Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama's Comments on Karzai's Win
Aired November 02, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Following the money. This senator can decide the outcome of health care reform. His wife got more than $2 million from companies that don't want reform. Can you say conflict of interest? We're on it.
A case study, right wing conservatives take down a Republican. Will the movement spread beyond New York?
Scott Ritter pummeled by the media, right about Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT RITTER, UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Let's not be fooled here, OK? This wouldn't be the first time that a president of the United States has lied to the American public to facilitate a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Will he be right about Afghanistan? He joins me live.
And a basketball player takes out a bat. You've got to see this one. Your national conversation is chock full of stuff that you need to know about for Monday, November 2nd, 2009.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
And hello again, everybody, I'm Rick Sanchez. The next generation of news. This is a conversation as we like to call, it's not a speech. And it's your turn to get involved. It's the congressional race that is sending political shock waves across the country.
This map shows you what we're talking about and where it is. New York's 23rd congressional district. I mean, it's almost Canada, right? It's almost Ontario. It's been sending Republicans to congress for more than a century, don't you know? But when voters go to the polls in a special election tomorrow, the only choice will be between democrat Bill Owens and conservative not Republican, mind you, conservative party candidate Dog Hoffman. That's different. That's important.
The conservative movement in this country, the movement led by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, have all but run this woman, her name is Dede Scozzafava, out of town. And certainly out of the race.
Why? Because some would say that she's not conservative enough. She was the official Republican nominee until this movement took over. So is this a sign that it's bad news for the Dems, because, look, the Republicans are getting their act together and they're cleaning house?
Or is this a bad sign for the Republican Party because the party is splitting in two? I'm being told right now that the president's got a statement that's coming out that has nothing at all to do with what I just talked about. So let me pick up this conversation. Let's go to the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We think we can see real progress. I should use this moment to say that about an hour ago, I spoke with President Karzai and I congratulated him on his election for a second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
You know, although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law, which I think is very important not only for the international community that has so much invested in Afghan success, but most importantly is important for the Afghan people. That the results were in accordance with and followed the rules laid down by the Afghan constitution.
I did emphasize to President Karzai that the American people and the international community as a whole want to continue to partner with him and his government in achieving prosperity and security in Afghanistan. But I emphasized that this has to be a point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter based on improved governance, a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption, joint efforts to accelerate the training of Afghan security forces so that the Afghan people can provide for their own security.
That kind of coordination and a sense on the part of President Karzai that after some difficult years in which there's been some drift that, in fact, he's going to move boldly and forcefully forward and take advantage of the international community's interest in his country to initiate reforms internally. That has to be one of our highest priorities. He assured me that he understood the importance of this moment. But as I indicated to him, the proof is not going to be in words. It's going to be in deeds. And we are looking forward to consulting closely with his government in the weeks and months to come to assure that the Afghan people are actually seeing progress on the ground.
The last point I would just make, you know, the European Union obviously is an important trading partner of ours. We are seeing the world economy stabilize after a very difficult period of time. I think Frederick would agree that it is absolutely critical that we continue to coordinate closely when it comes to our economic policies to assure that we are moving in a direction of more robust growth that creates more jobs in the United States and in Europe and that we continue to shy away from any protectionist measures that might actually reverse some of these positive trends. So, once again, welcome. Thank you for your outstanding work both as prime minister and as president. And please communicate the very warm feelings that the United States people have towards the people of Sweden.
We will. Thank you very much, Barack. As you said, we've met on several occasion, we share excellent bilateral relations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. There's the president meeting with the head of the EU. But the news that is coming up to this was the news has been coming out of Afghanistan and the reaction from the president of the United States. Look, it's starting to look and becoming plainly obvious to anybody that looks at the situation in Afghanistan like that's a serious problem.
When you have people this weekend coming out and essentially saying, right, you probably know this as well as I do, that they don't want an election, good portion of the people in the country are saying that they really want nothing to do with another election and Abdullah Abdullah, the guy who some folks thought could be the candidate who could beat Hamid Karzai, essentially dropping out of the race.
Well, if they don't want an election, does that mean they don't want democracy? And if they don't want democracy, then what are U.S. forces doing there? It's a pretty good question. It's one that we need to ask ourselves. It's one that we expect our president to have answers for. Now, the president just seemed to be saying that he's going to be putting some heat on Karzai as in making sure that the system doesn't remain corrupt or to clean up corruption, which seems to be the opinion of many people who are living in Afghanistan.
So this is the problem that this president now faces. If we send more troops, upwards of 20,000 or 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, to what end? If the people in Afghanistan don't seem to be interested in being part of a voting democracy. These are important questions. And that's why I'm going to have as my guest today Scott Ritter who had a lot to say before we went into Iraq. Some people would argue, most people would argue, that he was right, despite the fact that while he was saying the things that he would end up being right about, he was also being pummeled.
Well, he has some strong opinions now about Afghanistan and he's going to join me here as my guest. When we come back, Candy Crowley's going to join me and she's going to talk about what's going on right now in that little district up in New York that's actually as much a part of -- or closer to Canada as it is the United States. That may be as important an election or race as any other in the United States, certainly as big as the one in Virginia and New Jersey, believe it or not. Stay with me. I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Scott Ritter is coming up in just a little bit. But the meantime, let me bring you back up to date on the story I was talking about before, we knew the president is going to be coming on with that statement. The conservative movement in this country, the movement that's led by, you know, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck have all but run that woman, Dede Scozzafava out of town and certainly out of that race in New York that I've been telling you about. Why? Because many of them argue that she's not a true blue conservative, certainly not conservative enough for them.
Now, prior to her deciding she was out, she was the official Republican nominee. So let me ask these two questions again quite plainly -- this development that we're seeing in New York, what does it bode for the Republican and the Democratic parties? Is it a sign for example that this will be bad news for the Democratic Party because what it really needs is and some Republicans believes this that the Republicans are getting their act together, they're cleaning house?
Kind of a purity campaign, some might say. Or is it bad news for the Republican Party because they're getting kind of divided down the middle and then they become weaker? Even Republican leaders seem somewhat confused by this notion. Let's listen to Mr. Boehner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLI)
REP. JOHN BOENER (R), MINORITY LEADER: I'm a big believer in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment -- never talk ill about another Republican.
REPORTER: That was not followed in this race?
BOENER: I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: He knows. Let's bring in now CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. She's good enough to join us. You care Candy to share your expert on analysis on which party might be most affected by this and good and bad?
CANDY CROWLEY, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's see who wins Tuesday. If the democrat pulls this through because as you know, the Republican pulled out and urged her followers to vote for the democrat. There are a couple of things going on and I don't think they're going to shake down necessarily for another year or so. First, there is no doubt that there is conflict within the Republican Party as there always are in parties that are out of power. Does it move more to the right? Does it stay, quote, "conservative"? The Ronald Reagan values they talk about so often.
What about the moderates that says, we have to grow this team a little bit? So, that is certainly played out in this district and that's why it's so interesting. Now, we should also say that she was running third in this district. And that's why she pulled out. She was losing to this conservative, to Hoffman.
And so she pulled out. Now, what does it mean overall? If you talk to some Republican, they say -- this is like an anomaly here. There was no primary. You can sign up for a line in New York because of the ballot. But if you some place like Florida where there is a primary and you will have a moderate versus a conservative, there will be a primary and time after that presumably for the Republican party to get its act together for a general race. The democrats, you know, win by this? Well, I would argue if the democrats win on Tuesday night, on that very Republican district. You would say, yes, they do. By division, the other party wins.
SANCHEZ: This guy Hoffman by the way, here's another part of this story. I want to play you a Rush Limbaugh line here in just a moment. But before we get to that, I would just thinking to myself, who's really a true blue Republican? If we start going along measures of purification, who's a real Republican who's a good conservative and who's a not-so-good conservative Republican?
I'm reading in "The New York Times" today about Hoffman, and it says here. In fact, he's on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark. Now, if you go by purity alone, that's not the act of a completely fiscal conservative Republican. But he's being made out to be just that. And she was being made out to be -- well, in fact, I'm not going to say it. Let Rush Limbaugh say it.
Here's Rush Limbaugh just a couple of hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM RUSHLIMBAUGH.COM)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Scozzafava has screwed every Rhino in the co -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every Rhino in the country. Everyone can see just how phony and dangerous they are. You know, 2010 might be a nightmare for PETA. Two animals may become extinct -- Rhinos and Blue Dog Democrats. Pelosi is going to kill off the Blue Dogs and conservatives are going to finally get rid of Rhinos. The American people have had enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And, Rhinos, I guess, are Republicans that aren't quit conservative enough -- I mean, Republican in a name only.
So the bottom line, when we listen to that, is this about Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, the right social conservative ideological wing of the party trying to stage some kind of coup and you and I are going to look back a couple of years from now and say, aha, that's where it began, in New York?
CROWLEY: Again, I think that's one of those things I can -- I can tell you better two years from now and my crystal ball is much better in hindsight.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: But this...
SANCHEZ: Well said. CROWLEY: There's also -- and I -- I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking this is about social conservatives. This largely has been about -- in fact, some of these other races in New Jersey and Virginia are about the fiscal conservatives. It is about the spending that they believe is going on in Washington. They did not like it that the Republican candidate in New York, 23, favored the stimulus.
They -- so this has been a fiscal -- this is the Club for Growth. So it's not just the Tea Party people which -- who were the ground troops here. But it is a light -- it is sort of a coalition of these conservative groups, both fiscal and social.
But that what has driven this race and what's driving Virginia and New Jersey right now is -- are the fiscal concerns they have about the amount of money that the federal government is spending.
SANCHEZ: Well, yes, it's interesting. And if you look at it in terms of what happened not just during the Obama years, a little bit of the Clinton years, a little bit of the George W. Bush years, certainly there was an argument that could be made both ways about overspending, but also about why did regulators look the other way, why were regulations weakened, why were schemes come up with, with the -- from the business sector that allowed our -- our economy to essentially almost collapse?
CROWLEY: Sure.
SANCHEZ: So, you know, it -- it's interesting, when you look at this. You and I could go all day talking about this. And you know how much I enjoy our conversations. My producer is telling me we're going to have to leave it for another day.
But there are some strong arguments that are being made on both sides. And it's a good thing that Americans are looking at them in the end -- Candy Crowley, always a pleasure to have this conversation with you.
CROWLEY: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: All right. A senator whose vote could, in large measure, decide the fate of the health insurance companies, has a wife who's getting more than $2 million from the health insurance companies.
Did you hear what I just said?
Yes, I'm talking about you, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.
I'm just -- I'm following the money. That's all we're doing here. We're following the money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A sigh of relief. I'm glad the street is now (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm glad he's off the street.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we're just thankful that they got him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: They're talking about a convicted rapist. That's who they're talking about. And police say that he killed half a dozen women and then lived in his home with their decomposing bodies.
Neighbors finally noticed the smell, but why didn't anyone call police?
A pretty good question. The After Show today, as well. And toward the end of the show, I'm going to have Scott Ritter here as my guest. If you've been reading some of the things he's been writing lately, he's certainly primed and ready to go to talk about Afghanistan.
So we'll do just that.
Stay with us.
We will do that at 4:00.
In the meantime, a lot more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I promised you a long time ago that we're going to be following the money during this hour every day here on CNN. Look, folks are thanking us for it. Maria over here from New York City is saying: "I'm so glad you're continuing to follow the money in Congress. Thank you. What's going on is shameful and I'm glad you are on it."
Well, we're glad we're on it, too, and we're going to be telling you about that story in just a little bit.
But then there's this story. This is amazing. I -- I told you a little while ago that we've got some details from a bizarre crime story. And, man, I'm not kidding around with this one. It's straight out of a -- it's almost like a cheesy horror flick, I'd say.
Let me set the scene up for you. Then I'm going to bring in Brooke Baldwin, who's been looking into this for us.
First of all, let's look at -- let's look at this man's face, all right?
See that guy right there?
That's Anthony Sowell. He's a real upstanding citizen. Right. A convicted serial rapist, ex-con who did 15 years in prison. Police show up at his house. They're looking for him on another sex assault complaint.
And what do they find at this man's house?
Well, here's where it gets weird. It was nothing that they would have expected in, I guess, a million years.
Brooke's here now with some of the details of what they found -- bodies, right -- decomposing bodies?
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I guess it was less of what they saw and more of what they smelled. We're talking about this guy -- and you saw his face just a moment ago here -- a guy whose name we really didn't even know until five days ago. Now, basically, the nation wondering who is Anthony Sowell and who are the women whose bodies are so badly decomposed that the coroner couldn't initially readily identify their race or gender?
Horrific stuff.
First, let's get the latest here from police. I talked to the police. They have confirmed just today that all six women were African-American. Five were strangled to death. The sixth, the cause of death is still unknown. They are all ruled as homicides. And there could be more, according to authorities in Cleveland.
That's why now they've announced they're going back to every single home -- apartment where Sowell has lived since 2005. That is when he got out of prison after serving this 15 year sentence for choking and raping a woman.
So that's the latest.
SANCHEZ: Right.
BALDWIN: Now, let me set up the time line. Going back to last Thursday, Cleveland police arrived at Sowell's home on a separate rape charge. He wasn't home, but we mentioned the smell. The stench of the decay so thick, so pungent, pouring out of his home, officers decided to look a little further.
They go inside. They immediately found the first two bodies just lying there on his living room floor.
Can you imagine?
Over the next couple of days, investigators found another body in a freshly dug -- dug grave underneath a set of stairs to his backyard. And then two more bodies found crammed in a crawl space inside the house. The sixth body buried in a shallow grave in the basement (INAUDIBLE).
SANCHEZ: Well, I can only imagine what that must have smelled like.
But tell me what people in the community have been saying.
BALDWIN: Well, a lot of them -- you know, I talked to a convenience store owner on the phone who lives -- or whose business is about 20 feet from this location. The smell was so awful -- just on the smell -- that he had to spend all kinds of money just freshening out his convenience store. And a lot of people were wondering, you know, who this guy was. A lot of people in the neighborhood who've lost loved ones recently -- mothers, aunts thinking, oh my gosh, this could be -- this could be them. This could be this particular person in the home. We have found some people who are really -- they're just -- they're reeling.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I want to think that to get some closure to this, because it's been so many months. But I do not know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A sigh of relief because the street is now safe again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm glad he's off the street.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we're just thankful they've got him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've taken a confirmed three bodies out of the home. We've now, with the assistance of the coroner's office, removed what we believe are the remains of three additional victims, one from the backyard and two from inside the home.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really don't know who did this. But all I ask is anybody who knows about what happened, please come forth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Sowell was arrested Saturday. Awful. And you think about these people who've lost loved ones, wondering if this could be them. Again, there could be more. According to police, they'll be going to his additional houses, trying to see if there are other victims. But so far...
SANCHEZ: It's a horror (INAUDIBLE)...
BALDWIN: It's an awful story.
SANCHEZ: It's a horror movie. And the fact that these people lived next to this and they probably suspected, what is that bizarre smell?
But they never...
BALDWIN: But no one said anything.
SANCHEZ: But they never questioned it.
BALDWIN: No one. And had they questioned it...
SANCHEZ: Because we live in a society where we don't want to embarrass somebody or -- I don't know, maybe -- maybe they should have embarrassed them.
BALDWIN: Wishing they had, perhaps.
SANCHEZ: Unbelievable.
Good stuff, Brooke.
BALDWIN: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Let us know what's going on with that as you get more information.
This senator's vote could decide the fate of the health care reform in this country.
So why is his wife allowed to sit on the board of insurance companies and make enormous profits?
The better question may be why is he allowed to vote?
It's OK that she's on the board, because everybody has a right to make money, right?
I keep saying, Americans, just follow the money. And that's what we're going to do. We're following the money.
Also, later, Scott Ritter -- he was obviously ridiculed when he told us that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when he was the chief U.N. weapons inspector. It turns out he was right. Now he's talking about Afghanistan. Maybe we should listen. I don't know. Call me crazy. He's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
I'm Rick Sanchez here in our World Headquarters of CNN.
This show has taken the lead, you might say, and will continue to take the lead in showing how members of Congress accept big money from corporations and then write laws that apply to those very same corporations.
How anyone can find that acceptable and not to be a conflict of interest seems to be beyond most of us. But it happens. In many cases, it happens every week.
I've asked this before and now I'm going to ask again -- should we assume that these contributions come with some kind of strings attached?
I mean, think about it.
Do you think those corporations are giving their money away because these guys in Congress are just really handsome and nice?
I'm going to let you answer that.
Meanwhile, here's another apparent example.
What would you think of someone whose wife -- the wife of a U.S. senator sits on a slew of corporate boards -- corporate health care boards and that those boards have paid her, the wife of the senator, more than $2 million from 2006 to 2008?
And now the husband is about to vote on something that those companies don't want. Yes, the same companies. Let me repeat, the same companies that poured more than $2 million into his household coffers, right?
It's his wife. In fact, this senator's vote could end up being the deciding vote on health care reform. Nice, huh?
That's the way the system should work? Who is this senator? Stay right there. You're about to find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. The deciding vote on health care reform just might belong to a member of the U.S. Senate whose wife has made a killing from the health care industry.
You think I'm kidding?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Just last week, Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh dropped a bit of a bombshell that wasn't widely noticed. Bayh hinted he might balk when it comes time to break an expected Republican filibuster if he doesn't like the package that is now being crafted.
In other words, he could deny the bill's supporters the votes that they need to move forward on health care reform regarding the public option and other measures.
That means that he would help Senate Republicans bottle the thing up; stop it, essentially. His one single vote could be that important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: My question is: Can Evan Bayh be impartial on health care, when as of last year, his wife, Susan, who sits on the boards of one, two, three -- no, wait -- four corporate boards in the health care industry; among them, WellPoint, the nation's largest commercial health insurer.
Equilar, an executive compensation research firm, says that WellPoint paid Susan Bayh close to $2 million from 2006 to 2008 just to sit on the boards; some estimates, $2.1 million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANCHEZ (voice-over): All told, health care companies have paid Senator Bayh's wife some $2.1 million. That's all together. That's putting them all together, just to be clear.
And here's the thing. Most of these gigs she didn't even get until her husband won election to the Senate. She got the gigs after he got the big job.
What does that tell you?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Dan Carpenter is an Op-ed columnist with the "Indianapolis Star, " which is the Senator's home state of Indiana. Of course, he's not the only one writing about this, but there are a lot of voices being raised about this.
Dan, thanks for being with us.
DAN CARPENTER, OP-ED COLUMNIST, "THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR": Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.
SANCHEZ: Putting aside for a moment how he is going to vote. Forget about whether he goes left, right, in between, whatever. Just the facts of the case -- his wife's situation with these companies -- isn't that a clear case of a conflict of interest that you or I, as journalists, or just about anyone else in just about any profession, would have to disclose to their boss, and then their boss would say, "You know what, take a step back; recuse yourself from making a decision on this"?
Isn't that the way it would work anywhere else?
CARPENTER: Well, we're grateful that it is being disclosed. And it's so blatant and so open, and the Senator's been so insistent that it has absolutely nothing to do with his vote, I think all we can do is just sit back and scratch our heads. The voters certainly have every reason to wonder whether it's an investment, you know, again ...
SANCHEZ: But it's just laughable to me. And I hate to use that word. I don't mean to sound mean. But it just seems laughable to me that someone could have $2 million poured into their coffers by a certain company or a certain type of company, and then argue that, oh, that's not going to affect my vote one way or another, I don't care.
And by the way, let's be fair to the Senator. He sent us these notes today. He says his voter record shows he's put the people of Indiana first. He's says he's voted against big health in the past. He voted for the Democrats' Prescription Drug Plan because he thought it would be more efficient than the industry-backed plan. He voted for the Democrats' Bill of Rights. That was strongly opposed by the drug companies.
Is he right? Does he have a voting record that says, "I don't care what companies my wife is on and how much money we're getting into our account from those big companies?" CARPENTER: He'll never have a vote this big. Some of those instances where the Democratic Senator did vote with the Democrats were of questionable level of controversy. I think that drug bill was going to be a bonanza no matter what.
The question in front of us is, with this historic vote coming, and his expression of opposition even at one point last week of joining a filibuster against his own party, has to raise questions about the financial ties he and his wife have with the industry.
SANCHEZ: And the propriety and the possibility of a conflict of interest.
By the way, he goes on to tell us -- he's been calling us all morning since he found out we were going to go with this story. And we invite the Senator to come on and talk to us tomorrow if he would like to give us his perspective on this conversation you and I are having.
He said -- for months he said he has an open mind on the public option. And as to his wife, he says she is a qualified, talented, professional woman who works hard to achieve her professional success, and her career has no bearing whatsoever on the Senator's legislative activities.
Does he have an open mind on the public option? Is he pretty much already sign-posting where he's going on this thing?
CARPENTER: My bias is toward a real public option and toward an expansion of Medicare, which I think the more progressive Democrats are behind.
SANCHEZ: And most Americans; 62 percent according to the last poll.
CARPENTER: In the most recent poll I saw, a majority of people in this very conservative state, this is the progressive Democrat objective, and this is what the health care industry wants to stop. This is what represents a threat to their profits. And he's made it clear that if he would vote for any kind of a public option, it would be a diluted one, a compromised one.
SANCHEZ: I just got to stop you. I'm just wondering, because I want our viewers to know. If it is, it's good. If not, we just want to be fair to this Senator.
Is there an unmistakable quid pro quo in terms of the money that she's getting from these companies; in other words, is there no arguing that she's getting this money from these companies? Is she also getting stocks or are they getting stocks from WellPoint or any of these companies? And how important is that to this decision?
CARPENTER: You can't make that pronouncement. If they want to insist that this is simply her separate professional career, and he wants to insist that he allows no access to himself by the industry that's given him $500,000, then there's no definitively contradicting that.
It's just very obvious that there are ties here, and there are entities, industries and political entities and personal connections that are going to influence the outcome of politics.
SANCHEZ: If nothing else, he's conflicted. I mean, I can't see how anybody could say that he's not. But, again, we extend the invitation for him to come here. If he says that that seeming conflict of interest doesn't affect his voting record one way or another; if those $2.1 million that float into his household income that he and his wife spare -- I imagine, spend together, doesn't affect his voting record, well, that's for him to say and for the American people to buy or not buy.
And once again, the invitation stands.
Dan Carpenter is with a paper in Indianapolis. He has been taking us through this. Thank you, sir. We'll get you back.
CARPENTER: Thank you, sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Let's not be fooled here, OK? This wouldn't be the first time that a president of the United States has lied to the American public to facilitate a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That was 2002. Should you paid attention to what Scott Ritter has to say now in 2009 about what's going on in Afghanistan? After all, he was right about Iraq.
And then the after-show, we'll stay with Scott Ritter. For those of you who want to hear the full conversation with Ritter after we get started during the show, it will continue on cnn.comlive. That's cnn.comlive. I'm Rick Sanchez. I'm coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Baseball is bats, football is pigskin and basketball is -- well, basketball. But what happens when basketball becomes about bats? Basketball, bats? Then it becomes the lead in our "Fotos Del Dia."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): And the music makes them dance. But watch this. This is in San Antonio, Texas. All of a sudden, they realize there's a bat flying around the court. There's a little bat right there. See him in the middle?
He's still flying around while that guy's going up for the lay- up. All of the sudden, somebody sees him. There he is. The mascot comes out with a net, and he says, "I'm going to get that little guy." But no. Look who does it. One of the players, Ginobili. That's right. Manu Ginobili goes out and says, "I'll grab him." Takes a swipe, grabs the bat and takes him over to these guys and says, "Here's a bat. Get him out of here. Let's keep playing basketball, what do you say?"
That's the very first "foto."
All right. The prompter is completely lost. Let's get out of that one and let's go to the next one, if we possibly can.
Let's talk about a race, huh? This is a good one. This is Talladega, folks. And all of the sudden, you're going to see what it's like to be going about 220 miles an hour when suddenly your car overturns.
And there it goes. Bang. That's from the inside. There's another view we got from the outside. The car actually flips all the way in the air.
You know, you've got to wonder sometimes if this didn't happen, would anyone show up for these races? Just asking.
Good. This one's for my homies. I could watch this video all day long. Ted Ginn from the Miami Dolphins had kick return touchdowns of 101 and 100 yards. Let me say that again. Ted Ginn left the New York Jets speechless after two kick return touchdowns in last-in yesterday's game.
Why is it such a big deal? Ginn became the very first person in NFL history to have two 100-yard returns in one game. And he did it not only in one game, but in one quarter -- two 100-yard returns.
Should I sing the fight song? Come on. Miami has the Dolphins, the greatest - OK. Upon the advice of my executive producer, Angela Massy, I will now stop singing.
That is the man who said, I told you so, about Iraq. Should we now pay closer attention to what he's saying about Afghanistan? You will hear from him directly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: He joins me live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Scott Ritter is my next guest. I'm no Mark Anthony. No, I'm not talking about J-Lo's husband. I'm talking about the character in real life who is also is in Shakespeare's play about Caesar. But I do know when someone has been made out to be a tragic figure, a la Caesar, whether they deserved it or not.
And here's the fact, talking more now like a Regular Joe than a Shakespearean scholar. Scott Ritter tried to warn us to stay the hell out of Iraq. And we didn't listen. Now he's warning about Afghanistan. So the question becomes, Should we listen? Think about that as I take you back seven years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RITTER: If President Bush has a case to be made, if this Administration has a case to be made for war against Iraq, then by God, they'd better start making it. I'm tired of hearing the rhetoric of war. I'm tired of watching American troops deploy for war. I'm tired of seeing the world reject the stance that America takes, because there are no facts right now to back up anything the Administration says in regards to Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And he was all but pummeled for those words. Here is the thing. Scott Ritter wasn't and is not a pacifist. In fact, he's a marine. He's a former U.S. -- United States Marine.
And not just that. He spent all kinds of time in Iraq as the head of the U.S. Weapons Inspection Team, and looking really young and thin there. He was over there making headlines for being so hard on Saddam Hussein.
In fact, he was so hard on Hussein, that eventually he was all but kicked out of the country by Saddam Hussein. So, you know, there's some "cred" there, "street cred," as they call it.
But then what happened? When Ritter tried to tell the world that Iraq really didn't have weapons of mass destruction, that we should think twice about the war, the Bush Administration was leading us into a war under false pretenses, is what he was saying back then, much of the mainstream media went on the attack.
Critter has -- Ritter has no - I will read you some of the things that were written about him back then. Ritter has no credibility. He's drinking the Kool-Aid. He's a sock puppet. Ritter is being paid by Saddam Hussein. That's what was said about him, and there were worse things actually said about him. Those are the once we can put on the air.
In the end those charges were, for the most part, wrong, and Ritter was right. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention what I just told you as I welcome Scott Ritter to this news hour.
Mr. Ritter, thank you for being with us.
RITTER: Thanks for having me.
SANCHEZ: Before we even go into Afghanistan, given what I just said there moments ago that a lot of people know now, maybe some people don't know; what was that like for you knowing I guess in your heart of hearts that you were making a sound argument and having people call you all kinds of names for essentially being a truth teller?
RITTER: Oh, I mean, there's two aspects. One is the human aspect. I think anybody who -- who holds claim to be any human would say it hurts to have people come at you that way, especially if you know what you're doing is right, fact-based, and you're doing it for the right reasons.
You know, I didn't have an agenda. I wasn't running for office. I wasn't trying, to, you know, hoodwink anybody into doing anything. I was simply asked for a fact-based debate when the stakes were so high, the lives of American service men and women.
As a former Marine, I take, you know -- I take those lives extraordinarily seriously, especially when we talk about issues of war. But on the other hand, as a professional ...
SANCHEZ: I mean, I'm just wondering, is there bitterness? And especially towards me and people like me. Because you can understand the Bush Administration having a philosophy or ideology, and they wanted to carry through with it, and you were in their way.
And you can certainly understand maybe some people at the Pentagon who thought you weren't enough of a hawk for them and maybe thought you were getting in their way. But it seemed to me, going back to that era and being one of those people who was on this side; those who were most critical of you are those who are supposed to be in the middle -- the media, the mainstream media.
Are you still -- well, let me just ask you openly. What is your feeling about that?
RITTER: Well, look, the media has a tool - I mean, has a job to play. It's a tool. It's part of our society. And in -- the American media in particular is no longer purely journalistic in terms of reporting the facts. There's, you know -- I hate to say it -- an entertainment aspect to it. You have to draw in the viewership, and you have to be responsive to the viewership.
When you're looking at a story as complex as Iraq, and you've got a whole bunch of people on one side, and one person on the other side, you know, it's only human nature that you gravitate towards (unintelligible).
I'm not bitter. I don't hold any grudge. I would like the media to be more fact-based and less faith-based in its analysis of very difficult problems
SANCHEZ: I think that's a very fair assessment. And I think we should probably take heed as we listen to somebody like you say that. And looking back on that era -- guilty as charged, by the way. Not completely, or maybe not as bad as others, but I think we all played a hand in that.
Almost all of us -- stay right there. When we come back, you say Afghanistan is a -- Iraq was a complicated situation? So is Afghanistan. And we're making some decisions now that we're all going to be living with for years and years. So, I want your opinion. I want Scott Ritter to tell us what we may be doing wrong and what judgments we're making that we may regret later.
Stay right there. Scott Ritter when we come back, answering my questions and yours as well.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. Scott Ritter is back with us. He's the former U.N. Weapons Inspector who shouted himself blue in the face to try and keep a lot of the folks in the United States, including the media, from buying into everything that was being said when we were first going into Iraq, but it didn't work. He turned blue for nothing.
Now, he has some thoughts on Afghanistan. And as I told you, President Obama spoke today with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. You heard that here live when it happened just about 50 minutes ago on this show. Hamid Karzai, who prevailed in the fraud-marred election after his opponent dropped out of a planned runoff Saturday. Now, we heard the president say that Karzai told him he's ready to move ahead boldly. But we also heard Mr. Obama say he wants proof of that with deeds and not words.
As we all know, Mr. Obama is now considering a major escalation of Afghan war, perhaps 40,000 new troops to the war effort.
But here's the problem. We also heard this weekend that Abdullah Abdullah doesn't even want to be a part of this election, which means that there are many Afghanis, or at least a large measure of them, who are saying, "You know what? We're not that interested in your brand of democracy. We're not even going to be interested in an election. We're not even going to show up to vote."
And we're going to send 40,000 more troops there.
Question: Scott Ritter, as you come into this, and you see the developments that just happened today and yesterday and over the weekend, does it bode well for a plan to send 40,000 more American troops into Afghanistan?
RITTER: First of all, you know, we need to know what the mission is. We're going to send 40,000 troops, that's the solution. But you can't solve a problem unless you accurately define the problem. And that's what's lacking here, sound definition of what the problem is we're trying to resolve in Afghanistan.
Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan as being a critical element, you know, a crucial front that we had to prevail. That means he must have had some sort of idea of why we were fighting there. I know he inherited this problem, but he -- he also embraced it.
Now, he's President Obama, and what is he doing? He's saying, "I don't want to make a decision until somebody tells me what our mission is."
Well, what is the mission, Mr. President? You're the commander in chief. Don't wait for someone to tell you what to think. You obviously have a point of view. You said it was an important front. You sent thousands of troops there after you got elected. And now you're saying, "Well, I need to know more about what the mission is."
I'll tell you what the mission is: There is no mission in Afghanistan. We don't have a mission in Afghanistan.
SANCHEZ: But politically, maybe the president is saying, "Look, I'm going to get hammered if I don't listen to my generals. And I've got General McChrystal over there telling me that this thing is winnable if I only give him 40,000 more troops. And if I just pooh- pooh that idea right away, I'm going to get killed for it."
I guess my question to you is: Should he be listening to General McChrystal?
RITTER: Well, I think you hit the problem on the head right there. You defined it perfectly. This is a political problem, not a military problem. This is about the president looking for a solution to a problem he has at home. We're defining Afghanistan from a domestic American political imperative and not the problem on the ground. We're coming up with terms that sell well in Washington, D.C., but have no meaning on the ground inside Afghanistan.
Should he be listening to General McChrystal? Of course, he should. Should he be totally reliant on General McChrystal? Absolutely not. He is, after all, President Obama, the Commander in Chief. And at the end of the day, it's General McChrystal who will listen to President Obama, and it's time that President Obama comes up with a definition of what the problem is.
And if he or anybody else tries to tell me that he's sending troops there as a political bandage to a problem he has a home, that means he's letting Americans die for his political benefit, and that's just wrong in the extreme.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask you -- first of all, I should mention to our viewers, we invited the White House several times to engage in this conversation because we knew there would be comments that might be critical of them. They have not responded.
I should also ask you about General McChrystal. Has he gone too far in making statements in public that he should have made in private? We're down to 30 seconds before we switch over to dot-com.
RITTER: General McChrystal works for the President of the United States of America. He's not a public official. He should not be going to public forums and expressing his personal opinion or his professional opinion. Give advice to the president and keep that advice private within the chain of command. He broke that rule. He was insubordinate, and the president needs to do something more than just slap him on the wrist.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. You seem to be saying maybe he should-- well, we're out of time. Let's go to Wolf Blitzer. Scott Ritter stays with us. I'll press him on that last point that he made about General McChrystal.
Here now in "THE SITUATION ROOM" is Wolf Blitzer.
