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.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE: on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right: Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. And sitting in on the right tonight: Ann Coulter, author of the "New York Times" best seller "Slander."
In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Who's got the power when it comes to medicine and health care?
The environment and corporate reform. Al Gore has put his answers in writing. Guess who he disagrees with?
Who's locked up? Anonymous suspects, innocent victims or potential terrorists? A judge tells John Ashcroft: Name that detainee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The idea that the government can arrest hundreds of people and not give out their names, it's unprecedented in the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not really any victory for civil rights. What it is i's more of a defeat for national security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Ahead on CROSSFIRE.
From the George Washington University: Paul Begala and Ann Coulter.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Tonight: naming names. A judge who reminds John Ashcroft that the United States Constitution is still in effect, thank you very much.
Also, how the Bushies ignored a Clinton administration plan to go after al Qaeda until it was too late.
Sitting in on the right tonight, author and commentator Ann Coulter. Ann, welcome to CROSSFIRE.
ANN COULTER, CO-HOST: Than you.
BEGALA: We will start tonight, as we always do, with the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."
President Bush took a break from vacationing today to be with some of those Pennsylvania coal miners who were miraculously rescued recently. Basking in their heroic glow, our president used the phrase "the spirit of America" 11 times in his 13-minute talk.
Now, no one was impolite enough to ask President Bush if the spirit of America requires a 6 percent cut in the mine safety budget, as he has proposed. But if someone has, I imagine Bush would have said, you know, the spirit of America is self-reliance.
I'm sure those men would have clawed their way out of the ground without the government's help.
COULTER: Yes, I'm sure the spirit of America is another socialist program.
Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Bob Graham come down on opposite sides about the possibility of hooking up members of the clubby U.S. Senate to lie detectors. Daschle huffs that it's a bad idea and an infringement on the constitutional separation between the executive and legislative branches.
But Graham, who is battling leaks of classified information from his intelligence committee has repeated his view that FBI lie detector tests are a good idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL), INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN: I would not have any problem taking one. And I think the people who were conducting these interviews believe that they are getting the information that they need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COULTER: While they have them hooked up to polygraph machines, we can ask the Democrats why they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power, why they want to release the names of detained terror suspects, and why they object to every reasonable national security measure taken by Attorney General John Ashcroft.
BEGALA: I'd like to hook up Bush and ask him: Tell us again that that Cayman Island subsidiary you set up, that wasn't a tax shelter, was it?
COULTER: No one knows what you're talking about.
BEGALA: Well they will, believe me. The Republicans in Idaho who run the state legislature chose an odd target for budget cuts recently. They decided to zero-out the funding that promotes the Children's Health Insurance Program called CHIP. Now, CHIP is designed to provide health insurance for needy children. But when the boys in Boise cut the funding, many feared the kids would lose out.
Riding to the rescue came the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters. The Idaho Carpenter's Union ponied up the money to advertise the program.
So shame on the Idaho Republicans, and hooray for the carpenters union, carrying on in that great tradition of the son of a carpenter from a town called Nazareth.
COULTER: You people won't quit.
It's a given that teenagers and Democrats don't pay attention to what's going on around them, and don't think about the consequences of their actions.
A case in point: At the Pittsburgh Airport this weekend police say a Canadian teenager aboard a US Airways jet actually started flicking a cigarette lighter at his foot sneaker. His excuse was that he was just trying to burn off loose material on his shoe. The boy of Iranian descent was arrested.
Teenagers are taking lighters to their sneakers on airplanes, and the Democratic Party can't imagine why Bush might want to attack Saddam Hussein, a murderous fanatic developing weapons of mass destruction. Does anyone remember that we're at war? September 11 -- does that ring a bell?
BEGALA: Some teenager lights his sneakers on fire and its my party's fault?
COULTER: Why yes, it is.
BEGALA: Well, speaking of my party, one of the hottest primaries in my party will take place tomorrow in Michigan. Democrats will choose between two popular incumbents from their own party: relative newcomer Lynn Rivers or a living legend, John Dingell.
The race is neck-and-neck and, while I don't live up there, I've got to weigh in. I have worked on Capitol Hill, I've in the White House; I have never come across anyone quite like John Dingell.
Mr. Dingell is brilliant, he is tough and he is utterly fearless. My kind of Democrat. Now, I'm sure Ms. Rivers is fine, but if I was laying in a ditch holding off the bad guys, that one person I'd want by my side is big John Dingell.
COULTER: This is like choosing among scorpions in a bottle.
The stifling summer weather is a reminder that the 2004 national conventions are only two years away. Detroit, Miami, New York and Boston are in the running to host the Democrats. Most eyes are on the competition between New York and Boston, and between each city's biggest supporter.
Senator Teddy Kennedy wants the party gathering in Massachusetts to remind the nation of his brothers John and Robert, the last two Democrats to support Americans defending itself.
Senator Hillary Clinton is rooting for New York because she's always wanted to visit New York City.
BEGALA: They love her in New York, and I love her here in Washington.
Well, Al Gore fired a broadside at the White House and at his own critics this weekend. In an op-ed piece in Sunday's "New York Times," Gore wrote that a major correction is needed in the course of the nation because the Bush administration has used its power to benefit the few instead of the many.
Gore added that it's bad politics and bad principle for anyone to suggest the Democrats ought to stand up for the powerful instead of for the people.
Well, stepping into the CROSSFIRE to discuss this: Democratic consultant Mark Mellman and Republican Bob Walker, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.
(APPLAUSE)
BEGALA: Ms. Coulter?
COULTER: So Mark, I'd like to run a list of the top contributors to the Gore-Lieberman recount fund here. We have working family Steven Kirsch of California, half a million dollars; Stephen Bing, $200,000; John Quinn, $200,000. The list goes on and on.
Meanwhile, George Bush, you know, representing the party of the powerful, limited all donations to $5,000...
(CROSSTALK)
MARK MELLMAN, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: ... $70 million in his primary.
COULTER: Five thousand dollars or less. He took in more donations in contributions of $200 or less than Gore took in in his entire fund.
When are Democrats going to give up on this preposterous conceit that you represent the people rather than the working families of Malibu?
MELLMAN: Well look, the reality here, Ann, is not who you get the money from, it's what you do at a policy level.
And what George Bush and what the Republicans in Congress have done is invite these special interests into the committee rooms to change our environmental laws, to put more pollution in the air, more poison in the water, cut down our national forests. They've let the drug companies dictate that we not have a prescription drug benefit. They've let the insurance companies decide that we're not going to have an HMO bill of rights...
COULTER: I mean, first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
MELLMAN: That's what really counts. It's not who you get the money from, whether it's Steve Kirsch or anybody else. What counts is: What are the policies you're pursuing.
COULTER: Right. And the issues, you're saying, that are appealing to the average blue collar worker out there is abortion on demand, gay marriage, not drilling in Alaska, the environment -- that's a really big issue for the Teamsters? That's your position, as opposed to the Malibu Marie Antoinettes?
MELLMAN: I think there are very few Americans who want to see more poison in their water, more pollution in their air, very few Americans that want to see their national forests cut down, whether they belong to labor unions, whether they live in Malibu, whether they live in Columbus, Ohio.
BEGALA: Well, Congressman Walker, in fact, let me put it to the people. We have some people here -- most of you are real people, right?
How many of you -- show of hands -- on the environment, for example how many of you have ever created a toxic superfund site?
Not this man here. We're not talking about your dorm room, sir. But you know that...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Every one of them in this audience is playing to clean up superfund sites because the Republicans changed the rules to help the powerful instead of the people.
See, under the Democrats superfund toxic sites were paid for -- the cleanup was paid for by corporations. President Bush changed that, now makes people pay.
Isn't that the people versus the powerful?
BOB WALKER, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, that's just an outrageous position because the fact is...
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: ... no. The fact is, what the Republicans did was assured that we begin to get superfund cleaned up, done. The fact was that during the time that we were depending upon the government, we were not getting very many superfund sites cleaned up. As a result of entering into partnerships with businesses that were willing to go out and clean up their superfund sites, we are actually getting more of them cleaned up at the present time.
That's what I think the American people want. They want it actually done, not talked about, and not funded and then never accomplished.
BEGALA: So you think it's fair -- let me get this straight: The Republican position is it's perfectly fair to tax people, to shift this tax onto people and off of the powerful so that the people pay to clean up the powerful's superfund?
WALKER: The fact is, what's happening is that we are having the companies that actually created some of the pollution who are actually paying for it under this process. The government is a partner with them, but they actually pay for it themselves.
Now that's the kind of program that...
MELLMAN: If they want to. They don't have to...
(CROSSTALK)
MELLMAN: ... regulation and a tax, that would be bad. So if they want to clean it up, they're allowed to.
WALKER: They are allowed to go in and make certain that work actually gets done.
The program that was pursued for eight years by the Clinton administration got very few superfund sites cleaned up. That was the problem. We still had them out there. People want toxic waste taken care of, not just talked about.
COULTER: Did I just get both of the Democrats on record saying that you are a party of the people because of the environment? You really are joking about that.
The Teamsters wanted to drill in Alaska and soccer moms on Park Avenue were worried about mudslides being preserved, and this is how you're the party of the people?
MELLMAN: The environment is an important issue. It's only one important issue, but it is a very important issue.
COULTER: Yeah, it's important in Malibu and Park Avenue. It's not important if you're a coal worker.
MELLMAN: It may not be important to you, but it is important to people all over this country who want clean air, clean water.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... Park Avenue and Malibu.
(CROSSTALK)
MELLMAN: And only people that live in Malibu want clean water?
COULTER: Absolutely.
MELLMAN: They can afford to buy clean water. Whether the water is clean or not....
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: Teamsters want jobs and they want energy. They don't care about mudslides in Alaska, and how does the Democratic Party...
MELLMAN: Democrats are working to provide those folks with jobs.
(CROSSTALK)
MELLMAN: The reality is, under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, 22 million jobs were created. How many jobs were created under the Bush administration?
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... drilling in Alaska.
MELLMAN: How many jobs have been created for those people under the Bush administration?
WALKER: Look, it's the Bush administration that, among other things, has decided that what we ought to do is move toward a hydrogen economy, and is actually putting money into the kind of programs that will, in fact, clean up the air forever. They have put tens of millions of dollars that the Clinton administration refused to do. You want to talk about cleaning up the environment for real? That's a real commitment. And it's what's taking place under this administration.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Let me shift to another topic, which is taxes and tax fairness. Under President Bush's tax cut proposal, 20 percent of Americans got nothing, nada, zilch, zip. One percent of Americans got 40 percent of all of our surplus. That's the people and the powerful. And by the way, under his ill-fated stimulus plan, Enron got $250 million. Working people zero, Enron a quarter of a billion. That's the people versus the powerful, isn't it?
WALKER: No. It is not the people versus the powerful, because the fact is what we ought to have in this country are tax policies that allow people who are successful to, in fact, benefit from their own success. I think the American people are tired of government coming in and telling them that when they have worked hard and earned something and been successful, that in fact the government is going to take more away from them than they get to keep themselves. BEGALA: So the Republican tax policy is, so we're clear, that the top 1 percent and Enron should get the tax cuts?
WALKER: That's not true...
BEGALA: But it is true. It's an indisputable fact that 20 percent of us get nothing from the Bush tax cut. Nothing at all.
WALKER: Well, the fact is the 20 percent of us get nothing from the Bush tax cut because more than 20 percent of us don't pay any taxes.
BEGALA: We don't pay federal income tax. Those are taxes for the rich. That's not true, with all due respect. They pay sales tax, they pay the payroll tax. They pay excise taxes. They pay taxes out the wazoo, but not the kind of taxes that Bush...
WALKER: Where the tax cuts took place for the average Americans, and so it was in income taxes. We were cutting income taxes because the American people...
BEGALA: Why not cut taxes that poor people pay?
WALKER: Well, I would be in favor of cutting taxes across the board. Let's cut some taxes there.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: But the bottom line is, that what we really need to do is cut taxes across the board for rich people, poor people and so on to stimulate the economy.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: We're going to take a break really quick. In a minute, we're going to ask our guests if Al Gore and Joe Lieberman have declared war on a peace with each other. And later, ending detainees anonymous as we know it.
And our quote of the day, a bold prediction from a prominent Democrat. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COULTER: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Ann Coulter sitting on the right. We're talking about Al Gore's declaration of war against the powerful, on behalf of the people. And representing the people, we have Democratic consultant Mark Mellman. And representing the powerful is Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Walker.
Now, on behalf of the people, what do Democrats mean by the rich is any guy with an alarm clock, as we know from Clinton's tax proposals. He claimed he was going to cut taxes on the middle class, and when he had a Democratic Congress, what did he do, he raised taxes. It took a Republican Congress coming in to cut taxes. So this business about raising taxes on the rich -- the rich you mean anyone who has a job.
MELLMAN: No, we mean people who, like Congressman Walker here, who is a great lobbyist, a professional lobbyist. You're not going to tell me, Ann, that when a congressman calls up the administration, he gets his calls answered in the same order that the average UAW member in Michigan does? No, the powerful, people who can afford to hire a professional lobbyist like Congressman Walker, a great lobbyist, if ever there was one. If you need a commercial, he's got one here, a very powerful lobbyist. Those people have more influence. And you're not going to tell me that lobbyists like the congressman only have as much influence as the average citizen?
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: Congressman Walker does not get his calls answered as quickly as a Chinese arms dealer did in the Clinton administration.
WALKER: Most of the time that I'm getting called is because of some misdeed the government has done. It's not to get to...
MELLMAN: To the powerful.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: No, to average people...
MELLMAN: Average people (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at $300 or $400 an hour?
WALKER: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: We work on behalf of companies and so on that hire most of the people in this country and pay their salaries, so that in fact this government can run.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: Except what the Democrats like to do is penalize those businesses.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: Democrats believe that penalizing success is...
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: Democrats believe that penalizing success is somehow going to make the country move forward. That's the problem. We believe that rewarding success is what drives the country forward. And the whole Al Gore message was that somehow if we could figure out better ways of penalizing success, that somehow the country would be better off. That's what his message comes across as saying, and that doesn't make any sense. MELLMAN: Now I know what the real problem is. The problem is, you have no understanding of what the Democrats are actually saying. Maybe we could all agree to get together. Everybody believes that people ought to succeed, everybody believes that people ought to be rewarded for succeeding. What Democrats are saying is, when businesses cross the line, when they dump toxic waste, when they move money offshore to avoid paying taxes, they ought to be accountable. And what some Republicans are saying is, no, they shouldn't.
BEGALA: You've got a problem with your party, though, because if it's true that you are for the little guy, it ain't getting through to the little guy. Right? CNN and the Gallup organization polled the American people. Here's what they said. Now, this is a country that's divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. It's a 50/50 country. Yet when they asked them, who's on the side of ordinary people versus large corporations, it ain't 50/50 at all. In fact, they believe only 25 percent of -- well, here it is. Large corporations, 65 percent believe Republicans prefer large corporation. Only 25 think that they favor ordinary Americans.
The Democrats are an exact opposite. Only a third think they favor large corporations. The majority of Americans think Democrats are for ordinary people; two-thirds think Republicans are for big corporations. That's just the reality of America and the American people know it, right?
WALKER: Well, except when they go out to vote, they tend to vote for people who are going to try to move the economy forward and are for growth. And what they've decided...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: After Clinton taxes on the rich, did we grow or shrink? Did we create 23 million jobs, balance the budget, ignite the greatest economic expansion in the country or not?
WALKER: It seems to me that most of that growth took place...
(APPLAUSE)
WALKER: It seems to me that most of that growth took place after we Republicans took control of the Congress and began the process of balancing the budget and doing some things that helped to get the economy moving.
Prior to that, the economy was not moving under the Clinton policies, and the tax cut was, in fact -- or the tax increase was, in fact, a detriment to the economy.
COULTER: Mark, can you explain that? Why is it if these phony polls, somehow, that seem to represent the people, why is it the red state/blue state distinction? Why would people actually go to the polls, as the congressman says, you have this vast, yawning middle class voting for the Republicans, but you guys lock up New York and California. How come it doesn't come out that way when they go to the polling booth, the only poll that counts? MELLMAN: Well, you know what, there are middle class people in New York and California, believe it or not.
But the reality is, Al Gore won the popular vote in this country. More people voted for Al Gore than voted for George Bush. Now, you're going to tell me...
(APPLAUSE)
MELLMAN: It is true; and it's true that people are responsive to that message. And that's why more people voted for Al Gore.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: And more people voted for Republicans in Congress than voted for Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... the Supreme Court.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Mark Mellman, Democratic strategist, thank you very much. Bob Walker, Congressman from Pennsylvania, here in Washington, thank you very much, sir.
Still to come: that amazing "TIME" magazine article about what the Clinton administration wanted to do about al Qaeda, and what the Bushies didn't.
Also, a judge stands up for equal justice under the law, even after September 11.
But next, our "Quote of the Day." It may make Saddam Hussein, and maybe the parents of some of our servicemen and women a little nervous.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
President Bush actually stopped by the White House today to do a little work this afternoon.
General Tommy Franks of the Army's Central Command came to brief the president and the National Security Council on the state of planning for a possible American attack on Iraq. Officials called the meeting just a routine update.
Now, despite some misgivings, opinion here in Washington seems to be that the U.S. better do something about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before it's too late.
Our "Quote of the Day" goes to Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who has been holding hearings on our policy towards Iraq.
Senator Biden says, quote: "I believe there will probably be a war with Iraq."
Ann, I wish they would just spend half the time making the case for a war that they do leaking our battle plans in a war. That's all I ask of our president.
COULTER: Well, that's why we want polygraphs of these Democratic senators.
It's good that Senator Biden is aware that we're going to attack Iraq. I think every 4-year-old knows that. But does he support it, or is he against it like the rest of his party?
BEGALA: Which is -- wouldn't it be great if they just actually made the case to the American people and say -- it is the White House and the administration that's leaking these plans. Congress doesn't get the battle plans.
COULTER: I assure you not only will they be making the case, but we'll be having a roll call vote on it.
BEGALA: We will be waiting to hear that. I hope the Congress votes on it; I'm with you on that
Well, coming up in a CNN news alert, Connie Chung shows us what a couple of pilots were doing before security guards smelled alcohol on their breath.
Later: how al Qaeda got lost in the Clinton/Bush transition.
And hundreds of unnamed detainees are in jail. They find a new friend in a federal judge.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: I bet the Bushies didn't like this week's cover story in "TIME" magazine. It says that during the transition in 2000 and the beginning of 2001, the Clinton administration passed on detailed proposals to roll back al Qaeda and go after Osama bin Laden -- proposals that never saw the light of day because, I think the Bushies kind of wanted to reinvent the wheel all by themselves.
Well, joining us to discuss this is Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Mr. O'Hanlon, thank you for joining us, sir.
It seems to me, reading "TIME" magazine this week, that if there were no 22nd Amendment, that cursed blot on our Constitution, and President Clinton had been reelected, America would have attacked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan long before September 11, right? MICHAEL O'HANLON, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I'm not so sure. I give him credit for coming up with a serious plan. But if you look back, the Clinton administration had a lot of the evidence, starting with 1998, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. We knew al Qaeda was behind that; we choose a cruise missile response.
General Shelton who, as you know, was chairman of the joint chiefs at that time, thought that was the most we could do. He opposed special operation forces.
So you had the chairman of the joint chiefs saying, this is all you could really do. And Bill Clinton was happy to say, OK, that's all I want to try. I don't want to risk American lives; I don't want to put American forces into Afghanistan.
He had the chance, and chose not to go with this more aggressive strategy back then. Two years later he changed his mind, but at that point it was too late for him to do anything about it.
BEGALA: But he also asked them to develop a Predator drone; it would be armed with Hellfire missiles. It was not operational until President Bush came in. Bush never used it. He had submarines on quick stand-by attack. President Bush asked them to stand down when he cam into power.
He had, in published accounts, at least, death squads, frankly, from Pakistan, Afghanistan, from the United States' CIA and Northern Alliance all trying go after bin Laden.
I mean, I do think that the record, at least in "TIME" magazine, is pretty compelling.
O'HANLON: I think Bill Clinton was changing his mind over time. And I think he proved in the Kosovo war he's willing to change his mind and get serious about a conflict and do what it took to win. He did that in Kosovo. He began, as you know, ruling out ground forces, and ultimately was prepared to invade, if necessary.
And I think you're probably right. If Clinton had won a third term he might have started to implement this plan.
Of course, it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 because the terrorists were already here at the time. But I think he was moving in that direction.
But he had his chance, and he sort of blew it when he did, I still think.
COULTER: Well, it's good that Clinton administration officials are stepping up to say that he would have done it, just as he would have fought in Vietnam now, if he had the chance. He had eight years and he didn't do anything.
And according to this article in "Vanity Fair," the official publication of the Democratic National Committee, for eight years the entire Clinton administration was rebuffing evidence of where Osama was, invitations to come get him.
And, in fact, we're going to throw a quote up. According to this article from the January 2002 "Vanity Fair," Sudan "cabled the FBI in Washington, offering to extradite them" -- this was the two terrorists who blew up the embassy. "Without consulting the FBI, the U.S. Departments of State and Defense responded by bombing the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum."
That's how he responds: He bombs an aspirin factory.
O'HANLON: Well, as you know Ann, it was a little bit of a tough call back then. You did have General Shelton, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a former special operations commander saying, don't put American special forces into Afghanistan.
That might be the one thing that would work, if it works. But it might also be...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... something other than bombing the people who were inviting us in to come get Osama. I mean Sudan, for eight years...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: ... Ann, that you would...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... come in, we've got Osama, we've got Osama.
BEGALA: Do you buy the al Qaeda spin that that was an aspirin factory, because I think it's a chemical weapons plant that we struck. And I think we were -- I'm damn glad we struck it.
Do you believe bin Laden?
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... we now know it's not bin Laden, it's Sudan. They kept saying, come get Osama, come get these guys, we've got...
BEGALA: For the record, you think that that was an aspirin factory, when bin Laden says you don't believe...
COULTER: That's according to the official publication of the Democratic National Commission, "Vanity Fair."
BEGALA: I couldn't find anything in "Vogue," either, but I frankly believe "TIME" magazine over "Vanity Fair."
COULTER: It takes him a while to come up with his excuse.
BEGALA: By the way, let me read you a comment from Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, who briefed Dr. Rice, president Bush's national security adviser, and this is what he told her.
Let's put it on the big screen: "I'm coming to this briefing," he says to Dr. Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is" -- the subject being terrorism. "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al Qaeda specifically than any other subject."
The Bush administration decided that their missile shield was more important than al Qaeda. They were right -- they were wrong and Clinton was right. Weren't they?
O'HANLON: On that point, yes. On that point it is true, I think, that Clinton and Berger had come around to view this as the top national security threat of the United States by the time they were leaving office, unfortunately.
But earlier on when Clinton had the better chance to go after bin Laden himself, he did not do it very effectively.
Now, I think it's not quite fair to say that there was this full range of options available, and we could have done many things apart from -- there was really just one of two choices you could take: Either you do something symbolic or you hope to get lucky with cruise missiles, or you put people on the ground and you try to go after bin Laden.
The latter would have been tough, very risky, but I still think we should have done it. And I was...
COULTER: We could have arrested the two guys who blew up the embassy. The Sudan had them and said here, do you want them? And the Clinton administration just rebuffs it and says, no, we'll just bomb your aspirin factory.
O'HANLON: By then, though, we knew al Qaeda was the problem...
COULTER: Apparently Clinton didn't.
O'HANLON: Getting two more people to admit that it was the problem was not going to suffice. We had to go after bin Laden and his top people in Afghanistan. That was the issue.
How do you do that? You can try to get lucky with cruise missiles, or you can put people on the ground.
COULTER: Right, so Clinton had eight years to do it, Bush has eight months, and now suddenly we get out of the Clinton administration's renowned modest modesty, stepping forward to say, we had the plan to get him.
That seems plausible to you?
O'HANLON: I heard "TIME" magazine making that argument more than I heard Clinton people. I felt that the "TIME" magazine journalists were trying to claim they had a bigger scoop here than they really did. COULTER: And Sandy Berger, whom Condoleezza Rice denies meeting with, descries meeting with her.
O'HANLON: But Paul's definitely right, that Berger was arguing to Rice in that period of time that al Qaeda will be your biggest concern, and...
COULTER: Not according to Condoleezza Rice.
O'HANLON: There's dispute about that meeting, but there's no dispute that Berger was making this kind of pitch.
COULTER: I don't think they needed to know that...
BEGALA: Apparently they did, because Richard Clarke, who was President Clinton's chief of counterterrorism, so talented that President Bush, to his credit, kept him in that job -- so good was the Clinton administration on counterterrorism that Bush kept the people.
When Clinton came in, by the way, he kept David Kessler of the FDA from old man Bush because he did a good job. He was a good commissioner of FDA, we kept him. Clinton's counterterrorism people were so talented that Bush Jr. kept them as well.
And here's what Dick Clarke did: He presented a paper to Dr. Rice, which was then placed on the shelf. And according to "TIME" magazine it was placed on the shelf, well, for this reason: "Clarke's paper," says "TIME," "was a Clinton proposal. Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new policy review process on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings and his proposals," "TIME" magazine says, "were nibble nearly to death."
For political reasons, they shelved a good plan to go after bin Laden, didn't they?
O'HANLON: Maybe.
BEGALA: That's what "TIME" magazine says.
O'HANLON: Yes, that's what "TIME" magazine says.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: And this proposal bubbles to life just after he leaves office.
O'HANLON: It's natural that Bush would want a review of whatever plan he inherited. And the fact that it took a few months is not a big surprise. It's too bad, under the circumstances.
But I think the real regrettable thing, Bush did want to change Clinton policy almost viscerally on the Middle East, on North Korea. This is one more example. I actually think there was greater damage on the Middle East, because on this one you couldn't have stopped 9/11 anyway. Even if Bush had implemented this plan starting in the spring, we would not have prevented 9/11.
BEGALA: I think that's a fair point. I don't think any Democrat should ever say that Bush could have -- that he knew or could have prevented -- and it was a very important point.
But we still should look at the policy ramifications of the actions that they took, right?
O'HANLON: That's true. But, you know, the ramifications would have been, if Bush had done everything you and I would like today, maybe he would have adopted this plan in June instead of September, and maybe would have started the operations -- you know, look into the details of what they were proposing. They wanted to give arms to the Northern Alliance. They wanted to put special forces on the ground. Those things would have taken months, if not years, to play out effectively.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... to fight in Vietnam.
BEGALA: Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institution, thank you very much for joining us.
Still ahead: our chance -- your chance, rather, to "Fireback" at us. One of our viewers has e-mailed us a suggestion for what a game show would be like, and I actually think it would be pretty good
Speaking of game shows, try this question: what has the final say when it comes to judicial rights, the Constitution or John Ashcroft's Justice Department?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are coming to you live from the George Washington University here in Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.
Last Friday, federal Judge Gladys Kessler gave the Justice Department 15 days to reveal the names of everyone arrested or detained in connection with the September 11 terror investigation. She called the government's insistence on detention with totally secrecy "legally and factually flawed." Attorney General John Ashcroft argues that national security requires the government to keep secret the names of non-citizens being held.
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE to discuss it, former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova, and joining us from New York, former counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, Julian Epstein.
Gentlemen, thank you.
COULTER: Now at least I know what the Democrats mean by being for the people against the powerful. It's being for the terrorists against the American people. I really am so stunned that anyone caring about this, terrorist suspects or material witnesses being held for a few months after September 11. All I can say is, do you want to live in a radioactive world?
JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, as usual, Ann, you get about three-quarters of the facts wrong in your question to me. First of all, there have been about 1,200 people...
(APPLAUSE)
EPSTEIN: There have been about 1,200 people detained since last September. None of them have been charged with terrorism. And the position of the attorney general is that all of the identities of these people should be kept secret. Now, he's had about as many positions on this issue as in the game of twister. Initially, he said that the reason for that is to protect the privacy interests of those people who are being detained, 1,200 of them. That clearly didn't wash. So then he came up with a theory that this was necessary to prosecute the war against terrorism.
Well, the problem with that position is that it's both dumb and it's unfair. It's dumb because after a year, we're not keeping any information from the terrorists. If any of these 1,200 people are in any way connected to terrorism, surely by now the terrorists have figured that out. The government has already taken the position that these people can self-identify themselves. The government, in fact, identifies many of these terrorists. Zacarias Moussaoui, Hamdi, Padilla, on down the line.
It's unfair, in addition to being dumb, it's unfair because many of these people have not had the right -- have not had the ability to get counsel. And what happens with these secret arrests is that they get dropped into a black hole, their families can't find them, their attorneys can't find them. They're basically -- their right to counsel is basically impeded. They are shifted from detention center after detention center. So we're not giving up anything by identifying them, we're allowing them...
COULTER: They're all entitled to counsel. They just don't get free counsel.
EPSTEIN: No...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... there are plenty of lawyers...
EPSTEIN: With due respect...
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: With due respect, Ann, you're reading your talking points, because we're not talking about government-appointed counsel. That's not the issue here.
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: Aren't you the person who always corrects...
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: No, you're wrong again, Ann, you're wrong, and in the facts, you're wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Julian, zip it.
Joe, thank you for coming. Thank you for your patience.
JOSEPH DIGENOVA, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It was nice to be here.
BEGALA: Let me put to you a piece of the government's argument. Julian mentioned it. Our attorney general says releasing the names would aid the terrorists, because they'll be able to figure out who's missing. Well, guess what? They figured this out a long time ago. If they were as organized even as a kindergarten class, they take roll, don't they?
DIGENOVA: I didn't see a question there so let me answer the one I want to.
BEGALA: Don't they take roll? Don't they, though?
DIVENOVA: Let's remember what happened here on Friday. Judge Kessler, who is a U.S. District Court judge here in Washington ruled that the government had to release the names of people who had been arrested for immigration violations and were material witnesses. Now, this was the Freedom of Information Act case filed by a group of interest groups, not by any...
(CROSSTALK)
DIGENOVA: ... not by any of the detainees themselves.
BEGALA: Because they can't get to a courthouse.
DIGENOVA: Oh, no, no, they all have access to lawyers; they just don't get them for free. And almost all of them have lawyers. I believe all of them have lawyers, in fact.
Now, the issue here, was the judge correct or wasn't she? I saw all the media reporting this as a great defeat for the government. In fact, I regret to say, and I know Judge Kessler. She's a fine judge. She just happens to be completely wrong in this case, and believe me, within a very short period of time, the Justice Department will ask for a stay of her order. It will be -- that stay will be granted by the United States Court of Appeals. There will be briefs filed, and this will be argued over the next few months, and the government will win.
And the reason is very simple. In her ruling, Judge Kessler rejected the government's argument that you can make all -- you have to take all of the information available to determine whether or not the names should be released, because of the mosaic theory, that you put these things together and if you are a terrorist, you can learn things from that.
Now, she rejected that on the release of the names. At the same time, she ruled that she wouldn't release the date of arrest, the location of the arrest and the location of incarceration, under the very same theory, the mosaic theory that she rejected...
(CROSSTALK)
DIGENOVA: Not yet, Julian. I'm not finished. What I find interesting is that she used the precise logic and came to two different conclusions on two different issues. I think her -- rather than the government's position being flawed, I think her decision is flawed.
COULTER: OK, my question is to you, Julian, and you're going to be able to answer now. But I get to ask the question. I mean, as Joe was saying, the problem is not here a legal issue. What it is is that liberals want little baby seals for their poor terrorist cases. You want names you can attach to this. There's no legal question of whether they are being represented, whether they have access to attorneys, and you know...
EPSTEIN: There's a big legal question, Ann.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... civil liberties crisis.
EPSTEIN: And do some research before you ask the question.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... Attorney General Ashcroft isn't doing his job.
EPSTEIN: And is there a question, is there a question there?
COULTER: Yeah, you were talking over it.
EPSTEIN: Yeah, what was the question then?
COULTER: Shall I restate it? What you really want are names to create public interest cases, and if this is the biggest thing civil libertarians have to complain about, then Attorney General John Ashcroft is not doing his job.
EPSTEIN: No, I think again I'm not sure what the question is, but I think again that you, and with due respect to Joe...
COULTER: That what you want it for -- I will rephrase it for you a third time now.
EPSTEIN: OK, and let me try and answer what I think you are trying to get after. I know it's a silly question. It's a silly, pejorative question.
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: Let me try and answer it. OK.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: ... you want stories...
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: OK, maybe I should have said is there a serious question there, and I guess obviously there isn't.
Here's the basic issue, Ann. The legal question here, which you are not addressing, is that for many months nobody could find the whereabouts of these people that were dropped into black holes, none of whom have been charged with terrorism. That meant while they had technically the right to representation, effectively they were denied the right to representation, because their attorneys, their families, interest groups that wanted to represent them couldn't get access to them. So they were effectively denied the right to counsel, in my judgment.
Now, secondly, the point that neither you nor Joe -- and I want to add I respect Joe immensely as an attorney -- neither of you addressed is what does the government lose here? As Paul pointed out, if any of these people are in any way connected to terrorist organizations, the terrorist, guess what, Ann, they have already figured it out. After not being able to have any contact for almost about a year at this point, don't you think they could figure out that basic amount of information? So what is it that the government is losing here?
DIGENOVA: Well, I'll tell you. I'll answer that question. You know, there's something very interesting going on here. We're at war. On September the 11th, 2001, a group of Islamic radicals declared war on the United States. They killed almost 3,000 people in New York. There were people killed in a plane crash in Pennsylvania. My dear friend, Barbara Olson, was killed in the Pentagon crash.
What's going on here is I'm amazed is that this federal judge and Julian think that they know enough to second-guess the decisions of the secretary of defense and the attorney general, who have access to intelligence information about what's going on with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The problem here is that Julian is making the same assumption that regrettably Judge Kessler did.
She pooh-poohed the notion that the government's affidavits claimed that there were legitimate reasons for keeping these names secret.
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: You're not getting to the point though. Explain to us what that is the...
DIGENOVA: Julian, Paul has a question. Please, Paul, I want your question.
BEGALA: I think the burden of proof, as attorneys call it, ought to be on the part of the government arguing for secrecy. Let me just show you...
DIGENOVA: Couldn't agree more. Couldn't agree with you more.
BEGALA: Let me show you some cases of heinous terrorists prosecuted in free public trials, all convicted. This is Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Rahman is a fun guy; Ramzi Yousef, another terrorist; Eyad Ismoil, another terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We all remember Timothy McVeigh, a right-wing terrorist who blew up the Oklahoma City federal building. Here's Mir Aimal Kasi, who shot innocent people in front of the CIA headquarters; and John Walker Lindh, most recently. All tried in open, public, free courts.
Can you name me a case when public trial harmed our national security?
DIGENOVA: Actually, Paul, I don't have to do that. And there's no reason...
BEGALA: You should before you get the secrecy. The government should make a case.
DIGENOVA: No, no. The government has the right to produce evidence, which it did in this case, for the judge. The judge chose to ignore that evidence and substitute her judgment for that of the executive branch.
BEGALA: But you can't name me a case in which our national security was harmed.
DIGENOVA: Plenty of cases have not been brought for national security reasons. Paul, you knew that during the Clinton administration. They many, many times don't bring cases.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: That is all the time. Julian Epstein, thank you for joining us from New York. Joe DiGenova, always, thank you for coming here to Washington, D.C.
DIGENOVA: Thank you.
BEGALA: Coming up, it's going to be your turn to weigh in, and one of our viewers has a comment about naming those detainees names. Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: If you'd like to "Fireback" at CROSSFIRE, e-mail us at crossfire@cnn.com. Make sure to include your name and hometown.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BEGALA: Welcome back. We call this segment on CROSSFIRE "Fireback." By God, you do. You're locked and loaded. Let's look at the e-mail. Gary Carrier from Bristol, Tennessee writes: "Wouldn't American people pay less taxes if the corporations didn't avoid theirs?" Gary, yes.
COULTER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Democrats. It appears that Gore is overlooking one major fact, all this cooking the books. Accounting happened under his watch. I think Gore should just go home and hide under a rock somewhere until this thing blows over. No, we want him running for office every four years.
BEGALA: He got more votes than Bush, 543,000 to be exact, not that -- who's counting?
COULTER: Yes, that's good in sports.
BEGALA: Certainly not Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is not counting at all.
S. DeSantis in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey writes: "The Bush administration claims that releasing detainees' names will let the terrorists know who we have in custody and threaten our national security. Wouldn't stand a reason that the terrorists could check their little old territory list and see who is missing?" A very good point. We just raised it with Joe DiGenova.
COULTER: How about a new game show called "Battle Begala." Contestants would pick any obscure bad thing that happened anywhere in the world and Paul would have 10 seconds to explain why it is President Bush's fault.
BEGALA: That would be great. No, there's a lot I like about Bush, like he's a fisherman and he's going on vacation. I'm pro- vacation, pro-fishing. God bless our president. Have a good vacation, Mr. President. Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Duran (ph), Oroville, California. Now that America is thoroughly convinced Al Gore will say absolutely anything to become president, what are going to we expect next out of his mouth besides mudslinging double-speak?
BEGALA: That's a lovely question, isn't it. You related to the vice president, I gather? No, he has kept a consistent message. He actually said if we elected Bush, he would squander the surplus on a tax cut for the rich. He was right. He said Bush would raid the Social Security trust fund. He was right. He said Bush would not run a competent administration on the economy or foreign policy. He was right.
COULTER: Wait, so, in other words, more mudslinging and lies.
BEGALA: That's not mudslinging. Mudslinging is attacking a guy for having a girlfriend. I think that was done by the right. Issue debate is saying Bush squandered the surplus. That's the difference.
COULTER: You guys don't give up on him.
BEGALA: Never. Never. Yes, ma'am. Tell us your name and your hometown.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jessica Austin (ph) from Los Angeles. Didn't Stalin and Hitler throw people in jail without releasing their names? Sounds a little like our democracy, doesn't it?
COULTER: Wow. Are you aware of 9/11? I really -- I can't imagine this. No, they were thrown in jail, for example, for being Jews or for being gay. We're detaining people who have overstayed their visas after other people who had overstayed their visas or were here on visas from those countries slaughtered thousands of our fellow countrymen.
BEGALA: I am concerned about the civil liberties problem here. But I do have to say...
COULTER: Wow.
BEGALA: ... in the sweep of our history, what's going on now is nothing compared to interning the Japanese, which we did during the second World War, other bad moments. Still, I think we can do better.
COULTER: There is nothing compared to any war we fought, neither the Japanese internment nor Lincoln suspending habeas corpus. It is stunning how all they have to complain about are things like not having...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Like American citizens being grabbed out of an airport and thrown in a Naval brig without a charge or a lawyer or a hearing or a judge.
COULTER: Yes, that's right after fighting with al Qaeda.
BEGALA: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'm Christian Taylor (ph) from Washington, D.C. Mr. Begala, when will the powerful former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin be called to testify in the Senate about asking the Bush treasury department to manipulate Enron's credit rating? And when he made that call, was Mr. Rubin acting on behalf of the people or on behalf of the powerful Citigroup that he works for?
BEGALA: Well, of course, the Republicans have the power to subpoena him and the House of Representatives. They have declined to do so. I wish they would, because he'd teach them something about running the economy. These guys have run the economy into the ground. Bob Rubin did a hell of a job. I'm proud to call him my friend. They can call him any time. He can teach them a thing or two about this economy.
COULTER: Party of the people.
BEGALA: From the left, I am Paul Begala. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
COULTER: From the right, I'm Ann Coulter. Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE. "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT" begins immediately after a CNN news alert.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
