Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interviews With Winston H. Churchill, Lawrence Eagleburger, Former Senator Tim Wirth

Aired March 18, 2003 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE.

On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala.

On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight:

On the brink and waiting.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If Saddam Hussein doesn't leave the country, he will make his final mistake.

ANNOUNCER: So far he isn't going. Are you ready for war and maybe worse?

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Your federal government is ready.

ANNOUNCER: An ally debates war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are witnessing the most spectacular failure of diplomacy.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The threat today isn't that of the 1930s.

ANNOUNCER: Can Tony Blair's career survive his close association with George W. Bush? We'll ask the man whose grandfather invented Iraq, Winston Churchill III.

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live, from the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

The war hasn't started, so we're still here. Tonight, we're asking whether the British Prime Minister Tony Blair will still be over there. Or is he cozying up to President Bush the political kiss of death? We'll also debate whether the White House needs to remember that old saying, Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

But since things are different tonight we'll start off by asking for some news.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Twenty-four hours before the president's deadline to Saddam Hussein, we'll go to CNN correspondents covering developments: Wolf Blitzer in Kuwait City, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, John King at the White House.

Wolf, let's start with you. What is happening in Kuwait City?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, there's no doubt that this is an important day, potentially on the brink of war. Saddam Hussein formally rejected the U.S. ultimatum that was issued last night by president bush. Saddam Hussein speaking in Baghdad, wearing his uniform clearly preparing for war, saying that that is not going to happen.

Indeed, not only the Iraqi leader but all of his top aides say President Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair should step down.

Meanwhile, U.N. Weapons inspectors now have left Baghdad. This on the eve of the start of a new round of fighting. U.n. Inspectors ,very much like at the end of 1998, getting out of Iraq, recommended by the United States and Britain as the preparations for war continue.

In the meantime, here in Kuwait, in the northern part of Kuwait, about one-third of this country is sealed off now to civilians. U.S. and British forces a massing -- indeed, U.S. trucks and heavy artillery moving north towards the Kuwaiti border. U.S. sources suggesting there's almost like a traffic jam in the northern part of Kuwait getting ready for a possible invasion of Iraq which indeed could come at any time.

Finally here on the streets of Kuwait City, relative quiet. People are calm, people are by no means panicking. Most people are staying put very aware that they're getting protection, if you will, by the U.S. military about a quarter of a million U.S. troops in this area, protecting Kuwaitis although some Kuwaitis are rushing to airports trying to get out. But, by and large, most of the people in Kuwait are relatively calm and relatively quiet convinced that the United States here in massive numbers will protect them.

On the bottom line, though, on the whole, hours, perhaps hours away from a new round of fighting. Back to you, James.

CARVILLE: Well, Wolf, thank you very much. CNN and America are grateful and pleased that we have somebody of your stature and experience covering this war. Thank you again.

Now the latest from the White House. Here's our senior White House correspondent, John King.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, James, the president was out of the public eye today. No public events at all.

He did have some urgent telephone diplomacy. He called Tony Blair, his chief ally. Mr. Blair, of course, won a key vote in the British parliament today.

Mr. Bush also called two presidents who are quite mad at him at the moment, President Putin of Russia and President Hu of China. Mr. Bush said he hoped long-term relations do not suffer despite this profound disagreement at the moment about the president decision to proceed with war in Iraq.

Now, here at the White House, of course, they are well aware with that deadline now just 25 hours away, that Saddam Hussein has flatly rejected the ultimatum that he and his sons leave Iraq. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggesting today perhaps the Iraqi leader might want to reconsider.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FLEISCHER: Saddam Hussein has led Iraq to many mistakes in the past, principally by developing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, if he doesn't leave the country, will make his final mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: But the war planning continuing here at the White House. The president's national security team here for an early morning meeting in which, we are told, the president was told by Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld -- you see Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser her, Secretary Rumsfeld on hand as well as General Richard Myers, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are told the president was told the troops are ready, awaiting his order to attack.

Now, the deadline, obviously, lapses a little more than day from now, 25 hours from now. White House officials say an Oval Office address will be delivered by the president once hostilities begin. Some officials say he won't wait too long, though two senior officials today suggesting to CNN the president might wait a little bit and not act right away. They noted his remarks last night in which the president said America will strike at a time of its choosing -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks, John.

Our next stop is the Pentagon, where there is much concern that Iraqi forces may use chemical weapons.

Here is senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, two big questions: One, will the Republican Guard fight and will they use chemical weapons?

The Pentagon is continuing to review some intelligence which is ambiguous, but nevertheless, suggests that some Republican Guard troops south of Baghdad, in an area called, Al Kut, have been supplied with chemical munition,s specifically artillery shells filled with poison gas. Again, those intelligence reports are ambiguous. It's not clear, but if the U.S. meets resistance with chemical weapons that might be one location.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is trying to wage a psychological warfare campaign aimed at getting as many Iraqi troops to give up as possible before the war even begins. These leaflets show the Iraqi troops how to position their tanks so they won't be struck. Basically they're telling the Iraqi troops to put down their weapons, park their vehicles and go wait the war out in the barracks. And if they take a nonthreatening position then the U.S. troops will likely just let them sit there with perhaps some guarding as they continue on up to the north.

So at this point there's no indication that any troops, Iraqi troops have actually surrendered, but the U.S. is continuing to have, even in some cases, face-to-face contacts with U.S. operatives to try to negotiate those surrender agreements -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Jamie, let's hope -- let's hope they read the pamphlets. Jamie McIntyre, we will all be seeing much of you before this is over. Thanks very much.

As the U.S. prepares for war, a loose canon opens up on the White House. We'll deal with that next in the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

Later, we'll ask Winston Churchill how his grandfather would have dealt with Saddam Hussein. We'll also let a former secretary of state grade President Bush's Iraq diplomacy.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

As the U.S. prepares for war politics of course, is taking a backseat. As every 15-year-old knows too much time in the backseat can get tiresome, and so here is the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

Just hours before President Bush and form informed the world that American troops are headed into battle Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle gave his analysis of the war with Iraq.

Daschle said, quote, "I'm saddened that the president failed so miserably diplomacy that we are now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical to our country," end quote. In other words when the first American Soldier dies in Iraq, George W. Bush, not Saddam Hussein, will be to blame.

According to Tom Daschle we are going to war not because Saddam possesses and has used weapons of mass destruction, not because Saddam has trained and harbored terrorists, not because of Saddam's existence threatens the entire civilized world. No. American troops will die because George W. Bush couldn't convince France and Germany to what? Daschle didn't even say. Maybe he'll explain further the families of fallen American Soldiers.

CARVILLE: That's about the most silly...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Let me read to you what the "Washington Post," editorial -- one of your favorite editorial papers. The Bush administration has raised the risk through its insistence on an accelerated timetable, its exaggerated rhetoric, and it's insensitive diplomacy.

You know, Tucker, you -- you are the leader of this patriotic correct police that nobody can stand up and speak out and I'm telling you people recent that and Tom Daschle has a right like every newspaper and commentators point out that this administration's diplomacy has failed. This president said we'd go to the U.N., we did get a vote and we didn't.

CARLSON: You do all the filibustering you want.

CARVILLE: What you ought to do -- what you ought to do is have the principles of a real American and quit criticizing people when they speak their mind. He has a right to speak his mind.

CARLSON: You are accusing me...

CARVILLE: He's a patriot and you quit telling people that they're siding with Saddam Hussein.

CARLSON: You are accusing me of patriotic correctness and then you just told me I am not a real American.

CARVILLE: Unless some kind of miracle happens the United States is going to war in Iraq.

CARLSON: OK.

CARVILLE: And war costs money. So Senator Edward Kennedy was reminding the Bush administration that it's not time for another billion dollar tax cut. Now before Tucker accuses me of being partisan I'd like to point out that moderate Republicans including Delaware's Mike Castle have sent Speaker Hastert a letter saying they can't support the administration's budgets and tax cutting priorities either. Me and my Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Committee also are looking for ways to whittle down the president's new tax cut. See it's not just Democrats saying it, it's Republicans, too. Mr. President, for the good of the country, cut the tax cut.

CARLSON: James I'm going to respond by reading a "Washington Post" editorial and by accusing you of being a real American. That's what you did to me! That is beneath me!

CARVILLE: You criticizes anybody that criticizes this war, that's wrong. It's right for Americans to speak out and speak their minds. I am not going to be intimidated by the patriotic correct police in this country. CARLSON: I take seriously the arguments of those who oppose the right. I have never accused a single person of being unpatriotic. I think there are honorable arguments and you can't...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Thank you, senator Daschle for speaking the truth.

CARLSON: Like his -- hush. Like his American counterpart British Prime Minister Tony Blair has faced down Saddam Hussein despite political costs at home, high political costs. Blair's Labor Party has been in a state of near revolt shortly after 9/11, when Blair, bravely, took the side of the United States against Islamic terrorist. His support for the war in Iraq, has further alienated Blair from the British left. Over the past two days, three of the cabinet ministers have resigned in protest along with four senior aides, and yet Blair has remained firm.

In a brilliant speech to the House of Commons today the prime minister explained why he's willing to jeopardize his career for what he believes is right, quote, "back away from this confrontation now, Blair said, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating." Blair ended by asking this, quote, "Who will celebrate and who will weep if we take the troops back from the Gulf now?" It's a question many of those in the country should ask themselves tonight.

I know, you won't ask yourself, James. You'll accuses people of being un-American.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: No you're the one that accuses people of being un- American.

I think people that disagree with me have every right to disagree with me and I don't say they're bad Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I have never said that in my life.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Tom Daschle questioned the diplomacy of this administration.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: He's questioned the diplomacy of this administration and you don't like it because I called on the fact

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You like to suppress speech and I'm not going to stand for it. This is a "Political Alert" involving James Carville. You all know I think President Bush has failed in every way that a president can fail, his economic policies have been a disaster. His tax policies are repugnant and I've been extremely critical of his diplomatic efforts leading up this war. And it appears regardless of the wisdom of such action we are going to war. As someone who served in uniform as an American, I will give my full and total support to our troops.

That as someone who believes there are some things in life that will more important than politics and it will be my policy to temper my criticize of president when it comes to conduct of such a war. I disagree with the president and this administration on more things that I can count, but it is in the interest of every one of the American people, the Iraqi people and the few countries standing with us, and the many standing on the sidelines that this war should happen and brought to a speedy and defensive end with the United States as the victor. I will return to my usual habits with full enthusiasm, full piss, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) contempt and venom as soon as events warrant.

CARLSON: Good. Well, so you have your own policies now. You're like a country.

CARVILLE: That's right.

CARLSON: I know millions around the world are breathing a sigh of relief now that your policy has been announced.

CARVILLE: Again, you don't like when other people speak their mind.

CARLSON: And next, Winston Churchill's grandson takes a look at the Bush-Blair alliance.

We'll check back with our, Wolf Blitzer, to see if there's new information on Kuwait and there maybe.

And we'll ask former secretary of state, where do we go from here?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to the brink of war. So where did Iraq come from anyhow?

Actually, the country is fairly new. It was drawn up in 1991 by a British Colonial Secretary named, Winston Churchill. While they went on to big and better things Iraq went from less to worse. Where do we go from here?

Joining us is journalist, author and former member of parliament Winston S. Churchill, Winston Churchill's grandson.

(APPLAUDS)

CARLSON: Thanks for join us Mr. Churchill. People often quote your grandfather, relatively few remember he was defeated in 1945 after leading your country through the second World War unjustly, wondering if you foresee a similar fate for Tony Blair after standing up and doing what's right and being punished politically for it?

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, SIR WINSTON'S GRANDSON: I don't think so because I think the war will be over and done with pretty quickly. And he will bask in the glory of being one of those who had the courage to see it through.

CARLSON: What animates his opponents in the Labour Party whose positions, if not intent, is in effect to defend the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why? What motivates them?

CHURCHILL: Well, You're absolutely right to say the effect of their opposition and indeed the position of President Chirac and President Schroeder of Germany that their position effectively is to protect this genocidal monster, Saddam Hussein, from the United States.

CARLSON: But why?

CHURCHILL: You ask me. In the case of France I think they've never forgiven us for liberating them back in 1944.

(LAUGHTER)

CHURCHILL: You know, they still hold it against les Anglo-Saxon. It's easier to forgive and forget the Germans for invading and occupying them than us for liberating them. And more recently they've, of course, been the principle suppliers of arms in exchange for oil with Iraq. And apparently President Chirac set his eyes on getting the Nobel Prize for Peace.

CARVILLE: That's interesting about the French. Maybe you can fill us in, too, why did the Chinese, the Russians, the Canadians -- why do the Mexicans -- why they don't like us? They're not supporting it us? Why don't you go into a tirade against Mexico for us?

CHURCHILL: No, I don't think so. The ring leaders whom we could have hoped better of...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: ... were the French and the Germans, but particularly the French. They were canvassing world opinion. Putin it looked as if he was going to come onside until he was corralled by the French.

But the fact is...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: ... furthermore there are more member states of the European Union who back the United States and Britain than who backed Old Europe...

(CROSSTALK) CHURCHILL: Sorry?

CARVILLE: If all of the countries that support us how many have sent in a check?

CHURCHILL: Well...

CARVILLE: It's one thing to send a guy a letter. Is a check coming out the envelope?

CHURCHILL: Well, I...

CARVILLE: Is your insinuation that the Mexicans have to be -- are sort of pliable and kind of lead by the French that they're unable to speak...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: Not at all, but there are some who wish to be -- put themselves in the firing line and stand up and be counted and others not. And just because they happen to be your neighbors doesn't mean to say that the Mexicans have to jump when Uncle Sam says jump.

CARVILLE: Well what about the Canadians? They're our other neighbors. They're actually part of -- they were the first people -- they joined the fight against the Nazis long before the United States did, if my history serves me correctly.

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: Not everybody is wise in their selection of political leaders.

CARLSON: Mr. Churchill, in an op-ed...

CHURCHILL: And I have to say that I wasn't a Tony Blair fan until really, quite recently and I've come around wholeheartedly. I think he's been amazingly steady on parade, absolutely right in the interest of Britain and the interests of the world, that we should stand beside America in this.

CARLSON: Amen.

You wrote earlier this month an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" and I was going to put a quote up on the screen, it's a little long. But I just want to get the essence of it. You compare the United Nations presently to the League of Nations saying that the current U.N. is ineffectual in the same way the League of Nations was.

What after this, is the future of the U.N., do you think?

CHURCHILL: Well, I think that the U.N. has demonstrated terrible, desperate weakness. That there've been 17 resolutions since 1991 violated by Saddam Hussein. And all the time there are even permanent members of the Security Council like France saying oh, give him another month. Give him another three months. Give them more time.

You know, we hear a lot about international law. There's no point having laws international or domestic unless those laws are enforced. And when somebody time and again breaches the law it's about time that somebody said about enforcing it. And that's what the United States and Britain are doing.

CARLSON: But that somebody, as you just pointed out, was not the United Nations. So I guess the question is why have the United Nations? Is it time to close it, I mean, and stop the charade?

CHURCHILL: I don't think it's time to close it, but I think it is excellent that we have in President Bush and Prime Minister Blair individuals who are prepared to stand up for the enforcement of international law even though the United Nations is want prepared to do that.

CARVILLE: Is Mr. Nicholas Songs (ph), as I pronounce his name, is he a cousin of yours?

CHURCHILL: He is, indeed. Yes.

CARVILLE: Do you guys talk very often?

CHURCHILL: Yes.

CARVILLE: How does he have such a different view on this than you do? According to this, he's another grandson of Winston Churchill who said that he favors U.N. (sic) acting through the U.N. in this. And is he a weak appeaser that is sort of a disgrace to the family name or...

CHURCHILL: No. No. No. Not at all. It was right to try the U.N. route and Blair wanted the U.N. route. The fact that we weren't able it persuade people -- we were very close to getting a majority, but then when the French said whatever the lineup is we will veto. They didn't say in parentheses because we want to see the survival of Saddam Hussein and our arms for oil contracts.

CARVILLE: Let me ask them because I think...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: And there's a further point I would like to make on that that I believe that President Chirac in this whole thing is out to embarrass Prime Minister Blair and the president of the United States. They would like to see him a one-term president and would like to humble America.

CARVILLE: Let me ask you...

CHURCHILL: That is their agenda.

CARVILLE: You're a man that speaks very eloquently and very forcefully and you think people ought to keep their word. President Bush said he would go for the second U.N. resolution regardless of any whip count or anything else, that he didn't care. Then on Sunday in the Azores he said people would have to put their cards on the table as we said in Texas. And then on Monday we back down and said we weren't going to ask for the resolution.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Why tell people that you are going to -- why tell a world in language I don't do whip counts, I don't care what the vote is, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) seek a vote. And then on Sunday say make people show their cards and make people stand up say where they are and then on Monday you back down?

CHURCHILL: What's the point of going for the resolution when in advance one of the permanent members said no matter what the resolution is we will veto it?

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: It had a been a 14 to 1 vote the position would have been enhanced and France would have looked terrible if it would have been the lone veto. Isn't it the truth is they had four votes going into it?

CHURCHILL: No. I think there were probably more than that, but the fact is the time for talking is finished. You've got a quarter of a million troops, 50,000 of them are ours, 220,000 are yours. And you can't keep them in the desert when the temperatures are rising. We've got to let this thing roll.

CARVILLE: Don't forget the 2,000 are Australians out there, too.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Churchill, one of the concerns that opponents of the war have that strikes me as valid is that Iraq is this volatile country with at least three different religious ethnic groups and it's likely to break apart when Saddam Hussein is deposed. Do you think that's true? That's going to happen? The country blows up?

CHURCHILL: Well, there is an obvious danger there and a parallel, an uncomfortable parallel with former Yugoslavia. There are country that perhaps need a big nasty dictator to hold them together.

Only time will tell, but the fact is once we get rid of Saddam Hussein and his clique, we can start building a more representative Iraq. The Iraqis can start building a more represented Iraq.

For my part I hope that the Kurds do get autonomy which ultimately leads to independence because it was my grandfather who allowed himself against his better judgment in 1921, to be persuaded to not create Kurdistan. And as a result it's divided up between Iran, Iraq and Turkey and each one of those countries has oppressed them. And I think it's very worrying that at the moment the Kurds who are instinctive and natural allies against Saddam, they are more worried about being occupied in the next few days by the Turkish army.

CARVILLE: Thank you very much for being on CROSSFIRE.

CHURCHILL: My pleasure.

CARVILLE: One other question is when you said the Kurds, you're talking about the Turkish Kurds also, to be very clear on this, that they should have their own country just like the Iraqi Kurds.

CHURCHILL: I'm talking about the ones inside Iraq today.

CARVILLE: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.

You can get more from the British point of view, points of view actually. Later tonight on CNN, among Larry King's guest at 9 Eastern are former British Prime Minister John Major and Robin Cook who just resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet to protest the U.S.-British policy on Iraq.

In a moment, we'll take you to our Wolf Blitzer for the latest developments in Kuwait City.

And then if Saddam Hussein decides he really wants to go, should we let him get away scot-free. That's out debate, we'll return in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

CARLSON: Next, we'll look ahead to what happens after the war. Stay with us as we debate what should become of Iraq and, for that matter, the United Nations. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to get out of town is just about 24 hours away. In western movies, once the showdown is down and the bad guy gets it, they put up "The End" and they roll the credits. We're not going to have that luxury in Iraq.

In the CROSSFIRE, to debate what happens next, Lawrence Eagleburger, who was secretary of state under the first President Bush. With him is former United States Senator Tim Wirth of the great state of Colorado. He was undersecretary of state for global affairs during the Clinton administration and is now president of the United Nations Foundation.

Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Senator Wirth, the president last night summed up, I thought well, the rationale for going into Iraq later this week. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE. W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The danger is clear using chemical, biological or one day nuclear weapons obtained by Iraq. The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Isn't it, Senator, hard to argue with that argument? That is the threat, everyone acknowledges it. Wouldn't the president be irresponsible not to address it directly and quickly?

TIM WIRTH, FMR. U.S. SENATOR: Well I don't think anyone is arguing with the fact of the threat. It's what you do about it and how we go about dealing with it. That was the central issue that was facing the Security Council and the U.N. Are we going to have this kind of an open debate? Are we going to look for inspections to take a longer period of time?

And I think in this process -- you discussed in the earlier segment whether diplomacy worked or not -- I think that we saw a real failure of diplomacy both by the United States and by the French others. The ability to really come together around this issue. And I think that's going to have a major -- we're all going to pay the penalty for that over a long-term period of time.

CARLSON: But isn't there still a side argument? I mean isn't the central argument how do we deal with this threat that Saddam Hussein poses? We'd all like to have the cooperation of the entire international community. But, in the end, isn't the president right to say we need to address this right now?

FIRTH: Oh, I think that the president was right in saying we need to address this threat. The question is now, or do we want to have more inspections. That was the debate that occurred.

That's now behind us. I think history is going to say who was right and who was wrong. And the question now is what kind of diplomacy do we use going forward? How are we going to engage the U.N. going forward? How are we going to repair the situation with a lot of our allies? How are we going to move ahead in the post-war era?

We hope this is over quickly. How do we move ahead in that post- war era, where we're going to engage as many helpers as possible. Just as the Europeans are helping the reconstruction of the Balkans, can we engage them in helping with the reconstruction of Iraq? Those are the kinds of questions I think we have to look at, Tucker, going ahead.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, I want to read you a quote by General Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser. I'm sure that you worked with, and who strikes me as hardly a Democrat, an untempered man. In fact, he strikes me as a pretty uptight, but competent guy.

"This doctrine of continually letting each mission define the coalition and relying almost solely on ad hoc coalitions of the willing is fundamentally fatally flawed. As we have seen in the debate of Iraq, it's already given us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we're paying a very high price for that image." Is he right?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes and no. Let me tell you something, if I may for just a second. And it gets back to this question of diplomacy.

We sometimes -- and I think this is the case -- we confuse diplomacy -- we define diplomacy as we want it, and sometimes you have to understand diplomacy isn't going to work. And then diplomacy in this case, I think, never was going to work because there's no way on god's green earth we were going to convince most of the rest of the world that we should invade Iraq because nobody was basically convinced that this was an issue that was worth an invasion for, and there was no way we were going to convince the rest of the world of this.

I happen to believe it is the right thing to do. And we could have stood on our head in Lafayette Park and sung "The Star Spangled Banner" or whatever, and we weren't going to convince them. Why? Because we are now the only superpower in this world, and the rest of the world was doubtful that we were going to be too tough.

And no matter what we did now, I think they weren't going to believe us. And they won't believe us until we go in and demonstrate that what is there is what we said was there. So while Brent is right, in the sense that we did not conduct a particularly good campaign, diplomatic campaign, to try to convince people, I'm telling you now, no matter what we did, we were not going to be able to convince most of the rest of the world that we were right, and particularly not when we had the French out there playing the games they were playing.

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Let me show you a few polls. And let's leave France out of it and talk about some countries that are our allies. In 1999, we were the world's sole superpower. Eighty-three percent of Britains had a favorable impression of the United States; today it's 48 percent. Fifty percent of people in Spain; today it's 14. Fifty-two percent of the people in Turkey; today it's 12.

That's not just a failure of diplomacy. That's a failure of America -- I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

EAGLEBURGER: I hate to argue with you because you're one of my favorite people, even though you're often wrong.

CARVILLE: I thought you said I was quite right. EAGLEBURGER: In some cases you're often wrong. And in this case you are wrong. But, look, also, when you get tough issues like this one, you can't just do it on the basis of popularity.

What we are arguing basically about here is weapons of mass destruction. And until we get that into our heads, and the rest of the world does, that if we don't deal with these -- that issue of weapons of mass destruction now, when we deal with it, it will be in far worse conditions. And until people understand that -- and they don't understand it now -- and until they understand that we're going to have to use force to deal with it, these figures don't mean anything.

CARVILLE: OK.

EAGLEBURGER: What does mean something is, if we go into Iraq and when we're through, we can demonstrate that what we said was there is there. Then they're going to shut up.

(CROSSTALK)

EAGLEBURGER: Now if we go in there and we don't find anything, then we'll have egg all over our faces.

CARVILLE: Are they going to find nuclear weapons?

EAGLEBURGER: I think they're going to find that we're very close to it.

CARLSON: Senator, 12 years ago we were having a very similar argument about what to do about Saddam Hussein. Twelve years and two months, almost exactly, here's what you said on the Senate floor. "I cannot support any resolution which gives the president the authority to initiate combat against Iraqi forces now. Such a course of action at this time, although fully justified by Iraq's aggression last August, is neither necessary nor prudent." Instead, you suggested we continue with sanctions.

WIRTH: Well, you'll remember that there was a really good and open debate about this, and there was a very close vote in the United States Senate about whether or not we ought to continue sanctions for a longer period of time. It's very similar, as you point out. It's very similar to this.

CARLSON: Well, it is similar. I guess the point I'm making and the question I'd like to ask is, weren't you wrong then? That sanctions would not have been enough to make Saddam leave Kuwait. They haven't been enough to disarm him.

WIRTH: Well, in retrospect, I think that the decision was right for the administration and probably the votes in the Senate, my own included, was probably at that time not the right vote. But knowing what we knew at that point and knowing what the debate was at that point and what the issues were and who was coming in and saying spend a longer period of time, some of the very senior people in our country were saying spend a longer period of time before we go in. CARLSON: Where do you think his nuclear program would be today if we had not kicked Saddam...

WIRTH: Oh, I think where his nuclear -- I don't think we knew anything about his nuclear program in 1991. I think it was the inspections of the U.N. from 1991 to 1996 in a very aggressive and effective program throughout Iraq that not only went after the chemical weapon capability, discussed it, it found the biological weapon capability, and really went after and destroyed the nuclear weapons capability.

I don't think we knew about that in the early 1990s. I think the inspectors found that out, and that is another very strong supportive argument for the fact that the inspections did work. For those who say the inspections -- it's just not true.

CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick commercial break. When we come back, we'll ask your guests if the U.N. will ever be relevant again. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia, along with others, will be at the U.N. tomorrow for a sour grapes summit. Once they're done, will there be any hope left for the United Nations? We are talking with U.N. Foundation president and former United States Senator Tim Wirth, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, I want to show you the names of seven people, and I'm not going to ask you to name names. I'm going to ask you to give me a number of who are some of the most influential people in the administration: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell, Deputy Secretary Armitage, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Wolfowitz and Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff. That's seven people. How many of these people do you think are glad that diplomacy failed and the United States is doing this on its own?

(APPLAUSE)

EAGLEBURGER: On the basis of the Fifth Amendment...

CARVILLE: Can you just give us a number? Just give us a number. I'm not asking for names. You are too good a guest.

EAGLEBURGER: I would tell you at least three, maybe more.

CARVILLE: Three, maybe more, are glad that it failed. Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: Senator Wirth -- whatever that means. Senator Wirth, I'd like to put up on the screen a quote from Senator Tom Daschle whom, of course, you know. And this is ---- rather it's a sound bite. You will hear, in fact, Senator Tom Daschle describe his take on the coming war in Iraq. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I am saddened. Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now it seems to me that war is Saddam Hussein's fault. Senator Daschle seems to be suggesting it's the president's fault. What's your take?

WIRTH: Well, the failure is Saddam Hussein's. Seventeen resolutions at the U.N. and said no. But I think, again, I would say what I said before. I think that we're -- you know history is going to judge what happened in this debate. The question is going forward from here, and are we going to be able to use the U.N., are going to be able to recreate the alliances.

These are important issues for the strength of the United States going forward. I'll give you some examples. You know we can't presume that the U.S. by itself is going to be able to take on the proliferation issues of weapons, they're going to take on the narcotics issues, going to take on some of the severe refugee issues by ourselves.

You know force alone doesn't do it. Going it alone doesn't do it. You know what we have to do is harness all of those resources as well. And that's, I think, the repair job that we're going to have to do, and I think that's what the world wants us to do.

The summit that's going to occur here is going to be a summit about Iraq and what will happen post-war in Iraq. It's going to be a very, very complicated proceeding once again. But what's more, we're going to see the United Nations and international diplomacy transparently done and accountably done. Not the back of the envelope that created Iraq in 1921, but for the first time we're really seeing how does this diplomatic business work.

This is the 21st century in seeing this. Now with all its warts -- you know the U.N. has warts. The diplomatic process has warts. But we're seeing it in a different way.

The final point I think that's important to keep in mind is that the Security Council is now going to have to realize and register the fact that what they do has consequences. They can't just pass one of 17 resolutions and then not do anything about it. I think one of the really good things from President Bush's speech at the U.N. in September was to talk about what you do at the Security Council has consequences. And now it's going to be up to the international community to follow up on that and make sure that those consequences are understood by the rest of the world.

EAGLEBURGER: Can I make one point?

(APPLAUSE)

EAGLEBURGER: It's kind of related to this, but I heard earlier in the program a very impassioned statement that you made about the right to speak out and so forth. And you were absolutely correct. I don't debate it at all. In fact, it needed saying.

So I'm glad it was said. And therefore, the point I'm about to make about Senator Daschle has nothing to do with that. The point I would argue with Daschle is only his definition of diplomacy, and therefore his whole argument rests then in his attack on President Bush on, if we had the right kind of diplomacy we wouldn't be where we are now. And that's where I think it's unfair.

As I tried to say earlier, you can argue whether the diplomacy was any good or not, whether it failed or didn't fail. But his definition of diplomacy -- I think I know a little bit more about diplomacy maybe than he did does. At last I hope I do, because I think he was flat wrong.

But when you define diplomacy and then say the president has put us into a war because his diplomacy failed, that, I think, is coming close to going over the line. So when you -- in effect, he is coming close to saying the blood that will be shed is the president's because he failed in his diplomacy. So while I agree with everything you said, I think what Daschle said comes close to blaming the president in a way that I think is unfair. So that's all I'm really saying.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time at this point, on that diplomatic note. Secretary Eagleburger, Senator Wirth, we really appreciate your coming, despite your nice words about James. Thank you.

Coming up in a Fireback, a smokey e-mail from a viewer who did not appreciate Senator Daschle's criticism of President Bush. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for Fireback, when you fire back.

First up: Rose Glassic (ph) of Sheffield, Massachusetts writes, "I don't understand why people who are anti-war are not as anti- Saddam. Why isn't anyone carrying signs that say, 'Saddam, get rid of your biological weapons?' Or, 'Saddam, stop terrorizing your people?"

That's a great question, Rose. Maybe some of those protesters are more anti-American than they are anti-Saddam. I think that's the answer.

CARVILLE: Well, I want was anti-Soviet. I never wanted to go to war with the Soviets, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

"I thought President Bush always prided himself on being a man of his word. Only two weeks ago, President Bush said he would like to call for a vote at the U.N., that it was time for nations to show their cards. I suppose he is only a man of his word when he has a full house." Jonathan Knutson, Dallas, Texas.

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Actually, John, he is a man. He's just a man of his most recent word.

CARLSON: OK. Norm Clipp of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri writes, "As a U.S. Army retiree and war veteran, I was furious when I heard what Daschle had to say yesterday. He would say or do anything for his party's political gain and to make President Bush look bad. Yesterday, Daschle did it by spitting in the face of our sons and daughters who serve and are ready to fight a war."

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Actually, Senator Daschle served himself, so I don't know what you're talking about, Norm.

"James, I have a theory of why we couldn't muster more to the coalition of the willing. You know as well as I that everyone hates telemarketers. The president should get an I.D. blocker." Mark Nix, Tullahoma, Tennessee. The people in Tennessee got some ideas.

CARLSON: OK. Back to our audience -- yes.

LAWRENCE LAMBERT: My name is Lawrence Lambert (ph) from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. To my fellow Louisianan, Mr. Carville, why are we so fearful of a chemical or biological attack if Iraq doesn't possess WMDs to begin with?

CARVILLE: Well, I don't really think -- I never said that they don't possess WMDs to begin with. And I think that any time that anybody goes to war in this era that you'd be well cautioned to be fearful of any kind of attack. And I think that prudent military commanders would do that. What they -- also, many of the ones that they had we gave to them in 1983.

CARLSON: That's totally, totally untrue.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We don't have time to correct it. Yes sir, quickly.

HARRY RODMAN: Hi. My name is Harry Rodman (ph). I'm from Harrison, New York. I would like to ask the question -- is how the American public can view our president as a strong and courageous leader when he really sat out during the Vietnam War?

(APPLAUSE) CARLSON: When he sat out during the Vietnam War? I mean, I guess you can -- as is often done on this show -- reduce it all to biography. But at some point you need to address the arguments he's making. Is Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States or not?

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) your argument. The producer is making us out of here. From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

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





Eagleburger, Former Senator Tim Wirth>


Aired March 18, 2003 - 19:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE.

On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala.

On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight:

On the brink and waiting.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If Saddam Hussein doesn't leave the country, he will make his final mistake.

ANNOUNCER: So far he isn't going. Are you ready for war and maybe worse?

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Your federal government is ready.

ANNOUNCER: An ally debates war.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are witnessing the most spectacular failure of diplomacy.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The threat today isn't that of the 1930s.

ANNOUNCER: Can Tony Blair's career survive his close association with George W. Bush? We'll ask the man whose grandfather invented Iraq, Winston Churchill III.

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live, from the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

The war hasn't started, so we're still here. Tonight, we're asking whether the British Prime Minister Tony Blair will still be over there. Or is he cozying up to President Bush the political kiss of death? We'll also debate whether the White House needs to remember that old saying, Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

But since things are different tonight we'll start off by asking for some news.

TUCKER CARLSON, CNN CO-HOST: Twenty-four hours before the president's deadline to Saddam Hussein, we'll go to CNN correspondents covering developments: Wolf Blitzer in Kuwait City, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, John King at the White House.

Wolf, let's start with you. What is happening in Kuwait City?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, there's no doubt that this is an important day, potentially on the brink of war. Saddam Hussein formally rejected the U.S. ultimatum that was issued last night by president bush. Saddam Hussein speaking in Baghdad, wearing his uniform clearly preparing for war, saying that that is not going to happen.

Indeed, not only the Iraqi leader but all of his top aides say President Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair should step down.

Meanwhile, U.N. Weapons inspectors now have left Baghdad. This on the eve of the start of a new round of fighting. U.n. Inspectors ,very much like at the end of 1998, getting out of Iraq, recommended by the United States and Britain as the preparations for war continue.

In the meantime, here in Kuwait, in the northern part of Kuwait, about one-third of this country is sealed off now to civilians. U.S. and British forces a massing -- indeed, U.S. trucks and heavy artillery moving north towards the Kuwaiti border. U.S. sources suggesting there's almost like a traffic jam in the northern part of Kuwait getting ready for a possible invasion of Iraq which indeed could come at any time.

Finally here on the streets of Kuwait City, relative quiet. People are calm, people are by no means panicking. Most people are staying put very aware that they're getting protection, if you will, by the U.S. military about a quarter of a million U.S. troops in this area, protecting Kuwaitis although some Kuwaitis are rushing to airports trying to get out. But, by and large, most of the people in Kuwait are relatively calm and relatively quiet convinced that the United States here in massive numbers will protect them.

On the bottom line, though, on the whole, hours, perhaps hours away from a new round of fighting. Back to you, James.

CARVILLE: Well, Wolf, thank you very much. CNN and America are grateful and pleased that we have somebody of your stature and experience covering this war. Thank you again.

Now the latest from the White House. Here's our senior White House correspondent, John King.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, James, the president was out of the public eye today. No public events at all.

He did have some urgent telephone diplomacy. He called Tony Blair, his chief ally. Mr. Blair, of course, won a key vote in the British parliament today.

Mr. Bush also called two presidents who are quite mad at him at the moment, President Putin of Russia and President Hu of China. Mr. Bush said he hoped long-term relations do not suffer despite this profound disagreement at the moment about the president decision to proceed with war in Iraq.

Now, here at the White House, of course, they are well aware with that deadline now just 25 hours away, that Saddam Hussein has flatly rejected the ultimatum that he and his sons leave Iraq. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggesting today perhaps the Iraqi leader might want to reconsider.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FLEISCHER: Saddam Hussein has led Iraq to many mistakes in the past, principally by developing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, if he doesn't leave the country, will make his final mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: But the war planning continuing here at the White House. The president's national security team here for an early morning meeting in which, we are told, the president was told by Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld -- you see Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser her, Secretary Rumsfeld on hand as well as General Richard Myers, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are told the president was told the troops are ready, awaiting his order to attack.

Now, the deadline, obviously, lapses a little more than day from now, 25 hours from now. White House officials say an Oval Office address will be delivered by the president once hostilities begin. Some officials say he won't wait too long, though two senior officials today suggesting to CNN the president might wait a little bit and not act right away. They noted his remarks last night in which the president said America will strike at a time of its choosing -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks, John.

Our next stop is the Pentagon, where there is much concern that Iraqi forces may use chemical weapons.

Here is senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, two big questions: One, will the Republican Guard fight and will they use chemical weapons?

The Pentagon is continuing to review some intelligence which is ambiguous, but nevertheless, suggests that some Republican Guard troops south of Baghdad, in an area called, Al Kut, have been supplied with chemical munition,s specifically artillery shells filled with poison gas. Again, those intelligence reports are ambiguous. It's not clear, but if the U.S. meets resistance with chemical weapons that might be one location.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is trying to wage a psychological warfare campaign aimed at getting as many Iraqi troops to give up as possible before the war even begins. These leaflets show the Iraqi troops how to position their tanks so they won't be struck. Basically they're telling the Iraqi troops to put down their weapons, park their vehicles and go wait the war out in the barracks. And if they take a nonthreatening position then the U.S. troops will likely just let them sit there with perhaps some guarding as they continue on up to the north.

So at this point there's no indication that any troops, Iraqi troops have actually surrendered, but the U.S. is continuing to have, even in some cases, face-to-face contacts with U.S. operatives to try to negotiate those surrender agreements -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Jamie, let's hope -- let's hope they read the pamphlets. Jamie McIntyre, we will all be seeing much of you before this is over. Thanks very much.

As the U.S. prepares for war, a loose canon opens up on the White House. We'll deal with that next in the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

Later, we'll ask Winston Churchill how his grandfather would have dealt with Saddam Hussein. We'll also let a former secretary of state grade President Bush's Iraq diplomacy.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

As the U.S. prepares for war politics of course, is taking a backseat. As every 15-year-old knows too much time in the backseat can get tiresome, and so here is the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

Just hours before President Bush and form informed the world that American troops are headed into battle Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle gave his analysis of the war with Iraq.

Daschle said, quote, "I'm saddened that the president failed so miserably diplomacy that we are now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical to our country," end quote. In other words when the first American Soldier dies in Iraq, George W. Bush, not Saddam Hussein, will be to blame.

According to Tom Daschle we are going to war not because Saddam possesses and has used weapons of mass destruction, not because Saddam has trained and harbored terrorists, not because of Saddam's existence threatens the entire civilized world. No. American troops will die because George W. Bush couldn't convince France and Germany to what? Daschle didn't even say. Maybe he'll explain further the families of fallen American Soldiers.

CARVILLE: That's about the most silly...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Let me read to you what the "Washington Post," editorial -- one of your favorite editorial papers. The Bush administration has raised the risk through its insistence on an accelerated timetable, its exaggerated rhetoric, and it's insensitive diplomacy.

You know, Tucker, you -- you are the leader of this patriotic correct police that nobody can stand up and speak out and I'm telling you people recent that and Tom Daschle has a right like every newspaper and commentators point out that this administration's diplomacy has failed. This president said we'd go to the U.N., we did get a vote and we didn't.

CARLSON: You do all the filibustering you want.

CARVILLE: What you ought to do -- what you ought to do is have the principles of a real American and quit criticizing people when they speak their mind. He has a right to speak his mind.

CARLSON: You are accusing me...

CARVILLE: He's a patriot and you quit telling people that they're siding with Saddam Hussein.

CARLSON: You are accusing me of patriotic correctness and then you just told me I am not a real American.

CARVILLE: Unless some kind of miracle happens the United States is going to war in Iraq.

CARLSON: OK.

CARVILLE: And war costs money. So Senator Edward Kennedy was reminding the Bush administration that it's not time for another billion dollar tax cut. Now before Tucker accuses me of being partisan I'd like to point out that moderate Republicans including Delaware's Mike Castle have sent Speaker Hastert a letter saying they can't support the administration's budgets and tax cutting priorities either. Me and my Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Committee also are looking for ways to whittle down the president's new tax cut. See it's not just Democrats saying it, it's Republicans, too. Mr. President, for the good of the country, cut the tax cut.

CARLSON: James I'm going to respond by reading a "Washington Post" editorial and by accusing you of being a real American. That's what you did to me! That is beneath me!

CARVILLE: You criticizes anybody that criticizes this war, that's wrong. It's right for Americans to speak out and speak their minds. I am not going to be intimidated by the patriotic correct police in this country. CARLSON: I take seriously the arguments of those who oppose the right. I have never accused a single person of being unpatriotic. I think there are honorable arguments and you can't...

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Thank you, senator Daschle for speaking the truth.

CARLSON: Like his -- hush. Like his American counterpart British Prime Minister Tony Blair has faced down Saddam Hussein despite political costs at home, high political costs. Blair's Labor Party has been in a state of near revolt shortly after 9/11, when Blair, bravely, took the side of the United States against Islamic terrorist. His support for the war in Iraq, has further alienated Blair from the British left. Over the past two days, three of the cabinet ministers have resigned in protest along with four senior aides, and yet Blair has remained firm.

In a brilliant speech to the House of Commons today the prime minister explained why he's willing to jeopardize his career for what he believes is right, quote, "back away from this confrontation now, Blair said, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating." Blair ended by asking this, quote, "Who will celebrate and who will weep if we take the troops back from the Gulf now?" It's a question many of those in the country should ask themselves tonight.

I know, you won't ask yourself, James. You'll accuses people of being un-American.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: No you're the one that accuses people of being un- American.

I think people that disagree with me have every right to disagree with me and I don't say they're bad Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I have never said that in my life.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Tom Daschle questioned the diplomacy of this administration.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: He's questioned the diplomacy of this administration and you don't like it because I called on the fact

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: You like to suppress speech and I'm not going to stand for it. This is a "Political Alert" involving James Carville. You all know I think President Bush has failed in every way that a president can fail, his economic policies have been a disaster. His tax policies are repugnant and I've been extremely critical of his diplomatic efforts leading up this war. And it appears regardless of the wisdom of such action we are going to war. As someone who served in uniform as an American, I will give my full and total support to our troops.

That as someone who believes there are some things in life that will more important than politics and it will be my policy to temper my criticize of president when it comes to conduct of such a war. I disagree with the president and this administration on more things that I can count, but it is in the interest of every one of the American people, the Iraqi people and the few countries standing with us, and the many standing on the sidelines that this war should happen and brought to a speedy and defensive end with the United States as the victor. I will return to my usual habits with full enthusiasm, full piss, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) contempt and venom as soon as events warrant.

CARLSON: Good. Well, so you have your own policies now. You're like a country.

CARVILLE: That's right.

CARLSON: I know millions around the world are breathing a sigh of relief now that your policy has been announced.

CARVILLE: Again, you don't like when other people speak their mind.

CARLSON: And next, Winston Churchill's grandson takes a look at the Bush-Blair alliance.

We'll check back with our, Wolf Blitzer, to see if there's new information on Kuwait and there maybe.

And we'll ask former secretary of state, where do we go from here?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARVILLE: Welcome back to the brink of war. So where did Iraq come from anyhow?

Actually, the country is fairly new. It was drawn up in 1991 by a British Colonial Secretary named, Winston Churchill. While they went on to big and better things Iraq went from less to worse. Where do we go from here?

Joining us is journalist, author and former member of parliament Winston S. Churchill, Winston Churchill's grandson.

(APPLAUDS)

CARLSON: Thanks for join us Mr. Churchill. People often quote your grandfather, relatively few remember he was defeated in 1945 after leading your country through the second World War unjustly, wondering if you foresee a similar fate for Tony Blair after standing up and doing what's right and being punished politically for it?

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, SIR WINSTON'S GRANDSON: I don't think so because I think the war will be over and done with pretty quickly. And he will bask in the glory of being one of those who had the courage to see it through.

CARLSON: What animates his opponents in the Labour Party whose positions, if not intent, is in effect to defend the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why? What motivates them?

CHURCHILL: Well, You're absolutely right to say the effect of their opposition and indeed the position of President Chirac and President Schroeder of Germany that their position effectively is to protect this genocidal monster, Saddam Hussein, from the United States.

CARLSON: But why?

CHURCHILL: You ask me. In the case of France I think they've never forgiven us for liberating them back in 1944.

(LAUGHTER)

CHURCHILL: You know, they still hold it against les Anglo-Saxon. It's easier to forgive and forget the Germans for invading and occupying them than us for liberating them. And more recently they've, of course, been the principle suppliers of arms in exchange for oil with Iraq. And apparently President Chirac set his eyes on getting the Nobel Prize for Peace.

CARVILLE: That's interesting about the French. Maybe you can fill us in, too, why did the Chinese, the Russians, the Canadians -- why do the Mexicans -- why they don't like us? They're not supporting it us? Why don't you go into a tirade against Mexico for us?

CHURCHILL: No, I don't think so. The ring leaders whom we could have hoped better of...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: ... were the French and the Germans, but particularly the French. They were canvassing world opinion. Putin it looked as if he was going to come onside until he was corralled by the French.

But the fact is...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: ... furthermore there are more member states of the European Union who back the United States and Britain than who backed Old Europe...

(CROSSTALK) CHURCHILL: Sorry?

CARVILLE: If all of the countries that support us how many have sent in a check?

CHURCHILL: Well...

CARVILLE: It's one thing to send a guy a letter. Is a check coming out the envelope?

CHURCHILL: Well, I...

CARVILLE: Is your insinuation that the Mexicans have to be -- are sort of pliable and kind of lead by the French that they're unable to speak...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: Not at all, but there are some who wish to be -- put themselves in the firing line and stand up and be counted and others not. And just because they happen to be your neighbors doesn't mean to say that the Mexicans have to jump when Uncle Sam says jump.

CARVILLE: Well what about the Canadians? They're our other neighbors. They're actually part of -- they were the first people -- they joined the fight against the Nazis long before the United States did, if my history serves me correctly.

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: Not everybody is wise in their selection of political leaders.

CARLSON: Mr. Churchill, in an op-ed...

CHURCHILL: And I have to say that I wasn't a Tony Blair fan until really, quite recently and I've come around wholeheartedly. I think he's been amazingly steady on parade, absolutely right in the interest of Britain and the interests of the world, that we should stand beside America in this.

CARLSON: Amen.

You wrote earlier this month an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" and I was going to put a quote up on the screen, it's a little long. But I just want to get the essence of it. You compare the United Nations presently to the League of Nations saying that the current U.N. is ineffectual in the same way the League of Nations was.

What after this, is the future of the U.N., do you think?

CHURCHILL: Well, I think that the U.N. has demonstrated terrible, desperate weakness. That there've been 17 resolutions since 1991 violated by Saddam Hussein. And all the time there are even permanent members of the Security Council like France saying oh, give him another month. Give him another three months. Give them more time.

You know, we hear a lot about international law. There's no point having laws international or domestic unless those laws are enforced. And when somebody time and again breaches the law it's about time that somebody said about enforcing it. And that's what the United States and Britain are doing.

CARLSON: But that somebody, as you just pointed out, was not the United Nations. So I guess the question is why have the United Nations? Is it time to close it, I mean, and stop the charade?

CHURCHILL: I don't think it's time to close it, but I think it is excellent that we have in President Bush and Prime Minister Blair individuals who are prepared to stand up for the enforcement of international law even though the United Nations is want prepared to do that.

CARVILLE: Is Mr. Nicholas Songs (ph), as I pronounce his name, is he a cousin of yours?

CHURCHILL: He is, indeed. Yes.

CARVILLE: Do you guys talk very often?

CHURCHILL: Yes.

CARVILLE: How does he have such a different view on this than you do? According to this, he's another grandson of Winston Churchill who said that he favors U.N. (sic) acting through the U.N. in this. And is he a weak appeaser that is sort of a disgrace to the family name or...

CHURCHILL: No. No. No. Not at all. It was right to try the U.N. route and Blair wanted the U.N. route. The fact that we weren't able it persuade people -- we were very close to getting a majority, but then when the French said whatever the lineup is we will veto. They didn't say in parentheses because we want to see the survival of Saddam Hussein and our arms for oil contracts.

CARVILLE: Let me ask them because I think...

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCHILL: And there's a further point I would like to make on that that I believe that President Chirac in this whole thing is out to embarrass Prime Minister Blair and the president of the United States. They would like to see him a one-term president and would like to humble America.

CARVILLE: Let me ask you...

CHURCHILL: That is their agenda.

CARVILLE: You're a man that speaks very eloquently and very forcefully and you think people ought to keep their word. President Bush said he would go for the second U.N. resolution regardless of any whip count or anything else, that he didn't care. Then on Sunday in the Azores he said people would have to put their cards on the table as we said in Texas. And then on Monday we back down and said we weren't going to ask for the resolution.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: Why tell people that you are going to -- why tell a world in language I don't do whip counts, I don't care what the vote is, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) seek a vote. And then on Sunday say make people show their cards and make people stand up say where they are and then on Monday you back down?

CHURCHILL: What's the point of going for the resolution when in advance one of the permanent members said no matter what the resolution is we will veto it?

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: It had a been a 14 to 1 vote the position would have been enhanced and France would have looked terrible if it would have been the lone veto. Isn't it the truth is they had four votes going into it?

CHURCHILL: No. I think there were probably more than that, but the fact is the time for talking is finished. You've got a quarter of a million troops, 50,000 of them are ours, 220,000 are yours. And you can't keep them in the desert when the temperatures are rising. We've got to let this thing roll.

CARVILLE: Don't forget the 2,000 are Australians out there, too.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Churchill, one of the concerns that opponents of the war have that strikes me as valid is that Iraq is this volatile country with at least three different religious ethnic groups and it's likely to break apart when Saddam Hussein is deposed. Do you think that's true? That's going to happen? The country blows up?

CHURCHILL: Well, there is an obvious danger there and a parallel, an uncomfortable parallel with former Yugoslavia. There are country that perhaps need a big nasty dictator to hold them together.

Only time will tell, but the fact is once we get rid of Saddam Hussein and his clique, we can start building a more representative Iraq. The Iraqis can start building a more represented Iraq.

For my part I hope that the Kurds do get autonomy which ultimately leads to independence because it was my grandfather who allowed himself against his better judgment in 1921, to be persuaded to not create Kurdistan. And as a result it's divided up between Iran, Iraq and Turkey and each one of those countries has oppressed them. And I think it's very worrying that at the moment the Kurds who are instinctive and natural allies against Saddam, they are more worried about being occupied in the next few days by the Turkish army.

CARVILLE: Thank you very much for being on CROSSFIRE.

CHURCHILL: My pleasure.

CARVILLE: One other question is when you said the Kurds, you're talking about the Turkish Kurds also, to be very clear on this, that they should have their own country just like the Iraqi Kurds.

CHURCHILL: I'm talking about the ones inside Iraq today.

CARVILLE: Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate it.

You can get more from the British point of view, points of view actually. Later tonight on CNN, among Larry King's guest at 9 Eastern are former British Prime Minister John Major and Robin Cook who just resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet to protest the U.S.-British policy on Iraq.

In a moment, we'll take you to our Wolf Blitzer for the latest developments in Kuwait City.

And then if Saddam Hussein decides he really wants to go, should we let him get away scot-free. That's out debate, we'll return in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

CARLSON: Next, we'll look ahead to what happens after the war. Stay with us as we debate what should become of Iraq and, for that matter, the United Nations. You are watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to get out of town is just about 24 hours away. In western movies, once the showdown is down and the bad guy gets it, they put up "The End" and they roll the credits. We're not going to have that luxury in Iraq.

In the CROSSFIRE, to debate what happens next, Lawrence Eagleburger, who was secretary of state under the first President Bush. With him is former United States Senator Tim Wirth of the great state of Colorado. He was undersecretary of state for global affairs during the Clinton administration and is now president of the United Nations Foundation.

Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Senator Wirth, the president last night summed up, I thought well, the rationale for going into Iraq later this week. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE. W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The danger is clear using chemical, biological or one day nuclear weapons obtained by Iraq. The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Isn't it, Senator, hard to argue with that argument? That is the threat, everyone acknowledges it. Wouldn't the president be irresponsible not to address it directly and quickly?

TIM WIRTH, FMR. U.S. SENATOR: Well I don't think anyone is arguing with the fact of the threat. It's what you do about it and how we go about dealing with it. That was the central issue that was facing the Security Council and the U.N. Are we going to have this kind of an open debate? Are we going to look for inspections to take a longer period of time?

And I think in this process -- you discussed in the earlier segment whether diplomacy worked or not -- I think that we saw a real failure of diplomacy both by the United States and by the French others. The ability to really come together around this issue. And I think that's going to have a major -- we're all going to pay the penalty for that over a long-term period of time.

CARLSON: But isn't there still a side argument? I mean isn't the central argument how do we deal with this threat that Saddam Hussein poses? We'd all like to have the cooperation of the entire international community. But, in the end, isn't the president right to say we need to address this right now?

FIRTH: Oh, I think that the president was right in saying we need to address this threat. The question is now, or do we want to have more inspections. That was the debate that occurred.

That's now behind us. I think history is going to say who was right and who was wrong. And the question now is what kind of diplomacy do we use going forward? How are we going to engage the U.N. going forward? How are we going to repair the situation with a lot of our allies? How are we going to move ahead in the post-war era?

We hope this is over quickly. How do we move ahead in that post- war era, where we're going to engage as many helpers as possible. Just as the Europeans are helping the reconstruction of the Balkans, can we engage them in helping with the reconstruction of Iraq? Those are the kinds of questions I think we have to look at, Tucker, going ahead.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, I want to read you a quote by General Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser. I'm sure that you worked with, and who strikes me as hardly a Democrat, an untempered man. In fact, he strikes me as a pretty uptight, but competent guy.

"This doctrine of continually letting each mission define the coalition and relying almost solely on ad hoc coalitions of the willing is fundamentally fatally flawed. As we have seen in the debate of Iraq, it's already given us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we're paying a very high price for that image." Is he right?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes and no. Let me tell you something, if I may for just a second. And it gets back to this question of diplomacy.

We sometimes -- and I think this is the case -- we confuse diplomacy -- we define diplomacy as we want it, and sometimes you have to understand diplomacy isn't going to work. And then diplomacy in this case, I think, never was going to work because there's no way on god's green earth we were going to convince most of the rest of the world that we should invade Iraq because nobody was basically convinced that this was an issue that was worth an invasion for, and there was no way we were going to convince the rest of the world of this.

I happen to believe it is the right thing to do. And we could have stood on our head in Lafayette Park and sung "The Star Spangled Banner" or whatever, and we weren't going to convince them. Why? Because we are now the only superpower in this world, and the rest of the world was doubtful that we were going to be too tough.

And no matter what we did now, I think they weren't going to believe us. And they won't believe us until we go in and demonstrate that what is there is what we said was there. So while Brent is right, in the sense that we did not conduct a particularly good campaign, diplomatic campaign, to try to convince people, I'm telling you now, no matter what we did, we were not going to be able to convince most of the rest of the world that we were right, and particularly not when we had the French out there playing the games they were playing.

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Let me show you a few polls. And let's leave France out of it and talk about some countries that are our allies. In 1999, we were the world's sole superpower. Eighty-three percent of Britains had a favorable impression of the United States; today it's 48 percent. Fifty percent of people in Spain; today it's 14. Fifty-two percent of the people in Turkey; today it's 12.

That's not just a failure of diplomacy. That's a failure of America -- I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

EAGLEBURGER: I hate to argue with you because you're one of my favorite people, even though you're often wrong.

CARVILLE: I thought you said I was quite right. EAGLEBURGER: In some cases you're often wrong. And in this case you are wrong. But, look, also, when you get tough issues like this one, you can't just do it on the basis of popularity.

What we are arguing basically about here is weapons of mass destruction. And until we get that into our heads, and the rest of the world does, that if we don't deal with these -- that issue of weapons of mass destruction now, when we deal with it, it will be in far worse conditions. And until people understand that -- and they don't understand it now -- and until they understand that we're going to have to use force to deal with it, these figures don't mean anything.

CARVILLE: OK.

EAGLEBURGER: What does mean something is, if we go into Iraq and when we're through, we can demonstrate that what we said was there is there. Then they're going to shut up.

(CROSSTALK)

EAGLEBURGER: Now if we go in there and we don't find anything, then we'll have egg all over our faces.

CARVILLE: Are they going to find nuclear weapons?

EAGLEBURGER: I think they're going to find that we're very close to it.

CARLSON: Senator, 12 years ago we were having a very similar argument about what to do about Saddam Hussein. Twelve years and two months, almost exactly, here's what you said on the Senate floor. "I cannot support any resolution which gives the president the authority to initiate combat against Iraqi forces now. Such a course of action at this time, although fully justified by Iraq's aggression last August, is neither necessary nor prudent." Instead, you suggested we continue with sanctions.

WIRTH: Well, you'll remember that there was a really good and open debate about this, and there was a very close vote in the United States Senate about whether or not we ought to continue sanctions for a longer period of time. It's very similar, as you point out. It's very similar to this.

CARLSON: Well, it is similar. I guess the point I'm making and the question I'd like to ask is, weren't you wrong then? That sanctions would not have been enough to make Saddam leave Kuwait. They haven't been enough to disarm him.

WIRTH: Well, in retrospect, I think that the decision was right for the administration and probably the votes in the Senate, my own included, was probably at that time not the right vote. But knowing what we knew at that point and knowing what the debate was at that point and what the issues were and who was coming in and saying spend a longer period of time, some of the very senior people in our country were saying spend a longer period of time before we go in. CARLSON: Where do you think his nuclear program would be today if we had not kicked Saddam...

WIRTH: Oh, I think where his nuclear -- I don't think we knew anything about his nuclear program in 1991. I think it was the inspections of the U.N. from 1991 to 1996 in a very aggressive and effective program throughout Iraq that not only went after the chemical weapon capability, discussed it, it found the biological weapon capability, and really went after and destroyed the nuclear weapons capability.

I don't think we knew about that in the early 1990s. I think the inspectors found that out, and that is another very strong supportive argument for the fact that the inspections did work. For those who say the inspections -- it's just not true.

CARLSON: OK. We're going to take a quick commercial break. When we come back, we'll ask your guests if the U.N. will ever be relevant again. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia, along with others, will be at the U.N. tomorrow for a sour grapes summit. Once they're done, will there be any hope left for the United Nations? We are talking with U.N. Foundation president and former United States Senator Tim Wirth, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

CARVILLE: Mr. Secretary, I want to show you the names of seven people, and I'm not going to ask you to name names. I'm going to ask you to give me a number of who are some of the most influential people in the administration: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell, Deputy Secretary Armitage, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Wolfowitz and Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff. That's seven people. How many of these people do you think are glad that diplomacy failed and the United States is doing this on its own?

(APPLAUSE)

EAGLEBURGER: On the basis of the Fifth Amendment...

CARVILLE: Can you just give us a number? Just give us a number. I'm not asking for names. You are too good a guest.

EAGLEBURGER: I would tell you at least three, maybe more.

CARVILLE: Three, maybe more, are glad that it failed. Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: Senator Wirth -- whatever that means. Senator Wirth, I'd like to put up on the screen a quote from Senator Tom Daschle whom, of course, you know. And this is ---- rather it's a sound bite. You will hear, in fact, Senator Tom Daschle describe his take on the coming war in Iraq. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I am saddened. Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now it seems to me that war is Saddam Hussein's fault. Senator Daschle seems to be suggesting it's the president's fault. What's your take?

WIRTH: Well, the failure is Saddam Hussein's. Seventeen resolutions at the U.N. and said no. But I think, again, I would say what I said before. I think that we're -- you know history is going to judge what happened in this debate. The question is going forward from here, and are we going to be able to use the U.N., are going to be able to recreate the alliances.

These are important issues for the strength of the United States going forward. I'll give you some examples. You know we can't presume that the U.S. by itself is going to be able to take on the proliferation issues of weapons, they're going to take on the narcotics issues, going to take on some of the severe refugee issues by ourselves.

You know force alone doesn't do it. Going it alone doesn't do it. You know what we have to do is harness all of those resources as well. And that's, I think, the repair job that we're going to have to do, and I think that's what the world wants us to do.

The summit that's going to occur here is going to be a summit about Iraq and what will happen post-war in Iraq. It's going to be a very, very complicated proceeding once again. But what's more, we're going to see the United Nations and international diplomacy transparently done and accountably done. Not the back of the envelope that created Iraq in 1921, but for the first time we're really seeing how does this diplomatic business work.

This is the 21st century in seeing this. Now with all its warts -- you know the U.N. has warts. The diplomatic process has warts. But we're seeing it in a different way.

The final point I think that's important to keep in mind is that the Security Council is now going to have to realize and register the fact that what they do has consequences. They can't just pass one of 17 resolutions and then not do anything about it. I think one of the really good things from President Bush's speech at the U.N. in September was to talk about what you do at the Security Council has consequences. And now it's going to be up to the international community to follow up on that and make sure that those consequences are understood by the rest of the world.

EAGLEBURGER: Can I make one point?

(APPLAUSE)

EAGLEBURGER: It's kind of related to this, but I heard earlier in the program a very impassioned statement that you made about the right to speak out and so forth. And you were absolutely correct. I don't debate it at all. In fact, it needed saying.

So I'm glad it was said. And therefore, the point I'm about to make about Senator Daschle has nothing to do with that. The point I would argue with Daschle is only his definition of diplomacy, and therefore his whole argument rests then in his attack on President Bush on, if we had the right kind of diplomacy we wouldn't be where we are now. And that's where I think it's unfair.

As I tried to say earlier, you can argue whether the diplomacy was any good or not, whether it failed or didn't fail. But his definition of diplomacy -- I think I know a little bit more about diplomacy maybe than he did does. At last I hope I do, because I think he was flat wrong.

But when you define diplomacy and then say the president has put us into a war because his diplomacy failed, that, I think, is coming close to going over the line. So when you -- in effect, he is coming close to saying the blood that will be shed is the president's because he failed in his diplomacy. So while I agree with everything you said, I think what Daschle said comes close to blaming the president in a way that I think is unfair. So that's all I'm really saying.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time at this point, on that diplomatic note. Secretary Eagleburger, Senator Wirth, we really appreciate your coming, despite your nice words about James. Thank you.

Coming up in a Fireback, a smokey e-mail from a viewer who did not appreciate Senator Daschle's criticism of President Bush. We'll be right back.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for Fireback, when you fire back.

First up: Rose Glassic (ph) of Sheffield, Massachusetts writes, "I don't understand why people who are anti-war are not as anti- Saddam. Why isn't anyone carrying signs that say, 'Saddam, get rid of your biological weapons?' Or, 'Saddam, stop terrorizing your people?"

That's a great question, Rose. Maybe some of those protesters are more anti-American than they are anti-Saddam. I think that's the answer.

CARVILLE: Well, I want was anti-Soviet. I never wanted to go to war with the Soviets, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

"I thought President Bush always prided himself on being a man of his word. Only two weeks ago, President Bush said he would like to call for a vote at the U.N., that it was time for nations to show their cards. I suppose he is only a man of his word when he has a full house." Jonathan Knutson, Dallas, Texas.

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Actually, John, he is a man. He's just a man of his most recent word.

CARLSON: OK. Norm Clipp of Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri writes, "As a U.S. Army retiree and war veteran, I was furious when I heard what Daschle had to say yesterday. He would say or do anything for his party's political gain and to make President Bush look bad. Yesterday, Daschle did it by spitting in the face of our sons and daughters who serve and are ready to fight a war."

(APPLAUSE)

CARVILLE: Actually, Senator Daschle served himself, so I don't know what you're talking about, Norm.

"James, I have a theory of why we couldn't muster more to the coalition of the willing. You know as well as I that everyone hates telemarketers. The president should get an I.D. blocker." Mark Nix, Tullahoma, Tennessee. The people in Tennessee got some ideas.

CARLSON: OK. Back to our audience -- yes.

LAWRENCE LAMBERT: My name is Lawrence Lambert (ph) from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. To my fellow Louisianan, Mr. Carville, why are we so fearful of a chemical or biological attack if Iraq doesn't possess WMDs to begin with?

CARVILLE: Well, I don't really think -- I never said that they don't possess WMDs to begin with. And I think that any time that anybody goes to war in this era that you'd be well cautioned to be fearful of any kind of attack. And I think that prudent military commanders would do that. What they -- also, many of the ones that they had we gave to them in 1983.

CARLSON: That's totally, totally untrue.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We don't have time to correct it. Yes sir, quickly.

HARRY RODMAN: Hi. My name is Harry Rodman (ph). I'm from Harrison, New York. I would like to ask the question -- is how the American public can view our president as a strong and courageous leader when he really sat out during the Vietnam War?

(APPLAUSE) CARLSON: When he sat out during the Vietnam War? I mean, I guess you can -- as is often done on this show -- reduce it all to biography. But at some point you need to address the arguments he's making. Is Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States or not?

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) your argument. The producer is making us out of here. From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.

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





Eagleburger, Former Senator Tim Wirth>