THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP HOST: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN PANEL: PATRICK BUCHANAN, MSNBC; ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK; TONY BLANKLEY, THE WASHINGTON TIMES; RAY TAKEYH, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS DATE: FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 2005
Copyright (c) 2005 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please visit http://www.fednews.com or call(202)347-1400
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: Iraq Tipping Point.
REP. WALTER JONES (R-NC): (From videotape.) That sometime in the near future, the ultimate fight of Iraq will and should rest in the hands of the Iraqis. We will continue to support them in their efforts, but they cannot forever be dependent upon America as the primary defense force in Iraq.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH): (From videotape.) Today is the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq. And our partnership reflects a shifting mood in Congress.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Start pulling out the troops from Iraq. That's the message of the Homeward Bound resolution, introduced this week by two Republican and two Democratic congressmen. One of the Republicans is Representative Walter Jones, who had strongly supported the Iraq war and had gained publicity for urging that the menu in the U.S. House cafeteria be changed from french fries to freedom fries to smear the French for their opposition to the Iraq war.
Now, 28 months later, a stronger and more sophisticated insurgency and 1,700 U.S. troops dead, Jones has signed on as a co- sponsor of the resolution, which calls on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by October 1, 2006, 15 months from now.
The push for withdrawal comes amidst relentless blood-letting in Iraq and new signs that the insurgency is growing and getting more sophisticated by the day.
LT. GEN. JAMES CONWAY (JOINT CHIEFS OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): (From videotape.) He is learning how to make his explosives more effective by combining different systems and then to give them more blast effect, if you will.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Insurgents are also shifting to advanced counter-electronics. When the U.S. military started using airborne jamming devices to stop remote-control bombs triggered by garage-door openers, insurgents began detonating them with infrared lasers. Not only is the insurgency getting smarter, it's getting bigger. "We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three." So says one U.S. military commander.
The growing strength of the insurgency is taking its toll also on the American public. Senator Lincoln Chafee describes how his constituents feel.
SEN. LINCOLN CHAFEE (R-RI): (From videotape.) "Why are we there?" And the president is saying, "We want to establish a democracy in the Middle East." Okay, what does that mean?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The percentage of Americans who believe some or all U.S. troops should be withdrawn, not in 15 months but now, is 59 percent.
Question: Is Iraq Bush's Vietnam? Pat Buchanan.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, we are about in 1967 in Vietnam. What's happening is the public gradually is moving away from the president of the United States, who has us locked in until victory is won. This small group here is a harbinger of what is going to come. I think people are going to start moving and voices are going to speak out and lead this so-called anti-war movement.
What the president has got to do, in my judgment, is move away from this Wilsonian rhetoric about democracy and lay it down to the American people what is at stake if we pull out prematurely and this thing goes down. But I think the White House ought to take this very, very seriously.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor, what do you think? Are we at a tipping point?
MS. CLIFT: Well, first of all, it's worse than Vietnam because Vietnam was a tiny country with no strategic importance, and we could declare victory and leave. Iraq is at the nexus of terrorism and oil, and it's a war that we don't know how to win and we can't afford to lose.
And the White House responds to the tipping point, if you will, in the country, and certainly on Capitol Hill, where people are talking privately now about trying to put more pressure on the administration to come up with some sort of rationale as to how they're going to conduct the war and when and if we're going to be able to get out; the White House's response is the president is going to give speeches on it.
I mean, what is he going to say? "Stay the course"? "Have patience"? "There's light at the end of the tunnel"? I mean, the phraseology is going to be very reminiscent of the Vietnam era and the credibility gap that Lyndon Johnson experienced, because what people see on their television screens and hear from the commanders on the ground is at enormous variance with the happy talk out of the White House.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is anybody talking about the draft?
MR. BLANKLEY: Is anybody? Nobody in the administration is talking about it. Most of the people who support the president and think he should have more troops -- Bill Kristol, me, for that matter -- are not talking about a draft. We think that you can tweak a system up for maybe 100,000 active troop strength.
But there's no doubt that, as the years progress, if we assign our military more responsibilities, that, as dysfunctional as the draft would be, given a volunteer army -- the professionalism of a volunteer army -- it becomes something plausible. I don't think in the next couple of years or three years, but it becomes something plausible.
Let me just briefly go back to this hysteria where you're getting a tipping point. The polling data overwhelmingly shows a very slow decline. A Pew study last week has 50 percent thinking Iraq is going well or fairly well.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Then give me that 59 percent figure.
MR. BLANKLEY: Look, depending on how you ask the question, you can get an awful lot of answers. The fact is, if you look over the body of polling, no one poll, you see a very slow decline from about 54 percent in favor of the war a year ago to about 50 percent now. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know he's at 42 percent in his ratings, approval ratings.
MR. BLANKLEY: No, he's not. No, the old --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's the NBC poll.
MR. BLANKLEY: That's the NBC poll. The old -- if you average all the polls of the last week, he's at 47.7.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mmm-hmm. (Acknowledging.)
MR. BLANKLEY: He was at 49.5 on the eve of his winning the election. You know, so as I've been saying for a year now, his polling numbers, his job approval, remain in the high 40s. There's been very little movement.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that's a heroic exposition there, Tony. Ray, welcome. Ray Takeyh, it's good to have you with us. Do you have any impressions of the Iraq situation?
MR. TAKEYH: Well, I think, to follow the theme of Vietnam, it is analogous in two respects. Number one, the inability or unwillingness of U.S. allies to actually shoulder the burden of reconstruction and defeating the insurgency. I mean, that was a persistent problem that you had in Vietnam.
And you began to see it in the case of Iraq; namely, Iraqi defense forces are just not capable and have not been capable for a long time.
Number two is, just in case of the Vietnam, the president doesn't seem to have a viable exit strategy. His exit strategy right now is democratization, creating a pluralistic, inclusive, democratic Iraq. That may never happen. He may have to have more modest ambitions.
To say one more thing about this Vietnam analogy, if you look at the poll -- and not so much the poll that you cited, but how many Americans think the original decision to get into Iraq was a mistake -- that's over 50 percent right now. In case of Vietnam, you don't get to that level of polling, Americans identifying intervention in Vietnam as a mistake, until aftermath of the Tet offensive.
So it leads me to believe that the popular support for the war is thin, it's soft, and it's eroding. And the president just has to get better clients in Iraq and some sort of viable exit strategy if he's going to stop the hemorrhaging.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, Tony is talking -- but, look, I think the president has got --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's Tony saying? Finish that sentence.
MR. BUCHANAN: First, the president is not going to get out, so he's got two choices. He can escalate and try to win this thing and change the situation or continue along the present course. And I thought the present course, after the election, seemed to be going well. But we are now in the same rotten situation we were before the election, with casualties at the same rate, more hits on the Iraqis, the Iraqis not taking over. He can't go down this road indefinitely or he will lose the 2006 election.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That leads into the exit question. But before that, the human toll: U.S. military dead in Iraq, including suicides, 1,717; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 41,100; Iraqi civilians dead, 111,700.
Exit question: How long can the commander-in-chief hold out before he must begin a phased withdrawal? Pat Buchanan. MR. BUCHANAN: He will hold out until the 2006 election. If the Republicans take a shellacking like Johnson took in 1966, I think on both parties you will have people coming out and saying, "It's time to go home."
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you know that the Homeward Bound resolution is dated for the phaseout to start in October of '06?
MR. BUCHANAN: It's October --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was that calculated by reason of the election?
MR. BUCHANAN: Exactly. It's October 1 of '06. And if you get a vote at that time, frankly, a lot of people are going to be put on the line. And I think a lot more Republicans by then, if we're still there, will say, go.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor, do you think the fallout, the fall-down -- that is, the recession in his ratings -- is going to force him to phase out earlier than October of '06?
MS. CLIFT: I don't think the president cares about the decline in his own ratings. He's not up for election again.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But he has the House of Representatives.
MS. CLIFT: Yes, yes. And I think that if they can get any kind of functioning government, as weak as it is, if they can get a constitution written -- they'll never meet the August deadline, but if they can get anything going, that the drawdown will begin much earlier next year, because all of the congressmen on Capitol Hill, their necks are on the line.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know, Dick Cheney says we're in the final throes of the insurgency.
MS. CLIFT: Dick Cheney is not speaking the truth. (Laughs.)
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Tony, what do you think?
MR. BLANKLEY: Well, first of all --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How long can he hold out?
MR. BLANKLEY: Well, first of all, this hodge-podge of gadflies, these four people, is a joke. That is never even going to come to the floor for a vote because there aren't enough Republican members in the House who want it to come to the floor for a vote.
It's been given a ton of publicity this week. You've got Kucinich. You've got Ron Paul, who is a libertarian and against all government. The only one you have that's at all interesting is the chap from North Carolina, who was wrong on french fries and he's wrong now. (Laughter.) My sense is --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He said that he got the message on french fries from God.
MR. BLANKLEY: Well, look --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He renamed it --
MR. BLANKLEY: My point is --
MS. CLIFT: I just want to say one thing. They're the canaries in the coal mine.
MR. BLANKLEY: Let me just --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Quickly.
MR. BLANKLEY: My point is --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: This is an exit question.
MR. BLANKLEY: My point is that I don't think -- the Congress will pressure the president on Social Security, not on this issue. He can hold out indefinitely.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think, Ray?
MR. TAKEYH: I think the president can hold out longer than the midterm election, and he's committed to this fight. What I think may happen --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: With no phasedown.
MR. TAKEYH: No phasedown. What may happen is what happened to Pat's old boss, Nixon, namely, the congressional erosion of support in Congress and the public imposes exit strategy on him, or at least restrains his choices in terms of prosecution of the war.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'll say six months he's got to start moving out.
When we come back, Iran goes to the polls in part two of the on- site report from Iran.
Issue Two: Iran goes to the polls.
Iranians went to the polls on Friday. Turnout was high. And the front-runners, with the vote count not yet official, are former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the pragmatist candidate, and Mostafa Moin, the reformist candidate. President Bush says he deplores the election, describing it as illegitimate.
Question: How does the election look to you? And do you think it's an illegitimate election?
MR. TAKEYH: Well, I think it's a circumscribed election in the sense that a lot of the candidates were excluded from participating. But if you look at the eight candidates that were eventually qualified to run, they do represent the broad spectrum of Iranian politics, ranging from some reactionary candidates on the right to a very robust reformist candidate. So they do actually tend to reflect the political makeup of Iran in terms of having wide diversity of --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Does the word "illegitimate," if not the word, at least the description, does that do more harm than good or good than harm in this particular situation where there's a lot of negotiation on the nuclear showdown to occur after the election?
MR. TAKEYH: Well, I'm not quite sure if I would have used the word "illegitimate," given the fact that the turnout seems to be larger than expected. And -- (inaudible) -- those phrases, as with "axis of evil," that tends to offend Iranians, not that because they love the mullahs, but they're offended by an American politician being imperious enough to denounce their political process.
And after the election, the president may just have to deal with the illegitimate government on the pressing issue of nuclear arms, because the Europeans are going to come to the United States and press for American concessions.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, let's move on. Here are some points from a reporting trip that I took the week before last. First of all, I want to describe briefly what Iran's nuclear electricity situation is, because what we're talking about here is the nuclear issue. The nuclear electricity -- and you can see this on the screen summarized for you, Pat, and if you don't understand it, let me know -- the shah set the policy 35 years ago. He wanted 20 reactors and he started building a few of those. Is that correct, Ray?
MR. TAKEYH: That's right.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And currently, the 10 percent of the total consumption of electricity over there is done by nuclear power and the goal is 20 percent. Hydroelectricity currently supplies 7 percent. Exported oil -- they like to sell that abroad because that's the sole source of their income, the oil. It's another reason why they want the nuclear electricity.
Petrochemical income is also favored. That's another reason why they want to preserve their oil, for that purpose. And Teheranís smog? I can testify to that. Twelve million people and about 50 million cars, right, all racing for the same -- (inaudible). It's incredible.
MR. TAKEYH: The traffic is very -- that's right.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And it's brilliantly executed, and they're brilliant drivers, but it's just beyond belief. Anyway, there's all clarity there. Let's proceed.
The U.S. position on the nuclear reactors; this is the position. Nuclear electricity is okay. They can have the nuclear reactors to produce electricity. Correct?
MR. TAKEYH: With some modification, but the United States doesn't want Iran to have a domestic enrichment capability. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We're getting to that. No enrichment to weapons-grade level.
MR. BUCHANAN: No enrichment.
MR. TAKEYH: No enrichment, period.
MR. BUCHANAN: No enrichment, period.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we used that bite last week, Pat.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, let me tell you --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They said at that point in the cycle, they have to drop out.
MR. BUCHANAN: Let me explain it to you now. The United States, under the NPT, you can enrich uranium to a certain level. The United States is now insisting on no enrichment because we do not trust them to go from -- not to go from 5 percent to 90 percent and get weapons- grade material.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Pat makes a good point. Iran's covert nuclear intent, the United States says, is to leap from electricity to the bomb; quit the nuclear -- they'd have to quit the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty as a signatory in order to do that. Right?
MR. TAKEYH: Yeah, but the idea being that once they complete the fuel cycle, they can get to a weapons capability within a short period of time and they can leave the NPT and actually be a nuclear arms state rather expeditiously.
MR. BUCHANAN: But you've got to have the cascades, and you've got to have a lot that they don't have. They are far, far away from a nuclear weapon right now, John -- far away. But what we're trying to do --
MR. TAKEYH: Well, that's a contested thing.
MR. BUCHANAN: No, here's -- it's not a contested thing. I don't know anybody that thinks they've got the enriched uranium to weapons- grade level at all or the ability to produce it.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think about what they think? They think that the United States brings dirty hands to the negotiating table. They talk about -- they mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also point out that we are developing a buster-bunker nuclear new bomb, so a nuclear strategy. They know about that.
MR. BUCHANAN: But John, this is a phony argument.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They said to me, "Take a look at Article VI." MR. BUCHANAN: It's a phony argument. After Hiroshima, they signed the NPT. How can they bring that up?
MS. CLIFT: Yeah, but we do send mixed messages. I mean, we say that we're the only country that's morally upright enough that can be trusted, and we don't trust anybody else except a handful of countries that we hand-pick.
MR. BLANKLEY: They just don't include terrorist states. That's all.
MS. CLIFT: Well, you know --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me refresh your recollection. They said to me, "Take a look at Article VI of the treaty." So I did. Here it is. "Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
MR. BUCHANAN: They have a valid point there. All the nuclear powers are supposed to move down toward zero nuclear weapons.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: None of them are doing it?
MR. BUCHANAN: And none of them -- well, frankly, Reagan did an awful lot moving back. But there's no doubt about it, we're a gigantic nuclear power and --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Bush did a little minuet with Putin a couple of years ago.
MR. BUCHANAN: There are seven other nuclear --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But now we're developing a new nuclear --
MR. BUCHANAN: No, you've got a buster-bunker thing that goes underground, the same bomb you can put on any other weapon.
MS. CLIFT: Iran is looking at this country. We invaded Iraq, that did not have weapons of mass destruction. We stay away from North Korea that has the weapons. And I don't think there is a politician that could win in Iran today saying, "We want a nuclear- free state."
MR. BUCHANAN: I agree with you.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let's move on. The current state with regard to nuclear enrichment; it's been suspended since '04. There is a Russian-Iran contract for one year of enriched uranium and one year of spent-fuel removal; no enrichment at all by Iran for one year. What does Iran get in the deal? We'll go on to that in a minute. There's a prospective deal here. So the Putin thing, they will go along with this. Does Iran really like doing business with Russia, inasmuch as Russia has not exactly treated them very well for the last 200 years?
MR. TAKEYH: Well, it's an opportunistic relationship in the sense that Iran gets nuclear technology and Russians get contracts from Iranians, which they tend to benefit, particularly their feeble nuclear industry. So it's not a natural-made alliance between the two.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want to make a point with regard to the deal or anything else that I just said?
MR. TAKEYH: There are two specific deals involved. There's one, the Bushir plant; namely, the deal that involves Russia and Iran. And that's not something, actually, that the United States is, at this point, all that concerned about.
The other aspect is that Iranians want to develop their other nuclear facilities in the towns and other places, and there are those activities that are suspended under the EU-Iran deal that is in effect right now.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: This is the deal. This is what Iran gets out of the prospective deal. This is a possible deal: All trade sanctions lifted -- this is what Iran gets -- assets defrozen worldwide; security guarantees; and the international community accepts Iran as a full player.
MR. BUCHANAN: What do they do?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do they do? Well, you're going to get that in a minute. Do you want to add to any of that? Do you, Eleanor?
MS. CLIFT: No, they also get Iraq served up on a platter because of the way that we have alienated that country. (Laughs.)
MR. BLANKLEY: And the other thing they would get, obviously, is they would have Israel be a nuclear-free zone, along with Iran, which will never happen, of course.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean what they're going to demand is that Israel become nuclear-free?
MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They'll never get that. They're not asking for that.
MR. BLANKLEY: If they're going to forbear from nuclear weapons --
MR. BUCHANAN: What do we get, John?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, this is what the West gets in this deal: IAEA inspectors on site 24/7, total on-site access; transparency unlimited; surrender the usage of the right to nuclear military power, as other signatories of the treaty do, but the right remains, so that it's part of their sovereign disposition whether to sign the treaty or not. The right remains.
MR. BUCHANAN: The right to enrich is there in the NPT, but they've got to give that up because we don't trust them.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: No, you didn't listen to what the president said last week. I underlined it on the screen. He was talking -- first of all, enrichment is not a static act. It's a cycle, okay?
MR. BUCHANAN: I know what it is. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: At various points you can get off the cycle. Is that true?
MR. TAKEYH: That's right. There's a difference between enrichment of uranium and completion of the fuel cycle. I mean, you --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You need 90 percent purity or something like that in order to create the bomb.
MR. TAKEYH: That's right.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You don't have to go there, but you can still run your plant.
MR. TAKEYH: I think it'd be difficult, into the current Iranian political contest, to accept an arrangement whereby they completely relinquish their right to enrich uranium.
MR. BUCHANAN: They won't do it.
MR. TAKEYH: What you can do is get arrangements whereby that right is circumscribed; it's limited to various experimental plans and pilot programs and so on.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Two more elements of what the West gets: Iran is open to renewals of the Russian delivery and collection system, which means that they might not want to go to any kind of enrichment. Correct?
MR. TAKEYH: On the Bushir plant. Now, they're talking about different plants.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, they might actually throw that in. As I understand it, they don't like to do that, but they can postpone the full enrichment for whatever nuclear power.
Crackdowns on Hezbollah and Hamas. Would Iran use --
MR. BUCHANAN: Good luck. (Laughs.)
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would Iran --
MR. BUCHANAN: Cut it out, John. (Laughs.)
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would Iran use the WMD, that is --
MR. BUCHANAN: Look --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Iranians are going to crack down on Hezbollah. MR. BUCHANAN: Let's take Hezbollah and Hamas and them. This is part of the character of this regime. It's why it exists. It's an Islamic regime. And Israel -- driving them into the sea and getting them out of the region is one of the raison d'etres of Iran. I don't care what they say; they will not give it up.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would Iran use the WMD? Let's take a look at that. It's irrational. It would mean self-annihilation. No Iranian expansionist move of any kind in --
MR. BUCHANAN: They don't want the WMD for that. You know what they want it for? It stops and checkmates the empire. They can't --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So we're talking not about military power. We're talking about political power, are we not?
MR. BUCHANAN: No nuclear power has ever had its homeland directly attacked.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think that we're really talking political power here, not military power?
MR. TAKEYH: Pat makes a good point. Iran, to the extent that one can say they want nuclear weapons, they want it for purposes of deterrence, as opposed to power projection.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, are they in a position of danger, as Israel says it is?
MR. TAKEYH: Well, they view not so much an Israeli threat to their homeland territory, but an American threat.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know the situation in Pakistan with Musharraf having been almost a victim of assassination. What happens if the radicals take over? And then we know there's even talk about a coup in Syria. There's a lot of instability there.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, Eleanor was exactly right. They look at -- "Look, we don't have nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't have them. Look what happened to Iraq. North Korea's got them. They're being treated nice. Get ourselves a weapon."
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Give me a quick exit question. When President Bush leaves office, will Iraq be more of a friend or more of an enemy?
MR. BUCHANAN: You mean Iran.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Iran, rather.
MR. BUCHANAN: I think -- I believe there will be an improvement in relations between --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean, more of a friend? MS. CLIFT: I do, too. They're all campaigning on improved relations with the West.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: More of a friend?
MR. BLANKLEY: Relations will not be improved from what they are currently.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, General. Will there be an improvement?
MR. TAKEYH: There will be an improvement if the United States wants an improvement. And I don't see any evidence of that at this point.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There will definitely be an improvement. The youth over there can't be stopped, and they are so strong.
We'll be right back with predictions.
Issue Three: Peeping Cops.
SGT. ROB MARONEY (MARYLAND STATE POLICE): (From videotape.) It levels the playing field for us at nighttime.
Instead of them having the cover of darkness to break the law, we have the playing field level with the lights through this unit that we use.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: "This unit" refers to night-vision goggles given to Maryland state police to make citizens wear their seat belts. Imagine that. "More than a few Marylanders may find something a bit creepy about officers in the dark peering through hand-held eyepieces, zeroed in on individuals' belt buckles." So writes the Washington Post.
The troopers used the goggles to issue over 100 tickets to rogue drivers, $3,000 in fines. Maryland Governor Republican Robert J. Ehrlich condemned the practice, calling it "government intrusion into private decision-making." He ordered the troopers to stop using the goggles.
Question: What's so wrong with cops using technology to enforce the law? Tony.
MR. BLANKLEY: Everything. Look, we ought to have a rule that, regarding traffic, policemen can only use their own natural senses. I'd take away radar from them. This has become fund-raising. These aren't law enforcement people anymore. They're raising money for the city coffers, and they're setting up speed traps and all these electronic devices. It's outrageous. They ought to be out chasing down criminals instead of catching law-abiding citizens driving 53 miles an hour in a 50 zone with these technologies. It's big brother and unneeded.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you a former prosecutor?
MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, I was.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You were.
MR. BLANKLEY: I am a former prosecutor, yes.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How many years did that take place?
MR. BLANKLEY: Seven and a half years. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Were you honorably discharged? (Laughter.)
MR. BLANKLEY: You don't get honorably or dishonorably discharged. You quit from a job, and I --
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, you weren't sacked?
MR. BLANKLEY: I came back with Reagan.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do they know you're permissive attitude -- do they know the way you condemn the law enforcement profession? (Laughter.)
How do we stand on this, yes or no, right or wrong, quickly.
MR. BUCHANAN: Half-way.
MS. CLIFT: Ehrlich was right. It's easy -- (inaudible) -- privacy.
MR. BLANKLEY: I say right just to go along.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wrong.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Out of time. Bye bye.