Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Desperate Days in Libya; Anarchy and Chaos in Libya; Madness in Madison over Budget

Aired February 23, 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 on our program.

We start in the eastern part of Libya in Benghazi, a city now under rebel control.

CNN senior correspondent Ben Wedeman, the first journalist to make it into that city, we'll talk to him in just a moment.

But first, here is new amateur video of celebrating protesters as they torch a large poster of their brother leader Moammar Gadhafi. Witnesses report rebels are shooting hundreds of rounds into the air as they celebrate their freedom from the man who has controlled their country and their lives for 40 years.

Gadhafi's stranglehold losing. We're learning the truth of rumors that we've heard throughout the week. What we're about to report is graphic and disturbing and may not be appropriate for younger audiences.

We've heard of mercenaries hired by Gadhafi to kill his own people. Today we see proof. The body of an African soldier with Nigerian papers displayed by the rebels. Not only did Gadhafi's forces kill civilians, they also fired on their own fellow soldiers. A number of them were executed for refusing to fire on unarmed civilians as this video shows.

Meanwhile reports of casualties grow. The Italian foreign minister estimates that more than 1,000 people have died in the uprising in the last week.

In this footage from the organization One Day on Earth, we see dozens of victims buried in improvised seaside cemetery. One mourner says in Arabic, many, many graves, and these are martyrs who were killed. This indeed is truly heartbreaking.

Now in the capital city of Tripoli, the situation remains volatile. Libyans are said to be hiding from a roving bands of armed soldiers as the city remains under the control of Moammar Gadhafi.

Now let's turn to Ben Wedeman, the first western journalist to make his way inside Libya since protests began. Today he managed to reach the city of Benghazi which is now under the control of anti- Gadhafi forces.

Ben, describe for us what's going on there.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we're seeing here is that the city is now under the control of basically an ad hoc government. They're set up in the local courthouse. And these are just ordinary citizens -- lawyers, doctors, businessmen -- who have organized this life of the city.

They have a committee for security making sure that banks and other public properties are protected. They have committees to make sure that there is adequate medicine in the hospitals, the pharmacies stay open. They even have a committee that makes sure the garbage is collected.

They're also trying to -- sort of put together some sort of security force to defend the city in the event that the forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi try to attack. One incident that happened today was apparently two warplanes took off from Tripoli with the intention of bombing oil installations south of Benghazi. However, the pilot ejected and ditched their planes in the sea because they simply didn't want to attack Libyan economic facilities.

And so this is an indication that as this revolt in the east and also in parts of the west deepens and broadens, that the ranks of the Libyan military are starting to show serious cracks when it comes to discipline and willingness to implement the orders of Mr. Gadhafi.

PARKER: Well, Ben, as you describe this little ad hoc government that's -- I guess emerged sort of organically, are they holding meetings in a building? And what's going on in the streets at the same time? Is it quiet or are there still -- is there still fighting going on?

WEDEMAN: No, there's no -- there's no fighting going on. The only shooting you hear in the city is celebratory gunfire and you heard quite a lot of it today because there was a very large demonstration against Moammar Gadhafi and there was also a demonstration where we pulled in, we showed up and we were greeted like liberating heroes.

They cheered for us, they thanked us for coming, they threw candy inside the car. It was an incredible scene.

Now as far as the ad hoc government goes, yes, they're meeting all the time. They have -- as I said, they have these committees that are trying to organize daily life. They're in touch with the military. They are making sure, for instance, that the electric supply is still running.

In fact, one of the members of that ad hoc government told me that whereas in the past where Moammar Gadhafi's government ruled this city, there were frequent electricity cuts. He said that now that the people are in control, the electricity never goes out.

SPITZER: Ben, this is absolutely staggering. It's almost as though this is like watching the footage of liberating forces in World War II. You're rolling in there as the great liberating presence.

What is the conversation about how to extend the liberation to the rest of Libya? Is there a conversation that you're aware of about how to push back and take Tripoli as well?

WEDEMAN: Well, they aren't talking about the fact that gradually going westward, more and more towns are falling to the anti-Gadhafi forces. And more importantly they are in very close touch with all the different tribes that are so important here in Libya.

And one of the members of this ad hoc government told me they have been in contact over the phone with Moammar Gadhafi's tribe and that they're trying to convince them, look, we have no problems with you as Gadhafi's tribe. We have one single problem and that is the man who runs the country who just happens to be a member of your tribe.

So there are attempts to sort of build bridges with all the different groups in the west of the country, the tribes, political organizations and whatnot, in the hopes of not necessarily some sort of military push, but simply to broaden the network of anti-Gadhafi forces to the point where Moammar Gadhafi really just rules his own palace.

SPITZER: Any sense from people you speak to that his days are numbered, that people around him are saying you're about to become the martyr you spoke of in the speech two days ago or yesterday?

WEDEMAN: Well, there certainly is a feeling that the fall of Moammar Gadhafi is inevitable. The worry is that it's going to be -- it may take more time than they hoped and the bigger worry of course is that it may be much bloodier.

The reason is that when you look for instance in the case of Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, yes, he was hated and reviled by so many people, but after 18 days of largely peaceful protests, he stepped down. And he moved to his palace in Sharm el-Sheikh and is still there now largely unmolested.

Moammar Gadhafi has no where to go.

SPITZER: We've heard so much about mercenaries. Any word on how many, where they are, do they continue to pour into the country?

WEDEMAN: Well, it's not clear whether they're pouring into the country. There clearly are a fair number of them here. Hundreds of them have been captured and maybe more have been killed in the fighting in this part of the country.

What's interesting is that Libyans will tell you that when they capture Libyan soldiers, that they try to actually protect them and ensure that they're not killed simply out of anger butt the other mercenaries apparently aren't so lucky. Many of them have simply been killed as soon as they were captured.

Now there are apparently still mercenaries in the western part of the country and they're really there to protect the regime in that area. In the east, there are none. The only mercenaries that exist are either dead or in custody of the anti-Gadhafi forces.

SPITZER: Unbelievable. All right, Ben, thank you for that remarkable report and stay the obvious, stay safe.

President Obama who had remained quiet as Libya grew increasingly violent made a brief statement this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and respect the rights of its people.

It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities. And face the cost of continued violations of human rights.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: With all due respect it does seem just a little bit late in the day to ask Moammar Gadhafi to behave responsibly.

PARKER: Joining us now to talk about desperate days in Libya are Jamie Rubin, executive editor at the "Bloomberg View" and an assistant secretary under President Clinton, and James Traub, contributing writer for the "New York Times" magazine.

Welcome back, gentlemen. If it's not Trout and Rubin, it's not PARKER SPITZER.

Jamie, the last time you're on our show, you said that if there were going to be a revolution in Libya, it would be very different that Egypt and Bahrain. Have things played out as you predicted?

JAMIE RUBIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE BLOOMBERG VIEW: Well, yes. I think the key thing has always been in all of these cases, from the Eastern Europe to South Africa and now here in the Middle East, is what does the army do, what do the leaders do. Will they order their people to fire on their own citizens or won't they.

In China, they did in Tiananmen Square. In Eastern Europe, they didn't. And in Egypt I think when we see the horror going on in Libya, I think it's worth remembering the great dignity and historic way in which President Mubarak stepped down from office, allowed the victory of democracy in his country without any indication, any evidence whatsoever that there was a suggestion he was going to really use force against his own people.

SPITZER: James, a response --

JAMES TRAUB, WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: Yes, I don't know that I'm going to give Mubarak credit for dignity. Jamie sounds like he's still in office. You know he did what he had to do because the police retreated and then the army wouldn't fire. I don't think -- I think Mubarak was forced to do that because he didn't have the support that Gadhafi does have.

Now from what we can tell, Gadhafi's tribal support seems to be peeling off tribe by tribe. And his own tribe, the Gadhadhfa, they're called, have remained with him. And obviously much is opaque, but there certainly is a sense that he's having trouble increasing his support.

He clearly is diminishing his support, but those he has are still able to inflict enormous damage on the Libyan people and we don't know how long it will be before the rest peel away from him.

RUBIN: Eliot, I think we should come back to this issue because I think it's extremely important. One of the mistakes that I believe was made with Egypt that is going to be down to our disadvantage --

SPITZER: By the United States.

RUBIN: By the United States -- is that in letting Mubarak go, it would have been much better had the president of the United States found a way in letting him go to talk about the important role that Mubarak played in our history, in establishing peace in the Middle East for so many years, in working with the United States as a close ally.

And we chuckle now about Mubarak and say he was somehow in the same boat as Gadhafi, but I don't think so. And I think it's really important for us to remember that all of our friends around the world didn't like the way we seemed to throw him under the bus.

We were right to let Mubarak go, but we would have been better off had we found a way to say a few important sentences about --

SPITZER: Maybe so, but I want to come back to Gadhafi for a minute and we'll do the contrast in a few moments perhaps.

The question in my mind is, how much longer can Gadhafi survive? We see the military fracturing, the tribal situation uncertain, the eastern part of the country clearly in the hand of the rebels. And one of the more interesting pieces that came across the wires in the past day or so was that the mosques now at least certain big piece of them seemed to be declaring a fatwa against Gadhafi. And some of the most important clerics in the country are saying you can shoot and kill Moammar Gadhafi.

So does he have any found left in the public at large, is the question I got to ask.

PARKER: But meanwhile he wants to be a martyr.

(CROSSTALK)

TRAUB: No, I think the question is going to be, is someone going to take that fatwa literally?

SPITZER: Right.

TRAUB: I mean, that is -- it's quite imaginable that he could hold on to that small shred of power which gives him enormous ability to commit violence against people. Look at the Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Look at Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast. They have no support at all and yet so long as they keep the army or a critical part of the army, they're OK.

But is someone going to shoot this guy? And that doesn't strike me as implausible at all anymore.

PARKER: Well, let me just throw something out. I mean Gadhafi has said he wants to be a martyr. He has to place to go. He has no friends. I mean not to trivialize this, but is this --

TRAUB: He doesn't want to go.

PARKER: Is this suicide by fatwa?

RUBIN: Well, in the end --

PARKER: Martyrdom?

RUBIN: He is going to, in my judgment, die in Libya whether it's soon or later. He's going to die in Libya. There are only a couple of ways -- this ends in some sort of suicide, in some sort of attack by one of his bodyguards in implementing this fatwa.

I'm not sure they needed a fatwa to have a lot of people in Libya want to kill Moammar Gadhafi.

SPITZER: You probably focused -- a lot of you -- on the role of the military and it was the pivotal decision in Egypt. Is there an organized military decision tree in Libya that can go to Gadhafi the way Suleiman theoretically could have and probably did in Egypt, and say game over, it's time to get out?

RUBIN: For all these years --

SPITZER: All we're hearing are mercenaries.

RUBIN: -- Gadhafi has been preparing for this moment by playing everybody off against everybody. There is no organized military system in Libya the way there was in Egypt. There are security services. There are -- if you read the cables that have come out from WikiLeaks about the way they've structured Gadhafi's life, there are, you know, concentric circles around concentric circles.

There is no simple organized pyramid in the Libyan system and that's why mercenaries, that's why these strange Ukrainians who take care of him or the security services of one brother against the security services of another brother, it's not going to work like that and that's why their civil strife is likely to continue for a while.

TRAUB: You know I spent -- I spent part of the afternoon reading the famous "Green Book" that Gadhafi wrote. You know and --

SPITZER: I saw him do that on TV the other night.

TRAUB: And -- well, it's a shorter read than you might think. It's actually not that long. And it's obviously -- it's very cranky weird stuff, but what you feel is this was a person who set out to obliterate the existing institutions of the society.

He had this genuinely totalitarian view about how women should behave, how children should be raised, everything. He did succeed maybe in changing people's private lives but he destroyed the existing institutions of Libya (INAUDIBLE) in 1969 when he took over.

So what it means, as Jamie said, not only is there not kind of obvious structure around him, if and when this succeeds and Gadhafi goes, the vacuum --

SPITZER: Right.

TRAUB: -- that people will confront is nothing like the situation that we already have in Egypt that will exist in Tunisia and elsewhere. It's really terrifying.

SPITZER: He has destroyed the entire civil society. We'll pick that up in a second.

Jamie Rubin, James Traub, we have to take a quick break. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: We're back with Jamie Rubin and James Traub.

Look, I just got to say I watched President Obama's statement today, it seemed antiseptic, it seemed almost weak. There is nothing there. Am I missing something? Shouldn't there have been more behind the president of the United States statement at this moment?

RUBIN: Well, one can hope that the safety and security of American citizens who have not yet been evacuated in large numbers was a primary factor in why there wasn't a lot of substance behind the president's calls obviously for the violence to stop and all of that.

Look, there are options here without going to the extremes of -- let me call it the right wing in our country talking about regime change and arming the rebels and all of that. There are simple what I would call options that the international community -- NATO is probably a good institution to look to right now.

Aviano Air Base is very close to Libya. There are dozens and dozens of fighter and bomber aircraft that could do simple things that are humanitarian in nature, such as not a no fly zone preventing everybody from flying, but if we see a continued use of aircraft, helicopters, things like that attacking civilians, the presence of American NATO aircraft could change that in a second. We know in the case of Saddam Hussein's survival back in '91 that helicopters made the whole difference because a centralized regime with that kind of special military power can change the dynamic on the ground.

SPITZER: You think we could take out --

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIN: We could threaten and they wouldn't fly.

SPITZER: Right.

RUBIN: I mean, look, they're not -- some of them aren't flying now. Imagine if NATO airplanes were circling nearby. And secondly, we could drop supplies and medicine and humanitarian aid. All of those would be without taking the position that we're overthrowing the regime which is the kind of thing that would be internationally extremely difficult to get support for.

TRAUB: Yes, and there are even milder things that -- for example, Senator Kerry put out a statement today advocating some of these which I was really surprised Obama didn't mention because things like an arms embargo, things like cutting off the purchase of oil. And maybe the easiest one, where you say to the people around Gadhafi -- not Gadhafi, he's hopeless.

You say to the people around him, international accountability. You are going to be accused of committing war crimes and atrocities, so you better stop right now because the consequences are going to be terrible. Because the only way to succeed in this thing I think is to peel people away from Gadhafi. There are means whereby that can be done.

PARKER: James, I want to go back to what you said before about the vacuum.

TRAUB: Yes.

PARKER: Let's fast forward. Gadhafi is dead, he's gone, whatever happens. What is likely to happen there? What are the possibilities? Are we talking about terrorist groups? Are we talking about civil war? What do you think?

TRAUB: It's really hard to know. One reason it's hard to know is we actually don't know how organized to what extent there are organized institutions in Libya. I mean it turns out there are human rights activists. There are human rights lawyers. There are people who I certainly didn't know. I haven't followed Libya closely at all. I didn't know about such people.

So it may be that there are more people who command respect than we know about. But the fact is, if you think about Egypt as an alternative where you've had a generation of people who have earned public respect by virtue of their behavior, and we hope that power will pass to them, though it's something we can talk about because right now that's not happening.

In Libya, there is no such a thing and it's not even like -- yes, I would say Romania where those things didn't exist either, but there was something of a liberal political tradition which over time would form.

(CROSSTALK)

SPITZER: Libya is actually a relatively wealthy nation unlike Egypt.

TRAUB: And well educated, too.

SPITZER: And well educated. And I think per capita income is about $14,000 per person. They have oil. They have oil. And so this is not a nation which is going to come to us looking for money to rebuild institutions. They will turn on the spigot, a new regime somehow will come together and begin to do what Gadhafi did not do which is to invest those dollars back with the public.

And so it seems to be this is at one level an easier dynamic than it might be in Egypt which is essentially a very large poor country without the assets. Does that make sense?

RUBIN: Yes, on one level, but Egypt is a society that has existed as a country for thousands and thousands of years. Libya was again a British construction of different tribes and different areas. So I think the issue here is, you know, would different parts of Libya never be able to survive in a centralized regime.

And I think what James is pointing to is the fact that this pervasive security apparatus where brothers had armies, units under their command, where all of the different security groups took control, means there's not one legitimate authority across the country. And that's when tribal, family, region becomes more important than country.

TRAUB: Iraq may be a better analogy. Now unlike Iraq, it's not three different ethnic groups, Sunni, Shia, Kurd. But it was three different regions prior to 1951. And of course, you know, think about the blood shed and international warfare that we've had in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam.

So it's easy to imagine bad scenarios post-Gadhafi. Obviously I don't want to imply that it's not a great thing that he's gone. It's just that his destruction of institutions means that he is kind of sowing the ground with salt.

SPITZER: But look, one of the things, not to be Pollyannaish about this, but hearing Ben Wedeman describe how he's committees came together to take care of the crash, take care of the energy supply, so suddenly a civil society seemed to reemerge very quickly in Benghazi at least which is the second largest city, I think.

RUBIN: Well, I think you're right and we shouldn't diminish their role of modern institutions that are created through all the modern media where people are getting together. They are seeing things on TV, they're working together in many different ways. And this is where tribe and region and family matters.

But I think the fear that it will become a Somalia, which I think people have suggested, I think that's wildly exaggerated. Somalia is, you know, still the basket case of Africa. There is no reason to think Libya will be in that case or that terrorists will be running in and finding a safe haven in Libya.

SPITZER: Right.

RUBIN: I think it will be difficult, it will be ugly, it will be chaotic. But we're not into another, you know, Afghanistan where you have an al Qaeda central starting there.

PARKER: Well, let's hope you're right.

Jamie Rubin and James Traub, we'll talk to you again at the end of the program.

But up next, the battle of the governors over what's going on in Wisconsin. You won't want to miss this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: While protests over state budget cuts spread across the country, Wisconsin remains in a standstill over Republican Governor Scott Walker's budget bill, a plan that would make state workers pay more for their benefits while eliminating their right to collective bargaining.

Earlier today Governor Walker insisted that unions are not under attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: What we're doing right now is not about union busting. Not at all. It's about balancing our budget.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Our next guest has been in Governor Walker's shows. In fact he has been known as Walker's hero. Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin for 14 years and also served as secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush. He joins us tonight from Washington.

Governor, thanks so much for being with us.

Governor, the sticking point here is the fact that this bill ends most of the union bargaining rights that public workers have had for decades. And even though, of course, I understand there's a budget gap at stake, but how does limiting unions fix the budget?

TOMMY THOMPSON (R), FORMER WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: Well, Kathleen, first off, thank you for having me on your program, you and Eliot, and congratulations on your program.

PARKER: Thank you.

THOMPSON: There is -- there is no question that the state and the local units of government have got tremendous financial problems. And the governor has rightly said, and I support him, that the only way you're going to be able to really cover this gap without raising taxes is to be able to have givebacks from everybody. And he does not believe that he can accomplish this without passing the bill that he's put in front of the legislature.

SPITZER: Governor, I hear you and I applaud you. You a great record when you were the governor of Wisconsin.

THOMPSON: Thank you, Eliot.

SPITZER: And you did great things, welfare reform and all the rest. Here's the thing that confuses me, though. The unions have said we will concede all the financial points that the governor, the current governor of Wisconsin is seeking. The contributions to the pension and health care and all the rest. We will give him every penny back. The only thing we don't think is fair is to confuse how we negotiate, the process of negotiating collectively with all the money we're willing to give him. What does one have to do with the other? They've conceded every one of the financial issues and yet the governor seems to me to be fighting an ideological battle. Explain the connection between collective bargaining and money when they've given on all the money issues.

THOMPSON: Well, first of, they didn't give in until very recently when the governor campaigned on this. The governor is not a Johnny or a Scott come lately to this particular issue. He campaigned on it and he says we're going to have to have givebacks. And when he got elected, the unions told him flat out that they would not in any way give back. And so the governor was faced with a situation. I got to have this money giveback and they're not going to negotiate with me. And if you remember correctly and you probably didn't know this, but they tried to rush through contracts before the new legislature took over. The governor asked for them not to do that. They still came into session. They didn't have all their votes counted, so they lost. But they tried to push through a two-year contract and that was going to force the governor's hand. And so he responded with this particular bill. So the connection is in order to have the concessions, he had to come in heavy handedly with a proposal which he has done in order to get them to concede.

SPITZER: But let me ask you this question. If it were a stand- alone bill, just devoid of the budget issues, would you vote yes as a legislator? Wouldn't you vote yes or no to eliminate collective bargaining for the unions right now?

THOMPSON: Well, first off, this bill does not eliminate collective bargaining and I would not vote for it. But this bill doesn't either. But the premise that you're going under is that if the giveback is at the state level, all things are solved. It is not going to be solved because the local units of government have got just as serious a financial problem as the state government. And the only way for these local units of government, the cities, the counties, the school districts are able to be able to perform is to have these givebacks and be able to ask the unions at the local level to give back, as well. And without this bill, the governor does not believe that he would be able to get the kind of concessions that the local units of government that the local units will need in order to support their ongoing governing proposals.

PARKER: Governor Thompson, as you no doubt noticed, the Democrats are characterizing this as an anti-union movement.

THOMPSON: Yes.

PARKER: This is an attempt by the Republicans to bust the unions. How do you counter that? What do you say to those people?

THOMPSON: Well, first off, I had very good relations, relatively good relations with the unions when I was governor and I do not believe that this is a union busting bill. If it would be, the governor would have taken away the opportunity for unions at the state as well as the local levels to negotiate anything. And he is still proposing to allow the unions to negotiate for wages.

SPITZER: We have seen a string of Republican governors across a number of Midwestern states try to put forth similar bills saying there will be no collective bargaining. So this doesn't seem to be connected to the effort to balance the budget, it seems to it be an ideological effort which I may disagree with, maybe for so it's fine, but it's an ideological effort to eliminate the right to collective bargaining. I think it's hard not to conclude that that's what we're seeing here.

THOMPSON: Well, I beg to differ with you, Eliot. I'm sure that you and I are going to continue to disagree on this.

SPITZER: All right.

THOMPSON: This is not a union busting bill. If it was, I would not support it. I really sincerely believe that this is based clearly on the fact that the state of Wisconsin is $3.6 billion short and they have to do something. They have to have every particular agency in the state government and it's not only Wisconsin. Thirty-eight out of the 50 states, including your own state of New York, and your also governor -- your new governor of New York is also cutting back. Every governor that I know of is trying to hold down on spending.

SPITZER: One last question I just have to ask you about in fairness.

THOMPSON: Yes.

SPITZER: A couple months ago, we gave these unbelievable tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. At the same time, we're now demanding givebacks of our teachers, cops, firefighters at a very visceral level. Is that fair? THOMPSON: Well, I think overall that there was not the givebacks as much as the continuation. The Republicans did not want a tax increase right now because of the economy. They want to be able to try and get the economy stimulated. You know that, Eliot and Kathleen, and everybody else. It was not a new proposal. It was a continuation of what it is right now. And they felt very strongly and I think rightly so that a tax increase at this point in time was the wrong medicine at the wrong time.

I believe very much that if the unions would come in and say we will give backs at the local units of government, the state government, there'll be a lot more receptivity at the state level not only in Wisconsin but across the country.

PARKER: All right, Tommy Thompson, thanks for joining us.

THOMPSON: It's always -- it's always a pleasure. Thank you very much.

SPITZER: Thank you, Governor.

PARKER: In just a moment, we'll hear the other side of the story from some powerful union voices. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Joining us now are two men who strongly oppose what Wisconsin Governor Walker is proposing for union workers. From Washington, D.C., Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest federation of unions and from Madison, Wisconsin, Mahlon Mitchell, lieutenant with the Madison Fire Department, president of the Professional Firefighters Union and a member of the AFL-CIO.

Gentlemen, welcome.

RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO PRESIDENT: Eliot, thanks for having me on.

MAHLON MITCHELL, PRES., PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF WISC.: Thank you for having me.

SPITZER: My pleasure.

Richard, will the let me start with you. Are we seeing here an orchestrated all-out assault on the right of collective bargaining in the public sector?

TRUMKA: Absolutely. You're seeing payback for the big political donors that put over a billion dollars into the last election, like the Koch brothers. They're trying to take away the rights of Wisconsin workers and Ohio workers and Pennsylvania workers and other workers, their right to be able to come together and bargain for a middle class style life. So this is an assault on the middle class, as well. SPITZER: You know, Mahlon, let me throw this one at you. I think the public at large is looking at what deficits that are real at the state level. I've been there. I know what it looks like. Are you and your members willing to participate in a process of givebacks to say, look, we understand everybody have to sacrifice? Are you willing to go through that negotiation process as long as you keep the right to collective bargain?

MITCHELL: Let me tell you, Eliot. First of all, thank you for having me, but we are willing to negotiate with the governor. Firefighters, police and state troopers have all been exempt from this bill. So we don't have to be here right now, but we will not sit back idly by and let our other brothers and sisters and other American workers be treated so radically different the way we're treated.

Now firefighters, police have come and we've answered the call and we want to negotiate with the governor. We could actually could save more money for the budget if we were to bring firefighters and police to the table and we will provide some concessions. Everybody out here, tens and thousands that have come to protest that have said we will provide concessions to the governor. The 5.8 percent health insurance that are pension is talking about, the 12.4 health insurance premium, we say we will negotiate on that and we will be given that. Firefighters and police have come and said we will prepare to help and do the same if you get rid of the collective bargaining provisions in the bill. That has zero to do with helping the budget. Collective bargaining has nothing to do with helping the budget in Wisconsin.

SPITZER: You know, Richard, let me come back to you. It seems to me I'm an outsider obviously to Wisconsin, but it seems the unions have exceeded to every one of the financial demands that the governor has proposed out in Wisconsin. So it seems hard for me to understand what the issue of collective bargaining has any longer to do with his desire to balance the budget. Do you see any connection there at all?

TRUMKA: There's no connection whatsoever. Governor Walker and other governors like him are overreaching. And everybody agrees that even the Chamber of Commerce in Madison said the governor is overreaching.

And let me pose this one question too, Eliot. You had Texas it's a right to work state and they have the second largest deficit in the United States. And none of their people get to collectively bargain, their public employees. What caused that? It had nothing to do with collective bargaining just like the Wisconsin problem has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It's his rationalization as a way to bust unions and take the right of workers, nurses, teachers, firefighter, EMTs, take away their right to come together to bargain for a middle class life.

SPITZER: You know, Richard, look, I clearly agree with you. I just want to make it clear. Richard Perry, Governor Perry from Texas was on this show a couple of months ago, pretended there was no budget. They're facing a deficit. They're facing a $25 billion deficit, I believe. It's all smoke and mirrors down there with what they're doing. I want to come back to something you said. This deficit is not a consequence of the collective bargaining. It's a consequence of the recession and a consequence of what was created by a bunch of folks on Wall Street who created a bubble that exploded. So how is it two years later that we are now sitting politically with the unions being the scapegoat?

Richard, you're the head of the largest unions in America. Frankly, what did you do wrong politically that got to us this place? Why is Wall Street not being blamed, you're being blamed?

TRUMKA: Well, we're trying to get the real facts out. And if you look at Wisconsin itself, Eliot, it's even a more stark story. When this governor came in, he had a surplus. He gave additional tax breaks and additional programs to his lobbyist friends, rich lobbyist friends and created the deficit that's out there. And now the workers say we'll give you the concessions that you ask for, come to the table and bargain with us. He was asked to talk to workers. He said he wouldn't talk to workers. He was asked to bargain with workers. He said he wouldn't bargain with workers.

This is a guy who says it's all my way or no way. He's overreaching and the general public in Wisconsin supports the workers, the teachers, the EMTs, and people of that sort.

Mahlon, let me come back to you. You're out there in Wisconsin. You obviously have a better feel for the sentiment on the ground. Are you and your members going to go to the governor if he's ever willing to have a real conversation and say, wait a minute, maybe some other folks should also pay or bear some of the burden, the folks you gave tax cuts to just a couple months ago? Is that a conversation you're going to have with Governor Walker?

MITCHELL: We will have that conversation, but, Eliot, let me be clear of one thing. You had Governor Tommy Thompson on your show earlier whom I have a lot of respect for, but he was wrong on two points. First point is the governor never ever campaigned that he was going to get rid of collective bargaining rights. What he did say in his defense is that he wanted us to pay into our pension and want us to pay our health care premium. So initially that was a shock to many Americans here in Wisconsin, but we conceded. We said OK. We realize you're in a deficit, we can help out. Two, he said that collective bargaining was not being removed. Well, you can't bargain for hours, wages and working conditions. That's not collective bargaining.

For instance, I'm a lieutenant here in the Madison Fire Department, right here in this capital city. We had a zero and zero percent increase for the last two years because our mayor came to us and said the city needs help. We don't want to lay off streets. We don't want lay off engineering. We said OK. We agree to take a zero percent, zero percent interest for 2011 and 2012. Now the way that happened was through collective bargaining, through two parties coming to the table and realizing that we need to work together as opposed to somebody dictating it to us what we need to do.

SPITZER: Mahlon, look, I clearly agree with you. Real quick, Richard, let me make one other point. The pension funds in Wisconsin last analysis I've seen, about 99.67 percent funded, way about the norm. It's not as though there's a pension crisis out there in the state of Wisconsin. But, Richard, I want to ask you real quick. There was an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives that 176 Republicans voted for, no Democrats. They would have completely defunded NLRA that enforces the labor days. So this is going to Washington, this effort to destroy collective bargaining is going to be in Washington, as well, not just the states it seems.

TRUMKA: That's absolutely correct. This is their game plan. They know -- imagine what this country would be like without any unions. Corporate America and the high priced lobbyists would rule this country. They'd be able to get anything and everything they want and the working people and the middle class would be destroyed. So we're the last line of defense and that's why they're coming after collective bargaining. The tool that has been used to solve more problems than anywhere else.

You just heard Mahlon talk about how they stepped up and help solve a problem when they saw it was there. We're willing to fight that. We're willing to work with them. They're overreaching and what they ought to be doing, they got elected to create jobs, not take away the rights from people.

SPITZER: All right.

TRUMKA: Imagine this, Eliot. Imagine if Governor Walker said in order to solve the budget deficit out here, we employers can pay women less than they can pay men or we don't have to pay overtime rights, or we don't have child labor laws. Those are all the things that he could do that's not the America that we want to live in. It would destroy the middle class and we're not going to let that happen.

SPITZER: All right.

TRUMKA: The American public is not going to let that happen.

SPITZER: All right. We're almost out of time on this one, Richard. Anyway, Richard Trumka, Mahlon Mitchell, thanks so much for being with us. We'll continue the conversation.

When we come back, a look inside the fascinating world. The tribes of Libya and how they really feel about Moammar Gadhafi. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: For 42 years, Libya has known one ruler but no political parties. Gadhafi banned them. The real power in Libya is it tribal system. Traditionally, the tribes raised livestock and guarded the wells for the caravan trade but when oil was discovered in 1959, the tribes were suddenly rich. Whiles some remained in the desert to continue in the old ways, many migrated north. They moved to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi and Sirt. Sirt is the coastal city where oil flows to the Mediterranean and it is also where the Gadhafi tribe is centered. Gadhafi's own tribe. It has been known mainly for grazing goats.

SPITZER: In the western Wafalla, the largest tribe of nearly one million people, the Wafalla have always resented been ruled by a glorified goat herder. They looked down on what they consider an inferior tribe. And now they're beginning to turn on the ruler they never liked in the first place. The tribes in the east like the Zuwaya have felt slighted by Gadhafi's alliance with the western tribes. Now they are striking back as well, threatening to cut off the flow of oil if the violence and repression don't stop.

There are about 140 tribes in Libya, but only 30 have political clout. All of them share a powerful bond with their people. Libyans don't look to the government for jobs or to protect their rights and their safety. They look to their tribe. Can they transcend tribal loyalty and build a nation? That question was memorably posed in the great film about the desert and its people, "Lawrence of Arabia".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel as you are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: We're back with Jamie Rubin and James Traub.

James, let's go to Egypt for a minute. The military has essentially reappointed Mubarak's people. It's Mubarak 2.0. Now there's talk of more demonstrations. Will the military tolerate more dissent?

JAMES TRAUB, WRITER, "NEW YORK TIMES" MAGAZINE: Well, I mean, it shows that these guys don't suddenly become democrats because they fill the space. They're natural. They've lived inside Mubarak's world and before that Sadat's world, you know, for generations. And so this idea that something has changed radically and you must adopt is just not in their heads. So, yes, they've reappointed all the major ministers and they've taken some guys from the really kind of captive opposition parties and put them in as a way of saying, we get it.

JAMIE RUBIN, EXEC. EDITOR, "THE BLOOMBERG VIEW": Look, in the end, the power of demonstrations has been shown to the Egyptian military. If indeed most of the people regard this as you put it as just retreads and the process of creating real political parties which is far more important than who's in the current government stalls and hundreds of thousands of people go back on the streets, the Egyptian military will respond to it.

There is a power equation now. Every time a step is taken by the powers that be, the people on the streets have an ability to affect that. And I think they can and they will affect it. And I don't think we should expect this, you know, to be a straight even linear process. There's going to be evolutions.

SPITZER: It's going to ebb and flow. What are the next benchmarks? When they announce what the constitutional reforms are going to be? When the date is for the vote of those and when they begin to permit political aggregation parties?

RUBIN: Declare a state of emergency. I think that's absolutely crucial.

SPITZER: When must they do that?

TRAUB: Remember, Eliot, you had ElBaradei on the show and ElBaradei has said a year before elections. And so the important thing is not when elections happen. The important thing is when these various stages like the lifting of the emergency, the forming of political parties, the changing of the constitution so that people who currently would not be allowed to run can run. That's more important than when you schedule elections.

SPITZER: But remember this, Mohamed ElBaradei is not of the street of the people in Egypt. He was kind of rejected. He may become a voice but he was viewed as a Europeanized Egyptian.

RUBIN: No, but his point about a year still holds and that is that if the people want to have real alternatives to the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, it's going to take time to build parties. And they understand that. But that's why lifting the emergency rule will send a signal to the people that they are serious not filling the cabinet with --

TRAUB: That's the single biggest thing.

SPITZER: No, but my point is that Mohamed ElBaradei is saying you have a year. It may not be the sentiment on the street. And if there's a huge gap between the expectations of those who can fill Tahrir Square and the military, then you will see the clash once again.

TRAUB: But to go to Jamie's point, I'm not sure the impatience is for elections. The impatience is for change that feels permanent and important. So there's a lot of things that can happen that will satisfy that yearning that will precede elections.

SPITZER: But keeping if I read this properly, the same defense interior and foreign and justice ministers does not give those who created the mass movement of a million people in the street.

RUBIN: They're going to come out again.

SPITZER: They're going to come back.

RUBIN: They're going to see how many and let's see how the Egyptian military responds.

SPITZER: And so it is possible that chapter two remains to be played out. RUBIN: There's going to be a lot of chapters.

TRAUB: Yes.

SPITZER: All right, guys. Jamie Rubin, James Traub, thanks so much for being with us. And thank you for being with us out there who are watching.

PARKER: Good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.