Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Taliban Regaining Control on Afghan/Pakistan Border; Iraqi and Iranian Leaders Meet; Are We Safer?
Aired September 12, 2006 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BETTY NGUYEN, HOST: Hello, I'm Betty Nguyen at the CNN world headquarters right here in Atlanta. Kyra Phillips is off today.
On patrol, under fire. U.S. troops fighting the war on terror. We are on the front lines in Afghanistan, the heart of al Qaeda territory.
Neighborly embrace or something more sinister? Take a look. The U.S.-backed Iraqi leader visits Iran. What's behind this meeting? We're live from Baghdad.
And 20-something and in charge. Meet the mayor of Pittsburgh, the youngest man to run a major U.S. city.
The forgotten war, fresh in our minds once again. We are taking you to the front lines of the battle for Afghanistan, where the Taliban may be ousted but it's not out of the picture. Our senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, filed this report from the Afghan/Pakistani border.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Today, we got an opportunity to see just how the Taliban intimidate the communities around here. We went to see a school that had just recently been built with the assistance of the U.S. military.
The school was blown up just after it was completed. Local people say it was blown up by the Taliban, a message to them, they believe that -- not to support the coalition troops here at this time.
It is the wide, well-supported view in this area that those Taliban are able to locate themselves inside Pakistan, cross over the border, and strike here inside Afghanistan.
Certainly, that is something that is very sensitive for Pakistanis. And we heard from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf today, saying that he was doing everything he could and Pakistan could to crack down on terrorism.
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: We have to check Taliban position, that -- this obstacle (ph) and this concept from spreading. This is the battle. And the battle, if it is to be won, has to address the central gravity of the force, and the central gravity lies in Mulan (ph) and Walanistan (ph), which happens to be in southern Afghanistan. ROBERTSON: At this base close to the Pakistan border --, I'm not able to say exactly where it is, but the view of the commanders here is that they're up not just the Taliban but al Qaeda elements, Arab, Chechens, Uzbeks, as well as criminals in this area. They see all of them as a threat to the stability here and as a threat to the central government.
Pervez Musharraf, in his public statements today in Brussels, said that he believes that the Taliban are now a bigger threat than al Qaeda.
MUSHARRAF: The central gravity of terrorism has shifted from al Qaeda to Taliban. This is a new element which has emerged, a more dangerous element, because it has roots in the people.
ROBERTSON: The view from this side of the border and the view of American intelligence officials and senior British government officials is that the Taliban leadership is located across the border inside Pakistan, that they are able to plan and coordinate attacks from the safety of Pakistan.
But by far, the Taliban inside Afghanistan, the bigger group at the moment, drawing on profits made in the drug trade, trying to win over the local population to achieve their aims. But the Taliban, a much bigger threat than al Qaeda.
And that school that was attacked, just one of 150 different schools, according to the Afghan government, that have either been attacked and damaged or threatened with damage by the Taliban. And that's just this year. And that in itself, a 70 percent increase over last year.
Nic Robertson, CNN, on the Pakistan/Afghan border.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NGUYEN: The war against the Taliban was quick and decisive, and almost five years after it started, in the smoldering aftermath of 9/11, it is still going on.
CNN's Anderson Cooper is in Afghanistan, where the Taliban no longer run the government but still run rampant.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): To get to ground zero in Afghanistan's war on terror, we fly east out of Kabul, over parts of the country the government here is still struggling to control.
(on camera) We're in a U.S. military helicopter headed towards a forward-operating base in eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border. We have to fly very low to the ground. The higher you are in the air, the more at risk you are for getting hit by rocket-propelled grenades. The base that we're heading to has already come under pretty intensive attack, rocket fire and border fire. But now that Pakistan has signed a deal with Taliban militants on the Pakistan side of the border, U.S. intelligence sources are concerned that those attacks are only going to increase.
(voice-over) When we get to the base, soldiers from Bravo Company 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division are firing at enemy positions several miles away.
Daily, these soldiers head out on patrol in armored Humvees in full battle mode.
1ST LT. RICHARD PARNELL, U.S. ARMY: There's a lot of bad guys in this area. Suicide bombers. You've got guys that will sit in ambushes behind the ridge lines towards Pakistan. You've got rocket attacks, mortar attacks. Third platoon in particular has been through it all.
COOPER: First Lieutenant Richard Parnell joined the army because of 9/11. He says the enemy he and his men are fighting now is very diverse.
PARNELL: You've got international terrorists who are your al Qaeda. Very household name. You've got the Taliban. And you've got just general -- general criminals in and around the area that are trying to capitalize on the fledgling government here in Afghanistan.
COOPER: Today, they set up a checkpoint with soldiers from the Afghan National Army, a joint operation to intercept weapons smuggled in from Pakistan.
(on camera) Over here, they're interviewing a truck driver who they just pulled over, asking him if -- about what he's carrying, if he's seen anything along the road.
And this truck driver had a truck filled with timber. Pretty innocuous. But soldiers say they often find weapons hidden underneath the timber. So they are searching all the vehicles.
(voice-over) It is a routine patrol, along with building schools and roads, the kind of thing they do every day. Many of the soldiers, however, feel their sacrifices aren't being noticed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're still out here. We're still doing, you know, what we came here in 2001 to actually do. I went home on leave. I went home on my R&R. And people were asking me, "Oh, you know, how's Iraq?" And after a while, I just got sick of correcting them. I was like, "No, I'm in Afghanistan." And people just -- again, like I said, people don't realize that, you know, Afghanistan is still going on.
COOPER: It is definitely still going on. Back at base, the soldiers gather for a moment of silence to remember 9/11. We're broadcasting live. But things don't quite work out.
(on camera) We're actually now just getting some fire -- some rockets have been fired. (voice-over) In all, six rounds fired at the base. No one, however, is injured. The soldiers seek cover in underground bunkers and return fire with their Howitzers.
When the guns finally fall silent in the dwindling light of day, the men once again come together, determined to remember 9/11, the lives lost, the war, still being waged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We all have families. And we're all out here for a reason. We're not just here because some guys are shooting at us. We're here because those are the perpetrators of the tragedy on September 11.
(MUSIC)
COOPER: It was a simple ceremony. It is a complex mission. Five years after 9/11, the war in Afghanistan shows no sign of letting up.
Anderson Cooper, CNN, along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NGUYEN: The Pentagon launched Operation Enduring Freedom just days after 9/11. Target, the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Now, over the years, the mission has languished in the shadow of Iraq. There are now about 20,000 U.S. forces fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. NATO has about the same number of troops there.
And tonight at 10, live from Afghanistan. Anderson Cooper is on patrol with the U.S. Army on the front lines of the war on terror. And he wants to hear from you. Go to CNN.com and submit your questions about Afghanistan and Pakistan. Anderson will be joined by Nic Robertson and Peter Bergen to answer those questions, your questions. As an "AC 360" special report, live from Afghanistan, tonight at 10 p.m. Eastern. You can see it only here on CNN.
Well, as photo ops go, it's a chilling sight. The prime minister of Iraq, an ally of the U.S., side by side with the president of Iran. It happened in Tehran, and our Cal Perry was watching from Baghdad.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAL PERRY, CNN PRODUCER (voice-over): A handshake that will stir mixed feelings in Washington. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is greeted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, who tells him Iran will do all it can to help Iraq's fragile government establish security.
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We are ready to help the Iraqi nation create security and stability in their country.
PERRY: Iraqi officials had said al-Maliki would warn Iran against interfering in Iraq's affairs. But in public, at least, he was positive about the relationship, saying that he found in Tehran a great willingness for cooperation.
NURI AL-MALIKI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): My trip is aimed at cooperating with Iran in all fields, especially political, security and economics.
PERRY: It was a homecoming of sorts for al-Maliki, a Shia who spent years in exile in Iran during Saddam's regime. Now, as prime minister, he wants to curb militant Shia groups, to avoid the prospect of a civil war between Iraq's Shia majority and Sunni minority, and he needs Iran's cooperation.
(on camera) U.S. diplomats here are watching this growing Iran/Iraq relationship carefully, but maintaining Washington's hard- line approach, not negotiating with Iran, but keenly aware that without Iran's support, Iraqi security forces will not be able to stem the growing insurgency.
(voice-over) That daily routine of sectarian violence continues. On Tuesday, a mortar attack in a residential neighborhood of Baghdad left four civilians dead. And a car bomb aimed at a police convoy killed one officer and a civilian. To the north of the capital a car bomb killed four people near Baqubah and injured more than 20 others.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NGUYEN: So, Cal, let's talk about this. How can Iraq benefit from Iran making security guarantees?
PERRY: Well, Betty, Iran has incredible influence here in Iraq. And I'm speaking specifically of two major Shia militias. That's the Mehdi Army and the Badr (ph) Brigade. These two militias, especially, are blamed for a lot of the sectarian violence in this country.
If the prime minister is able to convince the Iranians to convince the militias to come into the fold of the government, to join the security forces, that would go a long way in stemming the violence here in Iraq -- Betty.
NGUYEN: All right. CNN's Cal Perry, joining us live from Baghdad. Cal, thank you for that.
And we want to let you know about a live event that is coming up. We will be joining, shortly, at least monitoring, Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, will be holding a briefing today. And of course, we're expecting to hear him talk a little bit about last night's speech from the president. And we'll be monitoring this when it does happen, live, at 1:15 Eastern, and bring you those developments as it warrants.
Do want to let you know, though, CNN's Elaine Quijano will be at that briefing, and she will join us live throughout the next few hours.
In the meantime, here's a hit and send question for you. Does your safety depend on the war in Iraq? Here's what President Bush said about it last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets Baghdad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NGUYEN: So, do you agree? Do you disagree? Hit send and tell us. Does America's safety depend on winning the war in Iraq? Hit send. The address is CNNNewsroom@CNN.com. We'll have some of your responses through the afternoon.
Do want to let you know, once again, White House press secretary Tony Snow will be holding a briefing today. And we do expect him to talk a little bit about left night's speech, a little bit of what you just heard there.
Five years ago it didn't exist. And when it did the Department of Homeland Security had to hit the ground running to prevent the next 9/11. And since then, terror watch lists, stronger cockpit doors, tighter standards for entry visas. But are we really safer?
This morning, homeland security chief Michael Chertoff acknowledged that the work of stopping terrorists is never really done.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We have more we can do. The great challenge, I think, for the next five years is not keeping out the known terrorists. It's keeping out the unknown terrorists, the unidentified terrorists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NGUYEN: And coming up later in the NEWSROOM, homeland security correspondent Jeanne Meserve has more on where the U.S. is still vulnerable.
A bold attack on a U.S. embassy, and an al Qaeda offshoot may be to blame. Militants armed with automatic rifles, hand grenades and a car bomb tried to storm a building in Damascus, Syria, today. But Syrian security fought back, killing three of the attackers. A fourth was wounded and arrested.
And now there's no claim of responsibility so far, but Syria's ambassador to the U.S. blames an al Qaeda-linked group called Soldiers of Lebanon (ph). The Bush administration is thanking the Syrian government for its quick response.
In the shadow of the 9/11 anniversary, we take a look at the threat on homeland security. What are the biggest dangers? We're investigating, right here in the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NGUYEN: A live look at the briefing room here. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, should be coming up to that podium very shortly. Going to be talking with members of the press there. But also, we're expecting to hear a little bit, at least a little bit, about the president's speech last night on September 11, the fifth anniversary.
So we're going to be monitoring this briefing and bring you those developments as they warrant it. But also want to let you know that CNN's Elaine Quijano is there, and she will be joining us live.
On the front lines of the war on terror, is America safer since 9/11 or even more of a target? Our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, took a look at today's terrorist threats. And she joins me now from Washington.
What did you find out, Kelli?
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Betty, yesterday's fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks certainly brings the al Qaeda threat to the forefront. And while that threat does remain, it has evolved.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice-over): Al Qaeda. Home-grown terrorists. Suicide bombers. Lone wolves. What's the biggest threat? They all are. And if you're on the front lines in the war on terror, that's a problem. Commander Cathy Lanier heads up the Office of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism for the police in Washington, one of the country's top terror targets.
CMDR. CATHY LANIER, DC POLICE COUNTERTERRORISM: I think we have to very consciously look at every attack that goes on anywhere in the world and consider that as a potential threat for us.
ARENA: Since September 11, the threat has evolved, and the Internet has made it easier for terrorists to not only communicate but learn the trade. The people trying to keep you safe have had to evolve as well.
LANIER: You have to understand that for every measure they have in place, we try and develop countermeasures. For every countermeasure that we develop, they're going to develop something else to thwart that.
ARENA: Take al Qaeda, for instance. It's generated dangerous offshoots responsible for attacks in Bali, Madrid and the London subway and bus attacks.
ROBERT MUELLER, CIA DIRECTOR: It may have some tangential ties or some ties to al Qaeda, but it is not the same support that al Qaeda was able to give to the September 11 plotters. ARENA: Still, al Qaeda central remains a dangerous and capable foe.
BRUCE HOFFMAN, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: They place their abiding faith in the power of a spectacular attack, no matter how many attempts may fail.
ARENA: Even more troubling is what terrorists may be planning for the future.
HOFFMAN: What worries me is that in recent years, al Qaeda and other terrorists seem increasingly drawn to exotic or unconventional weapons.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: The FBI says that there is intelligence to suggest terrorists have tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction, but they haven't been successful. Officials say that doesn't mean that they won't be in the future, though -- Betty.
NGUYEN: All right, Kelli, with all of these threats, is there a sense as to which one -- if there is just one -- that poses the most danger?
ARENA: You know, I think that most experts would probably say al Qaeda, only because that organization is determined, according to all the intelligence, to try to pull off another, as you heard in the report, spectacular type of attack.
It seems to be the general belief that they will attack conventionally with, you know, car bombs and other means, in other places. But when it comes to the United States, they want to do the most harm that they possibly can.
NGUYEN: Well, did the U.S. get any clues from the tape that was released from al-Zawahiri?
ARENA: Not that they're sharing. But again, don't forget, that was -- that was old. Oh, the newest one.
NGUYEN: Right.
ARENA: There's been so many tapes, which is a whole other issue.
NGUYEN: There have been.
ARENA: Not that -- not that they're revealing right now. I mean, I did speak with the attorney general yesterday about that, and he said, you know, "Look, we know they want to attack. There's no specific intelligence suggesting that anything is being planned."
You know, the fact that Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are still out there, yes, is disturbing. You know, the fact they're still trying to call the shots is disturbing. But -- but he didn't seem to suggest that anything was imminent, Betty. NGUYEN: Justice correspondent Kelli Arena, thank you for that. Appreciate it.
Want to take you now to the White House and press secretary Tony Snow, who is speaking to the press in this briefing. Let's take a listen.
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... discuss a range of issues, including democracy promotion, the war on terror, energy diversification, expanding prosperity and our common commitment to working together to advance freedom and security.
The president also will welcome Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the White House on October 2nd, 2006.
This meeting will provide an opportunity for the president and the prime minister to enhance further the strategic partnership between the United States and Turkey and discuss increased cooperation in the war on terror, including countering the PKK and in advancing freedom in Lebanon, Iraq and the broader Middle East.
The president looks forward to discussing with the prime minister these and other important issues, including Turkey's pursuit of political and economic reforms and U.S. support for Turkey's accession to the European Union.
With that, I'll go to questions.
QUESTION: Last night, the president asked Democrats and Republicans to put aside differences in the war on terrorism, and I wanted to see how you think that's going a day later when...
(LAUGHTER)
... Harry Reid accuses the president of playing election year politics and House Majority Leader Boehner says of Democrats, "I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people. They certainly don't want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."
SNOW: Apparently there are differing points of view.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Do you leave at that? You don't think it's anything more?
So did the president fail in this mission?
SNOW: No, I don't think so, because on broader -- it's interesting. We're going to have a lot of political conflict this year. Perfectly understandable, acceptable, predictable. That's the way it works.
But yesterday gave the American people a chance to reflect on September 11th and how it froze us in an instant and made us understand that there was something out there we hadn't seen before, and hadn't even expected, didn't have any suspicion that it existed. And that was a network of terrorists who would use any means possible, including things that were, at least for you and me, unimaginable, which was to turn airliners into weapons of mass destruction.
It also revealed that there was an ideology abroad that said that freedom is a terrible thing and that people were going to twist and pervert the Koran in an attempt to create a holy war, when, in fact, theirs was an ideology of despotism and terror, and that they were serious about it, that they had plans, that they were organized, and that they were trying to kill Americans. We all realized that.
Before that day, I dare say very few people in this room would have been focussing in any serious way on Osama bin Laden. So we learned about that. And as a nation, we remain united to beat those guys. And we remain united in our desire to remember the people who died, the president, yesterday, having met with friends and family of many of them.
So, no, I think Americans are united on the important things. And they also understand that in politics there will be a vigorous debate about how best to pursue the goal.
But I don't think there's any disagreement that ultimately our freedoms are precious and that this country is an extraordinary place that remains not only the beacon of the world but the envy of many, and that it is our responsibility to preserve that for this and every future generation.
And Americans also understand political seasons.
QUESTION: Do you think both sides, Democrats and Republicans, want to defeat the terrorists?
SNOW: I do. I mean, I think -- I don't think...
(CROSSTALK)
SNOW: I'm not going to get in a debate over statements that I haven't seen.
I think that there are going to be plenty of debates about who's going to be more effective in waging that battle. But, you know, I'll let John Boehner and Harry Reid duke it out on their own. I'll speak for the president.
QUESTION: As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean, it's a lot more substantive than that and it has to do with the path that this president took the country after 9/11.
Now, when a Republican leader of Congress says, "I wonder if Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people," as a spokesman for the president, do you think it's your duty to say that that's out of bounds or not? SNOW: Frankly, again, this is one of these things -- I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the president a liar or a loser, that happens. There have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the president. And he understands that he's a big enough boy to deal with that.
The other thing is that in this present political season, unfortunately, there will be a lot of -- there will be some name calling.
You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name calling and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.
QUESTION: This is important because, as a matter of fact, the vice president said over the weekend to Tim Russert that, "The sort of debate we're having in this country about withdrawing troops from Iraq emboldens the terrorists." Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be "more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people."
Does the president agree with that?
SNOW: The president -- what you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the vice president said, which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists.
I think it's true. Osama bin Laden has made it clear. And one of the things he says is if the United States is pushed from Iraq, it will be to the internal humiliation of the United States.
So it is clear that from the standpoint of bin Laden, who, in the past -- and you quite kindly corrected me on the misstatement back in August when I got it wrong -- bin Laden drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out.
See, that's the way the enemy's looking at this.
Now, so, as an objective statement about the way in which bin Laden views the United States, that is a true statement.
I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.
QUESTION: You certainly would get into, if someone accused the president of being a liar, do you want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader?.
SNOW: Like I said, you're presenting me with a statement I haven't seen. I'll tell you what, I'll get back to you on it.
QUESTION: It's been out there for a couple of hours. I think you had ample time to see it.
Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the president on the war on Iraq without emboldening the terrorists?
SNOW: There are probably -- yes, absolutely, there are ways to do it. But also, if you say, "We need to leave right now with no preconditions" -- and I'm not sure anybody says that, but I'll give you a hypothetical -- that would embolden the terrorists.
If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself, that would embolden the terrorists.
If the terrorists have the ability -- if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means -- because they can't defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle -- if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which, like Afghanistan before, they can mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters and this time have in addition oil as a weapon, then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand.
But there are ways -- you can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective of having an Iraq -- and this is what's, kind of, interesting about the debate last night, because if you look at the president's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic -- I don't know that that's controversial with anybody -- an Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground -- I don't know that that's controversial. I think those are the things.
So to answer your question -- and I'll let you get back to this -- to answer your question, it is possible to disagree. But on the other hand, if you were proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, "Iraq is yours," then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.
QUESTION: Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?
SNOW: Again, you know, I know you think that in the last hour -- I had an hour to prepare, because we had long meetings...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) question. Forget about what John Boehner said. I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?
SNOW: Do I think -- no, I think...
QUESTION: Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people?
SNOW: No.
QUESTION: Tony, your own commanders have said the biggest threat in Iraq is sectarian violence the threat of civil war. And yet the president keeps talking about the threat of terror. You're, again, saying the biggest threat there is Osama bin Laden. The president last night said the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle on the streets of Baghdad.
Why do your commanders say the biggest threat is civil war and the president keep saying it's terrorists?
SNOW: I think they say sectarian violence.
I think we're leading to the same place, which is if you have...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... threat of civil war situation.
SNOW: ... if you have an anarchic society that collapses, and therefore you end up having a rudderless, weak, divided society, as you had in Afghanistan, which paved the way for the Taliban to take over, then you've got a situation that is ripe for the kind of terrorist breakthrough that we're talking about in Iraq.
I think that the disagreement you're looking for is more apparent than real here.
The president is aware, he talks regularly. He's got a conversation later this week with General Casey.
We keep constant watch on this stuff. And we do care about it. And we do know that sectarian violence is a key factor.
And the end result of sectarian violence, civil war, if you want to put it this way -- I think the formulation is, if trends continue, then we could move toward civil war.
That was what General Abizaid told Congress. So it's several -- I don't think anybody's projecting imminent civil war, but if you have instability...
QUESTION: But the (inaudible) is small, percentage-wise.
SNOW: You're mixing two different things.
QUESTION: No, I'm not.
SNOW: Yes, you are. And I'll explain why. And I'll explain why. I'll explain why.
If you end up having the government of Iraq collapse, then you have a situation that is ripe for creating terrorism. That's what we're talking about. The end result is a terrorist state.
QUESTION: OK, then let's go to the area where terrorism is a very serious problem, al-Anbar province, where your commanders say terrorism is a very serious problem. And you had a senior Marine intelligence officer say, if you did not get more troops there, the situation would continue to deteriorate.
SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things...
QUESTION: Are you going to get more troops there? How are you going to stop (inaudible)?
SNOW: Well, two things: First, his combatant commander is briefing the press even as we speak. He started just a couple moments ago.
Earlier today, General Zelmer (ph), who outranks the colonel but is aware of the report, said that, "Recent media reports failed to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation in the al-Anbar province. The classified assessment, which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects coalition and Iraqi forces have."
He goes on to say that, "It is clear that there's violence in al- Anbar province. The answer is, if the president gets a recommendation from the combatant commanders to send more troops to al-Anbar province, they will get them."
QUESTION: So what the intelligence officer said, who's been there seven, eight months, and seen conditions on the ground every single day -- I believe General Zelmer (ph) is not there every single day -- what he says means what?
SNOW: What he says is something to take seriously.
I suspected that there are many other data points to be gathered from people in al-Anbar. And as you know, what the job of a commander is, is to go and sort through that very intelligence and figure out the best way to proceed.
The idea that somehow somebody has a vested interest in failing in al-Anbar is preposterous, and you know it. Everybody, including the colonel that writes the report, wants to succeed there.
QUESTION: I just wonder what those reports are and how meaningful they are if someone's been on the ground for eight months.
SNOW: I understand that. And there also have been a lot of other -- you're assuming that there's only one person who's entitled to speak on it. It is conceivable that other people have differing assessments. And I do think that the person who has direct operational responsibility will do more than simply, sort of, pull his chin and try to come to a conclusion.
It is his job to assess the intelligence he gets not merely from that colonel but from many others and to come up with an assessment.
Let me reiterate: The president's made it clear. He don't want anybody BSing him. He doesn't want anybody lying to him. He doesn't want anybody shading the truth to them. He has made it absolutely clear to generals that the job is to win.
And he first thing you have to do is, to the best of your ability, cut through that fog of war and tell them what the situation is and what they need to get the job done. And that continues to be the case. QUESTION: Do you believe -- does the president still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or Al Qaeda before the invasion?
SNOW: The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two. And this is important.
Zarqawi was in Iraq...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) relationship?
SNOW: And there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq. Al Qaeda members were in Iraq. They were operating, and in some cases operating freely. From Iraq, Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.
But did they have, you know, a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No.
There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
QUESTION: Saddam Hussein knew they were there. That's it for the relationship?
SNOW: That's pretty much it.
QUESTION: The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye to that.
SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what? I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report. But it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that were Al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV.
But we are simply not going to go to the point that the president -- the president has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, "Ah-ha. He said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff." There's no evidence of that.
QUESTION: Was the president's speech last night political?
SNOW: No.
QUESTION: How can you say that?
SNOW: Because, I'll tell you, the way I can say -- how can I not?
QUESTION: Because, Tony, you were here Friday...
SNOW: What was political statement? Tell me what the political sentence was, give me the sentence.
QUESTION: I'll tell you exactly what it was.
It was a crystallized greatest hits of the eight-day period in which he made four speeches where he laid out his philosophical underpinnings about the war on terror heading into the election, and he boiled it down, crystallized it and laid it out last night on network TV for 17 minutes. And it was in direct contrast to what you came in here and told us Friday.
SNOW: No. That's not in direct contrast.
QUESTION: Yes, it was. You said Friday that there would be no drawing of lines, distinctions between Democrats and Republicans.
SNOW: And there wasn't.
QUESTION: It would focus on unity.
SNOW: There wasn't.
QUESTION: Was it a speech about unity or...
(CROSSTALK)
SNOW: Out of the entire speech -- let's take a look at the Iraq section.
QUESTION: Let's do that.
SNOW: Let's have some fun.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
SNOW: If you look at the Iraq statement -- let's back up. We're in a war on terror right now -- I'm going to start at the back and then move forward, because the back end is something very important, where he says, "Osama bin Laden, mastermind of September 11th, the person that many people talk about, still have concerns about, calls this fight, the fight in Iraq, the third world war. And he says that, 'Victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever.' We are in Iraq. It is now seen as the central focal point of the war on terror by the very people who mounted September 11th."
If the president of the United States in talking about September 11th did not make reference to the plans and the strategy and the beliefs of the very people who mounted September 11th on the anniversary of that date, it would have seen as a dereliction and you would have -- you guys would have been out here just clubbing me like a baby seal saying, "Why didn't..."
(CROSSTALK) SNOW: Let me finish, and then you can come back -- saying, "What on Earth did you -- why didn't you talk about Iraq? I know why it is: Because the president's being political and he understands that Iraq's unpopular."
Last week the question was, "Isn't it true that he wants to talk about the war on terror instead of Iraq?"
If this is supposed to be political, according to the calculus that is constantly presented to me, it's, kind of, a weird way to do it.
Instead, what the president was making reference to, after September 11th -- the war on terror didn't end on September 11th, it began. It lifted the veil to us on a world that we didn't know existed that we have to respond to.
And it is also a real fact that the war in Iraq is clearly part of that war on terror and where we proceed with it.
QUESTION: Well, stop right there, because...
SNOW: Why do I have to stop right there?
QUESTION: Because that is the central point that'll be debated in the next eight weeks between Democrats and Republicans. That will be in large part what the midterm elections are decided on.
SNOW: I agree.
QUESTION: OK. So, if the president takes time in his speech that was advertised by you at this podium on Friday as being nonpolitical and no drawing of distinctions...
SNOW: I said there was no drawing of partisan lines.
QUESTION: ... and he gets up last night and lays out his case and essentially it is an advertisement for the next eight weeks...
SNOW: What you're saying is he shouldn't've talk about Iraq, is that what you're saying?
QUESTION: I'm saying that it wasn't consistent with what it was billed.
SNOW: I disagree. And I'll tell you why.
Throughout the day -- by the way, I'll give you an interesting contrast. You have Congressman Moran going at a memorial service in Arlington, and bashing the president. The president never once talked about a Democrat by name yesterday. Never once said, "My policy is this, their policy is that; they're wrong, I'm right."
What I told you was there would be no drawing of partisan distinctions and there wasn't.
And furthermore, if you look at the section -- what part of this is controversial?
"Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East." That's not offensive.
How about, "We're training Iraqi troops so that they can defend their nation"? Both parties support that.
"We will not leave until this work is done." Quick show of hands for everybody who wants to leave until the work is done.
SNOW: The point is that the use of the term "partisan," I think, is being now tossed around as a way to fend off the debate or say, "How dare the president talk about it?" I guarantee...
QUESTION: This was supposed to be a pause in all that for 24 hours.
SNOW: And it was.
But if you look at it, what the president is explaining -- and everybody in Congress -- the vast majorities of both houses of Congress agree that it was important to go ahead and address the issue of Saddam Hussein.
And he had wide support in both houses of Congress. Both houses of Congress agreed to going into this war. We're there. We have to deal with it. For the president to ignore it -- I'll give you anecdotal evidence.
Yesterday morning, we're in a firehouse in New York, talking with a lot of people who lost friends and buddies.
Later in the day, went to Shanksville. And the president worked a long semi-circle of grieving family members.
At the Pentagon, there is -- as you saw, it was a very emotional meeting with family members.
Not one said, "Don't fight, give up, quit, get out."
But the president did not want to try to turn this into a Democrats versus Republicans thing. But you cannot talk about the war on terror without talking about Iraq. And furthermore, you can't talk about September 11th, especially when Osama bin Laden himself says Iraq is at the center of all this, without mentioning it.
What he tried to do was to lay it out in as neutral a way as possible, explain why he did it. And furthermore, the question is: Why are you there? This was the question he answered. This was not an attempt to stir the hornet's nest.
Meanwhile, Senator Levin, before the speech, on "Lou Dobbs," hammering the president. You had people, as you all know, had their talking points out, accusing the president of being partisan the instant the speech was over. There was no talk out of the White House yesterday of Democrat versus Republican. And furthermore, a good 90 percent of the speech has to deal with the things that draw us together, including many of the sections -- many of the sentences on Iraq were expressions of things that are utterly uncontroversial with both political parties.
QUESTION: But when the president said yesterday that, "The worst mistake" -- talking about Iraq -- "The worst mistake would be to think that if you pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," who's he referring to there? Isn't he suggesting, implicitly, that that's what his critics believe?
SNOW: No, he's making a statement.
Look, here's the question that people will ask: Should we leave right now or not? Under what conditions should we leave?
The president says he wants to get out. Everybody wants to get out. The question is, under what conditions?
What he was actually doing was summarizing testimony that General Abizaid -- he had given -- and what General Abizaid has told him directly, which is, "If we leave, they will follow us."
That's what he was trying to do. He was repeating what he's heard from the key general in the war.
QUESTION: "The worst mistake would be to think that if he pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," isn't that suggested? They feel the terrorists would leave us alone if we left Iraq?
SNOW: No. What he was trying to do is to repeat to you exactly what the terrorists think.
That sentence is not an attempt -- look, I have a feeling that some people may feel pain because they think it's pointing to them. It's not pointing to them, it's pointing at the terrorists. It's pointing at the terrorist who, again, want to engage in the fantasy -- they've had to be -- they've learned the hard way once, and let's pray they don't learn the hard twice.
They don't realize that we love our liberty and we love our country. And if they strike, we're going to strike back. That's what that's all about. That's as much a warning to terrorists as anything else. It's not a desire to start pointing fingers at members of Congress.
QUESTION: When he says, "Let's put aside our differences," what is he referring to? Is he referring to Iraq or something else?
SNOW: I think it is perfectly possible and laudable -- getting back to David's question, people can disagree about Iraq. They can disagree, but let's do it in a way where we keep our eye on the ball, which is to win the war on terror and do it in a constructive way to figure out how best to get the job done.
If somebody wants to do it, that's fine. But don't start finger- pointing and all that kind of thing.
I think the most important challenge facing the American people right now is to realize that it's a long war. And one of the key calculations of bin Laden and others is we'll run out of patience. We won't, but that's their calculation.
And what the president -- look, it would be great if both political parties right now would start realizing that the national interests is to win the war on terror and to present a united front. It's not likely to happen in a political year, there are going to be disagreements, it's been that way in every war and in every administration, but we'll get through it.
Jim?
QUESTION: I didn't have my hand up, but I do have a question, so that worked out well.
SNOW: Good. You had your hand up before and you looked so eager that I just...
QUESTION: I'm always eager.
SNOW: Well, do you want me to wait and call on somebody else and then you can figure out what your question will be?
QUESTION: I had my hand up.
SNOW: I didn't see it, Helen.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: On the unity question, the president, I'm sure, would tell the Democrats that calling him a liar is not constructive. But he's not the head of the Democratic Party, he is the titular head of the Republican Party.
Assuming what you've heard Boehner being quoted as saying, would the president say that that sort of rhetoric is likewise not providing a sense of unity?
SNOW: Look, I'm not going to get drawn into something I haven't seen.
Let me put it this way. Take a look at what the president's done. With all the names -- with all the stuff that's been thrown at him, look for one time that he's responded in kind. Look for one time. I mean, that's the example. I'm just not going to play on the Boehner question.
You ask -- I'll tell you what: Ask Boehner, all right?
QUESTION: But talking about this thing, in terms of setting a tone of the dialogue... SNOW: We'll set the tone. We'll do our best to set the tone.
QUESTION: Just to come back to one more question on the speech last night, the central Democratic argument today is that the inclusion of a defense of an unpopular war in a political year was inappropriate to a day of mourning. I gather you disagree.
SNOW: Absolutely, because that's not what the speech was. Did you listen to the speech?
I mean, the fact is -- yes, I got the whole thing; I know. What's interesting is that you had a lot of people who were ready to press the "send" button the moment the speech was over. Fine. They decided they'd engage in partisanship.
And there's going to be debate about it. I mean, we're going to rumble on all those issues, I suppose.
But to tell the president, who spent extra time with family members, walking person to person to person, in New York and in Pennsylvania and in Washington, D.C., that somehow he didn't get the proper tone to strike, while other people were making partisan points during the day, it's just wrong.
I mean, again if you want to take a look at the speech, we took great pains not to say "Democrat versus Republican." The president did have an obligation as commander in chief in a time of war to let people know what he was thinking. But it's fair game for people to criticize him on it and we're sure it's going to happen.
QUESTION: Have the generals asked for more troops? Or have they been told not to ask?
SNOW: No, they pointedly have not been told -- there have been no orders to the generals about not asking for more troops.
As a matter of fact, the president constantly is going at them, "What do you need?"
And so I think that there's going to be continued close questioning of, "Do you need more?" You know, "What do you do if you get a battalion or two more?"
QUESTION: If they needed more and asked for more, they would be sent?
SNOW: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: About Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's trip to Tehran, after all the president and defense secretary have said about Iran's interference in Iraq, what's the White House response?
In his joint press conference today, Prime Minister Maliki was asked specifically about that and said, basically, there's no problem; there are no obstacles. He went on to say the relation with Iran remained excellent. What's the response?
SNOW: The response is we are still concerned about Iran's trying to support sectarian elements. But also we understand that Prime Minister Maliki is doing what he needs to do as a head of state, visiting a neighbor that has some power and certainly some influence, there being a lot of Shia Muslims, including Prime Minister Maliki.
And we will do everything we can not only to support the prime minister but also to say to the Iranians, "Play a constructive role."
QUESTION: This administration clearly still believes Iran is interfering in Iraq.
SNOW: We want to make sure they don't.
QUESTION: I also have a question about troops, but troops in Afghanistan, Tony. How does the administration feel about the NATO debate about sending more troops in? The president, of course, last night said that administration efforts have chased the Taliban from power, but they're threatening in the south.
SNOW: Well, they're threatening -- there are several things going on. And this actually -- some of this answer is going to apply to Iraq, as well, so I'm going to broaden it beyond your original question.
The strategy both in Iran and Iraq is to get more troops on the ground...
QUESTION: In Afghanistan.
SNOW: I mean -- what did I say? Yes, I'm sorry, Afghanistan. Thank you.
QUESTION: I thought we had some news...
(LAUGHTER)
SNOW: Oh, man; everybody was going to be pounding there -- in Afghanistan and Iraq is to get more troops on the ground, more Afghan troops and more Iraqi troops. And that continues to be a focal point in both theaters of war.
Furthermore, we've talked about before, what's going on now is that the Afghan government is beginning to extend its sphere of influence. For a very long time, as you know, it was confined around the area of Kabul and now it is spreading. And, not surprisingly, you're not only seeing push-back from the Taliban, but you're also seeing an attempt to try to figure out what NATO troops are made of. Because there's also been a transfer from U.S. forces in some places to NATO forces.
And guess what: The NATO forces are also winning significant and lopsided victories on the battleground. These are things that are somewhat predictable, and I think our planners had expected them when you are getting both the attempt to expand and extend the effective authority of the government and also the transfers of military authority, because they're going to try to test it out and they're finding out that they're losing.
QUESTION: Does your characterization of significant and lopsided victories extend to what's happening in southern Afghanistan right now?
SNOW: Yes. I mean, if you take a look what's been going on, there have been a number of operations where there have been heavy Afghan casualties. Now, it's certainly not bloodless because you have people on the Afghan side who are committed -- they're committed terrorists, they're committed members of the Taliban. But you're also seeing significant military action against them.
NGUYEN: You've been listening to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow in today's briefing. If you want to watch the rest of it live as it's happening, you can go to CNN.com/pipeline for that.
As you heard there, a lot of the discussion during that briefing dealt with the president's speech last night. And that has to do with our e-mail question as well. Here's our hit-send question for you. Does your safety depend on the war in Iraq?
Here's what President Bush said about it last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not leave until this work is done. Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NGUYEN: OK, so do you agree, do you disagree? Hit send and tell us, does America's safety depend on winning the war in Iraq? Hit send. The address is CNNnewsroom@CNN.com. We'll have some of your responses throughout the afternoon.
Well, beautiful minds. Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta is trying to find out how super smart people get that way. He show us in the "NEWSROOM."
This is CNN, the most trusted name in news.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NGUYEN: Artists and philosophers have always talked about the true nature of knowledge, inside genius. But these days, neurologists and psychiatrists are getting in on this act. And they're looking for what makes brilliant mines, Einstein's, for instance, different from the rest.
CNN senior medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta visited a place called the Mind Institute to see where this is taking us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just looking at a human brain, you can't tell if it belongs to a genius or a fool. You can't even tell if it's from a man or a woman.
But now, imagine actually seeing the birth of an idea with high- tech imaging. That's what they do at the Mental Illness and Neuro Discovery, or MIND Institute, in New Mexico. It's a world-renowned center for brain research.
This image was taken through a process call magnetoencephalography. It sounds smart just saying it. It shows electrical activity millisecond by millisecond.
REX JUNG, MIND INSTITUTE: You're seeing the brain activity over a course of one single second. So in that second, all these different things are happening in the brain.
GUPTA: First light up, the brain region handling sight, as the test subject looks at something. Next, the motor cortex, muscle control as the subject points a finger in response.
JUNG: And then up in this part of the brain, this is the frontal part of the brain, the frontal cortex -- prefrontal cortex, in which a lot of the action happens involved with decision-making, problem solving, integration of ideas, narrowing the focus down to the specific right answer.
GUPTA: They say the higher the intelligence, the faster this pathway lights up. Based on other kinds of imaging, Dr. Rex Jung and his colleague Richard Haier say the brains of smart people are different from average brains.
Here's one surprise: the higher the I.Q., the less brain activity, as signified by the cool green color. The smart brain is more efficient.
DR. RICHARD HAIER, UC CALIF-IRVINE: It might be that more intelligent people have more tissue in certain areas to process information and, therefore, the tissue overall doesn't have to work as hard.
GUPTA: Jung and Haier continue to fine-tune their work. Some day, they say, brain scans might replace an I.Q. test, or even the SAT for college. But for now, the secret of genius remains tantalizingly out of reach.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
(END VIDEOTAPE) NGUYEN: To catch Sanjay's full report, tune into "GENIUS: QUEST FOR EXTREME BRAINPOWER." That's Sunday night at 10:00 Eastern right here on CNN.
And coming up in the next hour: small force, huge mission. Keeping the peace and staying alive in the heart of an al Qaeda stronghold. See it in the "NEWSROOM" on CNN, the most trusted name in news.
(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
