|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
White House Turns Up Diplomatic Heat at U.N.
Aired February 18, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST (voice-over): Today on TALKBACK LIVE, the White House turns up the diplomatic at the United Nations, as it prepares to push ahead with a resolution authorizing war in Iraq.
But will it get past the French?
Then, what's North Korea up to? The Communist regime is threatening to abandon the accord that ended the Korean conflict nearly 50 years ago.
We'll talk to the poet who tried to turn the first lady's literary event into a war protest. He accuses the White House of censorship.
News veteran Bob Schieffer shares his war stories, from reporting in Vietnam to covering just about every political beat in Washington.
And a 17-year-old transplant patient is near death after surgery that was supposed to save her life. Is a clerical error to blame?
The talk starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. We will get to those stories in a minute.
But first, a developing story out of Modesto, California. Police there again are searching the home of Scott Peterson, whose pregnant wife, Laci, has been missing since Christmas eve. Now, police told reporters that Peterson has not been eliminated as a suspect in the woman's disappearance. She was due to deliver her son, their son, on February 10th.
Joining us now is CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
And Jeffrey, so police are searching Scott Peterson's house now for a second time. So is there new evidence? I mean, why the second search?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, what this means in strictly legal teams, Arthel, is that the police had enough evidence to go to a judge or a local magistrate and say, we have probable cause that there is evidence relating to this crime, this disappearance, in that house. And presumably, because the search warrant itself is under seal, presumably that means they have something new.
In fact, that's what the police officers have said. There are new developments. But that is a long way from saying that there is enough to arrest Scott Peterson, or anybody in this case.
NEVILLE: Right, Jeffrey.
And so, you know, of course, you know, police, of course, won't rule him out as a suspect, but they haven't named him as a suspect, either. Help us understand the legalities there.
TOOBIN: It's funny. You know, this has become sort of a big game that police and reporters play. Who is a suspect, who's not, as if that word has any special legal significance. It doesn't.
Common sense suggests that when a pregnant woman disappears with no known enemies and her husband is having an affair, as Scott Peterson was, police are going to look at him very carefully. And police are looking at him carefully. And they haven't ruled him in, and they haven't ruled him out.
Obviously this is a woman with no one who has a motive to want to do away with her, or do harm to her. Her husband, in the everyday speech of normal people, of course, he's a suspect and he always has been.
NEVILLE: And again, Jeffrey, we've been seeing these pictures on the news today. The wide shots, the aerial shots of them searching the house, and everybody's wondering, what are they looking for? What are they possibly be looking for?
TOOBIN: Well, the world of possible evidence is very large. But I'll tell you, Arthel, something that makes this investigation especially difficult is that in any sort of disappearance investigation, one thing you usually look for is hair evidence, fiber evidence, DNA-related evidence. That really isn't very significant in this case, because after all, this is where Laci Peterson lived. Of course they are going to find trace evidence related to her there.
So obviously what they are looking for there is something that suggests how she was removed, if she was removed from the house, or something related to her disappearance. It's a very tough investigation, and, you know, there have been very few public signs that the police have made any progress at all.
NEVILLE: And speaking of progress, Jeffrey, of course, in missing persons cases, you understand police are usually saying that after 36 hours that the likelihood of finding the person alive, unfortunately, the chances are very slim at that point. Do you have any information regarding...
TOOBIN: Well, that's just certainly true.
You know, it has been 56 days since Laci Peterson disappeared. It is always bad news when there is no news in the case of someone who has disappeared, especially someone who was seven months pregnant. Last week, as you may recall, was Laci Peterson's due date.
I mean, you know, you don't want to lapse into speaking of Laci Peterson in the past tense as if it is somehow proved that she died. But history, experience, realism suggests that at this point that is the likely outcome of this investigation.
NEVILLE: Jeffrey, let's go back to Scott Peterson, now, and talk about possible incriminating behavior.
Of course, his every move has been watched, of course, by authorities. But even just people watching the news, him selling the car and, you know, what is all this -- what do investigators extract out of those types of movements?
TOOBIN: Well, the thing you always start with is a suspect's, or would-be suspect's, alibi. And as many people know, Scott Peterson told police on Christmas Eve, the day that his wife disappeared, that he took this fishing trip quite a few miles away from his home. That, some people viewed as suspicious.
Also, it came out later, in -- shortly after Laci Peterson disappeared, that he had been having an extramarital affair.
Both of those things, I think, qualify as suspicious. But they certainly don't qualify as enough evidence to arrest someone for murder, much less convict them.
So, sure there are reasons to be suspicious of Scott Peterson's story. But based on the evidence that is public, it is a long way from evidence that he did something untoward to his wife.
NEVILLE: Right.
Well, Jeffrey, listen. Thank you so much for trying to help us sort all of this out and figure out what it all means.
Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much.
Now we're going to turn our attention to the United Nations.
Just moments ago the United Nations went into session for open- door -- or open debate with scores of member nations scheduled to give their views on a possible war in Iraq. The U.S. is expected to bear some hefty criticism before introducing a second resolution on Iraq, possibly later this week.
CNN's senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth will join us at the United Nations shortly.
In the meantime, correspondent Chris Burns is at the White House now.
Chris, just wanting to know the perspective from the White House on this open session, if they're expecting things, if Colin Powell is going to be there, I'd imagine, trying to persuade some members to see it their way for a second resolution. CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, definitely there's going to be a lot of diatribe against the U.S. position, threatening war against Iraq. A lot of these countries are going to be weighing in after the report by Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix last week, which was sort of an evenhanded look, saying that there is still a lot more to go in terms of these -- the inspections.
However, the U.S. is remaining, at least the Bush administration, is remaining very adamant at drafting another U.N. resolution that, preparing it this week or next week, which would make some kind of a reference to material breach, that Iraq, according to the U.S. administration, remains in material breach. And that is something that not only Bush, but especially his chief ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is demanding, is asking for, especially after these protests we saw, millions of people over the weekend and rising polls saying that most of the British oppose any kind of action against Iraq without some kind of a UN resolution sanctioning it.
Here is what President Bush had to say earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Any time somebody shows courage when it comes to peace, that the people will eventually understand that.
First of all, you know, signs of protest, it's like, Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, the security of the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNS: Another possible delay or set back for the Bush administration is the fact that Turkey has yet to agree to allow U.S. forces to park themselves inside Turkey, looking toward, leaning toward moving into Iraq if there is a conflict. Turkey is holding out, reportedly demanding billions more in aid before they do agree to it. U.S. administration saying that they are confident that there will be some kind of agreement in the next few days, but they are also reportedly preparing a plan "B."
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
So, Chris, is this a critical setback for the White House?
BURNS: Well, in terms of strategy, war strategy, it's going to take a lot of rethinking because if you can't drive your forces, thousands of forces, across from Turkey into northern Iraq, you are going to have to move them up through the south in some way and that is going to be dependent on how successful they are in moving up from the south, and planting those troops up in the north could be very, very tricky.
NEVILLE: Right. Right. All right. Chris Burns, thank you so much.
We're going to go to the United Nations now, where Richard Roth is standing by that open session we told you about.
Richard, if you'd go ahead and tell us what's happening there.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, it appears Sthat yria is late for this date with the Security Council; having a meeting scheduled right now, more than 70 countries are due to speak. And that session will go into tomorrow.
There's Guinea, another nation that's delayed, maybe by the snow, 20 inches on the ground here. But this meeting was already postponed, delayed from in the morning until this afternoon's session.
You're going to have a lot of countries giving their opinion of the Iraq crisis. They are going to -- here we see Guinea, I think, just taking the table; Cameroon, I think, up at the top. So, you're going to have countries venting their views.
But Iraq will speak second. The regular Security Council members will go at the end, if they choose to do so. It was a very intense session last Friday, when the big powers dueled over the inspectors' report and whether war should come at this time with Iraq -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Now Richard, how unusual is an open session, such as this one?
ROTH: It's not that unusual, but it's happening more and more, as countries that are not sitting on the Security Council demand what they call around here transparency -- the right to still speak, even if they are not on the Council.
Those countries that normally don't serve on the Council object to everything being decided behind closed doors, even though they can get briefings from those who sit on the Council. I think you're going to see this happen more and more. And the way the majority of the U.N. members feel may sway some of those neutral countries on the Security Council who haven't decide yet whether to back a war ultimatum to Iraq, or whether to give the inspectors more time.
NEVILLE: Now, of course, Britain and the U.S., will probably this week or next week, go ahead and seek a second resolution.
I want to ask you -- I imagine there's going to be a lot of persuading going on there. How do you think Colin Powell will make his case?
ROTH: Well, he may have to make it better than he did on Friday, even though he was forceful, frustrated, exasperated. France's Foreign Minister drew applause from most of the countries who were witnessing the council debate.
Of course, that's publicly. Some U.S. diplomats said that privately a lot of countries said something quite different. And you saw the European Union tried to say to Iraq, time is running out. And if not using those words, to say it's one last chance. Of course, as President Bush said today, how many last chances is the world going to give Iraq? That's what -- you can see a lot of backroom talking and negotiating.
But the U.S. won't put a resolution on the table if it has a guarantee that France, Russia, or China will veto it. But that's not a sure deal, either. A lot of people thought the U.S. wouldn't get that last resolution...
NEVILLE: Right.
ROTH: ... backing the inspectors, and that was a 15 to nothing vote, or at least -- yes, I think it was 15 -- even Syria -- so who knows what will happen this time.
NEVILLE: Interesting. Well, I'm sure, Richard Roth, you will bring us all the developments as they take place. Thanks so much for joining us.
And we're going to go to break right now. Coming up next, does the U.S. need a second UN resolution to go into Iraq? That's the question of the day. Why don't you give me a call, 1-800-310-4CNN, or you can e-mail me at TalkBack@CNN.com.
Don't go anywhere, because the talk continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
As we speak, the United Nations is holding a special open session on Iraq. Diplomats from around the world expected to speak their mind about possible military conflict. Now that as the United States works behind the scenes to win support for a possible second U.N. resolution. Can it go forward without one?
Here to talk about that is Joel Mowbray, a syndicated columnist who writes for Townhall.com and "National Review Online."
Also, Ian Williams, the United Nations correspondent for "The Nation."
I want to welcome both of you, and Ian, going to start with you. You cover the U.N. for "The Nation." Do you think President Bush will ultimately get votes for a second resolution?
IAN WILLIAMS, U.N. CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: I think he will.
There were lots of people listening last week who heard the French foreign minister, and they weren't listening very carefully. He wasn't saying no war. He was saying not yet.
Even Chirac this weekend, people keep quoting him saying no to a resolution. He's saying not today. Or, aujourd'hui in French. I don't know.
But basically, I think the French are preparing themselves. They are saying that if Iraq doesn't comply, once it's proved to the satisfaction of the Security Council, then they will not object.
NEVILLE: OK.
Well, Joel, let's talk about the British then. Do you think the British will stay with the United States if, in fact, a second resolution is not passed?
JOEL MOWBRAY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: Oh, there's no question that Tony Blair has hooked his anchor to the United States and President Bush, and his political fate rests in the success of a campaign in Iraq. So There's no way he would waiver in his support for disarming Saddam Hussein.
As for the French, I think what we're going to see is a replay of a decade ago, when up until hours before the Persian Gulf War, the French said, Hey, we're not going to go in. And then right when the war is about to start they joined forces with us.
And you already see now that the French are putting some of their military equipment in position that would be most helpful in an attack on Iraq.
NEVILLE: And, of course, Ian, you said the French said what? Pas aujourd'hui? Not today?
So then, I ask you, though, do you think you could take France's opposition at face value, or do you think this is some sort of power play?
WILLIAMS: This is a serious point here is that the French and most of the rest of the world do not believe that this is the right time. They don't believe the United States has proven their case. They have public opinion back home they have to listen to.
Remember, this is supposed to be about democracy. Millions of people were showing what they thought of their governments this weekend. The demonstrations were biggest in places like London, and Rome, and Madrid, where their governments were supporting the Americans.
NEVILLE: So Ian...
WILLIAMS: I think the polls in these countries show massive majorities against the war without U.N. resolution. Tony Blair's got to be very careful.
NEVILLE: Do you think Blair's government can survive this?
WILLIAMS: Tony Blair's government will survive. Whether he survives or not...
NEVILLE: Well, that's the question. I mean Tony Blair. WILLIAMS: We do these things differently.
(CROSSTALK)
MOWBRAY: It is not about democracy. This is about the safety and security of the world, and the only way you can do that is by disarming Saddam Hussein.
There is a reason why these governments and our own are representative forms of government. Meaning we, the people, put our faith and trust in the hands of elected officials to make the decisions that are in our best interest, even if we don't necessarily always agree with them.
And I think what you find with the leaders of Spain and Italy, and, of course, Britain, is that they understand their pervasive menace, that is Saddam Hussein, and that he must be disarmed. And so they are joining forces with the United States to do just that.
NEVILLE: OK, listen. I have Alan (ph) here from New York with some thoughts.
ALAN: Well, basically, I think the fixation on Saddam Hussein and Iraq is bizarre. There are many other despots in the Middle East who pose a greater threat to our security, and our national interest, than Saddam Hussein. For some reason we've picked him out, and I just don't see any sense to it.
NEVILLE: Joel, Ian, you want to respond to that? Either one?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: One at a time. I know you both want to go, Go ahead, Joel, you're up on camera.
MOWBRAY: Saddam Hussein was not picked out. He picked himself out with his own actions.
He has, as President Bush called it, a decade of defiance. He had the option, after the Gulf War, to disarm according to the terms of surrender that were sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. He chose not to do so. He could have fed his own people and disarmed. He chose not to do so. And as a result, a half a million people or more in Iraq have starved because of Saddam Hussein's defiance and absolute unwillingness to disarm.
This is not something that we have just picked out of a hat somewhere. This is something that must be dealt with, and it is an obvious choice where we need to go first.
NEVILLE: Then Joel, what do you think about North Korea? They're being very defiant.
MOWBRAY: The way that you handle North Korea is by going into Iraq. Because, if Saddam Hussein is able to push us around and have his way, what do you think will happen to Kim Jong Il and Pyongyang? They will be emboldened, as will thugs and terrorists the world over, to have their way...
NEVILLE: They feel emboldened enough right now to buck up against the US.
MOWBRAY: Well, Arthel, that's because if you take a look at the past decade. We had the first World Trade Center bombing. After that, nothing happened. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, nothing happened. After Blackhawk down in Somalia, we pulled out. After the USS Cole, in which 17 Americans were killed in a brazen attack, the United States did nothing.
NEVILLE: So, Joel, let me jump in there because I'm short on time, so I have to get Ian in here before the last 20 seconds.
WILLIAMS: There's a clear message here, that whatever happens, you blame Iraq and you bomb Iraq. Did we bomb Iraq after the Kansas City bombing? No. Because they weren't responsible. Did we bomb Iraq after September 11? No, because they weren't responsible. What's happening is, terror is used to whip up an irrational hatred against Iraq.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Ian, so do you think, though, can the U.S. afford to go into Iraq, if that happens, without taking out Saddam Hussein?
WILLIAMS: No.
The purpose of this is regime change, it's not disarmament. Disarmament is a feeble excuse. Enforcing U.N. resolutions, for this administration, is a joke. They've broken so many of them themselves, they've supported other governments that defy the U.N. It's just they have prepared to, already announced they are prepared to defy the U.N. and go in without a U.N. decision, to punish a government for defying U.N. resolutions.
Nothing they are saying makes sense. There's an irrational phobia involved, here. It worries me there are fundamentalists in the White House. And that worries me every bit as much as fundamentalists in the mountains of Afghanistan.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I have to go to break. I apologize. Joel Mowbray, nice to see you again, and Ian Williams, thanks for being here. We'll have you both on again. Very interesting.
Coming up next, poets against the war. They're upset with the first lady for not giving them a forum in the White House. Poet Sam Hamill will explain why he thinks she should. That's after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MARKET UPDATE)
NEVILLE: OK. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Earlier this month, first lady Laura Bush called off a White House literary event after the poets she invited tried to submit poems protesting war with Iraq. As a result, many of the invited poets decided to hold their own antiwar readings.
Now one group got together in Manchester, Vermont, Sunday, and another met yesterday amid the snow in New York City. They gathered to voice opposition to the war against Iraq, and to criticize Mrs. Bush's reluctance to hear their political protest at the White House.
Now, with us today is one of the poets invited to the White House. His name is Sam Hamill. He has authored several volumes of poetry and lives in Port Townshend, Washington.
He's joined along with Armstrong Williams, a syndicated columnist, and host of the nationally syndicated radio show "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams." Armstrong says the White House was right to cancel this symposium.
OK, gentlemen. Short on time here. But, Sam, I definitely want to get your story out there. So tell us right away, how did it feel when you got invited to the White House?
SAM HAMILL, POET: Well, I knew that I was walking into a storm. I knew I would have to speak from my conscience. And I labored for 24 hours about what to do, and then I contacted some friends and said, let's make our position clear.
NEVILLE: And then what did you say when the first lady canceled the event? Because, as we said, the first lady said the White House was not the place to air, or she certainly didn't want to turn this symposium into an antiwar protest.
HAMILL: Well, actually, the words of the first lady's secretary used were, turning it into a political forum. But I don't see how one can have a conversation on Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and Langston Hughes without discussing some politics.
NEVILLE: Right. So I'm going to continue reading that.
It says, as you said, "While Mrs. Bush respects the right of all Americans to express their opinions, she, too, has opinions and believes it would be inappropriate to turn a literary event into a political forum." -- endquote.
Armstrong Williams, do you agree or disagree with the first lady?
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, the first lady is a former librarian, Arthel, and her signature issues are literacy and early childhood development. She's held many high profile literary events at the White House and other places, including the Library of Congress. And she has invited people to talk about the works of people, as he said, of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes, and Walt Whitman, who are certainly nonconformists. This is about to celebrate the written word, to celebrate their contributions to culture. What others tried to do was hijack this forum, to turn it into a political event on Iraq, and this is not what this event was about.
Yes, I believe in the freedom of expression. But I think the first lady was absolutely right to continue along the lines she was on, putting this to a celebration about writers and poets and what they bring to the culture, and educating the public about these forums. And to turn it into a political event, it would lose its purpose.
NEVILLE: All right. Excuse me, gentlemen. We're going to dip into that open session being held at the United Nations. Right now, an Iraqi representative is speaking. We're going to take a listen.
MOHAMMED ALDOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. (through translator): My country which has been subject to an unjust, and incomprehensible (UNINTELLIGIBLE) twelve years. Their aim is to change the national government of Iraq and to impose the American agenda on the region (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as a first step towards world domination through the use of force. This a dangerous precedent in international relations, democratic (UNINTELLIGIBLE) grave dangers.
Mr. President, Iraq's record of compliance with the Security Council resolution (UNINTELLIGIBLE) organization, or in the history of international relations (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Iraq, along with UNSCOM and the IAEA, destroyed all the sites and facilities related to its previous programs of weapons of mass destruction. During the period of 1992 to 1998, Iraq cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA to ascertain that Iraq is free of any proscribed programs.
Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, former chairman of the UNSCOM, stated 13 January, 1993, that Iraq had implemented 95 percent of its disarmament obligations. He reiterated that statement to the same effect during an interview -- a recent interview with Swedish radio on 7 December 2002.
At the time, when the Security Council decided to conduct a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions in order to lift the embargo imposed on it, after the secretary general's visit in 1998, the United States ordered Richard Butler, the former executive chairman of UNSCOM, to withdraw the inspectors in preparation for its aggression in December 1998, dubbed Operation Desert Fox.
NEVILLE: We've been listening to the Iraqi ambassador to the U.N., Mohammed Aldouri. We're going to take a break right now and continue our conversation with Sam Hamill and Armstrong Williams after the break.
And later this hour, we're going to talk with our medical correspondent about a heart-lung transplant that went tragically wrong, leaving a teenage girl fighting for her life. The "Talk" continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. We are talking with poet Sam Hamill and talk show host Armstrong Williams about anti-war protests. Sam, in hindsight, do you think you should have gone along with the program?
HAMILL: Oh, absolutely not. Poets have a social responsibility. And as a practicing Zen Buddhist and poet myself, there's no way I could have gone to this White House.
WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I think the point we don't want to lose here, however we respect these poets, I mean, the first lady is celebrating American literature, not American foreign policy. I mean, it has been consistent since she's started these forums. So it would have been totally against everything that she's been trying to do, celebrate the written word of these poets.
I mean, they have forums at the White House to talk about foreign policy. The first lady's forum is about American literature. So you may not agree. You may feel you have a right do so, but this is not why you were invited to the first lady's forum. You were invited to talk about your work and the work of others, not about foreign policy.
NEVILLE: So, Sam, could you not view it in that light, that it was a way to uplift you, a poet, and other poets past and present?
HAMILL: Well, I did in fact talk about my work, and I invited other poets to join me in discussing their work. And I invited them to participate in a forum that carried forward the tradition of Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes and Emily Dickinson. And if the first lady really wants to support literature, perhaps she should support Head Start and think about poetry and arts in the schools. The budgets are being slashed.
WILLIAMS: But there you go again, Mr. Hamill. You are being political. There is a forum to talk about those budget cuts that is how you perceive them.
But the first lady is consistent in why she has these forums. It is to discuss American literature, to celebrate it. We've talked for so long that there's not enough celebration of this literature, of this culture, of this contribution to the tapestry of our country and the influences of it. And she wanted to share that with the rest of the country.
But you all decided because you could not talk about what you wanted your agenda to be, therefore you were disinvited. So you did not even get a chance to celebrate that culture as of part of what she's been doing over the last two years.
HAMILL: See, there you go again, telling me how I'm supposed to behave as a poet, what I'm supposed to write about and what I'm allowed to speak about. I think you should read Whitman, who tells us to resist much and obey little, especially when it comes to our government. To resist and to question and to follow our own conscience, and that's exactly what we've done.
NEVILLE: Let me get some audience response here. Go ahead, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think the White House position probably was right because it wasn't the forum for that. It was a different purpose. However, I do wonder what the White House position would have been if the poets were interested in, you know, speaking on pro-war, if they had a pro-war position.
WILLIAMS: They would not have allowed it because that was -- the first lady is not going to politicize this event because it would send a message to other poets that she may want to invite in the future. She would have been consistent. She would not have allowed that.
NEVILLE: Let's see what Barbara (ph) thinks.
BARBARA: I think that she should have let the forum go on. These people are poets and they're talking -- the content of their material is -- that is American literature, and it is the White House, and these are the American people. And they should have a right to contribute their thoughts.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. Sam, quick thoughts from you before I go to break.
HAMILL: Well, as the great poet -- the Japanese poet Basho said, Summer grasses. All that remains of imperial soldiers and imperial dreams. Poets have always spoken out on issues and poets will always speak out on issues. That's not going to change.
NEVILLE: OK, sir. Sam Hamill, Armstrong Williams, thank you both for joining us here.
HAMILL: Pleasure.
NEVILLE: Good. Nice to see you.
Well coming up next: CNN correspondent Bob Schieffer will tell us everything he couldn't tell us on TV. What's that going to be? He's been at CBS since 1969. He will have so much to share. So much to say, so little time.
And, new developments in the case of missing pregnant woman Laci Peterson. We'll get a live report.
And later, a teenager is fighting for her life after a tragic medical mistake. We'll tell you why an operation designed to save her life has left her near death.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Before we talk to Mr. Schieffer, we're going to go out to Rusty Dornin now, who is standing by live in front of Scott Peterson's house with the latest details on that investigation. Rusty, what can you tell us? RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, about 8:00 this morning, detectives from the Modesto Police Department showed up here at Scott Peterson's house armed with a search warrant. Now this is the second search warrant they've served on him and on the house. The first one was the day after his wife, Laci Peterson, disappeared, of course, on Christmas Eve.
Now they arrived at 8:00, they apparently talked to him. He was very cooperative. There are 12 investigators that have been in and out of the house all day.
Now you can see the front of the house here. Now that's a sign that Scott Peterson did put up just a couple of weeks ago when he came back from a trip to Mexico that was a job-related trip. And you see the Modesto police van parked right in front of the house. That is where investigators will bring any evidence that they've collected, put it in that van.
One thing they did do is they impounded his second pickup truck. Now the first time they were here they impounded a pickup truck and a boat that he said he went fishing in at the Berkley marina. He went out and bought another pickup truck, selling his wife's car, by the way, and they took that truck this afternoon.
Now they've been bringing evidence out and technicians have been coming in and out all day. You can also see the gaggle of media that's here from all over, probably 20 cameras here, along with many of the neighbors and folks. Curiosity seekers in the neighborhood that have come to watch this spectacle.
They are still saying Scott Peterson is not a suspect but that he has not been eliminated. That's what they've been saying all along and they are not changing their stance.
NEVILLE: Rusty, I'm sorry, did you tell us where Scott is now?
DORNIN: Oh, no. Actually, he actually left the house about an hour and a half after the investors, the detectives arrived. He wasn't taken into custody. He took some personal and work belongings and left.
They say they don't know where he is. There are no restrictions on his movement because he's not a suspect. So right now they say they don't know where he is.
NEVILLE: All right. Rusty Dornin, live from Modesto, California, thank you very much for that update on the Scott and Laci Peterson case.
And moving along now, among the 100,000 or so American troops gathering in the Middle East are at least 500 reporters and TV crewmembers. And for the first time since World War II, journalists will be assigned to combat and support units -- excuse me -- combat and support units and travel right along with them into conflict.
Our next guest, Bob Schieffer, has some idea of what they are going through. He covered the Vietnam War and has been with CBS news for over 30 years. During that time he has reported from the White House, Pentagon, the State Department, as well as Capitol Hill. He is the author of a brand new book, currently number three on "The New York Times" best seller list called "This Just In: What I Couldn't Tell You on TV."
Mr. Schieffer, very, very nice to have you on TALKBACK LIVE.
BOB SCHIEFFER, AUTHOR, "THIS JUST IN": Thank you so much.
NEVILLE: Now of course we're talking about the fact that since -- the first time since World War II, journalists are going to be right there on the front lines with troops. And tell me -- and you covered the Vietnam War for a local paper out of Fort Worth, Texas.
SCHIEFFER: Yes, the "Fort Worth Star Telegram."
NEVILLE: OK. I want to make sure Mr. Schieffer's mike is working here. I want to hear these stories from you, sir. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes, perfect. Tell me how war coverage has changed since then for better and for worse.
SCHIEFFER: Well, in Vietnam, people forget this was one of the few wars we had where there was no censorship. We were allowed to go to wherever we could get to. I used to bum rides on military helicopters, military transports, and go out with units. But after Vietnam, when we got to the Gulf War, all that changed. The reporters never got close to the battlefield.
Now we're told they're going to put them with these units and they're going to let them go. And are we going to do this again? We -- and I hope that's what happens. I'm going to take them at their word. They say that they're going to let the reporters get out and get access. I'll wait and see.
NEVILLE: Yes. But how do you maintain fair reporting without -- or within -- and still maintain military secrets?
SCHIEFFER: Well, reporters have to remember -- and no reporter would broadcast troop movements in advance -- you are obviously under the control of the commander of those troops, because his job is not to put on an exercise for the news media. It's to win the war. And so you have to obey the rules and do what he says.
But that can be done. And it is a good thing not just for the American people to have independent observers along, it's also good for the military. I've always said, if, perhaps, you know, there had been a reporter along when Lieutenant Kelly committed that massacre that he did in Vietnam, it probably would not have happened.
This is a good thing. The government says it's going to try to get the reporters to the battlefield. I'm going to wait and see if they do it. But so far they are at least talking the talk.
NEVILLE: Interesting. I want to move on to your book now, "This Just In: What I Couldn't Tell You on TV." Of course I want to know everything you couldn't tell me on TV. At least, though, give me one of your favorite stories from the book.
SCHIEFFER: Well, this book is not any heavy lifting. What this book is, is the stories that reporters tell each other at the end of a long, long day. And I've always that that was the best and most fun part of journalism, and I just thought other people would enjoy hearing some of those stories, too.
So that's what the book is. The back story of the book, it kind of shows how journalism and politics has changed over the last 40 years. But mostly these are just fun stories, the adventures that reporters have. Because what I want young people to understand, who might be thinking about going into journalism, this is fun.
They learn about doing public service. They learn about having an impact on their community. But if you are a young person, one factor you ought to think about, is this something I enjoy? Is this something that I find interesting? Because if it's not, you ought to do something else.
You know there's so much pressure on young people today to, "be successful," and that's fine. But the main thing you ought to think about is, is this something I would enjoy? Because you know, Arthel, we get one trip. We get one chance to see this old world the way it is, and we ought to make sure it's something we enjoy doing.
NEVILLE: Well, you have been -- those are great words, by the way. Thank you so much. I will remember that as well. I'm doing what I love doing, though.
You mentioned in the book about covering the presidency over the years. And it appears that there was a point when you didn't talk about certain things, private matters of a president, whoever he may have been at the time. Does it appear nowadays that there's no holds barred, that just anything is game?
SCHIEFFER: Well, there are so many reporters now. I mean, one of the questions I'm often asked as a reporter is, why during President Kennedy's time, for example, did so many things go unreported that would have been reported today? And I'll tell you one of the reasons is it was an all male press corps in those days.
And when you inject women -- now that we have women reporters, most of the time when women arrive on the scene, we men clean up our acts. And that's one of the reasons that some of those things didn't go reported in those days.
NEVILLE: Interesting. Well, let's see. "Face the Nation" currently and the book on "The New York Times" best seller list. You are having fun. So what more can we expect from you, sir?
SCHIEFFER: Well, I don't know. I mean people -- I'm getting to the edge when people say, are you ever going to retire? And you know that's not often a decision we don't get to make. Other people make that decision for us. But I'm kind of taking it one story at a time now. It's still fun for me. It's still interesting. I'm still curious. And I guess when there comes a point when I'm no longer curious about things, maybe then I'll think about retiring. But right now I'm just going to keep on keeping on.
NEVILLE: Well, sir, we will keep watching as long as you keep on keeping on. Thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it very much. Bob Schieffer, thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK. "This Just In: What I Couldn't Tell You on TV," pick it up.
Coming up next: a clerical error cost -- or could cost a 17-year- old girl her life. Details next as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. A 17-year-old transplant patient at Duke University Hospital could die in the next couple of days, all because of what hospital officials say was a clerical mistake. Jesica Santillan received a heart-lung transplant from a donor with the wrong blood type. Linda Loveland, of affiliate station WRAL in Raleigh, North Carolina, has the tragic details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LINDA LOVELAND, WRAL (voice-over): Seventeen-year-old Jesica Santillan is getting worse by the day. Her parents say her kidneys are starting to fail. She rejected a transplanted heart and lungs more than a week ago.
Now, Duke University Hospital admits they gave Jesica the wrong type of heart and lungs. In a statement, Duke says, "This was a tragic error, and we accept responsibility for our part." Jesica's parents grow more angry.
MAGDALENA SANTILLAN, MOTHER (through translator): We have been waiting for this for three long years. And for it to finally happen and for the doctor to do this mistake is unforgivable.
LOVELAND: Jesica's parents say the longer she goes without a new heart and lungs, the greater the chance she'll suffer paralysis or neurological damage. Despite everything, they still have faith in Jesica's doctor.
SANTILLAN (through translator): She feels that they're doing everything that's possible to save her, because they feel that they are responsible for what -- this mistake they have done.
LOVELAND: All they can do now is pray that organs will be found before it's too late.
SANTILLAN (through translator): She says she has a lot of faith in god and she's just going to leave it up to god and his hands.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: So how can errors like this happen? Let's talk with CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. And first of all, Elizabeth, explain how the system to match donors and recipients works.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. The way that it works in this case was that Jesica needed the organ and a blood bank -- a blood and organ bank in New England said, hey, guess what? We have the organs you're looking for.
So they tell a blood bank in North Carolina, North Carolina tells Duke. The Duke doctors get on a plane, go to New England, take the organs out of that donor who has died, fly back with them and put them into the patient. That's the way it works.
Now you can see there are several steps in this process. It is unclear where exactly the mistake was made. The New England blood bank says, hey, we were very clear about this type. We have it in writing. We gave those papers to the doctors at Duke. They knew what the blood type was.
It is unclear where along the line from there the mistake was made. But I was talking to a pediatric transplant surgeon and I said, "Doctor, I just find this so surprising." And he said, "You know what? In a way, I don't find it so surprising. There's so many different places that mistakes can be made."
And when you're talking about transplant surgery, doctors have to move fast. They need to get those organs into their patients. And so there's a lot of room for mistakes to be made.
NEVILLE: OK. Elizabeth, I have more questions for you, but I do have to take a break. We'll continue with Elizabeth Cohen after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Talking about that case out of Duke University Medical Center, where a heart transplant went tragically wrong due to a clerical error. And Elizabeth Cohen, asking you again now, wouldn't the -- you were telling us the process of when the organs leave one institution to make it to the other medical facility. But aren't those bags, the containers clearly marked?
COHEN: Well, they may be clearly marked, but physicians have been told, hey, you know what, doctor, we can see that these match up. The doctor is not supposed to have to double check what the organ banks have done. By the time it gets to the doctor, it should be a done deal. They should match up.
Obviously there's a problem with this system. They need to fix it. For example, with blood transfusions, two nurses have to be there. And they have to say to each other, what's the type? What's the type? They need more systems like that with organs, it appears.
NEVILLE: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you so much for that update.
I'm Arthel Neville. "INSIDE POLITICS" is up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
