Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Interview with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren; Interview with Gov. Rick Scott of Florida
Aired May 20, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Top story tonight:
Sometimes, a picture tells a better story than we can. Take a look at this body language. Two men, President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- by most accounts they do not like each other. And today, that seemed clear.
After a 90-minute meeting at the White House, much longer than expected, Netanyahu slapped back at the peace plan Obama laid out in his speech yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The peace based on illusions will crash on the rocks of the Middle Eastern reality. And that the only -- the only peace that will endure is one that's based on reality, on unshakable facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: A peace based on illusions. Strong words indeed. I'll be asking exactly what that meant and I'll be asking true insider. I'll have an exclusive interview with Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. That's coming up in just a moment. But, first, here's a look at the other stories we're drilling down on tonight.
The end of the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)\
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we don't act now, it's going to be too late.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Some people are sure it is happening tomorrow. But the guy who's predicting it said the same thing before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What if this guy is right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: The story of what happened last time.
And, Dominique Strauss-Kahn -- in America, he is reviled. In France, he's a victim. I'll ask Bernard-Henri Levy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has been victim of a preemptive punishment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Is there more than an ocean dividing our two countries?
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are an embarrassment to our party.
NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm sorry you feel that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Republicans are off and running, and tripping over their own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Gloria Borger talks to the Governor Rick Scott of Florida, a key state, (INADIBLE) in 2012.
Now, more on our headliner story.
Joining me from Washington, and an exclusive prime time interview is Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States.
Ambassador, thanks for being here.
MICHAEL OREN, ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Always good to be here, Eliot.
SPITZER: Clearly, we all know now that when you did get details of the speech, there was a lot of back and forth between the Israeli government and the White House. What was that all about? Who was involved in that back and forth? OREN: A number of questions to answer here. First of all, keep in mind that President Obama has called for the '67 borders to be -- the 'focus point or the orientation of our peace talks with the Palestinians. He hasn't called for the actual return to the '67 borders. And it was not the focal point of the speech.
The speech was about the situation in the Middle East and it was actually a very small part of the speech.
Having said that, the overwhelming majority of Israelis are against the return to the '67 borders. That's clear. And the reasons are very, very simple -- those borders before 1967 were only nine miles wide. Twice, Arab armies tried to cut us in half by crossing those borders, our back is to the sea and tried to destroy us from those borders. So, they were not defensible borders.
And in the last 44 years, since 1967, over a half million Israelis now live beyond those borders. And so, a return to the '67 borders would leave the half a million of our citizens in another country. So, no -- very, very few Israelis would recall returning to those borders.
But, again, the president hasn't demanded that we return to those borders. Simply saying that will be the starting point for negotiations.
SPITZER: Ambassador, just so it is clear -- on the issue of Hamas and the issue of the United Nations and what -- what Hamas and the Palestinians intend to do in September, you and the president are in absolute alignment, and I think with 99 percent of the American public. It's the issue of the '67 borders because -- frankly, I'm a little startled that this has caused so much consternation.
I want to read to you something that was said in a joint press release when the Prime Minister Netanyahu was here in 2010 with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which is identical to the language that was in the speech. It says, "The U.S. believes the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of independent state based upon the 1967 lines with agreed swaps."
This is language that is nearly word for word what was in the speech and that's why I'm asking you right now, why is it that the Israeli government is pushing back so hard when that language '67 -- the '67 lines with agreed swaps is exactly what has been used as the template for U.S. policy in the past? What is new about it?
OREN: Well, I know this may sound like arcane diplomacy to you, Eliot, a little picayune. But if you read that statement slowly, you'll see that the United States believed, according to that statement, that through good faith negotiations, the Palestinian goal of an independent state based on the 1967 borders could be reconciled with Israel's goal of a secure and recognized Jewish state with Israel.
So, what was previously couched as a Palestinian goal has now been reframed as America's position.
SPITZER: Now, I'm not sure I agree with you in terms of the syntax of that statement, Ambassador. I think we have to dig a little more deeply. I've read the statement very carefully. But the issue of swaps has been integral to what the United States has been saying for years. And that's why I think everybody in the United States government is saying this is not a fundamental ship. Why are you causing such a kerfuffle about something that really has been integral to what we've been saying for years? And that's the question for you.
OREN: Well, I'm just going to have to give you same answer again. What was previously a Palestinian position has now been adopted as an American position. And the possibility then arises that we would be asked in some way to go back to the '67 borders, which we regard as indefensible and borders that have invited wars in the past. They haven't prevented wars, and borders that would leave very large numbers of our citizens beyond our borders.
SPITZER: Let me ask you this question then. Even if there was this possible syntax (ph) analysis of the sentence which they maybe is a little different -- the thrust of the president's speech where he said with great clarity that the Fatah-Hamas alignment made it unacceptable to expect Israel to negotiate with Palestinian Authority, where he rejected the Palestinian effort to go to the United Nations and seek recognition at the current moment. All of those were hugely important things the president said on behalf of Israeli security.
Why not embrace those and say, "Thank you, Mr. President, this is why you are our single most important ally in the world"?
OREN: Well, I think that's just what I said, Eliot. We welcomed and appreciated the president's position on the pact between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It's clear that everything we are talking about in terms of negotiations, whether, you know, about the '67 borders or any other aspect of the negotiation is now couched in hypothetical terms, because the ball is very much in the Palestinian's court. They have to make a decision now. Whether they stick with this pact with the terrorist organization that just -- only a few weeks ago fired a missile at a school bus along the Israeli border, killed a 16-year-old child, an organization that condemned America's action against bin Laden and hailed him as an Islamic holier warrior, this is -- this is Hamas.
The Palestinian authority has to make a choice between a pact with that terrorist organization or negotiating peace with us. This is a position which is a very strongly held one by the Obama administration and we share it and we appreciate it.
SPITZER: And, Mr. Ambassador, that is exactly right. And I ask you then just as a matter of raw politics, why not have those issues which you just articulated so well be the single focus of the public discourse rather than a very arcane potential disagreement about whether the '67 borders with swaps had or had not been embraced as the foundation for the initiations of negotiations, it just seems to me what you have done is overwhelmed so much in that speech that was critically important for Israel's security and brought us back to a focus on the area of disagreement between two incredibly close allies.
OREN: Well, I think -- it is -- it may seem arcane to you. But for us, it's a matter of national security. I live in southern Jerusalem with my family, we live in an area part of pre-1967 Israel.
But -- the area beyond what was the Jordanian armistice border in 1967 begins 50 yards down our street. We won't be just in rocket range. We'll be within pistol range.
And so, for us, that -- arcane issue, as you stated, is a matter of the life and death of our families. And -- it's not Israel made a big deal of it. If you look at the headlines of all the major papers today, "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Washington Post," "The New York Times," they all headline the 1967 border change. So, it's not just us.
But having said that, again, there are parts of the speech we very much appreciated and I think that the tenor of the discussion between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama today showed the degree that these two leaders cooperate, they -- discussion went on twice as long was supposed to. There was a private lunch between the president and prime minister.
They spoke on the White House lawn for about a half an hour afterward. I was there when the president threw his arm around Benjamin Netanyahu and said, "Goodbye, my friend." The tenor was not what -- much of it was depicted in the press.
SPITZER: Well, look, I agree with that and I hope that is the case. But I would also say that you have to acknowledge and I don't say that the issue of what land is returned is arcane. I say the syntax of the sentences is arcane.
Every agreement negotiated from the (INAUDIBLE) accords to Oslo has taken as a premise that the '67 boundaries with necessary adjustments for security would be the framework for the negotiated resolution. The two-state resolution that everybody acknowledges is necessary. So, I think that is the critical agreement here that we should focus on.
Let's move on for a moment because I --
OREN: I have to respond to that, Eliot.
(CROSSTALK)
OREN: Agreement in 1993 has preceded on the assumption that we were not going back to the '67 border. That was the frame of reference.
SPITZER: No, no. It's '67 borders with adjustments.
All right. Anyway, thank you so much for joining us this evening.
OREN: Always a pleasure. SPITZER: Thank you.
On Monday, I'll be speaking to former PLO representative Sari Nusseibeh.
Now, let's turn to CNN senior political analyst, Gloria Borger, a great Washington reporter.
Gloria, so glad to have you IN THE ARENA tonight. Tell us about the interview you've been working on.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I've been working on this interview with Governor Rick Scott of Florida. As you know, Eliot, it's always Florida, Florida, Florida in presidential races. And we've got a great Republican primary shaping up.
So, I was talking to him about presidential politics, about the early primary there Florida and, of course, what's going to happen to Jewish voters in that state now that President Obama has come out with some controversial comments on going back to the 1967 lines as a starting point for peace talks.
SPITZER: Gloria, you are so right. Florida is one of those swing states that determines the outcome unless, of course, it's the Supreme Court that does it for us.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: All right. Gloria, I look forward to that interview.
BORGER: Thanks.
SPITZER: And when we come back, I'll be talking to Bernard-Henri Levy, the French writer who has launched a loud defense of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He is making a lot of people angry.
Don't go away. You'll want to hear this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER; Dominique Strauss-Kahn is now free on bail. There were strict conditions for his freedom, but the former head of the International Monetary Fund is now out, said to be staying at a rented apartment in downtown Manhattan, somewhere near Ground Zero.
Meanwhile, the French continue to have a strong reaction to the Strauss-Kahn arrest and it is far different from the American response. In France, the former IMF chief is seen as a victim. Perhaps Strauss-Kahn's biggest defender is French writer Bernard-Henri Levy. He joins me from Paris.
Bernard, thanks so much for joining us.
BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, FRENCH WRITER: Thank you.
SPITZER: So, look, you gave a full-throated defense to Dominique Strauss-Kahn earlier this week. A lot has happened since then. He's been indicted by a grand jury based upon a pretty full record, we understand.
Does any of that shake your confidence in your defense of him that you have articulated -- you know, far and wide, somewhat to the consternation of many people?
LEVY: No, no. I did not change my mind. Maybe Dominique Strauss-Kahn is guilty. The grand jury will appreciate that. They will decide if he is guilty or not. But for the moment, the way he was treated means that he's also a victim and he has been preemptive victim. He has been a victim of a preemptive punishment.
Nobody knows if he is guilty or not. Nobody knows what happened in this room. We will know when the people, the people of the trial, the grand jury, will investigate and decide. For the moment, he is victim of a preemptive punishment.
And according to the American principle, this is unbearable. I'm not defending a friend. I'm defending the principle on which the Bill of Rights, the habeas corpus, the spirit of America, are built.
SPITZER: You know, let me quibble with you a little bit. Obviously, I have been a prosecutor and I believe deeply in the presumption of innocence. It is an accord, it's a foundation of our judicial system.
But there is a difference between the presumption of innocence that attends to a criminal proceeding and the common sense judgments that are made by people out in the general public who see the evidence and make their determinations as a case unfolds. Nobody has ever said to the public you must withhold all judgment until a jury speaks. They are entitled, are they not, to judge the voracity and credibility of this maid and make their own judgments even before a criminal case has been prosecuted?
LEVY: Number one: there is a contradiction between the principle of the presumption of innocence and the perp walk. This perp walk, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or any guy walking with all the cruelty and humiliation which is involved in front of camera, photographers, hunting him, it is a contradiction.
You cannot say that you hold human rights and on habeas corpus and accept the perp walk. This is one point.
The second point is that if the crime has been committed, it is an unforgivable crime. The rape is a crime. But just imagine in one second what will happen if it is proved that the crime has not been committed?
I do not know. You do not know. "The New York Post" does not know.
The judge is not "The New York Post." The grand jury is not "The Daily News." They are not alone to make -- to pronounce, to tell what is right, fair, or not. They are not the judge. SPITZER: You have said that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was a womanizer. He does not deny that himself. Is it possible in your understanding of him that he misunderstood the issue of consent? That somehow he does got lost and didn't realize this was not consent?
LEVY: I am not one of the 21 or 23 wise women and men who will have to decide on that. So, I cannot know and I do not want to reply to this question.
I just say that this flood of images showing the humiliation of the man who may be guilty or who may be innocent makes him a victim. And I say that America, who is so careful with images, is not careful in this case.
Just think one thing. Just please think of one point. America decided not to show the image images of bin Laden dead, this fascist, the terrorist dead. Not to offend the Muslims. (INAUDIBLE). So, right.
But we show the images of Dominique Strauss-Kahn without any consideration of the question to know if it offends his kids, his family, himself and so on.
So, when you deal with images, you cannot be double standard. You cannot on one side say that images will offend and you'll retain them. Probably right. I think it was a wise decision. And send this flood of images of the man who might be innocent all over the world.
This is a problem of today. I'm confident in the American justice. I'm confident in the decision which will be taken by the -- by the people of Manhattan. But I'm not confident in this preemptive strike, preemptive punishment, decided by some newspapers or tabloid newspapers.
Same in France. Problem is the same. What I'm telling you I say also to the French TV.
SPITZER: Look, it is always a pleasure to chat with you. Be well. We will continue this conversation and see where this takes us. Thank you so much for joining us.
LEVY: Thank you.
SPITZER: Up next, Bernie Madoff ran the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. But never told a story of how he did it until now. Just ahead, we talked to a writer who went behind bars with Madoff.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BORGER: Make no mistake about it. The 2012 presidential election is under way. And politicians on both sides of the aisle are keenly aware of what the big issue is. And that's jobs, jobs, jobs.
One of the key players in all of this will be the governor of the vital swing state of Florida. Whenever the election of 2000, Bush v. Gore, well, it was Florida, Florida, Florida. Joining me now is the Republican governor of that state, Rick Scott. And I think he could become a kingmaker.
Governor, welcome.
GOV. RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: It's nice to be here.
BORGER: So, this has been quite a wild week in Republican politics. We have had Donald Trump getting out of the race. Mike Huckabee getting out of the race. Newt Gingrich making some mistakes. We hear Tim Pawlenty is getting in on Monday.
You are the governor of this important swing state. So, tell me, are you planning to endorse a candidate at some point?
SCOTT: I haven't decided whether I'm going to endorse. But I can tell you what? It's all going to be about jobs.
Whatever candidate -- whoever it is that can explain to the American public how they are going to get our economy going again, that's who's going to get elected.
BORGER: But you're not going to come out and tell us who your favorite candidate is at this point?
SCOTT: No. I think -- I think we all ought to be watching these candidates. We ought to listen what they say, have them tell us how they are going to get the economy going again. I ran --
BORGER: But are they -- are they doing that? Do you think Republican candidates are doing that? They got kind of sidetracked with Donald Trump and the birth certificate, those kinds of issues. I mean, are Republicans doing a good job of that right now?
SCOTT: I think everybody can do a better job. I think we -- I think our biggest issue in this -- in this -- in the country is jobs. I think everybody that's running for office could do a better job explaining how we could get this economy going again.
And all the decisions we're making, is all about how do we get each individual, give them the opportunity to get back to work.
BORGER: Well, we had an interesting flak this week and that was with Newt Gingrich that came out and has since apologized for it but criticized Congressman Ryan's budget plan, specifically the Medicare proposal in that plan that would eventually turn Medicare into a voucher program.
Did -- did Newt Gingrich make a mistake? Or could that actually help him in a state like Florida?
SCOTT: Well, I think we have to be very careful what happens with Medicare. As you know, in Florida, we have a lot of senior citizens who are going to -- they are very active in this. But they know what's going on. They know that we got to fix Medicare. But they also know that -- for our entire economy to be able to control -- to have the money to pay for Medicare, we got to get the economy going again. That's going to be the key. Who has the right, you know, who has the right story? Who has the right -- people believe about how they're going to get our economy going again.
BORGER: So, when your voters say to you, Governor, what do you think about that Ryan plan that's being proposed in Washington, that was approved by the House of Representatives -- what do you tell your voters in Florida?
SCOTT: What I tell them is, you know, we got to have an honest debate about what happens with Medicare. We want to make sure that, you know, our senior citizens are relying on Medicare. We want to make sure that they can continue to rely on Medicare.
And the other issue we are dealing with our state is Medicaid. The unbelievable cost of Medicaid, and one thing is part of Paul Ryan's plan is the -- you know, doing a block grant for Medicaid, which is what we need in our state and I think most states need because we know what we need in our state. We can spend the money better without all the federal strings attached to it.
BORGER: Well, it sounds to me like you're not endorsing that part of the Ryan plan, though.
SCOTT: Well, I -- first off, with Medicaid, we need to absolutely get block grants. We've got to do those for the -- for our state. And with regard to Medicare, look, we got -- I think -- he's got a plan we got to review. Our senior citizens care about making sure they have health care for the rest of their life. They paid into this program.
So, I think it is very important to have this debate. And make sure we fix it long term. Not short term.
BORGER: Well, because you're formerly in the health care industry, you know a lot more about this than most people. And I guess the question is: how much would a $6,000 voucher really get you? Which is sort of part of the Ryan plan, right?
SCOTT: Well -- I think -- here's what people want to make sure. Then want to make sure that they pay into the plan. They want to make sure they continue to be able to get Medicare. They relied on this. It's only fair.
At the same time, we also have to go through the process of thinking long term how do we -- how do we afford Medicare. And so, we are going to -- look, this is going to get fixed. Medicare has to get fixed. Medicaid has to get fixed.
But this campaign in the end is going to come down to jobs. Who in this country has the plan, has the blueprint for getting our country back to work?
BORGER: You know, again, you are in the -- the governor of the state of Florida. And let me just take a turn for a moment to foreign policy. I mean, yesterday, the president talked about negotiations in the Mideast going back to the 1967 borders and -- the Israeli prime minister was not too happy about it.
And I have a question for you which is could the president have hurt himself with the Jewish voters in your state?
SCOTT: Well -- you know, I have already heard from a lot of Jewish voters and other supporters of Israel that they are concerned about that path. They -- we all know we have to come up with a long- term strategy for the Middle East. We can't continue to have these problems. We can't continue to have the problem with access to oil.
And so -- I think -- it was interesting that it came out the day before he was meeting with Netanyahu. So -- but the -- you know, in my case, what I'm focused on is, you know, getting our state back to work. We had a great day today. Unemployment continued to go downpour the fourth month in a row.
So, it's -- you know, what I'm focused on is jobs.
BORGER: I gather. I've been hearing that. But let me ask you about the primary in your state because some people in New Hampshire, in Iowa are not so happy that your very important primary now looks like it could be the end of January. Can you tell us whether indeed your primary is going to get moved up?
SCOTT: Well -- look, we -- you know, we are clearly a swing state. We are a very important state. It's very important that we have our own date for primary. We need to have it before the so- called Super Tuesday.
So whether we do it January -- January, whether we do it in fifth, we need to be independent of the others. So we are working with the party. We are not -- we don't want to lose any delegates.
We -- it is not fair to us to lose delegates, but we need to have a day. Whether it is in January or it is -- in fifth in line, we need to have to have a day by ourselves for our primary.
BORGER: So when do you want it? All the candidates are listening, Governor. When do you want it?
SCOTT: Well, we are going to also have a straw poll in September. In the -- September 22nd, 24th, having a straw poll event. We are going to make sure that -- our -- everybody in Florida knows about our candidates, Republican candidates.
I'm going to do everything I can along with all the Republicans in the state to make sure the -- Republican nominee wins this state and hopefully wins the election next year. So we can help get our country back to work.
BORGER: Governor Rick Scott, thank you so much for being with us today. We appreciate your coming on and we will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Now for a segment we call "The Clash." Here is what we know about the president's speech yesterday. President Obama made so many last-minute changes that the White House kept the world waiting for more than half an hour while he finished writing.
We also know the Israeli government was given a heads-up about the content of the speech and argued forcefully with Secretary of State Clinton unsuccessfully to change the language on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Listen new to the passage that was the focus of such heated attention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders, with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: In the flurry of last-minute, changes did the president lose control of the message of his speech? Joining me now are two of Washington's leading speech writers and political strategists, Robert Shrum has worked with progressive candidates from Ted Kennedy to John Kerry.
And David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is one of America's most influential conservative thinkers. Mr. Shrum and Mr. Frum, welcome to both of you.
All right, David, let me begin with you. Was it standard practice or is this is surprising to you that the Israeli government knew the precise content of the speech before it was delivered and was given a chance to push back?
DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR GEORGE W. BUSH: It is standard practice that you would share a speech with all important stakeholders. Clearly the administration felt that the Israelis were important stakeholders here.
It is surprising to me that they allowed it to go so long that I think they thought they were going to spring something on the Israelis by showing them at the last minute and they got them this pushback.
You put your finger in your -- opening statement on the key point about all of this, though, which is -- they -- was this the news the president wanted to make in his speech about the Arab spring?
Eighty percent of the speech is about the Arab spring. It's about the events in Bahrain and Syria. What is the headline that he got? It's about the '67 borders. Is that what he wanted? I find that hard to believe.
And if so, that's kind of -- that's kind of a failure and a disappointment for the administration.
SPITZER: You know, Bob, exactly - I mean, what David just said is what has been bothering me all day. This was billed in the drumbeat leading up to this almost for a week was finally the magnum opus we will understand the logic behind Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and all we are talking about is the 1967 borders. Is this a massive communications failure?
BOB SHRUM, FORMER CAMPAIGN ADVISER TO EHUD BARAK: Well, I don't think so because I don't think you could actually speak to the Arab spring and speak to the Arab world persuasively without speaking about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
You know, I think Netanyahu made a big mistake if he thought that calling up and yelling at Secretary Clinton was going to get the president to change what he was going to say. It was not going to happen.
SPITZER: Look, I agree. At that point it was both too late and also there had been too many internal debates within the White House about the precise wording of the language.
But I want to come back to the question I asked you and then get David to weigh in as well. Everybody wanted to understand and maybe you can't square the circle, but understand at least how it made sense to do what we are doing in Libya and yet what we are not doing in Syria and how that squared with Egypt.
And to be distracted as I see it by the -- necessary failure of -- the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians takes away from the president's capacity to speak to the larger issue of the Arab spring.
SHRUM: It's clear to me. I teach for NYU in Abu Dhabi and I go over there a number of times a year. It is absolutely clear to me from talking to people there that the United States and the president can't credibly address all of these new issues in the Arab world without addressing the Israeli/Palestinian crisis.
There was a sense, I think, that was beginning to spread through the Arab world that the Israelis were going to be able to back off any meaningful peace process. The United States wasn't going to do anything or say anything about it. And I suspect that to get a hearing, the president had to say this and that was the reason they made that calculation.
SPITZER: Fascinating point. So David, weigh on this. What I hear you saying, Bob, is that the president in order to be viewed seriously and taken seriously by the Arab leadership need to push hardback against its real and that was his way of saying to the Arab leadership see now, I'm being even-handed and take me seriously about what I'm saying.
But, David, I'm with you. The American public doesn't have any idea about why we are doing or what the next steps are in Syria, Libya, or Egypt. Am I right about that? FRUM: Yes. Were they protesting with Israel whether they went into the streets in Tunisia or Egypt? We have just lived through a period in which we have seen that this myth that the Palestinian issue is the driver of the Arab world rather than say economic failure and stagnation and the disappointment of college graduates that can't get work.
That has been so decisively refuted. You would think you would want to step out of it. The United States is at war in Libya. It's been at war for three months. The war is not going well.
How often is the president talked to this country about what his plan is to get the war in better shape? I think that there is in Washington, I think among the allies, a chance to talk to foreign diplomat about this recently and in -- country that played major role in this and there is great concern about the progress of this war.
Meanwhile, in Syria today, how many dead? Two dozen? In the bloodiest day of clashes between opposition and government and what's the -- what did we all discuss? What's the headline the president has got for himself?
SPITZER: Bob, you want to jump in. Give it a shot.
SHRUM: Well, look, Ehud Barak 10 years ago told me that the deal that was done at Camp David in Taboo, which is basically what the president was talking about yesterday was the only way you would ever get to a peace agreement.
The tragedy of that was that Barak was ready to agree, the Israelis were ready to agree, Clinton had brokered it and Arafat wouldn't sign it, but it is still the deal.
FRUM: And they still won't sign it.
SPITZER: You know what I do, put it the table every week. Every Friday and say sign it. This was what I forget who to give credit to for this great quote, but it was the Palestinians never pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity. Great wordsmith of all time. All right, David Frum, Bob Shrum. Thank you.
Up next, Gloria Borger talks to the governor of the state that put George Bush in the White House in 2000. What will it take to win the White House this time around?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Most of those responsible for the 2008 economic meltdown have gotten away with their crimes except for one, Bernie Madoff. After his $65 billion Ponzi scheme came crashing down, Madoff is serving 150-year prison sentence. What was he thinking? "New York Times" reported Diana Henriques met with Madoff in prison and dissects the tale on her new bestseller "The Wizard of Lies." We spoke recently.
Diana, thank you so much for joining me. So you spent more time with Bernie Madoff than any other journalist. First question has got to be has he come to grips emotionally with the magnitude of what he did? This is just gargantuan swamps every other Ponzi scheme in history. More harm to people, does he realize that?
DIANA HENRIQUES, AUTHOR, "WIZARD OF LIES: Bernie Madoff and the Death of Trust": I don't think so, Eliot. I really don't. What I sensed was this enormous denial.
When he talks about the crime, he gets into this terminology of dollars and cents, the arithmetic, how much it will be raised in the bankruptcy court, how much will victims get, all of this cerebral stuff.
He actually told me in the first visit in August that he thought his victims would ultimately be pretty close to whole. I just was stunned when you think of the human pain and the human wreckage that flowed out of this crime. You can't put that back together.
SPITZER: Maybe that's what's missing with the guy because reading this book you get the sense of somebody who is antiseptic and maybe didn't relate to people emotionally.
HENRIQUES: Either that or was so well defended against his emotions. Now there was one occasion in my August interview with him where he broke down and started to cry.
I think it is genuine because he is a man who takes pride in such iron control. It was when he was talking about his wife, Ruth and her decision to stay with him after his arrest.
SPITZER: Against the advice of everybody else.
HENRIQUES: Her friends, everyone said get out. He said you know, even I told her, you know, Ruth, you can leave. He broke down then. So I think that there is an emotional man inside there somewhere.
SPITZER: Which raises then because you mentioned his wife, the rest of the family, the question that's really been -- so many of us have been asking, did the other members of his family know about this?
HENRIQUES: I started out from the position of -- let's see if there is any evidence. Honestly I could not find any evidence. Not just any credible evidence, I could not find any evidence that they knew and there were very compelling reasons to think that they did not know.
SPITZER: There were other guilty parties, of course and Bernie Madoff himself has pointed the fingers at the banks. Do you buy that?
HENRIQUES: You know, Bernie did not originally point his finger at the banks, but when I spoke with him in August I specifically said -- question number two, who else knew? Question number one was when did it start? I don't think he answered either of those questions.
SPITZER: Do you think it's a good 10 years earlier than he said? HENRIQUES: But I said, who else knew? At that time he said well, maybe Jeffrey, this Palm Beach investor, very secretive private man. He might have known. He had to know. He did not say, well, all the banks must have known. When I met with him in February, that was his story, the banks had to know.
SPITZER: But now we are talking -- putting names to it. We're talking primarily Chase at this point?
HENRIQUES: Well, Chase, of course, is the target of one of the largest lawsuits that the bankruptcy trustee has filed -- allegations in the civil suit, which they vehemently deny. Absolutely saying they will fight this to the death in court.
SPITZER: Which means they will settle next week?
HENRIQUES: I don't know. I think this might -- as a lawsuit junky, I'm kind of hoping it goes to court. I can't wait to cover that trial. You will enjoy it, too. But they were not only involved in the derivatives deals, servicing the feeder funds that were invested with Madoff, but they were Madoff's own banker.
Every Ponzi schemer has a banker. I think what will come out of this case against JP Morgan Chase is going to a better answer about how -- how -- how you hold bankers accountable for their customers do through the facility of their bank account.
Ponzi scheme is a liar with a bank account. That's all it is. The traditional Ponzi scheme you know it as well as I. Exploits people's greed, you know, 50 percent of the month -- I can make you rich overnight. And so when a Ponzi scheme blows up, the tendency is to say - you know, blame the victims.
SPITZER: They should have known, 50 percent.
HENRIQUES: Right.
SPITZER: How could they not know?
HENRIQUES: Madoff, Madoff scheme, if you will, exploits not people's greed, but people's fears, their fear of volatility and their fear of complexity, their fear of all of these crazy markets.
SPITZER: It was the certainty of a 10 percent return that pulled people in.
HENRIQUES: There were many years during this fraud, Eliot, when you could have made more money in the Magellan fund.
SPITZER: Right, but he gave people that confidence of the certainty. So Diana, what's your theory about why when you look at enormous scope of what happened in our capital markets over the past couple of years? Virtually nobody else has been prosecuted.
HENRIQUES: I think the root really is that we didn't make the right things illegal. You know -- if -- if you don't -- if you don't specify what the rules are, don't come along later and blame somebody for stepping over the line. You know, dogs bark. Wall Street firms try to make money. It is just the way they are. That's what they are built to do.
If you want them to live by some kind of self-imposed honor code, then you are naive. You have to tell them where the limits are and we didn't. We became far too willing to let Wall Street operate as an honor code. We really do need to trust.
This is why it is so diabolical and this is why we have to address the problems that Ponzi schemes raise. I can create a world where there is no Ponzi scheme, Eliot. You don't want to live in it because there is no trust either.
If there is enough trust to conduct modern commerce, there is enough trust for Ponzi Scheme and so we have to see trust as a two- edged sword. And appreciate what it gives us and what it can cost us. We just are unwilling to do that.
SPITZER: We have to appreciate how sharp both edges are.
HENRIQUES: Yes, indeed.
SPITZER: All right, Diana. Thank you so much for being here.
HENRIQUES: Thank you.
SPITZER: Spectacular book.
HENRIQUES: Thank you.
SPITZER: You probably heard tomorrow is the day the world will end. At least that's what some people believe. Up next, we will get the facts and figure out if we should be worried.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In case you haven't heard, the world is ending tomorrow, May 21 at 6:00 precisely. We know this because it is on billboards, t-shirts, subway ads, ticket signs and all over the internet. All because of the predictions of one man, Harold Camping, head of the Christian network known as Family Radio and author of the very upbeat book "Time Has an End." Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From everything we know in the bible, on May 21, 2011, it is going to start with a huge earthquake. The bible describes it is an earthquake that's way bigger than anything that has ever been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: A lot of people are making doomsday jokes including folks around here, but not everyone is laughing. When Camping made the same prediction in 1994, it struck fear into the heart of a 13- year-old Steve Kornacki.
Luckily Steve now is an editor of "Salon" and a regular contributor our show survived to tell the story. Welcome, Steve and I got to ask you, are we going to make it through this?
STEVE KORNACKI, NEWS EDITOR, SALON: Well, I think we have a few hours left so let's enjoy it.
SPITZER: So look, I don't mean to be completely frivolous about this. But when you were 13, what possibly persuaded you that the apocalypse was coming?
KORNACKI: Well, it wouldn't be --
SPITZER: You look normal by the way.
KORNACKI: Well, I learned how to compartmentalize that's probably part of this whole exercise. I wasn't completely convinced it was going to happen. I think I was sort of an anxiety-prone 13- year-old. I'm the anxiety-prone person.
The world is a little different then in terms of like the internet as we now know it didn't really exist. So I was on this primitive online thing called prodigy. It had a bunch of message boards.
I was sitting there and I saw a message, you know, basically I think Harold Camping himself put it there laying out his case for why on September 6, 1994, the world was going to end.
SPITZER: And it persuaded a 13-year-old. Now Camping to his credit I supposed he has an engineering degree or something. He is not a complete kook. Don't take it personally, but I mean, he has some educational training. He persuaded a 13-year-old and he actually ruined your life in a way for two years.
KORNACKI: He didn't persuade me, but he put the thought in my mind what if this guy is right? What do we really know about the world? What do we know about the universe? What if it is if this guy figured it out?
SPITZER: The night before the date it was supposed to happen. What did you do? You tell the story in something you've written for so long.
KORNACKI: I spent two years trying go through -- I tried to find religion and found -- well, I want to believe. I kind of have doubt. You know, I try to read the bible on my own.
At the end, I was just hoping for the best and hoping nothing would happen. I remember at the very end, Monday, September 5th, 1993. It was Labor Day. I'm sitting there and started to think about the logistics of it. Wait a minute. It is like --
SPITZER: Logistics always rules the world. KORNACKI: It was 11:00 p.m. here Eastern Time in Massachusetts. On September 5th, I'm thinking wait a minute. There's 24 time zones in the world so somewhere in the world it is probably almost September --
SPITZER: You were then 15 to figure out the flaw in this argument. This time he thought about that and he said 6:00 in every different time zone.
KORNACKI: That's -- if I had known that. But what they're saying now is right, you will have a great earthquake in each of the 24 time zones at precisely 6:00.
SPITZER: Here is what amazes me. There are apparently rational people who buy into this stuff. Have you spoken to any of them this time around?
KORNACKI: No, I haven't. I have seen a couple of guys at the subway station. My story is -- when I was, you know, kid going through this. There was a -- student in my class that was religious and ran it by him at one point, the theory.
He said the bible has a passage that says the time of the end is known only to the Lord. No human being could know it. I thought well, that's wonderful. I was in Boston and saw one of these end of the world guys, ran the theory by him. He gave me this confident -- I guess, gobbledygook about the bible.
SPITZER: How do people react when the hour passes and we're still here? I mean is there a sense of anger at him? Is there - what's going to be the emotional response do you think?
KORNACKI: You know, I'm really wondering. It's funny --
SPITZER: Will he reset the date again?
KORNACKI: He is 89 years old. I don't know how much he can keep this up anymore, but we sent a reporter actually out to his head quarters in Oakland yesterday.
He talks to one of Harold Camping's staffers who does the mail there. The guy pulled him aside and said between you and me, 85 to 90 percent of the staff doesn't even believe this. We are just here.
SPITZER: But they did tell you what they think he will be doing it is a hour approaches?
KORNACKI: Yes. Apparently, from my colleague, Harold Camping plans to be with his family watching CNN.
SPITZER: We know where the best is.
KORNACKI: If there is big news like the end of the world, CNN has a reputation.
SPITZER: I'm not sure we want to use him as the poster child endorsement for our viewing audience, but was there any particular reason he was picking us?
KORNACKI: I have no idea. My colleague told me that.
SPITZER: Has he improved on his argument this time around? He clearly didn't work in 1994.
KORNACKI: What he said - again, I didn't know all the details back then because I couldn't do a research, but what he said is in 1994 he framed it as a hypothetical.
He thought it would be but it might not be. This time he is certain. As a 13, 14-year-old, I did not get the might be part back in '94. I only got it is happening.
SPITZER: So we better put on our seat belts and brace ourselves for whatever cataclysm is coming.
KORNACKI: May be a fun Sunday if we ever get there.
SPITZER: My goodness, all right. Steve Kornacki, thank you. The rest assured everybody out there, we will be here on Monday. So enjoy your weekend or maybe not. You never quite know. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts now. Enjoy your weekend. We hope to see you Monday.
