|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Trent Lott Under Fire; Calls for Boston's Cardinal Law to Step Down
Aired December 11, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: the top Republican in the Senate under fire for saying things even he admits were terrible.
ANNOUNCER: The most powerful man in the Senate: a firestorm over his remarks, critics calling for him to step down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To say that a segregationist should have become president and that that would have avoided a lot of the problems that we have now, that is racist. That's racist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Has he done this before?
And new calls for this man to step down: Boston's embattled archbishop under fire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Cardinal Law must go! Stop Cardinal Law!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This as the priest in the center of the church sex controversy walks free on bond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I were he, I would worry very much about his safety.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Would the removal of Cardinal Bernard Law solve Boston's church crisis?
The sniper suspect, would you watch his trial on TV? Cameras in the courtroom: from O.J. to Dr. Death, William Kennedy Smith to the King brothers. Will the camera lens now be focused on John Allen Muhammad?
What length should a teenager go to to be thin? How far should a parent allow their teen to go? Tonight: stomach-stapling, not for adults only.
And who will be our "Person of the Day"?
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
We hit on two stories of two powerful men, both feeling heat to step down from their positions. One is Boston Cardinal Bernard Law, whom we'll get to a little later.
First, though: Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, due to run Senate when the new Congress is seated next month. On Thursday -- listen to this -- he said he was proud his state had voted for Strom Thurmond for president in 1948 and, if Thurmond had won -- quote -- "We wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."
Thurmond ran as a segregationist, campaigning to keep blacks and whites separates. Under duress, Lott apologized, calling what he said a poor choice of words at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. But, in 1980, Lott said almost the exact same thing at a rally.
As CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl reports, some politicians think Lott still has a lot of explaining to do.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After nearly a week of silence, Trent Lott decided to explain his comments in a phone interview with a conservative talk show host, saying that, despite his previous statements, he in no way supports the segregationist platform of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.
"The words were terrible. And I regret that. And I can almost say that this was a mistake of the head, not of the heart, because I don't accept those policies of the past at all." Lott's apology intentionally echoed the words of Jesse Jackson back in 1984, after he was accused of anti-Semitism for referring to New York City as "Jaime Town." The phrase was a reminder that Lott is not the first political figure to seek an apology for racially insensitive remarks.
Just last year, it was Democrat Robert Byrd, himself a one-time member of the KKK, who apologized for racially insensitive remarks.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: We can learn that words hurt. Words can hurt a lot. And I will tell you, though, though a lot of people, I'm sure, have forgiven both Jesse Jackson and Robert Byrd for what they've said in the past, a lot of people have not forgotten those words.
KARL: Some of Lott's toughest critics think apologizing is not enough.
REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: I think it's difficult and hard to see, in this day and age, how a man who said what he said, even if he'll make an apology, can still be in this role.
KARL: Democrat John Kerry, a potential presidential candidate, became the first senator to call for Lott to resign as majority leader, saying in a written statement, "Trent Lott's statements place a cloud over his leadership, because there can never be an appearance of racism or bigotry in any high position of leadership, particularly in the United States Senate."
But no other senator has called for Lott to step down. And most Republicans seem to accept his apology.
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA: I believe he's open to all people. I've never heard him -- I've been with him in the House, in the Senate -- utter anything that I would consider or anybody would consider racist.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Now, Lott's fellow Republicans are not calling for his resignation, but many of them up here in the Senate are privately outraged not only by his original comments, but also by what they consider the clumsy way and the delayed and belated way he has handled his apology -- Connie.
CHUNG: Jonathan, the buzzards really seem to be circling. What's the pulse beat on the Hill?
KARL: Well, this is something that -- everybody has thought this story was going to end, but there was always something more.
And this latest revelation, the revelation that you referred to at the top of the show, about these remarks that Trent Lott made back in 1980 that virtually are identical to what he said at Strom Thurmond's birthday party last night really added fuel to this fire. And most of the Republican colleagues up here for Trent Lott think that he will ride this storm out, he will continue as majority leader, that he's secure in that sense.
But this is something that has severely damaged him and damaged him for a long time.
CHUNG: All right, thank you, Jonathan Karl in Washington.
KARL: Sure.
CHUNG: Joining me from Washington is nationally syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams. And, in Detroit, we have "Seattle Times" syndicated columnist Carl Jeffers.
Thank you both for being with us.
Mr. Williams, you were in the room when Lott made these comments. What was your reaction?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I turned to the people standing next to me and I just blurted out, "That is a scary thought." It sent chills down my spine. I was absolutely stunned.
And the audience should know that the people in that room were just aghast at what he said. They were stunned. The applause stopped. People were turning around. Somebody whispered, "What was he thinking?" Obviously, it was a very racist remark. And I was just stunned. I could not believe it, actually. I was just heartbroken, because, for me, as a conservative...
CHUNG: Exactly. I was just about to say that, Mr. Williams. You are one of the most conservative voices in America. And you used to work for Strom Thurmond. He was your mentor.
WILLIAMS: Still is. But he changed. That's the key. Strom Thurmond is not living in 1948. His history, his appointments, the issues that he's supported, from voting rights to the Martin Luther King holiday bill, he has changed. He has evolved.
What is scary to me, and the question that I must ask is whether Trent Lott is still living in the '40s, instead of 2002.
CHUNG: Carl Jeffers, you are a liberal. Did you find what he said offensive?
CARL JEFFERS, "SEATTLE TIMES": Well, actually, Connie, it's important to note that I'm a progressive moderate. And that's important for the distinction here, because I don't want our audience to get confused about Armstrong Williams and I on reverse sides of the issues that we normally would be on the opposite ends of.
CHUNG: Well, it is confusing.
JEFFERS: Yes. And that's why it's important.
You see, the liberals on this case, have a particular position here about Trent Lott that goes for some political advantages that I reject. On the other hand, the conservative position here is that he in fact should remain in office. And Armstrong Williams has a tradition of supporting those pieces of legislation and actions which in fact are conservative and are against the very people and groups who are now calling for Trent Lott's resignation.
Connie, let's make one thing clear.
CHUNG: Well, tell us your position.
JEFFERS: Yes, let's make one thing clear.
In terms of Trent Lott's political machinations, I think, most of the time, he rises very seldom above mere buffoonery. I think that, very often, he is disingenuous. And, in fact, I believe he and Tom DeLay represent the most Neanderthal level of thinking in the American Congress.
But I've listened to the statement he made. I've evaluated the speech, and including the comments he made in 1980. And I don't believe that you can conclude, just from the ambiguous statement, that he is a racist. And I believe it's important that African-Americans and all of the minority groups in this country not use the label of racism to describe everything that is wrong, because it dilutes the power of that charge when we do in fact detect something that is in fact racist.
CHUNG: This is quite extraordinary, Mr. Jeffers. They always say politics makes strange bedfellows. But both of you are taking the other position.
Mr. Williams, I do want you to speak now and tell us, do you think that Trent Lott should resign?
WILLIAMS: You know, Senator Lott and I share many of the same values. My values come from my faith, which are reflected in the platform of much of what the Republican Party stands for.
Senator Lott has been wounded. He said something that he cannot recover from. It has embarrassed the president. It has embarrassed his party. And this is an issue of the family. I could care less about the Democrats or what anyone else has to say about Trent Lott. This is an issue of our party. He is wounded. He cannot lead us in a very effective way.
I think he should be man enough to -- not because someone is asking him to, but he should become selfless instead of selfish. And he should do the right thing by understanding that he is more of a liability than an asset now. And he should decide to step aside and allow someone else to take that leadership role, so they would not be maligned and used as the poster child for white conservative racism in the 2004 elections.
CHUNG: Mr. Jeffers, is there anything that Trent Lott can do to make it better for himself?
JEFFERS: Well, first of all, what he has to do is to come out with more, I think, contrition in his statement. And the White House needs to issue a statement as well.
And he needs to make it very clear that this type of activity that Strom Thurmond represented is the most heinous type of activity and objectionable behavior and conduct on the part of any public official in the country. But you know what, Connie? Unlike Armstrong, I don't share any values with Trent Lott.
And that's why I believe I'm operating at a higher level here, because what I'm saying to you is that, in the Nixon administration, Earl Butz was secretary of the agriculture. Now, Earl Butz made disparaging comments about American Jews. He made terrible, objectionable, heinous jokes about African-Americans. If you looked at his statements, there were no inferences to be drawn. We didn't have anything ambiguous. We were able to detect immediately racism there. And there was a groundswell of support and demand for his resignation. With Trent Lott, if you look at the statement, it is ambiguous. And, in fact, it is not a clear-cut connection of the dots from that statement to racism.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFFERS: And the last point I would make, Connie, is simply this.
CHUNG: Quickly.
JEFFERS: We have to remember that, right now, Trent Lott is probably better served for those of us who are progressives to remain in the Senate, because, in five or six months, the president is going to send a judicial nomination up there who wants to reverse civil rights progress, wants to reverse Roe vs. Wade, wants to chop down every tree in the forest, and wants to give out a
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: We hear your point, Mr. Jeffers. Thank you so much.
JEFFERS: And that's why Trent Lott needs to stay. And he stands for that.
CHUNG: All right, I respect both of you for your positions. And we thank you for being with us tonight, Carl Jeffers and Armstrong Williams.
JEFFERS: My pleasure. Good to be here, Connie.
CHUNG: Still ahead: another hot-button issue over the accused Washington sniper. Should you be able to watch his trial?
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up: A priest charged with a decade of sexual abuse walks free on bail. Where did Paul Shanley get $300,000? Plus: Should Boston's archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, step down for not stopping the abuses?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Stop Cardinal Law! Cardinal Law must go!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law resigned today. But it wasn't the resignation a lot of Boston Catholics are hollering for. Law stepped down as chairman of the board of trustees at Catholic University in Washington, D.C. Cries for him to resign as Boston's archbishop grew louder this week.
And, as CNN's Bill Delaney reports, the case that started it all saw a surprising new development today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL DELANEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Another tumultuous week for Boston's Catholic Archdiocese: former priest Paul Shanley, awaiting trial for allegedly raping four young men, freed on $300,000 bail, put up, his lawyer said, by friends and admirers; the same day, more documents alleging sexual abuse by priests released, among thousands of new documents just in the past week and a half.
Sunday, some of the largest crowds ever called for Archbishop Bernard Law's resignation outside Holy Cross Cathedral, with the cardinal at the Vatican to meet with, among others, cardinals expert on resignation; a meeting with the pope expected as soon as Thursday.
Perhaps the most stunning document of the week also alluding to resignation: a letter calling for it, signed by more than 50 priests in the archdiocese.
FATHER ROBERT BOWERS, ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON: He doesn't have what it takes now to be the archbishop of Boston. It was the knowledge that the cardinal and others in his administration had -- and not just this cardinal, but his predecessor -- had about the cases and their attempts to protect the church and the church's image at all costs.
DELANEY: As for costs to the church, the cardinal also met in Rome with experts at the Holy See on the possibility of the archdiocese declaring bankruptcy to confront an estimated $100 million in claims and counting against it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DELANEY: Another measure of the anger here: As we speak, in a suburban Boston church, a group called Voice of the Faithful is meeting.
Now, this is a group formed several months ago, around the time of the Father Shanley explosion here in Boston. They now say they're 25,000 strong across the country. Tonight, they will vote to call for the resignation of Cardinal Law. That's very significant, because this group has been holding back from that extreme measure for months now, despite pressure. They finally feel that, now, the cardinal can no longer run this archdiocese -- Connie.
CHUNG: Bill Delaney in Boston, thank you.
Also in Boston tonight, we have Ambassador Ray Flynn former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and former mayor of Boston; and one of the priests who signed that letter calling for Cardinal Law's resignation, Father Robert Nee.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Mr. Ambassador, the drumbeat is pretty loud now. A new poll shows that seven out of 10 Catholics believe that the pope should remove Cardinal Law from power. Don't you think it's in the best interests of everyone that he step down?
RAY FLYNN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN: Well, I certainly don't speak for the Catholic Church. I don't speak for Cardinal Law. I speak for myself.
I think the most important priority that I feel, as just a normal Catholic here, that is as important is: one, settle these cases so there's a fair and equitable settlement for these cases; and, secondly, that there's a policy so sexual abuse by a priest is no longer just considered a sin or a sickness, which it certainly is, but a crime, and, for anybody responsible for this type of despicable behavior met with the same type of law enforcement zeal that any other citizen in society would experience.
CHUNG: And what about Cardinal Law? Because in fact, these -- the latest information we get is that, indeed, he continues to reassign priests who have been accused.
FLYNN: Well, the holy father and the cardinal I suspect are going to meet tomorrow. And one of the questions that will come up is whether or not there should be a coadjutor of the Diocese of Boston, something that has happened before, not in Boston, but in other jurisdictions across the United States.
Certainly, if I were the pope, I'd want to make sure that there was a mechanism in place to provide the leadership to settle these cases. And I'm sure that that's what going to happen.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Just quickly, what would the coadjutor do?
FLYNN: He would have basically administrative control over the diocese, the Archdiocese of Boston. And, quite frankly, if they can't settle, if this person couldn't settle the cases, then the option -- the only option that may be left available is the option of bankruptcy of the Diocese of Boston.
CHUNG: All right, let me jump over now to Father Nee.
Father Nee, it's really quite an extraordinary thing that you signed this letter and more than 50 priests signed the letter. Why do you believe Cardinal Law should step down?
FATHER ROBERT NEE, BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Well, I've been asking Cardinal Law to resign since January 26. So, signing the letter was not something new. He's already received from me, personally, a number of letters. And I spoke with him directly since January and counseled him to resign.
What is helpful is that, finally, there's been a group of priests with the same desire who have been able to sign a letter together. So, that's probably what's significant about it. There are individual priests like myself who have been involved in helping the cardinal to make the decision to resign. But, this time, we were able to do it in larger numbers together.
CHUNG: And you believe that Cardinal Law has lost his spiritual leadership and moral leadership?
NEE: Yes, I believe so.
CHUNG: Back to Ambassador Flynn.
I think I've seen several interviews with you. And I think this is the first time you've haven't just flat out said Cardinal Law should not resign, that he should stay in place. Are you willing to go there again?
FLYNN: Oh, no, I am very direct and very clear in my position right from the very beginning. My judgment is not influenced by what the media has to say or what public opinion has to say. My judgment is based on what I believe is in the best interest of the Catholic Church.
I don't have exclusive concern in that area, obviously. But I think it's in the best interest of the church for the cardinal to stay here in Boston, to settle these cases. And then, at the appropriate time, the cardinal then makes a personal decision, along with consultation of the holy father, John Paul II, as to whether or not he should remain in this jurisdiction.
But who would come back in? Who would come into the Diocese of Boston now as the leader of this church in this kind of a crisis situation? That person would almost be doomed from the very beginning. Let's solve these problems and then we'll move on and make the church -- a better, stronger church is what everybody wants, including those people who are calling for his resignation and people like myself, who believe that he ought to stay and finish the job.
CHUNG: All right, Father Nee as well.
Sorry we didn't get to chance to talk you a little bit more, but we appreciate your being with us, Father Nee, and Ambassador Flynn as well.
NEE: Thank you.
CHUNG: Turning to the war on terror: CNN has confirmed that President Bush will make smallpox vaccines available to every American who wants it after large stockpiles are made available. President Bush will announce his vaccine plan on Friday, ordering military personnel to start getting vaccinated.
In our look at "The World in: 60" tonight, our top story concerns new details of al Qaeda's methods in the September 11 attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (voice-over): There was testimony about the 9/11 tragedy today at the German trial of a Moroccan man accused of providing logistical support. According to FBI Agent Matthew Walsh, the hijackers aboard the first plane to hit the World Trade Center may have used mace or another chemical spray to subdue passengers and crew members.
Protesters riding horses stormed the lower house of the Mexican legislature, breaking up a session. The demonstrators want higher wages for teachers and a continuation of tariffs protecting farmers and ranchers.
Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, is defending his wife over her business dealings with a convicted con man. Cherie Blair has admitted making bad judgment, but she denied doing anything wrong.
The Irish rock star Bono and former U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke are teaming up to support a Christmas charity drive. An international relief agency, Samaritan's Purse, is collecting toys to give to children with AIDS and HIV.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Next: sensational trials, good television. But are they good for justice? Will a TV trial of accused sniper John Allen Muhammad distract witnesses, taint jurors and compromise his rights?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: At a hearing tomorrow, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney for accused sniper John Muhammad will agree on at least one thing: The trial should not be televised.
Put another way, you shouldn't be able to see it, which, as CNN's Jeanne Meserve reports, raises the question: What is fair for the victims, for the community and the accused?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): John Allen Muhammad during his last court appearance, photographed by a still camera. Should video cameras be in the courtroom, too? CNN and other news organizations say yes.
BARBARA COCHRAN, RADIO & TV NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION: It allows the entire public who is interested to be able to see what's happening. And there's tremendous interest in this case, because it affected the entire Washington area.
JOHNNIE COCHRAN, ATTORNEY FOR O.J. SIMPSON: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
MESERVE: Showboating in the O.J. Simpson trial may have damaged the case for cameras in the courtroom. But more and more trials are televised, many of them sensational: the trial of the man called Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian, convicted of second-degree murder for assisting a suicide; the trial of Andrea Yates, found guilty in the drowning of her children; David Westerfield, found guilty earlier this year in the kidnapping and first-degree murder of a 7-year-old girl.
Some of these trials make good television, but do they make good justice? Experts say we cannot forget what trials are all about.
MARJORIE COHN, CO-AUTHOR, "CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM": It's not for revenge. It's not for catharsis. It's not to educate people or to entertain them. It's to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant before the court.
MESERVE: John Muhammad's lawyers argue that cameras will hinder a fair trial.
PETER GREENSPUN, ATTORNEY FOR JOHN ALLEN MUHAMMAD: I've had experience with cameras in the courtroom before. I think it does change the behavior, probably of the attorneys, who may be used to it subconsciously, but of everybody else who's not used to it.
MESERVE: On this point, the prosecutor agrees, Paul Ebert's opinion influenced, he says, by his experience with the case of Lorena Bobbitt, tried for severing her husband's penis.
PAUL EBERT, PROSECUTOR: I saw what it did to witnesses. I think witnesses tend to ham it up. Some witnesses actually change their story.
MESERVE: In fact, there's no hard evidence that televising trials has adverse effects. And, some argue, having a camera in the courtroom for a whole trial is more fair than excerpting it on the courthouse steps.
BARBARA VAN GELDER, ATTORNEY: I think, if it's in the courtroom, it's more accurate. If it's in the courtroom, it's more realistic. I'd rather have the substance of the trial than the reporter's spin.
MESERVE (on camera): The decision on whether to put a camera in this courtroom rests with the judge, who will have to balance John Muhammad's right to a fair trial against your right to know.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Manassas, Virginia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining me now are two folks who know all about televised trial. Roy Black won an acquittal for William Kennedy Smith in a televised rape trial. He joins us from Miami. And here with me is Catherine Crier of Court TV and the author of the book "The Case Against Lawyers."
Thank you both for being with us.
Mr. Black, I know you support the idea of having cameras in this particular courtroom, John Muhammad's courtroom. Why?
ROY BLACK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think there's some very important issues.
Everyone has talked about the fact that the community is interested in this, but I think there are political and social issues that are even greater. Did the police do everything they could to track these men down? How did they get access to a gun like this? Why did so many people have to be killed before we could find out that this gun, where it was bought, who owned it?
These are very important issues. And I think Americans ought to watch this trial and be able to draw conclusions about this.
CHUNG: But, Catherine Crier, it does alter behavior in the courtroom, doesn't it?
CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: Court TV has shown trial after trial for years now.
And what you see are sometimes very high-profile trials. People will tend to elaborate on their stories or behave differently. But that occurs whether or not there's a camera in the courtroom. I point to Puff Daddy, tried here in New York. We didn't get cameras in there -- just as big a sideshow going on in and out on the courthouse steps as you might see in a high-profile televised trial. It's not the camera in the courtroom that creates any chaos.
CHUNG: Are there any cases that you think should not be televised?
CRIER: I think almost any situation can be managed such that -- everything from national security interest to, as Roy Blacks knows, a rape victim, where the gray dot was over her face -- can be protected. And the judge can always move something in camera or in chambers. So, virtually, everything, I think, could be televised.
CHUNG: Roy Black, how about you? Any cases that you believe really should not be televised?
BLACK: Well, Connie, I think there are: divorce cases, child molestation cases, cases with any kind of young witnesses who might be affected by it.
But let's face it. I have to disagree somewhat. I believe cameras do affect people somewhat. Let's face it. If a camera and a camera light shows up, people are going to act somewhat differently. But I think the social need to watch a trial like this outweighs what little difference there is going to be in witnesses.
CRIER: But Roy knows that, when we talk about cameras in the courtroom, we're not talking about a line of reporters in the back. We are talking about one lens, one pool camera that becomes very unobtrusive quite quickly and something that people aren't really paying attention to. So, I think, for the most part, the behavior is not dramatically affected. CHUNG: Roy Black...
BLACK: Just like we don't know there's a camera filming this. We all forget about the camera. I don't believe that at all.
When people are on camera, they know they're on camera. I don't care how small it is or unobtrusive. It is going to have some effect. But, as I say, the social good of people being able to watch the trial I think far outweighs that little problem.
CHUNG: Roy Black, some people would say, well, these two men, Muhammad and Malvo, these two suspects, can't get a fair trial anyway, because the public has already made up its mind.
BLACK: Well, I think there's a lot of truth to that.
The problem that I see with this trial, it should not be in Virginia or Maryland or Washington, D.C. This case should be moved out of that area entirely, because their actions caused so many people to change their lives, take their kids out of school. They were afraid to pump gas. I think it's very unfair having it right in the middle of that area.
I don't think it has anything to do with television, but I think it should be moved somewhere else.
CHUNG: So, what do you think that...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Go ahead.
CRIER: Sorry.
CHUNG: No, go ahead.
CRIER: I was going to say, Roy has got a point there, because, so many times, with all the televised information, it doesn't do any good to move a case. But because the impact was on so many people in that smaller area, I think he's absolutely right.
CHUNG: All right, so, Roy Black, what do you think the judge is going to decide tomorrow?
BLACK: Well, I think that all these judges have the visions of dancing Itos in their minds. And they're afraid of being held up to ridicule, of being criticized. They're inherently conservative. And I would put all my money that there's no way this judge is going to allow it to be televised.
CHUNG: Catherine, agree?
CRIER: Well, we'll keep fighting the good fight. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they let us in.
CHUNG: All right, thank you so much, Catherine Crier, Roy Black. Always nice to have you.
BLACK: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: We appreciate your being with us.
Still ahead: The president warns that he might respond to an attack with nuclear bombs.
Stay with us.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Who will be our "Person of the Day"?
CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: President Bush has warned Iraq and other countries that the U.S. response to a chemical or biological attack could include the use of nuclear bombs.
Iraq is sticking by its claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction. And chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has asked for preliminary assessments, including America's, of Iraq's weaponry report by Friday. Does this escalating rhetoric make the odds of war with Iraq more likely?
Well, joining us now is CNN military analyst and former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark.
General Clark, thank you for being with us.
RET. GEN. WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good to be with you.
CHUNG: Did you see "The New York Post" this morning? Screaming headline.
CLARK: It always screams it out.
CHUNG: You got it. "We'll Nuke You."
And that's essentially what President Bush was saying. Do you think that he really meant it as a real threat or was this just a deterrent?
CLARK: Well, I think it's a deterrent. We've always had this as an implicit policy. We just never publicized it in quite the same way in the past. And maybe it's time to give some of these states a warning.
CHUNG: Well, do you think all the talk that's been coming from this administration is just smoke and not real?
CLARK: Well, not with respect to Iraq, it's not.
CHUNG: You do believe... CLARK: This is real.
CHUNG: ... that there will be a war?
CLARK: I do. I think we're on the road to war.
I think, if you look at the pattern of what we've established with our intelligence agencies, if you look at what the president has articulated as the American position, if you look at the demands of the U.N. Security Council, and you contrast them with what is apparently in this Iraqi document -- now, we haven't seen this document, but those who have and are beginning to study it, the word is that it stands on predisposition: They don't have any.
We say they do. They say they don't. And it's a question of where we go from here, because we know there are limitations to the inspections. It's not a game of hide-and-seek. The president has said, the standard is clear. Saddam Hussein has got to come forward and he's got to acknowledge what he's got. And he's got to willingly show it. And the inspectors are there to verify it.
So, I think we're at a strategic crossroads. And I think the decision has been made by Saddam that he'd rather fight than switch.
CHUNG: Now, the Pentagon has confirmed that the United States may indeed use land mines. Why would that be necessary?
CLARK: Well, I'm not sure that it is necessary.
But there is some prestocking going on. And I suspect that the prestocking has to do more with the family of scatterable minds, which are those that are fired by artillery or used to protect an advance, so that you're able to maneuver with fewer forces out there. And these weapons deactivate themselves, so they're not like the so-called dumb mines.
CHUNG: We believe that we'll be able to use the military bases at Qatar. But, strategically, we would prefer Saudi Arabia. And why would it benefit us more to be in Saudi Arabia?
CLARK: Well, there are a number of bases in Saudi Arabia that would let us disperse our force and then come from more directions. And it's easier to do the logistics at more locations. We've got to get a lot of aircraft in. And it just gets complicated on the ground and any airspace.
So, the more airspace, the more flexibility you have, generally the easier it is to plan. Everything is connected electronically. We have got logistics in Saudi Arabia and so forth. That having been said, if we don't get the use of the Saudi bases, it's not a showstopper.
CHUNG: How likely do you think it will be that Saudi Arabia will approve our use of their bases?
CLARK: I think it's highly likely that we'll get the use of their airspace, which is the first requirement.
I think the bases, it's problematic. It depends, more or less, on where we go from here diplomatically and how the Saudis sense the winds blowing, both in the Gulf and here in the United States.
CHUNG: All right, presuming that we do go to war, how long a war are you talking about? And will it be anything like the Persian Gulf War, which was what, 40 days?
CLARK: Forty-four days.
My guess is that this war is going to be different. First of all, we are going to have more superiority over the Iraqi force now than we had then. We've got better weapons in the air. It will start with a sharp air campaign. It probably won't last 40 days. It may last only two or three days, before we see the movement in of ground troops. The ground troops are going to move quickly.
CHUNG: How many?
CLARK: Maybe 200,000, maybe a few more, maybe a few less. It depends really on our what propensity to take risk is. It depends on how soon we want to go. Maybe we start without all the forts being closed.
There will probably be some air assaults into Western Iraq, maybe even into Baghdad, maybe around other strategic locations. So, you'll see not just a phalanx of forces moving up, but more thrusts. It will come very rapid. It will be supported by air. It depends really on the Iraqi resistance as to how long the war takes.
It could take as little as 10 days or two weeks. It could go a little bit longer. Maybe they'll be some fighting in Baghdad.
CHUNG: If they fight back.
CLARK: But, generally, they're going to be overwhelmed. They're not going to have a fighting chance. And that's the way we set it up. We don't ever want to fight with fair odds.
CHUNG: Will there be use of special forces early on, even though the troop movements haven't begun?
CLARK: I think we'll see some special forces action in the north, in the west, and in the south. In the north and in the south, they're going to be working with indigenous forces down there. And they'll be supplementing the advance of the main force.
And, in the west, they'll be out there doing Scud hunting and doing other things to help protect other nations in the region, including Israel.
CHUNG: General Wesley Clark, we so appreciate you being with us. And I'm sure we're going to call upon you many, many times in the next few weeks.
CLARK: Good to be with you, Connie.
CHUNG: All right.
Still ahead: Why would a mother let her daughter undergo risky surgery? We'll find out.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tell me, would you let your child have risky surgery just to help him or her lose weight?
Before you say no, consider that most overweight kids become overweight adults and obesity is a serious health risk; 18-year-old Courtney Dunham had gastric-bypass surgery in August. Since then, she's lost 59 pounds. She had the operation after her mother not only gave permission, but had the operation herself, the same operation Al Roker recently had and singer Carnie Wilson had.
Courtney Dunham joins us now, along with her mom, Karen Harris, and Courtney's surgeon, Dr. Victor Garcia, head of bariatric surgery at Cincinnati Children's Hospital.
Thank you all for being with us.
Courtney, I know you've been battling with this weight situation for a long, long time. When did you first decide to do something about it? What grade were you in? And why?
COURTNEY DUNHAM, UNDERWENT GASTRIC-BYPASS SURGERY: I started doing things around the fourth grade. It started out with Jenny Craig. I just got tired of being made fun of and constantly having to worry about my weight. And since then, it's just been a constant battle.
CHUNG: Was it really that difficult for you in school? Were kids giving you a terribly hard time?
DUNHAM: As I got older, it wasn't as bad, but there were still things like not being able to ride rides at King's Island or not feeling comfortable in public places.
CHUNG: But you decided, finally, at this moment, as a teenager -- you were what, 18 or 17 at the time?
DUNHAM: I was 17 at the time I made the decision.
CHUNG: To go ahead and have this surgery.
Weren't you afraid? You actually could have died from complications.
DUNHAM: Honestly, I was not afraid. It was just at a point in time in my life that I decided I needed to do something. And this seemed the best path for me to go. CHUNG: How many other alternatives had you tried, everything in the book?
DUNHAM: Pretty much. I've tried every diet you can name, all the diet pills, exercise, watching what I eat.
CHUNG: Everything.
DUNHAM: Everything.
CHUNG: Mom, Karen, I know that it was probably hard for you to watch your daughter go through all of this and all the attempts to lose weight.
But, you know, I can see why you, as an adult, would have this operation. But, honestly, I would be afraid to have my child go through such surgery. What brought you the confidence to go ahead and say, yes, it's OK?
KAREN HARRIS, MOTHER OF COURTNEY: Well, Dr. Garcia and Dr. Inge are the ones that did the surgery. And they are the best. And they have a wonderful program at Cincinnati Children's Hospital that not only had the surgery, but they incorporate a whole program with it, that it's just not learning how to lose the weight after the surgery. It's learning how to change all the habits.
And, besides, she came to me and said, "I'm going to do this with or without your blessing." And I figured, let's do it with the best while we can still do it, so she doesn't go to some chop shop and have it done.
CHUNG: Dr. Garcia, what are the potential risks and the dangers?
DR. VICTOR GARCIA, CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Well, the most obvious one, Connie, is the risk of death.
But that actually is decidedly low. There's enough experience. This is an operation that has evolved over some 20 to 30 years. And with, really, a number of individuals assisting us, the surgery can be performed in a fairly safe fashion, with minimal risk of death. But there are other complications, both short-term and long-term, that any patient must be aware of.
And this is why we insist that an operation of this nature, particularly in a child, is something that must be done only as a last resort.
CHUNG: But what are the long-term effects? You don't know, do you?
GARCIA: Well, we do know the long-term effects from young adults who have undergone the operation.
First and foremost is, is that it is the most effective way to establish sustained weight loss. There is no other nonsurgical modality that parallels the success of bariatric surgery, as is performed currently in most centers throughout the United States, to have an individual, for the next 18 to 20 years, to keep the weight off.
But the other long-term effects that we make our patients aware of are the nutritional consequences if they do not take their nutritional supplements as we prescribe. And, finally, not every patient will keep the weight off. This is effective for about 80 to 90 percent. And there are some 20 to 10 percent of patients who will regain the weight.
CHUNG: Courtney, I know that your stomach was the size of a deflated football, but now it's the size of an egg. What do you eat and how much do you eat?
DUNHAM: I generally eat about a cup of food at a time. And I mainly stick to protein foods. As I get further out from surgery, they incorporate things like the vegetables and things to have a well- balanced meal. The most popular foods on my menu are chicken and turkey.
CHUNG: And, Mom, I know you have a 16-year-old daughter...
HARRIS: Yes.
CHUNG: ... who is a touch overweight. But, actually, the fact that both of you had the operation has had an impact on her.
HARRIS: Yes, it has. She's actually losing weight along with us. She'll tell you it's because we're starving her to death.
(LAUGHTER)
HARRIS: But she's learning how to eat the right way also.
CHUNG: Are both of you OK, do you think? Are you healthy?
HARRIS: Yes.
DUNHAM: Yes.
CHUNG: Good.
All right, well, we thank you so much for being with us. And we wish you well. Maybe we'll check in with you some time, all right?
HARRIS: OK. Thank you.
DUNHAM: Thanks.
CHUNG: All right, Karen, Courtney, thank you.
And, Dr. Garcia, thank you as well.
GARCIA: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Still ahead: Who called our "Person of the Day" a hope machine?
But first, a victory for Paula Poundstone tops tonight's "Snapshot."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Comedienne Paula Poundstone has regained full custody of her adopted children after undergoing alcohol rehab. Poundstone lost custody a year-and-a-half ago amid charges she drove with her children while she was drunk.
A lawyer for Tom Sizemore is denying charges the actor hit and threatened a woman. Sizemore, who plays a police detective on the CBS series "Robbery Homicide Division," is free on $2,500 bail.
A Harvard study suggests big fans can be big drinkers. A report looked at 14,000 college students. It says more than half of the sports fans went on binges when they drank, as opposed to 40 percent of the nonfans.
Baseball may lift its ban on Pete Rose. Reports says commissioner Bud Selig met Rose to discuss the possibility. Rose was banned from baseball in 1989 amid charges he bet on games.
It's been a big night for filmgoers in Britain. The second segment of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy had its premiere in London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Tonight's "Person of the Day" might be called the top "spokes man" in the world. And he's just won a new title.
"Sports Illustrated" is naming bicyclist Lance Armstrong as its sportsman of the year in the December 16 issue. This summer, Armstrong, who races for the U.S. Postal Service team, became the first American to win the Tour de France four times. And he won them all in a row. But "Sports Illustrated" says he was chosen because he's more than an athlete now. As they put it, he's a hope machine.
His recovery, after nearly succumbing to testicular cancer in 1996, has made his races literally death-defying events for cancer patients around the world. According to "Sports Illustrated," Armstrong's heart is literally 33 percent larger than that of an average man.
For that and for having room for so many others in his heart, Lance Armstrong is our "Person of the Day."
Tomorrow: Is the pope going to tell Boston's Cardinal Law to step down? We'll have the latest on the push for Law to resign and first lady Laura Bush's meeting with the youngest victim of the Washington sniper, the 13-year-old shot at school.
Coming up next: "LARRY KING LIVE." Senator Trent Lott responds to criticism.
Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Step Down>
|
