CNN Europe CNN Asia
On CNN TV Transcripts Headline News CNN International About CNN.com Preferences
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS
Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Iraq Challenges U.S. to Provide Weapons Proof; Lott's Comments on Thurmond's Birthday Cause Controversy; Law Goes to Vatican

Aired December 9, 2002 - 15:00   ET

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

ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
The U.N. has started deciphering Iraq's long-awaited weapons report, but the battle rhetoric is not on hold. Iraq is challenging the U.S. to produce evidence it has weapons of mass destruction.

Then stay tuned because Republican leader Trent Lott is in hot water with civil rights activists over some comments he made at Senator Strom Thurmond's birthday party. What did he say and did he cross the line? You be the judge.

And later, what's going on with Catholic Cardinal Bernard Law? He is at the Vatican to discuss his resignation or bankruptcy plans for the Boston Archdiocese. We'll hash it out with our panel.

And joining me today, Nancy Skinner, a radio talk show host on "Good Day, U.S.A." Hello, Nancy.

NANCY SKINNER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hello, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Deroy Murdock is a syndicated columnist and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Hello, Deroy.

DEROY MURDOCK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Hello.

NEVILLE: Avery Friedman is, a civil rights attorney and law professor at Ursuline College in Cleveland, Ohio. Hello, Avery.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Nice to see you.

NEVILLE: All right, thank you.

And Lisa Schiffren is a former GOP speech writer. Hello, Lisa, how are you?

LISA SCHIFFREN, GOP SPEECHWRITER: Hi. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm good. First up, the discussion on Iraq. OK. A top Iraqi general said the documents submitted by Iraq are entirely accurate and if Bush and the U.N. have proof that Iraq indeed has weapons of mass destruction, then let the world know.

Nancy Skinner, what does Bush need to do now? SKINNER: Read the documents, first of all. Not personally, obviously, but Colin Powell has been talking about the last off-ramp on our road to war. And he said, we have to go through this, we have to look at what they've said. I think they're playing word games with us. I think they're categorizing things as dual use.

But if you look carefully, we've already had some indication that they have admitted they were working on a nuclear weapon. And we cannot just all of a sudden, as I fear President Bush, just wants -- he wants the express lane to war. Not that last off-ramp. There are consequences, there's a down side to going to war that we can't even imagine, really, or we can, that's worse. So we -- this is going to take time. That's the problem. We're going to have to go through it, we're going to have to verify it. We have our inspectors on the ground. They'll have to do their job. And we'll all just have to be patient.

NEVILLE: OK, Lisa, what do you think Mr. Bush needs to do now?

SCHIFFREN: I disagree that he's on the express lane. I think he's being extremely moderate. I think that he did allow for this off-ramp, whether or not that comes to pass. It seems unlikely to me. It seems to me that there are real causes that we're preparing for this war, that Iraq is an extremely irresponsible country and has weapons of mass destruction that we should not tolerate.

On the other hand, he's going through this U.N. process and fairly scrupulously. They were handed 12,000-page documents. They are not planning anything immediate. It seems to me that they -- you know, they will take an amount of time sufficient to consider an appropriate response. I don't think anybody wants to start an extremely destructive war if there's another alternative. It's not, really, fear that there is another alternative. But, you know, Iraq is being given as much time as is -- is possible to make this work differently, to not be invaded.

NEVILLE: OK, Deroy, I want to hear from you now.

MURDOCK: Well, it's interesting that the Iraqis say that they have absolutely no weapons of mass murder, as I call them, whatsoever, and yet they've turned over 11,807 pages. It seems like really a lot of words to explain that they don't have anything.

I believe it's just last week the inspectors went into some site and found shells that actually have a residue of mustard gas. So at a minimum, it appears that as of last week, there was evidence they have mustard gas. And the previous inspectors, who were there until I believe 1998, found evidence of botulinum, of other toxins, biological weapons and so on. SO I think what the administration ought to do is go through this pile of information and simply compare and contrast what the Iraqis say with what we already know that they have, and lay that out before the world and I think that will probably indicate that we're being lied to.

NEVILLE: I want to give the audience a chance right now. Listen. We've been putting up the phone number on the screen, which is 1-800-310-4CNN. I really want to the hear from you throughout this hour. I know sometimes it's hard to get through, but,guess what, we're taking a lot of your calls today, so get your fingers going, OK.

In the meantime, Avery Friedman, I don't think -- is he here -- not yet. OK, then we'll move on to the next question here.

And I want to go back to Nancy on this one. Reportedly, the administration, the Bush administration, has information that the U.N. doesn't have, or specifically the U.N. weapons inspectors don't have. And so, I ask you, shouldn't the weapons inspectors be armed with all information available?

SKINNER: Yes! Yes! And this is crazy! These poor guys are on the ground there and they're still trying to figure out, well, is it bigger than a bread box? Is it -- I mean -- why keep them guessing? And that's the problem here. You're going to have to prove to a lot of people that it's not a court of law, but you're going to have to justify, it's got to be legitimate, when we actually go in and prosecute a war. To say, we have solid evidence but we're not going to tell what you it is, frankly, ridiculous. If you're not prepared to at least show at least the inspectors who's there and there job is to try to unmine this stuff, you've got to be able to find a channel to show the American people that they are lying. Because we're not going to take the administration's word, trust us. They're lying. We need to go to war. That happened in Vietnam. We were told an absolute lie, in fact.. We can't do it again.

NEVILLE: Lisa, how do you see it?

SCHIFFREN: Well, I feel differently. I think it's absolutely crucial that we not share all of our extremely fabulous intelligence sources and methods with the U.N. because the U.N. isn't ultimately our ally down the line on everything. Our interests and their interests sometimes part ways. I think 9it is important that we make a legitimate case. I think there's no question that we don't want to look like unilateralists in the crudest possible way. On the other hand, I think America is ultimately the world leader at this point and we do have technological ways of knowing things that France and Germany and China don't have.

SKINNER: But Lisa, everybody know that. Everybody knows that we have satellite photos of stuff. That is not going to reveal new sources of information to put satellite photos -- there are commercial satellite photos out there.

SCHIFFREN: You know what, I myself have difficulty sometimes with the government -- I don't think so. because Hillary Clinton, who I think of as about the least sympathetic to George Bush in the United States Senate came out the other day and said based on what she had seen, she didn't understand why we were waiting. To me, as a skeptic, a conservative, perhaps, but a skeptic, I think that's as good as I need to hear.

MURDOCK: I'm sure also that some of this intelligence information that we might share with the U.N. might end up in places where we don't want it to be. But I think there are ways without being too specific, that we can suggest, you might check in this spot, you might check that palace, the basement of this hospital might be a good place to look. I think we can get that information out without being a little bit too open or too explanatory about where we got that information.

NEVILLE: OK, Avery, I want to hear your thoughts on this.

FRIEDMAN: Actually, you know what, Arthel, I think everyone's missed the point. The point here is that we have the smoking guns. We have the intelligence. I train law students and lawyers, and what you do is, you hold on to that evidence. Let's translate the 12,000 pages. Let's see what Saddam is saying. Then you disclose the evidence you have. If he's lying, we have that evidence. That's when you move forward. The U.S. is doing it right. Britain's doing right. France is doing it right. Let's translate it and then show the evidence. Let's see what happens then.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Robert in the audience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I personally think that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. However, if the weapons inspectors do not find the weapons, then we still have to go through the process of going back to the U.N. and keep going through this until we go to war. We just cannot go unilaterally into that country and just attack them just because of this -- all this information that we supposedly have.

NEVILLE: Sure. Anybody on the panel want to respond to Robert?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: One at a time, hang on, hang on. My fault for giving you all a chance to talk at one time. I'm going to go with Nancy, go ahead, Nancy.

SKINNER: OK, yes. It's like a prosecutor in a court of law. They can't say, I have secret evidence. Trust me. Convict them. Because the whole legitimacy is at stake. Now, it's not specifically like that. But we can't say, trust us, we have evidence, we're going to attack you. We've got to go through this process and show that they really are lying, and we really do have the solid intelligence and make sure that the whole world knows this is legitimate, so it doesn't turn into a war of religions or something worse.

FRIEDMAN: It's not going to be that at all.

SCHIFFREN: That's what we're doing. That's the path the Bush administration is on. They signed onto the U.N. protocols and they agreed to participate and they're doing that. There's no reason to suspect that we're going to barge in without offering evidence.

SKINNER: Grudgingly. Grudgingly. It was like pulling teeth to get them to do it.

FRIEDMAN: Look, do it through the ...

NEVILLE: OK, we're moving on now. And after the break, a birthday tribute to the Senate's oldest member is sparking criticism for the Senate majority leader. What did he say and who's upset about it? Details coming up.

And later, as friends and colleagues pay tribute to TV pioneer Roone Arledge. We want to know which of his inventions had the most impact on you, "Nightline" or "Monday Night Football?" That's our question of the day. Give us a call or e-mail us at talkback@cnn.com, and we're back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott is facing calls for his resignation today for some comments he made at retiring Senator Strom Thurmond's birthday party last week.

Now, Lott suggested the country would have been better off had Thurmond won his bid for the presidency in 1948. Thurmond, who was then governor of South Carolina, was a staunch supporter of segregation at the time.

Let's listen to what Trent Lott said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: OK. Lott says his comments were not an endorsement of Thurmond's position, not his position more than 50 years ago. His office released a statement, saying Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong. In the meantime, the Reverend Jesse Jackson is calling for Lott's resignation.

And Avery, I think you're wanting to jump in on this. I want to ask you this, what do you make of Trent Lott's comments? Was it just a tribute or an endorsement of segregation?

FRIEDMAN: Hey, let me tell you something. The time when Senator Lott thought he should have been elected president was the same year that Congress was proposing legislation to outlaw lynching of black people in the south and Senator Thurmond opposed the legislation. Look, the words are what the words are. That comment was subterranean. It is an outrage. And the only good news about Senator Thurmond right now is that he's out of there.

NANCY: You know, I think, Bill, it should -- maybe -- give him a mulligan, Avery. Give him one. I mean, this is so stupid...

FRIEDMAN: Give him one? NANCY: ... maybe he had a couple of...

FRIEDMAN: We've been giving this guy -- we've been giving him mulligans for 50 years. This man...

NANCY: But I'll tell you, he couldn't have honestly meant to say -- I mean, even the Strom Thurmond of today would not have voted of the Strom Thurmond 50 years ago, because his positions have changed. I mean, they were so backwards.

SCHIFFREN: OK. But, Nancy...

NANCY: Give him a break.

NEVILLE: ... let's take a look what the Strom Thurmond of 1948 had to say. He said that -- hang on one second. "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." That was Strom Thurmond, presidential campaign, 1948.

SCHIFFREN: You know, if Strom Thurmond were to say something like that today...

FRIEDMAN: There's no way you can justify it, no way.

SCHIFFREN: If Strom Thurmond was saying that today, he would not have been in the Senate for the last 30 years -- though he might have been before then -- and he -- and Trent Lott would have nothing to do with him.

But Trent Lott -- you know, Trent Lott is actually a weak speaker. And I would say he should fire his speechwriter, because the remarks are unclear and they are unsolicitous. To think that he would actually come out and endorse segregation even if, at some level, he believes it, it's just -- it's unthinkable. Nobody is that stupid.

FRIEDMAN: But wait, so we're going to fire the messenger. We're going to fire the messenger.

SCHIFFREN: No, it's not a messenger. Yes, I don't...

MURDOCK: Thurmond has been elected and we avoided...

NEVILLE: Hang on. Deroy, go ahead.

MURDOCK: Yes, I'm sorry. Trent Lott said that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president, we would have avoided all these troubles over all these years. I wonder if that includes the civil rights marches...

FRIEDMAN: That's right.

MURDOCK: ... Martin Luther King's excellent work, the civil rights act of '64, the voter rights act of '65, the ending of the Jim Crow laws, etcetera.

SCHIFFREN: But it might have included just Vietnam and (inaudible)...

MURDOCK: It's another example of Trent Lott sticking his foot in his mouth, which he's done repeatedly as Republican leader. He's a very weak leader, and this is something which distracts from President Bush's agenda, the Republican agenda, and I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. And I'd really be happy to see the Republicans pick somebody else to lead them in the Senate.

NANCY: But that's the point, it was so unthinkably stupid, that it couldn't -- he couldn't have meant to say it that way. That's my --

(CROSSTALK)

NANCY: ... but he couldn't have actually meant it.

MURDOCK: ... have the leader of the Republican Senate making incredibly stupid ...

FRIEDMAN: Right. This is the party of Lincoln.

NEVILLE: So then, Nancy, Nancy, let's listen to this. In 1992 Trent Lott spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is a group that seceded White Citizen's Council of the '60s, which is a segregationist group, again. So is there a pattern?

NANCY: No. He's a senator.

SCHIFFREN: Oh, yes, there is a pattern with Trent Lott. He has shown, time and again, that he has is less than...

MURDOCK: He is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) himself. What a great excuse that is for that kind of a comment.

SCHIFFREN: No, he is -- all I am saying is that his constituents also certainly do include people who are, undoubtedly, racist. I don't think he panders to them. I don't think he's as careful as he needs to be. I agree with Deroy that his language is -- so unsolicitous that he is not a good communicator and, therefore, shouldn't actually be in this leadership position. But that's different than meaning harm.

MURDOCK: But one of Trent Lott's problems is that he's a terrible communicator. And I think over the next few years, when the Republicans again have the Senate, this terrible communicator is going to get into all kinds of problems, not just on racial issues, but across the board. Trent Lott really can't communicate a Republican message very well.

FRIEDMAN: Wait.

MURDOCK: He gets completely bamboozled negotiations. And I really wish the Republicans will take this opportunity to pick a better leader for the Republicans in the Senate.

FRIEDMAN: The question here is what did he do before he was a senator? Can somebody help me on that? I think he was a professional broadcaster. He knew what he was saying, he knows the cadence, he knows the words, he's not that stupid. This is an abomination.

MURDOCK: He was elected to Congress in 1974, so he should have a lot of practice on what to do when he stands behind the microphone.

FRIEDMAN: I agree with that.

MURDOCK: He's not a neophyte.

NEVILLE: OK, I'm going to go to the phones now.

NANCY: If you ask me, Trent Lott says a lot...

NEVILLE: Tommy is standing by in Virginia. Tommy?

CALLER: Thank you, Arthel. I think he should resign. I think it should be ordered.

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. And Penny here in the audience?

AUDIENCE: Hi. I think I agree with Avery that, Trent Lott's comments were very calculated. I think that, based on his experience, he really recognized what he was saying, and I think that as moral leaders of this nation, we ought not to just allow them to say whatever they choose to say. I am outraged, as an African-American woman, and I call for his resignation.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Penny. OK. I think one of you -- I think it was Avery trying to jump in there. Go ahead, Avery.

FRIEDMAN: Well, I mean, you know, everyone is trying to justify the stupidity. The fact is that he has been a member of the Senate for a long time. He was a professional broadcaster, before he wound up in his political life. I think he knew what he was saying. I think he was pandering to a certain constituency and I think this is really what's wrong. It's time for him to go, as well as Senator Thurmond.

NEVILLE: Let's see what Michael says in the audience.

NANCY: You know what, they're going to forget the comment... Go ahead, Mike.

AUDIENCE: I actually wanted to pose that question...

NEVILLE: Hey, Nancy, excuse me.

NANCY: Yes, sure.

NEVILLE: Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: I wanted to pose a question to Lisa on the panel. Do you think the remarks are defensible and would you suggest he apologize -- I mean, Lott, and retrace his steps? SCHIFFREN: You know what, I think apology is usually useless, when you've harmed people. But I think in this case, there's a certain point. I think his remarks were vague and general and open to misinterpretation, which is why they are sloppy. Are they excusable?

NEVILLE: OK.

SCHIFFREN: I think if he comes out and says it was not...

NEVILLE: ... there's the bell. Coming up next, mommy has them. Daddy has them. So should their kids have them, too? A nutritionist markets a controversial "skinny" pill for overweight children. We'll get the skinny next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I am Arthel Neville.

Nutritionist Edita Kaye has a solution for the 5 million obese children of America: take a pill. Kaye has developed the first diet pill for children called a Skinny Pill for Kids. She says it's simply not realistic for kids to turn off the TV and exercise.

Experts are warning the supplement contains herbs that are diuretics and could cause kidney damage and other problems. The pills are marketed to children ages 6 to 12, and Ms. Kaye says she has been assured the pills are safe for kids.

Nancy -- diet pills for kids? What kind of an idea do you think this is?

SKINNER: Well, it's a terrible idea. It's very irresponsible, but you know what, Arthel, we give our children these messages all the time in magazines, on TV, that thin is the way to be. All the celebrities are doing it.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: We're talking about obese kids, right? So -- I'm not saying that, and we're not saying that kids should be -- everybody should be small and a size six, but these kids are really big, and I'm also not saying that they should take diet pills. This is ridiculous. So what is the solution?

SKINNER: Well, we can't stop -- if this is a legal product, that's the thing. See, she has a Web site, and I'm very much against censoring information that's going out there. So parents have to step up to the plate here. There are a lot of signals that come into play. You tell your kid, no way are you going to do that. You are going to get out and you are going to get on your bike, or you are going to run around the block, and we're not going to supersize every one of your meals. But to stop -- you can't stop every person from reaching them with that information.

NEVILLE: Yes, but see, Deroy, let's talk about when were you a kid. I mean, the whole idea, as soon as you got home, you did homework, you ran outside, you played all the games possible to play. And, of course, there are two things now. One, the kids are relying on playing video games on the computer, no. 1. And secondly, times are different, so it's more dangerous for kids to go outside and play in the front yard these days.

MURDOCK: Well, Arthel, you know, I always thought that my mom and dad did a really nice job of raising me and my two sisters. But now I am starting to wonder -- we missed out on the Ritalin, we missed out on the attention-deficit disorder, we didn't get the skinny pills. What they did is they fed us well, we came home, we did our homework, we rode around on bikes, we played hide and seek with the neighbors...

NEVILLE: Mother may I, jump rope...

MURDOCK: And mom didn't plow us with fatty foods and watch us a explode. I'm always amazed by the McDonald's lawsuit, now the Skinny Pill, at these quick, easy answers or taking people to court.

And parents have got to say to little Junior or Sally if they get too big, don't eat so much, time to have some salad, put away the fried, greasy foods. And when are parents going to take responsibility for how their children turn out, rather than either run to pharmaceutical companies or run to get a lawyer when their kids explode.

NEVILLE: Gosh. I have someone in the audience here who has really an interesting perspective on this story. Sherrill (ph) is a pharmacist.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really feel that society has just become such a pill-popping society. Everything that you want in life, you have to fix -- you fix by taking a pill.

With overweight children, there's risks involved. With every medication that you take, there can be side effects that are going to happen down the line. There could be liver damage that you don't know what's going to happen. If you're overweight, you need to really just start taking responsibility for how you're eating, whether you're exercising, and stop thinking that you're just going to pop a pill and fix everything in life, and just think about what you really need to do in order to take care of that sort of problem.

NEVILLE: Sure. And then Lisa, there is the whole psychological effect on kids. I mean, what are you doing telling a kid to take a pill to lose weight?

SCHIFFREN: Look, I think it's a very bad idea. I personally have three children and I teach them all the time that effort is how you get anything in life, and this is just one of those cases. I think the comments we've heard, talking about a pill-popping society and easy fixes are clearly true.

This -- if skinny pills worked, there wouldn't be any fat people in America. We all know this is ridiculous. It takes a lot of effort for parents to supervise exercise in a way that it doesn't actually take effort to let your kids watch TV or play computer games. Parents are pressed for time, and cooking healthy food is harder and takes more effort.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: There should be more healthy fast-food places. Let's go to New York where we have a caller on the line. Anthony (ph), go ahead, sir.

CALLER: Hi, my name is Anthony. I'm a father of four. I think what parents should do instead of look for a skinny pill is take their kids out, go to the park, walk along the beach, and do things that families do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, everybody agrees with that.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Anthony. We have...

SKINNER: I think everybody agrees with that, the question is, do we stop her? I think everybody agrees that this is ridiculous to give your kids pills, but the question is, what do we do about this woman who is marketing to them? Do you stop her from doing that, or do we just go through the parents and say, make sure your kids aren't taking these?

NEVILLE: Well, the parents have the ultimate control here. Let's see what Rachel in the audience has to say.

RACHEL: Well, I do think we don't need to market it to the children, but I don't think we should be marketing it to the parents either, because the parents are taking these pills for themselves, and it's not doing them any good either. None of them are losing weight with the pills.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Rachel, and we are moving on.

After the break, with the sex scandal pressure growing, a U.S. cardinal is facing an uncertain future. And later, remembering the man who shaped much of what you see on TV today. We're asking which had more impact on you, "Nightline" or "Monday Night Football." That is our question of the day. Tell us what you think. More TALKBACK LIVE in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS ALERT)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. Cardinal Bernard Law is in Rome seeking guidance at the Vatican, whether it's for his own future with the Church or bankruptcy plans for the Boston Archdiocese or something else unclear. Now the move follows renewed calls for Law to step down. Many parishioners are angry with the way Law has dealt with the sex abuse scandals facing the church. Even some Roman Catholic priests are saying it's time for Law to go.

Avery, you're up first on this one. What do you think is the motive behind the trip? Is it to seek approval, to resign, or to file bankruptcy? FRIEDMAN: You've got all of them. The fact is the diocese is in a lot of trouble in Boston. And the reality is that 50 priests in Boston, soon to be 250 priests, are now asking for the cardinal's resignation. The fact is that he is gone, and despite Deroy's thought that you've got to stay away from the lawyers, without the lawyers, these children would not have been protected. And ultimately, it's going to be the demise of this cardinal.

MURDOCK: Well, I think Avery's right about the role of lawyers in this. It's not just private lawyers who have gone after the Archdiocese of Boston for people who have been abused and molested and so on. But public sector lawyers, specifically prosecutors, who I think have to get the full cooperation of the Archdiocese of Boston. I hope the Vatican is encouraging the Archdiocese to cooperate with prosecutors and get these people who have been accused of the most unbelievable behavior.

In one case, one of these priests is accused of telling teenage women -- or teenage girls who are studying to become nuns that he was the second coming of Christ in order to have sex with them. Who can make up stuff like this?

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: And in another case, you have a priest who allegedly fathered two children.

MURDOCK: It's unbelievable. It's just outrageous. And I think that it's not just an internal church matter, but it's something for the district attorney of Boston or the attorney general of Massachusetts to find these people and prosecute them and put them in jail if they did the things they've been accused of.

NEVILLE: And what sort of...

SCHIFFREN: I think it's an internal church matter. The Vatican really ought to demand his resignation. He shouldn't have the option anymore. He's lost the faith of all those parishioners. And really, in some ways, he's a distraction.

NEVILLE: Right.

SCHIFFREN: If the Catholic Church wants to move on and to regain its moral high ground, I think they've just got to get rid of him.

NEVILLE: Right. That's what I was going to say, Lisa. How can he be the moral leader of the church there? And then, also, what about criminal charges? What do you think about that, having criminal charges filed against Law?

SCHIFFREN: Well I think that criminal charges are appropriate to consider, whether they are ultimately filed against him or against the actual priest who committed the crimes is a question. I think criminal charges should be filed. But really, as a moral leader, I think his day is done. He cannot really maintain moral confidence among people who believe in god and the Church. SKINNER: Arthel, I'm in Boston, and I know right now, in fact, they just said here at the CNN bureau that more documents are coming out today of more of these stories and tales. And these sheep are not following this shepherd anymore. So he's not effectively doing his job.

The priests are on board, the parishioners are on board. But here's the thing, when it gets into the legal aspects. The recent documents that we're seeing show much more -- you can make the case for complicity, because Cardinal Law himself knew, for instance, that these priests were not only having sex with young boys, but in trading drugs for sex and all these things, and the documents show that he knew it. So if he knew it and he transferred these people, what is the level of complicity and what is the legal standard to prove that he knew it?

MURDOCK: This is not just a problem in Boston. In Los Angeles, they just lifted -- for one year, they lifted the statute of limitations in these molestation cases. And I think there's the whole question of obstruction of justice.

There was an excellent article back in August in the "Los Angeles Times" about people in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. And there were instances where the police would show up at churches and say we want to talk to father -- whatever his name was; Father Gomez (ph), if you will, and -- I'm just making up that name -- and they'd say, well, he's not here. Come back tomorrow. And, in fact, he was headed to the airport to fly out of the country. I mean, if that isn't obstruction of justice, I don't know what is. And I think there is a real criminal -- a matter of criminal activity here that needs to be...

FRIEDMAN: In Ohio...

NEVILLE: Avery, hang on. I want to hear that story, definitely, about Ohio. But let me get Binky (ph) in here for a second.

BINKY: I just find it amazing that we debate whether he should resign or not. He's an accessory to a crime. He should be thrown in jail, period. Just thrown in jail.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Go ahead, Avery.

FRIEDMAN: Well you can't exactly just throw him in jail without a trial, but in Ohio...

SKINNER: You can now. With this administration, you can do anything you want. You don't have to have a trial.

FRIEDMAN: That's the subject of another debate. In any event, with respect to the diocese, they investigated 1,200 individuals. There was only one indictment, which came down last week. And you want it know why? Because the statutes of limitations is run. Obstruction of justice, criminal activity, a lot of this stuff has been going on for a long time. We're looking to those public officials and prosecutors to keep the heat on these people. NEVILLE: OK. I have Wayne (ph) in the audience.

WAYNE: I just want to say that, you know, this has been a thing that's been going on for a lot of years. And it needs to -- I mean, I know through my own personal life from years ago -- and maybe I should have said something...

NEVILLE: What happened to you, sir?

WAYNE: I was confronted by a Catholic priest that wanted to have sex with me, and I think that the problem's been -- and this is only part of it, I can't say for the whole...

NEVILLE: How old were you?

WAYNE: I was -- the first time I was confronted I was the age of 13.

NEVILLE: And what did you say or do?

WAYNE: I didn't know how to react. I was always brought up in the Catholic Church. And I was an altar boy. And it was pretty hard through the later years to, you know -- I had to make a decision myself as, hey, you know, I'm either going to follow this or I'm going to say something. And I chose not follow it anymore. And through the years, I got out of the Catholic religion, and I got into another religion.

FRIEDMAN: That shouldn't happen.

NEVILLE: Yes. Wayne (ph) thank you for standing up.

MURDOCK: Well, whether you agree or disagree with the Catholic Church on a lot of important issues, abortion, the death penalty, cloning, et cetera, the Catholic Church has a lot of important things to say on these issues. And until they get to the bottom of this and have accountability and consequences and prosecution and jail time for the people involved is, I think people are just going to laugh whenever the Catholic Church speaks out on all sorts of other controversial important issues.

SKINNER: But the reason everyone agrees, the reason the Church does not want -- he hasn't stepped down so far, is because the Church does not want to be accountable to public opinion, to political officials. This is a decision from the Vatican that has kept him in power so far, saying, you know what, we're above all this. We are the Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

NEVILLE: But do you think now that the priests are jumping in on this bandwagon and calling for his resignation, do you think that will that have any affect on the Vatican?

FRIEDMAN: That's extremely significant, extremely significant.

SCHIFFREN: They can't have it both ways. This pope and his people have been extremely conservative on the sexual and life issues. And I think that's a fine thing. But you can't then turn a blind eye to sexual abuse. They should be more assiduous in prosecution, really, than a liberal administration. The fact that they have punted on this I think is disgraceful.

NEVILLE: OK let's go to Texas, where...

(CROSSTALK)

MURDOCK: The Vatican has taken the American bishops guidelines on this, which a lot of people thought were not strong enough, and basically said, well, you know you really need to soften this up and actually take a softer line towards the pedophile priests and what the American bishops are talking about.

NEVILLE: Let's go to Texas now. Excuse me, Avery, Jeff (ph) is standing by on the phone. Go ahead sir.

JEFF: This is totally disgraceful. Cardinal Law should step down.

NEVILLE: OK. Avery, go ahead. Continue.

FRIEDMAN: I was going to say I've actually been involved in these prosecutions. I know how difficult it is to get information. So we have a long way to go with this.

NEVILLE: OK. And coming up, a solution to California's poor air quality has gotten some residents hot under the collar. Should a state be allowed to tell people they cannot have fireplaces in their homes? The ban is sure to generate heated discussion when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.

In homes all across America right now there are people enjoying the warmth of a wood-burning fireplace. A new rule in central California means residents there won't be allowed to have them anymore. A ban on all wood-burning fireplaces in new homes is expected to go into effect next year.

Residents are incensed. They say, with skyrocketing energy costs, it's the only way to keep their homes warm. But environmentalists say if they want the air clean, then those old wood burners have to go. So, Avery, I ask you, is this a matter of personal freedom or public health?

FRIEDMAN: I love this case. I think this is a situation where, the individuals involved that have the wood-burning stoves are heading to court because, absent the science to prove quantifiably that it has a serious material detrimental effect on the environment, I think that rule and regulation in California is out. NEVILLE: Yes, but they're saying that it's causing all sorts of respiratory problems. The air is so thick, that there are kids with asthma that are suffering.

(CROSSTALK)

SKINNER: You know what the funny thing is about this, Avery? That the problem is, yeah, it contributes a tiny little bit. But this is so ridiculous to focus in on this. The Bush administration in the last couple of weeks rolled back the EPA's clean air standards, OK? And they said these old polluting power plants that were required to upgrade by law, whatever they made, major improvements, will not have to now.

Sound science says 9,000 people will die as a result of this rule change. Three times as many died on September 11, and we're focusing on a wood-burning fireplace, where the people get all upset at the environmentalists?

FRIEDMAN: Wait a minute. What does the regulation have to do with the Bush administration?

SKINNER: Well, my point is that this is the kind of stuff -- how much media coverage did that rollout get, the roll back of something that will kill 9,000 people? Three times September 11, and you barely even heard...

(CROSSTALK)

FRIEDMAN: I don't disagree. I'm not following you.

SCHIFFREN: The relation is that this law is -- it's a conservative's dream, because it's a parody of government intervention and liberalism run amuck, which is why I like it. But, you know, obviously, this gets more attention. We're talking about this and we're not talking about larger, more serious issues. So it's -- to the extent...

SKINNER: Lisa and I are on the same page here. Absolutely.

SCHIFFREN: I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, but I certainly agree that that's what it does.

NEVILLE: OK. Let's see what Debbie (ph) from California has to say.

DEBBIE: Hi Lisa. I agree that it's government intervention, but it probably is the wrong place. I used to live in Sacramento, and they used to burn all the agriculture fields from rice and from other products that caused them lots more pollution than a few houses for wood-burning stoves. We also have wood-burning stoves that do have the right kind of filters, you don't get quite the pollution you used to a long time ago.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Debbie (ph). OK, listen, when TALKBACK LIVE returns, our flash round. Is it an affair to remember or a death sentence? The latest on extramarital sex, after the break.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back. It's time for our fast-paced flash round. First up, president Bush named John Snow as his nominee for treasury secretary today, and Snow promptly announced he would resign from Augusta National Golf Club. The White House says it was his own decision. What are you thinking, optional necessity -- Nancy.

SKINNER: I love it. Snow. Snow's job: railroad tax cuts through. I mean, I can't believe the word play. Who cares about Augusta. His name is good enough.

NEVILLE: Deroy.

MURDOCK: Yeah, I don't think he should resign from Augusta any more than women who belong to the Junior League should quit the Junior League. It's called free association. I hope he stays in the club and cuts our taxes as dramatically as possible.

NEVILLE: Avery.

FRIEDMAN: Hey, it's a moral statement. Good for the new secretary. It's about time we see some moral leadership on those issues.

NEVILLE: Lisa.

SCHIFFREN: I agree with Deroy that he shouldn't have to, but it is the optional necessity there. His new job is to be a better communicator and to get the president's views across with less distraction than the last secretary. And this would just be a distraction.

NEVILLE: OK. Up next, sex can be dangerous -- well, extramarital sex, that is. A British cardiologist has found that 75 percent of the cases of sudden death during sex happened to people having extramarital affairs. So is this one more reason to be faithful to your spouse -- Nancy.

SKINNER: I thought Lorena Bobbit settled that question a long time ago.

NEVILLE: Very good -- Deroy.

MURDOCK: What a way to go.

NEVILLE: Avery.

FRIEDMAN: You know what? Heart attacks with married, non- married people, it happens all the time.

NEVILLE: All right -- Lisa. SCHIFFREN: You know the rap against marriage isn't that it's not safe. It's that it can be dull. And this is, you know, the exciting opposite there. So pick your poison.

NEVILLE: OK. Up next, a mobster's marriage is over. Last night was the season finale of the HBO series "The Sopranos." From Tony and Carmella's marriage problems to jury tampering to heroin addiction, was it a high note or did it fall flat -- Nancy.

SKINNER: You think Tony is a big bad guy? Nothing like a woman scorned, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Deroy.

MURDOCK: Proving yet again what a great role model this family is for America.

NEVILLE: Avery.

FRIEDMAN: Hey, I'm going to miss the ba-da-bing.

NEVILLE: Lisa.

SCHIFFREN: You know, I think we're a country that likes psychodrama better than actual violence at this point.

NEVILLE: All right. Thank you very much. I want to thank my panel today: Nancy Skinner, Deroy Murdock, Avery Friedman and Lisa Schiffren. Thanks so much for joining us.

And we'll hear what you're saying about TV trailblazer Roone Arledge in our question of the day. Which had more impact on you, "Monday Night Football" or "Nightline"? And listen up, baseball fans, TALKBACK LIVE contributor and NBA star Charles Barkley joins us on Wednesday, so mark your calendar.

Now the script says baseball fans. I'm not quite sure why. Mr. Barkley is a former NBA basketball player. More TALKBACK LIVE in a flash.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA WALTERS: When Roone was the head of ABC News, there was a telephone in every control room only for calls from Roone. And it was called "The Roone phone." And the greatest thrill for any of us was when that phone rang and it was Roone saying, "Great job." And the biggest disappointment for any of us was when that phone rang and Roone said, "Not such a good job." And now, Roone is gone, and that phone will never ring again.

(END VIDEO CLIP) NEVILLE: Friends and colleagues paid their respects to TV trailblazer Roone Arledge today. He died Thursday of complications from cancer. Now you may not be familiar with his name, but if you watched TV you know his work. Arledge won Emmys for creating numerous shows for ABC, as well as such innovations as the instant replay.

Which brings us to our question of the day. Which had more impact on you, "Monday Night Football or "Nightline"? Let's see what Richard (ph) says.

RICHARD: What can I say? Dandy Don Meredith and Howard Cosell and Frank Gifford, the all-American sport of football, before cable, what else can you say?

NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Excuse me. Going to David (ph) here?

DAVID: Well, before it became "Nightline," it was the hostage crisis, if you'll remember that. And it had more of an impact on me than anything else, because I did not like to see those people held over there.

NEVILLE: Thank you, David (ph), for standing up and speaking out here and answering that question of the day. We do have an e-mail coming through now I want to share with you from Jeff in Ohio.

"You want me to choose between the two? I can't do it. Sports or news, it doesn't matter. If you watch TV, you've felt Roone Arledge's influences."

OK. That's it for this edition of TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.

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



Comments on Thurmond's Birthday Cause Controversy; Law Goes to Vatican>

© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.