Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
On the Edge Over North Korea; Startling Report on Number of Civilian Deaths in Iraq
Aired October 11, 2006 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: She was gunned down in a suspected contract killing at a Moscow apartment building on the weekend.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has vowed a thorough investigation but has rejected suggestions that any Russian official may have been responsible. The killing, he said, may have been intended to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling across the world.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: For more on these or any of our top stories, log onto our Web site at cnn.com.
The next half hour of AMERICAN MORNING starts right now.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to you.
Wednesday, October 11.
I'm Miles O'Brien.
S. O'BRIEN: And I'm Soledad O'Brien.
Lots happening this morning.
Let's begin right at the news wall.
We're on the edge over North Korea. A jittery Japan apparently mistakes a strong earthquake for a nuclear test. Diplomats are scrambling to come up with a response to the North Korean nuclear threat. Pyongyang says it's going to consider any sanctions a declaration of war.
Also happening on this AMERICAN MORNING, members of the U.N. Security Council about to discuss what to do about Iran's nuclear program today. On the agenda -- the possibility of sanctions there.
M. O'BRIEN: Almost 655,000 dead -- that is the estimated number of civilian deaths caused by the war in Iraq. A controversial study released this morning. We'll have more.
S. O'BRIEN: And we begin this hour with the weather and Chad Myers, who's watching some cold temperatures for us -- hey, Chad.
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Good morning, Soledad.
(WEATHER REPORT) M. O'BRIEN: We begin this morning in Northeast Asia, where the Earth shook once again today. But apparently this time it was an earthquake, not a tremor from a huge underground explosion in North Korea.
But still, enough to set off a scare in Japan.
Live now to CNN's Aneesh Raman in Tokyo with more -- Aneesh.
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Miles, good morning.
It is a sign of the new normal here in Japan, the jittery atmosphere that has really taken hold after North Korea's nuclear test earlier in the week.
This morning, Japanese media reported an earthquake they said was caused by a second nuclear test in North Korea. The South Korean news agencies immediately almost contradicted that, saying South Korea saw no seismic activity in North Korea. That turned out to be the case. It was not a manmade earthquake, it was a natural one, and it didn't even happen in North Korea. It happened off the eastern coast of Japan.
But it's a sign of how much of a danger North Korea, in terms of the Japanese mind set, now poses to the country.
Just a few hours ago, the Japanese cabinet, not waiting for the U.N. to take action against North Korea. They're pushing ahead on their own, approving a new round of bilateral sanctions. That includes a ban on all ships coming from North Korea to Japan, also a ban on all imports and exports between the two countries.
What that means in terms of money, last year trade between Japan and North Korea, Miles, totaled around $180 million.
M. O'BRIEN: Aneesh Raman in Tokyo, thank you very much.
Japan pushing for a hard line against North Korea, as is the U.S. And even China -- that's North Korea's only friend in the region -- is considering punitive action against Pyongyang. And that is in and of itself is a breakthrough.
We have complete live coverage for you now.
Hugh Riminton live from Beijing, Suzanne Malveaux at the White House -- let's begin with Hugh.
HUGH RIMINTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Miles, China certainly has the power to inflict the big damage with sanctions. It's the country that has the closest links with North Korea. Nearly all of North Korea's energy, plus a good deal of its food, comes across the Yalu River border from China.
The thing is -- and this is the Chinese calculation -- the fear is that the North Korean regime is unstable, that strict punitive sanctions could bring it unstuck. And bear this in mind -- North Korea has a 1.2 million strong standing army indoctrinated to be loyal to the death to the Kim regime. It has the capacity to fire a million shells in just three hours on the Korean Peninsula. It has chemical and biological weapons, as well as its now nuclear weapon.
China has much at stake in this. It would much rather have that regime survive than have it collapse, and that's why the big guns of its own sanctions policy are unlikely to be brought out against North Korea at the moment. They have too much invested in the regime staying where it is -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Hugh Riminton in Beijing.
Thank you.
More threats now from North Korea. One North Korean official is saying any sanctions would be tantamount to an act of war. And the country's number two is threatening another nuclear test.
CNN's Suzanne Malveaux live now from the White House with more -- Suzanne, good morning.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Miles.
Really, the heart of the U.S. strategy regarding North Korea is to try to go to North Korea's neighbors to rally them to push the toughest sanctions possible, to try to squeeze North Korea economically and politically, to get it to change its behavior.
Now, White House officials say that they believe -- or they certainly hope -- that North Korea's neighbors have more leverage than the Bush administration to try to get the regime to cooperate, to comply. We heard from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "THE SITUATION ROOM")
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: And the international community is speaking with one voice very loudly, because the North Koreans crossed an important line when they proclaimed that they had conducted a nuclear test.
We have to take the claim seriously because it's a political claim, if nothing else, that tries to get the bargaining position of being a nuclear power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: And Secretary Rice, as well as other U.S. officials, are still refusing North Korea's main demand here, that is one-on-one talks immediately. White House officials, including Secretary Rice, say those talks can happen, but only after North Korea goes back to the six party talks involving its neighbors. They really feel that that is the way that they'll have better bargaining power, as well as leverage in dealing with the regime -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Suzanne Malveaux at the White House.
Thank you -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Iran's nuclear ambitions are also being watched very closely. Diplomats hold a meeting today to discuss ways to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. The five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany will talk about sanctions on Iran. But Iran so far is refusing to give up its nuclear ambitions.
The U.S. military reports about a mortar attack on an ammunitions dump in Baghdad. It set off a series of spectacular explosions. The ammo dump held tank, artillery and small arms rounds. And the blast shook buildings four miles away, according to reports. And it continued for over an hour. No deaths and no serious in just were reported.
And this morning, a startling report on the number of civilian deaths in Iraq -- 655,000. That's the number. And it's far greater than any previous estimations.
CNN's Arwa Damon joins us live from Baghdad on that -- Arwa, good morning.
ARWA DAMON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
That's right, it is quite a staggering number. I mean, over 600,000 civilian deaths estimated, according to that survey. Now, what they have done is this estimate has been extrapolated from a survey of about 1,800 households. They went to these households and asked those families who they had lost and what the cause of that was. Based on those figures, they then drew a conclusion that the total estimate was over 600,000.
Now, this is a number that is grossly higher than anything that we have, in fact, heard in the past by at least half a million deaths. The highest number that we have heard from a reliable source has been 50,000. Some other sources, not as reliable, are reporting a death count of at least 100,000.
But, still, this number of 600,000 is so much higher than anything we have heard in the past.
But, in fact, as we often do see in these cfcs, it is many years before actual death tolls do emerge. This number, though, even for the Iraqi population here, coming as a shock. Many of them really trying to grasp such an extremely high number. Many of them not so sure of its accuracy, though.
We spoke with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, a spokesperson there saying that this number was an exaggeration -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Arwa Damon for us this morning in Baghdad.
Thanks, Arwa -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Coming up on the program, Washington's blame game over North Korea.
Did someone push Pyongyang down the nuclear path? And, if so, which administration did it?
We'll talk to a former Clinton adviser about that.
Plus, the Mark Foley factor in the mid-term elections. We'll look at the scandal's impact on one of the tightest races in the country.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: Did U.S. policy make matters worse in North Korea? And if so, which administration should bear most of the blame?
A lot of finger pointing in Washington, as diplomats try to find a way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle in North Korea.
Ambassador Wendy Sherman was one of the last U.S. officials to negotiate directly with North Korea. That was during the Clinton administration. She's now with the Albright Group.
And Ambassador Sherman joins us from Washington this morning.
Good to have you with us.
WENDY SHERMAN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER ON KOREA, THE ALBRIGHT GROUP: Good morning, Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Senator John McCain had some critical remarks yesterday.
Let's listen to a little bit of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM WDIV TELEVISION)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another. Now, we are facing the consequences of the failed Clinton administration policies and we must stop, at long last, reinforcing failure with failure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
M. O'BRIEN: A carrot and carrot approach is how he describes it.
In retrospect, were those concessions -- building a couple of reactors to help the North Koreans, millions in financial aid, food aid, were those a mistake?
SHERMAN: Well, I'm very sorry that Senator McCain thinks that at a very serious time like this, when we all have to be facing this threat from North Korea, that we're playing politics. And I understand why he's doing it, because during the Clinton administration, the policy that you just asked me about meant a good result for U.S. national security.
There was no more nuclear weapons built during the Clinton administration. There was no increased production of plutonium, which is used to make nuclear weapons. And there were no nuclear tests.
During the Bush administration, with its policies, there has been a 400 percent increase in the number of nuclear weapons. We've gone from one or two, to four, six, eight, maybe 10 nuclear weapons, which has allowed North Korea to test, which never happened during the Clinton administration.
M. O'BRIEN: But did the policy of the Clinton administration lay the groundwork for what we're seeing now in the Bush administration?
SHERMAN: No, the Clinton administration policy allowed us to deter and delay North Korea from its production of nuclear weapons. We had frozen that program. We were right in the middle of negotiations on a far ranging missile agreement, which is used to carry nuclear weapons, when President Bush came into office. And Security Powell, in 2001, said that the Clinton administration policy was a good one. And then President Bush decided no, he wanted to do anything but Clinton and head in another direction.
But what we -- where we really are today, Miles, is in a very dangerous situation. I do think that the United States Congress has spoken and said that President Bush and -- through the Defense Authorization Bill -- needs to have a high level coordinator, needs to review the policy, report back to Congress.
Something similar happened during the Clinton administration. That's when we brought in Secretary Bill Perry, who has a terrific column in this morning's "Washington Post" laying out exactly what we did, where we are today and the very dangerous situation we all have to be focused on now...
M. O'BRIEN: Let's...
SHERMAN: ... and try to get North Korea to move backwards.
M. O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the notion of direct talks, U.S.- North Korean talks. Yesterday we had the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations here, John Bolton.
Let's hear what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: The North Koreans can talk to us any time they want on a bilateral basis if they'll come back to the six party talks, which they have been boycotting for 13 months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
M. O'BRIEN: He's saying it's OK for bilateral talks in the context, as a subset of these six party talks, the larger group. What's the matter with that idea?
SHERMAN: That isn't a bad idea. It's fine to have those bilateral talks within the context of the six party talks. The only problem is when President Bush finally allowed Ambassador Christopher Hill, who is the current envoy, and a very able and skilled professional diplomat and negotiator, he didn't give him anything in his pocket, either incentives or disincentives. And all the while that Ambassador Hill was trying to negotiate, on one hand, another part of the U.S. administration was trying to apply sanctions on the financial assets of North Korea because of counterfeiting.
We all want North Korea to stop its counterfeiting. It does help to support its activities. But that should be part of a negotiating strategy, not a separate track, because it sends mixed messages.
And what the administration has to decide is to be at one not only with the rest of the world, but within the administration. It can't be regime change and regime behavioral change. The administration has to make up its mind which direction it's heading in. I think most of the world community wants a behavior change from North Korea, not to threaten the regime. And I was glad to hear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice say yesterday that this is about diplomacy, tough, smart, strong diplomacy, but it's about diplomacy, with military action on the table but one of last resort, not something we do today.
M. O'BRIEN: All right, but one of the other things she said -- she spoke to Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM" yesterday -- she said that there should be no direct talks without some sort of concession.
Listen to it for just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "THE SITUATION ROOM")
RICE: If he wants a bilateral deal, it's because he doesn't want to face the pressure of other states that have leverage. It's not because he wants a bilateral deal with the United States. He doesn't want to face the leverage of China or South Korea or others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
M. O'BRIEN: Do you agree with that?
SHERMAN: I don't agree with that entirely. I think we are going to see some multilateral leverage because of what North Korea has done. I think the Chinese will allow some sanctions, though not what the United States and Japan wants.
But what we have heard is North Korea is ultimately concerned about regime change. And they believe only the last remaining superpower can guarantee the survival of the regime. And so they want direct talks with the United States because of that. They know that, in fact, we do put some pressure on them and we are getting China to pressure them and Russia and Japan and South Korea. So multilateralism is a very good thing and assertive multilateralism is very useful. I know that Secretary Albright was criticized for that way back when. But, in fact, it's about strong, tough, multilateralism, not about softness and appeasement.
Even Secretary, former Secretary Jim Baker said just a few days ago that he has always found that tough, smart engagement in negotiation is the way to go. He said it's not appeasement, it's the way you deal with your enemies, not just the way you deal with your friends.
M. O'BRIEN: Ambassador Wendy Sherman, thanks.
SHERMAN: Thank you.
M. O'BRIEN: Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: It is 17 minutes past the hour. And if you're about to head out the door, let's quick get a check of the forecast for travelers.
Chad Myers is at the CNN Weather Center -- hello, Chad.
MYERS: Good morning.
I like being in that little box there. That's pretty cute. That's a huge screen.
(WEATHER REPORT)
S. O'BRIEN: Ahead this morning, do you Google? Do you Yahoo!?
The Web wars are heating up between the two.
Andy Serwer takes a look as he minds your business just ahead.
And the Mark Foley factor -- could the scandal impact a tight Congressional race in New Mexico?
We'll take a look.
That's up next on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
S. O'BRIEN: The House Ethics Committee is set to talk with former Congressman Mark Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tomorrow. It gets a little complicated here, but Fordham basically is claiming that he brought concerns to Speaker Dennis Hastert's office as far back as two years ago.
Now, as for Hastert, he now says that if there's any evidence that his aides were involved in any kind of cover-up, they'll be fired.
Far from the Capitol, the Mark Foley scandal is front and center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. And it may very well influence the outcome of a tight Congressional race.
AMERICAN MORNING'S Chris Lawrence has the story for us.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A New Mexico- Congressional race is boiling down to a dead heat -- incumbent Republican Heather Wilson versus Democrat Patricia Madrid and Mark Foley. Madrid says Foley contributed $8,000 to Wilson's campaign.
PATRICIA MADRID (D), NEW MEXICO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: More money than any Republican congressman. Obviously, they were close and friends.
LAWRENCE: When the news about Foley became a national scandal, Wilson donated that money to charity.
REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), NEW MEXICO: The first time that I heard of this was when ABC News reported it.
LAWRENCE (on camera): Is it really fair to hold every Republican Congressperson responsible for what Mark Foley did?
MADRID: Heather Wilson bears special and particular responsibility for this situation.
LAWRENCE (voice-over): For three years, Congresswoman Wilson served on a board overseeing the House page program at the same time Foley wrote some of the explicit messages to a House page.
MADRID: And if she didn't know about this situation, then she wasn't doing her job.
LAWRENCE: Wilson says Madrid talks tough, but as New Mexico's attorney general, showed leniency to Matthew Ward, a man charged with soliciting a minor over the Internet in attempted rape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM WILSON CAMPAIGN AD)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madrid never even asked for prison time, and today, Ward is back on our streets. For that, Patricia Madrid should not be forgiven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILSON: My opponent runs a catch and release program for sexual predators in New Mexico.
LAWRENCE: The other factor in this fight? The president. Madrid accuses Wilson of being a rubber stamp for George Bush and Dick Cheney.
MADRID: Whatever this administration wants, Heather Wilson gives them.
LAWRENCE: "Congressional Quarterly" shows that last year, Representative Wilson voted with the president 70 percent of the time, including the war in Iraq. Recently, Wilson's campaign has been emphasizing her independence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM WILSON CAMPAIGN AD)
WILSON: The president voted the stem cell bill and I voted to override his veto.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADRID: They give her a pass every once in a while because they know she's in a swing district. But she never takes a position against the president when it counts.
LAWRENCE: For New Mexico-voters, the choice is clear -- Wilson or Madrid. The Democrats are determined to put President Bush and Mark Foley on every ballot they can.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, Albuquerque.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
S. O'BRIEN: For more on this story or any political story, log onto our Web site at cnn.com/ticker -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: That acquisition of YouTube by Google, well, you might say it's a trounce. Yahoo! -- remember Yahoo!? There used to be a company called that -- no, they're still out there.
Andy Serwer is here to say how they're kind of on the ropes right now.
ANDY SERWER, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: Well, they are a little bit. And some people are saying that Yahoo! is so 1990s, the coolness factor, never mind staying number one in the Internet business, seems to last all of 15 minutes these days. Just ask Yahoo!.
It still is number one in terms of Web audience, but losing its luster and competitive edge to Google. This is highlighted by that acquisition by Google of YouTube that we talked about this week, $1.65 billion.
Now, Google has some other stuff going on, too. They made a big alliance with MySpace, which is owned by News Corp. another hot, hot, hot Web site. They also are doing more and more in their search business. They're number one and they're growing. They continue to gain market share.
Meanwhile, Yahoo! delayed its new ad network business, missed third quarter numbers. The stock is down 38 percent. And maybe even most important, Miles, they were looking to buy Facebook, another hot Web site. They haven't been able to pull the trigger or get the deal done there.
So, you know, they're falling behind a little bit, it seems.
M. O'BRIEN: It's interesting, they've been talking to them for quite some time.
SERWER: That's right.
M. O'BRIEN: And I heard that the Google-YouTube deal took like a week or less.
SERWER: That's right, it took only a matter of days.
M. O'BRIEN: Days, yes.
SERWER: And that's because Google and YouTube have the same financial backers, the same venture capital people...
M. O'BRIEN: Ah!
SERWER: ... who are involved. They were able to put them together. That's at least part of the reason why.
Now, MySpace, interestingly, which wanted to buy YouTube -- remember, MySpace is owned by News Corp. -- they lost out in the battle to buy YouTube. They're actually looking to get closer to Google. They have a deal with Google. This is a mating dance, I think, or a game of musical chairs we have here with these Web sites.
M. O'BRIEN: Yes.
SERWER: But, you know, if you can't beat them, join them. That's what MySpace is doing.
Google has the momentum right now. They're the ones in the driver's seat and it's just amazing how quickly you can fall behind in this business.
M. O'BRIEN: How is that stock doing, Google? It's been kind of flat or is it going back up?
SERWER: Well, it was down significantly this year, but it's pretty much back to where it was in the beginning. This is a big come back. It's been up a lot over the past couple of sessions.
M. O'BRIEN: All right, Andy, what's up next?
SERWER: Next, we're going to be talking about Burger King, Miles. A new spokesperson. You won't believe who it is. And I'm not going to tell you right now. You're going to have to stay tuned.
M. O'BRIEN: We won't believe it.
SERWER: You won't believe it.
M. O'BRIEN: All right.
All right, thank you.
Coming up, is the government, big business and special interests waging war on the middle class? And, if so, what can you do about it? CNN's Lou Dobbs in the house. He has some answers in a new book.
That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: Welcome back to the program.
I'm Miles O'Brien.
S. O'BRIEN: And I'm Soledad O'Brien.
Let's get right to the news wall with a look at some of the stories we're following for you this morning.
The Bush administration pushing for strong sanctions against North Korea. Pyongyang, though, saying it will consider sanctions a declaration of war.
M. O'BRIEN: Nearly 655,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. That's according to a new study out this morning. Much higher than previous estimates.
S. O'BRIEN: It is half past the hour.
Time for a check of the weather with Chad -- good morning, again, Chad.
MYERS: Good morning, Soledad.
(WEATHER REPORT)
M. O'BRIEN: More now on the North Korea threat.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejecting the notion of one- on-one standalone talks between the U.S. and North Korea.
Speaking with Wolf Blitzer, she said North Korea should not use fear of a U.S. attack as an excuse to build nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "THE SITUATION ROOM")
RICE: The United States of America doesn't have any intention to attack North Korea or to invade North Korea.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So the military option is not really present?
RICE: The president never takes any of his options off the table. But the United States somehow, in a provocative way trying to invade North Korea? It's just not the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
M. O'BRIEN: There's also concern in the international community that North Korea will conduct a second nuclear test some time soon. Live now to the Pentagon and Barbara Starr with more on that.
And of course, Barbara, there's some question as to whether the first test was nuclear at all.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely right, Miles.
You know, there were jitters around the world overnight when the Japanese thought they had detected a second test in North Korea. It turned out just to be a natural seismic event, an earthquake. At this hour U.S. intelligence officials say they see no immediate signs of North Korean in preparations for a second test, but one official I talked to just a short time ago, said, quote, "It could be in the near future, based on their intelligence sources in Asia." So all eyes still turned to the North Korean country, to the peninsula there.
What about the first test now? You know, we're a couple days past it and still no absolute confirmation from the intelligence community about what exactly took place. They tell us that there are still no signs of radioactivity, but they are not sure that that means anything. They are looking at the data. It might be the case the North Koreans sealed up the site. It might be the case that radioactivity will simply start to leak over the next several days.
Arms control monitors plan to meet in Vienna Friday morning to look at all of their data. There may be more word at that time.
So what do we now really know about the North Korean test? Not a whole lot. The data does show, apparently, according to the intelligence community, the yield on this test was actually quite small, 500 tons or, perhaps, less. The assessment that is beginning to emerge is that the North Koreans had a smaller test than they anticipated. Perhaps part of it didn't work. Perhaps the trigger was a dud. Something may simply have gone wrong.
But intelligence officials also warn, it might be the case that North Korea made a good attempt to fool the world, that maybe they put this test together underground in a way that it simply looked smaller to sensors and other spy satellites data than they expected. So, still, we don't really know, maybe it was a dud, or maybe the North Koreans were pretty clever -- Miles.
M. O'BRIEN: Is the intelligence community reasonably optimistic they'll have smoking gun proof one way or another as to what it was?
STARR: Well, no, as a matter of fact, they're not. I think that you will see public statements, but I think when you really start to talk to the analysts in the intelligence community about this, here's the critical problem for them to come to a definitive conclusion. On such a small test with such a low yield, it does become difficult, they tell us, to distinguish between a traditional seismic event and something else, a nuclear test, a conventional high explosive. They will come to an assessment, that is clear. They will make a judgment on this. But the level of certainty they have about it may be the question. The working assumption is that it was a nuclear test. You have to take the North Koreans at their word. You have to have that as a working assumption. But behind the scenes, what did the North Koreans do, what really happened? We're going to have to wait and see.
M. O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr and the Pentagon, thank you -- Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: CNN's Lou Dobbs has a new book. Its' got a pretty provocative title, too. It's called "War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business and Special Interest Groups are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back."
Lou Dobbs joins us this morning. It's nice to see you. Thanks for talking with us.
LOU DOBBS, "WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS": Good to be with you, Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Let's talk a little politics first. Four weeks from the midterm elections, and you write a lot about how the middle class is not being served by anybody, kind of the abandoned, you know, part of the population.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
S. O'BRIEN: Is there one direction the middle class is leaning or should be leaning.
DOBBS: I think the middle class should definitely be saying, the hell with both of these political parties. Corporate America, U.S. multinationals are spending $2.4 billion lobbying. Corporate America has, Soledad, absolute domination over the electoral process in this country, absolute domination over the legislative process. I've asked a number of senators and congressmen over the past year, year and a half, what's the last thing you did for the middle class, 250 million Americans, the people who make this country work, the foundation of this country?
S. O'BRIEN: And the voters who should be the ones they care about the most, theoretically.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And not one of them could give me an answer. One did answer the tax cut. But the tax cuts since 2001 have all benefited disproportionately the wealthy in this country.
S. O'BRIEN: Not exactly a surprise there.
OK, so spell it out for me, ways in which the middle class has been underserved or poorly served by the Republicans, and then we'll get into the Democrats.
DOBBS: Well, it's very simple, as we're just watching this president continue the policies of the Clinton administration in terms of outsourcing, 30 consecutive years of trade debts and deficits, the fact that this president, and presidents before him, have talked about we've got to be energy independent; we can't have this dependency on foreign producers of oil.
S. O'BRIEN: And here we are still.
DOBBS: And here we are. But at the same time, they do not want to focus on the fact this nation is dependent on foreign producers for our consumer electronics, for computers, for -- 96 percent of clothing in this country is produced abroad.
Meanwhile, we've lost four million manufacturing jobs since 2000 in this country. We've outsources three-million jobs.
S. O'BRIEN: But wouldn't people say, the middle-class should look at themselves and blame themselves. Well, how can you say -- people only really say they want to reform and think about better alternatives for fuel when you're paying $3.25 a gallon. Suddenly it's the most important thing in your life. Suddenly fuel goes down, nobody cares.
DOBBS: I'm not sure that's true this time, and I do believe that the middle class is awakening. It's one of the reasons I wrote the book. It's time for people to get really honest. We have class warfare in this country, and we better recognize it.
Warren Buffett told me two years ago, he said, Lou, this is class warfare, and my class is winning. It's very simple. We have very rich in this country and very poor. And in between, people who are losing their jobs, who's wages have been stagnant for 35 years, who are receiving a disproportionately small percentage of the national income, while corporate America and the wealthy are receiving a disproportionately large -- it's the first time in our history it's happened. Equality of opportunity, and economic opportunity and educational opportunity are the cornerstone for this country.
S. O'BRIEN: You also write that the Democrats are doing their own part in letting down the middle class with another litany of failures on that front.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
S. O'BRIEN: And you say independent is the way to go.
DOBBS: I say that it is time, whether you -- I say also that I can't take seriously anyone who considers himself or herself a Republican or a Democrat, I can't take them seriously, because these parties are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. They both derive their funding from the same people. They have basically the same standards. The Democrat Party once was a party defending working men and women in this country. They've become a party of special interests, soci-ethnic centrists interests, and corporate America. And guess who loses? The men and women who make the country work, and their children are paying the price, because the elites in business and politics will not work to sustain public education, which is the great equalizer in this country.
S. O'BRIEN: We have so much more to talk about. I haven't even gotten to chapter even, Broken Borders. I haven't even gotten to NAFTA.
DOBBS: You've got a couple more commercial break.
S. O'BRIEN: You guys hear that. He wants to go longer. "The War on the Middle Class," very interesting book. "Lou Dobbs," thanks for talking with us.
DOBBS: Good to be with you, Soledad.
S. O'BRIEN: Nice to see you, as always.
Thank you.
DOBBS: "LOU DOBBS" of course airs weeknights at 6:00 p.m. Eastern. Thanks.
S. O'BRIEN: Ahead this morning, protests and a lawsuit over plans at one women's college to go coed. We'll hear from both sides. The debate, straight ahead.
And clearing the air about the benefits of smoke-free restaurants and bars. Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us. AMERICAN MORNING continues in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: Just into us right now, take a look at the wall. This comes to our -- from our affiliate KDFW out of Dallas. Aerial pictures of a three-alarm market fire there, near some railroad tracks. Hopefully not some -- anything toxic in those rail cars there. It's not far from Ludfield (ph). We're told there's no -- any delays, though, as a result. We'll watch that one for you.
(WEATHER REPORT)
S. O'BRIEN: A little bit more on a story we brought to you first yesterday. Students at Randolph-Macon Women's College are suing over the school's decision to admit men starting next fall. They want the all women's college to postpone admitting men until at least 2010, when everybody who's is in the current classes has graduated.
Laura McKean-Peraza and Rebekah Pauli are two of the students involved in the suit. They join us from Lynchburg, Virginia, along with their attorney, Wyatt Durrette. Nice to see all of you. Thanks for talking with us.
Ladies, let's begin with you, Bekah and also Laura. Explain to me exactly why you're suing, on what grounds?
LAURA MCKEAN-PERAZA, STUDENT SUING WOMEN'S COLLEGE: The reason we are suing or holding a lawsuit is because we feel that we've been promised to have a single-sex education under a women's institution for four whole years. And that promise will be broken as of next year.
S. O'BRIEN: So it's about breaking a promise. Now, as you well know, the school would say, listen, we cannot afford to operate as a women's college now. We just cannot afford to do it. That seems like a reasonable explanation, doesn't it?
REBEKAH PAULI, STUDENT SUING WOMEN'S COLLEGE: Well, maybe, but we feel that we haven't been given adequate time or information. And there's been no whispers or outright conversations about this co- education decision until this year, and we feel that that's just unacceptable.
WYATT DURRETTE, ATTORNEY FOR STUDENTS: And Soledad, there's this...
S. O'BRIEN: Why, Bekah -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
DURRETTE: I was going to say there's a substantial amount of evidence that that's just not accurate, that the school may, indeed, have more financial problems because of the decision it's made, and that it would be much better off to do some things that it didn't do and to stick with its tradition and its stellar history.
S. O'BRIEN: So you think the school has more options than maybe they're letting on. Bekah, let me ask you a question. Why do you oppose co-ed education?
PAULI: A lot of people have asked this question, is it about men? And, you know, it gets to the point where you just kind of have to laugh at that. Will men change our campus, our community, and our classrooms? Absolutely. But that's really -- it's not the point. I'll put it in marketing terms, since the administration is so fond of that. We were sold a product, we purchased a product, the product being single sex education and we're no longer being given that product, and that's unethical. And men were simply not part of the product that I purchased.
S. O'BRIEN: Wow, sounds like you've really learned lesson one, maybe, for a college student, which is it's all about the almighty dollar. Let me turn back to Wyatt here, your attorney. What happens now, with your legal challenge? Will it put a stop to the new class entering, which could include men, or what?
DURRETTE: Well, that's what we hope. The -- we have not yet received the responsive pleadings from the college. That will happen in two, three weeks. And then we'll probably have earlier appearances before the court and we hope to get the case moved along pretty quickly. But the end result, if we're successful, is to be awarded an order by the court that if the college persists in co-ed indication -- and we certainly hope it won't -- but if it does, that it can't do it in 2010, after it fulfills the promise it made to these young women here and all the others who came to Randolph-Macon Women's College.
S. O'BRIEN: And Laura, let's say, for example, hypothetically, in fact, the college says we're going co-ed, it's just too bad. What happens? What do you do? Do you stay and graduate or do you leave and go somewhere else?
MCKEAN-PERAZA: Actually, personally I, have already received acceptance -- not acceptance, excuse me -- an application to Agnes Scott College that was accepted into in 2004. And, you know, I've been very close and in touch with the -- my admissions counselor there.
S. O'BRIEN: You might pick up and leave.
MCKEAN-PERAZA: That is my plan.
S. O'BRIEN: Laura McKean-Peraza and Bekah Pauli and the attorney, Wyatt Durrette. Thanks for talking with us. Certainly appreciate it.
We want to turn now to Virginia Worden. She is the interim president of Randolph-Macon Women's College. She's also in Lynchburg for us this morning. It's nice to see you. Thanks for talking to us. You heard what the young women and their attorney had to say. Why not just wait until the current classes have graduated and then institute a new policy?
VIRGINIA WORDEN, PRES., RANDOLPH-MACON WOMEN'S COLLEGE: Well, a college can't be -- it has to either be single sex or co-ed. It can't be single sex for the next three years and try to recruit entering classes as co-ed. You'll notice that 20 years ago, most private colleges were single sex in this country. And today, almost only a handful of our colleges are still single sex. All of them have gone co-ed from one year to the next, not waiting four years to empty out their ranks before filling up with new applicants.
S. O'BRIEN: Now, of course, this would not be some kind of minor cosmetic change or, say, tweaking the core curriculum or requirements. This goes to the heart of the major values of the college. I mean, this is why women, I assume, a large number of them, decide they want to apply to your college in the first place. It seems, in some ways, a little unfair to the students, don't you think?
WORDEN: Well, our own internal research shows that the great majority of students we have have come in spite of it being a single sex college, not because it's a single sex college. Which is why we have the market dilemma that we're facing today. Therefore, we have to take this step if we're going to keep and preserve some of the other aspects of our college, which we think are vitally important, including academic excellence and the quality and breadth of the program that we offer.
You heard from Laura, who said she's got an application to another school, a school that accepted her a couple of years. It sounds like she's thinking about transferring if, in fact, men are admitted to the school next year. Do you think you should be legally responsible, financially responsible, for whatever number of young women who say, listen, I'm going to transfer and it's going to cost some money?
WORDEN: One of the other problems our college has had is the fact that we have a great deal of women who transfer every year, as a single sex institution. I would deeply regret if Laura decides to transfer. She's exactly the kind of young woman this college needs to have us to go through this transition and come out stronger on the other side.
So I don't feel an obligation. I feel an obligation to give her the education that we committed to this year. She will have a single sex education this year, and if she decides to transfer, she will join a long pattern of young women who have transferred after their first year, most of them not because it was going co-ed, but because it was staying single sex.
S. O'BRIEN: But you don't think you have a financial responsibility to pay for that, whatever costs are associated with that?
WORDEN: Well, our commitment to Laura is to give her an academic year that is strong and excellent. We will do that. We have not got a contractual arrangement. Contracts have to be bilateral, in which case we would have students committed to stay for four years if the college were committed to keep them for four years under a certain way.
S. O'BRIEN: Virginia Worden is the interim president of Randolph-Macon Women's College. Thank you talking with us this morning. Appreciate it.
WORDEN: Thank you.
M. O'BRIEN: Just got word from the White House, the president planning an 11:00 a.m. Eastern time news conference. CNN, of course, will bring it to you live. We'll keep you posted as we find out further details.
Coming up, how much do smoking bans in bars and restaurants really improve health? Dr. Sanjay Gupta will take a look at that. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
M. O'BRIEN: Smoking bans in bars and restaurants sweeping the nation. Now depending on which side of the death sticks you breathe on, you may either love or hate this mass clearing of the air. But now, there is no doubt it is healthier.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta with more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Myra Cordona (ph) is a bartender in a smoke-free restaurant in Montgomery County, Maryland. She doesn't smoke.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It hurts my eyes, it irritates my eyes. And so, you know, I'm kind of glad that I work at a non-free restaurant with a bar that's nonsmoking.
GUPTA: Just seven miles away, Paul Hickey (ph) works in Washington, where a smoking ban will be imposed in January. He is a smoker. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just don't see how smoking in a bar really, you know -- secondhand smoke, I don't know if I'm really sold on that.
GUPTA: The debate over smoke-free environments rages on, even though the negative health effects of secondhand smoke have been documented. In June, the surgeon general found a causal relationship between secondhand smoke and premature death.
PAUL BILLINGS, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION: Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, premature death from heart attack, and a wide range of other respiratory health effects. Secondhand smoke is very harmful for public health and no one should have to be exposed to it in their workplace.
GUPTA: Now a new study in the "Journal of the American Medical Association" found bar workers in Scotland had significant improvements in respiratory symptoms and lung function only two months after a smoke-free policy was implemented. The numbers seem to bear that out. Before the ban, nearly 80 percent of these workers reported some type of respiratory symptom like wheezing, shortness of breath, and things like irritated eyes, throat pain and inflamed airways.
MATTHEW MYERS, CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS: Laws banning smoking in bars and restaurants result in an immediate improvement in the people who work there, and an improvement in the health of the patrons of those places.
GUPTA: Lung and blood tests were performed before and after the ban. And at the end of two months, only about 47 percent reported having any symptoms. Clean air advocates say smoking bans are becoming more accepted. Even popular.
BILLINGS: The debate's over. The scientific consensus is clear that secondhand smoke kills, and we need to eliminate exposure. Ventilation, non-smoking sections, these things do not work.
GUPTA: Some restaurant owners say smoking bans are bad for business.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's certainly not going to put me out of business. But we're going to lose a little business because of it.
GUPTA: But advocates of a smoke-free environment say bars and restaurants and places where smoking is now restricted have seen an increase in business, not a decrease.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN reporting.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
M. O'BRIEN: Top stories are straight ahead, including more tough talk from North Korea. Pyongyang saying any sanctions aimed its way will be a declaration of war. We'll go live to White House for reactions. That's ahead 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
