Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interview With Gary Hart; Should You Feel Guilty About Driving an SUV?

Aired February 27, 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 right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Nine months before 9/11, his commission warned terrorism was coming. We'll ask Gary Hart what the U.S. should do now.

GARY HART, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We should not invade Iraq or kick open the Middle East's hornet's nest until this country is prepared for what I think are inevitable retaliatory attacks.

ANNOUNCER: And we'll ask if he's going to run for president.

HART: Tonight I am announcing my candidacy for the -- oops, sorry, wrong speech.

ANNOUNCER: Plus, they guzzle gasoline, hog highways and parking spaces and sure are handy, but is it time to be driving SUVs off the road?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

President Bush says toppling Saddam Hussein will sow the seeds of democracy throughout the Middle East. Tonight we'll ask former Senator Gary Hart what sort of seeds he would sow if he were president.

Later, what would you prefer to be driving when the next snowstorm hits? A micro-mini, solar-powered, hybrid, plastic compact or your faithful American SUV. We'll debate the politics of driving.

But first, come out of your plastic cocoon, put away the duct tape and join us for the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The federal government today lowered the terrorism threat level from Orange, or high, to Yellow, or elevated. What's changed since the threat level was increased three weeks ago? For one thing, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, has ended. A new survey shows 40 percent of U.S. cities did nothing in response to the federal government's raising of the threat alert level three weeks ago. Many officials from the 400 cities surveyed complained that the alert system is not specific enough.

Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge put out a statement warning that going back to Yellow is not a signal that a danger of a terrorist attack has passed. In other words, keep the duct tape handy.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: You know, I'm not one of these whose banged on the Bush administration as they've moved the threat level up and down. I think they are doing the best they can to give us information.

I wish they were doing the best they can to give help to police, firefighters, first responders. They want to spend $100 billion on a tax cut and only $41 billion on homeland security. I think that's insane.

CARLSON: Well, I don't think that they're caving to Democratic pressure to dole out pork to places that don't need it -- say, Upstate New York all of a sudden facing a terrible terrorist threat. You know, there is politics going to here, Paul. I think you'll admit that. On both sides.

BEGALA: I love politics. It's what makes democracy work.

CARLSON: Well, I don't when it comes to homeland security.

BEGALA: But it seems to me in a democracy, our president has his first obligation to do everything he can to protect the homeland. We'll ask Senator Hart tonight, who's an expert on these things, if we're doing every thing that we can to protect the homeland.

Well, President Bush today met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The timing of the meeting, though, was unfortunate because last night President Bush promised the people of Iraq that his war would bring them food and medicine, freedom and democracy. But President Karzai's presence in Washington serves as a reminder how quickly and how casually Mr. Bush braced his words.

Afghanistan today is littered with Bush broken promises. Experts say a Taliban-like regime is already re-emerging in Afghanistan. The ruthless Ministry for the Promotion of Virture Prevention of Vice is coming back as well. So are beatings, torture and religious repression. Mr. Bush has literally forgotten his promises to Afghanistan, so much so that his budget contained no money, not a single dime, to rebuild Afghanistan. No wonder the Turks won't accept Mr. Bush's promises. They're demanding cash on the barrelhead. CARLSON: That's just actually not true. I mean, the president has committed $840 million to rebuilding Afghanistan. There's already been $3 billion committed and set aside by Congress over the next four years for Afghanistan. So just because the budget didn't mention it doesn't mean -- but -- no, no. But truly, as you know, it doesn't mean the money is not there or not going there.

In fact, if that money doesn't go there we'll all be shocked and I'll be the first one to criticize the administration. But that's not going to happen.

BEGALA: He left it out of his budget. Jim Colby, Republican congressman, who chairs the relevant subcommittee, had to alert the White House and I do hope some of the money will go there.

CARLSON: Some of it?

BEGALA: But it does show you how it's not topic -- he didn't leave his tax cut for the rich out of the budget. He left Afghanistan.

CARLSON: Look, Paul, the war in Iraq wasn't in the budget, OK? So just because something's not in the budget doesn't mean it's not there, as you know. That money will be going there. Billions of it. And I hope it does some good.

BEGALA: He's not a man of his word.

CARLSON: They're teaching something new in Maine public schools these days: cruelty, intolerance and disloyalty. Today's "Washington Times" reports that the children of National Guard families in Maine are coming home upset, depressed and crying. It isn't because their parents are being called up for duty in a possible war with Iraq, although they are being called up. The children, mostly middle and elementary school students, some as young as 7-years-old, are upset because they're being mocked and picked on, not by other kids, but liberal anti-war teachers.

National Guard officials have received more than 30 complaints, NAMING specific schools, principals, teachers and guidance counselors. The liberals defense for their actions? They plan to teach the importance of world peace and understanding, even if they have to torment 7-year-olds to do it.

That is disgusting. I think you'll agree. I mean, there's no excuse for beating up on little kids.

BEGALA: Of course not. Of course not, if in fact it's true. Forgive me if I take with the right wing "Washington Times."

CARLSON: Right wing? It's the National Guard said they have 30 complaints. I mean, I don't know -- I'm not going to....

BEGALA: According to a right wing newspaper that I read and enjoy, but I don't take...

CARLSON: Oh come on.

BEGALA: But I don't take always very much on the left.

CARLSON: Well I doubt they made up quotes from the National Guard spokesman in Maine.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: In last year's State of the Union, address our president promised to increase Americore, President Clinton's national service core, by 50 percent. Today we learned that the Bush White House is instead forcing a cut of 50 percent in Americore, a stunning bit of hypocrisy even by Bush standards.

Similarly, a few weeks ago, Mr. Bush went to the Mayport Naval Air Station in Florida and said -- quote - "our people in uniform and their families deserve our gratitude and deserve our support" -- unquote.

He then went back to Washington and cut aids to the schools that teach the children of our servicemen and women by $173 million, a 14 percent reduction.

Now, in defense of Mr. Bush, there is one promise he has never broken. It's the promise to cut taxes for the rich, in good times and bad, through war and peace, in surplus and deficit, Mr. Bush's commitment to his fellow millionaires never waivers and I solely thank him.

CARLSON: I must say, Americore? I'm one of the very few people who actually knows something about Americore, having done a long study on it. I don't agree with the idea of Americore. Nobody does. In practice, bit of a joke.

I'm sorry, if the president promised to increase, if he did, the amount of money that goes to Americore. Doesn't seem like one of those things, in an age where we're facing terrorism, that ought to be spending tens or hundreds of millions of more dollars on at all.

BEGALA: I think that's the best money we spent in the budget and more importantly ...

CARLSON: You really think that?

BEGALA: I think it's a wonderful thing.

CARLSON: Americore?

BEGALA: And I've dealt with Americore. And I think that the president ought to keep his word. That's what I think. Even if it's a bad program, he should say then, I don't like this and I'm going to cut.

But when you promise to increase some thing by 50 percent, you cut it by 50 percent, you got a credibility problem. CARLSON: After months -- speaking of credibility problems -- of searching, Jesse Jackson announced this week that he has located the most pressing civil rights issue in America. It the plight of half a dozen super rich women who want to join a Georgia country club.

That's right. While the world wait on the brink of war, Jesse Jackson will be waving a sign and speaking in rhymes on the manicured greens of the Augusta National Country Club, which does not admit female members. The suffering. Jackson has planned his protest to coincide with the Masters golf tournament, which takes place in April. Not, coincidentally, the prettiest time of year.

It's not a terribly relevant protest in a world full of hunger, poverty, weapons of mass destruction. It is, in fact, a bit of a sick joke. But for Jackson it's still a lot easier than working. Of course, Augusta National still has time to prevent Jesse Jackson from protesting. Not by letting in women, but by letting in Jesse Jackson. Will they cooperate with the shakedown? We will keep you posted.

You know, most companies do, in the end, just pay Jesse Jackson off to go away. But I hope they don't give him a green jacket so he'll go away. I hope they say, Buzz off, Jesse Jackson.

BEGALA: There is just nothing sillier in the world than these fat old white guys at Augusta who are so scared of girls cooties that they won't let them play. It's just a pathetic excuse for manhood.

CARLSON: But I wonder -- I mean...

BEGALA: I mean, those guys are sick. They're weird.

CARLSON: No, but their being white -- I don't know what that has to do it. I don't have any thing against white people or any body on the basis of color. I don't know. Who cares if they're white?

BEGALA: It's just so pathetic. The guy's name is Hootie, for one thing.

CARLSON: Well, then Jesse Jackson out to pick a real -- I mean....

BEGALA: A guy named Hootie has got no reason to be scared of girls, OK? I mean, maybe they beat him up and took his lunch money.

CARLSON: I'm just saying Jesse Jackson's a joke and it's a shakedown. He wants the green jacket.

BEGALA: Oh, stop.

Another Bush economic adviser has resigned. Glen Hubbard, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers has joined 2 million other people who lost their jobs under President Bush.

Meanwhile, the latest consumer confidence index is out and it is down. It's way down. In fact, it's at its lowest point in nine years and today oil prices reached their highest point in 12 years. Some economists are forecasting a double dip recession.

Now, in case President Bush is watching and Mr. President, I know you watch every night -- let me illustrate. You took off of here, under Clinton/Gore. The economy was doing very well. It went down to here. It looked like it would tick up just a little bit, but now we see it's going way back down again. Then, when we get rid of you in 2004, the economy will come right back here and we will have the W economy. There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

CARLSON: Now I appreciate a visual aid as much as the next man, I have to say.

But, you know, at the beginning of the Clinton administration I had friends -- and I'll admit this who hated Bill Clinton, so intensely that it drove them insane. They became bad journalists, they became unproductive Americans and some of them had to seek treatment. And I don't want the same thing to happen to you, Paul. I don't. I care about you.

And I see this fixation on George W. Bush and I'm concerned it's going to turn you into a mental patient.

BEGALA: He has...

CARLSON: Pull back some.

BEGALA: He has turned 2 million people out of their jobs with his policies.

CARLSON: That's not true.

BEGALA: He won't even entertain the notion that he's wrong, even though the evidence is so clear that he's fired the economic advisors from following through on his own policy.

CARLSON: Not everything bad in the world is his fault, necessarily. You can disagree with some of policies.

But he's no right winger and must much more moderate.

BEGALA: Oh, my goodness.

CARLSON: Seriously.

BEGALA: He's a very nice guy.

CARLSON: Open your mind, Paul!

BEGALA: I can't open my mind to the notion that there could be a president more to the right than this guy. No I'm sorry.

CARLSON: You know that's not true.

BEGALA: Next, the man whose commission warned us all that terrorism is coming we'll ask former Senator Gary Hart what we should expect if President Bush gets his way and launches a war in Iraq. Later, a battle on the home front is it patriotic to give up your SUV?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Late today Iraq announced that it will begin destroying its banned Al Samoud 2 missiles. But the government of Iraq asked for clarification from U.N. weapons inspectors. Earlier today President Bush dismissed the haggling over missiles as part of Saddam Hussein's campaign of deception.

A dozen former United States senators announced their opposition to a war in Iraq saying it would dramatically increase the threat to Americans at home and abroad. One of those former senators is stepping into the CROSSFIRE, Gary Hart, also with the co-chair of the commissioner of security in the 21st century -- Senator Hart.

CARLSON: Thank you, sir.

Senator Hart, thanks a lot for coming. We've been talking about you when you weren't here. In fact, discussing a quote and I'll put it up the screen, and I want you to respond to it.

He's what your said on February 10, in San Francisco, quote, "We must not let our role in the world be dictated by ideologues with their special biases and agendas or by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and it's national interests."

Sounds to me like you're talking about Jews, supporters of Israel.

Who were you talking about?

GARY HART (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Why did you think that?

CARLSON: Because Israel is the only country I can think of that plays a role in the discussion about Iraq. And there's been some criticism from the left.

HART: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Iraq. Did you read -- no, did you read the script?

CARLSON: I read the entire thing.

HART: OK. It was a foreign policy speech. The conclusion that you quote from was about how foreign policy should be made in the 21st century. And what I was advocating is this is too important to Americans to be left to specialists and I list, as your quote says a whole range of foreign policy experts, pundits and so on and groups who put the interest of the countries from which they came ahead of the interest of the United States. It was in the context of all of the American people being engaged in foreign policy. No one we comes an anti-semite at the age of 65.

CARLSON: No one's accusing you of being anti-semite.

HART: Well, then why did you assume I was talking about one group?

CARLSON: For the same reason, Steven Rabinowitz, who used to work for you, assumed it was.

HART: I can't account for him. I am asking you.

CARLSON: He makes an very interesting point. You said, in a follow-up interview with ABC you were talking about, and I think it's a quote, "The Irish and the Cubans." The Cuban-Americans and the Irish.

HART: No. No. No.

CARLSON: Well, that's what ABC said you said. This is what Steven Rabinowitz said. He said, quote, "No one is talking this month about the undue influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. foreign policy." In other words he didn't believe you. He thought you were talking about Jews too.

HART: He has to account for himself. I have accounted for myself. I think there is a definable United States national interest at home and abroad. I think it super seeds all of the special interests, domestically and all of the special interests in terms of our international relations. I'm amazed you would disagree with that.

CARLSON: I don't disagree. I simply want to know who you were talking about.

HART: I was talking about any group of Americans who put exactly as the statement said, who put the interest of the country they came from.

CARLSON: I assumed there were no such groups in the United States.

BEGALA: That's awfully -- let me pick up this too, ABC did report that you said "Well, I meant Irish-Americans, of which I am one, and Cuban-Americans why is it different than Ireland and Cuba than wasp.

No. No. This is a hazard of the 21st century journalism. The person who asked me the question said are you talking about Jewish- Americans. I said no, it could be anyone and I listed a whole list of hyphenated Americans. He reported two of those groups looked Polish- Americans, Hungarian-American, Czech-Americans all lobbied for the expansion of NATO eastward.

When I was in office, it was very common, as I'm sure you know, for groups that originated abroad to come in supporting resolution 123 or something having to do with Cypress or something having to do with some other area of the world, and they never said this is in the United States' best interest. It was our group wants this. So all I'm saying is there is an interest above all of those groups put together and it is called the U.S. national interest.

CARLSON: Let me say before Paul goes on, I think your explanation is completely legitimate and I didn't at all mean to imply that you were an anti-semite. I don't think that and I agree with everything you said.

HART: Well, you should be more careful.

BEGALA: Well, I still don't because it doesn't seem to me that ethnicity should enter it at all. If you disagree with an Irish- American (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ireland, Hungarian-American group, why not argue that on the merits, instead of saying, well, you're Hungarian so you don't have the same authority to speak about America's policy.

HART: I disagree with what that statement says. That isn't what the statement says.

CARLSON: Let me read another statement that you made. I think this is a direct quote from you from the same speech. You said, talking about the war in Iraq, I believe, "This secret dream of empire represents hunger for power at its worst and is contrary to American's traditional principles. This is the kind of aggressive and arrogant post-Cold War thinking the American people must steadfastly resist."

You describe very low motives to the federal government.

HART: No.

CARLSON: The secret dream of empire and a hunger for power. How do you know that?

HART: I was talking about a group of people in this administration who have publicly talked about long-term American military presence in Iraq, to bring democracy to the Arab world at point of a bayonet. That could extend for decades into the future. That may be a legitimate policy, but the president is obliged to put that on the table and let the American people debate it. What I am against is secret policy-making without the public debate. It is very unconstitutional. It is very dangerous.

CARLSON: Wait but you said hunger for power. How do you know they hunger for power.

HART: If that is their goal.

CARLSON: You just said it was.

HART: If that is their goal. If that is their goal.

What would you call it?

CARLSON: I don't know. Trying to make the Middle East a Democratic place. I don't know if it's a hunger for power. It seems like a legitimate goal. BEGALA: It seems it is a new rationale that our president -- after 15 months and over 150 speeches talking about Iraq we have a new rationale for war as of last night. Now we...

HART: He has brought to the surface what others have been saying behind the scenes.

BEGALA: He's also at times talking about regime change, weapons of mass destruction, legitimacy of the U.N., a connection to al Qaeda. I actually happen to be reading Bob Woodward's book about "Bush at War", a book very laudatory toward President Bush and his. And I came across this, old, original perhaps, rationale for going to war with Iraq from none other than Dr. Condoleezza Rice, our national security adviser.

Woodward writes, "Condoleezza Rice's fears of getting bogged down in Afghanistan were shared by others, which led to a different discussion. Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? They would need successes early in any war to maintain domestic and international support. Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

It seems to me that in the original instance, they want to go to war in Iraq because it as an easy win, not for any of these high- minded reasons

HART: It could quite possibly be true. The problem is these debates going on behind the scenes, and you would know how this works as well, aren't being put out in front of the American people. The president hasn't told us who's going with us, how much it will cost, how long we will be there and what casualty estimates are. The Pentagon has casualty estimates. Low risk, medium risk and high risk. The Pentagon use worse case scenarios, politicians use best case scenarios.

So what the American people deserve to know, those that have sons and daughters in the military particularly, is what those casualty estimates are. If the Republican Guard fights in downtown Baghdad, in other cities, how many people are we likely to lose?

BEGALA: Is that really the best thing to do? I once read that Eisenhower casualty estimates were 70 percent for D-Day and obviously he went forward and he saved the world. Should he have put that out?

HART: I think the world is at stake at that time. I'm not sure the world is at stake right now.

CARLSON: But Paul's point is the casualty estimates are notoriously unreliable. Even during the Gulf War in 1991, there were people in the Senate, as you know, who were giving estimates that turn out to be not even close to true.

HART: That's why the commander in chief has a special obligation to deal honestly and straightforwardly with the American people. Right now I would wager that the top 20 or 25 percent of the people supporting this war think it's going to be quick and bloodless, a la Afghanistan and Gulf War I. What if it isn't? Who's left to hang out is the military. This was the lesson of Vietnam.

Don't go into a war with people thinking the casualties will be low and then get bogged down, start losing people, take more recently Somalia. And then have public opinion suddenly drop. Who they take it out on is the military and that's unfair.

CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick break, we'll be back in just a moment.

In a moment we will ask Mr. Hart if he will join the throngs seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. We hope he announces here.

Later, we'll ask Robert Kennedy Jr., if SUV owners are really helping terrorists. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Senator Bob Graham of Florida filed papers to form an exploratory committee and start raising money for a presidential bid. That makes him the ninth Democrat to seek presidential nomination.

Will Gary hart be number 10? More to the point, will he announce it on our show? The former senator and two-time presidential candidate joins us. We'll ask him.

BEGALA: We obviously want you back on irrespective of your decision but are these your papers here? You filing for president?

HART: Tonight I am announcing my re-entry into public life.

CARLSON: All right.

BEGALA: There we go.

HART: They're dancing in the streets. I don't know.

BEGALA: You did say you're traveling around giving speeches and raising issues and would gage on the reaction you got from that. How's that going so far?

HART: Been positive, very positive. I've got a major economic speech in California on Tuesday. That will be the last of the series of the series plus some campus appearances and then I have to make a decision.

CARLSON: What would be the rationale if you did? I mean there are a number of Democratic senators already in there, some foreign policy heavyweights too. There are also some liberals. What would you bring to it that isn't there?

HART: I think 25 years or more of experience in economic policy, economic forecasting. I was early on in my Senate career described as an Atari Democrat, no one would know what that means because there are no more Ataris, but we were among the first, a small group of us to forecast the transition of the economy from industrialized manufacturing to the information age.

And I have always tried to be on the cutting edge. I've traveled the world, been to Russia many, many times and probably 60 or 70 other countries. Met with world leaders. And I've, as you well know, worked on defense and security issues for 27 years.

So I think I have a great deal of experience. Those are the three areas, by the way, by which candidates should be judged because that's the job of the president. Manager of the fiscal economy, fiscal policy of the United States, chief diplomat, head of state and commander in chief of the military forces. And people running for president ought to be qualify individual three of those areas I think.

BEGALA: But before you could become president you need to be the standard bearer of our party. And just as one partisan Democrat, let me tell you what I'm looking for, toughness. I know Governor Bush, President Bush, and he was my governor, I know his team. They're enormously tough, i admire that. But they our are adversaries.

Are you willing to go through the campaign, and, for example, when they try to question your patriotism, as they did Max Cleland, a wounded war veteran, are going to, for example, point out that you're not going to take electors from patriotism from an administration whose vice president sold oil equipment to Saddam Hussein? Are you willing to be tough in this race?

(CROSSTALK)

HART: I ran for the Senate twice in Colorado, I was one of two Democrats to overcome the Reagan landslide in 1980, in a conservative Western state. I came from nowhere in '84 to be a serious contender, won 25 primaries and caucuses, had 1,200 delegates at the convention in San Francisco. So I think that demonstrates a degree of toughness, yes.

CARLSON: I wonder, though, I assume if you ran, you'd run as an anti-war candidate.

HART: Don't assume anything.

CARLSON: I'm assuming by your statements. Let's just say you did run, let's say you did stick by the statements you've already made at some length against the war. Fifty-nine percent of the public says it supports bringing ground troops into Iraq.

HART: On the condition that others are going with us, it'll be over quickly and we won't lose any lives. If we get into urban conflict in Baghdad and other cities, we're going to lose a lot of American lives.

And what angers me, frankly, is the president isn't leveling with us. All he's got to do is tell the American people that and then you are going to see that 59 percent come down to about 30.

CARLSON: Isn't that such a theoretical -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) theoretical questions, why should the question talk about theoretical scenarios?

HART: No, no, no. They're on the desk in the Pentagon our casualty estimates. We're not talking about theory. The president says to the American people, ladies and gentlemen, I am committing your sons and daughters to liberation of Iraq for the following hundred reasons or whatever the shifting reasons there are, and some of them will die in this cause. We don't know how many, but it could be considerable. What's wrong with saying that?

CARLSON: I think he will say that.

HART: What would win. When?

BEGALA: I'd like to hear that as well. We are out of time.

We leave you, though, with this thought: Twelve years ago today, the front page headline in "The New York Times" read: "Bush's War Success Confers an Aura of Invincibility in '92." I don't think it quite worked out that way for that President Bush in that election. I don't know that there's any reason to believe that even a successful war dictates a reelection for this President Bush.

Gary Hart, former senator from Colorado, thank you very much, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

HART: Thank you.

BEGALA: Coming up: the campaign to drive SUVs off the road. Why can't Detroit make something that is fun to drive, good for hauling people around, and environmentally friendly at the same time?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live from the George Washington University in snowy Washington, D.C. Our area is expecting 5 to 10 inches of snow tonight. It will give SUV owners another five to 10 reasons apparently to love their big rigs.

Has the winter of 2003 put a dent in efforts to drive SUVs off the road? In New York to debate the topic, Robert Kennedy, Jr. He's senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Here in our Washington studio, Sam Kazman, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Mr. Kennedy, thanks for joining us. As Paul said, it's snowing right now in Washington. A lot of people are driving their SUVs to work, to their children's school, to the hospital in some cases. They are not driving solar-powered or bio mass-powered hybrids. Why should they feel guilty about driving SUVs?

ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Well, I don't think people should feel guilty about driving an SUV, unless they want to drive a safe car. Because the SUV today is now the most dangerous car on the road. But people who want SUVs ought to be able to have SUVs, but Detroit ought to be giving us SUVs that get 40 miles per gallon.

Our economy is in the tank today, and one of the reasons it's in the tank is because of what we're putting in the tank. And instead of encouraging Detroit to take steps to end or mitigate our deadly addiction to Mid Eastern oil, this administration is instead encouraging Americans to use more and more gasoline, giving giant tax breaks to individuals who buy the largest, biggest gas-guzzling SUVs. And it's bad, ultimately, for our country.

But it's not something that we should address to the individual SUV buyers. It's something that Detroit is fighting to stop gas fuel efficiency standards from being imposed on SUVs, and that's really bad for America.

BEGALA: In fact, Mr. Kazman, doesn't Mr. Kennedy have a good point? Detroit, for one of the most successful sectors of our economy, the biggest whiners. They whined they couldn't do seat belts, they couldn't do safety glass, they couldn't do air bags, they couldn't do 20 or 25 miles per gallon. Why don't we have a government that says to them -- just the way President Kennedy said we'll put a man on the moon -- that you're going to have a 50 mile per gallon SUV?

SAM KAZMAN, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Because, first of all, it's become clear that when the government tries to set fuel economy standards it doesn't end up affecting fuel consumption very much, but it does end up killing people. The government's fuel economy program, which is nicknamed CAFE, has been on the books for more than a quarter of a century. It's main impact has been to kill people by forcing cars to be made downsized, to be made smaller and lighter, which means, yes, they get more miles per gallon, but it also means they're less crash worthy.

This is a claim that we brought more than a decade ago in a series of court cases. And I think we are fully validated with the National Academy of Sciences report that came out in the summer of 2001 that found that CAFE, in fact, does kill people, and it kills on the order of about 2,000 people a year. And yet Mr. Kennedy's organization is trying to make CAFE even more stringent and even more deadly, and he's not saying anything about this risk.

CARLSON: Now what about that, Mr. Kennedy? I mean, there have been a number of studies on this. One done by Harvard and another done by an environmental group, that say, when you make cars lighter, they become flimsier and thousands of people die. The Clinton administration found that. What do you say to the families of those people who are killed (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? KENNEDY: Well, first of all, that's not true. The data that Mr. Kazman is citing -- Mr. Kazman is an industry spokesman and it is phony tobacco data. The National Highway Transportation Safety Association last week announced that, by its own data, the federal government's own data -- National Academy of Sciences confirms this -- that by the federal government and the National Academy's data, the most dangerous cars on the road are SUVs.

You are eight percent -- here's the only statistic you need to know, because Mr. Kazman is an expert at massaging statistics. Here's the only one you need to know. You are eight percent more likely to die if you're an SUV than in any other class of cars. And you are three times more likely to kill another person. And if you're another person, you are three times more likely to die from an SUV.

KAZMAN: Wait a second. First of all, when you're talking crash data, this is summarized. What I'm stating is not being drawn out of any specific table. It is in the executive summary of the National Academy of Sciences. It's...

KENNEDY: Which has been discredited and disavowed?

KAZMAN: Oh, discredited by whom? By calling tobacco science...

KENNEDY: And by the National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

KAZMAN: Excuse me. The National Highway Transportation Safety Association...

KENNEDY: Jeffrey Rung (ph), who was President Bush's appointee...

BEGALA: Mr. Kennedy, hang on a second. Let's let Mr. Kazman go.

KENNEDY: OK.

KAZMAN: First of all, the NAS study is out on there on the Web. It has not been discredited. It had a dissent to it, but so what? Many studies have dissent.

It's essential finding -- and this is finding No. 2 -- is that CAFE has some very real, but hidden costs. And the fact that it kills people is one of those costs. And the fact that we never hear this mentioned in this debate by people who want to make this program even more stringent make this an incredibly dishonest debate.

Now as far as NHTSA goes...

BEGALA: Why would the government intentionally kill its owners (ph)?

KAZMAN: Because if you're running -- if you're middle -- if your agency is called National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and your middle name is safety, it's a little difficult to admit that one of your programs actually kills people. But that's right. This was the conclusion -- that was illogical, but it was politics.

And in the court case we brought, a federal appellate panel found -- and I'm quoting from a court decision -- that NHTSA was concealing the size safety issue through statistical slight of hand and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Kennedy, quickly...

KENNEDY: What Mr. Kazman is not telling you is that his court case was effectively overruled by a subsequent court case, and that this data was contested in the beginning and it has subsequent been completely, completely discredited, utterly discredited. And I can explain that if you let me.

CARLSON: Mr. Kennedy, I know you can. But I want to back up a second and just sort of provide an overview here. You are focused on SUVs as a petroleum-wasting product, but it strikes me that there are a lot of other things that waste oil, like big houses, like limousines, like private jets. Will you pledge tonight never to take a limousine or a private jet again and do your part to keep America safe?

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: You know that -- can I answer this?

CARLSON: Please.

KENNEDY: That demonstrates the weakness of these arguments that you're trying to turn this around on me. I'm not saying to people that you shouldn't drive SUVs. What we should all be saying is, if we want our SUVs, we want Detroit to build SUVs that can get 40 miles per gallon, and they can do that.

The technology is out there. The Avery Levins (ph) Omni car, which is an SUV the size of a Lincoln Navigator, gets 100 miles per gallon. We can do this. Detroit just doesn't want to do it, and we have an administration now that, instead of trying to restrict gas- guzzlers, like Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, it is actually giving tax breaks.

Whereas today, under President Bush's new tax plan, if you buy $100,000 Hummer, which gets 13 miles per gallon, you can get an $87,000 tax break. It's only available to the richest Americans who buy the biggest gas-guzzling cars.

BEGALA: You're going to get a chance to respond after we take this break.

In a minute, when we come back, I'm going to tell you what the Bush administration, not Clinton, but Bush says about the dangers of SUVs. You may be surprised.

Later, our "Quote of the Day" is from a former oil man and a dedicated user of duct tape. You're watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Even the most dedicated SUV owners are cringing when they drive up to the gas pumps these days. But does that mean SUVs are immoral? And why is it the business of nosy limousine liberals what you drive?

We're debating these questions with Robert Kennedy Jr., the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He's in New York. Here in Washington, is Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

BEGALA: Mr. Kazman, let me tell you what the limousine conservatives there at the Bush administration say about SUVs. President Bush's National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says this, according to "The New York Times": "Sport utility vehicles and pickups are more dangerous for their own occupants, according to recent data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration because of their increased risk of rollovers."

Now that doesn't seem too technical. It seems very straightforward. The Bush administration's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KAZMAN: He retracted quite a bit of that at yesterday's Senate hearing. But the real point is...

BEGALA: How many bones did they break on him to get...

KAZMAN: I have no idea. He was caught up in the religious fervor of the, "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign. Remember, if you're an SUV owner, you went into Thanksgiving accused of being a sinner by the What Would Jesus Drive campaigners. You came out of the new year being accused of being a traitor by Arianna Huffington...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But even the big oil administration says they're unsafe.

KAZMAN: That's right, and he's a doctor. And NHTSA has been wrong in the past. But the point is, if you look at the insurance data, the auto industry has the most direct stake in knowing what it's talking about when it talks about safety. And basically, year after year, SUVs and cars are pretty much equivalent.

The largest SUVs tend to be among the safest vehicles on the road. The smallest are pretty dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as many cars. You don't here the administrator talking about mini cars, because they are such gas sippers (ph), they tend to be so politically correct.

But the real issue is, if these incredible fuel-efficient technologies are out there and work, why do we need a law to make anyone sell it to us? If they really work, the industry could make millions and billions of dollars selling them to consumers. But when you hear a salesman for technology saying, this thing is so great, I'm going to put a legal gun to your head and force you to buy it, you know he's selling you something else.

And that something else, really, is a cultural attack. This is a campaign...

CARLSON: Wait, hold on. I want to ask Mr. Kennedy to respond to that. And that's actually a very thoughtful point. Don't you agree, Mr. Kennedy? That if these technologies are there, who could be against them and why wouldn't they be for sale now?

KENNEDY: OK. And that is a good point. And I believe there's no stronger advocate for free market capitalism than myself, and I don't think the government should be telling people what to buy or Detroit what to build. The problem is the free market has been distorted in this case.

We give $6 to $15 billion a year in direct subsidies to the oil industry. That allows big oil to artificially lower the price of gasoline to about $1.89 a gallon, as it is today. If we were paying the true price of gasoline, we'd be paying what they pay in Europe and elsewhere, $5 a gallon. Americans then would be screaming at Detroit to give us cars that get 40 miles per gallon. And Detroit would be giving us SUVs that get 40 miles per gallon.

CARLSON: You're dodging the question. But wait a second. People would buy -- $1.89 for some people is still a lot, and it's going to get higher. No doubt in the next couple of months.

KENNEDY: It's going to get higher, and then you're going to see...

CARLSON: Detroit could make billions -- wait, you haven't answered my question. Detroit could make billions right now by producing the technology you claim exists. Why aren't they? They're acting against their own interests. Why?

KENNEDY: Because I'll tell you why. There's no demand for it now because the price of gas is still relatively low. If we go up over $2.50 a gallon, they will be making within two or three years 40 mile per gallon SUVs, and we'll be buying them. And the problem is that we have a distortion in the free market that's caused by these giant subsidies to the oil industry.

BEGALA: Let me pick up on that. Mr. Kazman, the free market certainly works in politics, where the oil companies have given $108 million to the Republican Party, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the $108 million didn't buy them the Republican Party on these energy issues?

KAZMAN: I'm sure it buys them many favors, just as politics buys everyone favors. But the point is, the price of gasoline is not what it is in Europe. Those people are taxing it as if it were a sin (ph) commodity, and they're taxing it as much as they can get away with. I don't think that's an approach for the U.S.

I think affordable energy, I think cheap gasoline is a wonderful thing. It's an especially wonderful thing for people who aren't making very much money. And the notion that we'll jack this price up artificially in the name of some alleged "free market" that Mr. Kennedy thinks we don't have, but need, strikes me as crazy.

KENNEDY: I don't want to jack the price up. I just want to get rid of the subsidies.

KAZMAN: Excuse me. The $5 a gallon...

BEGALA: Mr. Kazman, our producers tell us we're out of time. Sam Kazman, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, thank you for being here. Robert Kennedy, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, thank you, as well, sir. Good debate, we'll have you back again.

(APPLAUSE)

In a little bit, a proud SUV owner hones up to the keyboard and defiantly fires back at us. But next: our "Quote of the Day." and a little bit of defiance from a former president. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. President Bush today defended his father for not having removed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power during the Gulf War 12 years ago. He explained that the mission in 1991 was only to liberate Kuwait.

Meanwhile, the former president is defending his son's plan to disarm Saddam Hussein now, by force if necessary. The speech last night produced anti-war protests, but the former president handled it like the seasoned professional he is. And in so doing, earned our quote of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've now found another real good reason to use duct tape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's a pretty good line, I must say.

BEGALA: It is. And I take it in the spirit for -- President Bush gave wonderful service to our country first in the Second World War and then throughout his life. I don't really think he's part of that right wing cabal that does want to gag dissent

CARLSON: You know, it's funny. I always hear you and James saying, if you disagree, you're called un-American.

BEGALA: You are.

CARLSON: I don't know what universe you're living in. Maybe in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) people call you un-American. Apart from maybe Ann Coulter said that once. I never hear anybody call anybody un- American. (CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: It is astonishing. I mean, anyway, good for you, Mr. former President Bush.

One of our viewers, though, has a sure way for the current President Bush to get what he wants from the U.N. Security Council. We'll let her fire back at all of us next. Stay tuned.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for "Fireback." But before we get there, we want to say hello to one of our favorite and most faithful viewers, Mary Kendrick (ph), of Water Valley, Mississippi. She is 90 years old today. Happy birthday.

BEGALA: Outstanding. Happy birthday, Mary.

CARLSON: That's right. Good for you. Now to "Fireback."

First up is Dorothy L. Simmons of Covington, Virginia. She writes, "I'm a little old widowed lady living in a rural area and I need a four-wheel drive vehicle. I cannot believe my S10 Blazer uses anymore gasoline than limos, Lincolns, Cadillacs, or Corvettes. Why are these vehicles not getting the same bad press as SUVs?"

Well, because liberals drive them, Dorothy. That's why.

BEGALA: That's silly. I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) envision Dorothy going off road there in Covington, Virginia. Our next one is from Tony in Stafford, Connecticut, who writes, "I have decided to out of my way to buy French goods. This has nothing to do with my preference of war, but instead, my passion to protect my freedom of speech."

"Chirac is actually doing what his constituents want, which is what all politicians should do. We didn't help free France so they would always agree with us."

Tony, that is an amazingly enlightened and wise perspective. Let's all go buy some French wine tonight.

CARLSON: So being against France is being against free speech. That's reasoning.

Norm Clipp of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, writes, "I find it outrageous and offensive that congressional Democrats are counting on European criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy to boost their own campaign to undermine Bush's credibility. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves."

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: President Bush has undermined his own credibility by making promises he doesn't keep again and again and again. CARLSON: But the idea that because the French were against them, somehow the French were right, I mean that is a bit...

BEGALA: He promised the Pakistanis help on textiles, he broke that promise. He promised Afghans help in rebuilding; he broke that promise.

CARLSON: Right. But the assumption that the foreign country is always right.

BEGALA: He's a man of his most recent word. Marlene Carr of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, writes, "The U.S. is worried about getting enough votes to pass the U.N. resolution to go to war. I have the perfect solution. Why not send the gang from Florida to count the votes?"

Just send Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and if there's still any questions about the results of the count, ask the Supreme Court to make the final decision. Problem solved." Good point, Marlene. Now let's lecture everybody else about democracy.

CARLSON: You know, they haven't gotten over it. Yes, sir?

BOB SCHELESKI: Bob Scheleski (ph), Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Do either one of you think that France and Germany has more concern with their economic ties to Iraq more so than the actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

CARLSON: Well, of course. Both countries, particularly France, is an amoral foreign policy. France is also the single larger trader in Europe with Iraq. It sold its weapons components. It's the largest oil trader. Yes, they have all the reason in the world to be against this war.

BEGALA: Look, Dick Cheney traded with Iraq...

CARLSON: Oh, come on.

BEGALA: ... during the Clinton administration in 1998. So I don't want to hear pious lectures about the French are amoral. Cheney's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was amoral and now he wants to go to war with the very people he called valued customers just a few years ago. That's hypocrisy.

CARLSON: That's a sick and ludicrous argument -- yes.

REBECCA: Hi. My name's Rebecca (ph) and I'm from Florida. I was recently in a car accident, where a tractor trailer hit me head on. And if it weren't for my SUV I would be dead. So I was wondering, Paul or Tucker, if you think I have a responsibility to the environment or to fighting terrorism to drive a coupe even if it's at the risk of my own safety?

CARLSON: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) come back in our audience here at CROSSFIRE as often as you want because we glad having you.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: I am so glad to see you. But you should know, Bobby Kennedy didn't attack you, he attacked Detroit and Washington for not making safer cars.

CARLSON: Well he kind of attacked you, too.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

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

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





Driving an SUV?>


Aired February 27, 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 right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Nine months before 9/11, his commission warned terrorism was coming. We'll ask Gary Hart what the U.S. should do now.

GARY HART, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We should not invade Iraq or kick open the Middle East's hornet's nest until this country is prepared for what I think are inevitable retaliatory attacks.

ANNOUNCER: And we'll ask if he's going to run for president.

HART: Tonight I am announcing my candidacy for the -- oops, sorry, wrong speech.

ANNOUNCER: Plus, they guzzle gasoline, hog highways and parking spaces and sure are handy, but is it time to be driving SUVs off the road?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

President Bush says toppling Saddam Hussein will sow the seeds of democracy throughout the Middle East. Tonight we'll ask former Senator Gary Hart what sort of seeds he would sow if he were president.

Later, what would you prefer to be driving when the next snowstorm hits? A micro-mini, solar-powered, hybrid, plastic compact or your faithful American SUV. We'll debate the politics of driving.

But first, come out of your plastic cocoon, put away the duct tape and join us for the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The federal government today lowered the terrorism threat level from Orange, or high, to Yellow, or elevated. What's changed since the threat level was increased three weeks ago? For one thing, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, has ended. A new survey shows 40 percent of U.S. cities did nothing in response to the federal government's raising of the threat alert level three weeks ago. Many officials from the 400 cities surveyed complained that the alert system is not specific enough.

Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge put out a statement warning that going back to Yellow is not a signal that a danger of a terrorist attack has passed. In other words, keep the duct tape handy.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: You know, I'm not one of these whose banged on the Bush administration as they've moved the threat level up and down. I think they are doing the best they can to give us information.

I wish they were doing the best they can to give help to police, firefighters, first responders. They want to spend $100 billion on a tax cut and only $41 billion on homeland security. I think that's insane.

CARLSON: Well, I don't think that they're caving to Democratic pressure to dole out pork to places that don't need it -- say, Upstate New York all of a sudden facing a terrible terrorist threat. You know, there is politics going to here, Paul. I think you'll admit that. On both sides.

BEGALA: I love politics. It's what makes democracy work.

CARLSON: Well, I don't when it comes to homeland security.

BEGALA: But it seems to me in a democracy, our president has his first obligation to do everything he can to protect the homeland. We'll ask Senator Hart tonight, who's an expert on these things, if we're doing every thing that we can to protect the homeland.

Well, President Bush today met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The timing of the meeting, though, was unfortunate because last night President Bush promised the people of Iraq that his war would bring them food and medicine, freedom and democracy. But President Karzai's presence in Washington serves as a reminder how quickly and how casually Mr. Bush braced his words.

Afghanistan today is littered with Bush broken promises. Experts say a Taliban-like regime is already re-emerging in Afghanistan. The ruthless Ministry for the Promotion of Virture Prevention of Vice is coming back as well. So are beatings, torture and religious repression. Mr. Bush has literally forgotten his promises to Afghanistan, so much so that his budget contained no money, not a single dime, to rebuild Afghanistan. No wonder the Turks won't accept Mr. Bush's promises. They're demanding cash on the barrelhead. CARLSON: That's just actually not true. I mean, the president has committed $840 million to rebuilding Afghanistan. There's already been $3 billion committed and set aside by Congress over the next four years for Afghanistan. So just because the budget didn't mention it doesn't mean -- but -- no, no. But truly, as you know, it doesn't mean the money is not there or not going there.

In fact, if that money doesn't go there we'll all be shocked and I'll be the first one to criticize the administration. But that's not going to happen.

BEGALA: He left it out of his budget. Jim Colby, Republican congressman, who chairs the relevant subcommittee, had to alert the White House and I do hope some of the money will go there.

CARLSON: Some of it?

BEGALA: But it does show you how it's not topic -- he didn't leave his tax cut for the rich out of the budget. He left Afghanistan.

CARLSON: Look, Paul, the war in Iraq wasn't in the budget, OK? So just because something's not in the budget doesn't mean it's not there, as you know. That money will be going there. Billions of it. And I hope it does some good.

BEGALA: He's not a man of his word.

CARLSON: They're teaching something new in Maine public schools these days: cruelty, intolerance and disloyalty. Today's "Washington Times" reports that the children of National Guard families in Maine are coming home upset, depressed and crying. It isn't because their parents are being called up for duty in a possible war with Iraq, although they are being called up. The children, mostly middle and elementary school students, some as young as 7-years-old, are upset because they're being mocked and picked on, not by other kids, but liberal anti-war teachers.

National Guard officials have received more than 30 complaints, NAMING specific schools, principals, teachers and guidance counselors. The liberals defense for their actions? They plan to teach the importance of world peace and understanding, even if they have to torment 7-year-olds to do it.

That is disgusting. I think you'll agree. I mean, there's no excuse for beating up on little kids.

BEGALA: Of course not. Of course not, if in fact it's true. Forgive me if I take with the right wing "Washington Times."

CARLSON: Right wing? It's the National Guard said they have 30 complaints. I mean, I don't know -- I'm not going to....

BEGALA: According to a right wing newspaper that I read and enjoy, but I don't take...

CARLSON: Oh come on.

BEGALA: But I don't take always very much on the left.

CARLSON: Well I doubt they made up quotes from the National Guard spokesman in Maine.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: In last year's State of the Union, address our president promised to increase Americore, President Clinton's national service core, by 50 percent. Today we learned that the Bush White House is instead forcing a cut of 50 percent in Americore, a stunning bit of hypocrisy even by Bush standards.

Similarly, a few weeks ago, Mr. Bush went to the Mayport Naval Air Station in Florida and said -- quote - "our people in uniform and their families deserve our gratitude and deserve our support" -- unquote.

He then went back to Washington and cut aids to the schools that teach the children of our servicemen and women by $173 million, a 14 percent reduction.

Now, in defense of Mr. Bush, there is one promise he has never broken. It's the promise to cut taxes for the rich, in good times and bad, through war and peace, in surplus and deficit, Mr. Bush's commitment to his fellow millionaires never waivers and I solely thank him.

CARLSON: I must say, Americore? I'm one of the very few people who actually knows something about Americore, having done a long study on it. I don't agree with the idea of Americore. Nobody does. In practice, bit of a joke.

I'm sorry, if the president promised to increase, if he did, the amount of money that goes to Americore. Doesn't seem like one of those things, in an age where we're facing terrorism, that ought to be spending tens or hundreds of millions of more dollars on at all.

BEGALA: I think that's the best money we spent in the budget and more importantly ...

CARLSON: You really think that?

BEGALA: I think it's a wonderful thing.

CARLSON: Americore?

BEGALA: And I've dealt with Americore. And I think that the president ought to keep his word. That's what I think. Even if it's a bad program, he should say then, I don't like this and I'm going to cut.

But when you promise to increase some thing by 50 percent, you cut it by 50 percent, you got a credibility problem. CARLSON: After months -- speaking of credibility problems -- of searching, Jesse Jackson announced this week that he has located the most pressing civil rights issue in America. It the plight of half a dozen super rich women who want to join a Georgia country club.

That's right. While the world wait on the brink of war, Jesse Jackson will be waving a sign and speaking in rhymes on the manicured greens of the Augusta National Country Club, which does not admit female members. The suffering. Jackson has planned his protest to coincide with the Masters golf tournament, which takes place in April. Not, coincidentally, the prettiest time of year.

It's not a terribly relevant protest in a world full of hunger, poverty, weapons of mass destruction. It is, in fact, a bit of a sick joke. But for Jackson it's still a lot easier than working. Of course, Augusta National still has time to prevent Jesse Jackson from protesting. Not by letting in women, but by letting in Jesse Jackson. Will they cooperate with the shakedown? We will keep you posted.

You know, most companies do, in the end, just pay Jesse Jackson off to go away. But I hope they don't give him a green jacket so he'll go away. I hope they say, Buzz off, Jesse Jackson.

BEGALA: There is just nothing sillier in the world than these fat old white guys at Augusta who are so scared of girls cooties that they won't let them play. It's just a pathetic excuse for manhood.

CARLSON: But I wonder -- I mean...

BEGALA: I mean, those guys are sick. They're weird.

CARLSON: No, but their being white -- I don't know what that has to do it. I don't have any thing against white people or any body on the basis of color. I don't know. Who cares if they're white?

BEGALA: It's just so pathetic. The guy's name is Hootie, for one thing.

CARLSON: Well, then Jesse Jackson out to pick a real -- I mean....

BEGALA: A guy named Hootie has got no reason to be scared of girls, OK? I mean, maybe they beat him up and took his lunch money.

CARLSON: I'm just saying Jesse Jackson's a joke and it's a shakedown. He wants the green jacket.

BEGALA: Oh, stop.

Another Bush economic adviser has resigned. Glen Hubbard, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers has joined 2 million other people who lost their jobs under President Bush.

Meanwhile, the latest consumer confidence index is out and it is down. It's way down. In fact, it's at its lowest point in nine years and today oil prices reached their highest point in 12 years. Some economists are forecasting a double dip recession.

Now, in case President Bush is watching and Mr. President, I know you watch every night -- let me illustrate. You took off of here, under Clinton/Gore. The economy was doing very well. It went down to here. It looked like it would tick up just a little bit, but now we see it's going way back down again. Then, when we get rid of you in 2004, the economy will come right back here and we will have the W economy. There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

CARLSON: Now I appreciate a visual aid as much as the next man, I have to say.

But, you know, at the beginning of the Clinton administration I had friends -- and I'll admit this who hated Bill Clinton, so intensely that it drove them insane. They became bad journalists, they became unproductive Americans and some of them had to seek treatment. And I don't want the same thing to happen to you, Paul. I don't. I care about you.

And I see this fixation on George W. Bush and I'm concerned it's going to turn you into a mental patient.

BEGALA: He has...

CARLSON: Pull back some.

BEGALA: He has turned 2 million people out of their jobs with his policies.

CARLSON: That's not true.

BEGALA: He won't even entertain the notion that he's wrong, even though the evidence is so clear that he's fired the economic advisors from following through on his own policy.

CARLSON: Not everything bad in the world is his fault, necessarily. You can disagree with some of policies.

But he's no right winger and must much more moderate.

BEGALA: Oh, my goodness.

CARLSON: Seriously.

BEGALA: He's a very nice guy.

CARLSON: Open your mind, Paul!

BEGALA: I can't open my mind to the notion that there could be a president more to the right than this guy. No I'm sorry.

CARLSON: You know that's not true.

BEGALA: Next, the man whose commission warned us all that terrorism is coming we'll ask former Senator Gary Hart what we should expect if President Bush gets his way and launches a war in Iraq. Later, a battle on the home front is it patriotic to give up your SUV?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

Late today Iraq announced that it will begin destroying its banned Al Samoud 2 missiles. But the government of Iraq asked for clarification from U.N. weapons inspectors. Earlier today President Bush dismissed the haggling over missiles as part of Saddam Hussein's campaign of deception.

A dozen former United States senators announced their opposition to a war in Iraq saying it would dramatically increase the threat to Americans at home and abroad. One of those former senators is stepping into the CROSSFIRE, Gary Hart, also with the co-chair of the commissioner of security in the 21st century -- Senator Hart.

CARLSON: Thank you, sir.

Senator Hart, thanks a lot for coming. We've been talking about you when you weren't here. In fact, discussing a quote and I'll put it up the screen, and I want you to respond to it.

He's what your said on February 10, in San Francisco, quote, "We must not let our role in the world be dictated by ideologues with their special biases and agendas or by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and it's national interests."

Sounds to me like you're talking about Jews, supporters of Israel.

Who were you talking about?

GARY HART (D), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Why did you think that?

CARLSON: Because Israel is the only country I can think of that plays a role in the discussion about Iraq. And there's been some criticism from the left.

HART: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Iraq. Did you read -- no, did you read the script?

CARLSON: I read the entire thing.

HART: OK. It was a foreign policy speech. The conclusion that you quote from was about how foreign policy should be made in the 21st century. And what I was advocating is this is too important to Americans to be left to specialists and I list, as your quote says a whole range of foreign policy experts, pundits and so on and groups who put the interest of the countries from which they came ahead of the interest of the United States. It was in the context of all of the American people being engaged in foreign policy. No one we comes an anti-semite at the age of 65.

CARLSON: No one's accusing you of being anti-semite.

HART: Well, then why did you assume I was talking about one group?

CARLSON: For the same reason, Steven Rabinowitz, who used to work for you, assumed it was.

HART: I can't account for him. I am asking you.

CARLSON: He makes an very interesting point. You said, in a follow-up interview with ABC you were talking about, and I think it's a quote, "The Irish and the Cubans." The Cuban-Americans and the Irish.

HART: No. No. No.

CARLSON: Well, that's what ABC said you said. This is what Steven Rabinowitz said. He said, quote, "No one is talking this month about the undue influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. foreign policy." In other words he didn't believe you. He thought you were talking about Jews too.

HART: He has to account for himself. I have accounted for myself. I think there is a definable United States national interest at home and abroad. I think it super seeds all of the special interests, domestically and all of the special interests in terms of our international relations. I'm amazed you would disagree with that.

CARLSON: I don't disagree. I simply want to know who you were talking about.

HART: I was talking about any group of Americans who put exactly as the statement said, who put the interest of the country they came from.

CARLSON: I assumed there were no such groups in the United States.

BEGALA: That's awfully -- let me pick up this too, ABC did report that you said "Well, I meant Irish-Americans, of which I am one, and Cuban-Americans why is it different than Ireland and Cuba than wasp.

No. No. This is a hazard of the 21st century journalism. The person who asked me the question said are you talking about Jewish- Americans. I said no, it could be anyone and I listed a whole list of hyphenated Americans. He reported two of those groups looked Polish- Americans, Hungarian-American, Czech-Americans all lobbied for the expansion of NATO eastward.

When I was in office, it was very common, as I'm sure you know, for groups that originated abroad to come in supporting resolution 123 or something having to do with Cypress or something having to do with some other area of the world, and they never said this is in the United States' best interest. It was our group wants this. So all I'm saying is there is an interest above all of those groups put together and it is called the U.S. national interest.

CARLSON: Let me say before Paul goes on, I think your explanation is completely legitimate and I didn't at all mean to imply that you were an anti-semite. I don't think that and I agree with everything you said.

HART: Well, you should be more careful.

BEGALA: Well, I still don't because it doesn't seem to me that ethnicity should enter it at all. If you disagree with an Irish- American (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ireland, Hungarian-American group, why not argue that on the merits, instead of saying, well, you're Hungarian so you don't have the same authority to speak about America's policy.

HART: I disagree with what that statement says. That isn't what the statement says.

CARLSON: Let me read another statement that you made. I think this is a direct quote from you from the same speech. You said, talking about the war in Iraq, I believe, "This secret dream of empire represents hunger for power at its worst and is contrary to American's traditional principles. This is the kind of aggressive and arrogant post-Cold War thinking the American people must steadfastly resist."

You describe very low motives to the federal government.

HART: No.

CARLSON: The secret dream of empire and a hunger for power. How do you know that?

HART: I was talking about a group of people in this administration who have publicly talked about long-term American military presence in Iraq, to bring democracy to the Arab world at point of a bayonet. That could extend for decades into the future. That may be a legitimate policy, but the president is obliged to put that on the table and let the American people debate it. What I am against is secret policy-making without the public debate. It is very unconstitutional. It is very dangerous.

CARLSON: Wait but you said hunger for power. How do you know they hunger for power.

HART: If that is their goal.

CARLSON: You just said it was.

HART: If that is their goal. If that is their goal.

What would you call it?

CARLSON: I don't know. Trying to make the Middle East a Democratic place. I don't know if it's a hunger for power. It seems like a legitimate goal. BEGALA: It seems it is a new rationale that our president -- after 15 months and over 150 speeches talking about Iraq we have a new rationale for war as of last night. Now we...

HART: He has brought to the surface what others have been saying behind the scenes.

BEGALA: He's also at times talking about regime change, weapons of mass destruction, legitimacy of the U.N., a connection to al Qaeda. I actually happen to be reading Bob Woodward's book about "Bush at War", a book very laudatory toward President Bush and his. And I came across this, old, original perhaps, rationale for going to war with Iraq from none other than Dr. Condoleezza Rice, our national security adviser.

Woodward writes, "Condoleezza Rice's fears of getting bogged down in Afghanistan were shared by others, which led to a different discussion. Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? They would need successes early in any war to maintain domestic and international support. Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

It seems to me that in the original instance, they want to go to war in Iraq because it as an easy win, not for any of these high- minded reasons

HART: It could quite possibly be true. The problem is these debates going on behind the scenes, and you would know how this works as well, aren't being put out in front of the American people. The president hasn't told us who's going with us, how much it will cost, how long we will be there and what casualty estimates are. The Pentagon has casualty estimates. Low risk, medium risk and high risk. The Pentagon use worse case scenarios, politicians use best case scenarios.

So what the American people deserve to know, those that have sons and daughters in the military particularly, is what those casualty estimates are. If the Republican Guard fights in downtown Baghdad, in other cities, how many people are we likely to lose?

BEGALA: Is that really the best thing to do? I once read that Eisenhower casualty estimates were 70 percent for D-Day and obviously he went forward and he saved the world. Should he have put that out?

HART: I think the world is at stake at that time. I'm not sure the world is at stake right now.

CARLSON: But Paul's point is the casualty estimates are notoriously unreliable. Even during the Gulf War in 1991, there were people in the Senate, as you know, who were giving estimates that turn out to be not even close to true.

HART: That's why the commander in chief has a special obligation to deal honestly and straightforwardly with the American people. Right now I would wager that the top 20 or 25 percent of the people supporting this war think it's going to be quick and bloodless, a la Afghanistan and Gulf War I. What if it isn't? Who's left to hang out is the military. This was the lesson of Vietnam.

Don't go into a war with people thinking the casualties will be low and then get bogged down, start losing people, take more recently Somalia. And then have public opinion suddenly drop. Who they take it out on is the military and that's unfair.

CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick break, we'll be back in just a moment.

In a moment we will ask Mr. Hart if he will join the throngs seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. We hope he announces here.

Later, we'll ask Robert Kennedy Jr., if SUV owners are really helping terrorists. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Senator Bob Graham of Florida filed papers to form an exploratory committee and start raising money for a presidential bid. That makes him the ninth Democrat to seek presidential nomination.

Will Gary hart be number 10? More to the point, will he announce it on our show? The former senator and two-time presidential candidate joins us. We'll ask him.

BEGALA: We obviously want you back on irrespective of your decision but are these your papers here? You filing for president?

HART: Tonight I am announcing my re-entry into public life.

CARLSON: All right.

BEGALA: There we go.

HART: They're dancing in the streets. I don't know.

BEGALA: You did say you're traveling around giving speeches and raising issues and would gage on the reaction you got from that. How's that going so far?

HART: Been positive, very positive. I've got a major economic speech in California on Tuesday. That will be the last of the series of the series plus some campus appearances and then I have to make a decision.

CARLSON: What would be the rationale if you did? I mean there are a number of Democratic senators already in there, some foreign policy heavyweights too. There are also some liberals. What would you bring to it that isn't there?

HART: I think 25 years or more of experience in economic policy, economic forecasting. I was early on in my Senate career described as an Atari Democrat, no one would know what that means because there are no more Ataris, but we were among the first, a small group of us to forecast the transition of the economy from industrialized manufacturing to the information age.

And I have always tried to be on the cutting edge. I've traveled the world, been to Russia many, many times and probably 60 or 70 other countries. Met with world leaders. And I've, as you well know, worked on defense and security issues for 27 years.

So I think I have a great deal of experience. Those are the three areas, by the way, by which candidates should be judged because that's the job of the president. Manager of the fiscal economy, fiscal policy of the United States, chief diplomat, head of state and commander in chief of the military forces. And people running for president ought to be qualify individual three of those areas I think.

BEGALA: But before you could become president you need to be the standard bearer of our party. And just as one partisan Democrat, let me tell you what I'm looking for, toughness. I know Governor Bush, President Bush, and he was my governor, I know his team. They're enormously tough, i admire that. But they our are adversaries.

Are you willing to go through the campaign, and, for example, when they try to question your patriotism, as they did Max Cleland, a wounded war veteran, are going to, for example, point out that you're not going to take electors from patriotism from an administration whose vice president sold oil equipment to Saddam Hussein? Are you willing to be tough in this race?

(CROSSTALK)

HART: I ran for the Senate twice in Colorado, I was one of two Democrats to overcome the Reagan landslide in 1980, in a conservative Western state. I came from nowhere in '84 to be a serious contender, won 25 primaries and caucuses, had 1,200 delegates at the convention in San Francisco. So I think that demonstrates a degree of toughness, yes.

CARLSON: I wonder, though, I assume if you ran, you'd run as an anti-war candidate.

HART: Don't assume anything.

CARLSON: I'm assuming by your statements. Let's just say you did run, let's say you did stick by the statements you've already made at some length against the war. Fifty-nine percent of the public says it supports bringing ground troops into Iraq.

HART: On the condition that others are going with us, it'll be over quickly and we won't lose any lives. If we get into urban conflict in Baghdad and other cities, we're going to lose a lot of American lives.

And what angers me, frankly, is the president isn't leveling with us. All he's got to do is tell the American people that and then you are going to see that 59 percent come down to about 30.

CARLSON: Isn't that such a theoretical -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) theoretical questions, why should the question talk about theoretical scenarios?

HART: No, no, no. They're on the desk in the Pentagon our casualty estimates. We're not talking about theory. The president says to the American people, ladies and gentlemen, I am committing your sons and daughters to liberation of Iraq for the following hundred reasons or whatever the shifting reasons there are, and some of them will die in this cause. We don't know how many, but it could be considerable. What's wrong with saying that?

CARLSON: I think he will say that.

HART: What would win. When?

BEGALA: I'd like to hear that as well. We are out of time.

We leave you, though, with this thought: Twelve years ago today, the front page headline in "The New York Times" read: "Bush's War Success Confers an Aura of Invincibility in '92." I don't think it quite worked out that way for that President Bush in that election. I don't know that there's any reason to believe that even a successful war dictates a reelection for this President Bush.

Gary Hart, former senator from Colorado, thank you very much, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

HART: Thank you.

BEGALA: Coming up: the campaign to drive SUVs off the road. Why can't Detroit make something that is fun to drive, good for hauling people around, and environmentally friendly at the same time?

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live from the George Washington University in snowy Washington, D.C. Our area is expecting 5 to 10 inches of snow tonight. It will give SUV owners another five to 10 reasons apparently to love their big rigs.

Has the winter of 2003 put a dent in efforts to drive SUVs off the road? In New York to debate the topic, Robert Kennedy, Jr. He's senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Here in our Washington studio, Sam Kazman, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Mr. Kennedy, thanks for joining us. As Paul said, it's snowing right now in Washington. A lot of people are driving their SUVs to work, to their children's school, to the hospital in some cases. They are not driving solar-powered or bio mass-powered hybrids. Why should they feel guilty about driving SUVs?

ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Well, I don't think people should feel guilty about driving an SUV, unless they want to drive a safe car. Because the SUV today is now the most dangerous car on the road. But people who want SUVs ought to be able to have SUVs, but Detroit ought to be giving us SUVs that get 40 miles per gallon.

Our economy is in the tank today, and one of the reasons it's in the tank is because of what we're putting in the tank. And instead of encouraging Detroit to take steps to end or mitigate our deadly addiction to Mid Eastern oil, this administration is instead encouraging Americans to use more and more gasoline, giving giant tax breaks to individuals who buy the largest, biggest gas-guzzling SUVs. And it's bad, ultimately, for our country.

But it's not something that we should address to the individual SUV buyers. It's something that Detroit is fighting to stop gas fuel efficiency standards from being imposed on SUVs, and that's really bad for America.

BEGALA: In fact, Mr. Kazman, doesn't Mr. Kennedy have a good point? Detroit, for one of the most successful sectors of our economy, the biggest whiners. They whined they couldn't do seat belts, they couldn't do safety glass, they couldn't do air bags, they couldn't do 20 or 25 miles per gallon. Why don't we have a government that says to them -- just the way President Kennedy said we'll put a man on the moon -- that you're going to have a 50 mile per gallon SUV?

SAM KAZMAN, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Because, first of all, it's become clear that when the government tries to set fuel economy standards it doesn't end up affecting fuel consumption very much, but it does end up killing people. The government's fuel economy program, which is nicknamed CAFE, has been on the books for more than a quarter of a century. It's main impact has been to kill people by forcing cars to be made downsized, to be made smaller and lighter, which means, yes, they get more miles per gallon, but it also means they're less crash worthy.

This is a claim that we brought more than a decade ago in a series of court cases. And I think we are fully validated with the National Academy of Sciences report that came out in the summer of 2001 that found that CAFE, in fact, does kill people, and it kills on the order of about 2,000 people a year. And yet Mr. Kennedy's organization is trying to make CAFE even more stringent and even more deadly, and he's not saying anything about this risk.

CARLSON: Now what about that, Mr. Kennedy? I mean, there have been a number of studies on this. One done by Harvard and another done by an environmental group, that say, when you make cars lighter, they become flimsier and thousands of people die. The Clinton administration found that. What do you say to the families of those people who are killed (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? KENNEDY: Well, first of all, that's not true. The data that Mr. Kazman is citing -- Mr. Kazman is an industry spokesman and it is phony tobacco data. The National Highway Transportation Safety Association last week announced that, by its own data, the federal government's own data -- National Academy of Sciences confirms this -- that by the federal government and the National Academy's data, the most dangerous cars on the road are SUVs.

You are eight percent -- here's the only statistic you need to know, because Mr. Kazman is an expert at massaging statistics. Here's the only one you need to know. You are eight percent more likely to die if you're an SUV than in any other class of cars. And you are three times more likely to kill another person. And if you're another person, you are three times more likely to die from an SUV.

KAZMAN: Wait a second. First of all, when you're talking crash data, this is summarized. What I'm stating is not being drawn out of any specific table. It is in the executive summary of the National Academy of Sciences. It's...

KENNEDY: Which has been discredited and disavowed?

KAZMAN: Oh, discredited by whom? By calling tobacco science...

KENNEDY: And by the National Highway Transportation Safety Association.

KAZMAN: Excuse me. The National Highway Transportation Safety Association...

KENNEDY: Jeffrey Rung (ph), who was President Bush's appointee...

BEGALA: Mr. Kennedy, hang on a second. Let's let Mr. Kazman go.

KENNEDY: OK.

KAZMAN: First of all, the NAS study is out on there on the Web. It has not been discredited. It had a dissent to it, but so what? Many studies have dissent.

It's essential finding -- and this is finding No. 2 -- is that CAFE has some very real, but hidden costs. And the fact that it kills people is one of those costs. And the fact that we never hear this mentioned in this debate by people who want to make this program even more stringent make this an incredibly dishonest debate.

Now as far as NHTSA goes...

BEGALA: Why would the government intentionally kill its owners (ph)?

KAZMAN: Because if you're running -- if you're middle -- if your agency is called National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and your middle name is safety, it's a little difficult to admit that one of your programs actually kills people. But that's right. This was the conclusion -- that was illogical, but it was politics.

And in the court case we brought, a federal appellate panel found -- and I'm quoting from a court decision -- that NHTSA was concealing the size safety issue through statistical slight of hand and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Kennedy, quickly...

KENNEDY: What Mr. Kazman is not telling you is that his court case was effectively overruled by a subsequent court case, and that this data was contested in the beginning and it has subsequent been completely, completely discredited, utterly discredited. And I can explain that if you let me.

CARLSON: Mr. Kennedy, I know you can. But I want to back up a second and just sort of provide an overview here. You are focused on SUVs as a petroleum-wasting product, but it strikes me that there are a lot of other things that waste oil, like big houses, like limousines, like private jets. Will you pledge tonight never to take a limousine or a private jet again and do your part to keep America safe?

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: You know that -- can I answer this?

CARLSON: Please.

KENNEDY: That demonstrates the weakness of these arguments that you're trying to turn this around on me. I'm not saying to people that you shouldn't drive SUVs. What we should all be saying is, if we want our SUVs, we want Detroit to build SUVs that can get 40 miles per gallon, and they can do that.

The technology is out there. The Avery Levins (ph) Omni car, which is an SUV the size of a Lincoln Navigator, gets 100 miles per gallon. We can do this. Detroit just doesn't want to do it, and we have an administration now that, instead of trying to restrict gas- guzzlers, like Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, it is actually giving tax breaks.

Whereas today, under President Bush's new tax plan, if you buy $100,000 Hummer, which gets 13 miles per gallon, you can get an $87,000 tax break. It's only available to the richest Americans who buy the biggest gas-guzzling cars.

BEGALA: You're going to get a chance to respond after we take this break.

In a minute, when we come back, I'm going to tell you what the Bush administration, not Clinton, but Bush says about the dangers of SUVs. You may be surprised.

Later, our "Quote of the Day" is from a former oil man and a dedicated user of duct tape. You're watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Even the most dedicated SUV owners are cringing when they drive up to the gas pumps these days. But does that mean SUVs are immoral? And why is it the business of nosy limousine liberals what you drive?

We're debating these questions with Robert Kennedy Jr., the senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He's in New York. Here in Washington, is Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

BEGALA: Mr. Kazman, let me tell you what the limousine conservatives there at the Bush administration say about SUVs. President Bush's National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says this, according to "The New York Times": "Sport utility vehicles and pickups are more dangerous for their own occupants, according to recent data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration because of their increased risk of rollovers."

Now that doesn't seem too technical. It seems very straightforward. The Bush administration's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KAZMAN: He retracted quite a bit of that at yesterday's Senate hearing. But the real point is...

BEGALA: How many bones did they break on him to get...

KAZMAN: I have no idea. He was caught up in the religious fervor of the, "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign. Remember, if you're an SUV owner, you went into Thanksgiving accused of being a sinner by the What Would Jesus Drive campaigners. You came out of the new year being accused of being a traitor by Arianna Huffington...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But even the big oil administration says they're unsafe.

KAZMAN: That's right, and he's a doctor. And NHTSA has been wrong in the past. But the point is, if you look at the insurance data, the auto industry has the most direct stake in knowing what it's talking about when it talks about safety. And basically, year after year, SUVs and cars are pretty much equivalent.

The largest SUVs tend to be among the safest vehicles on the road. The smallest are pretty dangerous, but they're not as dangerous as many cars. You don't here the administrator talking about mini cars, because they are such gas sippers (ph), they tend to be so politically correct.

But the real issue is, if these incredible fuel-efficient technologies are out there and work, why do we need a law to make anyone sell it to us? If they really work, the industry could make millions and billions of dollars selling them to consumers. But when you hear a salesman for technology saying, this thing is so great, I'm going to put a legal gun to your head and force you to buy it, you know he's selling you something else.

And that something else, really, is a cultural attack. This is a campaign...

CARLSON: Wait, hold on. I want to ask Mr. Kennedy to respond to that. And that's actually a very thoughtful point. Don't you agree, Mr. Kennedy? That if these technologies are there, who could be against them and why wouldn't they be for sale now?

KENNEDY: OK. And that is a good point. And I believe there's no stronger advocate for free market capitalism than myself, and I don't think the government should be telling people what to buy or Detroit what to build. The problem is the free market has been distorted in this case.

We give $6 to $15 billion a year in direct subsidies to the oil industry. That allows big oil to artificially lower the price of gasoline to about $1.89 a gallon, as it is today. If we were paying the true price of gasoline, we'd be paying what they pay in Europe and elsewhere, $5 a gallon. Americans then would be screaming at Detroit to give us cars that get 40 miles per gallon. And Detroit would be giving us SUVs that get 40 miles per gallon.

CARLSON: You're dodging the question. But wait a second. People would buy -- $1.89 for some people is still a lot, and it's going to get higher. No doubt in the next couple of months.

KENNEDY: It's going to get higher, and then you're going to see...

CARLSON: Detroit could make billions -- wait, you haven't answered my question. Detroit could make billions right now by producing the technology you claim exists. Why aren't they? They're acting against their own interests. Why?

KENNEDY: Because I'll tell you why. There's no demand for it now because the price of gas is still relatively low. If we go up over $2.50 a gallon, they will be making within two or three years 40 mile per gallon SUVs, and we'll be buying them. And the problem is that we have a distortion in the free market that's caused by these giant subsidies to the oil industry.

BEGALA: Let me pick up on that. Mr. Kazman, the free market certainly works in politics, where the oil companies have given $108 million to the Republican Party, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the $108 million didn't buy them the Republican Party on these energy issues?

KAZMAN: I'm sure it buys them many favors, just as politics buys everyone favors. But the point is, the price of gasoline is not what it is in Europe. Those people are taxing it as if it were a sin (ph) commodity, and they're taxing it as much as they can get away with. I don't think that's an approach for the U.S.

I think affordable energy, I think cheap gasoline is a wonderful thing. It's an especially wonderful thing for people who aren't making very much money. And the notion that we'll jack this price up artificially in the name of some alleged "free market" that Mr. Kennedy thinks we don't have, but need, strikes me as crazy.

KENNEDY: I don't want to jack the price up. I just want to get rid of the subsidies.

KAZMAN: Excuse me. The $5 a gallon...

BEGALA: Mr. Kazman, our producers tell us we're out of time. Sam Kazman, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, thank you for being here. Robert Kennedy, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, thank you, as well, sir. Good debate, we'll have you back again.

(APPLAUSE)

In a little bit, a proud SUV owner hones up to the keyboard and defiantly fires back at us. But next: our "Quote of the Day." and a little bit of defiance from a former president. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. President Bush today defended his father for not having removed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power during the Gulf War 12 years ago. He explained that the mission in 1991 was only to liberate Kuwait.

Meanwhile, the former president is defending his son's plan to disarm Saddam Hussein now, by force if necessary. The speech last night produced anti-war protests, but the former president handled it like the seasoned professional he is. And in so doing, earned our quote of the day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BUSH, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've now found another real good reason to use duct tape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: That's a pretty good line, I must say.

BEGALA: It is. And I take it in the spirit for -- President Bush gave wonderful service to our country first in the Second World War and then throughout his life. I don't really think he's part of that right wing cabal that does want to gag dissent

CARLSON: You know, it's funny. I always hear you and James saying, if you disagree, you're called un-American.

BEGALA: You are.

CARLSON: I don't know what universe you're living in. Maybe in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) people call you un-American. Apart from maybe Ann Coulter said that once. I never hear anybody call anybody un- American. (CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: It is astonishing. I mean, anyway, good for you, Mr. former President Bush.

One of our viewers, though, has a sure way for the current President Bush to get what he wants from the U.N. Security Council. We'll let her fire back at all of us next. Stay tuned.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's time for "Fireback." But before we get there, we want to say hello to one of our favorite and most faithful viewers, Mary Kendrick (ph), of Water Valley, Mississippi. She is 90 years old today. Happy birthday.

BEGALA: Outstanding. Happy birthday, Mary.

CARLSON: That's right. Good for you. Now to "Fireback."

First up is Dorothy L. Simmons of Covington, Virginia. She writes, "I'm a little old widowed lady living in a rural area and I need a four-wheel drive vehicle. I cannot believe my S10 Blazer uses anymore gasoline than limos, Lincolns, Cadillacs, or Corvettes. Why are these vehicles not getting the same bad press as SUVs?"

Well, because liberals drive them, Dorothy. That's why.

BEGALA: That's silly. I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) envision Dorothy going off road there in Covington, Virginia. Our next one is from Tony in Stafford, Connecticut, who writes, "I have decided to out of my way to buy French goods. This has nothing to do with my preference of war, but instead, my passion to protect my freedom of speech."

"Chirac is actually doing what his constituents want, which is what all politicians should do. We didn't help free France so they would always agree with us."

Tony, that is an amazingly enlightened and wise perspective. Let's all go buy some French wine tonight.

CARLSON: So being against France is being against free speech. That's reasoning.

Norm Clipp of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, writes, "I find it outrageous and offensive that congressional Democrats are counting on European criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy to boost their own campaign to undermine Bush's credibility. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves."

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: President Bush has undermined his own credibility by making promises he doesn't keep again and again and again. CARLSON: But the idea that because the French were against them, somehow the French were right, I mean that is a bit...

BEGALA: He promised the Pakistanis help on textiles, he broke that promise. He promised Afghans help in rebuilding; he broke that promise.

CARLSON: Right. But the assumption that the foreign country is always right.

BEGALA: He's a man of his most recent word. Marlene Carr of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, writes, "The U.S. is worried about getting enough votes to pass the U.N. resolution to go to war. I have the perfect solution. Why not send the gang from Florida to count the votes?"

Just send Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and if there's still any questions about the results of the count, ask the Supreme Court to make the final decision. Problem solved." Good point, Marlene. Now let's lecture everybody else about democracy.

CARLSON: You know, they haven't gotten over it. Yes, sir?

BOB SCHELESKI: Bob Scheleski (ph), Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Do either one of you think that France and Germany has more concern with their economic ties to Iraq more so than the actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

CARLSON: Well, of course. Both countries, particularly France, is an amoral foreign policy. France is also the single larger trader in Europe with Iraq. It sold its weapons components. It's the largest oil trader. Yes, they have all the reason in the world to be against this war.

BEGALA: Look, Dick Cheney traded with Iraq...

CARLSON: Oh, come on.

BEGALA: ... during the Clinton administration in 1998. So I don't want to hear pious lectures about the French are amoral. Cheney's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was amoral and now he wants to go to war with the very people he called valued customers just a few years ago. That's hypocrisy.

CARLSON: That's a sick and ludicrous argument -- yes.

REBECCA: Hi. My name's Rebecca (ph) and I'm from Florida. I was recently in a car accident, where a tractor trailer hit me head on. And if it weren't for my SUV I would be dead. So I was wondering, Paul or Tucker, if you think I have a responsibility to the environment or to fighting terrorism to drive a coupe even if it's at the risk of my own safety?

CARLSON: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) come back in our audience here at CROSSFIRE as often as you want because we glad having you.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: I am so glad to see you. But you should know, Bobby Kennedy didn't attack you, he attacked Detroit and Washington for not making safer cars.

CARLSON: Well he kind of attacked you, too.

BEGALA: From the left, I'm Paul Begala. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

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

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





Driving an SUV?>