Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Free-For-All Friday for December 6, 2002

Aired December 06, 2002 - 15:00   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.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. And it is "Free-For All Friday."
We're going to start with a big shakeup in the president's advisory staff. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill have both resigned, under pressure. Is this an indication the economy is in more trouble than we think? What does it mean when the president wants you to leave? We'll get to that in a minute.

Then stay tuned, because this is the weekend Iraq's Saddam Hussein is scheduled to bear all to the U.N. inspectors. Will he reveal his best kept secrets?

Also, you can tell me if Winona Ryder got what she deserved in court today.

First, though, let's find out more about the shakeup in the Cabinet and what it means.

CNN national correspondent Frank Buckley joins us now at the White House.

And, Frank, first of all, tell us the reason behind the resignations.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're told, Arthel, that the president was frustrated with Paul O'Neill in particular and some of the comments that he has made in the past. He's sometimes been out of step with the administration.

We're also told that President Bush felt that there needed to be some better communicators on the economic staff and that, essentially, they just wanted a fresh start. Clearly, some of the numbers, especially the unemployment figure coming out today, 6.0, a nine-year high. The news on the economy has not been great. The president hasn't been pleased with the growth. As he described it, it's been bumping along. And they're just looking for a fresh start -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: And you're right. There is that nine-year high, Frank.

And I ask you this, because, of course, the Democrats are saying that this is definitely a sign that there is a problem with Bush's economic policy. What does the White House say about this, though?

BUCKLEY: Well, you're right. There are critics out there, like Tom Daschle, the Democrat senator, who is saying that this just shows that the Republicans, that this White House in particular doesn't have a comprehensive economic plan. Others are saying that these two men are being scapegoated.

The president would beg to differ from that. He says that he intends to come out with a jobs and growth package -- read: a tax cut package -- at the beginning of the year. So, the president's point of view is that he does have a plan. He'll be introducing it in the new Congress in January.

NEVILLE: So, I guess we'll have to wait to see who the replacements will be.

BUCKLEY: Yes.

And there are a number of names that are floating around out there: Phil Gramm from Texas one of the names; Dick Grasso, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange -- so a bunch of names out there. Rudy Giuliani is said to be a possibility, although we're told from a senior administration official that Rudy Giuliani has said for the moment he's not interested in any job. And they're going to take him at his word on that.

NEVILLE: All very familiar names, though.

Frank Buckley, thank you very much for joining us here today.

And up next, it's time to meet or panel.

Jane Chastain is co-host of "The Judicial Watch Report" and a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com.

Hello, Jane.

JANE CHASTAIN, "JUDICIAL WATCH REPORT": Hello, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

All right, Richard Bey is co-host of "The Buzz" on WABC Radio in New York.

Hey, Richard.

RICHARD BEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. How you doing?

NEVILLE: Nice to see you as well.

BEY: Same here.

NEVILLE: Scott West is a host on the ABC radio network.

Hello, Scott.

SCOTT WEST, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Arthel, how are you?

NEVILLE: Good. Nice to see you.

And Ben Ferguson is a college junior at the University of Mississippi. He has a syndicated weekend talk show on Radio America.

Hi, Ben. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

BEN FERGUSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: How are you? Thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: All right.

All right, Jane, you're up first today. What do these resignations signal to you?

CHASTAIN: Well, it's kind of like baseball, Arthel. If you've got a team that's losing and the economy has been struggling along, you either trade some major players or the manager gets fired.

You know, perception is everything. And I think that Bush 41 got into trouble because it was perceived by the general public that he didn't care enough about their own personal economy. So, frankly, I think it was a smart move.

NEVILLE: Well, what do you say, Richard?

BEY: Well, she just said perception is everything, but there's also reality.

And the reality is, the unemployment figures are up. It's disturbing. Bankruptcies are up. People defaulting on their mortgages are up. There were just figures released today that showed that retail, hiring in the retail community is down. And this is during the holiday season. People are concerned about where this economy is going.

But, right at this point in time, the SEC chairman has resigned. Webster resigned for the accounting oversight. You have Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsey. This is a mess.

NEVILLE: Scott, how do you see it?

WEST: Well, I see it much the same way as Richard and Jane.

The fact is, the economy in this country is abysmal. And Bush at this point in time realized that -- and the key word in what that story had to say was that O'Neill and the Bush administration were not on the same page. And in these kinds of trying economic times, the Bush administration can't afford to have anybody on their team that's not on the same page with them. So, smart move on his part. And we'll see just how it plays out as we get into 2003.

NEVILLE: Yes, but I want to talk about the timing of this in a second, Scott. But, first, I want to give Ben a chance to go ahead and give us his thoughts.

FERGUSON: I think part of it is a show of the times.

It's been tough. The economy's been rough. The job market has been rough. Unemployment is obviously up. The fact of that is, a lot of it goes back to September 11. We've been through a rough time over the last year and a half. And he knew that he needed to get people on his team that were team players. And I think that he saw that these guys were kind of going their own way. And it was a time to get a new fresh start, which is pretty mature.

Obviously, we're in a tough time, but these guys leaving, I think that shows the maturity of this administration.

NEVILLE: Yes, and, Scott, getting back to the timing of these resignations, we're talking about after the midterm elections, one day before Iraq will probably submit the reports. Is this a way to bury a story?

WEST: You know what? There have been claims of that throughout the course of the early days of the Bush administration.

And that's a case that probably could be, you know, made. But I honestly think that, as the other panelists have stated, the state of the economy means that, sure, maybe this was a move that needed to have happened two weeks ago. But any time a positive change is made, with the effort being to try and stabilize the U.S. economy, I think, whenever that move is made, it's a good time.

NEVILLE: Good point.

We have an e-mail coming through now I want to share with you, coming in from Virginia. Craig: "O'Neill and Lindsey's forced resignations are just further proof of Bush's failed economic policy."

Well, Jane, do you agree with Craig or not?

CHASTAIN: Well, not exactly. I think that we're a little bit shortsighted if we're laying all this at the feet of George Bush.

The recession that we are now in, it actually began under President Clinton. And there are a lot of underlying problems, not the least of which is that we've got a war hanging over our head. And whenever there is uncertainty, the economy always sputters.

BEY: Well, you know, the conservatives always want to say it started under Clinton. It's true. Recessions...

CHASTAIN: Well, it did.

BEY: No, no, recessions are cyclical. But the length of this recession or whether it will be a double-dip recession or whether we will experience deflation, all that will be George Bush's responsibility. If we head into elections at 2004...

FERGUSON: No, hold on. Law that are being made now do not affect like right after they go into effect. It takes year for what we've done with the economy to go into effect, and at least months.

Yes, we were going into a recession when Clinton was in office. Yes, it takes time to see a turnaround. And if you're a businessman right now, why would you go spend a lot of money, when there's a lot of uncertainty out there? Obviously, it has to do with a lot of elected officials.

BEY: Who created the uncertainty?

FERGUSON: No, no, no, but to say that it's all George W. Bush's fault is not true, completely.

BEY: I didn't say it was. I said this started under Clinton. But the length of this recession and if it's a double-dip recession and if we go into deflation...

CHASTAIN: Well, let's not forget 9/11 came and happened right in the middle of it.

WEST: Thank you. That's one of major

(CROSSTALK)

CHASTAIN: Please, let's not blame him for that.

WEST: You have to consider that.

BEY: And the war against Iraq right now and the uncertainty in the way that's being handled as well is also creating a business climate that is very shaky.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Jeff is calling in now from California.

What do you say, Jeff? Go ahead, Jeff.

CALLER: Yes, hi.

I believe that Paul O'Neill is a sacrificial lamb. He happens to be a very good Republican. I believe that one of the problems is that he's not a particularly good speaker and not a good communicator. However, he's a very competent person. The real problem is the tax cuts, the tax cuts. There's no evidence that tax cuts actually turn an economy around. And there's a lot evidence that a higher deficit, which the tax cuts are causing, actually makes an economy worse.

NEVILLE: OK, Jeff, thank you so much for making your point.

And, Ben, you made a point...

WEST: That's a good one, Arthel.

NEVILLE: You like that one, Scott?

WEST: I do, because Jane's analogy, the sports analogy, was a very fitting one. Yes, Paul O'Neill may be the sacrificial lamb. But any team that's not performing and is trying to get to Super Bowl, in this case trying to stabilize an economy, they have to look at who it is can even...

(BELL RINGING) (CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Very nice. Very nice, Scott.

All right, we're going to move on now.

And up next, we'll find out more about a Boston-area software company under investigation for possible ties to al Qaeda.

And then later, I'll take your calls and letters on the "Question of the Day": What kind of sentence do you think Winona Ryder deserves?

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday": Will Saddam Hussein come clean about his weapons of mass destruction?

BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: It is obvious that, in this report, he's going to say, "We have no illegal weapons."

NEVILLE: So, why will it take 4,000 pages to say that?

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: A software economy in Massachusetts is under investigation for possible ties to al Qaeda. Customs agents raided the offices of Ptech Incorporated in Quincy last night and downloaded information from company computers.

CNN's Bill Delaney is in Quincy covering this story for us.

And, Bill, first of all, tell us, why did this company come under suspicion?

BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, Ptech, it's a small software company, only about 20 employees. It's offices are right behind me here in this industrial park south of Boston. It's a small company with a big list of clients they sell software to in the U.S. government.

Listen to some of the names they sell software to: the FBI, the FAA, the Air Force, the Navy, the Postal Service, the departments of Energy and Education, Congress, the IRS, the Forest Service, and even NATO.

Now, you used the word "raid," Arthel. We might want to be a little careful with that, because we have learned just in the past hour or so that it's kind of hard to really call this a raid. And the company doesn't believe it should be called a raid, since the CEO of the company walked Customs officials into their offices last night, when customs officials then began to download software.

Now, they did that to see if the software could in any way have been tampered with in a way that might enable hackers to break into any of the agencies that this software is sold to. Now, no less a personage than Tom Ridge, head of the U.S. Homeland Security Office, has said in the past hour or two that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the software here is or was or could be used for those purposes.

Now, that's one track of this investigation. The other key track of this investigation is this company's possible ties to a Saudi named Yasin al-Qadi. Now, he is on a U.S. watch list as an alleged financier of terrorist groups.

Now, Yasin al-Qadi was an investor in Ptech. And, beyond that, we have also learned -- CNN's Kelli Arena speaking to sources close to this investigation has learned that the U.S. government has been looking at Ptech's relations to Yasin al-Qadi since right after 9/11.

And that's because, right after 9/11, employees of this small company got in touch with U.S. law enforcement officials and said: "Hey, we just heard that Yasin al-Qadi" -- whose name has been around a lot since 9/11 -- "is on a watch list. Well, this man," they said, "we actually met in Saudi Arabia on a company tour with our small company a while back. And he was introduced to us," these employees of Ptech told government officials way back around 9/11. He was introduced to them in Saudi Arabia as an owner of their company.

And that made them concerned enough to get in touch with investigators. Way back in 9/11, this investigation of Ptech's ties to Yasin al-Qadi began. It has gone on and climaxed last night with the CEO of this company, a gentleman named Oussama Ziade, leading Customs officials in here.

Now, as far as company reaction on camera, the only thing we've gotten so far is the reaction of a vice president, Joe Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, PTECH: It doesn't come as a surprise to us. You know, I think that it's to be expected. We live in kind of different times right now, you know? So, we're an American company. We've been in business for almost nine years. We do have people here who are Muslims. They're American citizens.

But we fully expected this. So, I don't think it's any different than when you go to the airport today and you have to go through additional security. You know, we kind of suspected that this might happen. And it's going to happen. We just have to kind of try to get through it and continue with our business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DELANEY: So, what the government is keying in on here now, not so much these original suspicions about possible problems with the software here. They're looking at the ties of this company to this Yasin al-Qadi.

Could he have given money to this company? Could this company have used that money, possibly, it's been suggested, to give to charitable Islamic organizations that could have voluntarily or involuntarily, possibly inadvertently, Ptech could have contributed to terrorism through one of these charitable organizations -- a complex web still being sorted out here and probably for some time.

But stress, no arrests here and no arrests expected at this point as far as Ptech's involvement in all this -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, Bill Delaney, thank you very much for clearing up this story for us. As you said, it's very complicated.

And I go over to my panel now.

And I want to start with Richard Bey on this one and ask you, when you hear about this investigation, what sort of thoughts come to mind?

BEY: Well, it sounds like there's -- listen, in this day and age, everything is worthy of an investigation if there's any kind of lead. It doesn't sound like there's a lot there.

I wonder if they're going to be going over to Fox News Network, whose parent company, News Corps, is 20 percent owned by the Saudis as well? And maybe there's something nefarious going on over there with your competition. Can I say that?

NEVILLE: You can you say anything you'd like, Richard.

BEY: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: Anything you'd like to say, go right ahead. It's "Free-For-All Friday."

All right, anyway, any thoughts from you, Scott West?

WEST: Well, I'm still just kind of thinking about what everybody at Fox is thinking at this moment, if they happen to be watching.

But I believe that, yes, 9/11 changed the landscape, and means, then, that, if red flags go up at any company that may seem to have financial ties to al Qaeda or other terrorist group, it has to be investigated. Should we immediately want to shut that company down and begin to look at everybody that's an employee of that company as a potential threat to national security? No, because, again, as Richard just so pointedly stated, we'd have to look in a lot of areas that I don't think, even at this point in time, despite what we witnessed September 11, warrants that kind of knee-jerk reaction.

NEVILLE: But, Jane, wouldn't you think that this company would have -- the government would have done an extensive background check on this company, considering the agencies on their client list, including the IRS, FBI, House of Representatives?

CHASTAIN: Well, you would think, Arthel.

But this is a big country. There are an awful lot of companies here with foreign ownership. But we are on a yellow alert. And individual citizens are told to be vigilant, keep their eyes and ears open, report anything that is suspicious. And I think, yes, if I worked for a software company and I was suddenly made aware that one of my owners was, oh, horrors, has ties of a terrorist, I would report it as well.

So, I applaud those employees. I think they did the right thing. And, frankly, when I see the government responding in a very direct way, I'll sleep better at night.

NEVILLE: Alleged ties.

Go ahead, Ben. What do you say?

FERGUSON: This wasn't a hasty decision by the government. They've been watching them since September 11, when the employees came forward. So, obviously, it wasn't a quick decision to go in there.

Al Qaeda -- he owned a charitable organization which was giving money to Osama bin Laden's group. So, to watch it for this long and to talk to the employees and to go in and for this company to open its doors I think is a good sign. But I also think this is a responsible decision, making sure we're safe.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: All right, time to move on.

Coming up next...

WEST: Somebody else got hit by the bell. Wow.

NEVILLE: Yes, someone else got it.

Why does it take 4,000 pages-plus for Saddam Hussein to say he has nothing to hide? It's time to fess up. But will Iraq's declarations mean anything in the long run?

Then later: Does Arkansas need the counter-Clinton library? We'll tell you why some Clinton critics say it does.

It's all ahead on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

The weekend is the deadline for Iraq to hand over its list of weapons of mass destruction. If the Iraqis don't come clean, an administration source predicts the U.S. will find them in material breach of U.N. Resolution 1441. But the source also says that breach probably won't be determined to be a reason to go to war. The source says it will probably take a body of obstructionism by the Iraqis for the U.S. and its allies to launch military action.

Richard Bey, your thoughts on that one?

BEY: Well, as you stated earlier, this is going to be either a 2,000-page document, a 4,000-page document. I've heard it could even be as much as 8,000 pages. And you wonder what's going to be on it if they have nothing.

But they do have to account for dual-purpose facilities, for things that were left over from before.

NEVILLE: Right.

Richard, I'm going to jump in there and guide you, because I wanted to be more specific regarding the whole notion that this source says it would take a body of obstructionism to actually validate the need for a war.

BEY: Well, so what happens here? What you're saying is, if they release this document, and afterwards, the United States, as President Bush stated yesterday, has hard evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction, what are we saying?

We know where they are. Do we send inspectors there, then, to discover them and say, "Hey, you didn't mention this"? What is the process here? There is a lot of pressure coming from our government for the inspectors to conduct their inspections more aggressively, to go in and take Saudi scientists and, as Richard Perle from the DOD advisory said, take out 100 people, 100 of his relatives with him, to have them get on planes and leave Iraq.

There is a part of this -- there are a lot of people in this government...

NEVILLE: All right, Richard, I'm going to jump in there, because you're making some great points, but I do want to get to them a little bit later on this subject.

In the meantime, we're going to back to this, the other point, which is, we're talking about a 4,000-page report, plus some 8,000 supplementary pages. Why such a long report for such a short message? "We don't have anything."

And, Jane, I go to you on that one.

CHASTAIN: Hey, Arthel, I think that just proves that he's a big fan of CNN.

He's learned from the Clinton administration and, unfortunately, the Bush administration, when they were required to step up to the plate, turn over some documents, you stall as long as you can. Then you obfuscate. And then, finally, you just deluge them with so many things and every little tidbit of information. It takes, hopefully, in his case, he's hoping three months to go through with it, so that he can stall off into the warmer months and put us off speed.

NEVILLE: Ben, is that what's happening?

FERGUSON: Yes. It's all about buying time. The guy wants to give as many pages as he possibly can, so that it will take us as long as possible to go through it and figure out what's what.

But a key point is, is, I think, that when the Bush administration has said, "We think that he has weapons of mass destruction; we have evidence," and they're not dumb enough to say that, and, if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, then they're going to look really stupid.

BEY: Yes, they are.

FERGUSON: Now, hold on, now.

They obviously have pretty good intelligence. And why would you want to make yourself and your administration look like complete idiots by coming out and lying to the American people and saying, "We know they have something," and then, sure enough, they don't?

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: If they know it, they still -- because Bush is a man of his word. He said that he would exhaust all other means.

BEY: Oh, please.

FERGUSON: No, listen. He would not go to war unless Saddam Hussein didn't cooperate with America. And it's in Saddam's hands whether we go to war or not.

BEY: But there are people in Bush's administration who said they don't care how the inspections go. They want war anyway.

FERGUSON: Because we know he's got stuff.

BEY: Wait a second.

FERGUSON: But, still, Bush has taken the lead, as the American leader as this country, to say, "I'm going to go correctly through the actions that we need to take and then we're going to play our cards," which is smart and responsible.

NEVILLE: Scott West, go ahead.

WEST: Gentlemen...

BEY: A lot people in his administration are saying the inspections are meaningless, they're ludicrous, and it doesn't matter what they turn up. We should invade anyway.

FERGUSON: Because guys on the left, you all are making such a big deal out of it, we can't get stuff done.

BEY: No, you all aren't making a big deal. It's people like Wolfowitz and Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: No, it's not.

BEY: Sorry, sir. You don't know. Already, there's been false information put out by this administration.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Scott West.

WEST: What I'm talking about here is, we, first of all, put a lot of confidence in American intelligence, which history has proven isn't always correct.

But there's a process under way here which is not over. As far as 4,000, 6,000, 8,000 documents are concerned, yes, they've obviously been watching CNN. But if they also have been watching, they know that documents didn't keep us from finding the truth about Enron.

The point of the matter is, if the American government and American intelligence truly knows that there are weapons of mass destruction there, the hope is that the Bush administration is smart enough to have given the U.N. inspectors knowledge of where to look. And, as they go through this process, so as not to give the Iraqis the idea that they know where to look, hopefully, they will then be able to catch them in the midst of this shell game that's obviously going on and find out that there is truly evidence.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: There is the bell.

And, Karen, I'm sorry. The bell has rung, which means I have to move on. Thank you very much, though. OK, thank you.

Listen, it's time for us to change topics here. And up next, I'm going to tell you about a library dedicated to preserving all that was not so good about the Clinton presidency.

We are back after this break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: And here's a little something from NewsMax.com. It seems a former congressman, along with a Houston businessman, planned to build what they call the Counter Clinton Library, and they want to put it across the street from the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. Apparently, the Counter Clinton Library will be made of 16 rooms; each one named after a specific scandal or embarrassment. For instance, the exit room will focus on the condition of the White House the day the Clintons moved out. And then there is the department of domestic affairs and the hall of shame.

Jane Chastain, here's a question for you. Don't all presidents have parts of their legacy they would like to delete? Why single out Bill Clinton?

CHASTAIN: Well, certainly. I mean no one is perfect. But here we had a president that not only skated very close to the line, may have stepped over the line. But at times, seemed to be dancing on the line.

So there are a lot of people that are really, shall we say, upset about the fact that he seems to have gotten away scot-free. I would remind all those people that judicial watch still has over 80 cases against the Clintons and members of their administration. Now, the wheels of justice grind deliberately, but the last chapter on this presidency isn't written yet.

NEVILLE: OK. Ben, how do you see it?

FERGUSON: I think this is -- hey, this is what's great about America. That we can actually have one of these libraries out there. But the thing is, is it's not like the rooms that they're going to have in this new library are going to be like the read my lips, no new taxes library. I mean 16 rooms. This guy's got a lot dirt and a lot of scandals.

They're not like little things that he said. I mean you're going to have Lewinsky, White Water, everything else that he's done, Watergate. And it shows a lot about this president, and we don't want people to remember -- I mean don't want them to forget that we need admirable, honorable elected officials, especially in the White House. And this guy completely tarnished it.

NEVILLE: You really don't like Clinton? Because you even attributed Watergate to him, too.

FERGUSON: I mean White Water -- sorry, White Water.

NEVILLE: I know, slip of the tongue. I understand.

FERGUSON: But I just think that it shows that this guy was a pretty bad president, and the American people aren't going to forget it.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Scott, you're moaning, groaning. Go ahead and let it out.

WEST: You know what, that's going a long way to make a point. Now we are in a country where people are free to construct that kind of edifice, but the fact remains, he had an eight-year presidency. For people that think it was such a terrible presidency, how did he get there? OK? He didn't, in the middle of the night, sneak into the White House and set himself up. And, during that eight-year period of time of economic prosperity, despite the scandal, if, in fact, we want to try and raise an edifice to denote all the scandalous behavior, then every past president in modern times could have a similar library across the street from the one erected after their presidency. They're free to do it if they want.

NEVILLE: Hang on. What's your name, ma'am?

JENNY: Jenny (ph).

NEVILLE: Jenny (ph) has something to say.

JENNY: OK. If we're complaining about the economy and all this money that's being spent, why are we going to build a library to air our dirty laundry to the whole world? It doesn't matter. It shouldn't be an issue.

You were just trying to keep Hillary Clinton out of the office. That's it.

FERGUSON: It's independent money, this isn't government money. It's independent people that want to give contributions, and that's what makes America great.

NEVILLE: Jane...

CHASTAIN: All I can say -- all I can say is finally Arkansas' going to have a major tourist attraction. I would bet a week's salary that if this library is, in fact, built, it will outdraw the Clinton library by a landslide.

FERGUSON: I'll go.

NEVILLE: Let's see, I have a lady from Texas here. Ms. Linda (ph), what do you say?

LINDA: Well, I think if there's going to be a library, it should be for all of the presidents that have lied. I don't really agree with it, but I think if there is going to be one, it should reflect all of the presidents.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Linda (ph). And we are going to Nevada, I think, where Angelo (ph) is standing by. What do you say, Angelo (ph)?

ANGELO: Hi, Arthel. I wish people would just get a life. Go away and sit down. This man is out of office. They want to drag him through things, but this is a childish pursuit and I'm tired of it.

FERGUSON: It's entertaining, though. It's fun and it shows that the guy -- I mean 16 rooms is a lot of baggage, and that's why they're doing it.

WEST: By who's definition? And I would agree with that caller. Let's move on. NEVILLE: OK. Drena (ph), I think you have something to say to Jane?

DRENA: Yeah. I just want to say like this, the Clinton library, the whatever, it's no point. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. Whoever's spending money on it, I'm glad it's not my money, but everyone does something bad. Everyone does.

And it's no sense for us to just air out everyone's dirty laundry, because we could go on forever. We could build so many libraries. The whole state could be a -- just a library, because there's just no point. There's just no point.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Drena (ph). And there is the bell. We are going to move on, take a break.

Up next, do you have a constitutional right to own a gun? A federal appeals court takes on the second amendment and fires back. I'll give you the details after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. Do you think you have a constitutional right to own a gun? Well, a ruling by the ninth circuit court of appeals says no way. The court said the second amendment only guarantees the right of states to organize and maintain militias. The judges say ordinary citizens have no gun rights.

The ruling is at odds with the position of the Bush administration, as well as a ruling by a federal appeals court in New Orleans last year. And, excuse me, but I want to go to the audience on this, because I have my man Joe (ph) from Texas, who -- I want to let you start first, before the panel.

JOE: My comment was that I feel that everybody should be armed. And if everybody was armed, some of these school shootings, you know, how far would these people get? If the teachers were armed -- I'm not saying the kids should be armed, but even a bank robbery if the tellers had weapons. And now we're going to the part where the pilots have weapons.

NEVILLE: All right, Joe (ph). Thank you very much. Let's see, Ms. Amanda (ph) down here. What do you think, ma'am?

AMANDA: I don't think anybody should be able to own a gun. Because of the school shootings, just -- a gun would be available to anybody. And that shouldn't be right, because then they're able to get the gun and have the school shooting. And it wouldn't be safe. School would not be safe, because we would know that people would be able to get the guns.

NEVILLE: OK. And Ms. Linda (ph) in the back row, stand up for me.

LINDA: I don't agree with her. I really think that as a citizen we have that right to bear arms. I don't believe we should have automatic weapons, but we should be allowed to carry a gun.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And I have more audience reaction over here -- Darryl (ph).

DARRYL: I think we should have guns, but at a certain age. And to defend ourselves at our house when we get robbed.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. Jenny (ph), what do you say?

JENNY: I don't think we should be able to have guns. If everyone had a gun, it would be easier for you to get access to that gun. You can break in to your parents' closet and get that gun and have school shootings. If only the police have the guns, it wouldn't be such a big deal, it wouldn't be an issue.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. We have an audience member over there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can understand the right to own a gun, but correct my arithmetic. No guns equals no school shootings.

NEVILLE: Danielle (ph).

DANIELLE: I believe that we should be able to have guns, but only if you have a class. And you have to have a license, and you should have to take, like, a class to do it. That way you're not just running around there without any kind of knowledge of it. And you should have knowledge and take a test.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Excuse me -- Clint (ph).

CLINT: Yes, ma'am. I believe we have the right to bear arms, but the idea that we shouldn't bear arms is not going to work. Everyone has a gun. Everyone right now. Everyone has a gun.

NEVILLE: Everyone has a gun? I don't have a gun.

CLINT: Nearly everyone, but, still, to say that to automatically take away guns, it's not going to happen. People are going to have guns already. And so it won't work. You'll have people that won't have guns and they would be unable to protect themselves.

NEVILLE: OK. Let's see. I'm sorry, panel, but I've got this audience going nuts for this. Stand up, Derek (ph).

DEREK: What about half the people who are hunters? Most of those people get half their food from hunting, and they use guns to go hunting.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. All right. Well, panel, that was unusual, but the audience, they had their hands up. I had to take those comments. Thank you very much.

And I want to know how you would have sentenced Winona Ryder and what kind of community service do you think she should do? Our furiously fast flash round is coming up right after this. And more hands are up in the audience. All right. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Oh, yeah. It's time for our flash-round. First up, Congress is saying happy 100, Mr. Senator. Strom Thurmond was serenaded by a Marilyn Monroe impersonator, not really a good one, at his Capitol Hill birthday bash yesterday. He's also decided 100 is the right time to retire. So would you want to work to the age of 100 -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: No way. I think it's time to smell the roses. I think his time was, well, maybe a decade or so ago. Hey, he's had a great life, he's had a great career, but knowing when to exit is very important.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: I think work is a very important part of life that you enjoy. I want to work until it's over.

NEVILLE: Scott.

WEST: I want to live until I'm 100. I want to work until I'm 50, and 50 ain't far away. So -- obviously, I think he might have needed to give it up a while ago.

NEVILLE: Right. Ben.

FERGUSON: I hope to retire before I'm 50, too. I mean he's a statesman. He did a great job and a great service for his country, and I wish him a happy birthday.

NEVILLE: Audience, applaud if you think Ben will retire before he's 50 years old. I think he will. All right.

Up next...

FERGUSON: I know they want me to.

NEVILLE: Is it too much sin for sin city? Las Vegas is unveiling what promoters say is the world's largest strip club. The 71,000 square foot Sapphire gentlemen's club reportedly will feature four stages and hundreds of strippers. Does this mean Vegas is no longer trying to be family friendly -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: Oh, they had strippers in Las Vegas for as long as I can remember. A few more in isn't going to make any difference. After a while, I think people just get numb.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: Well, Rudy Giuliani was closing down all the strip clubs in New York. So I guess all those conventions now will be going to Vegas.

NEVILLE: Scott. WEST: When was Vegas family-friendly? I don't remember.

NEVILLE: Ben.

FERGUSON: My parents still don't want me to go there and I'm 21. So it's definitely not a family-friendly place. And now with this, I'll never get to go.

NEVILLE: Next up, "The Sopranos" has its season finale this Sunday on HBO. As usual, some folks will get whacked and heads will roll, literally. Is the show becoming too violent or is it a real picture of the gangster world -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: I don't know if there's anybody in America less interested in "The Sopranos" then I am. I have never seen "The Sopranos," I don't want to see "The Sopranos." Gangsters do not interest me. I did watch a rerun of "The Untouchables." The story of Elliot Nest not too long ago. Found that interesting.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: This season was less violent than the last season I think. But there was more violence on the other side of the screen, as people shouted, what's going on with this show? What happened? Why has it lost this engaging quality? There are all sorts of plot lines that are never seem to be finished up, and things that disappear on the show. I think there was more of a violent reaction from the viewers.

NEVILLE: Scott.

WEST: I grew up in the same part of New Jersey on which that is based, and they ain't telling all of what really goes on. So, no, not as violent as it really is.

NEVILLE: Oh, Ben, sorry. Bell. Means you can't answer, but that is all the time we have for the flash round. Jane Chastain, Richard Bey, Scott West and Ben Ferguson, thank you all for joining us here on Free-For-All Friday. Enjoyed all of you.

Up next, I want you to be the judge and tell me what kind of sentence you would have devised for Winona Ryder. It's the question of the day. Give us a call or e-mail right now. I'll take your comments after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Now, on to our question of the day. If you were the judge, what sentence would you have given actress Winona Ryder? We're going to Ottawa, where Sean (ph) is standing by. Go ahead, Sean (ph).

SEAN: Hi. I think she should be given a 30-minute segment on CNN to explain herself. She's an actress and she shouldn't even be thinking of stealing, with the amount of money she makes.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Sean (ph) -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, this woman needs to go to jail. I'm sick and tired of these celebrities getting off with a slap on the wrist.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Let's share an e-mail right now coming in from Tara in Minnesota. "I would have sentenced Winona Ryder to star in five horribly cheesy films. That would hurt her reputation more than the shoplifting incident." All right. And Ms. Kim (ph).

KIM: Hi. I say, celebrities want to be treated like normal people, they should be punished like normal people.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Kim (ph).

OK. That is all the time we have for today, this Free-For-All Friday. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville and I will be back Monday at 3:00 Eastern, that is 12:00 Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE. Enjoy your weekend.

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 December 6, 2002 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. And it is "Free-For All Friday."
We're going to start with a big shakeup in the president's advisory staff. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill have both resigned, under pressure. Is this an indication the economy is in more trouble than we think? What does it mean when the president wants you to leave? We'll get to that in a minute.

Then stay tuned, because this is the weekend Iraq's Saddam Hussein is scheduled to bear all to the U.N. inspectors. Will he reveal his best kept secrets?

Also, you can tell me if Winona Ryder got what she deserved in court today.

First, though, let's find out more about the shakeup in the Cabinet and what it means.

CNN national correspondent Frank Buckley joins us now at the White House.

And, Frank, first of all, tell us the reason behind the resignations.

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're told, Arthel, that the president was frustrated with Paul O'Neill in particular and some of the comments that he has made in the past. He's sometimes been out of step with the administration.

We're also told that President Bush felt that there needed to be some better communicators on the economic staff and that, essentially, they just wanted a fresh start. Clearly, some of the numbers, especially the unemployment figure coming out today, 6.0, a nine-year high. The news on the economy has not been great. The president hasn't been pleased with the growth. As he described it, it's been bumping along. And they're just looking for a fresh start -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: And you're right. There is that nine-year high, Frank.

And I ask you this, because, of course, the Democrats are saying that this is definitely a sign that there is a problem with Bush's economic policy. What does the White House say about this, though?

BUCKLEY: Well, you're right. There are critics out there, like Tom Daschle, the Democrat senator, who is saying that this just shows that the Republicans, that this White House in particular doesn't have a comprehensive economic plan. Others are saying that these two men are being scapegoated.

The president would beg to differ from that. He says that he intends to come out with a jobs and growth package -- read: a tax cut package -- at the beginning of the year. So, the president's point of view is that he does have a plan. He'll be introducing it in the new Congress in January.

NEVILLE: So, I guess we'll have to wait to see who the replacements will be.

BUCKLEY: Yes.

And there are a number of names that are floating around out there: Phil Gramm from Texas one of the names; Dick Grasso, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange -- so a bunch of names out there. Rudy Giuliani is said to be a possibility, although we're told from a senior administration official that Rudy Giuliani has said for the moment he's not interested in any job. And they're going to take him at his word on that.

NEVILLE: All very familiar names, though.

Frank Buckley, thank you very much for joining us here today.

And up next, it's time to meet or panel.

Jane Chastain is co-host of "The Judicial Watch Report" and a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com.

Hello, Jane.

JANE CHASTAIN, "JUDICIAL WATCH REPORT": Hello, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

All right, Richard Bey is co-host of "The Buzz" on WABC Radio in New York.

Hey, Richard.

RICHARD BEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. How you doing?

NEVILLE: Nice to see you as well.

BEY: Same here.

NEVILLE: Scott West is a host on the ABC radio network.

Hello, Scott.

SCOTT WEST, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Arthel, how are you?

NEVILLE: Good. Nice to see you.

And Ben Ferguson is a college junior at the University of Mississippi. He has a syndicated weekend talk show on Radio America.

Hi, Ben. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE.

BEN FERGUSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: How are you? Thanks for having me.

NEVILLE: All right.

All right, Jane, you're up first today. What do these resignations signal to you?

CHASTAIN: Well, it's kind of like baseball, Arthel. If you've got a team that's losing and the economy has been struggling along, you either trade some major players or the manager gets fired.

You know, perception is everything. And I think that Bush 41 got into trouble because it was perceived by the general public that he didn't care enough about their own personal economy. So, frankly, I think it was a smart move.

NEVILLE: Well, what do you say, Richard?

BEY: Well, she just said perception is everything, but there's also reality.

And the reality is, the unemployment figures are up. It's disturbing. Bankruptcies are up. People defaulting on their mortgages are up. There were just figures released today that showed that retail, hiring in the retail community is down. And this is during the holiday season. People are concerned about where this economy is going.

But, right at this point in time, the SEC chairman has resigned. Webster resigned for the accounting oversight. You have Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsey. This is a mess.

NEVILLE: Scott, how do you see it?

WEST: Well, I see it much the same way as Richard and Jane.

The fact is, the economy in this country is abysmal. And Bush at this point in time realized that -- and the key word in what that story had to say was that O'Neill and the Bush administration were not on the same page. And in these kinds of trying economic times, the Bush administration can't afford to have anybody on their team that's not on the same page with them. So, smart move on his part. And we'll see just how it plays out as we get into 2003.

NEVILLE: Yes, but I want to talk about the timing of this in a second, Scott. But, first, I want to give Ben a chance to go ahead and give us his thoughts.

FERGUSON: I think part of it is a show of the times.

It's been tough. The economy's been rough. The job market has been rough. Unemployment is obviously up. The fact of that is, a lot of it goes back to September 11. We've been through a rough time over the last year and a half. And he knew that he needed to get people on his team that were team players. And I think that he saw that these guys were kind of going their own way. And it was a time to get a new fresh start, which is pretty mature.

Obviously, we're in a tough time, but these guys leaving, I think that shows the maturity of this administration.

NEVILLE: Yes, and, Scott, getting back to the timing of these resignations, we're talking about after the midterm elections, one day before Iraq will probably submit the reports. Is this a way to bury a story?

WEST: You know what? There have been claims of that throughout the course of the early days of the Bush administration.

And that's a case that probably could be, you know, made. But I honestly think that, as the other panelists have stated, the state of the economy means that, sure, maybe this was a move that needed to have happened two weeks ago. But any time a positive change is made, with the effort being to try and stabilize the U.S. economy, I think, whenever that move is made, it's a good time.

NEVILLE: Good point.

We have an e-mail coming through now I want to share with you, coming in from Virginia. Craig: "O'Neill and Lindsey's forced resignations are just further proof of Bush's failed economic policy."

Well, Jane, do you agree with Craig or not?

CHASTAIN: Well, not exactly. I think that we're a little bit shortsighted if we're laying all this at the feet of George Bush.

The recession that we are now in, it actually began under President Clinton. And there are a lot of underlying problems, not the least of which is that we've got a war hanging over our head. And whenever there is uncertainty, the economy always sputters.

BEY: Well, you know, the conservatives always want to say it started under Clinton. It's true. Recessions...

CHASTAIN: Well, it did.

BEY: No, no, recessions are cyclical. But the length of this recession or whether it will be a double-dip recession or whether we will experience deflation, all that will be George Bush's responsibility. If we head into elections at 2004...

FERGUSON: No, hold on. Law that are being made now do not affect like right after they go into effect. It takes year for what we've done with the economy to go into effect, and at least months.

Yes, we were going into a recession when Clinton was in office. Yes, it takes time to see a turnaround. And if you're a businessman right now, why would you go spend a lot of money, when there's a lot of uncertainty out there? Obviously, it has to do with a lot of elected officials.

BEY: Who created the uncertainty?

FERGUSON: No, no, no, but to say that it's all George W. Bush's fault is not true, completely.

BEY: I didn't say it was. I said this started under Clinton. But the length of this recession and if it's a double-dip recession and if we go into deflation...

CHASTAIN: Well, let's not forget 9/11 came and happened right in the middle of it.

WEST: Thank you. That's one of major

(CROSSTALK)

CHASTAIN: Please, let's not blame him for that.

WEST: You have to consider that.

BEY: And the war against Iraq right now and the uncertainty in the way that's being handled as well is also creating a business climate that is very shaky.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Jeff is calling in now from California.

What do you say, Jeff? Go ahead, Jeff.

CALLER: Yes, hi.

I believe that Paul O'Neill is a sacrificial lamb. He happens to be a very good Republican. I believe that one of the problems is that he's not a particularly good speaker and not a good communicator. However, he's a very competent person. The real problem is the tax cuts, the tax cuts. There's no evidence that tax cuts actually turn an economy around. And there's a lot evidence that a higher deficit, which the tax cuts are causing, actually makes an economy worse.

NEVILLE: OK, Jeff, thank you so much for making your point.

And, Ben, you made a point...

WEST: That's a good one, Arthel.

NEVILLE: You like that one, Scott?

WEST: I do, because Jane's analogy, the sports analogy, was a very fitting one. Yes, Paul O'Neill may be the sacrificial lamb. But any team that's not performing and is trying to get to Super Bowl, in this case trying to stabilize an economy, they have to look at who it is can even...

(BELL RINGING) (CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Very nice. Very nice, Scott.

All right, we're going to move on now.

And up next, we'll find out more about a Boston-area software company under investigation for possible ties to al Qaeda.

And then later, I'll take your calls and letters on the "Question of the Day": What kind of sentence do you think Winona Ryder deserves?

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday": Will Saddam Hussein come clean about his weapons of mass destruction?

BILL RICHARDSON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: It is obvious that, in this report, he's going to say, "We have no illegal weapons."

NEVILLE: So, why will it take 4,000 pages to say that?

TALKBACK LIVE continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: A software economy in Massachusetts is under investigation for possible ties to al Qaeda. Customs agents raided the offices of Ptech Incorporated in Quincy last night and downloaded information from company computers.

CNN's Bill Delaney is in Quincy covering this story for us.

And, Bill, first of all, tell us, why did this company come under suspicion?

BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, Ptech, it's a small software company, only about 20 employees. It's offices are right behind me here in this industrial park south of Boston. It's a small company with a big list of clients they sell software to in the U.S. government.

Listen to some of the names they sell software to: the FBI, the FAA, the Air Force, the Navy, the Postal Service, the departments of Energy and Education, Congress, the IRS, the Forest Service, and even NATO.

Now, you used the word "raid," Arthel. We might want to be a little careful with that, because we have learned just in the past hour or so that it's kind of hard to really call this a raid. And the company doesn't believe it should be called a raid, since the CEO of the company walked Customs officials into their offices last night, when customs officials then began to download software.

Now, they did that to see if the software could in any way have been tampered with in a way that might enable hackers to break into any of the agencies that this software is sold to. Now, no less a personage than Tom Ridge, head of the U.S. Homeland Security Office, has said in the past hour or two that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the software here is or was or could be used for those purposes.

Now, that's one track of this investigation. The other key track of this investigation is this company's possible ties to a Saudi named Yasin al-Qadi. Now, he is on a U.S. watch list as an alleged financier of terrorist groups.

Now, Yasin al-Qadi was an investor in Ptech. And, beyond that, we have also learned -- CNN's Kelli Arena speaking to sources close to this investigation has learned that the U.S. government has been looking at Ptech's relations to Yasin al-Qadi since right after 9/11.

And that's because, right after 9/11, employees of this small company got in touch with U.S. law enforcement officials and said: "Hey, we just heard that Yasin al-Qadi" -- whose name has been around a lot since 9/11 -- "is on a watch list. Well, this man," they said, "we actually met in Saudi Arabia on a company tour with our small company a while back. And he was introduced to us," these employees of Ptech told government officials way back around 9/11. He was introduced to them in Saudi Arabia as an owner of their company.

And that made them concerned enough to get in touch with investigators. Way back in 9/11, this investigation of Ptech's ties to Yasin al-Qadi began. It has gone on and climaxed last night with the CEO of this company, a gentleman named Oussama Ziade, leading Customs officials in here.

Now, as far as company reaction on camera, the only thing we've gotten so far is the reaction of a vice president, Joe Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, PTECH: It doesn't come as a surprise to us. You know, I think that it's to be expected. We live in kind of different times right now, you know? So, we're an American company. We've been in business for almost nine years. We do have people here who are Muslims. They're American citizens.

But we fully expected this. So, I don't think it's any different than when you go to the airport today and you have to go through additional security. You know, we kind of suspected that this might happen. And it's going to happen. We just have to kind of try to get through it and continue with our business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DELANEY: So, what the government is keying in on here now, not so much these original suspicions about possible problems with the software here. They're looking at the ties of this company to this Yasin al-Qadi.

Could he have given money to this company? Could this company have used that money, possibly, it's been suggested, to give to charitable Islamic organizations that could have voluntarily or involuntarily, possibly inadvertently, Ptech could have contributed to terrorism through one of these charitable organizations -- a complex web still being sorted out here and probably for some time.

But stress, no arrests here and no arrests expected at this point as far as Ptech's involvement in all this -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK, Bill Delaney, thank you very much for clearing up this story for us. As you said, it's very complicated.

And I go over to my panel now.

And I want to start with Richard Bey on this one and ask you, when you hear about this investigation, what sort of thoughts come to mind?

BEY: Well, it sounds like there's -- listen, in this day and age, everything is worthy of an investigation if there's any kind of lead. It doesn't sound like there's a lot there.

I wonder if they're going to be going over to Fox News Network, whose parent company, News Corps, is 20 percent owned by the Saudis as well? And maybe there's something nefarious going on over there with your competition. Can I say that?

NEVILLE: You can you say anything you'd like, Richard.

BEY: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: Anything you'd like to say, go right ahead. It's "Free-For-All Friday."

All right, anyway, any thoughts from you, Scott West?

WEST: Well, I'm still just kind of thinking about what everybody at Fox is thinking at this moment, if they happen to be watching.

But I believe that, yes, 9/11 changed the landscape, and means, then, that, if red flags go up at any company that may seem to have financial ties to al Qaeda or other terrorist group, it has to be investigated. Should we immediately want to shut that company down and begin to look at everybody that's an employee of that company as a potential threat to national security? No, because, again, as Richard just so pointedly stated, we'd have to look in a lot of areas that I don't think, even at this point in time, despite what we witnessed September 11, warrants that kind of knee-jerk reaction.

NEVILLE: But, Jane, wouldn't you think that this company would have -- the government would have done an extensive background check on this company, considering the agencies on their client list, including the IRS, FBI, House of Representatives?

CHASTAIN: Well, you would think, Arthel.

But this is a big country. There are an awful lot of companies here with foreign ownership. But we are on a yellow alert. And individual citizens are told to be vigilant, keep their eyes and ears open, report anything that is suspicious. And I think, yes, if I worked for a software company and I was suddenly made aware that one of my owners was, oh, horrors, has ties of a terrorist, I would report it as well.

So, I applaud those employees. I think they did the right thing. And, frankly, when I see the government responding in a very direct way, I'll sleep better at night.

NEVILLE: Alleged ties.

Go ahead, Ben. What do you say?

FERGUSON: This wasn't a hasty decision by the government. They've been watching them since September 11, when the employees came forward. So, obviously, it wasn't a quick decision to go in there.

Al Qaeda -- he owned a charitable organization which was giving money to Osama bin Laden's group. So, to watch it for this long and to talk to the employees and to go in and for this company to open its doors I think is a good sign. But I also think this is a responsible decision, making sure we're safe.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: All right, time to move on.

Coming up next...

WEST: Somebody else got hit by the bell. Wow.

NEVILLE: Yes, someone else got it.

Why does it take 4,000 pages-plus for Saddam Hussein to say he has nothing to hide? It's time to fess up. But will Iraq's declarations mean anything in the long run?

Then later: Does Arkansas need the counter-Clinton library? We'll tell you why some Clinton critics say it does.

It's all ahead on TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

The weekend is the deadline for Iraq to hand over its list of weapons of mass destruction. If the Iraqis don't come clean, an administration source predicts the U.S. will find them in material breach of U.N. Resolution 1441. But the source also says that breach probably won't be determined to be a reason to go to war. The source says it will probably take a body of obstructionism by the Iraqis for the U.S. and its allies to launch military action.

Richard Bey, your thoughts on that one?

BEY: Well, as you stated earlier, this is going to be either a 2,000-page document, a 4,000-page document. I've heard it could even be as much as 8,000 pages. And you wonder what's going to be on it if they have nothing.

But they do have to account for dual-purpose facilities, for things that were left over from before.

NEVILLE: Right.

Richard, I'm going to jump in there and guide you, because I wanted to be more specific regarding the whole notion that this source says it would take a body of obstructionism to actually validate the need for a war.

BEY: Well, so what happens here? What you're saying is, if they release this document, and afterwards, the United States, as President Bush stated yesterday, has hard evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction, what are we saying?

We know where they are. Do we send inspectors there, then, to discover them and say, "Hey, you didn't mention this"? What is the process here? There is a lot of pressure coming from our government for the inspectors to conduct their inspections more aggressively, to go in and take Saudi scientists and, as Richard Perle from the DOD advisory said, take out 100 people, 100 of his relatives with him, to have them get on planes and leave Iraq.

There is a part of this -- there are a lot of people in this government...

NEVILLE: All right, Richard, I'm going to jump in there, because you're making some great points, but I do want to get to them a little bit later on this subject.

In the meantime, we're going to back to this, the other point, which is, we're talking about a 4,000-page report, plus some 8,000 supplementary pages. Why such a long report for such a short message? "We don't have anything."

And, Jane, I go to you on that one.

CHASTAIN: Hey, Arthel, I think that just proves that he's a big fan of CNN.

He's learned from the Clinton administration and, unfortunately, the Bush administration, when they were required to step up to the plate, turn over some documents, you stall as long as you can. Then you obfuscate. And then, finally, you just deluge them with so many things and every little tidbit of information. It takes, hopefully, in his case, he's hoping three months to go through with it, so that he can stall off into the warmer months and put us off speed.

NEVILLE: Ben, is that what's happening?

FERGUSON: Yes. It's all about buying time. The guy wants to give as many pages as he possibly can, so that it will take us as long as possible to go through it and figure out what's what.

But a key point is, is, I think, that when the Bush administration has said, "We think that he has weapons of mass destruction; we have evidence," and they're not dumb enough to say that, and, if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, then they're going to look really stupid.

BEY: Yes, they are.

FERGUSON: Now, hold on, now.

They obviously have pretty good intelligence. And why would you want to make yourself and your administration look like complete idiots by coming out and lying to the American people and saying, "We know they have something," and then, sure enough, they don't?

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: If they know it, they still -- because Bush is a man of his word. He said that he would exhaust all other means.

BEY: Oh, please.

FERGUSON: No, listen. He would not go to war unless Saddam Hussein didn't cooperate with America. And it's in Saddam's hands whether we go to war or not.

BEY: But there are people in Bush's administration who said they don't care how the inspections go. They want war anyway.

FERGUSON: Because we know he's got stuff.

BEY: Wait a second.

FERGUSON: But, still, Bush has taken the lead, as the American leader as this country, to say, "I'm going to go correctly through the actions that we need to take and then we're going to play our cards," which is smart and responsible.

NEVILLE: Scott West, go ahead.

WEST: Gentlemen...

BEY: A lot people in his administration are saying the inspections are meaningless, they're ludicrous, and it doesn't matter what they turn up. We should invade anyway.

FERGUSON: Because guys on the left, you all are making such a big deal out of it, we can't get stuff done.

BEY: No, you all aren't making a big deal. It's people like Wolfowitz and Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: No, it's not.

BEY: Sorry, sir. You don't know. Already, there's been false information put out by this administration.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Scott West.

WEST: What I'm talking about here is, we, first of all, put a lot of confidence in American intelligence, which history has proven isn't always correct.

But there's a process under way here which is not over. As far as 4,000, 6,000, 8,000 documents are concerned, yes, they've obviously been watching CNN. But if they also have been watching, they know that documents didn't keep us from finding the truth about Enron.

The point of the matter is, if the American government and American intelligence truly knows that there are weapons of mass destruction there, the hope is that the Bush administration is smart enough to have given the U.N. inspectors knowledge of where to look. And, as they go through this process, so as not to give the Iraqis the idea that they know where to look, hopefully, they will then be able to catch them in the midst of this shell game that's obviously going on and find out that there is truly evidence.

(BELL RINGING)

NEVILLE: There is the bell.

And, Karen, I'm sorry. The bell has rung, which means I have to move on. Thank you very much, though. OK, thank you.

Listen, it's time for us to change topics here. And up next, I'm going to tell you about a library dedicated to preserving all that was not so good about the Clinton presidency.

We are back after this break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: And here's a little something from NewsMax.com. It seems a former congressman, along with a Houston businessman, planned to build what they call the Counter Clinton Library, and they want to put it across the street from the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. Apparently, the Counter Clinton Library will be made of 16 rooms; each one named after a specific scandal or embarrassment. For instance, the exit room will focus on the condition of the White House the day the Clintons moved out. And then there is the department of domestic affairs and the hall of shame.

Jane Chastain, here's a question for you. Don't all presidents have parts of their legacy they would like to delete? Why single out Bill Clinton?

CHASTAIN: Well, certainly. I mean no one is perfect. But here we had a president that not only skated very close to the line, may have stepped over the line. But at times, seemed to be dancing on the line.

So there are a lot of people that are really, shall we say, upset about the fact that he seems to have gotten away scot-free. I would remind all those people that judicial watch still has over 80 cases against the Clintons and members of their administration. Now, the wheels of justice grind deliberately, but the last chapter on this presidency isn't written yet.

NEVILLE: OK. Ben, how do you see it?

FERGUSON: I think this is -- hey, this is what's great about America. That we can actually have one of these libraries out there. But the thing is, is it's not like the rooms that they're going to have in this new library are going to be like the read my lips, no new taxes library. I mean 16 rooms. This guy's got a lot dirt and a lot of scandals.

They're not like little things that he said. I mean you're going to have Lewinsky, White Water, everything else that he's done, Watergate. And it shows a lot about this president, and we don't want people to remember -- I mean don't want them to forget that we need admirable, honorable elected officials, especially in the White House. And this guy completely tarnished it.

NEVILLE: You really don't like Clinton? Because you even attributed Watergate to him, too.

FERGUSON: I mean White Water -- sorry, White Water.

NEVILLE: I know, slip of the tongue. I understand.

FERGUSON: But I just think that it shows that this guy was a pretty bad president, and the American people aren't going to forget it.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Scott, you're moaning, groaning. Go ahead and let it out.

WEST: You know what, that's going a long way to make a point. Now we are in a country where people are free to construct that kind of edifice, but the fact remains, he had an eight-year presidency. For people that think it was such a terrible presidency, how did he get there? OK? He didn't, in the middle of the night, sneak into the White House and set himself up. And, during that eight-year period of time of economic prosperity, despite the scandal, if, in fact, we want to try and raise an edifice to denote all the scandalous behavior, then every past president in modern times could have a similar library across the street from the one erected after their presidency. They're free to do it if they want.

NEVILLE: Hang on. What's your name, ma'am?

JENNY: Jenny (ph).

NEVILLE: Jenny (ph) has something to say.

JENNY: OK. If we're complaining about the economy and all this money that's being spent, why are we going to build a library to air our dirty laundry to the whole world? It doesn't matter. It shouldn't be an issue.

You were just trying to keep Hillary Clinton out of the office. That's it.

FERGUSON: It's independent money, this isn't government money. It's independent people that want to give contributions, and that's what makes America great.

NEVILLE: Jane...

CHASTAIN: All I can say -- all I can say is finally Arkansas' going to have a major tourist attraction. I would bet a week's salary that if this library is, in fact, built, it will outdraw the Clinton library by a landslide.

FERGUSON: I'll go.

NEVILLE: Let's see, I have a lady from Texas here. Ms. Linda (ph), what do you say?

LINDA: Well, I think if there's going to be a library, it should be for all of the presidents that have lied. I don't really agree with it, but I think if there is going to be one, it should reflect all of the presidents.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Ms. Linda (ph). And we are going to Nevada, I think, where Angelo (ph) is standing by. What do you say, Angelo (ph)?

ANGELO: Hi, Arthel. I wish people would just get a life. Go away and sit down. This man is out of office. They want to drag him through things, but this is a childish pursuit and I'm tired of it.

FERGUSON: It's entertaining, though. It's fun and it shows that the guy -- I mean 16 rooms is a lot of baggage, and that's why they're doing it.

WEST: By who's definition? And I would agree with that caller. Let's move on. NEVILLE: OK. Drena (ph), I think you have something to say to Jane?

DRENA: Yeah. I just want to say like this, the Clinton library, the whatever, it's no point. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. Whoever's spending money on it, I'm glad it's not my money, but everyone does something bad. Everyone does.

And it's no sense for us to just air out everyone's dirty laundry, because we could go on forever. We could build so many libraries. The whole state could be a -- just a library, because there's just no point. There's just no point.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Drena (ph). And there is the bell. We are going to move on, take a break.

Up next, do you have a constitutional right to own a gun? A federal appeals court takes on the second amendment and fires back. I'll give you the details after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. Do you think you have a constitutional right to own a gun? Well, a ruling by the ninth circuit court of appeals says no way. The court said the second amendment only guarantees the right of states to organize and maintain militias. The judges say ordinary citizens have no gun rights.

The ruling is at odds with the position of the Bush administration, as well as a ruling by a federal appeals court in New Orleans last year. And, excuse me, but I want to go to the audience on this, because I have my man Joe (ph) from Texas, who -- I want to let you start first, before the panel.

JOE: My comment was that I feel that everybody should be armed. And if everybody was armed, some of these school shootings, you know, how far would these people get? If the teachers were armed -- I'm not saying the kids should be armed, but even a bank robbery if the tellers had weapons. And now we're going to the part where the pilots have weapons.

NEVILLE: All right, Joe (ph). Thank you very much. Let's see, Ms. Amanda (ph) down here. What do you think, ma'am?

AMANDA: I don't think anybody should be able to own a gun. Because of the school shootings, just -- a gun would be available to anybody. And that shouldn't be right, because then they're able to get the gun and have the school shooting. And it wouldn't be safe. School would not be safe, because we would know that people would be able to get the guns.

NEVILLE: OK. And Ms. Linda (ph) in the back row, stand up for me.

LINDA: I don't agree with her. I really think that as a citizen we have that right to bear arms. I don't believe we should have automatic weapons, but we should be allowed to carry a gun.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. And I have more audience reaction over here -- Darryl (ph).

DARRYL: I think we should have guns, but at a certain age. And to defend ourselves at our house when we get robbed.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. Jenny (ph), what do you say?

JENNY: I don't think we should be able to have guns. If everyone had a gun, it would be easier for you to get access to that gun. You can break in to your parents' closet and get that gun and have school shootings. If only the police have the guns, it wouldn't be such a big deal, it wouldn't be an issue.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. We have an audience member over there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can understand the right to own a gun, but correct my arithmetic. No guns equals no school shootings.

NEVILLE: Danielle (ph).

DANIELLE: I believe that we should be able to have guns, but only if you have a class. And you have to have a license, and you should have to take, like, a class to do it. That way you're not just running around there without any kind of knowledge of it. And you should have knowledge and take a test.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Excuse me -- Clint (ph).

CLINT: Yes, ma'am. I believe we have the right to bear arms, but the idea that we shouldn't bear arms is not going to work. Everyone has a gun. Everyone right now. Everyone has a gun.

NEVILLE: Everyone has a gun? I don't have a gun.

CLINT: Nearly everyone, but, still, to say that to automatically take away guns, it's not going to happen. People are going to have guns already. And so it won't work. You'll have people that won't have guns and they would be unable to protect themselves.

NEVILLE: OK. Let's see. I'm sorry, panel, but I've got this audience going nuts for this. Stand up, Derek (ph).

DEREK: What about half the people who are hunters? Most of those people get half their food from hunting, and they use guns to go hunting.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. All right. Well, panel, that was unusual, but the audience, they had their hands up. I had to take those comments. Thank you very much.

And I want to know how you would have sentenced Winona Ryder and what kind of community service do you think she should do? Our furiously fast flash round is coming up right after this. And more hands are up in the audience. All right. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Oh, yeah. It's time for our flash-round. First up, Congress is saying happy 100, Mr. Senator. Strom Thurmond was serenaded by a Marilyn Monroe impersonator, not really a good one, at his Capitol Hill birthday bash yesterday. He's also decided 100 is the right time to retire. So would you want to work to the age of 100 -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: No way. I think it's time to smell the roses. I think his time was, well, maybe a decade or so ago. Hey, he's had a great life, he's had a great career, but knowing when to exit is very important.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: I think work is a very important part of life that you enjoy. I want to work until it's over.

NEVILLE: Scott.

WEST: I want to live until I'm 100. I want to work until I'm 50, and 50 ain't far away. So -- obviously, I think he might have needed to give it up a while ago.

NEVILLE: Right. Ben.

FERGUSON: I hope to retire before I'm 50, too. I mean he's a statesman. He did a great job and a great service for his country, and I wish him a happy birthday.

NEVILLE: Audience, applaud if you think Ben will retire before he's 50 years old. I think he will. All right.

Up next...

FERGUSON: I know they want me to.

NEVILLE: Is it too much sin for sin city? Las Vegas is unveiling what promoters say is the world's largest strip club. The 71,000 square foot Sapphire gentlemen's club reportedly will feature four stages and hundreds of strippers. Does this mean Vegas is no longer trying to be family friendly -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: Oh, they had strippers in Las Vegas for as long as I can remember. A few more in isn't going to make any difference. After a while, I think people just get numb.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: Well, Rudy Giuliani was closing down all the strip clubs in New York. So I guess all those conventions now will be going to Vegas.

NEVILLE: Scott. WEST: When was Vegas family-friendly? I don't remember.

NEVILLE: Ben.

FERGUSON: My parents still don't want me to go there and I'm 21. So it's definitely not a family-friendly place. And now with this, I'll never get to go.

NEVILLE: Next up, "The Sopranos" has its season finale this Sunday on HBO. As usual, some folks will get whacked and heads will roll, literally. Is the show becoming too violent or is it a real picture of the gangster world -- Jane.

CHASTAIN: I don't know if there's anybody in America less interested in "The Sopranos" then I am. I have never seen "The Sopranos," I don't want to see "The Sopranos." Gangsters do not interest me. I did watch a rerun of "The Untouchables." The story of Elliot Nest not too long ago. Found that interesting.

NEVILLE: Richard.

BEY: This season was less violent than the last season I think. But there was more violence on the other side of the screen, as people shouted, what's going on with this show? What happened? Why has it lost this engaging quality? There are all sorts of plot lines that are never seem to be finished up, and things that disappear on the show. I think there was more of a violent reaction from the viewers.

NEVILLE: Scott.

WEST: I grew up in the same part of New Jersey on which that is based, and they ain't telling all of what really goes on. So, no, not as violent as it really is.

NEVILLE: Oh, Ben, sorry. Bell. Means you can't answer, but that is all the time we have for the flash round. Jane Chastain, Richard Bey, Scott West and Ben Ferguson, thank you all for joining us here on Free-For-All Friday. Enjoyed all of you.

Up next, I want you to be the judge and tell me what kind of sentence you would have devised for Winona Ryder. It's the question of the day. Give us a call or e-mail right now. I'll take your comments after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Now, on to our question of the day. If you were the judge, what sentence would you have given actress Winona Ryder? We're going to Ottawa, where Sean (ph) is standing by. Go ahead, Sean (ph).

SEAN: Hi. I think she should be given a 30-minute segment on CNN to explain herself. She's an actress and she shouldn't even be thinking of stealing, with the amount of money she makes.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Sean (ph) -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, this woman needs to go to jail. I'm sick and tired of these celebrities getting off with a slap on the wrist.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Let's share an e-mail right now coming in from Tara in Minnesota. "I would have sentenced Winona Ryder to star in five horribly cheesy films. That would hurt her reputation more than the shoplifting incident." All right. And Ms. Kim (ph).

KIM: Hi. I say, celebrities want to be treated like normal people, they should be punished like normal people.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Kim (ph).

OK. That is all the time we have for today, this Free-For-All Friday. Thanks so much for watching. I'm Arthel Neville and I will be back Monday at 3:00 Eastern, that is 12:00 Pacific, with more TALKBACK LIVE. Enjoy your weekend.

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