Evening Exchange; Weekly News

Welcome back. Former President Jimmy Carter when he was elected president in 1976 he said he wanted human rights to be a hall mark of his presidency. And since leaving office after one term he's been an ongoing human rights crusade. Now it's taken him to a place where the Bush administration apparently doesn't really want him to be Cuba. Here to discuss this and other issues in the news Charles Cobb senior writer and diplomatic correspondent for all Africa dot com. Marc Fisher of The Washington Post. Todd LENNEBERG of the Hoover Institution and policy review and Ed Foster Simeon of the USA Today. President Carter says the Bush administration tried to undermine his visit to Cuba when Undersecretary of State John Bolton said last week that Cuba was working to develop biological weapons and had shared that technology with other so-called rogue nations. What do you say. Well I don't know if that was the Bush administration's motivation for making those statements at that time. You know this is a matter of some controversy. Cubism participation are not with suspicion and in this these kinds of activities within the intelligence community United

States. I think the State Department obviously was it was sending a pretty strong message as a message by the way that Secretary Powell has stood fully behind when Bolton made these comments and Cuba has indeed appeared on the on the terrorist sponsor list. Some people say that that's as a result more of domestic political pressure than of actual high profile activity and state sponsorship of terrorism. I think what is clear is that if if Cuba is involved in these matters it's pretty far down on the list of countries that are that are involved in them. As for President Carter's visit you know I I think he went to deliver two main messages one is the time to lift the embargo which is something that he's argued strongly before. He also gave a speech in Spanish broadcast in Cuba in which he called on that. He said it was time for Cuba to become a democratic country. And I think that was. I think that was an excellent message for him to get out so I rated a

mixed bag with a huge with a for of a certain amount of partisan sniping. Speaking of speaking of messages President Bush is scheduled to speak to the Cuban community in Miami next week. Any indication any preview of what he's likely to say. Well I think if anything Bolton may have previewed what the president is likely to say which is to weigh in that's not where we're going to go back in and bring Elian guns out of guns on his back. Well I don't think he has to go quite that far on the other hand. This is a this is a this is a very anti Castro administration which I think it is for two reasons one on principle. The unpleasantness of the dictatorship and the second one frankly is political I don't think there's any question about that I think there are some people who who think Elyon Gonzales may have cost Al Gore the 2000 election because of what happened and how the Florida vote went. Ed Foster So that's an important issue because the president's brother Jeb Bush governor of Florida is going to run for re-election and of course the vote in Florida is very important. But that's not a change in policy for the

Bush administration it was always been strongly behind the embargo in Cuba. And I think what you saw here was the card is messaging card it was at odds with the administration and they weren't happy about it. But you know Carter's message may have been at odds with the president and the president is in a way a prisoner of his brother's politics and his brother's political needs in Florida. But there's an increasingly bipartisan movement to lift the embargo and it is very much backed by corporate America and there are a lot of discussions going on behind the scenes about what happens after the embargo. And ordinarily I would think there are a fair number of people even in the Bush administration who would want to be part of those conversations. But for these political restraints 40 members of Congress 20 Republicans 20 Democrats are introducing legislation to lift the embargo they say that it hasn't worked for 43 years that Castro has been in office. It's time to try a different tack. Which brings me to history Charlie Cobb. Is it important to remind people that Fidel Castro who has been in office as I said for 43 years had umpteen

assassination attempts on his life by the United States had an invasion launched by the United States and now the United States is accusing him of using or or developing biological weapons. Doesn't that create a bit of a credibility problem in some quarters one of a credibility problem I guess first between the United States and and Cuba. It is not determined by any one single issue or with various parties my view anyway is that all of the discussion about Cuba is political that questions of principle have very little to do with the discussion that we hear either inside or outside administration. And so in my cynical view questions of the credibility of any particular remark in such political discussions is largely irrelevant. Then let's get back to politics thought does this mean that it is possible that after November if Jeb Bush beats out his route this democratic

opposition Janet Reno who happens to be the Democratic candidate that we may see a shift in the Bush administration position. Well it's possible but frankly I doubt it and you know it may be that it may have been an unsuccessful policy it may have a have a policy of 43 years track record failure that sort of thing and they obviously failed to produce the kind of you know change in regime etc. but you know I can think of something I've test tank farm policy in the United States and you know that's been that's been unsuccessful for 16 years. And and yet it continues and now the poor the president assigned. Farm bill the checks up you know subsidies to the farmers by another 85 billion dollars you know he said he doesn't like parts of it you know is there some point in the future him signing off on ending the embargo and said look you know I I dissed parts of this that I really didn't like. And now I think the lesson is just the opposite it's how you know us relatively small but influential part of the of the political constituency in this country can really drive the policy that is most of concern to it not

withstanding the fact that of the large numbers of other people think that this just doesn't make sense no longer. So it's not likely to fly in this administration despite the efforts of Jimmy Carter who favors ending the embargo. But as we said earlier we will see what the legislative action that is being taken will result in. Moving on to the Middle East. Marc Fisher The liquid voted earlier this week against the wishes of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel never to create a Palestinian state. Charlie Cobb with everything having to do with Cuba's politics it would appear that everything having to do with a solution to the Middle East has awful politics. Well that's true and never underestimate the capability of any party in the Israeli political spectrum to self-destruct. And here's a case of Benjamin Netanyahu the former prime minister coming in and just doing a bit of mischief against Ariel Sharon. And it's another lesson in a lesson we have to learn over and over that what matters in that part of the world is not words but

action here we have Ariel Sharon just hours after issuing the most welcoming comments he ever made about the Saudi peace proposal having to deal with his own party saying there will never be a Palestinian state. Equally we have Yasser Arafat on one one day saying let's all be martyrs together. And then just hours later saying that he's against any terrorism of any kind. What matters in that part of the world is action and in all of these instances point out the increasingly urgent need for the United States and the international community to get involved on the ground and not in these talking sessions that have a history of not doing anything. What's the likelihood of that actually happening getting involved in the ground. It would appear that everybody in this situation who is not a part of the conflict is taking a kind of hands off approach outside of some diplomatic initiative. Nobody wanted to get caught into the kind of turmoil that's on the ground. Well it's an intractable situation it's a situation that is very difficult to visualize a

win I mean how long have people been trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. It is a situation that is fraught with political peril if you put your credibility on the line and put your political capital in line. The chances of success are very limited right now and I think anybody we can see that does the liquid vote necessarily mean a setback or is just more words and a ready over word situation. Oh I think it's well I think what it shows you is in a way is where Israeli domestic opinion is on this matter. Now you know the the problem is you can't sort of wish a different political environments into being you know Israelis have been very much united behind Sure around there. But you know Netanyahu has been has been waiting in the wings and it's clear that if Sharon became unpopular the direction would not be to go back to Labor and a more dovish policy but probably to move in the direction of Netanyahu and I want an even harder line. And what's all the more maddening about this is that you know everybody everybody knows what the end

of this looks like. You know you can have when you do see a Palestine and it's got roughly the missing area of Israel roughly back to the 1967 borders and demilitarized space between them and the international peacekeepers and observers and then internationalize Jerusalem and the Palestinians will have to give up on the right of return to Israel. But nobody can figure out how to get there from here and that is what's driving everybody crazy. This may be more about the internal politics in the kook party than the in the attitudes of Israelis I think there's been some polls that show that a majority of Israelis actually think that a Palestinian state will be in the end game. As described there and actually the differences between Netanyahu and the group are the same in anguish and Ronan is politically on the issue of Palestinian statehood is not that far apart. I mean he's in-doors the idea stated in such a limited form that he could never really be accepted by the Palestinians. This is really about the politics between Sharon and Netanyahu in Netanyahu himself up to.

And in the meantime conflict continues we'll simply have to see if anybody can has has been said here figure out a way out of that. From there to where armed conflict took place and a civil war for 10 years Charlie Cobb and Sierra Leone in West Africa where elections were held on Tuesday. With nine political parties contest in this election a 10 year civil war 200000 lives lost thousands of others amputated there was pillaging there was raping usually blamed on the Revolutionary United Front which somehow became a political party and is now participating in these elections a lot of people seem to forget hope though that this may be a success story in one way. It's apparently the largest peacekeeping operation ever almost 20000 troops in there to keep the peace. Any word on how the election is likely to turn out. First the peace if you are even larger than that they are nearer to 25000 than 20000 which is the largest U.N. peacekeeping effort anywhere. Elections much to many people's surprise went relatively peacefully and

fairly I mean there has been we have a reporter there at all Africa very little violence very little of the usual we've come accustomed to the charges of cheating being tossed as soon as the sixth ballot is counted. You know and it appears as if I hope I'm pronouncing that name right the president of Ceylon is ahead. What a gift that he's got to get 55 percent of the vote that's the only question at this point as to whether he will or will not get 55 percent of the vote if he gets 55 plus no runoff. If he gets less than that and run off with all the risks meaning political risks built into that. An interesting issue to watch within that is the U.S. did somehow as you put it and I would put it to become a political voice now they are you have a party and they're the young people with in the R Us party were complaining during the election that they wanted Foday Sankoh who was in

prison facing trial. Literally the Klan did it and so the they have a still have the capacity to generate a fair amount of violence. So we don't know what their dissatisfaction within the R Us means in terms of continuing violence. And finally you have to recognize that Syria early on set in a larger context the war in Sierra Leone began 10 years ago because of the war in Liberia. Yes and it's cold all over in Sierra Leone and you have what I call the model river States get easier early on still very much in turmoil there is a rebel group right on the outskirts of Liberia of Monrovia and I'm quite frankly not much better a group. Charles Taylor's group. So there's this big question mark over the region that could make meaningless almost a posse early on select opposition in Sierra Leone so far all peoples party there are now one of the nine parties contesting this election. Is it possible or

likely that this could end up being a runoff between the ruling People's Party and the Revolutionary United Front Party. I don't think so I don't think those numbers have not turned up in the count so far their way their way. I mean they're way down and I get where they're placed they're way down at the. But they don't have that kind of support I don't have that kind of stability a kind of no no. They're there. The worry is their opposition is not their chances of winning seats in the legislature are winning the president how they need to. Yeah like when they lose what is their capacity you know particularly if they're building at least some quarters. The objections around the detainment or confinement of Foday Sankoh the leader of the R Us that that is their capacity down the road for the violence that's the worry from international to domesticity fear is of course the soft money goes off the books in a little while now the campaign finance reform legislation has been passed before it goes off the books. A new record has been

broken by the Republican party last night thought in more ways than thirty three million dollars in a fund raiser that has Democrats in a huff saying that yes you accused us of selling space in the White House but now you are selling off briefings with secretaries and then a picture of the president calling and exploiting the 9/11 terrorist attacks because you got a picture of the president calling the vice president. You're selling that for what 25 or 30 dollars a pop. Where does this all is. Well I you know I would like to say that having the campaign finance reform having passed it will end but unfortunately that's not the case. What it will what it will do is continue and it will continue I think pretty much in perpetuity the good news for Democrats who do like the campaign finance issue. There are other bad news for Democrats is that Americans aren't all that exercised about it. They do think it's a problem. I don't think they think that the current legislation is going to solve the problem unless the American people do indeed have much wisdom. But but the other thing that I think Americans think about this is that is that everybody

is more or less dirty. I mean everybody more or less does the same kinds of things and then when so when people get get up on their high horse and make allegations about what the other guy how the other the other guy is uniquely bad. People say come home and duck and duck and you know it reminded me of nothing less than a bunch of drunks going out for a last bender before Prohibition. I believe full well that when prohibition came along the speakeasies would be over and they would be able to continue to live. Just as they always have and I think the the public sees it that way just as well as the donors and recipients of their largest. There is another question though that that again is raised by by this I think it's a mistake to focus on whether or not pictures of Bush on the telephone go for $150 or $200 or you get 33 or 50 million dollars at a dinner. The real question which I think the Congress still has not addressed are the political system still is not right why are

these levels of money needed in an election. HUME What what what this seems to me to be something fundamentally wrong when you when you would you have to talk in almost hundreds of millions of dollars to mount an all action and that's a serious discussion that still has not been joined in my view. Grow up. A lot of this has to do with the medium that we are now appearing to tell. And how important that has become to campaign races. You agree with Todd this is not likely to end any time now and in fact I'm sure at some point the Republicans will be able to point to Democrat Democratic soft money effort. And say you know you're doing exactly the same thing that you accused us of and until the McCain bill McCain-Feingold was in campaign finance reform goes into effect. It's going to continue because as long as it's legal people will continue to collect that much money as they can. If indeed the public doesn't care as much as we in the media seem to care about it will you keep covering it in a level of cynicism in the public about politics

I don't know that it's necessarily increasing but it's certainly there and it's become a constant and you see it in participation levels and. Attitudes towards civic society want to know it's a very difficult issue to to get a finger on because there's been all kinds of legislation proposed in an unacted on campaign finance. But the fact of the matter is every time there's a new way to get around a new way to get around the law and you will find a new way to get around this law in terms of collecting money to campaign with. I think there's one other thing that is driving costs now rapidly and that is how narrowly divided the electorate is between the two parties so that any race potentially can be painted as the pivotal race. I mean this is not this this is the Senate seat that will make the difference between the Democrats getting control of the Republicans getting control. You know these are the these are the two House races on which our hopes of the majority rest so we're you know write us the check that will put this over the edge I mean that is a you know that is a that is a you know a

rapid escalation recipe. You know everything everything gets driven by I want to getting back to Charlie's point not give us the issue that will give get us over the years not present us with the voters that get it so they had to write us the check and that will get us take the television out taking television. Think a broadcaster then let me tell you the use of race in the Michigan law school entry race being a factor was upheld by a federal appeals court in the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati which said essentially that the University of Michigan Law School did not have a quota it was simply using race as a factor and that is allowable once they are trying to achieve a certain critical mass in which they that there was diversity because Critical Mass does not specifically mention any numbers and diversity of course was cited in the Supreme Court really ruling on the blocky case. Twenty eight years of war back in one thousand seventy eight. And so it is likely that this

one is going to the Supreme Court but for the time being affirmative action of the University of Michigan Law School is being upheld. This to another case out of the saying that it is secure. President on his go go to Supreme Court because there have been other rulings in conflict with this around the country and University of Texas University of Georgia and the Supreme Court this basically tees it up for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this issue and make a ruling that will have obviously broad implications on affirmative action policy. And it's a much different court than it was back when the blockade the decision was made which is what affirmative action supporters are afraid of in terms of the conservative nature of the court and the question in one key play in this will be just a senator who is a pivotal player in this and which way she swings on this issue could decide the future of affirmative action. Anyone care to comment. Well it's interesting that this is coming at a moment when a number of universities around the country have come up with very creative ways to get around this issue and very effective ways and the California

model that's come about which initially was seen as an attack on affirmative action has actually resulted in higher levels of minority representation in the university by basing not the decisions. Decisions not on race but on you have to be in the top 10 percent of the class and it doesn't matter which high school that he is what part of the states it is and the effect has been a kind of de racialization of the whole admissions question with an outcome that all parties seem to be fairly happy with. So it's not clear if that model can be used in a broader sense but if it can render some of these affirmative action questions almost moot. It seems to me though that if this goes to the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court given its current composition strikes down affirmative action we could have what is a whole new kind of political melee if you will in the United States because I don't think that if affirmative action is struck down it will be taken lightly. It will move that issue right to the very top of all the established evil rights organizations agenda he'll be setting all kinds of demonstrations. That's what will happen. Yes

President Bush and Vladimir Putin will be signing a nuclear arms treaty when they have the summit in Moscow. Two thirds of the nuclear arms in both countries will now be reduced. And this is all done on a three page agreement. I couldn't get on the rental car. Trapped. By 103 days agreement in other countries they didn't actually because the Bush administration didn't really give up very much of anything. All they gave was a piece of paper with an agreement with Vladimir Putin the Russian president basically gave in on what the administration wanted which was an agreement on a reduction of nuclear weapons was one of the things that the president has been speaking about since he came into office about reducing the nuclear arsenal. But it does show you the extraordinary change in our times during our lifetime of the Cold War era when Russia was the enemy. And right now what you see. And and actually Bush coming into office almost dismissing Russia as being no longer relevant

is huge and largely irrelevant now because of the war on terror. Terrorism is seen as a partner in that. And also as an alternative source of oil that will reduce the dependence on Middle East oil so Russia is very much in play and very important point of the other hand it looks like a Putin wanted this agreement much more than Bush did. I think he did and I think Bush was really willing to do this for a couple of reasons one of which as a matter of another which I think Oh so you know we're coming up on some of November and Prague at which NATO's going to expand and it's likely that the enlargement is going to include the three Baltic republics. That was a touchy issue for Russia. Russia has been and remains opposed to that but not very opposed and I think this was something that Bush felt he could he could readily give to Putin something that in policy terms he favored in any case that might make that that go down a little easier. My good buddy the anti-terrorism alliance I think is a very important part of this if you look at some of the other events happening this week where you had NATO's and Russia coming together to work

on defense policy in a way that that's unprecedented. In addition the Russians speaking on out in favor of Jimmy Carter's visit to Cuba. And so what you see is more of a partnership developing because we need them and they need us. And it also guarantees that this summit will have a be a success that there is a result to come out of this summit at some level with everybody both sides will be able to point to and say something with. Interestingly enough nobody around the table has the words The world is now a safer place. Good luck with what appear the political considerations are everything. Yes your point is not significantly safer in terms of if we're just talking about nuclear weapons or they're not destroying nuclear weapons they simply are setting them aside now should should they need them. I mean they can set them back up. Research will continue in the United States. I mean this weapon that Bush wants that kind of.

I don't understand why but I love the kind that goes into the ground or whatever will continue as a nuclear weapon. So there's no actual reduction of the number of nuclear weapons well but but but I don't think anybody who grew up in you know with ducking cover and all that if you think prospect of nuclear Armageddon between two superpowers that's ready to reduce is reduced that clearly according to Charlie hasn't gone away. Thank you for joining us why baby boomers are being challenged to take better care of their bones when we come back.