MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 25, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, of course, we're going to talk about the critical meeting today between President Bush and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah at the western White House, as they're calling in it, Crawford, Texas.
Today's “New York Times” reported that the prince's visit was to serve as a stark warning that relations between the Saudi and American governments would be — quote — “threatened if Mr. Bush did not moderate his support for Israel's military policies.” This all took place in an environment where reports were out there, Saudi threats to use the oil weapon if they didn't get their way, that the prince would cut short the visit and run through a special meetings of the Arabs to whip up opposition to the United States if he didn't get his way.
Now, if these are not the tactics of a bully, I don't know what they are, especially when you consider that they take place in an environment that has to be prejudiced by the war on terror, the attack against the United States, by Saudi nationals. And the fact that Osama bin Laden comes out of Saudi society and culture and represents unhappily the reality that Saudi money and participation has sadly been funding some of the most extremist elements in the Islamic world.
Well, in the face of that kind of backdrop of bullying, this was obviously a meeting where anything that the United States really gave to prince Abdullah could be misinterpreted as a willingness to make concessions to that kind of bullying.
Well, the president spoke immediately after the five-hour meeting as he described as cordial. Here is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We discussed the need for Arab states to condemn terror, to stop incitement of violence, and as part of a long-term peace to accept Israel as a nation and a neighbor. We also agreed the world must join in offering humanitarian aid to the many innocent Palestinians who are suffering.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I find that fascinating, when you read the statement — usually, these are carefully put together. And you notice they discussed the need for the Saudis and other Arabs to condemn terror and do all of that, but then they agreed that there should be everybody giving money to the Palestinians. Now, there's a difference between discussion and agreement, which suggests that on the one hand says we went along with the idea that the Palestinians should get money, but it's not clear that the Saudi crown prince agrees with the idea they ought to be roundly condemning Palestinian terrorism.
One can see the same language again in the following statements. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: There are some things that must be done in the short run, finish the withdrawal by Israel, for the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on terror. We discussed that, very plain and straightforward terms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, again, you see they discussed it. But I think the implication that they discussed it and didn't come to any agreement, one of those areas where they agreed to disagree, because the Saudi came in determined not to concede and, in fact, a whole lot the evidence, including poems by the Saudi ambassador in London, Saudis raising money for the families of suicide bombers quite possibly, and things of this kind all suggesting that Saudi Arabia has no intention whatsoever of backing away from Arab support for suicide bombing and the terrorist tactics that have been employed by the Palestinians.
In spite of what therefore appears to have been a less than positive result in terms of what Crown Prince Abdullah was willing to do, President Bush saw a positive side to the meeting and a positive outcome. One of the positive things that came out he said was personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Well, first of all, one of the really positive things out of this meeting was the fact the crown prince and I established a strong personal bond. We spent a lot of time alone discussing our respective visions, talking about our families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I have always thought one of the great mistakes people can make is to believe that folks like the crown prince are going to substitute the personal for the interest of their state. The Saudis have never struck me as folks who actually take that route, even though sometimes others misunderstand them as if they will do so.
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York and Lawrence Korb, former secretary of defense during the Regan Administration and now the vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations.
I'm going to go to Lawrence Korb first to simply ask a question because against the backdrop of all of the things that have been out there in the way of more than hints that Saudi blustering and bullying and threatening, wasn't this meeting overshadowed by the thought that if we didn't give the crown prince what he wanted he was going to throw a tantrum and do something to hurt us?
LAWRENCE KORB, VICE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, it was overshadowed by the story in the “New York Times,” which had, as you remember from your days in government, these famous unnamed sources, who we don't know who said that. But it was clear from the Saudi spokesman and the president they did not use the oil weapon. In fact, the last time they used the oil weapon was when we asked them to lower oil prices so we could ruin the Soviet economy. So, that turned out to be a lot to do about nothing.
Remember, the Saudis did talk about recognizing the state of Israel, which was very important. They did at the Arab League meeting, even after Arafat was not able to come.
We've got problems with the Saudis. And I think you alluded to some of them. We need to have them crack down on the financing of the terrorists. We need to ensure that the schools that they run that train these terrorists or give these young people these horrible ideas about the west, that those are changed.
But I would say that what the prince was telling President Bush, from all I could see, is to live up to his own statement where he said over two weeks ago that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank immediately. And I think that's what he wanted to talk about, the fact that the president had said that, the Saudis supported it, and the Sharon government basically ignored the president.
KEYES: But it seems to me, though, that we were then in a situation where the crown prince is coming in, basically saying America has got to condemn and back away from and end Israel's military action as a condition of the ongoing relationship against a backdrop — yes, I doubt that the crown prince mentioned it himself, but wasn't it hanging in the air, all of this talk of threats and so forth and so on?
KORB: Well, certainly it was based on that story. But, again, I think you have to be very careful about reacting to stories from unnamed sources in the paper. And you wonder who planted that. Was it Saudi source? Was it somebody in the United States' side who had picked that up and wanted to undermine the meetings? We just don't know.
But we have to look at what happened today. And, obviously, they didn't play the oil card. In fact, they said that they would not play the oil card. Both the crown prince and the foreign policy spokesman said they wouldn't.
And I think that's very important right now given the fact that the Iraqis have taken their oil off the market. The last thing our sort of slowly recovering economy needs is another oil shock.
KEYES: See, I think the Saudis know that. But one of the things that is interesting about threats is that when you they them you don't have to fulfill them if you get what you want. But let me turn for a minute to Representative Anthony Weiner, because one of the things that worries me is we're also seeing all of this take place against the backdrop of September 11th, in which there was a heavy involvement of Saudi nationals and Saudi money and a Saudi mastermind.
I mean, part of everything we do in the world today against the backdrop of that terrorism smacks of that possibility, especially when you add the fact the Saudis won't back away from the use of terrorism as a weapon and a tool in the Middle East, that we may, in fact, overall be in an environment of intimidation. Isn't that dangerous?
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Well, first of all, I find it offensive that the Saudis would be lecturing us in a newspaper story or meeting with President Bush. Look, we have to put to rest the myth of the moderate Arab. If this is a moderate Arab nation, then this is the nation that provided 15 of the 19 suicide bombers.
These are guys that are the Jerry Lewis of telethons raising money for suicide bombing teenagers. This is the country that, frankly, provided bin Laden with much of the money that he has by paying him to leave their country rather than actually stamp out terrorism when they had a chance.
I find it offensive, frankly, that for five hours they're making demands of President Bush. I would hope that they were lectured a little bit about the Bush doctrine, which is you're either on the side of the United States and other peace loving countries that want to stamp out terrorism or you're on the side of the terrorists. So far, putting aside their words, their actions have shown they're with the terrorists.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that worried me a little bit, Representative Weiner, was that in his statement President Bush alluded to the fact that the Saudi crown prince condemned the murder of U.S. citizens or American citizens, which I think is not quite the same thing as condemning terrorism and standing against terrorism. Are we seeing here a kind of effort to divide America from others in the war on terrorism, as if only the deaths of our nationals are of concern to us, not the use of terrorism itself?
WEINER: I think you have it exactly right, Alan. One of the things we look for Arab world is people to stand up like King Hussein of Jordan did, like Sadat in Egypt did, who stood up and said to their own people, “Look, terrorism, war with Israel, war with the west is not the way we're going to advance our causes. We have to agree to peace. We have to agree to recognition of our neighbors and working with them.”
They, the Saudis, have not done that. All they've done is a series of I think misdirection plays. The so-called Saudi plan was entirely to take the heat off of their own effort to stamp out terrorism.
But I think you are exactly right. What they're trying to do is say this terrorism doesn't fit into the Bush doctrine, only the terrorism against U.S. victims. And let us not forget the history of Saudi Arabia. When our barracks were bombed there in Saudi Arabia, they refused to cooperate with an investigation of who might have done it. Those were our citizens. Those were our soldiers.
KEYES: In light of all of these things, do you think that the president should have met with the Saudi, or do you think that it sent a signal that in and of itself that in some ways we were making an accommodation with this kind of really masqueraded hard line?
WEINER: Well, I have to tell you, just as Mr. Korb might have been troubled by that story in the “New York Times,” so was I. The idea that they were putting out a list of demands in advance telling the American people that we had better shape up if we want to resolve things there.
Look, I'm a strong supporter of the Bush doctrine, the idea that we have to go get terrorism wherever it lies. And we're not going to let countries that are not on our side get in our way.
Look, should the president have met with him? I guess it didn't do any huge harm. But the minute I saw the tone of that meeting was lecturing the United States, its people, or its president, if I were the president, I would have said, “Look, you are either with our bandwagon or under our bandwagon as we try to stamp out terrorists.”
KEYES: Ambassador Korb, that is what the president clearly articulated as American policy in the wake of the September 11th bombing. I don't think there can be any doubt that the Saudis are not, in fact, against terrorism.
So, Lawrence Korb, do you think in point of fact we should be having this kind of seemingly wonderful and friendly relationship with the Saudis, when in point of fact, if a line is drawn between those who support terror and those who do not, it's pretty clear that the Saudis are on the wrong side of that line when it comes to the terrorists they like?
KORB: Well, President Bush himself said on the 24th of September that the Saudis have done everything we've asked of them. So, again, I think we're accusing them of something that the administration is not accusing them of. So I think we have to be very careful.
I think if you go back and look at the Bush doctrine, the original Bush doctrine was we were going after terrorists with a global reach. We're not going after terrorists, for example, in Ireland or other places. It was terrorists with a global reach.
And you also have to keep in mind that it was the president himself who said — and this was not the first time — that Israel should pull out because about a month ago when they went in the last time, Colin Powell called up Sharon and told him to get out.
What you have on the line here is U.S. credibility. If the president had not worked out an agreement with the Sharon government to do that, he shouldn't have made that statement. Now we have the worst of all possible worlds because it looks like Sharon has defied us. This has undermined our credibility in lots of parts of the world.
And if the president wants to go on toward Iraq, he is going to need the help of countries like Saudi Arabia if he is going to do that. And he never will be able to do that unless we get this Middle East situation under control.
WEINER: Alan...
KEYES: Wait, I want to ask a follow-up question because it seems when you put that parade of what I think would have to be described as mistakes on the table — making statements you can't back up, sending emissaries who then make it look as if we're just being ignored and treated with contempt — and you finally follow it up with a meeting in an environment of bullying in which you basically give the bully what he wants, doesn't it all add up to a major loss of credibility for this country?
KORB: Well, I think that this last month has not been a good one for the Bush administration. Having said that, I think it was important to meet with the Saudis. You're going to need their cooperation, for example, in drying up the financial assets.
Now, again, the president has said and Secretary O'Neal has said that the Saudis have been cooperating with that. Whether in fact they have, I don't know. I don't have any inside information. But if they're saying that they have, then I would assume that, in fact, they are.
KEYES: Representative Weiner, my wonder in all of this is whether or not what they say matches what they do. And if it doesn't, which I think has been clearly the case, can we trust what they say?
WEINER: Well, I have to tell you first, let's update the facts on the ground as it relates to the Saudis. Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell said that indeed the Saudi Arabians were paying suicide bombers to go into bat mitzvahs, Passover seders, and town squares and blow themselves up. The Saudis are paying blood money to go ahead and do that. Powell himself said that yesterday before Congress. So, to say the Saudis have been cooperating and have done everything asked of them is simply not true.
And let us again remember that they have been the breadbasket of terrorism around the world, not just in one corner of the world, around the world. I believe that the Bush doctrine should be followed. And we have to stay consistent. If you want to be concerned about American credibility, then you don't allow the Saudi Arabians, of all people, to lecture the United States about how to stop terrorism.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us tonight. I really appreciate your coming.
It does leave the question squarely on the table still, I'm afraid. And we are going to get to the “Heart of the Matter” on whether President Bush has, in fact, caved into bullying, whether that would encourage the Saudis to believe that what appears to be, at least possibly, a double gang with respect to terrorism can continue. And we will hear from the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations and the editor of “National Review” magazine.
And later, you will be getting another look at the allegations with respect to the Catholic Church. Some very bad revelations in Boston today where the scandal appears to have taken a turn for the worse. We will have the latest.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was a good meeting. I think it was part of a process, as I indicated going into it. And I think that's what it was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: The cardinals are home from Rome in the Vatican conference in the crises of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they will be greeted today by bad news where hundreds of new documents were released in the Paul Shanley case. He's the priest accused of molesting a child. We will talk to one of the alleged victims' lawyers in our next half hour.
A reminder too that the chat room is buzzing tonight. Goy says: “Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. If Israel was not our only friend, then we would have 10 friends.” And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let's get back to our discussion about Saudi Arabia. Joining us now to get to the “Heart of the Matter,” Samer Shehata, an assistant professor at the Center for Contemporary American Studies at Georgetown University. Also with us, Clovis Maksoud, former Arab League ambassador to both the United States and the United Nations. And Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review” magazine.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
I want to start off tonight with you, Rich, I think because as I looked at the president's statement, I read between the lines, as someone who had been involved in a little bit of this diplomatic business. And it seemed to me that there was a little bit of an unequal exchange today where we were agreeing to do things for the Palestinians, and the president came out and again called for Israel's withdrawal, but where on the other side of the table he did not get a clear condemnation of the terrorism that has been practiced in the Middle East. Was that your impression?
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Well, it's hard to say, Alan. I think your reading of it is pretty plausible. And what is going on here obviously is a test of wills. And the Saudis want to bend American power to what their goal is in the Middle East, which is to weaken and isolate Israel. And it should be our goal to bend the Saudis to what our strategic aim is, which is to topple Saddam Hussein and his threat in Iraq.
And this appears to be an extraordinary time. And the relationship appears to be falling apart in front of our eyes. That the U.S. is moving men and material out of the base in Saudi Arabia is an extraordinary development. And the “New York Times” story today, for the Saudis even to talk about and raise the prospect of using the oil weapon against the United States at a time when we're at war is really an extraordinary and shocking thing. So this may be a friendship that is well on its way to being over.
KEYES: Clovis Maksoud, do you think it's unfair to characterize the kind of reports and statements we saw in the run-up to this meeting as an effort to bully this administration?
CLOVIS MAKSOUD, FORMER AMBASSADOR, ARAB LEAGUE: Well, first of all, I think there is this attempt at this moment by the Israeli lobby and some of the right-wing elements in the Republican Party and others in order to bash Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, which has been an ally and friend of the United States for the last 50 or 60 years.
It has done the bidding of the United States on the issues of oil, oil prices, supply of oil. It has done the bidding of supplying sometimes in Nicaragua and others. And, all of a sudden, Saudi Arabia becomes the target of the anger because they want to shield Israel's Sharon aggression on the Palestinian people as if there is no relationship between the Arab people in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian people.
The tragedy of the Palestinians touches every heart and soul and mind of every Arab, including the people in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, when Prince Abdullah conveys the level of anger, he is telling his friend and the ally of Saudi Arabia the truth about it and not the distortions that the Israeli lobby has been conducting for the last few months and few years.
KEYES: Isn't part of the problem, though, and I certainly know it's a problem with me, that in the wake of September 11th we made a clear declaration about terrorism and the practice of terrorism to achieve political aims? We had suffered greatly from it in the past. We suffered enormously from it on September 11th.
And we challenged the world to stop dealing with and supporting and facilitating all those who were using this instrument of terror to achieve their aims. It does not seem as if Saudi Arabia and some of the other Arab states are actually willing to join us in that renunciation of terror.
MAKSOUD: September 11th was a turning point. The Arab states, all of them except maybe one or two, all supported the United States in its fight against terrorism. There was anger in the United States, which was justified. And there is anger in the Arab world, which is justified.
The fact that Israel is trying to hijack the discourse and trying to identify itself as if it's the junior partner of the United States against terrorism in order to license itself to stake terrorism on the Israeli people is unacceptable to the Arabs and to the international community.
And that is why Prince Abdullah has come here, not only to enhance the bilateral relationship. And that is why he did not, as many people are thinking, use the oil option. He has come here also as the spokesman of the Arab summit in which he has provided the formula, which has been welcomed in the United States and which guarantees the ultimate reconciliation.
KEYES: If I could...
MAKSOUD: This is a chance and an opportunity that the United States must press...
KEYES: ... if I could...
MAKSOUD: ... in order to salvage its credibility in the Arab world.
KEYES: ... let me ask Samer Shehata. I personally look at the environment in which this meeting took place. And I have to tell you, a lot of Americans are feeling as if we've been put under the gun of terrorism, of threats of various kinds, in order to do the bidding of other states, and that Crown Prince Abdullah came in that kind of mindset. And I think it's not taken kindly.
Ambassador Maksoud wants this to be all the Israelis' fault. I, frankly, don't think it is. I think it's the fault of some of the objective circumstances where we're not taking kindly to this kind of bullying. What do you think?
SAMER SHEHATA, CENTER FOR CONTEMPORARY ARAB STUDIES: I think that the whole question of bullying or buddy, friend or foe, is completely misdirected. As you know and is plain to everyone, the most powerful country in the world is the United States — militarily, economically, politically. Nobody can bully the United States. And that's not what the Saudis are trying to do in Crawford, Texas.
Anyone who looks objectively at the history of U.S.-Saudi relationship from the beginning of the establishment of the kingdom through Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through the Cold War period in which Saudi Arabia was a crucial ally to the United States, up to the fighting in Afghanistan in which both the United States and Saudi Arabia supported the Mujahedin against Communist aggression and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the Saudis have been staunch allies. And it's absurd really to characterize them in any other way.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Rich Lowry, quickly, go ahead.
LOWRY: Look, that's all very true. But this is the fundamental fact. If you just look at it on paper, this is an alliance that doesn't make a lot of sense because you have in the United States you have the most liberal, open, and pluralistic society in the world. In Saudi Arabia, you have one of the most repressive, closed, arguably a religious totalitarianism. And what has held the alliance together is that we've had a common enemy for decades in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and then Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War.
Now, the common enemy is gone. And that's why the alliance is beginning to fray.
(CROSSTALK)
SHEHATA: Countries operate on the basis of national interests. They don't operate on the basis of principles. Unfortunately, that's not how international relations work. And we've seen through the past, into the present, and in the future, interests by both sides, oil and security. And it is going to remain that way.
KEYES: Very quickly, Samer Shehata, I think you're missing one critical change that has occurred now. Terrorism is emanating from the extremist elements of the Islamic world — people like Osama bin Laden, money falling through the Taliban, and so forth and so on. All of a sudden, Saudi Arabia, which has stood with a lot of those extremist elements, is openly, sadly, on the side of the folks who have come against us to attack us. Doesn't that exchange the equation?
SHEHATA: No. No, Mr. Keyes, I think you're not really differentiating between 9-11 and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Saudis. I mean, we have to realize that the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia right now is al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They are threatened more by him and by that kind of terrorism than the United States is. The result of Osama bin Laden and that kind of...
KEYES: We have very little time. I want to thank all of you for coming this evening. Obviously, we are going to continue this discussion as the days progress. And we'll have to see.
I think one of the great problems right now, though, is that one of the ways in which the Saudis have tried to deal with that threat from the extremist elements is by accommodating it, by buying it off, by somehow seeming to be part of the aspirations at least of those extremists. And that's dangerous to us.
Next, the cardinals come back from Rome amid stunning new revelations in the Paul Shanley case. Shanley is the alleged child molester who openly advocated sexual relations between grown men and boys. We'll talk to the lawyer for one of his alleged victims. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
In this segment, we continue our focus this week on the historic meeting in the Vatican where American cardinals were called together to deal with the church crises.
As those cardinals returned home today from the Vatican, the archdiocese of Boston turned over hundreds of new documents alleged to show the extent of sexual improprieties by Reverend Paul Shanley.
The documents included an apparent journal entry describing Shanley's treatment for venereal disease revealed as a result of a lawsuit by a Boston man who claims that Cardinal Bernard Law and the archdiocese failed to protect him from molestation by Shanley.
The alleged victim's lawyer claims there is overwhelming evidence that church officials knew of Shanley's repeated attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RODERICK MACLEISH, REPRESENTS PRIEST ABUSE VICTIMS: Paul Shanley left Massachusetts and was sent to California because he was engaging in predatory behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: In a moment, we will talk about Cardinal McCarrick's remarks yesterday with Father John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center where Cardinal McCarrick sort of suggested: Well, prelates would never do this.
But, first, joining us now, Robert Sherman, one of the attorneys representing one of the 180 alleged priest victims in Boston. Over the past 10 years, he and his partner, Roderick MacLeish, have represented more than 350 alleged victims of priest abuse. Today, Mr. Sherman was among the first to read more than 800 newly released documents in the case against Reverend Paul Shanley.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ROBERT SHERMAN, REPRESENTS PRIEST ABUSE VICTIMS: Good evening, Alan.
KEYES: I have to tell you, one of the things that is the most shocking aspect of all of this to me is the indications that people in the archdiocese and others who knew of this kind of activity and the open advocacy of relations between grown men and boys and participation in NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
All of these activities were going on that Reverend Shanley was doing, and they, apparently, had knowledge of them. Is that what's indicated in these documents?
SHERMAN: There's no question about it. We've gotten 800 pages today. We had 800 pages released to us a couple of weeks ago, and what became clear is that the higher-ups in the Boston archdiocese — and we're talking about Cardinal Law, and we're talking about bishops, such as Bishop McCormick, now bishop of New Hampshire, Bishop Banks, bishop in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Bishop Daily, now bishop of Brooklyn, were well aware of Paul Shanley's very bizarre views of man-boy love, the fact that he believed that there isn't any form of sexual abuse that causes harm, that, when children and adults engage in sex, it's the child that's the aggressor, yet took no action to protect kids from being molested from Paul Shanley.
KEYES: Now, to get a little more specific for the audience, what kinds of things provide you with the indication that the archdiocese had this sort of knowledge?
SHERMAN: Well, we know that the archdiocese received correspondence beginning in 1977 that Paul Shanley had given a speech in Rochester, New York, where he referred to pedophilia and referred to man-boy love, and that's where he had said that there's no sex act that causes harm to a victim. He said incest, bestiality — nothing causes harm to a victim, that, in the instance of pedophilia, the harm that occurs to a child occurs when the child is questioned by police.
KEYES: Now are there indications that they actually understood the content of these remarks, that this content was reported to...
SHERMAN: There's no question because in the documents in the files of the archdiocese was an article entitled “Man-Boy Love.” It was huge. And parishioners had written to the cardinal saying that Paul Shanley had given these remarks and asked the cardinal to do something about it.
So that was in '77. There was more in '79. And as recently as in 1983, which is — the documents which were released today, a priest out in California wrote to the cardinal and said specifically that Paul Shanley was part of the founding member of NAMBLA and had represented to the organization that he was representing Cardinal Maderos (ph) at the time.
KEYES: Now are there any indications — because that has to do with views and attitudes which are pretty shocking, but what about specific actions following up on those views? Anything in the documents indicating that this was not just a question of theory?
SHERMAN: Absolutely. There were complaints regarding sexual molestation by Paul Shanley in the files of the archdiocese dating back to 1966 and 1967. There were at least 26 complaints contained in that file where people had complained that Paul Shanley had sexually molested young boys.
So the files are not only replete with evidence of his views regarding pedophilia but from actual complaints from victims where they had said that they were — had been victimized by Shanley.
KEYES: Now is there any indication in this paper trail of reaction from the archdiocese to these reports and complaints?
SHERMAN: Well, I think the most shocking thing that we've seen in the 1,600 pages that we've reviewed is there wasn't one sentence, one phrase, one word of concern for protecting children or protecting victims. What the archdiocese and the officials in the archdiocese were totally focussed on was circling the wagons, covering up, and protecting the institution of the church.
Indeed, there was communications between Bishop McCormick — then Father McCormick, now Bishop McCormick — the bishop in New Hampshire, and Shanley where they openly discussed the creation of a safe house, and we're not talking about a treatment center. We're talking about a safe house in the CIA sense of the word for pedophile priests to put them out of the reach of law enforcement and using archdiocese funds to actually create that kind of house.
KEYES: Now when you say put them out of the reach of law enforcement, what do you mean?
SHERMAN: Stash them away. You know, in — again, in the CIA sense of the word, that these were — you know, there was a euphemism for priests accused of sexual abuse, and that was called warehousing the priests.
And what Paul Shanley did was he wrote to then Father McCormick and said, “I've been thinking about the idea of creating a safe house because I feel that law enforcement is closing in on me.”
Father McCormick writes back — and this is in 1994 — “The creation of a safe house is an idea I've been thinking about for some time, and, as a matter of fact, we've actually located a place, and I can assure you, if we hear more about law enforcement acting against you, I will notify you immediately.”
Once again, the concern there is protecting and hiding and covering up, not getting this out in the open, not dealing with Paul Shanley as the sexual predator that he was.
KEYES: I want to thank you for sharing that with us. I've got to tell you, as a Roman Catholic, this whole thing has been of the deepest sort — the deepest source of pain and grief to me and, I know, many, many, many millions of other people among the Catholic laity and in the Christian body in general in this country.
But the most important thing, I believe, is that we seek justice for those who have been victims and that we seek truth in trying to reform the kind of attitudes that led to these abuses and tolerance for them. And insofar as you're part of that effort, I wish you well in your continuing work.
Thank you for joining us tonight.
Up next, Father C. John McCloskey of the Washington archdiocese.
And later, my outrage of the day, an anti-racism law proposed by the European Union that might just outlaw the bible.
But, first, does this make sense?
There's an airline that actually lost a passenger. Can you believe this?
It's going on five months since Margie Dabney, 70 years old, and robbed of reason by Alzheimer's disease, was somehow lost at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
She and her wheelchair-bound husband, Joe, arrived there on an American Airlines flight from Indianapolis. They were there at about 10:15 on December the 5th. They were supposed to be escorted to a connecting flight. But Mr. Dabney found himself being wheeled to the gate without his wife, and no one could say where she was.
Mrs. Dabney was spotted that morning walking on an airport service road and again two days later in the same area. That is all anyone has seen of her.
The mayor there saying that the company was at least partly responsible for this, and I've got to tell you they were supposed to take care of her, and I think that this is one of those heart-wrenching situations where a company ought to step up to the plate and bear its responsibility.
Do you think losing a passenger — I mean luggage is one thing, but passengers? Does disclaiming responsibility for this make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
In light of the revelations in Boston regarding Paul Shanley's abuses, we're talking about the crises in the Catholic church.
I want to take a look at the words that were spoken. The words were spoken yesterday by Cardinal McCarrick as he came out of the Vatican conference with respect to all of these matters.
Because one of the things that I found most shocking was the possibility that the cardinals themselves didn't see the point in fact of the crises here, and this is what he had to say yesterday when asked about the possibility of a cover up in the church.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDINAL THEODORE MCCARRICK, THE ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, D.C.: I can't see anyone with the responsibility in the church ever trying to cover up anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now, Father John McCloskey from the archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
Father John, welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: This is all painful for me and many Catholics like myself, but I listened to Cardinal McCarrick's remarks yesterday and couldn't believe my ears.
The weight of evidence is overwhelming now that, in point of fact, there were cover-ups in certain archdiocese within the Catholic church.
To try to deny that, I think, is just going to appear more damaging. If there's this kind of denial, can we expect the see the prelates deal with what I think is the most grave aspect of this crises?
MCCLOSKEY: I don't think the cardinal was trying to deny that. I think he was expressing a hope and, I would imagine, his own experience in not being able to think of a high person in the church covering up a criminal activity of any sort.
I think, at the same time, he realizes Cardinal Law is under a lot of pressure, hopefully has good attorneys working for him, and as we were hearing from the attorney earlier, there were people who have been victims and are entering into legal proceedings.
So Cardinal McCarrick did not want to touch on that issue because it would prejudice one of his fellow cardinals.
KEYES: Well, without prejudice to any of that, though, one of the things that bothers me most is the spiritual dimension of this, and I put the question many, many times on the program and away from it to folks because the spiritual priority here would seem to be not the scandal given in the newspapers but the scandal given to the young victims, the scandal that Christ speaks of as a millstone sin where the millstone should be tied around your neck, you should be thrown into the depths of the sea, he says, and it seems to me that, through our perception as Christians and people of faith and through the prelates' perception as people of God, shouldn't that scandal have been the most important concern as they dealt with this?
MCCLOSKEY: I think it most certainly should have been. It was mentioned very particularly by the holy father in his statement. It's been mentioned by the bishops beforehand. I imagine it will be a tremendous statement in this regard when the bishops meet in Dallas.
As you know, they've called for a national day of prayer in penance to these acts that were committed by priests. There was no excuse for these heinous acts. It is a scandal to everyone that it could be priests dedicated to God who have behaved in this sort of way.
KEYES: Well, is it legal problems that are going to keep — because what I thought, as you said that, was that we need a national day of prayer and penance and real meditation for the actions and judgments that were taken by prelates, and — because I need some assurance that the lack of spiritual priority that was in evidence when you put stopping a scandal in the newspapers above stopping the scandal of destroying a young soul, that's a real problem for me, Father John.
How can we be sure that bad priority is, in fact, being corrected in the hierarchy, if they won't even admit that there's that problem?
MCCLOSKEY: Alan, I agree with you entirely. I think that the cardinals were summoned in order to tell their story, but I, also, think they were summoned in order to receive a message from the holy father and for those who assist the governance of the church that it has to do with holiness among priests, holiness among bishops, holiness in the church.
It means there's going to be a true reform in the training, the selection (INAUDIBLE) of priests. There's going to be a transparency in terms of the dealings, if these type of accusations come up again. There's no excuse — no apology that could possibly be sufficient for the type of activities that have gone on.
In terms of a possible cover-up, that's something that will have to be covered — looked at by the civil authorities, which is presently being done in Boston and some other dioceses. There's no excuse — it does — it has not shaken my faith.
I realize we have to change — and radically — for true reform in the church so that it reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I believe the archbishops and the bishops and the cardinals of the United States and the priests and the lay people want that, and I think they will get it.
KEYES: Now do you think that part of what we see here — and I know there's always a tension in the church between administrative roles and the spiritual evangelical pastoral role, but...
MCCLOSKEY: Yes.
KEYES: ... it seems here it just got all out of whack with an administrative mentality taking over. Do you think there will be a much greater emphasis on the need for the explicit church leaders, the cardinals, the archbishops for an emphasis on the spiritual vision that has to govern judgment?
MCCLOSKEY: I absolutely agree. I think there will be more effort put on the emphasis of holiness, personal holiness, also evangelization, less on structure, and less on the level of administration and bureaucracy, which, in many cases, facilitates in a healthy social welfare in the country. But that is not the principal aim of the church. It has to be wholly, and it has to be for the protection of the lay faithful and their rights.
KEYES: Now one question that I think is on everybody's mind, with the prospect of court battles and so forth and so on, do you think that prelates like Cardinal Law, who may be faced with this kind of litigation and difficulty, should resign for the good of the church so that there can be full-time service given in those positions? These court battles take up a lot of time and effort.
MCCLOSKEY: I think that each case is different. We've been talking about Cardinal Law because that seems to be the one that is most prominent. I believe that, if Cardinal Law thinks that he's not capable of sheparding, of serving the archdiocese of Boston, if the holy father concurs in this, there will be a possibility for him to move elsewhere in order to serve the church in another way. But that is up to the holy father, and that is up to his eminence, Cardinal Law, to look at that situation and make that judgment. It certainly is not up to me.
KEYES: Well, Father John, I know that you understand that the prayers of millions of faithful are really going up to God that this crisis will be faced in a way that has courage and spiritual discernment. That's certainly my prayer every day. I want to thank you for joining us tonight and helping us to continue further our efforts to think this through.
Next, my outrage of the day where a possible law of the European Union could end up outlawing the bible.
And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site keys.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with the outrage of the day. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now it's time for my outrage of the day. A top European Union judge warned on Wednesday that the distributing of the bible could be illegal under a proposed European anti-racism law. British law lord Scott Afoskit (ph) outlined the European commission's draft definition of racism and xenophobia as involving, quote, “The belief in race, color, descent, religion, or belief, national or ethical region, as a factor determining aversion to individuals or groups.
Now you think about it. Think about it. They would be forbidden to distribute tracts, pictures, other material containing expressions of this kind of racism.
Now suppose you are a Christian and you disapprove of Satan worship. Suppose that you are a Christian and you're distribute the bible and it says, as Christ says, that there's no way to the father but through me.
Is that going to be accounted xenophobia? When we start regulating attitudes and thought, we get into the kind of totalitarianism that will lead to these abuses and these laws ought not to be put on the books.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. See you on Monday.
Up front tonight, of course, we're going to talk about the critical meeting today between President Bush and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah at the western White House, as they're calling in it, Crawford, Texas.
Today's “New York Times” reported that the prince's visit was to serve as a stark warning that relations between the Saudi and American governments would be — quote — “threatened if Mr. Bush did not moderate his support for Israel's military policies.” This all took place in an environment where reports were out there, Saudi threats to use the oil weapon if they didn't get their way, that the prince would cut short the visit and run through a special meetings of the Arabs to whip up opposition to the United States if he didn't get his way.
Now, if these are not the tactics of a bully, I don't know what they are, especially when you consider that they take place in an environment that has to be prejudiced by the war on terror, the attack against the United States, by Saudi nationals. And the fact that Osama bin Laden comes out of Saudi society and culture and represents unhappily the reality that Saudi money and participation has sadly been funding some of the most extremist elements in the Islamic world.
Well, in the face of that kind of backdrop of bullying, this was obviously a meeting where anything that the United States really gave to prince Abdullah could be misinterpreted as a willingness to make concessions to that kind of bullying.
Well, the president spoke immediately after the five-hour meeting as he described as cordial. Here is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We discussed the need for Arab states to condemn terror, to stop incitement of violence, and as part of a long-term peace to accept Israel as a nation and a neighbor. We also agreed the world must join in offering humanitarian aid to the many innocent Palestinians who are suffering.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I find that fascinating, when you read the statement — usually, these are carefully put together. And you notice they discussed the need for the Saudis and other Arabs to condemn terror and do all of that, but then they agreed that there should be everybody giving money to the Palestinians. Now, there's a difference between discussion and agreement, which suggests that on the one hand says we went along with the idea that the Palestinians should get money, but it's not clear that the Saudi crown prince agrees with the idea they ought to be roundly condemning Palestinian terrorism.
One can see the same language again in the following statements. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: There are some things that must be done in the short run, finish the withdrawal by Israel, for the Palestinian Authority to clamp down on terror. We discussed that, very plain and straightforward terms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, again, you see they discussed it. But I think the implication that they discussed it and didn't come to any agreement, one of those areas where they agreed to disagree, because the Saudi came in determined not to concede and, in fact, a whole lot the evidence, including poems by the Saudi ambassador in London, Saudis raising money for the families of suicide bombers quite possibly, and things of this kind all suggesting that Saudi Arabia has no intention whatsoever of backing away from Arab support for suicide bombing and the terrorist tactics that have been employed by the Palestinians.
In spite of what therefore appears to have been a less than positive result in terms of what Crown Prince Abdullah was willing to do, President Bush saw a positive side to the meeting and a positive outcome. One of the positive things that came out he said was personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Well, first of all, one of the really positive things out of this meeting was the fact the crown prince and I established a strong personal bond. We spent a lot of time alone discussing our respective visions, talking about our families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I have always thought one of the great mistakes people can make is to believe that folks like the crown prince are going to substitute the personal for the interest of their state. The Saudis have never struck me as folks who actually take that route, even though sometimes others misunderstand them as if they will do so.
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York and Lawrence Korb, former secretary of defense during the Regan Administration and now the vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations.
I'm going to go to Lawrence Korb first to simply ask a question because against the backdrop of all of the things that have been out there in the way of more than hints that Saudi blustering and bullying and threatening, wasn't this meeting overshadowed by the thought that if we didn't give the crown prince what he wanted he was going to throw a tantrum and do something to hurt us?
LAWRENCE KORB, VICE PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, it was overshadowed by the story in the “New York Times,” which had, as you remember from your days in government, these famous unnamed sources, who we don't know who said that. But it was clear from the Saudi spokesman and the president they did not use the oil weapon. In fact, the last time they used the oil weapon was when we asked them to lower oil prices so we could ruin the Soviet economy. So, that turned out to be a lot to do about nothing.
Remember, the Saudis did talk about recognizing the state of Israel, which was very important. They did at the Arab League meeting, even after Arafat was not able to come.
We've got problems with the Saudis. And I think you alluded to some of them. We need to have them crack down on the financing of the terrorists. We need to ensure that the schools that they run that train these terrorists or give these young people these horrible ideas about the west, that those are changed.
But I would say that what the prince was telling President Bush, from all I could see, is to live up to his own statement where he said over two weeks ago that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank immediately. And I think that's what he wanted to talk about, the fact that the president had said that, the Saudis supported it, and the Sharon government basically ignored the president.
KEYES: But it seems to me, though, that we were then in a situation where the crown prince is coming in, basically saying America has got to condemn and back away from and end Israel's military action as a condition of the ongoing relationship against a backdrop — yes, I doubt that the crown prince mentioned it himself, but wasn't it hanging in the air, all of this talk of threats and so forth and so on?
KORB: Well, certainly it was based on that story. But, again, I think you have to be very careful about reacting to stories from unnamed sources in the paper. And you wonder who planted that. Was it Saudi source? Was it somebody in the United States' side who had picked that up and wanted to undermine the meetings? We just don't know.
But we have to look at what happened today. And, obviously, they didn't play the oil card. In fact, they said that they would not play the oil card. Both the crown prince and the foreign policy spokesman said they wouldn't.
And I think that's very important right now given the fact that the Iraqis have taken their oil off the market. The last thing our sort of slowly recovering economy needs is another oil shock.
KEYES: See, I think the Saudis know that. But one of the things that is interesting about threats is that when you they them you don't have to fulfill them if you get what you want. But let me turn for a minute to Representative Anthony Weiner, because one of the things that worries me is we're also seeing all of this take place against the backdrop of September 11th, in which there was a heavy involvement of Saudi nationals and Saudi money and a Saudi mastermind.
I mean, part of everything we do in the world today against the backdrop of that terrorism smacks of that possibility, especially when you add the fact the Saudis won't back away from the use of terrorism as a weapon and a tool in the Middle East, that we may, in fact, overall be in an environment of intimidation. Isn't that dangerous?
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Well, first of all, I find it offensive that the Saudis would be lecturing us in a newspaper story or meeting with President Bush. Look, we have to put to rest the myth of the moderate Arab. If this is a moderate Arab nation, then this is the nation that provided 15 of the 19 suicide bombers.
These are guys that are the Jerry Lewis of telethons raising money for suicide bombing teenagers. This is the country that, frankly, provided bin Laden with much of the money that he has by paying him to leave their country rather than actually stamp out terrorism when they had a chance.
I find it offensive, frankly, that for five hours they're making demands of President Bush. I would hope that they were lectured a little bit about the Bush doctrine, which is you're either on the side of the United States and other peace loving countries that want to stamp out terrorism or you're on the side of the terrorists. So far, putting aside their words, their actions have shown they're with the terrorists.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that worried me a little bit, Representative Weiner, was that in his statement President Bush alluded to the fact that the Saudi crown prince condemned the murder of U.S. citizens or American citizens, which I think is not quite the same thing as condemning terrorism and standing against terrorism. Are we seeing here a kind of effort to divide America from others in the war on terrorism, as if only the deaths of our nationals are of concern to us, not the use of terrorism itself?
WEINER: I think you have it exactly right, Alan. One of the things we look for Arab world is people to stand up like King Hussein of Jordan did, like Sadat in Egypt did, who stood up and said to their own people, “Look, terrorism, war with Israel, war with the west is not the way we're going to advance our causes. We have to agree to peace. We have to agree to recognition of our neighbors and working with them.”
They, the Saudis, have not done that. All they've done is a series of I think misdirection plays. The so-called Saudi plan was entirely to take the heat off of their own effort to stamp out terrorism.
But I think you are exactly right. What they're trying to do is say this terrorism doesn't fit into the Bush doctrine, only the terrorism against U.S. victims. And let us not forget the history of Saudi Arabia. When our barracks were bombed there in Saudi Arabia, they refused to cooperate with an investigation of who might have done it. Those were our citizens. Those were our soldiers.
KEYES: In light of all of these things, do you think that the president should have met with the Saudi, or do you think that it sent a signal that in and of itself that in some ways we were making an accommodation with this kind of really masqueraded hard line?
WEINER: Well, I have to tell you, just as Mr. Korb might have been troubled by that story in the “New York Times,” so was I. The idea that they were putting out a list of demands in advance telling the American people that we had better shape up if we want to resolve things there.
Look, I'm a strong supporter of the Bush doctrine, the idea that we have to go get terrorism wherever it lies. And we're not going to let countries that are not on our side get in our way.
Look, should the president have met with him? I guess it didn't do any huge harm. But the minute I saw the tone of that meeting was lecturing the United States, its people, or its president, if I were the president, I would have said, “Look, you are either with our bandwagon or under our bandwagon as we try to stamp out terrorists.”
KEYES: Ambassador Korb, that is what the president clearly articulated as American policy in the wake of the September 11th bombing. I don't think there can be any doubt that the Saudis are not, in fact, against terrorism.
So, Lawrence Korb, do you think in point of fact we should be having this kind of seemingly wonderful and friendly relationship with the Saudis, when in point of fact, if a line is drawn between those who support terror and those who do not, it's pretty clear that the Saudis are on the wrong side of that line when it comes to the terrorists they like?
KORB: Well, President Bush himself said on the 24th of September that the Saudis have done everything we've asked of them. So, again, I think we're accusing them of something that the administration is not accusing them of. So I think we have to be very careful.
I think if you go back and look at the Bush doctrine, the original Bush doctrine was we were going after terrorists with a global reach. We're not going after terrorists, for example, in Ireland or other places. It was terrorists with a global reach.
And you also have to keep in mind that it was the president himself who said — and this was not the first time — that Israel should pull out because about a month ago when they went in the last time, Colin Powell called up Sharon and told him to get out.
What you have on the line here is U.S. credibility. If the president had not worked out an agreement with the Sharon government to do that, he shouldn't have made that statement. Now we have the worst of all possible worlds because it looks like Sharon has defied us. This has undermined our credibility in lots of parts of the world.
And if the president wants to go on toward Iraq, he is going to need the help of countries like Saudi Arabia if he is going to do that. And he never will be able to do that unless we get this Middle East situation under control.
WEINER: Alan...
KEYES: Wait, I want to ask a follow-up question because it seems when you put that parade of what I think would have to be described as mistakes on the table — making statements you can't back up, sending emissaries who then make it look as if we're just being ignored and treated with contempt — and you finally follow it up with a meeting in an environment of bullying in which you basically give the bully what he wants, doesn't it all add up to a major loss of credibility for this country?
KORB: Well, I think that this last month has not been a good one for the Bush administration. Having said that, I think it was important to meet with the Saudis. You're going to need their cooperation, for example, in drying up the financial assets.
Now, again, the president has said and Secretary O'Neal has said that the Saudis have been cooperating with that. Whether in fact they have, I don't know. I don't have any inside information. But if they're saying that they have, then I would assume that, in fact, they are.
KEYES: Representative Weiner, my wonder in all of this is whether or not what they say matches what they do. And if it doesn't, which I think has been clearly the case, can we trust what they say?
WEINER: Well, I have to tell you first, let's update the facts on the ground as it relates to the Saudis. Just yesterday, Secretary of State Powell said that indeed the Saudi Arabians were paying suicide bombers to go into bat mitzvahs, Passover seders, and town squares and blow themselves up. The Saudis are paying blood money to go ahead and do that. Powell himself said that yesterday before Congress. So, to say the Saudis have been cooperating and have done everything asked of them is simply not true.
And let us again remember that they have been the breadbasket of terrorism around the world, not just in one corner of the world, around the world. I believe that the Bush doctrine should be followed. And we have to stay consistent. If you want to be concerned about American credibility, then you don't allow the Saudi Arabians, of all people, to lecture the United States about how to stop terrorism.
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us tonight. I really appreciate your coming.
It does leave the question squarely on the table still, I'm afraid. And we are going to get to the “Heart of the Matter” on whether President Bush has, in fact, caved into bullying, whether that would encourage the Saudis to believe that what appears to be, at least possibly, a double gang with respect to terrorism can continue. And we will hear from the former Arab League ambassador to the United Nations and the editor of “National Review” magazine.
And later, you will be getting another look at the allegations with respect to the Catholic Church. Some very bad revelations in Boston today where the scandal appears to have taken a turn for the worse. We will have the latest.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was a good meeting. I think it was part of a process, as I indicated going into it. And I think that's what it was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: The cardinals are home from Rome in the Vatican conference in the crises of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they will be greeted today by bad news where hundreds of new documents were released in the Paul Shanley case. He's the priest accused of molesting a child. We will talk to one of the alleged victims' lawyers in our next half hour.
A reminder too that the chat room is buzzing tonight. Goy says: “Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. If Israel was not our only friend, then we would have 10 friends.” And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, let's get back to our discussion about Saudi Arabia. Joining us now to get to the “Heart of the Matter,” Samer Shehata, an assistant professor at the Center for Contemporary American Studies at Georgetown University. Also with us, Clovis Maksoud, former Arab League ambassador to both the United States and the United Nations. And Rich Lowry, the editor of “National Review” magazine.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
I want to start off tonight with you, Rich, I think because as I looked at the president's statement, I read between the lines, as someone who had been involved in a little bit of this diplomatic business. And it seemed to me that there was a little bit of an unequal exchange today where we were agreeing to do things for the Palestinians, and the president came out and again called for Israel's withdrawal, but where on the other side of the table he did not get a clear condemnation of the terrorism that has been practiced in the Middle East. Was that your impression?
RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, “NATIONAL REVIEW”: Well, it's hard to say, Alan. I think your reading of it is pretty plausible. And what is going on here obviously is a test of wills. And the Saudis want to bend American power to what their goal is in the Middle East, which is to weaken and isolate Israel. And it should be our goal to bend the Saudis to what our strategic aim is, which is to topple Saddam Hussein and his threat in Iraq.
And this appears to be an extraordinary time. And the relationship appears to be falling apart in front of our eyes. That the U.S. is moving men and material out of the base in Saudi Arabia is an extraordinary development. And the “New York Times” story today, for the Saudis even to talk about and raise the prospect of using the oil weapon against the United States at a time when we're at war is really an extraordinary and shocking thing. So this may be a friendship that is well on its way to being over.
KEYES: Clovis Maksoud, do you think it's unfair to characterize the kind of reports and statements we saw in the run-up to this meeting as an effort to bully this administration?
CLOVIS MAKSOUD, FORMER AMBASSADOR, ARAB LEAGUE: Well, first of all, I think there is this attempt at this moment by the Israeli lobby and some of the right-wing elements in the Republican Party and others in order to bash Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, which has been an ally and friend of the United States for the last 50 or 60 years.
It has done the bidding of the United States on the issues of oil, oil prices, supply of oil. It has done the bidding of supplying sometimes in Nicaragua and others. And, all of a sudden, Saudi Arabia becomes the target of the anger because they want to shield Israel's Sharon aggression on the Palestinian people as if there is no relationship between the Arab people in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian people.
The tragedy of the Palestinians touches every heart and soul and mind of every Arab, including the people in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, when Prince Abdullah conveys the level of anger, he is telling his friend and the ally of Saudi Arabia the truth about it and not the distortions that the Israeli lobby has been conducting for the last few months and few years.
KEYES: Isn't part of the problem, though, and I certainly know it's a problem with me, that in the wake of September 11th we made a clear declaration about terrorism and the practice of terrorism to achieve political aims? We had suffered greatly from it in the past. We suffered enormously from it on September 11th.
And we challenged the world to stop dealing with and supporting and facilitating all those who were using this instrument of terror to achieve their aims. It does not seem as if Saudi Arabia and some of the other Arab states are actually willing to join us in that renunciation of terror.
MAKSOUD: September 11th was a turning point. The Arab states, all of them except maybe one or two, all supported the United States in its fight against terrorism. There was anger in the United States, which was justified. And there is anger in the Arab world, which is justified.
The fact that Israel is trying to hijack the discourse and trying to identify itself as if it's the junior partner of the United States against terrorism in order to license itself to stake terrorism on the Israeli people is unacceptable to the Arabs and to the international community.
And that is why Prince Abdullah has come here, not only to enhance the bilateral relationship. And that is why he did not, as many people are thinking, use the oil option. He has come here also as the spokesman of the Arab summit in which he has provided the formula, which has been welcomed in the United States and which guarantees the ultimate reconciliation.
KEYES: If I could...
MAKSOUD: This is a chance and an opportunity that the United States must press...
KEYES: ... if I could...
MAKSOUD: ... in order to salvage its credibility in the Arab world.
KEYES: ... let me ask Samer Shehata. I personally look at the environment in which this meeting took place. And I have to tell you, a lot of Americans are feeling as if we've been put under the gun of terrorism, of threats of various kinds, in order to do the bidding of other states, and that Crown Prince Abdullah came in that kind of mindset. And I think it's not taken kindly.
Ambassador Maksoud wants this to be all the Israelis' fault. I, frankly, don't think it is. I think it's the fault of some of the objective circumstances where we're not taking kindly to this kind of bullying. What do you think?
SAMER SHEHATA, CENTER FOR CONTEMPORARY ARAB STUDIES: I think that the whole question of bullying or buddy, friend or foe, is completely misdirected. As you know and is plain to everyone, the most powerful country in the world is the United States — militarily, economically, politically. Nobody can bully the United States. And that's not what the Saudis are trying to do in Crawford, Texas.
Anyone who looks objectively at the history of U.S.-Saudi relationship from the beginning of the establishment of the kingdom through Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through the Cold War period in which Saudi Arabia was a crucial ally to the United States, up to the fighting in Afghanistan in which both the United States and Saudi Arabia supported the Mujahedin against Communist aggression and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the Saudis have been staunch allies. And it's absurd really to characterize them in any other way.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Rich Lowry, quickly, go ahead.
LOWRY: Look, that's all very true. But this is the fundamental fact. If you just look at it on paper, this is an alliance that doesn't make a lot of sense because you have in the United States you have the most liberal, open, and pluralistic society in the world. In Saudi Arabia, you have one of the most repressive, closed, arguably a religious totalitarianism. And what has held the alliance together is that we've had a common enemy for decades in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and then Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War.
Now, the common enemy is gone. And that's why the alliance is beginning to fray.
(CROSSTALK)
SHEHATA: Countries operate on the basis of national interests. They don't operate on the basis of principles. Unfortunately, that's not how international relations work. And we've seen through the past, into the present, and in the future, interests by both sides, oil and security. And it is going to remain that way.
KEYES: Very quickly, Samer Shehata, I think you're missing one critical change that has occurred now. Terrorism is emanating from the extremist elements of the Islamic world — people like Osama bin Laden, money falling through the Taliban, and so forth and so on. All of a sudden, Saudi Arabia, which has stood with a lot of those extremist elements, is openly, sadly, on the side of the folks who have come against us to attack us. Doesn't that exchange the equation?
SHEHATA: No. No, Mr. Keyes, I think you're not really differentiating between 9-11 and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Saudis. I mean, we have to realize that the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia right now is al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They are threatened more by him and by that kind of terrorism than the United States is. The result of Osama bin Laden and that kind of...
KEYES: We have very little time. I want to thank all of you for coming this evening. Obviously, we are going to continue this discussion as the days progress. And we'll have to see.
I think one of the great problems right now, though, is that one of the ways in which the Saudis have tried to deal with that threat from the extremist elements is by accommodating it, by buying it off, by somehow seeming to be part of the aspirations at least of those extremists. And that's dangerous to us.
Next, the cardinals come back from Rome amid stunning new revelations in the Paul Shanley case. Shanley is the alleged child molester who openly advocated sexual relations between grown men and boys. We'll talk to the lawyer for one of his alleged victims. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
In this segment, we continue our focus this week on the historic meeting in the Vatican where American cardinals were called together to deal with the church crises.
As those cardinals returned home today from the Vatican, the archdiocese of Boston turned over hundreds of new documents alleged to show the extent of sexual improprieties by Reverend Paul Shanley.
The documents included an apparent journal entry describing Shanley's treatment for venereal disease revealed as a result of a lawsuit by a Boston man who claims that Cardinal Bernard Law and the archdiocese failed to protect him from molestation by Shanley.
The alleged victim's lawyer claims there is overwhelming evidence that church officials knew of Shanley's repeated attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RODERICK MACLEISH, REPRESENTS PRIEST ABUSE VICTIMS: Paul Shanley left Massachusetts and was sent to California because he was engaging in predatory behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: In a moment, we will talk about Cardinal McCarrick's remarks yesterday with Father John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center where Cardinal McCarrick sort of suggested: Well, prelates would never do this.
But, first, joining us now, Robert Sherman, one of the attorneys representing one of the 180 alleged priest victims in Boston. Over the past 10 years, he and his partner, Roderick MacLeish, have represented more than 350 alleged victims of priest abuse. Today, Mr. Sherman was among the first to read more than 800 newly released documents in the case against Reverend Paul Shanley.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
ROBERT SHERMAN, REPRESENTS PRIEST ABUSE VICTIMS: Good evening, Alan.
KEYES: I have to tell you, one of the things that is the most shocking aspect of all of this to me is the indications that people in the archdiocese and others who knew of this kind of activity and the open advocacy of relations between grown men and boys and participation in NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
All of these activities were going on that Reverend Shanley was doing, and they, apparently, had knowledge of them. Is that what's indicated in these documents?
SHERMAN: There's no question about it. We've gotten 800 pages today. We had 800 pages released to us a couple of weeks ago, and what became clear is that the higher-ups in the Boston archdiocese — and we're talking about Cardinal Law, and we're talking about bishops, such as Bishop McCormick, now bishop of New Hampshire, Bishop Banks, bishop in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Bishop Daily, now bishop of Brooklyn, were well aware of Paul Shanley's very bizarre views of man-boy love, the fact that he believed that there isn't any form of sexual abuse that causes harm, that, when children and adults engage in sex, it's the child that's the aggressor, yet took no action to protect kids from being molested from Paul Shanley.
KEYES: Now, to get a little more specific for the audience, what kinds of things provide you with the indication that the archdiocese had this sort of knowledge?
SHERMAN: Well, we know that the archdiocese received correspondence beginning in 1977 that Paul Shanley had given a speech in Rochester, New York, where he referred to pedophilia and referred to man-boy love, and that's where he had said that there's no sex act that causes harm to a victim. He said incest, bestiality — nothing causes harm to a victim, that, in the instance of pedophilia, the harm that occurs to a child occurs when the child is questioned by police.
KEYES: Now are there indications that they actually understood the content of these remarks, that this content was reported to...
SHERMAN: There's no question because in the documents in the files of the archdiocese was an article entitled “Man-Boy Love.” It was huge. And parishioners had written to the cardinal saying that Paul Shanley had given these remarks and asked the cardinal to do something about it.
So that was in '77. There was more in '79. And as recently as in 1983, which is — the documents which were released today, a priest out in California wrote to the cardinal and said specifically that Paul Shanley was part of the founding member of NAMBLA and had represented to the organization that he was representing Cardinal Maderos (ph) at the time.
KEYES: Now are there any indications — because that has to do with views and attitudes which are pretty shocking, but what about specific actions following up on those views? Anything in the documents indicating that this was not just a question of theory?
SHERMAN: Absolutely. There were complaints regarding sexual molestation by Paul Shanley in the files of the archdiocese dating back to 1966 and 1967. There were at least 26 complaints contained in that file where people had complained that Paul Shanley had sexually molested young boys.
So the files are not only replete with evidence of his views regarding pedophilia but from actual complaints from victims where they had said that they were — had been victimized by Shanley.
KEYES: Now is there any indication in this paper trail of reaction from the archdiocese to these reports and complaints?
SHERMAN: Well, I think the most shocking thing that we've seen in the 1,600 pages that we've reviewed is there wasn't one sentence, one phrase, one word of concern for protecting children or protecting victims. What the archdiocese and the officials in the archdiocese were totally focussed on was circling the wagons, covering up, and protecting the institution of the church.
Indeed, there was communications between Bishop McCormick — then Father McCormick, now Bishop McCormick — the bishop in New Hampshire, and Shanley where they openly discussed the creation of a safe house, and we're not talking about a treatment center. We're talking about a safe house in the CIA sense of the word for pedophile priests to put them out of the reach of law enforcement and using archdiocese funds to actually create that kind of house.
KEYES: Now when you say put them out of the reach of law enforcement, what do you mean?
SHERMAN: Stash them away. You know, in — again, in the CIA sense of the word, that these were — you know, there was a euphemism for priests accused of sexual abuse, and that was called warehousing the priests.
And what Paul Shanley did was he wrote to then Father McCormick and said, “I've been thinking about the idea of creating a safe house because I feel that law enforcement is closing in on me.”
Father McCormick writes back — and this is in 1994 — “The creation of a safe house is an idea I've been thinking about for some time, and, as a matter of fact, we've actually located a place, and I can assure you, if we hear more about law enforcement acting against you, I will notify you immediately.”
Once again, the concern there is protecting and hiding and covering up, not getting this out in the open, not dealing with Paul Shanley as the sexual predator that he was.
KEYES: I want to thank you for sharing that with us. I've got to tell you, as a Roman Catholic, this whole thing has been of the deepest sort — the deepest source of pain and grief to me and, I know, many, many, many millions of other people among the Catholic laity and in the Christian body in general in this country.
But the most important thing, I believe, is that we seek justice for those who have been victims and that we seek truth in trying to reform the kind of attitudes that led to these abuses and tolerance for them. And insofar as you're part of that effort, I wish you well in your continuing work.
Thank you for joining us tonight.
Up next, Father C. John McCloskey of the Washington archdiocese.
And later, my outrage of the day, an anti-racism law proposed by the European Union that might just outlaw the bible.
But, first, does this make sense?
There's an airline that actually lost a passenger. Can you believe this?
It's going on five months since Margie Dabney, 70 years old, and robbed of reason by Alzheimer's disease, was somehow lost at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
She and her wheelchair-bound husband, Joe, arrived there on an American Airlines flight from Indianapolis. They were there at about 10:15 on December the 5th. They were supposed to be escorted to a connecting flight. But Mr. Dabney found himself being wheeled to the gate without his wife, and no one could say where she was.
Mrs. Dabney was spotted that morning walking on an airport service road and again two days later in the same area. That is all anyone has seen of her.
The mayor there saying that the company was at least partly responsible for this, and I've got to tell you they were supposed to take care of her, and I think that this is one of those heart-wrenching situations where a company ought to step up to the plate and bear its responsibility.
Do you think losing a passenger — I mean luggage is one thing, but passengers? Does disclaiming responsibility for this make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
In light of the revelations in Boston regarding Paul Shanley's abuses, we're talking about the crises in the Catholic church.
I want to take a look at the words that were spoken. The words were spoken yesterday by Cardinal McCarrick as he came out of the Vatican conference with respect to all of these matters.
Because one of the things that I found most shocking was the possibility that the cardinals themselves didn't see the point in fact of the crises here, and this is what he had to say yesterday when asked about the possibility of a cover up in the church.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDINAL THEODORE MCCARRICK, THE ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, D.C.: I can't see anyone with the responsibility in the church ever trying to cover up anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now, Father John McCloskey from the archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
Father John, welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: Thanks for having me.
KEYES: This is all painful for me and many Catholics like myself, but I listened to Cardinal McCarrick's remarks yesterday and couldn't believe my ears.
The weight of evidence is overwhelming now that, in point of fact, there were cover-ups in certain archdiocese within the Catholic church.
To try to deny that, I think, is just going to appear more damaging. If there's this kind of denial, can we expect the see the prelates deal with what I think is the most grave aspect of this crises?
MCCLOSKEY: I don't think the cardinal was trying to deny that. I think he was expressing a hope and, I would imagine, his own experience in not being able to think of a high person in the church covering up a criminal activity of any sort.
I think, at the same time, he realizes Cardinal Law is under a lot of pressure, hopefully has good attorneys working for him, and as we were hearing from the attorney earlier, there were people who have been victims and are entering into legal proceedings.
So Cardinal McCarrick did not want to touch on that issue because it would prejudice one of his fellow cardinals.
KEYES: Well, without prejudice to any of that, though, one of the things that bothers me most is the spiritual dimension of this, and I put the question many, many times on the program and away from it to folks because the spiritual priority here would seem to be not the scandal given in the newspapers but the scandal given to the young victims, the scandal that Christ speaks of as a millstone sin where the millstone should be tied around your neck, you should be thrown into the depths of the sea, he says, and it seems to me that, through our perception as Christians and people of faith and through the prelates' perception as people of God, shouldn't that scandal have been the most important concern as they dealt with this?
MCCLOSKEY: I think it most certainly should have been. It was mentioned very particularly by the holy father in his statement. It's been mentioned by the bishops beforehand. I imagine it will be a tremendous statement in this regard when the bishops meet in Dallas.
As you know, they've called for a national day of prayer in penance to these acts that were committed by priests. There was no excuse for these heinous acts. It is a scandal to everyone that it could be priests dedicated to God who have behaved in this sort of way.
KEYES: Well, is it legal problems that are going to keep — because what I thought, as you said that, was that we need a national day of prayer and penance and real meditation for the actions and judgments that were taken by prelates, and — because I need some assurance that the lack of spiritual priority that was in evidence when you put stopping a scandal in the newspapers above stopping the scandal of destroying a young soul, that's a real problem for me, Father John.
How can we be sure that bad priority is, in fact, being corrected in the hierarchy, if they won't even admit that there's that problem?
MCCLOSKEY: Alan, I agree with you entirely. I think that the cardinals were summoned in order to tell their story, but I, also, think they were summoned in order to receive a message from the holy father and for those who assist the governance of the church that it has to do with holiness among priests, holiness among bishops, holiness in the church.
It means there's going to be a true reform in the training, the selection (INAUDIBLE) of priests. There's going to be a transparency in terms of the dealings, if these type of accusations come up again. There's no excuse — no apology that could possibly be sufficient for the type of activities that have gone on.
In terms of a possible cover-up, that's something that will have to be covered — looked at by the civil authorities, which is presently being done in Boston and some other dioceses. There's no excuse — it does — it has not shaken my faith.
I realize we have to change — and radically — for true reform in the church so that it reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I believe the archbishops and the bishops and the cardinals of the United States and the priests and the lay people want that, and I think they will get it.
KEYES: Now do you think that part of what we see here — and I know there's always a tension in the church between administrative roles and the spiritual evangelical pastoral role, but...
MCCLOSKEY: Yes.
KEYES: ... it seems here it just got all out of whack with an administrative mentality taking over. Do you think there will be a much greater emphasis on the need for the explicit church leaders, the cardinals, the archbishops for an emphasis on the spiritual vision that has to govern judgment?
MCCLOSKEY: I absolutely agree. I think there will be more effort put on the emphasis of holiness, personal holiness, also evangelization, less on structure, and less on the level of administration and bureaucracy, which, in many cases, facilitates in a healthy social welfare in the country. But that is not the principal aim of the church. It has to be wholly, and it has to be for the protection of the lay faithful and their rights.
KEYES: Now one question that I think is on everybody's mind, with the prospect of court battles and so forth and so on, do you think that prelates like Cardinal Law, who may be faced with this kind of litigation and difficulty, should resign for the good of the church so that there can be full-time service given in those positions? These court battles take up a lot of time and effort.
MCCLOSKEY: I think that each case is different. We've been talking about Cardinal Law because that seems to be the one that is most prominent. I believe that, if Cardinal Law thinks that he's not capable of sheparding, of serving the archdiocese of Boston, if the holy father concurs in this, there will be a possibility for him to move elsewhere in order to serve the church in another way. But that is up to the holy father, and that is up to his eminence, Cardinal Law, to look at that situation and make that judgment. It certainly is not up to me.
KEYES: Well, Father John, I know that you understand that the prayers of millions of faithful are really going up to God that this crisis will be faced in a way that has courage and spiritual discernment. That's certainly my prayer every day. I want to thank you for joining us tonight and helping us to continue further our efforts to think this through.
Next, my outrage of the day where a possible law of the European Union could end up outlawing the bible.
And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site keys.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with the outrage of the day. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now it's time for my outrage of the day. A top European Union judge warned on Wednesday that the distributing of the bible could be illegal under a proposed European anti-racism law. British law lord Scott Afoskit (ph) outlined the European commission's draft definition of racism and xenophobia as involving, quote, “The belief in race, color, descent, religion, or belief, national or ethical region, as a factor determining aversion to individuals or groups.
Now you think about it. Think about it. They would be forbidden to distribute tracts, pictures, other material containing expressions of this kind of racism.
Now suppose you are a Christian and you disapprove of Satan worship. Suppose that you are a Christian and you're distribute the bible and it says, as Christ says, that there's no way to the father but through me.
Is that going to be accounted xenophobia? When we start regulating attitudes and thought, we get into the kind of totalitarianism that will lead to these abuses and these laws ought not to be put on the books.
That's my sense of it. Thanks. THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. See you on Monday.