Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Nicholas Burns Interview; Bush Speech Review; Afghanistan Helicopter Crash: Ed Cox vs. Hillary Clinton?; Flare-up in Israel
Aired June 29, 2005 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, radiation risks. A new finding by the National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses pose a cancer risk.
Stand by for hard news on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER (voice-over): Chopper down: are al Qaeda and its allies making a come back in Afghanistan?
COL. JAMES YONTS, U.S. ARMY: The aircraft was taking indirect fire, direct fire from elements on the ground.
BLITZER: Iraq, what's next? Stay the course?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: If we win, then you will see greater progress and democracy and freedom.
BLITZER: Or change course?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: I think the president is making America much weaker. This is a situation where we are getting stuck.
BLITZER: Will you be able to retire? You can't count on "Ben Stein's Money," but you can count on his advice.
BEN STEIN, ACTOR/TV HOST: People are going to have to dig in and start saving. It's really painful to not buy that plasma TV, but people have got to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Wednesday, June 29, 2005.
BLITZER: Thanks very much for joining us.
Are the Taliban and al Qaeda regrouping in Afghanistan? U.S. officials say a special operations helicopter was apparently shot down during a battle in the mountains near the border with Pakistan. Let's immediately go live to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this helicopter was part of what's called Operation Red Wing, an effort to get al Qaeda elements in Iraq. And now it's feared that all the Americans on board the helicopter are dead.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): The MH-47 is a special operations version of the Chinook twin-rotor troop transport. And it was ferrying a quick reaction team of Navy commandos into a remote part of eastern Afghanistan when it appears it was shot down by ground fire.
GENERAL PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS VICE CHAIRMAN: We think it was a rocket-propelled grenade, sir, but not 100 percent sure. And that will come out in time, as we're able to get to the scene and do the investigation required. So our hearts go out to their families.
MCINTYRE: Getting to the scene, the side of a steep mountain close to the rugged Afghan-Pakistan border has not been easy. But by nightfall Wednesday, more than a day after the crash, U.S. forces had moved in around the site and an Air Force A-10 attack plane had fired at least three rockets to suppress enemy fire.
According to military officials, all 17 Americans on board the helicopter are believed dead. But no official confirmation will come until the bodies have been recovered. Sources say the eight-man SEAL team was being flown in to reinforce U.S. troops caught in a fierce firefight with suspected al Qaeda militants.
COL. JAMES YONTS, U.S. ARMY: Coalition troops on the ground in this area came in contact with enemy forces and requested additional forces to be inserted into this operation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: And, Wolf, my partner, Barbara Starr, is just back from Afghanistan. And she reports that U.S. commanders there have seen a troubling trend. Many of the enemy fighters they've captured or killed in recent days have been outfitted with almost identical equipment, everything from video cameras, to strobe lights, to radio equipment.
What does that mean? They think it means that someone is funding them or furnishing them with the equipment. And the video cameras, they suspect, are to make propaganda videos like the insurgents are doing in Iraq -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Very disturbing, indeed. Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, thanks very much.
The reviews are still coming in from the president's address to the nation on Iraq. Mr. Bush last night made it clear he intends to stay the course there. He refused to set a timetable for the U.S. troop presence, saying they will remain, quote, "until the fight is won." Iraqis have been paying close attention to the president's message.
CNN's Jennifer Eccleston takes the pulse in Baghdad. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JENNIFER ECCLESTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Excerpts from U.S. President George Bush's speech on Iraq have been replayed on radio stations and satellite television channels throughout the day. And it's received mixed views.
A senior Shiite member of Iraq's transitional government said it was right on target, while one Kurdish lawmaker said it didn't meet any of Iraq's needs. For the general public, the impact of the speech was framed around whether President Bush's message signaled new ways to end the hardships of day-to-day living and new ways to end the violent insurgency.
A sampling of some Iraqis said, "No, it did not."
UNIDENTIFIED IRAQI MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It's all lies. The status quo is proving the opposite. The security situation is deteriorating, and the resistance getting tougher, day after day. The Americans have targeted the people and have done nothing to them, no security, no services, unemployment, all negative things.
UNIDENTIFIED IRAQI MALE (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): If the American Army withdraws from Iraq, it's better. You know Iraqis are sensitive to such issues. He should give us a proper time for troop withdrawal so that Iraq will be quiet. I think we have this situation now because people are sensitive.
ECCLESTON: As you heard there, the other contentious issue, the timeframe for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Even before the speech, most Iraqis talk of the frustration and the humiliation of occupation, especially as many here believe the presence of U.S. troops actually adds to the level of danger, adds to the level of violence.
But there's an acceptance of the reality that Iraqi forces are still not fully capable of defending their people. And until they are, U.S. and coalition forces will remain on Iraqi soil.
So the Iraqis share the same concerns, the same questions as President Bush's primary audience, the American public. When will the Iraqi security forces be able to stand up for their people so U.S. forces can go home?
Jennifer Eccleston, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Some Americans heard exactly what they wanted to hear in the president's speech. Others were more skeptical. For the reaction here in Washington, let's go live to our White House correspondent, Dana Bash -- Dana?
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, for the most part, Republicans used words like "important" and "eloquent" to describe the president's speech and its tone. As for Democrats, they called the president's plea for patience and "stay the course" theme lacking in the specifics the White House promised.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice-over): The president may have gone primetime on Iraq because of pressure from concerned Republicans, but the reviews are falling pretty much along party lines.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: The president's speech was a rehash. It wasn't anything new. It wasn't what we needed to hear about how the president establishes the milestones to achieve success, to bring our troops home.
BASH: The Democrats' biggest beef? Despite near universal dismissal of a link between Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush peppered his speech with 9/11 references.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001.
BASH: Aides insist he was trying to illustrate the kind of terrorists responsible for the steady stream of attacks in Iraq now.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They have the same ideology of hatred and oppression that the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th held.
BASH: Democrats call that disingenuous, noting the Bush administration opened what it calls the central front on terror by striking without a post-war plan.
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Come back to the 9/11 -- somehow figuring that it clicks a button, that everybody grows more patriotic and more patient. Well, maybe that's good P.R. work, which it isn't, but it's not the way that a commander-in-chief executes a war.
BASH: Most Republicans didn't see a problem with trying to cast Iraq as part of the post-9/11 fight against terrorism, but some had hoped the president would be more frank about errors in planning that led to this point.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: But the truth is, we've made mistakes in judgment, underestimating the level of the insurgency, maybe not having enough troops at the beginning. And we've paid a price for that.
BASH: And Mr. Bush did not put an end to calls for more troops in Iraq to stop the insurgency faster, even from Republicans.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: One of the reasons why we've experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn't have enough boots on the ground. And we still do.
(END VIDEOTAPE) BASH: The White House and most Republicans voiced confidence the president's speech probably bought him more time from the American people. One thing it did not do was to temper criticism from congressional Democrats, Wolf, because they feel emboldened. They have made a strategic decision to keep hammering away at the Bush Iraq policy.
BLITZER: Dana Bash at the White House. Thanks, Dana, very much.
And there are some new developments late today in a closely watched court case. Two journalist who face jail terms for refusing to name their sources, Judith Miller of the "New York Times" and Matt Cooper of "Time" magazine, met with the judge late this afternoon. The meeting has just ended.
CNN's Kimberly Osias is over at the courthouse here in Washington with developments -- Kimberly?
KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, proceedings lasted all of about 30 minutes. And essentially what the district judge, Judge Hogan, did was give the defense attorneys and these two reporters essentially a 48-hour respite, time really to ruminate and rethink over the decision whether or not to cooperate with a grand jury investigation.
Heretofore, they have said they would not reveal their sources. Of course, this went to the highest court in the land on Monday, the Supreme Court ruling that they would not hear the case of "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller or "Time" reporter Matthew Cooper.
And you know, essentially what the judge said here are there are two conflicting constitutional values at play, that of the First Amendment -- the right to free speech, and to protect sources critical to reporters' free flow of information is in conflict with a special prosecutor's right to obtain the truth.
Judith Miller did not speak with reporters. However, she seemed somewhat relieved, putting her head on her attorney's shoulder. And Mr. Cooper, for his part, did say that, of course, there's nothing to be ashamed of. Going to the highest court in the land is good enough -- Wolf?
BLITZER: Kimberly Osias at the courthouse for us. Kimberly Osias, thank you very much.
The CIA operative at the center of this, Valerie Plame, her name first surfaced in a syndicated column by Robert Novak of the "Chicago Sun-Times." Novak, also, of course, is a CNN political analyst.
Unlike Cooper and Miller, he has not been charged with refusing to reveal his sources. Writing in the "New York Times" today, recently retired "Times" columnist William Safire called on Novak to, quote, "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how his two sources who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators managed to get the prosecutor off his back." Novak was on CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS" earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources. And there needs to be a federal shield law preventing that, as there are shield laws in 49 out of 50 states.
But, Ed, my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And he promised once it is resolved, he will write a full column explaining everything. And he says there will be some major surprises there for all concerned. If they have to go to jail, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller face up to 18 months behind bars.
Some important health stories to tell you about. That's coming up next. Could those x-rays you take at the doctor's office make you sick? There's a new warning out today that may make you think twice. We'll have some perspective on what's going on.
Canada may lock up its medicine cabinet. The health minister in Ottawa says he's thinking about banning the export of prescription drugs to the United States.
And later, Clinton versus Cox. No matter who runs for that very important New York Senate seat, each side is gearing up for a fight like never before. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's no such thing as a safe x-ray, that's the word today in a surprising report from a panel of experts, disconcerting news for most of us who have x-rays taken at some points in our lives.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER (voice-over): We get them at the dentist's office. We get them from our doctors, and more recently, at full-body imaging centers that have opened across the country. Few people give x-rays much thought.
But a new report from the National Academy of Sciences finds that even at the very lowest levels, x-rays and other types of ionizing radiation have the potential to cause cancer. The study emphasizes the risk is very small, but concludes, "There is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial."
But what is considered low level? Ionizing radiation is measured in millisievert which represent energy deposited in living tissue. The study defines low dose as 0 to 100 millisieverts. To put it in perspective, the study says, each of us is exposed to about three millisieverts of so-called background radiation from the universe each year. One chest x-ray adds a scant .10 of a millisievert to that. Even at .10 of a sievert, or 100 chest x-rays, one person out of a hundred would be expected to develop cancer as a result of radiation exposure. By comparison, the study continues, about 42 out of 100 would be expected to develop cancer from other causes.
But exposure is measured over a lifetime. And as it increases, so does the risk. The findings support earlier studies. And scientists say more research is needed, especially on the effects of CAT scans, which typically result in higher doses of radiation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And for more on this study, we're joined by Dr. Peter Johnstone, a professor of radiation oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.
Professor, thanks very much for joining us. People watching this, they're going to get nervous even thinking about a chest x-ray or some dental x-rays. Should they be nervous hearing about this new panel recommendation?
DR. PETER JOHNSTONE, EMORY UNIVERSITY: Well, to be honest, there are no new data presented, in terms of our thought about what goes on at low doses of radiation. We never really thought that any dose was safe, in terms of producing new cancers.
And let me explain what we mean. The report very succinctly states that there is no threshold. In other words, that we don't know that there is a dose at which you wouldn't get at least a chance, albeit a very small chance, of getting cancer.
We've been operating under that presumption for a long, long time. When you get an x-ray, when you get a chest x-ray, when you get a dental x-ray, when you need a CAT scan, the presumption is that you're getting those for a reason and that the benefit that you're going to get, that your physician or your dentist will get from having those data, from having that information about what's going on in your lungs or in your teeth, outweighed this very small risk of getting a cancer.
BLITZER: So basically what you're saying is that you have to go ahead with the doctor's recommendations for those x-rays. But do all of these doctors know how many other x-rays you're getting? Do you have to be worried about the overall number, the aggregate of x-rays, because a physician or a dentist might not necessarily be aware of your whole history of x-rays?
JOHNSTONE: Well, ultimately, that's probably the case, because we do collect x-rays. We do collect exposure over our entire life.
But that said, if you look at each individual x-ray, or each individual study that's done, if it is a risk-versus-benefit analysis that's done at the time that the physician, or the dentist, or whoever is ordering it is ordering it, than there is for that moment a real need for you to have it.
If I could put it in a slightly different perspective, if you think about all the radiation that we get, we get over four-fifths of it from background radiation, things like radon, things like where we live in the country and the Earth's crust contribution to the background radiation, things like cosmic radiation that you get depending on what altitude you live at or how many airplane flights you take.
So much more of our radiation is delivered through uncontrolled sources, through things over which we have no control. That said...
BLITZER: The bottom line, Doctor, is that everyone should be aware of the danger, even though it might be very, very small, but you also have to be aware of the potential benefits, which could be huge, as far as knowing what's going on inside your body.
JOHNSTONE: I'd say that's a good way -- that's a good take-home message for this.
BLITZER: Dr. Peter Johnstone of Emory University, appreciate it very much.
JOHNSTONE: Thank you.
BLITZER: In other health news, it may soon be harder for U.S. residents to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Canada's health minister wants to restrict the flow of drugs across the border. He's proposing legislation to block bulk drug sales to the United States when supplies are limited. He also wants to bar Canadian Internet pharmacies from selling medicine to Americans who don't have established relationships with Canadian doctors.
New steps to strengthen U.S. intelligence and to prevent a nuclear attack. What changes will the nation's spy agency now face? Our David Ensor's standing by for word on that.
Redesigned, new plans for New York's Freedom Tower unveiled today.
And investing in your future. What you should and should not be doing with your money. The author, Ben Stein, offers some advice. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The strongest building in the world and the safest. That's how officials are describing the redesigned Freedom Tower to be built on the site of the World Trade Center. The new design unveiled today does not include the unusual shape proposed earlier.
As in the original design, the 1,776-foot tall building exceeds fire code laws and will include defenses against chemical and biological agents in the air system. The lead architect says the new design recalls the destroyed World Trade Center towers.
A potential terrorist threat to the nation's milk supply leads our "Security Watch." Despite objections from federal health officials, the National Academy of Sciences is publishing a paper describing how terrorists could poison thousands of people through the milk supply. The authors say it could be done by adding a little botulism toxin into a milk truck. The academy says terrorists won't find anything useful in the paper.
Also in our "Security Watch," President Bush is endorsing nearly all proposed changes in the nation's spy agencies aimed at combating weapons of mass destruction. Our national security correspondent, David Ensor, is joining us now with details -- David?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN AMERICA BUREAU CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the president's move to accept 70 of 74 recommendations from the Presidential commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence appears to strengthen the hand of John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (voice-over): Negroponte's deputy, General Michael Hayden, says that is partly because the implementation of these recommendations centers with the DNI. Officials insist this is not just about moving the boxes of the bureaucracy.
FRAN TOWNSEND, WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I think the steps that we're taking to strengthen the intelligence community help us to prevent terror attacks and thereby do keep the country safer.
ENSOR: The steps include: creating a national security service at the FBI, folding in counterterrorism, counter-espionage, and analysis under a new official picked by the FBI director but with the agreement of the DNI; establishing a national counter-proliferation center, with a director who will make sure the government is tracking WMD in the wrong hands around the world; giving control of all overseas human intelligence operations to the CIA.
On the last point, the White House overruled a commission suggestion that the new centers for counterterrorism and counter- proliferation play a role in planning covert actions by spies and soldiers.
TOWNSEND: There were persuasive and strong arguments made against doing that.
ENSOR: Hayden says a new human intelligence manager will be chosen in the next 60 days and will report to CIA Director Porter Goss. That's one key victory for an agency that has suffered multiple cuts in its influence in the reorganization so far. As for the decision that FBI Director Mueller must cede some control to Negroponte, the director said it does not trouble him.
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Oh, I don't see it as a loss of independence at all. I see it as an acknowledgement and a furtherance of the development of the FBI to respond to the threats of today.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Along with the intelligence changes, the president issued an order for freezing the assets in the U.S. of any person or entity involved in the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The order designates eight organizations in Iran, North Korea, and Syria. And Americans are forbidden to do business with any of them -- Wolf?
BLITZER: David Ensor reporting for us. Thanks, David, very much.
And to our viewers, please stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Jews expelling Jews, that's how some angry Israelis regard the Gaza pullout plan. And some are attempting to bring the entire country to a stand-still. We'll have details.
Hillary Clinton's competition. A new Republican enters the race for New York senator with some big names attached to his campaign.
Plus, woefully unprepared. That's how economist Ben Stein describes many baby-boomers on the verge of retirement. Some investment tips you need to know. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's been a flare up of violence between Israeli forces and Lebanon's Hezbollah militants. The clash began In the disputed Shebaa Farms border region, where the Israeli military says Hezbollah gunmen attacked Israeli outposts killing one Israeli soldier and wounding five others. The Israelis say they hit back with artillery fire and air strikes targeting Hezbollah positions. Witnesses say the warplanes struck near two Lebanese border villages.
On Israeli highways today, there were protests against the planned uprooting of Jewish settlements from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. In Gaza itself, scuffles between Israeli settlers and soldiers are getting more violent and the government is vowing a get tough policy.
CNN's Guy Raz reports from Jerusalem.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tempers flaring in the Gaza settlement of Gush Katif. Israeli soldiers, under orders to prepare this area for evacuation, now facing a daily confrontation with the most radical settlers who oppose the Gaza pullout. This abandoned building in southern Gaza is temporarily a settlers' strong hold. Most of the militants are young, some just kids.
Protester after protester is dragged out by soldiers. The Israeli Army calls these citizens hooligans. But demonstrators call the soldiers traitors. "Jews don't expel Jews," they shout. It's how they regard the Gaza pullout plan.
Their comrades elsewhere attempted to bring the country to a stand still, lining a highway with nails in the morning, physically blocking the same roads later in the day. Traffic disruptions are now happening almost daily.
(on camera): And the most radical demonstrators are becoming emboldened by using increasingly provocative methods. By blocking roads and highways, they want fellow Israelis to experience as much inconvenience as possible.
(voice-over): Israel's government is vowing to punish its citizens who threaten violence. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon now says he's prepared to throw down an iron fist.
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (translator): I especially warn against attempts by a small lawless minority. This minority does not represent the majority of settlers who obey the law.
RAZ: The minority, though, is loud and organized. This graffiti in Gaza reads, "Kahani lives." A reference to late ultra-nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahani, a man the government of Israel considered a terrorist.
Guy Raz, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Some Democrats were quick to criticize President Bush's Iraq speech last night, saying he failed to lay out a clear strategy for success. Just A short time ago, I discussed the administration's Iraq policy and other issues with Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Secretary Burns, welcome back to the United States. Thanks very much for joining us.
Let's get to the president's speech last night. Reaction mixed. A lot of the critics still very critical. Listen to what the editorial writers of the "New York Times" wrote today.
They said, "We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks."
Was that appropriate for the president to repeatedly make the connection?
NICK BURNS, U.S. UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS: Wolf, I think so. I think the president had a responsibility last evening, and he took it, to assure the American people that we were right to go in a little over two years ago, that there is a plan in place that's going to allow the United States to do what it said it would do, and that's protect the Iraqi people and give them time to build the political capacity to run their own affairs, train their army.
And the president looked forward last night. The great majority of that speech was looking forward as to how we can emerge in our friendship with the Iraqis victorious. And victory would be the Iraqis stand up, they take control of their own country, they have a democracy, they have a constitution.
And despite all of the violence of the last several weeks and months, there is a reason to believe that the Iraqis are pointed forward themselves with some degree of optimism about the future.
BLITZER: One congressman from North Carolina, Robin Hayes, earlier this morning here on CNN told our Carol Costello that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Listen precisely to what Robin Hayes said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ROBIN HAYES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: (INAUDIBLE) we get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't. But the evidence is very clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Have you seen evidence there, Mr. Secretary, of a direct link between Saddam Hussein and those who perpetrated 9/11?
BURNS: Wolf, I would just refer to you what the president said last night. He did refer to 9/11. He also referred to the fact that our most important national objective now is to help the Iraqis, is to help them militarily, is to give them political support.
And I was in Brussels, Europe, last week with Secretary Rice. And there was a tremendous amount of support from the international community for Iraq itself. So I think it's more important to concentrate on the future, on what we can do in 2005 to help that government.
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk about the future, specifically NATO. You're the former U.S. ambassador to NATO.
Right after the speech last night, Joe Biden was on CNN, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. And he offered this suggestion. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: There's about 2,500 Iraqis fully trained. There's about probably 8,000 or 10,000 that are partially trained that need, with our help, they can lead. And all the rest of the 160,000 have a long way to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Well, let me read specifically what he said about NATO. He said, "He should have asked NATO to come in, take over securing the border." He said, "We have to prevent these folks from coming in. They're coming in through the Syrian border."
Is there any possibility that, if the president asked NATO to take control of the border area, specifically along the Syrian line, NATO would do so?
BURNS: I think that would be a difficult proposition for NATO, Wolf, because NATO operates by consensus. All the 26 members would have to agree. And despite the fact that we're two years beyond the war itself, I don't think you'd get all of the European allies to agree to such a mission.
But what President Bush did do more than a year ago was suggest that NATO ought to go into Iraq. NATO has done so. NATO has a training mission in Baghdad. That mission will be expanded in September of this year. And we still have 17 NATO allies on the ground.
So we may not have unanimity, but we have strong support from NATO for the training function. But I don't think you could get NATO at this point in time to take over border protection. That is a responsibility that the Iraqi military is going to have to assume, and that's why the training effort that General Petraeus has underway is so important. And that's why it's got to succeed.
BLITZER: Let's shift gears elsewhere in the Middle East, specifically the Israeli-Lebanese border. There was an incident earlier today, a disputed area called Shabaa Farms along the Israeli- Lebanese, Hezbollah attacks, Israeli air strikes in retaliation.
What's the U.S. position? What's going on?
BURNS: Well, I don't have the details on this attack. I've heard about the press reports. But I would say this: There is some reason to hope that this summer the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian can turn in a positive direction, because Prime Minister Sharon has now offered to take the Israeli settlements out of Gaza.
That has to happen in a period of calm and peace. And Hezbollah should not be initiating military actions against the Israelis.
BLITZER: How worried, though, are you, speaking about Gaza, that the situation could get very, very dicey between Israelis, Israelis attacks Israelis because of this planned pullout from Gaza?
BURNS: Well, we certainly understand that this Gaza withdrawal has been highly controversial within Israel itself. But we very much support Prime Minister Sharon. We support what he's doing.
Secretary Rice was in Israel just over a week ago. She gave him full support. And it's our view that, if the Gaza withdrawal can proceed as scheduled this summer, then that's going to inspire confidence and allow Abu Mazen, and Prime Minister Sharon, and the others to turn their attention to the onward steps in the peace negotiations.
But that has to be done in a period of peace and calm. And Israel has to know that it's not going to be attacked by terrorist groups. And that's why we routinely -- and I again today condemn the Hezbollah organization, because it doesn't have a positive bone in its body. It simply seeks to use violence as a way to perpetuate its political ambition.
BLITZER: Is the State Department concerned about the U.S.-China relationship, with China now seeking to purchase Unocal, Maytag, other major U.S. corporations, specifically in the energy field? Is that at all a source of concern for the State Department?
BURNS: Well, as I understand it, Wolf, that is just a prospective deal. Nothing has happened yet. So there's nothing to which we can react.
But I would say this: We have a healthy relationship with China. And we're seeking not confrontation, we're seeking cooperation, certainly in the economic field where we'd like to see a better trade balance with China, and certainly, in some cases, better trade practices by the Chinese government.
What we also would like to see, in terms of politics and foreign policy, close coordination. We've been trying to do that on North Korea. We're relying on China to play a positive role in encouraging the North Koreans to come back to the talks. And we certainly want to see us have a friendly relationship with China in other respects.
So I wouldn't inflate this other business issue in importance beyond what it is. And right now, it's a hypothetical.
BLITZER: Secretary Burns, welcome back to the United States from Brussels. And good to have you on CNN.
BURNS: Thank you, Wolf. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton: a new Republican enters the ring, in an effort to try to unseat the New York state senator. Our Mary Snow has the story.
Plus: My candid conversation with the actor, author and former game show host Ben Stein about your retirement planning.
All that. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: He's the son-in-law of the only American president forced to resign from office. And now Ed Cox is considering tossing his hat into the political ring by challenging Hillary Clinton for her Senate seat next year. Our Mary Snow is in New York. She's got the details -- Mary.
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, Ed Cox is a 58-year-old lawyer who's never run for office before. But because of his political pedigree and his potential contender, he's getting a lot of attention early on and some high-powered guns in the Republican party are joining him.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW (voice-over): He is new to running for office, but not new to politics. And he took a major step closer in positioning himself in what's expected to be one of the most closely watched races next year. Ed Cox hopes to be the Republican challenger to New York senator Hillary Clinton.
Today, the son-in-law of former president Richard Nixon announced members of his exploratory committee including Henry Kissinger.
ED COX, (R) POSSIBLE NEW YORK SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I believe in giving something back to my state -- to our state.
SNOW: Political observers say he is an unknown to most New Yorkers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they know one thing about him, it's that they know that he's Richard Nixon's son-in-law. And that he married Tricia on the White House lawn.
SNOW: With the Senate election more than a year away, Cox's campaign is wasting no time hiring consultants with ties to Karl Rove, the architect of President Bush's campaigns.
TOM BASILE, SR. ADVISER, COX CAMPAIGN: We're intending on running against Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Cox understands the kind of team that you need to build to run an aggressive and an effective race against Mrs. Clinton.
SNOW: While the Cox camp is looking to the current White House, Senator Clinton is getting some help of her own from a former president, her husband. President Clinton sent his first letter of this race to supporters warning that his wife has already been singled out as the Republican's No. 1 target for defeat next year.
In the letter, he asked for grass roots support like no one has ever seen in the year before an election. Ed Cox already has a clear target.
COX: New York is looking for results. They hold their public officials accountable. And they're going to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for not producing results for New York.
SNOW: To that, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said "while the Republicans sort out their nominating process, Hillary Clinton will continue to stay focused on working for New Yorkers."
For those who take their pulse in polls, numbers show right now she is unbeatable.
MAURICE CARROLL, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLLING INSTITUTE: Everybody who polls shows she's a runaway winner now. Could something happen? Sure. But at this stage of the game, 25 percent or thereabouts for whoever the Republican is and womp, she takes the rest of it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: The Cox campaign says it plans to hold fundraising efforts in 50 states. As for the Clinton campaign, it's raised at least $9 million so far. That effort continuing tonight at a fundraiser outside Washington, D.C. -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Lots of money going to be exchanged in this campaign. Thanks very much Mary Snow for that report.
And coming up at the top of the hour, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Kitty Pilgrim filling in for Lou tonight. She's joining us live from New York with a preview -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf. Thanks.
6:00 pm Eastern, new details about the crash of a U.S. Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. Could be one of the heaviest losses of American lives since the war in Afghanistan began.
Also, a huge shakeup in our intelligence agencies: the FBI will have a new national intelligence service to fight radical Islamist terrorists.
And when is a congressional pay raise not a raise? Well, when the House leadership calls it an adjustment. We'll have that incredible story and a lot more in a few minutes. But for now, back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Kitty. We'll be watching. Thanks very much.
When we come back, are you ready for retirement? The author Ben Stein offers some advice on how best to save for your future, especially if you're a baby boomer. He tackles your wallet woes. That's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggests most Americans remain extremely skeptical of President Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security. In the poll that was conducted this past weekend, only 31 percent of those questioned said they approve of how President Bush is handling Social Security, 64 percent said they disapprove. Despite that, the president continues to push his plan for personal retirement accounts.
One of his strong supporters is the economist, author, and TV personality Ben Stein, who spoke with me recently about Social Security and retirement planning.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Ben Stein, thanks very much for joining us.
BEN STEIN, FRM. NIXON SPEECH WRITER: My honor.
BLITZER: The president seems to be getting the message from a lot of Democrats and even some Republicans that his private retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform may be dead on arrival.
STEIN: That is the message that the newspapers are saying. They're not hearing it at the White House. I just spent a couple of days talking to people at the White House. They're still very enthusiastic about it. They're still planning nationwide pushes about it and nationwide efforts to educate people about it.
Clearly, something's got to be done. Their feeling is if it's not private accounts, it's going to have to be something. They want their legacy to be putting Social Security on a sound footing.
BLITZER: So, why do you think he gave the green light to Republican senator Robert Bennett of Utah to go ahead and find a Democrat to introduce formal legislation to reform Social Security, but without including the private accounts?
STEIN: Because I think he wants to do something. I think his idea is I tried this idea. I will keep pushing it, I will keep pushing it. But even if it doesn't work, I'll do something else, I'll raise the retirement age. I'll raise the tax on well to do, high income people. But I will do Something, so that my legacy isn't just this dreadful war in Iraq, my legacy is putting the retirement of older people on a sounder footing.
BLITZER: You've written a whole book about retirement. You're a firm believer in using Social Security funds for individual private retirement accounts?
STEIN: Well, I'm not a firm believer. And I think people should have the option of doing it. The difference in the rate of return if you put $100 a month into the stock market as compared with putting it into Social Security is absolutely overwhelming. The difference is over a 40-year period is absolutely unbelievable. And I think people should have the option to do that.
But the thing is, Wolf, people are going to have to do a lot more than common Social Security. They're going to have to save more on their own. They're going to have to max out their IRAs, max out their 401(k)s, max out every single thing they can. And add more to it than that.
People only get 40 percent of their after retirement income from Social Security. Where's the rest going to come from?
BLITZER: Well, and you say that the American public by and large is woefully unprepared. STEIN: Woefully.
BLITZER: This generation woefully unprepared for retirement.
STEIN: Well, the statistics are incredible. The average American family has less than $50,000 -- baby boom family has less than $50,000 in retirement financial assets. That's nothing at 3 percent a year, 4 percent a year, that yields less than $2,000 a year. They need to have much more saved.
Whatever you are going to need to live on after you retire, you need to have about 15 times that much saved. And you can't spend all that right away, because if you're going to be retired for 25 years, prices are going to double in that period. So, you're going to have to have some money that's still compounding.
BLITZER: And you make the point that as individuals live longer, they're going to be in retirement for a lot longer.
STEIN: The ordinary American is going to be in retirement for at least 25 years. The ordinary American wants to retire at 60. Say they retire at 62. They're going to be in retirement for close to 25 years. Prices are going to go up like crazy. They're going to have to have a lot of money saved that is continuing to earn interest and earn dividends in all that time.
BLITZER: Who's better prepared, men or women?
STEIN: Women are worse prepared, unfortunately. And a lot of women, especially widows, are just living paycheck to paycheck. There's just no substitute for individual responsibility here. Stocks, mutual funds, ETFs, variable annuities, people are going to have to dig in and start saving. It's really painful to not buy that plasma TV, but people have got to do it.
BLITZER: So, if somebody's 50-years-old right now and they really haven't prepared for retirement, is it too late?
STEIN: No, every day that you start doing it is better than the day you haven't started doing it. Every day that you put aside a few dollars is going to be a few dollars you have when you retire. But they've got to start sooner. And the real point is they've got to start in their 20s. Make the power of compound interest work for them. If you start in your 20s, it's a breeze to get up to the right number.
BLITZER: So, what's the best investment from your perspective? Stocks, bonds, real estate, gold?
STEIN: Gold is a terrible investment. I mean, I'll get some angry letters. Gold is a terrible investment. Real estate is in a very high part of the cycle. Over long periods of time, it doesn't go up that much. A good solid home is a great investment.
Stocks outperform everything. Broad indexes of stocks, those Vanguard total of stock market indexes, Fidelity total stock market index, the S&P spyders, they outperform so much.
Do you know, the rate of return from 1926 to 2004 on the S&P, counting dividends, is almost 15 percent a year. Nobody can count on that much going forward. Even if it's only half that much into the next 30 or 40 years, people are going to be made very, very if comfortable if they get into it now while they're young and stay in it.
BLITZER: Ben Stein, is the author of "How To Ruin Your Financial Life." Hopefully you're going to tell people how to ruin it, you're going to tell people how to save it.
STEIN: The best way to ruin it, by the way, is to have teenage children.
BLITZER: That's a subject for another occasion. Ben Stein, thanks for joining us.
STEIN: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: He was thrust into the international spotlight following the death of Princess Diana. As part of CNN's anniversary series "Then and Now," we look at bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones and where he is today. Here's CNN's Diana Muriel.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Trevor Rees-Jones was the sole survivor of the car crash that killed Princess Diana and his boss, Dodi Fayad in August, 1997.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The car -- the front of it is totally smashed in.
MURIEL: The fired family bodyguard, a passenger in the car that night, needed extensive surgery to rebuild his face. But rebuilding his life has been tougher. He lost his job working for Dodi's father, Muhammed al Fayad after the millionaire claims Rees-Jones had a role in the crash.
TREVOR REES-JONES, FRM. BODYGUARD FOR DODI FAYAD: He only sees his own truth. He's not going to be happy and until the definitive version is the one that he puts out. And it's never going to be, because as far as I'm concerned, it was just a simple car accident.
MURIEL: A French inquiry cleared Rees-Jones of any responsibility in 1999. A year later, he wrote a book about his experiences called the "Bodyguard's Story." But since the book, he has never sought publicity and says he has moved on with his life.
He runs his own security company. And has worked in Iraq and for the U.N. in East Timor.
(END VIDEOTAPE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Celebrating a new arrival. It's our "Picture of the Day." The National Aquarium in Baltimore welcomed a baby Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin this week. The calf was three feet long and weighed 30 pounds. No name for the baby yet. It's being kept at a private pool with its mom while aquarium officials monitor the pair to make sure everything is OK.
Remember, WOLF BLITZER REPORTS airs weekdays, 5:00 pm Eastern. Don't forget, this Sunday, a special "LATE EDITION" "Behind the Lines." That airs 1:00 pm Eastern on my recent visit to Iraq.
Until then, thanks very much for joining us. "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT starts right now. Kitty Pilgrim is sitting in for Lou -- Kitty.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
