|
  |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actor makes the case for the virtual march on Washington
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anti-war protesters are delivering their message to political leaders today in the form of e-mails, phone calls and faxes. Is this virtual march an effective way to get the message across or just a nuisance? Why are so many celebrities signing on to the cause? Actor Mike Farrell from Win Without War joined hosts Robert Novak and Paul Begala Wednesday to make his case. Farrell is perhaps best known for his role as BJ Hunnicut on the TV series "M*A*S*H." NOVAK: Mr. Farrell, you listened to the president's speech. He didn't talk about weapons of mass destruction very much. He didn't talk about oil, certainly. Didn't talk about force. He did talk about a free and democratic Iraq. Isn't that pretty hard for a liberal to oppose? FARRELL: Well, of course. I would love it if the president's policies were consistent with his statements today. It was a nice speech. He did, however, premise the entire idea on destroying Saddam Hussein and eliminating his regime. So it is a pretty picture. We would all like to see a free and democratic Iraq. Some of us would like to see it achieved peacefully rather than going to war and wasting the lives of some of our service people and eliminating the lives of countless numbers of Iraqi civilians. NOVAK: You really puzzle me, Mr. Farrell. You say you thought it was a pretty speech. You surely don't think that you can have a free and democratic Iraq with Saddam Hussein as the dictator, do you? FARRELL: I think that Saddam Hussein is capable of being disarmed by the world when the world intends to disarm him. And it could be done through the use of the continued use of ... NOVAK: That isn't what I asked you. I said, Could they have a democratic Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power, yes or no? FARRELL: Well, I don't think I have to answer a yes or no question. I can answer my question my way, may I not? I think that what we can achieve in this world through the use of the inspections process and through the use of -- if force is necessary -- targeted, nuanced appropriate responses to any challenge that Saddam Hussein throws at us. And if we do that, and if we humiliate this man after disarming him, I think we can see a free Iraq achieved democratically. And I think we can do it without killing innocent civilians. BEGALA: Thank you for that answer. The First Amendment still applies here on "Crossfire." You're allowed to answer the question any way you want. NOVAK: He didn't answer my question. BEGALA: Congressman [Dana] Rohrabacher, a California Republican, was on just before you, and he said that it was good that the president laid out these very high aspirations even if we don't need all of them. I have to say, you know, I've seen a lot of politicians make a lot of promises, and I've heard of a pie in the sky, but this speech was a whole floating bakery. He promised a Palestinian state. He promised security to Israel. He promised freedom and democracy. Is that useful for us to be making promises [like] that? Frankly, you know, I think he broke at home and is probably breaking abroad? Is that a smart strategy for him? FARRELL: Well, clearly, what he's trying to do for now is to carve out a space for himself within the realm of dignity and honor, because he has so outdistanced the facts by his charges against both Saddam Hussein and his assertions that he thought supported his war strategies, all of which have been decimated by examination. So now he's trying to appear to be the statesman. You know, all of us want the president of the United States to be a man of honor and a man of vision and a man who has hopes for the spread of democracy and freedom. I would just like to see his policies consistent with these stated visions. BEGALA: But doesn't the right have a point when they talk about Iraqi human rights violations and how liberals should speak out against that and corporate executives like Dick Cheney who were helping to enrich Saddam Hussein by selling him oil field equipment? Shouldn't we be talking about those issues as well? FARRELL: Sure, of course. Of course we should. And, in my own view, Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. And I believe as a war criminal he ought to be tried in an international tribunal established for such a procedure. Unfortunately, the United States has opposed the establishment of an international criminal court, so we'd have to establish a war crimes tribunal for Iraq. And I think that sort of thing could be done and should be done.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AIRS: Weekdays 4:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. PT
