Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

Secrets, Lies?; CIA Leak Case; Job Jitters; Sweet Dreams?

Aired November 17, 2005 - 06:29   ET

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

(WEATHER REPORT)
KELLY WALLACE, CNN ANCHOR: And our top story this half-hour. Something we've been talking all morning long about, a new White House offensive. You can call it the war of words over the war.

Vice President Dick Cheney is leading this counter-attack. Last night, he responded to Democratic critics, who are accusing the administration of deliberately misusing intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And you can say Dick Cheney's boss agrees. President Bush is on an eight-day Asian trip. But the prewar intelligence issue continues to dog him overseas. And he took on the vice president's attack mode, offering his very own comments. Listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people. That's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted to support the decision I made. It's irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done. So, I agree with the vice president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Bush speaking a little earlier on this day in South Korea.

Well, top oil industry executives are now being accused of lying to Congress. Three of them denied that their companies took part in Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force back in 2001. But some leaked White House documents show otherwise.

We get more now from CNN congressional correspondent Joe Johns. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Oil executives under fire about gas prices were called to testify on Capitol Hill last week. They strolled in, sat down and started talking.

But it was a little different story in April of 1994. Back then, when tobacco executives, also under fire, were called to the Hill, they first had to raise their hands and swear to tell the truth, a lasting picture that the oil companies avoided.

However you cut it, standing with your hand in the air like that doesn't look good. But did testifying without the oath also protect the oil executives from criminal charges if they didn't tell the truth? Democrats who raised the issue got shot down by committee co- chair Ted Stevens of oil-rich Alaska.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D), WASHINGTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to vote on whether we swear in...

SEN. TED STEVENS (R), ALASKA: There will be no vote. That's not in order at all.

JOHNS: Stevens's co-chair, Pete Domenici, noted that he understood the political impact of a swearing-in picture, and that he wanted to focus instead on substance. That got Democrats mad, but it was the executives' answers to this question that brought out the knives.

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did not, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To be honest...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I wasn't here then.

JOHNS: The question matters because critics of George Bush and Dick Cheney have been asking for years whether an administration run by two former oil men gave the industry a secret audience to talk through their suggestions on national energy policy.

The oil companies' denials of a secret meeting were apparently contradicted by a "Washington Post" story, a story that detailed an alleged White House document showing officials of Exxon, Mobil, Conoco, Shell Oil and BP met in the White House with Cheney aides in 2001.

Senate Democrats rushed to the cameras to demand an investigation and an explanation over why the oil company executives weren't required to take the oath. (on camera): Why do you think it was that they were not sworn in? Was it to protect them from possible criminal exposure?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, you're asking the wrong people. We wanted to swear them in. It was Ted Stevens and Pete Domenici who were very verbal.

JOHNS (voice-over): We found Senator Pete Domenici, co-chair of the panel, on the Capitol subway.

SEN. PETE DOMENICI (R), NEW MEXICO: If, in fact they are found to have lied, the results are the same, whether you're sworn in or not. There's a -- there's a statute that applies that says, if you don't tell the truth before a committee of Congress -- that's what we had there -- then that is the same as lying under oath.

JOHNS: The same point an angry Ted Stevens made on the Senate floor.

STEVENS: To suggest that I did not administer an oath to these witnesses to help them lie to members of Congress is false, inexcusable.

JOHNS: According to the experts we spoke to, there's no difference between the penalty for lying under oath and misleading Congress. Both can get you five years in jail, assuming, of course, the executives were actually lying. All four companies in question stood by the denials of their CEOs.

(on camera): Excuse me, Senator, last question. Do you think they lied?

DOMENICI: Oh...

JOHNS: Do you think any of these executives actually lied?

DOMENICI: Look, that's not to be talked about at this point. You've got -- you've got to take their testimony. If, in fact, it's -- there is something that is indicative that they have not told the truth, then you proceed in a normal manner. You can't just outright pass conclusions on something like that.

JOHNS: Thank you, Senator.

(voice over): Joe Johns, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Congressional correspondent Joe Johns chasing down members of Congress there to get some answers.

Well, turning now to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of evacuees are still displaced. And now we are learning that the FEMA money is running out.

Soledad O'Brien is joining us now with a preview of today's "AMERICAN MORNING.

Soledad, just another heartache for these evacuees.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Kelly, you know, and the list continues to grow, doesn't it, of problems and obstacles, FEMA, and also the people who are suffering in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what they've been slammed with really since that hurricane hit.

This morning, we're also going to tell you a story about a couple. They got some checks from FEMA, used the checks for rent, used the checks for a couple of other things as well -- household supplies, things they needed. Well, it turns out they weren't supposed to. They were only supposed to use that money for rent. Now, FEMA says no more money for you. They're suing. We're going to talk about that ahead this morning.

Also, there's a new study out on obesity. You heard about this new drug, Meridia, didn't you, Kelly? You know, they run ads for it all the time. Well, apparently it's very successful if, along with the drug, you also get very intensive weight counseling. Some big questions are raised now about exactly what can be done to help people lose weight and fight obesity, which is really becoming an epidemic in this country.

That and much, much more ahead on "AMERICAN MORNING." We're coming up right at the top of the hour -- Kelly.

WALLACE: All right, Soledad. Yes, diet and exercise have to be part of that counseling, I'm sure.

S. O'BRIEN: Yes.

WALLACE: OK.

S. O'BRIEN: No magic bullet, I am sorry to say.

WALLACE: Unfortunately.

S. O'BRIEN: I know.

WALLACE: I wish it could be that easy.

S. O'BRIEN: Really.

WALLACE: OK, Soledad, we'll see you in about 22 minutes. Thanks so much.

And another big story we are following on this day. "Washington Post" reporter Bob Woodward is raising new questions about the CIA White House leak case. Also raising new questions about the indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

Bob Woodward testified under oath on Monday that a senior Bush administration official, not Scooter Libby, told him that Valerie Plame was a CIA undercover agent -- or rather that she worked at the CIA, we should say, more than a month before it was publicly disclosed two years ago. Woodward says he never told his bosses at the newspaper. He also won't identify his White House source. He did, though, yesterday apologize to his editors about the newspaper.

Well, in light of what Bob Woodward says now, and in light of the administration's vigorous defense of going to war, it is interesting to look back at what Bob Woodward told CNN's "LARRY KING LIVE" exactly four weeks ago and the night before the special prosecutor launched an indictment against Scooter Libby. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB WOODWARD, "WASHINGTON POST": When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it kind of is gossip, is chatter, and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. And there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And Woodward added that he didn't see an underlying crime here.

Well, it turns out that "Newsweek" magazine's Michael Isikoff also was on that "LARRY KING LIVE" show that night. And he's live on the phone with us this morning.

Michael, thanks for talking with us. I know your question to Bob Woodward that night was you were hearing rumors. We all were hearing that Bob Woodward was going to have a bombshell in the newspaper the next day. What's your sense about what you heard from Bob Woodward that night, and what you're hearing now?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Well, it's consistent, but obviously there were big details that Bob wasn't disclosing that night.

Look, there were rumors, as you mentioned, that Woodward knew who -- not that he had the information, that he had some inside information about who Robert Novak's source was and was going to reveal that in "The Washington Post" the next day, the day that the indictment was due to come out.

As it turned out -- I mean, he -- I asked him about that on that Larry King show, and he said, no, he had no -- not only did he not have a bombshell, he didn't even have a firecracker, and kind of dismissed the whole thing. Now, I mean, he was being truthful, but not complete, because obviously he had some inside information here that we didn't learn about until this week.

WALLACE: What's the sense, Mike, from your sources about the impact on the special prosecutor's investigation? Because, as you know, Scooter Libby's attorney coming out with a statement yesterday, saying this new information from Bob Woodward undermines, in the words of Scooter Libby's attorney, the special prosecutor's case against Scooter Libby, saying that Scooter Libby now was not the first government official to talk to a reporter about Joseph Wilson's wife...

ISIKOFF: Well, that's the comment...

WALLACE: ... Valerie Plame.

ISIKOFF: That's the comment that Fitzgerald made during his press conference. And he made it in the context of the first official known to have leaked Plame's identity to a reporter known at that time. At that time, Fitzgerald simply didn't know about Woodward.

It doesn't on its face change the factual allegations in the indictment. So, on the four corners of the indictment, it doesn't alter the situation. It does in terms of atmospherics.

And remember, jury trials depend a lot of atmospherics, because Libby's lawyers will be able to argue a number of things. Number one that Libby was not the first to disclose this, and that will help to show that others -- maybe others should be charged here, or maybe others should come under scrutiny.

And also, interestingly enough, Woodward had -- did have a conversation with Libby during that time. He had a lengthy interview with him. And Libby didn't bring it up, didn't bring Plame up in the conversation, according to Woodward.

So that suggests at a minimum that Libby was not on some campaign to out Valerie Plame in order to discredit Joe Wilson, which is sort of the backdrop of this whole case.

WALLACE: All right, Mike, I wish we had more time, but we will be following your reporting on this interesting and complicated story. Michael Isikoff with "Newsweek" magazine. We appreciate it.

Well, if you are still bleary-eyed from a long night with a screaming baby, listen up. There is some new advice for getting your baby to sleep. You're not going to want to miss that. We'll explain. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And welcome back to DAYBREAK.

Here's a question we've been asking you: Are you worried about your job? Take a look at this. A new survey taken over the past two months is finding nearly 24 percent saying it's very or somewhat possible that they will lose their job in the next year. That is up from just over 19 percent in survey results released in May.

Our guest, Kathryn Ponds, will tell us a lot more. She is senior vice president of career management consulting with Right Management Consultants, the company that did those surveys.

Ms. Pond, thank you for your patience. Sorry about the technical glitches. Our first question to you: Can you tell us why? Why this increase over the past six months in the number of people who are feeling more insecure about their jobs?

KATHRYN PONDS, RIGHT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS: Yes, Kelly, that is a rather significant increase. And as we look at those numbers and the events that have occurred since May, we attribute that increase to issues related to Hurricane Katrina. Certainly that has had an impact on oil and gas prices, which has concerned individuals, as well as the merger and acquisition activity that's been occurring as well.

WALLACE: Take a look at something else also. I want our viewers to look at this from your survey. When your people -- when people were asked if they are laid off, will they feel it's very or somewhat difficult to find a similar job at the same pay, in November 2005, 80.2 percent saying yes. Back in May, 79.8 percent. So an increase there as well, a significant increase. I mean, how does that compare to other parts of the world?

PONDS: Certainly here in the United States we are seeing a greater increase than our overall global results. As we look at those numbers, what we also have to look at is the fact that this is a level of confidence or an increase in the lack of confidence individuals have about their ability to land similar positions at similar pay. And that's not necessarily going to be related to what they actually find as they are looking for jobs.

WALLACE: And give us a sense, Ms. Ponds, anything you found in terms of the demographics, women, men, older, younger workers. I know you didn't specifically tackle specific industries. But any significant findings about where we're seeing the most insecure people when it comes to their jobs?

PONDS: Actually no. In fact, the results that we looked at indicated that there is pretty much a balance across the age demographics that we took, which is why we attribute those results to more global factors rather than individuals' personal situations that they may be experiencing.

WALLACE: And this is pretty significant also, not just because of the significant increase, but also how the United States in terms of its job insecurity is faring with other countries around the world, is it not?

PONDS: That's right. And that would suggest that companies here in the United States need to be attentive to not just their financial performance, but also how their employees are feeling about their jobs.

WALLACE: And also, I guess, Ms. Ponds, this goes to the heart of something we were talking about -- I was talking about with Jacqui Jeras, our meteorologist, earlier, a little surprising, because signs of the economy are increasing in terms of gross domestic product going up. But it doesn't seem to be translating down to the average worker. There still is that insecurity out there. PONDS: That's right. And, again, that would suggest that companies need to look very closely at how they're communicating internally to their employees, how they are working to help them develop their skills, their abilities. Look for more ways in order to get them further engaged and, in that way, continuing to increase productivity and employee engagement.

WALLACE: Well, it's important advice for a lot of insecure workers out there. Kathryn Ponds with Right Management Consultants. We thank you so much for your time on this day.

PONDS: Thank you, Kelly.

WALLACE: We appreciate it.

And coming up, we are going to be turning here a little bit. We want you to be paying close attention this hour, because our DAYBREAK mug quiz is coming up. You don't want to miss that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And welcome back to DAYBREAK.

Well, it is a scenario that is familiar to millions of parents. You might even be dealing with it right at this very moment. Your baby is having trouble getting to sleep, and you're torn between comforting your child or letting her or him cry themselves to sleep.

Well, there has been plenty of conflicting advice handed out over the years. And now, one prominent doctor is backing off his controversial system.

Our guest to talk about all of this is senior editor of "BabyTalk" magazine, Patti Onderko. And she joins us live with more.

Patti, thanks for being here.

PATTI ONDERKO, SR. EDITIOR, "BABYTALK" MAGAZINE: Thank you.

WALLACE: So, we should tell our parents, and maybe the parents -- people who aren't parents out there, we're talking about something called Ferberizing.

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: A doctor -- it's named after the doctor, Dr. Ferber...

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: ... who said that one way to try and get your baby to sleep was to let the child cry and check in with them during, you know, the period.

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: And now, he seems to be backing away from a method that many people relied on for the past 20 years.

ONDERKO: Exactly. It's called Ferberizing. It's technically called the progressive waiting approach, which is where you wait five minutes and then 10 minutes and 15 minutes progressively longer until you can leave your child completely alone.

It always stirred controversy from the first time he published his book in 1985. People called it the "crying it out approach." And many child development experts don't believe you should let your baby cry it out. That's how they learn to trust you and how they learn to trust themselves eventually. But Dr. Ferber himself has never believed that it was the one-size-fits-all solution.

WALLACE: But you have many people -- I mean, I've seen parents interviewed over the past 24 hours, who are outraged.

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: They say they were relying on this; that no one had given them any other information that Dr. Ferber's method was this. And they've been following it.

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: Now they're really angry.

ONDERKO: I know. It's so complicated. And for many of those parents, it did work. And they shouldn't feel bad and they shouldn't feel guilty, because it did work for them. It doesn't work for everyone. And I think any parent who tried it would realize fairly quickly whether or not it did work for them.

It's very hard to do. And if it's not working by the third day I think a lot of parents probably do and did give up. And that's an appropriate response.

It doesn't work for everything, but yet it still does work in some situations. And if you're a parent who has tried everything else, and you're exhausted and your baby is exhausted, and you're just having a terrible time of it, there's no -- you know, you definitely shouldn't feel guilty about still going ahead and trying this method if you feel comfortable with it, if your pediatrician says it's OK.

WALLACE: We're seeing Dr. Ferber, as we mentioned, kind of sort of updating his book and his feelings. We're also seeing the other doctor, Dr. Sears (ph), who advocates a different approach, which is comforting your child at all times...

ONDERKO: Right.

WALLACE: ... almost having the child in bed with you doing everything possible to give that child that sort of security. Even he's kind of shifting his position a little bit. What is this about? Just new information? New questions raised? No one-size-fits-all approach works? ONDERKO: I think they're just responding to parents who are really frustrated and saying that, I can't follow just this one thing, or I can't follow just that one thing. Dr. Sears (ph) and Dr. Ferber represent the opposite sides of the spectrum. They have, you know, for the past 20 years have always been sort of polar opposites. And they're now sort of both coming in together and saying, relax. No matter what you do, as long as you're doing it out of love and out of the best interest of your child, it's going to be the right thing.

And Dr. Sears (ph) was very baby-focused, and now he's allowing, you know, the parents to get some sleep, too, and saying that you can take care of yourself as well. Dr. Ferber was very parent-focused, and now he's saying, you know, be a little more sensitive to the child. So, they're sort of meeting almost halfway, not quite.

WALLACE: And you told us before the break also do what works for you and do the best you can for you and your family.

ONDERKO: Absolutely. And remember that it's going to go -- it's not going to last forever.

WALLACE: Hopefully it doesn't last forever.

ONDERKO: Yes.

WALLACE: OK, Patti Onderko...

ONDERKO: Thank you.

WALLACE: ... senior editor of "BabyTalk." Important information. Thanks for being here today.

ONDERKO: Thank you.

WALLACE: And we'll be right back here on DAYBREAK. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACQUI JERAS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: And welcome back.

(WEATHER REPORT)

JERAS: Well, it's that time of the day to hand out a DAYBREAK coffee mug. Here are the answers to yesterday's coffee quiz.

Delta is asking pilots for an additional pay cut of what percentage? The answer is 19 percent. And FEMA wants to move hurricane victims out of hotels by what date? The answer is December 1.

And the winner is Lauren Sebel -- or Sebel. Sorry, Lauren. I hope I'm pronouncing it right. Sebel. From Austin, Texas. Congratulations, Lauren.

WALLACE: All right, Jacqui. We will see you tomorrow. Everybody, thanks for being with us.

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