Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Democratic Congressman Under Fire; NASA Bombs the Moon
Aired October 08, 2009 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, here are the questions we want answered.
Should one of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill be forced to resign? Congressman Charlie Rangel facing an expanded investigation tonight.
Plus, what's life like now for one of the longest-held American hostages?
KEITH STANSELL, FORMER HOSTAGE: Yes, I heard gunshots in the (INAUDIBLE) on the ground. They were shooting into the air.
BROWN: Tonight our special series, "Second Chances," a man who endured hell on earth before a daring rescue set him free.
And why is NASA bombing the moon? And why are some people so upset about it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our stupid (EXPLETIVE DELETED) government and NASA is going to bomb the moon.
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, is here to tell us when and where to look.
And Levi Johnston in the nude? Ew. We will have the details.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is your only source for news. CNN prime time begins now. Here's Campbell Brown.
BROWN: Hey there, everybody.
We start tonight, as always, with the "Mash-Up." Its is our look at the stories making an impact right now, the moments you may have missed today. We're watching it all, so you don't have to.
And we begin with a true story straight from the pages of science fiction that is making headlines around the world right now. Grab your telescope tomorrow morning. NASA is bombing the moon. No, really. It is all in the name of science, of course.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN MIAMI BUREAU CHIEF: It should be a spectacular show on the lunar surface at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. A satellite called LCROSS and its spent rocket booster are going to be sent on a collision course with the moon's south pole.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, they hope that spot produces a scientific breakthrough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Blasting the moon with a rocket traveling 5,600 miles per hour, then sending a satellite into the plume to see if water or some form of it rises up with the debris.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why spend $79 million to smash a rocket into the moon? To find water.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there's enough water there, you can use it for rocket fuel to come home. You can use it for water to drink, or you could split it to make at least oxygen and bring some nitrogen. So, it's called in-situ resource utilization. That's NASA-speak for using stuff that's there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Bill Nye, the Science Guy, is going to be along a little bit later to tell us more about this, including who has the best chance to see.
One of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill is in more hot water tonight. The House Ethics Committee voted today to expand its investigation of New York Congressman Charlie Rangel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Yesterday, it was Republican Senator John Ensign. Today we have a worm from the other side of the aisle, Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And this will be an expanded investigation into changes that -- that Chairman Rangel recently made to his financial disclosure statements, omissions that he had made about assets.
Keeping a spotlight on Charles Rangel's acknowledged failure to pay taxes on $75,000 he earned renting out his beach house in the Dominican Republic.
CAFFERTY: Charlie Rangel says he's a victim of a smear campaign by some in the media. He whines and whines that other chairmen usually get to keep their leadership posts when they're under ethics investigations. What the hell kind of government do we have?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: That's a good question. And here's what Charlie Rangel is saying. Our Dana Bash tracked him down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Mr. Chairman, why is it that you don't think it's appropriate, considering that you're being investigated for tax issues, to resign from your post that dictates tax policy in the country?
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY), HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Because the allegations have been made by newspapers' reporters, and I asked the Ethics Committee to review it and report back to the Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Well, that's sort of an answer, I guess. Stay tuned for a lot more on this continuing saga coming up in the show as well.
Today's other big headline on Capitol Hill: hate crimes and defense spending. Looking for a connection there? Well, there isn't one, people, because we're talking about Congress. The Senate took next year's defense spending bill, they mashed it together with a bill giving gay people federal protection against hate crimes, and sent the whole thing over to the House.
So, while Republicans belly-ached about hate crimes, the Democrats focused on our troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bill is about our troops.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Contains a non-germane item.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Critical for national security.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not germane to the work of the committee.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It gives our group what they deserve.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An extraneous and non-germane bill.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Provides vital -- and I mean vital -- support for the armed services.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Totally extraneous to defense of this nation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bill gets it right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm left with no choice but to oppose it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I would urge both Republicans and Democrats to vote yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I resolutely urge my colleagues to vote no.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: The $680 billion bill passed with hardly any Republican support and is expected to pass the Senate.
Over at the White House, President Obama shot some hoops with his boys today, literally. It was a guys-only game this afternoon. On the lineup, Cabinet Secretaries Arne Duncan and Tim Geithner, plus 11 members of Congress, even including two Republicans, but no girls allowed. Here's what the White House had to say about it today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Last thing. When the president plays basketball tonight, the list you put out has about 15 members of the cabinet, Congress. They appear to all be men. Did the president invite any women?
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I would say that the point's well taken. The president, obviously, is someone who, as the father of two young daughters, is -- has an avid interest in their competing against anybody on the playing field. The president's certainly played basketball and other sports with women in the past, and I anticipate he'll do so in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Hmm. OK. But let's not forget the president does have some female ballplayers in his own Cabinet. Here's his health and human services secretary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: You know, I actually made my college basketball team.
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE JAY LENO SHOW": Whoa. Whoa! Whoa!
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
SEBELIUS: So, you know? Bring it on.
LENO: Ho.
SEBELIUS: Give me your best shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Call that one a three-pointer, Mr. President.
And just because we can, here's a slam-dunk. All right. So, you got the point, Mr. President.
Moving on, here is a story that is burning up the Internet tonight. Harry Connick Jr. in the middle of a lost in translation moment. He was a guest judge on a top-rated Australian variety show that included a spoof of the Jackson Five featuring four men in blackface and one playing Michael Jackson in white makeup. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: ... is an Australian variety show. It's called "Hey Hey It's Saturday." And as you watch it, you may want to exclaim, hey, hey, it's offensive.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the contestants in a group called Jackson Jive showed up in blackface, Harry Connick Jr. was visibly uncomfortable throughout the performance.
HARRY CONNICK JR., SINGER: Man, if they turned up looking like that in the United States...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes.
CONNICK: ... hey, hey, there's no more show.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After a commercial break, the program's host returned, expressing regret.
DARYL SOMERS, HOST, "HEY HEY IT'S SATURDAY": I think we may have offended you with that. And I deeply apologize.
CONNICK: I know it was done humorously.
SOMERS: Yes. Yes.
CONNICK: But, you know, we have spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons that when we see something like that, we take it really to heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: One of the guys in the skit put out a statement today saying it was not intended to have anything to do with racism.
Really? Because it seems pretty black and white there, actually.
All right. Just when we thought that the fashion world was coming out of the dark ages, Ralph Lauren reminds us it is still possible to be completely oblivious to the real world. Take a look at this. It is a new ad showing off the designer's latest ensemble.
But look closely at this model. She has actually been Photoshopped to look beyond anorexic, frankly. Her head is actually bigger than her hips. The crazy part is that some fashion editor for Ralph Lauren actually did this on purpose. When outraged bloggers posted the picture online in protest, what did Ralph Lauren do? He sent his lawyers after them for copyright infringement.
He's threatening with legal action and wants them to take the photo down. We don't know if he's trying to sell clothes or inspire young girls with eating disorders. We will see about that. OK, now to the left coast. California could become the first state in the nation to legalize pot, and it could happen as early as next year, widely expected to end up before the voters in 2010. And the movement is gaining momentum.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH CONAN O'BRIEN": A new survey shows that a majority of Californians support the legalization of marijuana.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
O'BRIEN: Yes. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus the entire survey.
(LAUGHTER)
LENO: Well, you know, the governor has been talking legalizing the marijuana.
WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: That's nuts. That's nuts.
LENO: So you're against legalizing?
SYKES: Legalizing marijuana, that's nuts. You're not going to improve the economy or productivity. I mean, really, how many potheads do you know with a to-do list?
(LAUGHTER)
LENO: Right.
SYKES: So, how are we going to, you know, sell weed when we can't even water our lawns but twice a day?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
SYKES: We're going to have the worst weed ever. What...
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Good weed or bad, it will be the ballot measure to watch next year.
And that brings us to the "Punchline." This is courtesy of Jon Stewart, who hasn't been pulling any punches lately when it comes to criticizing the president. Stewart's beef last night, that President Obama skipping out on a meeting with the Dalai Lama reportedly as not to anger Chinese political leaders. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": See, the administration was worried that meeting with the Dalai Lama would upset China. And God knows we don't want to upset China. Gosh, imagine what they would put in our toys and toothpaste if we upset them.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Actually, it would probably be the same thing. I believe it would be lead.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Jon Stewart, everybody. And that is the "Mash-Up."
The big question tonight, is President Obama considering a political deal with the Taliban? Is it a bad idea?
Plus, our special series "Second Chances" -- one of the longest held American hostages describes what it's like to pick up the pieces after being held in captivity for more than five years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STANSELL: And I promise you, when you sit in a box for years, you get to know yourself, and you learn everything about yourself. And some things that you learn are not so great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, we are hearing about a possible and surprising change of direction in Afghanistan. There are signs that the White House may be open to giving members of the Taliban some political cover, as President Obama considers a military response that is not what the president's top general in Afghanistan is hoping for. And, in Afghanistan itself, the carnage continues.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, HOST, "WORLD NEWS": In the capital of Kabul today, a suicide car bomb exploded in front of the Indian embassy. Fifteen civilians and two police officers were killed, and dozens were injured.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It came as President Obama and his national security team are considering a major shift in U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: After days of consultations, we're told he and his top national security advisers finally may start talking about troop levels as early as tomorrow. There are conflicting reports about what the president may ultimately decide.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Joining me now to talk about all this, CNN's Fareed Zakaria, host of "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS."
Fareed, it's good to see you.
Very intense meetings underway at the White House right now about Afghanistan. Not only are they debating troop levels, but also possibly rethinking the strategy there to sort of look at the Taliban and accept the fact that it may end up with political control -- or some political control -- in this country.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think that what they're doing is actually a truly comprehensive review, the kind that should be taking place.
And the first thing, as I understand that they're focusing on is, what is the problem? And the problem is al Qaeda.
Where is al Qaeda? It is in Pakistan. So, what should we be doing in Pakistan, first of all, to make sure that al Qaeda stays on the run, stays disaggregated? How do you get it?
Then the question becomes, what should you do in Afghanistan to support that mission, to make sure that they can't reconstitute in Afghanistan?
So, Afghanistan is getting -- you know, becoming a kind of second player in this, which is, in my opinion, appropriate.
We are spending currently 30 times as much in Afghanistan as we are in Pakistan. So, there's a bit of a mismatch, given that all al Qaeda top officials, all the Taliban's top officials, the Afghan Taliban top officials, are all in Pakistan.
BROWN: But how -- but aren't they making a distinction between, now, the Taliban and al Qaeda? And can we make a distinction between the two?
ZAKARIA: They are beginning to make a distinction, and I think you can in this sense. Remember, the Taliban was the political movement that was governing Afghanistan. They have no global agenda -- never have had, never -- even now don't claim to have one.
They don't have a particularly intense, you know, anti-American bias. They're a reactionary, horrible force. And they're terrible to women. They were housing -- they were hosting al Qaeda and hosted Osama bin Laden.
So, the question is, you know, is there some distinction there?
And secondly, Taliban is a huge term to describe thousands of different groups, maybe hundreds of different groups, certainly. Are many of them in it for the money? Or are many of them in it because they hate the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan government? Sure.
So, can you make those distinctions? Can you buy off some? Can you bring them over to the other side? Sure.
You know, it's difficult. And in order to make these negotiations work, you do want to seem to be winning.
And this is one area where I think McChrystal and Petraeus are right. You don't want to be negotiating at a point when the other side thinks they're winning anyway. Why will they give in?
But for sure there is a distinction between the hardcore elements of the Taliban -- al Qaeda on the one hand, and a lot of these other folk who are in it for the money or because they're disgruntled, or because they -- you know, they're gangs looking for something to do.
BROWN: Let's talk about troop levels, because there is some disagreement within the administration, certainly between the Pentagon and the White House, over how to approach this.
Where do things stand right now?
ZAKARIA: Well, there is a disagreement. Well, it's not entirely clear that there's disagreement between the Pentagon and the White House. I think it's fair to say there's a disagreement between General McChrystal and...
BROWN: And the vice...
ZAKARIA: ... and Joe Biden.
And it's not clear where the president comes out on this. What he is doing, as I understand it, is just taking in a lot of information, doing briefings -- really, this kind of synoptic review that they should be doing.
My sense is McChrystal is asking for something in the range of 40,000 troops -- then a lot of other stuff which is very good, by the way, you know, training of Afghan army, talking to the Taliban, trying to integrate them, trying to get them to switch sides. But the centerpiece that's gotten political controversy has been the 40,000 troops.
The Biden option, it is very important to understand, is not to go down to zero. It is just not to do the 40,000 supplementary, which means we would still have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. Allies would have another 30,000. We would have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan .
This is not the "do-nothing" or "walk away from Afghanistan" option. This is the "we're doing a lot already; let's reinforce the effort in Pakistan before we reinforce the effort in Afghanistan" option.
BROWN: So, it's possible we may end up with something somewhere in between the two? ZAKARIA: There are some people who are now saying we're going to end up with something called McChrystal-lite...
(LAUGHTER)
ZAKARIA: ... you know, not 40,000 troops, but maybe 5,000 or 10,000 troops.
And it's quite possible most of them will probably be in the role of training and support to ramp up the Afghan effort. And I think that might make a lot of sense.
But the 40,000 troop level is -- there are a lot of people at the White House, spearheaded by Joe Biden, who would say that is a huge investment to make in Afghanistan when the real problem is in Pakistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: CNN's Fareed Zakaria for us tonight.
Tonight's newsmaker: an American who was held hostage for over five years in the jungle of Colombia. Tonight, he explains how his life has changed so dramatically. This is part of our special series "Second Chances."
Plus, NASA plans to bomb the moon tomorrow morning in search of water, a closer look at what really may be out there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Republicans actually suggest that a general needs to put Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- quote -- "in her place." Well, as you may have guessed, she's not having it. Her response just ahead.
(NEWS BREAK)
BROWN: The powerful congressman in charge of the committee that writes your tax bills faces allegations he failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. Will Charlie Rangel's party cut him loose?
And what Nancy Pelosi told Republicans who wanted a general to put her in her place -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Two big political stories breaking tonight -- on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi firing back after a Republican slam. A statement from the National Republican Congressional Committee called her General Pelosi and said some of her recent comments about Afghanistan overstepped the boundaries of the chain of command, and suggested U.S. General Stanley McChrystal should -- quote -- quote -- "put her in her place."
Well, Pelosi's response? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's really sad. They really don't understand how inappropriate that is. I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House. And I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't even heard in decades.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And, on a different note, still more pressure on Pelosi tonight, Republicans calling on her to remove powerful New York Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee because of an expanding ethics investigation. Today, Republicans failed to get enough votes to strip Rangel of his post.
With me now to talk about all of this, Mark Halperin. He is, of course, editor at large and senior political analyst for "TIME" magazine. Also, John Avlon, a contributor to TheDailyBeast.com, with us, and Joan Walsh, who is editor in chief of Salon.com, joining us as well.
So, Joan, Democrats sweep into power partially because they were able to betray Republicans as the party of corruption. They promised to clean up Washington. And now you have this high-ranking official in the middle of the scandal, a lot of foot-dragging around this. It looks a lot like hypocrisy to a lot of people.
JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: You know, I don't think there's a lot of foot-dragging, Campbell. Today, the House Ethics Committee voted to expand their investigation of Rangel, and it was bipartisan, which means it had mainly Democratic votes.
You know, there's a long history of people waiting until the Ethics Committee has its say. And, you know, look, Charlie Rangel, he's done a lot of good things for poor people. It looks like he's done good for Charlie Rangel, too.
But this is the way it works. Tom DeLay was indicted in September of 2005. He resigned in June, I believe, of 2006. They don't automatically just pack up and walk away. And, you know, he's innocent until he's proven guilty. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual here.
BROWN: Mark?
MARK HALPERIN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, "TIME": Joan, if he were a Republican or he weren't an African-American, you think the press scrutiny would have been bigger than it's been up until now?
WALSH: No, I think he's gotten plenty of press scrutiny, and I think he deserves it. I'm not defending him. I'm saying this -- like it or not, this is the way the process works, and the Republicans put on a little show trial yesterday with their resolution. HALPERIN: I think even Democrats...
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: His colleague Peter King, a Republican, defended him, likewise said, let's wait for the Ethics Committee to rule.
Where else do you -- we have got John Ensign, who paid off his mistress and got her husband a job? We have got David Vitter, who patronized a prostitute. I don't like the ethics up there very much, Campbell or Mark, but this is the way it is. They don't run for the exits when they get caught...
(CROSSTALK)
HALPERIN: Even -- even in -- even -- as I say, even in the White House, they have been shocked for months that Charlie Rangel has not gotten very much heat, that the speaker has not gotten very much pressure to make a decision.
You can cite other people and say, well, they're not being scrutinized enough, too. And that's, in every case you cited, true as well. But --
WALSH: It is true.
BROWN: John, jump in.
JOHN AVLON, CONTRIBUTOR, THEDAILYBEAST.COM: The heat's turning up here. Look, I mean, the unforgivable saying in politics is hypocrisy. This is what drives people crazy about Congress. This is why Congress' approval ratings in part are down to 20 percent.
What people hate is the idea that the chairman of the committee who oversees taxes is not paying his own taxes. He's got all this unreported assets, has four rental apartments. You know, he's mangling his credibility after an honorable career. He's mangling it locally because he's had four rent-controlled apartments. He's mangling it nationally with all this undisclosed income. This is a real problem, and Congress shouldn't be biased about it.
WALSH: I don't deny it's a problem. But I'm saying there's a huge double standard here in the way he's being pushed out the door when Republicans get to hold on to their seats until they're practically put into jail. I totally disagree.
HALPERIN: I mean, again, it is amazing to me that now we're talking about it. This has been going on for months. The facts are out there. As John said, the hypocrisy and just the standards. The Democrats came back into power saying we will have different standards. They should not be even thinking about the politics of it, although I don't understand why they're adoring (ph) the politics of it. They should be doing what's right and saying this makes no sense.
AVLON: Decency is practical politics at the end of the day.
BROWN: All right. Joan, I want to turn to the Nancy --
WALSH: When is this happening, you guys? I mean, this is -- OK, go ahead.
BROWN: Hold on, Joan. We're going to be out of time, but I want to get this. I want to turn to the Nancy Pelosi situation.
We just heard -- you heard her sound bite responding to this NRCC press release saying, you know, that she -- they hope she will be "put in her place after she disagreed with General McChrystal." What do you think?
WALSH: She's in her place. She was elected speaker, and these guys have got to learn.
Campbell, you remember a few months ago I debated Dick Armey and he said he didn't want to marry me as though that were an acceptable way to debate a woman in power in politics. This is disgusting. She said the right thing. They will learn someday we may be very old, but they will learn.
HALPERIN: It is another sign of the absolute weakness of the Republican Party. Not only do people say things this stupid, but no one in the party is strong enough or sensible enough to step up and say, this is ridiculous.
WALSH: This is stupid. Exactly.
BROWN: What's going on? Because you had Jon Kyl, too, making this comment about how he didn't think health insurance should cover maternity issues for women because it didn't affect him. I mean, this is a much bigger problem for Republicans, isn't it?
AVLON: It is. And this is a sign of a persistent tone deafness. This is the diversity deficit that the Republican Party is facing. They just don't understand it.
On some level, they haven't really come to terms with America in the 21st century and they need to deal with it. The guy who wrote that press statement put on the plate, well, that guy is just an idiot. I mean, he's the source of the problem here.
WALSH: Exactly.
BROWN: All right. Not a lot of disagreement on that one. We'll see.
WALSH: No.
BROWN: Guys, thanks for your time. Appreciate it, Joan, Mark and John, as always.
WALSH: Thanks.
BROWN: Tonight's "Newsmaker," an American who was held hostage in Colombia for over five years. His life has changed dramatically since a daring rescue operation set him free. It made headlines around the world. We catch up with him in our special series "Second Chances" right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEITH STANSELL, CO-AUTHOR, "OUT OF CAPTIVITY": When I go to shave after I get out of the shower, I look at those scars around my neck. And I think, you know, today is not going to be that bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight our series "Second Chances" looks at the men who are on the front lines of the U.S. war on drugs and nearly paid the ultimate price. They survived more than five grueling years of captivity held by a terrorist group in South America. The moment their drug surveillance plane went down was just the start of their nightmare.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): In February of 2003, a small plane carrying U.S. government contractors on an anti-drug surveillance mission crashes in a remote field in Colombia.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Magic worker, magic worker. Mutt 01 is declaring mayday. We have lost engine.
BROWN: Four Americans are on board. They barely survived the crash. They are surrounded by armed guerrilla forces from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombian, or FARC, who are at war with the Colombian government. One of the men captured, Keith Stansell.
KEITH STANSELL, FORMER FARC HOSTAGE: And I heard gunshots in the FARC around the ground. They were shooting into the air.
BROWN: His captors grant journalists an interview with the hostages on October 2003. Stansell describes what happened. The plane's pilot, an American, and a Colombian intelligence officer are both executed on the spot.
This footage of the crash site taken by a Colombian recovery team shows the wreckage and the bodies. Stansell and two others surviving Americans, Thomas Howes (ph) and Marc Gonsalves are taken captive by FARC. For more than five long years, they live in barbaric conditions, not knowing if each day will be their last.
Then in July 2008 in a daring mission by the Colombian government with support by the United States, the three men and 12 other hostages, including former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, are rescued.
INGRID BETANCOURT, FORMER FARC HOSTAGE (through translator): It's a miracle.
BROWN: Stansell and his fellow captives are whisked back to the U.S. in a military airplane, arriving home to a hero's welcome.
STANSELL: It is my privilege to stand here before you with my family.
BROWN: Reuniting with his fiancee and the twin sons he had never met. During the men's first interview after their release, Stansell describes the brutality of their captors.
STANSELL: You're sleeping with ten pounds of chain and this lock around your neck.
BROWN: This past February with his own camera in hand, Stansell returns to Colombia driven to prove to his captors that they did not ruin his life.
STANSELL: This is like closing a loop.
BROWN: And to thank those responsible for saving it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Former hostage Keith Stansell is the co-author of "Out of Captivity: Surviving 1,967 days in the Colombian Jungle" and he's joining me from Sarasota, Florida.
Keith, welcome to you.
KEITH STANSELL, CO-AUTHOR, "OUT OF CAPTIVITY": Thanks, Campbell. And glad -- glad to be here. It feels real good.
BROWN: I bet. You've been back home long enough now, I guess, for the adrenaline to wear off, to get in kind of a regular routine.
But I know you say every morning when you look in the mirror, you see a reminder of your second chance. Tell me about that.
STANSELL: Yes. That reminder are scars around my neck that come from chains. And, you know, I guess that in 2009, we don't like to think of human beings being chained up. But, you know, in the last couple of years of my captivity, I was chained up like an animal.
And, you know, I start the morning -- we were talking earlier. And when I go to shave after I get out of the shower, I look at those scars around my neck and I think, "You know, today is not going to be that bad."
BROWN: You had a son and a daughter at home, in the U.S., when you were captured.
STANSELL: Yes, I did.
BROWN: But you also had two sons born while you were in captivity that you never met until the day you were released. I mean, you had a lot of time to think about the kind of dad that you wanted to be, if you got out.
How have you changed?
STANSELL: You know, I like to think that I've changed for the better. My family seems to kind of reinforce that.
But, you know, one thing that we had with so many years in captivity, is you have time to reflect. And I promise you, when you sit in a box for years, you get to know yourself, and you learn everything about yourself. And some things you learn are not so great.
And, you know, for me, I have a 21-year-old daughter and a 17- year-old son from my first marriage. I had custody of those two children and I raised them as a single father.
And, you know, I feel I did a pretty good job, as best I could do. But when I became captive and I reflected on what I had done, and I know I had these two twins, you always try to do something better. And I think I've achieved that.
BROWN: And you and your fiancEe, who, we should say, stood by you during your whole captivity, I understand you're getting married in three weeks.
STANSELL: Absolutely, we're getting married. And I was kidding her yesterday. I said, "Sweetheart, you know you had to wait through five-and-a-half years of captivity and a year afterwards for us to get married. You know, I guess -- I assume you're here for the long haul."
(LAUGHTER)
BROWN: Well, that is great news. Congratulations to you.
STANSELL: Thank you.
BROWN: Let me put this, or take you back a little bit, if we can.
You know, you and others were the longest-held American hostages. You couldn't go anywhere without a gun trained on your every move. You were held in shacks in the jungle.
Just give us a sense of what your most intense memories are of that experience.
STANSELL: You know, I guess the worst, or the closest we came to maybe not making it out was one night when a helicopter had overflown our camp in the jungle.
And what people don't realize about the FARC, and what they will never put out publicly, is their absolute policy is, in the event of a rescue, they execute the hostages. They've done this with two large groups on two occasions.
And one night, right at, you know, right at sundown, it had just gotten dark. A Colombian Blackhawk unknowingly flew past our camp and kind of made a big loop to leave.
And what happened was, the FARC, especially being the cowards that they were, they left the camp, but they sent an execution squad to get us.
You know, we're inside a concentration camp with concertina wire and guard towers and all. We can't go anywhere. We're all trying to -- you know, we're like rats in a cage.
And these guys come, and I hear the guards get nervous and saying, "Hey, what are we going to do? Are we going to shoot these guys? Are we going to get them out?"
I would have to say for all of us, that was the most intense moment.
BROWN: You know, you told us that when you came home after being captured, that you were very upset to find our country so divided, you know, with one side politically bashing the other side. And after all you went through personally, why was that so important to you?
STANSELL: It hurts me, because although -- look, I consider myself, truthfully -- I'm a Republican, probably a centrist, a right- central kind of guy. And I have issues with some things that are going on now. But what I don't want to see is, I don't want to see my country fail.
I have no interest in destroying the left, and I don't want the left to have an interest in destroying the right. And what strikes me -- what strikes me very poignantly is I turn on the news now, and I have news -- the media is telling me what to think, who to vote for, what to do, how to act.
I don't want that. I just want the information, and I want to make my own decision.
But even worse than that is I see how we are just tearing each other apart. And what people forget is, this liberty that we have here for discourse, this liberty we have to argue, it doesn't exist everywhere in the world. It's a privilege to be able to do that.
But we also mean (ph) to take it to the extremes, because whether we like it or not -- and maybe some independents don't want to talk about this -- it's a two-party system. We will go nowhere without cooperation or without, you know, an ability to compromise.
And I don't see that now. And it scares me, because I have had the privilege to work in many places in other countries, and I promise you, we're not perfect, but we're the best thing going.
And I love this country. I don't want us to implode in any manner.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And that is former hostage Keith Stansell, co-author of "Out of Captivity" there.
First thing tomorrow morning, an incredible event we have never seen before. NASA is going to crash a pair of spacecraft right into the moon's South Pole.
Bill Nye, the science guy, is here tonight to tell us what's behind the lunar demolition derby when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Early tomorrow morning a little more than 40 years after man first landed on the moon, NASA will bomb the moon. That's right. They're going to ram it with a rocket.
This is not science fiction we're talking about here. It's actually legitimate science, though. As our Jeanne Moos shows us, some people aren't too happy about it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It gives a whole new meaning to "shoot the moon."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: NASA wants to bomb the moon on October 9th.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bombing the moon. What are they thinking? They should bomb Mars.
MOOS: No, the target is definitely the moon, a crater on the South Pole. A rocket the size of a school bus will be sent crashing into the moon. The impact will kick up a huge cloud of debris that will be scanned by a second spacecraft looking for water.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our stupid (bleep) government and NASA is going to bomb the moon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOOS: Actually, no explosives will be involved, but the moon's defenders have launched their own counterattack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You lunatics, NASA to send a missile to blast the moon to bits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOOS: Some are joking but others are serious. Take this online petition with 560 signatures and comments like "heavenly body should not be disturbed." Some worry about the effect on the tides.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FROM YOUTUBE.COM JONATHAN MANN)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doom the next day. New York had been swallowed and biding her time at the east coast that followed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOOS: But NASA says forget the disaster film scenario if moon gets hit by things like meteorites with the same impact several times a month. Leave it to Letterman to come up with unintended consequences.
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": This is something they weren't counting on. Oh, no.
MOOS: NASA even got a call from a woman worried bombing the moon would affect her monthly cycle.
Jeanne Moos, CNN.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May the moon stand strong. God bless America.
MOOS: New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: So tonight's big question, why exactly is NASA bombing the moon? And joining me from Los Angeles, educator and former TV host Bill Nye, the science guy, to help us out with it.
So, Bill, people, obviously, getting a little extreme about this, saying we're bombing the moon here. But explain the science behind NASA's decision to blast in search of water.
BILL NYE, "THE SCIENCE GUY": Well, in search of water. You see, that's the key. One of the two questions that haunt us, haunt us from the first moments of being able to think. That's right.
Are we alone, and where did we come from? These are the two questions that bother everybody since you were a little kid. And I say bother, stimulate you. So there's evidence that the moon has some water on it in this part of the moon where the craters are so deep, how deep are they? They're so deep that they block the sun all the time. Maybe for millions of years or even longer.
And so in this area, it is possible that water is attached -- chemically attached to dust or dirt, soil on the moon. And so there would be water there that we can detect only by extraordinary means and -- because it's dark and cold.
BROWN: Right.
NYE: And so if you're a geologist, what do you do? You take a rock hammer and you hit the rock to see what's inside, to break the rind. So this is kind of the same idea. We're going to take a rocket booster.
BROWN: Right. NYE: And smash it into the moon first and then fly through the dust cloud, the plume, with a spacecraft with a lot of detectors on it and look for signs of water.
BROWN: Well, Bill, you know, we joked about it in that piece you saw a moment ago, but in truth, we are getting flooded right now with e-mail and questions online from people who are worried about unintended consequences, saying things like, how does this affect the tides? What does it mean for the weather here on earth?
NYE: Well, it just shows you that I've failed, OK?
BROWN: Yes.
NYE: As a science educator, you have to -- it's my fault. All right? That we have not impressed on people the moon, although it looks small in the sky, is an enormous, gigantic, very massive thing. And when we hit it with a spacecraft, it's not even the wing of a gnat hitting you in the back of the neck. It's just insignificant.
And so I am thoroughly charmed that people don't realize how small a spacecraft is compared to the moon. But this thing is going to make a hole about the size of a swimming pool.
BROWN: All right. So quickly, Bill, if they do find water or ice particles on the moon, what does that mean? How big of a deal would it be?
NYE: Well, there's a bunch of people -- well, here's what it would mean to me.
You know, I'm vice president of the Planetary Society. I represent a lot of people who think about space all the time. And what it would mean to me is there's a way for ice or water to be trapped in these very hard, rocky soils on other worlds. So it is perhaps even more likely that we will find water on Mars, liquid water on Mars or places where there was a lot of liquid water that would have evidence of living things. Some sort of Martian microbe. That's what it would mean to me.
But there's a whole bunch of people that think the United States should invest in going back to the moon, and all we've got to do is set up shop near one of these craters where there's a lot of this water ice, if it's really there in any significant fraction, and then we'll just have no trouble. We'll grow plants. Everything's going to be great. We'll have all this water.
But to me, this is not very likely. And I think that the U.S. resources would be better spent sending humans to asteroids and then eventually to Mars. But this is a cool experiment.
BROWN: Right.
NYE: And I remind everybody the cost of this compared to the cost of other things that governments spend money on is just tiny.
BROWN: Right.
NYE: It's tiny. It's not even a cup of fancy coffee per taxpayer.
BROWN: All right. Well, Bill, we will see how -- how this all plays out.
NYE: It's going to be fun.
BROWN: Yes. For you especially. Thank you for your time tonight. Appreciate it.
NYE: Thank you.
BROWN: The price of gold has never been higher, but that doesn't mean it's a safe place to put all your money. In tonight's "Money and Main Street," Ali Velshi explains why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Gold prices are on a record breaking run. Today's close, $1,056.30 an ounce, the third all-time high in three days. So in this tough economy, is it a safe bet to invest in gold? That's a question for chief business correspondent Ali Velshi in tonight's "Money and Main Street."
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Campbell, with gold hitting record highs this week, we are being asked a lot by people, is this the time to buy gold?
So I want to give you a little, quick lesson on gold and the U.S. dollar. The reason gold is surging is because the U.S. dollar has been dropping. Let me just show you what that relationship is all about.
Let me just start with the dollar. The dollar was high at one point. Let's look at it over the course of the last year. You can see that it has gradually been losing value against a basket of other industries and currencies.
Now let's take a look at gold which started the year a little lower than it is right now. As the dollar drops, take a look at what gold tends to do. Historically this is what happens. Gold has been going up while the dollar has been going down. And that's why a lot of people are now talking about gold as an investment, over $1,000 an ounce.
But I want to show you something interesting about gold. It is a volatile investment. Like everything else, it is not a sure thing. People use it as a hedge, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have its ups and downs.
Take a look at the best one-year return on gold and precious metals. They tend to move together. The best one-year return on gold and precious metals back in 2005, 2006 was 96 percent. That is a nice gain. You can understand why people would want to take that. But take a look at the worst return on gold. In the worst one year, gold and precious metals lost 66 percent. So remember, just because you want to be conservative, if you're worried about the fact that stock markets are up a lot, that the dollar is going down, gold may be a part of your portfolio. It may not be wise to back up the truck and load on, especially since everybody's talking about how it's at record highs. People always want to jump on when things hit records.
One adviser we talked to, Doug Flynn, who you know, he's been on the show a few times, recommends that the average portfolio has between three and five percent in precious metals and gold. Some advisers go up to 15 or 20 percent. But you'll see these commercials on TV saying put all your money in gold. Be careful. The best strategy to hedge against an uncertain market is to diversify your investments.
Have some stocks. Some fixed income-like bonds, maybe some precious metals, some foreign investments. Don't buck traditional trends like that just because you're seeing a run-up in gold, Campbell.
BROWN: All right. Thanks to Ali. And to figure out the right mix of investments for you, go to CNN.com/moneyandmainstreet and click on "pick your asset allocation."
That's it for us. "LARRY KING LIVE" right now. Coming up, actor Matthew McConaughey with him tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
