Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Iran tests Missiles before U.S Talks.; Obama Administration Debates Afghanistan Strategy; Victims of Madoff Might Go after His Sons to Recoup Losses; Spending Reduction Might Lead to Lower Credit Limits
Aired September 28, 2009 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: That brings us up now towards the top of the hour. It's Monday, September the 28th. Thanks for joining us on the most news in the morning. I'm John Roberts.
KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Kiran Chetry. We have a lot of big stories to be breaking down for you in the next 15 minutes. First, it's breaking news, Iran testing the world's patience yet again, reportedly firing long-range missiles overnight. We're live in Washington.
ROBERTS: Another difficult foreign policy challenge in the week ahead. The debate over sending more troops into Afghanistan. We're live at the Pentagon where the defense secretary, Robert Gates, is now saying the war is, quote, "more serious than he thought." He's warning about the price of failure there.
CHETRY: Also, there's some startling news this morning about your privacy and your credit.
Did you know your credit limit can be dropped if you normally shop at places like Bloomingdale's and then suddenly switch to the Dollar Store or Wal-Mart? What if they find out that you're going to marriage counseling and paying for it on your credit card?
A very new interesting series, "Watching You 24/7." Gerri Willis is here to show you how credit card companies secretly monitor where you shop.
First this morning though, Iran is putting on a show of force, reportedly testing two types of long-range missiles putting even more pressure on the White House ahead of scheduled talks between the U.S. and Tehran set for Thursday.
Our Jim Acosta is live in Washington. And Jim, we've been down this road before, it seems, and this is not the first time Iran has defied the international community. But what may be different this time around?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what may be different this time is we have negotiations going on between the United States and Iran later this week, the first time these two sides have talked to each other in three decades.
And the Obama administration is beginning this week by talking tough and what's sounding like a showdown with Iran over its nuclear program. It's the kind of tests some in Washington predicted Mr. Obama would eventually face as president.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: It was a show of strength from Iran, test-firing short- range missiles just two days after a stunning disclosure to the world.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.
ACOSTA: And while President Obama is insisting on diplomacy over confrontation with Iran...
ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The intelligence people have no doubt that this is an illicit nuclear facility.
ACOSTA: Defense Secretary Robert Gates is amping up the rhetoric.
GATES: This is part of a pattern of deception and lies on the part of the Iranians from the very beginning with respect to their nuclear program.
ACOSTA: Located near the city of Qom, the underground facility is Iran's second confirmed site capable of enriching uranium. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is all but warning the Iranians to start offering details at upcoming negotiations with the U.S. and five world powers set for later this week.
HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence that it's only for peaceful purposes, but we are going to put them to the test on October 1st.
ACOSTA: And the pressure is on to get tough.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: They're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. And if they are successful, the Sunni Arab states in the region will want a nuclear weapon. Israel becomes much at risk, and we're walking down the road to Armageddon.
ACOSTA: At a Congressional hearing last year, nonproliferation experts described Iran's nuclear ambitions as a historic challenge.
GRAHAM ALLISON, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: I say in my testimony, and I have compared this earlier to something like a Cuban missile crisis in slow motion.
ACOSTA: The October 1962 showdown with the Soviet Union played out at the United Nations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.
ACOSTA: Testing another young president in the early days of his administration, the kind of test that was predicted during last year's presidential campaign.
JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: But that was 1962. And unlike those missiles in Cuba, there is no evidence Iran has nuclear weapons. Nonproliferation experts believe, though, that Iran is one to three years away from that capability. But, Kiran, that is the international community's best guess at this point.
CHETRY: Wow. It's interesting to just get that look back in history and see how a lot of this is very similar to what we went through back then.
ACOSTA: It's starting to look like deja vu all over again, Kiran.
CHETRY: Jim Acosta for us this morning in Washington, thanks.
ROBERTS: So, we're got more on this nuclear facility that Iran admitted to and the United States charged Iran with trying to keep secret. Our John King at the magic wall with a look at how quickly this facility cropped up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are 17 nuclear sites in Iran that the world has been watching for quite some time. But the interest in current days has been on this site here just north of the city of Qom. You see the dots up here.
This is some satellite imagery, as we zoom on in, of what this site looked like about three years ago, relatively little construction, two buildings there.
Now let's fast forward to January 2009. This takes a minute to develop. Just stay with us and watch this zoom in. Look at this -- much more significant development, clearly underground construction here with some steel, underground construction here, and again over here. This is eight months ago.
Now we want to give you this dramatic image we received just yesterday. Watch this as this develops. Again, that is January. Now we come over to today. They have completely changed the site, a building here, a structure with a roof in that underground. They've covered this up, tunnels into the mountain hillside, covered this up, tunnels in here. There are ventilation and egress up here.
And this is all very remote as you watch the road follow down, a location right nearby Iran's Revolutionary Guard down here.
(END VIDEOTAPE) ROBERTS: Our Chris Lawrence is working his sources at the Pentagon this morning. And Chris, if diplomacy fails here, you know, if sanctions do not cause Iran to give up its nuclear program, does the Pentagon have any type of military option for dealing with Iran?
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Pentagon has a military option for just about everything. The key is do they have a good option? Ultimately, yes, the U.S. Navy could impose a blockade on Iranian ports, but that would be considered an act of war.
The U.S. has been trying for years to build a penetrating bomb that can punch through hard rock. Remember, these sites are very deep, deep into a mountain.
Continuous bombing of that mountain could probably knock out and destroy the entrances and the exits and bury those. But, again, because it's buried so deep, it would be very hard to determine exactly how much damage you cause to the actual site buried below.
And, the key thing is, the Iranians would still retain their nuclear knowledge. All the knowledge that they have accumulated, they would still have that, which is the reason why Secretary Robert Gates says there's no military option that does anything more than just buy a bit of time.
ROBERTS: Chris, on the Afghanistan issue, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the ISAF forces there in Afghanistan, appeared on "60 Minutes" with David Martin last night saying some things in Afghanistan are worse than he expected them to be. Let's listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID MARTIN, "60 MINUTES": Are things worse or better than you expected?
GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, U.S. COMMANDER OF NATO FORCES IF AFGHANISTAN: They are probably a little worse.
MARTIN: What's worse than you thought?
MCCHRYSTAL: Well, I think that in some areas the breadth of violence, the geographic spread of violence, places to the north and to the west, are a little more than I would have gathered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So Chris, if the top commander is saying that things on the ground aren't great, that they're worse than he expected, how long can the White House wait before making a decision on whether or not to send more troops as his recommendation would have them do?
LAWRENCE: The key here is thinking about the strategy. At his level, General McChrystal does not develop the strategy. That's what the Obama administration and his national security team does. He told General McChrystal, fight this counterinsurgency strategy. The general came back and said here's what I'm going to need to fight that strategy.
Well, now there is an intense debate as to whether that is the right strategy to go forward with. Secretary Robert Gates has said that if the decision was made, these troops could start to arrive early next year in January.
But, again, the numbers you're talking about, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 troops, that would take several months to get all of those troops deployed.
And the key thing here is that they're going to be asked to be out with the population. They're going to be off those forward operating bases. They're going to be out of those armored vehicles. So these troops are going to be at more risk. That is the part of counterinsurgency, to get out there with the people.
That's a very big decision, not only what happens to the troops that are already in Afghanistan, but what's going to happen to these 30,000, 40,000 if they are authorized to go.
ROBERTS: Chris Lawrence for us this morning from the Pentagon. By the way, we're going to be speaking with the former Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, as well as general George Joulwan coming up in just a few minutes about everything that's going on in Afghanistan.
CHETRY: We look forward to that.
Meanwhile, there's some other stories new this morning as well. There's some new video of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that's raising more questions and answers of things. Four security videos from buildings around the target show people fleeing after the blast. The video, though, does not seem to capture the explosion itself.
The lawyer who obtained the footage through the Freedom of Information act is claiming the tapes had been edited by the FBI. Jesse Trentadue conducting his own investigation into the bombing which killed 168 people. No comment from the FBI.
ROBERTS: If you need gas on your way to work, you'll probably pay a little less than you would have yesterday. AAA reports the price of a gallon of regular unleaded is down a half penny to $2.50 a gallon.
CHETRY: Michael Jackson still playing to sellout crowds. Advance screening tickets to the music documentary "This is It" sold out within two hours yesterday in Los Angeles. Fans started ling up three days in advance. The documentary opens nationwide on the 28th of October.
ROBERTS: The way forward in Afghanistan, a lot of varying opinions on what to do. We'll check in with two of the brightest minds when it comes to defense policy, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen and General George Joulwan, who was the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan at one point. They'll be with us in just a couple minutes.
Stay with us now. It's nine minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Welcome back to the Most News in the Morning.
The top commander in Afghanistan is calling for a new strategy and more troops there and warning that unless action is taken soon, the United States could face defeat in the eight-year-old war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCHRYSTAL: We could do good things in Afghanistan for the next 100 years and fail because we're doing a lot of good things, and it just doesn't add up to success. We've got to think quicker.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: So what really is the right way forward for the United States in Afghanistan? Joining us now from our Washington bureau, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, he's the chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group, and retired General George Joulwan, the former supreme allied commander at NATO.
Gentlemen, welcome to both of you. You heard Stanley McChrystal say, and he said in his report that if the U.S. doesn't get more troops on the ground within 12 months, we could risk losing this whole thing. General Joulwan, give us the military perspective on this. Would you send more troops into Afghanistan?
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well, first of all, I think what General McChrystal is asking for is a little clarity on the mission. He's given his assessment and asking whether Washington agrees with his assessment that this is where we are, and this is what we need.
He's asking for agility in the force. But he's really looking for clarity in terms of the mission.
I agree with what he said, and I think he's done a good job in painting the current picture in Afghanistan for Washington. But now it's up to Washington to make some decisions.
ROBERTS: But as a military man, more troops? Yes or no, from your perspective?
JOULWAN: Right now I think to carry out the strategy that he has lined up, yes, they need more troops.
ROBERTS: Secretary Cohen, what do you think? More troops?
WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, if the mission is counterinsurgency and General McChrystal has made the asses assessment we can't win a strategy of counterinsurgency without more troops. So you either have to change the strategy if you're not going to put more troops in, or you're going to face failure.
So the political side of things, the civilian leaders now have a choice. They can say we agree with General McChrystal, here are more troops, or we disagree, and we need to change the strategy. So those are the choices that face the president.
ROBERTS: So the strategy is the question in terms of the way forward. And General McChrystal last night on "60 Minutes" reinforced his notion that he'd like to see a broader counterinsurgency strategy, saying "We must change the way we think, act and operate. Protecting civilians is actually more important than engaging the enemy."
Let's listen to a little bit of what he told David Martin last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCHRYSTAL: I knew this was an important issue, but since I've been here the last two-and-a-half months, this civilian casualty issue is much more important than I even realized. It is literally how we lose the war, or, in many ways, how we win it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: General Joulwan, since the Gulf War, the United States has operated on this principle of overwhelming firepower. Now General McChrystal is saying let's dial back the firepower and get into what some people might call nation-building.
Is that the right course for U.S. troops to follow? During the Bush administration the president said we're not going to get involved in nation-building. That's the wrong course.
JOULWAN: We need to be flexible in how we address these. And since the Gulf War and Bosnia, for example, we went in and we had a phase called stabilization. I think McChrystal is using that same phrase here, how to provide stabilization within the country to allow all other things to happen for the population.
Without that, very little can happen. It's not just the military that needs to be added, but civil agencies, capacity building, those sorts of things. And if that's nation-building, I call it security building, then I think that's what needs to be done if we want to be successful in Afghanistan.
ROBERTS: Secretary Cohen, what do you think? Is nation-building the correct role for U.S. forces in Afghanistan?
COHEN: Well, I would put it slightly different. We can't win the war or be successful with a campaign in Afghanistan without the support of the Afghan people. We can't get the support of the afghan people unless we show we're going to be successful.
And so what General McChrystal is talking about, winning hearts and minds, you may recall Secretary Rumsfeld some years ago in Iraq asked the fundamental question, are we creating more terrorists or more insurgents than we're killing?
And what General McChrystal is saying is our strategy to date and our tactics have been, in fact, creating more animosity, more insurgents than we've been winning.
So if you want to have hearts and minds, or win hearts and minds, you have to pursue General McChrystal's strategy. If you say that's not acceptable and costs too much, takes too long, we don't have our allies, then you come up with a counterterrorist strategy, which means you're going to start killing people and thereby risk killing a lot of innocent civilians, thereby creating more insurgents.
ROBERTS: And there are some members of the president's own party who are advocating a limited or flexible withdrawal, pull American forces out of Afghanistan to some degree, focus on this targeted counterterrorism by remote control or at least from afar, you know, target attacks using predator drones, other forms of missiles.
General Joulwan, do we risk going back to a time when, as George Bush might have put it, we risk using million-dollar missiles at $10 a hitting camels in the butt?
JOULWAN: There is some to that. But I think if you read McChrystal's assessment, what he wants to do is regain the initiative, stop the momentum of the Taliban, regain the initiative.
And how he's going to regain that is not with air strikes and predator strikes. I mean, they may be necessary in certain surgical means, but what he wants to do is be able to get the support of the people.
And to gain the initiative, he needs that. And without that, the Taliban are going to continue to seize the momentum that they have. And I think we risk losing in Afghanistan.
ROBERTS: You know, Secretary Cohen, you were secretary of defense during a time when cruise missiles were being used to take out these Al Qaeda bases. Could we repeat that and only do it in a more effective way if we brought U.S. troops out of Afghanistan?
COHEN: Well, we tried to take out their bases remotely or from a distance, though we had no bases in the region. We didn't have the support of Pakistan. We weren't in Afghanistan. So we were very limited in what our abilities were at that time.
Today you have a different situation where we have many troops on the ground, perhaps more coming into Afghanistan. We still have troops in Iraq, and we still have a capability of operating on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This raises the fundamental issue -- when we're talking about losing Afghanistan, we then have to factor in what does this mean for the success or survival of Pakistan to be free from the Taliban and from extremists gaining control over nuclear weapons?
And this is why the president has to really address the nation. Why are we in Afghanistan? Why does it matter? What is the mission? What are the costs? Are we willing to bear them and for how long? And, are any allies with us, and how long are they going to be with us?
These are all questions he has to address, persuade the American people it's in our national security interests to do this, and then commit the resources necessary to carry it out.
ROBERTS: All right, thanks for adding to the discussion this morning, gentlemen. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen and General George Joulwan, good to see you this morning, thanks for coming up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
COHEN: Thank you.
ROBERTS: Kiran?
CHETRY: All right, still ahead, Christine Romans will join us. She's talking more about the Madoff family being sued, victims trying to get money back, now possibly going after Bernard Madoff's sons.
It's 18 1/2 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHETRY: It's 22 minutes past the hour.
Christine Romans is "Minding your Business" this morning, and you're talking about trying to get money back from victims of Bernard Madoff, and they're possibly going after his sons.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right. There's a lot of money they're still trying to get. The court-appointed trustee trying to get all the money back from this big Ponzi scheme and give it to the people who deserve to get it back, the people who lost money in this scam.
Now, the Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff has always said that he scammed and thieved alone. But lawyers appointed by the court are still hunting and tracking down the looted cash, and they say they'll sue Madoff's family, his sons, his brother and his niece if necessary to get money back, noting that his sons for years took millions and millions and millions of dollars that must have come out of this company that turns out was not legitimate at any point.
Irving Paccard and his chief counsel, David Sheehan, have been largely quiet on details of all this, but they were on "60 Minutes" last night, and this is what David Sheehan said about the two sons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID SHEEHAN, LAWYER, BAKER HOSTETLER: Clearly they would have to have known what was going on given their own personal transactions, the longevity of what was happening, and their responsibilities as officers of the company.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Now, having nothing to do with any kind of criminal charges or criminal investigation, this is only getting the money back, they say they plan to sue for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, also, as I pointed out, Madoff's brother and niece.
The focus of the trustees also zeroing in on some of these very sophisticated and very wealthy philanthropists and charities who may have taken out hundreds of millions of dollars more than they ever put in.
And these attorneys saying that it kind of defies all reason to think that some of these sophisticated charities would have known -- would not have known that this was all a scam.
So people who put money in and took more money out than they put in, including some of these charities, may end up having to cough the money up. Think of that.
CHETRY: It is. It's just -- it's not over with, him going to jail, not with all the people entangled in the situation. So we'll be following it closely with you.
ROMANS: In the beginning when I first started covering this story almost a year ago, in the very beginning I would ask people, how much money did you lose? I would talk to victims, and they would say my attorney said not to say, and this is why, because some people did take out more money. About half of the people took out more money than they ever put in.
ROBERTS: Interesting.
ROMANS: So they'll have to give something back.
ROBERTS: Christine Romans "Minding your Business" this morning.
When it comes to credit ratings, it's not just how much you spend but where you shop that actually has some effect. We're starting our brand-new series this morning called "Watching you 24/7." Gerri Willis has some information you going to want to hear coming right up.
It's 24 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHETRY: It's 26 minutes past the hour right now. Welcome back to the Most News in the Morning.
You know, there are certain things we all come to expect will affect credit ratings -- if you pay your bill late, if you miss a payment, if you take out too many credit cards, all of those things can hurt your score and lower your limit.
ROBERTS: But did you know that changing where you shop can send up red flags to your credit card company too, like if you suddenly switch from shopping at Nordstrom's to Wal-Mart?
In our special series "Watching you 24/7" our Gerri Willis found the secret way credit card companies monitor how you spend. And she's here now to share with us. What are they looking for?
GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: Good morning, guys. These day credit card issuers are scrutinizing your spending patterns for changes. Are you buying rounds at the local bar for the first time? Are you seeking marital counseling? One Atlanta man says the scrutiny goes too far.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How you doing? I'm Levin Johnson.
WILLIS: Kevin Johnson is an entrepreneur, candidate for office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm running for state representative.
WILLIS: And according to American Express, a credit risk. Coming home from his honeymoon last year, he was shocked to find Amex had cut his credit limit from over $10,000 to just $3,800.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've done a very good job of being responsible and making sure that I pay my bills on time.
WILLIS: Even more surprising, one of the four reasons Amex gave for the decision. Other customers who have used their cards at establishments where you recently shopped have a poor repayment history with American Express.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was shocked when I read it because I didn't know that the companies could actually assess your credit worthiness based on others around you.
WILLIS: With more than 10 percent of credit card customers defaulting on their debt, credit card issuers are trying to weed out the risky ones. How? By looking for changes in the way we shop.
ROBERT MANNING, AUTHOR, "CREDIT CARD NATION": You're shopping from a middle or upper-tier retail store and suddenly it shows a purchase at a dollar store, some form of downshifting, suddenly shopping at Wal-Mart.
WILLIS: Those red flags can lead to a deeper look at your behavior.
MANNING: And if you've suddenly started exhibiting new consumer behavior, and then you've made three or four purchases in a row at a local bar, that would raise some flags that maybe there's some impending financial crisis.
WILLIS: For its part, Amex says, "We don't look at and never have looked at where someone shops to make a line reduction. The primary factor is someone's overall debt level. And we also look at payment history with us, credit reports and FICO scores." Banking industry sources say credit scores are still the most important tool in predicting consumer behavior. But those scores don't reflect sudden life changes like job loss or divorce.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All they can do is look at the actual volumes and transactions that are coming in and see changes in that pattern.
WILLIS: For Kevin Johnson, the experience has motivated him to get involved and perhaps change the way banks work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No one should be penalized for the actions of others.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIS: OK, so you can't stop your credit card issuer from scrutinizing your spending, but you can put your best face forward. Here are some things to do.
Make sure that you pay for counseling and bar tabs in cash. If you think there will be a question about the way you're spending your money, pay in cash and don't use your credit card.
Make consistent payments. This is what issuers are looking for. They want to see that you're paying the same amount at the same time of month all the time. That really puts them at ease and makes them think you're not a big risk. Also minimize the number of credit cards. We always say that. It's certainly true in this case. Guys?
ROBERTS: Wow! I didn't realize that they were watching that closely and all those...
WILLIS: Right over your shoulder.
ROBERTS: That's amazing. Gerri, thanks very much. Real eye- opener.
And tomorrow, another installment, right? So what do you think? Should credit card companies be keeping tabs on how you spend your money? Sound off on our blog, go to cnn.com/amfix and weight in. Tomorrow on "Watching you 24/7," we're going to take a look at data brokers, companies hired to do background checks on people, and what happens when they make a mistake and come up with a rap sheet on the wrong person? That's tomorrow on "Watching you 24/7" right here on AMERICAN MORNING.
CHETRY: Interesting stuff.
Well, it's 30 minutes past the hour right now. We check our top stories. Iran testing the world's patience again overnight. Iran saying it tested a long-range missile that defense analysts believe could hit Israel or the U.S. bases in the Gulf. All of this comes just before U.S. officials are scheduled to sit down with Tehran for talks on Thursday. Defense secretary Robert Gates says the Islamic Republic has put itself into, "a very bad spot." ROBERTS: Switzerland's justice ministry says Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski could be released on bail but only under very strict conditions. Swiss police arrested him Saturday after he spent more than 30 years as a fugitive from the United States, a fugitive living in plain sight. He pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13- year-old girl back in 1977 but left the country before his sentencing. Polanski won an Oscar during his time on the run for the film "The Pianist."
Plus former President Clinton says, "the vast right ring conspiracy is alive and well and taking on President Obama now." He was asked about it on "Meet the Press" by NBC's David Gregory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Oh, you bet. Sure, it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHETRY: The former president also said he didn't think the health care debate would inflict a lot of damage on the democrats in next year's midterm elections. Not like back in 1994.
President Obama wasting no time after a week at the United Nations and meetings over the world's money in Pittsburgh at the G-20. It was straight back to the make-or-break push on health care. Even with all the domestic and foreign policy challenges in the weeks and months ahead, the president says that he still wants to get it done this year.
For more this morning I'm joined by former secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush, Tommy Thompson, and also John Breaux, former democratic senator from Louisiana who was in the trenches when former President Clinton tried to reform health care back in the 1990s. It's great to have both of you with us this morning. Thanks.
FMR. SEN. JOHN BREAUX (D), LOUISIANA: Good morning, Kiran.
TOMMY THOMPSON, FORMER SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Thank you very much, Kiran, for having us on your program.
CHETRY: Sure. Great, as always, to have you with us. Let me start with you, Senator Breaux. The president had a tough summer, as we know, with this health care fight. And we've been talking a lot about the focus on these big foreign policy issues in Afghanistan, in Iran, the United Nations general assembly meeting that took place, this bombshell that came out from Iran and now talk of the missile tests.
When there is so much on the plate of the president and the foreign policy really taking center stage right now, how does that affect the inner workings of the health care debate going on Capitol Hill? BREAUX: Well, I'm not sure it has a great effect on it. I mean, the finance committee and the other committees charged with reforming health care are going to continue their work. They start up again tomorrow. You know, it's like the old saying, if you like the sausage of laws, you don't want to watch them being made.
Well, we in the process are watching laws being made, and it's not a pretty sight, particularly when they have such a large agenda. I mean, they're trying to massively reform health care. I think the history of health care has been that it works better when you do incremental reform like we did with prescription drugs and children's health care.
So they have a great challenge, and they have to continue working on it. They can't just shut the shop down and tend to other matters. This is their duty.
CHETRY: Yes. It's interesting, Secretary Thompson, to talk a little bit about what, as he said, the sausage making that's going on. Part of it is, of course, this bill by Senator Baucus. It was deemed as probably the most likely to get bipartisan support.
But now, as many people are adding on to it, the talk is now moving back toward possibly slipping or trying to get a public option in there. Would you see any republican support if this bill takes a different direction and actually does call for a public option?
THOMPSON: Well, there's no question there's going to be very little support if there's a public option. But as John Breaux and I worked together on bipartisan for part "D," the Medicare establishment for drugs, you can have bipartisan. There are four things that really are unifying the parties, and they should be looking at those things.
First, doing something about disease management, chronic illness, making the country healthier than it is currently. Number two, do something about I.T., electronic medical record, e-prescribing. Number three, do something with the insurance companies to make it easier to get insurance and not put a cap on limits. And number four, making sure you have a coordinated health care delivery system instead of these silos that we have right now.
All four of these things have unified support and bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans alike. And that's 90 percent of health care. So if, in fact, we could get the Democrats to back off and not take up the public option, there's tremendous support for a bipartisan bill, a bill that's badly needed in America.
CHETRY: And Senator Breaux, that's the interesting part. It's the president's own party right now that seems to have some major issues with some aspects of this. One of the things is whether they do want to push for the public option added as part of an add on, part of the bill, Senator Baucus's bill.
The other would be whether employers would be required to then contribute to the costs of health care. You were front and center for the same types of debate that went on back in 1993, ultimately it didn't happen. What could be different this time around?
BREAUX: Well, it's very important, Kiran, that we have a bipartisan solution to this problem. Neither party wants to go alone on solving health care because if it doesn't work, one party bears all the blame. And that's not good for this country. I think what we did with the public option when we did Medicare prescription drugs is an option. And that is you'd have a public plan offered as a fallback position.
Do your health insurance reform. Require all people to be able to buy health insurance and not let them cancel it. Require insurance to have preventative health care coverage. But if they don't do it, then you have a public option as a fallback. And when we did that under prescription drugs, all the companies offered exactly what we wanted them to offer, and a public option never came into play.
So I think some kind of a fallback position may be a solution to this very difficult problem that could bring Republicans and many Democrats together on board.
CHETRY: You know, over the weekend, we heard from former President Clinton. He was asked about many things, one of which is the vast right wing conspiracy still in place. It's something that Hillary Clinton and first lady talked about working against her husband at the time. And the president said he does think it's still there, and it's as virulent, as he put it, as before. What's your response, Secretary Thompson?
THOMPSON: Well, I think the far left is much more virulent than the far right. And it's pretty easy for one political party to point fingers at one and say they're the bad guys, or their question is, I think, they're bad, you know, there's a lot of accusations on both sides. And I think we both have to come together, and we have to solve health care. And we can do that.
We can come together on a bipartisan basis, but the public option really is sort of a poison pill, and it's not going to happen with public option. And I wish we could get some bipartisanship buy-in because there are four big areas that make up 90 percent of health care that we could pass overwhelmingly with both political parties, and that's what we should, and that's what America wants.
CHETRY: Senator, last word about whether or not you think there's still this vast right-wing conspiracy in play against the president.
BREAUX: Well, it's probably a left-wing and a right-wing conspiracy out there. And in fact is you cannot solve problems from the far left or from the far right. You have to start in the center and work your way out until you get a majority. Necessarily it probably leaves the far left and far right off the ship. But that's the better way, I think, to solve America's problems particularly in health care today.
CHETRY: All right. Tommy Thompson, former secretary of Health and Human Services as well as John Breaux, former Senate deputy majority whip. Thanks so much for being with us this morning, both of you.
BREAUX: You're welcome, Kiran.
ROBERTS: This just into CNN, President Obama and the first lady are heading to Copenhagen later on this week. They're going to join in on Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee will announce their choice on Friday. Michelle Obama will head to Denmark on Wednesday. The president will follow her on Thursday. Chicago facing stiff competition from Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro.
Well, Carol Costello showed us last week that Americans are "mad as hell." So what do Americans really, really want? Really? Frank Luntz has written a new book about it, "What Americans Really Want, Really." And he joins us coming up next to tell us why America is so mad these days. Stay with us. Thirty-nine minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ROBERTS: Look at that, Norman Rockwell couldn't have painted that any prettier. Look at that beautiful blue sky behind the Capitol Building this morning. Fair and 59 degrees. Later on today mostly sunny with a high of 77.
From town halls to tea parties, a lot of people across the country are really ticked off. Last week in our special series "Mad as Hell," we looked at the sources and potential solutions for all of that national anger.
Our next guest has advised the Republican Party and other clients on hot-button issues like health care, issues that so many Americans are riled up about. Frank Luntz is a pollster, communications expert and author of the new book, "What Americans Really Want, Really."
Frank joins us now with some new insight on the outrage. Insight on the outrage. Good play on words there. So people in America, are they really angrier than they ever have been?
FRANK LUNTZ, AUTHOR "WHAT AMERICANS REALLY WANT, REALLY": They are, 72 percent of Americans define themselves - we took a survey - of 6,400 people. That's five times the typical CNN media poll. Seventy- two percent of Americans are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.
ROBERTS: Seventy-two percent.
LUNTZ: And they're mad at politics because they think there's no accountability in Washington. They're mad at business because they think that their employers don't respect them. And they're mad at Hollywood for the coarseness of the culture. So you've got all three things going on at the same time, and they don't find a solution to it.
ROBERTS: Let me quote from your book here because you say, "It's not necessarily what's so important is not necessarily that Americans are mad as hell. What matters more is that they're not going to take it anymore. Americans have hit a tipping point with Washington, and moreover, its political parties."
So we're at this tipping point. What does that mean for the country? You gave us kind of the background of what people are mad at. Why are they add at all of this, and what is this tipping point?
LUNTZ: They feel like the politicians aren't listening to them. And those elected officials who canceled their town hall meetings, boy, did they make a mistake. I wrote this book and I added that extra "Really" to what Americans really want because the definitions of this anger, the elites don't understand.
They think the town halls are an aberration. The people you should be listening to at the town halls are not those who are yelling in the front, it's those that are grumbling in the back because there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people that have come to these town hall meetings that have never participated in politics before. They're going to vote in 2010.
I've offered a lexicon for them to be more effective in this book because in the end, the shouting really doesn't move people. They need to know how to communicate more effectively. And it's not just politics. It's also in the workplace. There are the three rules of how not to get fired. Three things you should not be saying. And I'll make them read the book.
There's even fear for our kids. Two more statistics. Fifty- seven percent of Americans belief that this country will be worse for their children than it was for them. And only 33 percent believe that the next generation will have it better than them.
ROBERTS: A question that I have about all of this anger is how much of it is organic, and how much of it is ginned up by the opposition to try to give democrats a hard time? President Clinton was on "Meet the Press" with David Gregory yesterday and said that the vast right-wing conspiracy in America is still very much alive, maybe not as strong as it was during his time in office, but still extremely virulent.
LUNTZ: He doesn't get it because these are not Republicans who are going to these town halls. These are not Republicans that are angry. More often they're independents that reject both the Republicans and the Democrats. They're dead center politically, and they've had enough of both political parties. That would be point one.
And point two is, until they feel like someone's listening to them and someone cares about them, they're going to remain agitated. And I do believe they'll participate. But just to be angry doesn't solve anything. We're afraid for our children. We're afraid that they're going to get addicted to drugs. That we're afraid that they're going to drink. We're afraid that they'll have bad circumstances in their life. And that's what makes us so nervous. ROBERTS: You mentioned the town hall meetings during August on the health care debate. That's where we saw the anger in full foment. Now, you wrote a memo to the Republican Party, giving them suggestions on how to oppose the health care plan, suggested that they use phrases like "It's a bailout of the insurance industry," "Washington takeover of the system." And so all of these words were out there. So my question to you, Frank, is did you help contribute to this anger?
LUNTZ: What is the first page of that memo, that you must support health care reform. This is exactly what the American people would say. We need to cover those people who aren't covered.
ROBERTS: But when you use charged language like that, are you not contributing to the anger?
LUNTZ: Because what Americans are asking for is a slow and steady reform of the health care system, not something radical. And the politicians in Washington aren't listening. We believe that our health care system is the best in the globe. And we don't want to change that. And there's language in here - and by the way, you want to know what Americans really want?
ROBERTS: Some people would argue that the delivery of health care in this country is the best in the world but the way that you get to it, through insurance, is certainly not a model for anybody.
LUNTZ: 85 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. I think that says a lot.
ROBERTS: But there are a lot of uninsured people in this country.
LUNTZ: That's why I wrote this book because I wanted to correct the misinterpretations. If you want to know if you're the majority or minority, if you want to know what public really, really thinks, this is the place to go.
ROBERTS: The book is called "What Americans Really want, Really" from Frank Luntz. Frank, it's great to see you.
LUNTZ: All right. Great tie.
ROBERTS: Thank you. You too. Good to have an opportunity to have you on this morning.
LUNTZ: Thank you.
ROBERTS: We've known each other for a long time. Kiran -
CHETRY: Too bad you didn't get a shot of his sneakers.
ROBERTS: The sneakers are the best. We can do that. There we go. There's the sneakers.
CHETRY: So he can find his way in the dark. Look at that. It's early morning. Thanks, Frank. Well, still ahead, we're going to be talking about "Saturday Night Live," it was the premiere season. There's also a new girl on the show. It's nerve-racking, right? Your first time out there. You don't want to say the wrong thing. Well, you definitely don't want to drop the "F" bomb. Oops. Forty-eight minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHETRY: Welcome back to the Most News in the Morning. It's 51 minutes past the hour right now. A look at New York City today. It's hard to believe looking at that that it's going to be sunny. 58 degrees right now and sunny for a little while, then a little bit later, isolated thunderstorms, 76 degrees for a high today in New York.
Well, it is the season premiere of "Saturday Night Live." Everyone's excited and there's a brand-new cast member. Jenny Slate, there she is, making her debut. So what does she do? Well, she's playing a biker chick and she's saying the word "freaking," OK, over and over.
ROBERTS: I think it was either freaking or fricking.
CHETRY: Now, well, you're going to get yourself in trouble. Now, you did it. Well, either way, whatever she was supposed to say, there was certainly something she wasn't supposed to say. She dropped the f-bomb live on television.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You freaking just (INAUDIBLE) stood up my head. You know what, you sit up for yourself (EXPLETIVE DELETED) love you for that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're in the heart, babe. Here in the heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: You see, she puffed out her cheeks, she knew she did it.
CHETRY: It's actually happened several times before on "Saturday Night Live." The past couple of times happened on "Weekend Update." You may remember that. It wasn't immediately known if any disciplinary action will be taken against the actress. I remember Colin Quinn during weekend update - or was it Norm McDonald? I think maybe it was just Norm McDonald.
ROBERTS: Here's the common thread, you know, the reason why she did that, Bono was on. And we all remember Bono at that award ceremony where he said this is bleep great.
CHETRY: It was catching. ROBERTS: It was just, you know, his influence. Rob Marciano is with us at the weather center in Atlanta, tracking all of the extreme weather across the country. How we looking today, Rob?
ROB MARCIANO, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Looking at a little bit of a cool down. This time tomorrow morning people in Chicago may very well be saying, it's freaking cold for sure. Windy conditions down there. Some showers earlier this morning and then definitely turning chillier. Cold front moving towards New York. You might see a couple of showers today.
And the heat across parts of the west. We did have a fire out there in Yellowstone, about 8,300 acres. This is threatening one of the historic hotels there on the lake. So they're trying to protect that. Got 100 or so firefighters on that thing and they should have a decent handle on it, I think, before too long.
Let's check out some of the rain right now, it's heading across parts of the Allegheny, over the three rivers area of Pittsburgh and heading closer to New York, but I think the bigger story today is going to be Chicago. You will see temperatures and winds more importantly that will make you, remind you that fall is right around the corner.
Winds actually could gust 40 to 60 miles per hour and that may trigger a couple of power outages. So just be aware of that. And then temperatures, check this out, 50s, 60s, 70s as far south as the deep south. This is the kind of stuff that folks along the i-10 corridor have been waiting all year long after temperatures like in Houston, 92 degrees. Get down to the 80s and 70s. John and Kiran, back up to you.
ROBERTS: Finally some relief, and that is one large low, I got to say, Rob. Thanks so much.
So should school kids be singing songs about the president of the United States? Well, a lot of people are saying yes, and not surprisingly, a lot of people are saying no. We'll check out this controversy, coming up. It's 54 1/2 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHETRY: Coming up on three minutes before the top of the hour, our next story is yet another example of the polarizing political climate we live when a song sung by school children appeared on YouTube, struck a sour note. The kids were singing about President Obama during Black History Month at one school, but critics say the song went too far and the kids were being brainwashed with a political message.
Mary Snow reports from New Jersey.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GINA PRONCHIK, PARENT: That's my son right there. MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Gina Pronchik says she was shocked to find her son, Jimmy and his classmates singing about President Obama. It's gone viral after being posted on YouTube and has set off a firestorm of emotions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Barack Hussein Obama. He said we must be fair today equal work means equal pay. Mm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama.
SNOW (on camera): Your thoughts watching that again?
PRONCHIK: The chanting is what upsets me.
SNOW (voice-over): Gina and her husband, James, say they had no idea their son's class last school year even sang the song.
PRONCHIK: I feel like they were brainwashing my child rather than teaching him. They're pushing their political views rather than educating him. So I just think they overstepped.
JAMES PRONCHIK, PARENT: And I think the groundswell has to do with people that don't want politics mixed with school.
SNOW: Parent Brenda Morrison doesn't see a problem. She says the kids are adorable.
(on camera): What do you say to critics who say that this song about Barack Obama was indoctrinating kids.
BRENDA MORRISON, PARENT: It's laughable. You know, it's ridiculous.
SNOW (voice-over): But the difference of opinion has spread far beyond Burlington, New Jersey's B. Bernice Young Elementary School, becoming front page headlines and a hot topic on the blogosphere.
Police were added outside the school after the superintendent e- mailed parents saying it did receive harassing call. A repeated request to speak with school officials were denied. The district in a statement explained the song saying "The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009." And it says the recording was unauthorized.
But the state's education commissioner is now reviewing what happened to, "ensure students can celebrate the achievements of African Americans during Black History Month without inappropriate partisan politics." (INAUDIBLE) lives in the area and is stunned by all the attention.
DEJAY DUCKETTS, PARENT: To me, the biggest issue is all of the anger, and where it is coming from.
SNOW: Karen Leslie Gibson say attention on the video is justified.
KAREN LESLIE GIBSON, PARENT: A lot of people are saying they want the media gone, they want the media gone. I'm glad you guys are here because they're trying to sweep this under the rug.
SNOW: Mary Snow, CNN, Burlington, New Jersey.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHETRY: And we want to know what you think about the school's Obama song. Post your comments on our blog, cnn.com/amfix. You can also call our viewer hotline at 877-MYAMFIX.
