Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Michael Smerconish, Julianne Malveaux

Aired February 16, 2003 - 08:16   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: These are heady times we live in. Yesterday we told you all about literally millions of people taking to the streets all around the globe to protest the prospect of a war in Iraq. And this was the day after a United Nations meeting which was very critical for the Bush administration's effort to push the idea of forcibly disarming Saddam Hussein. Some are calling it -- Maureen Dowd of "The New York Times" in particular -- today are calling it the Valentine's Day massacre for the Bush administration.
Let's bat around a few of these issues from a couple of our favorite radio talk show hosts. Our CNN contributor Michael Smerconish joining us from the city of brotherly love.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Good morning to you, sir. And political commentator Julianne Malveaux joining us from New York, and she is related to Suzanne we're told this morning by Julianne herself. Good to have you both with us.

JULIANNE MALVEAUX, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to be here.

O'BRIEN: Julianne, let's begin with you. Ladies first and all that. The protests, there is this idea that was out there yesterday that these protests are just greeted with such tremendous glee in Baghdad that it plays into the hand of the dictator of Iraq. What do you think?

MALVEAUX: Not at all. I think that Americans are trying to speak their conscience. We have almost a moratorium on speaking about peace and officialdom. We don't have many members of Congress really speaking up. And so what you have are people taking it to the streets because they're frustrated that no one is hearing them.

They're within steps of the United Nations, and almost half a million people here in New York are protesting. People are speaking out of conscience. And I think it's something that we ought to respect.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael, I assume you think differently?

SMERCONISH: I thought it was appalling. I watched you yesterday, Miles, as I always do. And I was studying the film footage. And as you went to New York and as you went to London and as you went to Rome, and I'm looking for the sign that says something like, "Hussein, go to hell." "Saddam, disarm now." Instead, somehow it's George W. Bush who's become the bad guy. Why? For trying to maintain some sanity in the world? It was disgusting.

And I'll tell you something. Down at NASCAR today, where you get the real mainstay of America, you are not going to see any signs about what's going on with Iraq. If you do, they'll be supportive of the United States, not condemning the United States.

MALVEAUX: You know, Michael, these people are the mainstream of America as well. I think it's unreasonable to talk about them as outside the mainstream. You had older people, you had retired psychologists, you had magazine writers and editors. You had people who were ordinary Americans. You had people who had not been to a march or rally in their whole entire lives, who were impelled by the sense of impending doom because our president is trying to force a war rapidly.

O'BRIEN: Michael, I do have to interject here briefly. Because when you talk about the numbers we were talking about yesterday, it's more than just the loose nuts in the box. I mean there had to be some people there who are otherwise reasonable individuals.

SMERCONISH: The polling data just doesn't suggest that they represent the mainstream of American thought. I mean poll after poll says that the president, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice -- the A Team is how I think of them -- have the support of the American people, and I...

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: The have the support of about 60 percent of the American people. So the 40 percent view is legitimate. I had a book signing in New York last night and some of the people came from the protests to the book signing. There were students, there were just regular, ordinary people. I resent the notion that they're just a bunch of nuts.

They're right in the center of the mainstream. They're people who work every day, who pay taxes, who are profoundly affected by what's going on.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's -- before -- this silent majority thing, let's talk about this for a minute with both of you. Because if you read those polls very carefully, the way those questions are asked, it is, "Would you support the Bush administration as it engages in military action in Iraq with the backing of the United Nations and the international community? That's a key "if," and it seems to me that is at the heart and soul of the protest here, is the sense of unilateralism, right Michael?

SMERCONISH: No, I don't think so at all. I think that in the minds of those protesters -- and I can only go by their sound bites and all that I read in the newspaper and the signs that they carry -- somehow they have channeled their energy against this administration. This administration didn't start this mess that we've been in the midst of since September 11. This administration is trying to be proactive.

And Miles, I'm here to defend preemption as well. I mean, never again do we want to look back and say, we should have connected the dots. We should have done something about it. I thought we had come to an agreement in this country that there would never be a repeat of September 11 again, that we would be proactive. And that's what the administration is trying to do.

MALVEAUX: But Saddam Hussein was not responsible for September 11. Al Qaeda was. Because we can't find Osama, doesn't mean you go and bomb Saddam.

Let's be clear about what the differences are here, and let's again look at why so many people are so frustrated. Why around the world -- you had 1.5 million people in Europe. You had nearly half a million people in New York. You had another half a million people in various cities around the country raising their voices because of concern.

No, people don't want unilateralism. And when you give people the polls and you start talking about body bags, the support dwindles as well.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael, let's talk a little bit about Friday, Valentine's Day, at the Security Council. It was a bad day for the administration, clearly. Would you concede that?

SMERCONISH: Yes, I would concede that. I think that Hans Blix lacks the backbone to take care of business. And I always thought that would take place. And the mistake that the administration made was buy into this needle in a hay stack mentality, because it's nothing but a shell game. And I think Colin Powell made one heck of a case, Miles, as to why we need to take care of business now.

O'BRIEN: Julianne, do you think it's a mistake for the United States to sort of cede authority to Hans Blix?

MALVEAUX: Well, we started this weapons inspection process; I think we need see it through. I don't think we're ceding authority to him. But the head of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace says it takes between six months and two years to do an adequate weapons inspection. We are rushing by saying that after two months we are already ready to go to war.

Let's let him have the six months minimum. There have been people on your air, on another air that's talked about, you know, needing just a couple more months, some of the inspectors. Let's let the process finish.

O'BRIEN: Michael, that's a good point. What is the rush here? We are, after all, talking about the blood of our young men and women here. What is the rush?

SMERCONISH: Well, the rush is that Saddam Hussein is a guy who wishes evil for us and all of our children. He has weapons of mass destruction. And if not now, when? Hey, Miles, I have "The New York Times" front page in front of me today. And it talks about how the military analysts conclude that he's ready to use chemical and biological weapons against U.S. invaders. Well, wait a minute. I thought he didn't have any of those.

O'BRIEN: Yes. That's an interesting point, but once again, the source is U.S. intelligence, right?

SMERCONISH: U.S. intelligence is the source, correct. But I choose to believe Condoleezza Rice and I choose to believe Colin Powell and I choose to believe this president.

MALVEAUX: I don't think the case that Colin Powell made was necessarily a persuasive case. He held up something and says, this could be anthrax. Well it could have been hair grease, too. I mean, we don't have proof of anything. And let's let Hans Blix finish his job.

Let's also talk about the fact that there is room for negotiation, not confrontation. That's all that people were saying as they hit the streets. Let's talk about negotiation, not confrontation.

O'BRIEN: All right. Quickly, Michael, you get the last ward word to balance it out. Go.

SMERCONISH: Bottom line is, we've connected the dots. Let's not have a repeat of 9/11. Let's take care of business now. Otherwise, we may regret it.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael Smerconish, a man who knows nothing about hair grease. Julianne Malveaux, thank you both for being with us on CNN SUNDAY MORNING as always.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: Good to be here, thank you.

O'BRIEN: All right.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired February 16, 2003 - 08:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: These are heady times we live in. Yesterday we told you all about literally millions of people taking to the streets all around the globe to protest the prospect of a war in Iraq. And this was the day after a United Nations meeting which was very critical for the Bush administration's effort to push the idea of forcibly disarming Saddam Hussein. Some are calling it -- Maureen Dowd of "The New York Times" in particular -- today are calling it the Valentine's Day massacre for the Bush administration.
Let's bat around a few of these issues from a couple of our favorite radio talk show hosts. Our CNN contributor Michael Smerconish joining us from the city of brotherly love.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Good morning to you, sir. And political commentator Julianne Malveaux joining us from New York, and she is related to Suzanne we're told this morning by Julianne herself. Good to have you both with us.

JULIANNE MALVEAUX, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to be here.

O'BRIEN: Julianne, let's begin with you. Ladies first and all that. The protests, there is this idea that was out there yesterday that these protests are just greeted with such tremendous glee in Baghdad that it plays into the hand of the dictator of Iraq. What do you think?

MALVEAUX: Not at all. I think that Americans are trying to speak their conscience. We have almost a moratorium on speaking about peace and officialdom. We don't have many members of Congress really speaking up. And so what you have are people taking it to the streets because they're frustrated that no one is hearing them.

They're within steps of the United Nations, and almost half a million people here in New York are protesting. People are speaking out of conscience. And I think it's something that we ought to respect.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael, I assume you think differently?

SMERCONISH: I thought it was appalling. I watched you yesterday, Miles, as I always do. And I was studying the film footage. And as you went to New York and as you went to London and as you went to Rome, and I'm looking for the sign that says something like, "Hussein, go to hell." "Saddam, disarm now." Instead, somehow it's George W. Bush who's become the bad guy. Why? For trying to maintain some sanity in the world? It was disgusting.

And I'll tell you something. Down at NASCAR today, where you get the real mainstay of America, you are not going to see any signs about what's going on with Iraq. If you do, they'll be supportive of the United States, not condemning the United States.

MALVEAUX: You know, Michael, these people are the mainstream of America as well. I think it's unreasonable to talk about them as outside the mainstream. You had older people, you had retired psychologists, you had magazine writers and editors. You had people who were ordinary Americans. You had people who had not been to a march or rally in their whole entire lives, who were impelled by the sense of impending doom because our president is trying to force a war rapidly.

O'BRIEN: Michael, I do have to interject here briefly. Because when you talk about the numbers we were talking about yesterday, it's more than just the loose nuts in the box. I mean there had to be some people there who are otherwise reasonable individuals.

SMERCONISH: The polling data just doesn't suggest that they represent the mainstream of American thought. I mean poll after poll says that the president, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice -- the A Team is how I think of them -- have the support of the American people, and I...

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: The have the support of about 60 percent of the American people. So the 40 percent view is legitimate. I had a book signing in New York last night and some of the people came from the protests to the book signing. There were students, there were just regular, ordinary people. I resent the notion that they're just a bunch of nuts.

They're right in the center of the mainstream. They're people who work every day, who pay taxes, who are profoundly affected by what's going on.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's -- before -- this silent majority thing, let's talk about this for a minute with both of you. Because if you read those polls very carefully, the way those questions are asked, it is, "Would you support the Bush administration as it engages in military action in Iraq with the backing of the United Nations and the international community? That's a key "if," and it seems to me that is at the heart and soul of the protest here, is the sense of unilateralism, right Michael?

SMERCONISH: No, I don't think so at all. I think that in the minds of those protesters -- and I can only go by their sound bites and all that I read in the newspaper and the signs that they carry -- somehow they have channeled their energy against this administration. This administration didn't start this mess that we've been in the midst of since September 11. This administration is trying to be proactive.

And Miles, I'm here to defend preemption as well. I mean, never again do we want to look back and say, we should have connected the dots. We should have done something about it. I thought we had come to an agreement in this country that there would never be a repeat of September 11 again, that we would be proactive. And that's what the administration is trying to do.

MALVEAUX: But Saddam Hussein was not responsible for September 11. Al Qaeda was. Because we can't find Osama, doesn't mean you go and bomb Saddam.

Let's be clear about what the differences are here, and let's again look at why so many people are so frustrated. Why around the world -- you had 1.5 million people in Europe. You had nearly half a million people in New York. You had another half a million people in various cities around the country raising their voices because of concern.

No, people don't want unilateralism. And when you give people the polls and you start talking about body bags, the support dwindles as well.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael, let's talk a little bit about Friday, Valentine's Day, at the Security Council. It was a bad day for the administration, clearly. Would you concede that?

SMERCONISH: Yes, I would concede that. I think that Hans Blix lacks the backbone to take care of business. And I always thought that would take place. And the mistake that the administration made was buy into this needle in a hay stack mentality, because it's nothing but a shell game. And I think Colin Powell made one heck of a case, Miles, as to why we need to take care of business now.

O'BRIEN: Julianne, do you think it's a mistake for the United States to sort of cede authority to Hans Blix?

MALVEAUX: Well, we started this weapons inspection process; I think we need see it through. I don't think we're ceding authority to him. But the head of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace says it takes between six months and two years to do an adequate weapons inspection. We are rushing by saying that after two months we are already ready to go to war.

Let's let him have the six months minimum. There have been people on your air, on another air that's talked about, you know, needing just a couple more months, some of the inspectors. Let's let the process finish.

O'BRIEN: Michael, that's a good point. What is the rush here? We are, after all, talking about the blood of our young men and women here. What is the rush?

SMERCONISH: Well, the rush is that Saddam Hussein is a guy who wishes evil for us and all of our children. He has weapons of mass destruction. And if not now, when? Hey, Miles, I have "The New York Times" front page in front of me today. And it talks about how the military analysts conclude that he's ready to use chemical and biological weapons against U.S. invaders. Well, wait a minute. I thought he didn't have any of those.

O'BRIEN: Yes. That's an interesting point, but once again, the source is U.S. intelligence, right?

SMERCONISH: U.S. intelligence is the source, correct. But I choose to believe Condoleezza Rice and I choose to believe Colin Powell and I choose to believe this president.

MALVEAUX: I don't think the case that Colin Powell made was necessarily a persuasive case. He held up something and says, this could be anthrax. Well it could have been hair grease, too. I mean, we don't have proof of anything. And let's let Hans Blix finish his job.

Let's also talk about the fact that there is room for negotiation, not confrontation. That's all that people were saying as they hit the streets. Let's talk about negotiation, not confrontation.

O'BRIEN: All right. Quickly, Michael, you get the last ward word to balance it out. Go.

SMERCONISH: Bottom line is, we've connected the dots. Let's not have a repeat of 9/11. Let's take care of business now. Otherwise, we may regret it.

O'BRIEN: All right. Michael Smerconish, a man who knows nothing about hair grease. Julianne Malveaux, thank you both for being with us on CNN SUNDAY MORNING as always.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: Good to be here, thank you.

O'BRIEN: All right.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com