Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama to Reveal Afghanistan Strategy; Florida Highway Patrol Speaks Out on Tiger Woods
Aired December 01, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is my intention to finish the job.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: But what is the job? What is a win in Afghanistan, Mr. President? We're on the brink of hearing his answer, maybe.
Then there's wanting to win too much. Whacking your own teammate for missing a shot? Are you kidding me?
Your national conversation for Tuesday, December 1, 2009, begins right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Well, breaking news is what we have got. I'm Rick Sanchez. Hello again, everybody. Here, we're in the world headquarters of CNN.
We're following a news conference for you right now. This is from the Florida Highway Patrol regarding Tiger Woods.
Let's go ahead and dip into this.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
MAJOR CINDY WILLIAMS, FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL: Good afternoon. We appreciate your attendance here today.
The Florida Highway Patrol has concluded its investigation on the vehicle crash involving Mr. Tiger Woods. The investigation has determined that Mr. Woods is at fault in the crash.
This afternoon, FHP is in the process of issuing a uniform traffic citation for careless driving to Mr. Woods. Any person operating a vehicle upon the streets or highways within the state is required by law to drive in a careful and prudent manner, so as not to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
Failure to drive in such a manner is defined as careless driving. Careless driving is a moving violation and upon conviction may result in a fine of $164 and four points on a driving record.
This was a single-vehicle crash with a single occupant. Unfortunately, it is one of thousands that occurs in our state each year. Mr. Woods has satisfied the requirements of Florida law by providing his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance to us. With the issuance of this citation, the Florida Highway Patrol has completed its investigation into this matter.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Major, is there any truth to any other reports...
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: I just have a few additional comments that I would like to add.
The FHP is not pursuing criminal charges in this matter, nor is there any testimony or other evidence to support any additional charges of any kind, other than the kind of careless driving.
After reviewing the evidence available to us and in consultation with the office of State Attorney Lawson Lamar, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence available to issue a subpoena for any additional medical information that might exist in this case.
We cannot speak to the existence of any blood evidence. There are no claims of domestic violence by any individual.
We will not answer any questions today. We believe these comments and our crash investigation report will speak for themselves. We will not conduct additional press conferences or interviews.
A copy of the crash investigation report is a matter of public record and will be finalized and available to members of the media at noon tomorrow for $10.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: Additionally, a supplemental package of all post-crash photographs taken by FHP will be available as a matter of public record for a fee of $105. And that's per statute.
Media representatives wishing to obtain these documents in person may contact the Florida Highway Patrol office located here at 133 South Semoran Boulevard, Suite A, in Orlando. Media representatives wishing to obtain these documents via e-mail should complete both a certification form attesting to your eligibility as a member of the media and a form with the required credit card information to facilitate payment.
Both forms should be returned to the Florida Department of Highway and Safety Motor Vehicles headquarters in Tallahassee via the fax number at 850-617-5108. The department will e-mail the requested information to the requester as soon as possible upon receipt of payment in the order in which the requests are received. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Why were you seeking medical information?
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Sir, the only thing I would like to say is, despite the celebrity status of Mr. Woods, the Florida Highway Patrol has completed its investigation in the same professional manner that it strives to complete etch traffic crash investigation, although our approach may vary depending on circumstances.
Mr. Woods' status in no way impacted our investigation, results, or conclusions.
This concludes our press conference. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: There you have it, a very pointed presentation from the FHP, essentially saying that Tiger Woods is guilty of a moving violation.
She went on to say that they are not -- and this is probably the most important part of this entire story -- that they are not pursuing criminal charges. In fact, she detailed what they're not pursuing. She mentioned domestic abuse, among other things, that a lot of folks had been talking about on the periphery of this story regarding Tiger Woods.
As you know, the story developed at 2:30 in the morning, when Tiger Woods' vehicle struck a fire hydrant and then a tree. Since then, there have been many stories linking Tiger Woods to all -- to an assortment of different events, news stories and people.
Joining us now is Kendall Coffey. He is a former prosecutor, certainly has tried to, in the past, to deal with this type of celebrity kind of story in South Florida, where I recall.
Are you surprised that they would come out and essentially put the kibosh on everything but a moving violation, which, all things considered, Kendall, this has to be a huge victory for Tiger Woods, isn't it?
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it's a huge victory, not only in the sense of the court of law victory -- there's not going to be any criminal investigation -- there are not going to be any search warrants -- but maybe even in terms of the court of public opinion, Rick, because now his dead.
His strategy of toughing it out, going into effectively radio silence, even though he's a public person, not giving any kind of public explanation, seems to be working. Too early to tell. Even though we can't be sure whether it is a dead end of the media interest, it's certainly a dead end to the legal case.
SANCHEZ: Well, you and I both know a statement that's used very much among your circles in particular. You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Is the ride over with for Tiger Woods?
COFFEY: Well, I have got to say that, legally, it is over. Is the press going to let go, because, to this day, he has not given an explanation? I don't think so. You're the expert, not me. But I think there's a lot of frustration that is he is somebody who makes so much money because of his public image, and now doesn't he owe the public some kind of explanation? He says not. His lawyers say not.
But I'm not sure if the public will agree with that.
SANCHEZ: Well, the question is, he is at 2:30 in the morning, when, all of a sudden, he chooses, interestingly enough, to jump into his car barefooted and hastily make a retreat while hitting a fire hydrant and a tree.
Is it no normal for journalists or the public to wonder, what got into Tiger Woods at 2:30 in the morning that would cause him to do something like that?
COFFEY: Well, you can't help but wonder. And he is probably the most famous sports celebrity in the world, one with an incredibly squeaky-clean, trouble-free image.
So, of course we're wondering. And there are a couple of theories that we have all been reading about that are put out there, but, for whatever reason, they have decided that silence, refusing to answer questions, stonewalling, allowing that speculation to continue, is better than putting some kind of explanation into the record, which is what he would have had to do if he had spoken to the police.
And one thing is for sure. He was better off not talking at all to the authorities than he would have been if he had tried to make up some explanation. We have all seen how many times people get nailed not for what they did, but for what they fibbed. At least in this instance, Woods totally avoided that exposure.
SANCHEZ: The officer said, we're not pursuing criminal charges.
And she also said, Kendall, that no claims have been made regarding domestic abuse. That stuck in my mind. No claims have been made regarding domestic abuse.
But having been a recorder in Florida for many years, I happen to know that Florida is a no-consent state, which means it doesn't matter whether one party files charges against the other or not. If the police decide that they're going to file domestic abuse cases, no matter who it is, whether it's a wife on a man or a man on a wife, they can do so. Am I wrong?
COFFEY: No, you're absolutely right. In fact, sometimes, the state attorney's office will subpoena the victim of domestic abuse, make them show up in court, even though they don't want to testify against their domestic partner or their spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend.
You're absolutely right. But, on the other hand, the police need probable cause that a crime has occurred to go to the next step, such as getting a search warrant. Right now, they believe -- and I don't think they have acted irresponsibly.
SANCHEZ: Right.
COFFEY: I actually give them credit for trying to get to the bottom of this, trying to get some answers out quickly. They think it's careless driving, not reckless driving, not domestic violence.
SANCHEZ: And not treating him differently than they would treat anybody else. After all, yes, he's a celebrity, but that doesn't mean that you have to hire or lower or make the bar any higher for him as you would for anyone else, right?
COFFEY: And let's give the Florida Highway Patrol some credit for that. It's very tempting for an officer to want to get their name in the news, make a career case out of digging and digging under every rock, behind every blade of grass. Instead, they tried to Joe Schmullify the case, treat Tiger Woods like a Joe Schmo, and get to this same results.
That's something I actually think the taxpayers can feel pretty good about.
SANCHEZ: By the way, the thing about a story like this is that, just as it develops and we're all following the information having to do with the accident, there's the stories that are going on the periphery of this story.
It does appear that whatever argument may have been -- occurred between Tiger Woods' wife and himself that night may have been spurred by an article that appeared in the tabloids.
The woman at the center of that article is a woman named Rachel Uchitel. Rachel Uchitel, do we have pictures of her? There she is right now. This is the first time we at CNN have reported this. And the only reason that we're reporting it now is because she has just gone public and given her story to "The New York Post," where she says that essentially she was told out by a friend who sold the story to "The New York Post," unfairly and erroneously, she adds.
In fact, I will read you her quotes. This is what she said to "The New York Post" about these stories she calls erroneous linking her to Tiger Woods.
She says: "This is ridiculous. Not a word of it is true." The next quote I believe says, "The worst thing is that everybody in New York is talking about me and Tiger Woods now, because their reporters have been calling up everyone I know or have ever worked with asking what they know about this supposed affair."
She goes on to say: "And it's horrible to Tiger's family. His wife must feel horrible. The worst part of it is, it's not true." Again this is Rachel Uchitel talking to "The New York Post,." This is her side of the story. And, in fairness, we want to put it out there.
"That's a horrible thing to read. 'Tiger's telling Rachel he loves her.' It's just so dumb," she says. Here's another one: "The source of the story is not even a friend of mine. I have met her twice in my life. I have got some really horrible things that I can say about her and her past. I am toying around if I should go after her, because she's not a credible source."
Again, that is Rachel Uchitel talking about her friend who apparently sold her out, she says, and gave this story to "The New York Post." And then finally she says: "This girl was never around me for any of the time that she was saying she was. If I was having some big, lurid affair, I would not tell this girl. It is just ridiculous."
So, Rachel Uchitel in her own defense giving her story moments ago to "The New York Post" and we wanted to get it on the record for you.
All right, I want to let you know something else we're going to do today. We're going to be following the story that's coming out of Afghanistan, which we're going to begin this newscast with until we learned of this abrupt news conference that seemed to come out of nowhere regarding Tiger Woods.
We're doing two things for you now as far as Twitter is concerned. We have got our regular Twitter board, as I have been showing to you for quite some time. But we're now going to be doing something else. I have created something called Rick's List.
What we do with Rick's List is, we follow for you what some of the most relevant people to any specific story is on any given day. Today, of course, the most relevant story has to do with Afghanistan. So, we have created a list. And you can see, just as I go there to the very right, that it's going say list. I'm going to hit list right there under the word list and it will come to Rick's List.
And there it is. And these are all the people we have chosen. You can see the White House is on there. You see our own correspondent is on there, several congressman. There's Representative Tom Price, for example, who's been e-mailing me today. And I'm going to share with you what he has been telling me.
In fact, let's bring that up, if we possibly can.
I asked him, what is a win in Afghanistan?
And he goes on to tell me what he's done after returning from Afghanistan, and he goes on to detail exactly what he wants. There it is. "Degradability of them to seriously threaten America again, degradability of al Qaeda to seriously threaten America again and transfer security and sovereignty responsibility to the Afghan government."
That's Tom Price, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, responding to my question earlier today and shooting me that tweet telling me what the president needs to do in Afghanistan. Thought you should you know.
We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: A lot of news going on. Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez in the world headquarters of CNN.
The White House says, mark your calendars, folks. Three years -- in three years, the Afghanistan war will be over. U.S. troops, most of them anyway, will be out of there. That is what administration officials tell us that President Barack Obama is going to tell you and me tonight, when he stands behind a podium at West Point, and lays out everything Afghanistan.
He is going to tell us how many troops are going in, he's going to tell us how he's going to get them out, and he is going to tell us how we're all going to pay for it, all this tonight. So, there it is.
CNN's Michael Ware is going to be joining me in just a little bit. You know what Michael Ware is like. He doesn't hold back. So, stand by for that.
But, first, I want you to understand why Afghanistan is the mess that it is right now.
Here's our Pentagon correspondent Chris Lawrence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Most of the new combat forces will be sent south to help shrink the huge battle spaces troops are trying to cover in places like Kandahar province.
CPL. JIMMY PARKER, U.S. ARMY, 11TH INFANTRY: We need the help down here. Even though we're handling it on our own but we need more forces down here.
LAWRENCE: NATO has nearly 37,000 troops in southern Afghanistan, more than the rest of the country combined. But officials admit it hasn't been enough manpower to remove the Taliban from parts of Helmand province and other areas.
SPC. BRIAN SCHOENBECK, U.S. ARMY, 11TH INFANTRY: More infantry, get another battalion or brigade out here to help us out.
LAWRENCE: A defense official says the U.S. Marines will nearly double their numbers there, with 1,000 expected to deploy in late December and 8,000 more over the next few months. Troops say it will allow them to get to know Afghans in their area, which could encourage more of them to cooperate.
SCHOENBECK: To give us any information if they have anything about where the Taliban are and what they're doing.
LAWRENCE: Roadside bombs kill more troops in Afghanistan than any amount of enemy artillery. And a key mission for new troops would be putting more eyes on Highway One, a road known as IED alley. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God.
LAWRENCE: The goal is to catch insurgents planting bombs, and then replanting them after route clearance teams go through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just to make sure that the routes stay clear.
LAWRENCE: The Obama administration also emphasizes quickly increasing the size of Afghan forces, nearly 40,000 more soldiers and nearly 70,000 more Afghan police in the next year. That's why the U.S. troop increase will include thousands of additional trainers.
The key will be the trainers' backgrounds and how experienced they are in actual police work. Right now, units like the 82nd Airborne are training Afghan police, but combat paratroopers are no experts in evidence collection or investigations.
MAJ. SCOTT BRANNAN, U.S. ARMY, 82ND AIRBORNE: A lot of the guys don't have that skill set, so we're working now to try to get more law enforcement professionals to catch to us.
LAWRENCE (on camera): The Afghan army and police just got a pay raise last week. In U.S. dollars, they're now making about $165 a month. We will have to see if that solves some of the problems not only with recruiting, but retention, because it will be impossible to meet these goals with the number of officers that quit.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: All right, Michael Ware is joining us now.
Michael, thanks so much for being with us.
I'm just wondering here, as I'm looking at this speech the president's going to give tonight, what are we going to be able to do in three years that we haven't been able to do in eight years?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends what you do, Rick, with what you have got.
Now, the U.S. mission in Afghanistan has never had enough forces to actually do the job. And by sending 30,000-odd extra troops or so, that will help.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What's the job? What is the job?
WARE: That's a great question. That's a great question, Rick.
The job is not to defeat and destroy the Taliban, because I have got to tell you, mate, you can't do that. The Taliban are fighting on their home soil. It's their own villages, their own valleys, the same goat tracks they used to defeat the Soviets. So, what we're hoping to do is actually, for once in eight years, put the hurt on the Taliban. The Taliban war machine is ticking over untouched, recruiting, supplying, deploying, attacking. We have not been able to put a dent in that. You've got to put a dent in that, put some military pressure on the Taliban, where they're going to feel some pain.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: To what end?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Yes, to what end? Is it a win when we're done with that?
WARE: To the end of parlaying something into a political solution.
Rick, no matter what America wants to do, no matter what America thinks it can do, you're not going to get out of Afghanistan by -- and preserve American national interests without cutting some kind of political deal with the Afghan government, with the Taliban, with the Pakistani government, with the Indian government.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Is that about giving people money over there again, like we were giving hundreds of thousands...
(CROSSTALK)
WARE: It's way beyond money. It's way beyond money. Money is certainly going to be a part of it.
But you have got the Afghan government sitting there in Kabul with its tens of thousands of troops and police. It's got no power in the villages. So, you're going to have to find friends, the tribal leaders, the old warlords, to create the kind of militias that we saw work in Iraq...
(CROSSTALK)
WARE: ... because the American soldiers, Afghan soldiers, they're not enough. Then you've got to get India and Pakistan to back off.
SANCHEZ: I'm glad you mentioned Iraq. I trust your sense of this as much as I trust anyone's, because I know you have been there. You have been in the funny costumes, hiding out amongst the people and really getting to know how this whole thing works.
So, here is the question to you. Given what you have learned so far about what the president will say today, is this doable? Do you believe, given your experience -- put on your analyst hat for just a moment, not necessarily your correspondent hat -- do you see it as feasible, workable?
WARE: With a couple of miracles and a sprinkle of luck, it's theoretically possible.
One of the key things, though, that we're going to have to see addressed that probably won't be touched upon this evening, although who knows, is that the truth is, Rick, American troops are bleeding and dying in many ways, not because of the Taliban, not because of al Qaeda, but because of Pakistan's rivalry with India.
Pakistan and India see each other as mortal enemies. And Afghanistan is just one more field in which those two are fighting.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
WARE: India long supported the rebels against the Taliban, now supports the Afghan government. Pakistan supports the Taliban. Well, until those two pull their heads in, the forces that are killing Americans on the battlefield will have the oxygen they need, Rick.
SANCHEZ: As Yogi Berra would say, it's curiouser and curiouser.
My thanks to you, Michael Ware, for telling it straight, man. Appreciate it.
Programming reminder for you now: Michael Ware is going to be part of CNN's special coverage tonight, along with the best political team on television. It kicks off at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. And then the president speaks at 8:00. You will see every detail of this story unfold right here on CNN.
Why wouldn't you fill out your own census form, by the way? A group of ministers is telling their flock, don't do it. Huh?
We will be right back. And we will keep going back to Rick's List. If you're on it, you will find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: In case you haven't heard, you know, I started this Twitter thing. Now I'm going to take to it a brand-new level, a new level that says, not only will I have a list where I communicate with everybody, but I'm also going to have specified lists, lists that are just people who are relevant to a specific story.
Today, obviously, it's Afghanistan. So, the people who make Rick's List today are people who have something to say relevant to Afghanistan. Look at it there. See Representative Tom Price. There you see Jim DeMint, media ops. We have got the White House on there. We have got Barack Obama. We have got our own Nic Robertson. We have the GOP whip, who is also going to be sharing tweets with us throughout the show. And we're going to be picking up the information that he's sending to us.
So, we're going to do this every day with the one or two most relevant stories of the day. For example, we chose PunditMom today. She's one of the most prolific tweeters out there. She's a mother, but she also has a lot to say about politics.
Here's what she said to say.
"When I heard the news regarding additional troops, my first thought was, Obama may have just lost 2012." That's what PunditMom had to say.
All right, closure for some people in Seattle-Tacoma area today. You have heard about this, haven't you? That's because, overnight, a policeman found Maurice Clemmons near a stolen car, engaged him, tried to arrest him, and wound up shooting him dead.
Maurice Clemmons is the man who witnesses say walked up to a table full of police officers in uniform Sunday morning while they were just doing their work in cold blood and killed them dead. Motive? Who knows. In fact, police say they wished that the outcome was different, just so they could find out why he did it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DETECTIVE ED TROYER, PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SHERIFF'S OFFICE: I would have just liked to have seen him in custody and taken off the street, so nobody else got hurt or killed.
It would -- the only interesting part to me would have been to know what his motive was and what his thinking was. And from everybody we have talked to that has been around him since then, there is no answer for it, other than he was angry about being incarcerated the eight or nine weeks prior to the shootings, because he had just gotten out of the Pierce County Jail on November 23rd.
So there is never going to be an answer that makes any sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And by the way, this story is not over yet, not totally buttoned up just because the alleged shooter is dead. It appears that Maurice Clemmons had some kind of help. Seattle police have at least four people in custody they say either helped Clemmons, escaped after killing those police officers, or they gave him money, patched him up, and gave him shelter.
We're told two of those suspects are facing a judge right now. In fact, as we speak, they're in the courthouse. Maurice Clemmons had a long criminal history and was out on bond for child rape and assault.
In just a couple of weeks you're going to start hearing more about the U.S. Census being conducted in 2010. There's a preacher who is telling people not to participate. Who is he? Who are they? We're going to tell you.
Also new details today on how a lone officer on patrol took that man down. We're going to continue to follow up on that story.
And of course, if you haven't heard, there is breaking news regarding Tiger Woods, there was a news conference that we brought you live just at the beginning of this newscast. We'll catch you up on that as well in case you need to hear. Stay with, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Let me get you right to something. There is a debate that's brewing right now among Hispanic Americans about illegal immigrants and next year's U.S. Census. The Reverend Miguel Rivera is a member of the National Coalition of the Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders. He says undocumented workers should boycott the Census, not be counted. Hector Sanchez is from the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. He says a boycott would be a huge mistake. It is today's "Conexion."
Mr. Rivera, let me start with you, why are you calling for a boycott?
REV. MIGUEL RIVERA, COALITION OF LATINO CLERGY & CHRISTIAN LEADERS: Well, Rick, thanks for having me. The board of directors for the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, back in April, we decided that it was in the best interests of the undocumented immigrant members of our churches to be...
SANCHEZ: Why?
RIVERA: ... empowered...
SANCHEZ: Why?
RIVERA: ... and to tell them not to participate on Census 2010 because...
SANCHEZ: How does that empower them?
RIVERA: We have realized that after the 2000 Census data was published, especially and after the American Survey Research in 2003, all of the sudden anti-immigrant laws and ordinances have been developed against the same people who were counted in the 2000 Census.
We fight that -- those ordinances in Riverside, New Jersey...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So you're saying -- so hold on -- hold on, you're saying that your numbers make your people vulnerable, is that what you're saying?
RIVERA: No, what we're saying is that we, as members of the clergy, as pastors, we have to take care of our people, we have to empower them...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: No, I get that. But how are you -- OK. All right. Let's go back. Let's make sure I understand this. You're saying if everyone is counted and the American people, some of which are not happy about having undocumented people here -- many of them actually, if they know just how many there are, it makes you more vulnerable -- it makes those people more vulnerable because they're going to be criticized more, I think that's what you're saying, right?
RIVERA: With our legal status, that's correct. Without comprehensive immigration reform, the undocumented immigrants are vulnerable and they'll be used as a political pawn...
SANCHEZ: Got it.
(CROSSTALK)
RIVERA: ... elected officials.
SANCHEZ: Hector Sanchez, what do you make of that? Is that a sound argument?
HECTOR SANCHEZ, LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT: No, Rick. Let me start by saying that I share the frustration of the reverend that there is no immigration reform, and there hasn't been any real delivery of immigration reform.
But as a community, we need to be smart on this strategy that we use to push Congress and the administration to get immigration reform. What the reverend is proposing is not smart at all. What he's saying is the $400 billion that's going to be distributed out there in the Latino community, in the immigrant community, should not have access to those moneys. So...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What about that? What about that, Reverend? He makes a good point. I mean, look, he says, even if you are making a political statement and even if you're trying to protect the people against criticism, by not showing how big the numbers are, that's money that those communities won't get, those are heads that won't be counted.
RIVERA: Rick, it's a matter of principle. It's a matter of principle. The truth is that if it was not smart, our strategy, we would not be debating this issue at this time. And also, the other truth is that undocumented immigrants are not only being targeted by anti-immigrant laws, but also they have no benefit at all.
So basically this the only opportunity that undocumented immigrants have to say, hey, we are supposed to be on the path of legalization with these new Democrats in the Congress. They control the House of Representatives, they control the Senate, and the White House. And besides, President Barack Obama promised that immigration reform, comprehensive, would be done in his first 100 days, his first year, so far nothing is happening.
SANCHEZ: So this is kind of a way of getting back at the administration who promised immigration reform and so far hasn't delivered. Gentlemen, we are going to have to leave it there, because we're out of time. We've got so much breaking news. We'll continue to follow up on this story and hopefully we'll be able to get you both back. My thanks to both of you.
Could the Afghan War have been over in 2001, like December of 2001 when we spotted Barack Obama (sic) and people were told exactly where he was? Why wasn't it though? Ron Suskind joins me to talk Afghanistan, and he wrote the book on it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Sometimes we talks on these stories, whether he likes it or not, Afghanistan now is Barack Obama's war. And by the way, I mentioned a little while ago just how important it was that we look back to December of 2001 when it seemed like we had Osama bin Laden in our sights -- and I said Barack Obama mistakenly, I apologize for that.
In case you haven't heard, the president will tell us tonight that he is sending 30,000 more troops and will promise to get them out within three years. You can't talk about this war in a vacuum, though, as if we just learned about it yesterday. Because where we are today, some would argue, is a direct result of the failures that go as far back as the immediate weeks following 9/11.
That's when maybe the problem began. Hard to believe, isn't it? But let's go back, let's remember this. Exactly eight years ago this week, barely two months after the 9/11 attacks, we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan.
The place was Tora Bora, and we let him slip away. We did. Where would we be today had we had captured Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora back then? We'll never know. For here again is what happened during that first two weeks in December of that year in 2011 -- 2001.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's far from certain, but Osama bin Laden himself might be holding out here. It will take brute force to find out. This is just the start of the ground assault.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (on camera): A B-52 bomber flew overhead and bombed a position about two to three miles away from here, very close.
UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Reports from a senior commander on this side that a tall man on horseback has been spotted confiding with intercepted al Qaeda radio talk about the well- being of, quote, "the sheikh," adding to speculation that Osama bin Laden himself may be directing the defense.
UNIDENTIFIED CNN CORRESPONDENT: A surrender or die ultimatum to al Qaeda is answered. The terror network opting a fight to the bitter end. Its mountain hideouts under fire from the ground, and ceaseless strikes from the air. Attacks are by day and by night.
WEDEMAN (on camera): The second deadline for al Qaeda fighters to surrender has come and gone. Eastern Alliance commander Hazrat Ali telling CNN that talk of a surrender was merely a ruse, an attempt by al Qaeda to buy time for its leaders to flee the area.
WALTER RODGERS, THEN-CNN CORRESPONDENT: For over eight-and-a- half hours now, there has not been a single bomb fall on the area which has been the al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden sanctuary for the past number of weeks. We do not know what that portends at this point, but it may suggest that the U.S. forces believe bin Laden is no longer there.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are still some fighters there along with U.S. and British special forces who are still searching out any al Qaeda members and possibly Osama bin Laden, who may still be in those mountains. But for the most part the war in this corner of Afghanistan appears to be over.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: All right. By the way, that was the only time, the only time since 9/11 that we have had a clean shot at Osama bin Laden. That was it. In a span of less than two weeks, he was there and then he was gone. I'm going to be talking about how this happened, because it's difficult to look forward without to a certain extent looking back as well.
How did we get here, eight years later? I'm going to tell you now, you're likely to hear some things that you probably have not heard before that happened back then.
By the way, I have been telling you now that we're doing something special for you today, not only are we doing the regular lists on social media like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter, we're also creating something brand new, it's called "Rick's List." We are going to be checking on the tweets of the people who are relevant to each specific story on any given day.
Today it's Afghanistan. So we've brought you comments from people like Tom Price, the congressman who is spelling out what he thinks needs to be done in Afghanistan to win.
Well, our own Ed Henry is on the list as well. And he just sent me this picture. Look at that, that is from West Point where the plane that has brought them there to cover the president's speech tonight, sits on the tarmac. We'll be right back.
In the bad boys' world of hockey highlights, this one is right up there with maybe some of the worst moments in sports -- wow, did he just hit his own goalie over the head with a stick? Did he? Good God, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back, I'm Rick Sanchez. Athletes can from time to time do some really stupid things, I guess you could argue we all do stupid things from time to time, right? But taking a hockey stick to your own teammate because he may have missed a play? Well, that tops the cake and tops "Fotos."
It is Monday night in Atlanta, the Atlanta Thrashers are playing the Florida Panthers. Panthers defenseman Keith Ballard clearly not happy when the Thrashers score a goal. So he takes his stick and whacks his own goalie. Ballard says it was an accident. His baseball-style two-handed swing with the hockey stick was intended for the goal post, he says. Instead he whacked his teammate in the face. He was taken off the ice and treated for lacerations.
So what about Ballard? The Miami Herald is reporting the NHL is not going to suspend him because it was an accident. You look at the video, accident?
Paris now, talk about a taste of your own medicine? Remember the man who threw his shoe at president George Bush? Well, guess what? Somebody has thrown a shoe at him. You just saw it right there. He was nearly hit in the face during a news conference today. All right. So here's how it goes, you ready? The guy who threw a shoe at the president had a shoe thrown at him, and then the guy who threw a shoe at him was threatened by the brother of the guy who originally shoe -- threw a shoe at the president.
You got that? Let's watch it one more time together, shall we? Duck! Ready. Oh, all right. We don't have a second time.
And this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAREQ SALAHI, ALLEGED WHITE HOUSE PARTY-CRASHER: I can tell you this has been the most devastating thing that has ever happened to us. We're greatly saddened by all the circumstances that have, you know, been involved in portraying my wife and I as party-crashers. And I can tell you that we did not party-crash the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: They did not party-crash the White House. That is their defense, and they are sticking to it. The Salamis, better-known as the White House state dinner party-crashers, appeared on TV this morning in their very first public interview. They insisted that they were invited guests and have e-mails to prove it. We are going to be waiting to be able to read those e-mails and will soon hopefully share them with you.
We reminded you about this yesterday. The time in 2001 when U.S. troops had an opportunity to snag Osama bin Laden and failed to do so. Today, Ron Suskind, author that I have quoted often on this show, he talked to all those high-level types who briefed then-President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, warned them about the mission, told them about Osama bin Laden being in Tora Bora. He joins me next, and he's a good get. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
A beautiful woman who wanted to be the more attractive, she's a model crying out loud. She dies after plastic surgery. What a story. This woman was Miss Argentina. She has now passed away. something everyone is considering, a dramatic operation. We're going to break this down for you. We're going to be talking about what killed her tomorrow at 3:00 pm. Eastern right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
A real story that you should see, because it's affecting more and more people these days, especially with the trend toward more and more cosmetic surgery.
We're about four hours now from this decisive moment, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, at 8:00 pm. Eastern, he's going to announce the addition of some 30,000 extra United States troops into the war in Afghanistan. It's his war now, really, and it may determine the fate of his presidency.
But let's keep in mind, we're at the point of making up for others' mistakes in many ways, in many ways. Joining me now from Washington, a man who knows that only too well, knows this shadowy territory all too well, probably as well as anybody else. He's author and Pulitzer-winning journalist Ron Suskind.
Ron, thanks so much for being with us.
RON SUSKIND, AUTHOR, "THE WAY OF THE WORLD": My pleasure.
SANCHEZ: Let's start with this, I suppose. What was the stated and perceived purpose of the wars following 9/11, and I guess I mean by that, what did the American people want as finality after that war?
SUSKIND: Well, you know, whatever the military goal was, what the American people clearly were asking for is to get bin Laden and his assistant, his deputy, Zawahiri, you know, 9/11, that wound was still fresh on the American psyche.
SANCHEZ: So it was, get the bad guys. It was essentially, go out there and get the bad guys for us, George Bush, and when he took that bullhorn, and he sat there in Downtown New York, I think that's what we kind of all felt that he was going to do.
SUSKIND: The people who did this will hear from us. That meant bin Laden and Zawahiri That was the key -- the idea.
SANCHEZ: And you could throw in Mullah Omar, by the way, can't you?
SUSKIND: Sure, sure, the one-eyed Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief. He was also part of the mix, but really bin Laden was the prey. And what's interesting here is that other things that were important, dismantling and defeating the Taliban, making sure Afghanistan was no longer a haven for terrorists, those were also goals, but in terms of the real energy behind it, it was to get bin Laden.
SANCHEZ: So let me put you and the rest of our viewers who are watching us have this conversation right now, in the mindset of December 2001 -- it's 2001 and George Bush has just given a speech where he has announced that we just killed Osama bin Laden, we've taken out Mullah Omar and we've taken out Zawahiri as well, do you think if that happened at that point that America's appetite for the war on terror would have been diminished, and if so, how much?
SUSKIND: I have no doubt that had we gotten bin Laden, captured or killed bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, that people would have said, look, nation-building is not what the United States want to do here. They want stability. certainly the United States' goal was to have stability in that area, but it would have given us an opportunity to say, some mission has been accomplished here, and it's time for the troops to come home.
That obviously ends up being the imponderable right at the heart of this whole battle over the years since.
SANCHEZ: Yes. But I guess that's my point. I'm trying to think of my psyche back then, my brother's, my mother, my friends, everybody in the media, that sense of fear, this guy is still out there, and he's going to hit us at any time which, you know, naturally, it's an absolute natural reaction to create, I think, a psyche, a sense in Americans that this thing ain't over until we get this guy and we've got to do whatever the government is telling us we've got to do, right?
SUSKIND: Absolutely, and what's interesting about what happened after that, certainly, is bin Laden became certainly a folk hero, a symbolic character, larger than life because the assembled might of the United States could not capture him. He was still out there. He was doing his videos. He was running his reality show, so to speak, from the cave with Zawahiri, really thumbing his nose at the United States.
That was the key to recruitment. That was the key to so much that has unfolded over these last eight years that has not worked. Had we gotten bin Laden, well, frankly, Barack Obama would probably not have a war to figure out what to do about right now at the start of his presidency.
SANCHEZ: But let's nail this down, Ron, because just this week the U.S. Senate, Foreign Relations Committee, right? Yes, put out -- the Senate Foreign Relations -- thanks, Angie (ph), put out this report essentially saying what you wrote in your book in the "Doctrine" -- I always have a tough time...
(CROSSTALK)
SUSKIND: "The One Percent Doctrine."
SANCHEZ: "The One Percent Doctrine." Thank you. Which was that at the highest levels of this government, including George Bush and Dick Cheney, Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld, those people were told Osama bin Laden is right there in Tora Bora in an area about 10 square miles, and if you give us 800 more troops we can go in and get him.
And according to your information, and tell our viewers what you found, and if that's true, they said no, we don't want to go in and get him, is that right?
SUSKIND: Let's set the scene here, it's mid-November of 2001. The CIA is leading in a way this campaign in Afghanistan, great -- to the great despair of the Defense Department, Don Rumsfeld, he has got great ill will towards the CIA, and CIA is briefing Defense, Tommy Franks saying, look, bin Laden is in Tora Bora with about 1,000 fighters and the back door is open.
That was specifically what they told Tommy Franks. The back door is open through these mountains. And in fact the advice from CIA, which was really the point of the spear here, was that we need to move troops, obviously Marines, from about 300 miles away -- there are 1,200 or so Marines near Kandahar, move them to Tora Bora now, this is mid- November, so that we don't let this man slip away.
Now what's interesting, at the end of November, beginning of December...
SANCHEZ: Hey, Ron, I'm going to hold you right there, and you and I are going to continue. Come on over to cnn.com/live. We'll continue the conversation, take pertinent parts and move them onto our show tomorrow as well. We're with Ron Suskind and Ron is going to continue the conversation.
In the meantime, Wolf Blitzer takes over right now in "THE SITUATION ROOM." Wolf, take it away.
