Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Fate of Bush Tax Cuts?; Did America Win in Iraq?; Troop Drawdown in Iraq on Schedule; Convicts on the Loose; Fox News Gets Front Row Seat in White House Briefing Room
Aired August 02, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Now, the man, this American Muslim who may rise to be in charge of al Qaeda, that we were telling you about earlier, that disagrees with the people you just saw on that video, watch this report.
This is a report filed by Deborah Feyerick. She -- she met people who know him and people who say there may be nobody more dangerous.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANWAR AL-AWLAKI, MUSLIM CLERIC: No that's not what they are doing today, they are noting plotting to kill this religion.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From the safety of his hideout in Yemen, American Anwar Al-Awlaki poses a threat to the United States unlike any other.
LT. COL. ANTHONY SHAFFER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: I believe Anwar Al-Awlaki represents the heir apparent to the overall Al Qaeda global effort.
FEYERICK: Al-Awlaki, not yet 40, has vowed to bring America to its knees, one terrorist at a time. An army of lone wolf insurgents.
SAJJAN GOHEL, ASIA PACIFIC FOUNDATION: He is the individual that's continuing the doctrine of that people like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri started.
FEYERICK: His credentials as an American citizen, fluent in English and Arabic give him a unique authority among social media savvy wannabe jihadis.
AL-AWLAKI: And I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.
GOHEL: He, unlike, others has been able to recruit--
FEYERICK: Counterterrorism expert Sajjan Gohel:
GOHEL: Al-Awlaki through his Internet sermons is preying on these young people and encouraging them to go off to far away land which they have no real relationship with to link up with terrorist operatives. AL-AWLAKI: The simple answer is America cannot and will not win.
FEYERICK: As a spiritual guide, ideologically condoning violent acts, this jihadist has inspired dozens of young men. In the last few years alleged plotters include the Time Square bomber, the young Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a U.S. jet bomber over Detroit, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, and others, all following a man born 39 years ago in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Awlaki spent his teen years in Yemen before returning to study in the United States.
(on camera): Anwar al-Awlaki was 19 years old when he came here to Colorado State University to study engineering. He received a $20,000 federal grant courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, applied for a student visa to come here, he lied and told authorities he was born in Yemen and not here in the United States.
(voice-over): Years later that lie almost got him arrested of. He was investigated for passport fraud following 9/11, but the arrest warrant was rescinded and Al-Awlaki left America in 2002 never to return.
Yusuf Siddiqui and Awlaki were good friends, taking the same classes and sharing a love for Islam.
YUSUF SIDDIQUI, FORMER AL-AWLAKI CLASSMATE: We were both passionate about being part of the Student Muslim Association and just combating stereotypes and misunderstanding and ignorance.
FEYERICK: But there was another side to the young al-Awlaki.
SIDDIQUI: I think he was proud of the fact that he has been to Afghanistan and learned something about the mujahedeen and trained a little bit.
FEYERICK: Trained to fight Soviets in a guerrilla war bankrolled by the United States.
(on camera): It's unclear whether that training sparked Awlaki's radical path. However, his studies in leadership and human nature are giving him the tools to develop a very powerful weapon: the message of global jihad online, where he has even had a Facebook page.
Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Hey, before we do anything else, let's do a quick check of the Dow. Can we? Can we get that shot? We told you just moments ago That this thing was on the up today. Is it still? As we zoom in, look at that, up 208. Even Ali Velshi is going to have to give me a little explanation of this.
Nah. There is something more interesting I got for Ali.
By the way, it's hour two, and I want to welcome thousands of soldiers and Marines that are now watching us from around the world. Way to go, guys.
Here is your national conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Here is what is making the LIST today.
Congressman Ed Markey accuses BP of carpet-bombing the Gulf with dangerous chemicals.
REP. EDWARD MARKEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It was used on an almost daily basis.
SANCHEZ: But ,if that's true, why aren't scores of dead fish washing up on the shores?
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: We have to be willing to pay for the government we want, or we have to dramatically cut the government.
SANCHEZ: Can you keep the Bush tax cuts and cut the deficit? Can you have it both ways? Alan Greenspan says, no, you cannot. And he's not alone.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I'm willing to do the hard things. I'm willing to push my party.
SANCHEZ: But can he overcome the xenophobes or those who use immigration as a political wedge issue, those who aren't willing to compromise?
ANDREW BREITBART, PUBLISHER, BREITBART.COM: I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod.
SANCHEZ: From conservative media darling to political outcast -- the Republican Party turns on Andrew Breitbart.
Great white sharks back in "Jaws" country just in time for "Shark Week." We ain't kidding. They are literally closing these beaches.
The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.
Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Hey, here is a very important question that a lot of Americans and politicos are asking themselves. If you say you want to cut the deficit, right? You want to cut the deficit. It's the big issue in this country. Everybody's talking about the deficit.
Well, can you -- can you cut the deficit and at the same time keep the Bush tax cuts? Because a lot of people are saying, well, look, those two things don't jibe. So, let's -- let's start there.
Number one on the political list: Should the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire as scheduled on December 31st? Republicans are arguing that continuing the cuts for everyone will spur the needed economic growth. Is that true? Is that true? What are the experts saying?
Let's get facts on this, OK, not political discourse or opinions. The president and fellow Democrats say the tax cuts are for only the wealthiest of Americans who make more than $250,000 a year and should be allowed to expire. Is that true, by the way? Or do they also affect people who make less than $250,000 a year and should that be maintained?
All good questions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday on ABC's "This Week" that she would like to see a vote before the midterm elections on ending the tax cuts for the wealthy, but extending the middle-class tax cuts.
I want you to watch something. I thought this was exceptional, not because it was on CNN, because this is usually a pretty smart guy. Look at Fareed's show from yesterday, his "GPS" show. He disagrees with both Democrats and Republicans. Watch Fareed's take on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Let's let the entire slew of Bush tax cuts retire. That would take us back to Clinton-era rates, when the American economy had its strongest growth years in three decades and the budget was balanced for the first time in four decades.
If the economy still needs a bit more stimulus, fine, extend unemployment benefits for another year. Give some aid to the states. Those are temporary measures, and the money will get spent. Unemployment benefits work because they go to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck. They spend the money.
By contrast, we have had three tax cuts since this economy went into a slump, two under George Bush, one under Obama, and in all three cases people saved the money rather than spent it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Did you hear what he said? Three times, tax cuts, three times, it didn't seem to work.
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right.
SANCHEZ: People saved the money, rather than spend it.
So, he also said -- Ali Velshi joining us now, our chief business guru man.
VELSHI: Good to see you, my man.
SANCHEZ: OK.
So, he said 30 percent of the deficit are these tax cuts.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: That's a lot.
VELSHI: Yes. And, look, Fareed is a very smart guy. He is indicating that if you're -- you're giving these tax cuts, the only thing -- reason that would make sense to extend them is if you're making that up elsewhere.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
VELSHI: So, if they're contributing to the deficit, they had better be generating the investment or the new jobs or the new business that is equivalent to that. And that doesn't look likely.
SANCHEZ: So, if we get rid of the tax cuts--
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: -- all of them, not just the ones the Democrats don't like, but all of them--
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: -- right? I mean, because the Republicans are saying, no, no, no, because it tends to be that the Republicans--
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: -- tend to protect their base, which tends to be the over- $250,000 crowd, and the Democrats tend to protect their base, which is the under-$250,000 crowd, the fact of the matter is, if you really want to be honest about cutting the deficit, you got to cut it, get rid of this thing for everybody.
VELSHI: Yes. I mean, look, look, one of the things that Fareed said is look over to David Cameron in Great Britain.
They are increasing taxes--
SANCHEZ: He increased taxes, yes.
VELSHI: -- and cutting spending. Now, the -- the -- what this administration doesn't want to do is cut spending while the economy is not on the road to recovery yet, because if people aren't spending their own money, government continues to spend and that keeps people employed.
The problem is, you can't keep spending and cut taxes at the same time. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
SANCHEZ: We -- well, you can -- if you get rid of these, then you are essentially cutting taxes -- if you're essentially getting rid of a tax cut.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Pardon me.
VELSHI: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: So, if you them let expire -- if you did nothing, these tax cuts are going to expire on December 31, and that would represent an increase in taxes for a number of Americans.
SANCHEZ: So, you are not really increasing taxes by definition, but you're stopping the cutting of the taxes?
VELSHI: Yes. I mean, different people look at it different ways, but, yes, taxes will go up for some people.
SANCHEZ: Which means -- which means Ali and Rick's corporation, which in this case is the United States government--
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: -- will have more revenue.
VELSHI: Assuming that it doesn't drive people out of business, which is what some conservatives will have you believe, that is so bad to increase taxes--
SANCHEZ: But if that was the case, look -- but, wait. Hold on. Hold on. If that was the case, then why, with this system of tax cuts initiated by George Bush --
VELSHI: Right. Why are we not doing better? Right.
SANCHEZ: -- did our country almost go into another Great Depression?
VELSHI: Right, which is the best--
SANCHEZ: If it's such a great strategy --
VELSHI: That is the strongest argument against those who say don't let the tax cuts expire, because it will -- it's the best thing you can do for our economy. It's not doing it at the moment. The reality is, for many people, the increase will be so little that it doesn't generate what -- as Fareed said, it doesn't generate new spending. They will just take it and it will just be saved.
So, look, there is a valid argument here, but the reality is, if deficit is your big concern, and you want to cut the deficit, this would be a very effective way to put a big chunk into that.
SANCHEZ: You're obviously a really smart guy, and you follow this very carefully. I'm interested in what someone -- someone else has to say. Here is Alan Greenspan.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: Now, Alan Greenspan is, to some people, the goat or the hero of everything that happened in the last 20 years. But he has a very definitive opinion on this, more definitive than he usually is on things.
VELSHI: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: So, let's take a listen to this and then I want to see what your reaction is on the other side.
Here, take -- Rog, take Greenspan here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GREENSPAN, FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous. And my view is, I don't think we can play subtle policy here.
DAVID GREGORY, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS": You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
GREENSPAN: They do not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: What do you think of that?
VELSHI: Tax cuts are like stimulus. It depends on whether they're targeted and when they happen.
So, you saw, before our stimulus in this administration, the Bush stimulus, if you recall, most of that didn't get spent. It depends -- it's kind of like when you're at the park with your kid and you're -- you're pushing them on the swing. The push only matters if the kid is where you're pushing them, right?
If the kid is on that side of the swing and you push it, it won't matter.
SANCHEZ: So--
VELSHI: So, that's what -- the same thing happens with tax cuts and stimulus, with government money. It has got to be targeted and applied to somewhere where it will more than pay for itself.
And some of the theory here is that these ones don't.
SANCHEZ: One final question-- VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: -- Mr. Smarty Pants Economist. You ready?
VELSHI: Well, neither of those two, but go ahead.
SANCHEZ: But you look good in hats, especially if they're mine.
VELSHI: You gave me one. I appreciate that.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: All right. So, here is the decision we have to make as a nation. The people who have lost their jobs and are unemployed, do we give them a little bit of a shot in the arm to get them through the next year and give them their unemployment benefits, or do we say, to hell with them, let's help the rich guys who run businesses because they will create jobs that will eventually give those unemployed guys jobs? Tough call.
VELSHI: Yes. It is a tough call. And I -- I think there are defenses to both of those arguments.
The problem is, the ones who didn't choose to be unemployed -- and there are many who have been unemployed for the long term, for more than six months -- what do you do if you stop giving them the benefits? What happens to them? Do we start getting tent cities? Do we start getting--
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So, you say that's where we ought to go?
VELSHI: I -- I understand the arguments on both sides. I think you can't weigh one against the other. One of them is a nice thing to do by stimulating the economy. The other is urgent and has to do with people who didn't do anything to get themselves into the position they're in.
SANCHEZ: It almost sounds like you almost want to say the right thing to do.
VELSHI: Well, it's -- there is a -- there is a moral argument and there's an economic argument. And they -- they struggle with each other.
SANCHEZ: I will say it for you. Appreciate it.
VELSHI: Good to see you, my friend.
SANCHEZ: Always good to see you.
VELSHI: All right.
SANCHEZ: All right, I'm about to ask a question that no one's in power -- no one in power wants to answer. Did we win or did we lose the war in Iraq? I know what you're thinking. I mean, why are you asking this now, after seven years of war, right?
Well, it's because President Obama went on TV today and said the combat mission in Iraq will be over by the end of this month. So, we want to ask the tough question. That's ahead.
Also, could garbage and cigarettes really be to blame for historic wildfires in Russia? The flames and the urgent threats, that's next right here on RICK'S LIST.
We're coming right back
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. Now for one of our lists that we bring you every day around this time. This is the roundup list.
And we number these.
Number one, historically hot and bone-dry all over Russia, that is letting wildfires burn almost unchecked across more than 450 square miles of the country's western region. Thirty-four people have died in the fires. Five hundred towns and villages are under a state of emergency, no relief in sight at this point. One day last week had the highest temperature ever recorded in Moscow. And no rain is in the forecast. We will watch it for you.
Number two, opposite problem -- Pakistan. Look at all that water. A week of rain has damaged bridges and flooded thousands of homes. Listen to this death toll. Maybe more than 1,500 people, and we may never know just how many more.
The problem is the water has washed away roads and access to villages and people, especially in some of the remote valleys.
Number three, this man, this woman, they're out of bail today -- out on bail, I should say. They were arrested over the weekend for cruelty to a child, after police discovered they allegedly locked the man's 13-year-old son to their kitchen table with a chain and padlocks for three days. You can't do that. It happened in Sacramento, California. The boy managed to get out and seek help from neighbors and is now with other family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As we mark the end of America's combat mission in Iraq, a grateful America must pay tribute to all who served there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Is the war in Iraq over, after seven years of bloodshed? Did you hear the president's words? That's President Obama saying that the combat mission is going to wrap up by the end of this month. So, did we win? Did we lose, draw? What's going on? These are questions that now need to be asked by Americans. It was your money, your sweat, your toil, and the blood of your sons and daughters.
So, we're going to ask, because we should. You should.
And several beaches are closing today after sightings of a great white shark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa. Whoa. Look at that. Look at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And they can grow as long as 20 feet and weigh more than a ton. And they're there. Scared yet? Wait until you see the swimmers who are in "Fotos." That's coming up next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Welcome back.
This is this report that we got just before we came on the air that I have been bringing to your attention. It's a report from the EPA. The EPA has tested eight different dispersants. You have been hearing this sky-is-falling reporting from many in the media about the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, right?
What the EPA finds is that one of those dispersants is used in combating the oil disaster in the Gulf, and they checked it. The results are -- well, they may surprise you. They don't seem to surprise this show since we have been doing this story for quite some time.
And the question that we have been trying to get at is quite simple, all right? If the dispersants are so bad, then why is it that we don't see oil in the Gulf of Mexico, as you would think that we should, after all the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of gallons that have been tossed into the Gulf of Mexico? It seems like, in that sense, the dispersants worked pretty well.
The other question is, if the dispersant are so toxic and so harmful, as we're constantly told, then why aren't we seeing masses of fish kills washing up on shores along Alabama and Mississippi and Florida?
Look, I'm not saying that we have the answers here. What we have are the questions.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: David Mattingly is joining us now from New Orleans to try and bring us up to date on this story.
This EPA report, David, is, I think, somewhat interesting, in that it says, in some cases -- well, look, it says this. It says the oil mixed with the dispersant is no more toxic than oil or any alternatives. He said -- it says -- and I will read you one more line and then I will let you go here -- "Sweet Louisiana crude oil was more toxic to the shrimp than the eight dispersants that were tested alone."
So, the oil without the dispersants is worse than the oil with the dispersant. That seems to be what they're saying, right?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes. This is coming across as a big source of vindication for the EPA.
If you remember, all along, throughout this disaster, the big unanswered question was, we know the dispersant is toxic. We know the oil is toxic. But nobody could say what happens when you combine those two together, especially at the volumes that they were seeing out in the Gulf while this was going on.
So, they finally came out with the test results, and the test results are showing, yes, the oil is toxic. Yes, the dispersant is toxic. But when you put the two together the way we were using them, the -- it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't get any worse than the oil already is.
In other words, when you add the dispersant to the oil, it's not any worse than the oil already was.
SANCHEZ: Well, and that--
(CROSSTALK)
MATTINGLY: It doesn't make the oil more toxic.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTINGLY: And this mix doesn't become a bigger danger.
SANCHEZ: Well, and not to mention that we're leaving something out of the equation there. I mean, it's a three-part -- it's a three-part mix. It's not just the dispersant and the oil. It's the dispersant, the oil, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of millions of gallons of saltwater in the Gulf of Mexico as well, right?
MATTINGLY: Right. And that water you're talking about is all this -- part of this rich ecosystem. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of all this volume of crude and dispersant is going to be in the long term.
But this report is telling us that the EPA is -- the EPA is saying that it was a wise decision on their part, it turns out, to allow the use of this dispersant the way they did, because that dispersant broke up the oil, kept a lot of it from reaching the shore, and broke it up in such a way that it made it more biodegradable, so that it could biodegrade and break up in the environment more quickly.
This is something we keep forgetting--
SANCHEZ: Yes. MATTINGLY: -- throughout this entire process, that this crude oil is organic. And there is a natural ecosystem out there with microbes that eat this oil.
Now, they have never had this much to munch on, so that's been something of a concern. But this report is saying that, when you mix that sweet crude oil, which is toxic, along with the dispersant, you're getting a mixture that's no worse than what you had before.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MATTINGLY: So that means it was a good decision on the EPA's part to use the dispersant and break that oil up.
SANCHEZ: Of course, the interesting part of all this is, what will this lead to in the future? What will the long-term effects be? And, frankly, neither -- neither Rick Sanchez nor David Mattingly, nor any of the experts that we have contacted -- and, man, we have contacted a bevy of them -- have the answer to that yet, key word there being yet.
MATTINGLY: Right.
SANCHEZ: Mattingly, thanks so much.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTINGLY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: David Mattingly all over this story.
We will continue to check with you to see what you find out.
Meanwhile, Lindsay Lohan is now in rehab, after less than two weeks in the slammer. But did you hear what she wanted between the two visits? Did you hear about that? Well, you are going to hear about that.
Also, the man, the legend, Ed Henry is in the house. He is gracing us today with his presence. As a matter of fact, voila.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lindsay Lohan and--
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: You and Lindsay Lohan, I mean, birds of a feather.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: We will put it together for you. Ed Henry going to joining us. He's going to be talking about the situation with Iraq. Did you hear what the president said today? It almost sounded definitive. But is it, and, if so, to what end? That's what we're talking about. Stay with us. We will be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Hey, welcome back, RICK'S LIST here for you. And we're so glad that you're joining us once again.
There has been a developing story that we have been following now for the better part of the last hour-and-a-half or so having to do with California Representative Maxine Waters, the fact that she is going to be facing ethics charges. The House Ethics Committee said that she violated House rules by seeking federal financial assistance for a bank that had ties -- here's the key -- it's a bank that had ties to her husband, they allege.
So, what is she saying? Well, she has tweeted her response, wouldn't you know, and we got it. Here we go.
To the Twitter board, we go.
Robert, good job. You're all over it.
And I will read what Ms. Waters says. "Accusations against me unfounded, no benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced, no case," she says.
So, here's Maxine Waters' defense.
Ed Henry is joining us now.
We had you here to talk about something else, but, since you're here, what do you make of that?
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what I make is, she may be innocent. That may all be true, but there are House Democratic leaders right now reading that tweet with some heartburn, because you add this on top of Charlie Rangel, who--
SANCHEZ: Oh.
HENRY: -- who also may be innocent of the charges. He hasn't gone to trial yet. But both of these lawmakers are in really safe seats.
SANCHEZ: -- with the midterms -- with the midterms right around the corner.
HENRY: They're not going to lose in November individually--
SANCHEZ: Yes.
HENRY: -- unless really serious stuff comes out that we don't know about yet that will rock them some -- but, even then, they're in safe seats.
SANCHEZ: Right.
HENRY: But, thematically, this does not help the Democrats, because they promised-- (CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Good word choice, thematically.
HENRY: I -- I paused to try to find the right word. It took me a second, actually.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: That's perfect.
(LAUGHTER)
HENRY: But -- no, but, in all seriousness, they promised to drain the swamp.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
HENRY: We heard it many times, again, Speaker Pelosi.
And they say they have made some changes. But, on the other hand, this close to election, two members in ethics hot water, innocent or not, it is -- it's very bad timing for the Democrats.
SANCHEZ: So, you mean to tell me, if she fights these charges, and if Charlie Rangel fights the charges as well, I mean, it's a double- header on a Sunday afternoon.
HENRY: Right.
SANCHEZ: I mean, everybody's attention is going to be focused on these two things.
HENRY: In fairness to both of these lawmakers, though, if they believe they're innocent, they shouldn't just accept the charges to help the Democratic Party.
SANCHEZ: No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: They have a right to defend themselves.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: Right.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
HENRY: But if there is some there there, and it comes out later, there is going to be some pretty irate Democrats, thinking that these guys were digging in their heels at a time when the party doesn't need it.
SANCHEZ: Let's put that aside for just a moment. I want to -- I want to talk to our viewers about this. The president of the United States -- there is a lot of talk that the war in Iraq is going to be over. And the president today said something interesting.
I want you to listen. Here's what he said. Who was he talking to today? He was addressing--
HENRY: -- Disabled American Veterans.
SANCHEZ: Disabled American Veterans. Thank you.
This is a convention in Atlanta. He -- he told the crowd, America's combat mission in Iraq was ending as promised, on schedule.
Did Americans -- did Americans know this thing is ending as promised on schedule? Here's what the president said and here is how he said it -- and then Ed on the other side.
Take it. Go ahead, Rog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases. We're moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we've seen in decades.
By the end of this month, we'll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office. More than 90,000 have come home.
(APPLAUSE)
Today, even as terrorists try to derail Iraq's progress, because of the sacrifices of our troops and their Iraqi partners, violence in Iraq continues to be near the lowest it's been in years. And next month we will change our military mission from combat to supporting and training Iraqi security forces.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Man, that's -- by golly, next month, that's it.
ED HENRY, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That parts definitive.
SANCHEZ: Combat's over.
HARRIS: That part's definitive, August 31st. But the "violence continues to be near the lowest," that's not definitive, in part that's because the Iraqi combat officials --
SANCHEZ: "Violence continues to be near the lowest."
HENRY: Right.
SANCHEZ: Interesting word choice. HENRY: Because Iraqi officials are saying that July was one of the deadliest months in two months in Iraq. Administration officials insist those numbers are wrong and that's not true. But when you hear the president hedge like that, it tells you a number of things.
Number one, he's not declaring victory. Why not? Well, number one, if you look at the sign there was no "Mission Accomplished" behind him. It said "Disabled American Veterans," where he was speaking. And they're very careful in this White House. They learned the lesson from the last administration.
Even though we are years beyond the "Mission Accomplished" banner, you can't bring that back, because there is no clear victory here. They realize that, number one.
And number two, they don't want to get caught like the Bush administration, because they don't know once these combat operations end, supposedly, whether the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet. What's it going to look like in six months?
And the same situation can play out in Afghanistan. The president is now saying next summer is going to be a pivot point in Afghanistan. June, start pulling out troops in Afghanistan.
Does anyone think the Afghan government right now is ready? They're probably not ready right now to stand on their own two feet. Next summer, maybe, but we don't know.
SANCHEZ: But you get the sense this president is feeling a little bit of the heat from his side of the aisle, which is saying, hey, you said you would stop these wars, and you look like you're more of a hawk than the guy you were criticizing before. So now you're seeing language like that, language he used today, where he is saying a month from now, we'll be starting to do what we need to do to get out.
HENRY: And that's why a week ago we saw 102 House Democrats come out against war funding, the largest number of Democrats ever coming out against $59 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. In fairness to the president, though, what the White House would point out is when you said what he promised about ending the wars, in the 2008 campaign he talked about ending the war in Iraq. They say he is doing that right now, he is following through on that promise.
SANCHEZ: Got it.
HENRY: And on Afghanistan, he didn't say he was going to end the war. He said, in fact, that the Bush administration under-resourced it, under-financed it, paid too much attention to Iraq, and that's why the president is now surging troops.
We're going to pretty soon, in a few weeks, have 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan. It's a huge number. So even while we're winding down in Iraq, we're still building up in Afghanistan.
SANCHEZ: Right. Yes. That's here the -- HENRY: But in fairness, he said that he was going to pivot out of Afghanistan -- pivot out of Iraq, but build up in Afghanistan. That's what he is doing.
SANCHEZ: Visit more often, will you?
HENRY: I'd love to.
SANCHEZ: We like having you here. You're Ali's --
HENRY: Yes, Ali might be a little upset about this, but --
SANCHEZ: Well, we'll just have to talk to him.
In just a matter of days, Andrew Breitbart has gone from conservative superstar to politically untouchable. How bad is it for him? One of the few places that he'll fit in is our "List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
That's coming up in just a little bit. That's next.
This is RICK'S LIST. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Sometimes it's just one of those stories that has to be told, painful as it might be. Lindsay Lohan's done her time, less than two weeks. What's next for the embattled star? We'll tell you what it is.
Also, take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRABHJEET BAINS, ABDUCTED TRUCKER: Two guys and one female, they pulled us over at gunpoint and they tried to kill us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That is just the start of an unbelievable prison break that people are talking about all over the country. It's now turned into a huge manhunt. It's the talk of Twitter as well, and that means Brooke Baldwin is all over it because, if it's trending, it's in Brooke's world.
She'll have it for us in just a little bit.
How are you?
BALDWIN: I'm good. I just talked to the Department of Corrections. I got new information.
SANCHEZ: Oh. Look forward to hearing it.
BALDWIN: Good.
SANCHEZ: We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I've got to tell you, this is an unbelievable story. It's Arizona, right?
BALDWIN: Arizona.
SANCHEZ: These people have broken out, and it's not just that they've broken out. That happens -- it's who they are and how they did it.
BALDWIN: It's how they did it and the fact that they still haven't been caught yet.
Let me tell you, I just got off the phone with the Department of Corrections out of Arizona. Here is the deal.
So, initially, there were these three guys, and police are still looking for two of these convicted killers, keep in mind, who escaped from a medium security prison in Arizona. This happened on Friday.
Now, here is how they did it. This is what this guy just told me on the phone.
They left their prison dorm through a door. An alarm was supposed to go off. Guess what? It didn't.
They then walked through the door. Then they cut through part of the prison fence, or the perimeter around the prison, Friday. This is just near Kingman. Then they took off.
They then kidnapped two big rig drivers at gunpoint, hijacked the truck, made them drive them to Flagstaff. Amazingly, the drivers of this big rig, they're OK. In fact, this one guy was talking about this terrifying ordeal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAINS: We were riding on I-80 eastbound, and we pulled in the ramp. And the two guys and the one female, they pulled us over at gunpoint and they tried to kill us. They drove us to over here from Kingman to Flagstaff.
So, finally, they changed their minds. They didn't kill us. They left us over here. And we're good.
Thank God I'm alive.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you thinking the whole time they were going to kill you?
BAINS: Oh, yes, all the time, because every time he looked at me I thought he was going to shoot me. So I'm glad we're still alive, breathing and talking to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Wow.
BALDWIN: Can you imagine?
SANCHEZ: And I've been there. Michael Herd (ph) and I have gone there to cover stories. It's like a desert between -- they drop you off out there, nobody's going to find you.
BALDWIN: You're in no man's land, pretty much.
SANCHEZ: Total desert, just cactus.
BALDWIN: Wow.
Well, so, he mentioned there were two men with this big rig, two men and a woman. So, police believe it was the fiancee of one of these convicted killers, one of the escapees who's now being labeled an accomplice. In fact, the Department of Corrections guy told me that she was on that visitation list on Friday. All right?
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BALDWIN: Meantime, yesterday, the third escaped convict was caught in Rifle, Colorado, after this whole police shootout. He is, of course, being questioned by FBI right now.
As for the two men still on the run, get this -- the Department of Corrections, they told me they still think they're in the region. They still think they're in Arizona. I said, "Why?" They said, "Family."
One question I had though was why were these convicted killers sitting in a medium security prison, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes. That's a good question.
BALDWIN: And one of the answers he gave me is, look, they look at the people's behavior, and apparently these guys had good behavior.
SANCHEZ: You know what's interesting? Is as you look at stories like this, you start to wonder if sometimes it's the way they populate these prisons, if that's not a problem. It's overpopulated, so they have to make decisions. And a guy who normally wouldn't meet the standard of medium security suddenly moves up to that threshold.
BALDWIN: Right.
SANCHEZ: All right. You have something going on with the White House?
BALDWIN: Something else going on with the White House. And Ed Henry is kind of going to trend with us.
Hey, friend.
HENRY: How are you? BALDWIN: So this whole story, it is all over the Internet today. I woke up, and you, big-time White House correspondent, you get to sit in the White House briefing room, right?
SANCHEZ: Oh, this is the Fox story.
BALDWIN: Sure, Fox News, AP. And so Helen Thomas, she is no longer sitting in that front row center seat, the highly-coveted seat. She is gone.
So you are the big-time president of this board -- .
HENRY: Future president, but I'm on the board, yes.
BALDWIN: Right, right, right. So you're on this board and you have to determine who gets the front row center seat.
HENRY: Yes.
BALDWIN: And then -- so who got it?
HENRY: Fox, Bloomberg and National Public Radio were vying for it. All made strong cases.
In the end, Fox unanimously moved up to the front row but did not get the seat Helen Thomas was in. We voted unanimously to move The Associated Press over to where Helen Thomas was because what a lot of people were missing in this whole fight --
BALDWIN: And it is a fight, which is fascinating for those of us who don't understand the inner workings system.
SANCHEZ: I understand The Associated Press. I even understand Bloomberg. But don't you have you to be a news organization to get that seat?
HENRY: Oh. Are you saying Fox is not a news organization?
SANCHEZ: Yes. I'm just wondering.
BALDWIN: Was there not a whole Facebook page telling you not to allow Fox?
HENRY: There was. There was a lot of pressure campaigns on the Internet, who were not happy and didn't understand why someone at CNN would be voting for Fox.
The bottom line is I was wearing my board hat, not my CNN hat.
BALDWIN: Sure.
HENRY: I have the (INAUDIBLE) seat on the board. We look out for all five of the major U.S. networks, including Fox. In fact, we pool our resources with Fox when we travel around the world. And their White House reporters, regardless of what Rick may think about some of their other hosts -- I watch the program and I know who he likes and -- SANCHEZ: No, their day side stuff is solid.
HENRY: Major Garrett, Wendell Goler are all solid reporters.
SANCHEZ: It's some of the other shows in the prime time that are a little --
BALDWIN: So Fox has a front row seat?
HENRY: So Fox got a front row seat. Former AP seat -- AP moved over to where Helen Thomas was, because Helen Thomas -- it's not really the Helen Thomas seat. People mix that up as well.
She had that because she was the senior wire reporter at UPI years and years ago. And the center seat was reserved for the person who started the news coo conference, the first question to the president, and "Thank you, Mr. President" at the end.
So now the AP will have those honors and Fox moves up to the front. A lot of controversy about it, but there was all this jockeying.
BALDWIN: I think it's fascinating.
SANCHEZ: And you had a lot to do with that. Well done. You handled the pressure well.
HENRY: Well done? You didn't seem to like it.
SANCHEZ: Look at his hand. He's like oh, -- well, it's a story for another day. We'll do it then. Thanks.
HENRY: Thank you sir.
SANCHEZ: Appreciate both of you.
Many of you tell me it's your favorite part of the show, "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
What is on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On" on this day? Somebody we visited in the past.
Stay right there. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: There is a popular saying: "No man is an island." But conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart must sure feel like he is living on one, and the new reason is landing him on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
It has been quite a whirlwind for Breitbart over the past couple of weeks. He posted an edited video of a government worker's speech, and the clip made it seem like she was making racist comments when she wasn't.
She was actually not making racist comments. She was doing just the opposite.
That worker is Shirley Sherrod, who says the White House forced her to resign because of that. Days later, the entire video was released. You know the story. It showed how the clip had been taken completely out of context.
Everyone under the sun apologized, even President Obama. And last week Sherrod said that she plans to sue Breitbart.
Well, now the Republican National Committee has cancelled a fundraiser with Breitbart as the headliner. He was scheduled to appear alongside RNC Chairman Michael Steele in California later this month. The GOP was billing the event "Election Countdown."
Organizers tell CNN they plan to schedule another event in the state, but it seems that the group that has always been loyal to Andrew Breitbart and apparently saw him as the conservative darling is turning its back on him now.
And that is the reason that on this day he lands on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Hey, look who's back from vacation -- Wolf Blitzer.
Hey, Wolf, we've got some folks here who are happy to see you.
Guys, wave to Wolf Blitzer out there. You see him? You see Wolf?
We've got some folks visiting --
(CROSSTALK)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It looks like they're nice folks.
SANCHEZ: What's that?
BLITZER: They look like they're nice folks.
SANCHEZ: They are good people. We've always got good people here on RICK'S LIST coming to say -- they get more excited about you than they get about me though.
BLITZER: I'm not so sure.
SANCHEZ: They're laughing over there at us.
What do you got coming up, Wolf? What's the big headline politically?
BLITZER: Look, there's a lot of political stuff.
As you know, the president was where you are today, in Atlanta, delivering a major speech on what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, what he's trying to do to help some of the disabled troops. We have a major piece that Barbara Starr has done. This is an exclusive. You're going to want to see it, Rick. I think a lot of viewers are going to want to see it.
She had exclusive access. She was on a MedEvac flight from Kabul back to the United States with some of these wounded warriors, these heroes. This is a moving, poignant story, and it's especially fitting.
It's going to be rolling out in "THE SITUATION ROOM" today, tomorrow, Wednesday, a three-part series, in depth, something you will see only here on CNN. I think you'll learn something. All of our viewers will. They'll be moved by what Barbara has found.
SANCHEZ: There is a real political story behind this whole thing, Wolf. And you know that.
How does the president find his way trying to explain to his party and the American people when it is that these wars are over, how they're going to be over, and what we will have or not have accomplished? I mean, these are questions that, sorry, you're sitting in the chair, you're going to have to answer, Mr. President.
BLITZER: Yes. He's made it clear all of the combat forces are going to be out of Iraq by the end of this month, down to 50,000 troops from a high of about 150,000, 180,000 troops not that long ago, and that all of the remaining 50,000 troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
Now, the chief of staff at the White House National Security Council, Denis McDonough, he's going to be here in "THE SITUATION ROOM." We're going to flesh that out a little bit, we're going to talk about what's going on. But there's no doubt he's got a bigger problem right now with some of his own Democratic base members, as opposed to Republicans, especially when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer, great to see you again, my friend. Look forward to seeing "THE SITUATION ROOM."
BLITZER: As we always say, it's good to go, good to come home.
SANCHEZ: Well done.
Great white shark sightings near a popular resort. Have you seen these reports? I mean, folks, they're closing down beaches. I mean, this is serious.
Why? How close are those great white sharks?
This is what we want to find out for you. So stay there. We're going to be asking all the questions having to do with this part of the world, where they're actually seeing these monsters close enough to tag, as a matter of fact.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Everybody remembers the "Jaws" theme song, right? Right? It makes your skin crawl. It really had that effect on all of us for a while when we saw that.
Check out this video. This isn't a clip from the movie. It's like the same area, though.
More than one real life great white shark has been spotted off the coast of Massachusetts and Cape Cod.
Let's see the great whites, guys. I know what a beach looks like.
All right. There it is. That is one of the sightings right there. There are others. And they're trying to tag them.
Ian Bowles, he's the Massachusetts secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. And he's here to give us the lowdown now on this potentially dangerous development.
So, Mr. Bowles, I understand that some of the beaches have been closed. Why did you come to that decision?
IAN BOWLES, MASSACHUSETTS SECRETARY OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: Well, that was a decision by the town of Chatham. They found some of these sharks showing up nearby a couple of their beaches due to a large gray seal population, and they made the judgment that it made sense to shut their beaches.
SANCHEZ: So, essentially, you've got, as I understand it, an increase in the population of seals, and you all believe that the increased population of seals is making more sharks show up.
It makes a lot of sense, right?
BOWLES: It does. I mean, the gray seal is the favored food for the great white shark, and they have been showing up in (INAUDIBLE), which is a large federal wildlife preserve on islands south of Chatham for a couple years.
Last summer, our researchers were able to tag five of them, which helped us to track them to Florida. It turns out these sharks were snowbirds and they have come back, and now they're off the waters of Chatham.
SANCHEZ: Everyone, when they think of great white sharks, think of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Alaska (sic). And, in fact, you tell people, no, there are great whites off the coast of the United States. They often don't believe you.
Here you are to tell those people start believing. Right?
BOWLES: Well, that's right. I mean, I think, again, for the vast majority of the beach-going public, it's nothing to worry about.
I think that sharks, at least around Massachusetts, are showing up in one particular geographic area, really driven by a major boom in the seal population. So it's a point of a lot of curiosity for people, but most people are taking it in stride.
SANCHEZ: By the way, I think I just put the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Alaska. It will be great for the folks who are constantly giving me grief about my geography. Obviously, I meant to say Australia.
You know what's interesting about these great whites? Is that a lot of people would say, well, yes, there are seals there, they're going to have go after the seals, there is no reason to believe that if they go after the seals that they're going to go after people. But, yet, you guys have made a decision that there is a chance they could go after people. Right?
How did you come to that decision?
BOWLES: Well, you know, we in the state have really taken the lead on research. We've got some terrific funding, federal funding and private funding, to tag these sharks and figure out where they are living and going to.
In terms of our message to beachgoers, it's been fairly straightforward. Use common sense.
If there is a large population of seals, you should obviously probably not swim with that set of seals. If you see sharks in the water, you should obviously not be going in the water. But again, we've got tremendous beaches all around Massachusetts that really aren't a -- something the average beachgoer should be worried about.
SANCHEZ: But I heard one of your reps this morning, here on "AMERICAN MORNING," say they've actually seen the sharks in as shallow as three to four feet of water. That's where you'd find kids swimming, right?
BOWLES: It is. But again, it's a coincident with where this seal population is. So, you know, I think in those individual beaches where there is a big seal population -- and there aren't very many of those -- or areas where they've seen sharks, you know, I think that's where you'd want to think twice before you go in the water at all.
SANCHEZ: Before we let you go, how long before you think the situation will clear up and those sharks will be gone? What did you learn from the ones last year? You tagged them and, what, they took off?
BOWLES: Yes. They headed south sometime towards the end of September, and then they began to arrive back in Massachusetts waters probably at some point in July. So I think it's safe to assume that they'll be here through September again.
And, you know, I think you're starting to see (INAUDIBLE) and that area nearby Chatham emerging as a center for great white shark activity. And that's something that is going to be something people need to pay attention to. SANCHEZ: It's fascinating. I would think that your tourism would increase because of people like me who would love to get up there and go on a boat just to see what it looks like, to see a great white shark up close.
Mr. Bowles, thanks so much for being with us. We're out of time.
Wolf Blitzer joins us now.
Here now, "THE SITUATION ROOM."
