CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Who is the Biggest Threat to the U.S.?; Anti-war Democrats Threaten to Sue Bush

Aired February 13, 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.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the left Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And a threat that gathers on the other side of the Earth can strike our own cities.

ANNOUNCER: But with so many threats, who's the biggest?

And should anti-war lawmakers really be suing the president?

Plus, security worries from Washington to New York, to your hometown. Is duct tape enough?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY WHIP: I will go home tomorrow and check my supplies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have not gotten duct tape and we have not gotten anything else.

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. On a day that President Bush was rallying U.S. forces, we're going to ash who should be their first target: Iraq, North Korea, bin Laden?

We've also got a member of Congress who's suing the president to try to get him remember a little thing called the Constitution.

But first, as we do everyday, we're going to exercise our Constitutional right to bring you the best political briefing in television, "Our CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: George W. Bush as commander in chief was bucking-up the troops today. He dropped into Florida's Mayport Naval Station to have lunch with sailors and tell them, he would, quote, "use every ounce of power," end quote, to defeat Saddam Hussein if the use of force turns out to be necessary.

He said it's up to the United Nations to decide, quote, "whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions," end quote. That adds to the bundle of evidence from the president's own lips that we will soon be at war unless somebody gets rid of Saddam or he boards a fast plane to Switzerland.

CARVILLE: I hope we have (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Let me encourage him to go to Switzerland or Libya or wherever else and let's avoid this damn war.

Those super patriotic pictures of President Bush being cheered by Navy sailors came from only one of today's stops he made in Florida. The president also took time to rub elbows with Republican businessmen at a pep rally for another war, this class war on poor people.

According to recent reports by "The New York Times" and others, Bush's budget would raise rent for poor people in public housing and make major changes Medicaid, Head Start and the school lunch program. these changes could result in poor people being denied medical care, poor children being turned away from Head start and some of the school kids even losing their nutritious meals during the school day.

I'm not that at all. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of "The Washington Post" and "The Wall Street Journal." I don't need the approval of powerful people to define my success. I proudly wear the badge of class warrior and stand up to the greatest class warrior of them all, George W. Bush.

NOVAK: James, you certainly are a class warrior. But I think if...

CARVILLE: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) proudly.

NOVAK: If I could explain it to you, that what we have now is a continuing effort by people of your ilk to have a redistribution of income from the people who are successful to the people who aren't successful, and that kills...

CARVILLE: Let's just go back. I think those firemen in New York, their families, I think they are more successful than I am and I think I ought to pay more taxes than they do. I think school teachers are more successful than me. There's a way that you can define -- I think these soldiers and these air men and these sailors out here are very successful.

There's a way to define success other than money. That's one thing that you Republicans and "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Washington Post" need to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). That's not the only definition of success in the United States, is money.

NOVAK: We're not talking about them.

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) talking about them. They pay taxes like everybody else.

NOVAK: We're talking about them. We're talking about people who don't work and don't pay taxes.

CARVILLE: You call poor kids with a cleft lip that need health care...

NOVAK: It's a filibuster! The Democrats are using the Senate's ancient privilege of unlimited debate to prevent a vote on confirming Miguel Estrada as a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Board of Appeals. The Senate was in session until 50 minutes after midnight last night and resumed at 11:00 a.m. this morning.

Does that mean the Republicans will force the filibustering Democrats to stay on their feet talking until they permit a vote? No, that would inter fear with next week's Senate recess. What's the objection to Miguel Estrada? He's a conservative Latino. An immigrant from Honduras. And that's as objectionable to liberals as a conservative African-American like Clarence Thomas.

CARVILLE: I think what's objectionable to people is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right. I think what's objectionable to people is that Laura Ingraham was one of his good friends, sat right here on this show and said that he would reverse every liberal thing that the Supreme Court had ever done, which I assume he'll reverse Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. He won't even say that.

NOVAK: Why is it...

CARVILLE: Why doesn't he just release his writings and tell people what he's about?

NOVAK: Why is that the Republican Senate -- do you mind if I speak when you're interrupting?

Why is it that a Republican Senate would go about confirming the liberal judges put on by Bill Clinton and you will not? The Democrats tried to filibuster for the first time in the history of...

CARVILLE: Democrats have condemned I don't know how many judges. Ninety-five percent of the judges they set up. What are we talking about? In a Republican...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Let's say President Bush finally gets his war with Iraq. Can someone please tell me what happens next? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried today, telling the Senate committee that U.S. forces will need to stay in Iraq, quote, "as long as necessary, but not one day longer," end quote.

Well that isn't good enough for Senator Joe Lieberman. He's threatened to sponsor a new congressional resolution to demand a blueprint for how the administration plans to rebuild Iraq.

If congressional hearings made painfully obvious this week, the administration doesn't have one. My point here is we're not going to lose the war with Iraq, but do we know how we're going to win the peace? NOVAK: Well, I have to say I don't think we do, to be honest with you. But -- and that worries a lot of people who want partisan -- demagaugic Democrats, either.

CARVILLE: Well I don't -- you know, I don't -- I just worry, -- I don't -- it's a little country of 22 million people. They're not going to beat the United States military. What I wonder is they don't have the foggiest idea what they're going to do after that.

NOVAK: We're going to be there a long time.

It was announced today the Democratic Party will soon have seven, seven, count them, presidential hopefuls. The latest being former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois. Her single term in the Senate before being defeated for reelection was dogged with scandal. Her using campaign funds for jewelry and enjoying the hospitality of Nigeria's dictator. Truly, she is the seventh dwarf.

So why should she run for president? It's a transparent ploy by the Democratic establishment to split the big African-American vote in Democratic primaries between her and the man that established the Republicans fear the Reverend Al Sharpton. This is the same party that disinterred Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale in an attempt to control the Senate. Now they turn to Carol Moseley-Braun.

CARVILLE: Wit. You're saying that -- let me get this straight because I want you to say it with a straight face. It's a powerful, establishment Democrats have begged on and prevailed Carol Moseley- Braun to run for president. Who are like three establishment Democrats have called Carol Moseley-Braun, encouraged her to run?

NOVAK: It's -- well, I can answer your question?

CARVILLE: Sure.

NOVAK: We don't know, but it might be you for all we know.

CARVILLE: You don't know. You have -- you're a journalist.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You're making the charge that the establishment Democrats called her to get in the race to split the vote. That's a -- Bob, you know what? That's a ludicrous charge. You usually have some basis of fact for what you say.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: That -- you just made that up. That's the silliest thing I ever heard in my life.

NOVAK: First place, Reverend Al thinks so. And let me...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: How much are you afraid of him was -- just a minute. Let me say when Paul Begala sat in that seat an attacked on this program the Reverend Al Sharpton -- you're terrified of him...

CARVILLE: Paul Begala pointed out when Tim Russert asked him on "Meet The Press." If the man runs for president, nobody can ask him a question? That's the most ludicrous thing in the world. You know that John Kerry, that Joe Lieberman, that John Edwards, that Dick Gephardt...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You know we've got tons of people who can beat Bush. You just don't want any of them to win and one of them's going to.

Today, a Senate (UNINTELLIGIBLE) made more public the results of an investigation in the shenanigans used by Enron. Its accountants had gotten so good at manipulating the tax (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Enron paid no federal taxes from 1996 to 1999 and then again in 2001. I wonder who paid in 2000? None. Investigations say Enron cheated the government out of at least $2 billion in taxes.

Here we are about to go to war and now we see some of out fellow Americans have been -- are behaving. George W. Bush is serious about Saddam Hussein. He'll get serious about stopping corporations who're avoiding their fair share of taxes.

NOVAK: I think we're investigating them. The government's investigating Enron and all. But let me tell you...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Wait a minute, the long-term solution to this problem is to eliminate the federal income tax, go to a national sales tax which you won't be able to afford.

CARVILLE: That's right. What we need to do is make poor people pay sales taxes.

NOVAK: Top officials of the Bush administration brought their worries to Capitol Hill today. In a minute we'll ask two U.S. senators what's the biggest threat? Iraq, North Korea -- I always say North Carolina -- north Korea or al Qaeda terrorists?

And while the president was rallying U.S. forces today, anti-war Democrats unleashed their ultimate weapon, the trial lawyers. We'll talk to a Congressman who is actually suing the president. And we'll also ask whether Homeland Security officials are really making a safer or are they just scaring us?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told lawmakers today the U.S. is facing what may be the most dangerous security environment the world has known. He's defend the Pentagon's budget requests, and touch on the threats posed by Iraq, North Korea and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction, which is the biggest threat? In the CROSSFIRE, Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, a member of Foreign Relations Committee. And Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: My colleague, Paul Begala, asked this question the other night and I think it is a good one.

The ranking order who you think is the biggest threat to the United States, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and al Qaeda?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX), MEMBER, COMMERCE COMMITTEE: Think al Qaeda with help from Iraq. And I think that's what we're talking about. Al Qaeda is the new kind of enemy. We have an enemy that is everywhere in the world, that has no standards of decency, that would teach the children to commit suicide.

CARVILLE: Then let's go Iraq, North Korea, Iran, just could you give me...

HUTCHISON: Our concern and the president's concern is Iraq helping these -- al Qaeda terrorists.

CARVILLE: Right.

HUTCHISON: Who have no standards whatsoever and if they had a weapons of mass destruction they would be the most...

CARVILLE: You don't think North Korea, or Iran would help these terrorists at all this.

HUTCHISON: Well, actually I think we are talking to North Korea. I think we have allies in the region that are helping with North Korea. It's a very different situation.

CARVILLE: Senator, let me show you Britain. They asked the British who -- our cousins allegedly -- Britain View: Who poses the biggest threat to world peace?

Now this, is not -- this is the much-hated French. Thirty-two, U.S., 25 Iraq, 26 North Korea. How can we put ourselves in a position where in our country that is known as our cousin and strongest ally, more people think we're the most dangerous to the war with than north Korea who has nuclear weapons and Iraq, which as a thug and a dictator as it's head of the state.

HUTCHISON: That's just not serious.

CARVILLE: Well, it is not a serious country. I mean, if you can't say the British people and it's not a serious country. It's a damn serious country.

HUTCHISON: That's just not a serious poll.

CARVILLE: You can shoot the messenger, but it's just a poll. NOVAK: Senator, Corzine, are you taking the position that there's no connection between how we deal with Iraq and the danger of North Korea.

SEN. JON CORZINE (D-NJ), FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.: I think you have to consider a comprehensive view of the world. I don't think you can ignore North Korea who has admitted to having (UNINTELLIGIBLE) material. I don't think you can ignore Iran which is actively pursuing a weapons program. Has weapons of mass destruction. I think you have to think about these in a complex way. And I'm afraid we haven't always done that prioritization that James was talking about.

NOVAK: I think you'll agree, senator, that the Prime Minister, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair is one of the strongest supporters of the Bush policy, which has been battered by the Democrats on the Hill. And I'd like you to a listen to something the prime minister said the other day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM: Over Iraq, whether United Nations has a clear declared position, weakness is going to inhibit our ability to confront the dangers from North Korea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Do you disagree with that?

CORZINE: I think that we need to make sure that we are firm and fulfill the U.N. mandates, 1441. And I think that we are working hard to have a -- something other than a unilateral approach. I think that's yet response was as positive as it was to Colin Powell last week. Because we have reached out in a multi-lateral approach and we should do that. But you know, we need to do that in the context of thinking of the other threats that the country has. The American people are more afraid of the al Qaeda risk than they are whether Iraq has vials of anthrax.

NOVAK: Senator, I just want you to answer that question. I didn't quite get the answer. That the idea, that if we are -- if we say it's OK, Saddam Hussein, you don't have to comply with these resolutions. We're not going to attack you, but this is a message to the rest of world.

CORZINE: I don't think anyone is saying that Iraq shouldn't disarm. I think there are questions among reasonable people about how you go about that.

Should war be the first step or should it be we use all our economic resources?

Should we be forceful in our diplomacy?

Should we use the inspecting process as a means of doing that?

But nobody, no one that I know of, thinks that Iraq should not disarm.

CARVILLE: Senator Huchison, in 1941 President Roosevelt aligned itself with the Soviet Union, a communistic Soviet Union. And in the 1980's, President Reagan aligned itself with Iraq even to the point of supplying them with poisonous gas, does that mean that the United States shares the same world view at the time as the Soviet Union or Iraq?

HUTCHISON: No. We deal with people of very different government organization. We deal with people of different ethnic backgrounds. We don't require everyone to be like the United States. But we are trying to protect our country from people who would harm us.

CARVILLE: I understand. But the reason I ask that question is I thought that Secretary Powell by trying to make the point that Osama bin Laden was connected with Iraq -- I think you could make the case that it was it was a question of him thinking he had a political advantage by a war with Iraq by doing this. And I think the secretary, just like I don't think that President Roosevelt was sympathetic, nor do I think President Reagan was sympathetic to the aims of Saddam Hussein. I think they were present with a choice. And you're not trouble that Secretary Powell tried to make a case that really doesn't stand up historically, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are really connected?

HUTCHISON: I thought Colin Powell did lay out the case. And I thought he said why we were very concerned about Iraq. He certainly made a connection with al Qaeda. What the whole point here is that we have seen 9-1-1 with an airplane. We don't want to see a 9-1-1 with a nuclear weapon or chemical or biological weapon. That's the point.

NOVAK: James said it -- James says that Secretary Powell didn't quite make the case, but the American people have decided he made case.

Let's take a look at the CNN/"USA TODAY"/Gallup poll.

Bush administration made a convincing case on Iraq? Yes, 56 percent, no 41 percent. That's even bigger than the margin you were elected to the Senate with.

CORZINE: Bob, I think -- I like that poll number. You can see that. But the fact is that I do believe Colin Powell made a compelling and convincing case that Saddam Hussein is in breach of 1441. We know that he needs to disarm. The issue is not whether he's in breach. It is how you go about that and how do you put that into the complex of all the issues we have.

CARVILLE: Let me just interrupt you. I think everybody -- I wasn't to talk about the case that Colin Powell made at the U.N., I was talking about the case he made before the Congressional committee that somehow or another -- but there's a ton of difference.

Yes. And if you ask me, Did Colin Powell make a convincing -- did the U.S. make a convincing case against Iraq -- sure they did. Iraq is in violation of the U.N. resolution. That question is flawed. Did you make the case to go to war. My point and I want to get back to it is there's a ton of difference between making the case that Iraq is a bad people as opposed to make it a case that it is, in the long term interest to the United States.

NOVAK: Your response to that, Senator Hutchison.

HUTCHISON: Well, I think you're not making the case Saddam Hussein is a bad person. We have lived with a bad person for a long time. You're making the case that Saddam Hussein has the capability to put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. And we now know, we have connected the dots. The terrorists are out to get us.

NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break right now.

CORZINE: Proliferators are more in North Korea. We have seen unbelievable shipments of nuclear -- not nuclear, but missile technology and nuclear technology to other countries.

NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break and in a minute we'll ask the two senators if we really need a left wing filibuster right in the middle of all of the war worries.

And later we'll talk to one of the six members of Congress trying to stop a war by suing the president.

And apart from duct tape, will fallout shelters be making a come back? We'll put the country's new obsession with safety and security in the CROSSFIRE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back.

President Bush's obsession with Iraq hasn't stopped the administration from pushing some of its others priorities, like running up a deficit and loading up the federal bench with right wing judges.

We're talking about wartime priorities with Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Democratic Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey.

NOVAK: Isn't it disgusting, Senator Corzine, that with a country on the verge of war that you are filibustering a young -- a brilliant young lawyer whose only crime is that being a Hispanic is also a conservative?

CORZINE: You know, people go to war to protect what we have as values in this country and one of our values is the constitution.

Believe that advice and consent with regard to the judges that are going to have lifetime appointments are going to talk to those people, be interviewed just like you would for a job, whether you stand for certain kinds of values and whether you believe in the constitution and the rule of precedent and whether you're going to follow the constitution.

If you don't answer these questions, then I think people have a right to say I want to hear an answer to a question. That hasn't happened.

NOVAK: Mr. Estrada said he would follow the constitution. but what I -- of course he would and nobody -- nobody -- nobody denies -- nobody denies that. I know that the new senators have been giving the talking points, from all the left wing pressure groups, because I listen to the debate. You all say exactly the same thing.

But I want to read to you a letter to the Judicial Committee....

The Hispanic Congressional Caucus is not a right wing group. I mean, a left wing group.

NOVAK: A left wing group. I'll guarantee you it's not a right. wing group. But I....

CORZINE: Nor a left ring group.

NOVAK: It's a left wing group and I want you to --- I want to read to you a letter to the Judiciary Committee by a Democrat who isn't running for office, isn't a senator, isn't under the control of these left wing groups.

It's Ron Klaim. You know who Ron Klaim is? He was Vice President Gore's chief of staff.

He said, "First Miguel is a serious lawyer who takes the law very seriously. Second, Miguel will rule the law justly toward all without showing favor to any group or individual. Third, he has an independent streak that is a quality that will make Miguel a very fair judge."

Isn't that a more decent appraisal?

CORZINE: If he is such a serious guy, you ought to just answer the questions, you know? How are you going to respond to these kinds of things? I mean, it is very clear who's the judge that you would find admirable in the history of America? Who -- what Supreme Court Justice --

NOVAK: You're trying to trap him. You're trying to trap him.

CORZINE: That's a real trap. I mean, you can't identify a single Supreme Court Justice throughout the history of the United States?

NOVAK: What if he faced Scalia? You'd cut his head off, wouldn't you?

CORZINE: I don't think I would. I think that would be a good choice. We'd understand a little bit of what his jurisprudence...

(CROSSFIRE) CARVILLE: Senator Hutchison, let me show you an amendment to the Senate and this worries me, this whole home al Qaeda. I completely agree. I'm way more worried about that than I am Iraq, to tell you the truth. And this was an amendment that came up before the Senate that we didn't vote for.

Can I see float three please up there? This was something by Senator Byrd. It had state, local government to the count of $1.4 billion, border security. airport security, port security, nuclear security, energy security, mass transit security, federal law enforcement, water ports. Why would people's vote against that on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and vote for a $2 trillion tax cut? How can we afford a $2 trillion tax cut, yet we can't afford this kind of common sense spending?

HUTCHISON: You're talking about a $674 million tax cut for the economy...

(CROSSTALK)

HUTCHISON: ...billion that would spur the economy and try to put people back to work. That's what the tax cut would do.

The increases in spending, the administration said were not necessary because we had the emergency spending that we did after 9/11 and we had an budget for homeland defense.

I would also like to address the Miguel Estrada issue, if I would for a minute, if you wouldn't mind.

CARVILLE: No, ma'am, be yourself.

HUTCHISON: You know, we talk about the constitution and the constitution says that a person would be nominated by the president and with the advise and consent of the Senate. And that is a majority. A simple majority. What we're asking for is I vote for this man. All we want is a vote. If you don't agree with him, if you think he is too conservative -- what we are asking for is a vote.

What they are doing by not allowing a vote is requiring 60 votes instead of 51. That's a disregard for the constitution.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You would agree that the constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules and you will agree that Republicans used the filibuster before, that this is not anti-constitutional.

HUTCHISON: We have not had a partisan filibuster ever. We have had a bipartisan filibuster on one Supreme Court justice nominee.

NOVAK: That's going to have to be the last word.

CORZINE: We have plenty of cases that never even got to...

NOVAK: We're out of time. Senator Corzine, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: Next, in a CNN NEWS ALERT, NASA may be closer to figuring out what happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia. After that, we'll ask one of the Democrats who is suing the president, why don't they sue Saddam Hussein, too?

And short of duct taping all of the entrances to New York City, just how much safety can officials realistically guarantee?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NOVAK: The anti-war movement in the U.S. may not be very big, but who needs size when you've got trial lawyers? In a minute, we'll ask Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. if he and his friends really think their new lawsuit will work.

Later, homeland security concerns that will take more than duct tape to solve. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

A group of lawyers, soldiers and parents went to court in Boston today. They wanted a judge to issue a junction against President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, keeping them from attacking Iraq unless the Congress formally declares war. They say it's the Constitution, stupid. And joining us from Capitol Hill is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Illinois Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: Congressman Jackson, appreciate you being here. The Congress of the United States has passed a resolution authorizing the president to use all force necessary to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. That was passed by the Congress. What's your case?

REP. JESSE JACKSON JR. (D), ILLINOIS: Well, Bob, a rush to war we must not trample upon the Constitution. Members of Congress, the president of the United States have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution is very clear that Congress shall have the power to declare war.

And Congress did not pass a declaration of war. Congress unconstitutionally seated its power to the president to declare war when he wants to, and that's what we're taking to federal court.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, this is my problem. People look at the Democratic Party, and it looks like we don't stand for the military, we don't stand up to people. I doubt the wisdom of this war. I don't have much -- a problem with the same legality. But doesn't this just feed into the perception that, when people go to Baghdad or we file a suit, that we're just against the use of military power no matter what the reason is?

JACKSON: James, you're raising a political question. A political question that should be debated within the Congress of the United States. But the idea of authorizing a war, starting or stopping a war, are two separate questions does.

Does the Congress of the United States under the framers' intent have the specific power of declaring war? Most recently the president said he can go to war when he wants to. He doesn't need the U.N. He doesn't have to go back to Congress to seek specific authority to go to war.

Well that's not quite what the Constitution of the United States says. And that's not what was seated to the president in the Iraq resolution.

CARVILLE: Well Congressman, they (ph) certainly don't talk about the U.N., but we went to war in Korea, we went to war in Bosnia, we went to war in Somalia. Any number of times we've used troops in Panama, we've used troops in the Dominican Republic and Grenada. And time and time again, none of these have been with the benefit of a congressional declaration of war.

JACKSON: Well, wait a second.

CARVILLE: Were all of these other things illegal and we should go back and sue every other president that we had before?

JACKSON: No, James. Actually, it works like this. Under specific federal interpretation, Article I, Section VIII says that when Congress accedes by passing appropriations bills, or when Congress passes, as in the case of the Vietnam War, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution, then Congresses and the president are essentially linked in their process of prosecuting the war. And Congress cannot withdraw without specific intent by the president to withdraw.

However, what is unique about this lawsuit, which makes it different than any other lawsuit ever filed, is that this lawsuit is being filed before the prosecution of a war. And the Supreme Court and federal courts have left it open that the political doctrine is subject to judicial intervention if in fact we can show -- if in fact we can show that Congress has not authorized this war, and we believe we can.

NOVAK: Congressman, the Congress acted in October to authorize the president, but I just want to give you a little history lesson, if I can be so bold, that the last time the United States declared war against anybody was against a couple of the axis (ph) satellite powers a few days after Pearl Harbor. That was the last time it was done. Are you saying that all of the wars when we fought to save South Korea from communist aggression were unconstitutional?

JACKSON: No. What I'm saying is that there is a test that has been established by the courts in subsequent interpretations of Article I, Section VIII that says if Congress accedes by passing appropriations bills in further (ph) and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) war, if Congress accedes by drafting American citizens, if Congress agrees by supporting a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution, then, in fact, Congress is linked with the president of the United States.

But in this case, the Congress of the United States has not declared war against the people of Iraq. Bob, this has nothing to do with starting or stopping a war. This is a question of authorization and process. The president must come back to the Congress.

NOVAK: I want you give me a straight answer to this, please, Congressman. Abraham Lincoln waged war against the confederate states of America without ever giving a declaration of war. He immediately called for volunteers. Congress wasn't even in session. Was that unconstitutional?

JACKSON: Well that's a civil war. I think that's a different circumstance. And President Lincoln and that Congress, the 32nd Congress -- or 33rd Congress -- they hay had to wrestle with those questions. That's not the question for the 108th Congress.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, my colleague, Mr. Novak, says that the trial lawyers are behind this suit. Is there a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the American Trial Lawyer Association if they file this suit for you? Or is it just people on their own doing this?

JACKSON: The plaintiffs in this case are men and women who serve in the armed services, who find themselves in the Middle East right now without specific constitutional and congressional authorization. And the parents of some of those servicemen who are concerned. Listen, those men and women signed up -- Bob, those men and women are prepared to...

NOVAK: Jesse, we are out of time. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thanks for having me.

CARVILLE: Jesse Jackson, we appreciate it.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: One of our viewers thinks she's spotted a new presidential plan to stimulate the economy. Stick around and watch her fire back in a little bit. But next, before we worry ourselves to a frazzle, we'll ask a security expert, is duct tape enough?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: A couple of government agencies have come up with more things for safety officials to worry about. The FBI and the National Infrastructure Protection Center -- where did they come from -- have issued a bulletin recommending the steps be taken to guard telecommunication centers, heavy industrial (UNINTELLIGIBLE), key energy banking and finance centers, as well as water systems and electric utilities. And my friends, that will take more than duct tape.

Stepping into the CROSSFIRE now is Neil Livingstone, chairman of GlobalOptions and the author of "Protect Yourself in an Uncertain World: A Comprehensive Handbook for Your Personal and Business Security."

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Hello. How are you doing?

NEIL LIVINGSTONE, CHAIRMAN, GLOBALOPTIONS: Good to see you.

CARVILLE: I'm going to try to start out here -- and I'm going to end up before the night, this session is over -- but I'm going to try to start out doing two things that I seldom -- and one is a serious (UNINTELLIGIBLE). On a scale of one to 10, one being not worried at all, 10 being really afraid, where should I be as a resident of the Washington, metropolitan area right now?

LIVINGSTONE: You know I was having lunch with a top official from the Clinton administration -- a formal official yesterday -- who is in the know on some of these things. And he said it makes you wonder if you should be living in Washington right now. The threat is that high.

CARVILLE: So you think this is not just a bunch of claptrap? That this is real stuff we're dealing?

LIVINGSTONE: You know I've been very critical of this color- coated warning system and some of the warnings in the past. I thought they were based on flimsy intelligence and maybe an incomplete picture. As I said the other day, this is the real thing, and I think we ought to be worried.

NOVAK: What's your basis for that, saying it's the real thing?

LIVINGSTONE: The people I talk to in both law enforcement, intelligence, and so on -- and we take care of an awful lot of -- we do some government work, as well as -- and right now, the level of evidence out there in terms of the take that they're getting from our listening posts around the world, our human assets and other places, some of the interrogation of various people who have been arrested recently and in other places, all of this, plus the movement of people around the globe right now suggests that there's a very serious picture.

NOVAK: Let me ask you a personal question. You sound like you're frightened yourself. Are you?

LIVINGSTONE: I'm uneasy. I live in this neighborhood. I live a few blocks from here. And I live across the street from the Saudi embassy. And it is a tough problem. And it does worry my wife, it worries myself, and it worries a lot of my clients and the people I talk to daily.

CARVILLE: A lot of things we've heard about here in Washington, in New York, around the country, is duct tape and this plastic. What should I do with this stuff?

LIVINGSTONE: Other than wear it to a party right?

CARVILLE: Let's see here. Should I just leave it here or should I take it home or do anything with it?

LIVINGSTONE: I think you ought to take it home. Look, you had a terrific head of FEMA...

CARVILLE: That doesn't help too much, does it?

LIVINGSTONE: Wrap some paper around you.

NOVAK: But seriously, what should you do with it?

LIVINGSTONE: OK. You have a terrific head of FEMA in James Lee Witt. And he stressed preparation. And the thing about it, he stressed it for natural disasters, any type of -- you know, you can lose this power. All of this stuff makes sense, by and large, if you have a problem at some point. And if you have a terrorism problem, particularly if it's a chemical or a biological release, it will give you some protection.

NOVAK: What protection do you get from the duct tape? Tell me, please.

LIVINGSTONE: Well, what happens is, is if you seal up your doors -- and preferably you have a room some place inside the house...

NOVAK: Would you suffocate then?

LIVINGSTONE: No, you're not going to suffocate for days.

NOVAK: You mean the air comes in and the gas won't come in?

LIVINGSTONE: If you take tape it all up and you've got your HBAC (ph) off, it affords you some greater level of protection. Look, Bob, what's going to happen if we have a problem here, you're going to get an emergency warning. And they're either going to tell you to do one of two things, evacuate, or they're going to tell you to take shelter. If you take shelter, you want to be in the most secure shelter that you can devise for yourself.

CARVILLE: Top room, bottom room? Give me some quick advice? What do I do? I get the thing, and as the emergency thing comes on, everybody (UNINTELLIGIBLE) take shelter. What should I do? LIVINGSTONE: If you're at home or at your office, preferably you've already identified an interior room. A bathroom's good, because it doesn't have windows or anything in it. You tape up the doors, you make sure the HBAC (ph) is off, you tape up the vents, you tape up the drains and so on.

If you've got some water in there or you've got a flashlight with a battery powered and you have a battery-powered radio, and maybe something for human waste, then you can sit this out.

NOVAK: If I could go back to the original question, can you tell me how this is going to happen? It's not going to happen, obviously, by a hijacked airplane. It's not going to be a missile shot from somebody. Is some guy -- is some street person going to come with a bag and throw it in the Saudi embassy?

LIVINGSTONE: Well there are a variety of ways they could do it. And I did a book 20 years ago that went through scenarios on this. And one of those -- let's go with what we've seen already. In 1995, we had a small sarin, which is a nerve agent, released in the Tokyo subway system.

It was just a test by a religious cult there. And 12 people died, 5,000 went to hospitals. They put it in a subway.

CARVILLE: All right. We have to close, but I want to give you just some -- add some levity to this serious time. I want to show you what a lot of right wingers out there want me to do with this duct tape.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: That's the best idea. Thank you very much, Neil Livingstone. Appreciate it.

Next on "Fireback," one of our viewers has some advice for how James Carville should approach stories about threats to our national security. That's a pretty good idea that way, as far as I'm concerned.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: It's time for "Fireback." And our first e-mail is from J.P. Sonnier of Dallas Texas, who addresses my colleague. "James, you should concentrate on the immediate national threat we are facing with an open mind. This threat is about America and not your Democratic agenda. Leave partisan politics at home."

That's good advice, isn't it, James?

CARVILLE: Well I think Mr. Sonnier, who I assume has Louisiana roots with that name, doesn't I am focusing on the immediate threat, and that's called al Qaeda, Mr. Sonnier, not Iraq. I am 20 times more scared of al Qaeda than I am of Iraq. "The genius of W's economic policy is emerging. He plans to stimulate the economy by scaring Americans into buying duct tape, plastic sheeting and camping supplies. Look for a stock market rebound led by 3M and L.L. Bean." Jody Anderson, Tallahassee, Florida.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Actually, levity aside, these are scary times.

NOVAK: Did you buy duct tape?

CARVILLE: I've got some. And I'll tell you what, I'm going to call Mr. Livingstone. I take this stuff as seriously as a heartbeat.

NOVAK: R. Hayden of Wilmington, Delaware says, "Bob, you need to talk as loud and fast as your misguided leftist partners. They use the typical Democratic approach. They shout the most trying to appeal to those who always think they've been treated unfairly."

Well, R. Hayden, you're exactly right, but I can never be able to talk as loud and fast as James Carville. I admit it.

CARVILLE: I'm a slow talking -- mild boy. What are you talking about? "I don't understand how Republicans compare Bush to Teddy Roosevelt all of the time. That's like comparing James Carville's hair to Al Sharpton's." You're right. There it is right there, me and the reverend Al. You know Teddy Roosevelt was a great president and he loved the estate tax.

NOVAK: From the audience, please.

KATE: Yes. My name is Kate (ph) from Washington, D.C. , and I'm wondering why we use diplomacy with North Korea and the threat of war with Iraq.

NOVAK: Because one has the atom bomb and the other doesn't.

CARVILLE: So the message is: if you've got an atom bomb, we'll talk to you. If you don't, we'll fight you.

NOVAK: Next question.

CRAIG: My name is Craig (ph) from Albany, New York. And I think we would all agree that the president has a lot on his plate at this time. I'd like to ask James, why wasn't President Clinton successful in getting Osama bin Laden?

CARVILLE: Well, put it this they way, we've been trying to get him since September of 2001. Every account says that President Clinton was much more focused on the war against al Qaeda than the Bush administration was at the beginning. And to tell you the truth, I'm going to put in my book, I'm compiling evidence that I doubt that -- I think that September 11 would not have happened if this administration had been more focused.

(CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Bill Clinton did a terrific job...

CARVILLE: He sent missiles out (ph) and they fought in every...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: He did a great job on it.

CARVILLE: Name me one thing -- from the left, I'm James Carville. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

Threaten to Sue Bush>

Aired February 13, 2003 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the left Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And a threat that gathers on the other side of the Earth can strike our own cities.

ANNOUNCER: But with so many threats, who's the biggest?

And should anti-war lawmakers really be suing the president?

Plus, security worries from Washington to New York, to your hometown. Is duct tape enough?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY WHIP: I will go home tomorrow and check my supplies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have not gotten duct tape and we have not gotten anything else.

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. On a day that President Bush was rallying U.S. forces, we're going to ash who should be their first target: Iraq, North Korea, bin Laden?

We've also got a member of Congress who's suing the president to try to get him remember a little thing called the Constitution.

But first, as we do everyday, we're going to exercise our Constitutional right to bring you the best political briefing in television, "Our CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: George W. Bush as commander in chief was bucking-up the troops today. He dropped into Florida's Mayport Naval Station to have lunch with sailors and tell them, he would, quote, "use every ounce of power," end quote, to defeat Saddam Hussein if the use of force turns out to be necessary.

He said it's up to the United Nations to decide, quote, "whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions," end quote. That adds to the bundle of evidence from the president's own lips that we will soon be at war unless somebody gets rid of Saddam or he boards a fast plane to Switzerland.

CARVILLE: I hope we have (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Let me encourage him to go to Switzerland or Libya or wherever else and let's avoid this damn war.

Those super patriotic pictures of President Bush being cheered by Navy sailors came from only one of today's stops he made in Florida. The president also took time to rub elbows with Republican businessmen at a pep rally for another war, this class war on poor people.

According to recent reports by "The New York Times" and others, Bush's budget would raise rent for poor people in public housing and make major changes Medicaid, Head Start and the school lunch program. these changes could result in poor people being denied medical care, poor children being turned away from Head start and some of the school kids even losing their nutritious meals during the school day.

I'm not that at all. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of "The Washington Post" and "The Wall Street Journal." I don't need the approval of powerful people to define my success. I proudly wear the badge of class warrior and stand up to the greatest class warrior of them all, George W. Bush.

NOVAK: James, you certainly are a class warrior. But I think if...

CARVILLE: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) proudly.

NOVAK: If I could explain it to you, that what we have now is a continuing effort by people of your ilk to have a redistribution of income from the people who are successful to the people who aren't successful, and that kills...

CARVILLE: Let's just go back. I think those firemen in New York, their families, I think they are more successful than I am and I think I ought to pay more taxes than they do. I think school teachers are more successful than me. There's a way that you can define -- I think these soldiers and these air men and these sailors out here are very successful.

There's a way to define success other than money. That's one thing that you Republicans and "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Washington Post" need to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). That's not the only definition of success in the United States, is money.

NOVAK: We're not talking about them.

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) talking about them. They pay taxes like everybody else.

NOVAK: We're talking about them. We're talking about people who don't work and don't pay taxes.

CARVILLE: You call poor kids with a cleft lip that need health care...

NOVAK: It's a filibuster! The Democrats are using the Senate's ancient privilege of unlimited debate to prevent a vote on confirming Miguel Estrada as a judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Board of Appeals. The Senate was in session until 50 minutes after midnight last night and resumed at 11:00 a.m. this morning.

Does that mean the Republicans will force the filibustering Democrats to stay on their feet talking until they permit a vote? No, that would inter fear with next week's Senate recess. What's the objection to Miguel Estrada? He's a conservative Latino. An immigrant from Honduras. And that's as objectionable to liberals as a conservative African-American like Clarence Thomas.

CARVILLE: I think what's objectionable to people is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right. I think what's objectionable to people is that Laura Ingraham was one of his good friends, sat right here on this show and said that he would reverse every liberal thing that the Supreme Court had ever done, which I assume he'll reverse Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. He won't even say that.

NOVAK: Why is it...

CARVILLE: Why doesn't he just release his writings and tell people what he's about?

NOVAK: Why is that the Republican Senate -- do you mind if I speak when you're interrupting?

Why is it that a Republican Senate would go about confirming the liberal judges put on by Bill Clinton and you will not? The Democrats tried to filibuster for the first time in the history of...

CARVILLE: Democrats have condemned I don't know how many judges. Ninety-five percent of the judges they set up. What are we talking about? In a Republican...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Let's say President Bush finally gets his war with Iraq. Can someone please tell me what happens next? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried today, telling the Senate committee that U.S. forces will need to stay in Iraq, quote, "as long as necessary, but not one day longer," end quote.

Well that isn't good enough for Senator Joe Lieberman. He's threatened to sponsor a new congressional resolution to demand a blueprint for how the administration plans to rebuild Iraq.

If congressional hearings made painfully obvious this week, the administration doesn't have one. My point here is we're not going to lose the war with Iraq, but do we know how we're going to win the peace? NOVAK: Well, I have to say I don't think we do, to be honest with you. But -- and that worries a lot of people who want partisan -- demagaugic Democrats, either.

CARVILLE: Well I don't -- you know, I don't -- I just worry, -- I don't -- it's a little country of 22 million people. They're not going to beat the United States military. What I wonder is they don't have the foggiest idea what they're going to do after that.

NOVAK: We're going to be there a long time.

It was announced today the Democratic Party will soon have seven, seven, count them, presidential hopefuls. The latest being former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois. Her single term in the Senate before being defeated for reelection was dogged with scandal. Her using campaign funds for jewelry and enjoying the hospitality of Nigeria's dictator. Truly, she is the seventh dwarf.

So why should she run for president? It's a transparent ploy by the Democratic establishment to split the big African-American vote in Democratic primaries between her and the man that established the Republicans fear the Reverend Al Sharpton. This is the same party that disinterred Frank Lautenberg and Walter Mondale in an attempt to control the Senate. Now they turn to Carol Moseley-Braun.

CARVILLE: Wit. You're saying that -- let me get this straight because I want you to say it with a straight face. It's a powerful, establishment Democrats have begged on and prevailed Carol Moseley- Braun to run for president. Who are like three establishment Democrats have called Carol Moseley-Braun, encouraged her to run?

NOVAK: It's -- well, I can answer your question?

CARVILLE: Sure.

NOVAK: We don't know, but it might be you for all we know.

CARVILLE: You don't know. You have -- you're a journalist.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You're making the charge that the establishment Democrats called her to get in the race to split the vote. That's a -- Bob, you know what? That's a ludicrous charge. You usually have some basis of fact for what you say.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: That -- you just made that up. That's the silliest thing I ever heard in my life.

NOVAK: First place, Reverend Al thinks so. And let me...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: How much are you afraid of him was -- just a minute. Let me say when Paul Begala sat in that seat an attacked on this program the Reverend Al Sharpton -- you're terrified of him...

CARVILLE: Paul Begala pointed out when Tim Russert asked him on "Meet The Press." If the man runs for president, nobody can ask him a question? That's the most ludicrous thing in the world. You know that John Kerry, that Joe Lieberman, that John Edwards, that Dick Gephardt...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You know we've got tons of people who can beat Bush. You just don't want any of them to win and one of them's going to.

Today, a Senate (UNINTELLIGIBLE) made more public the results of an investigation in the shenanigans used by Enron. Its accountants had gotten so good at manipulating the tax (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Enron paid no federal taxes from 1996 to 1999 and then again in 2001. I wonder who paid in 2000? None. Investigations say Enron cheated the government out of at least $2 billion in taxes.

Here we are about to go to war and now we see some of out fellow Americans have been -- are behaving. George W. Bush is serious about Saddam Hussein. He'll get serious about stopping corporations who're avoiding their fair share of taxes.

NOVAK: I think we're investigating them. The government's investigating Enron and all. But let me tell you...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Wait a minute, the long-term solution to this problem is to eliminate the federal income tax, go to a national sales tax which you won't be able to afford.

CARVILLE: That's right. What we need to do is make poor people pay sales taxes.

NOVAK: Top officials of the Bush administration brought their worries to Capitol Hill today. In a minute we'll ask two U.S. senators what's the biggest threat? Iraq, North Korea -- I always say North Carolina -- north Korea or al Qaeda terrorists?

And while the president was rallying U.S. forces today, anti-war Democrats unleashed their ultimate weapon, the trial lawyers. We'll talk to a Congressman who is actually suing the president. And we'll also ask whether Homeland Security officials are really making a safer or are they just scaring us?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told lawmakers today the U.S. is facing what may be the most dangerous security environment the world has known. He's defend the Pentagon's budget requests, and touch on the threats posed by Iraq, North Korea and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction, which is the biggest threat? In the CROSSFIRE, Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, a member of Foreign Relations Committee. And Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: My colleague, Paul Begala, asked this question the other night and I think it is a good one.

The ranking order who you think is the biggest threat to the United States, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and al Qaeda?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX), MEMBER, COMMERCE COMMITTEE: Think al Qaeda with help from Iraq. And I think that's what we're talking about. Al Qaeda is the new kind of enemy. We have an enemy that is everywhere in the world, that has no standards of decency, that would teach the children to commit suicide.

CARVILLE: Then let's go Iraq, North Korea, Iran, just could you give me...

HUTCHISON: Our concern and the president's concern is Iraq helping these -- al Qaeda terrorists.

CARVILLE: Right.

HUTCHISON: Who have no standards whatsoever and if they had a weapons of mass destruction they would be the most...

CARVILLE: You don't think North Korea, or Iran would help these terrorists at all this.

HUTCHISON: Well, actually I think we are talking to North Korea. I think we have allies in the region that are helping with North Korea. It's a very different situation.

CARVILLE: Senator, let me show you Britain. They asked the British who -- our cousins allegedly -- Britain View: Who poses the biggest threat to world peace?

Now this, is not -- this is the much-hated French. Thirty-two, U.S., 25 Iraq, 26 North Korea. How can we put ourselves in a position where in our country that is known as our cousin and strongest ally, more people think we're the most dangerous to the war with than north Korea who has nuclear weapons and Iraq, which as a thug and a dictator as it's head of the state.

HUTCHISON: That's just not serious.

CARVILLE: Well, it is not a serious country. I mean, if you can't say the British people and it's not a serious country. It's a damn serious country.

HUTCHISON: That's just not a serious poll.

CARVILLE: You can shoot the messenger, but it's just a poll. NOVAK: Senator, Corzine, are you taking the position that there's no connection between how we deal with Iraq and the danger of North Korea.

SEN. JON CORZINE (D-NJ), FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.: I think you have to consider a comprehensive view of the world. I don't think you can ignore North Korea who has admitted to having (UNINTELLIGIBLE) material. I don't think you can ignore Iran which is actively pursuing a weapons program. Has weapons of mass destruction. I think you have to think about these in a complex way. And I'm afraid we haven't always done that prioritization that James was talking about.

NOVAK: I think you'll agree, senator, that the Prime Minister, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair is one of the strongest supporters of the Bush policy, which has been battered by the Democrats on the Hill. And I'd like you to a listen to something the prime minister said the other day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM: Over Iraq, whether United Nations has a clear declared position, weakness is going to inhibit our ability to confront the dangers from North Korea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: Do you disagree with that?

CORZINE: I think that we need to make sure that we are firm and fulfill the U.N. mandates, 1441. And I think that we are working hard to have a -- something other than a unilateral approach. I think that's yet response was as positive as it was to Colin Powell last week. Because we have reached out in a multi-lateral approach and we should do that. But you know, we need to do that in the context of thinking of the other threats that the country has. The American people are more afraid of the al Qaeda risk than they are whether Iraq has vials of anthrax.

NOVAK: Senator, I just want you to answer that question. I didn't quite get the answer. That the idea, that if we are -- if we say it's OK, Saddam Hussein, you don't have to comply with these resolutions. We're not going to attack you, but this is a message to the rest of world.

CORZINE: I don't think anyone is saying that Iraq shouldn't disarm. I think there are questions among reasonable people about how you go about that.

Should war be the first step or should it be we use all our economic resources?

Should we be forceful in our diplomacy?

Should we use the inspecting process as a means of doing that?

But nobody, no one that I know of, thinks that Iraq should not disarm.

CARVILLE: Senator Huchison, in 1941 President Roosevelt aligned itself with the Soviet Union, a communistic Soviet Union. And in the 1980's, President Reagan aligned itself with Iraq even to the point of supplying them with poisonous gas, does that mean that the United States shares the same world view at the time as the Soviet Union or Iraq?

HUTCHISON: No. We deal with people of very different government organization. We deal with people of different ethnic backgrounds. We don't require everyone to be like the United States. But we are trying to protect our country from people who would harm us.

CARVILLE: I understand. But the reason I ask that question is I thought that Secretary Powell by trying to make the point that Osama bin Laden was connected with Iraq -- I think you could make the case that it was it was a question of him thinking he had a political advantage by a war with Iraq by doing this. And I think the secretary, just like I don't think that President Roosevelt was sympathetic, nor do I think President Reagan was sympathetic to the aims of Saddam Hussein. I think they were present with a choice. And you're not trouble that Secretary Powell tried to make a case that really doesn't stand up historically, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are really connected?

HUTCHISON: I thought Colin Powell did lay out the case. And I thought he said why we were very concerned about Iraq. He certainly made a connection with al Qaeda. What the whole point here is that we have seen 9-1-1 with an airplane. We don't want to see a 9-1-1 with a nuclear weapon or chemical or biological weapon. That's the point.

NOVAK: James said it -- James says that Secretary Powell didn't quite make the case, but the American people have decided he made case.

Let's take a look at the CNN/"USA TODAY"/Gallup poll.

Bush administration made a convincing case on Iraq? Yes, 56 percent, no 41 percent. That's even bigger than the margin you were elected to the Senate with.

CORZINE: Bob, I think -- I like that poll number. You can see that. But the fact is that I do believe Colin Powell made a compelling and convincing case that Saddam Hussein is in breach of 1441. We know that he needs to disarm. The issue is not whether he's in breach. It is how you go about that and how do you put that into the complex of all the issues we have.

CARVILLE: Let me just interrupt you. I think everybody -- I wasn't to talk about the case that Colin Powell made at the U.N., I was talking about the case he made before the Congressional committee that somehow or another -- but there's a ton of difference.

Yes. And if you ask me, Did Colin Powell make a convincing -- did the U.S. make a convincing case against Iraq -- sure they did. Iraq is in violation of the U.N. resolution. That question is flawed. Did you make the case to go to war. My point and I want to get back to it is there's a ton of difference between making the case that Iraq is a bad people as opposed to make it a case that it is, in the long term interest to the United States.

NOVAK: Your response to that, Senator Hutchison.

HUTCHISON: Well, I think you're not making the case Saddam Hussein is a bad person. We have lived with a bad person for a long time. You're making the case that Saddam Hussein has the capability to put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. And we now know, we have connected the dots. The terrorists are out to get us.

NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break right now.

CORZINE: Proliferators are more in North Korea. We have seen unbelievable shipments of nuclear -- not nuclear, but missile technology and nuclear technology to other countries.

NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break and in a minute we'll ask the two senators if we really need a left wing filibuster right in the middle of all of the war worries.

And later we'll talk to one of the six members of Congress trying to stop a war by suing the president.

And apart from duct tape, will fallout shelters be making a come back? We'll put the country's new obsession with safety and security in the CROSSFIRE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back.

President Bush's obsession with Iraq hasn't stopped the administration from pushing some of its others priorities, like running up a deficit and loading up the federal bench with right wing judges.

We're talking about wartime priorities with Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Democratic Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey.

NOVAK: Isn't it disgusting, Senator Corzine, that with a country on the verge of war that you are filibustering a young -- a brilliant young lawyer whose only crime is that being a Hispanic is also a conservative?

CORZINE: You know, people go to war to protect what we have as values in this country and one of our values is the constitution.

Believe that advice and consent with regard to the judges that are going to have lifetime appointments are going to talk to those people, be interviewed just like you would for a job, whether you stand for certain kinds of values and whether you believe in the constitution and the rule of precedent and whether you're going to follow the constitution.

If you don't answer these questions, then I think people have a right to say I want to hear an answer to a question. That hasn't happened.

NOVAK: Mr. Estrada said he would follow the constitution. but what I -- of course he would and nobody -- nobody -- nobody denies -- nobody denies that. I know that the new senators have been giving the talking points, from all the left wing pressure groups, because I listen to the debate. You all say exactly the same thing.

But I want to read to you a letter to the Judicial Committee....

The Hispanic Congressional Caucus is not a right wing group. I mean, a left wing group.

NOVAK: A left wing group. I'll guarantee you it's not a right. wing group. But I....

CORZINE: Nor a left ring group.

NOVAK: It's a left wing group and I want you to --- I want to read to you a letter to the Judiciary Committee by a Democrat who isn't running for office, isn't a senator, isn't under the control of these left wing groups.

It's Ron Klaim. You know who Ron Klaim is? He was Vice President Gore's chief of staff.

He said, "First Miguel is a serious lawyer who takes the law very seriously. Second, Miguel will rule the law justly toward all without showing favor to any group or individual. Third, he has an independent streak that is a quality that will make Miguel a very fair judge."

Isn't that a more decent appraisal?

CORZINE: If he is such a serious guy, you ought to just answer the questions, you know? How are you going to respond to these kinds of things? I mean, it is very clear who's the judge that you would find admirable in the history of America? Who -- what Supreme Court Justice --

NOVAK: You're trying to trap him. You're trying to trap him.

CORZINE: That's a real trap. I mean, you can't identify a single Supreme Court Justice throughout the history of the United States?

NOVAK: What if he faced Scalia? You'd cut his head off, wouldn't you?

CORZINE: I don't think I would. I think that would be a good choice. We'd understand a little bit of what his jurisprudence...

(CROSSFIRE) CARVILLE: Senator Hutchison, let me show you an amendment to the Senate and this worries me, this whole home al Qaeda. I completely agree. I'm way more worried about that than I am Iraq, to tell you the truth. And this was an amendment that came up before the Senate that we didn't vote for.

Can I see float three please up there? This was something by Senator Byrd. It had state, local government to the count of $1.4 billion, border security. airport security, port security, nuclear security, energy security, mass transit security, federal law enforcement, water ports. Why would people's vote against that on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and vote for a $2 trillion tax cut? How can we afford a $2 trillion tax cut, yet we can't afford this kind of common sense spending?

HUTCHISON: You're talking about a $674 million tax cut for the economy...

(CROSSTALK)

HUTCHISON: ...billion that would spur the economy and try to put people back to work. That's what the tax cut would do.

The increases in spending, the administration said were not necessary because we had the emergency spending that we did after 9/11 and we had an budget for homeland defense.

I would also like to address the Miguel Estrada issue, if I would for a minute, if you wouldn't mind.

CARVILLE: No, ma'am, be yourself.

HUTCHISON: You know, we talk about the constitution and the constitution says that a person would be nominated by the president and with the advise and consent of the Senate. And that is a majority. A simple majority. What we're asking for is I vote for this man. All we want is a vote. If you don't agree with him, if you think he is too conservative -- what we are asking for is a vote.

What they are doing by not allowing a vote is requiring 60 votes instead of 51. That's a disregard for the constitution.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You would agree that the constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules and you will agree that Republicans used the filibuster before, that this is not anti-constitutional.

HUTCHISON: We have not had a partisan filibuster ever. We have had a bipartisan filibuster on one Supreme Court justice nominee.

NOVAK: That's going to have to be the last word.

CORZINE: We have plenty of cases that never even got to...

NOVAK: We're out of time. Senator Corzine, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: Next, in a CNN NEWS ALERT, NASA may be closer to figuring out what happened to the Space Shuttle Columbia. After that, we'll ask one of the Democrats who is suing the president, why don't they sue Saddam Hussein, too?

And short of duct taping all of the entrances to New York City, just how much safety can officials realistically guarantee?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NOVAK: The anti-war movement in the U.S. may not be very big, but who needs size when you've got trial lawyers? In a minute, we'll ask Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. if he and his friends really think their new lawsuit will work.

Later, homeland security concerns that will take more than duct tape to solve. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom in beautiful downtown Washington, D.C.

A group of lawyers, soldiers and parents went to court in Boston today. They wanted a judge to issue a junction against President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, keeping them from attacking Iraq unless the Congress formally declares war. They say it's the Constitution, stupid. And joining us from Capitol Hill is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Illinois Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: Congressman Jackson, appreciate you being here. The Congress of the United States has passed a resolution authorizing the president to use all force necessary to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. That was passed by the Congress. What's your case?

REP. JESSE JACKSON JR. (D), ILLINOIS: Well, Bob, a rush to war we must not trample upon the Constitution. Members of Congress, the president of the United States have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution is very clear that Congress shall have the power to declare war.

And Congress did not pass a declaration of war. Congress unconstitutionally seated its power to the president to declare war when he wants to, and that's what we're taking to federal court.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, this is my problem. People look at the Democratic Party, and it looks like we don't stand for the military, we don't stand up to people. I doubt the wisdom of this war. I don't have much -- a problem with the same legality. But doesn't this just feed into the perception that, when people go to Baghdad or we file a suit, that we're just against the use of military power no matter what the reason is?

JACKSON: James, you're raising a political question. A political question that should be debated within the Congress of the United States. But the idea of authorizing a war, starting or stopping a war, are two separate questions does.

Does the Congress of the United States under the framers' intent have the specific power of declaring war? Most recently the president said he can go to war when he wants to. He doesn't need the U.N. He doesn't have to go back to Congress to seek specific authority to go to war.

Well that's not quite what the Constitution of the United States says. And that's not what was seated to the president in the Iraq resolution.

CARVILLE: Well Congressman, they (ph) certainly don't talk about the U.N., but we went to war in Korea, we went to war in Bosnia, we went to war in Somalia. Any number of times we've used troops in Panama, we've used troops in the Dominican Republic and Grenada. And time and time again, none of these have been with the benefit of a congressional declaration of war.

JACKSON: Well, wait a second.

CARVILLE: Were all of these other things illegal and we should go back and sue every other president that we had before?

JACKSON: No, James. Actually, it works like this. Under specific federal interpretation, Article I, Section VIII says that when Congress accedes by passing appropriations bills, or when Congress passes, as in the case of the Vietnam War, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution, then Congresses and the president are essentially linked in their process of prosecuting the war. And Congress cannot withdraw without specific intent by the president to withdraw.

However, what is unique about this lawsuit, which makes it different than any other lawsuit ever filed, is that this lawsuit is being filed before the prosecution of a war. And the Supreme Court and federal courts have left it open that the political doctrine is subject to judicial intervention if in fact we can show -- if in fact we can show that Congress has not authorized this war, and we believe we can.

NOVAK: Congressman, the Congress acted in October to authorize the president, but I just want to give you a little history lesson, if I can be so bold, that the last time the United States declared war against anybody was against a couple of the axis (ph) satellite powers a few days after Pearl Harbor. That was the last time it was done. Are you saying that all of the wars when we fought to save South Korea from communist aggression were unconstitutional?

JACKSON: No. What I'm saying is that there is a test that has been established by the courts in subsequent interpretations of Article I, Section VIII that says if Congress accedes by passing appropriations bills in further (ph) and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) war, if Congress accedes by drafting American citizens, if Congress agrees by supporting a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) resolution, then, in fact, Congress is linked with the president of the United States.

But in this case, the Congress of the United States has not declared war against the people of Iraq. Bob, this has nothing to do with starting or stopping a war. This is a question of authorization and process. The president must come back to the Congress.

NOVAK: I want you give me a straight answer to this, please, Congressman. Abraham Lincoln waged war against the confederate states of America without ever giving a declaration of war. He immediately called for volunteers. Congress wasn't even in session. Was that unconstitutional?

JACKSON: Well that's a civil war. I think that's a different circumstance. And President Lincoln and that Congress, the 32nd Congress -- or 33rd Congress -- they hay had to wrestle with those questions. That's not the question for the 108th Congress.

CARVILLE: Congressman Jackson, my colleague, Mr. Novak, says that the trial lawyers are behind this suit. Is there a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the American Trial Lawyer Association if they file this suit for you? Or is it just people on their own doing this?

JACKSON: The plaintiffs in this case are men and women who serve in the armed services, who find themselves in the Middle East right now without specific constitutional and congressional authorization. And the parents of some of those servicemen who are concerned. Listen, those men and women signed up -- Bob, those men and women are prepared to...

NOVAK: Jesse, we are out of time. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thanks for having me.

CARVILLE: Jesse Jackson, we appreciate it.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: One of our viewers thinks she's spotted a new presidential plan to stimulate the economy. Stick around and watch her fire back in a little bit. But next, before we worry ourselves to a frazzle, we'll ask a security expert, is duct tape enough?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: A couple of government agencies have come up with more things for safety officials to worry about. The FBI and the National Infrastructure Protection Center -- where did they come from -- have issued a bulletin recommending the steps be taken to guard telecommunication centers, heavy industrial (UNINTELLIGIBLE), key energy banking and finance centers, as well as water systems and electric utilities. And my friends, that will take more than duct tape.

Stepping into the CROSSFIRE now is Neil Livingstone, chairman of GlobalOptions and the author of "Protect Yourself in an Uncertain World: A Comprehensive Handbook for Your Personal and Business Security."

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Hello. How are you doing?

NEIL LIVINGSTONE, CHAIRMAN, GLOBALOPTIONS: Good to see you.

CARVILLE: I'm going to try to start out here -- and I'm going to end up before the night, this session is over -- but I'm going to try to start out doing two things that I seldom -- and one is a serious (UNINTELLIGIBLE). On a scale of one to 10, one being not worried at all, 10 being really afraid, where should I be as a resident of the Washington, metropolitan area right now?

LIVINGSTONE: You know I was having lunch with a top official from the Clinton administration -- a formal official yesterday -- who is in the know on some of these things. And he said it makes you wonder if you should be living in Washington right now. The threat is that high.

CARVILLE: So you think this is not just a bunch of claptrap? That this is real stuff we're dealing?

LIVINGSTONE: You know I've been very critical of this color- coated warning system and some of the warnings in the past. I thought they were based on flimsy intelligence and maybe an incomplete picture. As I said the other day, this is the real thing, and I think we ought to be worried.

NOVAK: What's your basis for that, saying it's the real thing?

LIVINGSTONE: The people I talk to in both law enforcement, intelligence, and so on -- and we take care of an awful lot of -- we do some government work, as well as -- and right now, the level of evidence out there in terms of the take that they're getting from our listening posts around the world, our human assets and other places, some of the interrogation of various people who have been arrested recently and in other places, all of this, plus the movement of people around the globe right now suggests that there's a very serious picture.

NOVAK: Let me ask you a personal question. You sound like you're frightened yourself. Are you?

LIVINGSTONE: I'm uneasy. I live in this neighborhood. I live a few blocks from here. And I live across the street from the Saudi embassy. And it is a tough problem. And it does worry my wife, it worries myself, and it worries a lot of my clients and the people I talk to daily.

CARVILLE: A lot of things we've heard about here in Washington, in New York, around the country, is duct tape and this plastic. What should I do with this stuff?

LIVINGSTONE: Other than wear it to a party right?

CARVILLE: Let's see here. Should I just leave it here or should I take it home or do anything with it?

LIVINGSTONE: I think you ought to take it home. Look, you had a terrific head of FEMA...

CARVILLE: That doesn't help too much, does it?

LIVINGSTONE: Wrap some paper around you.

NOVAK: But seriously, what should you do with it?

LIVINGSTONE: OK. You have a terrific head of FEMA in James Lee Witt. And he stressed preparation. And the thing about it, he stressed it for natural disasters, any type of -- you know, you can lose this power. All of this stuff makes sense, by and large, if you have a problem at some point. And if you have a terrorism problem, particularly if it's a chemical or a biological release, it will give you some protection.

NOVAK: What protection do you get from the duct tape? Tell me, please.

LIVINGSTONE: Well, what happens is, is if you seal up your doors -- and preferably you have a room some place inside the house...

NOVAK: Would you suffocate then?

LIVINGSTONE: No, you're not going to suffocate for days.

NOVAK: You mean the air comes in and the gas won't come in?

LIVINGSTONE: If you take tape it all up and you've got your HBAC (ph) off, it affords you some greater level of protection. Look, Bob, what's going to happen if we have a problem here, you're going to get an emergency warning. And they're either going to tell you to do one of two things, evacuate, or they're going to tell you to take shelter. If you take shelter, you want to be in the most secure shelter that you can devise for yourself.

CARVILLE: Top room, bottom room? Give me some quick advice? What do I do? I get the thing, and as the emergency thing comes on, everybody (UNINTELLIGIBLE) take shelter. What should I do? LIVINGSTONE: If you're at home or at your office, preferably you've already identified an interior room. A bathroom's good, because it doesn't have windows or anything in it. You tape up the doors, you make sure the HBAC (ph) is off, you tape up the vents, you tape up the drains and so on.

If you've got some water in there or you've got a flashlight with a battery powered and you have a battery-powered radio, and maybe something for human waste, then you can sit this out.

NOVAK: If I could go back to the original question, can you tell me how this is going to happen? It's not going to happen, obviously, by a hijacked airplane. It's not going to be a missile shot from somebody. Is some guy -- is some street person going to come with a bag and throw it in the Saudi embassy?

LIVINGSTONE: Well there are a variety of ways they could do it. And I did a book 20 years ago that went through scenarios on this. And one of those -- let's go with what we've seen already. In 1995, we had a small sarin, which is a nerve agent, released in the Tokyo subway system.

It was just a test by a religious cult there. And 12 people died, 5,000 went to hospitals. They put it in a subway.

CARVILLE: All right. We have to close, but I want to give you just some -- add some levity to this serious time. I want to show you what a lot of right wingers out there want me to do with this duct tape.

(APPLAUSE)

NOVAK: That's the best idea. Thank you very much, Neil Livingstone. Appreciate it.

Next on "Fireback," one of our viewers has some advice for how James Carville should approach stories about threats to our national security. That's a pretty good idea that way, as far as I'm concerned.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: It's time for "Fireback." And our first e-mail is from J.P. Sonnier of Dallas Texas, who addresses my colleague. "James, you should concentrate on the immediate national threat we are facing with an open mind. This threat is about America and not your Democratic agenda. Leave partisan politics at home."

That's good advice, isn't it, James?

CARVILLE: Well I think Mr. Sonnier, who I assume has Louisiana roots with that name, doesn't I am focusing on the immediate threat, and that's called al Qaeda, Mr. Sonnier, not Iraq. I am 20 times more scared of al Qaeda than I am of Iraq. "The genius of W's economic policy is emerging. He plans to stimulate the economy by scaring Americans into buying duct tape, plastic sheeting and camping supplies. Look for a stock market rebound led by 3M and L.L. Bean." Jody Anderson, Tallahassee, Florida.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Actually, levity aside, these are scary times.

NOVAK: Did you buy duct tape?

CARVILLE: I've got some. And I'll tell you what, I'm going to call Mr. Livingstone. I take this stuff as seriously as a heartbeat.

NOVAK: R. Hayden of Wilmington, Delaware says, "Bob, you need to talk as loud and fast as your misguided leftist partners. They use the typical Democratic approach. They shout the most trying to appeal to those who always think they've been treated unfairly."

Well, R. Hayden, you're exactly right, but I can never be able to talk as loud and fast as James Carville. I admit it.

CARVILLE: I'm a slow talking -- mild boy. What are you talking about? "I don't understand how Republicans compare Bush to Teddy Roosevelt all of the time. That's like comparing James Carville's hair to Al Sharpton's." You're right. There it is right there, me and the reverend Al. You know Teddy Roosevelt was a great president and he loved the estate tax.

NOVAK: From the audience, please.

KATE: Yes. My name is Kate (ph) from Washington, D.C. , and I'm wondering why we use diplomacy with North Korea and the threat of war with Iraq.

NOVAK: Because one has the atom bomb and the other doesn't.

CARVILLE: So the message is: if you've got an atom bomb, we'll talk to you. If you don't, we'll fight you.

NOVAK: Next question.

CRAIG: My name is Craig (ph) from Albany, New York. And I think we would all agree that the president has a lot on his plate at this time. I'd like to ask James, why wasn't President Clinton successful in getting Osama bin Laden?

CARVILLE: Well, put it this they way, we've been trying to get him since September of 2001. Every account says that President Clinton was much more focused on the war against al Qaeda than the Bush administration was at the beginning. And to tell you the truth, I'm going to put in my book, I'm compiling evidence that I doubt that -- I think that September 11 would not have happened if this administration had been more focused.

(CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Bill Clinton did a terrific job...

CARVILLE: He sent missiles out (ph) and they fought in every...

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: He did a great job on it.

CARVILLE: Name me one thing -- from the left, I'm James Carville. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

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

Threaten to Sue Bush>