Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Libya in Chaos; Contagious Rage in the Middle East; Can the Wisconsin Budget be Fixed?
Aired February 22, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to our program.
In Libya tonight, it's all coming apart for Moammar Gadhafi. A few hours ago he appeared on Libyan television, a desperate leader, clinging to the last vestiges of power.
In a rambling and incoherent speech, he threatened his own people, threatened the United States, and just about everyone else, droning on for more than an hour. If you were watching, it seemed a lot longer, like maybe a year.
Now I want you to take a look at this. This was Moammar Gadhafi 40 years ago. Hard to believe it's him. Gadhafi was young, handsome, a charismatic commander. He was the leader of the great Libyan Revolution, strong enough and brave enough to stage a coup to topple a king.
Looking at him then makes it easier to understand the love and loyalty he once inspired among his people.
The years have not been kind to Moammar Gadhafi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOAMMAR GADHAFI, LIBYAN LEADER: Whoever cooperate with foreign countries in order to instigate war -- a war against Libya, the punishment will be execution.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Wow. Meanwhile, in the eastern city of Benghazi, now largely under rebel control, jeering protesters tossed shoes to Gadhafi's image. It's a sign of the utter contempt his own people have for him.
And world leaders are piling on to condemn Gadhafi. British Prime Minister David Cameron called the violence appalling. German chancellor Angela Merkel called Gadhafi's speech a declaration of war on his own people. And U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said the violence must stop immediately.
One world leader not heard from on the subject on Moammar Gadhafi today, the president of the United States, Barack Obama.
PARKER: Meanwhile, more than a dozen of Gadhafi's own government officials have abandoned him to join the revolution. From justice -- his justice minister to his U.S. ambassador to elite air force officers who defected to Malta with their aircraft after refusing to turn their weapons on the people of Libya.
So a revolution that started with a single fruit cellar in Tunisia two months ago continues to spread like a virus throughout northern Africa and the Mideast. Take a look at this. The video you're seeing here was all just fed into CNN today from Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, and Morocco.
Now the question for Gadhafi, who swore today that he would die a martyr on Libya's soil, is whether or when he might get his wish.
It is not easy for a western journalist to report from Libya, where Gadhafi has condemned journalists as dogs and devils, but CNN's senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman will not be deterred.
SPITZER: We do not want to disclose his exact location, but Ben joins us now from the eastern part of the country with a prospective very few other journalists can provide.
Ben, you can hear us?
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I can hear you loud and clear, Eliot.
Well, it does appear that the regime is falling apart, but it's going to be a possibly painful breakdown. We heard, as you said, that rambling, incoherent speech from Moammar Gadhafi, typical in many ways of his normal pattern of speaking, but certainly laced with some chilling threats against the Libyan people, some of whom he called his opponents rats and said that they're fair game, essentially, in this fight to the end between him and his dwindling group of followers and ever-growing numbers of Libyans who have simply had enough.
There are worries, though, that as he falls, he's going to try to take down as many people as possible. We were hearing rumors that he's even trying to recruit some Egyptian tribes from the desert near the Libyan border to come and launch some sort of counterattack against the eastern part of the country, so there are some profound worries that as he goes down, he's going to become even more dangerous.
PARKER: Well, Ben, we know that communications have been a real issue there. Is it widely known, generally known on the street about, for example, these defections among higher ranking officials? And what was the commentary on the street after Gadhafi's speech?
WEDEMAN: People are -- at least in this part of the country, are very well aware of what's going on. Unlike other parts of Libya, they do seem to be able to get Al Jazeera, which is sort of the main source of news for most people around here, plus they're listening to radio broadcasts and any other form of information they can get. So they're well aware of the defections. They're well aware of events going on in Tripoli.
The local cell phone system does seem to work if you're just making calls within the country. So there's a lot of information out there and people are knowing fairly well what's going on. And reaction to this speech this afternoon by Moammar Gadhafi was one of skepticism and alarm, of course, with what he said, but the normal reaction is, in Arabic, they say, "he's crazy," and that seems to be what you hear from everybody in this part of the country.
SPITZER: Ben, this -- the common denominator across all the revolutions we're watching in utter amazement over the past couple of weeks seems to be the role of the military. When the military steps back and will no longer fight against the civilians, the regime is done.
Any sense of what this prevailing wisdom is on what the Libyan military will do over the next few days or weeks? Will there be more defections? Will they stand by the crazy man at the top of their empire, Moammar Gadhafi?
WEDEMAN: Well, we've already seen much of the Libyan army in the eastern part of the country has already defected to the anti-Gadhafi forces. And in fact, we were at a very interesting event this evening, where we were able to witness a Libyan army officer who has defected, speaking to a group of about 12 prisoners, soldiers who had been fighting for Gadhafi and who were from captured.
And he was appealing to them to get on their cell phones and call their friends in the military and convince them to go with what he calls the people's revolution and to stop supporting Gadhafi, to stop fighting on his behalf.
And certainly, the pressure seems to be on. We see that Gadhafi's control of the country, the area he controls is steadily dwindling and we've seen, for instance, as you mentioned before, the defection of those pilots to Malta. It does appear that the military is gradually coming over. But he does still have a hard sort of core of support within the officer corps.
These are people who have served with him for many years and these are people who realized that if the regime falls, they'll pay a very high price. So they may be sticking with him to the bloody end.
SPITZER: All right. Ben, thank you so much. Stay safe and we'll be checking back in with you as soon as we can.
Fareed Zakaria interviewed Moammar Gadhafi during his visit to the United States in 2009 and has been tracking the incredible cascade of change as it rolls across the Middle East.
Fareed, of course, is host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS." He joins us tonight.
Fareed, welcome back.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN's FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: Thank you. PARKER: Fareed, when you interviewed Gadhafi in 2009, was your feeling about him that he was eccentric, or was it something more?
ZAKARIA: Honestly, Kathleen, I think my honest reaction to him was I thought he was on drugs. I mean there is something so out there about the way he behaves, so vacuous, so vague, the glazed look in his eyes. It just was all very, very weird.
The responses were all like the one you just aired. A kind of series of weird, almost free association. There was a threat in there. But it never amounted to anything. And I mean, the broader issue is I think it made you wonder whether he was actually in charge. There are many people who believe that the Libyan Intelligence Services really run the country at this point and that Gadhafi is a kind of figurehead, where -- with very powerful sons exercising some control.
PARKER: So you never felt like you connected with him at all? I mean was there never that eyeball to eyeball connection?
ZAKARIA: There were moments -- there were moments when he was talking about, you know, before the interview, when it was sort of off the record, though not much more clear or rational.
On the whole, you really got the sense of somebody who was not in full control of his faculties.
PARKER: And you've also met his son, Seif, and of course we Americans put great stock in the hope that the son will be better than the father. And in this case, he speaks English, he's well educated, he's written a couple of books.
Do you think that there's hope for him or are we misplacing -- or are we projecting our own hopes on --
ZAKARIA: Well, remember, there are two sons, Seif and Mutassim, who are both involved in this. And I've met both.
Look, they're both well spoken, smart, westernized. They wear suits. But I think that the revolt here is against the idea of dynasties. So it isn't enough anymore to be a good czar. They just don't want czars in Libya anymore.
SPITZER: I don't think they want czars anywhere from Libya or the rest of North Africa.
PARKER: I think that.
SPITZER: But here is the question. Can he survive? You've seen the entire infrastructure of Libyan government collapse around him. Diplomats are clearly disavowing him, even though he's appointed them, he's their boss. The military seems fractured.
Clearly, this is not Tunisia or Egypt. How do you game this out over the next couple of days and weeks in terms of the power relationships and who survives? ZAKARIA: It's a very crucial question because this is different from Tunisia and Egypt. This is the first oil producing country -- a serious oil producing country, which means that it really doesn't need the rest of the world.
You see, in the case of Tunisia, they absolutely, desperately need western investment, European investment and trade. In the case of Egypt, between the tourists, the foreign aid, the investment, again, very -- you know, it's very important that they have a good image and good trading relations with the rest of the world.
In the case of Libya, they have almost no relationship with the rest of the world other than oil. So they have in enormous internal isolation, which means the regime can do whatever it wants. And it's a brutal regime. This is a very tough regime.
SPITZER: Of course, that cuts both way. They need us only to the extent that we buy their oil. They need the cash. They've become independent on the western or the rest of the world's purchasing of their oil. And there was some movement.
Senator Kerry today proposed that we not buy Libyan oil to cut off that cash flow. Would that affect them? Would that affect the outcome of the stability of the regime?
ZAKARIA: Well, it certainly would. Seventy-five percent of Libya's government revenues come from its oil. On the other hand, it's unlikely to work, because we're only one player in this market. The Chinese are not going to stop buying the oil. It's a world market. They put the product out.
SPITZER: Yes, I mean, look, it's hard to imagine that we could boycott them to have the asset, they have the cash for right now. But just looking at what's going on internal to Libya, there seems to be civil war in Tripoli. Other regions of the country seem to be under the control of the revolutionaries.
How does -- where does the military go and whose allegiance do they remain -- who do they remain loyal to?
ZAKARIA: I think this is different from Egypt. This is not a professional military. It is a tribal military with strange loyalties or divided loyalties. So the crucial question will be, you know, what is the critical mass then who controls it? And I think, ultimately, what's going to happen is somebody in the military, somebody powerful in the military is going to decide, is it worthwhile to side with Gadhafi, or is it better to throw him overboard?
Because I do wonder with all this violence we're seeing, at the end of the day, the regime has many guns, many tanks, many airplanes, many helicopters. They can -- they can probably suppress this brutally and violently. But that's only if the key generals at the top are willing to do it.
PARKER: Is there anything that the United States can do? This has -- of course, this has not been one of our allies and the circumstances are a little bit different. Is there anything President Obama can say or do that would affect the outcome?
ZAKARIA: Yes. I think that to be fair to the Obama administration, my sense is they're trying to figure out what would be the most effective strategy at this point. It's not a question of wondering whether they should be supporting Gadhafi or -- you know, or not, but the question of what you can actually do is crucial, precisely because Libya is so isolated.
And it's not clear how many, sort of -- what weapons we have. Paul Wolfowitz, a former Bush-era Defense Department official has a smart idea, which is to break the monopoly of information. The Libyans don't know what's going on. They do not have much access to satellite TVs and things like that. To the extent we can make sure they know what's going on. They know that diplomats across the world, Libyan diplomats are defecting, for example.
He suggested throwing in SIM cards, a kind of modern version of throwing leaflets and pamphlets, you know, dropping them in. He talks about expelling Libya from the Human Rights Council at the U.N. So I think if we -- once we start on this process, which I hope we will start soon, there are a series of things we can do to de-legitimatize this government, support the opposition, short of actually getting involved in -- you know, in the fight itself.
SPITZER: There are other autocrats, dictators around the world who've been watching the sweep of revolution across North Africa and the Middle East. And until now, the armies have been unwilling to fire on their own civilians. Very briefly, in one night in Bahrain. They had some thugs in Tahrir Square who did not seem to be really part of the military.
One lesson to be taken away would be, toughen up. If an autocrat wants to stay in power, use your weapons.
Do you think that's the lesson that Mugabe or some of the others will take from this and say, guys, we're going to be as tough as nails and we're going to fire and shoot back?
ZAKARIA: I fear that that might be what some people are thinking. You know there were a few people, the Council on Foreign Relations delegation met with Omar Suleiman, the vice president, briefly -- of Egypt. And asked him whether he thought Tunisia would happen in Egypt. And his answer was effectively no because we're tough.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: So -- I think many of them start out thinking they can be tough, and then the question is, can you really do it? Will the army do it? Will troops fire on civilians? But I do think a lot of them are going to look at this and say, shut down in various ways.
SPITZER: One of the questions everybody is, of course, asking is day by day, as this radiates out to not only across North Africa, but arguably to other parts of the world, look at China. And we have since Tiananmen Square. We've said it can't possibly happen. How is the Chinese government reacting? What are they thinking as they see this happen?
ZAKARIA: Everyone is reacting. The first and most interesting one that I saw is Robert Mugabe just arrested 50 people in Zimbabwe for watching television news about Libya.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: The act of watching the Libyan protests and violence was considered a crime in Zimbabwe because of course he fears it.
China is the most important one. I tend to think China is somewhat different because in the Chinese case, you know, you don't have a youth bulge, masses of unemployed youth looking for jobs and education and dignity. There is a real political dictatorship.
On the other hand, the average Chinese person's per capita GDP has quadrupled in a generation. So they at least have some outlets for -- to satisfy the demands of the young. In the Arab world, there have been almost no outlets, political, economic, or social.
PARKER: Well, and will they be satisfied in these various countries if jobs are part of the issue, food on the table is part of the issue? I mean, what happens if these revolutions don't result in improvements in those areas?
ZAKARIA: It's very unlikely that these revolutions are going to result in significant rises in living standards for people in the Middle East. The Middle East is an economic mess. It has the oil curse, which means that the governments don't modernize. It has huge unemployment. It has very high illiteracy rates, very poor education levels.
So this is not going to end well in purely economic terms. But I think one of the lessons of these last few weeks have been, is that men are not moved by bread alone, men and women. That you know a lot of the demands are for dignity, for freedom, to be treated like citizens, not subjects.
And I think that is wrapped up with some of these other issues. And that -- had there been more economic or social progress, people would have cared. But it is one of the most affirming things to see about, you know, human beings. That they do care about how they are treated, even if the economics are working out fine. Bahrain is a rich country, and yet people want to be treated with dignity.
PARKER: And even though no one wants to predict what's going to happen, and each country, of course, is unique and their responses have been different, but you are optimistic that -- about all of these revolutions taking place. Why?
ZAKARIA: I think in the short run, you have chaos, you have confusion, you have dysfunction. But in the long run, what you're arriving at is an Arab world that is more coming to terms with itself, in control of its own affairs. Remember, this is a place. The Arab world has been controlled or dominated by outside forces for about 1,000 years. From about the 11th century, it was the Turks, the Mongols, the Persians, then the Europeans then the United States and then the Soviet Union.
It is really the first time it is coming into its own. They're going to have to sort their own affairs out. But when they do, it's ultimately more stable, because they are -- they are in control of their lives. They're masters of their own destiny. And you will not breed these kind of reactionary or mystical terrorist movements, which are all opposed to the regimes. The regimes will have to accommodate them in some way.
SPITZER: Here's what bothers me about the lack of a firmer United States response so far towards what's going on in Libya. Yes, we've had statements against the violence. We are dealing with somebody who's a madman, who is a terrorist, who is repressing in an outrageous way a genuine demand for freedom among his citizens, an organic and indigenous revolution.
We have no strategic interests related to him as an individual, and we still can't summon the courage to stand up and say, freedom is what we stand for, we are on the side of the revolutionaries. Why not?
ZAKARIA: I would agree with you, Eliot. It's very eloquently put. I would agree with you if this policy continues for another day or two. I have a feeling they're trying to figure out a strategy of what can we say that is going to be effective? What can we do that's going to be effective? But you're absolutely right.
In the case of Bahrain, I think the Obama administration has to play it a little cautiously. First, because there is a really strategic interest, the 5th Fleet, but also because Bahrain had been opening up and reforming. And yes, it needed to do more. So it's this genuinely complicated case.
In the Egyptian case, I think they got the timing about right, they moved pretty quickly.
Here, I don't think it's because they are trying to support Gadhafi. If -- you know, have me back on in two days and if they're still saying this, I'll join you in the full-throated condemnation.
SPITZER: All right.
PARKER: Fareed Zakaria, thanks so much for being with us.
ZAKARIA: Thank you both.
SPITZER: When we come back, what if they built a compromise and nobody came. We'll check in on the firestorm over state employees in Wisconsin, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SPITZER: Tonight in Wisconsin, the madness in Madison drags on. There's still fighting over Republican Governor Scott Walker's budget bill, which would increase what public employees pay for their benefits and block their right to unionize.
Just an hour ago, the governor addressed the state, issuing this warning to the Democratic state senator who've been AWOL since last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: The missing Senate Democrats must know that their failure to come to work will lead to dire consequences very soon. Failure to act on this Budget Repair Bill means at least 1500 state employees will be laid off before the end of June.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PARKER: Well, one Republican lawmaker thinks he's got to compromise to end all this. Increase what workers contribute to their pensions and health plans, but limit union rights for only two years.
State Senator Dale Schultz joins us tonight from Madison, Wisconsin.
Senator, thanks for being here.
DALE SCHULTZ (R), WISCONSIN STATE SENATE: Well, thank you very much. It's nice to join you. So it's just a great pleasure to be on with you, Kathleen, and with the governor.
PARKER: Well, you --
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
PARKER: You look like a CNN correspondent out there and it looks like you've still got a pretty good following. A nice crowd there tonight.
SCHULTZ: There are a lot of passionate people in Wisconsin tonight and a good deal of them are downtown here.
PARKER: Well, Senator, Governor Walker has already shot down your idea. Yesterday he called it a nonstarter. So why do you think that your compromise still has a shot?
SCHULTZ: Well, let me just say to you that I know Governor Walker very well. He's a passionate guy. I've campaigned with him and I know he is determined. But I also know that the people here downtown are determined and what concerns me is there doesn't seem to be any way out. I've been in the legislature a long time.
Governor, you know this. Sometimes people get out so far on the ledge, you wonder whether they're going to jump or get pushed. And somebody should look ahead to build a bridge back so that we can continue talking.
That's what I'm attempting to do. This is as much a work in progress as it is a legislative amendment, and it's designed to get people to remember that for this state to move forward, we all have to give a little and work together to build a brighter future.
SPITZER: Senator, look, I appreciate your kind words. And what I've read about you, everybody says you're a pragmatist, you're not an ideologue, you're trying to figure out how to get resolution to obviously what is a very, very difficult situation there in Wisconsin.
Here's what I don't get. Why doesn't the governor -- your governor -- declare victory and say, look, the union members, all the state workers have already conceded on the financial terms? They will make the contributions, the pension payments, the copayments they've been asked to make. That is the money you need to actually close the budget gap.
The actual mechanism of negotiating doesn't increase or decrease the state deficit by one penny. That's just a matter of process. Why not declare victory for now on the money and say we'll deal with the issue of unionization later. They'll still have the votes in the Republican state Senate.
SCHULTZ: Governor, I think that's a great question. I'm having a little difficulty hearing you, but it's not one I can answer. It's a question that has to be put to Governor Walker and I think he has made it clear several times when it's been put to him, and that is that he feels very strongly that he needs the whole loaf.
SPITZER: Well, look, I appreciate your -- both your trying to hear us through the screaming and shouting in the background, but I think isn't that part of the problem? Both sides want the whole loaf right now. And I think there have been pretty significant concessions on the part of the workers on the finances of this issue.
And the issue of unionization just seems to take the debate into a much more emotionally driven area that could be deferred until you've dealt with the dollars and cents. At least that's from a distance how I'm viewing this.
SCHULTZ: Well, I would -- I would agree with you. It seems to me that people are shouting at each other and they're not talking.
During the last campaign, Governor, my constituents asked me, if there was one thing that they wanted me to do, it was, Dale, we want you to go to Madison and work together to solve our state's problem. First and foremost, our state's very real fiscal situation.
And to do that, they said, we know you need to talk to everyone and we hope that we can count on you. And that's what I'm attempting to do and although the passions are running hot and cold here, it's difficult to, you know, gauge exactly where everyone is at, I am encouraged by the fact that my constituents are increasingly letting me know that they appreciate my pragmatic approach to this situation. PARKER: Well, Senator, I'm a big fan of compromise, but you know your plan just merely postpones -- you say no collective bargaining for two years, and then it goes back into operation.
What do you say to your critics who say, well, look, if it's good enough in 2013, then it's good enough in 2011?
SCHULTZ: Well, every good compromise has to hurt a little bit on every side. It also has to offer everyone hope. And collective bargaining in Wisconsin has given us decades of relative labor peace. I think that's important. And I think it's what we think of when we think of Wisconsin and the great place it is to live, work, and play.
SPITZER: You know, Senator, I think you're right. I mean the collective bargaining has been part of the fabric of our entire nation, certainly Wisconsin, has deeper roots in Wisconsin and many states in the nation. I think that's why the citizens there are somewhat surprised that that is the opening that your governor is trying to use to sort of drive home this issue.
And it just seems to me that there are so many issues, you're going to have to confront a $1.8 billion deficit in the next year, $3.6, I gather, over what you call your biennium. How are you going to deal with that much? I mean that's the big knot that you're going to deal with over the next two years. Am I correct?
SCHULTZ: Well, it's a very thorny problem. And that's why the governor has dug in and said, we're not going to kick the can down the road. And I understand that. We have taxpayers in Wisconsin who are exhausted. And the governor is doing his level best to stand up for them. I appreciate that.
What I am worried about is these passions are going to run so hot that we don't know where they're going to come out and we run the risk of something tragic happening here.
Governor, I have to tell you, I grew up in Madison during the late '60s and early '70s. I saw firsthand when passions get out of control what happens. I delivered newspapers to the home of Robert Fassnacht. And you'll remember that name as the young man who was in Sterling Hall the night it was bombed.
I know that if people don't step forward and find ways to bring people together and take that political risk, have that courage, sometimes bad things happen. And I pray every night that the people who are concerned about both sides of this find a way to come together and to talk about our future.
PARKER: All right. Dale Schultz, good luck and thank you so much for being with us tonight.
SCHULTZ: You bet. Have a great night.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
Coming up, the polls are closed in Chicago's mayoral race. You'll hear the very first results on Rahm Emanuel's big roll of the dice when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: Tonight, that closely watched mayor's race in Chicago. Well, polls closed just minutes ago and results are starting to come in. The big question tonight isn't who wins, but by how much.
SPITZER: Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is the clear front runner, but to win the race he has to grab 50 percent of the vote or face a runoff this April.
National political correspondent Jessica Yellin is in Chicago tonight with an early look at the results. Jessica, how's it looking for Rahm Emanuel tonight?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: So far, guys, the early returns for Rahm Emanuel's team are very good. With over 55 percent of the precincts reporting, Emanuel already has 54 percent of the vote. His closest contender, Gery Chico, has 26 percent and then Carol Moseley Braun, the woman, the former senator was supposed to be his stiffest competition has under nine percent of the vote. As you pointed out, he needs only slightly more than 50 percent of the vote to eliminate any chance of a runoff. If things stay this way, he would be the winner by the end of the night.
PARKER: Jessica, you know, there was a little bit of controversy when Rahm Emanuel decided to run. Not only because of his colorful language and his rather famous temper, but, you know, there was also a question about his residency, whether he'd lived there long enough in order to run. Was that -- were voters really concerned about these things or was that just city politics?
YELLIN: You know, it was a chicken/egg question. The case against him arguing he wasn't a resident was brought by a political gag (ph) in town, but it became such a dominant story in the media that it's what folks started to talk about and it sort of morphed into this larger campaign theme the opponents were running against him, that he's a Washington insider, an elitist, not part of the city. So, obviously, more good returns for Emanuel breaking in this room. People here excited. But that issue Kathleen, finally subsided after the Supreme Court ruled and then they could just focus on making personal attacks for most of the rest of the campaign.
SPITZER: You know, Jessica, I don't want to point out something that may be a mere technicality. But isn't there a general election. Today we're getting results in a primary. These are just the Democrats fighting to be mayor of Chicago. So is there any possibility at all that Rahm could lose the general? Is that sort of like betting that Moammar Gadhafi will still be the leader of Libya three weeks from now?
YELLIN: I don't want to try any analogies there. You know that Chicagoans never say never, but the bottom line here is all -- any one candidate has to do is get 50 percent plus one vote and they are the mayor. And so if Rahm gets that tonight, Rahm Emanuel will be the -- basically, people think Rahm Emanuel will be the next mayor of Chicago either tonight or in six weeks. It looks like he could get it tonight. We'll see.
SPITZER: When does the actual term begin? When does he formally take over? Or whoever wins formally take over?
YELLIN: You know, you have stumped me. Do we know when he takes over? That's an excellent question. I do know that Mayor Daley is not in town. He has left for the elections, so maybe somebody needs to step in now. But I don't know the answer to that. I'll get back to you on that.
SPITZER: All right. I'm sure Rahm does.
Let me ask you this. He's facing a budget crisis, right? He's facing a budget crisis. In the few seconds we have left, does he needed to confront that in the campaign, or was he really put to the test to say, how is he going to cut and how's he going to balance the city's budget?
YELLIN: Yes, it has been the dominant theme. And I did get a chance to interview Emanuel today. His basic -- he's trying to straddle the line. Not going where the Republican governors have gone, trying to go after the unions, but saying that union reform is necessary to cut down pension debt. He says he'll balance the budget by negotiating, bringing the unions to the table. So a much trickier position for a Democrat to walk in this environment, and maybe a foreshadowing of what other Democrats will have to deal with in 2012. Emanuel has to deal with in this race.
SPITZER: All right, Jessica.
YELLIN: You know, a fine line there.
SPITZER: All right. Thanks so much. You're right. It's tougher perhaps when you're a Democrat, but he's going to become a tough negotiator. You just watch. Thank you so much for that report.
Up next, Moammar Gadhafi, the early years. We showed it to you earlier, that brave, handsome young leader. How did he come to power and how did he go so wrong? More on Moammar, the man, when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: When you think of Moammar Gadhafi, it's hard not to think this guy is crazy. But it wasn't always so.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER (voice-over): Almost impossible to believe that this is Moammar Gadhafi. He came to power in 1969 at the age of 27. That's when he led a group of junior officers in a military coup. They overthrew a king, Libya's pro-Western King Idris. Once in power, he looked to Egypt for inspiration.
His hero was Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had led his own revolution in Egypt and inflamed the Middle East with his famous call for Arab nationalism. Gadhafi won the hearts of his people by banishing American and British military bases and deporting the Italians, who had colonized Libya since before World War I. But in the 1970s, his methods turned increasingly violent as he became a major investor in terrorism. He was reported to be the money behind Black September. That's the infamous terrorist group that took the Israeli athletes and coaches hostage at the 1972 Munich Olympics. It was a chilling unforgettable moment when ABC's Jim McKay told the world what had happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM MCKAY, ABC NEWS: Our worst fears had been realized tonight. It now said that there were 11 hostages. Two were killed in their rooms. This was yesterday morning. Nine were killed at the airport tonight. They're all gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: An equal opportunity terrorist, Gadhafi also used his country's oil money to back the Irish Republican Army throughout the 1970s and '80s. In 1986, a bomb exploded at a Berlin discotheque killing three and wounded more than 200, many of them U.S. servicemen. Gadhafi was behind it. President Ronald Reagan's response was swift.
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This mad dog of the Middle East has a goal of a world revolution, Muslim fundamentalist revolution.
SPITZER: Reagan ordered a retaliatory bombing raid in Libya in which Gadhafi's baby daughter was killed. It was a tragedy that some believe permanently affected his health and behavior. Two years later in the worst air disaster in British history, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 270 people who were aboard. The bomb that brought the plane down was traced to Libya and the Libyan intelligence operative behind it was tried and convicted. Although he never took responsibility, Gadhafi was seen as the mastermind and it further isolated him from the world community.
Gadhafi saw the writing on the wall when the U.S. launched the Iraq war to topple Saddam Hussein. Gadhafi realized he could be next, and in 2003, he scrapped Libya's quest for weapons of mass destruction and paid compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims. The result, three years later, the Bush administration removed the sanctions and restored full diplomatic relations with Libya.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Now it isn't his former enemies that Moammar Gadhafi fears. Like every dictator who stayed too long, the voices he hears are the cries of his own people and they're only growing louder. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Breaking news. As of this moment, CNN predicts, no surprise here, Rahm Emanuel has won the Democratic primary for mayor of Chicago and makes it almost a certainty he will be the next mayor of Chicago -- Kathleen.
PARKER: Well, meanwhile, the situation in Libya is very dangerous for western reporters. Gadhafi hates them and the streets are in a state of chaos. But CNN senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman has persevered.
SPITZER: We do not want to disclose his exact location, but Ben visited one city in the eastern part of the country where the people already feel liberated. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is democratic Gadhafi. This is a real (INAUDIBLE).
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But Gadhafi no longer controls the eastern city of Tobruk (ph). The old Libyan flag from the days of the monarchy now flies over the main square. Here they chant the same slogan heard in tune (ph) in Cairo. The people want to topple the regime and they don't want to stop there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm talking very seriously, I will kill you. Leave us alone. Go away. Don't come back.
WEDEMAN: Tobruk (ph) was one of the first cities to rebel against Gadhafi's 42-year rule, ripping down the symbols of one of the Arab world's most repressive regimes.
(on camera): This is what remains of Tobruk's main police station, a hated symbol of the Gadhafi regime. On the 17th of February, protesters came out into the streets. They were fired upon by the security services, but eventually the people here were able to overpower the police and they came and ransacked this place and then came and burnt cars belonging to the intelligence services.
(voice-over): Adri (ph) says he was brought to this room, the torture chamber, in the police station, four times. The police, he recalls, used electric shocks and beatings to extract confessions. Much of Libya's oil is exported from the east. Local leader Abdallah Sharif warns the people here have a weapon against the regime.
SHARIF ABDALLAH, TOBRUK COMMUNITY LEADER: Unless this master is stopped immediately, we are going to stop the oil. We bury it. We bury it.
We bury it or we just stop exporting it.
WEDEMAN: Gadhafi isn't giving up without a fight, but then again, neither are the people.
Ben Wedeman, CNN, Tobruk, Libya.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PARKER: Just ahead, a CIA adviser who met Moammar Gadhafi personally and lived to tell the tale, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: We turn now to our senior national security contributor, Fran Townsend. Fran served as a homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, and in 2010, she visited high- ranking Libyan officials at the invitation of the Libyan government. Fran Townsend is also a member of the CIA's external advisory committee.
PARKER: Welcome, Fran.
SPITZER: We've been watching Gadhafi for a couple days now. The guy is nuts. Isn't he? I mean, isn't he completely either on drugs or psychotic or both?
FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND, CARRIED PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE TO GADHAFI IN 2007: He's -- look, he's wacky. Let's just agree that he's wacky. But, you know, there's also crazy like a fox. I mean, I was there in 2007 and met directly with him. I traveled on behalf of the president, because we had concerned. They had been taken off the state-sponsored list of terrorism by the State Department, and we had concerns about the intelligence at the time, if they were still up to bad activities. And so I went to speak directly to him.
PARKER: And you went with a message from the president, from President George W. Bush.
TOWNSEND: That's exactly right. I carried a letter.
PARKER: What was it?
TOWNSEND: Well, the letter expressed -- without going into the details of it because it's a private correspondence between heads of state -- it expressed concerns that we had information that Colonel Gadhafi and his government were engaging in terrorism-related activities and we expressed very serious concern about that and basically demanded that they stopped this activity.
PARKER: Were you in a room alone with Gadhafi?
TOWNSEND: I was in a tent.
PARKER: In a tent, of course you were.
TOWNSEND: Yes. Kathleen, this is quite a story, the way they behaved, the way they handled this meeting. They only permitted me a single security officer for my protection. They drove us around so we didn't know where we were on a military base, and then I met with him in a tent alone.
SPITZER: You are an expert in the internal dynamics of Libya.
TOWNSEND: Do you see the world collapsing around him? We have a list of about 11 or 12 senior members of his administration, diplomats who have resigned just in the past day or two. Will that collapse bring him down, or can he survive with a remnant of the military?
TOWNSEND: Well, the one thing that I think is consistent about the regimes that have collapsed, where the military and security services abandon them, they crumble and they disappear. Right? That's what happened in Egypt. That's what happened in Tunisia. Where their military and security services supports them, they can survive.
I think what you're seeing now is the slow disintegration around him. Today was the minister of interior, a legion of ambassadors. Here are two key officials we haven't talked about yet that are key, sort of the next ones to fall, if you will. Moussa Koussa, who is the head of the intelligence services now, who's foreign minister, and Senussi, who is the head of the intelligence service, and both have played key roles in the handing over of the Libyan weapons program in negotiations and intelligence sharing with the United States, these two guys are very close to Gadhafi and to his sons. And if they abandon him, if they defect, if they leave, if they seek asylum, he's done.
SPITZER: Save Gadhafi who gave that blood-curdling speech Sunday evening, in which he basically said there's going to be a river of blood, and he was accurate in predicting the river of blood that we then saw in the next day and a half, and continue to see. Is he as crazy as his father or was that for show? How do you understand his position?
TOWNSEND: I met with Seif on my trip in 2010. It was right after Seif quite proudly during that meeting, by the way, bragged about having been the person who negotiated the release of al-Megrahi from the Scottish custody. This is al-Megrahi who was responsible for the Pan Am bombing. So he was clearly being groomed by his father. He speaks perfect English. He's western educated. He's very bright, can be charming when he wants to be. He's an individual that I think, as you say, he said the streets were going to run with blood, and then we watched it happen. I'm not sure he wants to martyr himself. The sons have made themselves very wealthy through corruption and pillaring basically the Libyan treasury. And so I'm not so sure they're not people we do have to contend with. Will they flee, where will they flee, will they take their assets, what role will they play?
SPITZER: Since they don't want to be martyrs, they're younger, they don't want to be in the history books quite yet.
TOWNSEND: Right.
SPITZER: How do you predict what their next step will be? If they don't want to be martyrs, do they think that they can survive and repress what seems to be a growing revolution day by day?
TOWNSEND: Well, it certainly seems that Seif -- Seif was being groomed by his father to take over leadership of Libya when Colonel Gadhafi was going to step aside. Certainly, I think Seif leads that contingent of brothers. He's the most powerful among them. And the question is, how long does he think he can hold on. And that really depends on -- there are rumors now, I've not confirmed them -- that they have their own sort of security contingent. But that won't be able to keep the hordes at the gates for very long. So he's going to have to develop if he hasn't already a plan for his own safety.
SPITZER: I'm trying to fuel what that would be. Last question, and I hope this doesn't impinge on what you can tell us.
If you were to walk into the Oval Office tomorrow morning and look the president in the eye, what would you say the United States should do to increase the likelihood that Gadhafi is out of there as soon as possible?
TOWNSEND: You know, the difficult, the unique and difficult position the United States has vis-a-vis Libya is that in Libya, unlike many of the other countries we've talked about tonight, we don't have any leverage. The people with leverage are our European allies, the Brits, the Italians, who have tremendous both diplomatic and commercial relationships. There's a lot of money flowing into that country as a result of state companies from those countries. And our European allies find themselves now, they have to leave. They can't rely on us to lead. They actually need to lead and push. And we can do a lot from the background.
We can argue for universal freedoms, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but we really need in terms of pushing Gadhafi and pushing the regime out, so that there can be democracy and freedom there. We need to rely on our European allies. And that's scary because they haven't had to do that.
SPITZER: Do we need to rely upon them, or can we lead and say now is the moment for an international boycott, where we actually say, there will be no commercial relations with Libya. We will not buy their oil. We will refuse any money flows out of the country? Could we not organize that? International sanctions are really serious.
TOWNSEND: We can and we should do that. But you know, it's interesting, because every time we do things like that, and I think all those things need to be done and need to be done now, but every time we do that, our European allies and those around the world resent American use of power. This is actually a case where our allies have greater leverage. And it's time for them to step up to the -- you know, this is -- step up or shut up. And they need to really do something about it. They have the moral obligation now to act.
SPITZER: All right.
PARKER: Fran, wish we could keep you here for an hour. I have so many more questions for you. I have to call you later. Thanks so much.
SPITZER: And thank you for watching.
PARKER: "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
