Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Interview With Libya's Deputy U.N. Ambassador; Interview With Herman Cain
Aired February 28, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Thanks for joining me.
We have breaking news to bring you but first I want to introduce two friends of the show, they'll be joining me as regulars IN THE ARENA, Will Cain and E.D. Hill.
It's great to have you here.
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you. Adding a little sanity.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
SPITZER: I thought wisdom, but if you want sanity, it's your choice.
All right. Tonight a dramatic revelation from Libya's deputy ambassador to the United Nations. I talked to him just a few moments ago, and he told me the resistance movement in Libya is forming what appears to be a real government.
He described it as a ruling council that by all appearances would lead Libya when Gadhafi is deposed. Listen to what the ambassador had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IBRAHIM DABBASHI, DEPUTY PERM. REP. LIBYAN MISSION TO U.N.: I think as soon as this council has been announced and as soon as it gives its address, I think it has -- should be recognized by the whole international community as soon as possible. So that it will be a channel of communication between the Libyan people and the outside world.
SPITZER: Have you had any conversations with diplomats from the United States or any other country explaining to them this process you just announced to us? That there's a council being created and the council should be recognized as the legitimate voice for Libya?
DABBASHI: Yes, we started contacting with our colleagues at the United Nations, I think. And I think there is a -- a broad understanding of the -- of this action and we expect most countries of the world will recognize it -- will recognize this body as soon as it is officially announced. SPITZER: Who are these people who are setting up this provisional government that you referred to? And are they based in Tripoli or Benghazi? Where are they physically located?
DABBASHI: They are -- they are still working on it. I know that our former minister of justice is working on this. He has many colleagues with them. They are still working on the names of the representatives of each part of our country. And I think soon they will -- they will announce the start of the work of this council which will be temporary.
And as soon as the western part of Libya is liberated. They will submit themselves to the people and the leaders of the revolution, the youth leaders of the revolution. And they will decide whether to continue with this council or constitute it with other members or add to it, or take away some members of it.
So as soon as the revolution will gain victory, the council will be submitted to the people to decide on what kind of government he wants and what are the people to be involved within this government.
SPITZER: You referred to the leaders of the revolution. Who are those individuals? Are there names you could give us? The voices, the people who are guiding this revolution that has been remarkably successful before?
DABBASHI: No one is interested in mentioning his name at this moment. And when the revolution will succeed and it will be soon, at the time we will announce all those who were -- who were leading the movement of the people.
SPITZER: All right, Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. And I look forward to chatting with you in days ahead. Thank you, sir.
DABBASHI: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: It sounds great, but can the opposition really form an alternate government? Joining us now for reaction to this breaking news is host of CNN's "GPS" and our presiding foreign affairs expert, Fareed Zakaria.
We just had a fascinating interview with Ambassador Dabbashi from the United States, the Libyan deputy ambassador there, who said that there was being created as we speak a council to lead Libya when Gadhafi is deposed, when he disappears. And that they would soon announce the formation of this council.
What should the United States do once it hears of that announcement? Does it recognize them? Do they become the legitimate government? How will this work?
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: Look, I think it's incredibly encouraging news, because the great question in Libya has been what after Gadhafi, what? Will there be chaos? Will the place evolve? Will it become Somalia?
So if there is some group that seems to have a legitimate claim, I would think that the United States should very quickly make contact with them, try to figure out who these people are. My guess is there's some elements of the army, some generals involved.
And I think we err on the side of recognizing that government because look, it can't be worse than Gadhafi.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: And at least it gives us a provisional way to get aid into the country, humanitarian aid. Also it might allow us to formally respond to a request. If the government of Libya that we now recognize asks for a no-fly zone, then we can provide that.
If the government of Libya asks us to blockade the port so that Gadhafi can't escape, we can do it without violating any international laws.
SPITZER: The ambassador said there had already been some tentative or not so tentative contact with the United States and European nations as well, and the U.N., and so the possibility would then be created as you just said.
The moment they announce their existence, the United States could recognize them and then take a much more affirmative stance with respect to taking the military steps necessary to isolate Gadhafi and encourage if not push him over the edge.
ZAKARIA: I think that's right. This might provide -- and everyone has been looking for the (speaking in foreign language), the how this thing end. And there hasn't been an engine, a catalyst that can make it happen.
If this council is formed, if it asks the United States for help, and militarily only the United States can help.
SPITZER: Right. Right.
ZAKARIA: Then it provides us with a way to -- to have some kind of offensive movement. And finally what you have to still hope for that somebody in Gadhafi's inner circle will crack.
SPITZER: Fareed, hold the thought, we'll continue the conversation in just a moment. But first, I want to tell you about a lot of fascinating stuff we have tonight. The Tea Party picks a presidential favorite, a guy I never heard of. He turns out to be a dynamo.
Will Cain has some tough question for him, too. You'll want to hear it.
And a rare chance to peek inside the Iranian government. A mouthpiece for Ahmadinejad goes toe-to-toe with me. It'll be fun. Don't go away. I'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Mounting pressure for President Gadhafi to step down, but no surprise here, the Libyan leader is digging in. In an interview with ABC and the BBC, Gadhafi sounded both defiant and delusional. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOAMMAR GADHAFI, LIBYAN LEADER: They love me all. My people with me. They love me all.
CHRISTIAN AMANPOUR, ABC NEWS: But if they do love you --
GADHAFI: They will die to protect me and my people. No, no, no --
AMANPOUR: If you say they do love you, then why are they capturing Benghazi and they say they are against you? Why are they --
GADHAFI: (INAUDIBLE). It's not my people. (INAUDIBLE). They can promote Saif.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: One city still under the mad dog's iron grip is Tripoli, that's where our CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson joins us.
Nic, what's the latest?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, earlier we talked to people here on the streets too afraid to appear on camera. They tell us they'd been part of the anti-government protests here. But now they're too afraid to come out on the streets because they've seen the violent repression that they can face.
They tell us they feel that the anti-Gadhafi in this city at least is losing momentum, losing momentum, in part, they say, because they're expecting the international community to do more to support them. But when you look around the streets here, you can see that iron grip on the security here is paying off for Gadhafi.
There are more people back out on the streets, more traffic on the roads, more stores open. More than half the stores still remain shuttered closed, however. And you still see plenty of soldiers, armed soldiers, and armed policemen out running control at traffic intersections here.
So it's still far from normal, but for Gadhafi trying to portray to his people that he is in command and that it is safe and that they all should love him as he believes they do. In Tripoli, at least, in parts by day, he is getting that impression across. But of course the majority of people we talk to here whether on camera or off camera tell us they do want change -- Eliot. SPITZER: Nic, what is it they would like the international community to do? Do they want the idea of a no-fly zone? Do they want us to drop armaments, send in the Marines? What is the spectrum of options you're hearing? And how much agony and disappointment is there that we appear to be doing so little?
ROBERTSON: Well, certainly on the people who have been coming out on the streets protesting and who have been beaten off the streets, they would like to see a lot more support.
When you talk to a lot of the middle class here, they will tell you, look, we want change, but we're afraid of this violent change. And they'll tell you that they're afraid of what they've seen happen through international intervention, U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They believe these way-inflated figures that they hear through their government media that hundreds of thousands of people were killed in those countries by coalition forces. So they're afraid that if there's intervention here, then the violence level could go up, and therefore they could be caught up with it, their families hurt, their livelihoods hurt.
So you have that -- you have that sort of cross-section of community that are worried about the escalation of violence and that the government is selling them that message. And then you have the die hard loyalist supporters who say that they don't want any intervention at all.
And of course the government here says that the international community is misreading the situation and should send monitors here to evaluate the reality on the ground. They say there's been no massacres, no aerial bombardments.
But the desire for change here is strong. It's just concern about how it's going to happen. An international involvement brings another uncertainty into the equation for a lot of people here -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Has there been any communication between those who are opposing Gadhafi in Tripoli, and those who are in Benghazi, in the cities that are, in fact, under the control of the opposition forces. Do you get a sense they're communicating, plotting, planning a strategy?
ROBERTSON: There certainly is communication, and what -- how much of a strategy is being planned is hard to say. There's a clear effort I'm hearing from different anti-Gadhafi elements in the city at the moment, but they plan more protests on Friday.
They say the only safe place where they can meet and protest are the mosques. It is obviously a big prayer day on Friday, the holy day. And they're planning to use that day, they're saying, to launch the next big protest.
They say that perhaps not this Friday, perhaps the Friday after, they'll be able to get forces from outside the city to link up with them and begin to take on the -- take on the government more in the city. There's a city to the south of the capital Tripoli, and they say although that's been a stronghold to Gadhafi in the past, if that falls to the opposition, they say, then for sure Tripoli will go as well -- Eliot.
SPITZER: All right, Nic Robertson from Tripoli, thanks for that report.
So is -- who is backing Gadhafi now? And why is Libya's uprising like all the others in the Mideast 1,000 years in coming?
Our foreign policy guru Fareed Zakaria is back to give us a historical perspective.
Fareed, thanks for joining us again.
So Fareed, who is still with Gadhafi? We see the reports all the time. Diplomats are leaving him, the public is leaving him. Who is surrounding him and helping to support him?
ZAKARIA: It's actually a fascinating question, Eliot, because this guy was the head of the country. He was the head of the army. He had a -- you know, Libya has oil money, so it had a real army, not very large. But it had real equipment. And as far as I can tell, he has almost nothing surrounding him. Because if he had the army, you know, why is he hold up in the corner of Tripoli?
My sense is he has a few thousand people, probably paid mercenaries, some loyalists, but it's not clear where the rest of the people are. The whole thing is very puzzling because the Libyan state such as it was seemed to have not just collapsed, but just kind of disintegrated in a way that's almost -- it's disappeared into nothingness.
SPITZER: You mentioned a critical word. They have oil wealth. This is, in fact, a reasonably wealthy country. I think the per capita income is about what? $14,000?
ZAKARIA: The per capita GDP is $14,000. That is if you take the GDP which is all oil.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: And divide it by the number of people. But half the population lives under the poverty line.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: So the money mostly went to him.
SPITZER: So this is not a question as in some other countries in North Africa and the Middle East rank poverty. It's a question of the distribution and the anger that seems to have been pent up because Gadhafi and his cronies just kept all that wealth for themselves. ZAKARIA: Precisely. But still it's -- what's puzzling is, you know, where is the army that he paid for? There's a sort of "Wizard of Oz" quality to this.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: At the end of the day, it seems like you're going to be left with Gadhafi and his sons and nobody else.
SPITZER: Is it possible that when the public saw his ranting and raving after the revolutions that have swept the country, they said if this is what's behind the curtain, we're getting out of here also? I mean at a certain point people just say this can't continue.
ZAKARIA: Possibly, but he's been ranting and raving for 40 years. I mean he's been pretty nuts for a long time. There's still something about -- it was a very coercive brutal dictatorship, and the instruments of that coercion seemed to have disappeared.
The fact that he has so little loyalty, even among the military, is frankly surprising and very welcome, but surprising.
SPITZER: You wrote an article in the past couple of days in which you said that what is going on across North Africa and the Middle East is just staggering because for 1,000 years Arab nations have been dominated and suppressed by foreign rulers.
This has simply been turned on its head in the past month. What does that mean? And how did it happen?
ZAKARIA: Well, what it means is really you are seeing these long, suppressed forces, populous forces, popular forces, where the Arabs are kind of figuring out who they are and what they want.
If you go back to the 11th century, 1,000 years ago, the Mongols, the Persians, then the Turks basically ruled -- defeated the Arabs in battle and ruled them and dominated them. The Ottoman Turks ruled them for a long time. Then the Europeans come along in the 19th century, they rule them. Then the superpowers dominate them.
So it's really been only a few years ago that they have finally begun to realize, you know, we are in charge of our own affairs. And so you're seeing in every country the search for some kind of nationalist, populous movement.
SPITZER: Where does that then take it? I mean if you have 1,000 years, that's a lot of anger to be pent up in a society. Where does that -- what's the resting point? Where does it end?
Revolutions don't stop on a dime. They don't suddenly get to a secular democracy and say this is great and stop immediately. Where -- how do we understand what will happen next?
ZAKARIA: I think that's the great danger here, which is that you have a certain amount of these long suppressed forces and they are going to -- this pent up anger. And it's going to find it -- you know, some kind of object like the United States, Israel. But I have to say so far what has been striking is they are so concerned about their own condition, about the squalor, the misery, the inequality. Mostly it's about getting their country right.
And it isn't -- you noticed it's very little anger directed at other people.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: It's mostly all local, internal. So I think that it is a revolt against the old order of the Arab world. Now when they get a new order, let's be honest, nothing is as good as you think it is.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: And so that's my fear is the deep disappointment that comes from recognizing that the -- you know, there isn't going to be some grand new day.
SPITZER: You know, if chapter one was we want freedom, we want to create a structure of governance that is modern that we can be proud of, chapter two would be six months to a year from now when the economy has not moved forward. And then same anger can begin to well up.
ZAKARIA: The most interesting place where there have been protests in the Arab world, and there have been large protest in the Arab world, is Iraq, which is of course a democracy.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: A functioning democracy, or a dysfunctioning democracy.
SPITZER: Right. Right.
ZAKARIA: Now, part of the reason is they allow protests there. You know you don't get gunned down. Iraq is a free country. But what's interesting is this deep sense of dissolution. And you know these things are not going to end up fantastically, not in the short- term because all the problems from food inflation to youth unemployment are going to be true even after Gadhafi leaves.
SPITZER: Let's take Egypt as exhibit A in where we are in this progression of revolutions. Is the military there harnessing that energy to create an alternative governing structure properly? It's only been a few weeks. Are they making the progress that the public there needs to see to be comforted that they have won the battle?
ZAKARIA: No, not yet. I mean, the military clearly is trying to figure out how can it maintain as much control, as much power as it wants. But in Egypt, there are very strong countervailing pressures.
We should continue to keep the pressure, and by we actually can be the United States and the international media, to make sure that those promises that were made are kept. But no, that's going to be the great struggle in Egypt, which is, are the forces of democracy going to be able to get the military to move?
In Egypt, at least you have stability. But the danger is that the military will say the stability is very comfortable, can we stay here for a while, please?
SPITZER: And it will stagnate.
ZAKARIA: Yes.
SPITZER: In the few seconds left, is it possible to argue that al Qaeda has been the big loser in all of this?
ZAKARIA: Well, if you think about it, for 20 years al Qaeda has been arguing that these regimes are awful, but the only way to get rid of them is to support al Qaeda, to support terrorism against these regimes. And then all of a sudden, in a three-week period, a series of non-violent, democratic, non-religious, non-terrorist movements have toppled three governments and are causing ripple effects and reform throughout the Middle East.
Al Qaeda is the huge loser. It's possible to argue that its entire rationale has just collapsed.
SPITZER: All right. The first good news we've heard in quite some time.
All right. Fareed, as always, thank you so much.
ZAKARIA: Pleasure.
SPITZER: Coming up, the Tea Party took a presidential struggle this past weekend. And you'll never guess who won. And I mean seriously, you'll never guess who won. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Tonight, the Tea Party taps its next big star. But chances are you've never heard of him. I know I hadn't until just recently.
Likely presidential candidate Herman Cain was the big winner in this weekend's Tea Party straw poll. The Georgia Republican and businessman came to trounce former favorites like Sarah Palin and Ron Paul.
Herman Cain joins us now from Atlanta and Will Cain is here for this conversation as well.
Will, I know you've got tough questions for Herman Cain. I'm going to throw him a nice softball right down the middle.
Mr. Cain, because I've never heard of you, give us in 20 seconds who are you and why are you ready to be president?
HERMAN CAIN (R), EXPLORATORY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the good news, Eliot, is that you now have heard of me. And Herman Cain is a CEO with 40 years of business experience. I was an executive with the Pillsbury Company. I was the vice president with the Burger King Corporation. I was the president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza for 10 years and I'm also formerly CEO and president of the National Restaurant Association.
I'm a problem-solver, not a politician. I will admit that. And as a result of my experiences over the past several years, I have been very active with the Tea Party movement, very active with Americans for Prosperity, very active with Intelligent Thinkers Movement.
In other words, the reason you saw that result that came out of this conference last weekend is because a lot of activists know who Herman Cain is. A lot of other people that may not be activists are going to be learning about me in the very near future.
W. CAIN: Mr. Cain, Will Cain here. Nice to meet you.
H. CAIN: Will, how are you?
W. CAIN: Good.
H. CAIN: Thank you. Thanks.
W. CAIN: Well, like Eliot said, all I knew about you before today is essentially that you were the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. You're conservative.
H. CAIN: Right. Yes.
W. CAIN: You just won a Tea Party straw poll in Phoenix, which -- and you're black, which I don't know how you did that because everybody knows the Tea Party is racist, right?
H. CAIN: Go figure.
W. CAIN: Yes, right. Right.
H. CAIN: We're supposed to be racist, and then they vote a black guy with the greatest amount of votes in a straw poll.
W. CAIN: Must have been that awesome last name of yours. But I got to get some specifics on what you believe, OK?
H. CAIN: Yes.
W. CAIN: Let's talk about the federal budget.
H. CAIN: Yes.
W. CAIN: Currently Medicare, Medicare, and Social Security eat up 40 percent of our federal budget. And in 2025, those programs plus the interest are going to take up all of our federal revenues.
H. CAIN: Yes.
W. CAIN: So I've got to know, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about entitlements as president of the United States?
H. CAIN: We have got to restructure those programs such that rather than making people totally dependent upon them, we restructure them to help people to help themselves. Secondly, some of those programs need to be block granted to the states. In other words, states are closer to the problem. States have a better idea of how to manage their funds.
See, when we try to micromanage programs from the federal government they do not work. We've got to allow the states to do what they do best, and that is look out for the citizens of their states. So we've got to restructure. I didn't say just tinker around the edges. We've got to dramatically restructure those programs.
SPITZER: Mr. Cain, let me push you a little bit on some of these things. And look, I was a governor for a little bit piece of time so I'm glad you have that much confidence in the states. I'm not so sure I do.
H. CAIN: Yes.
SPITZER: Medicare actually works pretty well. It's more costly than we need it to be. There's not enough revenue there.
Are you willing to say we should means test Medicare so people who are wealthier actually don't get all the benefits that they would otherwise get? In other words, if you could afford to pay for your health care, you've got to pay for it? That's what I thought I heard you saying, saying you can't be totally dependent on these -- these federal programs.
H. CAIN: I could go along with means testing. But Eliot, this is part of how we tried to solve the problem in the past. You can't pick one little small thing and say you're going to do that. That needs to be done along with a host of other things once you get into it, once you restructure it where the states have more authority and responsibility and freedom to do what they do best.
Means testing is something that I believe that the American people could go along with, but only if they agree with a lot of the other changes that need to be made.
W. CAIN: Mr. Cain, you're talking about we shouldn't just tinker around the edges, and I totally agree. So we're talking about the right thing, at least, entitlements.
H. CAIN: Yes.
W. CAIN: But right now Republicans and Democrats in Washington are talking about cutting either $61 billion or $100 billion from discretionary spending. Something that amounts to 16 percent of our federal budget.
H. CAIN: Right.
W. CAIN: Is it worth it? Is it worth the government shutdown over something that makes up such a small piece of our pie? Or should we put the conversation back on entitlements?
H. CAIN: It is worth a government shutdown.
W. CAIN: Really?
H. CAIN: If it comes to that. Yes. Now, I'm not recommending it, but it is worth it. And here's why. The political dynamic in this country is changing. This is what this whole Tea Party citizens' movement, as I call it, is all about. They can't continue to tinker around the edges.
Now here's what I would have done differently. You can't just go in and attack everybody's favorite pet project. No. I do what I call -- like I did in business for 40 years. If you really want to cut stuff, you've got to identify whole programs to cut out.
That's the only way you're really going to make some big changes in terms of what we have to get rid of. Just tinkering around the edges, taking a little bit here, a little bit there, that's not going to solve the problem that we face.
SPITZER: Mr. Cain, in that case, give us a few of those programs that are big enough to matter. I'm not talking National Endowment for the Arts, I'm not talking about everybody's got their favorite target.
Give us something big enough to really show up that's a material aspect of the federal government's financial statement that you would eliminate in entirety.
H. CAIN: I can't say I would eliminate it, Eliot, because see, it's my approach to problem-solving that I'm promoting here. In other words, for example, take the food stamps program. I support keeping the food stamps program, but I also believe we need to figure out whether the abuse is taking place.
I also support a lot of the other programs. But, see, the problem that we have run into is that they have not most of the time identified the right problem, set the right priorities, put together the right plans in order to cut out whole programs.
To basically just say I'm going to trim a little bit over here, this is why we have not been successful at doing that. If we systematically makes sure that we're working on the right problems, that we're setting the right priorities and that we've got the right people working on it, then we'll be able to identify those cuts.
W. CAIN: Mr. Cain, let me switch directions just for a moment. You gave an interview not long ago where you said we were correct to go to Iraq because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he was using on his own people. You said how could we let a dictator or a horrible dictator like that go on without intervening?
H. CAIN: Right.
W. CAIN: By that same logic, would you suggest the United States now use military action against Gadhafi in Libya? H. CAIN: It's a totally different situation in my opinion. He is killing his own people. I think it's more complicated than that. What we should have done before this erupted was to have a very clear strategy as to how we were going to deal with the situation. This didn't -- this should not have surprised our intelligence people. So what I'm saying is, you can't just say you'd use the same approach because some of those dynamics are different. Where we erred was not having a strategy to deal with it before it happened. And I believe we knew that eventually this was going to happen.
Democracy and freedom is bubbling up and bursting out all over the world. That's what we're seeing. You can't keep liberty pent up, and then not have it burst out the way it's doing in the Middle East.
SPITZER: All right. Herman Cain, great meeting you. Best of luck.
H. CAIN: A pleasure.
SPITZER: And we'll be having this conversation more in the weeks and months ahead.
And Will Cain, I'll see you in just a few moments.
W. CAIN: All right.
SPITZER: And coming up, a rare chance to peek behind the curtain of the Iranian regime and find out what those guys are really thinking. And apologies for Ahmadinejad tells us what that country really thinks about the Middle East uprising. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In Iran, the same government that has praised the revolution in Egypt and denounced the crackdown in Libya is busy repressing its own anti-government opposition.
Tonight, two leaders of that opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi reportedly remain under House arrest. Tonight, we have a rare opportunity to go inside Tehran and speak with someone who has been described as an official spokesman for President Ahmadinejad's government.
Joining us now from Tehran is Mohammad Marandi, professor at Tehran University. Professor, thank you so much for joining us.
MOHAMMAD MARANDI, PROFESSOR, TEHRAN UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having me.
SPITZER: The two leaders of the opposition, Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi have been placed under House arrest simply for asking for the right to conduct peaceful protests. You, yourself, in answer to a question that we sent you earlier today in e-mail said that there were new restrictions because of their open cooperation with the U.S. government. What is your evidence of that? You're placing people under arrest because they want to speak out. Isn't that the case? MARANDI: Well, I'm a university of professor and I didn't put anyone under arrest, but --
SPITZER: I don't mean you individually, sir.
MARANDI: I don't think -- I know, I know. But I don't believe that the United States government welcomes change in the region because obviously the first thing that the Egyptians or the Jordanians or the people of Saudi Arabia today will want is Palestinians to have rights and the right of return and the siege in Gaza to end and so on and so forth. And this will bring about enormous confrontation between these countries and the United States as U.S. policy currently stands. So I think the Americans are going to have a great deal of difficulty in the coming months and years ahead. But with regards to Mr. Mousavi until Election Day, there was openness. He had his rallies. But the fact remains that after the election, he led riots on the streets of Tehran. And he also had the -- he quietly acknowledged the backing of terrorist organizations like the dreaded Mujahideen-e-Khalq, which openly support him now. He's never distanced himself from them.
The Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iran is like Al Qaeda for the United States. They've killed 12,000 or 13,000 Iranians themselves. They fought for Saddam Hussein during the eight-year war with Iran. They were Saddam's mercenaries. And apparently the United States government is going to legalize them officially despite the fact that they have offices in the United States today. So they're like Iran's Al Qaeda. Then you have the monarchists who support him. And he hasn't distanced himself from them. And this, of course, is something these organizations in Iran create a great deal of sensitivity. In the riots in Tehran, disciplinary forces were killed. So Mr. Mousavi hasn't played his cards correctly. And he's lost a lot of credibility among those people who did vote for him. I didn't vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad. But I think that most people believe that Mr. Mousavi's actions are unacceptable.
SPITZER: The central issue has been one of freedom. And you are definitely sidestepping the reality that in the Iranian domestic political context, there has been repression. There has been House arrest or worse for those who are opposition voices. And the reality is, the Iranian government is closer to the government of Gadhafi when it comes to civil rights than it is to the notion of tolerant democracy that we, I think you and I would hope could agree on.
MARANDI: Well, no, I don't think that liberal democracy in the United States is as free as you say. Because I know of people, Muslims, who are under a great deal of pressure coming from the FBI. And it's not very easy to be a Muslim in the United States, believe me. But -- but with regards to Iran and Gadhafi, no, definitely, there's a great gap. And if you look at Iranian newspapers, and if you read Iranian Web sites in the country, you'll see that there's a huge amount of diversity.
There's a great deal of difference between, for example, what the head of parliament in Iran says and believes and what the Iranian president says and believes. And do you see that the reformist faction in parliament exists? And by the way, they've recently condemned Mr. Mousavi, the reformist. And then among the principalist that the majority faction in parliament, you see different factions, you know, arguing against one another. So you do have checks and balances in this country. I think that the problem really is, is that in the United States, Iran is caricatured to a great degree. I'm not saying that Iran is a utopia and either is the United States.
SPITZER: Professor, utopia --
MARANDI: The fact remains is that Iran is not what Americans -- is not what Americans are usually told.
SPITZER: Well, look, utopia is not the standard we judge others by nor ourselves for that matter. But the reality is there's no freedom of speech, no freedom to congregate, to assemble, to protest in Iran. And those are basic freedoms that the people from Libya to Egypt are protesting and revolting to acquire. And that is what is so remarkable about what we're seeing. But let me switch gears for a second, since you raised the issue of foreign policy.
MARANDI: Why don't you -- why don't you have some of the speeches -- why didn't you have some of the speeches made by parliamentarians in Iran translated? Some of the Web sites in Iran that speak about the Iranian president, about his policies and attack him severely, why don't you have them translated and you'll see, no, there's a great deal of openness in the country.
SPITZER: We do. And what I remember recently is that the -- both Mousavi and Karroubi, the chant in the parliament was for them to be killed because they were leading protests against Ahmadinejad. So, look, again, let's not get sidetracked by that. I have a totally separate type of question for you.
MARANDI: Chanting -- a few people chanting slogans, that is symbolic. That has nothing to do with actually killing anyone. I think that the fact is that Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karroubi are seen by the vast majority of people to have gone way too far to have caused riots, to have affected the accepted backing of the United States, terrorist organizations, like Mujahideen-e-Khalq monarchists, and this is just something that in Iran is unacceptable.
SPITZER: Professor Marandi, we're going to take a quick break. Stay right there. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: And we're back with Professor Mohammad Marandi.
Is it fair for us, by the way, to view you as a spokesman for the Iranian government? I know you say you keep saying you're just a professor. But the reality is no Iranian diplomats here in New York are willing to speak to the media. And we view you -- don't take this as criticism, but we view you as a voice for the Iranian government. Is that fair supposition on our part?
MARANDI: Well, if you find any evidence that I, in fact, am working for the Iranian government or that I've ever been funded by the American government, the reason why I'm one of the few people who's willing to speak is because to be honest the western media is very abusive at times. On a previous occasion on CNN, I was on a different program, and the person who interviewed me I will not name, but he was very abusive. And many of my colleagues said why do you even bother? But I think that people like myself have a duty to break the stereotypes, and to, you know, inform the American public and people in the United States who are better educated, as well, that -- that their reading of Iran is incorrect, and they have to change their policies towards Iran. And if the United States puts aside this Iran phobia and Islamic phobia, I think that they'll see that the Iranian people and the Iranian government is -- is more than willing to move forward towards (INAUDIBLE) as long as the United States is sincere. And I don't think that the United States should view Iran as some sort of inherent threat.
SPITZER: All right. Well, professor, thank you for joining us. I hope you do not view either me or this network as abusive.
MARANDI: No.
SPITZER: And I hope we can continue to have a conversation as we go forward.
MARANDI: Thank you for having me.
SPITZER: My pleasure. Thank you, sir.
Coming up, from revolution in the Middle East to a budget battle in the American middle west. The latest from Wisconsin as we get into the arena with E.D. Hill and Will Cain. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: IN THE ARENA tonight, the budget battle in Wisconsin as the 14th straight day of protests, but inside the capitol, the crowd was significantly diminished. That's because police locked and guarded all the entrances not allowing any additional protesters in.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker remains defiant in his threatening layoffs if state Democrats don't return. So when will this ever end?
Joining me now with some sharp opinions about the battle of Wisconsin, arena regulars E.D. Hill and Will Cain. And let me tell you, I know I'm outvoted at this table two to one. My view is the governor should negotiate hard. He's going a bridge too far trying to take --
HILL: Negotiate with who? Negotiate with who? The legislators fled the state. What kind of leadership is that? You can call the governor defiant, but you know what? If you've been elected to do a job -- and when things don't go your way you start crying and running out of the playground, you're the one who's being defiant.
SPITZER: Let's separate out the issues. One is should the legislators simply pick up their marbles and go away? Nobody likes that. But let's focus on the substantive issue. Should the union be told give back all the concessions? Or should they be told you lose all your collective bargaining rights? Separate issues, let's focus on that. I say force them to give back. I was in the negotiating part of them. Separate issues, right? So why shouldn't they be able to negotiate.
CAIN: But they should be told both. Yes, give up --
SPITZER: What?
CAIN: Look, David Gregory on "Meet the Press" asked this exact question. He asked Governor Scott Walker if it's all about the budget, if it's all about getting this thing in line. Look, the unions have given you health care concessions, they give him pension concessions. Why are you pushing collective bargaining agreements? And Walker didn't give the answer I wanted to hear from him. But I think he meant it, which is this. The issues are inseparable. The concessions on health care pensions are short-term budgetary issues. Giving up collective bargaining agreement rights, that's about long- term budget.
SPITZER: One of the --
CAIN: Which is going to get back into the program again.
SPITZER: One of them is a question of rights. The other is a question of the substantive outcome. Even -- and I want to quote Mayor Mike Bloomberg who's been a Republican, a Democrat, an independent at different times. But everybody kind of respects him as a manager or thoughtful person. What he says is organizing around a common interest is a fundamental part of democracy. We should no more try to take away the right of individuals to collectively bargain and we should try to take away the right to a secret power. Isn't he right about that?
HILL: Wait, why do they have rights that other people in Wisconsin don't have?
CAIN: Sure they have.
HILL: Why do they have better health care plans? Why do they expect that they should have better options than most other people in that state? Why do they think that they should have the right to keep the capitol open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, have extra police presence there that the state is having to pay for when they don't have a dime in their pocket?
If I go there, if you go there, they won't keep it open.
SPITZER: So you're conflating two issues. You're conflating two issues.
HILL: No, I'm saying why do they think they are more special than anybody else?
SPITZER: They don't. They don't.
HILL: They are. They're demanding special interests.
SPITZER: No, no, no, they're just saying we want to negotiate collectively as every other group of workers has the right to do and they'll go into that negotiation. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose. In fact in this case, they've given back all the --
CAIN: Because they're unique, Eliot. Because they're unique.
SPITZER: Why? Explain why?
CAIN: You can quote Michael Bloomberg.
SPITZER: Right.
CAIN: I'll put you and Michael Bloomberg on one side of the table and sitting with me on this side of the table --
SPITZER: Right.
CAIN: -- liberal lions like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the AFL- CIO chairman from the '50s, George Meany and Mayor Fio LaGuardia. The liberals brought history that understood the fundamental problem that everyone does.
SPITZER: Which is?
CAIN: Public unions negotiate against themselves. It is an inherent problem in this process that has made their budgets go like this.
SPITZER: What you're saying, and here Mike had another nice sentence in this op-ed in today's "New York Times." What we're really doing -- I won't quote it. But the point is we're trying to blame the union's collective bargaining right for the failure of politicians to do what is right and important. In other words, this is just --
CAIN: OK, let's talk about that. Why is that? Because they sit on both sides of the table.
SPITZER: No, no, no.
CAIN: The union sits on one side.
SPITZER: No.
CAIN: On the other side is the politician whose budget, campaign budget they funded. They're sitting on both sides of the table.
SPITZER: And? But the answer --
CAIN: The outcome is inevitable. The pay will grow, the budgets will grow.
SPITZER: OK. CAIN: And I've got 50 years of history to show that I'm right.
SPITZER: Let's challenge some of the facts. First of all, it's not inevitable. The reality is when you look at workers of equal skills and intellectual accomplishment, the pay is pretty much the same in both sectors. It's kind of a canard that public sector workers are paid so much. Second, you can't blame the weakness of elected officials who are giving us a bad result on the party they're negotiating with.
HILL: If there had to be --
SPITZER: If some of us know how to negotiate hard, we've got to elect the right people. Don't take away rights because we're worried about the substantive outcome the weak politicians are taking.
HILL: OK, I don't think you're incorrect in blaming weak politicians.
SPITZER: Well, take this as history.
HILL: However, at the same time, when you've got the politicians with their arms twisted behind their backs by these very powerful unions, they --
SPITZER: Right.
HILL: -- the unions should have been able to see just as the politicians did. They've got to accept responsibility, as well. You can't take, take, take, and then only when you've got a governor that says fine, I'm going to crush you, then go, oh, OK, now we'll give back a little bit.
SPITZER: Can I change --
HILL: But until then, they were defiant.
SPITZER: Let me ask a different question, though. Why is it that right now -- there's no question states are in fiscal distress.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: The aggregate deficit across all states in the next year or two is going to be about $150 billion. It will trim down if the economy grows, who knows if it will. Big money, although we gave AIG $182 billion just to keep it afloat, so let's keep it all in perspective. But in this context, we still gave away the biggest tax cuts to those who are wealthy. In other words, are we not just seeing a bit of scapegoating here?
HILL: No, we're not.
SPITZER: Why?
HILL: You're making the argument that because you screw up here, keep on screwing up. SPITZER: No.
HILL: -- you throw money away there, throw money away in the other place --
SPITZER: No.
HILL: -- you can't do it. You have to be a big boy and say, hey, you know what? Stop. You have to stop now. And I respect Walker for doing that.
CAIN: She's calling you out right.
HILL: I am.
CAIN: Because the common argument in this --
HILL: Don't you whine to me, son.
CAIN: Public unions aren't solely responsible for budgetary issues. Fine, they're not solely responsible but they're a big contributor.
SPITZER: We're blaming the failure of governors like Rick Perry who has a $25 billion deficit without public sector unions. Explain that. Rick Perry who sat here on this show said he didn't have a deficit, a canard. He has a huge deficit, $25 billion. No public sector union. So what's his excuse? What's his excuse?
HILL: We're not saying that it is one small group of people or one large group of people.
SPITZER: OK.
HILL: But what we are saying is everybody's got to go to zero, everybody's got to go to the exact same level playing field and start --
SPITZER: Shared sacrifice.
HILL: That's right.
SPITZER: And so why did we give the tax cuts to certain groups, corporations, the wealthy and then turn around to cops and teachers. That's what we're talking about.
HILL: Because clearly --
SPITZER: Two-thirds in every state budget is teachers, health care and law enforcement. We realize that, right? That's what we're talking about.
HILL: Clearly, politicians -- the public out there decided that politicians who wanted to do that had the right idea going because they turned around state Houses in 14 more -- at least 14 more states in this past midterm election. Why? Because they like those ideas. SPITZER: Wait, wait.
HILL: Now the state lawmakers can run out of their state but the people spoke. And they just don't like what they heard.
SPITZER: We're with you.
CAIN: Let me correct a few facts, OK?
SPITZER: This show is over.
CAIN: First off, private union employees and public sector union employees do not make the same. That statement you made earlier, that is not true. If you want to play wages.
SPITZER: No, no. I said individuals of equal educational stature in the public sector and the private sector have almost identical salaries.
CAIN: And that doesn't count many factors which public union employees give, such as benefits, vacation time, job security. You don't have intangibles like job security and vacation times. And I guarantee you --
SPITZER: All in salaries. All in salaries.
CAIN: Where's one of your famous charts? We're going to need to see that.
SPITZER: We'll get it here in the next couple of days. This is an interesting study.
CAIN: But the point I'm making besides is challenging your fact. The point is that this is a contributor. And the fact that you can point to Texas that doesn't have public sector unions and might have budget troubles, doesn't mean the states that also have budget troubles and public unions --
SPITZER: Will, wait.
CAIN: -- aren't coinciding there.
SPITZER: Of course, wait. Listen more carefully. I'm not saying it's not a contributing factor. Of course, it's a contributing factor.
CAIN: Great.
SPITZER: But the resolution and the answer is for governors, mayors, county executives to negotiate more aggressively, not to put handcuffs on the workers and say we take away your rights. It's not as though when you lose an election you say aha, we're going to deny the vote to the other side. What you say is what we want to do is make our argument better, be tougher.
HILL: No, that's exactly what they're doing. They're denying the other side. They don't want to negotiate. The Democrats in the Wisconsin assembly didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to run away because they were going to lose. And that's what they did. And they're still MIA.
CAIN: And let's just remind who Republican employees are negotiating with? Me, E.D., you, taxpayers. They vote every two to four years and that's a negotiation task, as well. Just keep voting, you don't need to unionize and bargain against yourselves at the table.
SPITZER: Listen, we agree that public sector unions are powerful. Their contributions just like the contributions from so many other sources had too much sway in the electoral context, which is why I think we would all agree we need some sort of serious campaign finance reform. But what I'm saying is do not take away the rights that Mike Bloomberg says are as American as the secret ballot.
CAIN: You keep using this word "right." We're going to have to have a whole conversation about that.
SPITZER: All right, guys. E.D. Hill, Will Cain, great to have you here. Thanks so much for you watching tonight, IN THE ARENA.
Be sure to stay with CNN. Piers Morgan has the first live television interview with Charlie Sheen and that interview starts right now.
