MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesFebruary 28, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Good evening. Welcome to MAKING SENSE. Tonight, we're going to be talking about the security issue of the day: Should America take out Saddam Hussein? But first, I want to follow up a little bit on some of the things we talked about last night, because there have been some interesting developments. In the course of the day, I learned that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has decided to withdraw the subpoenas that he has sent out against the CPC, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which we discussed last night.
After our discussion last night, we learned today that he has come to terms with the lead CPC in New York and the terms of that agreement, which are basically going to continue the status quo in terms of responsible behavior by the CPCs are going to be offered to all the CPCs throughout the state ending what I hope is the shadow that hung over there. I think very good work in the alternative they represent.
We also learned, by the way, that the ambassador from Kuwait, who was on last night, and who told us that maybe that Gallup poll wasn't quite accurate because the sample included a lot of folks who were ex-patriots in Kuwait, turns out today that a spokesman for Gallup has confirmed that some 50 percent of that sample included ex-patriots. So the ambassador's argument may have been a good one. You learned it first here on MAKING SENSE.
Tonight, we're going to be talking about an issue that continues to gain him attention as we await the next stage, the next definitive stage in the war against terrorism. Obviously, that's a war that involves possibilities all over the world as we have discussed here on this program. It also, of course, involves the identification of the axis of evil that President Bush has presented. But the question of the day is whether or not the next stage in that war is going to focus on one member of that axis — Iraq — and whether in fact we should move in a strong military way to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. We're going to be looking at these key questions in the course of the evening here on MAKING SENSE.
First of all, when we talk about moving against Saddam Hussein, are we fighting the war on terrorism, or are some folks just determined to finish he Gulf War? Would Saddam Hussein's fall destabilize Iraq and have possibly destabilizing effects on the region? And who would replace Saddam Hussein, capable of governing that country in such a way as to avoid that kind of destabilizing effect?
We're going to be talking about these and other issues involved with this critical question. And to help us up front tonight, we have James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American Institute; and retired Air Force general, Michael Short, an MSNBC military analyst.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Welcome. Thank you.
KEYES: Thank you for taking the time to be with me tonight. First question I'd like to lay on the table quite clearly. We look at this right now in the context of the war on terrorism. I think some folks raise questions about just how Saddam Hussein is now related to that war. There is the question of his involvement with weapons of mass destruction. In terms of that first question I laid on the table, are we talking about something that is vital to the war on terrorism, or are we dealing with something that is an overhang from the Persian Gulf War?
Michael Short, what do you think? Which of these, or neither, are we talking about with Saddam Hussein?
GEN. MICHAEL SHORT (RET.), U.S. AIR FORCE: Alan, I think, as always, you put your finger on the issue. The question is not should — simply should we go to war against Saddam Hussein. The question is: Has he done something that requires the United States to act in its national interest. And I think those issues are terrorism. Is he supporting it? Is he taking part in terrorist actions? And is he developing weapons of mass destruction that he would use to pass to terrorists or intimidate his neighbors and to in fact attack his neighbors? And if any of those issues are indeed the case, then I think the United States has to move militarily when it's ready.
KEYES: Now do you think, based on what you've seen, general, that that is, in fact, the case and that we should be taking — making plans to take this step?
SHORT: Alan, I won't mince words with you. I believe that Saddam Hussein has supported terrorism in the past, and I think he continues to do so. I also believe that he is trying very, very hard to develop his own weapons of mass destruction.
Now, the issue is: Are we able to produce evidence that will convince our allies and our traditional friends that, indeed, he has taken part in this action, because this is not something we can do unilaterally. We cannot move successfully against Saddam Hussein by ourselves.
KEYES: Jim Zogby, looking at the situation with Iraq, the kind of reaction that has been prevalent, I think, amongst Americans to the acts of terrorism against us, the focus that is now placed on Iraq, do you think that a move by the United States against Saddam Hussein is justified?
ZOGBY: It's not a question of justified; it's a question of: Is it appropriate and would it be desirable? You talk about the next stage. I don't think we're out of this stage. Afghanistan is still not resolved. And, frankly, if we move too quickly, we could leave Afghanistan in a situation not unlike the way it was a decade ago where it would become continually unstable and become breeding ground for yet the next stage of radicalism in that region.
Secondly, we may have taken out the Taliban, but we have not solved the problem of al Qaeda. And first things first. We need the coalition support of regional allies in order to route out the networks of al Qaeda that still; exists and are still quite troublesome. If we move precipitously and unilaterally against Iraq, we run the risk of losing regional support and thereby not getting what is the initial target and what I think is the target that the American really want if they stop and think about it. And that is to get al Qaeda that is in fact the group that is the perpetrator of the actions that took place on September 11th. That's the first test. And we're not there yet. So before we start moving out...
KEYES: But Jim...
ZOGBY: ... to Georgia and moving out to the Philippines and to Yemen and points east and west, we have to finish the job at hand, and I don't think we're there yet, Alan.
KEYES: But Jim, one question I have. As I see it — and I must say that I look at this whole situation and I still have some pointed questions about it. But one of the questions that arises for me as I look at what the administration is doing is the question of whether or not the remaining al Qaeda network representing, as I think most of us would acknowledge, cells that are not only in the Middle East but in various parts of the world that may be capable of doing harm against America. One element of that harm could very well involve weapons of mass destruction. Don't we have to worry about states like Iraq that might be providers of such weapons, and that we have to make sure we discourage them from playing that role?
ZOGBY: The question is that there are many places that such weapons are available. And Iraq has not yet been proven to be one of them. And so I think there's an element of caution here that is important. You know, a great power and a great leader like America needs, at the same time that it is forceful to also be quite cautious and deliberate and thoughtful in how it uses its power.
Let me tell you something. If Afghanistan in a post-war phase is a mess and poses, in fact, a regional challenge, Iran has still got a sphere of influence, Pakistan is very concerned what happens on its northern border, and Uzbekistan is concerned as well. Think about Iraq and the regional problems that could exist if, in fact, we move unilaterally. And the fact is right now that the economics of the situation and the politics and the military balance of the situation do not bode well in our favor. We can do it. We got the power to do it.
KEYES: Jim, one second. Jim, one second.
ZOGBY: But the question is: Does it serve our purposes to do it?
KEYES: General Short, I think there is a question to be raised, first, about the long-term effects this might have both within Iraq and in terms of the region — and so that question goes to the heart of this issue of urgency. Do you think that looking at the situation right now from what you understand with respect to Iraq and the questions about Saddam Hussein's possible role with weapons of mass destruction, his links to terrorism, that we are faced with an urgent need to look at taking him out as a critical priority of America's anti-terror policy right now?
SHORT: Alan, I think the urgent need is to produce evidence that he has taken part in terrorist activity or he has, indeed, develops weapons of mass destruction. Now I think the urgency will be on the side of weapons of mass destruction. If we find out tomorrow that he has these weapons and has prepared to intimidate or prepared to use them, then there is urgency in our action and we've got to move. But, again, I stress the importance of building a coalition. We cannot do this unilaterally. We have to have basing. We've got to have access, and we've got to have support of some of our friends. I believe, personally, it will be militarily impossible to move against Iraq if we didn't have support or either Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We'd like to have both, but I believe we've got to have support of at least one of those large Muslim nations.
KEYES: One last quick question to Jim Zogby.
We look at this poll that came out yesterday in terms of the sentiment in the Arab and Islamic world with respect to the United States and the war on terrorism and so forth. In light of that need that you and the general are talking about for coalition building, do you think that the kind of sentiments that were indicated in that poll should loom large in our considerations with respect to this?
ZOGBY: I think absolutely loom large. And the fact is that we could create a more destabilized situation and a more hostile environment for the United States and for our allies in the region if we move unilaterally and precipitously.
Listen, there's no one in the region that feels that this is a good guy. He's a bad guy. And frankly, no one's going to shed a tear if he's gone. Do we need to move militarily ourselves, or should we help to foster incentives and conditions for a change within Iraq? I think the Saudis have presented us a plan on how it can be done internally. There is no external force that can do it. It must happen internally. And, frankly, the consequences of us acting militarily at this point are far — I think far too dangerous and not desirable for us to do it at this point.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
ZOGBY: Thank you.
SHORT: Thank you.
KEYES: Appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us tonight. Very thoughtful and insightful remarks, if I do say so. And I appreciate your coming to share them with us.
SHORT: Thank you.
KEYES: We're going to get further into this with a panel of experts in the heart of the matter. And later, we're going to talk about the fact that the president wants to spend some money promoting marriage. There's no opposition to this. Some folks say that helping people on welfare to get married is not a good idea. I say why not? We'll debate that issue on the show tonight.
But first, does this make sense? You've got the folks over at the DNC — Terry McAuliffe and his buddies. They're building a new facility. It's going to cost $30 million, and they've decided to pay the bill up front. Now who does that, I mean, gives the bill, the money before they've started to produce the goods? Doesn't usually make much sense. That is unless you're the chairman of the DNC and you want to pay with soft money before it becomes illegal on November 6th if this new law is passed. Now what this tells me is that just like they've been cheating all this time on the previous federal election laws and so-called campaign finance regime, they're going to cheat on the new one, too. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If anybody harbors a terrorist, they're a terrorists. If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're a terrorist. I mean, I can't make it anymore clearly to other nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. As that comment from President Bush shows, we have a combination of tough talk. But when it gets down to Saddam Hussein, I think there's some question about just what it is we're demanding of him in a sense that some folks talk as if he's so bad, he's got to go, and then others, including the president's remarks just now, it's as if, well, you just need to show us that you're not messing with these weapons of mass destruction, and then we'll somehow leave you alone. Which is it? Which is, in fact, vital to our war against the terrorists? Are we interested in moving this man out of power? Is that essential? Is it critical? Is it urgent? What would be the consequences? That's what we're talking about here tonight.
And joining us to get to the heart of the matter, we've got Doug Bandow, a syndicated columnist, who's with the CATO Institute, a libertarian, Washington-based think tank; MSNBC military analyst, Dan Goure; and Khidir Hamza, an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the west in 1994. His story is featured in his book: “Saddam's Bomb Maker.”
I want to start tonight with Khidir Hamza, because I think the question that seems to be vitally important has to do with Saddam Hussein's access to, relationship with, development of weapons of mass destruction. Now you had personal involvement in the program that's related to that concern. Do you think that needs to be an urgent priority of American policy right now, a concern over what could possibly be his relationship to the terrorist network, providing such weapons of mass destruction for evil purposes?
KHIDIR HAMZA, HEADED IRAQ'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM: Well, first, I would like to comment a little bit on the inspector thing. I mean, once in a while, the U.S. come back and ask Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors back in. My knowledge of the program is that the program by now is a blip and well hidden. And inspectors back in — actually, I talked to some American inspectors who are in main positions in inspecting Iraq and they are worried. They are worried if they go back and don't find those weapons of mass destruction as the president is talking about, then the case of the U.S. against Iraq will be weakened considerably. And this is a thing that has been done over several years. The U.S. knows well that there is such a program. It destroyed most of it initially. The inspectors were kicked out. The case is already there. Why go about weakening it right now?
KEYES: But do you think that that program has reached, is at, or a stage where we need to be concerned about the possibility that it might then become directly linked with a terrorist network that could pose an immediate threat to the United States?
HAMZA: Oh, yes. Actually, two days ago, the German intelligence, the BMD, issued a new report — they issued one last year, also — reevaluating the Iraqi nuclear and other weapons programs. And they decided that the program is going fully on track right now and that it is going to be productive soon, and nuclear weapons are going to be within a couple of years — two or three years — be available to Saddam to defend his regime. So the window of time actually available to the U.S. to get rid of this man and his danger and his connection to terrorism — I mean, on the terrorism angle, you are talking about biological weapons will be the ideal tool to be used by terrorists. I mean, what anthrax — what value anthrax has in a battlefield? Anthrax is a weapon to be used by terrorists primarily for small pox, other germ warfare. These are the terrorist tools that are coming into more focus right now and becoming more dangerous.
KEYES: Let me ask a question of Doug Bandow, because in light of these kinds of concerns, Doug, do you think that we face an urgent requirement to deal with Saddam Hussein now? And what do you think the consequences might be?
DOUG BANDOW, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: He's obviously a nasty man, and we'd like to get rid of him. But the issue of nonproliferation is one that's around the globe. What do you about North Korea? What do you do about Iran? What do you do about Pakistan? I mean, frankly, I'm more worried about the Pakistani nuclear capability today than I am Iraq because the Pakistanis have it. It's an unstable regime. What happens if that regime falls? So you have to ask the question: Is coercive nonproliferation a good policy? What are the incentives you create to other countries? Do you deter them, or do you encourage them to go faster and more secret? So there are a lot of issues here that we're jumping into. Iraq really is not the only case here.
KEYES: So you don't think it's an urgent priority then?
BANDOW: No, I think it's a priority, but it's one that has to be taken into account kind of in the context of how do you deal with other countries, and what happens if you get rid of Saddam. Do you actually kill the program? Who follows? What are their ends, these sorts of things.
KEYES: Let's get into that in one second. I want to, though, get a read from Dan Goure in terms of that question of the urgency in the context of our terrorism policy of moving to deal with Saddam Hussein, to take him out of the picture, possibly replace him with another regime. Do you think that's something we need to move on now?
DAN GOURE, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: I think we do need to move on it soon, if not immediately, regardless of the war on terrorism. That is, this is an individual who has lived his entire life, his entire political career in war. He is the major destabilizer, frankly, of the region. We know that there are materials for weapons of mass destruction that we did not get. We've heard now from one of the insiders just a minute ago that the program is likely to be back on track and we have a fairly short window before you get a mad man with chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons.
KEYES: Well, but to talk about the possible destabilizing effects and the influence he has to destabilize the region, isn't it a fact thought that if you topple him and he's not replaced by some kind of coherent government, could that possibly have a destabilizing influence, also?
GOURE: Frankly, much less than Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons. That's the ultimate destabilizer. Anything else, including a fractious Iraq, is less of a worry than that.
KEYES: So what do you think, though, would be the actual effect? I mean, we talk about toppling Saddam Hussein. Does that involve American military action? Do we occupy that country? Are we talking about putting in a replacement regime? I mean, what exactly would be the situation we would be faced with to replace the kind of structure — because even though he's a bad guy, at the moment he's a bad guy who is still representing a kind of coherent regime in Iraq, we would need that coherence, wouldn't we, to avoid destabilizing the situation? So how would we achieve it?
GOURE: Iraq had politics. Iraq had a certain stability before Saddam, even before the BAV (ph) party. The notion that it's Saddam or chaos is just not borne out by history. I think, in fact, one could find all kinds of alternatives in terms of governmental structure. It might require U.S. presence. It might require nation building, that horrible term. But this is one of those cases where we can make an exception to the ule in order to return Iraq to the family of nations.
KEYES: Khidir Hamza, do you think that that is, in fact, a viable option? Are there alternatives to Saddam Hussein who could move in and represent a coherent government for Iraq?
HAMZA: Yes. Actually, the Iraqi National Congress has many personalities, including — I mean, well-known politicians, officers, even some of the members of the royal family, from a royal family that ruled Iraq. The major Iraqi stabilizing force is within the INC right now. Saddam already fragmented Iraq. Don't forget that one-third of Iraq, which is the Kurdish region, is not under Saddam's control now. The Saud or Shiite (ph) rebellion outside town is no longer under Saddam. So already, Iraq is fragmented. Now with the Kurds back within the INC now and the Shiites and Sunnis, you have already a stabilizing political structure that could put Iraq back actually into a unit which is not now available.
KEYES: Doug Bandow, I sense that you have reservations about that, but do you think that if we moved in a direction that worked with those kinds of forces to replace Saddam Hussein without necessarily massive military action, that that would be a proper alternative?
BANDOW: Well, it would be nice if you can get rid of him without massive military action. I don't see that. The Iraqi National Congress doesn't have an effective military to overthrow him. We don't have the proxy forces that we had in Afghanistan. I think the problem is the range of outcomes is very uncertain. How about a military coup d'etat? Does a military leader who displaces Saddam necessarily give up a program of weapons of mass destruction, or does he want to proceed perhaps more covertly while spouting the kind of rhetoric we want? You know, that range is over to fracturing where you have an issue of Kurds and Turkey, not just Iraq.
We have Kurds in Iraq, in Iran, and in Turkey, issue of destabilizing them. And the whole concern that led us to support Saddam Hussein for 10 years in his war with Iran was what happens with Iran if Iraq fractures. So we need to be concerned about these outcomes. We also have to be concerned about going to war with Iraq if we think that he has some weapons of mass destruction now, some chemical and biological capabilities. He might be willing to use those in a conflict where we're threatening regime change when he wasn't willing to use them in the Gulf War where he saw our motives were — or our ends were more limited. So all of these things suggests it's going to be a much messier undertaking. We need to take this into account. It's not just we snap our fingers, he disappears, and whatever comes afterwards is better than what we have today.
KEYES: Dan Goure, I listen to that, and even though I think Saddam Hussein's a bad guy, I think that it would be better if we move to take him out. Also, my experience as a policy planner, I guess, in the old days, makes me wonder whether or not we aren't required, because sometimes we get involved in these things, the first stages look simple enough, but then we are encumbered with responsibility for maintaining coherence in a situation which is far more complex, I think, once you remove Saddam Hussein than it appears to us with his presence there. Reminds me of the situation in Mabutu in Zaire where, bad as he was, the situation becomes more chaotic and complicated once you have removed him. Isn't that a reality in Iraq?
GOURE: No. Actually, the analogy I would use is to eastern Europe. Once you got rid of Chachesku (ph), Jievkof (ph) and the other Communist leaders who frankly were no different than Saddam except they didn't go to war that often, you in fact found not only alternatives but you found a new stability in the country. What you have is a small militarized oligarchy, literally almost a family banditry running the country. I suspect you could practically blow them over with a strong breath. And other forces, Democratic perhaps, certainly not totalitarian, would rise in their place.
KEYES: Khidir Hamza, obviously, you have been involved and you are involved now with the Iraqi National Congress. I think a lot would depend, in fact, on the ability of forces such as those you represent to offer a coherent alternative. Can you — would you reassure folks that that is, in fact, the case and that there are folks ready to move forward into positions of responsible governance who could, in fact, build an Iraq that wouldn't require the kind of tyrannical terrorizing regime that Saddam Hussein represents.
HAMZA: Yes. Actually, this is already a democratic organization, democratically put together, democratically run by a counsel of seven members. And it is training next month a few hundred officers, former officers and current officers from the Iraqi armed forces to prepare them to go into Iraq. The thing is the Iraqi National Congress produced (UNINTELLIGIBLE) way before Afghanistan operation started couple of years back, and it worked in Afghanistan perfectly. The plan is that a government hated by the people is not going — its army is not going to fight to keep it in power.
KEYES: Well, it certainly seemed to be the case during the course of our exercise in the Persian Gulf War that this was not an army that was motivated to fight with much persistence. I have to thank you gentlemen. We've come to the end of our time. I appreciate the insights that you've given to us on what is, I think, a complex challenge for American policy, which is going to have to be worked out over the course of the next weeks and months. Thanks for your help in bringing some understanding to me and to our audience about it.
Next, the furor building over President Bush's new welfare-to-work plan. Should the government be promoting marriage in the welfare plan? I think that they should. After years of helping to break up marriages through the provisions of welfare, why not try to repair some? Later, we'll get to what's on your mind. But first, does this make sense? Last year, in response to riots that occurred on several campuses after the NCAA tournament games, Anheuser-Busch sponsored ads like these on campuses around America to encourage responsible drinking among college students. A larger campaign will continue during this year's tournament next month. Now let me tell you, there are some folks that have a problem with this because Anheuser-Busch would be identified with their mascots and their colleges. Have a bigger problem. They're encouraging these kids to drink responsibly. But most of the kids in college now aren't of age to be drinking at all. Should we be encouraging them to do responsibly what they legally shouldn't do? Doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
President Bush's welfare to work program announced in the course of the last week or so has aroused a lot of controversy. Its provisions with respect to tightening up the requirements for different kinds of welfare have come under scrutiny, as you would assume that they would, as well as proposals to allocate some $300 million of welfare funds to support those who want to make the marriage decision, get married and stay married.
This is something that, as you know, sometime back when it first appeared in the budget, I spent some time, one of my personal notes, applauding this. And I have got to tell you, I think when you look back on the history of the welfare program, it makes perfect sense. We had a program that for many years had regulations written in such a way that it discouraged people from getting married and staying married. Actually, penalized them if they were in that condition, offered them better help and benefits if they weren't. Doesn't it make sense to try to do something now to remedy all those years of damage?
That's what we'll be talking about tonight. And my guests on the program coming up are Sandy Rios who is with the Conservative — Concerned Women for America, sorry; and Terry O'Neill, who is joining us to talk about these difficulties and the issues that are involved with them.
I'd like to address my first question to Terry. I find it kind of strange that folks would come forward objecting to the notion that if folks who are on welfare want to try to get married, form stable families, the government wouldn't be willing, after years of going in the opposite direction, to do something to back that decision. Don't you think that just makes sense?
TERRY O'NEILL, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: No, Alan. What the government is trying to do, what the Bush administration wants to do, is divert up to $300 million from an already underfunded poverty program to run what amounts to a social experimentation on poor families.
The purpose of welfare is to move families from poverty into self-sufficiency. We know how to do that. Educate, get jobs, and then provide necessary work supports. Obviously, if you have two wage-earners in the home, that home will probably find it easier to stay out of poverty. But that's true whether those wage-earners are married or not. But even if the wage-earners are married, if they're making minimum wage, they're probably not going to be able to stay out of poverty. So, it is education, education, education, jobs and work supports. That's what we need to bring people to self-sufficiency, not marriage.
KEYES: Sandy Rios, I have got to tell you, I listened to a response like that, which focuses on these problems as if all we've got to do is talk about money and economics. And then I remember what's really going on in the lives of people out there, particularly children, from fatherless homes with all kinds of problems of motivation and discipline and drugs and difficulties leading to violence. And I remember that marriage is a moral institution. It's not just an economic institution. It provides a framework that actually supports education and a lot of studies have shown the critical role that parents play in the very education Terry O'Neill is talking about.
Do you think that those who are responding in this way are missing the whole point of what marriage is, in fact, about, not only for folks on welfare, but for all of us?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Oh, I think so. I don't quite understand it. I don't understand how an organization can come out against marriage. We know that marriage is good for everybody. Marriage is good for children, because children, statistics show when they come from married, two-parent homes, they do better in school. They are less likely to be involved in drugs. They are less likely to get pregnant early and be sexually active early. And they are less likely to have psychological and emotional problems.
We also know it's better for moms. For heaven's sakes, we have got so many single moms listening to me right now who don't have to be convinced that it would be better if they had a husband who loved them to provide a home for their children.
And, thirdly, it's even good for the men. Studies show us that men prosper more, they do better in their jobs and they are healthier if they are married. And last but not least, a University of Chicago study came out and showed us that marriage is actually the fertile ground for great sex, much better than single sex. So, it is a win-win for everybody.
O'NEILL: That's not — sorry.
KEYES: Go ahead.
O'NEILL: I just think it's very important to understand what the Bush administration is proposing is to take money from a poverty program to promote marriage. That's ridiculous.
Think about this. Currently the child care and development block grant is funded at only 12 percent of need. The Bush administration proposes to freeze that spending for the next five years. Everybody knows, it's obvious, that in order for a family to move out of poverty and into self-sufficiency, that family needs work supports, especially good, safe child care. The Bush administration wants to fritter away $300 million on some scheme to promote marriage...
KEYES: Hold on. I have to interrupt here because I find this incredible. You are sitting there talking to us about child care and you're basically acting as if the institution of marriage has nothing to do with that. And I'm pointing...
O'NEILL: Well, I'm not saying...
KEYES: Let me finish, please.
O'NEILL: Sure.
KEYES: The partnership of marriage is, in fact, highly about creating an environment in which to care for and raise children. And to act as if spending $300 million to help folks to create that environment has nothing to do with child care, has nothing to do with providing a better economic environment, has nothing to do with helping people to stabilize the basis on which they can find jobs and keep them, goes against everything that the studies and other empirical evidence have shown about the affect of marriage. Sandy, I just don't understand how one ignores all these facts.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: If I could add something. If I could add something, Terry.
O'NEILL: ... a long-term committed...
KEYES: But, let, let...
O'NEILL: ... long-term committed relationships provide the kind of stable families that children can thrive in, and that's...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy say a word here.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy say a word here. Excuse me. Let Sandy say a word here.
RIOS: Since the welfare act was passed, we know that poverty has been reduced by — welfare roles have been reduced by 56 percent. We know that child poverty is down by 50 percent. This has been a very good thing and the same amount of money is being allocated to this welfare program, even though the numbers are 2.1 million that used to be 5.1 million people on the welfare program. Now it is only 2.1. So there is more money to spend even though the budget stays the same.
I would also say that, remember, that so much of our social services go to provide for children who don't have a family. So much of the money that is spent is spent on drug programs, rehab programs, pregnancy services. A lot of the money that we spend in welfare programs is necessary because children do not have the support of families. So, this is a savings...
KEYES: Can I make a point here, too, which — and then, Terry, you can respond.
O'NEILL: Sure.
KEYES: I think it's also true that one of the things that all of this ignores is that where young men are concerned, males, young teenage boys and so forth and so on, the absence of the father from the home has proven devastating to these kids. That's especially true, if I make speak from this perspective, of kids in the black community, where all kinds of problems have resulted from the fact that young men are being raised without the necessary and strong influence of father figures who can provide good examples of discipline and manliness that don't involve violence and the kinds of things that end up killing people on the street.
I think that to have this cavalier attitude toward marriage is in fact a callous disregard of the deadly consequences that life of this kind has for these young people. And their bodies pile up in the streets, and all we hear is this rhetoric about throwing money at it. We need to throw something more than money. We need to have a situation where stable marriages are going to bring back the father figure into the lives of some of these young men so they can grow up to be the kind of people who will also be raising decent kids.
O'NEILL: The kind of program that the Bush administration is pushing is not going to improve significantly the ability of families to move out of poverty. And why is that? For one thing, the Bush administration wants to make it still the case, which is currently the case, that poor parents can't go to college. We know that 80 percent to 90 percent of parents who graduate from college get jobs in the level of $25,000 to $30,000 per year, and you go back a year later and look at those people who got those jobs, 80 percent to 90 percent of them still have those jobs. Those work-first programs that we have got under the current welfare law are not working nearly as well.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Terry, let Sandy respond now.
RIOS: Terry — Terry, you must know that in both Houses of Congress, there's support on both sides of the aisle, because the welfare program has been such a smashing success. It has been a wonderful thing, and this is just a furtherance of a bill that Bill Clinton signed. And in fact, a great adverse, a great (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the people who were his supporters. They didn't want him to sign it. He did sign it, and it's been a wonderful success. So this is not even an argument among those that represent us.
I think you guys are in a really no-win situation. I don't understand, the statistics just do not back up any objection to furthering encouragement of marriage among people who are on welfare.
O'NEILL: Wait a minute. When you say that the welfare program has been an enormous success, the reality is we don't know, because the states were never required to keep adequate records to determine whether it was the welfare program that moved families into self-sufficiency. We know that the booming economy had a great deal to do with poor people being able to get good jobs.
RIOS: Well, we know that...
O'NEILL: What we don't know...
RIOS: Terry, we do know something about that.
(CROSSTALK)
O'NEILL: ... keep those records.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Terry, let Sandy respond.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy respond, Terry. Let Sandy respond. Let her respond.
RIOS: According to the Heritage Institute, we do know. Yes, of course, the economy has helped to add to the fact that 56 less percent of people on welfare, and some of the other wonderful stats that are different, like the fact that child hunger is down by 50 percent. We could go — great statistics coming out of this.
But they have compared those figures to other times of prosperity, and it is obvious that you cannot attribute the great success and the great amount of numbers that have come out of poverty and hunger to just good economics, because we've been in this place before and did not experience the same amount of numbers. So there is a correlation.
O'NEILL: Actually, there are other studies that are completely contradictory to that.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me, I have to say — excuse me. I have to say that I think one of the points that is missed here is all this opportunity isn't taken advantage of very well by people who lack the discipline, who lack the motivation, who lack the sense of self-respect, not just phony self-esteem, that is going to motivate them, to move out there, to take advantage of these kinds of things.
The studies have shown that if you come from a two-parent, stable married family environment, you are more likely to be able to reach for those opportunities and exploit them successfully. And I have to say again, I think that these arguments, which ignore all of the impact that the breakup of these families have had, that's been the great social experiment of the last 20 or 30 years, Terry, and that social experiment has been a devastating failure.
O'NEILL: Alan...
KEYES: Life without family has proven to be a disaster that has taken lives, that has cost more than economic prospects, and I applaud the Bush administration for finally being willing to do something that can start us down a better road for folks who are receiving the government's help, rather than encouraging their destruction. Thanks, Sandy Rios and Terry O'Neill. Really appreciate your being with me tonight.
O'NEILL: Thanks, Alan.
RIOS: Thank you.
KEYES: Later, my “Outrage of the Day” on one of the most outrageous shows that's going to come to a television near you in the near future. Coming from, you guessed it, the Fox network.
But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm going to find out what's on your mind now. One of the most fun parts of the program for me. Let me go first to Christy in Ohio. Welcome to MAKING SENSE. Christy, are you there? Well, let's try Heather in Pennsylvania.
Heather, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
HEATHER: Are you there?
KEYES: Yes, I'm here. Hello. Hi, how are you?
HEATHER: Hanging in there.
KEYES: That's good.
HEATHER: Listen, you know, I was 20 years old and a single mom, newborn baby, terrified. I got married to my husband, you know, to the father of my child and everything turned around for us. Everything. You know, we had each other to support each other through things and we were both going to college and off of welfare for three years.
So, you know, marriage works. You have someone there to support you and help you through things. And I don't think people understand. They just think they're tied downmor something. It's not tied down, it's supporting.
KEYES: Well, I would think if one is making that choice, and this is what this is about. I mean, the proposal isn't that you force people to get married. It's that if people want to make that choice, there's going to be some support for them, whereas before in the welfare program, there was, in fact, a lot of built-in discouragement. Heather, thank you for your call.
Let's go to Sondra in D.C. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SONDRA: Hello.
KEYES: Hi.
SONDRA: Hi. I'd just like to say marriage in and of itself I think is a wonderful institution. But I think that the money that is designated to be spent on that would be better spent on educational and occupational opportunities for people that are low-income. And just because you get married isn't a guarantee of a wonderful life and support. There are plenty of people that have been married in welfare and off welfare that have...
KEYES: Well, Sondra, you know one of the problems is that what you say is true in individual cases. But the statistics show that you have a much better chance of actually improving your economic situation, keeping the job that is necessary, having children who can take advantage of that educational opportunity you're talking about in the stable, two-parent family environment.
So, in individual cases, of course, you might have a hit or miss. But overall, to move things in this direction, improves life for everyone, especially the children. And so that's why I think we've got to look seriously at this. We can't just base it on anecdotal evidence. We basically have to do it in such a way that we are — are looking at what's going to move people in the right direction overall. And I think that it's good. I have pushed this for years. And I rejoiced when I learned that the Bush administration was finally going to lay this proposal on the table. Glad they did. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my outrage of the day about a particularly outrageous program that Fox is planning for March 13. More about that right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: I heard today that on March 13, Fox is planning to air a show called “Celebrity Boxing.” Now ordinarily, these shows are all in good fun. You bring the celebrities together to duke it out in mock matches.
Their first match up, though, is supposedly going to be between Tonya Harding and Amy Fisher, the celebrities of the day. Now will somebody kindly explain to me exactly what it is we're celebrating with these two celebrities? Are we celebrating violent, murderous attacks on your opponents in skating? Are we celebrating murder plotted with your lovers? What exactly is it that we celebrate in these celebrities?
I think it not only hurts our own sense of propriety and decency to be acting as if such criminals are mere celebrities to be treated like everybody else, it also hurts them because the most important thing you can do with folks who have crossed the line the wrong way is to give them an opportunity to get better, not fix them in some celebrity delusion that grows out of the wicked acts that got them in trouble in the first place. I think it hurts the society. I think it hurts these people. And I think it represents the kind of reprehensible exploitation that we ought to get rid of in entertainment, not celebrate.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. “AMERICA AT WAR” with Gregg Jarrett is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
After our discussion last night, we learned today that he has come to terms with the lead CPC in New York and the terms of that agreement, which are basically going to continue the status quo in terms of responsible behavior by the CPCs are going to be offered to all the CPCs throughout the state ending what I hope is the shadow that hung over there. I think very good work in the alternative they represent.
We also learned, by the way, that the ambassador from Kuwait, who was on last night, and who told us that maybe that Gallup poll wasn't quite accurate because the sample included a lot of folks who were ex-patriots in Kuwait, turns out today that a spokesman for Gallup has confirmed that some 50 percent of that sample included ex-patriots. So the ambassador's argument may have been a good one. You learned it first here on MAKING SENSE.
Tonight, we're going to be talking about an issue that continues to gain him attention as we await the next stage, the next definitive stage in the war against terrorism. Obviously, that's a war that involves possibilities all over the world as we have discussed here on this program. It also, of course, involves the identification of the axis of evil that President Bush has presented. But the question of the day is whether or not the next stage in that war is going to focus on one member of that axis — Iraq — and whether in fact we should move in a strong military way to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. We're going to be looking at these key questions in the course of the evening here on MAKING SENSE.
First of all, when we talk about moving against Saddam Hussein, are we fighting the war on terrorism, or are some folks just determined to finish he Gulf War? Would Saddam Hussein's fall destabilize Iraq and have possibly destabilizing effects on the region? And who would replace Saddam Hussein, capable of governing that country in such a way as to avoid that kind of destabilizing effect?
We're going to be talking about these and other issues involved with this critical question. And to help us up front tonight, we have James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American Institute; and retired Air Force general, Michael Short, an MSNBC military analyst.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Welcome. Thank you.
KEYES: Thank you for taking the time to be with me tonight. First question I'd like to lay on the table quite clearly. We look at this right now in the context of the war on terrorism. I think some folks raise questions about just how Saddam Hussein is now related to that war. There is the question of his involvement with weapons of mass destruction. In terms of that first question I laid on the table, are we talking about something that is vital to the war on terrorism, or are we dealing with something that is an overhang from the Persian Gulf War?
Michael Short, what do you think? Which of these, or neither, are we talking about with Saddam Hussein?
GEN. MICHAEL SHORT (RET.), U.S. AIR FORCE: Alan, I think, as always, you put your finger on the issue. The question is not should — simply should we go to war against Saddam Hussein. The question is: Has he done something that requires the United States to act in its national interest. And I think those issues are terrorism. Is he supporting it? Is he taking part in terrorist actions? And is he developing weapons of mass destruction that he would use to pass to terrorists or intimidate his neighbors and to in fact attack his neighbors? And if any of those issues are indeed the case, then I think the United States has to move militarily when it's ready.
KEYES: Now do you think, based on what you've seen, general, that that is, in fact, the case and that we should be taking — making plans to take this step?
SHORT: Alan, I won't mince words with you. I believe that Saddam Hussein has supported terrorism in the past, and I think he continues to do so. I also believe that he is trying very, very hard to develop his own weapons of mass destruction.
Now, the issue is: Are we able to produce evidence that will convince our allies and our traditional friends that, indeed, he has taken part in this action, because this is not something we can do unilaterally. We cannot move successfully against Saddam Hussein by ourselves.
KEYES: Jim Zogby, looking at the situation with Iraq, the kind of reaction that has been prevalent, I think, amongst Americans to the acts of terrorism against us, the focus that is now placed on Iraq, do you think that a move by the United States against Saddam Hussein is justified?
ZOGBY: It's not a question of justified; it's a question of: Is it appropriate and would it be desirable? You talk about the next stage. I don't think we're out of this stage. Afghanistan is still not resolved. And, frankly, if we move too quickly, we could leave Afghanistan in a situation not unlike the way it was a decade ago where it would become continually unstable and become breeding ground for yet the next stage of radicalism in that region.
Secondly, we may have taken out the Taliban, but we have not solved the problem of al Qaeda. And first things first. We need the coalition support of regional allies in order to route out the networks of al Qaeda that still; exists and are still quite troublesome. If we move precipitously and unilaterally against Iraq, we run the risk of losing regional support and thereby not getting what is the initial target and what I think is the target that the American really want if they stop and think about it. And that is to get al Qaeda that is in fact the group that is the perpetrator of the actions that took place on September 11th. That's the first test. And we're not there yet. So before we start moving out...
KEYES: But Jim...
ZOGBY: ... to Georgia and moving out to the Philippines and to Yemen and points east and west, we have to finish the job at hand, and I don't think we're there yet, Alan.
KEYES: But Jim, one question I have. As I see it — and I must say that I look at this whole situation and I still have some pointed questions about it. But one of the questions that arises for me as I look at what the administration is doing is the question of whether or not the remaining al Qaeda network representing, as I think most of us would acknowledge, cells that are not only in the Middle East but in various parts of the world that may be capable of doing harm against America. One element of that harm could very well involve weapons of mass destruction. Don't we have to worry about states like Iraq that might be providers of such weapons, and that we have to make sure we discourage them from playing that role?
ZOGBY: The question is that there are many places that such weapons are available. And Iraq has not yet been proven to be one of them. And so I think there's an element of caution here that is important. You know, a great power and a great leader like America needs, at the same time that it is forceful to also be quite cautious and deliberate and thoughtful in how it uses its power.
Let me tell you something. If Afghanistan in a post-war phase is a mess and poses, in fact, a regional challenge, Iran has still got a sphere of influence, Pakistan is very concerned what happens on its northern border, and Uzbekistan is concerned as well. Think about Iraq and the regional problems that could exist if, in fact, we move unilaterally. And the fact is right now that the economics of the situation and the politics and the military balance of the situation do not bode well in our favor. We can do it. We got the power to do it.
KEYES: Jim, one second. Jim, one second.
ZOGBY: But the question is: Does it serve our purposes to do it?
KEYES: General Short, I think there is a question to be raised, first, about the long-term effects this might have both within Iraq and in terms of the region — and so that question goes to the heart of this issue of urgency. Do you think that looking at the situation right now from what you understand with respect to Iraq and the questions about Saddam Hussein's possible role with weapons of mass destruction, his links to terrorism, that we are faced with an urgent need to look at taking him out as a critical priority of America's anti-terror policy right now?
SHORT: Alan, I think the urgent need is to produce evidence that he has taken part in terrorist activity or he has, indeed, develops weapons of mass destruction. Now I think the urgency will be on the side of weapons of mass destruction. If we find out tomorrow that he has these weapons and has prepared to intimidate or prepared to use them, then there is urgency in our action and we've got to move. But, again, I stress the importance of building a coalition. We cannot do this unilaterally. We have to have basing. We've got to have access, and we've got to have support of some of our friends. I believe, personally, it will be militarily impossible to move against Iraq if we didn't have support or either Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We'd like to have both, but I believe we've got to have support of at least one of those large Muslim nations.
KEYES: One last quick question to Jim Zogby.
We look at this poll that came out yesterday in terms of the sentiment in the Arab and Islamic world with respect to the United States and the war on terrorism and so forth. In light of that need that you and the general are talking about for coalition building, do you think that the kind of sentiments that were indicated in that poll should loom large in our considerations with respect to this?
ZOGBY: I think absolutely loom large. And the fact is that we could create a more destabilized situation and a more hostile environment for the United States and for our allies in the region if we move unilaterally and precipitously.
Listen, there's no one in the region that feels that this is a good guy. He's a bad guy. And frankly, no one's going to shed a tear if he's gone. Do we need to move militarily ourselves, or should we help to foster incentives and conditions for a change within Iraq? I think the Saudis have presented us a plan on how it can be done internally. There is no external force that can do it. It must happen internally. And, frankly, the consequences of us acting militarily at this point are far — I think far too dangerous and not desirable for us to do it at this point.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
ZOGBY: Thank you.
SHORT: Thank you.
KEYES: Appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us tonight. Very thoughtful and insightful remarks, if I do say so. And I appreciate your coming to share them with us.
SHORT: Thank you.
KEYES: We're going to get further into this with a panel of experts in the heart of the matter. And later, we're going to talk about the fact that the president wants to spend some money promoting marriage. There's no opposition to this. Some folks say that helping people on welfare to get married is not a good idea. I say why not? We'll debate that issue on the show tonight.
But first, does this make sense? You've got the folks over at the DNC — Terry McAuliffe and his buddies. They're building a new facility. It's going to cost $30 million, and they've decided to pay the bill up front. Now who does that, I mean, gives the bill, the money before they've started to produce the goods? Doesn't usually make much sense. That is unless you're the chairman of the DNC and you want to pay with soft money before it becomes illegal on November 6th if this new law is passed. Now what this tells me is that just like they've been cheating all this time on the previous federal election laws and so-called campaign finance regime, they're going to cheat on the new one, too. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If anybody harbors a terrorist, they're a terrorists. If they fund a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're a terrorist. I mean, I can't make it anymore clearly to other nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. As that comment from President Bush shows, we have a combination of tough talk. But when it gets down to Saddam Hussein, I think there's some question about just what it is we're demanding of him in a sense that some folks talk as if he's so bad, he's got to go, and then others, including the president's remarks just now, it's as if, well, you just need to show us that you're not messing with these weapons of mass destruction, and then we'll somehow leave you alone. Which is it? Which is, in fact, vital to our war against the terrorists? Are we interested in moving this man out of power? Is that essential? Is it critical? Is it urgent? What would be the consequences? That's what we're talking about here tonight.
And joining us to get to the heart of the matter, we've got Doug Bandow, a syndicated columnist, who's with the CATO Institute, a libertarian, Washington-based think tank; MSNBC military analyst, Dan Goure; and Khidir Hamza, an American-trained nuclear physicist who headed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program before defecting to the west in 1994. His story is featured in his book: “Saddam's Bomb Maker.”
I want to start tonight with Khidir Hamza, because I think the question that seems to be vitally important has to do with Saddam Hussein's access to, relationship with, development of weapons of mass destruction. Now you had personal involvement in the program that's related to that concern. Do you think that needs to be an urgent priority of American policy right now, a concern over what could possibly be his relationship to the terrorist network, providing such weapons of mass destruction for evil purposes?
KHIDIR HAMZA, HEADED IRAQ'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM: Well, first, I would like to comment a little bit on the inspector thing. I mean, once in a while, the U.S. come back and ask Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors back in. My knowledge of the program is that the program by now is a blip and well hidden. And inspectors back in — actually, I talked to some American inspectors who are in main positions in inspecting Iraq and they are worried. They are worried if they go back and don't find those weapons of mass destruction as the president is talking about, then the case of the U.S. against Iraq will be weakened considerably. And this is a thing that has been done over several years. The U.S. knows well that there is such a program. It destroyed most of it initially. The inspectors were kicked out. The case is already there. Why go about weakening it right now?
KEYES: But do you think that that program has reached, is at, or a stage where we need to be concerned about the possibility that it might then become directly linked with a terrorist network that could pose an immediate threat to the United States?
HAMZA: Oh, yes. Actually, two days ago, the German intelligence, the BMD, issued a new report — they issued one last year, also — reevaluating the Iraqi nuclear and other weapons programs. And they decided that the program is going fully on track right now and that it is going to be productive soon, and nuclear weapons are going to be within a couple of years — two or three years — be available to Saddam to defend his regime. So the window of time actually available to the U.S. to get rid of this man and his danger and his connection to terrorism — I mean, on the terrorism angle, you are talking about biological weapons will be the ideal tool to be used by terrorists. I mean, what anthrax — what value anthrax has in a battlefield? Anthrax is a weapon to be used by terrorists primarily for small pox, other germ warfare. These are the terrorist tools that are coming into more focus right now and becoming more dangerous.
KEYES: Let me ask a question of Doug Bandow, because in light of these kinds of concerns, Doug, do you think that we face an urgent requirement to deal with Saddam Hussein now? And what do you think the consequences might be?
DOUG BANDOW, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: He's obviously a nasty man, and we'd like to get rid of him. But the issue of nonproliferation is one that's around the globe. What do you about North Korea? What do you do about Iran? What do you do about Pakistan? I mean, frankly, I'm more worried about the Pakistani nuclear capability today than I am Iraq because the Pakistanis have it. It's an unstable regime. What happens if that regime falls? So you have to ask the question: Is coercive nonproliferation a good policy? What are the incentives you create to other countries? Do you deter them, or do you encourage them to go faster and more secret? So there are a lot of issues here that we're jumping into. Iraq really is not the only case here.
KEYES: So you don't think it's an urgent priority then?
BANDOW: No, I think it's a priority, but it's one that has to be taken into account kind of in the context of how do you deal with other countries, and what happens if you get rid of Saddam. Do you actually kill the program? Who follows? What are their ends, these sorts of things.
KEYES: Let's get into that in one second. I want to, though, get a read from Dan Goure in terms of that question of the urgency in the context of our terrorism policy of moving to deal with Saddam Hussein, to take him out of the picture, possibly replace him with another regime. Do you think that's something we need to move on now?
DAN GOURE, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: I think we do need to move on it soon, if not immediately, regardless of the war on terrorism. That is, this is an individual who has lived his entire life, his entire political career in war. He is the major destabilizer, frankly, of the region. We know that there are materials for weapons of mass destruction that we did not get. We've heard now from one of the insiders just a minute ago that the program is likely to be back on track and we have a fairly short window before you get a mad man with chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons.
KEYES: Well, but to talk about the possible destabilizing effects and the influence he has to destabilize the region, isn't it a fact thought that if you topple him and he's not replaced by some kind of coherent government, could that possibly have a destabilizing influence, also?
GOURE: Frankly, much less than Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons. That's the ultimate destabilizer. Anything else, including a fractious Iraq, is less of a worry than that.
KEYES: So what do you think, though, would be the actual effect? I mean, we talk about toppling Saddam Hussein. Does that involve American military action? Do we occupy that country? Are we talking about putting in a replacement regime? I mean, what exactly would be the situation we would be faced with to replace the kind of structure — because even though he's a bad guy, at the moment he's a bad guy who is still representing a kind of coherent regime in Iraq, we would need that coherence, wouldn't we, to avoid destabilizing the situation? So how would we achieve it?
GOURE: Iraq had politics. Iraq had a certain stability before Saddam, even before the BAV (ph) party. The notion that it's Saddam or chaos is just not borne out by history. I think, in fact, one could find all kinds of alternatives in terms of governmental structure. It might require U.S. presence. It might require nation building, that horrible term. But this is one of those cases where we can make an exception to the ule in order to return Iraq to the family of nations.
KEYES: Khidir Hamza, do you think that that is, in fact, a viable option? Are there alternatives to Saddam Hussein who could move in and represent a coherent government for Iraq?
HAMZA: Yes. Actually, the Iraqi National Congress has many personalities, including — I mean, well-known politicians, officers, even some of the members of the royal family, from a royal family that ruled Iraq. The major Iraqi stabilizing force is within the INC right now. Saddam already fragmented Iraq. Don't forget that one-third of Iraq, which is the Kurdish region, is not under Saddam's control now. The Saud or Shiite (ph) rebellion outside town is no longer under Saddam. So already, Iraq is fragmented. Now with the Kurds back within the INC now and the Shiites and Sunnis, you have already a stabilizing political structure that could put Iraq back actually into a unit which is not now available.
KEYES: Doug Bandow, I sense that you have reservations about that, but do you think that if we moved in a direction that worked with those kinds of forces to replace Saddam Hussein without necessarily massive military action, that that would be a proper alternative?
BANDOW: Well, it would be nice if you can get rid of him without massive military action. I don't see that. The Iraqi National Congress doesn't have an effective military to overthrow him. We don't have the proxy forces that we had in Afghanistan. I think the problem is the range of outcomes is very uncertain. How about a military coup d'etat? Does a military leader who displaces Saddam necessarily give up a program of weapons of mass destruction, or does he want to proceed perhaps more covertly while spouting the kind of rhetoric we want? You know, that range is over to fracturing where you have an issue of Kurds and Turkey, not just Iraq.
We have Kurds in Iraq, in Iran, and in Turkey, issue of destabilizing them. And the whole concern that led us to support Saddam Hussein for 10 years in his war with Iran was what happens with Iran if Iraq fractures. So we need to be concerned about these outcomes. We also have to be concerned about going to war with Iraq if we think that he has some weapons of mass destruction now, some chemical and biological capabilities. He might be willing to use those in a conflict where we're threatening regime change when he wasn't willing to use them in the Gulf War where he saw our motives were — or our ends were more limited. So all of these things suggests it's going to be a much messier undertaking. We need to take this into account. It's not just we snap our fingers, he disappears, and whatever comes afterwards is better than what we have today.
KEYES: Dan Goure, I listen to that, and even though I think Saddam Hussein's a bad guy, I think that it would be better if we move to take him out. Also, my experience as a policy planner, I guess, in the old days, makes me wonder whether or not we aren't required, because sometimes we get involved in these things, the first stages look simple enough, but then we are encumbered with responsibility for maintaining coherence in a situation which is far more complex, I think, once you remove Saddam Hussein than it appears to us with his presence there. Reminds me of the situation in Mabutu in Zaire where, bad as he was, the situation becomes more chaotic and complicated once you have removed him. Isn't that a reality in Iraq?
GOURE: No. Actually, the analogy I would use is to eastern Europe. Once you got rid of Chachesku (ph), Jievkof (ph) and the other Communist leaders who frankly were no different than Saddam except they didn't go to war that often, you in fact found not only alternatives but you found a new stability in the country. What you have is a small militarized oligarchy, literally almost a family banditry running the country. I suspect you could practically blow them over with a strong breath. And other forces, Democratic perhaps, certainly not totalitarian, would rise in their place.
KEYES: Khidir Hamza, obviously, you have been involved and you are involved now with the Iraqi National Congress. I think a lot would depend, in fact, on the ability of forces such as those you represent to offer a coherent alternative. Can you — would you reassure folks that that is, in fact, the case and that there are folks ready to move forward into positions of responsible governance who could, in fact, build an Iraq that wouldn't require the kind of tyrannical terrorizing regime that Saddam Hussein represents.
HAMZA: Yes. Actually, this is already a democratic organization, democratically put together, democratically run by a counsel of seven members. And it is training next month a few hundred officers, former officers and current officers from the Iraqi armed forces to prepare them to go into Iraq. The thing is the Iraqi National Congress produced (UNINTELLIGIBLE) way before Afghanistan operation started couple of years back, and it worked in Afghanistan perfectly. The plan is that a government hated by the people is not going — its army is not going to fight to keep it in power.
KEYES: Well, it certainly seemed to be the case during the course of our exercise in the Persian Gulf War that this was not an army that was motivated to fight with much persistence. I have to thank you gentlemen. We've come to the end of our time. I appreciate the insights that you've given to us on what is, I think, a complex challenge for American policy, which is going to have to be worked out over the course of the next weeks and months. Thanks for your help in bringing some understanding to me and to our audience about it.
Next, the furor building over President Bush's new welfare-to-work plan. Should the government be promoting marriage in the welfare plan? I think that they should. After years of helping to break up marriages through the provisions of welfare, why not try to repair some? Later, we'll get to what's on your mind. But first, does this make sense? Last year, in response to riots that occurred on several campuses after the NCAA tournament games, Anheuser-Busch sponsored ads like these on campuses around America to encourage responsible drinking among college students. A larger campaign will continue during this year's tournament next month. Now let me tell you, there are some folks that have a problem with this because Anheuser-Busch would be identified with their mascots and their colleges. Have a bigger problem. They're encouraging these kids to drink responsibly. But most of the kids in college now aren't of age to be drinking at all. Should we be encouraging them to do responsibly what they legally shouldn't do? Doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
President Bush's welfare to work program announced in the course of the last week or so has aroused a lot of controversy. Its provisions with respect to tightening up the requirements for different kinds of welfare have come under scrutiny, as you would assume that they would, as well as proposals to allocate some $300 million of welfare funds to support those who want to make the marriage decision, get married and stay married.
This is something that, as you know, sometime back when it first appeared in the budget, I spent some time, one of my personal notes, applauding this. And I have got to tell you, I think when you look back on the history of the welfare program, it makes perfect sense. We had a program that for many years had regulations written in such a way that it discouraged people from getting married and staying married. Actually, penalized them if they were in that condition, offered them better help and benefits if they weren't. Doesn't it make sense to try to do something now to remedy all those years of damage?
That's what we'll be talking about tonight. And my guests on the program coming up are Sandy Rios who is with the Conservative — Concerned Women for America, sorry; and Terry O'Neill, who is joining us to talk about these difficulties and the issues that are involved with them.
I'd like to address my first question to Terry. I find it kind of strange that folks would come forward objecting to the notion that if folks who are on welfare want to try to get married, form stable families, the government wouldn't be willing, after years of going in the opposite direction, to do something to back that decision. Don't you think that just makes sense?
TERRY O'NEILL, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: No, Alan. What the government is trying to do, what the Bush administration wants to do, is divert up to $300 million from an already underfunded poverty program to run what amounts to a social experimentation on poor families.
The purpose of welfare is to move families from poverty into self-sufficiency. We know how to do that. Educate, get jobs, and then provide necessary work supports. Obviously, if you have two wage-earners in the home, that home will probably find it easier to stay out of poverty. But that's true whether those wage-earners are married or not. But even if the wage-earners are married, if they're making minimum wage, they're probably not going to be able to stay out of poverty. So, it is education, education, education, jobs and work supports. That's what we need to bring people to self-sufficiency, not marriage.
KEYES: Sandy Rios, I have got to tell you, I listened to a response like that, which focuses on these problems as if all we've got to do is talk about money and economics. And then I remember what's really going on in the lives of people out there, particularly children, from fatherless homes with all kinds of problems of motivation and discipline and drugs and difficulties leading to violence. And I remember that marriage is a moral institution. It's not just an economic institution. It provides a framework that actually supports education and a lot of studies have shown the critical role that parents play in the very education Terry O'Neill is talking about.
Do you think that those who are responding in this way are missing the whole point of what marriage is, in fact, about, not only for folks on welfare, but for all of us?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Oh, I think so. I don't quite understand it. I don't understand how an organization can come out against marriage. We know that marriage is good for everybody. Marriage is good for children, because children, statistics show when they come from married, two-parent homes, they do better in school. They are less likely to be involved in drugs. They are less likely to get pregnant early and be sexually active early. And they are less likely to have psychological and emotional problems.
We also know it's better for moms. For heaven's sakes, we have got so many single moms listening to me right now who don't have to be convinced that it would be better if they had a husband who loved them to provide a home for their children.
And, thirdly, it's even good for the men. Studies show us that men prosper more, they do better in their jobs and they are healthier if they are married. And last but not least, a University of Chicago study came out and showed us that marriage is actually the fertile ground for great sex, much better than single sex. So, it is a win-win for everybody.
O'NEILL: That's not — sorry.
KEYES: Go ahead.
O'NEILL: I just think it's very important to understand what the Bush administration is proposing is to take money from a poverty program to promote marriage. That's ridiculous.
Think about this. Currently the child care and development block grant is funded at only 12 percent of need. The Bush administration proposes to freeze that spending for the next five years. Everybody knows, it's obvious, that in order for a family to move out of poverty and into self-sufficiency, that family needs work supports, especially good, safe child care. The Bush administration wants to fritter away $300 million on some scheme to promote marriage...
KEYES: Hold on. I have to interrupt here because I find this incredible. You are sitting there talking to us about child care and you're basically acting as if the institution of marriage has nothing to do with that. And I'm pointing...
O'NEILL: Well, I'm not saying...
KEYES: Let me finish, please.
O'NEILL: Sure.
KEYES: The partnership of marriage is, in fact, highly about creating an environment in which to care for and raise children. And to act as if spending $300 million to help folks to create that environment has nothing to do with child care, has nothing to do with providing a better economic environment, has nothing to do with helping people to stabilize the basis on which they can find jobs and keep them, goes against everything that the studies and other empirical evidence have shown about the affect of marriage. Sandy, I just don't understand how one ignores all these facts.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: If I could add something. If I could add something, Terry.
O'NEILL: ... a long-term committed...
KEYES: But, let, let...
O'NEILL: ... long-term committed relationships provide the kind of stable families that children can thrive in, and that's...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy say a word here.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy say a word here. Excuse me. Let Sandy say a word here.
RIOS: Since the welfare act was passed, we know that poverty has been reduced by — welfare roles have been reduced by 56 percent. We know that child poverty is down by 50 percent. This has been a very good thing and the same amount of money is being allocated to this welfare program, even though the numbers are 2.1 million that used to be 5.1 million people on the welfare program. Now it is only 2.1. So there is more money to spend even though the budget stays the same.
I would also say that, remember, that so much of our social services go to provide for children who don't have a family. So much of the money that is spent is spent on drug programs, rehab programs, pregnancy services. A lot of the money that we spend in welfare programs is necessary because children do not have the support of families. So, this is a savings...
KEYES: Can I make a point here, too, which — and then, Terry, you can respond.
O'NEILL: Sure.
KEYES: I think it's also true that one of the things that all of this ignores is that where young men are concerned, males, young teenage boys and so forth and so on, the absence of the father from the home has proven devastating to these kids. That's especially true, if I make speak from this perspective, of kids in the black community, where all kinds of problems have resulted from the fact that young men are being raised without the necessary and strong influence of father figures who can provide good examples of discipline and manliness that don't involve violence and the kinds of things that end up killing people on the street.
I think that to have this cavalier attitude toward marriage is in fact a callous disregard of the deadly consequences that life of this kind has for these young people. And their bodies pile up in the streets, and all we hear is this rhetoric about throwing money at it. We need to throw something more than money. We need to have a situation where stable marriages are going to bring back the father figure into the lives of some of these young men so they can grow up to be the kind of people who will also be raising decent kids.
O'NEILL: The kind of program that the Bush administration is pushing is not going to improve significantly the ability of families to move out of poverty. And why is that? For one thing, the Bush administration wants to make it still the case, which is currently the case, that poor parents can't go to college. We know that 80 percent to 90 percent of parents who graduate from college get jobs in the level of $25,000 to $30,000 per year, and you go back a year later and look at those people who got those jobs, 80 percent to 90 percent of them still have those jobs. Those work-first programs that we have got under the current welfare law are not working nearly as well.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Terry, let Sandy respond now.
RIOS: Terry — Terry, you must know that in both Houses of Congress, there's support on both sides of the aisle, because the welfare program has been such a smashing success. It has been a wonderful thing, and this is just a furtherance of a bill that Bill Clinton signed. And in fact, a great adverse, a great (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the people who were his supporters. They didn't want him to sign it. He did sign it, and it's been a wonderful success. So this is not even an argument among those that represent us.
I think you guys are in a really no-win situation. I don't understand, the statistics just do not back up any objection to furthering encouragement of marriage among people who are on welfare.
O'NEILL: Wait a minute. When you say that the welfare program has been an enormous success, the reality is we don't know, because the states were never required to keep adequate records to determine whether it was the welfare program that moved families into self-sufficiency. We know that the booming economy had a great deal to do with poor people being able to get good jobs.
RIOS: Well, we know that...
O'NEILL: What we don't know...
RIOS: Terry, we do know something about that.
(CROSSTALK)
O'NEILL: ... keep those records.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Terry, let Sandy respond.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let Sandy respond, Terry. Let Sandy respond. Let her respond.
RIOS: According to the Heritage Institute, we do know. Yes, of course, the economy has helped to add to the fact that 56 less percent of people on welfare, and some of the other wonderful stats that are different, like the fact that child hunger is down by 50 percent. We could go — great statistics coming out of this.
But they have compared those figures to other times of prosperity, and it is obvious that you cannot attribute the great success and the great amount of numbers that have come out of poverty and hunger to just good economics, because we've been in this place before and did not experience the same amount of numbers. So there is a correlation.
O'NEILL: Actually, there are other studies that are completely contradictory to that.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me, I have to say — excuse me. I have to say that I think one of the points that is missed here is all this opportunity isn't taken advantage of very well by people who lack the discipline, who lack the motivation, who lack the sense of self-respect, not just phony self-esteem, that is going to motivate them, to move out there, to take advantage of these kinds of things.
The studies have shown that if you come from a two-parent, stable married family environment, you are more likely to be able to reach for those opportunities and exploit them successfully. And I have to say again, I think that these arguments, which ignore all of the impact that the breakup of these families have had, that's been the great social experiment of the last 20 or 30 years, Terry, and that social experiment has been a devastating failure.
O'NEILL: Alan...
KEYES: Life without family has proven to be a disaster that has taken lives, that has cost more than economic prospects, and I applaud the Bush administration for finally being willing to do something that can start us down a better road for folks who are receiving the government's help, rather than encouraging their destruction. Thanks, Sandy Rios and Terry O'Neill. Really appreciate your being with me tonight.
O'NEILL: Thanks, Alan.
RIOS: Thank you.
KEYES: Later, my “Outrage of the Day” on one of the most outrageous shows that's going to come to a television near you in the near future. Coming from, you guessed it, the Fox network.
But first, I want to hear what's on your mind. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm going to find out what's on your mind now. One of the most fun parts of the program for me. Let me go first to Christy in Ohio. Welcome to MAKING SENSE. Christy, are you there? Well, let's try Heather in Pennsylvania.
Heather, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
HEATHER: Are you there?
KEYES: Yes, I'm here. Hello. Hi, how are you?
HEATHER: Hanging in there.
KEYES: That's good.
HEATHER: Listen, you know, I was 20 years old and a single mom, newborn baby, terrified. I got married to my husband, you know, to the father of my child and everything turned around for us. Everything. You know, we had each other to support each other through things and we were both going to college and off of welfare for three years.
So, you know, marriage works. You have someone there to support you and help you through things. And I don't think people understand. They just think they're tied downmor something. It's not tied down, it's supporting.
KEYES: Well, I would think if one is making that choice, and this is what this is about. I mean, the proposal isn't that you force people to get married. It's that if people want to make that choice, there's going to be some support for them, whereas before in the welfare program, there was, in fact, a lot of built-in discouragement. Heather, thank you for your call.
Let's go to Sondra in D.C. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
SONDRA: Hello.
KEYES: Hi.
SONDRA: Hi. I'd just like to say marriage in and of itself I think is a wonderful institution. But I think that the money that is designated to be spent on that would be better spent on educational and occupational opportunities for people that are low-income. And just because you get married isn't a guarantee of a wonderful life and support. There are plenty of people that have been married in welfare and off welfare that have...
KEYES: Well, Sondra, you know one of the problems is that what you say is true in individual cases. But the statistics show that you have a much better chance of actually improving your economic situation, keeping the job that is necessary, having children who can take advantage of that educational opportunity you're talking about in the stable, two-parent family environment.
So, in individual cases, of course, you might have a hit or miss. But overall, to move things in this direction, improves life for everyone, especially the children. And so that's why I think we've got to look seriously at this. We can't just base it on anecdotal evidence. We basically have to do it in such a way that we are — are looking at what's going to move people in the right direction overall. And I think that it's good. I have pushed this for years. And I rejoiced when I learned that the Bush administration was finally going to lay this proposal on the table. Glad they did. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my outrage of the day about a particularly outrageous program that Fox is planning for March 13. More about that right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: I heard today that on March 13, Fox is planning to air a show called “Celebrity Boxing.” Now ordinarily, these shows are all in good fun. You bring the celebrities together to duke it out in mock matches.
Their first match up, though, is supposedly going to be between Tonya Harding and Amy Fisher, the celebrities of the day. Now will somebody kindly explain to me exactly what it is we're celebrating with these two celebrities? Are we celebrating violent, murderous attacks on your opponents in skating? Are we celebrating murder plotted with your lovers? What exactly is it that we celebrate in these celebrities?
I think it not only hurts our own sense of propriety and decency to be acting as if such criminals are mere celebrities to be treated like everybody else, it also hurts them because the most important thing you can do with folks who have crossed the line the wrong way is to give them an opportunity to get better, not fix them in some celebrity delusion that grows out of the wicked acts that got them in trouble in the first place. I think it hurts the society. I think it hurts these people. And I think it represents the kind of reprehensible exploitation that we ought to get rid of in entertainment, not celebrate.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. “AMERICA AT WAR” with Gregg Jarrett is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.