Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Discussion With Senator Carl Levin; Alter Ego?

Aired June 21, 2006 - 07:31   ET

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

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Soledad O'Brien.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm John Roberts, in this week for Miles O'Brien. It's Wednesday, weekend's only, well, two-and-a-half days.

News of the brutal way the two American soldiers died in Iraq could inform the debate today in the Senate. Expect to hear the phrase "cut and run" raised on the floor today, as Republicans react to two Democratic plans.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin's resolution calls for U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq this year, redeployed outside of the country.

Senator Levin joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Senator, why do you believe it's important to lay down a marker on this right now?

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE: Well, because right now the commitment is an open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq. The way the administration as put it, we're there as long as they need us. That could be forever. That's an unlimited kind of a commitment, and it's -- we've got to change that dynamic in Iraq. We've got to begin, we believe, a phased redeployment of American forces out of Iraq by the end of the year. We don't set the end date for it. We set the beginning date. We don't set that beginning date immediately; that it would be precipitous. Btu we say that the open-ended commit has got to end, and we've got to find a way to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it. But our presence there is contributing as much to instability now as it is to security.

ROBERTS: Senator Harry Reid said yesterday that Democrats, quote, "have at least two positions on troop withdrawals." It looks more like it's more like three. You've got a group of Democrats who want to stay the course. A group of Democrats, including yourself, who want to start to redeploy the end of this year. Then you have John Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, who want all the troops out by July 1st of next year.

Why can't Democrats speak with one voice on this? Why can't you get on the same page?

LEVIN: Well, because there are two different points of view, and we believe, and I believe, that at the end of the day when votes are counted, that you will find the vast majority of Democrats favor a phased redeployment out of Iraq beginning at the end of this year.

And one other thing -- the differences between most Democrats and the administration are much greater than the differences among Democrats. So there's a significant agreement, a consensus, among Democrats that we have too much of an open-ended commitment and that we've got to have a phased redeployment begin by the end of the year. That is no way is cut and run. You'll hear that all day long. But there's no way that can be fairly characterized as cut and run.

ROBERTS: On the point of what you think the majority of Democrats will support, the debate is being engineered today to give your proposal the most time and to give John Kerry's proposal very little time. Is Kerry in the doghouse today?

LEVIN: Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think Senator Kerry will probably have at least as much time, perhaps more time, as we do. He is able to have as much time as he needs, as a matter of fact, beginning when we're completed and our time is limited.

ROBERTS: There are just some Democrats who say it's not helpful to have he and Senator Reid proposing this hard-and-fast date for withdrawal.

LEVIN: He and senator Feingold, you mean?

ROBERTS: Oh, sorry, yes. That's what I meant.

LEVIN: Yes. Well, look, there's an important point of view here. This is a national debate which should take place. We believe most Democrats want to find a way out. They want to change the dynamic in Iraq. They feel that we've got to begin a phased redeployment in a reasonable, sensible way, which is planned, and that that's what will carry the vast majority of Democratic votes.

We hope some Republicans will join us. There's a lot Republicans who don't just think that staying the course is a strategy. They view that as more a slogan and bumper sticker, as do most Democrats.

ROBERTS: The Republicans are trying to put new a box here, and I want to play something that Karl Rove said not long ago about how he sees the Democratic position on troops in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE, SR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Too many Democrats, it strikes me, they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they're not going to be there for the last, tough battles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Senator Levin, some Democratic strategists we've spoken with are wondering why you're even engaging on this debate over troop withdrawals. They say if you should be doing anything, it's focusing on leadership that got us to this point in Iraq. So why all of this talk about troop withdrawals? And why not focus on leadership and take away the ammunition that Karl Rove has to try to put you in that box?

LEVIN: Well, what Karl Rove will say is the same thing regardless of the facts. He's not addressing our resolution. He's addressing the resolution that he would like to attack, and says the same things regardless of the wording of any resolution, thinks that the American people will not focus on what indeed is in a proposal.

But we are focusing on one of the most critic the issues of the day. This isn't a matter of attacking leadership or politics. This is a matter of policy and whether or not this administration's policy can be changed so we can find a way out of the situation, earlier rather than later, which is no longer -- our presence is no longer contributing to Iraqi security.

And in terms of not being there at the end, but being there at the beginning, half the Democrats voted against going in, thought it was a mistake, and I was one of those Democrats.

So we -- many of us were critical of this administration's blunders going in, this administration's failures in terms of management of the war. There has been plenty of criticism. It's been appropriate, we think constructive.

But now the question is, what course should we now follow to find a way out of Iraq? There's no -- nothing from the administration except stay the course, stay the course -- a bumper stick, not a strategy.

ROBERTS: We'll follow the debate closely. Senator Carl Levin, thanks for joining us this morning.

LEVIN: Thank you.

ROBERTS: Appreciate it. Good to see you.

(NEWSBREAK)

S. O'BRIEN: And as we mentioned a little earlier on AMERICAN MORNING, actress Angelina Jolie made headlines last month when she gave birth to a daughter in Namibia. In an exclusive interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, she talked about the plight of refugees around the world as the United Nations goodwill ambassador.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANGELINA JOLIE, ACTRESS: In so many ways, it was -- I was so grateful to have having -- had that experience. And I knew I was changing as a person. I was learning so much about life.

And I was -- so, in some ways, it was the best moment of my life, because it...

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Right. JOLIE: ... changed me for the better. And I was never going to be never going to be -- going to want for more in my life.

We certainly hear a lot of the negative things and -- about the U.N. You know, you hear -- you hear about the negative things that have gone on. You don't hear on a daily basis the amount of people that are kept alive or protected by the U.N.

And if that list was plastered everywhere, I think people would be in shock and have a little more respect.

And so whether you're for or against the war, you can certainly see that the amount of money being spent at war and the amount of money we are not spending in countries and dealing with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted, and then cause war.

So, you know -- so, our priorities are quite strange. So, we're not -- we are missing a lot of opportunities to do a lot of the good that America is used to doing, has a history of doing. And we're not able to be as generous. We're not able to be on the forefront of all of these wonderful things as much. And, so, whether or not you're for or against the war, you have to start to notice that that -- that there's something wrong with that.

It's frustrating for me now. I hear people talking about Darfur on the news now. And they're talking about, what are we going to do? And they're starting to discuss solutions. And you're starting -- the solutions that you heard field officers begging to be addressed three years ago, you know?

And -- and you just, God, feel -- feel like, you know, how -- how many times are we going to let these things go on this long? Or when are we going to finally be united internationally to be able to handle these things immediately and...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: It's interesting, because, in Rwanda, the U.S. government never -- wouldn't call it a genocide. But -- but they have. This administration has called what's happened in Sudan a genocide. And, yet, it continues.

JOLIE: And, then, you think they were going to lead the -- the charge, kind of, and it -- but then they didn't.

And, so, it -- you know, and -- and my feelings -- people have said, why hasn't -- hasn't the U.N. called it a genocide or what -- and part of me just, at the end of the day, feels, well, I don't understand why we have to call it one thing or another. If it's a gross human rights violation, and people are dying, does -- does it have to have a name that's, you know, for us to act?

So, it shouldn't matter if this person's calling it or this person isn't. We shouldn't even be arguing about that. We all know something needs to be addressed.

COOPER: Do you know -- really, next? That will be the next? You're actually planning it?

JOLIE: Yes.

COOPER: Wow. Do you know where from?

JOLIE: No, no, we don't know which country, but we're looking at different countries. And we're just -- it's going to be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now. If, you know, another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids.

When we were in Namibia, there's a local little clinic which we ended up having the baby in. What we learned and what I learned in being there is -- we did bring a doctor just in case. And he ended up working with the local people and they were great. But he went to the state hospital. And this is back to the point of what can be done and what governments can do.

We said we wanted to make a donation, could you go to the state hospital and see, as a doctor, what it is that they're missing, what it is that they're -- and he came back and said they have no ultrasound. They have no -- even the -- the things to listen to the baby's heart. There's a machine, you can listen to the baby's heart and the mom's heart at the same time. And they were just using this little piece of like, I don't know what it was, wood or something, to listen.

And you realize, my God, you know, for $100,000, maybe $150,000, you could get the equipment that could save lives immediately.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: Tonight on "360," Anderson talks with Cher about her new mission to save lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. That's tonight, 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

(WEATHER REPORT)

ROBERTS: How much is too much for a hamburger? How about $100?

O'BRIEN: Yes, that's too much.

ROBERTS: Yes. This is the latest salvo in the premium burger wars. A 20-ounce patty made with American, Japanese and Argentinian beef. It's served up at the Old Homestead restaurant in Boca Raton, Florida. But don't worry, if you can't get to Florida, you can actually get one of those premium patties mailed to you.

O'BRIEN: Eww, really.

ROBERTS: Do you think they'd really mail it to you?

Let's cook it up and put it in the mail, stamp it.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Talk about E. Coli!

O'BRIEN: Oh, my god.

ROBERTS: Yes, I think they would send it to you frozen packed in dry ice.

O'BRIEN: One would hope, right?

ROBERTS: U.S. troop are not eating $100 burgers on the front line, but the military trying to give them tastier options than they're used to. We will taste test some of the new menu items like chicken pesto pasta in a plastic...

O'BRIEN: That actually doesn't sound so bad.

ROBERTS: They not only will mail that to you, they'll ship it overseas.

O'BRIEN: Also, Andy's "Minding Your Business" just ahead. He'll tell us why sugar beets could one day be the answer to gas prices. Under the category of, we're all willing to try anything now -- Carol.

COSTELLO: A question for all of us this morning, is Superman gay, or he is a Christ-like superhero? I'm Carol Costello. Could hidden potentially damaging subtext in the new Superman movie sink it? The story next on this AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Well, he's still faster than a speeding bullet, but the man who's perhaps the world's greatest superhero can't seem to outrun the rumors surrounding his return to the big screen.

Carol Costello has that story for us this morning. Good morning.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Oh, and what rumors they are, Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Dish, dish, dish.

COSTELLO: Dish, dish, I will. Superman will be back in theaters next week after a nearly 20-year absence. But will he be the same superhero we have loved all of these years? Is the new Superman gay? It's a raging debate on the Internet and could potentially be Superman's Kryptonite. Yes, can a rumor bring down a blockbuster?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It's not easy for me to live my life being who I am.

COSTELLO: He stands for truth justice and the American -- gay?

STEVE BUNCHE, FMR. ARTIST/EDITOR, DC COMICS: No way is this a gay Superman movie. Please.

COSTELLO: Oh, but that's the rumor and the joke on Internet blog sites for months. Even the gay magazine "The Advocate" did a cover story asking the question, how gay is Superman.

Now the buzz has become so loud that the movie's director and star actually are talking about it.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: There are some people ask lots of questions now that I'm back.

COSTELLO: Brandon Routh, the guy in the suit, denied he was gay on an Australian radio show, and director Brian Singer called Superman, quote, "probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made." And remember, Singer directed "X-Men." Wolverine couldn't be reached for comment.

All jokes aside, Singer himself may be the main reason for the rumor.

BRADLEY JACOBS, SR. EDITOR, "US MAGAZINE": You have an openly gay director making a movie, an expensive, big movie that maybe will be the first or second biggest movie of the summer, about an iconic masculine figure.

COSTELLO: And if anyone knows that iconic figure, it's this guy. Steve Bunche is a former artist and editor for DC Comics.

BUNCHE: Superman is colorful, and he's a larger than life, handsome guy from another world. What's not to like?

COSTELLO: That's the question Warner Brothers may be concern about. If the gay buzz becomes deafening, can it scare people away?

JACOBS: The proof is in the pudding. I don't think anyone is going to walk out of it saying, wow, that was definitely done by an openly gay director.

COSTELLO (on camera): You don't think all of this Internet rumor stuff is going to hurt the movie?

BUNCHE: No. I mean, let's face it, this could be Superman played by, oh, say, Jerry Stiller, OK, people would still go to see it.

COSTELLO: But that's what warner thought about "Batman and Robin." That movie also had a gay director, and George Clooney joked the character was purposely played gay. The movie bombed.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: ... why Superman works alone.

COSTELLO: And other characters have been accused of having a secret subtext.

BUNCHE: Spiderman, for years, there were people going on, oh, it's such an obvious allegory for the young homosexual male. He lives at home in Queens alone with his elderly aunt, and he's terrible with girls, he's shy, but when he's out in his flamboyant outfit, he's a hero and he's fabulous! COSTELLO: As for Superman, if the early reviews are any indications, it looks like the Man of Steel's new power will be to silence his critics by breaking the box office.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: Warner Brothers, by the way, is a subsidiary of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN.

And get this, while some see gay references in the new Superman movie, Christian groups say Superman actually represents a Christ figure, a super being sent to Earth by his father to save mankind. Of course, lots of us just see Superman as a comic book character.

ROBERTS: Not that there's anything wrong with that!

COSTELLO: Not at all. Isn't it interesting? Who knew?

O'BRIEN: Everybody's seeing what they want to see in Superman. And hopefully Time Warner is like, and we hope they see the movie, too.

ROBERTS: It's a blank tableau upon which to write, you know...

COSTELLO: Bradley Jacobs, our good friend from "US" magazine actually saw the new "Superman" movie. He said it's fantastic, and Superman is very, very, very, very manly.

O'BRIEN: There. The final word.

ROBERTS: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

O'BRIEN: Andy is "Minding Your Business" up next. We're back after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BUSINESS HEADLINES)

ROBERTS: Today's top stories after a short break. Stay with us on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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