Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting; Iraq War Plan; Terminals Shut Down

Aired July 10, 2007 - 14:00   ET

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

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ...a lot of hot air here, and he said, "We've got new industry involving here, windmills."

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Don Lemon, live at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Kyra Phillips.

We're monitoring the president right now. He's speaking to a group there in Cleveland, Ohio, talking about the economy. As soon as he starts talking about the war in Iraq though and the pressure from both Democrats and Republicans within his own party, we're going to take that live.

LEMON: And Kyra, we have some breaking news as well coming out of Oakland, California. We're going to get you to some pictures.

Those long lines, well, that is because there was a security breach of sorts there. We are told by a TSA representative that a man going through security went through an exit instead of an entrance, and that caused two of the terminals, terminals one and two, to have to be evacuated.

And those passengers that you're seeing there are either people who -- people who are waiting out front or people who have just arrived to the airplane. They have to be re-screened.

We're going to go back to President Bush now. We're going to follow this story in Oakland. We're going to get back to the president. He's talking about the war.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm going to do the best I can to protect America. My mind changed on September the 11th, 2001. It changed because I realized the biggest responsibility government has is to protect the American people from further attack, and that we must confront dangers before they come to hurt us again.

That's one of the really valuable lessons of September the 11th, is to recognize that oceans can't protect us from an enemy that is ideologically driven and who will use murder as a tool to achieve their political objectives.

Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right. I know we are, and therefore will spend my time as the president doing the best I can to educate people about the perils of the world in which we live, and that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.

First, the enemy. These folks aren't isolated folks, you know, that just kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they have an obligation to spread a point of view that says, for example, if you don't worship the way we tell you to worship, there will be a consequence. Just like I believe we have an obligation to defend (AUDIO GAP) based upon liberty, to have a chance for people to live in a free and open society.

And it's hard work, you know. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One front is Afghanistan. And the front that is consuming the American people right now is Iraq.

And I fully understand how tough it is on our psyche. I fully understand that, when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, is it worth it; can we accomplish an objective?

Well, first, I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish and win this fight in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you we must, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.

You know, I was very optimistic, at the end of '05, when 12 million Iraqis went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn't all that long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted.

I wasn't surprised, but I was pleased. Let me put it to you that way. I wasn't surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions is that I believe in the universality of freedom.

I believe that freedom belongs to every man, woman and child on the face of the earth. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from an almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of the earth.

And therefore I wasn't surprised when people, when given the chance, said, I want to be free. I was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers and killers to vote.

Out policy, at that point in time, was to get our force posture in such a position as that we would train the Iraqis so they would take the fight to those who would stop the advance of democracy, and that we would be in a position to keep the territorial integrity in place and chase down the extremists. That was our policy.

We didn't get there in 2006 because a thinking enemy -- in this case, we believe, al Qaeda, the same people that attacked us in America, incited serious sectarian violence by blowing a holy religious site of the Shia. And then there was this wave of reprisal.

And I had a decision to make. Some of Steve's colleagues, good, decent, patriotic people believed the best thing for the United States to do at that point in time was to step back, and just, kind of, let the violence burn out in the capital of Iraq.

I thought long and hard about that. I was deeply concerned that violence in the capital would spill out into the countryside. I was deeply concerned that one of the objectives of al Qaeda -- and by the way, al Qaeda is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence.

The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty.

And I was concerned that the chaos would more enable them to -- more likely enable them to achieve their stated objective, which is to drive us out of Iraq so they could have a save haven from which to launch their ideological campaign and launch attacks against America. That's what they have said.

The killers who came to America have said with clarify: we want you out of Iraq so we can have a safe haven from which to attack again.

I think it's important for the commander in chief to listen carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives.

What they can't stand is the advance of an alternative ideology that will end up marginalizing them.

So I looked at the consequences of stepping back, the consequences not only for Iraq, but the consequences for an important neighborhood for the security of the United States of America.

What would the Iranians think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge? What would other extremists think? What would al Qaeda be able? They'd be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives.

Failure in Iraq would have serious consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.

And so I made the decision rather than pulling out of the capital, to send more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security so that alternative system could grow.

I listened to the commanders that would be running operation. In this case the main man is a man named General David Petraeus.

He's a smart, capable man who gives me his candid advice. And his advice is, "Mr. President, we must change the mission to provide security for the people and the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar province in order for the progress that the 12 million who voted -- can be made." That's why we've done what we've done.

We just started. He got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago. He asked for, you know, 20,000 something troops, and I said, "If that's what you need, Commander, that's what you got." And they just showed up and they're now beginning operations in full. And in Washington, you've got people saying, "stop."

And here's my attitude about this, and I understand there's a debate and there ought to be a debate in our democracy. And I welcome it. I welcome a good, honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences of success in this war.

But I believe that it's in this nation's interests to give the commander a change to fully implement his operations, and I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions.

That's what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going. And that's the way I'm going to play it as the commander in chief. I'd be glad to discuss different options, but the truth of the matter is, I felt like we could be in a different position at the end of 2005.

I believe we can be in a different position in awhile, and that would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity of that country, enough troops there to make sure that al Qaeda doesn't gain safe haven from which to be able to launch further attacks against the United States of America, enough troops to be embedded and to help train the Iraqis to do their job. But we couldn't get there without additional troops.

And now, I call upon the United States Congress to give General David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward.

In the meantime, the Iraqis have got to do more work. This coming week, I'll be presenting to the Congress a list of some of the accomplishments and some of the shortfalls of their political process.

They've asked us to report on 18 different benchmarks. That's what the Congress said in this last supplemental spending bill. They said, "Come back here in mid-July and give us an interim report as to whether or not any progress is being made in Iraq," and that's what we'll be doing. So at the end of this week, you'll see a progress report on what's been happening in Iraq and then in September, a final report on the benchmarks that I accepted and that Congress passed.

And so that's the challenge facing the country. And it's a necessary -- in my judgment, it's necessary work. I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad, I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary for the security of the United States and peace of the world.

And I strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump totalitarianism every time. That's what I believe. And those are the belief systems on which I'm making decisions that I believe will yield a peace. You know, it's really interesting in my position, I obviously have a unique view of things at times. And one of the most interesting views that I've been able to -- of history that I've been able to really focus is our relationship with Japan. I've told this story a lot, because I find it to be very ironic.

When my dad was a young guy, right out of high school, he joined the United States Navy, became a Navy torpedo bomber pilot and fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. And he, like a lot of other young people, gave it their all. And a lot of people died on both sides of the war. As a matter of fact, it was the Japanese -- as you rightly know -- were the last major attack on the United States prior to September the 11th, 2001.

Some 60 years later, I'm at the table talking about the peace with the Japanese prime minister, Prime Minister Koizumi. I find that to be an inspiring story and hopeful story. It's a story about this ability of liberty to transform enemies into allies. It's a story about the ability for those who fought to become partners in peace.

Prime Minister Koizumi and now Prime Minister Abe are close friends of mine in the international arena. We talk about the spread of democracy in the troubled part of the world, because we both have seen the effects of democracy in our own relationship.

I've got great faith in the power of liberty to transform the world for the sake of peace. And the fundamental question facing our country is: will we keep that faith?

Thanks for letting me come and visit with you. And now I'll be glad to answer some questions.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: Main guy, first question, sure. OK.

QUESTION: Well, this may seem like it was rigged, Mr. President ...

BUSH: OK. There have been a few rigged questions in my day.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I'm not telling you which way they were rigged, though.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution, NASA Glenn is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people there, in our new economy crown.

As you know, we recently won the crew exploration vehicle contract. We're very happy about that.

Given all the competing demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do you see for NASA and its mission going forward? BUSH: Yes. That's an awkward question to ask a techie.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be -- to justify the spending of your money. And, therefore, I changed -- helped change the mission, from one of orbiting in a space shuttle in a space station, to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And therefore we set a new mission which is to go to the moon and set up a launching station there from which to further explore space.

And the reason I did that is I do want to make sure the American people stay involved with or understand the relevance of this exploration. I'm a big -- I support exploration, whether it be the exploration of new medicine, like NIH grants, or the exploration of space through NASA. I can't give you the exact level of funding.

I would argue with you that we got a lot of money in Washington -- not argue, I'll just tell you: We've got a lot of money in Washington.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: And we need to make sure we set priorities with that money.

One of the problems we have in Washington is that, unlike the books I saw at the hospital -- of which you're on the board -- that said, "results," we're not very good about measuring results when we spend your money. A lot of time, the programs sound nice. A lot of times the results don't match the intentions.

So one of the things I've tried to do through the OMB is to be results-oriented. And when programs don't meet results, we try to eliminate them, and that's hard to do, isn't it Steven?

Yes. But I believe in exploration -- space exploration, and we've changed the mission to make it relevant, thanks.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'm originally from Pakistan.

BUSH: Pakistan, good.

QUESTION: When I travel there, my friends over here say that I'm crazy to go back. And when I'm there, the people over there say I'm crazy to go back ...

PHILLIPS: President Bush again defending his Iraq war policy at a town hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, right now. It comes on top of new reports that Iraq isn't meeting U.S. benchmarks for success.

A lot of mixed reaction to what those benchmarks mean. Let's get reaction from the Pentagon now. CNN's Barbara Starr is standing by.

And for reaction in Iraq, CNN's Hala Gorani. She's going to join us live from Baghdad.

Let's start with you, Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Kyra, the president is making this speech for one very substantial reason in terms of what he's discussing about Iraq. By this Sunday, the administration is scheduled to deliver a report to Capitol Hill that is required by law about progress in Iraq. And by all accounts, it's going to be a fairly gloomy report for what both it says and doesn't say, because the Iraqi -- the new Iraqi government simply is not meeting the markers for success that the administration and Congress had been discussing either in the political, security or economic arena.

So, President Bush, in part, is making a real effort here to stem the tide, the growing tide, especially amongst Senate Republicans, of defecting from his war strategy. A lot of talk in Washington behind the scenes right now about whether, in fact, there's a new war strategy.

Once this so-called surge period passes, is the military really looking at a new strategy, reformulating what it does? Instead of these day-to-day combat operations that are exacting such a heavy price on U.S. troops, jiggling things around a bit, going after al Qaeda, border security, training Iraqis, getting out of this deadly business of day-to-day combat?

Officially, the answer is no. But behind the scenes, Kyra, what's really going on at the Pentagon and Capitol Hill and at the White House is an awful lot of discussion about what to do next, because what is happening right now, by all accounts, is simply not working. So, perhaps the most interesting thing is what nobody is talking about in front of the TV cameras -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Point well made.

Barbara Starr at the Pentagon.

Thanks so much.

Let's take it to Baghdad now. Hala Gorani was also listening to the speech.

And Hala, I'm curious, since you've been there now for almost two months, what would you have asked the president? Was there anything missing from that speech that you really would have liked to have seen an answer to?

HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's not just me. It's really Iraqis here we speak to.

They want to ask the president, what benchmarks of success, in your estimation, are proof that the strategy that is being conducted here, that this strategy is a success, indeed? And the answer to that question was not provided in this speech. And Iraqis would like to know as well, what is the timetable? What are we talking about here in terms of U.S. troop presence?

And they are also -- a big concern -- and these are among the high-level officials -- about the internal domestic political timetable, Kyra. They're saying, you know, this September 15th date is an American date. It's not an Iraqi date. And those who oppose these laws that they consider being rushed through, mainly the Sunnis, like oil revenue-sharing laws and other benchmarks that are listed in those 18 points, they're saying we cannot rush through this legislation, that it's so important not just to us, but for Iraq as a whole.

So, perhaps -- and this is just an educated guess, Kyra, at this point -- if you were to ask Iraqis on the street, "What did you make of this speech?" perhaps they would say...

PHILLIPS: Hala, forgive me. Hala, we've got to go to Senator McCain because we haven't heard from him yet. I'm told he's speaking now on Capitol Hill. Listen for us, Hala. I'll come back to you.

Senator McCain.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ... security provided, but also political progress.

The men and women who are serving there obviously are doing a magnificent job. And on the Fourth of July, Senator Graham and I were privileged to witness the reenlistment of some 688 young soldiers and Marines and airmen as they reenlisted, and 128 others who received their citizenship.

On the issue of the debate, very briefly, I think the Webb amendment is encroachment on the constitutional rights of the president of the United States and the presidential authority of the president of the United States in that he alone is the commander in chief and will set deployments. Obviously, the so-called Reid-Levin amendment calling for dates of a withdrawal, we've seen this movie before.

And I regret that we have to do this on the authorization bill for our nation's defense since we almost always -- in fact, every year I've been here we've passed a defense authorization bill. Now this could cause a presidential veto. I think that would be a great disservice to the men and women in the military for whom we have things like a 3.5 percent pay raise and other vital items to our security.

We all know that September is a time when this issue is going to be reopened again, and of why we have to go through it again in the month of July is frankly a puzzlement to me, unless somehow politics may be a part of this debate we're having, which I hope that it's not. PHILLIPS: All right. Senator John McCain responding there with other leaders on the Hill to the president's speech that he just gave there at a roundtable in Cleveland, Ohio.

Let's go back to Hala Gorani in Baghdad. We were just talking about what Iraqis really wanted to hear from the president, answers -- or questions that were not asked.

And Hala, you were there also when Senator John McCain was just there for the reenlistment ceremony about a week ago. Of course, he's continuing to support the president.

Do you think that John McCain had a chance to really see what was going on to be able to evaluate the benchmarks as well?

GORANI: I think in order to be able to really see, it's a question of going out on the streets, perhaps without as much of a security apparatus as very high-level American officials need and require when they travel around and walk the streets of Baghdad.

When you ask ordinary Iraqis really what you want, it boils down to one answer, Kyra. "We want security. We want to be able to send our kids to school. We want to be able to, just like everyone else in the world, have a job, make an income, and not be afraid that mortar rounds are going to land in our neighborhood because either the Sunni or the Shia neighborhoods that are one neighborhood removed hate us so much they want to kill us even though they don't know us."

Security is one big, big, big issue. The other giant issue for Iraq is power-sharing.

This is a country that has gone from being ruled by a Sunni minority to a Shiite majority. This is now a power struggle for who is not just going to be able to come out on top, but who is going to feel they have a vested interest in a central government.

The way things are developing now, it's really becoming regionalized and it's becoming sort of concentrated on militia, armed militias that are fighting one another. The central government is not gelling or materializing in the way perhaps the American strategy had intended when the U.S. military first came into this country in 2003 -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Hala Gorani, live from Baghdad.

Always appreciate your perspective. Thanks so much, Hala.

LEMON: And speaking of the war, coming up, he's 23 years old and shipping out to Iraq. His mom is letting the world know how she feels about Marine Alec Cooney (ph) and the war he's being sent to fight.

Marine mom Mary Jo Cooney (ph) joins us straight ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM. We're going to get reaction from her on the president's speech.

Also a developing story we're following for you, a security breach at the Oakland International Airport in Oakland, California. We're going to tell you about passengers stuck there on the ground for a very long time when NEWSROOM continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Developing news in Oakland, California. An airport security breach there has caused a real big inconvenience for some passengers.

Let's go now to CNN's Dan Simon, standing by in our San Francisco bureau with the very latest on this.

Dan, what do you have for us?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, obviously some major headaches for travelers at the Oakland International Airport. An airport spokesperson tells me that just after 9:00, a male passenger breached security by walking up an exit ramp. TSA could not find that person, so security made the decision to evacuate both terminals at the airport. Everybody had to evacuate, and all those passengers have to once again go through security.

Now, folks there, the security people, did a sweep of both terminals. They found no particular danger, so they reopened the terminals. But you're seeing some major lines there at the airport.

Oakland is a busy airport, one of three airports in the San Francisco Bay area. Tonight is the all-star game here in the city of San Francisco, so you might have a little bit more traffic there than usual. And, of course, that airport is going through a major renovation, a renovation that's going to go through 2009, a billion- dollar renovation.

So, that's only adding to the headaches, the fact that you have so much construction there in addition to all those passengers there in line -- Don.

LEMON: So, Dan, we understand that they were going through with the K-9 unit, going through with dogs, to look for this person. Do we know if they found this man?

SIMON: We don't know if they found that particular person, but we do know that after they conducted the sweep of both terminals, they found nothing dangerous, so they made a decision to reopen those terminals.

LEMON: CNN's Dan Simon.

Dan, thank you for your report.

PHILLIPS: Well, more and more passengers have been getting bumped from overbooked flights. Airlines haven't increased the amount that they pay inconvenienced passengers in nearly three decades, but that could change.

Stephanie Elam is at the New York Stock Exchange with the details.

Hey, Stephanie.

(BUSINESS HEADLINES)

PHILLIPS: Well, coming up, an American mom pours out her heart in a "Washington Post" editorial. Her son headed to Iraq, she's not happy about it. We're going to interview her, tell you why.

She's watching CNN, the most trusted name in news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Hello everyone, I'm Kyra Phillips live at the CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta.

LEMON: And, I'm Don Lemon.

While politicians debate, Americans keep going off to war in Iraq, and that includes Mary-Jo Cooney's son. Now she sharing her pain, fears and misgivings with the world.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

PHILLIPS: He has got a plan, says President Bush, and it doesn't include a timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq. Days before the White House is due to give Congress a progress report on the war, the President appealed to an audience in Cleveland today to give the troop buildup a chance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad -- I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary for the security of United States and peace of the world. And I strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump totalitarianism every time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: Most concern to the White House is the growing number of Republican senators who publicly run out of patience.

LEMON: Well, the president talked about mothers and dads for whom the war in Iraq is painfully personal. Mary-Jo Cooney's only son, Marine Corporal Alec Spotswood (ph) is headed off to the war at the end of this month. She wrote about it in the "Washington Post." And she said, this is a quote, "Lest any of you who are not sending your children off to war forget, it is not easy.

The young man that I bore 23 years ago, whom I watched methodically unwrap Christmas presents, construct elaborate Lego sets, shoot hoops, and play "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" on the violin at my father's burial, is going off to war. Mary-Jo Cooney joins me now live from our Washington bureau. You've caused quite a stir with that in the "Washington Post" why did you do it? MARY-JO COONEY, MOTHER OF MARINE: I just wrote it actually one morning when I wasn't able to sleep because Alec's deployment is approaching. And I've been waking up very early in the morning and not being able to focus on life. So, I sat down at the computer just to vent my feelings. And that was the result of that morning's efforts.

And when I finished it, I sent it to a friend and she suggested that I send it to the newspapers. And to my astonishment, they published it.

LEMON: Yes. You weren't even going to. You just wanted to get those feelings out on paper and to share them, at least I guess with yourself to sort of get it out, and then had no idea the paper would print it.

COONEY: That's exactly true. It was really an exercise in catharsis.

LEMON: Yes. Would have you have written the same thing had you known that you were going to write this for publication?

COONEY: I don't really know. I guess if I write it tends to be from the heart, and I think that that's a more effective way to communicate with people. And I also -- as I say, it wasn't written with the idea of publication in mind, but on the other hand, I think it may serve a purpose insofar as unless people have children or family members who are involved in the war, they don't understand what the costs are.

And this is even for troops that are not deployed in Iraq, ones that are assigned overseas.

LEMON: What do you have to say -- you just listened to the President speak, and he said I wouldn't ask any parent to put their child in harm's way if it wasn't for the security of the United States, or for the peace of the world. What's your reaction to that?

COONEY: Well, I think the President is probably sincere in his sentiments, but I think that his perspective might be a bit different if it were his children that were actually being deployed. I think that one of the problems with this situation is that it is not a case of shared pain. There are only a limited number of troops that are -- that we have.

The experience is one that is not largely understood by the public. And this has not to do with the policy, but my purpose in writing the piece was just to communicate to people what the costs are of having a son or a daughter who is not with you, and you have no control over that at all. For example, my mother passed away last year and my son was in Okinawa, and I was unable to get him home for the funeral.

LEMON: Do you have the editorial that you wrote with you there?

COONEY: Well, I do. I don't know that I have it within reach, but I remember it very clearly.

LEMON: I just -- the very beginning for me really caught my attention, your very first line. Do you remember what you said?

COONEY: It was about July.

LEMON: You said July is the month I sincerely hoped ...

COONEY: Sincerely hoped would never come.

LEMON: And those words, that's just amazing. How do you explain to parents especially what you're going through?

COONEY: It's not easy. For one thing, many times, people, in many instances, it is a hard thing to communicate with people because it is so painful that they are not necessarily disposed to listen to it. And I think it depends where one lives. There are communities that have a lot of military and where people share the experience. There are other communities where very few people have children who are in the military. And it's not a subject which resonates with them.

LEMON: You say in this, you said, can I expect my son to return unchanged by this experience? if the media reports are any indication, that is doubtful. And you're not sure he'll come back with the same sense of mind and body and spirit as when he left. And that's your concern. Have you spoken to him about it?

COONEY: I really have not because I don't want to increase his stress level. He has a lot on his mind. I'm sure that he's well aware of this.

LEMON: What would you like to say to him?

COONEY: I told him that I love him, I'm very proud of him for what he's doing. I know that he is -- he will do his utmost for the safety of himself and his comrades and that he is a professional.

LEMON: And before I let you go, what do you say to other moms who are dealing with the same thing that you are?

COONEY: I think express yourselves to other people and let other people know so they are there to support you, because I think once you articulate the isolation that we feel, that people are more willing to be supportive. But I think it is important for other people to understand the situation.

LEMON: All right. Thank you very much. Mary-Jo Cooney, Corporal Alec Spotswood (ph), Marine Corporal Alec Spotswood is her son, and we certainly wish you the very best. Thank you for joining us.

COONEY: You're very welcome.

PHILLIPS: Straight to the Hill. Senator Harry Reid responding to the President's speech just about 20 minutes ago. Let's listen in. SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER (JOINED IN PROGRESS) We're going to do that. Our first two amendments are extremely important. Number one, the Jim Webb amendment. Doesn't it make sense that if you're in a country for 15 months you should be out of country for 15 months? And with the Guard and Reserve, of course, you need a longer time than that because it's the militia at home.

We're going to continue pushing that, and we're going to continue pushing Levin-Reid with 120-day redeployment guideline and a deadline of the first day of May of next year. That all troops need to be out of Iraq except for counterterrorism, force protection, and training Iraqis. That's where we are we think with the American people.

The surge is not working. No matter how many different ways you explain it, it hasn't worked. Six months, 600 dead Americans, $60 billion. Questions?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE QUESTION)

REID: I'm sorry. I don't understand your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

REID: Collins isn't a Democrat issue. I think you're going to find that the Democrats are going to be together on Levin-Reid. I think virtually all Democrats will vote for that. I mean, when I say virtually all, there may be two, maybe three that won't, but virtually all Democrats will vote for Levin-Reid. We've already been told there are a number of Republicans who will vote with us, so that sounds like a majority to me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're going to need 60 votes (INAUDIBLE) Republican tactic here. (INAUDIBLE) not get 60 votes on these Democrat amendments will you agree to do some bipartisan amendments?

REID: It's hard for me to comprehend how on a defense authorization bill, a bill that comes about every year to fund the troops, that is, it sets guidelines for how much their pay increases are going to be, what new equipment will be purchased, what weapons systems are going to be initiated, some of which won't go forward. One of the most important bills we deal with all year is the Defense Authorization Bill.

We have a couple of amendments up, and as I said before, this is untoward. This Republican minority is so envious of the elections that took place last November, are making it so that everything that we bring up they obstruct, they block. What we'll do, if, in fact, they're going to try to make us get 60 votes on Webb, we're going to bring it to their attention. We'll have a cloture vote on that. And we're going to make sure the Defense Authorization Bill passes. It would seem hard for me to comprehend ...

LEMON: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Capitol Hill responding to the president's comments about Iraq. And he said they are going to vote on it and try to get passed what he's just speaking about there, but he's talking about the President's comments and what's coming before the Senate in just a bit. We're going to continue to follow this developing story, the President today speaking about Iraq and the strategy as well as the Senator's response to that coming up in the " CNN NEWSROOM".

PHILLIPS: Someone is watching the road patrols -- patrol is keeping an eye on the streets of American cities. Do you like being watched? Well, not everybody does. We're watching you, though, as you watch us on CNN, the most trust name is news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Almost ten before the hour. Here are three of the stories we're working on for you right here in the CNN NEWSROOM. Despite the loss of some high-profile GOP support, President Bush says he won't be pressured into withdrawing troops from Iraq. In a speech in Cleveland today, Mr. Bush focused on getting to a so-called post- surge period.

Five people are dead after a fiery small plane crash in Sanford, Florida. The victims include at least one small child who was on the ground and the plane's passenger, Dr. Bruce Kennedy, the husband of Nascar board member Lesa France Kennedy.

And the TSA is downplaying a reported security breach at the Oakland Airport. According to a police and passenger, a passenger slipped passed a TSA guard, but the terminal was not evacuated. Still, we've been seeing long lines outside the airport so we'll continue to follow this story until we can sort it all out for you.

PHILLIPS: Taking a sight out of crime, American cities are taking a page out of London's anti-terror play book, crime caught on camera.

CNN's Joe Johns takes a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If London hadn't blazed the trail on security cameras, they may never have come to Baltimore, and this terrifying scene may have had an even worse ending.

Let's back it up. Here, caught on camera, you see a young man ambling in the shadows. Next, a young woman walks into camera range. She's smoking, talking on a cell phone. Suddenly, the man grabs her and drags her out of view. In scarcely two minutes, with an apparent crime in progress, the cops arrive at the scene.

LEONARD HAMM, BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONER: We got there in seconds because we'd been watching this guy walking around in a suspicious manner.

JOHNS: Bad guys on candid camera. Baltimore now uses about 500 cameras, in Chicago, there are as many as 2,000, and now, a plan to mount them in Manhattan. These plans are inspired by London's so- called "ring of steel," first created to combat terrorist acts by the Irish Republican Army, now a weapon in the war against new terrorist threats, like the bungled car bomb attacks in the U.K.

But in Britain, the number of surveillance cameras is huge, 200,000 or more, and far more advanced than in the United States. But Baltimore's police commissioner says it's almost inevitable that the U.S. will catch up.

HAMM: That's the way of the world, Joe. This is what we've come to. And the genie's out of the bottle, it's not going to go back. The threat of terrorism, the threat of gangs, the threat of violence on the street. It's not going to go back.

JOHNS: Baltimore claims a 17 percent reduction in violent crime in neighborhoods with the cameras. Though criminals are seldom caught in the act, evidence, witnesses, license plates still help investigations.

MAJ. DAVE ENGEL, POLICE INTELLIGENCE COMMANDER: The feedback from the community has been fantastic and, as a matter of fact, those people want cameras in their neighborhoods.

JOHNS: But try to tell that to this woman who has a beauty shop on a corner where the cameras have been up for more than a year. She asked us not to show her face on TV.

(on camera): Has the crime changed at all since the camera came?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely not, no. The crime -- I have been a victim of crime since I've been here, several times.

JOHNS (voice-over): Some of the people we talked to on the street didn't even believe the cameras work at all.

(on camera): Do they do anything?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

JOHNS: Do you think -- do people believe they work?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some people probably do. I don't.

JOHNS (voice-over): He should. While we were shooting that interview, police surveillance cameras could see us with him. While we were taping the neighbors, the police were taping us taping the neighbors.

As for privacy issues, don't these people have a right not to be on camera? Not really, says the commissioner.

HAMM: There is no expectation of privacy when you have common areas, no.

JOHNS: The street, of course, qualifies as a common area.

ENGEL: The only thing these cameras monitor are things that an officer on the street could see with their eyes. JOHNS: But there is this issue: who gets to see the video and control how it's used? Local public defenders wonder whether police preserve so-called exculpatory videos, the kind of tapes that could get a client off the hook.

JOHN MARKUS, BALTIMORE PUBLIC DEFENDER: They get to pick when they want to save that and then, we may find out after the fact that there's something that we want to subpoena, it may or may not be available at that point.

JOHNS (on camera): Now, a defense lawyer, obviously, would ask you are you as willing to give up exculpatory evidence that may be caught on ...

HAMM: If the law says we have to do that, we'll do that.

JOHNS: But, you don't freely give it up?

HAMM: If, in fact, we have to do that legally, we will give that up.

JOHNS (voice-over): So, if they work, why aren't there more of these cameras? There are lots of small reasons, but some of the biggest impediments have been concerns about privacy and whether cameras will ever be a suitable replacement for cops on the beat.

Joe Johns, CNN, Baltimore.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Fingers crossed in Utah. A record blaze scorches hundreds of thousands of acres. Will firefighters get a break today? We'll go live to the fire line straight ahead in the NEWSROOM.

Hey, A.J.

A.J. HAMMER, SHOWBIZ TONIGHT: I'm A.J. Hammer in New York.

"The Simpsons Movie" will debut in Springfield, but just which one of the 34 Springfields across the country am I talking about? I will fill you in next in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: "The Simpsons," well, they're one of TV's most popular families, and now they're making a big-screen debut.

"SHOWBIZ TONIGHT's" A.J. Hammer joins us from New York to tell us where "The Simpsons" film will make its debut.

A.J., 14 cities across the country have been competing to hold this premiere. Which one came out on top? It's, it -- is it a Springfield somewhere?

HAMMER: Don, you got it, Springfield won! Let me give you a little bit of a setup here. Of course, Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson have all lived in Springfield since "The Simpsons" first debuted back in 1989. But which Springfield was always the question.

Well, to promote the first-ever "Simpsons" feature film, "USA Today" and 20th Century Fox held a contest to find out which Springfield really wanted to host the premiere of the film. Now, you wouldn't really think that people would be fighting to compare their hometowns with one full of corrupt politicians, toxic waste and all sorts of dysfunctional people, but the competition was, in fact, fierce.

Out of the 34 Springfields across the country, 14 of them submitted videos that fans could check out and vote to decide which Springfield deserved to represent the animated city. So Springfield, Illinois, Oregon, Nebraska, Missouri, Vermont, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana all wanted to host the premiere. They all submitted videos.

It was just revealed that the voters decided it would be held in Springfield, Vermont. So congratulations the folks of the Green Mountain State.

Now, don't have a cow, man. If your Springfield wasn't chosen, the other Springfields will all get a special preview screening of the film the day before the rest of us get to see it on July 27th.

So Don, big excitement in Vermont today.

LEMON: Congratulations to Vermont, but I thought it was going to be Illinois, or Illinoises, as they say (ph).

HAMMER: No.

LEMON: Darn it.

HAMMER: Vermont it was.

LEMON: OK, so listen, I'm hearing that this was not exactly a wardrobe malfunction at the Beyonce concert. This was something much more serious, right?

HAMMER: Oh, definitely it was. It was Sunday night when Beyonce Knowles was performing in St. Louis, and while she was performing, a fireworks display accidentally spilled into the front row and it injured a couple of people in the audience.

Now, two people were taken to the emergency room for what the hospital called minor injuries. But while they were there in the hospital, who came in to check on them but Beyonce herself. The R&B star spent around 45 minutes with the victims. They're all expected to make a full recovery. Probably not the best way to meet Beyonce.

Don, we will see you tonight on "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" live at 11:00 p.m. to bring you the very latest and why stars feel such a personal -- why people feel such a personal connection to the stars. We get into it on a "SHOWBIZ" "Special Report" tonight.

See you then.

LEMON: And A.J., how did she look when she visited them?

HAMMER: I'm sure she looked fantastic.

LEMON: You don't want to say bootilicious, because that's her thing?

HAMMER: No, I wasn't going to say that, I wasn't -- I know you were dragging me down that road, and I wasn't going to go today.

LEMON: All right, A.J., thank you. We'll see you tonight.

Next hour of the CNN NEWSROOM starts right now.

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