The Web     
Powered by
powered by Yahoo!
Return to Transcripts main page


Should Weapons Inspectors Get More Time?; Interview With Janeane Garofalo

Aired March 7, 2003 - 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, the inspectors say they need more time.

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.

ANNOUNCER: The U.S. says time's up.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: And the consequences of Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to disarm will be very, very real.

ANNOUNCER: Does it really matter what the rest of the world says?

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people.

ANNOUNCER: Plus, the voices of dissent that won't go away. Tonight on CROSSFIRE.


ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Tucker Carlson.

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE on a day everyone's had their say at the United Nations. Suppose anyone's going to change their mind. We'll bring an exclusive interview with Nuclear Chief Arms Inspector Mohammed ElBaradei, plus former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleberger and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will face off.

Also stopping by is actress and anti-war activist Janeane Garofalo. As far as we know, she hasn't changed her mind.

But first it's our chance to mind everyone else's business in the "CROSSFIRE Political Alert."

The chief weapons inspector told the Security Council today that Iraq's cooperation has increased. They're saying there's no evidence Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program. They are finding and destroying Iraq's banned chemical weapons and inspectors want more time, a few more months. Some important countries support that idea, but as President Bush told us last night, he's ready to go to war no matter what else anyone says.

So if we assume we're going to war, how could we be doing it in a worse way? Here we are getting the crap beat out of us in the international institute we founded. And the people of the world are demonstrating against us. How did my country, that I love so much, get to be so hated?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: Well the president's bringing the United States to the brink of war because he thinks Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. Now you can disagree with him or not.


CARLSON: ... but the idea that France hates us, and that means the whole idea is silly, not a deep critique.

CARVILLE: Well I think Ireland and Canada and Mexico and Russia and China don't think a whole lot of us either. But anyway, if these missiles can go 93 of 105 miles, that's a lot farther away than Baghdad is.


CARLSON: He's had 12 years to disarm, now he has ten more days. The United States and Great Britain today proposed giving Saddam Hussein until March 17 to get rid of his anthrax, his sarin gas and his other weapons of mass destruction.

The proposed resolution, which diplomatic sources tell CNN could come to vote as early as next Thursday, could split the Security Council. The foreign minister of France says his country will not under any circumstances force Saddam to disarm.

In other words, the French government is refusing to enforce the very U.N. resolution it agreed to and signed late last year, in case you remember that. Asked by reporters how long France will continue to jeopardize the safety of the world for its own profit-center motives, the French foreign minister smiled and said, quote, "As long as you take us seriously."

I have to say what's wrong with asking Saddam Hussein to disarm by March 17?

CARVILLE: I'm all for it.


CARVILLE: I don't think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by March 7 as opposed to March 17.

CARLSON: It is March 7. CARVILLE: It isn't just the French. Nick Kristof reports in today's "New York Times" -- argues -- asked people who they feared more, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent said Bush. Of course, Tucker hates Ireland.

A poll of the Web site of a Canadian newspaper asked if, we know Tucker hates Canada, Americans behaving like bastards. More than half of them said yes. Now it looks like the Bush administration's made a new enemy, Mexico. As Paul Krugman writes in today's "Times" Mexico, which the United States Security Council -- The United Nations (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rest of the world with concerns about our course of action in Iraq.

So how did President Bush respond to concerns of our friend and neighbor? He threatened them outright. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some sort of international dominatrix and saying that if Mexico opposed the United States they will be disciplined.

President Bush promised his foreign policy would unite the world. Give the man credit, he's uniting the world against us.

CARLSON: Dominatrix. Well that...

CARVILLE: What's he going to do? Is going to spank Vincente Fox or you know what I mean? We're going put some nipple clips on him or something? I mean...

CARLSON: That's the assault analysis of it, James. First of all, whenever you use the term, and I think I'm quoting you, Paul Krugman, you discredit yourself.


CARVILLE: You know what? He's not like Lynn Downey. He can't be intimidated by these right wing goons. He's a man that has the courageous -- the courage to stand up. He's not "The Washington Post". He's not made of putty, he's got a backbone.

CARLSON: OK. Speaking of backbone, French President Jacques Chirac once called Saddam Hussein, quote, "a personal friend." And that's not surprising given that the French National Oil Company maintains valuable oil contracts with Iraq, or that Saddam Hussein's government currently owes France $4 billion.

Chirac and Saddam are allies and that has never been clearer than it is today. U.S. intelligence recently discovered the French companies have been illegally selling military equipment to Saddam Hussein's regime. The last shipment arrived in Iraq as recently as January.

According to this morning's "Washington Times" the material includes parts for attack helicopters as well as fighter jets. Some of those jets, as Colin Powell recently explained, have been modified to spray biological weapons on troops on the ground.

In this case, those would be American troops. The U.S. is likely to go to war, some of our soldiers are likely to die. When they do, remember who sold the weapons that killed them. France did, on purpose.


CARVILLE: ... you attack a person of real courage, Paul Krugman of "The Washington Times"...

CARLSON: No, seriously, address the issue.


CARVILLE: I'm not from France. My government's the United States. I don't know how to tell you this, Tucker. I don't live in France. I live in the United States. It is my country that 60 percent of the Irish state thinks is more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. It's my country...


CARVILLE: You've got to stop and listen to what I'm saying.

CARLSON: I'm trying.

CARVILLE: You ever heard of China? It is a small nation located in Asia. You ever heard of Russia? It has a very small land mass. It's located in both Asia and Europe. Have you ever heard of Germany? It is a minor nation on the European...


CARVILLE: What I'm trying to tell you is all you can talk about is France. What I'm trying to tell you there are other countries in the world. I'm going to try to bring you along, son. We'll go back to or geography lesson.

After the attacks of 9/11 people asked what could they do to sacrifice for their country. Our president told them to go to shopping malls and spend some money. In fact, he's trying to get wealthy people to shop even more by handing out hundred of billions in tax cuts just for them.

In today's "Washington Post" (UNINTELLIGIBLE) shows us President Bush has finally found folks who aren't sacrificing enough. And who are these greedy wards of the state? Little snot-nosed schoolchildren who need after-school care. That's right, President Bush wants to cut after-school programs by 40 percent.

Every mom and dad working hard to stay afloat in the Bush economy knows that the after school programs are critical to helping kids stay safe and avoid drugs and improve academic achievement. The president loves to brag that his education proposals leave not a child single behind. With this idiotic proposal he proves he's a man of his word. He's leaving behind half a million of them.

CARLSON: James, I want to tell you something, and maybe this will be as instructive to you as your little geography lesson was for me a moment ago. Not every facet of American life is controlled by the federal government. People send their kids to after school care -- open your mind and accept this -- that isn't paid by federal dollars.


CARVILLE: Parents are going to spend more time with their kids because 2 1/2 million of them lost their jobs under this administration. So all you moms out there, they're going to get you to spend more time with your kids because of inept economics.


CARLSON: Wyoming is a proudly Western state. People in Wyoming drive American cars. They don't drink a lot of Chardonnay. They like rodeo. All this embarrasses Democrats who believe in general Americans should be less like the people of Wyoming and a lot more like the French. Wyoming State Senator Keith Goodenough came out and said this the other day.

When fellow legislators tried to make rodeo the official sport of Wyoming, Goodenough objected. His suggestion for the official sport, dance. That's right, dance. "Rodeo is dangerous and uncivilized," he explained. "Plus," and this of course was the real point, "no one in France rides bulls. In France they pirouette and twirl around" which is why the French are so, and I'm quoting now, "lean."

In the end the Democrats lost the argument. Drivers in Wyoming will not have ballerinas on their driver's license plates for now. But keep in mind, they tried.


CARLSON: Why don't you leave the people in Wyoming alone? They like rodeo.


CARVILLE: I go to the rodeo in Wyoming.


CARLSON: OK. President Bush says it's time for people to show their cards at the United Nations. Is President Bush's hand unbeatable? Are the French bluffing? And what's Iraq holding up its sleeve? We'll debate all those questions in just a moment.

Later, actress Janeane Garofalo will be here to play the peace card one more time. We'll be right back.


CARVILLE: Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Counci -- quote -- "We're not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed." Blix wants more time. President Bush doesn't want to give it to him. Are about to watch the United Nations be destroyed?

First in the CROSSFIRE tonight, Lawrence Eagleburger who was former secretary of state under former President Bush, and Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's national security adviser.

Welcome, gentlemen.

CARLSON: Mr. Berger, this British idea, that apparently the United States has signed on to, that Saddam should disarm by October 17 -- why shouldn't Saddam comply with 1441 by the 17th of this month and after that, if he doesn't why shouldn't the U.S. make him comply with the resolution?

SAMUEL BERGER, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: He should comply with the resolution and he is a threat to the United States.

The question is -- those missiles are being destroyed, not because of any voluntary action on his part, because there have been deadlines and the threat of military force. But we also have the question of whether we're going to do this ourselves or whether we're doing to do this with a broad coalition.

So if we can, in the Security Council, over the next several days, negotiate something over a period of a few weeks, deadlines backed by force that will bring the international community together so we're not confronting Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a British-American coalition, I think we'd be better off doing that.

CARLSON: But, as I understand it, I mean, this amendment is actually 1441 itself. All it says is he must comply that the resolution that the international resolution has agreed on, unanimously, in the Security. What's wrong with just making the rest of the world stick to a promise, in essence, it made long ago?

BERGER: This is about whether we're going to proceed as an American-British enterprise or whether we're going to have one last chance to try to get the international community behind us. All of the risks of this enterprise are substantially greater if this is seen in the region and the world as the American-British war as opposed a war with an international face.

This is a negotiatoin about whether we can get broader support. It may be beyond that point and the president looks to me as if he's decided to go in any case. But it seems to me worth one last effort, to try to do this as the international community, not as the United States and Britain.

CARVILLE: Secretary, when you were in the State Department during the Gulf War in 1991, I think it was 88 percent of the cost of that war were borne by nations other than the United States. Right now, if you had to guess, what percent of the cost of this war do you think will be borne by nations other than the United States?


CARVILLE: Five to 10 percent.

Why, in the administration of the first President Bush and you would have -- and I think it was -- am I correct in saying there were 33 nations that sent either troops or treasure, as we would say. Germany and Japan could not send troops because of their constitution.

Why is it that there's so much -- so much -- this administration has been so unsuccessful in building up international support and having other countries help us, as opposed to when you guys were in there, you we were able to do that.

EAGLEBURGER: Well, because we were there and we're not there now.

CARVILLE: OK. I'll buy that one. I wish you were back.

EAGLEBURGER: Look, there are some fundamental points.

First of all, this time around Saddam hasn't invaded Kuwait and that's a monumental difference.


EAGLEBURGER: And that, I think, what made it much easier for us to put together a coalition.

Secondly, and I will make no arguments -- I'm a Republican. I want Bush to succeed. I think our lead up to this one has not been handled well. I won't deny that at all. I do think we need to go into Iraq, but I don't think we have led up to it very well at all.

But I think we have to -- nobody's mentioned one thing that I think is fundamental and I think we need to face that too. The day after the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States became the world's only super power, some of this was inevitable. Once we became the world's only super power, we were inevitably be hated by a lot more people around the world because we were the only one left. And no matter what we did, we were going to begin to be increasingly disliked by a lot of people around the world.

We have made it worse by not dealing with this with the sophistication we should have, but a lot of it was inevitable.


CARVILLE: Can I get two questions in?

CARLSON: All right. I'm counting. I think there's two. I'll give you a third.

CARVILLE: OK. No -- Tom friedman, who I think we both can agree is a pretty smart guy. And he says, Look, there are good reasons you might want to have this war, but our entire -- even before this, by actions of the way we did the Kyoto thing, the ABM treaty and why is it -- and I'm trying to be serious here because obviously we have very serious things here. No, want always. Why is it -- it seems to me -- and maybe it's just my partisan coming out -- that the people in this administration don't much like foreigners or don't -- or at least they give the impression that they don't much care what they think?

EAGLEBURGER: I do think that there's some truth, not that they don't like foreigners, but I do think some of the administration came in determined not to be held back by foreign attitudes and disagreed with what they wanted to do. I think to a degree that's Vice President Cheney's attitude, for example.

But let me come at you for just a minute.

CARVILLE: OK. Come on at me.

EAGLEBURGER: You guys always mention the Kyoto...

BERGER: You probbaly don't get invited to the White House as much as I don't get invited.

EAGLEBURGER: No, I don't get invited at all.

But anyway, having said that -- having said that you guys always mention, for example, the Kyoto Treaty and this gets me back to the disingenuousness of most of our European friends, for example. Not a one of them was ever going to pay any attention to the Kyoto Treaty. They all disliked it. They didn't have enough guts to say they weren't going to accept it. They all mouthed their support for it and I think when this president, and I think unwisely, frankly, for purely political reasons, said we said we don't like the Kyoto Treaty and we're going to tell you all we don't like it -- they all went into coniption fits. But they weren't ever going to do any thing about it either.

CARLSON: Mr. Burger, last night the president is threatening war, and last nigh, in the press conference, he made very clear his motives. He said, I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to American security. I think that's a quote. I think we all agree that really is the president's motive.

Given that, why should the United States -- how could the U.S. afford to defer to the U.N. or any other world body on its own security?

BERGER: Ultimately -- ulitmately we have to make judgments about our own security. But we -- but this war will be far riskier if we undertake it essentially as an American-British war. The chance that Saddam's people will take him out before it starts, the chance that they will stand and fight during the war, and the cost and burden- sharing of maintaining the peace -- all of those will be significantly increased if this is a narrow coalition or a broad coalition.

CARLSON: But I think -- but I Ttink that the administration obviously agrees with you, which is why it's taken so many months, negotiating in the United Nations, driveing the secretary of state crazy practically with frustration, as you've noticed, I'm sure. But at the end, the administration really believes the threat is imminent and it's real from Iraq. So again, don't you understand why, when it's all over, the administration would be happy to move unilaterally, if need be.

BERGER: You know, if it comes to that, it will come to that. I think that is not the ideal circumstances and I'm not convinced yet, at this point, that we still cannot negotiate a consensus in the Security Council, not one that leaves us months, but that leaves us weeks -- leaves Saddam weeks.


EAGLEBURGER: This is where I do disagree. I don't think we have a chance of negotiating in any time frame that makes any sense, a resolution that will permit us to invade if Saddam doesn't do what we say he's going to do. I think the french have made it clear, I think the chinese, the Russians -- they've all made it clear that they will veto and I don't think there is any chance we can get a resolution that would make any difference.

So here's where I disagree with Mr. Berger. I just don't think there is a chance to get it.

Can I make one other point? Which is I think everybody's missed the fundamental point. The real issue here is weapons of mass destruction. Whether it's Iraq or North Korea, wherever it is, and if we don't understand, the United States and the rest of the world, that the fundamental issue here is weapons of mass destruction and move on it, then I think Iraq is the place to start moving on it.

We're all going to pay such a price five or 10 years from now when we do move on it, that I don't care whether the rest of the world likes it or not, I think we have got to do what we have got to do.

CARLSON: We're taking a quick break. When we come back, we'll ask our guests which is the bigger threat, Iraq or North Korea? Later we'll ask a member of the Democratic Party's Hollywood brain trust when their presidential candidates will develop backbones. We'll be right back.


CARVILLE: Today the Congressional Budget Office said President Bush proposed a now round of tax cuts (UNINTELLIGIBLE) budget would produce a string of deficits over the coming decade, totaling $1.8 trillion. And last night, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) refused to tell us how much this war with Iraq would cost and how much further it will put us in the hole.

We're talking with former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

CARLSON: Mr. Berger, I want to switch to North Korea quickly, the other concern in the world. I want to read you a quote from you, June 18, 1996. This is what you said at the Wilson Center...

CARVILLE: Good you saved it.

CARLSON: We did. I've been keeping a file on you. "This is why we worked hard," we being the Clinton administration, "to secure the unconditional and indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We achieved an agreement with North Korea to freeze and dismantle their nuclear program, and that agreement is being complied with under international supervision."

Now according to the CIA and North Korea itself, North Korea did not comply, and shortly after that began to develop nuclear weapons, which now they're bragging about. Was that policy of containment a failure?

BERGER: Let me straighten out some of your facts, Tucker.

CARLSON: Yes, please do.

BERGER: First of all, the North Korean nuclear program was developed in the '70s and in the '80s. We inherited it when we came into office. Number two, in 1993, when the North Koreans said they were going to reprocess plutonium, exactly what they're saying today, we said no, that's a red line. We were taking them to the United Nations for sanctions, and we were reinforcing the south militarily. We negotiated an agreement that froze their plutonium facilities. Had we not frozen those facilities, North Korea would have 50 nuclear bombs today, and what did we give them in return? A million tons of oil. Fifty nukes, a million tons of oil. I think that's a pretty good deal.

Now, the North Koreans have cheated on that deal in '98 and '99. They have started a separate program. They are unreliable, they are untrustworthy people, but...

CARLSON: Why didn't the Clinton administration know that? I guess that's my question.

BERGER: Because the fact is, knowing they're unreliable and untrustworthy is -- is not the answer.

CARLSON: But they built nuclear weapons.

BERGER: They built nuclear weapons before we got there. They did not build one nuclear weapon during the period from 1989, when Secretary Baker negotiated, until recently, and they are on the verge of being able to produce six nuclear weapons, and the administration says it's not a crisis, and that's just...

CARLSON: So they built until them after the inauguration. OK. I think I got that.

CARVILLE: Let me go back. Right now, if Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would say, yes, we are getting the living crap beat out of us in world public opinion, and that's because we listened to people like Larry Eagleburger and Colin Powell and we went to the U.N. and we dragged that thing around. What the hell we should have done is gone in there and taken this clown out a year ago and straightened this whole mess out, and it's because of the sort of soft internationalist Republicans that we're in this mess. What would you say to him?

EAGLEBURGER: Well, I guess what I'd say to them if they'd really listened, they wouldn't be in quite the mess they're in. But anyway, my point would be -- and I was very critical when this whole thing started against the administration, particularly when Cheney was running around thumping his chest and doing everything to talk about the issue, but always in unilateral terms, always talking about the nuclear weapons issue and leaving you waiting for the president to say, yes, they've got the nuclear weapons and we're going in tomorrow morning.

And my point would be and it has been ever since that, in fact, the mess we're in now, to a degree -- and it's a mess -- and let me go back to say it would be a mess if we'd done everything right, but it's a bigger mess. The mess we're in now is in part because we got the American people and all of these people out in the world -- around the world on their nervous edges because they thought we were going to do it all unilaterally. We weren't talking to anybody else. We weren't presenting any evidence. And it wasn't until the president gave his very good speech to the U.N. that began to turn things around.

And my argument would be if we had done it the way the president did it to the U.N. from the beginning, we would have at least convinced everybody that we were trying our damndest to get everybody to understand why we were doing what we were doing. And in fact, we didn't do that, until the president gave his speech -- and in that speech, by the way, he mentioned nuclear weapons never; he mentioned fissile material once, but he talked about them many times that Iraq had not -- had violated the nuclear (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Security Council...


CARVILLE: ... people buying nuclear weapons is not...

EAGLEBURGER: No. It's not just something, but what we do know is that he has and has used weapons of mass destruction. And we have -- and we've tried to emphasize that, and all I'm saying is we know he's got weapons of mass destruction, we should have been using it in a different manner.

CARLSON: The last word goes on you.

CARVILLE: Yes, sir?

BERGER: I do think that a nuclear Iraq is strategically unacceptable to the United States. I do think we're going to have to act. I think we should make every effort to act with the broadest possible international support, because the war will be quicker and the peace will be easier if we are doing it with the world than if we were doing it by ourselves.

CARLSON: Does the U.N. discredit itself by not enforcing its own resolution? BERGER: You know, I don't think there's much glory to go around on either side here. I think the Europeans, obviously, are not facing up to the responsibilities either, but we have to ask a self- interested question, which is -- which is not only whether or not Saddam Hussein has made the strategic decision to disarm, which is a question Secretary Powell is asking, but how is the best way to confront this problem at the least risk and the maximum prospects for success.

CARLSON: I am sorry. We are completely out of time. Thank you very much, Sandy Berger.

BERGER: Did I ever mention this is a very well produced show.

CARLSON: It is a very well produced show.


CARVILLE: Very well booked show, absolutely.

CARLSON: We're expecting more anti-war protests here in Washington this weekend.

In a moment, we'll ask actress Janeane Garofalo if Code Pink for Peace and other anti-war groups are doing good.

Later, in our Quote of the Day ,another prominent Democrat bemoans her party's lack of courage and vision. We'll explain. We'll be right back.



CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in downtown Washington, D.C. The anti-war group, Code Pink for Peace, will hold a demonstration here in Washington while President Bush has repeatedly made it clear that the anti-war protests in the world don't make any difference to him. How do you fight that?

Stepping into the CROSSFIRE is actress and anti-war activist Janeane Garofalo.



CARLSON: Nice to see you. Janeane, thanks for joining us.

GAROFALO: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: I absolutely respect the opinion of many people who disagree with the idea of a war in Iraq. I guess what I don't respect, and I'm a little bit offended by, are the constant descriptions of motives that President Bush must have. This is all for the oil companies. It's to avenge his father. This sort of stupid kind of psycho babble, psychoanalysis. The president says in the end he's doing this because he thinks Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States. Do you believe that?

GAROFALO: I actually don't. I agree with you, I don't like those facial things like, "It's oil, no blood for oil." I think oil is a part of it. I think oil is a part of it.

I actually do not believe him when he says that Saddam is an immediate threat or a threat to America. I felt his press conference last night was an absolute non-event. I feel like the American people are being lied to and manipulated. He's trying to force 9/11 and Saddam together.

He's banking on the ignorance or the disinformation of the American people. And I think it's unfair. Can I read a quote of why I actually am going to be marching?

CARLSON: Well hold on. Before we get to your march, I'm fascinated of this idea of why Bush would do this. Why he would risk his presidency, why he would send Americans to their deaths and kill American soldiers to perpetuate this lie that you just accused him of perpetuating.

Why would he do that? What's the motive?

GAROFALO: Actually, I think that there are two things. One is called "The Project for a New American Century," which is a paper from 1997, I believe, that was worked on by Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Abrams (ph), I think maybe Cheney, which talks about going into dominate the Gulf region for the resources and also for the geopolitical dominance in a post Cold World War world. The Gulf region is very valuable.

Then there's a paper that James Baker worked on called "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" that he gave to Dick Cheney five months before 9/11 saying that we should go into Iraq.

CARLSON: Well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to negotiate better oil contracts, which we could?


GAROFALO: Well, I don't know. I actually don't know. It seems like it's an idea that Wolfowitz and Perle and some of the other gentlemen in the administration have had for a long time. I don't know why we can't negotiate or something, but can I read a quote by George Bush Sr. about why I -- because it concurs why I'm going to be marching tomorrow. Is that OK?

CARLSON: Sure. Hit us with it.

GAROFALO: OK. This is by George Bush Sr. from his book "A World Transformed." "We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."


CARLSON: You do realize that was in reference to another war under totally different circumstances?

GAROFALO: That's written in 1998. It was written in 1998, and I don't know whether he was just specifically referencing that war, but what he's saying, that's exactly right. And, also, the letter that Colleen Rowley wrote to the FBI yesterday, saying that she doesn't understand why we're going into Iraq when the al Qaeda -- the hunt for al Qaeda is not nearly finished.

It's a distraction to go into Iraq. And that she feels, as an FBI 22-year bureau agent, that Iraq is not an immediate threat.

CARLSON: But we just captured the number three member of al Qaeda who planned 9/11.

GAROFALO: Right, that's great.

CARLSON: So we can do both, obviously.

GAROFALO: No. Why? We're not at war yet. How do you we can both? Plus we're working with Pakistan.

CARLSON: Because we moved hundreds of thousands of troops into the Gulf region and we still caught the number three guy in al Qaeda.

GAROFALO: Go ahead.

CARVILLE: You alluded to the fact that the administration is being untruthful with the American people in the world. Do you have any examples that you want to offer us?

GAROFALO: I actually just feel that, like I said, it's a plan that's been in place for longer than 9/11. And I feel like they are trying to manipulate us to think that Saddam is behind 9/11. George Bush kept saying that last night.

He kept going back to 9/11. And he never really answered anyone's questions about what is the end game, how long will we be there, how much will it cost. He never answered that. He just kept saying that Saddam is a threat.

Well, that sort of defies what intelligence agencies have been saying, and Saddam's neighbors don't seem to be particularly threatened. The rest of the world doesn't really see him as that kind of threat. Now I think that the Iraqi people absolutely deserve to be liberated. That is an above question. Everyone wants the Iraqi people to be liberated.

CARVILLE: Do the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) deserve to be liberated? GAROFALO: Yes.

CARVILLE: Do the Iranian people deserve to be liberated?


CARVILLE: Do the Egyptian people deserve to be liberated?


CARVILLE: Do the Syrian people deserve to be liberated?


CARVILLE: Do people of these African -- do the Zimbabweans deserve to be liberated?

GAROFALO: Yes, of course.

CARLSON: What about the people of Hollywood?

GAROFALO: I don't know, I live in New York. I wouldn't know.

CARLSON: OK. Well, then how do -- it's interesting -- I mean everyone agrees, of course, that the Iraqi people need to be liberated, whatever that means. In your case, what does it mean? How do we specifically liberate the Iraqi people?

GAROFALO: Well, I think a good first step would have been lifting the sanctions a long time ago.

CARLSON: No, but right now. What do we do right now to liberate the Iraqi people?

GAROFALO: Right now?

CARLSON: If you really mean it, you'll have an idea.

GAROFALO: I actually would think that maybe you should move in U.N. peacekeeping forces and more people from Human Rights Watch and have more financial aid to help the Iraqi people.

CARLSON: So soldiers with guns to liberate them?

GAROFALO: No, no, no. I think soldiers...

CARVILLE: Let me tell you what a lot of people are thinking right now. That you're just some feminist, liberal, do-gooder, naive, anti-war goofball.


GAROFALO: Why are you guys clapping for that? Well, first of all, I'm very proud to be...

CARVILLE: Well, that's OK. How many people believe what I just said? Raise your hands.


CARVILLE: See, all these people think that -- go ahead, answer it.

GAROFALO: But, first of all, I'm very proud to be a feminist. That's irrelevant. I'm very proud to be a liberal. And if I'm a do- gooder, that's great. I don't understand...


CARLSON: Well, you say that you are, and actually I'm glad you brought that up.

CARVILLE: Let her finish. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). These people agree that you're naive.

GAROFALO: Well, why would they agree that I'm naive? First of all, there's no indication that I'm a naive person. I respect the fact that I have access to the media. I've worked very, very hard to prepare myself, educate myself about this situation.

I spend a great deal of time every day trying to learn about American foreign policy, about Iraq, about the Mideast, about what my government is doing. I'm trying to participate in my own life. I'm trying to understand what's going on.

Words like "liberal," "feminist," those are irrelevant. I can say the same thing like, a lot of people just think you're just a conservative chauvinist. What does that mean? I mean I don't understand.

CARLSON: I'm sorry. We're going to take a quick commercial break and we will explain what it means when we come back. In a moment, we'll ask Janeane Garofalo if the anti-war movement is big enough and loud enough to get President Bush's attention.

Later, one of our viewers fires back with a request that can make the left side of this table much calmer and quieter. Yes, it's an injection of thorazine. You're watching CROSSFIRE on CNN, the most trusted name in news.


CARVILLE: Last week it's estimated that hundreds of thousands of callers jammed Senate White House switchboards with anti-war messages and a virtual march on Washington. One of the celebrities who supported the virtual march is Janeane Garofalo. Tonight she's in the CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: Well, Janeane, you're going to this march tomorrow led by a group called Code Pink. I don't think you're a member of Code Pink.

GAROFALO: Right. CARLSON: But I want to read you a quote from the founder of Code Pink, an individual named Jodie Evans. I assume this is a woman.

She writes -- I'm quoting -- "When the world is on the brink of being consumed by global testosterone poisoning, it's time for the women to rise up in a preemptive strike for peace." And I read that partly because it's so stupendously stupid, I can't resist. But partly also because it goes on motive; this constant questioning of motives.

It's testosterone that is driving this war. It's a lust for oil, they're lying to us. Why not just address the arguments directly? You think Saddam's a threat, I don't, let's have a fair argument. Why get into motive?

GAROFALO: Well, actually, you know, soundbites, it's really hard to deal with soundbites, and I didn't say it. So I mean I'm...

CARLSON: But you were doing it a minute ago before we went to break. You were saying well, they're lying to us, it's all secret.

GAROFALO: No, I feel as a citizen that when I watched that press conference last night I was being manipulated. I feel like it is not genuine to say that not -- putting 9/11 in there, manipulating fear, manipulating people. And unfortunately, according to "The New York Times" poll, a lot of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

I think that the administration is trying to take advantage of that disinformation. And I think that there's much -- there's a lot of people that have weapons. There's a lot of bad guys out there; there's a lot of dictators out there. And they should all go. We have to be more consistent.

CARLSON: But has it occurred to you that the White House, A, has a huge amount of information that the rest of us don't have...

GAROFALO: They should share it. And they should share it with the weapons inspectors.


CARLSON: But consider this: that the White House is actually not involved in a conspiracy. That they honestly believe that Saddam is a threat. Why won't you give them that benefit of the doubt?

GAROFALO: I don't think it has to be a conspiracy. I didn't say the word "conspiracy."

CARVILLE: Let me ask you something about our country. The new intellectual force in the Republican Party is at man by the name of Michael Savage. And he has a best-selling book...

CARLSON: Who is that?

CARVILLE: ... and he's considered to be the real (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of these (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And he has said that -- and you're a leader to the anti-war movement. He has called for the arrest of leaders in the anti-war movement.


CARVILLE: And the man's got the best-selling right wing book out there. How do you respond to Mr. Savage? And maybe we ought to rest here. Can we...

GAROFALO: I find it so strange that people that allegedly are behind this fight for democracy are the most anti-democratic people. I think that they believe that silence equals patriotism; obedience equals Americanism.


CARLSON: Give me one example of someone apart from this guy -- whoever this Savage character is -- apart from him, who has said that protestors should be jailed or...

GAROFALO: Oh, there are so many that...

CARLSON: Well give me an example. Give me three.

GAROFALO: There's that guy -- what's that guy, he's been on here, who has that "Why the Left Hates America"? That guy. I'm going to write a book called...


CARVILLE: Do you think -- because we have what we call the patriot correct police, in where they try -- somebody says something or questions somebody, they want to try to shut everybody up. I'm like, cuff me, Ashcroft. I think I the lead up to this war has been a disaster for the United States.

GAROFALO: Yes, it has been a disaster.

CARVILLE: I think our foreign policy has been conducted as if it was sort of a buffoon's league (ph). Now arrest me. Arrest me. Arrest me.

CARLSON: What country are you living?

CARVILLE: But that's what they want to do, arrest everybody.

CARLSON: We're almost out of time. Can you tell...

GAROFALO: This administration seeks to run the government like a private corporation. No accountability, no congressional oversight, and no lip from the American people.

CARLSON: But they got a congressional resolution. Did you notice that?

GAROFALO: Yes, I know that. They did get a congressional resolution, that's unfortunate. I think that there's a real problem in this country with -- that the media has not been very great either about free speech, either.


CARLSON: Unfortunately, we are out of time because of our commercial interests. Janeane Garofalo, thank you very much for john us. We appreciate it.

GAROFALO: Thank you.


CARLSON: One of our viewers wonders where Janeane Garofalo and her anti-war colleagues were when the previous occupant of the White House was making war. We'll let him fire back in just a moment.

But next, a "Quote of the Day" that once again proves that the Democratic Party is not quite as effective as it once was. We'll right back.


CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Last October, 16 percent of the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. One of them was Nancy Pelosi, of San Francisco, who is now the leader of the Democrats' increasingly irrelevant minority in the House of Representatives.

She's still against a war, but she says one will happen anyway. In our Quote of the Day, Pelosi blames her fractured party for not standing up to the president when it had the chance. Here she is.


REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: If the Democrats had spoken out more clearly in a unified vote five months ago in opposition to the resolution, if the people had gone on to the streets five months ago in these numbers in our country and throughout the world, I think we might have been in a different place today.


CARLSON: Well, Pelosi is right. I mean she's absolutely right. But my...

CARVILLE: Let me tell you what the problem is. Let me tell you what it is, Tucker. And I did it too. No one would have thought that this administration would have acted with the stupidity and the arrogance that it did. They would have thought that it would have been competent to tell the truth to people when they started saying they have a nuclear arms program, when they (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and they were involved in 9/11.

Had they been candid and humbled before the world and tried to bring people along and work with people, as opposed like you, attacking the French and the Canadians and the Mexicans and everyone else...

CARLSON: You know what? At a time when -- and we're going to be at war probably in two weeks. I would think you would switch from the stupid aesthetic critique of the diplomacy and the public relations and get to the core issue. Hold on.


CARVILLE: I do. Answer the question. Do they have nuclear weapons or not?

CARLSON: And that is, is there a threat or not? You don't even address that.

CARVILLE: You don't know. Because you don't know about it.

CARLSON: They have biological weapons, James.

CARVILLE: You ought to quit attacking people in the world and try to work with people in the world and quite calling people (UNINTELLIGIBLE).


CARLSON: You ignore the argument because you have no argument.

Next in "Fireback," a viewer wonders, whatever happened to Dick Cheney. It doesn't sound like he really wants a serious answer. We'll give him one nonetheless. We'll be right back.



CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Time for our "Fireback" segment, where we cater to Canadians and other viewers, prisoners among them. First up is an e-mail from Mark Nygaard from San Luis Obispo, California. "Where were Janeane Garofalo and the other protesters when Clinton was bombing Bosnia for years? Not to mention he bombed Iraq. Not one protester was to be found."

Well, actually, Janeane Garofalo says that she did protest Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq, and so good for her. She's consistent. But it's an excellent point. Most of them weren't here because it was a Democratic president. They don't care.


CARVILLE: Yes, there's a difference between bombing Iraq and going to war with Iraq, I would guess. "Where is Dick Cheney? Sitting in the vice president's house thinking of ways he will garnish some bucks off our new oilfields in Iraq. Maybe I missed it. Did he quit?" -- Curt Strausbaugh, York, Pennsylvania.

Frankly, I'm kind of -- my problem is ignorance or apathy. I don't know where he is and I really don't care.

CARLSON: No, but the idea that we're going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) so that Cheney can make money off of oil is so appalling, it's not even worth addressing.

Randy Jackson of Margate, Florida writes, "Tell that rabid, yapping dog across the table to shut up and quit crying. It's his right to criticize, but he must realize that he has reserved his place in history as one of the most deconstructive talking heads in TV history."

The interesting thing about this e-mail, James, is it came in addressed to nobody. So it's not clear who Randy Jackson is talking about.

CARVILLE: I hope he's talking about me.

CARLSON: Well, I thought he was talking about me.

CARVILLE: No, please be talking about me.

CARLSON: Really?

CARVILLE: I want to be the most deconstructive talking head in television.

CARLSON: Yes, I think you are. It must be you.

CARVILLE: Thank you. Please, Randy -- "I just love James Carville. He never backs down. We've listened to so many big-mouthed Republicans, it's nice to have a big mouth Democrat." Susan from North Carolina.

CARLSON: All right. And to our audience -- yes, sir?

BILL LOTTI: Good evening. Thank you for a most entertaining show tonight. My name is Bill Lotti (ph). I'm from Eagle River, Wisconsin. And my question is, in your view, what would the effect of going to war, how will that affect the reelection of the president?

CARLSON: Well, it could doom his chances. I mean this is what Democrats never want to admit. This is incredibly risky politically. The political downside much more apparent than the political upside. And it leads you to conclude there's no other conclusion.

Bush really believes this is essential for the country. You can disagree with him or not, but there is no way you can spin it that he's doing it for political reasons.

CARVILLE: Well, I don't know. But if he is not going to lose the war -- A, I know they can win it. B, he has not a single accomplishment other than this war, not one thing he's done domestically.


CARVILLE: So I suspect he -- for one thing, he needs something for his television commercials.

CARLSON: OK -- yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I'm a French citizen. I live in Washington, D.C.


CARLSON: No calling names, James.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I'm French and I'm proud of it. I also live and work in the U.S. And I love this country dearly. And I've been thinking of getting my American citizenship.

CARLSON: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What am I supposed to do? Can I have my red wine and also go shop at the Gap at the same time?

CARLSON: I don't know. I think I speak for James when I say we are strongly pro red wine. I think the California varieties may be a little better than the French. But good for you. I mean, one of the great things about America (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to France and Europe is that welcome immigrants from all over the world without looking down our noses at them. We disagree with your government but we welcome you.

CARVILLE: Actually, I am both French descent myself, and so I have great admiration for French people. I have great admiration for French wine, French cheese, and I like to go to Paris. And I guess they'll come arrest me, Mr. Savage and Mr. Ashcroft and the rest of them.

I do think the French government could -- I disagree with some of the ways that it's handling this, but it's a government that was actually -- Chirac was actually elected by a majority of the people in France.


CARLSON: Well I would say, if you do speak to your president, Jacques Chirac, please tell him to stop allowing companies to sell weapons components to Saddam Hussein's army, if you would. We would be grateful.

CARVILLE: From the left, I'm James Carville. Good night for CROSSFIRE.


Janeane Garofalo>

International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 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. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.