Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Look at Latest Evidence Against Iraq; Any Hope U.N., Old Europe will Come Around to Bush Administration's Way of Thinking?

Aired March 05, 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: the latest evidence against Iraq.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We know that the Iraqi regime intends to declare and destroy only a portion of its banned al-Samoud inventory.

ANNOUNCER: Is there any hope the U.N. and Old Europe will come around to the Bush administration's way of thinking?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: There's a history of France and Russia not seeing this eye to eye with the United States.

ANNOUNCER: He's praying and fasting for peace and wants his fellow Catholics to do the same. Is that getting too political?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we've seen today the culmination of the Vatican's efforts for peace.

ANNOUNCER: As King of Pop, he's passed his prime. Is he also past the point of no return? We'll talk to the author of a profile that's a thriller.

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

On this Ash Wednesday, the pope asks Catholics to fast for peace and he asks President Bush to work for peace, while the White House sends out Colin Powell to make yet another case for war. We will debate all of that as well as "Vanity Fair"'s latest, stunning revelations about Michael Jackson. Believe it or not, we got new news on Michael Jackson.

Do you think he really looks like a mummy? Certainly not a daddy.

But first, our own little moonwalk across the political landscape, the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia today issued a joint declaration that they will not allow a second American-backed resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. President Bush wants the Security Council to explicitly authorize force against Iraq, and his press secretary today remained optimistic that in the end, that's just what he'll get.

President Bush is said to be focusing on one fence-sitting Security Council member, the African nation of Guinea, because he said -- quote -- "I used to have one of their pigs." So -- OK, I made that up. He didn't say that.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Well, I suspected that. You know...

BEGALA: But they are a swing vote. Guinea is an important swing vote.

CARLSON: As is Cameroon.

France and Germany are pointing to inspection and saying, Look, they're working. We don't need war.

They're not pointing out that inspections are working only because there's the credible threat of war. Saddam wouldn't be destroying missiles unless he thought he was going to be destroyed if he didn't.

BEGALA: I think that's a good point. It doesn't mean we have to go to war. But I think President Bush should get credit for pushing to instructions and backing them up with the threat of force.

CARLSON: It means when you take the threat of force of the table, you're likely to stop disarming Saddam Hussein.

BEGALA: Yes, I'm not saying take the threat of force. I'm saying we don't need to use force right now.

CARLSON: Well, France and Germany would like to.

Secretary of State Colin Powell today responded to Saddam Hussein's latest attempts to fool the world. Powell called Iraqi steps toward disarmament -- quote -- "too little, too late" gestures, meant to split international resolve to force Baghdad to give up its weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence said Powell indicates Iraq has hidden equipment to produce al-Samoud 2 missiles, even as it destroys existing ones, missiles that until recently, it claimed not to have. Powell also revealed that Iraq is hiding chemical and biological weapons in poor neighborhoods around Baghdad.

In order to secure peace, Powell concluded, the international community must confront Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm -- quote -- "here and now." So, there you have it. The essence of the American case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The only question left: who do you believe? Secretary of State Colin Powell or France?

BEGALA: No, the question is...

CARLSON: That is the question.

BEGALA: Who do you believe: the Bush administration or your lying eyes? We are watching them destroy weapons, as the president says, Oh, that's just a hoax.

CARLSON: But Paul...

BEGALA: They are disarming.

CARLSON: No, no, no that's not what the president's saying. He's saying, the -- it's a hoax to the extent that those are only a small number of the weapons there.

Keep in mind, these are weapons that Saddam Hussein, until recently, said he didn't even have. He's a liar.

BEGALA: Of course.

CARLSON: And to trust Saddam Hussein in effort to disarm him -- foolish task, don't you think?

BEGALA: Absolutely. Nobody trusts Saddam Hussein. The question is, Is he a sufficient threat to America today to risk the lives of our young men and women.

CARLSON: That's a separate question. That's a very separate question.

BEGALA: I think he's not. I think the inspections can work.

CARLSON: That's a different argument. We can take it up later.

BEGALA: Well, we will when these congressmen come out.

Well, if you thought that President Bush sounded unusually eloquent in his Medicare speech yesterday, Al Cayman of "The Washington Post" reports why. Mr. Bush was reading from Democratic cue cards.

On February 14, the Democratic Leadership Council's progressive Policy Institute, a bunch of big brained geniuses who helped President Clinton, issued their Medicare plan with these words -- and I quote from the Democrats: "Medicare will pay for an expensive and intrusive bypass operation, but not for the drugs that could prevent it."

Yesterday, Mr. Bush introduced his Medicare plan with these words:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Medicare will pay a doctor to perform a heart bypass operation, but will not pay for drugs that could prevent the need for surgery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: More from the Democrats -- quote -- "Medicare will pay for an amputation, but rarely provides the education and continuous monitoring services that could prevent people from diabetes from losing limbs."

Mr. Bush: .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Medicare will pay for an amputation, but not for the insulin that could help diabetes patients avoid losing their limbs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: President Bush concluded by saying he still believes in a place called Hope.

So...

CARLSON: So you attack him when he doesn't agree with you, you attack him when he does agree with you.

BEGALA: Fair point.

CARLSON: Come back when you find something you like about President George W. Bush. That would be a "News Alert."

A leading Congressional Democrat, meanwhile, has gone completely off the deep end. This weekend, Congressman Marcy Kaptur told "The Toledo Blade" why the U.S. should not go to war in Iraq.

Here's what the Ohio Democrat said -- quote -- "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British Crown."

In other words, Osama bin Laden is -- quote -- "very similar" to the Founding Fathers. Washington crossing the Delaware, planes crashing into the World Trade Center. They're all acts of atypical revolutionaries, says Marcy Kaptur.

Now, according to our research, Kaptur is an actual member of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives. Let's hope that ends very soon.

BEGALA: Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. You were right to call her on it and I just -- I can't defend it. I never will -- the notion that anybody could compare this murderer to our Founding Fathers is insane.

CARLSON: I can't add to that.

BEGALA: Well, those of you who still believe the myth of the liberal media should consider this: MSNBC, an obscure cable channel, has fired Phil Donahue, the host of its highest-rated show. A memo from inside NBC, reported on the Web site allyourtv.com, and today in "The Washington Post," shows NBC big wigs feared that the liberal Mr. Donahue represented in the words of the NBC memo -- quote -- "a difficult public face for NBC at a time of war, while our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity because he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."

So there it is, according to NBC. Phil Donahue was fired because he's a liberal. In fact, the only liberal with the solo cable talk show.

NBC, of course, is a division of the conglomerate GE, where they apparently only bring right wing things to life.

CARLSON: I actually like Phil Donahue. I've interviewed him a number of times. His arguments are really dumb. I don't know if you've listened to Phil Donahue. Delightful guy, but his arguments don't make a lot of sense and I think that is the problem with liberal talk show hosts -- you excluded, of course, and James. But the arguments, actually, don't hold up very well. Have you noticed that?

BEGALA: You know, you can argue back and forth, but you shouldn't fire someone because of their political views and that's what NBC has done and shame on the General Electric corporation. He had the highest-rated show on the network.

CARLSON: Which is saying what?

BEGALA: I used to work there. They're good to me. They're very nice people and they're very good to me...

CARLSON: OK, OK, I'm not beat up on MSNBC.

BEGALA: ...but they shouldn't fire a guy for his political views.

CARLSON: Former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun recently decided to run for president. Early reviews have not been good, so yesterday she announced she'll be making some changes. Not to her ideas, which are few. Not to her record, which is pretty embarrassing. Not even to her staff, which is, of course, tiny.

But to her name. From here on out, Carol Moseley-Braun as Carol Moseley Braun. Did you catch the difference? In the second version, there is no hyphen between her last names. Moseley Braun expects that primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will react enthusiastically to this radical, grammatical transformation. They'll have to, because the latest CNN poll shows Moseley Braun far behind the candidate she set out to discredit. That would be, of course, the honorable Al Sharpton. Sharpton is not only by far the first choice of black voters nationally, he is tied with Senator John Edwards among all voters and beating Governor Howard Dean, Representative Dennis Kucinich and Senator Bob Graham. Beating them. And Al Sharpton didn't even have to change his name.

BEGALA: How did he become honorable?

CARLSON: Yes!

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: You become honorable by winning an election of some sort or having a high post, being an ambassador or a governor or some thing.

CARLSON: By embodying the values of your party.

BEGALA: Your values, not mine.

CARLSON: He's the No. 1 pick, the most popular, among all candidates, among black primary voters. I mean, you can't dismiss him. He's a serious candidate.

BEGALA: We haven't even begun the primaries. He's not a serious candidate. He's right wing fantasy and it's never going to happen.

CARLSON: Not right wing. Take Al Sharpton seriously, that's our message tonight.

In a moment, we'll ask two members of Congress if they're convinced that war is the only way to make Saddam Hussein disarm.

Later, the pope practices religion and a little anti-war politics on the side.

Then, can you spell prosthetic nose? Maureen Orth can, and she does in a new "Vanity Fair" profile of Michael Jackson. We'll talk to her. You won't want to miss that.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector today said Iraq has made greater steps to disarm recently. But Hans Blix also said that question marks remain. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed those question marks today accusing Iraq of scattering illegal weapons to avoid detection. And late today CNN learned that the United States has ordered a pair of Iraqi diplomats at the U.N. to leave the country.

First in the CROSSFIRE tonight two members of New York's very fine congressional delegation, Democrat Charlie Rangel and Republican Peter King.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Mr. Rangel, thanks for joining us. "The L.A. Times" this morning, you may not have seen it, fascinating story. Says that the United States government has credible information that Saddam Hussein has dispatched agents around the world to commit terrorist attacks against this country if we go to war. Isn't that information reason enough? Here's a terrorist setting out to kill Americans. What more do we need to know?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: I have more confidence now -- if I can believe that "The L.A. Times" will join the CIA and the FBI, you know. I mean, do you really believe we should go to war because some reporter wrote something in "The L.A. Times"? Is that what you're saying? I don't believe you're saying that.

CARLSON: That's exactly -- no, no, no. First of all, presumably this information came from the CIA. But...

RANGEL: Presumingly.

CARLSON: ... moreover we know right from the lips of the Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein trained members of al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons, we know he tried to assassinate a United States president. What else -- I mean I can go on and on. We know he was behind the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan last year.

RANGEL: I love Colin Powell, but if you talk about from the lips what about -- what from the lips of the Pope?

CARLSON: Do you not believe Colin Powell, is that what you're saying?

RANGEL: I'm saying if Colin Powell has evidence that Saddam Hussein is manipulating and pushing around weapons of mass destruction and we have this type of technology to prove it, why doesn't he share this information with the inspectors?

BEGALA: A good point. And, Congressman...

RANGEL: I mean, if the weapons are there and we know they're there, then my God, let's go get the weapons and destroy them.

In addition to that, if we've prepared to bomb these people, are we going to bomb the weapons? And if we know -- if we don't know where the weapons are, we take a heck of a gamble that we're contaminating the whole area.

At the end of day, my question is should we feel any safer after we've gone in and changed the regime of Saddam Hussein? And now we see our mission has been extended. It's not just weapons mass destruction. We have to take over the oilfields, the president has said. We have to Democratize the Muslim nation, the president has said.

And I am so concerned -- and the president's recently said to the North Koreans that if the diplomatic initiatives don't work as it relates to their weapons of mass destructions, we are prepared to use a military solution. So we've sent B-52 bombers. How far does this go?

BEGALA: Let me bring Congressman King into this. The debate seems to me, is not as to whether Saddam Hussein should disarm. I think everybody in America certainly at least agrees that's the goal.

Question is what's the best way to get that done without the loss of American lives? And it seems to me there's a pretty good case inspections are working. Seventeen chemical weapons -- warheads have been found and destroyed, 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles have been found, are being destroyed, 380 illegal imported engines, fuel, computer software that helps them design weapons, all being destroyed under this current regime.

The chief inspector today asked for more time. Let me play a piece of videotape of Hans Blix today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: If we were to be given more months I would welcome it. I said that last time I was here I think, because that there were eight years of inspections and there were four years of non-inspections. Now we have had a couple of months of inspections and it seems to me to be a rather short time to close the door and say this is it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: Why not give him enough time to do their job?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: First of all, Hans Blix is the same inspector who hat was with the IAEA in the early '90s and concluded that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons. Then of course we found out he had a whole program in place and Hans Blix nixed that. So his record is not the best. Also President Clinton did not want Hans Blix to be the inspector back in 1998 when he was picked by the U.N. So he has a very checkered record at best.

We know Saddam Hussein has the weapons. And the fact is after 12 years of him obfuscating, cheating and retreating. What's turned up so far is only a small percentage of what he has. It's too big a risk to keep this going on for years and years and years. I think some estimates said at the rate we're going now, it would take 403 years to find all his weapons.

There's still tons of materials that have not been found for chemical and biological weapons, that we know he has.

BEGALA: But you see, my problem with many conservatives and I know how principled you are and the respect I have for you. It's like you can't win for losing. People said -- the president said let's try inspections. Democrats agreed. Republicans agreed. There's evidence that it's working. Now you say, well, it's not working fast enough, so we've got to put our young men and women's lives at risk. KING: The purpose of inspections wasn't to find weapons. The purpose of inspections was to examine the weapons that Saddam Hussein destroyed, go to locations where he said they were destroyed. The burden was on Saddam Hussein to provide the information from the inspectors, not to have the inspectors play catch me if you can and going around trying to find the weapons. And to me, this is too serious a game to be playing to continue to be strung out by Saddam Hussein as he's done.

Listen, Bill Clinton said five years ago that the weapons were there, that if we didn't get them soon, Saddam Hussein was going to use them for terrorist purposes or going to give them to terrorist groups and was a real threat, was going to use them against somebody. They're still there. He's had five years to build on them.

CARLSON: OK, Mr. Rangel, Congressman King mentioned what Bill Clinton said. I want to read you part of the quote. He said on February 17, 1998, "What if Saddam fails to comply," as he has now, " and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Bill Clinton understood that the fact he has these weapons is itself a threat. Why do Democrats no longer agree with that idea?

RANGEL: Wait a minute, now. I'm not speaking for the Democrats and I'm not here to defend or to knock former President Clinton. We talked about war...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: We talked about war. That's all we talked about now.

Is it worth putting our men and women in harm's way to get after Saddam Hussein? And I want that question answered to my satisfaction f we're going to lose lives over it.

What happens when we win? What happens when we occupy? Do we not find out where the weapons are of mass destruction? How do we satisfy what you're say that you want to do?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... that President Clinton implies here which is will Saddam Hussein use these weapons if he has them? Do you think he will?

RANGEL: I don't give a darn what former Bill Clinton said. I am concerned...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: Yes, for the international community and I think it warrants an international solution and not a unilateral preemptive strike by the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: OK.

BEGALA: And in fact, Congressman King, Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction ever since Ronald Reagan gave him anthrax. And he's never used them against us because he's afraid of us, we have deterred him. What's wrong with deterrence? It worked for Ronald Reagan. It ought to be working for George Bush.

KING: George Bush (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Soviet Union. This is a different animal we're talking about with Saddam Hussein.

BEGALA: But he's never used these weapons.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- you know why? As Bill Clinton said, and I agree with him on this, why else would he be getting them? What else is he going to use them for other than to use them against somebody. He's not just doing this for the fun of it.

Why has he resisted so long, the inspectors? I mean he could have saved himself by turning them over but he didn't. For 12 years he was hiding, he was hiding, he was cheating and retreating.

And Charlie said, you know, what's going on happen if assuming we win, assuming we win, which I think we will, and any life is -- to me it's the most wrenching decision any member of Congress can make.

But I believe the world and the United States will be a lot safer with the United States there rather than Saddam Hussein. There's this guarantee it's going to be easy? No it's not. But it's much better chance of us going forward with the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We're just going to take a quick commercial break. We'll answer that question, we hope in a moment. We'll ask if Turkey is on our side.

Later, we'll debate Pope John Paul II's attempt to be a peace maker between the United States and Iraq.

And speaking of lost causes, we'll have the latest on the former King of Pop. According to a new article, he does not have a real nose. And we'll tell you more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. France, Russia and Germany today restated their opposition to any new U.N. Security Council that could threaten Saddam Hussein's grip on power. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes to the U.N. tomorrow to do what he can.

We're talking with potential war in Iraq with Congressman Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat and his fellow New Yorker Republican Congressman Peter King.

BEGALA: Mr. King, thanks for stying with us through the break. One of the reasons that we like having you on, and as well as Mr. Rangel, is that, you know, this is war, as we were saying in the last segment. You treat it with the gravity and the seriousness that it deserves. And you're a congressman who has put his constituents and his country ahead of his partisan interests.

So I wonder if you'll join Charlie Rangel, who put out a press release today, decrying the Republican attempt to hijack a bill to help our servicemen to use it to give special interest tax breaks to corporations. Isn't that wrong in a time of war?

KING: The important thing is that the bill pass for the military. If the other stuff's in there, it's there. I mean to me, the main purpose should be the military. I'm not going to disagree with Charlie's point.

On the other hand, often when bills are passed, there are things attached to them. So to me, the key thing is that we ought to be taking care of the military and that's what we should do.

CARLSON: Congressman Rangel, a couple of months ago Senator Daschle on CBS said -- made the charge that we are, quote, "we haven't made any real progress in the war against al Qaeda." A lot of Democrats said similar things.

This weekend Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the No. 2 member of al Qaeda and another significant al Qaeda member were captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Doesn't it turn out that Mr. Daschle and others didn't know what they were talking about and maybe they shouldn't make charges like that in public when they don't know what they were talking about? You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

RANGEL: If they don't have the pencil that's keeping score, they ought to keep their mouth shut because as a former federal prosecutor, every drug dealer I busted was the most important drug dealer in the world. You just pass out numbers on whoever you arrest. Why was he No. 3? Why wasn't he No. 4?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know. Because he helped plan the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? I think that puts you pretty high up in the organization.

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: Let me tell you, when you arrest somebody, you describe who you're arresting. I haven't the slightest clue who this guy was.

CARLSON: I haven't heard anybody suggest that he's not one of the central figures in al Qaeda. Have you?

RANGEL: Listen, we should be arresting a lot of people. But I think the main thing that we have now is we should concentrate on Osama bin Laden, we should concentrate on dismantling Saddam Hussein. We should do all of those things, but the most important thing is we should not have the arrogance to have a preemptive strike against a defenseless nation without the...

CARLSON: A defenseless nation? They have biological weapons. How are they defenseless?

BEGALA: And how'd they get them?

RANGEL: Listen, if this is...

CARLSON: It was our fault that they have biological and chemical weapons? Come on.

RANGEL: Let me tell you. They have it and we supported them having it when they were fighting Iran so it's no big deal there. And the thing is that if we can disarm them without actually going there, killing them, I really think that we maintain our moral authority around the world. We have a lot of people...

(APPLAUSE)

RANGEL: ... that have dangerous weapons. I mean, what happens if India decides that they could have a preemptive strike against Pakistan? What happens if the North Koreans take another look? Our country is great enough and strong enough to maintain the moral authority to convince the international community that we're right. I don't think we have to kill to prove that.

BEGALA: I'm sorry to have to do this, but we are out of time. I want have Congressman Peter King from New York back on, and Congressman Charlie Rangel. Thank you both for a very interesting debate.

One of the most admired men in the world is doing everything he can to avert the horror of war. In a minute we will look at His Holiness, John Paul II's efforts to be a peacemaker.

Later, the author of "Vanity Fair's" scary new look at the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. You will not want to miss this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live, as we do every night, from the George Washington University here in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C. This of course is home of the Colonials, that's right. This is Ash Wednesday, the traditional day of fasting and prayer at the beginning of Lent, the 40-day period of penance for Christians leading up to Easter.

But over at the Vatican, the Holy Father, John Paul II, called on the faithful of all religions to pray for peace. The pope also sent a personal envoy to President Bush, carrying a message that there's no justification at the present time for war with event.

In the CROSSFIRE to debate papal peacemaking, Frances Kissling, of Catholics for free Choice, and in our New York bureau, senior writer of "The National Review," Rod Dreher. (APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: All right. Frances Kissling, here's the problem I have with the Vatican's stance on the war with Iraq. The Vatican, which I respect as an institution, I think is being used as a propaganda tool by the Iraqi government. Let me give you an example.

This is a statement from the Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarles (ph), after his meeting with Tony Blair. He said, "The Holy Father expressed hope that in solving the grave situation in Iraq every effort is made to avoid new divisions in the world. Special consideration was given to the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people, already tried by long years of embargo."

That is Iraqi propaganda. The Iraqi people are suffering because of the dictatorship under which they live, not primarily the embargo. Why is the Vatican repeating Iraqi talking points?

FRANCES KISSLING, CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE: Well, I think that the Vatican tends to see things in humanitarian ways. And in that sense, I don't think you can ignore the embargo as an element of the suffering of the Iraqi people.

CARLSON: But this is saying it's the reason for the suffering. And that's not true.

KISSLING: Well I would disagree with them in that sense. I would disagree. I don't think that the embargo is the reason for the suffering. I think the reasons for the suffering are very complex.

They certainly include the enormous suffering that the Iraqi people are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. The man is a dictator, he is a horrible leader. He has absolutely no respect for human life and no respect for his own people. There is no doubt about that.

But I don't think that that undercuts the importantance of the Vatican as a voice for peace, which really is the most critical thing that we need to deal with at this time. Is the way to solve these problems in Iraq to go in and bomb the country? I don't think so. And the pope doesn't think so.

BEGALA: Mr. , first, thank you for joining us. Let me bring you into this by, let's compare basically the two leaders of this movement. The peace movement led by the pope, our president leading us on foreign policy. And let's look at their foreign policy and, frankly, their moral credentials.

Here's the pope. He's a doctor of theology. Our president, a C student at Yale. The pope, in fact, was elected pope. Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers.

The Holy Father was shot by an assassin perhaps for his efforts against communism. Our president missed a year of National Guard duty. The pope did help to bring down communism, one of the great events of modern history. President Bush served before this as governor of Texas. The pope has met with 650 heads of state, the president got elected president of the United States, which was a very big deal; good for him.

The pope has visited 115 countries; our president 23. The pope speaks eight languages, Mr. Bush, habla espanol. This is not a close call, Rod.

(APPLAUSE)

ROD DREHER, SENIOR WRITER, "NATIONAL REVIEW": And Paul, for all of the great things this pope has done compared to our president, he's still wrong on this. And this is one Catholic who supports our of evangelical president.

I think the president is right on this war, the pope is wrong. And I say that with respect for the Holy Father. But we Catholics are allowed to dissent on this matter, on a matter of prudential judgment about the war. And I think the Holy Father simply doesn't see things in the right way and our president does.

What's more, the Holy Father does not have responsibility for protecting all 280 million of us Americans from terrorist attacks. George Bush does.

CARLSON: Now, Frances Kissling, you said a minute ago the pope is for peace. Everybody is for peace. But the choice here is not a choice between war and peace. In many ways, it's a choice between war, on the one hand, and continued suffering by the Iraqi people on the other, and threats to the world from Saddam and the others. I want to know what are the pope's plans to liberate the Iraqi people? I didn't hear you talk about that.

KISSLING: Well I don't think the pope has a plan to liberate the Iraqi people, and I don't think that that's his job.

CARLSON: Well, he's weighing in on very complex matters, so he has no plans?

KISSLING: Absolutely. And the complex matter is the difference between war and peace. And I don't think we can avoid this. I don't think we get peace through war. I think this is one of the most (UNINTELLIGIBLE) sound bites imaginable.

DREHER: I think World War II showed that was wrong.

KISSLING: We get peace through working for justice. We get peace through continuing the process. And I think the important thing here in terms of the pope is really the whole concept of when can you have a just war? We can only go to war when it is the last resort, when everything else has been tried and everything else has failed. And we're not finished.

DREHER: Frances...

BEGALA: Go ahead, Mr. Dreher.

DREHER: Frances, war solved the problem of Nazi Germany. You know war liberated the pope's homeland. I think that we have to recognize that, in the end, when all peaceful means have been exhausted to solve a problem like Saddam Hussein, that we have to have recourse to war.

I think this war satisfies all of the just war, all the provisions of just war theory. The one thing that some people object to is that just war theory calls for the attack to be imminent, the attack we're defending against to be imminent. Well, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were not accounted for when they came up with just war theory.

The president has to worry about that. Has to worry that Saddam will give these biological weapons to terrorists and will use them to destroy New York City or some American city. I think the pope is not seeing that reality.

CARLSON: OK. Rod Dreher, Frances Kissling, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. We'll continue our debate on papal peacemaking in a moment.

And later, Michael Jackson turns to voodoo. You won't believe it, yet you won't want to miss it. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Pope John Paul II today asked the world's one billion Catholics to raise what he calls a choral prayer for peace. The pope has also let it be known he thinks a preemptive war with Iraq has no moral justification. We're talking about religion and politics with Frances Kissling, of Catholics for free Choice, and "National Review" senior writer, Rod Dreher, who is in New York.

BEGALA: Rod, you do I think have to concede that the Holy Father has maybe a little credential to speak about just war theory and, for that matter, diplomacy. Here is what he had said. This is his plan.

Tucker asked a moment ago what's the Holy Father's plan for peace. This is it, quoting from Pope John Paul II, "International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between the states, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are the methods whereby individuals in nations engage in resolving their differences.

Now you know apparently President Bush doesn't have the time or the stomach or the patience or the wisdom and experience for that, but the Holy Father does. Isn't he right?

DREHER: No. Paul, the thing is we tried all these things. We've gone to every possible length to get Saddam to disarm peacefully. It hasn't worked.

The Holy Father would like a dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. That's the way he's run this church and it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in the ways governing the church and it doesn't work in the real world. BEGALA: Well he did end Soviet communism, Rod. I mean he has a little experience in facing evil.

DREHER: He did, but that's a different matter from what we're facing right now. And this is the thing: the catechism says that in the end the right to decide if a war is moral or not lies with the legitimate public authorities who are responsible for the public good. That's President Bush, that's Tony Blair.

Listen to the Holy Father, respect what he has to say. But in the end, even the catechism recognizes that President Bush in the one who has the right to make this decision.

(APPLAUSE)

KISSLING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) notion that he was given an authority to make decisions for the public good as only referring to the elected leaders of a country, to governors, presidents and generals, is a really narrow view. Religious authority also has legitimate authority.

CARLSON: But nobody denies that. Here's the problem, however. The pope (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Vatican is not a government, it is a church. But the problem here is these are really complicated issues.

KISSLING: Right.

CARLSON: And the church, no offense, has been wrong on a lot of them. The Catholic bishops were wrong about the Cold War. Paul said the pope brought down the Berlin wall -- debatable. Not debatable, the Catholic bishops again and again issued statements, making it sound as if the United States has shown that we're morally (ph) equivalent.

I think the pope was probably wrong on the first Gulf War, on Nicaragua. I can go on and on and on. The point is, the church is not always right about international affairs. Correct?

KISSLING: That's right. It's not always right. But that doesn't mean that we can disregard it. And in this instance, the fact -- our government is not always right. No one is always right.

But the point really is what do we want to do about this question of peace? It is so important that religious leaders like the pope come out and really keep reminding us that we must consistently, constantly, to the ultimate end, think about how we can make peace and do everything we can to avoid war. The argument...

DREHER: But peace is not the absence of war.

KISSLING: Excuse me, excuse me. The argument among us is whether everything has actually -- one of the arguments -- has actually been tried and failed. And many of us do believe...

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Rod Dreher...

(CROSSTALK)

KISSLING: ... saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

BEGALA: Let me let Rod respond. We've only got 30 seconds left, Rod -- go.

DREHER: I'll tell you what bothers me a lot, is the church, the bishops, the cardinals, even the Holy Father presuming to tell President Bush, who has to protect 280 million of us, what his moral duties are in that regard, while these guys couldn't even protect Catholic children from their own robed priests. I just think it's appalling and it really bothers me as a faithful Catholic.

BEGALA: That's a cheap shot. We could have a serious discussion, and you've had many about that topic. We will at another time. But thank you very much, Rod Dreher, From "The National Review," joining us from New York.

Frances Kissling...

KISSLING: I favor an organization that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a cheap shot.

CARLSON: I thought you were president of that organization.

KISSLING: I am, actually.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: One of our viewers has a question about Dick Cheney's tenure there at Halliburton, when he was selling oilfield equipment to Saddam Hussein. We will get to it next in "Fireback."

But, next, it's a whitewash or, well, not really. It's a "Vanity Fair" piece. "Vanity Fair" says it's a whitewash. We'll visit the bizarre world of the king of pop next.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. As if all things Michael Jackson weren't strange enough already, and they are, the new issue of "Vanity Fair" makes baby dangling and bed sharing seem almost passe. Jackson says the magazine is essentially broke.

He's essentially noseless and once paid a witch doctor $150,000 to put a voodoo curse on his enemies, including Dreamwork executives David Geffen and Steven Spielberg. In the CROSSFIRE tonight is the author of the "Vanity Fair" piece, Maureen Orth.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Wow. Let's get to it. There's so much. The voodoo, the debt, the nose.

But let me start, actually, with something broader. Is this guy a freak or does he just want to think he's a freak?

MAUREEN ORTH, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, "VANITY FAIR": I think a lot of it is very calculated. You know I talked with a photographer who worked with him a long time, Harry Benson (ph), who said, you know Michael Jackson is about as crazy as Colin Powell. And I think there is a reason -- he thinks all publicity is good publicity; that more is more. And so he wants you think of him like a Peter Pan creature, because then he doesn't have to be judged as a 44-year-old middle-aged man who sleeps with little boys by his own admission.

CARLSON: Well you have in here -- you revealed that the end of his nose is prosthetic, which I admit I guessed. What I didn't guess was your contention that he's approximately or could be $240 million in debt. How?

ORTH: Yes. Because he has been borrowing money from the Bank of America. And first he borrowed I think it was $140 million and then another $30, and then another $40.

CARLSON: It adds up.

ORTH: It adds up, and so it will come due in a few years. And he has a very valuable asset, because he owns one-half of the Beatles song collection publishing rights and a lot of other songs as well with Sony, his record company. And so Sony is guaranteeing the loan with this asset, but if he can't earn $400 million in the next few years to pay off the loan, he will have to sell his assets. And Sony has the right to be the only buyer at a price they determine.

BEGALA: OK. So if he's got these problems with the Bank of America, and he's got this fake nose, why is he taking out a voodoo curse -- which I think you reported for the first time -- on David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, two perfectly nice executives in Hollywood?

ORTH: The voodoo, from the people I heard were on the list, are most of the people he's work worked with before or he was working closely with. I think he has a lot of resentment now. I have no real knowledge of why he did this. I was not inside his brain at all.

So I don't know, other than he's had various deals that haven't come forward. I mean I have a whole section in the piece about all of the deals that never happened.

BEGALA: But he did go to a witch doctor. And you report in the piece -- it's amazing.

ORTH: Oh, absolutely. Three different times in the summer of 2000 there was a mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia (ph) who came to him with a letter of introduction from a Saudi Arabian prince who is now the chief of intelligence of Saudi Arabia.

BEGALA: Oh, great.

ORTH: And so she called him...

BEGALA: So we're going to war to like protect Jacko's friend. Is that the deal?

ORTH: Exactly. And so they showed him hundreds of millions of -- quote, "$50 million in a bathtub" and millions in her basement and said, this could all be yours if you just pay us $75,000 or $150,000 more. You can keep it.

And it was just a total thing. And then he paid $150,000 for an African voodoo doctor to have 42 cows slaughtered ritually and then he could curse his enemies and bless himself.

CARLSON: Well, it didn't work by all accounts. And you should fear that he's going to do it to you after this amazing story you wrote. You also say in here -- and I guess this may have been public -- that Jackson, his camp admits, that he spent the night in bed with young boys.

ORTH: Well, he said it himself just recently.

CARLSON: Well then maybe you can answer this: Why are parents continuing to allow their children to stay over at Neverland with Michael Jackson?

ORTH: I'll tell you something, there's something really sick in our society about fame and wealth and what it lets people get away with. Somehow these parents get blinded by his celebrity and the fact that Michael Jackson has taken an interest in their kids, all reason flies out of the window.

Now this 13-year-old boy, who pressed charges against him in 1993, who accused him, and he had to pay a $25 million settlement to, in excess of, they went back -- I talked to the prosecutors and they told me the whole story for the first time really about what happened at that point. And they went back and they found a special friend from Michael Jackson for a whole decade, all of the way back before 1993, but he also had very tough guy private detectives working for him.

He had people intimidating witnesses, people were paid off. The prosecutor said in one case, especially, the silence was bought. So this is the reason that these people haven't come forward.

Parents got cars. People got all kinds of gifts. Somebody got a visa to stay in the United States who was Australian. I mean they got paid a lot of different things to be his special friend. And the parents, usually parents who had very weak family ties, the parents were separated, and he would move in and sort of even break the bonds further.

CARLSON: Disgusting.

BEGALA: Maureen Orth, "Vanity Fair" magazine, it is impossible, I would have thought to write a jaw-dropping piece about Michael Jackson, but you did. Congratulations. It's a terrific piece.

ORTH: Thank you.

BEGALA: Thank you for coming on and talking about it.

(APPLAUSE)

Next: one of our viewers fires back a theory about why old Europe won't go along with a war in Iraq. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Maybe it's just me, but I think Michael Jackson, he's kooky, wacky.

Time now for "Fireback," where our wacky and kooky fans and friends and critics right in. Don from Denver, Colorado writes, "Paul, you keep referencing Halliburton selling equipment to Iraq" -- which I do. "I recall, as reported in 'The Wall Street Journal,' that the transactions were legal. Is it possible that the equipment allowed Iraq to produce oil for the Oil for Food program authorized by the U.N.?"

They were legal because Mr. Cheney's company used a loophole. They went through a foreign subsidiary. But they did enrich Saddam Hussein and his evil, ruthless regime, and they were immoral. They were wrong. Dick Cheney should have never profited off of doing business with Saddam Hussein.

CARLSON: I would agree with that. What does that have to do with the war in Iraq?

BEGALA: It means Cheney is a hypocrite. He's trying to lead us into a war against one of his valued customers.

CARLSON: Well it's a complete...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You're attacking the man. That's irrelevant to the argument.

BEGALA: I'm attacking his business practices.

CARLSON: No, no, you're attacking -- OK great. That's great. But it has nothing to do whether we should go to war with Iraq or not.

BEGALA: Well yesterday he was a valued customer, today he's an even villain.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Right. So we're against Dick Cheney, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein.

Chad Hensley, from Fairfax, Virginia, writes, "France, Russia and German have all multi-billion dollar oil deals with Saddam in Iraq. I wonder why they protest the war with Iraq. It must be the humanitarian reasons." Well, Chad, that's what liberals assume. That Europe is against the war on humanitarian and moral grounds, but the U.S. is for the war because it wants to profit for the oil companies. It is a weird assumption, don't you think?

BEGALA: As you know, I've never said that.

CARLSON: You haven't.

BEGALA: I don't believe for a minute that this is a war for oil. I think it's unwise, it's unjust, it's unwarranted, but I don't think it's about oil. Now, the reason that France, Russia and Germany are against war is because they have democracies. The people are against it.

It's called democracy. Those leaders are reflecting the views of their people.

CARLSON: They hate America, Paul.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: John Smith, a likely name in Montclair, New Jersey, writes in -- I'm just kidding, Mr. Smith. I'm sure that's your name. "The fact that Pakistan caught the al Qaeda CEO does not prove we can fight two wars at the same time. The question is: Would they have captured this individual if the bombs had started falling in Iraq three months ago?"

Answer: no. It would have ruptured our ability to work with allies.

CARLSON: I'm not even sure I understand that. John, try again.

Constance Alsip (ph) of I'm not sure where writes, "France announced today that it plans to ban fireworks at Euro Disney following last night's display that caused soldiers at a nearby French army garrison to surrender."

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: You know what they did? They shelled space mountain, causing a lot of damage -- yes.

CHRISTINA WRIGHT: My name is Christina Wright (ph). I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota. And I was just curious if you feel that the attack on Iraq would actually open a Pandora's box in other Middle Eastern countries that we are known to aid and harbor terrorists, such as Syria and Iran.

CARLSON: It might. I mean that's absolutely one of the fears. That it would destabilize the entire region. On the other hand, the region is pretty unstable, filled with people who already hate Americans and seek to do America harm. So the question is, could it be worse? BEGALA: Our president believes it will set off a positive domino effect of democracy through the region. Maybe he's right. I don't think he's thought it through. I think it's more likely that this very unstable region could cause even more problems.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Oh, come on. That's silly.

FABIAN: Hi. I'm Fabian from Bonn, Germany. And my question is, after today's meeting in Paris, where France, Russia and Germany decided to not back a second resolution, who is not (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Is it the U.S. or is it old Europe?

CARLSON: It's actually Western Europe, because 18 European countries are on the side of the United States. So France and Germany -- that's actually true -- find themselves in the minority on their own continent. And good.

BEGALA: Only Great Britain is with us. The only country...

CARLSON: What do you mean only Great Britain?

BEGALA: My question is not who votes at the U.N. Who sends troops to die on our side? Nobody except Great Britain. We are isolated.

From the left, I am Paul Begala. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow 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





Europe will Come Around to Bush Administration's Way of Thinking?>


Aired March 5, 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: the latest evidence against Iraq.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We know that the Iraqi regime intends to declare and destroy only a portion of its banned al-Samoud inventory.

ANNOUNCER: Is there any hope the U.N. and Old Europe will come around to the Bush administration's way of thinking?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: There's a history of France and Russia not seeing this eye to eye with the United States.

ANNOUNCER: He's praying and fasting for peace and wants his fellow Catholics to do the same. Is that getting too political?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we've seen today the culmination of the Vatican's efforts for peace.

ANNOUNCER: As King of Pop, he's passed his prime. Is he also past the point of no return? We'll talk to the author of a profile that's a thriller.

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

PAUL BEGALA, CNN CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

On this Ash Wednesday, the pope asks Catholics to fast for peace and he asks President Bush to work for peace, while the White House sends out Colin Powell to make yet another case for war. We will debate all of that as well as "Vanity Fair"'s latest, stunning revelations about Michael Jackson. Believe it or not, we got new news on Michael Jackson.

Do you think he really looks like a mummy? Certainly not a daddy.

But first, our own little moonwalk across the political landscape, the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia today issued a joint declaration that they will not allow a second American-backed resolution to pass the United Nations Security Council. President Bush wants the Security Council to explicitly authorize force against Iraq, and his press secretary today remained optimistic that in the end, that's just what he'll get.

President Bush is said to be focusing on one fence-sitting Security Council member, the African nation of Guinea, because he said -- quote -- "I used to have one of their pigs." So -- OK, I made that up. He didn't say that.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Well, I suspected that. You know...

BEGALA: But they are a swing vote. Guinea is an important swing vote.

CARLSON: As is Cameroon.

France and Germany are pointing to inspection and saying, Look, they're working. We don't need war.

They're not pointing out that inspections are working only because there's the credible threat of war. Saddam wouldn't be destroying missiles unless he thought he was going to be destroyed if he didn't.

BEGALA: I think that's a good point. It doesn't mean we have to go to war. But I think President Bush should get credit for pushing to instructions and backing them up with the threat of force.

CARLSON: It means when you take the threat of force of the table, you're likely to stop disarming Saddam Hussein.

BEGALA: Yes, I'm not saying take the threat of force. I'm saying we don't need to use force right now.

CARLSON: Well, France and Germany would like to.

Secretary of State Colin Powell today responded to Saddam Hussein's latest attempts to fool the world. Powell called Iraqi steps toward disarmament -- quote -- "too little, too late" gestures, meant to split international resolve to force Baghdad to give up its weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence said Powell indicates Iraq has hidden equipment to produce al-Samoud 2 missiles, even as it destroys existing ones, missiles that until recently, it claimed not to have. Powell also revealed that Iraq is hiding chemical and biological weapons in poor neighborhoods around Baghdad.

In order to secure peace, Powell concluded, the international community must confront Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm -- quote -- "here and now." So, there you have it. The essence of the American case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The only question left: who do you believe? Secretary of State Colin Powell or France?

BEGALA: No, the question is...

CARLSON: That is the question.

BEGALA: Who do you believe: the Bush administration or your lying eyes? We are watching them destroy weapons, as the president says, Oh, that's just a hoax.

CARLSON: But Paul...

BEGALA: They are disarming.

CARLSON: No, no, no that's not what the president's saying. He's saying, the -- it's a hoax to the extent that those are only a small number of the weapons there.

Keep in mind, these are weapons that Saddam Hussein, until recently, said he didn't even have. He's a liar.

BEGALA: Of course.

CARLSON: And to trust Saddam Hussein in effort to disarm him -- foolish task, don't you think?

BEGALA: Absolutely. Nobody trusts Saddam Hussein. The question is, Is he a sufficient threat to America today to risk the lives of our young men and women.

CARLSON: That's a separate question. That's a very separate question.

BEGALA: I think he's not. I think the inspections can work.

CARLSON: That's a different argument. We can take it up later.

BEGALA: Well, we will when these congressmen come out.

Well, if you thought that President Bush sounded unusually eloquent in his Medicare speech yesterday, Al Cayman of "The Washington Post" reports why. Mr. Bush was reading from Democratic cue cards.

On February 14, the Democratic Leadership Council's progressive Policy Institute, a bunch of big brained geniuses who helped President Clinton, issued their Medicare plan with these words -- and I quote from the Democrats: "Medicare will pay for an expensive and intrusive bypass operation, but not for the drugs that could prevent it."

Yesterday, Mr. Bush introduced his Medicare plan with these words:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Medicare will pay a doctor to perform a heart bypass operation, but will not pay for drugs that could prevent the need for surgery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: More from the Democrats -- quote -- "Medicare will pay for an amputation, but rarely provides the education and continuous monitoring services that could prevent people from diabetes from losing limbs."

Mr. Bush: .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Medicare will pay for an amputation, but not for the insulin that could help diabetes patients avoid losing their limbs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: President Bush concluded by saying he still believes in a place called Hope.

So...

CARLSON: So you attack him when he doesn't agree with you, you attack him when he does agree with you.

BEGALA: Fair point.

CARLSON: Come back when you find something you like about President George W. Bush. That would be a "News Alert."

A leading Congressional Democrat, meanwhile, has gone completely off the deep end. This weekend, Congressman Marcy Kaptur told "The Toledo Blade" why the U.S. should not go to war in Iraq.

Here's what the Ohio Democrat said -- quote -- "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British Crown."

In other words, Osama bin Laden is -- quote -- "very similar" to the Founding Fathers. Washington crossing the Delaware, planes crashing into the World Trade Center. They're all acts of atypical revolutionaries, says Marcy Kaptur.

Now, according to our research, Kaptur is an actual member of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives. Let's hope that ends very soon.

BEGALA: Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. You were right to call her on it and I just -- I can't defend it. I never will -- the notion that anybody could compare this murderer to our Founding Fathers is insane.

CARLSON: I can't add to that.

BEGALA: Well, those of you who still believe the myth of the liberal media should consider this: MSNBC, an obscure cable channel, has fired Phil Donahue, the host of its highest-rated show. A memo from inside NBC, reported on the Web site allyourtv.com, and today in "The Washington Post," shows NBC big wigs feared that the liberal Mr. Donahue represented in the words of the NBC memo -- quote -- "a difficult public face for NBC at a time of war, while our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity because he seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."

So there it is, according to NBC. Phil Donahue was fired because he's a liberal. In fact, the only liberal with the solo cable talk show.

NBC, of course, is a division of the conglomerate GE, where they apparently only bring right wing things to life.

CARLSON: I actually like Phil Donahue. I've interviewed him a number of times. His arguments are really dumb. I don't know if you've listened to Phil Donahue. Delightful guy, but his arguments don't make a lot of sense and I think that is the problem with liberal talk show hosts -- you excluded, of course, and James. But the arguments, actually, don't hold up very well. Have you noticed that?

BEGALA: You know, you can argue back and forth, but you shouldn't fire someone because of their political views and that's what NBC has done and shame on the General Electric corporation. He had the highest-rated show on the network.

CARLSON: Which is saying what?

BEGALA: I used to work there. They're good to me. They're very nice people and they're very good to me...

CARLSON: OK, OK, I'm not beat up on MSNBC.

BEGALA: ...but they shouldn't fire a guy for his political views.

CARLSON: Former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley-Braun recently decided to run for president. Early reviews have not been good, so yesterday she announced she'll be making some changes. Not to her ideas, which are few. Not to her record, which is pretty embarrassing. Not even to her staff, which is, of course, tiny.

But to her name. From here on out, Carol Moseley-Braun as Carol Moseley Braun. Did you catch the difference? In the second version, there is no hyphen between her last names. Moseley Braun expects that primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will react enthusiastically to this radical, grammatical transformation. They'll have to, because the latest CNN poll shows Moseley Braun far behind the candidate she set out to discredit. That would be, of course, the honorable Al Sharpton. Sharpton is not only by far the first choice of black voters nationally, he is tied with Senator John Edwards among all voters and beating Governor Howard Dean, Representative Dennis Kucinich and Senator Bob Graham. Beating them. And Al Sharpton didn't even have to change his name.

BEGALA: How did he become honorable?

CARLSON: Yes!

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: You become honorable by winning an election of some sort or having a high post, being an ambassador or a governor or some thing.

CARLSON: By embodying the values of your party.

BEGALA: Your values, not mine.

CARLSON: He's the No. 1 pick, the most popular, among all candidates, among black primary voters. I mean, you can't dismiss him. He's a serious candidate.

BEGALA: We haven't even begun the primaries. He's not a serious candidate. He's right wing fantasy and it's never going to happen.

CARLSON: Not right wing. Take Al Sharpton seriously, that's our message tonight.

In a moment, we'll ask two members of Congress if they're convinced that war is the only way to make Saddam Hussein disarm.

Later, the pope practices religion and a little anti-war politics on the side.

Then, can you spell prosthetic nose? Maureen Orth can, and she does in a new "Vanity Fair" profile of Michael Jackson. We'll talk to her. You won't want to miss that.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector today said Iraq has made greater steps to disarm recently. But Hans Blix also said that question marks remain. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed those question marks today accusing Iraq of scattering illegal weapons to avoid detection. And late today CNN learned that the United States has ordered a pair of Iraqi diplomats at the U.N. to leave the country.

First in the CROSSFIRE tonight two members of New York's very fine congressional delegation, Democrat Charlie Rangel and Republican Peter King.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Mr. Rangel, thanks for joining us. "The L.A. Times" this morning, you may not have seen it, fascinating story. Says that the United States government has credible information that Saddam Hussein has dispatched agents around the world to commit terrorist attacks against this country if we go to war. Isn't that information reason enough? Here's a terrorist setting out to kill Americans. What more do we need to know?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: I have more confidence now -- if I can believe that "The L.A. Times" will join the CIA and the FBI, you know. I mean, do you really believe we should go to war because some reporter wrote something in "The L.A. Times"? Is that what you're saying? I don't believe you're saying that.

CARLSON: That's exactly -- no, no, no. First of all, presumably this information came from the CIA. But...

RANGEL: Presumingly.

CARLSON: ... moreover we know right from the lips of the Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein trained members of al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons, we know he tried to assassinate a United States president. What else -- I mean I can go on and on. We know he was behind the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan last year.

RANGEL: I love Colin Powell, but if you talk about from the lips what about -- what from the lips of the Pope?

CARLSON: Do you not believe Colin Powell, is that what you're saying?

RANGEL: I'm saying if Colin Powell has evidence that Saddam Hussein is manipulating and pushing around weapons of mass destruction and we have this type of technology to prove it, why doesn't he share this information with the inspectors?

BEGALA: A good point. And, Congressman...

RANGEL: I mean, if the weapons are there and we know they're there, then my God, let's go get the weapons and destroy them.

In addition to that, if we've prepared to bomb these people, are we going to bomb the weapons? And if we know -- if we don't know where the weapons are, we take a heck of a gamble that we're contaminating the whole area.

At the end of day, my question is should we feel any safer after we've gone in and changed the regime of Saddam Hussein? And now we see our mission has been extended. It's not just weapons mass destruction. We have to take over the oilfields, the president has said. We have to Democratize the Muslim nation, the president has said.

And I am so concerned -- and the president's recently said to the North Koreans that if the diplomatic initiatives don't work as it relates to their weapons of mass destructions, we are prepared to use a military solution. So we've sent B-52 bombers. How far does this go?

BEGALA: Let me bring Congressman King into this. The debate seems to me, is not as to whether Saddam Hussein should disarm. I think everybody in America certainly at least agrees that's the goal.

Question is what's the best way to get that done without the loss of American lives? And it seems to me there's a pretty good case inspections are working. Seventeen chemical weapons -- warheads have been found and destroyed, 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles have been found, are being destroyed, 380 illegal imported engines, fuel, computer software that helps them design weapons, all being destroyed under this current regime.

The chief inspector today asked for more time. Let me play a piece of videotape of Hans Blix today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: If we were to be given more months I would welcome it. I said that last time I was here I think, because that there were eight years of inspections and there were four years of non-inspections. Now we have had a couple of months of inspections and it seems to me to be a rather short time to close the door and say this is it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BEGALA: Why not give him enough time to do their job?

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: First of all, Hans Blix is the same inspector who hat was with the IAEA in the early '90s and concluded that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons. Then of course we found out he had a whole program in place and Hans Blix nixed that. So his record is not the best. Also President Clinton did not want Hans Blix to be the inspector back in 1998 when he was picked by the U.N. So he has a very checkered record at best.

We know Saddam Hussein has the weapons. And the fact is after 12 years of him obfuscating, cheating and retreating. What's turned up so far is only a small percentage of what he has. It's too big a risk to keep this going on for years and years and years. I think some estimates said at the rate we're going now, it would take 403 years to find all his weapons.

There's still tons of materials that have not been found for chemical and biological weapons, that we know he has.

BEGALA: But you see, my problem with many conservatives and I know how principled you are and the respect I have for you. It's like you can't win for losing. People said -- the president said let's try inspections. Democrats agreed. Republicans agreed. There's evidence that it's working. Now you say, well, it's not working fast enough, so we've got to put our young men and women's lives at risk. KING: The purpose of inspections wasn't to find weapons. The purpose of inspections was to examine the weapons that Saddam Hussein destroyed, go to locations where he said they were destroyed. The burden was on Saddam Hussein to provide the information from the inspectors, not to have the inspectors play catch me if you can and going around trying to find the weapons. And to me, this is too serious a game to be playing to continue to be strung out by Saddam Hussein as he's done.

Listen, Bill Clinton said five years ago that the weapons were there, that if we didn't get them soon, Saddam Hussein was going to use them for terrorist purposes or going to give them to terrorist groups and was a real threat, was going to use them against somebody. They're still there. He's had five years to build on them.

CARLSON: OK, Mr. Rangel, Congressman King mentioned what Bill Clinton said. I want to read you part of the quote. He said on February 17, 1998, "What if Saddam fails to comply," as he has now, " and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Bill Clinton understood that the fact he has these weapons is itself a threat. Why do Democrats no longer agree with that idea?

RANGEL: Wait a minute, now. I'm not speaking for the Democrats and I'm not here to defend or to knock former President Clinton. We talked about war...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: We talked about war. That's all we talked about now.

Is it worth putting our men and women in harm's way to get after Saddam Hussein? And I want that question answered to my satisfaction f we're going to lose lives over it.

What happens when we win? What happens when we occupy? Do we not find out where the weapons are of mass destruction? How do we satisfy what you're say that you want to do?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... that President Clinton implies here which is will Saddam Hussein use these weapons if he has them? Do you think he will?

RANGEL: I don't give a darn what former Bill Clinton said. I am concerned...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: Yes, for the international community and I think it warrants an international solution and not a unilateral preemptive strike by the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: OK.

BEGALA: And in fact, Congressman King, Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction ever since Ronald Reagan gave him anthrax. And he's never used them against us because he's afraid of us, we have deterred him. What's wrong with deterrence? It worked for Ronald Reagan. It ought to be working for George Bush.

KING: George Bush (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Soviet Union. This is a different animal we're talking about with Saddam Hussein.

BEGALA: But he's never used these weapons.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- you know why? As Bill Clinton said, and I agree with him on this, why else would he be getting them? What else is he going to use them for other than to use them against somebody. He's not just doing this for the fun of it.

Why has he resisted so long, the inspectors? I mean he could have saved himself by turning them over but he didn't. For 12 years he was hiding, he was hiding, he was cheating and retreating.

And Charlie said, you know, what's going on happen if assuming we win, assuming we win, which I think we will, and any life is -- to me it's the most wrenching decision any member of Congress can make.

But I believe the world and the United States will be a lot safer with the United States there rather than Saddam Hussein. There's this guarantee it's going to be easy? No it's not. But it's much better chance of us going forward with the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We're just going to take a quick commercial break. We'll answer that question, we hope in a moment. We'll ask if Turkey is on our side.

Later, we'll debate Pope John Paul II's attempt to be a peace maker between the United States and Iraq.

And speaking of lost causes, we'll have the latest on the former King of Pop. According to a new article, he does not have a real nose. And we'll tell you more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. France, Russia and Germany today restated their opposition to any new U.N. Security Council that could threaten Saddam Hussein's grip on power. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes to the U.N. tomorrow to do what he can.

We're talking with potential war in Iraq with Congressman Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat and his fellow New Yorker Republican Congressman Peter King.

BEGALA: Mr. King, thanks for stying with us through the break. One of the reasons that we like having you on, and as well as Mr. Rangel, is that, you know, this is war, as we were saying in the last segment. You treat it with the gravity and the seriousness that it deserves. And you're a congressman who has put his constituents and his country ahead of his partisan interests.

So I wonder if you'll join Charlie Rangel, who put out a press release today, decrying the Republican attempt to hijack a bill to help our servicemen to use it to give special interest tax breaks to corporations. Isn't that wrong in a time of war?

KING: The important thing is that the bill pass for the military. If the other stuff's in there, it's there. I mean to me, the main purpose should be the military. I'm not going to disagree with Charlie's point.

On the other hand, often when bills are passed, there are things attached to them. So to me, the key thing is that we ought to be taking care of the military and that's what we should do.

CARLSON: Congressman Rangel, a couple of months ago Senator Daschle on CBS said -- made the charge that we are, quote, "we haven't made any real progress in the war against al Qaeda." A lot of Democrats said similar things.

This weekend Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the No. 2 member of al Qaeda and another significant al Qaeda member were captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Doesn't it turn out that Mr. Daschle and others didn't know what they were talking about and maybe they shouldn't make charges like that in public when they don't know what they were talking about? You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

RANGEL: If they don't have the pencil that's keeping score, they ought to keep their mouth shut because as a former federal prosecutor, every drug dealer I busted was the most important drug dealer in the world. You just pass out numbers on whoever you arrest. Why was he No. 3? Why wasn't he No. 4?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know. Because he helped plan the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? I think that puts you pretty high up in the organization.

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: Let me tell you, when you arrest somebody, you describe who you're arresting. I haven't the slightest clue who this guy was.

CARLSON: I haven't heard anybody suggest that he's not one of the central figures in al Qaeda. Have you?

RANGEL: Listen, we should be arresting a lot of people. But I think the main thing that we have now is we should concentrate on Osama bin Laden, we should concentrate on dismantling Saddam Hussein. We should do all of those things, but the most important thing is we should not have the arrogance to have a preemptive strike against a defenseless nation without the...

CARLSON: A defenseless nation? They have biological weapons. How are they defenseless?

BEGALA: And how'd they get them?

RANGEL: Listen, if this is...

CARLSON: It was our fault that they have biological and chemical weapons? Come on.

RANGEL: Let me tell you. They have it and we supported them having it when they were fighting Iran so it's no big deal there. And the thing is that if we can disarm them without actually going there, killing them, I really think that we maintain our moral authority around the world. We have a lot of people...

(APPLAUSE)

RANGEL: ... that have dangerous weapons. I mean, what happens if India decides that they could have a preemptive strike against Pakistan? What happens if the North Koreans take another look? Our country is great enough and strong enough to maintain the moral authority to convince the international community that we're right. I don't think we have to kill to prove that.

BEGALA: I'm sorry to have to do this, but we are out of time. I want have Congressman Peter King from New York back on, and Congressman Charlie Rangel. Thank you both for a very interesting debate.

One of the most admired men in the world is doing everything he can to avert the horror of war. In a minute we will look at His Holiness, John Paul II's efforts to be a peacemaker.

Later, the author of "Vanity Fair's" scary new look at the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. You will not want to miss this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live, as we do every night, from the George Washington University here in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C. This of course is home of the Colonials, that's right. This is Ash Wednesday, the traditional day of fasting and prayer at the beginning of Lent, the 40-day period of penance for Christians leading up to Easter.

But over at the Vatican, the Holy Father, John Paul II, called on the faithful of all religions to pray for peace. The pope also sent a personal envoy to President Bush, carrying a message that there's no justification at the present time for war with event.

In the CROSSFIRE to debate papal peacemaking, Frances Kissling, of Catholics for free Choice, and in our New York bureau, senior writer of "The National Review," Rod Dreher. (APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: All right. Frances Kissling, here's the problem I have with the Vatican's stance on the war with Iraq. The Vatican, which I respect as an institution, I think is being used as a propaganda tool by the Iraqi government. Let me give you an example.

This is a statement from the Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarles (ph), after his meeting with Tony Blair. He said, "The Holy Father expressed hope that in solving the grave situation in Iraq every effort is made to avoid new divisions in the world. Special consideration was given to the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people, already tried by long years of embargo."

That is Iraqi propaganda. The Iraqi people are suffering because of the dictatorship under which they live, not primarily the embargo. Why is the Vatican repeating Iraqi talking points?

FRANCES KISSLING, CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE: Well, I think that the Vatican tends to see things in humanitarian ways. And in that sense, I don't think you can ignore the embargo as an element of the suffering of the Iraqi people.

CARLSON: But this is saying it's the reason for the suffering. And that's not true.

KISSLING: Well I would disagree with them in that sense. I would disagree. I don't think that the embargo is the reason for the suffering. I think the reasons for the suffering are very complex.

They certainly include the enormous suffering that the Iraqi people are experiencing under Saddam Hussein. The man is a dictator, he is a horrible leader. He has absolutely no respect for human life and no respect for his own people. There is no doubt about that.

But I don't think that that undercuts the importantance of the Vatican as a voice for peace, which really is the most critical thing that we need to deal with at this time. Is the way to solve these problems in Iraq to go in and bomb the country? I don't think so. And the pope doesn't think so.

BEGALA: Mr. , first, thank you for joining us. Let me bring you into this by, let's compare basically the two leaders of this movement. The peace movement led by the pope, our president leading us on foreign policy. And let's look at their foreign policy and, frankly, their moral credentials.

Here's the pope. He's a doctor of theology. Our president, a C student at Yale. The pope, in fact, was elected pope. Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers.

The Holy Father was shot by an assassin perhaps for his efforts against communism. Our president missed a year of National Guard duty. The pope did help to bring down communism, one of the great events of modern history. President Bush served before this as governor of Texas. The pope has met with 650 heads of state, the president got elected president of the United States, which was a very big deal; good for him.

The pope has visited 115 countries; our president 23. The pope speaks eight languages, Mr. Bush, habla espanol. This is not a close call, Rod.

(APPLAUSE)

ROD DREHER, SENIOR WRITER, "NATIONAL REVIEW": And Paul, for all of the great things this pope has done compared to our president, he's still wrong on this. And this is one Catholic who supports our of evangelical president.

I think the president is right on this war, the pope is wrong. And I say that with respect for the Holy Father. But we Catholics are allowed to dissent on this matter, on a matter of prudential judgment about the war. And I think the Holy Father simply doesn't see things in the right way and our president does.

What's more, the Holy Father does not have responsibility for protecting all 280 million of us Americans from terrorist attacks. George Bush does.

CARLSON: Now, Frances Kissling, you said a minute ago the pope is for peace. Everybody is for peace. But the choice here is not a choice between war and peace. In many ways, it's a choice between war, on the one hand, and continued suffering by the Iraqi people on the other, and threats to the world from Saddam and the others. I want to know what are the pope's plans to liberate the Iraqi people? I didn't hear you talk about that.

KISSLING: Well I don't think the pope has a plan to liberate the Iraqi people, and I don't think that that's his job.

CARLSON: Well, he's weighing in on very complex matters, so he has no plans?

KISSLING: Absolutely. And the complex matter is the difference between war and peace. And I don't think we can avoid this. I don't think we get peace through war. I think this is one of the most (UNINTELLIGIBLE) sound bites imaginable.

DREHER: I think World War II showed that was wrong.

KISSLING: We get peace through working for justice. We get peace through continuing the process. And I think the important thing here in terms of the pope is really the whole concept of when can you have a just war? We can only go to war when it is the last resort, when everything else has been tried and everything else has failed. And we're not finished.

DREHER: Frances...

BEGALA: Go ahead, Mr. Dreher.

DREHER: Frances, war solved the problem of Nazi Germany. You know war liberated the pope's homeland. I think that we have to recognize that, in the end, when all peaceful means have been exhausted to solve a problem like Saddam Hussein, that we have to have recourse to war.

I think this war satisfies all of the just war, all the provisions of just war theory. The one thing that some people object to is that just war theory calls for the attack to be imminent, the attack we're defending against to be imminent. Well, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were not accounted for when they came up with just war theory.

The president has to worry about that. Has to worry that Saddam will give these biological weapons to terrorists and will use them to destroy New York City or some American city. I think the pope is not seeing that reality.

CARLSON: OK. Rod Dreher, Frances Kissling, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. We'll continue our debate on papal peacemaking in a moment.

And later, Michael Jackson turns to voodoo. You won't believe it, yet you won't want to miss it. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Pope John Paul II today asked the world's one billion Catholics to raise what he calls a choral prayer for peace. The pope has also let it be known he thinks a preemptive war with Iraq has no moral justification. We're talking about religion and politics with Frances Kissling, of Catholics for free Choice, and "National Review" senior writer, Rod Dreher, who is in New York.

BEGALA: Rod, you do I think have to concede that the Holy Father has maybe a little credential to speak about just war theory and, for that matter, diplomacy. Here is what he had said. This is his plan.

Tucker asked a moment ago what's the Holy Father's plan for peace. This is it, quoting from Pope John Paul II, "International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between the states, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are the methods whereby individuals in nations engage in resolving their differences.

Now you know apparently President Bush doesn't have the time or the stomach or the patience or the wisdom and experience for that, but the Holy Father does. Isn't he right?

DREHER: No. Paul, the thing is we tried all these things. We've gone to every possible length to get Saddam to disarm peacefully. It hasn't worked.

The Holy Father would like a dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. That's the way he's run this church and it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in the ways governing the church and it doesn't work in the real world. BEGALA: Well he did end Soviet communism, Rod. I mean he has a little experience in facing evil.

DREHER: He did, but that's a different matter from what we're facing right now. And this is the thing: the catechism says that in the end the right to decide if a war is moral or not lies with the legitimate public authorities who are responsible for the public good. That's President Bush, that's Tony Blair.

Listen to the Holy Father, respect what he has to say. But in the end, even the catechism recognizes that President Bush in the one who has the right to make this decision.

(APPLAUSE)

KISSLING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) notion that he was given an authority to make decisions for the public good as only referring to the elected leaders of a country, to governors, presidents and generals, is a really narrow view. Religious authority also has legitimate authority.

CARLSON: But nobody denies that. Here's the problem, however. The pope (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Vatican is not a government, it is a church. But the problem here is these are really complicated issues.

KISSLING: Right.

CARLSON: And the church, no offense, has been wrong on a lot of them. The Catholic bishops were wrong about the Cold War. Paul said the pope brought down the Berlin wall -- debatable. Not debatable, the Catholic bishops again and again issued statements, making it sound as if the United States has shown that we're morally (ph) equivalent.

I think the pope was probably wrong on the first Gulf War, on Nicaragua. I can go on and on and on. The point is, the church is not always right about international affairs. Correct?

KISSLING: That's right. It's not always right. But that doesn't mean that we can disregard it. And in this instance, the fact -- our government is not always right. No one is always right.

But the point really is what do we want to do about this question of peace? It is so important that religious leaders like the pope come out and really keep reminding us that we must consistently, constantly, to the ultimate end, think about how we can make peace and do everything we can to avoid war. The argument...

DREHER: But peace is not the absence of war.

KISSLING: Excuse me, excuse me. The argument among us is whether everything has actually -- one of the arguments -- has actually been tried and failed. And many of us do believe...

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Rod Dreher...

(CROSSTALK)

KISSLING: ... saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

BEGALA: Let me let Rod respond. We've only got 30 seconds left, Rod -- go.

DREHER: I'll tell you what bothers me a lot, is the church, the bishops, the cardinals, even the Holy Father presuming to tell President Bush, who has to protect 280 million of us, what his moral duties are in that regard, while these guys couldn't even protect Catholic children from their own robed priests. I just think it's appalling and it really bothers me as a faithful Catholic.

BEGALA: That's a cheap shot. We could have a serious discussion, and you've had many about that topic. We will at another time. But thank you very much, Rod Dreher, From "The National Review," joining us from New York.

Frances Kissling...

KISSLING: I favor an organization that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a cheap shot.

CARLSON: I thought you were president of that organization.

KISSLING: I am, actually.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: One of our viewers has a question about Dick Cheney's tenure there at Halliburton, when he was selling oilfield equipment to Saddam Hussein. We will get to it next in "Fireback."

But, next, it's a whitewash or, well, not really. It's a "Vanity Fair" piece. "Vanity Fair" says it's a whitewash. We'll visit the bizarre world of the king of pop next.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. As if all things Michael Jackson weren't strange enough already, and they are, the new issue of "Vanity Fair" makes baby dangling and bed sharing seem almost passe. Jackson says the magazine is essentially broke.

He's essentially noseless and once paid a witch doctor $150,000 to put a voodoo curse on his enemies, including Dreamwork executives David Geffen and Steven Spielberg. In the CROSSFIRE tonight is the author of the "Vanity Fair" piece, Maureen Orth.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Wow. Let's get to it. There's so much. The voodoo, the debt, the nose.

But let me start, actually, with something broader. Is this guy a freak or does he just want to think he's a freak?

MAUREEN ORTH, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, "VANITY FAIR": I think a lot of it is very calculated. You know I talked with a photographer who worked with him a long time, Harry Benson (ph), who said, you know Michael Jackson is about as crazy as Colin Powell. And I think there is a reason -- he thinks all publicity is good publicity; that more is more. And so he wants you think of him like a Peter Pan creature, because then he doesn't have to be judged as a 44-year-old middle-aged man who sleeps with little boys by his own admission.

CARLSON: Well you have in here -- you revealed that the end of his nose is prosthetic, which I admit I guessed. What I didn't guess was your contention that he's approximately or could be $240 million in debt. How?

ORTH: Yes. Because he has been borrowing money from the Bank of America. And first he borrowed I think it was $140 million and then another $30, and then another $40.

CARLSON: It adds up.

ORTH: It adds up, and so it will come due in a few years. And he has a very valuable asset, because he owns one-half of the Beatles song collection publishing rights and a lot of other songs as well with Sony, his record company. And so Sony is guaranteeing the loan with this asset, but if he can't earn $400 million in the next few years to pay off the loan, he will have to sell his assets. And Sony has the right to be the only buyer at a price they determine.

BEGALA: OK. So if he's got these problems with the Bank of America, and he's got this fake nose, why is he taking out a voodoo curse -- which I think you reported for the first time -- on David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, two perfectly nice executives in Hollywood?

ORTH: The voodoo, from the people I heard were on the list, are most of the people he's work worked with before or he was working closely with. I think he has a lot of resentment now. I have no real knowledge of why he did this. I was not inside his brain at all.

So I don't know, other than he's had various deals that haven't come forward. I mean I have a whole section in the piece about all of the deals that never happened.

BEGALA: But he did go to a witch doctor. And you report in the piece -- it's amazing.

ORTH: Oh, absolutely. Three different times in the summer of 2000 there was a mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia (ph) who came to him with a letter of introduction from a Saudi Arabian prince who is now the chief of intelligence of Saudi Arabia.

BEGALA: Oh, great.

ORTH: And so she called him...

BEGALA: So we're going to war to like protect Jacko's friend. Is that the deal?

ORTH: Exactly. And so they showed him hundreds of millions of -- quote, "$50 million in a bathtub" and millions in her basement and said, this could all be yours if you just pay us $75,000 or $150,000 more. You can keep it.

And it was just a total thing. And then he paid $150,000 for an African voodoo doctor to have 42 cows slaughtered ritually and then he could curse his enemies and bless himself.

CARLSON: Well, it didn't work by all accounts. And you should fear that he's going to do it to you after this amazing story you wrote. You also say in here -- and I guess this may have been public -- that Jackson, his camp admits, that he spent the night in bed with young boys.

ORTH: Well, he said it himself just recently.

CARLSON: Well then maybe you can answer this: Why are parents continuing to allow their children to stay over at Neverland with Michael Jackson?

ORTH: I'll tell you something, there's something really sick in our society about fame and wealth and what it lets people get away with. Somehow these parents get blinded by his celebrity and the fact that Michael Jackson has taken an interest in their kids, all reason flies out of the window.

Now this 13-year-old boy, who pressed charges against him in 1993, who accused him, and he had to pay a $25 million settlement to, in excess of, they went back -- I talked to the prosecutors and they told me the whole story for the first time really about what happened at that point. And they went back and they found a special friend from Michael Jackson for a whole decade, all of the way back before 1993, but he also had very tough guy private detectives working for him.

He had people intimidating witnesses, people were paid off. The prosecutor said in one case, especially, the silence was bought. So this is the reason that these people haven't come forward.

Parents got cars. People got all kinds of gifts. Somebody got a visa to stay in the United States who was Australian. I mean they got paid a lot of different things to be his special friend. And the parents, usually parents who had very weak family ties, the parents were separated, and he would move in and sort of even break the bonds further.

CARLSON: Disgusting.

BEGALA: Maureen Orth, "Vanity Fair" magazine, it is impossible, I would have thought to write a jaw-dropping piece about Michael Jackson, but you did. Congratulations. It's a terrific piece.

ORTH: Thank you.

BEGALA: Thank you for coming on and talking about it.

(APPLAUSE)

Next: one of our viewers fires back a theory about why old Europe won't go along with a war in Iraq. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Maybe it's just me, but I think Michael Jackson, he's kooky, wacky.

Time now for "Fireback," where our wacky and kooky fans and friends and critics right in. Don from Denver, Colorado writes, "Paul, you keep referencing Halliburton selling equipment to Iraq" -- which I do. "I recall, as reported in 'The Wall Street Journal,' that the transactions were legal. Is it possible that the equipment allowed Iraq to produce oil for the Oil for Food program authorized by the U.N.?"

They were legal because Mr. Cheney's company used a loophole. They went through a foreign subsidiary. But they did enrich Saddam Hussein and his evil, ruthless regime, and they were immoral. They were wrong. Dick Cheney should have never profited off of doing business with Saddam Hussein.

CARLSON: I would agree with that. What does that have to do with the war in Iraq?

BEGALA: It means Cheney is a hypocrite. He's trying to lead us into a war against one of his valued customers.

CARLSON: Well it's a complete...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You're attacking the man. That's irrelevant to the argument.

BEGALA: I'm attacking his business practices.

CARLSON: No, no, you're attacking -- OK great. That's great. But it has nothing to do whether we should go to war with Iraq or not.

BEGALA: Well yesterday he was a valued customer, today he's an even villain.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Right. So we're against Dick Cheney, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saddam Hussein.

Chad Hensley, from Fairfax, Virginia, writes, "France, Russia and German have all multi-billion dollar oil deals with Saddam in Iraq. I wonder why they protest the war with Iraq. It must be the humanitarian reasons." Well, Chad, that's what liberals assume. That Europe is against the war on humanitarian and moral grounds, but the U.S. is for the war because it wants to profit for the oil companies. It is a weird assumption, don't you think?

BEGALA: As you know, I've never said that.

CARLSON: You haven't.

BEGALA: I don't believe for a minute that this is a war for oil. I think it's unwise, it's unjust, it's unwarranted, but I don't think it's about oil. Now, the reason that France, Russia and Germany are against war is because they have democracies. The people are against it.

It's called democracy. Those leaders are reflecting the views of their people.

CARLSON: They hate America, Paul.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: John Smith, a likely name in Montclair, New Jersey, writes in -- I'm just kidding, Mr. Smith. I'm sure that's your name. "The fact that Pakistan caught the al Qaeda CEO does not prove we can fight two wars at the same time. The question is: Would they have captured this individual if the bombs had started falling in Iraq three months ago?"

Answer: no. It would have ruptured our ability to work with allies.

CARLSON: I'm not even sure I understand that. John, try again.

Constance Alsip (ph) of I'm not sure where writes, "France announced today that it plans to ban fireworks at Euro Disney following last night's display that caused soldiers at a nearby French army garrison to surrender."

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: You know what they did? They shelled space mountain, causing a lot of damage -- yes.

CHRISTINA WRIGHT: My name is Christina Wright (ph). I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota. And I was just curious if you feel that the attack on Iraq would actually open a Pandora's box in other Middle Eastern countries that we are known to aid and harbor terrorists, such as Syria and Iran.

CARLSON: It might. I mean that's absolutely one of the fears. That it would destabilize the entire region. On the other hand, the region is pretty unstable, filled with people who already hate Americans and seek to do America harm. So the question is, could it be worse? BEGALA: Our president believes it will set off a positive domino effect of democracy through the region. Maybe he's right. I don't think he's thought it through. I think it's more likely that this very unstable region could cause even more problems.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Oh, come on. That's silly.

FABIAN: Hi. I'm Fabian from Bonn, Germany. And my question is, after today's meeting in Paris, where France, Russia and Germany decided to not back a second resolution, who is not (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Is it the U.S. or is it old Europe?

CARLSON: It's actually Western Europe, because 18 European countries are on the side of the United States. So France and Germany -- that's actually true -- find themselves in the minority on their own continent. And good.

BEGALA: Only Great Britain is with us. The only country...

CARLSON: What do you mean only Great Britain?

BEGALA: My question is not who votes at the U.N. Who sends troops to die on our side? Nobody except Great Britain. We are isolated.

From the left, I am Paul Begala. Goodnight for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: From the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow 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





Europe will Come Around to Bush Administration's Way of Thinking?>