|
Return to Transcripts main page
NEWS FROM CNN
Life in Prison or Death?; U.S. Troops Expressing Concerns About Safety in Iraq
Aired December 10, 2004 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: From Washington and around the country and around the world. Here is the news from CNN.
Life in prison or death? That's the decision before a jury this hour
deciding the fate of convicted killer Scott Peterson. We're standing by
to bring you any late breaking developments if they occur.
Also, U.S. troops expressing their concerns this week about their
safety in Iraq. What's it like walking the streets on the front lines
as a u.s. Soldier? We'll find out from two soldiers that served there.
The cabinet sufficiently at the white house continuing. Today Samuel
Bodman tapped to become the next secretary of energy. A very busy hour
ahead. First some other headlines now in the news.
A stretch
of Alaska's southern coast is engulfed this hour by a major oil spill.
But officials say their efforts are focused on trying to find six
missing crew members from the freighter that ran aground on Wednesday.
The first oil removing equipment is expected to arrive tomorrow. OPEC
agrees to an oil production cut to get the price of crude going upward
again but a top Saudi official says his country is willing to buck the
cartel to keep the price stable. The price of oil has fallen since
October when it hit a high of $55 a barrel.
The government
wants DaimlerChrysler to fix some 600,000 Dodge trucks. The automaker
seems unconvinced. The trucks in question are the Dakotas and the
Durangos from the year 2000 to 2003 model. The government says the
wheels could be susceptible to falling off.
Let's begin with a
decision of life or death. That's what the jurors in the Scott Peterson
trial are deliberating right now even as we speak. It is their first
full day of deliberations in the penalty phase of a trial that's
already lasted well over six months. The jury convicted Peterson of
killing his wife and unborn son. CNN's Ted Rowlands joining us now for
the courthouse in Redwood City, California. What is it looking like
today, Ted?
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, jurors got
off the bus an hour ago and went into the courthouse to begin, as you
mentioned, the first full day of deliberations. They had two hours
together yesterday after they got the case. They did not come up with a
decision and were sent back to the hotel where they're being
sequestered during the deliberation process. Of course, they have a lot
at stake here. The decision either life or death for Scott Peterson.
Before they got the case they heard some very passionate pleas from
both sides.
Mark Geragos, Scott Peterson's attorney, pled with
this jury not to take Scott Peterson's life. He said I beg you. Please
do not kill Scott Peterson. End this cycle of death. He argued that
killing Scott Peterson would do nothing. That it would not help Laci
Peterson's family with closure saying that he thought quote "it would
haunt them rather than help them." At the end Mark Geragos buried his
head in his hands as the judge read the instructions to this jury while
the judge was reading the instructions family members, the Petersons
openly wept in court.
The emotion in the courtroom was
palpable throughout the day even when the prosecution argued that Scott
Peterson should die. The prosecutor Dave Harris gave a very passion at
discourse to the jury saying that Scott Peterson is the worst of the
worst. A manipulative liar. This idea that Scott and Laci was only half
of the story. Harris argued that Scott Peterson left his wife to rot in
the San Francisco Bay for 116 days while her family and his family and
people in the community waited to wonder where she was. He told the
jury that the only proper punishment in this case would be death. The
jury will be at it throughout the entire day today. If they cannot come
up with a decision today, they will have the weekend in the hotel but
they will not be permitted to deliberate. They'll have to come back
again on Monday if they can't come up with something today. It has to
be a unanimous decision. Wolf?
BLITZER: Walk us through the
process assuming they reach a decision today, Ted. How will we be
alerted of that? Will there be cameras in the courthouse? How much
notification, how much advance word will we get?
ROWLANDS:
Once the jury has made a decision, word will go to the court and then
the court has designated a media liaison so we should find out within
minutes after the jury has come to a decision. It will most likely be
about an hour delay from the time the jury made the decision until it
is read in court. All of the parties have to gather. Security will be
beefed up, as well. Then when the decision is read in court, we'll hear
it audio only. There is no camera permitted in the courtroom because
the judge afraid of what he has characterized as a meltdown and doesn't
want that shown on national television. He has allowed an audio feed of
the verdict as it is read aloud. Whatever this decision is we'll hear
it but we won't see the reaction from the parties inside the courtroom.
BLITZER: Ted Rowlands on the scene for us. Thanks very much, Ted. We'll
get back to you if there's word any time this hour and throughout the
day.
President Bush here in Washington is added a piece to his
major cabinet overhaul. Just a short time ago he announced his choice
to replace Spencer Abraham as energy secretary. Let's go live to the
White House. Elaine Quijano standing be with details.
ELAINE
QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon to you, Wolf. President
Bush's nominee to fill that post vacated by Spencer Abraham is Samuel
Bodman, he is the deputy secretary of the treasury, formerly at the
commerce department in the same position. Now Bodman has an engineering
background, was a professor at MIT and today in the Roosevelt Room of
the White House the president called him a problem solver who knows how
to set goals and reach them. Mr. Bush also took the opportunity to
reiterate one of his goals, something he talked about frequently on the
campaign trail, that is reducing the U.S.'s dependence on foreign
sources of energy.
GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT (VIDEO
CLIP): We will continue to work closely with Congress to produce
legislation that moves America toward greater energy independence. I'm
optimistic about the task ahead. And I know Sam Bodman is the right man
to lead this important vital agency.
QUIJANO: Now as for the
overall picture just one more question mark remains that is who will
replace the outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson. Of the nine cabinet secretaries that have resigned, that's
the only one President Bush has not named who he would like to see in
that role. Wolf?
BLITZER: The president moving relatively
quickly on all of these appointments. Thank you very much, Elaine
Quijano over at the White House. In the fight for Iraq, an American
soldier is awaiting his sentence after pleading guilty today to killing
a wounded Iraqi during fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City. Sergeant Johnny
Horn of North Carolina pleaded guilty to one specification of murder
and one specification of conspiracy to commit murder. Witnesses
testified that Horn was in a group that tried to save the Iraqi from a
burning garbage truck and then shot him to end his misery. Also today
in Iraq the military announced that two American soldiers died in a
helicopter crash at an air field in Mosul. The soldiers were part of
the task force Olympia. Their name are being withheld pending
notification of families.
A poll published today says the
country increasingly doubtful that Iraq will be a stable democracy.
Fewer half of the Americans polled by the Associated Press now view the
prospect as likely, down from 55 percent last spring. At the same time
the poll found increased support for President Bush on Iraq. 48 percent
up five points since June during the heat of the election campaign.
In the Philippines some hope following back to back tropical storms
that killed hundreds of people. More survivors have been pulled from
the rubble days after the disaster. Meanwhile, the U.S. has sent in
marines to help with recovery efforts. CNN's Aneesh Raman is on the
phone with us from Manila with more on this unfolding tragedy. Aneesh?
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well we can tell you that the death
toll has risen substantially now for the second consecutive day. The
office of civil defense says it now stands at 941. There are still 836
missing. Now ground zero for these relief efforts remains about 40
miles east of where we are in Manila. There are still half a million
people there without access to any clean water or food. So getting
relief to them officials tell us is the top priority at the moment. Now
overall the government says some three million people have been
affected by these back to back storms. There estimates in terms of
total cost for damage is $55 million. The government had $12 million
set aside for emergency relief. So it is now looking desperately for
international help.
As you mentioned, some of that began over
the past few days with the arrival of U.S. Marines and navy personnel.
They are from the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Brigade based out of Japan.
Now tomorrow there will be 600 of them in country with various aircraft
helping with evacuations and massive supply drops. Now as you also
mentioned there have been incredible survival stories and people who
had been trapped for over a week under layers of mud and rubble
surviving literally on drops of water. The people here are calling it a
miracle. One relative saying that they have been in between heaven and
earth.
Those now seeming like those will be the exceptional
stories. The hope for finding more survivors is growing thin. Today we
were at the hospitals nearby and we spoke to a 29-year-old woman
rescued from one of the hardest hit areas days ago. She told us how she
was holding her two daughters. One nine months and one five years old
when the raging waters simply just swept them away. She hasn't seen
them obviously since. She hopes to return, she told us, and find at
least one of them alive. But her story really emblematic of just the
absolute sheer tragedy that has hit the area and the incredible
difficulty that awaits in terms of the rebuilding phase. Wolf?
BLITZER: What an enormous tragedy in the Philippines. Aneesh, thank you
very much. We'll get back to you. Aneesh Rahman reporting for us from
Manila.
Life or death? Scott Peterson waits for his sentence.
Did his defense team do enough to spare his life? We'll take a closer
look.
And is the Pentagon doing enough to protect troops in
Iraq? It's a question that is not going away. We'll talk about it with
our guests. You're watching the news from CNN. We'll be back in a
moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: As we
mentioned the fate of Scott Peterson right now in the hands of the
jury. Prosecutors say Peterson doesn't deserve the sympathy of the
jury. The defense called 39 witnesses who testified that he does. Are
the opinions of the witnesses weighing heavily on the jurors? This hour
to discuss this case are two guests. CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey
Toobin, he is joining us from New York. And from California, University
of San Francisco law professor, Robert Talbot.
Thank you to
both of you for joining us. Let's begin with you, Robert. Yesterday the
judge in giving his final instructions to the jury made a point of
saving you have to ask about the consideration of lingering doubt as
opposed to reasonable doubt which was the burden of power going into
the conviction what does that mean? Lingering doubt?
ROBERT
TALBOT, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Nobody knows exactly what they
mean. Beyond be a reasonable doubt is very, very strong evidence.
Beyond any doubt is impossible for any other conclusion. A lingering
doubt is somewhere beyond a reasonable doubt but not quite as far as
beyond any possible doubt. It is left up to the jury and the jury
conscience to bring in and see if they have a bit of queasiness about
their verdict even though they found beyond a reasonable doubt.
BLITZER: What about that? I'm sure that you guys are both lawyers and
you have studied this issue of lingering doubt. I hadn't heard much
about that but it does raise the suggestion in my mind when I hear a
judge say make sure you don't have any lingering doubt whatsoever, it
raises the suggestion in my mind that maybe the judge has some
lingering doubt.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't
think it relates to the judge's feelings. But this is a very good
charge for the defense in a death penalty case because it raises the
prospect of a case without eyewitnesses, without a cause of death and
without at direct evidence, it's a circumstantial case, some jurors may
say to themselves there is a remote possibility that another possible
killer would come forward in the future. Let's sense him to life
without parole and leave open the possibility of another killer out
there. It is definitely a good charge for the defense. Whether it is
good enough to get him off, a death sentence, I really don't know.
BLITZER: Robert, they deliberated yesterday for two hours. They have
already now started deliberating today. They've been in their chambers
for about one hour or at least a bit more than one hour so far. The
longer we wait what does that suggest to you?
TALBOT: I don't
think we'll wait very long with this particular jury. This is a fast
jury. The longer we wait, the more of a chance there is for a hung
jury, that at least one of the jurors is going to feel that it should
be life without possibility of parole so the longer we wait, ordinarily
the better for the defense in this situation but this jury has been
very quick. They were together as a group only for seven hours. They
went through months and months of testimony and came up with two guilty
verdicts. That's fast.
BLITZER: Robert, what if 11 of them say
he should get the death sentence and one says life without the
possibility of parole and there's no possibility of changing those
minds. What happens?
TALBOT: The law says that a new jury will
be chosen and they are going to go over it all over again. Now, the
prosecution can decide that they don't want to ask for the death
penalty at that particular point. It might be too hard on the families,
too hard on Sharon Rocha to go through this all over again or they may
have had second thoughts listening to the defense argument. But the law
does require that there is another jury impaneled and to go through the
process again.
BLITZER: Jeffrey, how likely do you think that
is? In other words, how likely is it that there won't be a unanimity on
either of these options among the 12 jurors?
TOOBIN: There's a
reasonable possibility of a lack of unanimity which may extend the jury
deliberations longer than we would expect. But I think any sort of
retrial here is extremely unlikely. I think this is the prosecution's
one and only chance for a death sentence in the real world. Because
given the expense of this trial -- remember, this is the Stanislaus
County's DA's office move to Redwood City because of the change of
venue. A very expensive thing to do. They'd probably have to do that
again. I just don't think that another trial is in the cards here.
BLITZER: Maybe I'm confused. Would they start the whole process over
again or would they just have the jury deliberation on the sentence
starting all over again?
TOOBIN: It would be just the sentence
but you would have to repeat a lot of the evidence because the decision
made on the death penalty is not just the penalty phase. It is based on
all of the evidence that was presented during the trial. You would have
to have amber Frey and her tapes. You would have to have discovery of
the body. You would have to have evidence about their relationship. All
of those awful interviews that Scott gave to the news media. Those
crocodile tears that they shed. The jury, the new jury would have to
hear that again. It would take a long, long time.
BLITZER: Robert, do you agree with that?
TALBOT: Yes, it would take a long time. The guilt phase evidence is
part of what is to be considered as the sentencing decision by the
jury. You just don't know with a case like this. It is very, very
public. If the people are crying out for the death penalty, if Sharon
Rocha is very strong that she wants it, it might go. I agree that it
would take a long time. It wouldn't take as many months as it took the
first time. A lot of the prosecution's time particularly at the
beginning was actually wasted. They were weak and a little bit
disorganized and they spent ten hours handling what could have been
done in 15 or 20 minutes. So a lot of searches of the bay that went on
for days and days could just be done in a different manner. The Bay was
searched. Nothing was found. They would want to bring out the Amber
Frey tapes and the interview with Diane Sawyer and the bodies, the
autopsies, all of that would have to go all over again.
BLITZER: Jeffrey, do you know what happens to the gag order after a
decision is reached? Because even after they come out with a decision
today, the judge has to do the formal sentencing at the end of
February. What happens to the gag order in the hours, days, weeks,
after the jury reaches its decision?
TOOBIN: I am doing a
little assuming here, Wolf, but based on every high profile case I've
covered the gag order dissolves with the jury's end of service in the
case and I think we'll see a lot of jury interviews, families speak,
Mark Geragos, the prosecution speak. I think it will be a different
media environment with a lot of different faces right after the verdict.
BLITZER: Is that your understanding, as well, Robert?
TALBOT: That's my understanding. I'm not sure constitutionally how long
he can go on with the gag order. Because there is a freedom of speech
issue in there. If jurors want to speak, how can he tell them legally
they don't have freedom of speech at this point?
BLITZER:
Robert Talbot joining us from the scene out there in California.
Jeffrey Toobin helping us better understand the law as far as this case
is concerned. Thank you both for joining us. We'll be speaking to both
of you throughout the day here on CNN as we await this decision by the
jury. Thank you to both of you very much.
TOOBIN: Thanks Wolf.
TALBOT: Thank you.
BLITZER: Facing some tough critics, the Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld came under verbal fire about the safety of men and women in
combat. But are all troops questioning the hand they've been dealt?
I'll talk to two U.S. soldiers that served in Iraq. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're getting this story in from Milan, Italy just now. The
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been acquitted of all
charges that have been charged against him in the recent years. A major
victory for the billionaire business baron's long struggle, legal woes
that he blamed it on left wing prosecutors. Now the three- judge panel
agreed that he's not guilty. Acquitted on one count on a ruling that
the statute of limitations has run out on the second corruption charge.
The man you're seeing in this video, Italian Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi, a close aide, a close supporter of the president in the war
in Iraq, has been acquitted of all charges and he will go on from
there. Silvio Berlusconi.
Meanwhile, the Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld under fire from Democrats for his remarks at a town
hall style meeting with U.S troops in Kuwait this week. When a soldier
complained he and others in his unit had to improvise to armor their
heavy vehicles, Rumsfeld respond, and I am quoting now, "You go to war
with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have." A
Delaware Democrat Senator Joe Biden called Rumsfeld's response
"insulting." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says Rumsfeld should
resign. Turns out the Tennessee National Guardsman that posed that
question to Rumsfeld had a bit of help. "The Chattanooga Times Free
Press" acknowledges reporter Edward Lee Pitts helped Specialist Thomas
Wilson frame the question and asked officers running the town hall to
call on him. Pitt is embedded with a unit of the Guard in Kuwait. Today
the paper published this note to its readers. Let me read it. Quoting,
"In hindsight, information on how the question was framed should have
been included in Thursday's story in the 'Times Free Press.' It was
not. Mr. Pitts used the tools available to him as a journalist to
report on a story that has been and remains important to members of the
278th and those back at home."
BLITZER: The soldier's question
and Rumsfeld' answer have touched off a series of debates about whether
the pentagon is doing enough to protect the troops in harm's way. Here
to talk about that, two U.S. troops. David Chasteen served in the U.S.
Army in Iraq. He now works with Operation Truth, and advocacy group for
soldiers and veterans. And Clarke Cooper is with the U.S. Army
Reserves. He returned from Iraq only in October is now working with the
National Park Service. Thanks to both for joining us. Thanks to both of
you for your service to our country, as well. Let me begin with you,
David. I know you're opposed to the war. That's what Operation Truth is
about, right?
DAVID CHASTEEN, OPERATION TRUTH: No, Operation Truth is not an anti-war movement.
BLITZER: Explain what Operation Truth is.
CHASTEEN: Operation Truth, ironically, was formed specifically to deal
with issues like this. Paul and I and some other guys had a number of
issues like the lack of armor and like the stop loss and some other
issues that soldiers are dealing with on a daily basis and no one was
talking about it when we got back. We said, listen, we have to get
people talking about this because soldiers are getting killed and
they're dying because we don't give these guys the tools they need to
fight this war and come home.
BLITZER: When you were there in Iraq did you have enough armor?
CHASTEEN: I crossed the border into Iraq with a vehicle that has cloth
doors wearing a vest that would not stop 7.62 fire from an AK- 47. And
I was in one of the best equipped units in the army, the 3rd Infantry
Division.
BLITZER: What was your experience, Clarke, when you were there?
CLARKE COOPER, U.S. ARMY RESERVES: We were fully equipped, Wolf. In
fact, we came in. The Army is the most adaptable force of the world.
The U.S. Army and they learn their lessons in after action reviews. By
the time I got to Iraq our unit was fully equipped. We had unarmored
Humvees. We had the Saffy (ph) plates in our vests.
BLITZER: What about heavy trucks?
COOPER: Heavy trucks. Some of them have armor.
BLITZER: Because if you read the "New York Times" today it said that
only 25 percent of the heavy trucks had the kind of protective armor
that they really needed and most of the trucks didn't have that even
today.
COOPER: Most of the vehicles that are used outside of
bases, outside of forward operating bases or inside the Green Zone in
Baghdad, those that are out on the roads now are up=armored or fully
armored and they are protected either with additional assets like
Bradley Fighting Vehicle or an Abrams Tank. The under-armored, that was
earlier in the war as David mention he was there at the beginning of
the war fighting phase in '03. By August 2003 the Department of Defense
realized because they were hearing from leaders on the ground to adopt
to the different situation there. Because it's not a linear battlefield.
BLITZER: What do you think of the way Rumsfeld handled that question
when he said you go to a war with army you have and not the army you
wish you had.
CHASTEEN: That is true to some extent. But this
is the U.S. Army. We're the best equipped and best trained army in the
world and if we have a choice between saying we'll make do with the
equipment we have or we'll write a big fat check to give these guys and
get them the best equipment today we always go with option two. Because
we have plenty of money to throw around here on pork but we don't
plenty of our sons' and daughters' lives to waste.
BLITZER:
Some of these factories that manufacturer the armor in Ohio and
elsewhere. There are three, I think, all of them are suggesting that
they were ready to double their shifts and make more armor and more
vests and get whatever you needed. They have been asking for months and
months but they haven't been given clearance from the Pentagon to go
ahead and speed up an accelerate their manufacturing of this kind of
badly needed equipment.
COOPER: All I can speak to, Wolf, I'm
not representing DoD, but I was in Iraq and when I was there we were
equipped. In fact, midway through my tour, they had an RFI, or a
rapid-fielding initiative, where they reequipped troops. And regardless
if you're a Guardsman, Reserve, active duty, you're all active duty
when you're in the field. We all had the same boots, the same weapons,
the same access.
So, again, as far as the army adapting, it
is adapting. They are turning the engines, and they're listening, hence
the town halls. It is a beautiful thing.
BLITZER: You go ahead.
CHASTEEN: The problem is not that the Army isn't responding. These guys
care about their soldiers. They want them to come home OK. The problem
is we're fighting with a lighter army now where we don't secure the
rear. The vehicles were designed to drive around in a secure rear area.
And stories like Jessica Lynch are a perfect example of these
quartermaster guys and transport guys being subject to ambushes. These
large vehicles need support.
And if we're going to have a
lighter, quicker Army, we need to have a lighter, quicker Pentagon that
can respond to those needs. We need to stop gap solution. It's going to
18 months until we have the right equipment, the perfect solution for
the guys on the ground. They don't have 18 months to wait. I don't
understand why can't we go to a company like DuPont and say, why can't
we do some equivalent of wrapping these things in kevlar and spraying
them with resin. There's got to be something we can do today.
BLITZER: What do you think about that?
COOPER: Again, the Army is willing to adapt. I'm sure they're listening
to those alternatives. Again, there is the Army for lessons learned,
the after-action reviews. It is coming from the ground up. The leaders
in theater are bringing the word up to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon
listens, again, not just in the town hall formats, but through the
official chains of command, and because we have the beauty of being
able to have the constitutional rights, First Amendment right,
secretary of defense can get a direct question from a line soldier in
the field, and that's great. They are responding. It's not the
Pentagon. It's also an appropriations process.
BLITZER: But
is there a problem that they didn't foresee, they didn't accurately
forecast the nature of the insurgency, that they went in thinking it
was going be a relatively quick defeat of Saddam Hussein, and then
everybody in Iraq would sort of fall in line and be happy with what's
going on? Did no one envisage, based on what you guys know from your
firsthand experience, that this insurgency would get to the point where
it is right now?
CHASTEEN: I was there in the beginning, and
I can speak to that. We definitely expected things to fall over very
quickly and just be a cleanup after that. I mean, we really thought --
the intelligence kept coming down, listen, the Iraqi generals are going
to defect, these guys are going to go home, they're going to turn
around their weapons around help us out. That was the expectation going
in. And I know firsthand because I helped with the planning process
during an invasion. You know, I was a week away from Baghdad, and we
still didn't have the, "what happens next?" annex, the Baghdad annex,
that explained what we were going to do once we got to Baghdad. We were
14 days from Iraq, and didn't know what we were going to do when we got
there in Baghdad.
BLITZER: What do you think?
COOPER: Well, while they were in field, I was at Ft. Wacheeka (ph), the
Army intel center. And at the intelligence center, the Army was quickly
realizing this is not your father's war or your grandfather's war. And
so quickly adapted, changing tactics, strategies, measures, and when we
went in, by the time I got to theater, we were realized that we were
dealing with a much different type of warfare, an urban type of warfare.
BLITZER: One quick question to both of you -- do either of you have a
problem that a journalists sort of coached, or gave this question, or
helped this soldier frame the question at that sort of town hall
meeting with Rumsfeld.
CHASTEEN: You know, that's such a
minor issue. I don't care how he did it. If it ends up helping the
soldiers on the ground get the equipment that they need, I think it's
such a minor issue it's just not important.
BLITZER: What do you think?
COOPER: I'm not going to speak to the integrity of journalism. Again, I
think it was a great thing that there was a town hall, that the
secretary was able to get director questions from a line soldier.
That's -- I'm not going to speak for the fourth estate.
BLITZER: All right, Clarke Cooper, thanks very much for joining us.
COOPER: Thank you.
BLITZER: And David Chasteen, thanks to both of you -- to you as well.
And once again, thanks to both of you for your service to our country.
CHASTEEN: Thank you.
COOPER: Thank you.
BLITZER: Plenty more on this issue as well as other issues on the
president's desk. Filling the voids left in the cabinet, is Mr. Bush
making the right calls? I'll ask syndicated talk show hosts Armstrong
Williams and Bernie Ward. They're standing by. Much more news, on THE
NEWS FROM CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER:
Welcome back. Protecting the troops -- the White House and the Pentagon
say it's a top priority after one soldier's complaints about equipment
shortages opened up a firestorm of controversy.
Joining us
now to talk about that and more, two guests: Bernie Ward is a talk show
host with KGO in San Francisco. Armstrong Williams is a syndicated
columnist and talk show host right here in Washington D.C. Thanks to
both of you for joining us.
And let me start with you,
Bernie, what do you make of this? We just heard from these two
soldiers, slightly different views. Everyone agrees that the soldiers
and Marines going into Iraq should be as well protected as possible. Do
you believe that everything is being done to protect these troops right
now?
BERNIE WARD, KGO RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: No. In fact,
what we found out now is that the Bush administration never cared about
the people that were actually going fight this war. We now know they
didn't send in enough troops. We know that, because they're going to
add 12,000. We knot that they sent 40 percent of the troops in without
the ceramic body armor that they needed, while they were giving it to
troops of foreign countries to get them to send troops. We know they
went in without the armor that they needed. In fact, then went in and
they're using Humvees as armored personnel carriers because of the
situation.
BLITZER: But about what about now? The question is,
what about right now? Are they committed right now to doing everything
they can to save the lives and limbs of these troops?
WARD:
No, they're not, because as you know, the armored company in Ohio said
that they could pump their production levels up to 550 a month, and
they told the Army that, and they've known it for months, and the Army
has never asked them to do it. We know that the body armor is still not
reaching all of the troops.
And as you heard yesterday,
Wolf, Rumsfeld said it, that somebody has to get the old equipment. And
the National Guard and Reserve units are the ones that are getting
antiquated equipment. And Rumsfeld's answer -- that was another
question from a soldier, was how come we're getting the bad equipment?
How come we're not getting what we need? And Rumsfeld's answer was,
somebody has to get the old equipment.
BLITZER: All right, what about that Armstrong?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, TALK SHOW HOST: Well, obviously your two guests, I
actually without a doubt I believe both guests. It depends on the time
they were in Iraq. If you were there in the beginning, obviously, they
were not as well equipped, they were not as well prepared, because as
you said it earlier, they assumed they would go in, the generals would
turncoat on their government and support the United States and its
allies in overthrowing Saddam and putting together a sovereign state
there. That didn't happen.
So as the violence escalated and
we lost lives, Rumsfeld and the president realized they needed to make
more commitments, they realized exactly what was needed. From early in
the beginning of this war, they were thinking that it was going to be
nuclear, and they were putting together these suits to protect them --
no, chemical, biological warfare.
So I think both said that
progress has been made, certainly far more progress than there was in
the beginning. I would never want someone to believe that the president
of the United States, our commander in chief, commit men and women to
fight a war of this importance and not commit every kind of resource to
protects them. I have no doubt that this president and this
administration is doing that. And obviously from the conversation you
had from the young men, we are making is progress. But there's always
much more work to do. It's good that Mr. Rumsfeld...
BLITZER: Bernie, do you want to respond to that?
WARD: Well, first of all, Armstrong just told you everything that was
wrong with what Bush did, that they went in, they weren't planned.
Let me remind you, they decided when toad to go to war. This was not a
war that was forced on us. If they needed an Army that they wanted to
have, they could have waited. There was absolutely no reason to have to
go in in March. And so A lot of Americans -- in fact, UPI reported
yesterday, 20 percent of the deaths in Iraq could have been stopped if
this stuff had been done before they sent them into war.
So
Armstrong has absolutely no evidence to show that this president cared
about the average soldier that they were sending over into are a war,
because they sent them inadequately prepared, inadequate intelligence,
inadequate...
WILLIAMS: I assume, like many Americans, that
after the November election, that some of the bitterness that the left
has toward this president -- at least you should try to be objective,
not try to say that our commander in chief is heartless and could care
less about the lives men and women in Iraq. I think that's a sad
commentary on your part.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS:
Listen, this president had to get approval. You know what happened in
the beginning. He was trying to get the allies to support him in going
to war. They were trying not to do it, trying to avoid the winter
months. They were forced to go until March.
The bottom is no
matter what our politics are here today, we are Americans. And this
American president is committed to protecting the lives of the soldiers
there, and he's not perfect. And it's good that Mr. Rumsfeld was in
Iraq to hear what those soldiers had to say. And I'm willing to bet you
they will put measures in place to correct this problem. We can at
least give him the benefit of the doubt and show some support instead
of being bitter, as you are, sir, because you don't like the president.
WARD: Armstrong, I don't know if you know I'm bitter or not, I'll tell you thing...
WILLIAMS: You sound that way. You sure could you fool me.
WARD: I'll tell you one thing, I don't like the idea of sending young
people into war and not giving them the equipment that they need. But
even worse than that that, Armstrong, in December of 2003 -- you heard
that interview where the guy said in August, we knew there was a
problem. In December of 2003, Armstrong, they were still only making 12
armored Humvees. We can make a million Humvees for Arnold
Schwarzenegger to drive around. How come in December of 2003,
Armstrong, they were still not making enough so that they could replace
them and protect the lives of these soldiers you say this president
cares about?
WILLIAMS: You know, the bottom line is, even I
can criticize the president and find areas where he could do better. At
least you can find some areas where you feel this president and his
administration does some good in trying to protect our men at home and
abroad.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: You don't send people to war without protecting them.
WILLIAMS: You can not even utter one sum, Because you're so bitter.
You're still (INAUDIBLE) over the election, and you're upset.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: You can't be fair.
WARD: I'm bitter, Armstrong, because an administration that never
served in the military, an administration that ducked its
responsibility then sent young people into harm's way, and they didn't
protect them, and even eight months later, they still weren't
protecting them. Even today, if you drive a heavy truck or a medium
truck, you're not protected. You can still die. You know what,
Armstrong, every single family of every single soldier who died in this
war needlessly has right to be bitter that a commander in chief that
sent them over there not well prepared.
WILLIAMS: May I
remind you, there's a purpose to this war. We did not ask for 9/11.
This president had to make decisions as any leader must do to define
his presidency. He went into Afghanistan. He felt in order to protect
us from what happened on 9/11 it was better for us to go into Iraq now
with preemptive strikes than to wait later. The American people
supported him in this effort, and that is why he was re-elected. Trust
the American people.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD: I have
great respect for you, but to lie to the American people right now is
an amazing thing for you to do. To suggest to tell the lie of all lies,
which is that Iraq has any connection to September 11th, that Iraq had
to be done because we were attacked on September 11th is the greatest
of all lies that have been perpetrated in this country.
WILLIAMS: Well then, I must say to you, sir, you are in the minority if
you don't think there's a connection. You and I just differ. That's not
where I am, and most Americans are not there either.
BLITZER: Let me press Armstrong on this, because this is a sensitive
subject. What do you see as the connection between what happened on
9/11 and Saddam Hussein?
WILLIAMS: If you read the book,
"9/11," as I have, they made it clear that Saddam Hussein may not have
had direct contact with these insurgents and the terrorists, but some
of his military, some of his generals, some of his entourage. There
were contacts between them. There were situations where money was
exchanged.
BLITZER: I think what the 9/11 Commission is that
there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, but
there was no evidence that they could find that there was any contact
between Saddam Hussein and the plotters and the plot of 9/11.
WILLIAMS: But still, his countrymen, people who were close to him were
involved with Al Qaeda. You cannot say emphatically that Saddam Hussein
was not aware of it. You may not have evidence.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Wait a minute, Bernie. Hold on, Bernie. Hold on.
You think Saddam Hussein was aware of the 9/11 plot as it was unfolding, before it happened?
WILLIAMS: I cannot say. I don't want to...
BLITZER: Well, what evidence do you have that he might be aware of it?
WILLIAMS: I'm not saying that. I just think that when you're fighting a
war on terrorism and you have Saddam Hussein boasting about his
chemical weapons and his weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that
he's going to lay America low, and that he's going to dispatch
terrorists with these detonating suitcases to set off explosives...
WARD: He never said that, ever.
WILLIAMS: I think it's a clear case, when he did not cooperate with
U.N. inspectors, it's a clear case for the president to go to the
United Nations and say, this man is a threat to world peace.
BLITZER: All right, we're going to take a break, but, Bernie, go ahead and respond.
WARD: Well, it's a lie. He keeps lying. The fact of the matter is, that
there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and the
best person that said that was President Bush himself when he was
finally asked it directly.
But here's a better one,
Armstrong says we should attack the people that attacked us. They came
in on Saudi passports. Seven of the 15 of them Saudis. And we invade
Iraq. The Saudis were funding Al Qaeda. We invade Iraq. The Saudis were
giving safe haven to Al Qaeda. We attack Iraq.
Armstrong
Williams just said on national television he has no evidence of
involvement of Saddam Hussein, the president said there's no evidence
that Saddam Hussein -- yet Armstrong, and the president and this
administration continue to lie every day connecting Iraq to September
11th.
BLITZER: All right, I'll pick up with Armstrong Williams right after a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. We're talking about some of the hot topics of
the week with our guests, radio talk show host Bernie Ward. He's out in
San Francisco. Syndicated columnist, talk show host Armstrong Williams.
He's here in Washington D.C.
Armstrong, you heard Bernie,
he's getting very, very angry at you. He's calling you a liar for
saying that there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
WILLIAMS: You know, it's what I believe. There's no doubt I feel that
there's a connection between Saddam Hussein if you've read the book
"9/11," if you listened to the reports, if you listened to things that
he said.
You know, I'm not going to venture to call someone
a liar or dishonest just because they believe in something, but if it's
different from our perspective, and my understanding and my
intelligence sources. I would not do that. I have a tremendous respect
for him. And he and I have a different point of view. And I'm not the
only one. I may be an outsider, but there are many Americans who feel
that way, that there's a director contact between Saddam Hussein and
what happened to us on 9-11. BLITZER: And, Bernie, the -- I think you
agree, the American public had a chance to respond on all of these
issues. They were well debated during the course of the campaign, and
they responded by re- electing the president.
WARD: Well,
they did respond by re-electing the president, but that doesn't mean
that if you saw the study out of the University of Maryland, the
majority of Republican voters believed Saddam Hussein was involved in
September 11th -- pardon me -- Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons,
Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and Saddam Hussein
said that he wanted to attack the United States. None of which are
true. None of them are true.
Armstrong says he believed he
was involved in 9/11. It's a faith statement. You know what, you don't
make policy on faith statements. And more importantly, you don't tell
the American people something that you don't have evidence for, unless
you're going stand up and say, hey, listen, guys, I don't know if this
is true, but this is what I believe. This has been the big lie for the
entire campaign and after.
And in fact, Wolf, you saw the
exit polls and this issue, and this issue of Saddam Hussein, and Iraq
and September 11th were morphed together, and every one -- the 9/11
report, the Senate intelligence report, the Duelfer Report all said --
and the president, all said there was no connection between the two.
BLITZER: Let's bring this conversation back to where we started, the
need for armor for protective equipment to help the U.S. troops, the
150,000 that are going to be on the ground in Iraq in the coming weeks.
And I'll bring it back to Armstrong. A lot of people are
asking this question. The Pentagon is spending billions and billions
and billions of dollars on very high-tech spy equipment, satellite,
reconnaissance information, but they're not spending enough on
equipment to save the lives of U.S. troops. How can you justify that?
WILLIAMS: You can't. It is baffling. It's baffling that our men and
women are putting their lives on the line for us to maintain the
freedom and the security that we have, and yet you have town hall
meeting and they complain that they're not equipped, they're exposed,
their lives or in danger; they don't have proper backup. You know, I
wouldn't dare try to second-guess them. I think it's inexcusable that
we spend money on -- and especially spend money on things than don't
end up working. It's wasted money. We should use, by any means
necessary, spend whatever is necessary, but the money from wherever is
necessary to make sure that these men and women have the best chance...
BLITZER: Armstrong, then I'll bring Bernie in -- would you be willing
to cut a few billion-dollars from space-defense equipment, satellites
and all sorts of anti-missile systems that are being developed at a
huge expenditure to pay for some of this conventional equipment that
you need to fight a war? WILLIAMS: And I've argued this before.
Absolutely. I feel it's necessary, but not to the extent as to how they
spend this money and they have little to show for it. Our first
priority is to fight this war and to protect our men and women. And on
that area, I disagree with this administration. I think they can do far
more. I don't think that there should be any reason why men and women
should complain. That should be the least of their focus while they're
fighting this war.
BLITZER: All right, Bernie, we're out of time, but I'll give you the last word. Go ahead.
WARD: Well, the last word is it's not just Iraq. We now have wounded
coming back here who don't have jobs. This administration is cutting
pay. This administration refused in their budget for military
construction to build more housing. They're being sent to bases where
they didn't have doctors. We're now seeing homeless Iraqi vets showing
up in homeless shelters. I mean, for a man that says he honors the
Americans who have been fighting for this country, there's no evidence
of that. Whether it's in the equipment that they got, or now the way
they're being treated when they come home. And people have to wake up
to the fact that this administration had a political agenda that never
included taking care of the actual young people who had to fight this
war.
BLITZER: Bernie Ward from KGO Radio in San Francisco, thanks very much for joining us.
Armstrong Williams, radio talk show host, columnist here in Washington,
thanks to you as well. This debate will continue.
Coming up
at the top of the hour, federal officials keep their eye on a
potentially new threat to airline pilots. Details coming up in the next
hour on "LIVE FROM." We'll take quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every week day 5:00 p.m. Eastern for
"WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." A controversial television station sends out
its own hate message over the American airwaves. So why is no one
taking responsibility for it? We'll have details. that's coming up
today at 5:00 today on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." But in the meantime,
thanks very much for joining us for the NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Wolf Blitzer
in Washington.
"LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Tony Harris coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
