Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Poll Reveals American Opinions on Current Events; U.S. Marine Possibly Connected to Killing of Iraq Civilians Sues Congressman Murtha; French Ambassador to U.N., Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, Holds Press Conference

Aired August 05, 2006 - 14:32   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And now back to the Middle East crisis. Here's what we know. The U.N. Security Council is set to meet in less than 30 minutes to discuss a draft resolution aimed at ending the violence. The Associated Press reports that an Israeli cabinet minister has endorsed the plan, worked out by the United States and France.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has arrived in Crawford, Texas to discuss the peace plan with President Bush. White House spokesman Tony Snow says that the president is happy about the agreement.

Meantime, there was more ground fighting along the Israeli- Palestinian border -- or the Israeli-Lebanese border, that is. Military officials say Hezbollah mortar shelling killed one Israeli soldier.

Some new poll numbers are out. How is the Middle East crisis affecting President Bush's popularity? CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider has that and other results in a report first seen on "ANDERSON COOPER 360."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): At times of international tension, the American public usually rallies behind the president. Is that happening now? The president's latest job approval rating in a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation is 40 percent. Fifty-nine percent disapprove.

Not much of a rally, but one administration figure is getting high marks.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: If you're going to do this job, it's great to be doing it at a time of consequence.

SCHNEIDER: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's job rating is 62 percent, much higher than her boss. More than two-thirds of Americans say they sympathize with Israel in this conflict. Sympathy with Israel has been growing since the conflict began. No division there.

But there is division over what Israel should do now. Americans are split over whether Israel should continue military action until Hezbollah can no longer launch attacks, or agree to an immediate cease-fire. The cease-fire issue draws a partisan response.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If you declare an immediate cease-fire and you do not have the conditions for real peace, it is simply going to be a hollow declaration.

SCHNEIDER: Most Republicans agree with that. Most Democrats want a cease-fire as soon as possible.

Here is something else the public is divided about. A narrow majority support sending U.S. ground troops to the Lebanese border, along with troops from other countries, for a peacekeeping force. But there's no big party split over an international force and a peacekeeping force.

What about Cuba? By better than two to one, the public favors reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. If Fidel Castro dies and his brother Raul takes over, that number goes even higher. No partisan split here either. Republicans and Democrats alike favor diplomatic relations with Cuba.

SCHNEIDER (on camera): In another issue that's making news, do Americans believe actor Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, that is, prejudiced against Jews? Only twenty-three percent of Americans say yes, 52 percent say no. After the recent incident, Mr. Gibson put out a statement saying that he is not an anti-Semite. The evidence suggests most Americans believe him.

Bill Schneider, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: And Bill Schneider is part of the best political team on television, a team you will only see on CNN.

And straight ahead, we'll talk more about Mel Gibson in our legal briefs as well as look at how a Congressman -- this Congressman -- became the subject of a lawsuit related to a tragedy in Iraq.

And, of course, this man, as I mentioned, Mel Gibson, we'll be talking about him, his case. You don't want to miss that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Here's what we know right now in the Middle East crisis. Israeli cabinet minister Issac Herzog are praising a U.N. draft resolution aimed at ending the crisis. He tells the Associated Press it's an important development but he says the Israeli military will keep up its strikes in coming days.

France and the United States agreed on the draft resolution earlier today. It must still pass the full U.N. Security Council. The Council meets behind closed doors at the top of the hour.

Meantime, the fighting rages on today. Israeli warplanes are striking more targets in the Lebanese port city of Tyre. And Israeli commandos clashed with Hezbollah fighters on the ground there. In northern Israel, more Hezbollah rockets rained down on Haifa and Kiryat Shmona. Rockets also struck a village in the Galilee region, killing three people.

A U.S. Marine sergeant connected to the killing of two dozen civilians in Iraq is suing Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha. The sergeant says Murtha's comments on the case are libelous.

Kathleen Koch looks at the controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The libel suit by the staff sergeant who led the Marines in Haditha cites these and other comments made by Congressman John Murtha.

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: They overreacted and killed -- and they killed a number of civilians without anybody firing at them. And then they went into the rooms and killed women and children.

KOCH: Murtha told CNN and other news organizations he had gotten that information from, quote, "the highest level of the Marine Corps." The suit claims Murtha jeopardized Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich's right to a fair trial if he is charged with any wrongdoing.

MARK ZAID, ATTORNEY FOR STAFF SGT. WUTERICH: Our objective is to clear Staff Sergeant Wuterich's good name. These allegations were untrue. They didn't commit war crimes. They weren't cold-blooded killers.

NEAL PUCKETT, ATTORNEY FOR STAFF SGT. WUTERICH: We're going to have a heck of a time trying to walk into a courtroom if we ever have to do that in front of court-martial members or jurors with the presumption of innocence because of what Congressman Murtha has done.

KOCH: Wuterich's attorneys are asking, among other things, for $75,000 in damages, as well as a public retraction and an apology.

MURTHA: Well, they're going to do everything they can to defend themselves. There's nobody who supports the military more than I do, but these kind of incidents really hurt us. It hurts our troops. It puts them in more danger.

And the reason I spoke out was because he was trying to cover it up. He'll just have to work his way through the system himself. I can understand his lawyers trying to defend him, but he's going to have to work it out himself.

KOCH: The suit comes as military officials say the criminal investigation into the Haditha incident has been completed. The case has been forwarded to a military prosecution team and Pentagon officials say some Marines are expected to be charged.

Some outside lawyers believe it is no coincidence Wuterich's libel case is being brought now. HARDY VIEUX, MILITARY LAW EXPERT: It's more of an opportunity to get information and to have his day in court, and to get out there early, as opposed to waiting for the government to charge him with whatever the case may be. So, this is certainly -- it's a creative ploy, and it's, in some ways, a stroke of genius.

KOCH (on camera): Legal experts say it will be a difficult case to win. Not only does Wuterich have to prove he's innocent, but statements by members of Congress are normally protected by the Constitution.

(voice-over): Whether that immunity applies to Murtha's comments to the media may have to be decided in court.

Kathleen Koch, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: So does the U.S. Marine sergeant have a good case against Congressman Murtha? Let's see what our legal experts have to say.

Avery Friedman on the telephone and in front of the camera for us because we have got some audio problems. Glad we worked it out.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks a lot.

And Richard Herman, a New York criminal defense attorney.

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Fred, how are you.

WHITFIELD: Joining us with the hand to the ear. Oh, you're so funny. All right, you guys. Well, let's begin with this Murtha case. Representative John Murtha said the Marines killed in cold blood. So Richard, does that mean he's been libelous?

HERMAN: No, Fred, it does not. It means that information that was provided to him from the highest level of the Marine Corps provides evidence that possibly this is what happened. There's a 3,000 to 4,000 page report that was compiled on the Haditha incident. You heard the reporter just then saying there's going to be criminal charges brought.

It was absolutely a stroke of genius to take a shot on this defamation case. This defamation case will be dismissed. It is not going to last. But in the meantime, they'll get discovery and they'll get a quick look at what Murtha relied upon in making the statements. That's what they need to defend themselves.

WHITFIELD: So, Avery, if you name Murtha, do you need to name a whole lot of other people who came out swinging after hearing about this investigation? AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: You know, what happened here was that Representative Murtha made statements both to us, to CNN, and to the "Philadelphia Inquirer." And that's where the Marine sergeant is zeroing in. He's the one that made public statements that they claimed to be defamatory. I don't think it's a stroke of genius because the truth is, that procedurally this case is likely to be dismissed before there's any discovery.

WHITFIELD: And so the flipside of this is, you know, Sergeant Wuterich, is this just really his way of trying to clear his name or trying to set the stage before going to trial on this case, Avery?

FRIEDMAN: Well, it's very difficult to figure out his motive as far as I'm concerned. From a pure defamation perspective, he's going to have to prove that Representative Murtha knew that what was being said was untrue, that he was focusing specifically on the sergeant, and that's a burden that, frankly, I think will be impossible to be met. So I think this case is out the door.

WHITFIELD: And so, Richard, you get the last word on this case.

HERMAN: Well, I have to agree with my friend on the telephone. It's definitely going to be thrown out of court. It's going to be dismissed.

WHITFIELD: All right, well, let's move onto the Mel Gibson case. You know, this is a legal case, if you look at the DUI charges that he's facing. But at the same time in the court of public opinion it's a case about whether he is, indeed, an anti-Semite.

So, Richard, how does this case really proceed? How do the allegations and, you know, his recorded language about being an anti- Semite reflect or impact the DUI charges?

HERMAN: Well, Fred, the bottom line is this: Mel needs a good criminal defense attorney, number one.

WHITFIELD: You're available? Is that what you're saying?

HERMAN: I'm available.

FRIEDMAN: He's available, right.

HERMAN: Once he gets that, what's going to happen is he's going to get a slap on the wrist, he's going to get a three-month or six- month suspension of his driving privileges. The resisting arrest charge is going to go away. He's going to pay a fine, probably have to go to some sort of alcohol training program, and that's it. It's over and out. This case is going to be gone, over, out.

The statements he made are horrendous, but he was drunk. Take into consideration the condition he was in. He was blasted, he was intoxicated, he was driving 40 miles over the limit. That's what's important -- 40 miles over the limit with a very high illegal blood alcohol level, and charge of resisting arrest. Those are the things to key on, not these stupid ramblings. Not that. WHITFIELD: Well, Avery, do you see it as simple as that, that really this is, you know, a case of a simple DUI. perhaps the evidence is there, the breathalyzer test, et cetera, there are patrons of the bar who said he admitted he was drunk, that it really is open-ended?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, legally speaking ...

WHITFIELD: Or an open and shut case?

FRIEDMAN: ...what's involved here is simply the DUI. The fact that he's going to A.A., and I'm not sure if that's Alcoholics Anonymous or Anti-Semites Anonymous. I'm not sure. It doesn't really matter. But the bottom line is Richard is 100 percent accurate. Holy smokes, we're agreeing about everything.

WHITFIELD: Oh, my gosh. We've got to come up with another topic, people.

FRIEDMAN: But that's what on -- but that's what's going on. This is a simple DUI. He is not going to jail. He will be fined. There will be a remedy involved, going to school, dealing with some efforts concerning his alcoholism.

But whether or not he is anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-this, anti-that has nothing to do with anything. The thing that does bother me though is the sheriff's office modifying official reports. And, you know, Richard suggesting this guy needs a good defense lawyer, any good defense lawyer getting their hands on those modified sheriff's department reports -- wow, what a mess.

WHITFIELD: All right. All right, well, Avery Friedman, thanks for hanging out with us, as well as Richard Herman. No pun intended. Thanks so much, gentlemen.

HERMAN: Take care.

FRIEDMAN: Have a good day.

WHITFIELD: All right, well, right now, this is the French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Marc de la Sabliere. Let's listen in.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE, FRENCH AMB. TO U.N.: ... this afternoon at 3:00 on Lebanon. I will today introduce a text on this issue, and I want to present it now to you, to the press. And starting -- giving the background, you certainly remember that France has circulated, I think it was last Saturday, a draft resolution to settle the crisis between Israel and Lebanon.

This was a contribution. We were presenting because we thought that it was time for the Council to take action. And when we presented this text, we had said that we would take into account diplomatic efforts, which, on that time, were going on in the region.

And I want to remind also then when the Council was doing last week -- no, doing this week, adopted the draft, a PRST, we said that we were determined to adopt a resolution taking into account all these diplomatic efforts.

So as you -- and it's no secret, I have been in the last day engaged in intensive consultation with my colleague, Ambassador Bolton. And we have worked very, very hard. And there was also a lot of concentration between our capitals. And we have reached an agreement on a common approach between the Americans and -- United States and France.

And we reached this agreement this morning. I had a meeting with Ambassador Bolton at 9:30 this morning, and we have compared notes on the instruction we have received and, yes, we have an agreement. So, I will present, you know, in a few minutes, at 3:00 to the Council and to all members of the Council the text, this text. And we have worked taking, as a basis, the French draft.

So the sequence we are proposing in this text has been circulated also to the press. It's the same as the one we have proposed, that is to say cessation of hostilities, agreement in principle from the parties to element and principle for a lasting solution, and the deployment of a force.

So what are the main elements now, and we'll go into more detail of this text I'm going to present? First, the text calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation of Hezbollah by all attacks, and immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operation, that is to say naval, ground and air.

And this is something very important for the people in Lebanon. There has been suffering and also for the people in the northern part of Israel. In Lebanon -- and this is also in the international community, will help all the displaced persons to come back to their home, 700,000 displaced persons.

So when hostilities will cease, 700,000 displaced persons, with assistance of the international community, would be able to go back to their homes. And the text is very clear also -- we have introduced in the text the fact that harbors and airports will be reopened. Now this is for the immediate period.

Second -- and I have been saying this, and also have been saying this also during the whole week, that this is -- we cannot go back to status quo. Who could imagine that such a drama could happen again? It would be irresponsible, so we have to take the opportunity to find, to help, you know, the parties to find a lasting solution, a permanent cease-fire. So the text addresses this issue of a long-term solution of a permanent cease-fire.

The Council has identified -- we hope that the council will accept the parameters we have identified for a permanent cease-fire, that is to say mainly permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution, that is to say the strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territory and integrity of Israel and Lebanon; the full respect for the blue line by both parties, the delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa Farms area; and security arrangement to prevent the resumption of hostilities, and including -- and this is very important -- the establishment between the blue line and the Litani River, of an area free of any armed personnel asset and weapon other than those of the Lebanese army and security forces -- Lebanese security forces and of U.N. mandated international force deployed in this area.

This is to say there will be either permanent -- when we come to this permanent settlement very soon, an area from the blue line to the Litani where only the Lebanese armed force and the U.N. mandated force will be allowed to be, and also full implementation of the 1559, 1618 (ph), that requires, you know, disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. So this -- and there are some other, you know, principles and elements.

And when the text will be adopted -- I hope very soon -- there will be a campaign, diplomatic campaign, to support, to help the parties, you know -- to help the parties because they have to support and to agree in principle on these elements.

And the sooner the better because the text says -- and this is the third part of the text -- when the parties will agree in principle, each party, on these elements, and principles, a U.N. mandated force will be deployed, with the agreement of the parties because the parties have to give an agreement to this force.

So I'm going to present the text to my colleagues in the Council. Again, this is a unique opportunity for, I think, the people of Lebanon and Israel. What will happen in the Council now? I'm going to present the text. We will ask -- if needed, we are ready to answer any questions, you know, members of the Council will ask.

I will tell my colleagues that if they want an expert group this afternoon, I'm ready. An expert, you know, can help the delegation to understand also better the text. And we want to go swiftly.

We think that looking, you know, all of us at the TV screen you know what is happening in Lebanon and in some cities in the northern part of Israel, that we have to act responsibly and move swiftly.

So I hope that we -- this text will get a lot of support in the Council, and France would like to see this text adopted as soon as possible. I do understand we have to respect members of the Council. We have been with John Bolton negotiating for someday. If they ask for, you know, some days, it will be normal.

But I know that members of the Council -- because they have called me every day -- have told me to encouraged me to try to find, you know, an agreement that also -- they were telling me, you know, please go fast. Go fast, because we have to adopt this text very swiftly.

So we will see in the Council now what the reaction of members of the council is or are and I will come back to you later on to discuss the reaction of the Council and the way forward. Thank you very much.

WHITFIELD: You're looking there at the French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Marc de la Sabliere. He's now taking some questions from those reporters there on the scene.

DE LA SABLIERE: What we saw in the text is that as part of this permanent cease-fire of the long-term solution, a force, a U.N. mandated force, you know, will be deployed. The mandate of the force will be set up in the second resolution, not in this one.

So we will work on the mandate, but what is important, you know, is that what we are saying that this force will be a shot (ph) of seven force. This is what we're already say in the text. We already say -- and I come back to it -- that in this area, the area between the blue line and the Litani, only this force and the Lebanese army and security forces would be allowed.

(CROSSTALK)

DE LA SABLIERE: Please. Please. If you wish. It's the same.

QUESTION: Ambassador, ambassador, what makes different with this text that the rest of the Security Council is going to agree on it? Because the Security Council has a lot of actually meetings regarding Lebanon and with a lot of drafts of the -- draft. So what is make -- what is making so different?

DE LA SABLIERE: There was, I think, a lot of frustration in the Council that the Council was not able to adopt the text, even, you know -- we have a lot of -- the PRST, I think was the last day I was president, or by the end of last month.

And I had the impression and I told you when we adopted this PRST and we have this sentence in the PRST that for now we have will have on a draft resolution, that things were changing, maybe because members of the Council realize, all of them, the 15, that the Council -- the time has come for the Council to act.

Second, it was important, I think, to have the Americans and the French working together to find a common approach and all the work we have done during these last three days between the Americans and French will help the Council. I think the reason why the Council, I hope, will be able to adopt this resolution and to support it -- and I hope that we will have a wide support -- is because the United States and France agreed on the text.

And it's not -- let me be very clear on this one. This not a compromise between the United States and France. I think we both have the same objective, is to have the Council doing responsibly something concrete and something which will help the people in the region, which will help not only the cessation of -- this will lead not only to the cessation of hostilities immediately, but also which will help for a lasting solution.

This is our objective. So, again, it's not a compromise between two delegations. It's two delegations, France and the United States, coming together to try to find, on the basis of the French text, you know, how they can agree on this common approach. And we have reached this agreement. This is good. Now -- yes, just a second.

QUESTION: When you have the second resolution, will France -- does France anticipate contributing forces and leading the force?

DE LA SABLIERE: No. On this one, I would say, you know, two or three things. First, that this is a rule in France, the president decides. And the president will decide when the time will come. He'll take the decision when the time will come.

Second, we have said that one of the conditions, a very important condition for France to participate, you know, to such a force, is the agreement in principle of each party -- of each party, I'm not saying together -- of each party of the element and principle for a lasting solution, because what is important, you know, is to have a lasting solution. So we need an agreement of the parties and also an agreement from the parties ...

WHITFIELD: You've been listening to the French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, and he's talking about the details of this draft resolution that the French and the Americans have agreed upon. Within moments, he will bring the full text of this draft resolution to the full security Council where they will meet behind closed doors and discuss these items.

He says, in part, this resolution would mean the agreement of a full cessation of hostilities on both sides, the Israeli and Hezbollah. It would mean a deployment of a multinational or what he called a U.N. mandate force. It would also mean the allowing of 700,000 displaced people with the assistance of the international community to return to their homes, and he says harbors and airports would be reopened.

These are the immediate goals that he outlined of this draft resolution that the full Security Council will soon be listening to. We're already getting some feedback from Israeli government leaders, as well as now Lebanese government leaders.

Some Lebanese cabinet members have met with our Ben Wedeman who is on the line -- Brent Sadler -- I'm sorry -- who is on the line with us now to give us an idea of how they are accepting what we understand this draft resolution to be -- Brent.

BRENT SADLER, CNN BEIRUT BUREAU CHIEF: Fredricka, I've just left after a meeting with several ministers, including Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora. Now, they've gone over an unofficial draft resolution. It hasn't been presented, obviously, because the resolution is not in its final form, but they've certainly been pouring over a copy of this text that we've just heard details of from the French representative at the U.N. there.

And I have to tell you, Fredricka, the initial response here is something of a lukewarm nature. Fouad Siniora, the prime minister, told me he thought it was an inadequate text because it didn't address some fundamental issues that the Lebanese government has made absolutely clear have to be instilled in a final U.N. Security Council resolution, not least an immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops that have spent the last three weeks-plus carving out a new security zone in the southern tip of Lebanon. That really falls in line with what Hezbollah M.P.s said before the session. Two members of the cabinet do come from Hezbollah. That M.P. said no cease-fire from Hezbollah while there is one Israeli soldier in south Lebanon. So that's a very serious sticking point.

Certainly, the Lebanese government is not rejecting this outright and Siniora says he's going to be working the phonelines very hard over the hours ahead trying to get more of what Lebanon wants, therefore what Hezbollah is seeking out of the final resolution that could come from the Security Council as early as next week. So really some serious reservations here so far, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right, Brent Sadler, thanks so much.

A lot of details still yet to be worked out. Even the French ambassador to the U.N. spelled that out, but he did at least allude to what would be a blue line zone in southern Lebanon which would only, in the near future, be occupied by Lebanese army and security forces through the U.N.

More on that as we get details from the closed sessions with the U.N. Security Council taking place in the next hour. For now though, we are going to take you to "CNN PRESENTS."

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com