Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Iraq War Options; Democrats Win House and Senate; Religious Rehab

Aired November 9, 2006 - 20:00   ET

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


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And thank you all for being with us tonight.
There is some important news coming in to us all the time here at CNN. And, every night, we are choosing the top stories for you.

Tonight: the riveting "Top Story" in the war: Iraq without Rumsfeld. Can new leadership at the Pentagon stop the deadly bloodbath, get our troops home, and keep America safe from terrorism?

The "Top Story" in politics: a huge power shift on Capitol Hill. Democrats capture the Senate, as well as the House. See how Washington's monumental change affects you.

Plus: the shocking and, for many of us, heartbreaking story in TV -- "60 Minutes," 65 years, and the death of legendary journalist Ed Bradley.

We begin with the fight for Iraq. Voters made it very clear on Tuesday they want change. And that's what they got. So, now that Donald Rumsfeld is on the way out, what are the options for incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates, assuming he is confirmed?

CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre runs down that list for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Now that he's a short-timer, even outgoing secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld admits, the current strategy in Iraq is not working.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It has not been going well enough or fast enough.

MCINTYRE: In an exchange with students at Kansas State University, Rumsfeld urged perseverance and resolve, as adjustments to the strategy are made by the man nominated to replace him, former CIA director Robert Gates, who is one of 10 members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, charged with finding a way out of Iraq. The options include, stay the course, which has already seen as failing, strategic redeployment, pulling the troops back perhaps as far as Kuwait, as advocated by Representative John Murtha and other Democrats, more U.S. troops, which U.S. commanders say won't help in the long term, and partition along sectarian lines, something the White House has labeled a non-starter. So, the most likely options appear to be a phased withdrawal, under a carefully-planned timeline to force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security..

LAWRENCE KORB, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I think basically, unless we start a phased withdrawal, the Iraqis will never make the political compromises necessary to create an Iraq that's worth fighting and dying for.

MCINTYRE: Another likely proposal is engaging Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, but an option vigorously opposed by hard-liners.

FRANK GAFFNEY, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Will we be negotiating with enemies, like the regime in Iran, in the hopes that they will somehow help us solve the problem they're creating, in no small measure, in Iraq? And I think that's going to be a mistake of, potentially, very strategic and long-standing dimensions.

MCINTYRE: Also taking the long view is lame-duck Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who insists America is on the right side of history.

QUESTION: If you were going to give yourself a letter grade for your performance as secretary of defense, what grade would that be?

RUMSFELD: Oh, I would let history worry about that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So, Jamie, I guess history will do just that.

Let's come back to the issue of Mr. Gates' confirmation. Walk us through the process. What happens next?

MCINTYRE: Well, you know, it's pretty much on a fast track, Paula. His Senate confirmation hearings have been set for early December. The Republicans do not want to wait until the Democrats take over. And the Democrats have agreed that time is of the essence.

In addition, that Iraq Study Group is supposed to come out with its recommendations in December, as well. So, within a matter of a couple of weeks, there could be a new defense secretary and perhaps even a new strategy.

ZAHN: Jamie McIntyre, thanks much.

And joining me now, our military analyst, retired Army Brigadier General James "Spider" Marks."

Always good to see you, sir.

So, you heard some of the strategic options that Jamie McIntyre just laid out in his story.

If you were able to advise Robert Gates, if confirmed, what would you tell him he should do first? BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Paula, the very first thing I -- well, first of all, I appreciate the question. I certainly won't have that opportunity.

But the first thing I would tell the -- the new secretary is the obvious, really probably two things. First of all, embrace your senior leadership. Whether it's perception or reality, the perception has been very deep that the secretary of defense, the former secretary of defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, was very dismissive of his senior leadership, to the point of distancing their input, and really valuing their input.

So, the new secretary needs to embrace that leadership, and go to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, and say, look, let's remind each other, you are the senior military adviser to the president of the United States, not I. You are. So, let's -- let's empower that role.

And the second thing, obviously, Paula, is, I would say get to Iraq, and, very specifically, talk to a lieutenant general by the name of Marty Dempsey -- Marty is in charge of the training of all the Iraqi forces -- and ask him, Marty, let's increase the number of Iraqi forces we can get trained, and decrease the amount of time, without decreasing the standard. What do you need?

And get in -- get him engaged.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: And, against that backdrop, we have heard that there is a proposal on the table for a phased withdrawal, perhaps even with a preset timetable. What do you think of that?

MARKS: Not a good idea.

What we need to discuss is end states, and not end dates. When you start establishing timelines that are really tied to the calendar, the very first thing that would happen -- and -- and I'm a former intelligence guy -- if I was a -- if I was a bad guy, I would say, let's go to ground. Everybody, go on vacation. Maintain your training and your skills, but I want you to come back in about four or five months.

Let's send the signal to our enemies, the coalition forces on the ground, that there's a causal link between the removal of the secdef and the new secdef. And we think this is a good deal.

We start to withdraw our forces at the exact wrong time, because we read that signal. I don't think it's a good -- good idea at all. You have got to establish conditions.

ZAHN: And what do you think could be the biggest mistake that might possibly be made with the shift of power in Washington, and particularly in the shift of power from Mr. Rumsfeld to his successor?

MARKS: The concern that I have is that there would be a sudden euphoria, some sense that, with the departure of Secretary Rumsfeld, that departure of that one single man is going to cause a tremendous ripple effect, and there will be some -- there will be some changes that we really can't explain or put our fingers on right now.

In other words, I think what has to happen is, we can't afford to lose sight and lose focus on what it is our military is engaged in right now, which is a very tough fight, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done. You can't go at ease, as they say. You have got to stay focused and lean forward.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Need a real quick answer to this. How relieved are you that Donald Rumsfeld is out?

MARKS: Oh, I think it's a great decision that he's gone, and it's a great opportunity. In chaos, there's opportunity for our military to improve its posture.

ZAHN: General Marks, thanks so much. Always glad to have your perspective.

MARKS: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Now on to our "Top Story" in politics.

Just hours ago, the huge shift in power in Washington finally became certain. Until now, it wasn't clear who was going to have control of the Senate, although the Democrats seemed to be pretty convinced of that yesterday. But the race in Virginia was too close to call today.

Then, at that point, Republican George Allen conceded, and Democrat James Webb claimed victory. It was a razor-thin margin, but Allen chose not to go through with a recount.

So, tonight, Democratic control of Congress is a sure thing.

And here is our congressional correspondent Dana Bash with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Taking the Senate is the final step to ending 12 years of Republican rule on Capitol Hill. And, minutes after getting the news, giddy Democratic leaders took a victory lap.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: The election's over. It's time for a change.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BASH: The soon-to-be Majority Leader Harry Reid promised an era of bipartisan bipartisanship, but not before taking a swipe at Republicans.

REID: They have set a very bad example in not working with us. We're not following that example.

BASH: The shift in power means Democrats, not Republicans, will set the agenda across Capitol Hill. And leaders here promise to make good on broad campaign pledges.

Democrats insist changing tactics in Iraq, the issue that swept them into power, tops their agenda.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: American soldiers are losing their lives. I don't think we can wait. I don't think we can ask them to wait.

BASH: But, while Democrats promise to pursue more oversight, demand more accountability from the administration, there is only so much they can do to change Iraq policy. For now, Democrats want a bipartisan summit to discuss Iraq, and they have a list of other urgent issues.

REID: We have to have results in doing something to make health care more affordable and more available. We have to do something to create energy and dependence. It's time we do something, of course, about education, the staggering deficits that we have here.

BASH: One irony? A guest-worker program for illegal immigrants, a top Bush priority his own party blocked, could pass a Democratic Congress. But the Democrats are taking control of the Senate by one vote, a razor-thin margin. That means Republicans can still block anything they don't like.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we're talking about raising taxes, the answer is no. If we're talking about spending more money in areas where we have already spent a tremendous amount of money, without result, the answer is going to be no.

BASH: Controlling the Senate means Democrats get to pass judgment on President Bush's picks for major government jobs, and they're already warning the White House to think twice, especially when filling judicial vacancies.

DURBIN: Don't send us political extremists. There was a time when the president was successful doing that, but I think that time has passed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: So, Dana, now that you have the Democrats about ready to take control of Congress, there comes the issue of how they're going to govern.

So, how much pressure is on them?

BASH: A lot, a lot of pressure.

You know, Paula, we have heard them, for years, talk about the fact that Republicans are in control of government, and that they're not doing a very good job of it. So, they are really under a lot of pressure to -- to prove that they can do it.

Now, they are sort of -- have -- they have to walk a fine line here, because they're also coming off an election where they promised their own base, Democratic voters, that they were going to hold the administration's feet to fire on Iraq and on other issues, and that they're going to pass some core Democratic issues, like minimum wage -- minimum wage -- and other things like that.

But, at the same time, they're going to have to do it with Republican support. They're going to -- that's the only way they can get anything through the United States Senate and anything to a Republican president that he will actually sign.

So, they are going to have to certainly talk -- not just talk about bipartisanship, but actually work with Republicans to get things done. So, it -- certainly, there is a lot of pressure to prove that they're not just an opposition party, that they can govern here in Congress.

ZAHN: It certainly will be an interesting show, won't it, Dana?

BASH: Absolutely.

ZAHN: All right, thanks so much.

And we continue our "Top Story" in politics, the upheaval in Washington -- we're going in-depth on how long President Bush and the newly empowered Democrats can actually get along.

And, then, even before Election Day, President Bush knew that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be resigning. So, was it right for him to tell the country just the opposite? We will debate that with a "Top Story" panel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Another "Top Story" pick tonight: What happens to evangelical leaders, like the reverend Ted Haggard, after they fall from grace? We are going to have an inside look at a process you probably haven't heard a whole lot about called religious rehab. We are going to find out tonight exactly what that means.

But now on to our "Top Story" in politics -- we move to the steamroller effect set off by this week's elections. And, today, overwhelming change began to roll across Washington, with the president comforting old friends, breaking the ice with old enemies, and trying to get a whole lot more out of a Republican Congress while the getting is still good.

Here's White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Out with the old, and in with the new. Over breakfast, President Bush consoled the Republican losers. Over lunch, he congratulated the Democratic winners -- on the menu, pasta and chocolate. But the president's counselor joked, today, Mr. Bush would be eating crow.

The president and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to put their bitter partisanship behind.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We won't agree on every issue. But we do agree that we love America equally, that we're concerned about the future of this country, and that we will do our very best to address big problems.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: We have made history. Now we have to make progress.

MALVEAUX: But the atmosphere of bipartisanship was pierced by two political lightning rods. Before lunch, Mr. Bush came to the Rose Garden with his Cabinet to challenge the current Republican lame-duck Congress to complete unfinished business, including one controversial measure.

BUSH: Another important priority in the war on terror is for the Congress to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act.

MALVEAUX: That would authorize the administration to wiretap phone calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists overseas, without a warrant. Justice Department officials say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will make a series of appearances in the coming days to urge the Republican Congress to push it through.

Then, later, Mr. Bush renominated John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador. The president has been unable to get Bolton's nomination through the current Republican-led Senate. His chances are considered even slimmer when Democrats take control.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: And, today, Democratic Senator Joe Biden, who is poised to head the committee in charge of Bolton's confirmation, said his nomination was going nowhere. There were also some Senate Republicans, as well, who said it was very unlikely they would take this up controversial nomination during the lame-duck session -- Paula.

ZAHN: Suzanne Malveaux, thanks so much for the update. Appreciate it.

Now an important part of the "Top Story" in politics tonight is a question about presidents and honesty. Should President Bush have leveled with us before the election, when he was working on replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?

And the polls warned us that voters would be angry. I'm going to ask one of the provocative talk show hosts, Glenn Beck of Headline News, if he's still angry, and, if so, who he's mad about -- or what he's mad about, now that the election is over.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Tonight's "Top Story" in politics is the massive shift in Washington's power structure.

President Bush knew that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be resigning, even before voters went to the polls on Tuesday, and gave Democrats control of Capitol Hill. But the president didn't tell us. In fact, he told us just the opposite.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you all.

ZAHN (voice-over): Just six days before the midterm election, a group of print reporters asked President Bush if he was expecting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to stay through January 2009, when his term ends.

The president answered, "Yes, I am." Referring to both Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush went on to say, "Both of those men are doing fantastic jobs, and I firmly support them."

Today, 24 hours after the president announced Rumsfeld's resignation, the White House spokesman is still trying to explain that answer.

QUESTION: I mean, cut-and-dried question, was it an honest statement?

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It was an honest statement.

Would you expect the president to say: "Don't know. Let me get back to you. Hmm, trying to think that one through"? That fact is, at that point, that reflected his thinking. But on the other hand, there were conversations going on.

ZAHN: The president now says that Rumsfeld would have resigned, and Robert Gates was going to be nominated for defense secretary, no matter how the election turned out. But he says the final details hadn't been worked out at the time of last week's interview.

BUSH: I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet, at that point. I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspective.

ZAHN: There was also a political calculation to his original answer.

BUSH: I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And, so, the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer.

ZAHN: So, the questions remain. Was the president being misleading? Should Americans expect their presidents to be truthful all the time, or to hold back some of the time?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And joining me now, a "Top Story" panel, Cliff May, a former communication director for the Republican National Committee, and now president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Michael Isikoff, investigative correspondent "Newsweek" magazine. His latest book is called "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." And, to complete our panel tonight, radio talk show host Stephanie Miller.

Welcome back, all.

I want to cut straight to the chance here, one-word answers.

Michael, did the president lie?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Well, he certainly was misleading.

ZAHN: Did he lie, yes or no?

(LAUGHTER)

ISIKOFF: Well, you know, lie is a harsh word. But it was pretty -- it's pretty clear that he intended to get rid of Don Rumsfeld, and he didn't tell the...

ZAHN: All right. So, we...

ISIKOFF: He didn't tell the truth about it.

ZAHN: We couldn't -- he didn't tell the truth.

All right, Cliff...

ISIKOFF: Yes.

ZAHN: ... he -- he, more or less, said he lied, depending on what your definition of lying is.

Cliff?

CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: I think you should give the guy a break, Paula.

Look, he should be more skilled at this point at the non-answer answer -- the non-answer answer being things like saying, I have full confidence in them. They're doing a great job.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: All right. But you still haven't answered the question I asked you, Cliff. Did the president lie?

MAY: The question was, are you expecting them? He probably wasn't expecting them to stay on? He probably thought differently, but he couldn't really say that at that point. So, I guess, if you want to call that a lie, and you want to make that a big scandal, you can do so.

ZAHN: All right.

MAY: But I think it's pretty trivial.

ZAHN: Stephanie, you kind of heard a non-answer answer, and then an answer.

What -- what -- what do you think? Did the president lie, yes or no?

STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Oh, I can't believe that this is actually a news story.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: That he lied.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Well, they spent an awful lot of time on it at the news conference.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: It's the latest lie. It's the latest lie, sure.

I mean, he even giggled about it. He's like, I can't believe you believed me.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: You know, this is the amount of credibility this White House has now.

MAY: Oh, give it a rest.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Of course, he lied. You can use whatever kind of polite language you want. Did he dissemble? Did he -- you know, I mean, come on.

This is just -- I keep trying to help them out, Paula, because I care about them. I keep trying to say, stop lying about things. We have recording devices. We can play it back later, you know?

ZAHN: But, Michael, do you really blame the president for not wanting to leave Mr. Rumsfeld blowing in the wind, until he had Robert Gates in place? ISIKOFF: Look, there was a lot of ways that he could have answered that question. I don't think this is all that big a deal. It is just one more misleading, you know, statement that the president has made, hardly the most consequential about Iraq policy over -- over the last four years.

Don Rumsfeld was the personification of the book "Hubris" I wrote with David Corn that just came out. He embodied the arrogance of policy -- of policy-making that led us to the disaster in Iraq. And it was -- there was no question that he was going to be gone after this election anyway. Most people expected it.

The only thing that gave anybody pause was the effusive comment...

ZAHN: Sure.

ISIKOFF: ... you know, that the president made, "fantastic." He didn't have to say that. He shouldn't have said that. But, on the scheme of things, this isn't the biggest deal.

ZAHN: It may not be the biggest deal, Cliff May, but I have heard a lot of people -- and have seen it reflected in our e-mails -- that were upset that -- that the president did proclaim him as having done a fantastic job. Day after the election, the voters speak, and he's gone.

MAY: You know, a few days ago, I was arguing, because -- with people who were saying to me, that president, he never listens to what the voters and the people tell him. He's so obstinate. He's so stubborn. He never changes his mind, never works on a bipartisan fashion.

Imagine the conversation we would be having right now if he had said: I don't care what the voters have said. I don't care what happened. I like Don Rumsfeld. He's done a fantastic job. Darn it, I am just going to keep him in place.

That would be awful, too. What happened instead is, he thought, OK, we need a change. I have got to signal the change.

He was probably thinking -- of course he was thinking about that all along. Maybe, if the election had come out differently -- and maybe he thought the election would come out differently -- he would have said: You know what? The voters have shown their confidence. I am going to stick with Rumsfeld.

Certainly, he couldn't tell you -- or he could tell you in private, but he couldn't tell you on camera -- that he was going to make that change, before he had final conversations with Rumsfeld and final conversations with Gates, because what if one of them said, at the end, including Gates, "You know what, I -- I don't want to do that"?

So, he couldn't do that. He should have been better at dissembling, better at the non-answer answer. (LAUGHTER)

MAY: From a political point of view, by the way, he didn't do this at the smart time. He should have done it someplace between the -- the summer and the elections...

ZAHN: All right.

MAY: ... so he could say to the voters: I have changed directions.

ZAHN: But...

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: To do it right away, like this, he makes a bad story like this out of it. And it -- but it's -- it really is trivial.

ZAHN: But, Stephanie, the president also said, the reason why he didn't announce it before the midterm election, he didn't want to inject this into the debate going into the election.

MILLER: Oh, yes.

ZAHN: You don't buy that at all, do you?

MILLER: Yes.

Oh, Paula, please, this White House politicize anything like right before an election? Why, they would never do that.

Not only...

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: You know, come on. They're saying, you know, if you -- if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists win.

You know, he goes on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, right after Rush Limbaugh mocks Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's symptoms. Please. This is a White House that has politicized virtually everything.

MAY: Excuse me. Stephanie is shocked to find politics in Washington, which is like being shocked to find plastic surgeons in Hollywood.

(LAUGHTER)

MAY: Of course there is politics here. Every politician is involved in politics.

If this is a news flash for you, Stephanie, you know, I'm glad you're sitting down.

MILLER: You know what?

ZAHN: Michael?

MILLER: That -- that's what this midterm was about. People want to believe in their leaders again, and they want to think they can believe their leaders.

And may I just say, this technically makes the president a liar and a flip-flopper.

ZAHN: You get the last word, Michael. And it's got to be a quick one.

(LAUGHTER)

ISIKOFF: I endorse everything they both said.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: Oh, that -- that is being so democratic, Michael Isikoff.

ISIKOFF: Moderate. It's being a moderate.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: A moderate.

Well, you're the guy in the middle of the shot right now.

ISIKOFF: Right. Exactly.

ZAHN: So -- so, I will buy it.

Cliff May, Michael Isikoff, Stephanie Miller, thank you, all.

MAY: Thank you.

ZAHN: Tonight's "Top Story" in politics is the power shift in Washington. The voters were angry. I am going to ask Glenn Beck if what they have done makes him angry, too.

And then on to the "Top Story" in religion -- we're following up on an evangelical leader's fall from grace. See what's ahead for the Reverend Ted Haggard in what is called spiritual rehab.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: In the next half hour, we're bringing you these top stories.

The voters were angry, went to the polls on Tuesday. Who's angry now?

On to the top story in religion, what's ahead for a disgraced spiritual leader who admits buying drugs and hiring a male prostitute? Have you ever heard of spiritual rehab? We're going to describe what he's going through tonight.

Plus, my former CBS News colleague Harry Smith will be joining me tonight to share some of his memories of the late Ed Bradley.

And among the top stories we picked tonight, the resurrection of the Democrats in Washington, which is causing all kinds of static on talk radio, that's the view of headline news and talk radio show Glenn Beck and he joins us now.

Welcome back.

GLENN BECK, TALK RADIO HOST: Thank you.

ZAHN: So what are your listeners saying in this election hangover? Are they glad the Republicans got bumped?

BECK: Good.

ZAHN: Good.

BECK: Yes. I have done talk radio for a while, been amazed at when I was hammering the Republicans on election day, not a single complaint. Nobody called and said, you're losing the election.

Good.

ZAHN: You weren't saying those things seven months before the election, though, Glenn.

BECK: Oh, I have been, yes. I had been.

ZAHN: But not as spirited way you are right now.

BECK: No, no, I have been spirited for a while. I have been driving people for a long time saying, stop with the parties. The parties are going to kill us. And the parties -- I believe we have one party in America. It's not Democrats and Republicans. It's "Elect Me" Party. All they're working for is re-election. How about doing the people's business?

And we gave -- I lent my power, when I voted for a Republican, I lent them my power. They did squat with it. In fact...

ZAHN: Who do you blame for that?

BECK: ... they insulted me.

ZAHN: If they insulted you, is it the president?

BECK: Me. No, me.

ZAHN: Because you voted for them?

BECK: I voted for them. And you know what?

ZAHN: Yes, but leadership starts at the top.

BECK: Yes.

ZAHN: How much of that blame do you place on President Bush?

BECK: I place enough blame on him for -- you know what? I still go back to me. I knew what I was getting when I voted for George W. Bush. I was voting on defense with George W. Bush, and I knew he...

ZAHN: And what did you get?

BECK: I think a -- I got an understanding of the world and what's happening better than anybody else out there. However, I think we've gotten a botched job through Rumsfeld, of not securing the borders in Iraq and just, having it turn into a nightmare. But I think George Bush understands what we're up against better than anybody else.

ZAHN: So where do you guys go who think that both parties have violated you? I mean clearly the elections'...

BECK: We're free agents.

ZAHN: ... results have shown, have they not, that America is perhaps more moderate than its leaders?

BECK: No. You know, it's not more moderate. It's more common sense than its leaders. That's the difference here. America voted for common sense.

They said, you know what? I know you're lying to me on immigration. I know you're lying to me. You say, well, this is a great thing. Republicans, I know that you are in bed with big business. You don't want to solve this.

Democrats, you're in bed with big labor.

ZAHN: But that may be true, but that was not -- I mean I sat there on the election poll desk, that was not among the top list of concerns.

BECK: No it was...

ZAHN: Issue number one was the war in Iraq.

BECK: Correct.

ZAHN: Quickly followed by corruption.

BECK: Corruption and ethics.

ZAHN: Hugely important.

BECK: When you look at corruption and ethics, I interpret that, at least for conservatives, as, I trusted you. You went in and you're supposed to be small government, low spending people, and you went in and spent money like crazy. Excuse me? You lied to my face. You represented yourself as something you are clearly not. And I lent you my power. I lent you my power on war, when I voted for you, you said shock and awe. It was more of shock and eh. You go in and you take care of business. Let's fight to win, not fight to make everybody happy.

And I think Republicans have gone down a road that conservatives didn't understand anymore.

ZAHN: Well, we're going to bring you back from time to time, particularly once the Democrats really are fully in control of Congress, and see if you're a happy man or not then.

Glenn Beck, always happy to see you.

BECK: It doesn't matter who's in charge. Thank you.

ZAHN: I know you firmly believe that.

Thank you.

We're going to move on now to our top story in religion tonight. Stay with us and see what happens to ministers like Ted Haggard, who bought meth and hired a male prostitute. Now he is headed for spiritual rehab. What the heck does that mean?

And later, my colleague and former co-anchor at CBS, Harry Smith will be here to remember a man we were both privileged to work with, the late Ed Bradley.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: We have picked the outrageous scandal involving preacher Ted Haggard as our top story in religion tonight. The televangelist who founded a mega church, advised President Bush, and was the leader of 30 million evangelicals lost it all amid allegations he used methamphetamines and had an encounter with a male prostitute.

But now, Ted Haggard faces what could be the toughest challenge of his life, a grueling process called religious or spiritual restoration that could actually take years to accomplish.

Our faith and values correspondent Delia Gallagher has reached out to three pastors to find exactly what spiritual rehab is.

It sounds very new-agey. What the heck is it?

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in fact, it's not. It's ancient, they say. It comes from St. Paul in the Bible, who tells his brothers to help one another in this spiritual restoration, is what they call it, to restore their spirit.

ZAHN: How do you do that?

GALLAGHER: Well, there are many steps, to it. It seems to kind of come down to about four basic steps. The first one, which is that they have to submit, the pastor has to say, yes, I agree to undergo this and to submit to the authority of sometimes two, three, four, or five men on this panel who are going to be responsible for him for the next several years. Sometimes this is a process that takes a couple of years. And they're meet once or twice a week for several hours, and ask some very tough questions, which gets to you the next step of this, which he has to admit. He has to admit what are the sins that he's committed. You know, a lot of the pastors said to me, we're not just talking about a sexual sin here. Often, there is a web of sins, of lying and deceit.

In Ted Haggard's case, we saw that there were accusations of drug use and so on. And that the admission process is one that takes quite a long time to really understand exactly all of the sins that were involved there.

ZAHN: So you pound this stuff over and over and over again?

GALLAGHER: Well, they have to ask you the questions. We'll get to some of those questions. They're very tough, confrontational type questions that they have to confront you with. And you say, yes I did it. And they say sometimes it's hard for pastors who are used to being so high powered, not responding to anybody, to actually admit to this group of men OK, this is what I did, and sometimes in great, sort of, graphic detail about what they did.

ZAHN: Then they want to be eschewed (ph) of restitution.

GALLAGHER: Right. So then they have to sort of write a list of all of the people these sins have affected, so the wife, the children, the other person involved in the affair, for example, the 14,000 people in one's church -- and go face-to-face and ask for forgiveness from each of those people, or in the case of a church, perhaps do it from the pulpit kind of thing.

But it has to be a sort of face-to-face request for forgiveness, whether or not that's granted, they still have to go through that process.

And then they get to the part where it says, be humble.

ZAHN: Well, don't you think you're humbled by that point in the process?

GALLAGHER: You are pretty humbled probably already by the process. But it's interesting that they suggest is something that pastors are probably used to maybe preaching to thousands of people, for example, so they might suggest they go and preach to a congregation of five people, or a congregation in a very poor area or -- still be involved.

The idea is you will still be involved in the church in some way, because they want to make sure you're still with these people. But they want you to be doing something which is quite different from what you're probably used to.

ZAHN: I think we all understand the steps that you're describing here, but I don't understand what the ultimate goal is. Do they want him to change his sexual orientation? What are they trying to accomplish? GALLAGHER: Well, the idea of course is to try to help him through whatever the difficulty is. So, you know, whether it's about sexual orientation or whether it's sort of, you know, he had an affair and he doesn't know where to go from there.

It's supposed to --- this is not just for pastors, by the way. This is for all evangelicals and many Christians, you know, just to go through this process with people in your church and in your community, that can help you restore your spirit. That's really what it's about.

ZAHN: And at the end of the day, what happens if this doesn't work and how do they make this judgment?

GALLAGHER: Well, it was interesting. I asked them, how do you know when you've been restored, you know? And one of them told me, you just know, because then your life is an example for others again, that there is such a thing that -- you know, God has humbled those, but they can still be mighty, you know. They can use this humility as a new way to show -- to be an example to people. So...

ZAHN: It's absolutely fascinating.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

ZAHN: Glad you looked into this for us tonight.

Delia Gallagher, thanks for dropping by.

We going to take a quick biz break right now.

The Dow lost 73 points. The Nasdaq was down nearly nine points. The S & P lost seven. There were some politics in the numbers. Investors bailed out of drug companies' stocks because Democrats plan to make Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. Telecom and financial stocks were also lower.

Eleven million bottles of generic pain reliever being recalled by the manufacturer. The store-brand acetaminophen caplets are sold in Wal-Mart, CVS and other chains. They may contain small metal particles.

Mortgage rates rose slightly in the last week. A thirty year fixed-rate mortgage is now averaging 6.3 percent.

And B.P. has agreed to settle a lawsuit with the daughter of two Texas refinery worker who died in an explosion last year. The oil giant will make a $32 million donation to health care, training and safety education. Fifteen people died in that fire.

The B.P. fire was one of the last stories investigated by "60 Minutes" correspondent Ed Bradley, who, we are sorry to report, died today.

Coming up next, my one-time CBS colleague Harry Smith will join me to remember the career and the life of one of journalism's legends. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back.

Our top story in TV tonight, the death of a remarkable journalist, a jazzman, and a gentleman.

It's surprised so many of us to hear that CBS News correspondent Ed Bradley died today of an illness he had kept secret from almost everyone.

During his 39-year career, he earned dozens and dozens of awards and broke racial barriers. And his death devastated all of his colleagues today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): He had been sick for some time. Several years ago, he had open heart surgery. And more recently, he was diagnosed with leukemia, an illness he had kept secret for nearly everyone.

Still, it was stunning, when the new anchor of the "CBS Evening News", Katie Couric, made the announcement.

KATIE COURIC, CBS ANCHOR: Ed Bradley, longtime CBS News and "60 Minutes" correspondent, died this morning at Mount Sinai Hospital.

ZAHN: Ed Bradley was born on the hardscrabble streets of Philadelphia and came to journalism first as a radio reporter in his hometown and, later, in New York City.

But it was in international news where he first made his mark. He joined CBS News first as a part time reporter in Paris, and then was assigned to Vietnam at the height of the war, long before cell phones and blackberries.

ED BRADLEY, FORMER CBS ANCHOR: When I was covering the war in Vietnam and Cambodia, we used to have what I called the three S's. You would shoot a story, you would script a story, which is to write it, and then you would ship the story.

ZAHN: There were many memorable stories. Among them, Ed's report on a desperate struggle by Cambodian refugees to be taken out of the war zone by boat.

He was soon transferred back to the United States at a time when there were almost no black correspondents on national TV. And he was assigned to cover the campaign of a Georgia governor practically no one had heard of, Jimmy Carter. When Governor Carter became President Carter, Ed Bradley went along as well, named by CBS News as its White House correspondent.

After two years at the White House, he moved on to long form TV journalism and became one of its most recognized correspondents.

BRADLEY: I'm Ed Bradley. ZAHN: As one of the stable of "60 Minutes" correspondents, Ed Bradley covered the world, from interviews with celebrities to an exclusive interview with the man sentenced to death in the Oklahoma City bombings, Timothy McVeigh.

He won 19 Emmy Awards in all, along with numerous Peabody and DuPont awards.

DON HEWITT, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: He was a man among men and it never went to his head. He became famous overnight and you never would have known it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on in.

ZAHN: Outside of his work he had many interests. Paramount among them, jazz. He would take an annual pilgrimage to New Orleans to attend the city's jazz festival.

Because of his illnesses, his workload had slowed somewhat in recent years -- slowed, not stopped. Only weeks ago, his interview with players and an eyewitness to the Duke University lacrosse scandal made headlines nationwide.

SAFER: That was one of the pillars of this broadcast.

ZAHN: Ed Bradley spent nearly four decades, memorable decades at CBS News. And when news of his death was announced in the corridors of "60 Minutes," the crying went on and on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And Ed Bradley kept impressing people with his work right to the very end.

Joining me now to talk more about that, former co-anchor at CBS, Harry Smith, a good friend of Ed Bradley's. So nice to see you unfortunately under these circumstances.

You were over the "60 Minutes" work space today when this news traveled fast. Describe to us what the reaction was.

HARRY SMITH, ANCHOR, THE EARLY SHOW: People are shocked. People are just stunned. People knew that Ed was sick, and that he'd been -- he'd had -- seemed to have this leukemia under control and had...

ZAHN: So people were aware of that?

SMITH: Some people, a number of people were aware of it. And it seemed to really be under control all the way through this summer. And then late this summer, it wasn't anymore. And it was amazing to me, because he was on our air just three weeks ago to promote the Duke lacrosse story.

ZAHN: And he looked spectacular on camera. I've followed his work for years and I watched every single minute of that interview, and he looked good. SMITH: And it was as good a story as ever appeared on "60 Minutes" or as good a story as he's ever done. I mean, there's no reason to suspect that anything was wrong, and this story was so well- done, so well put together. He was so present in it. And we stood around afterwards, and after the segment was over, we talked, and he asked about my wife, and we talked about the Knicks, and all of the kinds of things you usually talk about.

And the only thing I noticed was he was moving a little slowly, and he was already then in a kind of advanced stage of chemotherapy. He knew that this leukemia was coming on stronger than it had before, and it was really after that that he really started to fall, and fall pretty quickly.

ZAHN: So obviously it was very important for him to continue, trying to charge ahead.

SMITH: He had been hospitalized subsequently, and then still came back and did the voicing for British Petroleum story that aired just two weeks ago.

ZAHN: What made Ed Bradley so special? You and I have met the best of the best, worked with the best of the best of CBS.

SMITH: Right. No affect. No shtick. He was exactly as he was. You never met a person more comfortable in his own skin. He was so absolutely true to himself, and he treated everyone the same over at the "60 Minutes" offices.

Today, I was standing talking to a security guard who has worked there for years and years and years, and we just talked there, just stood there telling Ed stories.

He treated him the same way he treated the president of CBS News or the president of the United States, or a dictator or potentate, or rock star, or whomever. He treated everyone exactly the same way.

ZAHN: I remember how gracious he was, even when we were together in the morning show. Always had something to offer about the show and he actually watched. I don't know why he'd get up at that time, even traveling hundreds of thousands of miles.

SMITH: Really impressive that way. I think his other great talent -- and you know this well, Paula -- you know, he trained to be a teacher. He went to college, he went to Cheyney State. He went to learn to be a teacher. And when -- I remember years ago him saying, you know, I was supposed to be a teacher, and I think that no classroom would ever have fit him. Television was a perfect medium for him to operate in, a perfect venue. He wasn't, you know, he wasn't like some boring lecturer. He was like the most exciting teacher you'd ever seen. He always had this air about him. You just look at the joy in his face. He always had this air about him, like I'm going to tell you something you don't know yet, but once I tell you, you'll be so glad you heard it.

ZAHN: And you know what? He was right. Harry Smith, so great to see you. Thanks for sharing your memories of Ed Bradley with us tonight.

SMITH: My pleasure.

ZAHN: There will be more on Ed Bradley at the top of the hour. "60 Minutes" creator Don Hewitt, plus correspondents Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Steve Croft, all lined up. They're going to be joining Larry King at the top of the hour. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And we welcome back you all to the show. Now a story about what happens when a famous athlete calls it a career. Larry Smith has tonight's "Life After Work."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LARRY SMITH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just a few months ago at the U.S. Open, Andre Agassi took his last signature bow and said an emotional farewell to professional tennis.

So what does retirement look like at age 36?

ANDRE AGASSI, TENNIS LEGEND: I'm imagining for a long time any time somebody asks me to do something, I'm going to go, sure, why not?

SMITH: Agassi's wife, Stefi Graf, another tennis legend, and their two children are probably glad to have dad around. He's also now more involved with raising funds for the foundation he created to help children, and his real estate development company is expanding, joining a partnership to build luxury hotels and vacation homes.

AGASSI: Life after tennis is just going to allow me a bigger platform to sort of work your way into the fabric of people's lives and affect it on a much sort of bigger, more, you know, real-life way.

We started in Tamarack, Idaho, which is this all-season, best nation resort. It's a place that is there for families to come enjoy each other. It takes focusing and caring about something and being a part of it. You know, we've not just put our money behind this, we've put our time. We've put our heart, we've poured ourselves into it.

SMITH: Larry Smith, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Good guy.

Finally, a top story around the world today. Thousands of people trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records. Check this out. Here's a guy driving the world's fastest office through the streets of London, So how fast did he go? Oh, yes, that must have been fun to see -- 80 miles per hour. Great for getting out of work on a Friday, isn't it? Strange, no one even seemed to be watching him. That didn't seem all that unusual to onlookers.

That is it for all of us tonight. Thanks so much for being with us. Coming up at the top of the hour, Larry King will remember Ed Bradley with "60 Minutes" creator Don Hewitt and correspondents Mike Wallace, Steve Croft and Andy Rooney. Thanks again for joining us tonight. Good night.

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

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines