updated 4/15/2004 10:35:25 AM ET 2004-04-15T14:35:25

Guests: Marc Klaas, Robert McFarlane, Frank Sharry, Tom Tancredo, David Hackworth, Ann Coulter, Robert Reich

PAT BUCHANAN, GUEST HOST:  White House correspondents bombarded President Bush last night, pressing him time and again to apologize for mistakes made before 9/11 and in selling the war in Iraq. 

And Florida joins the list of states considering giving driver‘s licenses to illegal immigrants.  Is Governor Jeb Bush outraged?  No.  He‘s all for it, and we‘ll tell you why. 

Then, I‘ll ask Ronald Reagan‘s national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, how he thinks the war on terror is going. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  I‘m Pat Buchanan.  Joe‘s got the night off. 

Reporters practically demanded an apology from President Bush last night for the Iraq war and September 11.  Listen to their questions. 


QUESTION:  Do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11? 

QUESTION:  You never admit a mistake.  Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made? 

QUESTION:  Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you and would you be prepared to give them one? 

QUESTION:  I guess I‘d like to know if you feel in any way that you failed. 


BUCHANAN:  Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is here.  So is “Treason” author Ann Coulter. 

Ann, let me start with you. 

You‘re grinning.  Does the president owe anyone an apology for his role in 9/11 or for the run-up to the war in Iraq, where he said we‘re going to find weapons of mass destruction and his administration indicated it might be a cake walk?

No, I think the only apology most Americans want, after an act of war against this nation, is retribution against the people who ought to be apologizing for it.  And we are getting that from the president. 

BUCHANAN:  All right.  Do you think anyone owes an apology for 9/11?  I know Richard Clarke has given his own apology.  Do you think anyone in the Clinton or Bush administration should step up and say, we failed in our duty, too? 

COULTER:  I really think the administration that should be apologizing is the administration of Osama bin Laden.  I don‘t think we‘re going to get that apology.  So they‘re going to have to die, or, as the president puts it more elegantly, we‘re going to bring justice to them.  This was a sucker punch. 

It was an act of war.  I think we act to look at the things that allowed that to happen.  But, ultimately, we‘re not going to be able to check every bag, every car going through every tunnel across every bridge.  And the people who are demanding an apology from the president, I note, are the ones who want to do nothing to stop the next attack. 

BUCHANAN:  Robert Reich, your president, Mr. Clinton, made any number of apologies.  I recall one.  I guess in Africa he apologized for slavery.  Do you believe that the president of the United States, Mr. Bush, owes the country any apology either for his role and that of his administration in the run-up to 9/11 or for the way he portrayed weapons of mass destruction and what would happen when we got to Iraq? 

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY:  Pat, I don‘t think the issue really is an apology right now.  I think the issue is twofold.  No. 1, how are we going to get out of this mess?  The president didn‘t give any indication last night at all how we were going to get out, who we were going to turn authority over to on June 30.  It looks like a quagmire. 

And the second issue is, there is still nothing that links Iraq with Osama bin Laden and terrorism and al Qaeda.  And what is our strategy for really fighting al Qaeda and for finding Osama bin Laden and for dealing with the fundamental issue here, which is rising Islamic militancy around the world, some of it in response to American military aggression?  How are we going to deal with all of this?  What‘s our plan?  What‘s our strategy?  And the president is not forthcoming.  And I think a lot of Americans, not just Democrats, Pat, but a lot of Americans are becoming a little bit worried about where we‘re going and how we‘re going to get there. 

BUCHANAN:  Ann, before I give you a question, Ann, let me show you a poll here.  The latest “Newsweek” poll shows John Kerry now back in front of the president of the United States.  He‘s beating him in a two-way race, 50-43.  It seems to me this is a direct result of really the first two weeks in Iraq where I think we have lost something like 80 dead and probably something from these 9/11 hearings. 

Ann, what do you think?  When you saw the president last night, what do you think his policy is?  How would you define victory, and what do you think this country ought to do to achieve it? 

COULTER:  I think we are going in the right direction. 

And as for, you know, when we‘re going to be there and how long will it take, I think that is just pointless caterwauling.  I think it‘s going extremely well and I think the president explained that last night.  We‘ve been under relentless attack by Muslim extremists for 20 years.  It didn‘t start on September 11.  And, in point of fact, Saddam Hussein has harbored and sheltered, aided terrorists. 

He engaged in an act of war against the United States by attempting to assassinate the president of the United States.  Clinton, in fact, wanted to attack Iraq in response for his assassination attempt.  But the U.N.  said no.  So Clinton changed his mind.  This is a war that has been going on for 20 years and we‘ve got to get in and get on the ground and create an Arab democracy.  And that‘s what we‘re going to do. 

The American people are not the Spanish.  We are not going to be intimidated out of this war, which is what the Democrats would like us to do, start a war and then pull and run. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Robert Reich, I think the president clearly sold the country on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a thug, a criminal.  He had associations with terrorists.  Whether he was behind 9/11, he wasn‘t.  The president admitted that.  But he did have weapons of mass destruction.  There was a fear he had them. 

And the country supported taking down Saddam Hussein, overthrowing his regime, disarming it to the degree it could.  Do you think the country has bought on to the idea that we ought to spend whatever it takes in blood and money to build a democracy in Iraq, when that looks like a pretty long-term proposition as of this April? 

REICH:  Pat, I think the country wants to know how we‘re going to do it.  Before the country is bought on to the long-term proposition of a lot more American lives, huge, billions of dollars to be spent in Iraq trying to establish democracy, I think the country wants to know really what the plan is, how we‘re going to get there. 

What happens if after September 30 there‘s more chaos, more tribal violence?  What happens if after September 30 the Shiites, who were supposed to be welcoming us, actually turn on us again and say get out even faster?  What‘s the role of the United Nations actually going to be?  And, Pat, what happens if we have an election and it turns out that they want an Islamic republic that turns out to be very radical and anti-American? 

Are we going to accept that kind of democracy?  These are the questions that Americans have before we spill a lot more American blood.  And spend billions more dollars, these questions have got to be answered. 

They are not being answered by the White House now. 

BUCHANAN:  All right. 

Ann, let me say, I happen to agree with Robert Reich on this.  Look, I do think the country needs answers to some questions.  Suppose, after we turn over power on the 30 and then they hold elections that the people who win the elections are radical Shiites, a lot of them are radical Sunnis, who run on the proposition that we‘re going to tell the Americans to get out of the country.  Do we then get out if that side wins the election?  And how long, in terms of blood and treasure and the rest of it, do we spend in Iraq to build a democracy when it does not look like right now the people that want a democracy are willing to fight quite as hard as those who would like to get us out of there? 

COULTER:  I think the point is this is going to be hard.  It‘s going to take a long time.  But it‘s something that absolutely has to be done.  We need...


COULTER:  We need an Arab Israel over there.  We can‘t keep pimping for Israel.  We need a puppet government.  We need to be on the ground.  We need a friendly government.  We need democracy.

And I think George Bush put it far more eloquently than I am in being so direct about it by saying that, you know, even the brown people of the world can pull off democracy.  And I think they can, too.  We‘re going to be killing a lot of terrorists to make this democracy possible.  But we‘re going to have to do that.  Now we‘re flushing them out of the woodwork, so we know where they are and we can kill them. 


REICH:  Pat, I just want to press on this point, because I raised it and then you raised it. 

Ann, I really would very much like to have your view on this.  What happens if their form of democracy says: “We don‘t want Americans here.  We don‘t like America.  We want radical Islamic fundamentalists.  We want to have a radical Islamic fundamentalist state that is virulently anti-American”?

And what happens if their democracy turns out to be a democracy that actually harbors terrorism because they hate America so much?  What happens then?  What is our response then?  Is that a kind of democracy that we are willing to stand for? 

COULTER:  No.  And it‘s not going to happen. 

REICH:  How do you know it‘s not going to happen? 


COULTER:  To hypothesize, you know, what if they elected Adolf Hitler?  OK, we‘ll cross that bridge when we get to it.  But it‘s not going to happen. 

REICH:  Well, see, that‘s exactly the problem, crossing that bridge when we get to it.  The fact is, there‘s no route, there is no highway, there is no signpost.  The administration has given us absolutely no indication of where we are going, why we are going there. 


COULTER:  Yes, it has.  It very clearly has. 

BUCHANAN:  Let me bring in our missing guest here. 

COULTER:  It very clearly has. 


BUCHANAN:  Let me bring in our missing guest here, Colonel David Hackworth. 


REICH:  ... what happens after September 30.

BUCHANAN:  The legendary soldier is with us. 

And, Colonel Hackworth, let me ask you, what—I mean, do you believe

·         here‘s my view of this thing.  I think the president got the country behind him on overthrowing Saddam Hussein and getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction, going to Baghdad.  I don‘t know that the country‘s united upon building a democracy.  They don‘t know how we‘re going to do it, what it‘s going to be life.  Would it be advisable for the president of the United States to lay out our objective, go back and get another resolution from the Congress of the United States, say, either you support me all the way to the end of this conflict or we‘re not going there? 

RETIRED COL. DAVID HACKWORTH, U.S. ARMY:  Well, first of all, reporting for duty, Pat. 

BUCHANAN:  Thank you. 


HACKWORTH:  Now, if you were the president, we wouldn‘t be in this mess. 

You know, wars are bloody easy to get into and damn hard to get out of, as we discovered in Vietnam.  And now we‘re in a situation that we didn‘t go in with enough force.  Besides the argument of how we got there, and we‘re there now and we have to start fighting smart.  What I worry about is, we‘re still in kind of a denial at the highest levels.  And I‘m talking about the secretary of defense not understanding the nature of the war. 

He‘s talking about fighting thugs and bandits, when we‘re fighting a very well orchestrated insurgent campaign and we‘re not fighting it with the skill that we should be employing. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, hold that thought, Colonel, because we‘re going to come right back to it. 

Coming up, another question reporters pressed the president on last night was about Iraq becoming another Vietnam.  I‘m going to ask my panel, in particular Colonel Hackworth, if that comparison is fair. 

And later, Florida Democrats place an outrageous ad in a local paper saying we should line Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld up against a wall and shoot him.  We‘ll tell you about that in just a minute. 

Don‘t go away. 


BUCHANAN:  Is Iraq‘s this generation‘s Vietnam?  I‘ll be debating that with my all-star panel right after this break.

Don‘t go away.


BUCHANAN:  Senator Edward Kennedy set the anti-Bush tone two weeks ago with this line. 


SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS:  He‘s the problem, not the solution.  Iraq is George Bush‘s Vietnam and this country needs a new president. 


BUSH:  But last night, President Bush sharply disagreed with that characterization of the war. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  I think the analogy is false.  I also happen to think that analogy is—sends the wrong message to our troops.  And it sends the wrong message to the enemy.  Look, this is hard work.  It‘s hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. 


BUCHANAN:  The media is running with the comparison.  So is Iraq the new Vietnam? 

Let me take that to you, Colonel Hackworth.  You served in Vietnam, as well as Korea, I believe, and you were over there and you fought in that war.  And, of course, 58,000 Americans did not come home from that war.  We‘ve only lost in combat about 500 in Iraq, which is 1 percent of the casualties. 

But is this like Vietnam, say, 1963, after Kennedy was assassinated, and Johnson is making his decision whether or not to go in whole-hog? 

HACKWORTH:  The only similarity, Pat, is that it‘s a guerrilla war at phase one, the beginning of it. 

In Vietnam, even at the time period that you mentioned, we were in phase one, phase three, fighting battalions and regiments.  And they had the ability to surge all the way up to divisions and corps.  So they don‘t have that division there.  There‘s no sanctuaries that the enemy can run to.  There‘s no Soviet Union or China providing them support.  So we‘re fighting basically a guerrilla in phase one.  He‘s just basically an ankle biter, can‘t do us any damage. 

But remember this.  In Vietnam, we won all the battles and we lost the war.  We could win all the battles in Iraq and still lose the war, and that‘s the danger, because it doesn‘t seem to me that people up at the top running the choo-choo train understand the nature of the war. 


BUCHANAN:  Is this like—Colonel Hackworth—let me ask the colonel another question because he came in a little behind schedule there. 

Colonel, is this like the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, where they held it for 18 years, but they were bled white by Hezbollah?  They only lost about 600 men, I believe.  But the long draining conflict and the killing, they finally said this thing is not worth it.  Let‘s give it up.

HACKWORTH:  You‘re dead on the money.  That‘s exactly the perfect analogy. 

And I think that‘s what‘s going to happen here, unless we fight smart. 

Right now, we‘re fighting again with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel.  We‘re using lots of muscle, rather than the mind.  What we have to do is fight smart and turn this thing around and get the people on our side.  I know it‘s an old, hackneyed expression, winning the hearts and minds of the people.  But what we‘re doing now by blowing up everything in sight is, we are acting as the best recruiting agent in the world for the terrorist, the insurgents, the guy that‘s causing so much pain in Iraq. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Robert Reich, you were of age during Vietnam. 

Do you see any similarities? 

REICH:  Well, Pat, when I hear the president and Don Rumsfeld use phrases like it‘s a test of our resolve or we‘ve got to stay the course, I do hear Bob McNamara and George Bundy and Lyndon Johnson use exactly—and remember, they used exactly the same language in Vietnam.  Bombs were more important than winning the hearts and minds of the people. 

But then they did start talking about winning the hearts and minds of the people.  The problem, we had no exit strategy from Vietnam.  We didn‘t know how to get out.  We got bogged down.  We weren‘t even sure exactly why we were there.  Many thought we were there to stop Chinese and Soviet communism.  We had the domino theory.  Remember the domino theory?  Well, one gets a little bit of a vague memory of that in terms of being in Iraq in order to stem global terrorism.  Is there really a connection between Iraq and local terrorism?


BUCHANAN:  All right, let me ask Ann Coulter that.

Ann Coulter, Colonel Hackworth suggests that the way we are fighting this war, for example, in Fallujah, I guess we killed about 600 or something like that, and we came in very heavy and very tough after the murder and mutilation of those four contractors, that that may not be the way to fight the war.  What are your thoughts on that? 

COULTER:  Wars are similar in some ways and different in some ways. 

All wars are. 

But, no, the idea that this is Vietnam is preposterous.  Only the Democrats could take the world‘s greatest superpower to war and lose the war.  Democrats lost Vietnam because they don‘t believe in America‘s virtue.  They‘re squeamish about projecting America‘s power around the world.  Look at John Kerry.  He votes for the war, but then doesn‘t vote to fund it. 

That‘s how the Democrats take the nation to war.  They love throwing American troops and money around the world.  But then they won‘t commit to when.  In Vietnam, a Republican either wouldn‘t have gone to war or would have fought it to win.  And as long as George Bush is president, this is not going to be another Vietnam. 

REICH:  I don‘t know how we could have won Vietnam, given how we began Vietnam.  And do you think that if we had stayed in Vietnam we would have won it and that we should have stayed and continued to bomb? 

BUCHANAN:  Well, we‘re not going to get in—hold it. 

COULTER:  I think it‘s a curious fact is that we only lose wars that Democrats run.

REICH:  That is absolutely bizarre.  That reasoning is absolutely absurd.


COULTER:  We should compare it to Somalia or the Iranian hostage crisis or another disaster under a Democrat president. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Colonel Hackworth, let me ask you, how would—you mentioned hearts and minds.  How long, how much blood, how much treasure should the United States invest in Iraq to turn it into a democracy?  Because our immediate objective, initial objective, has been achieved, getting rid of a rotten regime, getting rid of any possible weapons of mass destruction, disarming it?  That is done.  Is it a vital interest of ours that Iraq be democratic and why? 

HACKWORTH:  I don‘t think it‘s a vital interest that they be democratic.  But it is very essential that—we have gone there.  We have made probably, in my calculation, the greatest military miscalculation in my country‘s history by invading Iraq and getting in this mess.  But we can‘t fold up our tent now, as we did in Somalia, as we did in Haiti, and run away to fight another day.

We have to stay the course, but we have to fight it smartly.  We have to learn from the past.  And there‘s plenty of lessons out there that we can learn from.  We can learn from the Israelis.  I think they‘re appalled at our actions.  I know the Brits are very appalled at our actions.  We should have flipped back to history, 1914, 1922.  We‘re going through exactly what the British went through when they created Iraq to get out of that place. 


BUCHANAN:  Well, let me throw out a little bit to the panel here.  A new Gallup poll shows Americans think the Iraq war is going badly.  As of right now, 64 percent say the situation is very bad or moderately bad.  That‘s up from 43 percent only last month, understandably.  But only 35 percent now say the war is going well. 

Now, in order to maintain a commitment fighting and dying, even at a relatively low level, not a Vietnam level, you‘ve got to have public support.  Before you commit the Army, you commit the nation. 

But I would ask all three of you before very briefly, is the nation committed to doing what the president wants done right now? 

HACKWORTH:  Well, when you look at what‘s affecting our force, the U.S. military ground force, Marine Corps, Army, are stretched to the breaking point.  In the 58 years that I‘ve been on this beat as a soldier or a reporter about soldiers, I have never seen our military in more broken condition. 

They have no reserve, Pat.  There‘s no one they could react to if we were hit.  So we‘re in bad shape and we‘ve got to look at what‘s going on and realize that Rumsfeld makes McNamara look like a military genius. 


BUCHANAN:  Very briefly, because I‘ve got a question for Ann.  But go ahead, Robert.

REICH:  Yes, I think the country could get behind the president if the president gave a road map to the country of exactly what we‘re going to do, how we‘re going to do it and what our goal is, and also how this relates to fighting global terrorism.  He hasn‘t done that and the country is very concerned. 

BUCHANAN:  OK, Ann, since we‘ve got you here, I want to ask you about an over-the-top ad from some Kerry supporters that suggest we would be ever off with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gone.  The ad in Florida says, “We should put the SOB up against a wall and say, this is one of our bad days, and pull the trigger.”

Ann, are the politics of the year 2004 turning very, very raw and rotten already? 

COULTER:  I only wish the Democrats would show this much anger toward Islamic terrorists. 


BUCHANAN:  All right.  Thank you.  As always, Ann, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Robert Reich.  It‘s been a pleasure, coming to us from Berkeley, I believe.


BUCHANAN:  And, Colonel David Hackworth, you are confined to quarters this weekend for the late arrival. 


BUCHANAN:  Thank you very much.  We appreciate it, all of you. 

HACKWORTH:  Take care.

REICH:  Bye-bye.

BUCHANAN:  OK, still to come, Jeb Bush backs a plan to give Florida driver‘s licenses to illegal immigrants.  But how will he keep them out of the hands of terrorists? 

Plus, how his brother doing in his war on terror?  We‘re going to ask the national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Robert McFarlane, what he thinks—coming up. 


BUCHANAN:  Now, I agree we need to get out to vote, but New York is taking that a little too far, pushing to let people cast a ballot even if they‘re not American citizens—that story coming up. 

But, first, let‘s get the latest headlines from the MSNBC News Desk. 


BUCHANAN:  Governor Jeb Bush of Florida strongly supports a policy that would give illegal immigrants driver‘s licenses.  He said it would make Florida roads safer.  Critics say illegals shouldn‘t get the privilege of a license.  And in New York City there‘s a movement to give illegal immigrants who are not American citizens the right to vote. 

Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo join me now. 

Tom, this is what Governor—Tom Tancredo, thanks for coming here.  And let me read you what Governor Bush, the brother of your president, had to say here. 

He said—quote—“We shouldn‘t allow them into our country to begin with, but once they‘re here what do you do?  It seems a policy that ignores them is a policy of denial.”

So let‘s give them driver‘s licenses.  Why not? 

REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, COLORADO:  Because, of course, the big word here is illegal.  That‘s the one nobody wants to actually use to describe the folks who have come here and broken our laws.  But that‘s who they are.  They are illegal aliens. 

And as a result of violating our laws, Governor Bush, and, in fact, several other governors around the country, are proposing to reward them for doing that by giving them driver‘s licenses or a variety of other options—opportunities that are only available to people who have lived here legally and are citizens of the United States.  That‘s why it‘s a bad idea. 

I don‘t care if they talk about, you know, the issue of security all day long and whether they can make them secure—that the people who are applying for it, we could determine whether or not they are terrorists.  That‘s really not the issue.  I don‘t care if we could do it.  And in fact, we can‘t.  So it‘s a very dicey thing to begin with from the issue of national security. 

But beyond that, Pat, the reality is these people are here illegally. 

What is so hard for people to understand? 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me talk to Frank Sharry. 

And, Frank, I do want to raise very briefly this issue of security; 12 of those 19 September 11 hijackers carried legal Florida driver‘s licenses when they came into this country or I.D. cards, and these are the same cards that Jeb Bush is going to give to folks—illegal aliens in Florida.  Now, look, the American people don‘t want this done.  Gray Davis, when he recommended it and put it through out in California, was wiped out on that, two-thirds of the Californians.  It‘s the law of the land that they are illegal. 

What is the problem, at least when it comes to illegal aliens in this country? 

FRANK SHARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM:  The problem is broken federal laws.  Tom Tancredo says, oh, the laws have been violated. 

The laws are out of step with reality.  We have workers from south of the border filling available jobs north of the border, and we‘ve got no legal channels.  You can call them illegal or you can call them future citizens. 

TANCREDO:  They are illegal, Frank.  What would you call them? 


SHARRY:  I would call them people who come here to work hard, and because of our out-of-step immigration policies....


TANCREDO:  The word is illegal, Frank. 

BUCHANAN:  Are they breaking into the country?

TANCREDO:  Right.  That‘s right.  And bootleggers are relatives, Pat. 

We‘re breaking that law, too. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, when they did, they went to prison when they did that. 

TANCREDO:  And so we should ignore it? 


SHARRY:  We should deal with reality, Congressman.  We should deal with reality. 

TANCREDO:  Here‘s reality. 


SHARRY:  There are 10 million people here doing jobs that Americans don‘t want to do. 

TANCREDO:  Closer to 15 million. 

SHARRY:  We have to deal with the reality.  The fact is, is that our immigration laws which Congress sets are not the Bible. 

They are out of step with reality.  And we‘ve got to bring them up to date with reality.  President Bush wants to do it.  Members of Congress from both parties want to do it.  Unfortunately, people like you are standing in the way.  And Governor Bush is left with a situation of people driving on his roads that are not vetted and not licensed and not insured, and he says, we‘ve got to deal with reality. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, Tom Tancredo, go ahead, Tom. 

TANCREDO:  Listen, the reality is this, that no matter how—what tortured logic you want to try to apply to this and go, yes, yes, they‘re here illegally, but the law is bad.  Well, you know what? 

Anybody who has every broken a law in this country would probably argue that law is bad.  If the law is bad, Frank, there is a way to handle that.  You know, in this country, if there‘s something wrong with the law, you repeal it.  You change it.  But as long as it is the law—and it is the law of the land today that if people enter this country without our permission, that is a violation of the law.  And you should never, ever reward them for that. 


BUCHANAN:  All right, Frank, that‘s my point, too.  Look, you‘ve got a law passed in 1965.  Some of us might have disagreed with it.  Frankly, I supported it at the time.  You‘ve got the amnesty under Ronald Reagan, OK.  But now the laws of the land are being violated.  You‘ve got a million people trampling across the Southwest border into this country taking benefits, getting driver‘s licenses. 

A lot of them are going to jail, some of them going to prison.  Some of them are killing Americans.  But they‘re here illegally.  Why do you not at least say, look, while the laws are on the books, we‘ve got to enforce the laws, but I‘m going to fight to change them?

SHARRY:  We are fighting to change the laws, so the laws can work. 

The system is broken now, Pat.  You can‘t enforce the law when you have...         

BUCHANAN:  Why not? 

SHARRY:  When you have hundreds of thousands of jobs being filled by hundreds of thousands of immigrants and no legal process for that. 

BUCHANAN:  Look, we‘ve got 10 percent unemployment among African-American males.  What do you mean?  You‘ve got high unemployment. 

SHARRY:  Look, in the 1990s, we had wages up.  We had unemployment low.  We had millions of immigrants coming into this country filling jobs. 

BUCHANAN:  They come here when there‘s high unemployment and low unemployment. 

SHARRY:  And 50 percent...

BUCHANAN:  Do you think we ought to protect the border? 

SHARRY:  I do.  But I think we have to change the laws in order to be effective.  We need carrots and sticks. 



TANCREDO:  Frank, that‘s OK. 

I mean, you think we ought to change the law.  That‘s a debate we can have in the Congress of the United States and it‘s a debate we should have and in fact do quite regularly.  But so far the law hasn‘t been changed.  So your position is that we should ignore it because you don‘t like it and because a lot of people violate it.  But I‘m telling you that that is antithetical, it is absolutely opposed to everything we‘re supposed to believe in, in this country in terms of approving of and holding up the rule of law as something that we all believe in. 

So, you know


SHARRY:  If have reasonable rules, we will restore the rule of law. 

BUCHANAN:  Frank, isn‘t this about whether or not we are a country? 

SHARRY:  Yes. 

BUCHANAN:  And you‘re saying it‘s just—look, it‘s a big jobs mall and everybody come pouring in.

SHARRY:  No, I‘m not.  Pat...

BUCHANAN:  And if you‘re here, go ahead and apply for the job.  But it‘s a country and a homeland and you don‘t have people walking into it.  You defend it, don‘t you?  You put up a fence if people are squatting on your lawn or they‘re coming into your house.  You say, look, you were not invited.  You‘ve got to go back. 

SHARRY:  Look, we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and our current policies fail on both counts.  We‘re not letting in enough immigrants who want to fill available laws.  We don‘t have laws that can be effectively enforced. 


BUCHANAN:  Now, my guess is your ancestors and mine came here legally, right? 

SHARRY:  That‘s right, when we had legal channels for them to come. 

I‘ll tell you, they were not rocket scientists, Pat, let‘s be honest. 


TANCREDO:  Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, 1.3 million people come into this country legally every year on a way to be—legal immigration.  It doesn‘t even count, as a matter of fact, all of the visa opportunities, you know, student visas, work visas; 1.3 million come in here legally every year just as immigrants.  That‘s not enough? 


SHARRY:  With all due respect, the undocumented immigrants who worked on redecorating your house couldn‘t find a visa if their life depended on it, because there‘s no legal channel for them to come in. 

TANCREDO:  Frank, they could have absolutely come in here as an H1, an H2B, an H2A. 


SHARRY:  There‘s no H2B visas left.  There‘s no visas for these people.

TANCREDO:  There are a lot of visa applications for them.

SHARRY:  It‘s just not true. 

TANCREDO:  What do you mean they‘re not there? 


SHARRY:  The fact is, is that we have a couple of hundred thousand more people coming in to fill jobs than visas. 


SHARRY:  We can have laws that work. 

BUCHANAN:  Frank, you‘re a good liberal fellow.  What do you think about having folks up in New York who are not even American citizens voting on our leaders? 

SHARRY:  I‘m opposed to it.  I think you should become a citizen in order to have the right to vote. 

BUCHANAN:  We got him on one issue at least, Tom. 

TANCREDO:  That‘s the one.  All right, we‘re on the way.  We‘re on the way.

SHARRY:  And the people who are working hard and paying taxes should get on a path to citizenship as well. 


BUCHANAN:  Listen, Tom, thank you both very much.  It‘s always a pleasure, Congressman Tom Tancredo. 

TANCREDO:  Pleasure.

BUCHANAN:  Frank Sharry, an old friend from radio days and TV days.

SHARRY:  You bet.

BUCHANAN:  Thanks for joining us, both of you.

SHARRY:  Thank you. 

BUCHANAN:  Up next, folks, it‘s been a bloody few weeks in Iraq and another foreign hostage was killed today, an Italian fellow.  I‘m going to ask President Reagan‘s national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, how we got into this mess, is it a mess, and how do we get out. 

And an unbelievable scene in a Florida courtroom.  A convicted murderer taunts his victim‘s family.  We‘ll be right back for that.

ANNOUNCER:  You‘re watching SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Now here‘s some Hotwire travel trivia:  What U.S. city is nicknamed the Monument City?

Stay tuned for the answer.


ANNOUNCER:  You‘re watching SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  And in today‘s Hotwire travel trivia, we asked you, what U.S. city is nicknamed the Monument City?  Give up?  The answer is Indianapolis, Indiana.

Now here‘s Pat.

BUCHANAN:  Media critics on the president have been calling for an apology for the 9/11 attacks, following the lead of Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism adviser to President Bush. 

Here‘s what Clarke said in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. 


RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER:  To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you.  Those entrusted with protecting you failed you.  And I failed you. 


BUCHANAN:  With me now is an old friend from Ronald Reagan‘s White House, Bud McFarlane, Robert McFarlane, national security adviser, who also grew up in Northwest Washington, as I did, as a contemporary, Wilson High School, however. 


BUCHANAN:  Welcome, Bud.

MCFARLANE:  Good to see you, Pat.

BUCHANAN:  Good to see you. 

Let me ask you, who failed the people of the United States on 9/11, besides Richard Clarke? 

MCFARLANE:  Pat, we haven‘t had an intelligence agency worthy of the name for 40 years.  And until we acknowledge that—and I think the 9/11 Commission is trying—and begin to rebuild it, especially the human collection that‘s essential for penetrating terrorist cells, we‘re not building to be able to win this war.  And the sooner we get to recognize that, the better. 

BUCHANAN:  Was it the Pike commission and all that crowd in the 1970s, did they gut the CIA?  You mentioned 40 years.  That goes all the way back to 1964, ‘65, all the way back to the Bay of Pigs almost. 

MCFARLANE:  Well, I think the intelligence agencies really missed the point of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  They kept telling us the Soviets were 10 feet tall.  And, as we now know, they couldn‘t have sustained conflict for more than a matter of weeks. 

Now it‘s terrorism that they really have failed to be able to penetrate and get inside and know exactly when these groups are planning to move, to attack, and to be able to disrupt them.  They need to burn it to the ground almost and start over.  This is unconscionable. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me ask you this.  We‘re in Iraq now.  And I think the president sold the country, certainly sold the Congress, that we had to go in there, get rid of Saddam Hussein.  Whatever weapons he had, we had to get rid of them.  OK, we know he didn‘t have as many as we thought he did. 

But do you think the country has been sold—and you served in Vietnam.  You were an officer in Vietnam.  Do you think the country‘s been sold on the amount of blood and treasure it may take to build a democracy in Iraq and has the president closed the sale on that? 

MCFARLANE:  Well, Pat, I think if the president had portrayed the goal as you just have, to create a democracy and a market economy, if you will, that he could have waged that debate publicly and possibly evoked popular support, for that is a sweeping, really breathtaking goal, to say that he‘s launching our country on an effort to transform literally the entire Middle East, starting with Iraq.  But it wasn‘t sold that way.  It was sold on weapons. 

BUCHANAN:  Exactly.  And the American people—I mean, we went to war in 1991, as I recall.  President Bush was indicating nuclear weapons.  And as soon as that was mentioned, the support for a war just rolled right over the top.  A, of course, with Saddam, it was the weapons, the threat and all the rest of it. 

What I‘m getting at, Bud, is, the president is launching some kind of world democratic revolution which involves an immense expenditure, perhaps of blood, certainly of treasure, over an indefinite period of time because he says it‘s vital to our security.  But the American people, something like 63 percent think the war is going badly in Iraq.  Half think maybe we ought to get out now. 

Are we headed down the road to having a divided country fighting a war? 

MCFARLANE:  I think we are, until the time when the president defines just what the alternatives are here.  If you think hard about what are the things we really need to worry about in the world right now, it is countries predominantly in the Muslim world who are dominated by corrupt regimes, poverty-stricken societies, low literacy, which are hotbeds for terrorism and ultimately proliferation and the kinds of weapons that could do real damage. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me ask you here, though.  With Afghanistan, of course, we took down the Taliban.  We went in there and we put al Qaeda on the run. 

But do we have to do that with all of these regions like that, the Syrian regime, the Iranian regime, which is working on nuclear weapons, or can deterrents work?  Can containment work?  Or do we have to go in and do an Iraq again and again and again? 

MCFARLANE:  Well, Pat, this is a struggle that will take many administrations for a long, long time.  And I think you have to lay it out in those terms. 

It has several dimensions, many of them economic, investing in literacy in Pakistan and intelligence very heavily, and of conflict that will involve violence and the loss of life and treasure.  And you have to enable the American people to judge, is it worth it or would we rather remain vulnerable to the kinds of things we faced 2 ½ year ago?

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me ask, though.  We had Colonel David Hackworth on.  And I‘ve heard Barry McCaffrey.  And they‘re talking about, you‘ve only got so many combat brigades left.  We‘ve got them committed to Afghanistan.  We‘ve got them committed to South Korea and we‘ve got them committed to Iraq and you‘re rotating them in and out. 

Do we have the troops in place for the army of 480,000 men to fight these kinds of wars? 

MCFARLANE:  We‘re stretched very thin.  Dave Hackworth is right. 

It‘s going to be very hard to sustain this without calling up more of them.  And I think you‘re going to hear a call from the field for some more help before very long in Iraq. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think we‘ll have to go to a draft to fight this long-term war? 

MCFARLANE:  Well, I hate to say this on a five-minute interview. 

BUCHANAN:  That‘s a tough question, yes.

MCFARLANE:  I think we should never gone away from the draft.  But, no, I don‘t think we‘ll have to go back to the draft. 

BUCHANAN:  Do you think we‘ve got the troops in place to do it?

MCFARLANE:  We‘ll have to call up some more reserves, but we do have the ability to put them in the field. 

BUCHANAN:  All right, let me press you.  How long do you think until we establish what we want to Iraq?  How long? 

MCFARLANE:  I think we‘ll get in the short term this Sadr fellow and lock him up in a matter of weeks.  I think we‘ll also be able to put together a governing coalition that can maintain stability.  But we‘re going to have boots on the ground there for years. 

BUCHANAN:  Bud McFarlane, thanks very much for coming in.  It was a pleasure seeing you again. 

MCFARLANE:  Good to see you, Pat.

BUCHANAN:  OK, still ahead, folks, a disturbing courtroom scene.  A teen killer shows no remorse as he taunts his victim‘s family.  It‘s a shocking, ugly story.

And it‘s coming up. 


BUCHANAN:  Don‘t forget, you can now watch SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY Sunday through Thursday  at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.  And catch “ULTIMATE EXPLORER” Friday with Lisa Ling at 10:00.

More SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY straight ahead.


BUCHANAN:  A horrifying scene Tuesday in a Florida courtroom.  After being sentenced to 40 years for the brutal murder of a 17-year-old boy, the murderer taunted the boy‘s mother and father. 

Take a look at this. 




BUCHANAN:  Joining me now, Marc Klaas of BeyondMissing.com, whose daughter Polly was abducted and murdered 10 years ago. 

Marc, I guess you saw that.  What is your take on that? 

MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION:  Well, you know, the real poignant irony to this, Pat, is that, as the youngest, sweetest thing in the big house now, this guy is going to be on the receiving end of some very similar taunts in just a very few days.  And one would hope that his adjustment and transition period will be very difficult. 

BUCHANAN:  Marc, let me ask you.

KLAAS:  Sure.

BUCHANAN:  I know that now, when the sentencings come up, the families go in and they testify and they speak out against the criminal, what was done, and express their sentiments.  But, of course, I guess these sort of television in the courtroom gives these characters an opportunity for their not 15 minutes, but their 10 seconds of fame.  Is that a problem for you? 

KLAAS:  Well, I don‘t think it is—I don‘t think it‘s the cameras in the courtroom as much as it is the fact that we don‘t have any kind of equity for victims in the courtroom. 

Until we get a victims rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affords us the same kind of respect and dignity in the courtroom that it affords the convicted killers, these kinds of things will continue.  This is nothing more than the psychopathic response of somebody that knows he‘s going down and just wants to get one last dig in and revictimize yet again. 

BUCHANAN:  Marc, you mentioned the word psychopathic.  I saw that TV image of you when the sentencing—I guess around the time the sentencing took place.  And it was one of the ugliest scenes I have ever seen on television, this character.  And I know it was very rough on you. 

But you‘ve indicated we can show this to the folks, when you had this similar experience when your daughter‘s killer, this Richard—I guess Richard Allen Davis, when he testified.  And so we‘re going to show that right now. 

KLAAS:  Sure. 


RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS, MURDERER:  The main reason I know that I did not attempt any lewd act that night was because of a statement the young girl made to me when walking her up the embankment: “Just don‘t do me like my daddy.”  I have to pay my dues, and so should you. 


KLAAS:  Burn in hell, Davis. 


BUCHANAN:  Now, Marc, that was you.  And I know you really had some things to say to him as the father of that little girl.  First, let me ask you, is that guy still alive? 

KLAAS:  You know, he is still alive. 

And, again, Pat, here‘s the situation.  He was nothing more than a cowardly baby-killer, somebody who had to lurk in the night to kidnap and rape a little girl because he couldn‘t handle a relationship with a grownup woman.  And you know what?  He said those things to me, but he continues to sit on death row, and I‘m out here telling the world right now exactly what he is.  And Ms. Lauder (ph) has to remember that.  As time goes on, it will get easier for her.  This guy will be in prison for the next 34 years at least. 

BUCHANAN:  That must have been a moment for you that was just horrific. 

KLAAS:  Well...

BUCHANAN:  With this character saying that. 

And this is what I‘m getting at, is, where does this character get this right, as it were, to really speak?  And I guess we‘re adding to it by letting him speak to the whole world and make this loutish, piggish, evil statement.  And is it because the cameras are in there and they allow him to do this? 

KLAAS:  Well, you know, in the case of Richard Allen Davis, he did not have the right to make that statement.  He had been—he had the opportunity during the entire trial to sit on the stand and defend himself.  But he chose not to do so.  I‘m not quite sure why the judge did it. 

But the fact remains that they‘re given these kinds of opportunities.  It‘s just nothing more than a different kind of victimization.  I don‘t think it would make any difference if the cameras are on in the courtroom or not. 

BUCHANAN:  OK, Thank you very much, Marc Klaas. 

KLAAS:  Sure thing. 

BUCHANAN:  And that does it for SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY tonight, folks. 

Tomorrow night, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and author of “An End to Evil,” Richard Perle.  Plus, some people in the press are salivating for a McCain-Kerry ticket in November.  But the great Rush Limbaugh thinks Kerry‘s best shot is by picking this guy. 

Come back tomorrow and I will let you know if I think it‘s doable. 


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, Inc.), ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Discussion comments