. I don't think we ought to go in and fight one. But irrespective, Turkey is at risk.

It kills me. I'm going to make a pledge never to agree with you again tonight, Tucker. But I think you're right about this. The Europeans are wrong.

CARLSON: I hope you make a further pledge -- you're OK with this, but that you will that you will never use France and Germany and their resistance to our plans as an example of why we shouldn't go forward.

They have no moral authority to say anything

BEGALA: First of all, I never -- I do think that President Bush's inability to rally the world opinion the way his father did, the way President Clinton did in Kosovo, has been a failure with the presidential leadership.

CARLSON: But why would you want to rally the opinion that off the mark? They are unreasonable.

BEGALA: We have to lead, Tucker. We have to lead the world. We have to move them from being off the mark to being on our side.

CARLSON: People who would do that are...

BEGALA: That's what Ronald Reagan did. That's what Bush Sr. did, that's what Bill Clinton did. That's what Junior has failed to do.

Well, Iran announced it has begun mining uranium and is preparing to start a nuclear power plant with the help of President Bush's soul mate, president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Iran sits on an ocean of oil, of course, and no peaceful need for nuclear power. It also has chemical and biological weapons, is a major supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Mr. Bush to condemn his Russian buddy, Puti-Put, as he calls Putin, for helping the Iranians.

After all, Halliburton had an office in Tehran while Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO. And just weeks before he went on the ticket with Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney was lobbying against sanctions on Iran.

Cheney's firm also sold oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein.

In his defense, Mr. Cheney stresses he never sold anything to North Korea, the third nation in the axis of evil, perhaps because no Korea has no oil.

CARLSON: Actually that's completely false. I don't know if you know it or not. Halliburton never sold anything to Iraq.

A company that Halliburton bought had previously sold...

BEGALA: Halliburton owned two subsidiaries, based in London that sold $73 million worth of oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein. Look it up.

CARLSON: Paul, Paul. But Paul -- Paul, I understand that. Before Halliburton bought it. Dick Cheney had nothing do with that. And your implication that somehow we're being soft on Iran because Halliburton had business dealings with Iran is insane.

BEGALA: But Cheney...

CARLSON: Let me finish.

BEGALA: Cheney lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

CARLSON: In what sense is the White House soft on Iran? It included it in the axis of evil, and I think you mocked it at the time, or said it was over the top rhetoric. And now you're attacking the White House, for not taking a hard enough line on Iran. Pick a position, pal.

BEGALA: Here's my position. Dick Cheney betrayed our national interests when he sold oil field equipment to the Iranians and he lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

CARLSON: He betrayed our national...

BEGALA: He betrayed our national interests. I'm not implying that, I'm stating it as a fact because he did. That is irresponsible.

CARLSON: It took a Democratic presidential candidate to do it but at least someone in politics had finally admitted the obvious. The Democratic Party has no coherent position on Iraq; it has nothing useful to say about the single most important issue in the world.

Don't take my word for it. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean pointed this out over the weekend during a campaign trip to Ohio.

At least three of his opponents, Dean said, voted to authorize unilateral force in Iraq. All three, senators John Kerry and John Edwards and Congressman Dick Gephardt now act like they never cast that vote. Or, as Dean put it, quote, "voting in favor of a resolution and coming out here and kind of pretending in Iowa you're against the war," which, of course is exactly they've done. Unfortunately for Dean, it was all downhill from there, however. Moments later, according to the "Des Moines Register," Dean claimed that Saddam Hussein's threat to use chemical weapons against American troops is not an imminent threat to Americans, whatever that means.

At least the first part of the speech made sense, though.

BEGALA: You know, it's interesting to sort of watch him trying to pick out and read the tea leaves, which Democrat do you fear the most. And I don't think it is Howard Dean.

CARLSON: There's no political here at all, Paul. I think there needs to be a real debate on Iraq. And Democrats haven't provided one, through cowardice or inaction. Maybe they just don't know what they think. But it's a shame. Because need it. And they have been absent when the time to debate is issued.

BEGALA: We have had -- We have had a very vigorous debase on this show and others. In the Congress we have. The president, however, has made up his mind. I think it's unwise and warranted, but we're going to war. And I think Democrats who speak out against that are right.

CARLSON: Democrats have never put out a serious case against it. It's all been whining, oh, we need a resolution from Congress, one from the U.N., more inspections.

Nobody in Congress, virtually -- Joe Lieberman to some extent -- but other than him and a few others, almost no Democrats have seriously addressed the question and it's a terrible shame. I think it's a moral failure. It really is.

BEGALA: Well, I think it's your failure to go and look at what these Democrats have said. They have made, I think, a strong case that the president is pursuing the wrong policy in Iraq.

Well, our president, speaking of him, on domestic issues flew to Nashville today, where he talked up his so-called compassion agenda.

It's become a common scene, like on June 17 of last year when President Bush held a photo-op at The Villages at Carver, an Atlanta housing project founded by HUD's Hopes Six program. President Bush lavished praise on the program. The White House featured a photograph of it on their web site.

But as the "Atlanta Journal Constitution" reports, President Bush is eliminating funding for the very program that funds The Villages at Carver. Part of a pattern.

Just last week Mr. Bush visited the Boys and Girls Clubs, whose budget he's cutting by $10 million.

He also cut funding for the Even Start literacy program, which he praised in New Mexico. He cut funding for an ethanol program he praised in Iowa. He cut funding for a University of Pittsburgh bioterrorism center he had praised in Pennsylvania. He even cut funding for a program that helps kids with cancer at Evanson (ph) Hospital in Atlanta, which moved him to tears when he visited that hospital.

When asked how he could speak straight faced about compassion for the poor, while crippling their programs in his budget, Mr. Bush replied, read my lip service.

One bright spot, of course, all across America underprivileged children are learning the meaning of a very big word, hypocrisy.

CARLSON: I must say, I'm glad that you found something that President Bush wants to cut, some part of his budge that he wants to reduce. I'm heartened to hear that. It's a big budget, way too big.

But to say that he's crippling services for the poor is hyperbole and overstatement to such a large and irresponsible extent. I think you undermine your own case when you use words like that.

BEGALA: I haven't when I got through case by case by case of Bush kissing the program and then killing it. It's the kiss of death. You know, all across America now, charitable groups are saying to the president, please don't come here.

CARLSON: Right.

BEGALA: Because he's such a hypocrite, Tucker.

CARLSON: The measure of love...

BEGALA: He wants to cut them, cut them. If he wants to praise them, praise them. But don't do both. That's so hypocritical.

CARLSON: The measure of love is not federal dollars...

BEGALA: Yes, it is.

CARLSON: ... but to say he's crippling short services to the poor is...

BEGALA: He took that program down zero in Atlanta. Zero. That's crippling it.

CARLSON: Made they didn't need federal dollars. Ever consider that?

BEGALA: Yes, ask them. They did.

CARLSON: There are about two million cats and dogs in the state of Colorado. And almost all of them are pets. But that could change soon.

Legislation pending in the Colorado state house would turn those pets into, quote, "companions" with the legal rights. If you love animals, and you should love animals, this probably sounds like great news. It did to me at first. But you may be surprised to learn that the bill is being backed, not by animal lovers or by veterinarians, who strongly oppose it. Legislation is the creation of surprise, surprise, the trial lawyers.

Here's the idea. Once pets become companions, they can legally become the victims of malpractice, which trial lawyers love. If the bill passes, lawyers will be able to collect up to 100 grand a piece from vets for every dog that dies.

The cost for veterinary care will rise, just as it has in human medicine. On the other hand, the average trial lawyer will be able to afford yet another first class golf outing to Barbados.

And of course, that's the real point. It always is.

BEGALA: No, the real point is that some people want to hold themselves above the law. I'll tell you, if some veterinarian butchers my dog, by God, I'm going to sue his (expletive deleted) off.

And that's going to be just tough luck if you don't like it.

CARLSON: Veterinarians are actually really decent people.

BEGALA: So they are. So are trial lawyers.

CARLSON: I wouldn't think they would want to put themselves above the law.

BEGALA: So are trial lawyers who try to protect people who are killed or maimed...

CARLSON: When they do it for free, I'll believe you.

BEGALA: Veterinarians don't do it for free. Does that make it bad?

Tucker Carlson takes a stand against capitalism. Let's save this tape.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney today launched a blistering attack on House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in response to the Republican leader's letter questioning the patriotism of America's union workers.

DeLay's name appears on a letter raising money for an anti-union special interest group. The letter says, quote, "Big labor bosses are willing to harm freedom-loving workers, the war effort and the economy to acquire more power."

Sweeney called the letter, quote, "a vile act," unquote, and called on Mr. DeLay to recant and apologize.

Teamsters President Jim Hoffa called DeLay's words an insult to him and to the 1.4 million members of the Teamsters.

DeLay now says the letter was a mistake. And like all conservatives, tried to blame someone else. In this case, Tom DeLay blamed a staffer.

A spokesman for Mr. Delay says if we give him a few more days, he'll think of a way to blame President Clinton.

CARLSON: You're right. DeLay did take it back. And it was probably a little overheated but last year in Oakland, Calif., the longshoreman's union refused to help scan cargo coming into the port for radiation. OK?

We're very worried in this country about a dirty nuke, or about nuclear weapons in general. The customs workers were very upset that the union prevented these packages from being scanned, but they did it anyway. And I think it's a perfect example of a union working against the national interest.

BEGALA: If the national interest is at stake, the president can put troops there to screen those to protect us. Tom DeLay's attack...

CARLSON: You're defending that. I mean come on.

BEGALA: ... it was over the top. This is the new right wing strategy. Disagree with us, we attack your patriotism.

CARLSON: Nobody on this show said that on the right.

BEGALA: No one says you did. I said Mr. Delay did that.

CARLSON: I never heard a single person in Washington ever...

BEGALA: Tom DeLay did, in these comments.

CARLSON: he didn't write that, he said. I'm saying that RIGHT now. I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism.

BEGALA: Well, in a minute we will ask a CNN analyst, NATO, most successful military alliance in history is now on the verge of breaking apart over Iraq. We'll ask two members of Congress whether we should go to war with Iraq and if so, how, when, why and with whom?

Later, the man who bared his soul and broke women's hearts on one of primetime TV's hottest shows and no, I'm not talking about Aaron Brown. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

The split between the United States and old Europe grew wider today when the elderly, increasingly irrelevant nations of France, Russia and Germany tried to prevent NATO from defending Turkey against possible attacks from Iraq. If you could even imagine.

NATO Secretary General reports emergency consultations tonight have proceeded, in his words, very heated debate.

Has NATO itself become an impediment to security? That's our question. Stepping into the crossfire tonight to answer it is CNN analyst Ken Pollock. He's director of research for the Brookings Institute Sabon Center for Middle East Policy.

BEGALA: Good to see you.

How bad is this rift in NATO? Is it worth potentially rupturing the greatest military alliance in history over whether we go to war in Iraq?

KEN POLLOCK, CNN ANALYST: I don't think I'd really put it that way, Paul. I think that's actually begging the question.

There's a rift both between the United States and NATO, and there's a rift within NATO. And in fact, the rift within NATO right now is much bigger than that between the U.S. and the European countries.

In point of fact, the administration is by and large correct that the Europeans are siding more toward the administration. The French, the Germans, the Belgians have staked out a position which most of the European countries are uncomfortable with. And you're seeing increasing support for them.

So you've got a break within NATO, which talking to Europeans, they think is actually a much greater concern in terms of the long- term health of the European Union, than they do in terms of the transatlantic relationship.

BEGALA: Can we write off particularly the French, the Germans, I guess the Belgians, when we know, and we do, that there are al Qaeda cells in France and in Germany and we need their help to capture, cripple and kill every member of al Qaeda?

POLLOCK: Well, I think you're -- you're conflating two different issues. I agree with you that the war on terrorism and the war on al Qaeda is probably the more imminent threat. And that's why I've said, I think, that that's the one that has to take precedence, or I think that we're going to have to go to war with Iraq sooner rather than later, that's the one I would like to see answered first.

But there is a different issue here. Which is the administration has made it clear they're going to do Iraq first. They're going to go to war with Iraq. That's the threat that they want to address first.

And then the question then becomes for the French and the Germans, why is it that they want to split the alliance over this? I think, in retrospect, it's going to be very hard for history to justify this decision.

And I think when this is all said and done, Saddam Hussein is a horrible, evil dictator, my guess is that the Iraqi people are going to be very grateful to be liberated. And in the end it's going to be very hard for France and Germany to suggest that this was somehow a principled position they took, when I think history is going to record this as probably being something that was worth doing. CARLSON: Well, it also -- It seems to me just from watching it, back to what's going on at NATO today, that what Germany, and France or Belgium are attempting to do is sort of actually sort of moral blackmail against Turkey. And say, look, you know, we're not going to help you defend yourself against chemical weapons if you are going to go along with the United States.

Do you think that's what's happening?

POLLOCK: Well, I look at it a little bit differently. I certainly agree with both of you in terms of it's just repugnant the way that they're handling this specific issue. You can agree or disagree with whether or not it's important to go to war with Iraq and go to war with Iraq right now.

But protecting Turkey is a no-brainer. And I think that it is repugnant for them to be using this issue to try to make a larger political point. There are other ways in which all of our allies, but particularly the French and Germans could register that point.

I think this is one where they should have said, you know what, there may be a war coming, it may have an impact on Turkey. We are part of NATO, NATO is there to protect every member and that includes Turkey.

CARLSON: But here's -- the idea that the United States ought to pay close attention to what France and Germany think. Here's the problem that I have with that.

On Friday night we had Saddam's bomb maker, Dr. Ham Sahan (ph), who said in no uncertain terms both companies in France and Germany, with the knowledge of the government, knowingly sold nuclear weapons components to Saddam Hussein's government. I was there, he said.

Knowing that, why did we pay attention to the opinions of France and Germany in the first place? I'm confused.

POLLOCK: Well, Tucker, remember, we're not blameless in this either.

CARLSON: Have we done that?

POLLOCK: Well, we sold Saddam the anthrax and we kind of looked the other way.

CARLSON: Is there any evidence that anthrax was ever turned into a biological weapon, any at all? Any evidence of that?

POLLOCK: Did they weaponize it? Yes, absolutely. They put it into missiles.

CARLSON: The anthrax they received from the United States?

POLLOCK: The anthrax string that they have came from the United States. You know, through the 1980s, Tucker, I think you can make an argument it was important for the United States to give... CARLSON: Well, wait, are you saying that the United States government knew that that anthrax was going to be used for biological weapons?

POLLOCK: I think that we were turning a blind eye to what Saddam was doing.

BEGALA: Which is essentially what Ken Adelman, who served President Reagan in arms control, said Friday night when he came on this show.

CARLSON: Wait a second. To say we -- I want to know who. I mean, what American government official allowed anthrax to go to Saddam Hussein? I mean, that seems to me you ought to be in prison for that?

POLLOCK: I'm too young to know the answer to that question. You probably have other guests who can give you an answer on that one.

BEGALA: Let me come back to Turkey. Because you did see Tucker and I agree vigorously about the need to defend Turkey.

Is this all about America? Or is there some problem that the Europeans have with Turkey? They dissed them on an application to join the European Union, it seems to me at a time when we should be embracing our allies in Turkey. Is there also a Turkish problem that the Europeans have, not just an American problem?

POLLOCK: I think there's clearly a Turkish-European issue which gets beyond this. And I think that certainly, the actions of France -- and French and Germans have taken isn't going to help that problem.

The Turks want desperately to be a member of the EU, and French and Germans and others have put one roadblock after another in their way. And we've been the good guys in this, trying to press the EU to bring the Turks on board.

My guess is that what the French and Germans are mostly doing is trying to demonstrate their pique at us by vetoing this move.

But, yes, it certainly can't be ruled out. And my guess is that tomorrow all the newspapers in Istanbul and Ankara and elsewhere in Turkey are going to play this as yet another Franco-German snub of Turkey, not a Franco-German snub of the United States.

BEGALA: But at least an American endorsement of Turkey. I'm looking for some glimmer of hope in this debacle. At least Turkey will know that America is still its ally.

POLLOCK: I think the Turks know full well that we are its ally. And actually, I give the administration credit there. I think the administration has done a very good job of dealing with Turkey over the last two years. Explaining to it its needs, bringing the Turks along in ways that they can feel comfortable about coming along.

BEGALA: Ken Pollock. And the name of the new book? POLLOCK: "The Threatening Storm."

BEGALA: "The Threatening Storm." Making the case for a war against Iraq.

My old colleague from the Clinton Administration, Ken Pollock. Thank you very much, sir.

In a minute, we'll ask two members of Congress about the seemingly inevitable war with Iraq.

And later, he had 25 gorgeous women to choose from and, no, not Tucker Carlson. Millions of TV viewers looking over his shoulder. We'll ask the real bachelor, Alex Michel, what he's doing now. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

While President Bush juggles Iraq, the U.N. and now NATO, Congress is being Congress, of course.

But as members hold hearings on the president's budget and assemble bills to put the administration's policies into action, how much are they being distracted by the possibility of a war with Iraq?

Stepping into the crossfire tonight to debate it, two congressmen, California Democrat Bob Filner of San Diego and Missouri Republican Roy Blunt.

Good to see you. Good to see you.

BEGALA: Thank you, both, gentlemen. Congressman Blunt, do me a favor and rank these foreign policy priorities for me: Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iraq, Iran. Which is the most imminent threat to America's national security?

REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MISSOURI: You know one of the reasons I really like to come on is I'm always intrigued by the first question and how caught off balance I am.

BEGALA: I'm glad I don't have to answer it. I'm not trying to be cute. It's a question our president has to answer, though. And you're one of his top advisers in the senior Republican Congress.

BLUNT: I'm not sure there is not an answer that applies to all of those. I think they all have to be handled at the same time and they all have to be handled in slightly different ways.

And that's the president's challenge, that's our challenge as a country. And that's the debate that goes on every day in the White House as to how we deal with these things, what's the priority for today in terms of the imminence of challenge that those various challenges present. I think it's clear that right now the Iraqi challenge is great. I think Secretary Powell made that case well the other day at the United Nations. And we see a significant alliance ready to move with us to do whatever we have to do.

Our best chance not to have to do anything militarily is for Saddam Hussein to believe we're totally prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate these weapons that he has from the threat that they present to us and the rest of the world.

CARLSON: Congressman Filner, Democrats are in a pretty good position. Republicans were in that position for a number of years where they don't have to make foreign policies, they can critique it.

But I'd like for you to make it if you could. How do we disarm Saddam Hussein? You're in total control. What do you do?

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't think anybody disagrees in America that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and should be disarmed.

And I want to make clear before I go into my answer that the American military is the greatest military in the world. It's going to win the war. And in fact thousands of the troops come from my own hometown of San Diego and they all know I support them totally.

But this is not...

CARLSON: Even your children, too.

FILNER: I know. But this is absent -- a war absent an imminent threat I think that Paul was just trying to prove, and absent the authority of the United Nations, will make America less safe and will make the world less safe. And if we have time I will prove that today.

CARLSON: OK. But I -- no doubt you will and I'm not even contesting your position yet. But I still want you to answer the question, how do we disarm Saddam Hussein?

FILNER: I think we're on the right track. I think the Germans and the French have the right answer. In fact, there is nothing that Saddam can do with all those inspectors running around, with all the satellites going around that Powell showed and all the pictures being taken and all the things being intercepted, there is nothing he can do. He is not a threat to America today.

BEGALA: Let me come back to Congressman Blunt. Here's the worry that a lot of us have, at least that I have, is that this remarkable fixation that we have now on Iraq has distracted our president, our intelligence agencies, our military so much that it has empowered our enemies in other places, in North Korea, to restart their nuclear program, in Iran to restart their nuclear program, in al Qaeda to reconstitute their terrorist program.

These are all evil people who want to harm us no matter what. But now they see a window of opportunity while we're distracted on Iraq.

And you know, the president seems to want a war with Iraq in the worst way and I'm worried that that's how he's going about it.

BLUNT: I think, Paul, though, what my friend Bob talked about was without the authority of the United Nations, this is really about whether the United Nations has any authority or not.

The United Nations has put these mandates on Iraq. They have violated them over and over and over again. This is really about whether the United Nations becomes a meaningful force in the future.

And now many nations will join us on what has to be done around the world and in the neighborhood, particularly once it becomes clear we're going to do this. I think the idea that we're not paying attention to these other things is wrong.

I see enough and know enough from briefings that we have that we know a lot about what is going on. We're still totally focused on that. This is an imminent part of the danger right now that we face.

It's clear that Saddam Hussein continues to violate the rule of civilized nations through the U.N. and the U.N. apparently may not be willing to do anything about it.

I hope at the end of the day they are, but how many times you have to violate the U.N. edicts before the U.N. takes it seriously?

FILNER: Well, that's for the United Nations to decide. But the world that would arise is we went in without United Nations authority, is a world that I think will make us all less safe.

We have been struggling for years and years, very difficult to have collective security through the United Nations.

A world in which we have decided on our own to take out Iraq, and we can do it, is a world where might makes right, where our moral position that we have built up over decades and decades that gives us authority as Americans, where we'll have a world which anybody can do whatever they want because we have done it. We have set the precedent and that's a bad precedent.

BLUNT: Under the Clinton administration, we went into Bosnia without United Nations authority. I don't remember you being critical of that at the time.

FILNER: I was, actually, but...

BLUNT: NATO authority. Is that a replacement for United Nations authority or is United Nations authority the soul determiner of whether this is an appropriate action...

FILNER: It is not the sole determiner, but what kind of world do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a world in which we are trying to be peaceful through this discussions or do we want a world whoever decides that has the might at the world can invade. CARLSON: You answered the question, Congressman Filner. You said we want to live in a world in which Saddam Hussein is disarmed. And everybody agrees with that. And yet I've you three times and you have answered how specifically should we disarm? You said we'll go the route of France and Germany, neither of which is serious about disarming Saddam...

FILNER: Yes they are...

CARLSON: So how, more inspections?

FILNER: I think the inspections process showed it could work. The last time around it had disarmed -- independent observers say roughly 90, 95 percent of everything he had was actually destroyed.

We have the means. Powell showed it. We have the means to root out these weapons and the U.N. inspectors through the process that has been in place and can be strengthened as the French and Germans want, can disarm him. We can do it.

That process can take -- Saddam ain't going to do anything while those inspectors are there. And there is no imminent threat to the United Nations. And as Paul pointed out, we, as a nation, and we in Congress, I'll tell you, can't do very much else while Iraq situation. We cannot do education, we cannot do health, we cannot do housing. We're doing war and that's all we're doing.

BEGALA: We've got to do a commercial. Keep your seat, Congressman Filner. Congressman Blunt, please stay with us.

In a minute, we're going to take you to CNN Center in Atlanta for an update of the nationwide terrorism alert.

And then, we'll ask these two congressmen about the home front. Is our government doing all it can to protect us from the terrorist attack?

And about a year ago millions of viewers tuned in for weekly update on this man's love life. Now that he's out of the spotlight, Alex Michel tells us whether "The Bachelor" has changed his life. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: We have been debating issues of war and peace here in CROSSFIRE with Missouri Republican Congressman Roy Blunt, he is the House majority whip, and California Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California.

CARLSON: Congressman Filner, Democrats have been getting -- have had sort of a list of demands for the president before going to war in Iraq. They said you need a congressional resolution, they got one. You need a U.N. resolution. He got one. They said you need to make your case to the American public. I want to show you the result of the case he has made. This is a poll that just came out tonight. CNN-"USA Today" Gallup. The Bush administration has made a convincing case on Iraq, 56 percent say yes. The results of this, a companion poll also out tonight favors sending U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power, 63 percent say yes.

We can argue over exactly what those numbers mean, whether it is hard support, soft support, I'm not sure how hard it is. Nevertheless, 63 percent, he's made his case, hasn't he?

FILNER: Well I think the president has fooled a lot of people and in fact, you know, the Powell -- the Powell performance was very good.

I would ask you to read this week's "Newsweek," by the way, in which basically takes the -- all the photos and everything and obliterates the case that Powell makes. So I hope people will read that and have maybe a slightly different view that it wasn't as powerful as first appeared.

But, look, the president has a bully pulpit. He has, so far, convinced people. The Democrats have not made significant -- have not made the case fully enough to the American people. And we have failed in that regard, I think.

CARLSON: Then just one quick question, very fast. You said he's fooled a lot of people. Why do you suppose he's fooled people? What's his motive?

FILNER: He has -- look, he wants to do certain things. He came to power to do certain things. The American people I don't think were ready for that. But when September 11 occurred, under the cover of that event, he has done a lot things including taking away civil liberties, including removing lots of programs of health and education and housing.

He has done what Reagan wanted to do in a much more. actually better -- in a more profound way that is they have moved us all to worry about war. They have moved us all to assume that Iraq is the imminent threat. What are they -- going to take all money from the budget the use for that. And the American people will not have any money for the kinds of things that they worry about every day, education, health care and housing.

BEGALA: Actually, I have a slight disagreement with Congressman Filner because I want to show you -- and of course, before you got into politics, as I recall, you ran a bible college, right?

BLUNT: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) bible college, but it was a Baptist university.

BEGALA: A Baptist university. You'll recall the gospel according to Matthew where we were taught, where your heart lies, there too your treasure shall be. Let's look at where our president's putting our treasure in our budget. It's not simply into war.

Forty-one billion dollars goes to Homeland Security. That's across the whole government, not just Secretary Ridge's department, but $100 billion goes to tax cuts, primarily for the rich. We are at war. We do face a terrorist threat. Why are we spending $100 billion on tax cuts and only $41 billion on protecting people's lives?

BLUNT; Well, you know, first of all, let me say -- first of all, let me say if you ask the American people whether they have confidence in Colin Powell or "Newsweek," I think they'll come down on the side of Colin Powell on that issue.

And the idea that the president of the United States ran for office, which is I think what you said, Bob, so he could take away people's civil liberties is pretty offensive.

FILNER: No, I did not say that.

BLUNT: I guess we'll have to look at ...

FILNER: I said that because September 11 happened, they're able to do things...

BLUNT: No, you said he ran for office with an agenda, and one of those agenda items was to take away people's civil liberties. That's ...

FILNER: OK, I amend that to say that because of September 11, they're able to do things that they would never have gotten away with. I have hundreds of people in my district who are under arrest because -- and without any indication of why, no ability to go to a lawyer, they have been taken away from their families. I think that is un- American and the president is doing it under the cover of September 11.

BEGALA: I do want you to answer the question about (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Why do we spend more than twice as much on tax cuts than on homeland defense?

BLUNT: You know, in the last eight years we doubled the federal budget on education. We raised that budget by 18 percent last year; this year it is going to go up a couple of percent. I think that means over the last two years it will have gone up by 20 percent.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: ... homeland security versus tax cuts. Education and other things we can have another show on. But homeland security gets $41 billion. Tax cuts gets 100, why?

BLUNT: That's another debate about whether or not tax cuts for the American people can do a better job to grow the economy with their money or the government can. I think the American people can.

BEGALA: You're comfortable with those priorities?

BLUNT: Those priorities are not mutually interchangeable. That's the idea that every time you cut taxes, somehow that money never gets back to the government because people don't do productive things with it. That's just -- I just don't agree with that, Paul, at all. You have to look at where the increases are in the budget, and education has gone up 20 percent in the last two years. That's a big increase.

CARLSON: Unfortunately, Congressmen, we're completely out of time. Congressman Roy Blunt, thank you very much. Congressman Bob Filner from San Diego, thank you.

A defender of all Europe has surfaced in the old south. He'll fire back later in the show.

But next, we put reality television in the CROSSFIRE with the original "Bachelor" Alex Michel. He'll join us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C. You know, it has been said that all is fair in love and war. We have talked about war. Now let's get to the important stuff, love. Been about a year since Alex Michel got his 15 minutes of fame. And a little more than six episodes of ABC's reality show, "The Bachelor," during which millions of people watched as Alex worked his way, tough job that it was, through a field of 25 beautiful, eligible women until he finally had to choose between two, Amanda and Trista. The series ended with our friend Alex down on one knee offering that rose to Amanda, which she accepted. Now he's ready for the next step into the CROSSFIRE. Please welcome the original "Bachelor," Alex Michel.

Thank you, sir. Good to see you.

CARLSON: How are you doing? Thanks very much for joining us.

ALEX MICHEL, "THE BACHELOR": My pleasure.

CARLSON: Let's get right to the motive. Why did you do it? You think, you know, people you watch them on "Jerry Springer," these people probably have a lot of free time on their hands, anyway. You, by contrast, went to Harvard and Stanford, had a paying job, producers approach you and say, would you like your love life on camera, and you said yes. What were you thinking when you said that?

MICHEL: I just -- I thought it would be a great adventure. I thought there was a good chance that I would find love, although in a strange way. People have met in stranger ways, and I thought that women who had the same sense of adventure might be people that I had something in common with.

CARLSON: But here is the problem. You get up there with Amanda. And I think I speak for millions of American women when I say this...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You get up there with Amanda and you make this agreement not simply between the two of you, but really between all of TV world, every viewer watching, and you say I'm going marry her, but you don't.

MICHEL: I didn't say I was going to marry her.

CARLSON: But you implied it. I like you a lot.

MICHEL: I did say I like you a lot.

CARLSON: Are you still in contact with her?

MICHEL: I am.

CARLSON: But you're not getting married, are you?

MICHEL: I'm not going to discuss my personal life.

BEGALA: Oh, no, wait a minute! Wait a minute!

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Guys, did all of you see this guy's personal life on national television? Come on, Alex!

MICHEL: I feel that I've already been extremely generous with everyone in TV land with my personal life. I invited them in for a six-week process, but at a certain point I've got to cut them off and live in private.

BEGALA: OK, what would a person not do on television? OK, pick a mate, you know, OK, that's fine. But where do you draw -- apparently on CROSSFIRE, you don't want to tell us if you're still seeing Amanda, but...

MICHEL: That's where I draw the line.

BEGALA: What would you not do on TV?

MICHEL: There is lots that I would not do on TV, but it does seem that, you know, many people would do almost anything.

BEGALA: We see these washed-up celebrities like eating worms and stuff like that on these other shows, like that you wouldn't?

MICHEL: That I would not do.

BEGALA: You're not a worm eater.

MICHEL: No.

BEGALA: Good for you.

CARLSON: Well, people get pushed into all sorts of things. We work in television. We know how diabolical producers are. Tell us about your producers. What did they push you to do when you were on the show?

MICHEL: Not much, actually. They really were trying as hard as they could to have a real romance come out of it. They thought that too much meddling would sort of jeopardize that, and they didn't tell me who to pick, they didn't tell me what to say.

CARLSON: The metaphysical question, though, how real can it be, though, the romance, if it is on camera?

MICHEL: Well, it certainly puts a strain on it, a certain unreality. But actually I felt like I had my hands full as it was and I didn't have enough mental space to worry about the cameras. I was worried about the women.

BEGALA: Well, I can imagine with 25 women surrounding you. By the way, did you keep the ring? Do you still have the ring?

MICHEL: I can't tell you about that either.

BEGALA: Oh, come on! OK, let me ask about a different show. It is apparently a popular one as well, "Joe Millionaire."

MICHEL: Apparently popular. You've been watching it?

BEGALA: OK, I'm living for it, man. And it's apparently, like all dates, based on a lie. Right? The women think that he's rich. How is that different from every other -- Tucker, for example, told his wife he had won the Victoria Cross for gallantry. Turns out he shopped once at Victoria's Secret. Not the same thing, but enough to get a date. Right? Is that just a more grandiose lie than all the rest of us schleps tell?

MICHEL: Yes, well, I don't necessarily approve of that show. I mean, I think it is a lot of fun for the viewer, but I'm sure it can't be that much fun for the women or the guy. He seems a little tortured, though he should have thought about that beforehand. And I don't think they're going to be too happy when they find out.

But everyone says that reality TV is sort of the end of western civilization, and my feeling is we have been hearing this for years. I mean, "The Gong Show" was the end of western civilization, "Family Feud." And my feeling is, compared to another sitcom about a frazzled employee in a working situation with a canned laugh track, reality TV has something in common with documentary films. Not a lot, but something, and people are finding it compelling to watch real people they can relate to go through intimate and real emotions that they call each other the next day, they talk about it around the watercooler, that's just like what my boyfriend did, and blah, blah, blah.

CARLSON: Well, if I can just correct you, actually "The Gong Show" was the end of western civilization. But Trista, who was the woman you didn't pick, I've heard, went on to get her own show, "The Bachelorette." Do you regret in light of that that you didn't pick her? You could -- you would be a real powerhouse in reality television if you did that.

MICHEL: No. I think I made the right choice for me.

CARLSON: Would you do it again? Would you go on another reality show?

MICHEL: I wouldn't go on another one, but if I were back in that same spot again, I would have done it. I mean, there were definitely pros and cons, but overall, it was an incredible life experience that I learned a lot from. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BEGALA: So what are we doing next? Do we have cameras follow people through their divorce? I guess that's probably not as much fun but...

MICHEL: Yes, I'm sure we'll see that.

BEGALA: That's the next step.

MICHEL: That may be the decline of Western civilization.

CARLSON: Speaking of the decline of Western civilization and its symptoms, online date, match.com, I believe, you're the spokesman for.

MICHEL: I am.

CARLSON: Do you use online dating, personally?

MICHEL: I haven't lately. But I approve of it.

Literally, I cannot think of a product that I would rather, because it's something people still feel uncomfortable with. It has a little bit of a stigma but I think for no reason. I mean I think this is actually an advancement. We're bringing back the fine art of love letters. People get to know each other in a less stilted environment. You know, you can actually be systematic about who might be right for you rather than going with that this schmo you met in the pub.

BEGALA: But you can tell even bigger lies online, right? I mean, you know, I told my wife before we got married, I was an astronaut, I'd won the Nobel Prize, by the way, in chemistry. She's not watching so don't tell her any different. But you can say anything online, right?

MICHEL: Well, people -- you can say anything over coffee, too. I mean, it's real dating and what match.com provides is a forum to meet each other in a safe way without giving away your phone number or e-mail address at first and get to know people at first. And, you know, I think you can tell during an e-mail correspondence if somebody is on the up and up.

CARLSON: Then if it is so good, then why don't you use it?

MICHEL: Well, I can't talk about my personal life.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: It's like if the politician came on and said, Well, I don't want to talk about politics, Tucker. I mean, your whole personal life was on national television every week.

MICHEL: That's right. But, you know, I didn't sign up for a lifetime of being that bachelor.

CARLSON: Well then, tell us, then, as someone who espouses online dating, what do you get your online date for Valentine's Day?

MICHEL: A new computer. An ergonomic keyboard. A really cool mouse.

CARLSON: You know, it really is the end of western civilization, isn't it?

MICHEL: You know, candies, flowers.

BEGALA: What is wrong with the old-fashioned taking a girl to a bar, getting her drunk, lying your ass off and hoping to getting lucky. I mean, that's -- that's made America great, isn't Alex?

MICHEL: Well that can be done with someone you met online.

BEGALA: OK.

MICHEL: It's like people use it just as a way to meet new people. But a lot of people are actually looking for love and finding it. Seventy-five couples a month get married that met on match.com. The thing works.

CARLSON: Better than "The Bachelor" apparently.

Alex Michel, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

MICHEL: Thank you.

BEGALA: Thanks a lot. Alex Michel.

CARLSON: Next in "Fireback," more fan mail from the far, frozen north. We're speaking, of course, of Canada. And won't believe what the Canadians are saying now. It is shocking. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Our "Fireback" segment, where we throw up the hatches and let your opinions flow in. And they do.

First up, Mark Alan Taggart from North Carolina writes, "Hooray for Old Europe! These countries, France and Germany, have the shared historical perspective of experiencing the horrors of invading troops firsthand and realize that war is only to employed when danger is immediate and imminent and all other diplomatic means have been exhausted."

Well, I think that France plan has been tried before and that's exactly why ignoring an imminent threat gets you into trouble.

BEGALA: The question is, is it imminent? And that's what we're debating tonight.

Aaron, in Paducah, Kentucky, the Atomic City, writes, "Paul, I'm a 13-year-old and I was wondering how you became an anchor on CROSSFIRE. I'm liberal and the only one in my school, yet I often win debates. Being an anchor on your show is a dream of mine."

Aaron, three words: raise your sights. You don't need -- I mean, you should grow up to want to be the president, not a talk show host.

CARLSON: Oh, how disillusioning. You're like his Michael Jackson. He admires you. Come on.

Dan Traverse of Kamloops, British Columbia, clearly a made-up town, writes, "Tucker, I speak for me and at least three other Canadians when I say that in spite of the wig and the bow tie, we like you."

BEGALA: See how nice the Canadians are?

CARLSON: Thank you, Dan. Boy, that kind of warms me.

BEGALA: Charles Davis in San Marcos, California writes, "Paul, I too would love to see a Hillary/Bush debate." We talked about this the other night. "Unfortunately, it would be unconstitutional. Bush would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment."

Outstanding. It is true. George W. Bush, I know George W. Bush. He's a good man, but he's not half the woman Hillary Clinton is, so...

CARLSON: He's a better debater than Al Gore thought he was turned out.

BEGALA: Yes, he is. He certainly is. Yes, sir?

CARLSON: Sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, I read recently in the newspaper that there is rumor that there is going to be another reality show called "America's Choice," where they choose people, kind of American idol style to run for president. And then eliminate call-in to eliminate getting down to one final candidate.

I was wondering if you think this is good for our democracy, getting more people involved or is this just a mockery?

CARLSON: Well, I think Ross Perot tried that on "LARRY KING" a couple of cycles ago and it turned out to be bad. So, given that model, I'm against it.

BEGALA: I think anything that brings more people into the process is a good thing, to tell you the truth. I mean, I'm willing to try anything to increase voter turnout.

CARLSON: Really? I want voters who are informed and sort of know something.

BEGALA: That's the elite view. I trust the American people.

CARLSON: I trust them too. I just...

BEGALA: I think there's a hell of a lot more wisdom among the average nonvoter in mainstream America than there is the people voting in Congress today.

CARLSON: That's completely untrue. The issues are complicated. You ought to know what you're talking about before you vote.

BEGALA: That's the elitism of the experts. Don't listen to them. It's our country. We should run it.

Yes, ma'am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Sarah Hanan (ph) from Juneau, Alaska. From our geographic position, North Korea is a real threat. Do you think the Bush administration is ignoring North Korea and what do you think North Korea will do once Iraq takes some action?

CARLSON: Well, you heard a deeply untrue thing said on the show tonight, and that is that North Korea, because the United States was focused on Iraq, built its nuclear weapons program.

Actually, North Korea has been --we know for a fact -- has been building its program for something like eight years. It's a huge problem. It's a complicated problem. And I'm not sure. And I've never talked to anybody who knows exactly what to do about it.

BEGALA: But there is no doubt, make no mistake about it, we have enemies around the world and they move on us when they think we are distracted. We are currently now distracted with a threat I believe is less imminent than North Korea or al Qaeda...

CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BEGALA: ...and those enemies are taking advantage of that. There's no doubt.

Yes, sir?

CARLSON: Very quickly. We're almost out of time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, I'm Wae-Lee (ph) from Cirros (ph), California and I was wondering: NATO is based upon the fact that an attack on one nation is an attack on all. So wouldn't the other member nations be obligated to defend Turkey?

CARLSON: Well, of course, they absolutely and that's the debate tonight. But it turns out that international, multinational organizations can devolve into jokes really quickly, as the U.N. unless people are really vigilant about it.

BEGALA: But with the right leadership they can work it out. That's how we won the Second World War. We need to reunite NATO.

From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night for yet more CROSSFIRE.

"CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins right now. Have a great night.

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





Iraq?>