Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
How do Credible Threats of Terrorism Affect America?
Aired May 21, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. The government is taking us at our word. We say we want to know all about terrorist threats aimed at civilians, letitimate or not. So now we know to watch out for suicide bombers. The government warns radical Islamic training -- and I am going to go to Bill Hemmer at the moment -- excuse me...
(INTERRUPTED FOR CNN COVERAGE OF A LIVE EVENT)
NEVILLE: As you heard Gen. Tommy Franks say, he thinks the threats to the country are credible. Apartment buildings, water supplies, power facilities and shopping malls could be on hit lists. How does all of this make you feel? Let's talk to Jim Walsh, a political scientist at Harvard University's, John F. Kennedy's School of Government, and Mike Brooks, a former member of the FBI Terrorism Task Force and 26-year veteran of the D.C. Police Force, working in the intelligence division. Welcome do to both of you gentlemen.
JIM WALSH, POLITICAL SCIENTIST, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
MIKE BROOKS, FORMER MEMBER, FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE: Thank You very much.
NEVILLE: Let's begin, with a phoenix memo by an FBI agent warning about Middle Eastern men linked to bin Laden and taking flight lessons in America. Mike, why didn't the attorney general or the FBI director brief the president and his security staff?
BROOKS: Well, at the time the memo came out, the way a case works -- I think a lot of people do not understand the way an FBI investigation goes. He probably had information about this from his different assets and different sources, wrote up a memo, sent it to his supervisor, who sent it to his supervisor, who went up to the Radical Fundamentalism Unit at FBI headquarters, who took it and analyzed it. There could have been a number of names on it. What they'll do is they'll open up a preliminary investigation, a preliminary inquiry, using the least obtrusive means to go about and check the names. Again, the FBI is guided by a set of attorney general guidelines. So you cannot just go out and put a wiretap on somebody if you think they're doing anything. You have to make sure there is criminality, that there might be a crime involved in this before you go out and do these methods.
NEVILLE: OK. But does that clarify why the president was not notified, why it did not make it up to the ranks?
BROOKS: When they first received the information, it may have been that they did not know exactly what they had. This information probably came to the agent -- and hopefully we will find out a little more today after the hearings. But it probably came to the agent from some of his sources. I have been reading and I heard from my sources that they had good assets within the community. And they may have given them information that they believed that there may have been some criminality involved, but again, you have to go back and verify the source.
NEVILLE: But didn't the name bin Laden come up in that memo?
BROOKS: IN that particular memo, I believe it might have. But again ...
NEVILLE: That's what I'm reading.
BROOKS: If we have all of the information -- bin Laden's name comes up all of the time -- if the FBI went to the president with every little bit of information where bin Laden's name came up, he would be reading nothing but that.
NEVILLE: Jim Walsh, how do you see this.
WALSH: I am not surprised that the president was not briefed on it because my understanding is that the FBI director and attorney general did not have the memo until after the September 11th attacks. But to me, the question is, having received that memo in the days after the attack, why did it take eight months, nine months to release the memo. I think we would have all learned a lot more and furthered our ability to prepare against a future attack if some of this information had come out sooner.
BROOKS: I believe also, you know, that they may have had the information. They are just not going to put the information out there because there may be people's names on the list. Yes, there may have been some people involved in al Qaeda on the list. But if you put the list out with all the people's names that had nothing involved to do with any criminality, you would be violating their rights. And again, I know, after September 11th, everyone says that who worries about political correctness and feels we should do away with the attorney general guidelines, but I think that would be putting us on the slippery slope.
WALSH: Mike, I do think we can handle information, we can put the information into the public domain and not jeopardize people's rights and national security. We have a long experience of this in the Cold War. You have hearings that are classified, meetings that are only with classified people. And if you release documents to scholars or outside analysts, you simply whiteout the names or the important parts of the information.
BROOKS: Well you can deduct the names from the people of the memos, and that is why they have joint terrorism task forces in place involving the local law enforcement so we make sure this information is gotten out to the locals.
NEVILLE: So in light of this, we can expect that this won't happen anymore, right?
BROOKS: Hopefully it won't.
WALSH: Well, Arthel, institutions are slow to change. They do not embrace ...
NEVILLE: We are not talking about any institution here. We are talking about the FBI and national security.
WALSH: Well, in some cases, it is those institutions that tend to be more hierarchical, that often have difficulty changing. I think that they have change; they will continue to change. I do not think they have changed enough, but I am simply saying what we all know if we go to a bank, or we try to pay our phone bill: organizations are big ships, and you do not turn them around quickly, and you need to prod them. That's why I think it's important that some of this information is coming out because it helps prod and move the process forward and forces changes where change needs to be made.
NEVILLE: Are politics in play at all here? Is the FBI being made a scapegoat?
WALSH: Well, I think that it is hard to imagine that politics would not be in play in any of this. Certainly, there are some people that want to cast blame and who want to avoid blame. But I hope that is not the nature of the discussion here. I am willing to say off the bat that let's agree in advance that we will not fire anyone. We won't demote anyone. There will be no retribution exacted for the process of investigation. Let's just get the facts and get them out there, so we can make the corrections and prevent the next terrorist attack. The vice president has said ...
NEVILLE: Let me stop you because you were saying to prevent the next terrorist attack. We are hearing reports from higher-up that we will not prevent the next attack. There will be suicide bombings. It is inevitable. What are people to do with that information?
BROOKS: Again, I think they are saying they are inevitable. It is going to happen. Vice President Cheney says it is not a matter of if but when. People can be aware of their surroundings. And the FBI does a very good job of investigating these cases. When I was on the task force, people used to say jokingly, if you knew what I do, you would never leave your home. And that is true. There is a lot that the FBI does and the CIA and other intelligence agencies, there is a lot they do that never gets to the public domain.
NEVILLE: And, Mike, on that note, in this day and age, people want to know more. The public is crying out. They want more information. So, obviously, the FBI is giving out a little more information than they have in the past. What makes a threat credible enough for the FBI to go ahead and make it public?
BROOKS: Well, there is a lot of information and a lot of different ways that the FBI gathers their intelligence, from human intelligence, from assets to sources that they have, from signals intelligence, overhearers, wiretaps -- legal wiretaps -- and also, you know, document exploitation, when they go and have done some of the different raids in Afghanistan, they've found some tapes, information. And then they have to go about to find out if this information is credible. They've also been interviewing detainees in Guantanamo Bay. But we have to be careful that the information we are getting from the detainees -- they know how to push the Americans' buttons.
NEVILLE: Absolutely, absolutely.
BROOKS: So we have to make sure that the information they're getting is credible.
NEVILLE: Mike, I'm going to jump in there because I will toss this to Kelli Arena, who has some breaking news. Kelli?
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, forgive my voice, but here is the situation. The FBI, out of an abundance of caution, has alerted local authorities in New York City that information that it has gathered from detainees in custody suggest that targets in New York City, monuments in New York City could be targets of possible terrorist attacks. Those targets include the Statue of Liberty.
Now again, I say out of an abundance of caution. This is information that the FBI has picked up, from its detainees. It has not been corroborated. There are no specifics, in terms of a possible time or an actual target. These are just some of the ones mentioned. And so New York City local authorities have beefed up security, I am told, in that area, which is becoming more and more visible now just in case, Arthel?
NEVILLE: Kelli Arena, thank you very much for that breaking news. And, Mike, you heard that report, again, getting information from detainees, as you mentioned. What do you make of all this?
BROOKS: Well, there again, as Kelli said, it is not corroborated. We have to make sure they go back and re-interview it. Again, we are looking at a big puzzle. All these different pieces of information we get from the detainees, from sources, we try to see if we can link any of this, to put all this together to see if we can come up with a big picture. I think that's what they're doing. And they do a good job of it.
NEVILLE: And, Jim, this could be a possible smoke screen. If this information is, in fact, coming from detainees, how much can we really rely on this information?
WALSH: That's the $64 million question. Particularly in the interviews we've had with Abu Zebaida, the highest-ranking al Qaeda member or leadership element that we have captured, we don't know how much of it is information that's leading us astray and how much information is authentic. You would guess that what he would be trying to do is lead us astray. I'm sure that information is treated skeptically. It may be that the law enforcement agencies are releasing part of it in order to see what reaction they get in their signals' intelligence. So I think there's a game going on here.
NEVILLE: Jim, let me let Kelli Arena jump back in here.
ARENA: I will stay.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Kelli. You're on live, go ahead.
ARENA: I'm sorry. I did not hear. Was there a question.
NEVILLE: Oh, I thought you were motioning to jump in with a comment.
ARENA: Oh, no, no. I'm sorry, I was just trying to talk to our control room to ask them if you wanted more information from me. I'm sorry.
NEVILLE: OK. But stand by for us, Kelli. Thank you.
ARENA: I sure will.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
And, in the meantime, I've got Akil (ph) here with a comment or a question.
AKIL: Yes, I think the volume of threats that comes through is just way too much. There is no way that the American public can handle getting every single threat that comes in.
I think this is all being brought to light mostly because of the Democratic Party railroading the Bush administration. And now that is why the administration is being a little bit hyper in trying to relay every threat that comes through.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you.
WALSH: Well, can I comment on that, Arthel?
NEVILLE: Of course.
BROOKS: I would also, too, Jim.
NEVILLE: Both of you, go ahead.
WALSH: My comment would be only that, you'll remember that we have had a series of warnings and complaints about the warning system that predate the latest revelations and calls for investigation.
Back in the fall, we had a week there, you will remember, during Ramadan, during that month, there was a series of different warnings. And so I think this is a problem that has less to do with politics and more with the inherent problem of thing to come up with a warning system that balances the need to know against not getting people needlessly upset. NEVILLE: Exactly.
WALSH: And it is a balancing act. And I don't envy those policy-makers who are trying to make that decision. I do think, though, that this is a system that is not fully finished. We are still tinkering with this. And I expect it to evolve over time.
What bothers me about this -- and we just saw this latest breaking news about monuments in New York City -- is, we have a national alert status, the color-coded system. And that seems to be functioning at one level. And, then over here, we have other information, separate threats about individual targets: nuclear power plants, banks, apartments, the water supply, and now New York City monuments. And it seems that these two things are not in sync.
NEVILLE: Yes, and, honestly, I'm not sure how much the public really pays attention to those color-coded alerts.
BROOKS: I don't think the public nor law enforcement really pays attention to that. They want the hard facts and the information. The
And the information, when they come up with, with the different terrorist threat warnings, they have to be careful not to cry wolf. But, again, there again Americans, traditionally, sometimes need to poked with a stick a little bit, because if something doesn't happen six months, eight months down the road after a major event such as 9/11, we begin to be get complacent. And we've got to make sure that we don't become complacent here in the United States.
NEVILLE: Right, absolutely.
And speaking of not becoming complacent, Mike, when we come back after this break, I would like to ask you what New Yorkers should do with this latest information that just came out. I have got comments from the audience. And we are going to talk more about this on the other side of the break.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody.
Breaking news right now: The New York Police Department has been put on full alert, possible terrorist attacks on monuments in New York City.
Kelli Arena is standing by now with the details on that breaking news -- Kelli.
ARENA: Arthel, here is the latest.
The FBI has notified local law enforcement in New York City about intelligence that it has gathered suggesting that New York City monuments could be the possible target of a terrorist attack. That information, as information that we have heard about in the past, is uncorroborated.
We are told by an FBI official that it is information that is coming from detainees in U.S. custody. As you know, they continue to do interviews with those detainees for information. There is no specific information -- I mean, besides the fact that some monuments are mentioned, including the Statue of Liberty -- no information on a time, on a specific plan. And, again, I have to say uncorroborated reports.
And so the FBI, out of an abundance of caution, has alerted local law enforcement authorities in New York City. And, in turn, security at monuments has been stepped up.
NEVILLE: Kelli, stand by for me, if you will.
Mike Brooks, what do New Yorkers do with this information? It is Memorial Day weekend. People are planning picnics and such.
BROOKS: Well, the information is coming from the FBI. The FBI and the joint terrorism task force here in New York, and also with NYPD and Port Authority, they will do a great job of getting this information out to the public.
We have had threats against public monuments in New York in the past. If you'll recall, back a number of years ago, there was a threat to blow up another -- same kind of buildings here in New York by followers of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman. New Yorkers are resilient. They have gotten through 9/11. They are tough. Everybody says they're the toughest people in the country. They're resilient people. They are at a heightened sense of awareness.
And in talking to people in New York, I think they still are. I think they will handle it just well. And if they see something, they should report it to police, anything suspicious.
NEVILLE: And, Kelli, I want it bring you back in now, because Ashcroft is on Capitol Hill, along with Kenneth Williams, who is the author of the so-called Phoenix memo. If you can give us a little insight as to what will go on with those meetings between those two gentlemen as well as lawmakers.
ARENA: Sure thing.
There are two meetings, as you said, the first with the attorney general. He is meeting with members of the Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill. And, basically, some lawmakers are not satisfied with the level of cooperation they say they are getting from the Justice Department, in terms of turning over documents related to 9/11, allowing access to certain people for interviews and so on.
So, that's one discussion. At another meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the judiciary, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the agent from Phoenix, Kenneth Williams, and FBI Director Robert Mueller are talking about the Phoenix memo. What did Kenneth Williams know at the time that prompted him to write that memo? What happened to that memo? What offices was it forwarded to? Why did it not make it up through the chain of command at the FBI? Why was that information not shared with the CIA?
And then, ultimately, when was that information shared with the Justice Department and then ultimately the White House? So, two separate discussions going on, but all a part of this continuing investigation into what happened right after 9/11 and before, and how to fix those lines of communication between intelligence agencies.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
Kelli Arena, thank you very much for that update.
ARENA: You're welcome.
NEVILLE: Jim Walsh, how much access should lawmakers have to sensitive information?
WALSH: Well, I think it is part of Congress' legitimate oversight responsibilities to be able to go and find out information, some of it classified. That's what the Senate select and House intelligence committees are there for, to be able to listen to sensitive, classified briefings and look at materials and be able to conduct investigations such as these.
But the other committees that don't deal in classified information, they can also investigate and find out facts, find out who was talking to who. Already, in the last couple of weeks, the story has changed -- in the press accounts, anyway -- about who exactly knew and whether the FBI told the CIA, what the CIA told the FBI. We have to be able to answer these questions.
NEVILLE: So, then, perhaps if you have lawmakers having more access to some of this information, perhaps fewer cover-ups, if you will -- I'm not even necessarily implying that -- but if that turns out to be the case, maybe there is less of a chance for something like that?
WALSH: Absolutely.
I think there are three reasons why we need to fully investigate it. First of all, we owe it to the families of the victims. They deserve an answer as to what precisely happened. Secondly, we owe it to ourselves. We know that we have a clock that is ticking, that there are terrorists out there that want to do bad things to us. And one of the best ways we can protect ourselves is do a better job of defense.
That means improving security, finding out more about our enemy, those sorts of things. That is only going to come out if we have an investigation and an inquiry. And, finally, we should do it because that is what democracies do. It is the genius of democracies that they are mature enough, that the societies are strong enough that they are willing to look at their own mistakes and then make changes.
Authoritarian governments don't do that. And that's why they make mistake after mistake after mistake. I can't imagine that we would have an event like 9/11 and not have a full investigation and inquiry into it. I think history would judge us badly if we didn't do that.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
I have got Paula from Georgia here.
PAULA: Well, we have lots of terrorist attempts to our country that, why aren't we looking into that like we are looking into this one? They have been out there for years. We had all these -- the American people are not being informed like they should be. And who is the one saying, "Well, this they should know and this they don't need to know"? It is our country. It is our right to know what is going on.
NEVILLE: Mike, would you answer that, please?
BROOKS: Well, again, there is some information that can't be put out -- there is some information that cannot be put out to the public until it is fully investigated, or at least until they open up a full field investigation to say, yes, there is some criminal activity involved.
And, as we are seeing, we are seeing more disclosure by the government, by General Ashcroft, the Office of Homeland Security. We're seeing more disclosure now to the American public than we ever had. And I think that's good.
WALSH: Well, I would only say that I agree with Mike that that's good.
But the reason why we are seeing this disclosure is because "CBS Evening News" broke the story. If they hadn't broken the story, then we would still be going on about business as usual. So, I think it shows that we still have a -- there is still a learning curve here. There's a lot more that we could be doing that we are not doing.
And let's just assume that everyone is positively motivated, that they have goodwill. No one did anything out of harshness or meanness. Maybe mistakes were made. Maybe they weren't. Let's just find out what the answers are so that we can fix the problem.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
BROOKS: And I think the FBI, also, is kind of refocusing their mission, too. They are turning bank robbery investigations, those kind of investigations over to local law enforcement, to refocus and restructure their programs to deal with anti-terrorism as well as counterterrorism.
NEVILLE: Mike, do you think these New York monuments should be closed over the weekend?
BROOKS: I don't think they should, unless they have specific information. And, right now, I can guarantee you that there's agents and police officers out in New York City beating the bushes, asking their assets about any information that they have in reference to these threats. They are also working on trying to find out additional information to corroborate what we have right now. Right now, I don't think we should. We would be succumbing to the terrorists.
NEVILLE: Right, playing right into their hands.
BROOKS: Exactly. And there is not enough specific information right now to go ahead and close the monuments. People being vigilant, people noticing what is going on around them, I think that's the best weapon we have right now against these terrorist attacks.
NEVILLE: OK, Sonny (ph)?
SONNY: Yes, I just had one comment.
Issuing these threats and warnings, I think it is only a short- term solution. And we have to live with that in the short-term context. But where I see a dichotomy in the American approach is not going to the source of these terrorist attacks and where the plans are being made. And while America has paid enough attention to Afghanistan, they are not paying enough attention to Pakistan.
We saw General Franks making a comment. But, probably, terrorists are right now are planning new attacks on American public right now in Pakistan. And we are seeing them as being taken as an ally in the war on terrorism. And this I see is very...
NEVILLE: Where are you from?
SONNY: I am from India, from Kashmir. And I have been a victim of terrorist attacks.
(LAUGHTER)
BROOKS: I guess would you have that opinion.
But, you know, we also have to remember that, right after the embassy bombings in Nairobi in August of 1998, Pakistan did help. They helped bring back the main bomber for that and bring him back to Nairobi and ultimately back to the United States for justice.
The Pakistani authorities were also extremely cooperative back with the arrest of Mir Aimal Kansi, who shot and killed a number of people outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. They were extremely cooperative with the FBI and other intelligence agencies on bringing those people back to justice and to bringing those terrorists back to the United States.
So, I don't know if you are talking about this from your political point of view, but I just want to show that the Pakistanis have been cooperative in the past. Couldn't they do better? Probably so.
WALSH: I think the viewer makes a fair point that Pakistan has been a haven for terrorism in the past. Certainly, the Indian government has expressed legitimate concern, again, given the events of this week, about terrorists that work out of Pakistan and then move into Kashmir.
But I think we also have to accept the fact that there is no way the U.S. could have launched the war in Afghanistan without the strong support and assistance of Pakistan.
NEVILLE: Jim Walsh?
WALSH: Yes.
NEVILLE: I'm out of time. Thank you so much.
WALSH: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Mike Brooks, thank you as well for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE
BROOKS: Good to be here.
NEVILLE: Good.
We are going to take a break and we'll be right back with a look at the new Tom Clancy film, "The Sum of All Fears."
Up next: terrorists with nukes. Is Tom Clancy's latest thriller as scary as the nightly news?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SUM OF ALL FEARS")
JAMES CROMWELL, ACTOR: And let's not forget how this thing started, OK? They tried it kill me, remember?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Meet actor James Cromwell, along with the direct of "The Sum of All Fears" right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
While so many of us ponder the where, when and how of another terrorist attack, a new movie comes out soon about what could happen if the wrong people got their hands on a nuclear weapon. It is the latest Tom Clancy film, "The Sum of All Fears."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SUM OF ALL FEARS")
BEN AFFLECK, ACTOR: The bomb is in play. (INAUDIBLE) They are meeting me at the docks in 20 minutes. We're going to see if we can find it.
MORGAN FREEMAN, ACTOR: Docks, what docks?
AFFLECK: Baltimore.
FREEMAN: You are breaking up. What did you say? Look, I'm losing you. I will call you back.
AFFLECK: Baltimore. Sir?
FREEMAN: Let's go! Let's go!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Wow. Wow.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Yes.
The movie explores a plot to instigate World War III. And it touches on some very real fears we find ourselves living with this very day.
Veteran actor James Cromwell plays the U.S. president. He joins us right here in Atlanta, along with director Phil Alden Robinson, who joins us from Washington. We want to welcome both of you gentlemen to TALKBACK LIVE.
OK, James, I want to start with you. You portray the president of the United States, who is faced with possible nuclear war. And given the climate we live in today, does that make your role carry that much more weight than maybe it would have had maybe, say, last summer?
CROMWELL: You mean, the time right now...
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
CROMWELL: ... that the movie is being released?
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
CROMWELL: Definitely, since we live -- every day, the headlines bring up something that have ramifications as far as the movie is concerned that we didn't know when we made the movie. We didn't know that such an event as 9/11 could happen. And had we known, it would, I think, have affected the way we made the film.
NEVILLE: Right. In fact, you wrapped the film, what, three months before September 11.
And, Phil, I wanted to know if in fact the studio postponed the release date or if you had to go back and redo any scenes in light of September 11?
PHIL ALDEN ROBINSON, DIRECTOR: No. The release was always scheduled for summer of 2002.
And the movie that we had designed, that we had planned was really not so much about a terrorist attack, as it was about the response to a terrorist attack. So, we actually did not have to make any changes post-9/11. NEVILLE: But, once again, you were right on target. And excuse that pun. But you were right on target in terms of dealing with the response to the terror attack.
When you watch your film, now that it is complete and it's after September 11, are there any scenes in particular that maybe sends shivers down your spine, because it seems like it could have been ripped right from the headlines?
ROBINSON: Well, quite a bit of it sends shivers down my spine, as it did when I read the book and when I first saw the first cut of the film.
The scenes when James Cromwell as the president is rushed out of the stadium, and then later on, when he is rescued, sends shivers down my spine every time, because he is so believable as the president. And I just want to point out in that clip you showed of him being raced out of the stadium, we almost crippled James doing that. He came up lame after a couple of takes.
NEVILLE: You know what? I was wondering, because they rammed you into that limo and your head banged up against the door. I was wondering about that. And your neck was kind of crooked.
CROMWELL: It's just acting.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Yes, OK. Were you hurt a little bit there on that one?
CROMWELL: Well, I managed to pull my hamstring, but that was my fault, not their fault. I just didn't warm up. I still believe I'm 19.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Oh, that's good. I like that. You have to be young at heart. It's all about the spirit.
CROMWELL: That's right.
NEVILLE: Now, I wanted to ask you, though, when you see the movie, you are playing the president of the United States. What are you thinking when you are watching this movie now? Or, have you seen it since September 11?
CROMWELL: Oh, yes, I have seen it since.
Well, of course, I watched as the rest of the American public watched with horror on 9/11. I think I stood in front of the television for three days trying to figure out what this all meant, not in terms of the film, but in terms of our life, and what we can expect, and what kind of country we live in, and what kind of world we live in, and why people hate us, why anybody would conceive that something like that would further anyone's cause. I think the American public will look at this picture differently because of it. And it is part of the healing process and part of the process of coming to an understanding about the events that happened on 9/11 and how we can integrate them into our life, come to some understanding, and change the causes that led to it.
NEVILLE: Right.
Quickly, though, Phil, on that same note, though, do you think the public would be less willing to see the film because it is almost too close to reality?
ROBINSON: Well, as you can imagine, we tested the film extensively. And what we found overwhelmingly across the country is, the audiences told us, a year ago they would have seen this as a good popcorn movie. Today, they take it in as drama, as good drama that actually reflects something in their daily lives.
And the film is a restrained and responsible examination of these issues and of the response to these issues. So, I think that we have been very heartened by the audience. The audience is always smarter than we assume they are.
NEVILLE: Listen, I have to take a break right now, but don't go anywhere. Phil Robinson and James Cromwell will be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
I want to thank my guests, James Cromwell and Phil Robinson. The movie: "The Sum of All Fears." We are out of time for today.
I want to remind you to keep it posted right here to CNN. We are going to fill you in at the top of the hour on the breaking news. The FBI has issued terrorist warnings to New York local authorities, possible threats against landmarks in New York City.
We will fill you in on all the details at the top of the hour right here on CNN. Keep it where it is.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
