MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 8, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Well, we know that the Powell mission has begun. He's going to end up eventually in the Middle East, of course. And he's been visiting in the course of time other folks, starting with a visit with Prince Abdullah and the king of Morocco.
I have some thoughts to share with you tonight in the context of both the Powell mission and those visits where he starts off talking to some of the folks who attended the Arab summit, people who are the so-called moderate Arabs. And these are the folks we are going to work with and whose views we are consulting and whose sensitivities and feelings we are to be mindful of as we put what is becoming increasingly intense pressure on the Israelis to curtail their campaign of self-defense.
I want you to try a little thought experiment with me this evening looking first at the time that has passed since September 11th and some of the things that have happened in that time, but first taking a careful look at September 11th itself. You remember that terrible day. And you remember as well, I am sure, that a lot of the perpetrators who brought that terrible blow against us.
Where did they come from? The people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, what passport did they carry? Do you remember? If you were a person who had just arrived on the planet, you had no preconceptions whatsoever, and you were just looking at basic facts and you started to ask some fundamental questions about where the blow came from and how it was putting the and who was responsible for it, you would look first of all at the people who were involved. Right? And you'd say, “Where did these people come from?”
What's the answer to that question? You and I both know it, don't we? Most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Yes they did.
Where did the money come from that financed the terrible attacks that struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Where did that money flow from that was in those coffers? Well, we say it was Osama bin Laden's money, but who is he?
Well, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. And his money represents the wealth that is part of what is being laid out by folks who are part of the Saudi oil power, the oil empire that has been put together by Arabs in the Mideast.
Osama bin Laden himself, the mastermind of the whole business, where did he come from? Saudi Arabia. If you were a policeman on the case and you were trying to track down the culprits, I know we ended up going over and pulverizing Afghanistan and making sure that the country that had provided the field and the facilitation and the place where they had planted their headquarters was pummeled. But you think that the Afghans paid for all of that? Do you think Afghan — Afghanistan is a poor country. Those people can hardly pay for their own business.
So, where did the money come from that funded all this infrastructure we destroyed? Where is it coming from now to fund the continuing resistance we are encountering? You think it comes from Afghanistan? Because I think I know better.
I think if you were a detective on the case you might just be asking yourself that question. And the answer you would find is that it's flowing out of the same oil coffers that financed the terrible blow against us in the first place.
Now, you turn to the scene in the Mideast itself, and you find that the suicide bombers that are coming against Israel and the infrastructure that produced and incited those suicide bombers — not as some people would have us believe over the course of yesterday and today and a few weeks and frustration and desperation, no, but over the course of years where whole generations have been formed in a culture of violence and hatred and commitment to this kind of suicidal tactic — where did the money come that financed that culture of violence in the schools and institutions and so-called charities that helped to produce those generations? Again, flowing out of the same oil coffers and traced to the same background.
Some of the most extreme elements in the Islamic world funded out of Saudi coffers. Isn't that interesting?
So we have Saudi mastermind and Saudi perpetrators and Saudi money flowing through coffers that hit us in the World Trade Center that are perpetuating violence in the Middle East. And very often when you are subject to terrorist demands and things, one of the things that can be an indication of where it's coming from is who shows up to make the demand that you can meet, “If you want this to stop, this is what you've got to do.” And the form that that demand now takes is a Saudi proposal that we are all supposed to greet with open arms and think is so wonderful. Here it comes from Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, at the Arab Summit, they all circle the wagons around Saddam Hussein, give him a big kiss on the cheek like he's the best guy in town. He happens to represent the next stage of the war on terror, the one that might involve against us weapons of mass destruction. Being circled and embraced and kissed on the cheek by who? Oh, gosh, the Saudis once again.
Now, I am not going to suggest in some hard and fast way that I'm pointing the fingers and saying, “Well, Saudi Arabia is the problem.” But I would have to tell you if we were sensible people, we would surely have to consider this hypothesis, don't you think? Doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out those clues and to suggest that maybe we ought to follow them up in order to find out what is really going on.
Is this what we are doing? Sadly, I don't think it is. In fact, I think we've been caught in a classic good cop/bad cop routine, the Saudis and their so-called moderate buddies playing the good cop. And you've got Saddam Hussein and some of the others there playing the bad cops. And Yasser Arafat, they're bad cops. And suicide bombers, they're the bad cops.
We are being played for fools here because the whole structure is in the end being supported and financed by an oil empire that, in the form of Saddam Hussein, today then comes out to make naked the ultimate threat that it thinks it holds against us, the threat that if you don't come to your knees, if you don't do what you are told, if you don't call off Israel, if you don't have a policy that's dictated by us, we'll cut off your oil, and we'll end it. That's what he represented today.
I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein's oil is going to make that much difference. But it's not what he himself represents so much as what that threat represents that we need to be thinking about here.
And what constitutes the real context for this war against terror? Where is the real adversary that we face? I think that we've been playing this in too much the style of the melodrama rather than looking at the real complexities of the situation we face.
And in light of those real complexities, a lot of those things we've done since September 11th could very well look like concessions to that structure, that strategy of terror, the formal recognition that a Palestinian state is needed, the willingness to keep on acting as if Yasser Arafat and those fomenting this terrorist violence aren't terrorists at all, and finally a Powell mission going out there to do what? Put pressure on Israel to stop defending itself before they have any assurance whatsoever that they will stop being attacked.
Is that what we are going to do, promise to stop defending ourselves before those who are bringing the terrorist menace against us have promised to stop their attacks? It strikes me we ought to see the situation in Israel as a little bit of a precursor of what could be our own situation. If we don't handle this threat of terrorism with a lot more good sense and maturity and with a lot more discernment, I think, about who our friends are and who our enemies are than we have been doing.
And that's what we are going to be doing a little bit in the course of this program. Next, on the “Heart of the Matter,” we are going to ask these questions: is the oil axis an evil axis? Have we already made concessions to terrorism? And is the Powell mission another such concession?
Later, under the heading “Alan Keyes is Having Fun” — we do that occasionally on the show, you know that, a little lighter moment — we're going to be visited by actor Chris Tucker here in the studio tonight.
But first, does this make sense? An IRS employee has been indicted for bribery and disclosing tax information. And he's still on the IRS payroll. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois said the employee accepted three bribes totaling $725.
Innocent until proven guilty, we say. Yes, I believe that. So, why should he be suffering consequences? I don't know. But you know one thing? He's innocent until proven guilty as he faces these criminal charges.
Have you noticed that when you face a charge from the IRS, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent? Don't you think we ought to be getting the same justice that they get when they are accused? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This energy bill, by the way, that is needed more than ever, particularly given the fact that there has been some threats recently by Saddam Hussein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush today reacting to the news that Saddam Hussein had announced he's going to cut off oil exports for 30 days, or until Israel withdraws from Palestinian territories. What does this kind of blackmail tell us about the dangers of U.S. energy dependence?
And is drilling in ANWR, the Arctic Reserve, a way to combat it? We are going to debate that subject in the next half hour.
Also, a reminder that the chat room is buzzing tonight. And can you join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let's get back to Powell's trip to the Mideast and to the question that I put on the table this evening of whether or not we are seeing here just another sincere and earnest peacemaking effort? Or, in the context of the attacks against us, the ruthless and manipulative employment of terrorist tactics, are we in fact seeing another in what could be construed as a train of concessions to the strategy of terror?
That is the question that we'll be discussing tonight. And joining us to discuss that question we have three guests, Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, India, The Philippines and Zambia. Also, more distinguished in all of that, Frank, a former colleague of mine, Stephen Zunes, chair of the Peace and Justice Studies program at the University of San Francisco. And Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com, to which I contribute a weekly column.
Welcome, everyone. And thank you for joining me tonight on MAKING SENSE.
I want to start, direct my first thought and question to Frank Wisner because I think it's a question on a lot of minds, certainly has been on mine as I have watched this train of events with issues in the Middle East, also the kind of threats that we have been under. If you'll stand back and look at the whole thing, Frank, it seems we are operating right now in an environment heavily infected with the threat of terrorism, the execution of terrorism, both in terms of our policy, that which the Israelis are being subjected to.
In this context, doesn't the kind of mission that Secretary Powell is pursuing run the risk of being seen and maybe even making concessions to an environment and strategy of terror that would then encourage the further abuse of this sort of tactic against us?
FRANK WISNER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: Alan, I see the risk you are talking about. But, frankly, I believe that the time is absolutely right for Secretary Powell to get into the Middle East with the presidential mandate behind him and try to find a basis on which the parties can end the violence and build a bridge to peace. You can't have the situation continue with the bloodshed that we've seen in recent days, with the growing anger on the streets that could even threaten the regimes of friendly governments in the Arab world without the United States making a move.
The secretary is making that move. All our best wishes are with him.
This is not a concession to terrorism. This is the role the United States can and must play in trying to bridge differences between disputing parties.
KEYES: But, Frank, aren't we muddying the waters just a little bit, though? I think you must know that I think it's actually muddying the waters a lot when we look at a situation in which we have a leadership, in this case the leadership of the Palestinian Authority around Yasser Arafat, which has employed a tactic which I think by no means can be described as anything but terrorist.
It is the use of violence against, consciously employed against, innocent civilians for the sake of achieving political objectives. When you use violence against military people and armed people, that's war. But when you go into public places, and you are having people blow themselves up amongst civilians and destroy their lives, that's terrorism. And essentially by continuing business as usual in this peace process, aren't we negotiating with terrorists?
WISNER: I don't look at it that way, Alan. I believe that it is very important to stand firmly against the use of terror, suicidal terror. It is an abomination. And the United States can only range itself completely against that.
On the other hand, we are facing a situation in which, for better than a quarter of a century, Israeli forces have occupied territories with populations equivalent to two-thirds of modern Israel. That occupation has produced a terrific blow back. And until as American policy the president, the secretary has now stated, can achieve two key objectives — ending the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state — you have no framework within which to control violence. You don't have the forces and the responsibility with which to bring that sort of terror under control.
I don't pretend it will be brought under easily, quickly, without cost. But you have to create the political circumstances in which terror can be controlled. And that can only be done through negotiations that would create an end to the occupation, give Israel security, and end up with a Palestinian state.
KEYES: Now, Joseph Farah, I look at this situation. I'm listening to Frank's answer. And as always, he sounds very measured and very reasonable. But I have one problem. If we are going to move in this direction and have an Israeli pullback and all of this before there is an assurance that these attacks end, then the price that Israel must pay for this process is the vulnerability of its citizens to ongoing attacks, the basis for which would then be consolidated in whatever territories are being controlled by this leadership committed to terror. Is that an acceptable outcome?
JOSEPH FARAH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: No, it's not, Alan. And we've seen this play over and over and over again. And I don't know why we have to keep doing this, making the same mistakes over.
You know, as we speak, there are 200 terrorists occupying the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. They are holding priests and nuns and monks hostage. And they are under the direct orders of Yasser Arafat.
Now, I'm not schooled in international diplomacy like you and your other guests. But I think I have enough common sense to determine that this is not the kind of environment that you dispatch your secretary of state into to try to begin negotiating a cease-fire.
It's crazy. We've been through this. The negotiations have failed. And it's time, frankly, to give war a chance.
KEYES: But let me ask you a question though because we are often told — and I think one of the things that has impelled ultimately a presidential response and Powell's mission and so forth that somehow there was great fear that Yasser Arafat was going to be injured or killed, that this would lead to some huge explosion and so forth and so on. Is Yasser Arafat, in your view, an indispensable man? Must we continue to work with Arafat and the kind of leaders who have developed this culture of suicidal terror?
FARAH: We have had problems in the Middle East, conflict in the Middle East, and certainly since 1967 we've had incessant terrorism between Palestinians and attacks on Israel. And the one common denominator that we have during that whole time period, 35 years let's say — we've had different presidents, we've had different prime ministers of Israel, we've had different heads of state in the Arab countries.
But Yasser Arafat is the one constant. And it's time for us to take a look at that and say how could this man be indispensable? He's been around for 35 years, and for 35 years there has been terrorism in the Middle East. Maybe it's time to get rid of Yasser Arafat.
Another thing, Alan, I think it's very important for Americans to understand that we're not just talking about terrorism against Israelis by Yasser Arafat. Going back to 1973, I wrote a story over a year ago exposing the fact that Yasser Arafat gave orders for the machine gun deaths of two U.S. diplomats back in 1973. He's never answered for those crimes. And it's time for the United States to stop supporting Yasser Arafat with hundreds of millions of dollars, and begin to pull the rug out from under him, and maybe give real peace a chance.
KEYES: Now, Stephen Zunes, we have seen these suicide bombers over the course of the last several weeks. Some people describe it as a tactic of desperation as if it's some kind of immediate response to the moment. But, in point of fact, haven't we seen the fruit of the developing of an inculcated culture of violence that has, in fact, been prepared by the existing Palestinian leadership and is only now being deployed so that it's not at all a spontaneous reaction but part of a well thought out strategy? And if we respond to that by making further concessions in terms of the negotiating process, aren't we simply going to be encouraging the further implementation of that strategy?
STEPHEN ZUNES, CHAIR, PEACE AND JUSTICE STUDIES PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: I would certainly never favor concessions to terrorists for anything. However, if an ally such as Israel is engaged in flagrant violations of international law, U.N. Security Council resolutions, basic standards of human rights, we need to speak out. Just as oppression and occupation can never justify terrorism, neither can terrorism justify occupation and repression.
While Arafat has certainly not done everything he can to stop terrorism as his defenders claim, I have not seen evidence that he is personally behind the attacks as his critics claim either. The truth is somewhere in between. And certainly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the groups that have committed the vast majority of these heinous acts against innocent Israeli civilians have long been opponents of Arafat, have never been under his direct control. And while we certainly should be very clear to Arafat and others not to encourage violence against innocent civilians, it is also incumbent upon us to be really clear to the Israeli government they cease their attacks against innocent civilians and their ongoing military campaign.
KEYES: Wait a minute, Stephen. But you then don't consider that it's an encouragement to this kind of terror to praise them as martyrs and to suggest that he himself would love to join them? That's not encouragement, that's not incitement?
ZUNES: He did not claim to want to join the suicide bombers. He claimed he was willing to be a martyr. But I think you are correct that Arafat has not been nearly as firm as he absolutely needs to be, not just the obvious moral reasons about killing innocent civilians, but it's the most stupid thing he can do in terms of advancing his cause.
KEYES: But here's the other problem I have. Wait, wait, here's the other problem I have, because I've never quite understood how to make this out when I hear the response you give. On the one hand, is Yasser Arafat capable of controlling Hamas and all these other terrorist groups? Is he or isn't he?
ZUNES: I don't think he can control it completely. But he can certainly do more than he's able to do.
KEYES: No, if he's not able to control them to the degree he's not able to control them, when I sit down if I'm Israel and I make some kind of peace with this guy where he's supposed to deliver an end and cessation to violence, to the degree he can't control them, that's the degree to which he cannot deliver on his bargain, right?
ZUNES: The problem, of course, though, is if maintain your occupation, you are (INAUDIBLE)...
KEYES: Wait a minute, Stephen. Could you answer my question, though? Before you get off at all, just answer my question. To the degree he's not able to control these forces, he is not able to keep the peace. Isn't that right?
ZUNES: Anymore than Ariel Sharon has had a hard time controlling his right-wing vigilante settlers who have murdered Palestinian civilians.
(CROSSTALK)
ZUNES: Arafat obviously needs to be much tougher and crack down the best they can. And Israel would be far more secure, I would argue. We've clearly delineated internationally recognized borders in this patchwork, this archipelago, in these illegal settlements in military outposts amidst a hostile population.
KEYES: Joseph...
ZUNES: That's why leading Israeli strategic analysts have argued for a withdrawal with perhaps the help of international peacekeeping forces to separate the sides...
KEYES: ... Joseph Farah, thank you...
ZUNES: ... and stop the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
KEYES: Joseph Farah, the thought of borders and across the other side of the border is a regime, which we've already seen — because everybody talks like this is theoretical, but isn't this what just happened? You turn a lot of authority over to the Palestinian Authority. You beg, practically, that they should control elements of violence.
It goes without help. You offer help, you offer cooperation. It doesn't happen. The people responsible for perpetrating the crimes are not arrested or belatedly arrested. Is that a sufficient guarantee for Israeli security? And if that's all you can get from Yasser Arafat, is it good enough?
FARAH: Of course it's not, Alan. But it's much worse than that. It hasn't been Hamas and Hezbollah that have committed the recent acts of terrorism that are getting all the attention in Israel today. It has been the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is under the direct control of Arafat and his Fatah faction of the PLO.
So let's not play games here. Let's not suggest that Hamas and Hezbollah are perpetuating all the suicide bombings. These are being done by Yasser Arafat's own people. The people occupying the Church of the Nativity today are Yasser Arafat's people.
ZUNES: I must raise an objection. I work at a Jesuit university. I've been in contact with Jesuits and other priests in Bethlehem and in the church. They say they are not being held hostage. They are being surrounded by Israeli troops.
The vast majority of people inside the church are unarmed, people who are church employees or people in Bethlehem who were in Manager Square when Israeli tanks entered shooting. And they sought sanctuary in the church. This idea they are being held hostage by terrorists is totally phony. And I've heard...
FARAH: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
FARAH: These 200 armed men burst into the church, broke down the steel reinforced doors, and are occupying the church. A priest told the “Washington Times” today that, “We can't do anything. These men have guns and we don't.” What do you call that if it's not a hostage crisis?
ZUNES: It is not a hostage crisis, and I have heard from people inside the church, people who are leaders, a leader of the Catholic Benevolent association, a couple of the priests. They argue it's Israelis who blew down the door.
KEYES: You know...
ZUNES: They murdered the bell ringer this morning when he tried putting out a fire...
KEYES: Stephen, Stephen...
ZUNES: ... that had been set by Israeli fire.
KEYES: ... Stephen and gentlemen, we've come to the end of our time, unfortunately. I do have to observe, though, this is becoming to me a very interesting situation. You know, that old line, when is a terrorist not a terrorist? Sort of like when is a rose not a rose?
A terrorist apparently is not a terrorist when they do anything in the name of this Palestinian movement. And I think — I've got to tell you I think it's going to pose a serious problem for us because, guess what? You do remember, don't you, that Osama bin Laden and his buddies flew those planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon in the name of the Palestinian movement in order to get us to back off from our support of Israel, whom he said is killing Arab sons? That's what he did.
So if this you say in justification of Yasser Arafat is true, I suppose Powell ought to be negotiating with Osama bin Laden next. That will go well with the American people.
Gentlemen, thank you. I appreciate your coming on this evening. Very lively discussion.
Next, Saddam Hussein says he's cutting off oil to the west. Is this a new threat to America? Does it represent a new stage in the abuse of oil power in the context of the Middle East? And what should we do about it?
And later on, a little bit of a surprise. Actor-comedian Chris Tucker is going to join me here on Alan Keyes is MAKING SENSE. Yes. You don't believe it, do you? Didn't even know I knew Chris Tucker. Well, there are a lot of things you don't know about me.
Anyway, you're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Still ahead tonight, yes, you heard it right. Actor Chris Tucker, star of the “Rush Hour” movies and soon to be president of the United States — yes, you heard it right — right here on ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE. He'll be joining me in just a little while.
But, first, today, Saddam Hussein announced that he was cutting off Iraq's oil supply until Israel pulls out of Palestinian territories, that or 30 days whichever comes first, I guess. This gave President Bush fuel to push his energy plan now being debated by the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're going to try to cut off energy supply to affect the United States. I mean, what more reason do we need than to have good energy policy in the United States to diversify away from somebody like him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Well, it seems as if — as I said at the opening of the program, you see the money of the oil empire flowing through the bloodstream and sinews of the terrorist infrastructure, preparing the suicide bombers, funding the folks who have come against us and so forth.
And now — now, out of the skybirds, in the hands, of course, of the bad cop, Saddam Hussein, comes the direct threat, “We'll strangle you with our oil weapon if you don't do what you're told.”
Now you are a fool — I hate to tell you this — if you believe that he's speaking only for himself because I don't think that's true. You remember the big fat kiss that was exchanged with the Saudis at the Arab — remember that? I don't believe he is speaking for himself. I think this represents just a new phase in the threat we face and that is implied in this whole environment.
As Powell goes around talking to these folks, hanging in the background the direct threat of violence and the economic threat that they are going to do violence to our economies and directly affect what happens to us here at home, and I think we need to deal with it.
Joining us now to discuss what might be some ways and means, Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
DEB CALLAHAN, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: Good evening.
KEYES: Good evening.
And Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Welcome, both of you, to MAKING SENSE.
MARLO LEWIS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Hi, Alan.
KEYES: Deb Callahan, we look at this situation now in a way that is not only a matter of energy policy and economics and conservation, but we have these national security elements mixed in.
In the context of this situation, do we think we need to rethink our approaches to things like ANWR and what other ways might there be to deal with what is a real threat that this dependence we have on Arab oil is going to be used by them as a weapon to dictate our policy?
CALLAHAN: You know, we live in a time where American policy on so many things has caused us to reexamine our values and what we're doing in the world, our place in the world.
You showed a very interesting clip of President Bush where he was saying, “Now is the time to have an energy policy that really diversifies, that gets us off foreign oil,” and now would have been the time for the United States Senate and the House of Representatives to have done just that.
Unfortunately, they've really missed the opportunity, it seems, to have done important things like diversify our sources of energy, to have gotten renewable energy technologies, to really have created more opportunities for conservation, to stretch our energy, and, frankly, to have better fuel-efficiency standards for our vehicles.
We know that Saudi Arabia, I think, exports about 776,000 barrels of oil to the U.S., and, frankly, ANWR would in 10 years perhaps produce about a million barrels of oil in the same period of time. However, it's going to take 10 years to get that oil, and we'd only get that oil for about six to eight months. It's not a factor in the moment we're in right now.
The way to really get energy use in this country under control — so we're not sending our soldiers over there and putting them in peril's way in part around energy policy — is to get our energy use under control. Unfortunately, we've missed that opportunity.
KEYES: Now, Marlo Lewis, what do you think ought to be the response here in the context of our national security concerns? Do we have to rethink policies? Do we need to move ahead with the exploitation of the oil reserves we have in places like ANWR? What other approaches might we take?
LEWIS: Well, we definitely have to reverse the course that we've taken in this country over the last 20 years, which is basically to shoot ourselves in the foot and prevent ourselves from developing our own oil resources.
You know, Deb is quite right. It might take 10 years, although, according to the Energy Information Administration, maybe only seven years to bring that ANWR oil on line and to the market. But if President Clinton hadn't vetoed congressional legislation to open ANWR in 1995, we might have that oil right now.
And it would just about exactly equal the oil that Saddam Hussein is cutting off. It's about one-million barrels of oil a day that's expected from ANWR, and it's about one-million barrels of oil that Saddam Hussein is cutting off.
KEYES: Well, it does seem to me, though, that — I hear a little bit of sense from both sides here, in my own opinion, because you don't think, do you, Marlo, that something like ANWR is an answer over the long term to the strategic threat that's posed by this abuse of their position in oil by the Arab states? I mean, if they're starting to use this directly as a weapon of political blackmail, don't we need a longer-term response than just ANWR?
LEWIS: Well, I would suggest, Alan, that what Saddam Hussein is engaging in is a form of economic warfare, and warfare requires a response at a strategic and maybe even a military level. You cannot solve all of your national security and foreign policy problems through domestic energy policy.
But what we can do is create fantastic opportunities for us to grow in wealth, create jobs, billions of dollars of additional income to Americans by not shooting ourselves in the foot and putting off limits a valuable resource that we have.
KEYES: So that the implication there — and let me direct this to Deb Callahan — because the implication — I think there would be times when, obviously, you meet that kind of war threat with war.
But what if it's representative? What if it's not just Saddam Hussein? What if it's not just Saddam Hussein? What if it's, as I unfortunately think is the case, he's actually brandishing that sword on behalf of the whole oil empire, including the Saudis and everybody else who wear a nice face but are actually encouraging this kind of intimidation?
I don't know. It seems to me we don't want a military response against all of them, do we? I mean, we have to come up with something that would put us in a stronger position when we dealt with them, wouldn't we, Deb?
CALLAHAN: Alan, I think you're right, and the more that — you know, 40 percent of the oil that we use in this country comes from automobiles, and I can't say strongly enough how important it is to national security to have strong fuel efficiencies.
If you look at oil production in this country right now, you realize that we can never begin to pump enough oil to satisfy the oil needs that we have in this country, and, in fact, if we drilled in ANWR, it would only increase by .3 percent the amount of domestic oil reserves that we have available to us now in this country. It really is just a drop in the bucket.
And while we do have oil reserves in this country, we should be making the shift away from relying on that fuel and be able to, you know, bring solar on line, wind power on line, and use the oil and the gas and the other resources we have more efficiently because, frankly, this country should not be in the position of even having to have this conversation.
KEYES: Now, Marlo, I want to ask a quick follow-up question to you because I know we — all of us — I have a lot of hesitations about some of the things that people propose, putting restrictions and other things, the — you know, the CAFE standards, all of these kinds of things.
Isn't it the case, though, just at this level that we do need to start looking at ways to harness our technological advantage in order to break this dependence on Arab oil?
CALLAHAN: That's right.
LEWIS: Alan, the global marketplace dictates that most of the world's oil for the foreseeable future is going to come from the Arabian peninsula, and there is no way — you can't — not an Apollo space project, not a Manhattan Project —
Over the last 20 years, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into taxpayer subsidies and states into rate-payer subsidies for the kinds of technologies that Deb is talking about, wind and solar, and, today, wind supplies a whopping .13 percent of all of our electricity, solar a whopping .02 percent, and what that shows you is that these forms of energy are not competitive on the scale of a national market.
And we can waste a lot more money and get — and destroy a lot more wealth trying to reverse the course of the 21st century, but it's just not going to work, not to mention the fact that if you tried to solve this problem by making cars more fuel efficient, what you will do is put more Americans at risk on the road for fatal crashes, serious injuries.
This was the conclusion drawn by the National Research Council in a very recent study.
KEYES: See, I wonder sometimes, though, whether we aren't making the mistake that is sometimes, in my opinion, made in economics where people, instead of using a dynamic analysis, will use a static analysis.
If you analyze the situation in terms of what our technological know-how might produce if impelled not just by the usual profit motive but by a strong sense of the stake that we have in terms of our national security, impelled by that, we began to devote resources to the business of applying science to making these other areas more economically efficient...
LEWIS: Alan...
KEYES: ... you mean to tell me that that's going to be...
LEWIS: ... it's been tried.
KEYES: No, it hasn't been tried in this country!
LEWIS: It has been tried. It was tried...
KEYES: I'm sorry.
LEWIS: Jimmy Carter did it with...
KEYES: It hasn't — Jimmy Carter did not...
LEWIS: Eight-billion dollars down the drain.
KEYES: I'm sorry, Marlo. Jimmy Carter did not have the incentive we have today, and I think it's just shortsighted...
CALLAHAN: And...
KEYES: It's shortsighted to believe that we should continue indefinitely in our dependence on these little despots who are trying to strangle us to death, dictate our policy in a way that will destroy one of our most important allies, and then spit in our faces with their terrorism as a result. This is unconscionable! I wouldn't sit back and just take this, and you're not going to tell me that our science can't find a way out of this.
Deb Callahan, go ahead.
CALLAHAN: Alan, I think you — you have got it right. I mean, let's get real here. If we just increased the fuel efficiency of our fleet of cars and trucks on the road, we would — if we just increased it by three miles a gallon, you would replace a million barrels of oil a day, which is more than we import from Saudi Arabia. Three miles a gallon...
LEWIS: That's a static analysis right there because when...
CALLAHAN: ... and that's what...
LEWIS: ... cars become more fuel efficient, people drive more.
CALLAHAN: These technologies — these technologies exist. And let me — let me just put — this is one of my favorite fun facts, and, of course, you're going to argue with it, but — guess what — right now, the average sport-utility vehicle gets about 17 miles a gallon. Did you know the Model T got 25 miles a gallon? We have gone backwards in time here. We can do better.
KEYES: Now we have to stop here, but I've got to tell you, Marlo and Deb, I want you to promise to join me again.
CALLAHAN: We will.
KEYES: We have just scratched...
LEWIS: Absolutely.
KEYES: ... the surface here. I think that this is one of the most important issues facing this country right now, and we are going to take advantage of our opportunities as we move along in this program to get further in depth as we look at the question “What are the alternatives? What should we do?” because I think we're faced with a serious danger, and Saddam Hussein's little threat today is just the tip of the iceberg of what I think these folks have planned for us, and we can't let them get away with it.
Well, anyway, later in my outrage of the day.
But, first, let us — does this make sense? Chris Tucker, actor, comedian, star of “Rush Hour 2,” and — now he's going to be joining me here on MAKING SENSE. An actor! A comedian. Does this make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Joining me now right here on the set is my famous sweater. It's back. Yes. Oh, look at that. It looks a lot better on you, Chris, than it did on me.
CHRIS TUCKER, ACTOR: Hey, you just — I just picked this up right here. I love this sweater. I love it. Can I have it?
KEYES: Well — oh, yeah. If you promise to wear it in your next movie.
TUCKER: I promise.
KEYES: Then you've got it.
TUCKER: My next movie.
KEYES: See that. My sweater is now going to be elevated to the big screen.
TUCKER: This is — this is lovely. Thank you.
KEYES: Well, anyway, joining me now, actor, comedian, and, as it turns out, soon to be president of the United States, right?
TUCKER: Yes. Next movie — we're filming right now — I'll be playing the first African-American president, so — you know, I base a lot of the character after you, so...
KEYES: Now is that a way of telling me that you thought that my run for presidency was a joke?
TUCKER: No. No, no, no. You were very, very articulate. You're very smart, very — an asset. That's — that — you know — so I took a lot of it and put it with my own personality, and we'll bring it out in the film. So it's going to be funny, smart. Character's going to know what he's doing and — you know.
KEYES: So what do you think the humor would come from in a situation like this? You know, I think it's one of the problems that folks face right now. You look at all these serious situations in the world, the terrorism, the Middle East, things that involve a lot of tragedy and death and so forth and so on, and yet somehow or another, one would think, through all of that, we still have to keep our sense of humor. So how do you manage that in a world like this?
TUCKER: Well, in a movie, you can show the down — you know, the down time, the personal life of the president, you know, and you've got to show like the president's scared, you know. “There's a war going on, and I'm really scared.” You're going to see it in my movie, like, “Man, I really don't know what's going on here.”
So I'm going to show every side of the president. So that's what the humor will come out of. You're going to really know the character, you know. You'll really know the character in the movie, you know, his down side when he's eating dinner and whatever you're doing, you know.
KEYES: Well, you know, it's very promising. I've got to tell you that the “Rush Hour” movies are very popular in my family.
TUCKER: Thank you.
KEYES: “Rush Hour 1.” And what is even more famous — you made a sequel — you know you made a sequel that many people believed was better than the original.
TUCKER: It was hard.
KEYES: But it's one of those things that's very difficult to do. But there was a question I've always wanted to ask you. It's very simple, easy one because I've read a lot about — you've read a lot about Jackie Chan, and all the stuff I've read about Jackie Chan, it's almost like that's too good to be true. Is he really as nice a fellow as he seems to be when he...
TUCKER: He is, man. He's — me and him are real good. We have better — more fun off the set because he's really a nice guy. He's like real interesting.
All the time I ask him — I said, “Jackie, tell me one of those deep Chinese secrets.” And he be like, “There is no secrets.” I be, “Come on, man. Tell me something. Give me a secret tea or something,” you know.
So I'm always asking him questions about the Chinese culture and stuff.
KEYES: Now from movies that were essentially detective and kung fu and the crime and fighting the gangsters and so forth and so on, what led you in the direction of a movie or even a comedy about politics?
TUCKER: Because it's so different and it's like another level because I've done — you know, I've done the action movies. I've done different type of movies, but I've never done this type of movie, and this — it's the hardest movie, too, because, you know, I — politics — I have to, you know, talk to people like you to give me advice about it, President Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young. All these people have to come and sit down with me.
KEYES: I understand you were talking to President Clinton to get some instruction in an area that I couldn't help you with. My wife wouldn't let that happen.
TUCKER: That's not right. That's not right. You know that's not right. Don't you play that on me.
KEYES: I'm just kidding.
TUCKER: No, but, you know, everybody like I had to get research from because this is really — it's a — you know, it's another type of role for me, so — I had so much fun just by researching, and now I can put it all in my personality and bring it out. So it's good.
KEYES: Well, you see, I could be doing you a big favor, though, if I lent you this sweater, and I can see it now in those moments, you know, in the quiet, reflective moments, those times when the president has to make his decision, the whole weight of the world, but he's heard from his Cabinet and everybody else. He has to retreat into the quiet of his study to contemplate what he's going to do, puts on his nice, relaxing sweater. I can...
TUCKER: You're right.
KEYES: You're going to make my sweater a star.
TUCKER: I'm taking this sweater. It's mine now. I'm taking this. Christmas time. This is me.
KEYES: There are some folks on my staff who would be willing to pay you to take that sweater, but you'd have to pry it from...
TUCKER: Look at the fine linen on here. Look at the detail. See, people don't see the detail. That's the reason why you bought this sweater.
KEYES: Now I'm looking forward to seeing you and possibly my sweater in what sounds like is going to be a fascinating movie and also one to give us a good laugh.
TUCKER: Yes.
KEYES: Thank you for dropping by.
TUCKER: Thank you.
KEYES: Appreciate seeing you.
Next, my outrage of the day. You don't want to miss that, so stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day. A column by William Raspberry of “The Washington Post” caught my eye today in which he wrote the following.
“But isn't it reasonable to examine those political ends, the ends of terrorists? Isn't it reasonable to ask what moral distinctions there are between what the suicide bombers and those who dispatch them are doing and what the Israeli forces have been doing?”
He's raising questions, of course, about whether terrorism can be justified, the ends in terms of the means and so forth and so on. But I'll tell you something. If the terrorist ends justify the terrorist means, then wasn't Osama bin Laden justified in his own eyes and shouldn't we cut him some slack? That's outrageous. That's my sense of it.
Thanks.
Well, we know that the Powell mission has begun. He's going to end up eventually in the Middle East, of course. And he's been visiting in the course of time other folks, starting with a visit with Prince Abdullah and the king of Morocco.
I have some thoughts to share with you tonight in the context of both the Powell mission and those visits where he starts off talking to some of the folks who attended the Arab summit, people who are the so-called moderate Arabs. And these are the folks we are going to work with and whose views we are consulting and whose sensitivities and feelings we are to be mindful of as we put what is becoming increasingly intense pressure on the Israelis to curtail their campaign of self-defense.
I want you to try a little thought experiment with me this evening looking first at the time that has passed since September 11th and some of the things that have happened in that time, but first taking a careful look at September 11th itself. You remember that terrible day. And you remember as well, I am sure, that a lot of the perpetrators who brought that terrible blow against us.
Where did they come from? The people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, what passport did they carry? Do you remember? If you were a person who had just arrived on the planet, you had no preconceptions whatsoever, and you were just looking at basic facts and you started to ask some fundamental questions about where the blow came from and how it was putting the and who was responsible for it, you would look first of all at the people who were involved. Right? And you'd say, “Where did these people come from?”
What's the answer to that question? You and I both know it, don't we? Most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Yes they did.
Where did the money come from that financed the terrible attacks that struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Where did that money flow from that was in those coffers? Well, we say it was Osama bin Laden's money, but who is he?
Well, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. And his money represents the wealth that is part of what is being laid out by folks who are part of the Saudi oil power, the oil empire that has been put together by Arabs in the Mideast.
Osama bin Laden himself, the mastermind of the whole business, where did he come from? Saudi Arabia. If you were a policeman on the case and you were trying to track down the culprits, I know we ended up going over and pulverizing Afghanistan and making sure that the country that had provided the field and the facilitation and the place where they had planted their headquarters was pummeled. But you think that the Afghans paid for all of that? Do you think Afghan — Afghanistan is a poor country. Those people can hardly pay for their own business.
So, where did the money come from that funded all this infrastructure we destroyed? Where is it coming from now to fund the continuing resistance we are encountering? You think it comes from Afghanistan? Because I think I know better.
I think if you were a detective on the case you might just be asking yourself that question. And the answer you would find is that it's flowing out of the same oil coffers that financed the terrible blow against us in the first place.
Now, you turn to the scene in the Mideast itself, and you find that the suicide bombers that are coming against Israel and the infrastructure that produced and incited those suicide bombers — not as some people would have us believe over the course of yesterday and today and a few weeks and frustration and desperation, no, but over the course of years where whole generations have been formed in a culture of violence and hatred and commitment to this kind of suicidal tactic — where did the money come that financed that culture of violence in the schools and institutions and so-called charities that helped to produce those generations? Again, flowing out of the same oil coffers and traced to the same background.
Some of the most extreme elements in the Islamic world funded out of Saudi coffers. Isn't that interesting?
So we have Saudi mastermind and Saudi perpetrators and Saudi money flowing through coffers that hit us in the World Trade Center that are perpetuating violence in the Middle East. And very often when you are subject to terrorist demands and things, one of the things that can be an indication of where it's coming from is who shows up to make the demand that you can meet, “If you want this to stop, this is what you've got to do.” And the form that that demand now takes is a Saudi proposal that we are all supposed to greet with open arms and think is so wonderful. Here it comes from Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, at the Arab Summit, they all circle the wagons around Saddam Hussein, give him a big kiss on the cheek like he's the best guy in town. He happens to represent the next stage of the war on terror, the one that might involve against us weapons of mass destruction. Being circled and embraced and kissed on the cheek by who? Oh, gosh, the Saudis once again.
Now, I am not going to suggest in some hard and fast way that I'm pointing the fingers and saying, “Well, Saudi Arabia is the problem.” But I would have to tell you if we were sensible people, we would surely have to consider this hypothesis, don't you think? Doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out those clues and to suggest that maybe we ought to follow them up in order to find out what is really going on.
Is this what we are doing? Sadly, I don't think it is. In fact, I think we've been caught in a classic good cop/bad cop routine, the Saudis and their so-called moderate buddies playing the good cop. And you've got Saddam Hussein and some of the others there playing the bad cops. And Yasser Arafat, they're bad cops. And suicide bombers, they're the bad cops.
We are being played for fools here because the whole structure is in the end being supported and financed by an oil empire that, in the form of Saddam Hussein, today then comes out to make naked the ultimate threat that it thinks it holds against us, the threat that if you don't come to your knees, if you don't do what you are told, if you don't call off Israel, if you don't have a policy that's dictated by us, we'll cut off your oil, and we'll end it. That's what he represented today.
I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein's oil is going to make that much difference. But it's not what he himself represents so much as what that threat represents that we need to be thinking about here.
And what constitutes the real context for this war against terror? Where is the real adversary that we face? I think that we've been playing this in too much the style of the melodrama rather than looking at the real complexities of the situation we face.
And in light of those real complexities, a lot of those things we've done since September 11th could very well look like concessions to that structure, that strategy of terror, the formal recognition that a Palestinian state is needed, the willingness to keep on acting as if Yasser Arafat and those fomenting this terrorist violence aren't terrorists at all, and finally a Powell mission going out there to do what? Put pressure on Israel to stop defending itself before they have any assurance whatsoever that they will stop being attacked.
Is that what we are going to do, promise to stop defending ourselves before those who are bringing the terrorist menace against us have promised to stop their attacks? It strikes me we ought to see the situation in Israel as a little bit of a precursor of what could be our own situation. If we don't handle this threat of terrorism with a lot more good sense and maturity and with a lot more discernment, I think, about who our friends are and who our enemies are than we have been doing.
And that's what we are going to be doing a little bit in the course of this program. Next, on the “Heart of the Matter,” we are going to ask these questions: is the oil axis an evil axis? Have we already made concessions to terrorism? And is the Powell mission another such concession?
Later, under the heading “Alan Keyes is Having Fun” — we do that occasionally on the show, you know that, a little lighter moment — we're going to be visited by actor Chris Tucker here in the studio tonight.
But first, does this make sense? An IRS employee has been indicted for bribery and disclosing tax information. And he's still on the IRS payroll. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois said the employee accepted three bribes totaling $725.
Innocent until proven guilty, we say. Yes, I believe that. So, why should he be suffering consequences? I don't know. But you know one thing? He's innocent until proven guilty as he faces these criminal charges.
Have you noticed that when you face a charge from the IRS, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent? Don't you think we ought to be getting the same justice that they get when they are accused? Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This energy bill, by the way, that is needed more than ever, particularly given the fact that there has been some threats recently by Saddam Hussein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was President Bush today reacting to the news that Saddam Hussein had announced he's going to cut off oil exports for 30 days, or until Israel withdraws from Palestinian territories. What does this kind of blackmail tell us about the dangers of U.S. energy dependence?
And is drilling in ANWR, the Arctic Reserve, a way to combat it? We are going to debate that subject in the next half hour.
Also, a reminder that the chat room is buzzing tonight. And can you join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let's get back to Powell's trip to the Mideast and to the question that I put on the table this evening of whether or not we are seeing here just another sincere and earnest peacemaking effort? Or, in the context of the attacks against us, the ruthless and manipulative employment of terrorist tactics, are we in fact seeing another in what could be construed as a train of concessions to the strategy of terror?
That is the question that we'll be discussing tonight. And joining us to discuss that question we have three guests, Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt, India, The Philippines and Zambia. Also, more distinguished in all of that, Frank, a former colleague of mine, Stephen Zunes, chair of the Peace and Justice Studies program at the University of San Francisco. And Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com, to which I contribute a weekly column.
Welcome, everyone. And thank you for joining me tonight on MAKING SENSE.
I want to start, direct my first thought and question to Frank Wisner because I think it's a question on a lot of minds, certainly has been on mine as I have watched this train of events with issues in the Middle East, also the kind of threats that we have been under. If you'll stand back and look at the whole thing, Frank, it seems we are operating right now in an environment heavily infected with the threat of terrorism, the execution of terrorism, both in terms of our policy, that which the Israelis are being subjected to.
In this context, doesn't the kind of mission that Secretary Powell is pursuing run the risk of being seen and maybe even making concessions to an environment and strategy of terror that would then encourage the further abuse of this sort of tactic against us?
FRANK WISNER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: Alan, I see the risk you are talking about. But, frankly, I believe that the time is absolutely right for Secretary Powell to get into the Middle East with the presidential mandate behind him and try to find a basis on which the parties can end the violence and build a bridge to peace. You can't have the situation continue with the bloodshed that we've seen in recent days, with the growing anger on the streets that could even threaten the regimes of friendly governments in the Arab world without the United States making a move.
The secretary is making that move. All our best wishes are with him.
This is not a concession to terrorism. This is the role the United States can and must play in trying to bridge differences between disputing parties.
KEYES: But, Frank, aren't we muddying the waters just a little bit, though? I think you must know that I think it's actually muddying the waters a lot when we look at a situation in which we have a leadership, in this case the leadership of the Palestinian Authority around Yasser Arafat, which has employed a tactic which I think by no means can be described as anything but terrorist.
It is the use of violence against, consciously employed against, innocent civilians for the sake of achieving political objectives. When you use violence against military people and armed people, that's war. But when you go into public places, and you are having people blow themselves up amongst civilians and destroy their lives, that's terrorism. And essentially by continuing business as usual in this peace process, aren't we negotiating with terrorists?
WISNER: I don't look at it that way, Alan. I believe that it is very important to stand firmly against the use of terror, suicidal terror. It is an abomination. And the United States can only range itself completely against that.
On the other hand, we are facing a situation in which, for better than a quarter of a century, Israeli forces have occupied territories with populations equivalent to two-thirds of modern Israel. That occupation has produced a terrific blow back. And until as American policy the president, the secretary has now stated, can achieve two key objectives — ending the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state — you have no framework within which to control violence. You don't have the forces and the responsibility with which to bring that sort of terror under control.
I don't pretend it will be brought under easily, quickly, without cost. But you have to create the political circumstances in which terror can be controlled. And that can only be done through negotiations that would create an end to the occupation, give Israel security, and end up with a Palestinian state.
KEYES: Now, Joseph Farah, I look at this situation. I'm listening to Frank's answer. And as always, he sounds very measured and very reasonable. But I have one problem. If we are going to move in this direction and have an Israeli pullback and all of this before there is an assurance that these attacks end, then the price that Israel must pay for this process is the vulnerability of its citizens to ongoing attacks, the basis for which would then be consolidated in whatever territories are being controlled by this leadership committed to terror. Is that an acceptable outcome?
JOSEPH FARAH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: No, it's not, Alan. And we've seen this play over and over and over again. And I don't know why we have to keep doing this, making the same mistakes over.
You know, as we speak, there are 200 terrorists occupying the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. They are holding priests and nuns and monks hostage. And they are under the direct orders of Yasser Arafat.
Now, I'm not schooled in international diplomacy like you and your other guests. But I think I have enough common sense to determine that this is not the kind of environment that you dispatch your secretary of state into to try to begin negotiating a cease-fire.
It's crazy. We've been through this. The negotiations have failed. And it's time, frankly, to give war a chance.
KEYES: But let me ask you a question though because we are often told — and I think one of the things that has impelled ultimately a presidential response and Powell's mission and so forth that somehow there was great fear that Yasser Arafat was going to be injured or killed, that this would lead to some huge explosion and so forth and so on. Is Yasser Arafat, in your view, an indispensable man? Must we continue to work with Arafat and the kind of leaders who have developed this culture of suicidal terror?
FARAH: We have had problems in the Middle East, conflict in the Middle East, and certainly since 1967 we've had incessant terrorism between Palestinians and attacks on Israel. And the one common denominator that we have during that whole time period, 35 years let's say — we've had different presidents, we've had different prime ministers of Israel, we've had different heads of state in the Arab countries.
But Yasser Arafat is the one constant. And it's time for us to take a look at that and say how could this man be indispensable? He's been around for 35 years, and for 35 years there has been terrorism in the Middle East. Maybe it's time to get rid of Yasser Arafat.
Another thing, Alan, I think it's very important for Americans to understand that we're not just talking about terrorism against Israelis by Yasser Arafat. Going back to 1973, I wrote a story over a year ago exposing the fact that Yasser Arafat gave orders for the machine gun deaths of two U.S. diplomats back in 1973. He's never answered for those crimes. And it's time for the United States to stop supporting Yasser Arafat with hundreds of millions of dollars, and begin to pull the rug out from under him, and maybe give real peace a chance.
KEYES: Now, Stephen Zunes, we have seen these suicide bombers over the course of the last several weeks. Some people describe it as a tactic of desperation as if it's some kind of immediate response to the moment. But, in point of fact, haven't we seen the fruit of the developing of an inculcated culture of violence that has, in fact, been prepared by the existing Palestinian leadership and is only now being deployed so that it's not at all a spontaneous reaction but part of a well thought out strategy? And if we respond to that by making further concessions in terms of the negotiating process, aren't we simply going to be encouraging the further implementation of that strategy?
STEPHEN ZUNES, CHAIR, PEACE AND JUSTICE STUDIES PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: I would certainly never favor concessions to terrorists for anything. However, if an ally such as Israel is engaged in flagrant violations of international law, U.N. Security Council resolutions, basic standards of human rights, we need to speak out. Just as oppression and occupation can never justify terrorism, neither can terrorism justify occupation and repression.
While Arafat has certainly not done everything he can to stop terrorism as his defenders claim, I have not seen evidence that he is personally behind the attacks as his critics claim either. The truth is somewhere in between. And certainly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the groups that have committed the vast majority of these heinous acts against innocent Israeli civilians have long been opponents of Arafat, have never been under his direct control. And while we certainly should be very clear to Arafat and others not to encourage violence against innocent civilians, it is also incumbent upon us to be really clear to the Israeli government they cease their attacks against innocent civilians and their ongoing military campaign.
KEYES: Wait a minute, Stephen. But you then don't consider that it's an encouragement to this kind of terror to praise them as martyrs and to suggest that he himself would love to join them? That's not encouragement, that's not incitement?
ZUNES: He did not claim to want to join the suicide bombers. He claimed he was willing to be a martyr. But I think you are correct that Arafat has not been nearly as firm as he absolutely needs to be, not just the obvious moral reasons about killing innocent civilians, but it's the most stupid thing he can do in terms of advancing his cause.
KEYES: But here's the other problem I have. Wait, wait, here's the other problem I have, because I've never quite understood how to make this out when I hear the response you give. On the one hand, is Yasser Arafat capable of controlling Hamas and all these other terrorist groups? Is he or isn't he?
ZUNES: I don't think he can control it completely. But he can certainly do more than he's able to do.
KEYES: No, if he's not able to control them to the degree he's not able to control them, when I sit down if I'm Israel and I make some kind of peace with this guy where he's supposed to deliver an end and cessation to violence, to the degree he can't control them, that's the degree to which he cannot deliver on his bargain, right?
ZUNES: The problem, of course, though, is if maintain your occupation, you are (INAUDIBLE)...
KEYES: Wait a minute, Stephen. Could you answer my question, though? Before you get off at all, just answer my question. To the degree he's not able to control these forces, he is not able to keep the peace. Isn't that right?
ZUNES: Anymore than Ariel Sharon has had a hard time controlling his right-wing vigilante settlers who have murdered Palestinian civilians.
(CROSSTALK)
ZUNES: Arafat obviously needs to be much tougher and crack down the best they can. And Israel would be far more secure, I would argue. We've clearly delineated internationally recognized borders in this patchwork, this archipelago, in these illegal settlements in military outposts amidst a hostile population.
KEYES: Joseph...
ZUNES: That's why leading Israeli strategic analysts have argued for a withdrawal with perhaps the help of international peacekeeping forces to separate the sides...
KEYES: ... Joseph Farah, thank you...
ZUNES: ... and stop the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
KEYES: Joseph Farah, the thought of borders and across the other side of the border is a regime, which we've already seen — because everybody talks like this is theoretical, but isn't this what just happened? You turn a lot of authority over to the Palestinian Authority. You beg, practically, that they should control elements of violence.
It goes without help. You offer help, you offer cooperation. It doesn't happen. The people responsible for perpetrating the crimes are not arrested or belatedly arrested. Is that a sufficient guarantee for Israeli security? And if that's all you can get from Yasser Arafat, is it good enough?
FARAH: Of course it's not, Alan. But it's much worse than that. It hasn't been Hamas and Hezbollah that have committed the recent acts of terrorism that are getting all the attention in Israel today. It has been the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is under the direct control of Arafat and his Fatah faction of the PLO.
So let's not play games here. Let's not suggest that Hamas and Hezbollah are perpetuating all the suicide bombings. These are being done by Yasser Arafat's own people. The people occupying the Church of the Nativity today are Yasser Arafat's people.
ZUNES: I must raise an objection. I work at a Jesuit university. I've been in contact with Jesuits and other priests in Bethlehem and in the church. They say they are not being held hostage. They are being surrounded by Israeli troops.
The vast majority of people inside the church are unarmed, people who are church employees or people in Bethlehem who were in Manager Square when Israeli tanks entered shooting. And they sought sanctuary in the church. This idea they are being held hostage by terrorists is totally phony. And I've heard...
FARAH: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
FARAH: These 200 armed men burst into the church, broke down the steel reinforced doors, and are occupying the church. A priest told the “Washington Times” today that, “We can't do anything. These men have guns and we don't.” What do you call that if it's not a hostage crisis?
ZUNES: It is not a hostage crisis, and I have heard from people inside the church, people who are leaders, a leader of the Catholic Benevolent association, a couple of the priests. They argue it's Israelis who blew down the door.
KEYES: You know...
ZUNES: They murdered the bell ringer this morning when he tried putting out a fire...
KEYES: Stephen, Stephen...
ZUNES: ... that had been set by Israeli fire.
KEYES: ... Stephen and gentlemen, we've come to the end of our time, unfortunately. I do have to observe, though, this is becoming to me a very interesting situation. You know, that old line, when is a terrorist not a terrorist? Sort of like when is a rose not a rose?
A terrorist apparently is not a terrorist when they do anything in the name of this Palestinian movement. And I think — I've got to tell you I think it's going to pose a serious problem for us because, guess what? You do remember, don't you, that Osama bin Laden and his buddies flew those planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon in the name of the Palestinian movement in order to get us to back off from our support of Israel, whom he said is killing Arab sons? That's what he did.
So if this you say in justification of Yasser Arafat is true, I suppose Powell ought to be negotiating with Osama bin Laden next. That will go well with the American people.
Gentlemen, thank you. I appreciate your coming on this evening. Very lively discussion.
Next, Saddam Hussein says he's cutting off oil to the west. Is this a new threat to America? Does it represent a new stage in the abuse of oil power in the context of the Middle East? And what should we do about it?
And later on, a little bit of a surprise. Actor-comedian Chris Tucker is going to join me here on Alan Keyes is MAKING SENSE. Yes. You don't believe it, do you? Didn't even know I knew Chris Tucker. Well, there are a lot of things you don't know about me.
Anyway, you're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Still ahead tonight, yes, you heard it right. Actor Chris Tucker, star of the “Rush Hour” movies and soon to be president of the United States — yes, you heard it right — right here on ALAN KEYES IS MAKING SENSE. He'll be joining me in just a little while.
But, first, today, Saddam Hussein announced that he was cutting off Iraq's oil supply until Israel pulls out of Palestinian territories, that or 30 days whichever comes first, I guess. This gave President Bush fuel to push his energy plan now being debated by the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're going to try to cut off energy supply to affect the United States. I mean, what more reason do we need than to have good energy policy in the United States to diversify away from somebody like him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Well, it seems as if — as I said at the opening of the program, you see the money of the oil empire flowing through the bloodstream and sinews of the terrorist infrastructure, preparing the suicide bombers, funding the folks who have come against us and so forth.
And now — now, out of the skybirds, in the hands, of course, of the bad cop, Saddam Hussein, comes the direct threat, “We'll strangle you with our oil weapon if you don't do what you're told.”
Now you are a fool — I hate to tell you this — if you believe that he's speaking only for himself because I don't think that's true. You remember the big fat kiss that was exchanged with the Saudis at the Arab — remember that? I don't believe he is speaking for himself. I think this represents just a new phase in the threat we face and that is implied in this whole environment.
As Powell goes around talking to these folks, hanging in the background the direct threat of violence and the economic threat that they are going to do violence to our economies and directly affect what happens to us here at home, and I think we need to deal with it.
Joining us now to discuss what might be some ways and means, Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
DEB CALLAHAN, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: Good evening.
KEYES: Good evening.
And Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Welcome, both of you, to MAKING SENSE.
MARLO LEWIS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Hi, Alan.
KEYES: Deb Callahan, we look at this situation now in a way that is not only a matter of energy policy and economics and conservation, but we have these national security elements mixed in.
In the context of this situation, do we think we need to rethink our approaches to things like ANWR and what other ways might there be to deal with what is a real threat that this dependence we have on Arab oil is going to be used by them as a weapon to dictate our policy?
CALLAHAN: You know, we live in a time where American policy on so many things has caused us to reexamine our values and what we're doing in the world, our place in the world.
You showed a very interesting clip of President Bush where he was saying, “Now is the time to have an energy policy that really diversifies, that gets us off foreign oil,” and now would have been the time for the United States Senate and the House of Representatives to have done just that.
Unfortunately, they've really missed the opportunity, it seems, to have done important things like diversify our sources of energy, to have gotten renewable energy technologies, to really have created more opportunities for conservation, to stretch our energy, and, frankly, to have better fuel-efficiency standards for our vehicles.
We know that Saudi Arabia, I think, exports about 776,000 barrels of oil to the U.S., and, frankly, ANWR would in 10 years perhaps produce about a million barrels of oil in the same period of time. However, it's going to take 10 years to get that oil, and we'd only get that oil for about six to eight months. It's not a factor in the moment we're in right now.
The way to really get energy use in this country under control — so we're not sending our soldiers over there and putting them in peril's way in part around energy policy — is to get our energy use under control. Unfortunately, we've missed that opportunity.
KEYES: Now, Marlo Lewis, what do you think ought to be the response here in the context of our national security concerns? Do we have to rethink policies? Do we need to move ahead with the exploitation of the oil reserves we have in places like ANWR? What other approaches might we take?
LEWIS: Well, we definitely have to reverse the course that we've taken in this country over the last 20 years, which is basically to shoot ourselves in the foot and prevent ourselves from developing our own oil resources.
You know, Deb is quite right. It might take 10 years, although, according to the Energy Information Administration, maybe only seven years to bring that ANWR oil on line and to the market. But if President Clinton hadn't vetoed congressional legislation to open ANWR in 1995, we might have that oil right now.
And it would just about exactly equal the oil that Saddam Hussein is cutting off. It's about one-million barrels of oil a day that's expected from ANWR, and it's about one-million barrels of oil that Saddam Hussein is cutting off.
KEYES: Well, it does seem to me, though, that — I hear a little bit of sense from both sides here, in my own opinion, because you don't think, do you, Marlo, that something like ANWR is an answer over the long term to the strategic threat that's posed by this abuse of their position in oil by the Arab states? I mean, if they're starting to use this directly as a weapon of political blackmail, don't we need a longer-term response than just ANWR?
LEWIS: Well, I would suggest, Alan, that what Saddam Hussein is engaging in is a form of economic warfare, and warfare requires a response at a strategic and maybe even a military level. You cannot solve all of your national security and foreign policy problems through domestic energy policy.
But what we can do is create fantastic opportunities for us to grow in wealth, create jobs, billions of dollars of additional income to Americans by not shooting ourselves in the foot and putting off limits a valuable resource that we have.
KEYES: So that the implication there — and let me direct this to Deb Callahan — because the implication — I think there would be times when, obviously, you meet that kind of war threat with war.
But what if it's representative? What if it's not just Saddam Hussein? What if it's not just Saddam Hussein? What if it's, as I unfortunately think is the case, he's actually brandishing that sword on behalf of the whole oil empire, including the Saudis and everybody else who wear a nice face but are actually encouraging this kind of intimidation?
I don't know. It seems to me we don't want a military response against all of them, do we? I mean, we have to come up with something that would put us in a stronger position when we dealt with them, wouldn't we, Deb?
CALLAHAN: Alan, I think you're right, and the more that — you know, 40 percent of the oil that we use in this country comes from automobiles, and I can't say strongly enough how important it is to national security to have strong fuel efficiencies.
If you look at oil production in this country right now, you realize that we can never begin to pump enough oil to satisfy the oil needs that we have in this country, and, in fact, if we drilled in ANWR, it would only increase by .3 percent the amount of domestic oil reserves that we have available to us now in this country. It really is just a drop in the bucket.
And while we do have oil reserves in this country, we should be making the shift away from relying on that fuel and be able to, you know, bring solar on line, wind power on line, and use the oil and the gas and the other resources we have more efficiently because, frankly, this country should not be in the position of even having to have this conversation.
KEYES: Now, Marlo, I want to ask a quick follow-up question to you because I know we — all of us — I have a lot of hesitations about some of the things that people propose, putting restrictions and other things, the — you know, the CAFE standards, all of these kinds of things.
Isn't it the case, though, just at this level that we do need to start looking at ways to harness our technological advantage in order to break this dependence on Arab oil?
CALLAHAN: That's right.
LEWIS: Alan, the global marketplace dictates that most of the world's oil for the foreseeable future is going to come from the Arabian peninsula, and there is no way — you can't — not an Apollo space project, not a Manhattan Project —
Over the last 20 years, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into taxpayer subsidies and states into rate-payer subsidies for the kinds of technologies that Deb is talking about, wind and solar, and, today, wind supplies a whopping .13 percent of all of our electricity, solar a whopping .02 percent, and what that shows you is that these forms of energy are not competitive on the scale of a national market.
And we can waste a lot more money and get — and destroy a lot more wealth trying to reverse the course of the 21st century, but it's just not going to work, not to mention the fact that if you tried to solve this problem by making cars more fuel efficient, what you will do is put more Americans at risk on the road for fatal crashes, serious injuries.
This was the conclusion drawn by the National Research Council in a very recent study.
KEYES: See, I wonder sometimes, though, whether we aren't making the mistake that is sometimes, in my opinion, made in economics where people, instead of using a dynamic analysis, will use a static analysis.
If you analyze the situation in terms of what our technological know-how might produce if impelled not just by the usual profit motive but by a strong sense of the stake that we have in terms of our national security, impelled by that, we began to devote resources to the business of applying science to making these other areas more economically efficient...
LEWIS: Alan...
KEYES: ... you mean to tell me that that's going to be...
LEWIS: ... it's been tried.
KEYES: No, it hasn't been tried in this country!
LEWIS: It has been tried. It was tried...
KEYES: I'm sorry.
LEWIS: Jimmy Carter did it with...
KEYES: It hasn't — Jimmy Carter did not...
LEWIS: Eight-billion dollars down the drain.
KEYES: I'm sorry, Marlo. Jimmy Carter did not have the incentive we have today, and I think it's just shortsighted...
CALLAHAN: And...
KEYES: It's shortsighted to believe that we should continue indefinitely in our dependence on these little despots who are trying to strangle us to death, dictate our policy in a way that will destroy one of our most important allies, and then spit in our faces with their terrorism as a result. This is unconscionable! I wouldn't sit back and just take this, and you're not going to tell me that our science can't find a way out of this.
Deb Callahan, go ahead.
CALLAHAN: Alan, I think you — you have got it right. I mean, let's get real here. If we just increased the fuel efficiency of our fleet of cars and trucks on the road, we would — if we just increased it by three miles a gallon, you would replace a million barrels of oil a day, which is more than we import from Saudi Arabia. Three miles a gallon...
LEWIS: That's a static analysis right there because when...
CALLAHAN: ... and that's what...
LEWIS: ... cars become more fuel efficient, people drive more.
CALLAHAN: These technologies — these technologies exist. And let me — let me just put — this is one of my favorite fun facts, and, of course, you're going to argue with it, but — guess what — right now, the average sport-utility vehicle gets about 17 miles a gallon. Did you know the Model T got 25 miles a gallon? We have gone backwards in time here. We can do better.
KEYES: Now we have to stop here, but I've got to tell you, Marlo and Deb, I want you to promise to join me again.
CALLAHAN: We will.
KEYES: We have just scratched...
LEWIS: Absolutely.
KEYES: ... the surface here. I think that this is one of the most important issues facing this country right now, and we are going to take advantage of our opportunities as we move along in this program to get further in depth as we look at the question “What are the alternatives? What should we do?” because I think we're faced with a serious danger, and Saddam Hussein's little threat today is just the tip of the iceberg of what I think these folks have planned for us, and we can't let them get away with it.
Well, anyway, later in my outrage of the day.
But, first, let us — does this make sense? Chris Tucker, actor, comedian, star of “Rush Hour 2,” and — now he's going to be joining me here on MAKING SENSE. An actor! A comedian. Does this make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
Joining me now right here on the set is my famous sweater. It's back. Yes. Oh, look at that. It looks a lot better on you, Chris, than it did on me.
CHRIS TUCKER, ACTOR: Hey, you just — I just picked this up right here. I love this sweater. I love it. Can I have it?
KEYES: Well — oh, yeah. If you promise to wear it in your next movie.
TUCKER: I promise.
KEYES: Then you've got it.
TUCKER: My next movie.
KEYES: See that. My sweater is now going to be elevated to the big screen.
TUCKER: This is — this is lovely. Thank you.
KEYES: Well, anyway, joining me now, actor, comedian, and, as it turns out, soon to be president of the United States, right?
TUCKER: Yes. Next movie — we're filming right now — I'll be playing the first African-American president, so — you know, I base a lot of the character after you, so...
KEYES: Now is that a way of telling me that you thought that my run for presidency was a joke?
TUCKER: No. No, no, no. You were very, very articulate. You're very smart, very — an asset. That's — that — you know — so I took a lot of it and put it with my own personality, and we'll bring it out in the film. So it's going to be funny, smart. Character's going to know what he's doing and — you know.
KEYES: So what do you think the humor would come from in a situation like this? You know, I think it's one of the problems that folks face right now. You look at all these serious situations in the world, the terrorism, the Middle East, things that involve a lot of tragedy and death and so forth and so on, and yet somehow or another, one would think, through all of that, we still have to keep our sense of humor. So how do you manage that in a world like this?
TUCKER: Well, in a movie, you can show the down — you know, the down time, the personal life of the president, you know, and you've got to show like the president's scared, you know. “There's a war going on, and I'm really scared.” You're going to see it in my movie, like, “Man, I really don't know what's going on here.”
So I'm going to show every side of the president. So that's what the humor will come out of. You're going to really know the character, you know. You'll really know the character in the movie, you know, his down side when he's eating dinner and whatever you're doing, you know.
KEYES: Well, you know, it's very promising. I've got to tell you that the “Rush Hour” movies are very popular in my family.
TUCKER: Thank you.
KEYES: “Rush Hour 1.” And what is even more famous — you made a sequel — you know you made a sequel that many people believed was better than the original.
TUCKER: It was hard.
KEYES: But it's one of those things that's very difficult to do. But there was a question I've always wanted to ask you. It's very simple, easy one because I've read a lot about — you've read a lot about Jackie Chan, and all the stuff I've read about Jackie Chan, it's almost like that's too good to be true. Is he really as nice a fellow as he seems to be when he...
TUCKER: He is, man. He's — me and him are real good. We have better — more fun off the set because he's really a nice guy. He's like real interesting.
All the time I ask him — I said, “Jackie, tell me one of those deep Chinese secrets.” And he be like, “There is no secrets.” I be, “Come on, man. Tell me something. Give me a secret tea or something,” you know.
So I'm always asking him questions about the Chinese culture and stuff.
KEYES: Now from movies that were essentially detective and kung fu and the crime and fighting the gangsters and so forth and so on, what led you in the direction of a movie or even a comedy about politics?
TUCKER: Because it's so different and it's like another level because I've done — you know, I've done the action movies. I've done different type of movies, but I've never done this type of movie, and this — it's the hardest movie, too, because, you know, I — politics — I have to, you know, talk to people like you to give me advice about it, President Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young. All these people have to come and sit down with me.
KEYES: I understand you were talking to President Clinton to get some instruction in an area that I couldn't help you with. My wife wouldn't let that happen.
TUCKER: That's not right. That's not right. You know that's not right. Don't you play that on me.
KEYES: I'm just kidding.
TUCKER: No, but, you know, everybody like I had to get research from because this is really — it's a — you know, it's another type of role for me, so — I had so much fun just by researching, and now I can put it all in my personality and bring it out. So it's good.
KEYES: Well, you see, I could be doing you a big favor, though, if I lent you this sweater, and I can see it now in those moments, you know, in the quiet, reflective moments, those times when the president has to make his decision, the whole weight of the world, but he's heard from his Cabinet and everybody else. He has to retreat into the quiet of his study to contemplate what he's going to do, puts on his nice, relaxing sweater. I can...
TUCKER: You're right.
KEYES: You're going to make my sweater a star.
TUCKER: I'm taking this sweater. It's mine now. I'm taking this. Christmas time. This is me.
KEYES: There are some folks on my staff who would be willing to pay you to take that sweater, but you'd have to pry it from...
TUCKER: Look at the fine linen on here. Look at the detail. See, people don't see the detail. That's the reason why you bought this sweater.
KEYES: Now I'm looking forward to seeing you and possibly my sweater in what sounds like is going to be a fascinating movie and also one to give us a good laugh.
TUCKER: Yes.
KEYES: Thank you for dropping by.
TUCKER: Thank you.
KEYES: Appreciate seeing you.
Next, my outrage of the day. You don't want to miss that, so stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day. A column by William Raspberry of “The Washington Post” caught my eye today in which he wrote the following.
“But isn't it reasonable to examine those political ends, the ends of terrorists? Isn't it reasonable to ask what moral distinctions there are between what the suicide bombers and those who dispatch them are doing and what the Israeli forces have been doing?”
He's raising questions, of course, about whether terrorism can be justified, the ends in terms of the means and so forth and so on. But I'll tell you something. If the terrorist ends justify the terrorist means, then wasn't Osama bin Laden justified in his own eyes and shouldn't we cut him some slack? That's outrageous. That's my sense of it.
Thanks.