Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint Transcript: May 25, 2007

Posted on Tuesday May 29, 2007

J.Z.: HI. I’M JIM ZOGBY, AND WELCOME TO TONIGHT’S EDITION OF “VIEWPOINT.”
WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO TONIGHT IS HAVE A BROAD-RANGING DISCUSSION ON U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND WHERE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN GENERAL IS
GOING. WE’RE GOING TO DO THAT WITH MIDDLE EAST POLICY COUNSEL AND FORMER AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA, CHAS FREEMAN. THEN WE’RE GOING TO GET AN
UPDATE FROM AN IMMIGRATION LAW EXPERT ABOUT THE CURRENT DEBATE IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE ON U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY. BUT FIRST WE’RE GOING TO DO A DISCUSSION OVER THE PHONE FROM BEIRUT, LEBANON, WITH RAMI KHOURI.
RAMI IS EDITOR-AT-LARGE WITH THE BEIRUT “DAILY STAR.” I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN LEBANON TODAY. RAMI, ARE YOU WITH US?

Rami Khouri: I AM. GLAD TO BE WITH YOU AGAIN.

J.Z.: THANK YOU SO MUCH, RAMI, FOR DOING THIS.
WHAT I’D LIKE TO DO, IF WE COULD BEGIN, IS FOR OUR VIEWERS HERE IN
THE U.S. WHO ARE UNAWARE OF SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THERE,
COULD YOU GIVE US A BACKGROUND ABOUT THIS BATTLE THAT IS TAKING PLACE IN
THE NORTH OF LEBANON BETWEEN LEBANESE ARMY UNITS AND A GROUP,
THIS FATAH ISLAM GROUP THAT’S IN THE PALESTINIAN CAMP?
CAN YOU GIVE US THE BACKGROUND FIRST AND THEN THE PRECIPITATION,
THE PRECIPITATING EVENTS THAT LED TO IT?

Khouri: WELL, THE BACKGROUND IS THAT THIS IS THE—FATAH ISLAM IS A RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP. MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY’RE ABOUT 200 OR 300. THEY SAY THEY’RE OVER 600, BUT THEY’VE BEEN FORMING OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, AND THEY’RE ONE OF
SEVERAL SMALL RADICAL, MILITANT GROUPS. I DON’T EVEN CALL THEM ISLAMIST GROUPS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY GIVE A BAD NAME TO ISLAM BECAUSE WHAT THEY DO IS SOMETHING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS REJECT. BUT THEY CALL—THEY USE THE WORD “ISLAM” TO GIVE THEMSELVES SOME LEGITIMACY. BUT THEY’RE SMALL MILITANT, SOMETIMES TERRORISTS GROUPS, ANARCHISTS ALMOST, AND THEY’RE SPRINGING UP ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. THIS IS ONE OF THE BACKLASHES OF THE AMERICAN-LED ADVENTURE IN IRAQ, UNFORTUNATELY.
BUT IT PREDATES IRAQ. IT’S SOMETHING THAT THERE’S A SPIN-OFF FROM BIN LADEN-TYPE TERRORISM AND THAT KIND OF MOVEMENT, AND THEY’VE BEEN FORMING OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, LITTLE GROUPS HERE AND THERE. AND IT’S AMAZING THAT THE GOVERNMENT BASICALLY JUST WATCHED THEM GROW. BUT THIS IS A SMALL GROUP THAT’S BASED IN NAHR AL-BARED PALESTINIAN CAMP IN THE NORTH. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THEY’RE IN THE CAMP IS THAT CAMPS ARE PLACES WHERE THE LEBANESE ARMY DOESN’T GO, BASED ON AN AGREEMENT FROM THE 1980s BETWEEN THE PALESTINIANS AND THE LEBANESE.
AND THEY GOT INTO A CLASH WITH THE ARMY LAST SUNDAY BECAUSE A FEW
OF THEM WERE CAUGHT IN AN APARTMENT IN TRIPOLI, IN THE NORTH OF LEBANON, AFTER THE LEBANESE ARMY AND POLICE CHASED THEM, ACCUSING THEM OF HAVING ROBBED A BANK IN THE NORTH. AND THE CLASHES BROKE OUT, AND THEN IT BECAME ALL-OUT WARFARE BETWEEN THE ARMY AND THIS BAND OF FATAH ISLAM GUYS. AND THEN THE ARMY STARTED
SHELLING THEM INSIDE THE CAMP. THE CAMP IS AROUND 35,000, 40,000 PEOPLE, AND IT BECAME REALLY UGLY BECAUSE YOU HAD, YOU KNOW, REAL PROBLEMS FOR 2, 3 DAYS WITH NO WATER, NO FOOD, NO ELECTRICITY INTO THE CAMP.
THEN THERE WAS A CEASEFIRE. ABOUT 50, 60 PEOPLE DIED ALTOGETHER BETWEEN THE ARMY AND THE FATAH ISLAM AND CIVILIANS. NOW THERE’S A TRUCE. IT’S AN UNEASY TRUCE.
ABOUT HALF THE CAMP HAS BEEN EVACUATED. AND IT’S A REAL BIG POLITICAL PROBLEM. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THESE GUYS, BECAUSE THE ARMY DOESN’T PARTICULARLY WANT TO GO INTO THE CAMPS. IF IT DOES, IT THEN CREATES A NEW PROBLEM, WHICH IS ANGER BY PALESTINIANS AND MANY LEBANESE AS WELL ABOUT USING THE ARMY’S FIREPOWER AGAINST UNARMED CIVILIANS IN THE CAMPS JUST TO ROOT OUT THIS SMALL BAND OF BAD
GUYS AND TERRORISTS. SO IT’S A REAL DILEMMA.

J.Z.: LET ME ASK YOU, RAMI, I’VE BEEN WATCHING THIS, AND I, YOU KNOW, HAVE A HISTORY MYSELF. I’VE BEEN IN THE CAMPS, DID SOME OF MY EARLY WRITING IN THE SEVENTIES FROM THE CAMPS.
THEY’RE INCREDIBLY CONGESTED AREAS, AND BECAUSE THEY’VE GONE ON
SO LONG AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY’RE IN IN LEBANON WHERE
PEOPLE CAN’T GET WORK AND THERE’S BEEN VIRTUALLY NO EFFORT TO
PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES, THE SITUATION LIKE THIS IS BOUND TO OCCUR.
THE AGREEMENT YOU MENTIONED BETWEEN THE P.L.O. AND LEBANON GOES
BACK TO, I THINK, IT WAS TO 1969 EVEN, THAT THEY WOULD BE
SELF-GOVERNANCE OF THE CAMPS. BUT THE PALESTINIANS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GOVERN THE CAMPS RIGHT NOW, ARE THEY?
AND SO WHAT KIND OF DISCUSSION IS GOING ON IN LEBANON ABOUT, WILL THERE BE
A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PALESTINIAN CAMPS, NEW PROTECTIONS
PROVIDED, ANY DESIRE TO CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR ARE WE
JUST GOING TO GET RID OF THIS GROUP AND GO BACK TO BUSINESS AS
USUAL?

Khouri: WELL, NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY REALIZE YOU JUST
HAVE TO FACE THIS PROBLEM AGAIN DOWN THE ROAD.
TO THE CREDIT OF THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT, THE SINIORA GOVERNMENT, DESPITE THE MANY
CRITICISMS THAT PEOPLE MAKE OF IT, ABOUT A YEAR AGO THE GOVERNMENT REALIZED THAT THE CAMPS WERE ACTUALLY A BIG POTENTIAL SECURITY PROBLEM BECAUSE
OF THIS KIND OF PHENOMENON—THESE SMALL, RADICAL MILITANT
GROUPS SETTING UP SHOP IN THE CAMPS AND BEING ABLE TO DO SO.
SO THE GOVERNMENT STARTED A PROGRAM ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THEY
RECONNECTED WITH THE P.L.O.
THE P.L.O. HAS A REPRESENTATIVE NOW IN LEBANON.
THEY STARTED ALLOCATING MONEY, WORKING WITH UNRWA AND THE CAMP COMMITTEES TO
LOOK AT IMPROVING LIVING CONDITIONS, ALLOWING PALESTINIANS TO
WORK IN MANY MORE AREAS OF EMPLOYMENT, WORK LEGALLY.
THEY REALIZE THAT IF YOU LEFT THE CAMPS LIKE THIS, IT WAS GOING TO
GET WORSE AND WORSE. SO THE GOVERNMENT STARTED TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE WITH THE
PALESTINIANS. IT WAS A VERY WISE, VERY ENLIGHTENED POLICY, AND IT’S BEEN
MOVING SLOWLY. OF COURSE, THE WAR LAST SUMMER SET THINGS BACK.
SO THE SITUATION NOW IS, IF YOU TRY TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION
MILITARILY, IT’S PROBABLY GOING TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT
SOLVES. AND THERE’S BEEN GOOD MEETINGS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
PALESTINIAN FACTIONS—HAMAS, FATAH, THE P.L.O. UMBRELLA GROUP, ALL OF THEM. THEY’VE BEEN MEETING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. THEY SET UP A COMMITTEE. THEY’RE MEETING WITH THE ARMY. THEY’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S THE COMBINATION OF SECURITY, POLICE, ARMY, JUDICIAL AND POLITICAL MEANS THAT YOU CAN USE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM ONCE
AND FOR ALL. AND THEN I THINK IT IS GOING TO TRIGGER A RENEWED FOCUS ON A
MORE REALISTIC AGREEMENT POLITICALLY BETWEEN THE PALESTINIAN
GROUPS AND THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT. BUT, OF COURSE, THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO RESOLVE THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT. THE ANSWER IS, JUST END THE REFUGEE CAMPS AS CAMPS AND THE PALESTINIANS CAN EITHER GO BACK TO THEIR HOMES, GO TO A PALESTINIAN STATE, GET FULL CITIZENSHIP, LIVE AS NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS.
THAT’S THE ANSWER.
I THINK ONE OF THE COROLLARY LESSONS OF THIS IS THAT IF YOU LEAVE A PROBLEM
LIKE THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TO FESTER FOR 5 AND 6 DECADES AT A TIME, THIS IS THE KIND OF PROBLEM YOU’RE GOING TO GET.

J.Z.: LET ME GO BACK TO THE GROUP, IF I COULD, IN QUESTION BECAUSE
THE U.S. PAPERS HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH FINGER-POINTING IN THE
DIRECTION TO LEBANON’S NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST, SYRIA, AND QUOTES FROM COUNTLESS
INDIVIDUAL LEBANESE ON THE STREET AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS
AND U.S. OFFICIALS ALL POINTING IN THAT DIRECTION.
BUT SEYMOUR HERSH WRITING IN “THE NEW YORKER” LAST MONTH AND
RECENTLY ON CNN QUOTING, AS WELL, ALISTAIRE COOK, POINTS IN A
DIFFERENT DIRECTION, SAYS IT WAS PART OF AN EFFORT THAT THE
U.S. WORKING WITH THE SAUDIS CREATED TO GET GROUPS IN LEBANON
THAT WOULD SERVE AS A COUNTERPOINT TO HEZBOLLAH. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT IN LEBANON? OR IS THERE A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT SYRIA IS TO BLAME?
AND WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE HERSH ALLEGATION TO BEGIN WITH?

Khouri: WELL, I TALKED TO HERSH SEVERAL TIMES WHEN HE WAS WRITING
THE ARTICLE, AND I THOUGHT THAT HIS LINKAGE BETWEEN AMERICAN
POLICY AND SAUDI POLICY SUPPORTING THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT SOME OF THESE GROUPS WAS TOO EXPLICIT. I THOUGHT HE HAD TO HAVE TO HAVE BETTER EVIDENCE.
I THINK HE MIGHT BE CONFUSING A LITTLE BIT LEBANESE GOVERNMENT
AND, INDIRECTLY, AMERICAN/SAUDI SUPPORT TO SOME OF MAINSTREAM ISLAMIST GROUPS IN
THE NORTH IN TRIPOLI. CERTAINLY THERE IS AID GOING, BUT
THESE ARE NOT THIS TYPE OF MILITANT ARMED RADICAL GROUP.
THEY’RE HELPING HARD-LINE POLITICAL GROUPS, SOCIAL GROUPS, BUT
NOT MILITARY SECURITY THREATS. SO THERE IS A BIT OF A CONFUSION, I THINK, BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ISLAMIST GROUPS.
I THINK THE SYRIAN ACCUSATIONS ARE DEFINITELY COMING HEAVILY
FROM THE GOVERNMENT HERE AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS AND THE
UNITED STATES. ABOUT HALF OF LEBANON IS WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THINKS THE
SYRIANS ARE TO BLAME FOR INSTIGATING THIS GROUP AND SETTING OFF
THIS FIGHTING AND ALSO SETTING OFF BOMBS AND KILLING PEOPLE IN
LEBANON AND BEIRUT, AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE COUNTRY DOESN’T
BELIEVE THAT. I THINK YOU NEED TO—THE PROBLEM IN THE U.S., AS YOU KNOW, IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOESN’T GIVE YOU A FULL, ACCURATE, AND INTEGRATED AND NUANCED
REALITY VIEW. IT GIVES YOU ONLY A PARTIAL VIEW.
THE REALITY IS THAT CERTAINLY THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE A SUSPICION ABOUT SYRIA. THE U.N. INVESTIGATION HAS SAID THAT.
BUT I THINK THERE IS ALSO MANY OTHER VIEWS THAT ARE CRITICAL OF THE
LEBANESE GOVERNMENT IN LEBANON AND ELSEWHERE THAT HAVE TO BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SO I THINK THIS IS A REAL DIFFICULT SITUATION.
THERE ISN’T A LOT KNOWN ABOUT THIS GROUP FATAH ISLAM, AND THERE
ISN’T MUCH KNOWN ABOUT A LOT OF THESE GROUPS.
BUT ALL WE DO KNOW IS THAT THEY’RE SPRINGING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE. THEY’RE
GETTING TOEHOLDS—OR FOOTHOLDS—HERE AND THERE, IN THE CAMPS AND OUTSIDE THE CAMPS, NOT JUST IN THE CAMPS. AND THEY’RE ALL OVER THE REGION, AND
THEY’RE ALL OVER EUROPE. THIS IS NOT A BEIRUT/NORTH LEBANON PHENOMENON. THIS IS REALLY A GLOBAL PHENOMENON NOW. AND IT IS DUE TO MANY, MANY FACTORS.
YOU KNOW, LOCAL PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ARAB-ISRAELI STUFF, AMERICAN POLICY, EUROPEAN, RUSSIAN. THERE’S PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND.
NOBODY IS FULLY GUILTY OR SOLELY GUILTY, AND NOBODY IS BLAMELESS.

J.Z.: THANKS SO MUCH. THANKS, RAMI. WE’RE GOING TO GO RIGHT NOW, BUT
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. I WANT TO HAVE YOU BACK IN A BIT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT LEBANON AND WHAT’S GOING ON—THE CONTINUED POLITICAL PARALYSIS IN THE COUNTRY AND WHERE WE MIGHT SEE LEBANON GOING IN THE NEXT SEVERAL
MONTHS. BUT THANK YOU FOR JOINING US NOW.
AND GODSPEED. I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE HAVE A CALMER SUMMER AHEAD FOR THE
PEOPLE IN THAT COUNTRY.

Khouri: THANK YOU.

J.Z.: THANK YOU, RAMI.
WHEN WE COME BACK, WE’RE GOING TO BE JOINED WITH AMBASSADOR CHAS FREEMAN: THE LATEST ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, IN PARTICULAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. STAY TUNED.

J.Z.: WELCOME BACK. I’M JIM ZOGBY, AND OUR NEXT GUEST IS AMBASSADOR CHARLES
FREEMAN. HE’S HAD A LONG, DISTINGUISHED CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE. HIS DIPLOMATIC
EXPERIENCE INCLUDED POSTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA, EAST ASIA, EUROPE, AND INDIA. HE WAS THE PRINCIPAL AMERICAN INTERPRETER DURING PRESIDENT NIXON’S
HISTORIC CHINA VISIT IN 1972 AND SERVED AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA
FROM 1989 TO 1992 DURING THE DESERT SHIELD AND DESERT STORM OPERATIONS.
FOLLOWING THAT HE SERVED AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, AND SINCE 1997 HE’S BEEN PRESIDENT OF THE MID
EAST POLICY COUNCIL HERE IN WASHINGTON. THANKS FOR JOINING US.

Ambassador Charles Freeman: PLEASURE, JIM.

J.Z.: CHAS, LISTEN, I WANT TO START, ACTUALLY, WITH A POLITICAL QUESTION.
I KNOW THAT’S NOT WHAT YOU DO, BUT I JUST WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE ON IT.
CONGRESS JUST BLINKED. I THINK THAT A COUPLE DAYS AGO THERE WAS—THERE WERE VERY FEW, MYSELF INCLUDED, WHO COULD JUST NOT IMAGINE THAT GEORGE BUSH
WAS GOING TO GO HOME MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND WITH A BILL, THAT
CONGRESS WAS GOING TO DO WHAT THEY DID. THEY DID. WERE YOU SURPRISED?

Freeman: NO, NOT REALLY. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN FRAMED IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING THE TROOPS. NOBODY EVER ASKS, “SUPPORT THE TROOPS TO DO WHAT?” WHAT MISSION ARE THE TROOPS OVER THERE TO ACCOMPLISH, AND WHEN WOULD WE KNOW THEY HAD ACCOMPLISHED IT?
AND WHEN YOU PHRASE THE MATTER THAT WAY, SUPPORT THE TROOPS, EVERYBODY HAS
TO LINE UP BEHIND IT. SO IT’S A CLEVER WAY OF EVADING THE BASIC QUESTION, WHICH IS WHO ARE WE FIGHTING? WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?
AND THEN IS THERE ANY HOPE OF BRINGING OFF ANYTHING THAT REMOTELY
RESEMBLES SUCCESS?

J.Z.: YOU’VE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE POLICY IN IRAQ. THE PRESIDENT NOW HAS PROBABLY A FREE HAND, I WOULD SUGGEST, FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF.
IF THE CONGRESS, AFTER THE LAST ELECTION, WASN’T ABLE TO DO
ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT THEY JUST DID, I WOULD ASSUME HE’S HOME-FREE UNTIL 2009.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL DO NOW WITH
THIS NEW SORT OF BREATHING ROOM THAT THEY HAVE? MORE OF THE SAME?
DO YOU THINK THEY’RE GOING TO SHIFT DIRECTION, OR DO YOU EXPECT
ANYTHING DIFFERENT TO COME?

Freeman: YOU’RE THE EXPERT ON POLITICS, NOT ME.
BUT I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE A FREE HAND.
I THINK HE’S VERY NERVOUS ABOUT THE REPORTS THAT WILL COME OUT
ON THE BENCHMARKS THAT THE BILL ESTABLISHES.
I THINK BASICALLY THIS IS OVER, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS
THERE’S NO MILITARY SOLUTION IN IRAQ. THE MILITARY UNDERSTAND THAT AND HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT’S NOW PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE IRAQIS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF CRAFTING A POLITICAL SOLUTION. THEY SEE THEIR POLITICS AS A ZERO SUM GAME. IT’S A FATAL GAME FOR A LOT OF THEM.
AND I WATCH THE POLLS HERE, AND I SEE A NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO WANT OUT GOING UP ALL THE TIME, AND I THINK THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT.
AND SO I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT IS HOME-FREE ON THIS.
WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IN IRAQ IS UNDOUBTEDLY MORE OF THE SAME.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE, SINCE WE DON’T REALLY KNOW. WE DON’T
HAVE A STRATEGY. “SUPPORT THE TROOPS” IS NOT A STRATEGY.
IT’S A POLITICAL IMPERATIVE. WE DON’T HAVE A STRATEGY.
WE’RE NOT GOING TO MAKE PROGRESS.

J.Z.: THERE ARE THOSE IN THE REGION WHO ARE DESPERATELY CONCERNED
ABOUT IRAQ FALLING APART EITHER IN TERMS OF CIVIL WAR OR SORT
OF THE SPREADING OF THE CONFLICT BEYOND. YOU JUST HEARD
RAMI KHOURI TALKING ABOUT THIS METASTASIZING OF AL QAEDA NOW INTO SPLINTER GROUPS AND SUB-GROUPS AND COPYCAT GROUPS. WE SAW EXPLOSIONS IN NORTH AFRICA. THEY’RE IN EUROPE. THEY’RE NOW—ASSUMPTIONS ARE THEY’RE IN GAZA AND IN LEBANON,
ET CETERA. HE FEARS THERE’D BE MORE OF THE SAME.
SECONDLY THERE IS THE CONCERN ABOUT IRAN BEING NOW EMBOLDENED AND
EMPOWERED BY THIS WAR. WHAT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE HERE?
IF IT DOESN’T GET SOLVED, IF AMERICA CAN’T WIN IT, IF WE
CAN’T FIND A DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY TO MAKE THE IRAQIS COME TOGETHER, AND
IF WE JUST WALK AWAY, WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS?

Freeman: WELL, I THINK THE FIRST THING IS THAT NOBODY IN THE REGION, WHETHER THEY’RE IRAN OR SYRIA OR TURKEY OR SAUDI ARABIA OR KUWAIT OR JORDAN, WANTS THE
NEIGHBORS, IN EFFECT, WANT IRAQ TO BREAK UP, AND THEY WILL WORK VERY
HARD TO AVOID IT BREAKING UP BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THEM WOULD BE
PRETTY DIRE IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COHESION AS NATION-STATES. SO I DON’T THINK THE PROBABILITY OF BREAK-UP IS HIGH. IT’S A POSSIBILITY.
BUT I DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE TOLERABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS, AND
THEREFORE I DON’T THINK IT WOULD WORK. WHAT IS LIKELY IS CONTINUED EMPOWERMENT OF IRAN. THAT’S BEEN THE PRINCIPAL IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF OUR ADVENTURE—OR
MISADVENTURE—IN IRAQ. WE’VE GIVEN IRAN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE IN IRAQ AND DESTROYED IRAQ AS A BALANCE TO IRAN IN THE REGION. WITH THE RAPE OF LEBANON LAST YEAR, WE ENSURED THAT IRAN WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE ITS FRIENDS IN LEBANON, HEZBOLLAH EMERGE AS A DOMINANT POLITICAL POWER THERE. AND IRONICALLY,
BY TRYING TO ISOLATE HAMAS, THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN PALESTINE
AMONG THE PALESTINIANS, WE’VE LEFT THEM WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT
TO TURN TO IRAN, TOO.
SO WE’VE GIVEN IRAN WHAT IT LOOKED FOR FOR DECADES AND COULDN’T
FIND—NAMELY, AN OPENING TO SUNNI-ARAB POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND
A FOOTHOLD IN PALESTINE. SO THIS IS LIKELY TO CONTINUE.
I DON’T SEE ANY LIKELY CHANGE.
IN THE MEANTIME, AS RAMI KHOURI WAS DISCUSSING, YOU SEE THE
SAUDIS REACTING WITH COVERT ACTION PROGRAMS IN PLACES LIKE
LEBANON, SOME PROBABLY IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES,
OTHERS NOT, AND OBVIOUSLY INTERVENING IN ANBAR PROVINCE AS WELL.
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR AL QAEDA LOSING GROUND THERE, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS EFFECTIVE SAUDI ACTION ON THE GROUND TO EXCLUDE THEM.
BUT IT’S NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, AND I DON’T SEE ANY PROSPECT IT WILL GET PRETTIER.

J.Z.: LET’S GET CALLERS OUT THERE INTO THE CONVERSATION.
IF YOU’RE HERE IN THE U.S., IT’S 1-800-528-2090.
IF YOU’RE CALLING FROM OVERSEAS, 001-202-842-5056.
AL GORE WAS ON TV THE OTHER NIGHT. HE SAID THIS WAS THE WORST BLUNDER
THAT HE CAN IMAGINE IN RECENT U.S. HISTORY, THIS WAR IN IRAQ, IN
TERMS OF THE DYNAMIC IT SET OFF IN THE REGION AND THE WORLD.
FAIR ASSESSMENT?

Freeman: I THINK SO. IN FACT, I DON’T THINK IT’S THE WORST BLUNDER IN RECENT
HISTORY. I THINK IT’S THE WORST BLUNDER IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY.
JUST THINK, NOT ONLY—THERE’S A NATURAL TENDENCY TO FOCUS ON THE REGION ITSELF, WHERE THE IMPACT IS GREATEST, BUT THIS HAS BASICALLY SUBJECTED OUR ALLIANCES TO SOMETHING CLOSE TO DESTRUCTION, IT’S ALIENATED OUR FRIENDS, IT’S COST US OUR
INTERNATIONAL PRESTIGE AND OUR FOLLOWING. WE CAN’T LEAD ANYMORE.
AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM THIS THING IS ENORMOUS.
IT HAS BASICALLY COST US THE POSITION OF GLOBAL SUPREMACY THAT
WE ENJOYED AFTER THE END OF THE FIRST GULF WAR, DESERT STORM,
AND IT HAS, IN A VERY IRONIC WAY, IT HAS DEVALUED THE DETERRENT VALUE
OF OUR MILITARY POWER BECAUSE IT’S SHOWN THE LIMITS OF MILITARY POWER
IN A VERY GRAPHIC WAY. AND IT’S ALSO SHOWN THE INABILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO SUSTAIN AN UNPOPULAR WAR OVER POPULAR OBJECTIONS AT HOME.
SO I THINK THE NET EFFECT OF THIS IS REALLY QUITE CATASTROPHIC.

J.Z.: YOU TOLD ME AS WE WERE BEGINNING TO START THE SEGMENT THAT
YOU HAD GIVEN A SPEECH THE OTHER NIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE U.S.
MUST DO TO REGAIN AND REBUILD ITS STATURE IN RELATIONSHIPS AROUND
THE WORLD. GIVE ME A SUGGESTION OR 2.

Freeman: WELL, I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY 2 OR 3 ELEMENTS TO
THIS. FIRST, WE’VE STRAYED FROM OUR OWN TRADITIONS.
WE’VE VIOLATED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS. WE’VE ABANDONED THE RULE OF LAW TO SOME EXTENT AT HOME. WE CERTAINLY DON’T—NOT RESPECTED ABROAD. WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THE U.N. CHARTER, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
WE ENGAGE IN KIDNAPPINGS AND TORTURE, APPARENTLY, AND LOCK PEOPLE UP IN
GUANTANAMO WITH NO CHARGE. AND SO I THINK THE FIRST THING IS WE HAVE TO REDISCOVER OUR OWN TRADITION OF RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT, INTERNATIONALLY, WE NEED TO BE SEEN
TO SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLE. WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE DON’T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE EXEMPT FROM THE RULES THAT WE SEEK TO APPLY TO OTHERS, BUT WE
WILL LIVE BY THEM, TOO. IF WE DON’T DO THAT, THEN WE’RE SCOFFLAWS, AND WE TELL—YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO PROTECT THE WEAK FROM THE STRONG, AND
IF THE WEAK HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN LAW, THEY HAVE TO GET A GUN.
IT’S NO ACCIDENT THAT THERE’S A LOT OF PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION GOING ON, AND IT’S GOING ON BECAUSE PEOPLE
ARE AFRAID OF US AND WHAT WE MIGHT DO. WE HAVE DOCTRINES OF PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK. WE HAVE A LOT OF TALK ABOUT JUST DOING WHATEVER WE PLEASE MILITARILY, AND WE SEEM TO MISUNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP. IT’S NOT ABOUT MILITARY POWER.
IT’S ABOUT THE POWER TO PERSUADE. SO, THESE ARE THE FIRST 2 THINGS.
THE THIRD THING, I THINK, FRANKLY, IS WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE
SOURCE OF OUR PROBLEMS IS. THERE IS ONE REGION OF THE WORLD WHERE THESE PROBLEMS CENTER, AND THAT’S THE MIDDLE EAST.
THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE DONE THINGS THAT HAVE COST US THE
PRESTIGE AND LEADERSHIP THAT WE’VE LOST IN THE FIRST PART OF
THIS CENTURY, AND THAT IS WHERE TERROR AND TERRORISM EMANATE FROM.
AND SO IF WE’RE GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM OF TERRORISM AND OUR
LEADERSHIP, WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON THE SAME PLACE. ON WHAT?
BASICALLY ON THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN ISSUE, WHICH IS THE SOURCE
OF THE RADICALIZATION OF THE REGION AND WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL
DRIVER FOR ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORISM NOT JUST IN THE MIDDLE EAST
BUT EVERYWHERE ELSE.

J.Z.: LET’S TAKE A CALL FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM FIRST.
CALLER?

Caller: OH, HELLO THERE.
MY QUESTION FOR MR. FREEMAN IS, WHAT IS MORE DANGEROUS TO
AMERICA—OR CAN AMERICA GET THEIR PRIORITY RIGHT—IS IT THE
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF IRAN, WHICH IT SEEMS TO BE A MORE
ORGANIZED COUNTRY AND IT’S HIGHLY UNLIKELY IT WILL ENDANGER THE
AMERICAN INTERESTS, OR AL QAEDA ANARCHISTS WHO REALLY HAVE NO AIM, AND THEIR AIM IS FOR MERELY DESTRUCTION? THANK YOU.

J.Z.: THANK YOU.

Freeman: WELL, I THINK THEY’RE BOTH PROBLEMATIC.
BUT IT’S AL QAEDA WHICH IS DIRECTLY ATTACKING THE UNITED STATES
AND WHICH, FRANKLY, HAS GIVEN US SOMETHING APPROACHING A
NATIONAL NERVOUS BREAKDOWN AND CAUSED US TO ACT QUITE
IRRATIONALLY AND INCUR THE COSTS THAT I JUST OUTLINED.
IRAN IS DETERMINED, I BELIEVE, TO DEVELOP A NUCLEAR DETERRENT.
BUT I THINK IT IS A DETERRENT. IT IS NOT A WEAPONS SYSTEM THAT IS INTENDED TO ATTACK ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE UNITED STATES.
THE IRANIANS MAY HAVE A RATHER STRANGE AND, TO MANY PEOPLE,
OBJECTIONABLE POLITICAL SYSTEM, BUT THEY’RE NOT CRAZY, AND THEY
KNOW THAT IF THEY ATTACK THE UNITED STATES, THEY WOULD BE
REPAID IN KIND IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING.
SO I WORRY A LITTLE MORE ABOUT OUR INABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE
CAUSES OF TERRORISM, NOT SO MUCH AL QAEDA. THAT’S MERELY ONE
SYMPTOM OF A BROADER ISSUE.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO LOUISIANA FOR A CALL. CALLER?
YES, YOUR QUESTION?

Caller: YES. I WAS WONDERING, WHAT ABOUT IRAN, THE ATOMIC BOMB—TO DROP ON
ISRAEL?

J.Z.: THANK YOU.

Freeman: I THINK THE SAME LOGIC APPLIES. ISRAEL IS WIDELY BELIEVED TO POSSESS A COUPLE OF HUNDRED NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND IN ITS OWN ESTIMATION IS THE SECOND
OR THIRD MOST MILITARILY CAPABLE COUNTRY ON EARTH. THERE IS NO WAY THAT IRAN IS GOING TO RISK OBLITERATION BY ATTACKING THE ISRAELIS.
AND I THINK, FRANKLY, THE ISRAELIS ENJOY OVERWHELMING MILITARY SUPERIORITY.
THAT’S NOT THEIR PROBLEM. THEIR PROBLEM IS THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO MAKE PEACE.
THEY’RE NOT INTERESTED AT THE MOMENT IN MAKING PEACE WITH THE PALESTINIANS.
THEY WANT TO PACIFY THEM, WHICH IS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT.

J.Z.: TELL ME, THOUGH, A CONCERN IN THE GULF IS THAT A NUCLEAR
IRAN WILL, NUMBER ONE, CREATE PROLIFERATION—OTHER COUNTRIES
WILL WANT IT AS WELL—AND SECONDLY THAT AN EMBOLDENED IRAN
PRESENTS A STRATEGIC CHALLENGE FOR DOMINATION OF THE GULF, WHICH
WOULD BE OF SOME CONSEQUENCE TO OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES TO THE SOUTH.
HOW DOES ONE DEAL WITH THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME?

Freeman: WELL, I THINK THEIR—
J.Z.: WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE?

Freeman: WELL, THERE 2 ISSUES WITH IRAN. ONE IS—AND THE ONE THAT I THINK IS OF GREATEST CONCERN TO OUR ARAB FRIENDS IS—THE EXTENT TO WHICH OUR ACTIONS IN THE VACUUMS WE’VE CREATED IN THE REGION ARE ALLOWING IRAN TO EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE INTO THE ARAB WORLD AND MORE BROADLY IN THE REALM OF ISLAM.
SO THE MAJOR CHALLENGE, I THINK, IS LEADERSHIP, POLITICAL, AND INFLUENCE BY IRAN THROUGHOUT THE REGION. THE SECONDARY THREAT IS THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM.
I THINK EVERYBODY’S CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND IT’S VERY LIKELY, IN MY ESTIMATION, THAT WE WILL END UP IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH SOMETHING RESEMBLING THE SITUATION IN SOUTH ASIA, WHERE WE HAVE A NUCLEAR STANDOFF BETWEEN A COUPLE OF MID-RANKING POWERS, INDIA AND PAKISTAN. IT’S VERY LIKELY THE ISRAELIS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR NUCLEAR MONOPOLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THAT IF IRAN DOES GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AS I THINK IT WILL AT SOME POINT,
BECAUSE IRAN IS A GREAT CIVILIZATION WITH A LOT OF VERY SMART
PEOPLE AND A LOT OF TECHNICAL DEPTH, THEN ISRAEL AND IRAN WILL CONFRONT EACH OTHER AND THE ARABS WILL ALSO FEEL OBLIGED TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
BUT THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS IS INSECURITY ON EVERYBODY’S PART.
IT’S NOT THE AVAILABILITY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT’S THE ISSUE; IT’S THE REASONS PEOPLE FEEL THEY NEED TO ACQUIRE THEM. AND FRANKLY, AT THE MOMENT, THE MAIN REASON IRAN WANTS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS THAT WE AND ISRAEL KEEP THREATENING TO ATTACK IT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO WEST VIRGINIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES, THANK YOU.
I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN,
WHEN HE WAS STILL IN POWER, AND ISLAMIC RADICALISM. WAS HE AGAINST ALL FUNDAMENTALIST RADICALISM? WAS IT JUST AL QAEDA? WAS IT JUST THE SHIITES?
WHAT WAS HIS PROCEDURE THERE?

Freeman: I THINK SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS BASICALLY AN ATHEIST THUG.
I DON’T BELIEVE HE HAD ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH OF ANY PARTICULAR
NATURE. HE EMBRACED ISLAM DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR SUDDENLY AND
STUCK “ALLAHU AKBAR” ON THE IRAQI FLAG IN THE SAME MANNER THAT STALIN EMBRACED
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM AND CHRISTIANITY WHEN HE FELT
THREATENED BY THE NAZIS IN THEIR INVASION OF RUSSIA IN WORLD
WAR II. SO I THINK HE WAS QUITE SINCERELY ANTITHETICAL TO BOTH SHIITE
RADICAL THOUGHT AND SUNNI RADICAL THOUGHT AND HAD A VERY, VERY UNEASY RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH TENDENCIES. AND I NOTE THAT HIS PRINCIPAL STRATEGIC PROBLEM WAS MANAGING THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION IN IRAN, WHICH IS A RADICAL FORM OF ISLAM THAT HAS NOW FOUND ITS EXPRESSION IN IRAQ AS WELL.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO ARIZONA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES. MYSELF INCLUDED, MANY PEOPLE THOUGH THAT WE INVADED IRAQ FOR ITS OIL AND BASICALLY TO ESTABLISH MILITARY BASES THERE.
WHY IS EVERYBODY IGNORING THE FACT THAT AT THIS MOMENT IRAQ IS
AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY, OCCUPIED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WHERE WE ARE NOW ARM-TWISTING THE GOVERNMENT THERE INTO PRIVATIZING THE OIL, AS BUSH WANTED TO BEGIN WITH? AND WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE 14 PERMANENT MILITARY BASES WE NOW HAVE IN IRAQ? THAT’S MY QUESTION.

Freeman: WELL, OF COURSE, YOUR QUESTION GOES TO A FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM, WHICH IS THAT NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN CONSISTENTLY WHY WE INVADED IRAQ. THE REASON HAS SHIFTED FROM MINUTE TO MINUTE AND MONTH TO MONTH
AS EVENTS HAVE PROCEEDED. I NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT OIL, FRANKLY.
AND IF IT WAS, IT WAS CERTAINLY A FAILURE BECAUSE PRIOR TO OUR INVASION, IRAQ WAS A RELIABLE SUPPLIER OF OIL TO THE WORLD MARKET AND TO US, AND NOW IT IS NOT,
DUE TO THE ANARCHY IN IRAQ. AS FOR THE BASES, I THINK THE NEOCONSERVATIVE GROUP THAT HAD SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION DID INDEED SEE
IRAQ AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SAUDI ARABIA AND THE OTHER COUNTRIES
OF THE GULF FROM WHICH TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE
MIDDLE EAST, AND THEY SAW FLATTENING THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME AND THE IRAQI MILITARY POWER AS BENEFICIAL TO THE SECURITY OF
ISRAEL, WHICH THEY CARED A LOT ABOUT. SO I THINK THE MILITARY BASES REMAIN A SERIOUS ISSUE, AND I NOTE THAT TO THIS DAY OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PUBLICLY
DECLARED ITS INTENTION TO REFRAIN FROM BUILDING OR ACQUIRING
MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ, AND THAT’S A BIG ISSUE BETWEEN US AND
ORDINARY IRAQIS.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO TUNISIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: YES. HI, JIM. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR AMBASSADOR FREEMAN. HI, AMBASSADOR.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT REVISING U.S. POLICY, AND I WANTED JUST TO ASK YOU, THE
ROLE OF APAC WOULD NOT MAKE THINGS EASY FOR A RADICAL CHANGE IN U.S. POLICIES. DO YOU AGREE WITH ME?

Freeman: OH, I COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY AGREE.
IN MANY RESPECTS, THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM NOW EMPOWERS
SPECIAL INTERESTS, VESTED INTERESTS, AND IN THE CASE OF MIDDLE
EAST, NOT ONLY APAC, BUT THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN ZIONIST
MOVEMENT, THAT IS, FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS WHO READ THE BIBLE
LITERALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE HOLY LAND AND WHO OPT TO BE THERE, HAVE VERY MUCH A CONTROLLING POSITION. SO I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO FLORIDA FOR ONE LAST CALL IN THIS SEGMENT. CALLER?

Caller: YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHOW.
I WANTED TO ASK AMBASSADOR FREEMAN IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS ABOUT
THE SUBTEXT OF A CHRISTIAN CRUSADE AMONG THE U.S. MILITARY? I RECALL READING ABOUT GENERAL BOYKIN HAVING THIS TYPE OF TAKE ON THIS WAR, ATTACKING IRAQ AND JUST THE MIDDLE EAST IN GENERAL.

Freeman: I THINK THIS IS EXTRAORDINARILY UNHELPFUL.
IF WE’RE GOING TO ENGAGE IN WAR EITHER ON A RELIGION OR ON ITS 1.3 BILLION OR 1.4 BILLION ADHERENTS, WE’RE TAKING ON MORE THAN A HORNET’S NEST,
WE’RE TAKING ON AN ENTIRE CONGERIES OF HORNETS’ NESTS AND RISK. I THINK TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES. THIS COUNTRY HAS TRADITIONALLY SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE, AND I
THINK THAT WAS A WISE IDEA OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, AND WE OUGHT
TO CONTINUE TO ADHERE TO IT.

J.Z.: THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, CHAS FREEMAN. LISTEN, THANKS FOR THE CALLS.
WE’RE GONNA BE BACK WITH MORE CALLS ABOUT U.S. IMMIGRATION REFORM.
STAY WITH US. WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK.

J.Z.: I’M JIM ZOGBY AND YOU’RE WATCHING “VIEWPOINT.”
MY NEXT GUEST IS DENYSE SABAGH, PARTNER AND HEAD OF IMMIGRATION
PRACTICE GROUP AT THE LAW FIRM DUANE MORRIS. SHE’S FORMER NATIONAL PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND CURRENTLY SERVES ON THEIR BOARD OF GOVERNORS. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU, DENYSE, ABOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM. AND IT’S IN THE NEWS TODAY BECAUSE A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED IN THE SENATE, AND IT’S NOW BEING DEBATED OR—ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, SOME VOTED UP OR DOWN DURING THE WEEK.
I WANT TO LOOK, THOUGH, AT THE BILL AS IT IS, AND I WANT TO START, IF I COULD, WITH AN EDITORIAL IN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” ON IT.
THE EDITORIAL FIRST BEGINS WITH A QUOTE. IT SAYS “A DEEPLY FLAWED
COMPROMISE. THEY TRIED TO BREAK THE CHASM BETWEEN BRITTLE
HARDLINERS WHO WANT THE COUNTRY TO STOP ABSORBING SO MANY
OUTSIDERS, AND THOSE WHO WANT TO GIVE—ILLEGAL ONES, TOO—A FAIR AND
REALISTIC SHOT AT THE AMERICAN DREAM.”
THEN THE EDITORIAL GOES ON TO LIST THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE AWFUL IN THE
LEGISLATION. “THE GOOD” THEY IDENTIFY AS THIS PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THE UNDOCUMENTED, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL BE HARD, LONG, AND QUITE
TEDIOUS. “THE BAD” IS THAT IT ELIMINATES THE FAMILY PREFERENCE VISA AND
ELIMINATES THE EMPLOYER SPONSORSHIP VISA IN FAVOR OF A POINT
SYSTEM. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT.
AND “THE AWFUL” IS THE TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER PROGRAM.
THE EDITORIAL CONCLUDES WITH THE FOLLOWING: “IT’S PAINFUL THEREFORE FOR MANY REASONS TO OPPOSE THE IMMIGRATION DEAL. IT IS THE NATION’S DUTY TO WELCOME IMMIGRANTS, TREAT THEM DECENTLY, AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIMILATE.
BUT IF IT DOES SO ACCORDING TO THE OUTLINES OF THE DEAL BEING
DEBATED THIS WEEK, THE CHANGE WILL COME AT TOO HIGH A PRICE.”
“THE NEW YORK TIMES” IS OPPOSED TO IT. WHERE ARE YOU ON IT?

Denyse Sabagh: I’M OPPOSED TO IT. I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO IT IN ITS CURRENT STATE. I THINK THAT UNLESS THERE ARE WHOLESALE CHANGES IN THIS BILL,
THIS BILL IS AN UNWORKABLE BILL, AND THIS BILL ACTUALLY, I THINK, MANAGED TO CREATE PROBLEMS FOR EVERYBODY AS OPPOSED TO HELP PEOPLE.

J.Z.: YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT TODAY—I WANT TO TALK FIRST ABOUT THE 3 PARTS OF THE BILL: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE AWFUL.
THE GOOD—THE PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THE UNDOCUMENTED. ALMOST THE
CLEAREST SENSE I HAD OF HOW DIFFICULT THIS IS IS A QUOTE—SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, SPEAKING BEFORE A CONSERVATIVE GROUP, TRYING TO GET THEIR SUPPORT. HE PROBABLY MADE THIS PATHWAY ABOUT AS ROCKY AND AS LONG AND WINDING A ROAD AS HE POSSIBLY COULD. HE SAID, “I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE BELLY-ACHING FOR. IT’S GONNA TAKE 8 TO 15 YEARS. THEY HAVE TO PAY THIS MONEY. THEY HAVE TO GO BACK HOME.” I MEAN, IT IS NOT QUITE A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT AMNESTY. IT’S A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS, THIS GETTING THE 12 MILLION WHO
ARE HERE UNDOCUMENTED NOW ON THE PATHWAY.

Sabagh: WELL, I MEAN, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE BILL WITH THIS PATHWAY
TO—IT’S REALLY A PATHWAY TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO A PATHWAY, I MEAN, EVENTUALLY CITIZENSHIP, BUT THAT WOULD TAKE MANY MORE YEARS.
BUT THEY HAVE TO PAY A $5,000 PENALTY. THEY HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER FILING FEE. IT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT $1,500-PLUS OR MORE. AND THEY HAVE TO THEN GET ON THIS LINE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO FILE EVEN FOR A GREEN CARD. IF YOUR FAMILY ISN’T WITH YOU, THEN YOUR FAMILY ISN’T GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME AND JOIN YOU. SO THAT’S A BIG PROBLEM FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND THE WAY THAT IT CURRENTLY IS SET UP IS THAT ONCE YOU’RE IN THE PATH, THEN YOU’LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A GREEN
CARD, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO GO—THEY SAY “TOUCH BACK”—BUT THAT TOUCH BACK IS A PRETTY BIG DEAL. THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO GO HOME AND APPLY AT THE U.S. EMBASSY
FOR A VISA, FOR AN IMMIGRANT VISA TO COME BACK IN. NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT.
IF THERE ARE 12 MILLION PEOPLE AND EVEN IF A SMALL PERCENTAGE WERE TO BE ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE TO APPLY, THAT MEANS ALL THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE U.S. EMBASSY? THE U.S. EMBASSIES CAN’T EVEN ACCOMMODATE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE NOW.

J.Z.: LET’S LOOK AT THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT INTRIGUED ME ABOUT THIS PATHWAY IS THAT IN ORDER FOR THE CLOCK TO BEGIN FOR YOU TO BE CONSIDERED,
CERTAIN TRIGGERS HAVE TO BE MET, AND THE FIRST TRIGGER IS THAT
TITLE I OF THE BILL HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED—18,000 BORDER
PATROL HIRED, 200 MILES OF BARRIER SET UP, 370 MILES OF
FENCING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND ESTABLISHING DETENTION CENTERS
THAT CAN HOLD UP TO 27,000 ARRESTED ALIENS PER DAY.

Sabagh: WELL, THEY JUST INCREASED THAT ACTUALLY. NOW IT’S—
J.Z.: PER DAY!

Sabagh: WELL, THEY JUST INCREASED IT. NOW IT’S 20,000 AGENTS, 300 MILES OF FENCING AND 31,000 BEDS. SO AS THE AMENDMENTS GO THROUGH ON THIS, WHICH JUST HAPPENED, THEY’RE MAKING IT EVEN MORE PUNITIVE. AND TO THINK ABOUT HOW THOSE TRIGGERS COULD ACTUALLY BE MET, I MEAN, THINK ABOUT THIS.
THEY CAN’T EVEN HIRE 2,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN A YEAR.
THE IDEA THEY THINK THEY’RE GOING TO HIRE 20,000 BORDER PATROL
AGENTS AND BE ABLE TO THEN TRIGGER THE PROCESS FOR LEGALIZATION IS, I
THINK, WILDLY OPTIMISTIC.

J.Z.: I HATE TO PILE ON HERE. I MEAN, I RARELY GET THIS INCENSED ABOUT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BUT THIS ONE REALLY DID IT TO ME BECAUSE AS I LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH 12 MILLION OF THESE APPLICANTS, ANOTHER 400,000 GETTING THESE SO-CALLED “Y VISAS”—
Sabagh: THEY CUT THAT TO 200.

J.Z.: AND THEN CLEARING THE 4 MILLION WAITING LIST OF FAMILY PREFERENCES THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE. THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN, AND YET ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME IS, OK, 18,000 OR 20,000 BORDER PATROL, BUT NO MONEY TO INCREASE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF IMMIGRATION OFFICERS WHO WOULD BE PROCESSING ALL OF THIS.

Sabagh: THAT’S WHY THEY SAY THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE IT SUPPOSEDLY
FEE-BASED, SO THAT PEOPLE THAT APPLY, THE FEE WILL BE GENERATED
SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE COST OF PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS.

J.Z.: HMM. LET’S GET SOME FOLKS OUT HERE INTO THE CONVERSATION.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM AND WHAT IT MEANS
FOR THE COUNTRY, WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNDOCUMENTED IN THE
COUNTRY, WHAT IT MEANS FOR THOSE TRYING TO GET INTO THE COUNTRY, CALL US AT 001-202-842-5056. IF YOU’RE HERE IN THE U.S., CALL AT 1-800-528-2090.
THE FAMILY PREFERENCE IS GONNA BE GONE, BUT FIRST THEY’RE GOING TO CLEAR THE 4 MILLION OR SO WHO ARE WAITING IN LINE. AND THAT MEANS THEY’RE GOING TO DO 440,000 A YEAR IS WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSEDLY COMMITTED TO DOING.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ELIMINATE THE FAMILY PREFERENCE?

Sabagh: WELL, IT ELIMINATES ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF OUR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION
POLICY HISTORICALLY. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE CHILDREN OVER 21, THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND PARENTS, EXCEPT FOR 40,000, DO NOT QUALIFY FOR A FAMILY-BASED PREFERENCE. THEY WOULD GO INTO THIS MERIT-BASED SYSTEM THAT THEY WANT TO IMPLEMENT. SO, THE FAMILY-BASED SYSTEM WOULD BE COMPLETELY DECIMATED. AND THE ONLY IMMEDIATE RELATIVES WOULD BE SPOUSES AND CHILDREN UNDER 21 OF U.S. CITIZENS. PARENTS WOULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED TO BE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES.
SO THIS WILL HAVE A VERY LARGE IMPACT ON FAMILIES IN THE UNITED
STATES WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING, AND ALSO THE CUTOFF—THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT A CUTOFF IN 2005—SO THAT IF YOU FILED YOUR PETITION AFTER THAT, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE COVERED.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO CALIFORNIA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: IS THAT ME? I’M A LEGAL IMMIGRANT TO THE UNITED STATES, AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT INFURIATES ME ABOUT THIS ENTIRE DEBATE IS HAVING LIVED THROUGH REAGAN’S AMNESTY, AND THAT DIDN’T STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHY ARE THE MIDDLE AND LOWER MIDDLE ECONOMIC CLASSES IN THE U.S. EXPECTED TO PAY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
BASICALLY BREAKING THE LAW AND MANY OF WHOM ARE COMING FROM A COUNTRY THAT SITS ON A SEA OF OIL WHEN WE HAVE NOTHING BACKING OUR DOLLAR? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM; IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMICS. AND
I WOULD INVITE THE WOMAN WHO IS SPEAKING TO COME TO THE BORDER
STATES AND SEE HOW DEVASTATED OUR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS ARE. THANK YOU.

J.Z.: THANK YOU.

Sabagh: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE CALLER’S CONCERNS, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF THE
SAME CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REIMBURSE THE STATES FOR THE RESOURCES THAT THEY PUT OUT FOR UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION. AND THAT IS A BIG ISSUE, AND THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE IN THE UNDOCUMENTED STATUS
ARE EITHER FAMILY MEMBERS OR ARE IN JOBS AND WORKING AND PAY TAXES AND
CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO FLORIDA FOR A CALL. CALLER?

Caller: WOULDN’T IT MAKE MORE SENSE PRACTICALLY TO FIRST SEAL
THE BORDER, BUILD A FENCE, STOP THE LEAKY BORDER, AND THEN
WORRY ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH THE 12 OR 30—WE DON’T EVEN KNOW
HOW MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENTERED OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY? I MEAN, IF WE DON’T HAVE A BORDER, WE’RE NOT EVEN A COUNTRY.

J.Z.: THANKS. THANKS FOR THE CALL.

Sabagh: YEAH. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE—THAT’S A VERY GOOD ISSUE THAT YOU BRING UP.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IS THAT IF YOU SOLELY HANDLE THIS BY ENFORCEMENT, YOU REALLY DO NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE HERE, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO COME. AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN, SO THAT
IT REALLY DOESN’T MEET THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OR THE FAMILY NEEDS.

J.Z.: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO FIX THE SYSTEM?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS IS TOTALLY BROKEN.
WE DON’T KNOW WHO’S HERE. WE DON’T KNOW HOW LONG THEY’VE BEEN HERE. WE DON’T
KNOW WHO’S COMING, AND MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS BILL DOESN’T FIX
IT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT’S ENFORCEABLE. I DON’T THINK THEY ACTUALLY COULD MAKE THIS WORK. AND I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU OUT THERE, IF YOU’RE WATCHING
THIS, TO TRY TO GET A SUMMARY OF THIS AND LOOK AT THE POINT
SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE, AND TRY TO THINK OF HOW A GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRACY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND MAKE IT
WORK. SO THE CONCERN IS, CAN IT WORK? BUT THERE’S NO QUESTION THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

Sabagh: THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN, AND TRYING TO
DO A HUGE PIECE OF LEGISLATION LIKE THIS—THE BILL IS, LIKE, 700, 800
PAGES LONG. IT COVERS SO MANY THINGS, SO MAYBE THE THING TO DO
IS TO TAKE SOME OF THE SMALLER ASPECTS, NOT DEAL WITH THE
UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION RIGHT NOW AND TRY TO WORK WITH THE
SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL WORKERS. NOW, THERE IS A BILL CALLED THE AG JOBS BILL THAT WAS A HIGHLY NEGOTIATED BILL BETWEEN THE FARM LABORER INDUSTRY AND THE EMPLOYERS. AND BASICALLY THAT BILL COULDN’T EVEN BE BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR BECAUSE OF THE POLITICS OF THE SITUATION. AND WE KNOW THAT PROBABLY OVER 70 PERCENT OF THE FARM LABOR IS UNDOCUMENTED.
SO IF YOU JUST TOOK THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION, WHICH IS AGREED
UPON BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS, YOU PROBABLY COULD
LEGALIZE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE.

J.Z.: WHAT ABOUT THE CALLER’S CONCERN, THOUGH? FIX THE BORDER ISSUE
FIRST.

Sabagh: WELL, THE BORDER ISSUE IS KIND OF—YOU KNOW, SYSTEMIC IN
THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO COME ACROSS THE BORDER
AS LONG AS THERE ARE JOBS. AND THERE IS NO WAY RIGHT NOW WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM WE HAVE FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND WORK LEGALLY AND EMPLOYERS TO HIRE PEOPLE
LEGALLY BECAUSE THE SYSTEM DOESN’T ALLOW IT.
SO IF YOU HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE VISA CATEGORIES, THEN YOU WILL THEN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED THAT COME AND ALSO THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE AT THE BORDER.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO MASSACHUSETTS. CALLER?

Caller: HI. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU KNEW OF ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE
PLACED ON UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
ACTUALLY BECOMING LEGAL? I’M AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND I’VE BEEN MARRIED TO MY HUSBAND FOR 5 YEARS, AND HE’S ILLEGAL. THE WAY THAT HE CAME INTO THE COUNTRY, HE DIDN’T COME IN ON A VISA, AND HE HAS NO WAY TO ADJUST.

J.Z.: OK. THANKS.

Sabagh: WELL, AND UNDER THIS LAW, ASSUMING IF YOUR HUSBAND HAS BEEN HERE SINCE JANUARY, THEN HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY IF THIS BILL PASSED. THEY WOULD THEN TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE BARS TO THE APPLICATIONS, BUT HE WOULD PROBABLY BE TAKEN CARE OF UNDER THIS BILL.

J.Z.: DOES IT APPLY TO THOSE ARABS AND MUSLIMS WHO WERE SORT OF
DEALT OUT OF THE EQUATION BY NSEERS, THE SPECIAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM?

Sabagh: YOU KNOW, IT REALLY DOESN’T TALK ABOUT THAT.
BUT IT TALKS ABOUT, IT EXPANDS—THE OTHER THING YOU DON’T HEAR ABOUT THIS
BILL IS THAT IT EXPANDS THE CATEGORIES FOR REMOVAL, EXPANDS AND
ENHANCES PENALTIES FOR DEPORTATION. AND FOR THE NSEERS PEOPLE, IT
DOESN’T ADDRESS IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT I THINK THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT EVERY—IT’S NOT IN THE BILL SPECIFICALLY. SO THAT, I THINK, COULD BE ARGUED.
HOWEVER, IT DOES ELIMINATE FROM THIS BILL PEOPLE WHO HAVE
CRIMINAL—EVEN THE SMALLEST OF CRIMES, LIKE 3 MISDEMEANORS, ONE FELONY,
D.U.I., OR RECKLESS DRIVING THAT RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE. IF YOU HAVE A PRIOR DEPORTATION ORDER, YOU’RE NOT ELIGIBLE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THIS BILL APPEARS TO GIVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THE
PATH TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY, IT PROBABLY DOES NOT.

J.Z.: LET’S GO TO CALIFORNIA. CALLER? YES, YOUR QUESTION.

Caller: I HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF ALL OF THESE
PROBLEMS. IT IS THAT, WOULD IT NOT BE MORE USEFUL FOR THE UNITED STATES
INSTEAD OF SPENDING MONEY KEEPING ALIENS TO SEND FOREIGN AID
TO PLACES LIKE MEXICO AND ELSEWHERE, WHICH HAVE OVERPOPULATION
PROBLEMS, AND WE COULD RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING? THE SAME
COULD BE APPLIED TO THE WAR ON DRUGS IN COLOMBIA, OFFERING SOME MEANS OF
INCOME FOR—
J.Z.: WE’VE TRIED A NUMBER OF APPROACHES. THANKS FOR THE CALL.
WE TRIED ACTUALLY TO BUILD THESE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES ON THE
BORDER. THAT DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE WORKED.

Sabagh: NO, THAT DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE WORKED. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK IS LOST IN THIS IS THAT IN TERMS OF FOREIGN AID, THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMAL FOREIGN AID BEING SENT TO A LOT OF THESE COUNTRIES BECAUSE MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE SEND MONEY HOME. AND IN RETURN WHAT THAT DOES IS IT STIMULATES THE ECONOMY BOTH FOR MEXICO AND EL SALVADOR AND SOME OF THE OTHER CENTRAL AMERICAN
COUNTRIES. INFORMAL FOREIGN AID CONTRIBUTES TO PROBABLY ABOUT 30 PERCENT OF THEIR GROSS INCOME.

J.Z.: ONE OF THE REALLY TROUBLING STORIES I HEARD ON RADIO A WHILE
BACK WAS ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS IN MEXICO. IT WAS GUATEMALANS AND SALVADORIANS MOVING NORTH TO FIND JOBS IN SOUTHERN MEXICO, REPLACING MEXICANS WHO WERE MOVING NORTH TO FIND BETTER-PAYING JOBS IN THE U.S., AND THE
TREATMENT BY MEXICAN AUTHORITIES OF THE GUATEMALANS AND SALVADORIANS WAS ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE. IT WAS A DISTURBING STORY OF A PHENOMENA IN THE HEMISPHERE OF THIS MIGRATION OF LABOR, AND CLEARLY, AS DIFFICULT AS THE
SITUATION MAY BE HERE, THE MEXICAN TREATMENT OF THE UNDOCUMENTED
IS HORRIBLE.

Sabagh: RIGHT. WELL, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE IN THE UNITED STATES TRY OUR BEST TO COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT WORKS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL IS NOT THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE’D LIKE TO SEE IS SOMETHING THAT’S MORE WORKABLE, THAT ISN’T SO COMPLICATED, THAT WOULD
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN BUSINESS AND THE AMERICAN
FAMILY. I ALSO THINK THAT IF YOU LOOKED AT UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, OR
YOU LOOK AT IMMIGRATION IN THE NEGATIVE, THEN YOU WILL LOOK AT IT AND SAY WE HAVE TO STOP THIS FLOW. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IMMIGRATION IN THE POSITIVE WHERE IT HAS INDEED REVITALIZED CITIES, IT HAS INDEED CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SOCIAL
SECURITY, AND WE KNOW WE NEED WORKERS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS TOLD US THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AND OUR ECONOMISTS TELL US WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH WORKERS. WELL, IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THAT AND ACTUALLY TAKE IT TO HEART, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A MUCH DIFFERENT VIEW OF HOW WE VIEW THE IMMIGRANT, SO THAT THEY ARE THE RISK-TAKER. THEY ARE THE ONE THAT COMES IN. THEY’RE THE ONE THAT REVITALIZES THINGS. I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PROBLEMS ON THE BORDER. I KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF ISSUES.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WITH SOME FEDERAL MONIES GOING INTO THE
BORDER STATES TO HELP THEM THAT THIS WOULD RE-SHIFT THIS DEBATE
SO THAT WE CAN REFRAME THE ISSUES.

J.Z.: ONE QUICK QUESTION, BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE A FEW SECONDS LEFT.
DO YOU THINK WE’RE GOING TO GET A BILL THIS YEAR OR NOT? Sabagh: I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A BILL AND,
FRANKLY, I DON’T THINK THIS IS THE BILL WE WOULD WANT.

J.Z.: DEMOCRATS DIVIDED, REPUBLICANS DIVIDED.
IS IT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL?

Sabagh: ABSOLUTELY.

J.Z.: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, DENYSE SABAGH.
WE’RE GONNA BE, OBVIOUSLY, TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME TO COME
BECAUSE IT’S GONNA BE WITH US, I THINK, ALL YEAR. THAT’S ALL THE TIME WE’VE GOT RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I CLOSE, I WANT TO MENTION THAT LAST WEEK’S PROGRAM THAT WAS
DAVIDSON AND BAGHDAD 4 YEARS LATER, THE DIALOGUE WE HAD BETWEEN
STUDENTS HERE AND STUDENTS IN BAGHDAD, IS NOW AVAILABLE ON DVD.
IT’S A THOUGHT-PROVOKING DIALOGUE BETWEEN STUDENTS, AND I THINK
YOU WILL ENJOY IT.
YOU CAN ORDER A COPY. JUST GO TO MY WEBSITE, WWW.AAIUSA.ORG/DVD AND YOU CAN GET A COPY OF IT THROUGH US.
A PROGRAMMING NOTE. NEXT WEEK’S “VIEWPOINT” MOVES TO THURSDAY, SAME TIME, SAME
STATION, BUT IT’LL BE ON THURSDAY FROM NOW ON.
I WANT TO THANK MY GUESTS RAMI KHOURI, CHAS FREEMAN AND DENYSE SABAGH.
AND SEE YOU NEXT WEEK ON “VIEWPOINT.” THANK YOU.