ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Up front tonight, Israel's case against Yasser Arafat. You probably all heard that Ariel Sharon is in Washington for meetings with top U.S. officials, including the president tomorrow. His mission: convince America that Yasser Arafat is behind the terrorist attacks against Israel. And he's brought with him a report, more than 100 pages of documents, outlining Arafat's complicity and showing a terrorist money trail that leads to Saudi Arabia.

Now, of course, this begs a question, doesn't it, because if this is true, the question arises should Israel be forced to deal with Yasser Arafat in any future peace negotiations? In light of America's own position that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists and make concessions to terrorists and so forth and so on, it would seem like that's a very clear and relevant question. And we'll be getting to it in various ways in the course of this program.

Joining us right now to talk about this report is Dr. Ranaan Gissen, the senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Dr. Gissen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

DR. RANAAN GISSEN, SENIOR ADVISER TO PRIME MINISTER SHARON: Thank you.

KEYES: Now, explain to the audience what the purpose of this report is that Prime Minister Sharon has brought with him, that has been distributed to the press. Why have you all taken such pains to draw all this evidence together? A lot of it is not new. But it's the first time it's all been put in one place. What is the purpose of this?

GISSEN: Well, I believe that at this stage it's not enough to say what we think about Arafat and to indicate what he has done. But it's important to bring evidence — hard, factual evidence — and allow the administration to make up their minds by themselves. We did not add any interpretation to the evidence. And that evidence can be crosschecked. As a matter of fact, I brought you copies of that evidence so you yourself can look at it, can check it, and then make up your mind.

Is this man a man a man that one can make peace with? Is this a man that the Palestinian people believe could lead them to peace? Or is this the man that the only thing he can offer is not peace of the brave as he offered us, but what he gave us, which is peace of the grave? And we've been burying our dead for the past 19 months.

KEYES: Now, I have looked over it because we downloaded it from the Israeli embassy Web site. And I looked over it in the course of this afternoon and evening. One of the things I noticed was that there was one summary table that showed various documents, which it looked like Yasser Arafat had signed off himself in terms of money that went to people who were then identified as part of various terrorist organizations or activities. Do you think that that constitutes a smoking gun here?

GISSEN: Well, you know, one of the incriminating points here is really what is at fault with the current structure of the Palestinian Authority? Everything is run by one man. And I don't believe that the Palestinian people deserve that.

You know, the money, which is supposed to go for certain other purposes, finds its way, as I said, either for terrorist activity or to the pockets of some people. Decisions with regard to the security forces — and there are so many of them, they're all separated — all controlled by one man by his whims, by his desire at the same time, and really not functioning as security forces but rather as forces which most of them support a terrorist activity like 417 and the various Palestinian police forces.

KEYES: One of the things, though, that is the context for the meeting between President Bush and Ariel Sharon as well as the report is the fact that strong statements have been made, especially by Secretary Colin Powell, suggesting that there is just no alternative to dealing with Yasser Arafat. Is the information that you're bringing forward here intended to try to change that position and to lay the groundwork for excluding Yasser Arafat from future negotiations?

GISSEN: Look, we are not getting involved in the decision making process in the United States. But because this case is very critical, not just to the future of our people, but to the future of the Palestinians and to the future of the peace process, we saw it our responsibility to present the full gamut of the evidence that has been accumulated in our hands and allow the United States government, in the current consultation that it does with the Arab leaders — with the Saudis, for example, with the Egyptians, and with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority — to reach its own conclusion what would be the best way to proceed with the peace process.

One cannot allow the peace process to become a hostage of one person. I believe that is the case. And I think that the Palestinians themselves have reached a moment of truth where they have to decide. Are they going to continue to allow their destiny to be governed by one man who sees only one course of action which leads them to more tragedies? Or are they willing to try a different approach?

We also brought a program — the prime minister has brought a program that he's going to present to the president, which offers another horizon for the Palestinian people, a way out of this predicament.

KEYES: You've also brought a document. Large sums of money transferred by Saudi Arabia to the Palestinians are used for financing terror organizations. And on this program I myself have raised a lot of questions about the role that the Saudis have played. But is this intended to raise some doubt about the sincerity of the Saudi commitment to the peace process and of the proposal that they have made? Why was this put on the table?

GISSEN: I want to say that when it comes to the peace process, the Arab world at large is on probation here. I mean, the onus of proof is on them. They have to prove that they really want peace.

We have made several concessions or we took measures in order to show our intention to make peace. We waived away seven days of quiet for a cease-fire. Arafat has been released from his solitary confinement, allowing him to move around, everything that can serve the purpose of peace. But we haven't heard one statement from one Arab leader condemning suicide-homicide bombing. This is a threat not just to the civilized, free world. This is a threat to Arab societies as well.

KEYES: But in light of that view, the sense of the fact that we've got Arabs on the other side who, to say the least, have a question mark behind the sincerity of their commitment to peace given all these activities involving terrorism and violence and so forth, in that context, what can be the reception that you're giving to this idea of Secretary Powell and Kofi Annan that there should be a global conference?

I was looking at this the other day. And this quartet that would sponsor the conference is the U.N., about which your government has raised serious questions in terms of its bias, the European Union, which has been pretty clear in its bias as well in interpreting things like Jenin in so forth. Even in advance of the facts, they came down very heavily in a negative way about Israel. Russia, which is in a powerless condition, especially with respect to the Middle East, and the United States, which has been putting pressure on Israel to bargain with Arafat and negotiate with the Arabs regardless of terrorism. Do you think in the context of all these question marks about the Arabs and their sincerity with respect to peace this kind of global conference has a chance of getting anywhere?

GISSEN: Well, yes, because I believe with what is wrong in the current approach, I would say, of trying to bring peace in one step is the fact that this never worked. This never worked. In the Middle East, if you want to move towards peace, you have to do it in a step-by-step approach, slowly.

There is a lot of adjustment that has to be done by the Palestinian people — reckoning with the new environment, with the new facts, with the fact that this is the world after September 11, not before that where the dividing line between those who support terrorism and those who are against it has been clearly drawn in the sand.

KEYES: See, but that's exactly what I'm saying, though, Dr. Gissen, because it seems to me that a conference of the sort that Powell and Annan have proposed seems to be a big a departure from the effort to develop a careful series of steps to get the kind of reciprocity that can then lead to greater confidence.

You sit everybody down around a table. Expectations are raised. Demands are made. If there isn't already a basis of some kind of trust and confidence, how can something like that work?

GISSEN: Well, demands are made for every side, not just from the Arabs. Demands are made on Israel as well. And Israel is willing to concede. And Israel is willing to make concessions, as the prime minister has said. But there has to be a clear understanding that the other side also has to make concessions for peace.

If peace is so important to the Arab world — and I believe it is because these societies are on the brink of disaster if they continue in this current approach of supporting terrorism. And they have to make a decision for their people. They have to assume responsibility for the life of their people. You can't just throw it on Israel. And right doesn't make right, you know?

KEYES: Dr. Gissen, what I'm saying, though, is as I look at the approach of a conference like this, it's the possibility of folks ganging up on one party or another, most likely on Israel, to get all kinds of concessions and so forth, but on behalf of states, on behalf of interlockers who are far from proving that they're actually in any sense at all sincere about their desire to actually implement any kind of peace accord. In that sort of context, with that kind of lack of trust which comes out of the existing situation and the evidence of Arab support for terrorism I say again, what sense does it make to have a global conference like this? It almost seems like a setup for Israel to be ganged up on when there really isn't a sincere will for peace on the other side.

GISSEN: That's exactly why I think the setup of such a conference will be a subject of thorough discussion between us and the United States and the Bush administration. And we have a very good dialogue and rapport with this administration. Perhaps it's the most friendly administration that Israel ever had. And indeed, we appreciate very much the courage and the tenacity and the determination of the president of the United States in its global war against terrorism and its overall policy to restore stability and peace to the Middle East. And we're willing to go along.

I believe that Israel and the United States have such deep-shared values and commitment to the same goals that we will find the way. And I'm sure the United States is not going to neglect Israel and to leave it out there or railroad it into a position where its security will be compromised. It goes against everything that this administration believes in and is committed to.

So, I think through that kind of ongoing dialogue and discussion that we have with the United States we'll find the proper way where such a conference can really serve the purpose of peace and not cause more violence and more bloodshed in a region that has seen enough of both.

KEYES: Well, I certainly have to say that I appreciate the goodwill that you're expressing toward the U.S. government. I myself have been among those in America who have been more than a little bit skeptical about the pressures that this administration have brought to bear, some of which seem contradictory, in fact, with the stated policies that we have against terrorism and other things forcing Israel into a situation where they're having to deal with terrorists when we ourselves say that such negotiations actually contribute to more terrorism.

But we shall see. I think with that kind of an attitude that you've expressed there ought to be some hope that at least from Israel's point of view a conference might reach a constructive result, at least from the point of view of things that you would be willing to contribute.

GISSEN: Alan, if I may add just a personal note, my father — I'm sixth-generation Israeli. My father fought in the first war of independence of the state of Israel. I myself fought in Israel's wars. And I'm fighting now in our second war of independence where my son is still fighting it.

We are resilient people. Despite the fact that we hold the sword in one hand for so many years, we're all peace seeking. We all want peace. And, therefore, I believe that with this kind of determination, we will find peace. We'll be able to carve peace even out of the present chaos.

KEYES: I sure appreciate your being with us tonight to help us understand a little bit of the policy behind the report that came with Prime Minister Sharon and has been now distributed pretty well at large to the American public.

We're going to continue our discussion of this report to get to the heart of the matter on these documents, on their validity and truthfulness about Yasser Arafat, and on the implications on the assertion that Arafat is a terrorist. What does that mean for future negotiations? We'll be talking about that right after this. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: This was President Bush today making the case for his education program, which some critics say on the right is larger than what LBJ created in the '60s. Has Bush sacrificed his conservative credentials in favor of big government programs? We'll debate that question in our next half hour.

Meanwhile, the chat room is buzzing the night. Kim says: “We didn't negotiate with terrorists, why should Sharon?” And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But first, let's get back to our examination of Israel's case against Yasser Arafat and against the Saudis. Israel presented the case in hundreds of documents today. Israel claimed that the documents show Arafat's direct involvement in suicide bombings, as well as illegal weapons shipments aboard the Karine A. Now, that isn't exactly new.

But what may be more surprising is the Saudi connection. Israel claims the Saudi government channeled $135 million through charities to Hamas. The Saudis called the allegations, quote, “totally false and baseless.”

Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Yechiel Leiter, the senior adviser to the Israeli education minister. He is traveling with Prime Minister Sharon's delegation to the United States. Also, Jean Abinader, managing director for the Arab-American Institute...

JEAN ABINADER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Evening, Alan.

KEYES: ... a group representing Arab-American interests in government and politics. And also, Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for “Al Hayat” newspaper, a daily Arabic newspaper. All of you, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

Jean, I would like to start with you tonight with a question because I looked over these documents. Obviously, folks like ourselves can't make snap evaluations of documents of this kind. But one of the things that did catch my attention was a summary of some of the documents where the Israelis are saying Yasser Arafat actually personally signed off on the allocation of funds and resources to individuals or projects that were directly connected with terrorist activities, giving them stipends, providing funding — some funding coming from the PLA for the manufacturing, or for the acquisition of equipment rather for the manufacturing of weapons and so forth and so on.

Doesn't evidence like that at least constitute enough to require that one would take a serious look at these allegations? It seems to me they've made a prima facie case. I'm not saying it's conclusive. But wouldn't we have to look at what they're saying?

ABINADER: I think the issue here is one your guest raised earlier. And that is who are the Israelis and who are the Americans going deal with? Is it going to be Arafat, or is it going to be other Palestinians? The production of this booklet is, as you said, a lot of it is old news, a lot of it continues to be speculation and allegation. The real question is, do we have a partner that all of the parties can agree on? And that's really the question going forward.

KEYES: See, I know that that question is often raised. But start with the fact that here in America we have articulated the policy, which I think is the right one, which says that you can't deal with terrorists. Terrorists have to be written out of the process of legitimate negotiations so that they recognize, so that everyone recognizes, that when you cross that line you're going to get nothing for it. If we abandon that policy with respect to Yasser Arafat, aren't we undermining our own war against terror?

ABINADER: I don't think so. I think the articulation of that policy was more a kind of a line in the sand. And you know what happens when people draw lines in the sand? They quickly disappear whenever the wave washes over it.

The reality here is looking at our history, whether in Central America or in Africa or in other countries, we've had to deal with and, in fact, have supported from time to time some pretty unsavory people, the reality being that at some point we have to negotiate, we have to move toward peace. And that is what is on the table now.

KEYES: So what you're telling me, then, is when the time comes we should negligent with Osama bin Laden and people like this who have been...

ABINADER: Osama bin Laden is not a head of a country. Arafat is.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: No, he's not. Let's be frank about that, not yet. He's the head of a movement. And we have to be careful about that, it seems to me. But all I'm saying here is we're talking now about...

ABINADER: No, you're speaking hyperbole. You're trying to equate Yasser Arafat with Osama bin Laden, and that's inaccurate...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We are talking about terrorists. When I call the man a terrorist, I am equating him with other terrorists.

ABINADER: What about Menachem Begin, who eventually made peace at Camp David in 1978? Let's be clear here about what is the issue. The issue is not whether or not you like the person, Alan...

KEYES: Jean...

ABINADER: ... or whether or not the United States does. The question is...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: ... Jean...

ABINADER: ... who is going to deliver peace to the table...

KEYES: ... the question is whether or not there will be any...

ABINADER: ... That is the question. And that's what U.S. foreign policy should focus on.

KEYES: ... the issue is whether there will be anything left of our war on terror when it becomes clear that we are against terror, hold on...

(CROSSTALK)

ABINADER: ... friends on the right have created. It's not a real policy issue.

KEYES: We're against terrorists. Let me talk. We're against terrorists when they kill Americans apparently. But when they're killing Israelis or killing other nationals, then we're not against them. If other nations take that same view that they will fight the terrorists who kill their people, not the terrorists who kill our people, then the prospect of a global movement against terrorism collapses. And that's been the basis of our policy.

Let me go to Raghida Dergham, because it seems to me, though, in my conversation just now with Jean Abinader that he was kind of taking it for granted that, yes, Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, but you have got to deal with him anyway. Is that the case?

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, SENIOR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, “AL HAYAT”: Let me take my look at what you're saying and your other guests. And I think what Mr. Ariel Sharon has come with is really an art of evasion if he would remember that in the last couple of weeks the world was preoccupied with the war crimes committed in Jenin, the Palestinian refugee camp. And the world has been demanding an explanation of this.

So, with Mr. Sharon coming with this dossier of alleged — whatever Yasser Arafat had to do with terrorists I think this is really just to change the subject. That's number one.

Number two, I think, Alan, what you're speaking about, imposing the doctrine of Sharon on Bush's doctrine is out of place. This country is not an occupier. We are not occupying another land. And so it's about the old world, if you permit me, that you try to avoid using.

It is about occupation. And, therefore, this whole thing about Arafat a terrorist, you know, it's not amusing to talk about this.

KEYES: You know, Raghida, I had this back and forth the other night with Congressman Rohrabacher when he came on. Our policy against terrorism isn't about what cause you practice terrorism in. The very idea that you have just suggested that if occupation is involved and terrorism is justified is hateful to Americans.

DERGHAM: Wait a second. No...

KEYES: Nothing — excuse me. You didn't listen to President Bush's speeches. I did.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: The president said quite clearly in several of those speeches back in the fall, nothing justifies terrorism —

DERGHAM: And I agree.

KEYES: There is no cause...

DERGHAM: And I agree.

KEYES: ... There is no situation that justifies it.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: You don't agree — let me finish me, ma'am.

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: You were very gracious to your earlier guest.

KEYES: I let you speak. Now...

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: I will not accept you put words in my mouth.

KEYES: I will finish my thought.

DERGHAM: No, you will not put words in my mouth.

KEYES: I will finish my thought.

DERGHAM: But you will not put words in my mouth, Alan.

KEYES: In listening to what is going on here, Yechiel, it has just been said by Raghida that what the Israelis are doing is evasion to get attention away from Jenin and so forth and so on. What is your response to that?

YECHIEL LEITER, SENIOR ISRAELI ADVISER: Well, Alan, I'll tell you what is not evasion. And that is the fact that over the past 19 months, 478 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks.

Imagine for a moment that you're sitting at a cafe with Raghida, and someone walks in strapped with explosives, and cozies up to you and Raghida, and pushes a button or pulls a string and blows you, Raghida, and everybody else in the restaurant...

DERGHAM: That's terrorism.

LEITER: ... that's terrorism. Yes, please don't interrupt me.

DERGHAM: No, it is terrorism. I'm agreeing.

LEITER: Please don't interrupt me. I'm glad you agreeing, but I didn't ask for your agreement.

That's what we've faced for the past 19 months. And what is fascinating about these numbers if you analyze them is that proportionately to the United States, it's three times what the United States suffered on September 11th.

But there is something even more astonishing in those numbers, Alan. Of the 478 people, 70 of them were children between the ages of four months and 19 years. Children have been picked by choice, not by chance, as the victim because terrorism intends to hurt, to maim, to murder the weak. and instill a sense of fear in an entire society. That number, 70 children, is comparable in United States terms to 2,940 American children murdered.

Now, there is one man who is responsible for that. That's Yasser Arafat. He signed a document several years ago, 1993, began the signing and continued signing for years that he would stop the use of terrorism. He would stop the use of incitement. He would stop preaching hatred. And he hasn't done any of that. On the contrary, he's constantly pushing his people towards terrorism, towards violence, towards murderous attacks.

DERGHAM: OK, would you let me talk now, Alan?

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Yechiel, let Raghida respond. Go ahead.

DERGHAM: I find that you interrupt me or my — or Jean...

LEITER: I didn't interrupt you. Just make your point.

DERGHAM: My point is very simple. I personally think any targeting of civilians is terrorism. Just like if it is done by suicide bombers, Palestinians against Israeli civilians, it is just as much terrorism when it is the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, the government of Israel targeting civilians of Palestinians.

LEITER: So, Osama bin Laden and George Bush are the same thing?

DERGHAM: War crimes are war crimes.

LEITER: We're responding to terrorism. What would you like us to do, roll over and play dead?

DERGHAM: How do you want people to — run your show, Alan, please. Listen, as simple as this. I think there is a very important position international consensus, which some of you seem to disagree with that is the route to having a peaceful coexistence. I am for a peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and Palestinians.

I, in my view as an analyst, find there is a very clear road map supported incidentally by our government, administration of the United States, and European community, the United Nations, and Russia. I think it's only Israel that's out of the consensus. And I think it really would be great for the Israelis to have a peaceful coexistence in the region.

KEYES: But can I ask a question?

DERGHAM: And so...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Raghida, Raghida, can I ask you a question?

DERGHAM: Yes, please.

KEYES: You say that only Israel is outside of the consensus. I presume you would agree, though, that the people who have actually organized and carried out the terrorist activities are also outside the consensus, right?

DERGHAM: Certainly.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Can I go through this — one moment.

DERGHAM: You, Alan.

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: Do you have a position on the war crimes?

KEYES: One last question. You have agreed that people who are sponsoring, putting together, and carrying out these terrorist acts are outside of the consensus. What the Israelis have done in these documents is make a prima facie case that Yasser Arafat is one of those people. Do you think he's outside of the consensus?

DERGHAM: OK, let me say this very clearly. If there is an international body establishing that Yasser Arafat has given direct orders for the suicide bombers against civilians, Palestinian civilians, I think he should be held accountable. Equally, I think the international community should demand of Israel to allow the fact-finding commission to find out what war crimes took place in the Palestinian refugee camps and other cities, and Ariel Sharon should be accountable for war crimes.

KEYES: Now, Jean Abinader, if I may just get a comment from you about that very question because what Raghida says is very interesting to me because it does suggest that one would pursue this investigation. Here is the indictment. If it is proven true, that would mean that Yasser Arafat is, in fact, outside the consensus required for this kind of peace negotiation. Do you agree with that?

ABINADER: I focus more on what the United States should be doing in this situation. Ariel Sharon is here to talk to the president. And the president and the cabinet and the leaders in Congress are going to have to make a decision as to where American policy should go. What they think about Yasser Arafat is critical to that determination.

The Israeli documents are interesting. But I hardly think that it is a basis for which to base our defense of our national interests. I think the reality here, again, is if the United States wants to go forward and help the Israelis and Palestinians move toward peace, we're going to have to do it in a way that requires all the creativity and stomaching of things that we wouldn't normally put up with.

KEYES: We have run out of time. I have to give you the last word there. I want to thank all three of you for being with me tonight.

ABINADER: Thank you, Alan.

KEYES: Of course, I always take the last word myself. You all know that. And I must confess I find it very dangerous for the United States to be destroying conceptually and morally the basis for our anti-terror policy as we pursue a so-called Mid-East peace agreement when it's not even clear that all of the actors involved have astuged (ph) the business of terrorist violence and war. I think it's very dangerous for the world.

Next, President Bush, is he really a conservative? We're going to have a debate on that question after the break. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Now though he comes from a family background with decidedly liberal leanings at one stage, President G.W. Bush won the Republican nomination and ran for the president pretty much as an identified conservative.

But, in the course of the first months and year of his administration, decisions have been taken that have now started to raise some questions and grumbling in conservative ranks.

President Bush says he's against big government, but a number of commentators disagree. Consider this from George Will.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE WILL, ABC'S “THIS WEEK,” SUNDAY: An example of big government at its worst is heading for the president's desk. It is the gargantuan farm bill, at least $171 billion over 10 years, mostly welfare for the affluent. And the president, who has vetoed nothing, is going to sign it. When he does, he will forfeit forever his right to denounce big government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: And there's this from columnist David Limbaugh, and I — quote — “Conservatives have plenty to be concerned about, primarily because constitutional conservatism, indeed, may be dying, despite the consistent failures of big government liberalism.

“I don't think I'm being an alarmist,” he writes, “to suggest that, while we still enjoy considerable freedom today, absent a reversal of current trends, it's only a matter of time before we surrender complete authority to a paternalistic government.”

David Limbaugh joins us now. Also with us, Hugh Hewitt, a syndicated radio talk-show host based in California. Both are, like myself, worldnetdaily columnists. I'm proud to say that both of them are also good friends of mine.

Thank you, gentlemen, for joining me on the program tonight. And this is kind of a discussion among friends, isn't it...

HUGH HEWITT, WORLDNETDAILY.COM COLUMNIST: Yes, it is, Alan.

KEYES: ... about one of our friends who may or may not be going wrong.

David Limbaugh, I found your column fascinating today, but I think it reflects some things that result from the stem-cell decision, from decisions taken in other areas, from reports of what's happening with the Bush administration's U.N. delegation on family issues and family values, questions that have been raised by free traders about his decision on tax, all kinds of things that have raised red flags for folks who think of themselves as conservative.

Where do we stand right now in terms of the perception of Bush's policies among conservatives, and what does it mean?

DAVID LIMBAUGH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM COLUMNIST : Well, hi, Alan. How are you doing?

Hugh, how are you?

Good to see you — good to talk to both of you. I can't really see.

I am concerned that George Bush, who I have a lot of respect for, has dropped the conservative ball, and a lot of people warned that he would, and I think he's gone back and forth in different areas.

But one thing I disagree with George Will about that I did not articulate in that column is that I think this is costing George Bush. I think that the cons — the grassroots conservatives — see, Will said that the only people that are complaining are those in the beltway, and the people in the grassroots are not upset about it.

I think it's just the opposite. I think the people in the grassroots are very upset, and when you upset the base — the base stands on principle, and what George Bush is doing may be pragmatic in some respects — or he may think it is — but, ultimately, he's going to undermine his base by not adhering to principles that the conservative grassroots believe in. Right down the line.

We can talk about the ones you mentioned. You can talk about trade, the steel tariff situation. You can talk about the campaign-finance reform bill, which, I think, was probably one of the worst things that happened, not just because of the substantive problems with the bill, but because George Bush acknowledged the constitutional problems with the bill before he signed it and said, “I'm going to let the Supreme Court sort this out,” and I argue —

And I know, Alan, you're a constitutional scholar. You would agree with me that all three branches have a duty to — and take an oath to honor the Constitution, and they can't just throw it in the lap of the Supreme Court. And, by doing that, George Bush abandoned a conservative principle...

KEYES: Now...

LIMBAUGH: ... and on and on.

KEYES: Now, Hugh, you — do you think that this kind of criticism — well, one, is it out there, and, two, is it justified?

HEWITT: No, it is not justified. David's a great writer, and, like many conservatives, he's heard a few notes wrong in the symphony. But I think it's important to remember that the symphony is magnificent.

The president is a mainstream conservative who Thursday in the East Room read the Psalms on the National Day of Prayer and reminded us of the transcendent world order upon which we all depend. That's conservative. His defense budget, $379 billion, full funds national missile defense. That's conservative.

He has put forward judicial nominations of the highest caliber, the greatest quality, John Roberts, Miguel Estrada, Mike McConnell. These are great mainstream conservative nominees, and he will not deal with the Leahys and the obstructionists on the Judiciary Committee dealing away his constitutional authority.

And I have to ask — you know, I think the Taliban thinks that George Bush is plenty conservative. The most important thing a president does is defend the Constitution and the people of his country, and this conservative president is doing it remarkably well.

Now I have knitpicks. You know, I didn't like the brief in the Adarand case. I teach constitutional — I think it's wrong. Ted Olson blew that one.

LIMBAUGH: Good point.

HEWITT: But — you know, Alan, we don't get a hundred percent. You know this better than anyone. Lincoln was not a hundred-percenter when it came to defending the Constitution, but he was an awfully good conservative, wouldn't you agree?

KEYES: Well, see, the problem I have, though, Hugh, if I may take my little (ph) minute at this, is what — I almost think that you have look at more than rhetoric. You have to look at what happens to the basis for the conservative position as a result of the stands that are taken.

And, yeah, the president gets up, he reads the Psalms and so forth. Then he makes a stem-cell decision that destroys the principled basis of the pro-life movement. If you embrace the position he took, you no longer have a basis for making a pro-life case. It is destroyed. And it seems to me when you follow somebody who puts a good face on it but ends up leading you to destruction, you're in worse trouble than you were before.

And education policy that says, “Well, we want standards and this and that,” but that ends up not putting the grassroots and the parents and the localities in charge but increasing the power of the federal government.

A campaign-finance bill that is aimed directly at destroying what has been the key to a lot of conservative success at the grassroots, which is the ability of grassroots organizations freely to express the truth to the electorate at election time.

So, even at a practical level, you're taking a body blow at conservatism in the country. I think, when you look at it in terms of principle and the fact, there have been some pretty devastating lapses that amount to serious questions about what's happening.

HEWITT: Well, the same...

KEYES: David Limbaugh.

HEWITT: ... criticism...

KEYES: Well, Hugh, go ahead and answer.

HEWITT: Well, the same criticisms you leveled against President Bush were leveled against the president we both worked for, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan liberalized the abortion laws of California, and he signed many pieces of legislation which were accompanied by — and I saw them in the White House counsel's office and you saw them at the U.N., statements saying that “portions of these bills are unconstitutional, but I regret that I have to sign them, and I hope the courts do their duty.”

I think George W. Bush is very easily demonstrated to be more conservative than Ronald Reagan on many issues, and the same criticisms that have been leveled by you and me, with some merit, were leveled against him.

KEYES: Hugh, I've got to tell you, in any U.N. sense, there was no U.N. delegation under Ronald Reagan that joined the jackals on family values issues to redefine family in such a way as to destroy its basis in morality and in traditional understanding, and that's going on right now in the Bush administration.

David Limbaugh, go ahead.

LIMBAUGH: Alan and Hugh, I don't disagree that George Bush has done some conservative things and has some conservative instincts. I'm — this isn't a high school debate where we're supposed to take an artificial position where we categorize him as a conservative or a liberal. I'm just saying he's done far too many things.

And I'm a Bush supporter. But he's done far too many things that trouble me deeply. I mentioned campaign finance, as did Alan. And the trade bill. And the Israel thing.

I think there's an analogy — and I wrote, by the way, an analogy between the stem-cell compromise decision and his position with Israel as it plays into his war on terrorism. He compromised. While thinking he was affirming the life position, he split the baby — pardon the pun — by saying that we could go ahead and conduct embryonic research on those 60 cells that had already been killed.

I submit to you — and you're a lawyer, Hugh — that is a ratification after the fact, the killing of these embryos, after which you lose the moral basis upon which to argue for life.

KEYES: David...

LIMBAUGH: The same thing happened with respect to Israel.

Yes?

KEYES: I'm going...

LIMBAUGH: The same thing happened...

KEYES: ... to have to interrupt because we're coming...

LIMBAUGH: OK, Alan.

KEYES: ... coming down to the wire. I'm going to have to take the floor back.

I appreciate both of you coming on today, and I really appreciate your being with us to have this discussion. And we're going to continue to get further into these issues after this.

And later, my outrage of the day, a judge who thinks that it's OK to burn the hand of your 5-year-old child to punish him for stealing a pack of gum.

But, first, does this make sense?

In a suggested deal to end the standoff at the Church of the Nativity, it is proposed that some of the Palestinian terrorists inside the church could be sent to Italy.

Now I understand perfectly well why the Israelis would like to get them out of the Middle East, but, if these folks are really terrorists, I mean, Italy had a pretty bad reign of terror for a while there. Do you think they're going to import the terrorists back into Italy to start another one?

Does that make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're back talking about G.W. Bush's conservative credentials with columnists David Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt.

Now, Hugh, a minute ago, you mentioned particularly the war on terror and what Osama bin Laden would think and so forth and so on. I'm particularly concerned about that right now, I've got to tell you, because I think that, though he articulated a pretty clear basis for the war on terror and for a global stance against terrorism, the president has now, I think, pretty well confused the issue over this Middle East thing, put us in the position where we have accepted from the Saudis the condemnation of terrorist acts against Americans, as if terrorist acts against other people are not to be included in our war against terrorism.

And that, of course, can invite a lot of the states in the world to say, “OK. Terrorists who kill our people are bad, but, if they're just killing you, forget it.” The whole idea of a global stand against this kind of terror breaks down if you don't apply it clearly and coherently in each case, including the Middle East, and he has not. So I think, even in that vital area, we're seeing a breakdown.

HEWITT: Alan, I couldn't disagree with you more, and, you know, I was your student, so I hate to do this, but you're taking out of context certain presidential statements.

You know, on the April 4th speech, he said to the world again and to Yasser Arafat specifically, “You're either with us or you are against us.” That is something that takes some time to think (ph) in. The president delivered a clear, consistent, coherent message across the globe. He has done so with great resolve, and he's done so with our troops. He's done so at enormous cost, and I think he'll continue to do so.

And I look to the Israelis — and they love him, Alan. I don't know why people are saying that the president's been too tough on Israel when Israel thinks he's been exactly what they need. He is remarkable in this regard.

KEYES: Hugh, I'm sorry. I just can't — look, you're saying things and asserting things that simply go completely contrary to the facts.

And, again, it puts us in a position where the president has a clear rhetorical policy, but then, when you actually look at the actions, especially of Colin Powell, we have the actions that say reward terrorists like Arafat, negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat, include a terrorist like Arafat in peace negotiations, as if he hasn't even been practicing violence, and that totally contradicts the stand that we have taken against terrorism.

David Limbaugh, you had a word?

LIMBAUGH: Yes, Alan. The reason that George Bush attained such enormous popularity following the war is because he took a clear moral stance against terrorism, and he delineated between good and evil. Moral clarity — we were craving it after Bill Clinton's administration.

And then, after we say we will not tolerate terrorism, we will not negotiate with terrorists, then immediately, when Israel faces the same problem — and I say it's the same problem, and they've been facing it a lot longer than we have and proportionately greater than we have — he refuses to allow them to deal with terrorists the way that we — he expects us to deal with it.

And you just can't be inconsistent with that principle and not undermine your own credibility, integrity, and prestige. And it's going to hurt him in the long run. And I love the man. I'm just telling you there is no way to rationally distinguish those issues.

And, Hugh, try as hard as you might to defend him — and I'd like to, too — I just can't do it on that issue of Israel.

KEYES: Hugh.

HEWITT: Oh, well, I go back to what Benjamin Netanyahu said on the mall two weeks ago, that this president is behind Israel and he is behind this president.

I go back to what the prime minister of Israel will say tomorrow, as he has said before, that George Bush is giving Israel exactly what Israel needs, which is both guidance and support and a firm assist in trying to bring peace to the region.

LIMBAUGH: He's even...

HEWITT: I believe that a year from now when Iraq has been toppled, you will look back and say, “You know what? We were a little too quick to judge this president. There were plans within plans within plans, and he was executing them.”

And, Alan and David, you both know it's the first inning of a long ball game, and what we're doing is undermining the president, we're undermining America's defense, when we suggest he's not doing everything that he's doing.

KEYES: Hugh, I have to tell you — I'm going to take the last word here, David, because I can't listen to that and not respond.

LIMBAUGH: I can't, either!

KEYES: I think, sadly, it is not Alan Keyes or anybody else who is undermining our stats in the war on terror. It is Colin Powell. It is a feckless diplomacy that says that the door is open to negotiation with proven terrorists, and that muddies the water so that congresspeople can come on my program and act as if what determines whether you're a terrorist or not is the issue you kill innocent people over, not the targeting the innocent people itself. That's deep confusion, and our Middle East policy has introduced it into the very bosom of our war against terror.

Anyway, thank you both for a wonderful discussion. I appreciate it. Hope to have you back soon.

Next, my outrage of the day. A court decision about a 5-year-old child whose dad burned his hand — held his hand over a gas flame as punishment. Make sense to you?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: In breaking news, Palestinians have agreed to exile 13 gunmen from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, a Palestinian official says.

And now time for any outrage of the day.

Members of the Orange County public defender's office have risen to the defense of Superior Court Judge James O. Perez (ph), who reduced charges against a father accused of burning his 5-year-old son's hand over a gas flame.

The judge made his decision based on the fact that, well, you know, there are these cultural differences, and so, instead of a felony with six years in prison, he gives him a hundred-dollar fine.

Well, cultural differences are fine, but it seems to me we're going to turn the melting pot into a cultural meltdown if we don't enforce our norms. That's my sense of it.

Thanks. THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. See you tomorrow.