Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
New Breast Cancer Guidelines Create Firestorm of Controversy; Sarah Palin Speaks Out
Aired November 18, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICHARD LUI, CNN ANCHOR: And with that, we head to the NEWSROOM with Rick Sanchez.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): The most revealing video to date of what actually happened inside the Mumbai hotel attack. You will hear what the terrorists were actually saying.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you comfortable with what you're saying right now?
SANCHEZ: Dr. Sanjay Gupta takes on a government task force that is sending shock and awe among doctors and women.
GUPTA: You're saying some lives just aren't worth it. That is an incredibly frightening thing to hear.
SANCHEZ: Gupta's confrontation.
New information on the Katie Couric interview that may have derailed Sarah Palin. Palin tells Oprah she wasn't prepped by McCain's staff. But listen to this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those two questions that you just mentioned were essentially ones that she had been prepared for directly by staffers.
SANCHEZ: Was she or wasn't she? You will hear a new account from reporters who were there -- all this on your national conversation for Wednesday, November 18, 2009.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez with the next generation of news. This is a conversation, it's not a speech, and it is your turn to get involved.
There is a major development on the story that we first brought you, one that got a ton of response from all over the country after together we watched a courtroom deputy in Maricopa County, Arizona, flaunt the laws of privacy and the U.S. Constitution.
Let's watch it again. We are talking about Deputy Adam Stoddard, to which that arrow is pointed to. You see the attorney. She's addressing the courtroom. He's looking at her file, her private file that she's using to defend her client.
He signals for another one of the court officers to come over to him. He does. And then he says, look what I just saw here in her file, opens her private file, takes out a document. And he's about to instruct him to take the document and leave the courtroom with it. And there he goes -- all this without the attorney seeing it.
She makes a quick turn, realizes something's going on, but it's not until her client says to him, he just took something right out of your file, that she turns to the judge and says, Your Honor, this isn't right.
Well, here's the news. Deputy Stoddard, despite being defended by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, has now been found in contempt of court and is being made to apologize publicly to the attorney whose documents he stole. So says a judge.
But here's where this case gets even more bizarre. "The Arizona Republic' is now reporting that the deputy's pass, embattled populist antagonizer Joe Arpaio, is telling the deputy not to obey the judge's order. He is telling the deputy not to apologize.
The judge says, without an apology, he will send the deputy, Stoddard, to jail.
What a turn of events.
Sylvia Pinera-Vazquez is a criminal defense attorney who has also worked as a prosecutor and has been closely monitoring this case for us.
First, let me ask what you make of the judge's order, telling this deputy that he was in contempt of court and that he's going to have to publicly apologize to this lawyer?
SYLVIA PINERA-VAZQUEZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon, Rick.
Quite frankly, it's a very light punishment for what he did. He's basically been told that, if you apologize, you can walk away scot-free, despite having violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, despite having violated attorney-client privilege. She's given a light, light sentence.
SANCHEZ: And, yet, despite that, we are now hearing that Sheriff Arpaio is instructing his deputy to disobey essentially this judge's order. He says, "I'm the only one who's can decide who is going to apologize in my department, and I'm telling him not to apologize."
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Not only that. He's trying -- and I quote from the press release -- "Superior court judges do not order my officers to hold press conferences."
Clearly, Sheriff Arpaio thinks he's above the law. He has deliberately said he's not going to follow a judge's direct order and is flaunting the fact that he's not going to follow it. SANCHEZ: Well, but let me ask you a question here. Is he right in any measure? I mean, does a judge tell a police officer what to do in this case? Or does she have to go through his boss, who I imagine she probably has some kind of relationship with?
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Well, in this case, the person who was held in contempt of court was obviously not the sheriff, but Officer Stoddard, so she has jurisdiction to tell Officer Stoddard what his punishment once he was found -- I'm sorry -- it's Judge Donahoe -- once he was found in contempt of court.
Having been found in contempt of court, she can order whatever punishment she deems -- or he deems appropriate. In this case, it was a public apology, a press conference, or go to jail on December 1.
SANCHEZ: Have you ever in all your years as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney seen anything akin to this?
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Never, absolutely not. This is -- imagine it is the other way around. Imagine a defendant going into a state attorney's document and stealing paper from the state attorney's file.
SANCHEZ: You mean a prosecutor were in court and she was trying to present the evidence against somebody who was accused of committing a crime and one of their family members got up in court and started rifling through their file and started stealing stuff?
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Exactly. Can you picture that? Can you picture in any courtroom a judge ordering just a public apology? Most likely, that person would have been taken into custody, would have had to bond out of jail, would have probably been charged with theft and other charges.
In this case, basically, what the officer has been given is a slap on the wrist, apologize, and walk away scot-free.
SANCHEZ: Well, is it -- final question. I'm just curious. Where does something like this go? Could the judge, because this -- his superior, this officer's superior, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is telling him no, you will not apologize, and you will not obey that judge's order, if that's the case, is it possible then that the judge can now hold Sheriff Joe Arpaio in contempt?
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Absolutely.
And not only that, but now you have got the officer in a situation where he's got a Hobson's choice. Either he follows the court order or he follows his boss' order. And he can risk losing his job.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: So, at this point there's a lot of things that can happen here. An appeal can be taken of the criminal contempt order. But the judge can go further and hold further hearings and hold possibly Sheriff Arpaio in contempt of court. SANCHEZ: Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: Thanks so much, Sylvia, for bringing us up to date on this. We certainly appreciate it.
PINERA-VAZQUEZ: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: All right, this is amazing. This is not a movie, folks. This is an actual terrorist attack. It's caught on tape. And you're going to hear what the terrorists are actually saying to each other during this terrorist attack. It's chilling to watch. And we're going to bring to it you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUPTA: ... I'm hearing you say is that you're saying some lives just aren't worth it. That is an incredibly frightening thing to hear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Sanjay Gupta, my colleague, challenging the medical task force over how to check for breast cancer and which women should be checked and when. This is a fascinating exchange. And I want you to watch it. I'm going to play it for you next.
Also, don't forget the other way to participate in this newscast. We want you to call this number. It's the hey Rick number, and I want you to start your comment with, hey, Rick, 877-742-5751, 877-742-5751.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick. My name's Claire (ph). I'm from Des Moines, Iowa.
And I disagree with the new breast cancer screening guidelines. They say that 90 percent of those tumors that are found are not malignant, but what about the other 10 percent that are? I think it's definitely worth it to screen women for early detection for breast cancer. And I plan to continue doing that, even though I'm not 50. And I just hope my insurance company will pay for it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Not only are we getting comments on that. Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. We're also getting comments on that situation in Maricopa County.
Go to state one right there, if you would, Robert. We're going to go to our Twitter board. "The sheriff has no say in the courtroom. The judge does. It will be interesting if the judge goes after the sheriff." We will be following it as well.
All right, back now to the mammograms.
Sanjay Gupta is generally unflappable. But this recommendation steering some women away from getting a mammogram is causing him to challenge that decision. Those new federal guidelines advises women to hold off until age 50 to get a breast cancer screening, and then to get screened only every other year.
Sanjay Gupta, as a doctor himself, disagrees and today challenged a board member making that recommendation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUPTA: When you say the benefits are small, what do you mean by that, when you say the benefits are small? Let's not beat around the bush here. What exactly are you trying to say?
LUCY MARION, PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE: We look at it in various ways. For example, we look at life years gained by the actual screening every year or every other year. And the life years gained for that group is not very large. There are some life years gained. But it's not very large.
GUPTA: You're a nurse and...
MARION: And I know...
GUPTA: I don't want to, you know...
MARION: I am.
GUPTA: ... dig ourselves into a whole here. You're a nurse, you're in a profession of healing and compassion. Are you comfortable with what you're saying right now? Because what you're saying, what I'm hearing you say is that you're saying some lives just aren't worth it. We -- that's why we're changing these screening recommendations. And that is an incredibly frightening thing to hear from someone like yourself. Is that what you're saying?
MARION: No, I'm not saying that some lives are worth it. I do not say that. But as you know, as a physician, there are many screening tests that could save lives but could create many other issues that we made decisions about.
GUPTA: To be fair, you really didn't look at the population data. You looked at computer modeling of what you assumed the population would behave like. So, to be clear, about 15 percent of breast cancers out there were found on routine mammogram.
What the task force conceded is that there are a lot of breast cancers that are found between the ages of 40 and 49 on routine mammogram. The task force also conceded that a lot of those women's lives were save as a result of those mammograms. Yet, the task force concluded that it was not necessary to any longer recommend these routine mammograms.
Saves lives. It targets women in this particular age group, yet the task force is not recommending anymore. It's just confusing to me as a doctor and as just as a member of society.
MARION: Well, I think that, as a physician, you know that many cancers do not progress and that with the screening that we have, we cannot determine which of those cancers would progress. And, so, that's another issue for us to be facing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That woman is a nurse who's on the task force that issued those new breast cancer screening recommendations. And, yes, I said they are recommendations. It's important to remember that we're not talking about official government policy or legislation or anything that may be mandatory.
In fact, I want you to look at this. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued this statement today. "My message to women is simple: Mammograms have always been an important life- saving tool in the fight against breast cancer. And they still are today. Keep doing what you have been doing for years. Talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you."
So, your turn. Here's this breast cancer screening guidance. Start at age 50. Repeat every two years. No self-exams. All right, what do you do? Let me know what you think. I will be waiting for your response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we're going to watch while our country dies and think that there's nothing we can do about it, we're wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The militias in American, today, why one group says it would not defend our president of the United States, revealing inside stuff. It is coming your way.
Also, Sarah Palin suggests to Oprah Winfrey the McCain camp didn't prep her properly for the Katie Couric interview. But there's another side to this story from reporters who were there. I'm going to let you hear it for yourselves, both sides.
We will be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN. We're getting tweets today faster than I can read them.
Let me show you a couple of them. People fired up about that segment we just showed you with Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Women are watching and they have this to say. "You go, Dr. Gupta. Thanks for kicking government tail feathers. It is outrageous. Do U.S. women no longer have value?"
Then, the one right under that: "Who exactly is this breast cancer task force that nobody has ever heard of?"
Well, we have certainly heard of them now.
Let's do this. One of the things that we often take for granted is the comforting fact that, in this country, our military is not partisan. The brave men and women who defend us, they leave their politics back at home. And that's something that should make us sleep better. It makes us better, given that, in countries like Cuba, for example, just 90 miles away, that is not the case. The military is there for the party.
This report is about a political group with some unconventional theories that's actively spreading its message among, yes, even the armed forces. This is an important special report.
The reporter is CNN's Jim Acosta.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just a couple of miles off the Las Vegas strip, inside this casino ballroom...
OATH KEEPERS: We solemnly swear...
ACOSTA: Dozens of men and women are taking the oath, an oath they say is to the constitution of the United States.
OATH KEEPERS: So help me God.
ACOSTA: Not they say to the president.
RICHARD MACK, FORMER ARIZONA SHERIFF: If we're going to watch while our country dies, and think that there's nothing we can do about it, we're wrong.
ACOSTA: They call themselves the Oath Keepers and last month they held their first national conference.
STEWART RHODES, OATH KEEPERS FOUNDER: Our forefathers flew this flag...
ACOSTA: The group's founder, Stewart Rhodes, former Army paratrooper and staffer for Congressman Ron Paul says his members recite a revised version of the oath that's used for enlistment in the Armed Services. But they exclude this phrase: "I will obey the orders of the president of the United States.
RHODES: Our role is not to be obedient to whoever happens to be the leader. Our role is to defend the constitution and the republic. ACOSTA (on camera): The Oath Keepers aren't in Vegas looking for gamblers. They're seeking out police officers, sheriff's deputies, military veterans, even active duty members of the Armed Forces. If you've taken an oath to protect this nation, the Oath Keepers want you.
(voice-over): The group's Web site features pictures of veterans and active duty soldiers who say they have become Oath Keepers. The patch on this military uniform bears the group's name.
(on camera): Is the Oath Keepers a militia group?
RHODES: No. We don't need to be. We're the military and police.
ACOSTA (voice-over): The Oath Keepers call on their members to disobey any orders as they put it to disarm the American people, or to force citizens into detention camps. It's a pledge Rhodes recites in an anti-Obama DVD called "The Fall of the Republic."
RHODES: Do not obey orders to impose Martial law. I will not obey.
ACOSTA: Mark Potok who monitors extremists groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center says the Oath Keepers are exploiting false rumors found on fringe Web sites.
MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: Many of the Oath Keepers are people who believe that Martial law is about to be imposed at any moment. It is right around the corner.
ACOSTA (voice-over): Do you think President Obama is plotting to build detention camps in this country?
RHODES: I don't know. Do you think President Obama was planning to do that? Who knows? You know, the point... the point...
ACOSTA: You don't have any evidence of that, the full evidence of that.
RHODES: No. I have no evidence that he's doing that.
ACOSTA (voice-over): But Rhodes insists his group is not anti- government and not anti-Obama.
(on camera): So who's talking about taking those guns away?
RHODES: So we have to wait until someone talks about it before we can say we won't do it.
ACOSTA (voice-over): Brian McGough with the Democratic- leaning veterans group VoteVets.org worries soldiers and the Oath Keepers will pick and choose which orders to follow disrupting the chain of command.
BRIAN MCGOUGH, VOTEVETS.ORG: All they're doing is hurting the units. All they're doing is hurting the military, and all they're doing is hurting their friends. And they should really think about that.
ACOSTA: Critics say the Oath Keepers simply vindicate this recent report from the Department of Homeland Security that warned right wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans. The DHS declined to comment for the story that Rhodes blasted its report at the founding of the Oath Keepers earlier this year.
RHODES: When they across the ocean saving their country, they're considered heroes. But when they come home, now they're considered potential terrorists.
ACOSTA: The group was founded in Lexington, Massachusetts, the site of the first shots fired in the American Revolution.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: That was the third in the series, something to think about from CNN's Jim Acosta.
This thing plays out like a movie. You're looking at a terror attack that's caught on tape. And you're going to see it as it happens. For the first time, you're going to see and hear for yourself what the terrorists are actually saying to each other, their words, their language, their intentions. It is a phenomenal piece of video.
And we're going to show it to you.
Also, down goes Frazier. Down goes Frazier. OK. No, it's a refinery. We have got lots coming your way, including a fired-up Roland Martin in just a little bit. Stay with me. I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Wow. We ask you to respond to the stories that we put on the air. And we have gotten immediate feedback today on all the stories, including the one -- I want to share with you just what we got like seconds ago.
This was during the commercial after many of you watched that story we did on -- this is the third in a series that we have been doing on militias all week. "Oath Keepers scare the hell out of me. And in the climate of violence, invoking hate, we should all be scared, both sides."
The next one says: "That militia is run by a crackpot. Detention camps? Alex Jones spews that kind of paranoid crud. We don't need those crackpots."
And the third one says: "These people are crazy. Name one freedom lost since the election. These people are flat-out racists."
Three comments all coming out at once as soon as they watched that report that we showed you just moments ago.
And this -- in many ways, they look like goods. We often see the aftermath when there's been a terror attack. And we go in and the camera show you what has happened. But you're actually going to be able to see this, maybe for the first time, a terror attack as it's unfolding. You're going to actually hear the words of the terrorists themselves. It's chilling videotape. And I'm going to share that with you.
Also, later, Sarah Palin telling the truth when she blames the McCain camp for not prepping her for the disastrous Katie Couric interview? She says she wasn't prepped properly -- that's what she told Oprah -- not much, she says. There are also information from reporters who were embedded with her campaign who are saying something very different. We're going to bring you both sides.
I will be right back.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick. It's Gene (ph) from near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
If you ask me what do I think about Sarah Palin, I think she has absolutely no depth at all. Anyone that really supports a woman like this is part of our problem, not part of our solution.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to the world headquarters of -- whoa, that was kind of cool. New move, Rog?
All right. Let's start again. I've been talking to you about the last half hour or so about this young believable video that you're about to see. And trust me -- you're going to find this very hard to look away as you watch this.
This is Mumbai, India, last year's attack on that hotel. The fire, the shootings, the killings -- you watched it live right here on CNN. So did millions, just like I did. But now, you're going to be blown away by this -- these are cell phone recordings, video we've never seen before that puts you not on the outside looking in, but on the inside of that hotel and inside the heads of these terrorists who seem amateurish and almost freaked out themselves.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria puts it all together for us in this amazing documentary that runs tomorrow night on HBO. Now, here's a little bit of it. Watch and you may actually want to turn up the volume.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE, COURTESY HBO)
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" (voice-over): From the start, the police were confused and disorganized. They did nothing to stop the killing. For 15 minutes, they stood watching the massacre. Then most of them ran away and hid.
The lead gunman was Fahadullah, who wore black.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CONTROLLER: Fahadullah? Are you there?
FAHADULLAH, GUNMAN: Yes, I'm listening.
CONTROLLER: You're very close to heaven, brother. Today's the day you'll be remembered for, brother.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Fahadullah and his accomplice killed nine staff and three guests in the lobby.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CONTROLLER: How are you getting on? Have you started the fire yet?
FAHADULLAH: No, we haven't started it yet.
CONTROLLER: You must start the fire now. Nothing's going to happen until you start the fire. When people see the flames, they will start to be afraid. And throw some grenades, my brother. There's no harm in throwing a few grenades. How hard can it be to throw a grenade? Just pull the pin and throw it.
How are you, Ali? Everything OK?
ALI, GUNMAN: Thanks be to God. I'm fine. It's taken a long time to break the doors down. We've managed to break into three or four rooms facing the sea and we've set fire to them.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Finally, the Taj Hotel, Mumbai's most iconic landmark was ablaze. Brother Wassi and his fellow controllers were watching the action live on international TV channels. It was an image Brother Wassi knew would travel around the world.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CONTROLLER: My brother, yours is the most important target. The media are covering your target, the Taj Hotel, more than any other.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: The HBO documentary, "Terror in Mumbai," airs tomorrow night at 8:00 Eastern. CNN's Fareed Zakaria narrates this look inside one of the world's worst acts of terror.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture.
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Again, that all depends.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Has he thought about that before? Political implications, legal implications, what's an attorney general to do? Great question, by the way.
Insiders of the McCain camp are now disputing what Sarah Palin told Oprah Winfrey on several fronts. We're going to tell you what both sides are saying about this.
And remember the after show on CNN.com/live at 4:00.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Hey, Rick, this is Ronda (ph) from (INAUDIBLE), Florida. I just want to know what your obsession with Sarah Palin is. Instead of fact-checking Sarah Palin, why don't you go fact-check your president because that's the one that needs to be fact-checked. Why don't you get over Sarah Palin, all of you all at CNN get over Sarah Palin and just don't worry about her, why don't you go cover the real news, OK?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
You know, sometimes, all it takes is a question -- a good question. Since the government's deciding to take this self- proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and move him out of Guantanamo Bay and put him on federal trial, possibly in New York, then what would happen?
Let's just say if they captured this guy. What if any rights under the U.S. Constitution would be extended to Osama bin Laden? Should they be? Would he be brought to justice, let's say in New York City, where it happened?
Here is a fascinating dialogue I want you to watch that played out today in the Senate Judiciary Committee between Attorney General Eric Holder and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who asked one heck of a good question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: I'm telling you right now, we're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why. If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol and we'd make the determination about where he should be appropriately be tried.
GRAHAM: Would you try him -- why would you take him someplace different than KSM?
HOLDER: Well, that might be the case, I don't know. I'm not -- I'd have to look at all of the evidence, all of the...
GRAHAM: Well...
HOLDER: He's been indicted -- he's been indicted already.
GRAHAM: Does it matter if you -- if you use the law enforcement theory or the enemy combatant theory in terms of how the case would be handled?
HOLDER: Well, I mean bin Laden's an interesting case in that he has already been indicted in federal court. We have cases against him.
GRAHAM: Right. Where would -- where would you put him?
HOLDER: It would depend on how -- a variety of factors.
GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this question. OK, let me ask you this. Let's say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again, I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we...
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: What do you think? Osama bin Laden, you have the right to remain silent. Interesting concept, wouldn't you say? By the way, tell me what you have to say about this, I'd like to hear it.
How transparent was Sarah Palin to Oprah Winfrey? I'm going to play some of the video and I'm going to let you decide. You'll hear both sides.
And that's "R & R." Roland Martin and Rick Sanchez, we're about to go head to head. Other political headlines, including what you just show with Eric Holder, I'm going to run it by Roland and he's going to join in just a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN.
I have worked side by side with Katie Couric since we were both young reporters in Miami. I have seen her grow into what most would now consider her to be, an accomplished veteran journalist. That is why many were taken aback yesterday when they heard Sarah Palin refer to Katie Couric on Oprah Winfrey's show as, quote, "that perky one." Sarah Palin tells Winfrey she was talked into doing the interview by McCain's staff and she also goes on to suggest that she expected mostly softballs from Couric.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, HARPO PRODUCTIONS)
OPRAH WINFREY, HOST, "THE OPRAH WINFREY SHOW": You do say that it wasn't your best interview. Were you prepped for that interview?
SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Not so much because it was supposed to be kind of a light-hearted, fun, working mom speaking with working mom and the challenges that we have with teenage daughters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Note, she just suggested that Winfrey -- to Winfrey, I should say, that she wasn't prepped. Palin also tells Winfrey that the whole thing was supposed to be light-hearted.
Remember, when Palin talked to Couric, it was her coming-out interview, so to speak. Americans hardly knew who she was at that time and yet she'd just been selected by John McCain to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States.
Back to the interview -- this is what Palin told Couric when asked where she gets her information. What does she read? What magazines, what books, what newspapers?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CBS EVENING NEWS)
KATIE COURIC, CBS ANCHOR: But like what ones specifically? I'm curious, that you...
PALIN: All of 'em, any of 'em that, have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: No one told Palin to have an answer ready if someone fired a hard-hitting question, like where she gets her news, what she's reading these days. You heard her suggest that she wasn't prepped or not much for that Katie Couric interview which she herself told Oprah was a bad interview.
I want you to listen now to two campaign reporters that covered Sarah Palin. They were embedded with their campaign and they've written a book about being embedded with her campaign -- the good, the bad and the ugly. Listen to what they told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: I'm stumped by what would be a simple question for most people, you know, what do you read? You name your hometown newspaper? How -- what kind of effect did have on her?
SCOTT CONROY, AUTHOR, "SARAH FROM ALASKA": Oh, I mean, it was devastating. I mean, every campaign, it talks about how that completely changed the image of who Sarah Palin was. And the stunning thing is, those two questions that you just mentioned were essentially ones that she had been prepared for directly by staffers. And...
SANCHEZ: Really?
(CROSSTALK)
CONROY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Wait, you're making news here. Maybe I missed that in the book. But she had been prepared specifically on both of those questions?
SHUSHANNAH WALSHE, AUTHOR, "SARAH FROM ALASKA": Yes, especially with the...
CONROY: Yes.
WALSHE: ... magazines and the books that she read. Excuse me, the magazines and the newspapers that she reads. Right before when they were prepping for her, they said that one question she may ask or another network may ask is what nonfiction books are you reading. So, it wasn't exactly same but I was alike.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, she says she wasn't prepped implies that she was set up and two journalists say that she was prepped after all. Two stories, two sides, like we told you.
Now, there is another discrepancy: Palin's former handler is now disputing Palin's account of the Couric interview, that it was somehow supposed to be a puff piece or a puff interview or a conversation among gals. Nicolle Wallace told Rachel Maddow, the interview was conceived to show Palin had a command on foreign policy and other weighty matters. That's what she says, that's what she says, that's how it was set up, she says. Here's Wallace, "It was never made as two working gals. That's either rationalization or justification or fiction." And as if to emphasize, Wallace says, again, the interview wasn't, "was not about two working gals."
This is what Wallace says about the book, in fact, "Going Rogue: An American Life." quote, "A bizarre fixation on things that everyone else has moved on from."
Again, two versions of the same event as told by two different groups, Sarah Palin's and John McCain's staff and those two reporters I interviewed yesterday. I thought you should know.
By the way, this is important as well, CNN has continually tried to get reaction from former Governor Palin, she has turned down our requests for interviews, thus far. We'll keep trying.
That's a crane that suddenly goes into a house. We're going to show you how this happened and how it could possibly be prevented.
Then later, Roland Martin is fired up about your reaction to the president's bowing to the Japanese emperor. This is coming up in "R & R." But is that an appropriate bow, Roland?
We wondered if it was the first. So, we dug into the archives and we found some video. You're not going to believe what we found. This goes back to Richard Nixon. Stay right there, because I'm going to show you Richard Nixon taking a bow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
Who knew what kind of damage a 10-inch piece of pipe could cause? Let's do "Fotos."
We begin in Utah. Hydrogen leaked out of a small piece of pipe which caused a fire which caused this explosion, kablooie! The 100- foot fireball knocks homes off of their foundations in surrounding neighborhoods. We're checking on it. The plant is still closed.
Cat lovers cover your eyes. An officer on a routine traffic stop in Taylor, Texas, gets attacked by a stray kitten -- and you're about to see it. He decides that the officer is nothing more than a human scratching post. Again, this was not a traffic -- this was a traffic stop, not a cat burglary call. He doesn't seem to get affected by it, does he?
It's a good thing the tree removal experts on this job told the homeowners to vacate the premises for a while. Look what happened when the monstrous tree outweighed their crane. It toppled. Now, the family has a tree and a crane to remove, and hopefully, it also has the insurance to cover it.
Here's the question: How low should the president go? Has anyone looked how low did other presidents go, for example? I did. In fact, I'm going to pass this -- I'm not going to let this pass up. I'm going to have Roland Martin joining me in just a little -- what it -- what it -- what does -- what does that mean?
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That's called -- that's the whoopty-doo signal.
SANCHEZ: Oh! OK. So, the whoopty-doo segment is coming up. You stay right there for "R & R."
MARTIN: No, that's the whoopty-doo. He bowed low. Whoopty-doo.
SANCHEZ: I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: "R & R," as in Roland and Rick.
I promised you I was going to show you some video. I promised I was going to go into the archives. I promised I would find another president who maybe wasn't talked about as much. Here we go.
Show it to them, Rog.
The year is 1971. This is President Richard Nixon bowing to the Japanese emperor, Hirohito. Those of you who know your history know that's not just any Japanese emperor. That's the same Hirohito who led the Japanese into World War II, who had an alliance with the Nazis, who attacked Pearl Harbor. That's Richard Nixon bowing to Emperor Hirohito.
Roland Martin, if you're old enough to remember, do you recall it being said that President Nixon humiliated America when he bowed to Hirohito?
MARTIN: I'm sorry, what year was that, Rick?
SANCHEZ: 1971.
MARTIN: Sorry, dude, I was three. So, I don't remember.
SANCHEZ: If somebody had told you that a previous president of the United States actually bowed -- actually bowed -- to the guy who attacked Pearl Harbor, the guy who was in bed with the Nazis, what would you have said?
MARTIN: I would say, first of all, it took place after the fact years later, and you know what? I really wouldn't care. No, I wouldn't. I mean, this is one of those stories that in the day of the Internet with bloggers and radio talk show hosts where it's a real big deal? No, it's not.
What's really more important is how much debt, American debt, Japan and China owns. That's frankly more important.
This is the silly stuff that people focus on, but you know what, though? That's what haters do. They hate. SANCHEZ: But, you know, it has been in the news this week. A lot of other members of the media have been talking about it. We haven't -- certainly not on this show.
Here's other examples. First I'm going to show you the president again. He bows. Now, there's another one. That's Eisenhower bowing to the Pope. That's Eisenhower bowing to Charles de Gaulle, a Frenchman.
There's George W. Bush holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah.
MARTIN: Right.
SANCHEZ: There's George W. Bush getting some -- I guess getting some sugar, some people wrote back then, from Saudi king.
MARTIN: Man love, man love.
SANCHEZ: Look, this is cultural stuff. Some customs are different than ours.
MARTIN: It is.
SANCHEZ: But...
MARTIN: And it is. And here's the thing...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But the intimation has been, by many, that this president, in particular, humiliated America. What -- I mean, I've read the columns.
MARTIN: Oh, please.
SANCHEZ: But why is that, Roland?
MARTIN: Oh, please, because these are people who are ridiculous. Look, again, Rick, I don't care what it is. They will criticize the president for anything. I'm sure somebody probably said he had the wrong color tie on. This is nonsense.
Look, there are cultural things. There's protocol. But you know what? It doesn't matter. He's still the president. The people who get so concerned about this are the ones, Rick, who themselves have self-esteem issues.
Trust me. I don't think President Barack Obama is saying, "I'm lesser of a president now after I bow than before I bow."
SANCHEZ: Let me challenge you on this a little bit. Let me ask you this because a lot of folks...
MARTIN: Go right ahead.
SANCHEZ: ... a lot of folks out there is saying this president has gone too far, that he's been a bit of an appeaser...
MARTIN: What's too far?
SANCHEZ: ... is the word that they've used.
Well, I'll give you an example. When he made that speech in Egypt, for example...
MARTIN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: When he basically took fault for some of the errors he believes Americans have made in foreign policy over the years. And people say...
MARTIN: Have we made errors?
SANCHEZ: Of course, we've made errors.
MARTIN: Have we made errors?
SANCHEZ: Yes, just...
MARTIN: We won't admit our errors.
SANCHEZ: Say it again. I'm sorry, Michael was talking to my ears.
MARTIN: No, do we want to admit our errors?
SANCHEZ: Michael, be quiet for a moment. What?
MARTIN: The problem is, Americans -- the problem is, Americans don't like it to admit that we've screwed up. The president owned up to what we've done in the past. In order for you to move forward, sometimes, you've got to own up to what you did in the past. And so, we have people out there who don't even want to admit that we erred.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, but that -- but that -- but hold on. That's my point. What they -- I think what some folks might say is, given the fact that he's been a president who's done things that other presidents haven't done, when you combine that with the fact that he goes overseas and shows this kind of extreme bow some have called, it maybe that's their emphasis, maybe that's the point that they're trying to make -- putting it in totality.
Is that a good argument?
MARTIN: If it was a light bow, is that OK? Mean, if it was a medium bow, so, they say that's fine? No. The bottom line is, if it was even a head nod, they would say, "There he is, nodding to the Japanese."
SANCHEZ: All right.
MARTIN: That's how silly this is. It means nothing when it comes to actual foreign policy. It means zero.
SANCHEZ: I get your point. I want you to see something now, an unbelievable exchange today between Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Eric Holder, our attorney general. Let's watch it.
Go ahead, Rog. Let's roll it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: I'm saying, right now, we're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why. If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol and we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried.
GRAHAM: Would you...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. We're down to about 20 seconds.
Should he have had an answer for that question? He looked stumped.
MARTIN: No. But, obviously, he said we would have protocol and we do have a protocol. It's not like we're going to send NYPD officer over there and slap some cuffs on him. And so, remember, even the people we're trying in New York, there was a protocol. They went through...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MARTIN: ... the military procedure as well. So, I'm trying to figure out what's the real issue here.
SANCHEZ: Well, let me challenge you a little bit on this but let me do it on CNN.com/live. This is good stuff. The question is, it looked like it was a question he hadn't thought of an answer for.
Let's go to -- let's go to "THE SITUATION ROOM" now. Wolf Blitzer is standing by.
Wolf, take it away.
