Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Libyan Military Drops Bombs over Al-Brega; Revolution in Libya; Controlling Government Spending
Aired March 02, 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. Welcome to our program.
Regulars E.D. Hill, Will Cain, thanks for being here tonight. You'll join me in a moment for a conversation with Fareed Zakaria.
But first IN THE ARENA tonight, the winds of change sweeping through the Middle East have hit a wall named Moammar Gadhafi. Libya's strongman has been called corrupt and delusional but he's not stupid. Gadhafi has the troops and the weapons to stay in power. And as he's shown in the past weeks he's not afraid to fight dirty.
In Tripoli, bloggers report that dissidents are disappearing from their homes presumably arrested by Gadhafi's security forces. Many residents simply stay inside afraid to venture out. One such person is a woman who we do not want to name for her own security.
She's been huddled inside her home for 10 days leaving only once to look for food which she tells us is very scarce.
Thank you so much for being brave enough to speak with us tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE EYEWITNESS IN TRIPOLI: Thank you for having me.
SPITZER: Are you still afraid to leave the house and just go out onto the streets of Tripoli for fear of being shot or assaulted by the troops?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE EYEWITNESS IN TRIPOLI: Yes, yes, I am, I am very scared. I mean nothing is normal. When I went -- when I went out yesterday, there was -- the streets were empty and I don't have a car so it's really so, so hard to go out.
There are a lot of snipers in every corner in the city. The city is trapped by all forces, by mercenaries, by the (INAUDIBLE), by the sign of Gadhafi. It's -- we are all trapped and there are snipers everywhere and they just shoot randomly in daylight and, of course, there is no way I can go after dark.
SPITZER: We have seen speeches that Gadhafi has given in which he's blamed everybody from al Qaeda to drugs to all sorts of outside forces for the revolution in Libya. Do people you talk to, does anybody believe him?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE EYEWITNESS IN TRIPOLI: No, no. I mean, he's very delusional. I mean he's really -- I don't know. He lies and believes his lies. I mean I can tell by now that no one really -- that he lost his credibility and no one believes him just -- and the people -- even the people who are chanting his names and are people -- his supporters or backers, are just people who are still under his control and they are only scared but no one likes Gadhafi.
SPITZER: In that case what do you need from either the United States or Europe or other Arab nations to win this battle?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE EYEWITNESS IN TRIPOLI: We need only for now -- I am sure that Libyans will stop -- will stop him eventually. All of us together stop him. All the -- from every city in Libya are going to stop him. The only thing that we need is a no-fly zone. That's the only thing because that's the only thing that will shoot down Gadhafi's warplanes.
If this happens, that's it. The people in Benghazi told us that we need only two days so we can invade Tripoli and stop all of it.
SPITZER: All right. Thank you so much for talking with us. Stay safe and we will talk to you I hope in the days ahead. Thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE EYEWITNESS IN TRIPOLI: Thank for having me. Thank you.
SPITZER: CNN's Ben Wedeman has been doing heroic work covering the rebellion throughout the Middle East and today was one for the books. While reporting on the fighting in the rebel city of al-Brega Ben came uncomfortably close to an air attack by pro-Gadhafi forces. He's now returned to Benghazi and tells us what's going on.
Ben, first you're safe and tell us what happened today.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we were down near the town of Brega, very important town where Libya has one of its largest oil refineries and natural gas export facilities. There, there was a day-long battle between anti-Gadhafi forces and the Libyan Army that had come into the town in the early morning hours of the morning.
Now we were outside of the town with a group of opposition fighters who were preparing to launch a counterattack against the forces inside of Brega when we saw a Libyan Air Force jet fly overhead. It first dropped a bomb outside of Brega then came back, flew right over our heads and dropped another bomb.
It wasn't more than about a hundred feet from where we were standing. There were no injuries in this instance.
Now, later in the day, Eliot, we were with a group of fighters and local residents who were celebrating the fact that they had been able to push the Libyan Army forces out of the city when yet again a Libyan jet flew very low over our heads, dropped a bomb right next to where all these people were standing and celebrating. Fortunately there was a line of cars that seem to block the impact of that blast although there were injuries.
We saw men with stretchers running to the scene as we, of course, rushed out of the area because we were afraid the plane could have come around again and dropped yet another bomb, Eliot.
SPITZER: Boy, Ben, just so it's clear, the footage we were just watching was of those bombs being dropped and the explosions and the holes where the consequence of the bombs as after they exploded.
WEDEMAN: Yes, that's correct. We were right there on the scene. I mean, you could hear the plane going overhead and our camera woman Mary Rogers basically just panned in right where the bomb went off second, just milliseconds after the blast went off. So, yes, that's definitely all of our footage. We saw all -- a little too close for comfort.
SPITZER: I would say obviously thankful you are now safe back in Benghazi. Do you know what were the targets of this bombing raid? You said that al-Brega is an important gas and oil destination right on the Mediterranean coast.
Do you think this means that the Gadhafi forces are trying to destroy the oil and gas infrastructure of the nation?
WEDEMAN: Not necessarily. They may be just trying to control it because there's one very important point about Brega and that is it's one of the collection centers for natural gas. That natural gas is pumped both east and west to fuel the power plants in the rest of the country.
If he controls that power plant, he could easily cut off the gas that comes to this part of the country giving him huge leverage over an area that at the moment he has no control of. So if he controls the Brega refinery and natural gas processing plant gives him huge power over areas he doesn't have at the moment.
SPITZER: All right, Ben, thank you so much for that update and stay away from those fire points. Thank you.
Joining me now to discuss events in Libya and the Middle East, again, our regulars in residence E.D. Hill and Will Cain. And the always brilliant Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS."
Fareed, let me start with this question. We just saw from Ben Wedeman amazing footage of the impact of bombs being dropped in the city of al-Brega from Tripoli, from Libyan air, air force planes that are being directed by Gadhafi. And he then said -- Wedeman said the opposition forces desperately want a no-fly zone.
Should the United States or western forces do this and if not, why not? FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, CNN'S FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: I am somewhat hesitant to have the United States unilaterally enforce a no-fly zone there. There are lots of Libyans and we've heard them on CNN who say look, we don't want foreign intervention. We don't want this to be another Iraq.
And I do think there's a danger that the United States comes across as going in there by itself militarily and hands Gadhafi a very powerful weapon. He's resisting foreign aggression, he's resisting imperialism, he's resisting a superpower. So I would much prefer if there were some other way.
Look, we've got to do something because right now the balance of power is extraordinarily unequal. Gadhafi still has all the weaponry and the planes. But I would be much more comfortable if we could get to some situation where the Arab League were to request a no-fly zone, maybe NATO gets involved, but to have the United States out on its own -- you know, in front on this issue seems to me you pay a pretty heavy price.
This would be the third country in the Middle East after all, the broader Middle East, that we would have been in that situation, militarily intervened in, in the last 10 years.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Fareed, you suggested that there comes a point where you hope we do have to do something and it would be better if the Arab League asked us to.
Let me ask you this. What is our guiding principle? What is it -- when does the decision become, yes, the United States should do something? What is the marker?
ZAKARIA: It's a great question and the honest answer is we've gotten ourselves into this fight. That is to say we have picked a side. We have now said we want Gadhafi to leave. We've -- so imagine if that doesn't happen, right?
CAIN: Right.
ZAKARIA: Imagine if having -- the United States having said we want a regime change in Libya and then this guy consolidates power, mows down the opposition, and he will slaughter them. He'd shown himself capable of doing that. You don't want to pick a fight you can't win.
CAIN: So that suggests to me that we should give any kind of support for any kind of revolutionary movement unless we're willing to back it up with military force?
ZAKARIA: I think we want to be careful that when we call -- you know, when the president of the United States calls for the ouster of a leader, you probably want it to succeed. You know, frankly, you look somewhat foolish if you don't. I know this is not a grand principle, but I do think a lot of international relations, as you know, you pick the right moment. I think that one of the things about the Iran situation that I've always worried is if we go out there on a limb, and you know those forces get mowed down. This happened in 1956 famously. Dwight Eisenhower, you know, John Foster Dulles called on the Hungarian people to rebel. They got -- you know, they got slaughtered by the Soviet-backed government and we looked foolish. We looked impotent.
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I look at this very simply. And last I recall about 10 years ago, Gadhafi was the devil. And then all of a sudden he said, oh no, I'm renouncing that, and we said he's not that bad. And now apparently he's the devil again.
How do we know that who we are getting in bed with now is going to be any better than the person we just kicked out of bed?
ZAKARIA: But to be fair I will give the conservatives, really the neoconservative -- this Paul Wolfowitz was on my program last week. They are the ones who consistently opposed to the reconciliation that -- with Gadhafi. They said this guy is a bad egg. He's -- you know, he's been a state sponsor of terror. He's only doing this because he's scared about -- he doesn't want to be the next Saddam Hussein, and I think they were right.
This guy was -- you know, this guy was rotten to the core and we now apparently know that he ordered personally the Lockerbie bombing which he claimed he didn't really know about, so when you find really rapacious terrorists supporting thugs, be careful about making deals with them.
SPITZER: Yes, I come at it more from what I think is your perspective. We're in this fight and losing is the worst option that is possible. And we have now made it very clear we want Gadhafi gone and yet we see some sort of equilibrium perhaps being created -- militarily at least -- in Libya right now where the opposition forces are not advancing to Tripoli nor is he able to take back Benghazi.
How long can this continue before there is some international call for intervention of some form?
ZAKARIA: Well, there won't be an international call for intervention --
SPITZER: Or the Arab League.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAKARIA: Right. The Russians and the Chinese are looking at this absolutely petrified because the Chinese look at this and say, wait a minute, if there is an uprising in Tibet, the U.N. is going to start enforcing no-fly zones, and things like that. No way. The Russians don't want it in Chechnya, so this will never get through the U.N.
CAIN: Eliot, I find it fascinating, incredibly enlightening that both of you suggest we're already in this fight. That by giving verbal support, as you said, Fareed, it implies some potential at some point of a military intervention as well. And I do find it (INAUDIBLE), you suggest Iran as your best example. That the president is unwilling to give that verbal support because of that implication.
ZAKARIA: I think that that's -- that was very much part of the calculation. And you raise an interesting point. So then, should the United States not support these movements? I think --
CAIN: Unless you're willing to fight.
ZAKARIA: I think you've got to be careful about how you support them. I mean you can praise demonstrations and stuff but when you formally call for the ouster of a foreign leader.
CAIN: Right.
ZAKARIA: You know, you want that to happen.
SPITZER: And also, what we are now seeing in Libya is the forces of Gadhafi using their own military to bomb their civilians.
ZAKARIA: Yes.
HILL: But wait.
SPITZER: This is an outrageous state of affairs and we have to come back to your question, E.D. We don't know what will come after Gadhafi.
HILL: So then why should we --
SPITZER: Clearly. But we do know -- but wait a second. But what we do know is that it will be better than Gadhafi.
HILL: How do we know that?
SPITZER: Because --
HILL: How do we know -- since these are in disarray, they can't figure out who is leading a provisional coalition, provisional government, whatever, how do we know that when they call something a democracy and we agree to fight for it, that it's really a democracy that we envision.
ZAKARIA: Well, it can't be much worse than Gadhafi. Chaos is probably better than Gadhafi but --
HILL: But can it be that much better that --
SPITZER: No, it won't be --
HILL: That it deserves --
ZAKARIA: No.
HILL: -- our money and our men and women? ZAKARIA: Look, if you were to be cold and cynical about this, it's tough to see how Libya turns out well. It's -- it's never really been a country. It was a bunch of tribes unified by the Italians. They have oil wealth which means it's a curse. They're not going to develop a modern economy. On the other hand this guy is slaughtering his people.
SPITZER: Fareed, you've got a special airing here on CNN Sunday night. Tell us about it. What's it about?
ZAKARIA: Well, it's part of this continuing investigation that I'm doing to try to figure out how to fix the American economy, how to get the United States -- get its groove back again. And this one is really about how so many politicians keep talking about American exceptionalism, we're the greatest country in the history of the world, we're number one, but actually by many measures we're not number one anymore.
And I try to take us through that, explain why it's happening and of course then ask how do we get back to number one.
SPITZER: Right. And what's the easy answer?
ZAKARIA: Invest, invest, invest, in my view. I mean the biggest problem we have right now is we're spending a lot of our money subsidizing consumption, namely subsidizing the elderly. The federal government spends $4 for every elderly person in America compared to $1 for every person under 18. It's a terrible signal of what our priorities as a society are.
SPITZER: All right. Fareed, thank you. I will be watching.
ZAKARIA: Pleasure.
SPITZER: When we come back, he's been called the last honest man in Washington and he's a rare breed for sure. You won't want to miss what's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Joining us now Congressman Ron Paul, who is the philosophical leader of the Tea Party. And while I may disagree with virtually everything he says, Congressman Paul has the intellectual integrity to put his cards on the table and tell us exactly where he will cut the budget, and for that he deserves a round of applause.
Popular though -- or unpopular though these ideas may be, Congressman, it is a pleasure to have you on the show. Welcome.
REP. RON PAUL (R), FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thanks. Thank you.
SPITZER: So first, just put it out there. You voted against the continuing resolution that was passed in the House of the Representatives the other day to keep the government functioning. Explain to us why you did not vote for it. PAUL: Well, mainly because it was still too big. I've never endorsed the budget since I've been in the Congress because I've always believed that the spending was out of control even 15, 20, 30 years ago and so I'm not going to start voting for it.
But on this particular bill there were a few cuts but I thought they were token. But the one thing is, is that seems to be off the table is cutting anything militarily. You know, you can't touch or even think about the military industrial complex so if they start tinkering with that and start cutting back significantly with an earnest effort to cut back I see that we could vote for a budget but these aren't real cuts and they're not serious about it. This is totally out of control.
SPITZER: Congressman --
PAUL: And I think you have to talk about the military spending, as well.
SPITZER: We'll get there in one second. Let's see if you and I can agree on something. Eve if you extend -- and this continuing resolution cut $4 billion over two weeks and there is some notion that maybe you on your side of the aisle, Republicans, want $100 billion to be cut over the whole fiscal year.
Even if you did that can we agree that is barely a token given the magnitude of the federal deficit right now?
PAUL: Absolutely. I mean the deficit is $1.5 trillion. The national debt this year is going to go up $2 trillion so it's very much out of control.
SPITZER: OK. I'm trying to see if you and I from opposite sides of the political spectrum here can agree on certain things. So we also agree that until you begin to make serious cuts, if you want to really balance the budget on defense spending, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, what I call the big four, you're not serious about this debate. Is that -- can we agree on that?
PAUL: Yes, I think so. I use different words. I don't cut defense, I cut military, and I don't like anybody to think that I'm cutting defense. I think our defense is diminished. And that's just a technical point but I also would have priorities. You know, I think if they follow what I talk about, taking away all subsidies and getting rid of the Department of Agriculture and all these other things, you wouldn't necessarily have to start on medical care for the elderly.
SPITZER: Well --
PAUL: But everything should be on the table. Everything has to be considered.
SPITZER: Let me just push you a little on that. You and I both know what we call nondefense discretionary spending is about $600 billion. PAUL: Right.
SPITZER: Even if you eliminate it all of that, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Justice, all that, you're still left with a $1 trillion deficit so you are going to have to do some serious cutting in defense and Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Just as a matter of arithmetic. Right? So we -- that we can agree on.
PAUL: Yes, everything has to be --
SPITZER: And --
PAUL: And I've made a proposal that we should do all our 13 appropriation bills and if we're 20 or 30 percent over budget just strike that amount from each one.
SPITZER: OK. Well --
PAUL: And see what would happen. That would be another way of doing it. But that's not going to happen. We -- in reality they're not even going to think about things like that.
SPITZER: OK. Let me just take -- let's take Medicare for a moment, which is health care for the elderly. We agree we need to cut it. How do you want to do it? Where are you going to control Medicare spending so that we can take -- let's say a 10 percent cut out of that budget, 15 percent cut out of that budget?
PAUL: Well, if I were the bureaucrats who run it and make a direct payment maybe to the states. I mean there's so much cost to sending the money up here. We had a highway bill today but you know, why send the money up here and send it back and pay all the bureaucrats?
Department of Education, the same thing. So get rid of the bureaucrats. If you collected the money and have the money, send it back and let the states run it. You could do something differently. But that --
SPITZER: Congressman, look, I'm going to hit the big red X on that one. I've been a governor. I -- we ran a Medicaid system. We did it pretty well but you're not going to save a lot of money by simply shifting the responsibility down to the states, getting rid of the bureaucrats.
Are you willing to means test Medicare by which I mean, if your income is above 200,000 bucks, you've got to pay for your own health care? You don't get a Medicare coverage.
PAUL: Well --
SPITZER: Are you willing to do something dramatic like that?
PAUL: Well, yes, you could but you would have to make an admission that Social -- if you did it with Social Security you have to admit that's a welfare program then.
I've had bills in where I've tried to salvage the Social Security system by stopping all the spending everywhere else and have a contract with the people and try to pay it. So like I said earlier, that's not where I start. I have a lot of places where I could cut where you don't have to concentrate and over emphasize, well, we're going to -- we're going to cut the medical care for elderly.
SPITZER: OK. Look, I got one last question, and what I call -- and Ezra Klein of "The Washington Post", give him credit. He had a great line. He said the federal government is really an insurance company with an army, and the insurance company is Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
You're going to have to do something dramatic in there. Give me one serious idea and then I want to switch to another topic. One serious idea to really drill down and cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of those insurance programs.
PAUL: OK, I will do all the budget -- all 13 budgets and if you're 20 percent over the budget cut everybody by 20 percent.
SPITZER: So you're just going to lop 20 percent off Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? Cut everybody's Social Security check by 20 percent?
PAUL: That is one way you can do it.
SPITZER: OK. Well, are you for it or are you saying that's one way you could do it?
PAUL: Well, yes, if they offered that, if they did all the -- all the appropriations and found out that we were a certain percentage over the budget, and wanted to do it -- I mean I'd be willing to do it over a three-year period.
SPITZER: OK.
PAUL: Maybe -- could be one-third, one-third, one-third so you don't have to do it all in one year.
SPITZER: All right.
PAUL: It would just be the direction that would make the big difference.
SPITZER: All right, Congressman, look, that's what I said at the top. I may disagree with you but I admire your intellectual integrity. You're going to be cutting our Social Security checks by 20, 30, 40 percent. It's going to balance the budget.
Now I want to change the debate for you for a minute.
PAUL: Now, look, you put words into my mouth there but I'll let it go. SPITZER: All right. We'll come back then. I want to pose a philosophical question to you because I think this really is where you and I do disagree.
I've heard you say, eloquently, although I disagree, that there is no right, let's say, to federal help with your education or no right to have the federal government pay for your health care.
Even if I accepted that premise, and I said, you're right, there is no right to it, can't we as a society decide we wanted to provide that assistance and over the last 50 years we've all benefited by having a government that does it. Just because it's a right doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do it.
PAUL: Look, we don't have a right to it but we want everybody to have it so we should never challenge each other on our motivations, because I don't agree with you, that does not mean that I care less about -- I'm a physician. You know? I've seen this.
But I've also practiced medicine before the government was involved and believe me, I didn't see people out on the street without medical care. I worked in emergency rooms in church hospitals. I was paid $3 an hour and everybody got taken care of.
SPITZER: Congressman.
PAUL: Every person.
SPITZER: Can I interrupt for one second?
PAUL: So I'll tell you, there is a -- there is a real way to do it and I do believe the market can do a much better job than the government and right now the government is proving my point, because the medical care in this country is going downhill, it's getting more expensive, and it's getting worked rapidly -- worse rapidly.
SPITZER: Look, just so it's clear. I wasn't in any way challenging your motivation. I was just saying there is a distinction between having a right to something and then government or society collectively making the affirmative choice even though there's no right to get a Pell Grant or having -- getting a subsidy if your desperately poor to help pay your rent.
PAUL: Well, OK --
SPITZER: We can decide to do it.
PAUL: I can accept --
SPITZER: So this is a modus (ph).
PAUL: I can accept that. I don't believe that you have a right to somebody else's life or money and people don't have a right to these -- they have a right to their life and their liberty and the fruits of their labor. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be motivated and I am motivated but I would provide a better system that is provided -- you know, through the market economy.
Just think of what it would have been like if the government had decided to pass out computers and cell phones. Can you imagine?
SPITZER: Well --
PAUL: Everybody has a cell phone. Everybody has a cell phone and the price goes down.
SPITZER: But that's why we didn't do it.
PAUL: But when the government gets involved -- when the government gets involved in education and medicine, you have quality goes down and costs goes up and it becomes a bureaucratic monster and people --
SPITZER: Let me jump in.
PAUL: Everybody is unhappy. Everybody is unhappy. And then the corporations take over.
SPITZER: OK, hold on one second.
PAUL: The insurance companies take over.
SPITZER: Hold on one second.
PAUL: And these drug companies take over.
SPITZER: Hold on one second. Look, there is a lot more in there we may agree but I want to ask you one last question, clock is running out here. There may not be a right to a minimum wage.
Do you believe that we should set a minimum wage even though there may not be a constitutional mandated right to it?
PAUL: Yes, the minimum wage is always set by productivity, and the more productive an individual is, the higher the salaries are. If you had a free market there would be a demand for labor and the -- and wages would be pushed up.
When we had the industrial revolution, I'll tell you what, wages went up rapidly compared to when there was, you know, no industries at all so, yes, there is a right and they can demand it. There should negotiations and there should -- but the only thing that will push up a real wage is real production.
SPITZER: I agree.
PAUL: And that's what we have to understand.
SPITZER: Congressman, look, long-term productivity is the key to wage increases. All of us who've studied economics --
PAUL: Right. SPITZER: -- agree with that, but I'm asking you a simple question. I don't mean to play prosecutor, but yes or no, because the clock is running out. Do you think the federal government should mandate a federal -- a minimum wage that applies across all 50 states?
PAUL: My goodness, no, that's slavery. I mean that's tyranny.
SPITZER: All right. All right.
PAUL: I don't want mandates -- I don't want mandates on your personal lifestyle and I don't want you mandating my economic lifestyle. I don't want government mandates. I want them to protect my liberty, protect the market, give us honest money, and give us a national defense where we're not squandering our wealth by policing the world and trying to tell people how to run their lives.
SPITZER: All right. Congressman, time is up. It's a pleasure to have you on the show. Hope you'll come back. We'll continue this conversation because it's always good to get somebody as intellectually honest as you.
PAUL: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir. Well, that was fun. Anyway, ahead on the show, what's the difference between hate speech in America and hate speech in France? The answer will surprise you. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Is it hate speech punishable as a crime or is it free speech protected by law? It depends where you are.
The Supreme Court today upheld something that almost everyone found disgusting. Those protesters who showed up at the funerals of U.S. troops carrying hateful signs denigrating gay people and the president. The court called it free speech. But in France, hate speech was deemed a crime today. Dior designer John Galliano will stand trial for his recent anti-Semitic slurs. Listen to what got the fashion guru into trouble.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you blond? Are you blond with --
JOHN GALLIANO, FASHION DESIGNER: No, but I love to hate blondes. People like you would be dead today. Your mothers. Your forefathers would be (expletive deleted) gassed and (expletive deleted) dead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: No doubt that was ugly stuff. Back with me to talk about this, E.D. Hill and Will Cain.
All right, Will and E.D., who got it right, France or the United States?
CAIN: There's a safe bet on that usually.
SPITZER: I bet that is true. I fear we may agree on this.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: Explain it to us.
CAIN: It is the United States. The Westboro Baptist Church case illustrates the purpose of the First Amendment. Benign speech doesn't need protecting. Offensive --
SPITZER: You're calling that benign.
CAIN: No, that's the point. Benign speech doesn't need protecting. Offensive speech needs protecting. And Westboro was most certainly offensive but this is the purpose of the First Amendment.
SPITZER: Ever any limits on it?
CAIN: I mean, yes, there are limits in the First Amendment but they are few and far between and are usually accompanied with some sort of compelled action.
SPITZER: So --
HILL: Will is the intellectual. I'm the emotional person here. And the way I look at it is you really don't need the government reacting to this because the fact is if I could afford it, I wouldn't buy Dior if they kept some sort of relationship with this guy.
SPITZER: Well, they did fire him. Dior fired him.
HILL: They did. They fired him. And why did they do it? Because they knew that people like me, people like you, we would say --
SPITZER: I don't buy Dior anyway.
HILL: Really?
SPITZER: Trust me.
(LAUGHTER)
HILL: They would say forget, I will not support this kind of speech. You don't have -- in my opinion, you don't necessarily need a law to protect that because people who I think are good and decent look at that and say it's offensive and they refuse to.
SPITZER: All right.
HILL: Just as without the law you would say Westboro Baptist Church offensive. SPITZER: Look, we all agree that as horrendous as those protests were at the funerals, it should be protected speech under our constitution. So where do the French go wrong? They passed this law. They got a law that goes back to the 1800s saying hate speech can be prosecuted criminally. Somebody could go to jail for that.
HILL: I'm not saying they are wrong. We're just different.
SPITZER: Well, then, why aren't they wrong? Why shouldn't he go to jail for saying that?
HILL: I don't think he will necessarily go to jail. He'll probably be fined but they for whatever reason --
CAIN: Come on, E.D., listen, we've got to call them out when we need to call them out. They are wrong. Don't be a cultural relic to this.
HILL: I disagree.
CAIN: It's wrong to inhibit free speech. France is wrong on this. And here's an interesting take, I think. You said Galliano is fired, right? But the story is not over on that. The French have very strict laws on how someone can be fired and the process can take months.
Now this is an interesting proxy for how we view the individual and the state. The United States, you know, you can be fired but you can't go to jail. In France, you can go to jail but you can't be fired.
SPITZER: Well, look, interesting contrast. We're not going to get into French employment law tonight. We'll get into French First Amendment for a little bit. But let me push you a little bit.
Judge Alito, smart guy, he was in the dissent here. Is there any way that you could say yes, the speech we heard at those funerals could be deemed illegal. What would they have had to have done to make it something the law could say you can't do that?
CAIN: You know, the majority in Roberts said that what Westboro is saying is in the public's fear and it is contributing to the public debate. No matter how negligible, no matter how despicable what they're saying, it's part of the debate. Alito said it could amount to terroristic threats, or fighting words or personal -- I don't buy the argument. It's a verbal assault.
SPITZER: So somebody --
HILL: I go back to how people reacted. And again, it's the emotional reaction here. When you went to one of those protests, you had people that would go there and walk in front of those Westboro protesters with the signs thank you to the military, we love the military, other things that contradicted what they were saying. And that's what America is all about is a clash of ideas that we allow to, you know, to blow open in the public sphere. They don't in France. SPITZER: Look, I think we're all saying the best way to defeat heinous speech like that is with a louder speech or more articulate speech or more cogent arguments on the other side. Not to silence them. Silencing bad speech is almost never the right approach.
HILL: They're silencing in France. They're letting it go. They're prosecuting it in France.
SPITZER: Well, silencing by throwing them in jail. What if he had paired it with the protesters down at the funeral had said and we want to perpetrate violent crime?
CAIN: Then it does change the equation.
HILL: Nothing.
CAIN: And if they -- not just if they say it but it appears that they have an intention and an ability to do so.
SPITZER: So then we begin to get into the land of conspiracy to commit criminal acts. When do you you're your first step towards doing it?
HILL: That's the difference when you talk about, say, the recent crimes here in New York where you've got kids who are out on the island and they're yelling things that are protected but then they take the swing.
SPITZER: All right.
HILL: It is when they take the swing that things change.
SPITZER: I'm not sure if it makes me feel good or not, but I think all three of us agree on this. All right.
HILL: I'm not going to slap you right now.
SPITZER: All right. Stick around. We'll have more to talk about later in the show.
Coming up, while anti-and pro-Gadhafi forces fight it out in Libya, a new government is already taking shape. Does it stand a chance? I'll ask the leader of the opposition in exile. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: What could be a major step today in the formation of a post-Gadhafi Libya, a new temporary government for the first time and it met today. Joining me again tonight, someone with unprecedented access to the emerging leadership. Mansour El-Kikhia is an exile Libyan opposition leader who hails from a powerful political family. He's also a professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Professor, thank you for coming back.
MANSOUR EL-KIKHIA, UNIV. OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: Thank you for having me.
SPITZER: So last night, you told us that there had been a provisional government formed.
EL-KIKHIA: Yes.
SPITZER: And, in fact, we're now beginning to see articles in the paper about it. Tell us who they are, who leads it, what power they've got.
EL-KIKHIA: I have two people actually leading it. First of all is a man, a gentleman, a judge by the name of Musapa Abdeljalid (ph) and the assistant is an individual, Abdullah (INAUDIBLE) Doha (ph). They were supposed to be on your show today, but they cannot be. It will be tomorrow I hope.
SPITZER: We hope.
EL-KIKHIA: We hope they will be. Actually it's made up for 30 individuals from the liberated areas of Libya and it will increase even more. They really have four more important tasks to do. The first is take care of the individuals who are in the area that have been liberated. The second and even more important is to ensure the safety of -- to coordinate about how to liberate Libya out of Gadhafi's control. The third one is to watch the military, the new military government that the military forces that are being formed to deal with Gadhafi. They don't want a separate entity by itself. They want civilian rule to oversee the military which I think is very important. And, of course, even more important is to find the food and the creation of a new system.
SPITZER: Who gives them legitimacy? The 30 individuals you say from 30 different regions, are those cities, towns that have been liberated? Who those these 30 individuals?
EL-KIKHIA: Each one of those cities represent a representative of that government.
SPITZER: And do they have the recognition of the mass of the population in Benghazi, for instance?
EL-KIKHIA: Benghazi has its own representative in there. Sabratha (ph) has its own representative in there. Zawiya has its own representative. Even western Libya have their own representative in there. And it increases as each part is being liberated, they have their representative in there and they make up these committees to ensure the creation of a new government which will actually prepare for elections and prepare for the constitution.
SPITZER: So this is the organic growth of democracy within Libya.
EL-KIKHIA: Exactly, exactly.
SPITZER: Now you mentioned something critically important, they control the military. Is the opposition military something that is structured enough to report back to this provisional government?
EL-KIKHIA: They're trying to ensure that it is. It's always very difficult, Eliot. The problem over here, it is a new experiment for Libya, for so many of them who have never grown up within a civilian --
SPITZER: Today, you know, Al-Brega, there was some back and forth. Gadhafi sent in his forces. They took over briefly, we are told, and then they were repulsed. Who was in charge of that in the military level for the opposition?
EL-KIKHIA: Actually the group within Benghazi who actually gave the orders, this is why they're coming on your show. They actually sent reinforcement to Al-Brega and they pushed back at Gadhafi to the outskirts of the country and they call to pursue them.
SPITZER: Does the military recognize this provisional government?
EL-KIKHIA: Yes.
SPITZER: As a force --
EL-KIKHIA: Yes.
SPITZER: As the voice for the new Libya?
EL-KIKHIA: This is the wonder. Yes, they do. And they recognize this new government as being a legitimate government of new Libya that will lead to a demographic system in the country.
SPITZER: Look, there's so many issues here to pursue, but I want to come back to the military standoff that we appear to be seeing created right now. What is it that the Libyan opposition needs the west to do or Europe or the world to do or not to do? Do you want a no-fly zone, for instance?
EL-KIKHIA: We want to ground Gadhafi. Level the playing field. You ground Gadhafi, we will beat him. He's bringing in mercenaries, even until today. Just two hours before coming over here, I had contacts with people down in the south. He's bringing Malians (ph) (INAUDIBLE). He's bringing about 400 mercenaries from Chad. And they're all going to come to Tripoli. We can deal with them as long as we have something to stop those airplanes from bombing.
SPITZER: So when you say ground Gadhafi, what you mean is ground his air force.
EL-KIKHIA: Ground his air force.
SPITZER: How do you want the west or NATO or the Arab league to do that? Whose voice do you want to be heard?
EL-KIKHIA: I don't trust the Arab League. The Arab League is -- there is no -- SPITZER: But let me play devil's advocate for a minute. If the United States suddenly announced we were going to go in and establish a no-fly zone, suddenly it would look as though the opposition, the revolution was driven by the west and isn't that not what Gadhafi is arguing. We don't want to reinforce that argument so somebody needs to invite us in.
EL-KIKHIA: I understand. The provisional government is willing to consider, consider dealing with the Europeans and the United States as long as they create a no-fly zone, but not American troops or European troops on Libyan soil.
SPITZER: So no intervention but a no-fly zone.
EL-KIKHIA: But no-fly zone.
SPITZER: Has there been any contact that you're aware of between this provisional government and the two leaders in particular and United States diplomats or NATO or anybody else in Europe?
EL-KIKHIA: Actually, yes, indeed. And it's about time there should be something done.
SPITZER: Do they need an ambassador here in the United States?
EL-KIKHIA: Yes, they do. Of course, they do. That's my advice to them. In fact, today, I said you've got to appoint someone to talk with the United States. Don't just say go there.
SPITZER: Is it you? Are you sending your resume? Are you the person?
EL-KIKHIA: No, they choose. I don't. I'm outside here. I mean --
SPITZER: Look, they do have diplomats here. There are diplomats in the U.N.
EL-KIKHIA: Yes, yes.
SPITZER: Why don't they designate somebody to begin this process?
EL-KIKHIA: That's actually my point. What you make is very valid. Yes, there are people here competent, designate them. Let them deal with central governments and that way at least we get the support.
SPITZER: All right.
EL-KIKHIA: Not to fight.
SPITZER: Right. To be continued. All right. Mansour El- Kikhia, again, a fascinating perspective. Thank you for stopping by.
Coming up, revolution in the Middle East, bad for dictators. But is it good for the one democratic country in the region? I'll ask the woman who may just be Israel's next prime minister. Tzipi Livni. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Events across the Arab world in the past few weeks have been nothing short of jaw-dropping. In the meantime, Israel has been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of revolution and democracy. But we're fixing that right now.
Joining us now is Tzipi Livni. She currently leads the opposition party in Israel and joins us now from Tel Aviv. Thanks for being there.
TZIPI LIVNI, HEAD OF ISRAELI OPPOSITION PARTY: It's a pleasure.
SPITZER: So I have to begin, you have been in the Mossad. You have been the foreign minister of Israel. We in the United States have this almost mythic respect for the Mossad. Did you see these revolutions that have been sweeping North Africa in the Mideast coming? Did you have any predilection that this was about to occur?
LIVNI: Not something like this. I mean, it was clear that we need to make our own assessment about the day after President Mubarak, but I would like to say that this event, this new reality in the region is something that we couldn't foresee the way it is now.
SPITZER: One of the remarkable features of the revolutions that we have watched unfold over the past weeks is that they have been remarkably devoid of anti-Zionist and anti-U.S. rhetoric. Nobody is in the streets screaming at Israel. Nobody is blaming the United States or Israel for their plight. Did that surprise you, this absence of vitriol against Israel?
LIVNI: It is clear now that basically we're talking about internal changes. We are talking about young people that are looking for their own rights. It's not against somebody or against a state even though they want to fight for their own rights, but it is also clear to me that as long as this Palestinian conflict is open and is not solved, so it's not the reason for extremism in our region but yet it's going to be abused by the extremists in order to provoke some parts of the societies in the Arab world.
SPITZER: It is as you say -- it appears to be a domestically based effort to get freedom internal to the country so that must be a positive and very pleasant surprise to the state of Israel.
LIVNI: Yes, this is good news because when we are looking about young people and they are fighting for their own right, they want freedom, they want democracy. This is good news for the region, but yet we don't know what's going to happen next. And this is in the way a crossroads. We can have all the positive aspect is that we are going to have changes in the region. We are going to have more democratic states which is good news, but the other side or maybe the worst case scenario is a situation in which the extremists that are better organized will take over or would abuse the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the poverty and other things in order to get control. And the role of the international community is crucial on these because we cannot decide for them. We cannot patronize them. But we can shape in a way the future.
We need to help them to promote this process into real democracy in order to participate in election. Parties need to adopt certain values of democracy. They need to renounce violence and terrorism. They need to accept former agreements that their international agreements of their state, this is something that needs to be implemented in our region as well, and this is something that can be done. And now it's not too late for the international community to initiate something like an international or universal code for democracy or universal code for elections saying that when the United States, when the international community says that the elections are free and fair, the meaning is that this kinds of constitutional conditions will implemented in the Democratic process as a matter of values, as well.
SPITZER: You made this argument very powerfully in an op-ed here in "The Washington Post" just a few days ago that you're right, democracy is more than a process. It is an acceptance of the values that go along with democracy and, of course, you write this after the experience of Hamas winning an election in Gaza. Is that what you see as the worst case scenario in Egypt?
LIVNI: Yes.
SPITZER: Where some group akin to Hamas, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood would take over and then destroy the essence of democracy and not abide by the peace with Egypt? Is that what you're fearful of?
LIVNI: Exactly, exactly. I mean we need to learn from our past experience. The only way to be sure or to know that this is a positive wave in the region and not something that -- not only Israel but the entire world in danger is to shape the future by saying, OK, we want to work with you. But yet you need to understand that part of the democratic system is also accepting certain rules as exists in most of the constitutions of the world.
SPITZER: All right. Tzipi Livni, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And I look forward to continuing the conversation in days and weeks ahead.
LIVNI: OK. Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you.
I'll be right back with some final thoughts with E.D. and Will.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: You know what? I'm missing our president. I want to hear from him on the budget, where we have to cut. I want to hear from him on the Middle East, what's going on there and why we're doing what we're doing. Am I the only one who's kind of feeling a void right now?
CAIN: No, it's not my game to attack Obama as a person.
SPITZER: I'm asking you to step in.
CAIN: Well, I mean, as the conservative that's what is always assumed that I'm attacking him. He has too many bad ideas for me to attack him as a person. But let me say this.
SPITZER: We're not going to agree on this one.
CAIN: At this point he's showing a disturbing habit of following and not leading, whether it's health care or cap and trade, or Egypt and Libya. He's always in the back. And what we once thought was thoughtful and calculated is now looking weak.
HILL: I'll tell you I think he's a nice guy. However, he's just MIA. Even Harry Reid is saying I'd really appreciate a little input here.
Please, he's not getting it. I think if you're the president, like him or hate him, you know, go along with the ideas, disagree with him vehemently, put something out there.
SPITZER: Look, now you're making me feel guilty for having raised the issue because now I'm going to have to defend him because he's my president.
HILL: Go ahead.
SPITZER: But you know what, here's the thing. I think we actually do agree on a certain point. I'm not going to call it weakness. I'm going to say he's just following the MIA.
CAIN: What is it?
HILL: That is clever.
SPITZER: No, no. But what I'm going to say is that I do think right now we need the president to step into the void on the budget stuff. Whatever your view is, we need somebody to take charge, be the grown-up. And also in the Middle East, we need somebody who's going to explain why we're going in here, not going in there saying this.
HILL: As long as he's not wearing Dior socks --
SPITZER: Well, all right.
CAIN: If it's not weakness, what is it, a different leadership style?
SPITZER: Look, this is where I don't want to use --
CAIN: I'm curious.
SPITZER: But I'm coming back to what Fareed said earlier. It's very hard to articulate grand principles. You get into trouble when you then try to follow a day-to-day foreign policy having enunciated this in a grand speech.
HILL: We have to believe it.
SPITZER: Having said that, I think the world needs to see the United States and understand why we do what we do, where we do it. There may be inconsistencies or not. But I'm missing a sense of structure and purpose.
HILL: That's because you've got to have someone who has a firm set of beliefs, a firm game plan.
SPITZER: Leave that. We'll continue this over the days ahead. I've got to believe he has those beliefs.
CAIN: I believe that.
SPITZER: You may disagree with him. I think I agree with his beliefs. Anyway, we're going to see more of this days and months ahead.
E.D. Hill, Will Cain, thank you. And thanks so much for joining us IN THE ARENA tonight.
Good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
