Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Reaction to Bush's Iraq Speech; Supreme Court Takes on Controversial Abortion Cases

Aired November 30, 2005 - 10:28   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Applause from the midshipmen who have been in the audience as they listened to the president's remarks at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
Interesting, as the president, who has been facing growing doubts in the public over the war in Iraq, hearing him today talk about his strategy and laying out the plan and the U.S.' role in Iraq with a speech where he clearly defended policy.

We have a roundtable that we want to get right to. Let's start with White House correspondent Dana Bash. And we've got Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. Senior analyst Jeff Greenfield's with us right here in the studio. Chief national correspondent John King is in Washington, D.C.

Dana, let's begin with you. We didn't really hear the president say, stay the course, which we've heard in many previous speeches. But a similar message, where Americans will not cut and run essentially. Anything new in what we heard from the president this morning?

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, in terms of the stay the course issue, the whole reason why the White House, and why the president gave this speech today, is because the rhetoric, as he talked about, has gotten so hot here in Washington, and the calls for withdrawing troops have come from influential people like Congressman John Murtha, a Democrat.

So we did hear the president repeat some of what he had said before about not with drawing troops, not committing to a deadline and the reasons why he said it would vindicate the terrorists who are conducting these suicide bombing.

But he tried to do more than that. More than just say, as you said, stay the course. But explain the fact that he does hope that there is an end in sight for U.S. troops there and tried to put meat on the bones and talk about Iraqi security forces. And what was interesting, Soledad, is, you know, this is a president who's been criticized for not admitting mistakes. He didn't exactly say that, but he did go through in detail how the U.S. really didn't do the right thing, really didn't get it, if you will, in how to train Iraqi security forces.

So he talked about the fact that they are making progress now in excruciating detail. Of course, the whole point there is to do that so that U.S. troops can come home so that, as he said, they can stand up, the U.S. can stand down.

S. O'BRIEN: Thanks, Dana. Certainly not admitting mistakes, although he said mistakes were made. And also said that things, at times, have not going smoothly.

Let's get right to Barbara Starr. She's at the Pentagon for us this morning.

Again, the question of troops. He talked about being encouraged by the Iraqi forces. But certainly, no specific word on if they're good enough right now or any time in the near future that U.S. troops could leave.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Soledad, I think what the president laid out is what the military is seeing, which is sort of a continuum, the road to progress for those Iraqi security forces. The president talked about the growing number that are trained and equipped, that are taking over in certain areas of Iraq.

But make no mistake. There is still a great deal of concern. Iraqi security forces do militarily remain dependent on the U.S. forces for a number of key efforts. Intelligence, logistics, support. It is the U.S. military that clearly provides the backup firepower when it's needed. This is a road to progress, if you will. The Iraqis are on that road, but not there yet.

Now, I think one of the things the president said that was militarily very interesting was he said that his commanders tell him, quote, "the mission will continue to change." He laid out a bit of a way ahead for the U.S. military forces. He talked about the fact that they would conduct more specialized operations, they would reduce their presence in the cities and they would do less patrols, less convoys. But that will depend on the ability of the Iraqis to take over those missions -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: All right, Barbara, thanks. To a large degree, Jeff, this is a sell job. The audience is not just the midshipmen that he's addressing, it's the American public. And we heard the president say military leaders, if they want more troops, I'll give them more troops.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's one of the real interesting questions that we really need to drill down on. There's no question what the message is when you have a huge sign flanking the president saying "Plan for Victory." The message is, we have a plan for victory and it's working and we're adjusting. And that's the closest we heard to an acknowledgment that things hadn't gone smoothly -- they've learned from experience and adjusted their tactics.

But here's the question. One of his strongest supporters, John McCain, has said from the beginning we didn't have enough troops and he thinks we still need more. There was a report in the press about two weeks ago, I think, that three senators met privately with a group of military officers -- not the top brass, but people further down the chain of command -- who said we have asked for more help and we've been rebuffed. And there is at least some sense in that message that while nobody's formally asked for more troops, it's because if you do, particularly with this secretary of defense, your career is in danger.

Now, the real question, I think, once we get finished the speech, is does the military believe they can do what the president says is being done without more troops? And if not, is it true what the president says and if they actually ask, we'll give them? I think, beyond what happened today and the posturing, that's the most important question that the Senate, that the Congress, that the press has to ask.

S. O'BRIEN: A drill-down, as you say.

GREENFIELD: Well, you know, this is the eighth time since the start of the year, I believe, the president's made a speech either on Iraq or the war on terror.

S. O'BRIEN: A major speech.

GREENFIELD: And I think that the White House must -- they do read the polls -- must have a sense that whatever they've communicated so far hasn't done the job here at home. And I do think, by the way, there's a legitimate concern of -- you know, you don't have to be a Republican conservative. Joe Lieberman yesterday in "The Wall Street Journal" said this thing can work unless the American people lose heart.

So really, the question is going to be, can -- is it true, and can it, the public and the political and media arms, be convinced that this is a plan that's been working? We're not going to be pouring more troops in.

Just one last point. There was a story in a Milwaukee newspaper on Monday that a 52-year-old grandfather who hasn't been in active service since 1992, I believe, has now been told he's on his way back to Iraq. Stories like that back home have a way of undercutting the most carefully planned presidential speech.

And I think more stories like that is going to be very harmful for the president, as he tries to make the case that this thing is going to work. There's major stuff at stake, and if you just be patient we know what we're doing, we're adjusting. It's going to work. That's -- that's the message, and as I say, the real question is, is that the real message that the military is communicating once the lights are off and we're not hearing presidential speeches?

S. O'BRIEN: John King is in our D.C. Bureau. John, is that message that it's working, just give it time -- do you think, as we heard it in this speech today, one of several that we're expecting, do you think the public's going to buy it?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends which segment of the public we're talking about. There are those who flatly oppose the war who think this president made a galactic mistake going to war in Iraq, and I don't think the president is ever going to convince them that they are wrong and he was right.

But there's also a segment of the population that supported the war that now wonders what is the plan? Has the president lost his way in Iraq? The president trying to make the case to them today that he has not lost his way, or where there have been problems and difficulties, like training the Iraqi troops, he is getting back on course.

So, look, the president -- six in ten Americans now say this war is not worth it. Six in ten Americans say they disapprove of the president's handling of the war. If he is to change those numbers, he needs to change them four, five, six percentage points at a time, beginning with those who support him, but are having rising doubts. I think that's the main target. Those are the main targets today.

Trying to change the tone of the debate in Washington and solidify the support of those who say we were with you at the beginning, Mr. President, where are we now?

S. O'BRIEN: Our roundtable is going to continue in just a moment. Let's check in with Miles first.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's check in on the other side of the aisle.

We'll hear from Democratic Senator Ben Nelson. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee. He had a chance to hear the speech along with all of us.

Senator Nelson, good to have you with us. Just your immediate reaction to the speech?

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NV), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I think it was a speech designed to not only rally the troops, which I think is important the American people stand behind the troops, and I think it's important for the troops to be able to hear that from the president and hear that from the people.

I think he also was trying to rally the American people, to try to explain to the American people that progress is being made. I don't think he's gone so far as to say we haven't done everything right, but I think he's said things have been changing as we've done along. I think we all understand battlefields or athletic events, you can start off with a game plan, but once the game starts, you have to make adjustments throughout the course.

I think that was important today for him to make that. I think those of us in the Armed Services Committee know that and most in Congress know that. But I don't know that the American people knew that the actual strategy or the plan was changing as we've gone along.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, certainly the American people are aware there have been problems with the strategy all along the way. This, as Jeff Greenfield just pointed out, was as close as the president has come to admitting that there have been mistakes. NELSON: Well, I don't think he wanted to admit to mistakes. But he's close to saying that, clearly, the adjustments have to be made as you go along. You learn, you try some things. They don't work. So you try new things. I think the American people need to know that -- just straightforward -- that that's the case, rather than to say everything's been going along fine just as we planned it and we are where we expected to be. Because I don't think anybody believes that.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, the American people are most interested in when the troops are coming home. And the president said this -- rejects the whole notion of a timetable. He said this will be driven by conditions on the ground, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Do you agree?

NELSON: Well, I agree that we shouldn't have a timetable. But I do think we ought to have a metrics portion of this.

M. O'BRIEN: What does that mean, a metrics portion? What is a metrics portion?

NELSON: Well, the metrics portion would be to say whether we're 50 percent there, 25 percent toward our objective to stand up enough troops so we can stand down ours. I think we lack anything that's measurable. That's part of the problem...

M. O'BRIEN: How would that be measured, though?

NELSON: ... for the American people.

M. O'BRIEN: The hardest part would be trying to measure that. How do you even come up with a way of doing that?

NELSON: Well, we know that we've got 1,000 troops, Iraqi troops, capable of defending themselves. Some that are not quite capable of defending themselves. But how many does it take? If we don't know, how can we ever know if we're going to get there? I think that's what the American people would like to know. I think there's some comfort in saying we're 50 percent there, we're 40 percent there, and stop talking about a timetable, but talking about measurable results, some sort of metrics analogy.

M. O'BRIEN: All right. The Democrats are all over the map on this, aren't they? You have some people are essentially advocating cut and run. And people such as yourself...

NELSON: Well, I haven't anybody cut and run. I'm not hearing anybody in the Senate advocate...

M. O'BRIEN: You're not hearing that?

NELSON: I have not heard that.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, we've heard that on the street. That's out there. Isn't it?

NELSON: Well, I've heard -- I know there are people who want to cut the run. But there -- but as far as I know, nobody in the Senate on the Democratic side or the Republican side have said cut and run. I think there are people who are very impatient with the potential drawdown and would like to see a drawdown for other reasons.

I happen to believe that we can only draw down when we have a plan in place that tells us whether we're getting to our stated objective. And when our stated objective is one that we can measure against, then I think we can start to have a timetable to draw down troops. Otherwise I think it's a timetable by another name.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, let's use the metrics approach here for just a moment. What percentage along the way do you feel and do most politicians feel the U.S. needs to be in time for the 2006 elections?

NELSON: Well, I think that's a politically driven point in time that we ought not to be focused on. I -- obviously, everybody has to have a political reality here. But I don't think we ought to be deciding when to draw down troops based on a 2006 election. What we ought to be doing is deciding to draw down troops when we're 50 percent capable. When I say we, the Iraqis are 50 percent capable of defending themselves.

We have measurable goals and points in time that we can look at on self-governance. We've got an election coming up on December 15th. We've had elections to -- for interim governments and for a constitution.

NELSON: ... coming up on December 15th. We've had elections for interim governments and for a constitution. We've had measurable goals there.

What we lack here are measurable goals that you can determine how we're doing based on whether we're halfway there, or when we'll actually have enough troop troops trained in Iraq so they can defend themselves.

M. O'BRIEN: Senator, I've got Jeff Greenfield here. He has a question for you.

GREENFIELD: Good morning, Senator.

NELSON: Sure.

GREENFIELD: "The New Yorker" magazine is reporting, Sey Hersh, that one of the ideas is to as American troops are drawn down, that airpower might be used, particularly in urban settings, so there's some concern among the military that if you give Iraqis the power to call in airstrikes, you don't know whether they're calling in strikes against insurgents, or tribal, or ethnic or political enemies. Is this a concern of yours as a member of the Armed Services Committee?

NELSON: Well, I think you never really want to give your military power to somebody else to use. But I think we could avoid that by continuing to have embedded troops in the Iraqi military for some period of time. That's part of the plan. So I don't think you ever really surrender that.

What you do is you put the Iraqis in a position of taking on most of the fight, but if we're going to have airpower used, the embedded American troops could make a decision about that.

M. O'BRIEN: Senator, final thought here, what did you not hear today that you wish you had heard?

NELSON: Well, something about metrics, what it's going to take to get where we want to be. I think we all want to stay the course. The president didn't use those terms again today. That's more of a slogan. But I think we all want to do that. What we want to know is what that course is and what it's going to take in terms of preparation. If we don't -- if 1,000 aren't enough for them to defend themselves, is it 5,000? Is it 7,500? I think those are the kinds of things that my colleagues would like to hear. It's something that I certainly would like to hear.

M. O'BRIEN: Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat on the Armed Services Committee from Nebraska. Thanks for your time.

NELSON: Thank you.

S. O'BRIEN: Well, Senator Nelson says he clearly wants more specifics. People, too, want to know what the definition of victory is.

Let's get back to our roundtable now. White House correspondent Dana Bash, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, chief national correspondent John King.

Welcome back, guys.

Dana let's begin with you. Listen to what the president said about when victory comes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES: Victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve of the American people. It will also demand the strength and personal courage of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. And as the future officers of the United States Navy and Marine corps, you're preparing to join this fight. You do so at a time when there is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq. I know that for our men and women in uniform this debate can be unsettling. When you're risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation's capital.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

S. O'BRIEN: Dana Bash, a really different tone we're hearing from the president. Certainly not long ago, a couple weeks ago, when it came to debate and contentious criticism, the White House wasn't quite so embracing of it. We heard the president a few moments after those remarks saying that it was a sign of a democracy in action, essentially, when people could criticize what was happening. In fact that's what the midshipmen and others are fighting for.

BASH: That's right. And also, what the president did which was interesting, in terms of that debate, was to highlight a Democrat when he talked about the debate in Washington, particularly over whether or not troops should come back, and that Democrat is Senator Joe Lieberman. That was a political gift of sorts to the White House that they recognized right away yesterday and the days since Senator Lieberman actually came back from Iraq and essentially embraced what the president is saying, and said in his speech, that U.S. troops should stay. They should not come home as some members, some influential members like as I mentioned before Congressman John Murtha of his own party are saying.

So the president sort of gingerly there is trying to do what his White House is doing, more forcefully try to exploit the divisions within the Democratic Party. Some of the divisions we even heard from Senator Ben Nelson. He had quite a different take than perhaps some of the more liberal members of his party have.

S. O'BRIEN: Final words going to go to Barbara Starr. We heard the president talk about troop readiness. And I think that really is key to all of this. I mean, it's what the debate's all focused on, Barbara. The president said 30 battalions have taken over control of their own areas of responsibility. What the heck does that mean?

STARR: Well, what they're talking about again is this continuum of progress, that increasingly larger numbers of Iraqi security forces are taking charge, are leading the fight, are in command, in their sectors. But it's really important to think about the long-term situation, because what military commanders tell us is there is still a great deal of concern. The Iraqis clearly are going to be dependent on the U.S. for that backup firepower, for air support, for intelligence, for supplies, for some time to come. And there is a great deal of concern about the other side, the Iraqi police force. There is concern that they can continue to be infiltrated by Shiite militiamen, and that there is a lot of unrest in the south, that they still have to deal with. So progress, but not a final conclusion.

S. O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, and to all of our roundtable correspondents, we appreciate it. Thank you very much.

M. O'BRIEN: That's all the time we have for this extended version of AMERICAN MORNING. Daryn Kagan back at CNN Center to take you through the next couple of hours "CNN LIVE TODAY."

Hello, Daryn.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. Great to see you guys.

(NEWSBREAK)

KAGAN: And Hello on this Wednesday morning. I'm Daryn Kagan at CNN Center in Atlanta. We're getting to you a little bit late today, because of President Bush's speech. But let's get more on that right now. We have been listening to Mr. Bush's speech about strides that Iraqi forces have been making in taking over their nation's security. The president's address at the Naval Academy follows the White House release of a national strategy for victory from Iraq. The 35-page declassified document appraises victory in the short, medium and long- term. Progress is gauged in three main area: political, security and economic. The report does not set a date for victory there Iraq. But it notes, quote, "No war has ever been won on a timetable, and neither will this one."

The president described the victory strategy at his speech in Annapolis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Our strategy in Iraq has three elements. On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies. So we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive Democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis.

We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq, and to marginalize those who never will. On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

As we fight the terrorists we're working to build capable Iraqi security forces so they can take the lead in the fight, and eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens without major foreign assistance.

And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: We're going to have much more coverage on the president's speech in the next hour of CNN LIVE TODAY. And you can head to our Web site for wide ranging coverage on Iraq. Today you'll find the White House victory in Iraq report at CNN.com/politics. CNN.com/Iraq has a special report on the transition of power, and CNN.com/casualties has the names and dates of the coalition troops who have been killed in Iraq.

Right now, though, let's focus on the Supreme Court. The justices are taking up two cases today that could have major implications for abortion rights in this county.

Kimberly Osias joins us now. She's at the Supreme Court with more on the cases. These involve parental notification and access to clinics.

Kimberly, good morning.

KIMBERLY OSIAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Daryn. Well, highly emotionally charged and closely scrutinized and watched today, Daryn, for several reasons. One, the makeup of the court has shifted, of course, with John Roberts assuming the chief justice position. And also because the high court has not heard a case related to abortion in five years.

Now, this case does not directly challenge the 1973 landmark decision, of course, legalizing abortion, Roe Versus Wade. However, it is certainly creating ripple effects. Obviously a number of states will be watching this.

There are currently at least 33 states in the U.S. that have parental notification laws. However, New Hampshire's is very, very strict, allowing for an exception only when the life of the minor is at stake. The ACLU and also Planned Parenthood saying that there need to be simply more exceptions, really that it undermines a woman's reproductive rights and really erodes at abortion in general.

Now, New Hampshire and also the Bush administration supporting New Hampshire in this case, essentially saying that there are legal loopholes in place whereby a physician can actually petition the court to make an exception in the case of a health situation where there's an emergent situation at hand. However, many physicians saying, you know, they need to be in the emergency room. They need to be doing patient care. It is simply not practical to actually be on the phone to the courts.

Daryn, obviously, you know, a lot of issues at play here. Sandra Day O'Connor, as well. She is on the court today hearing the arguments. However, all bets may be off if she -- if she actually retires when a decision actually comes down -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Kimberly Osias at the U.S. Supreme court. Looks like you have plenty of company there with you in Washington, D.C. today. Kimberly, thank you.

Well, in this last hour, we heard a long speech from President Bush talking about victory strategy for Iraq. What do the Democrats have to say? That response is still ahead.

We'll take a quick break. We're back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAGAN: Let's talk shopping. And if you rely on credit cards to help make ends meet, be warned: your interest rates might be going up thanks to new policies among issuers. And fueling that potential increase, how well you pay your bills that are not related to your credit card.

CNN personal finance editor Gerri Willis joins us. Her top five tips on the so-called universal default interest rates, which just basically means they're sticking it to us, right?

GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: I think you understand completely. You don't need me. KAGAN: No, I need you to help us avoid this.

WILLIS: So, Daryn this is something you've really got to pay attention to. Universal default rates basically means that if you have a credit card and you miss a payment on something else entirely, maybe another credit card, maybe your mortgage, maybe you're late with your student loan -- well, then, your interest rate on that card can go up as much as 35 percent. That's a whole lot.

KAGAN: Oh, stop.

WILLIS: Yes. This is pretty scary stuff. And it can be -- if it can go up for reasons that you would think, why are they raising my interest rate? Just because I have more credit because I applied for a new credit card? Because I applied for a loan for a car?

KAGAN: Oh. So you're in this debt hole -- a lot of people are in this big debt hole they're trying to climb out of. This would make it even more difficult to do that, obviously.

WILLIS: You bet. You're going to pay a whole lot more in interest rates each and every month. It will make it much more difficult for you to pay off. Let's face it. Most families have about $8,500 worth of credit card debt. That's a lot of money.

If you make the minimum payments and you're paying, say, 24 percent interest --that's an average for people who fall in to this category -- it's going to take you 31 years to pay it off. You'll end up paying $16,000, half of that, half of that interest.

KAGAN: That's depressing.

WILLIS: Yes.

KAGAN: Besides the interest, what about those lovely fees that these institutions like to tack on?

WILLIS: Well, this is another problem. You know, we're starting to see higher and higher annual fees. That's not fees for anything you did wrong. That's just what you're paying to keep the card. Of course, the fees for being late also going up. They're about $28 right now.

We're seeing fees for everything. If your check gets returned, anything at all, you're paying fees for it. Now, the way to know about these, of course, is to read the fine print on your credit card, the material they send you when you get that card in the first place. But it pays to shop around. Really. If you're looking for a new card, you can check out whether these fees are levied.

KAGAN: How else can you fight back, Gerri?

WILLIS: Well, if you work at a company that has a credit union, check it out. Because a lot of the credit union credit cards don't charge these massive fees. There are also a handful of banks who say they don't do it either, like Bank of America, for example, does not charge these universal default interest rates. So that's definitely something to check out.

But I got to tell you, go to cardweb.com, search around. Look for a new card. Find a new card if you're getting charged this and roll your old debt into the new one.

KAGAN: And then what about the minimum payment? That might change.

WILLIS: This month, as a matter of fact, a lot of credit card operators will be putting into effect new higher minimum payments for each month. Now, you're probably used to paying $100, maybe $200, on your debt. This is going to go up from 2 percent of your loan balance to 3. Now, if you don't have a lot of debt, it won't make a big difference. But if you have a ton of money on that credit card, you're going to feel it, ouch, right after Christmas.

KAGAN: Gerri Willis, always a pleasure to have you along. Thank you.

WILLIS: Thank you.

KAGAN: Three months ago, the world watched in amazement and horror as Hurricane Katrina put New Orleans underwater. Ahead, a pilot talks with me about the birds' eye view he had of the destruction.

Plus, Laura Bush shows off the winter wonderland that's on display inside the White House with our Dana Bash.

The second hour of CNN LIVE TODAY begins in just a minute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Here in the East Room, the trees are covered with this pot...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com