Skip to main content /TRANSCRIPTS



Should NASA Allow Space Tourism?; How Well Did Cardinals Handle Sex Scandal?

Aired April 25, 2002 - 19:00   ET


ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE, on the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.

In the CROSSFIRE tonight, would you like to buy a ticket to ride a spaceship? Should NASA borrow this Russian idea to raise money for its own cash-strapped program?

The cardinals are arriving back home. How will America's Catholics greet their efforts at resolving the church's sex scandal?

First, he leaned to the right. Now he is tilted to the left. Critics say he's just plain wrong. David Brock enters the CROSSFIRE.

From the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Good evening and welcome to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.

Tonight, sex scandal in the Catholic church. The Vatican finally weighs in. Was it a cop-out or a mea culpa?

Then, David Brock, a right-wing writer turns left. He says he lied then. Is he still lying? We'll ask him. Boy, will we.

But first, leaving town for the summer? How about space? The world's second space tourist blasted off today aboard a Russian rocket, if you can imagine. Twenty-eight-year-old Mark Shuttleworth, a South African, is headed for a brief stay on the international space station. It's an expensive vacation. Shuttleworth, like businessman Dennis Tito before him, shelled out $20 million for the trip. Both men have said it's well worth the price, but it is safe for the rest of the crew? And should the rich but inexperienced be allowed to buy their way onto scientific expeditions?

An ethereal topic, earthly questions they form our debate tonight. Please welcome aspiring space tourist and former NASA official Lori Garver and University of Maryland professor Robert Park.


JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: How you doing? Lori, I want to get this straight. You're going to pay $20 million to get on a Russian- built spacecraft and go up to space?

LORI GARVER, FORMER NASA OFFICIAL: To have the dream of a lifetime.

CARVILLE: How about -- you couldn't pay me $20 million to get on something Russian-built and go into space. I bet you couldn't pay me $20 million to get on Russian-built elevator.

GARVER: That is great. I don't need any more competition. That is fabulous that you don't want to go too. You're a little big for the spacecraft also.

CARVILLE: Well, why shouldn't she? What's the problem with her going up there?

ROBERT PARK, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Well, this is high-tech bungee jumping. And we paid a lot of money for our space station, and this guy is going to take up space on it. I mean, we were going to do things up there, or at least that's what they said. I think this kind of reveals what the problem was all the time. Nobody has figured out what the space station is for.

CARLSON: Well, but Mr. Park, to be fair, there have been dogs and monkeys spent into space. Now, Lori Garver wants to go up. So does Lance Bass, a guy who sings for a band called 'NSYNC, a boy-band. Now, a guy from a boy band can do probably better than a dog, at least as good as the monkey. I mean, how truly -- I mean, there's a low threshold here, right?

PARK: The threshold is low, but what are we doing with this thing? I mean, what is the space station for?

GARVER: Well, the bottom line is is the space station is really our foothold to the cosmos. We are going into space. We are explorers just like we were in the west.

CARVILLE: We ain't going anywhere. You may be going, but we is staying right here on old terra firma, I'll guarantee you that right now!

PARK: What's with exploration stuff? They're in low-earth orbit. They're about as far away as New York City.

GARVER: And we can't go further until we learn what happens to us in space.

CARVILLE: Well, let me ask you a question. Suppose you get caught up there. How much money should we spend going to rescue you? I mean, suppose we have got to spend $25 million. Would you say just leave you up there and rotate around?

GARVER: One great thing about the space tourist is that we do pay our own way.

CARVILLE: I understand.

GARVER: And the government otherwise would have to spend this money.

CARVILLE: If I go out in Annapolis and I get caught in a storm, the Coast Guard will come get me. If you get caught up there, who is going to go get you and how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?

CARLSON: Well, the space guard, obviously.

GARVER: What we launch in is a Soyuz rocket, which is the escape vehicle. And so, if our escape vehicle can't come back, frankly, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to get us. So I don't think that's a concern. We go up in the vehicle that the astronauts will come down in on the space station if there is a problem. Space shuttles take months to prepare for flights. So that is not going to be an issue.

CARLSON: Mr. Park, you say what is the point of all of this? And part of the point has got to be, apart from fulfilling a lifelong dream, part of the point has got to be raising money and awareness of the space program. I want to read you a quote from Buzz Aldrin, former American astronaut, of course.

PARK: I'm sure he's in favor of this.

CARLSON: He's strongly -- one line in the middle of a long essay on it. But space tourism, quote, "is the only vehicle that will generate the high-volume traffic that will ultimately reduce the cost of space access." Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

PARK: I wonder just how big this market is. I mean, how many people are willing to fork out $20 million for a high-tech bungee jump?

CARLSON: Well, you have got Lance Bass. You've got Lori Garver. There's two.

GARVER: Well, clearly, the price has to be reduced through development of new reusable launch vehicles and the market will, we hope, drive investment in those vehicles so that that can happen and more people can have this experience.

PARK: Well, now, Lori, tell me, in the U.S. budget, what is the budget for the shuttle?

GARVER: $4 billion.

PARK: OK. And how many shuttle missions do we get a year?

GARVER: I think there were six this year.

PARK: You want to divide that into $4 billion and tell me what that number is? I mean, that's what a launch costs. These aren't cheap. This guy isn't paying his way. He isn't paying anything like his way.

GARVER: Oh, he absolutely is. The Soyuz craft costs $3 to $4 million and he's paying $20 million. He's not only paying his way, but if the U.S. had to pay this to the Russians, it would be your tax dollars going.

CARVILLE: I think a commercial airliner costs like $30 million. And you're saying the Soyuz craft costs $3 million? So, wait, if I go from Washington to New York, I'm on a $30 million airplane. And you're going up in space on the $3 million craft?


(UNINTELLIGIBLE) has been saying for 5,000 years, go figure.

GARVER: And somebody went today safely.

CARLSON: Now, Mr. Parks, what -- I mean, you obviously consider this confusing and vulgar. But consider the options here. I mean, if there is a $4.5 billion cost to overrun at NASA. So obviously we are going to need to think of new ways to generate revenue. Do you think it's out the realm of possibility that at some point, NASA is going to say, why not put McDonald's ads, say, on the space shuttle or find commercial ways to raise money.

PARK: Well, it's come very close to that.

CARLSON: Well, that's right. So why is this worse?

PARK: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the side of the launch vehicle at one time.

GARVER: It was Russian.

CARVILLE: But say if we need money for drugs. Should rich people be allowed to pay their way into trials?


CARVILLE: If we need money for pharmaceutical research -- so a guy is sick. He says, I'll tell you what, I'll give you $20 million, but I want first crack at this drug when it goes to trial. They have drug trials.

Should you be able to buy your way into that, because clearly we're going to need money for prescription health care benefit for our seniors. Should you be able to say, elk season starts on November the 15th. If you're rich enough, should you be able to pay and start hunting on November the 12th?

CARLSON: Lori, I'm not even sure you can make heads or tails of that because I know I can't. But, give it your best shot.

CARVILLE: But, of course you can.

GARVER: The first people who got to cross the Atlantic were the richest people in their -- when we had cruise ships. There are now seven new cruise ships being developed for rich people who want to go on vacation. This will help the economy. There's absolutely... CARVILLE: But the government is not paying for these cruise ships. The government doesn't -- you understand, yes, the government is not paying. But what he's talking about is we the taxpayers are paying for this space ship. And we're talking about whether or not you should sell space on something that we have funded, that belongs to the public domain.

The public sets if you can't understand this, that the legislature sets when the hunting season is. You can make a lot of money giving people a two-day jump on the hunting season if they had that. The point is, when it's in the public domain, shouldn't qualification as opposed to money determine who gets to go?

GARVER: Well, on a government program like the space shuttle, absolutely. They're not even really contemplating sending tourists on that. This is a Russian vehicle which actually they are commercializing. To the extent there are new vehicles are developed that are commercial, absolutely. The people who can buy the seats are going to get to go. That's the American way.

CARLSON: But, in fact, it hasn't always been, James, as you know, the most qualified. Dr. Parks, I mean, there was of course a teacher famously on the Challenger when it exploded. There is going to be another teacher going up. I mean, I think, frankly, I would come down on the side of the boy band singer before a teacher. I mean, it's not clear that one is more qualified to go into space than the other. It's not meritocracy.


CARVILLE: Go ahead.

PARK: I have to question why we're sending anyone at this point, in -- I mean, we're sending them into low-earth orbit, to go on a little circle around the earth, as I say, about as far away as New York is from Washington. And what are they learning in low-earth orbit?

GARVER: Well, they're learning all about how to live and work in space. That is going to allow us to go further. We as a...

CARVILLE: Why not send robots up there?

PARK: I'll tell you, we're not going further. And we're not going further because -- by the time we could get to where we could send a human being to Mars, our robots will have done the job. There won't be anything left to learn.

CARLSON: What robots?

GARVER: Would we have sent -- would Jefferson have sent robots to explore the west. We need to go as a people. We're part of exploring...


CARVILLE: Well, he couldn't send a robot.

CARLSON: No, but if Lewis and Clark were robotic, it would have been an entirely different trip. You must admit.

CARVILLE: The point is that if you don't money -- who can work longer and harder, a robot or a human being?

PARK: Robots don't stop for lunch. They don't complain about the cold at night.

CARLSON: And they're not as charming, though. Unfortunately, we are going have to leave it there. And you two are both very charming. Lori Garver, thank you very much. Robert Park, thank you for joining us.

Coming up next on CROSSFIRE, the Vatican addresses the growing scandal in the Catholic church. Is sexual abuse ever forgivable?

And our "Quote of the Day." Here's hint No. 1: An American ally offers to behave like Osama bin Laden. We'll be right back.


BILL DONOHUE, PRESIDENT, THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE: ... the 12 cardinals, eight of them are bishops running a diocese. So we have got eight. The other 422 weren't there.

They have no juridical decision-making ability or authority to impose anything on the other 430. This meeting in Dallas on June 13, 14, and 15 was scheduled prior to the holy father coming over there. So what are they going to do? As Bishop Gregory said, this is a skeletal outline.

Now look, I have been highly critical of the church that I love for a long time. But I know that this bureaucratic image that they're giving right now is going to change when they get to Dallas because then you're going to get the fine-tuning. You will see some things with teeth. You will hear about zero tolerance when it comes to minors because that is a crime. You're going to have lay consultive bodies that are going to review all this. So I think you are going to see a lot of changes.

CARVILLE: So you can assure -- you're as knowledgeable as lay Catholics (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And you can assure us and you can assure the people out there that come Dallas, when the U.S. Conference of Bishops meet in Dallas and that the bishops act (UNINTELLIGIBLE), there's going to be a policy in place in every diocese that you're a priest, you touch a kid in an inappropriate way, you're out?

DONOHUE: That's right. There's going to be a national policy that all can agree to on the easiest cases. What about the cases where a priest at a Christmas party, straight or gay, has a bit too much to drink and he hits on somebody in the parish? One time...

(CROSSTALK) No, no, what I'm saying because people are asking this question. They want to know. And I want the same policy for Catholics as for Protestants and Jews and Muslims and...


CARVILLE: Really, in all honestly, go ahead and I'll come back here.

CARLSON: Let me back up here. Before we even get to Dallas, I'm fascinated by this idea that at some point we're going the have a policy with teeth. Look, all these cardinals go to Rome, it's televised, huge amount of coverage. And they come up with lines like, this is a quote, "a priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial predatory sexual abuse of minors is going to be tossed out of the church."

Now, there's so many weasel words in it. There's a very simple question, Bill Donohue. Are we going to put up with any kind of sexual abuse or are we not, because they couldn't come to a conclusion on the point?

DONOHUE: When it comes to minors, the answer is clearly no. And they asked McCarrick and Gregory about this...

CARLSON: It's not clearly no.

DONOHUE: They said they would have zero tolerance. Remember, you have 190 diocese in this country, and many of them already have this. They've had it for years out of 190.

CARVILLE: But the people -- hold on just a second. What people are -- people are not outraged about a priest getting too drunk and fondling a 30-year-old -- patting a 30-year-old on the woman on the butt.

What they're really offended by is the priest with a 14-year-old kid. And we can deal with the tougher cases later. But, I mean, you know, if we're looking at this wrong thing, OK. What grade would you give the event in Rome? Now the cardinals are coming back. If you had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they'd been courageous enough...

DONOHUE: I would give it a "C" in terms of content, a "D" in terms of presentation. But you know what matters most? Is the fact that they got called over there. That's what made me happy because when the pope said get over here, fellas, I knew that when they got to Dallas in June, you're going to come up with something. He sent them an unmistakable...

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what...


CARLSON: It matters most that they flew to Rome?

(CROSSTALK) CARVILLE: Let the man say something. He's come here defending his story.

DONOHUE: It's symbolic of what is happening. And remember, these eight bishops, of the 12 cardinals that were there, they don't have the authority to shove it down the throat of the other 422. This is almost as big as the House of Representatives. They have the authority...

CARLSON: No, to come out a very clear, unequivocal, moral statement. And they didn't.

DONOHUE: Well, they did on the moral question.

CARLSON: No, they didn't.

DONOHUE: On the moral question, they did.

CARLSON: They didn't even...

CARVILLE: Right. I'm on your side here, but right now, we didn't need a "C." We needed an "A." The church, we're kind of behind.

DONOHUE: A lot of Catholics are in a holding pattern right now. They look at this and they're a little bit skeptical. What are they going to come up with at the end of the day? And I'll tell you, they come out of this in June, they better have something down there concrete. I'm giving them the benefit of doubt right now because I know if they came out with something very tough right now and they shoved it down the throats of the others, they're not...


CARVILLE: Let's talk about that.

DONOHUE: Those monsters, that two percent of the clergy are going to get out. No question.

CARLSON: You still haven't answered the question, Mr. Donohue. Who are they going to offend? Who's going to be alienated by coming up with an unequivocal statement against molesting children? Why couldn't they do that? You haven't answered that question.

DONOHUE: I think that the idea of putting the serial there was an absolute outrage.

CARLSON: A total outrage.

DONOHUE: Should have just said anybody at one time in regards on something like that.

CARVILLE: Would you agree that Cardinal Law and Cardinal Egan were gutless not to be at the press conference when this was asked, to leave Bishop Gregory there and I think Cardinal McCarrick? I mean, shouldn't they have been there? DONOHUE: I think had they come there, I think what would have happened is that all the questions would have been directed at them.

CARVILLE: I agree. But they should have been directed at them.

DONOHUE: Listen, I didn't like the reasoning. They said they had schedule conflicts. There was a good pasta joint down the block I suppose somebody found. But, you know, the fact of the matter is that I do think that -- see, some people have the image that the cardinals are here like the pope and they tell the other bishops what to do. It's actually much more of a consultive process. And at the end of the day, I think they're coming back and they're sending -- the vector of change is moving in the right direction.

CARLSON: OK, well, and so is our show. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back on this topic. Just ahead on CROSSFIRE, more on the outcome of the church sex scandal summit with our guest Bill Donahue. We'll be right back.


CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking about the outcome of the Vatican sex scandal summit. Our guest, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

CARLSON: Mr. Donohue, I feel for you and for your church, which is obviously being torn up by this. But at some point, sex abuse is not a church matter. It's a legal matter. And I was really struck reading a statement to note that there was no reference to compulsory turning over these cases to the civil authorities. Shouldn't the church when it suspects that a priest has been molesting a minor, immediately call the police?

DONOHUE: I couldn't agree more. And the fact that the pope called it a crime, notice the language began to toughen up after that. Why they were reticent to use the tough language before that, I don't know. They're afraid of offending people, which is part of the problem with some of the bishops. They're in this non-judgmentalism that a lot of the people in our culture have been with. So, yes, I agree you on that point. No question.

CARVILLE: About -- OK. I want to make a point here. Touching children is wrong. The culture didn't make these priests touch these children. The press didn't make them touch the children. The people that dislike the Catholic church didn't make them touch the children. They made that choice.

DONOHUE: There's no question they made that choice. But let's remember, take a look at these cases. Most of the damage was done in the 1970's and the early 1980's. The cultural and sexual revolution that this country went through in the '60s, '70s, and early '80s had negative consequences all over. I'm not excusing it. I'm giving you...

CARVILLE: I know. But I lived through the cultural revolution. And I didn't fondle no Boy Scout. DONOHUE: That's right. That's right. And of the 46,000 priests in the United States, 98 percent of them were never involved in this either. And that figure stacks up with the same -- with the clergy in other religions. It's eight percent in the American general population.

CARVILLE: Right. I know. But the Roman Catholic church is supposed to be better than the general population. And the Roman Catholic church is not supposed to aid and abet.

DONOHUE: That's why I'm so angry.

CARVILLE: You should be angry. My cousin, Paul John Carville, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is probably 60 years old now, has been nothing but a brilliant, outstanding holy priest. There are literally tens of thousands of people like him. What do you say to these people, to all of these priests who are out here suffering because of this? Why did Cardinal Law and Cardinal Egan do this to these guys?

DONOHUE: They're angry. They are dismayed. They are hurt. Some of them are questioning why did I have this vocation in the first place. The damage that the minority have done is absolutely catastrophic. Everyone is furious about this.

As a matter of fact, if there is a Catholic who is not angry, I'd begin to wonder how much does he love his own religion. But they also say this. Let's give them an opportunity to make some changes and at the same time guard against -- see, I'm not going define the indefensible. I have made that very clear.

On the other hand, just like you, you can relate to this. You worked in the administration which gave us peace and prosperity. There were some scandals, and you were right to point out that don't you get involved with these Clinton bashers who want to say everything is wrong.


Let me finish here. I'm not going to put up the Catholic bashers either because most of the priests are good.


CARLSON: Really quick, 30 seconds. Assure the rest us there's no grandfather clause here. That was an implication of the statement that priests who have done it before, but have been fine for a while are going to be left alone. Tell us that's not true. Root them out and get rid of them.

DONOHUE: Well, again, right now, it's crazy quilt because you have a pluralistic system. You've got all these dioceses. Some of them don't have the problem and some of them do. After Dallas, you're going to see one uniform standard. And if one bishop doesn't follow it, then he's going to fall.

CARLSON: So the priests who have done it and been caught, they're out?

DONOHUE: I would hope so. If I had my way, I'd put them out a long time ago.

CARLSON: You're making us feel better.

CARVILLE: Thank you, and I hope and pray you're right about Dallas, Bill. Thank you for coming on. You're a good man and a brave man and a good Catholic.

CARLSON: Coming up next, a CNN "News Alert."

And then, David Brock, author of the book, "Blinded By The Right" joins us in the CROSSFIRE.

Also, our "Quote of the Day." Here's yet another hint: A warning from one friend to another. Watch your step or we're headed to Baghdad. Who is it? We'll tell you. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C.

Now it's time for the CROSSFIRE quote of the day. President Bush held talks today with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. But all accounts, the Crown Prince intended to take the president to the woodshed over Mr. Bush's strong support of Israel. Persons close to the Crown Prince asserted that if Mr. Bush doesn't change his policies, the Saudis will do whatever is necessary to survive. And that's our quote of the day. "If that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it. To the left of Qadhafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it."

President Bush had this to say about today's meeting.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I told the Crown Prince how much I appreciate his vision for a peaceful and integrated Middle East, and how I appreciated his leadership in helping rally the Arab world toward that vision. I also appreciated the Crown Prince's assurance that Saudi Arabia condemns terror.


CARLSON: Go Saudis. If we need to behave like bin Laden, we will, like Qadhafi, we will. If we need to go and brace and Saddam. Those are our allies, the Saudis.

CARVILLE: I would say that the president has had better moments than that talk. I mean I did not find -- you wouldn't expect me to, but I didn't find that reassuring.

CARLSON: But he did that they established the beginnings of a warm personal relationship. CARVILLE: Personal, yes. And they're both problems on that. But I'm asking you, what do you grow in Saudi Arabia?

CARLSON: Well, I don't know. There's no wheat belt in Saudi Arabia. But I have to say -- I mean, look, the president whenever, you know, we deal -- the United States deals with all sorts of regimes by necessity that have terrible human rights records, that are questionable. We have to.

CARVILLE: Let me ask you a question. What grade would you give the president on his...

CARLSON: I'm not going to answer that question.

CARVILLE: Why not? Mr. Donohue had the guts to come out here and answer.

CARLSON: Look, you know, I think that this administration's Middle East policy has been to the public, and I include myself in that group, confusing.

CARVILLE: Confusing. Okay.

CARLSON: But I have no doubt that that's because it hasn't been explained well enough.

CARVILLE: We will live leave it at confusing. And I won't take it any further than that.

CARLSON: OK, let's not.

Coming up next, we talk to David Brock, the man who made a name for himself and a pile of dough writing for the right. Now he said he doesn't believe a word of what he wrote. Also, a bar stunt sparks controversy in Iowa City and has city officials burning mad. That story and our Thursday night police blotter. Be right back.


CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's said the pen is the mightier than the sword. Then our next guest wields a mighty deadly weapon. Through is writings, he introduced us to Paula Jones and took on Anita Hill. Now he says he was blinded by the right.

Please welcome David Brock, author of the New York Times best- selling book, "Blinded by the Right, the Conscience of an Ex- conservative."

How you doing?

CARLSON: David, how are you doing? Thanks for joining us.


CARLSON: I read your book, every page. I could give you my take on it. But let me quote Tim Noah from "Slate" magazine. Tim is hardly a member of the right-wing conspiracy. He say, I'm quoting now, "This book is terrible, whiny, histrionic, and so factually unreliable that I gave practically gave myself a migraine trying to figure out which parts of Brock's lurid story were true and which parts were false."

And he goes on to list a number of lies that you told in the book. One sort of amazing busted moment where you said you knew nothing about Laura Ingram's past at Dartmouth. And he unearths an interview where you talk about it with "Vanity Fair." How much of the book is made up?

BROCK: None of the book is made up. And I read the Tim Noah piece. He's right that I had one date of an article off by a few months. And that's all he's right about. And as you know, having read I think not only the book, but the reviews of the book, that is an exception. Generally, reviewers have found it plausible. The right has pretended that what I say about them is not true. They know it's true. And you know, why don't you give me your take? You're in the book.

CARLSON: Well, actually, I will, David. Because it's funny you said that.

BROCK: You know a lot of the people in the book.

CARLSON: I know virtually everyone.

BROCK: You really think that doesn't ring true?

CARLSON: One part that I know that you made up, that is a lie, is the part about me. When you -- you wrote this sort of ludicrous piece in "Esquire," where you're tied to a stake and you know, my years on the right or whatever. And you and I had an exchange about it in "The Atlantic." And you claim that I called you up and said, "Gee, you know, David, I agree with every word in your 'Esquire' piece and I'm just attacking it to make a couple hundred dollars." That's an outright lie, as you know.

BROCK: You told me that.

CARLSON: That's a total lie, David. I never said that. I thought your piece was ludicrous then. I think it's ludicrous now. I never said that. And you made it up.

BROCK: That is what you said to me.

CARLSON: Ought you not be embarrassed, making this up and facing me on the set? Looking me in the eye and saying you really said that?

BROCK: I will look you right in the eye. That is exactly what you told me. Some friends have told me that it sounds just like you.

CARVILLE: Let me show you something that I know that...

CARLSON: You got a lot of guts, David. CARVILLE: ...because we're going to post it on the much ballyhooed grand web site And this is what they had to say. "Conservative media," this is what everybody in Washington reads. You need to check it out. "Conservative media outlets...have tried to ignore Brock's truthful revelations, putting him on what looks like a blacklist, refusing to review his book, refusing to have him appear on their broadcasts, hoping that he and his book will just GO AWAY." Does that ring true to you, David?

BROCK: Yes, absolutely. As I was saying to Tucker, the conservative magazines have not reviewed the book. Conservative dominated talk shows that love my previous work won't talk about it. And I think the conservatives are in denial.

CARVILLE: How many talk shows have you been on let's just say the Fox network?

BROCK: I have not been on Fox prime time at all.

CARVILLE: But no one invited you on?


CARVILLE: Wait, I thought this is you decide, huh?

BROCK: It's not.


BROCK: It's they decide.

CARVILLE: They decide?

BROCK: And they decide that the public should know what the conservatives did in the '90s.

CARVILLE: So you're saying what the conservative movement, if you agree with them, then you can come on their shows? Then they'll promote your book? But you got another thing -- well that's not -- that's like a boycott.

BROCK: I actually found the same thing with the Hillary Clinton book when I didn't say that she was evil, the same thing. They promote what they want. They promote what they want you to hear. And otherwise, they don't.

CARLSON: I'm sorry to interrupt. I thought you made like about a million dollars off the Hillary Clinton book. Didn't you? In that neighborhood. I mean, the idea that you're put upon...

BROCK: Well, what I'm talking about is what the conservatives did, and what their view is. And the fact that they don't want people to know that, A, they put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, knowing about his past and covering that up. They spent more than $2 million to smear the Clintons as part of the Arkansas project, which Tucker, you wrote about in "New York" magazine. You know that happened. You know it was a smear campaign.

CARLSON: I'm not exactly sure. But let me just mention...

BROCK: You're not exactly sure. You wrote about it. I read what you wrote. You don't even remember what you wrote?

CARLSON: David, one of the -- I guess one of the more odious, and it was hard to pick, but one of the more odious things in your book was the name calling and the outing people. Now you're gay publicly. But some people don't choose to disclose that. And yet, there are a number of people in this book who you say were in a couple of ways and particularly smarmy manner, imply that they're gay.

BROCK: Right.

CARLSON: The worst kind of character assassination, the character assassination...

BROCK: It's not character assassination.

CARLSON: I'm not going to repeat it, because I think it's wrong.

BROCK: Look, it's hard to write a book about hypocrites without telling the truth about them. And what's amazing about this...

CARLSON: But isn't that what you decry?

BROCK: ...conservative movement.

CARLSON: Their behavior?

BROCK: I don't decry their homosexuality. That's fine.

CARLSON: You decry...

BROCK: I decry their outing other people's private lives.

CARLSON: And yet you out them?

BROCK: Which is what I did. And I deserved to be outed at the time as well.

CARLSON: But then why are you doing it to people in your book?

BROCK: It's hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is endemic in the movement to one -- the biggest public moralizers during the Clinton period were doing exactly what they claimed falsely the Clintons were doing. In many cases, they were doing a lot worse. And you know them, because they're all of your friends.

CARVILLE: But let me ask you about -- this is something that -- a mockery here all the time is you have to be truthful under oath.


CARVILLE: Ted Olson, under oath, replying to Senator Leahy, said that it has been alleged that I was somehow involved in the so-called project, the Arkansas project, referring to. "I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management. As I understand it what that was, was a contribution by the foundation to conduct journalism and investigative journalism." Did Mr. Olson tell the truth under oath?

BROCK: He did not. He was up to his ears in the Arkansas...

CARVILLE: So wait, he is the current -- so listen, he lied under oath?

BROCK: He did.

CARVILLE: Clarence Thomas, you wrote a book about Anita Hill. Did Clarence Thomas tell the truth under oath?

BROCK: No. When I found out two years later that he had done many of the things that Anita alleged...

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) children. We have a man on the Supreme Court that lied under oath?

BROCK: That's right.

CARVILLE: We have a man...


CARVILLE: What are little cowgirls and cowboys going to do about -- what am I going to tell the children, Mr. Brock? I think we got a pack of liars out there, Mr. Brock.

BROCK: That's right. That's right.

CARLSON: You're speaking to a man who admits he lies. What do you -- I mean...

CARVILLE: These people under oath, there's no dispute they lied under oath. Now let me ask you another thing.

CARLSON: There's a huge dispute. The liar's telling the lie.

CARVILLE: Correct me if I'm wrong...

BROCK: There's plenty of documents to back up what I said about...

CARVILLE: Justice Thomas voted to select George Bush as president.

BROCK: That's correct. Right.

CARVILLE: Could there be a payback maybe?

BROCK: Absolutely. They have him over a barrel.

CARLSON: You're so deep in all...

CARVILLE: So you're saying that our -- oh, I see.

BROCK: The same people who put him on the court who led the Clinton campaign, who wrote to Ken Starr, they were the same people who decided the last.

CARVILLE: That Justice Scalia's son got a job with this administration?

BROCK: That's right. Yes.

CARLSON: May I just say, if I can just get away from the conspiracy just for one second?

CARVILLE: I'm just asking facts!

BROCK: It's not a conspiracy.

CARLSON: David, well actually -- it's actually so baroque and lunatic, that I'm not getting into it on television. But let me just ask you this.

CARVILLE: Because they lied under oath.

CARLSON: Hold on, let me just...


BROCK: There are a lot of other people who can back up what I said about Ted Olson. If they had a real investigation, you would've been found out that there were other people from "The Spectator" who would've said the same thing. Because he's a Republican, they make him a lead lawyer in the land.


BROCK: If he was a Democrat, he'd be in jail.

CARLSON: I'm sure that's true. But David, let me ask you this, though. And this is one of the things that kept occurring to me as I was reading the book.

It is a series of attacks on prominent conservative figures. Some of them actually are fair attacks. Some of the people you attack were shady people and I was glad to see you bash them. Some of them very unfair. Most of them, I thought, were unfair. But the bottom line is, you never addressed or came to terms with, or even really talked about the ideas. One moment you're a foaming right winger. The next moment, you're hanging around with Sidney Blumenthal. But you never quite explain -- I mean, did you change your views on trade or affirmative action or what -- you don't seem to ever have been grounded in political ideas at all. It seems like it was always about character assassination and still is?

BROCK: Look, that's what the right was in the '90s. I fell into it for those reasons.

CARLSON: No, but you're still doing it?

BROCK: What was Newt Gingrich about? Not ideas. He was about attacking people, about spending millions of dollars on scandal.

CARLSON: No, but where...

BROCK: That's what the whole book is about.

CARLSON: Has your ideology changed?

BROCK: That's what the whole book is about.

CARVILLE: Let's get some verification. Let's see if Mr. Robert Novak, co-host of CROSSFIRE, had to say about you. Do we have that quote up? Can we put that up there? Listen to this. I'm going to read this to you. "Mr. Brock is, I think, one of the fine investigative reporters in America." Robert Novak, CNN, June 20, 1996. Here you are endorsed by one of the icons of the American right as a fine investigative reporter. And you're sitting here telling us that our current Solicitor General and a member of the Supreme Court lied under oath. I fear for the children.

CARLSON: Now David Brock, I guess one of the worst effects of all is it gets James to ramble on like that. But of the many slurs in this book, you say of David Horowitz, who is a prominent conservative in Los Angeles, actually very pro-gay. As you know, on the record about that.

BROCK: But not privately.

CARLSON: You claim that he, and I think I'm quoting now, "uttered an anti-gay slur to a friend of yours, who is gay." But Horowitz didn't know he was gay. Well, Horowitz reads this and is upset by it, tracks down the person, your friend, who says that's totally made up, fictitious. Brock made that up. Horowitz confronts you with this. And what do you do? You ignore him. You don't even address the charge that you made this up. I hope you'll address it here.

BROCK: It's laughable. He said he's not a neoconservative. He's not an extremist.

CARLSON: Please address the core of my point.

BROCK: Anybody who's ever seen him knows he's an extremist.

CARLSON: David...

BROCK: Well, I'm standing by what I wrote.

CARLSON: The guy...

BROCK: And in fact, since Horowitz wrote that, I've been in touch with other people who know about other homophobic things Horowitz had said.

CARLSON: No, it's not the other guy. It's the specific...


CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Brock, he just quotes one guy about...

BROCK: I didn't misquote.

CARLSON: I'm telling you, James -- I'm telling you that there are a lot of things that you made up. You made that up about me.

BROCK: I did not make that up.

CARLSON: As you know, you made it up. And you have a lot of brass to get up here and look me in the eye and say you didn't make it up.

BROCK: I did not make it up.

CARVILLE: I tell you what, folks, you'll do yourself right, Get out and buy this book and you can see it and judge for yourself because you just heard on the crossfire...

CARLSON: And don't believe a word of it. But David Brock, thank you for coming on.

BROCK: Thanks very much.

CARLSON: Boy, you've got a lot of brass, David Brock.

CARVILLE: And what are going to tell the children?

CARLSON: Coming up on CROSSFIRE, your chance to fire back at us. Plus, the famous and rightly so CROSSFIRE police blotter. Be right back.


CARVILLE: Welcome back. It's time for our Thursday night police blotter. When public figures intersect with law enforcement, CROSSFIRE's there.

Boxer Mike Tyson is fighting another lawsuit. A former Golden Glove boxer is suing Tyson for $66 million. Mitchell Rhodes claims that he suffered serious injuries in a fight with Tyson in a New York club last year. Rhodes said remarks he made aimed at Tyson. According to Rhodes, Tyson hit him, and then tore Rhodes' $5,000 mink coat. Why would anyone say anything to Mike Tyson? I wouldn't talk to him. Mitchell, you're nuts.

CARLSON: And in California, citizens who live near the Corcoran state prison are breathing a little easier tonight. Inmate Charles Manson was denied parole yesterday for the 10th straight time. Manson, who is 67 and lives in solitary confinement, did not attend the hearing and could not be reached for comment. Few observers, however, were surprised by the parole board's decision.

Over the years, Manson has taken a number of steps that some say may have affected his chances for early release. In addition to ordering mass murders, some committed with a fork, Manson has carved a swatztika into his forehead, set his cell on fire, smuggled LSD into the prison, made weapons, and assaulted and threatened to kill guards. According to testimony during a previous hearing, the bulk of his time is spent "making paper scorpions and spiders in his cell." Manson will be eligible for parole up in the year 2007. Best of luck.

CARVILLE: Let's face it, Tucker...

CARLSON: Made a few paper scorpions.

CARVILLE: Yes. The court of appeals in Oregon says a state law against loud sex shows is OK, even though the club's owner thought his free speech rights are being trampled. The owner of the club called "Angel" was convicted of promoting illegal sexual conduct in a live show. Undercover police paid women to perform sex, while officers watched, I'll take that duty. I know if I were a policemen, I'd rather be watching a sex show than chasing a robber. Angel's owner said his arrest and conviction violated his right to free expression. The appeals court disagreed, saying the law can limit paying money to watch folks get wild.

CARLSON: Get wild. And finally tonight, alcohol, it's not just for just cocktails anymore. It can also be used to stage flammable party tricks. In Iowa City, Iowa last week, it was. Bartenders of the ETC Tavern poured an unknown quantity of high proof liquor on the bar top, then ignited it. At least one patron tried to "breathe fire by spitting more liquor into the flames." Then tragedy struck. The burning booze splashed on customers, singing six. One remains hospitalized with third-degree burns on her hands and face. Fire officials, police and the city council are investigating. One of the bartenders later says that he had seen the stunt performed successfully in Acapulco. The explanation, however, merely affirmed the age-old adage, what works in Acapulco does always fly in Iowa.

CARVILLE: When we were in college, we used to burn something, but it wasn't alcohol.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. And I bet it wasn't in Iowa either. So that's the deep truth.

Straight ahead on CROSSFIRE, your chance to fire back at us. We'll be right back.


CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. And it's fireback time on CROSSFIRE. And we're on fire tonight. I mean, we had a fiery segment here with David Brock. What's been filling the newspapers is CROSSFIRE's now become the most talked about show on television. And there's supposedly boycott being led against CROSSFIRE because of the tough questioners on here. One of the people reported behind this boycott is Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. The former old Miss cheerleader apparently doesn't like CROSSFIRE and is urging other Republicans to do this. However, today on "INSIDE POLITICS," it's reported that Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma will be challenging Lott for leadership of the Republican party. I know Senator Nickles. I disagree with him, but he is a perfectly agreeable man. And you, Senator Nickles, are welcome on CROSSFIRE, as are you, Senator Lott or anybody else. But When you come on here, we're going to be guns a smoking away.

And I'm so glad that these are e-mails that we've gotten from all over the country in support of CROSSFIRE. Our first e-mail, we go up to the board here. All right. "Keep up the good work and don't let the hypersensitive right wingers make you change anything. Do not let them make you become politically correct in their image." Michael Gross, Denver, Colorado. Michael, I ain't politically correct in anybody's image, I promise you that. I ain't going to change. Tucker won't change, Bob won't change and Powell won't change.

CARLSON: Don't do changing, James. And the next e-mail, "I hope the GOP doesn't boycott, it would be a shame. Most of my family votes and donates Republican. They may be a little shell-shocked to see real debate." Heather Uhlemann. I'm not sure I understand the gist of that. But the fact is, we haven't had any problems getting Republicans on the show. And that goes to my theory, and I'm pretty sure it's true, which is you made this whole boycott stuff up out of nowhere.

CARVILLE: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You absolutely did. You absolutely did!

CARVILLE: That's what you people believe.

CARLSON: And then blame it on Trent Lott.

CARVILLE: "I understand the GOP elite has sent out the word for top GOP leaders to stay off CROSSFIRE because they can't stand the heat. Waaaa! Da wittle cry babies." Sam Park, Van Nuys, California. I tell you something, Sam, about these people. They can give it, but can't take it. And I found out something about this right-wing crowd. They all got flab jaws. The good ones that come over here...

CARLSON: They all come on here. And I must say, to think that they're going to be ignoring to be...

CARVILLE: Why is Marc Racicot telling -- he's the chairman of the Republican party!

CARLSON: That is absolutely...

CARVILLE: He's a weenie. From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night from CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right, I'm Tucker Carlson. Join us again tomorrow night, Friday night, for yet another edition of CROSSFIRE. See you then.


Handle Sex Scandal?>



Back to the top