Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Defeating Terrorism With Military Force?; The Biden Vice Presidency
Aired December 01, 2008 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Coming at you now: Sarah Palin stumps for her -- quote -- "Georgia pal"? Why is an Alaska columnist calling the Southern stopover a bad move?
Prisoners hog-tied and beaten in an Arizona jail, some forced into chain gangs when they simply couldn't make bail. So, why did Barack Obama's pick for Homeland Security call that jail strict, but safe?
So, the U.S. went after them in Afghanistan. Then, many terrorists moved into Pakistan. The question is, can terrorism really be beaten with military force? Or will this new team need a different strategy?
This priest says, if you voted for Obama, you sinned.
And the Biden vice presidency. Will he undo what he did or not?
The news you're talking about on Twitter, on the air, and on the Net.
Lunchtime in Phoenix, 3:00 in Pittsburgh, your national conversation starts right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
R. SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez.
There certainly has been a lot of talk about this recession for the last year or so, and now we are being told by the experts that we are officially in a recession.
Now, believe it or not, this has more to do with being an economic exercise than just about anything else, when it comes to academia telling us what most Americans have, as you can read on Twitter and MySpace and on Facebook, already known for a long period of time. So, we're going to be sharing some of their comments with you in just a little bit.
It also begs the question, if it really started, this recession, about a year ago, does that mean that we're almost out of the woods now or closer to being out of the woods than we would have been had it only started six or five months ago? We are going to be getting into all of that. But, first, let's talk about this. The pirates apparently have struck again, and this time in something that's considered much more daring. Consider the fact that they have been hitting cargo ships in the past, but now we're talking about a cruise ship, this cruise ship that you're about to see right here. We have got some pictures of it. This is what it looks like. Obviously, this is a file picture, not when they were actually trying to get away from pirates.
It's a 30-ton luxury cruise ship attacked off the coast of Yemen in this case. It's called the Nautica, 684 passengers on board, 400 crew members. Consider what would have happened if the pirates had gotten their hands on it. The ship owner says they used evasive maneuvers and accelerated and were able to get away as a result.
Obviously, there have been some passenger yachts that have been taken, most of them smaller. And we have just done our own research and found out that there was actually a passenger ship that was also attacked. That was back in 2005.
The big story that we're talking about now, still, though, is having to do with India, and not only terrorism there, but the possibility that there could be terrorism here in the United States as well.
Let's toss, first of all, with some of the pictures that we have been getting now. Let's start with a picture out of a train station. You're about to see one of the suspects at the train station. There he is right. His name is Azam Kasav. Now, Indians are saying they believe he's an Kashmiri anti-Indian.
They also say -- and this is important -- that he's talking now. Show them that other picture, if you have, Dan. Show them the picture that we have that's close up of him just moments after he was arrested. Remember, he's the only one who they have been able to interview, the only one who is still alive according to police officials there. And they hope to be able to get a lot of information from him.
Joining us now is Larry Johnson. He is an anti-terrorism expert who is good enough to give us some information on this. Also with me is Mike Brooks, who, as usual, joins us to be able to share the perspective of what can happen here in this country with something like this.
Let me start with you, if I possibly can, Mr. Johnson.
You have heard the arguments from many of the Indians, including Indian citizens, who say it's the Pakistanis' fault. They haven't done enough to stop the terrorists in the Kashmir district. But then there's also the argument made by many Americans that say, well, we have a similar problem in parts of Pakistan, in Waziristan, specifically. And a lot of people are saying just go in there, guns a'blazing, and take them out.
Is that a good argument that they're making? LARRY JOHNSON, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: No, as far as the guns a'blazing, because if we could, we would have. The targets are very difficult.
And I'm not talking about this theoretically. I work with the U.S. military forces that have that particular mission. And so I know exactly what their capabilities are, what the plans are. And unfortunately the problem with the terrorists is, they do not have fixed installations. There are not a lot number of them massed together.
And more often than not, they integrate themselves into civilian population. The problem here, though, is the government of India -- of Pakistan is at war with itself. There is an element of the Pakistani government which is very favorable to the United States, supports our efforts on the counterterrorism front, but there are rogue elements in the intelligence service that have provided direct support to al Qaeda, the Taliban, to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the group that is likely suspected of carrying this out.
And it's clear to me that the group that carried this out had intelligence support.
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: Separating that, though, because if we -- start it's difficult for us to, you know, grasp the idea of the situation in Kashmir, you know, the two parts of Kashmir. What we can understand, though, is that we are still in a war on terror and we need to try and come to grips with how we're going to go after it.
And we have seen what happened, the Donald Rumsfeld theory of going in like World War II. And now we're hearing from a president- elect who seems to be saying we're going to go at this a little bit more gingerly.
If you don't go in with brute force, then what do you do?
JOHNSON: Well, we shouldn't portray it as it's either brute force or surrender. In fact, what I hope Barack Obama will do now with General Jones in charge at the National Security Council is finally we will get a coordinated effort.
Rick, do you realize that right now, as of this day, the FBI has a list of top al Qaeda suspects, the CIA has a list of top al Qaeda suspects, and as does DOD, and the lists don't match? There has been no coordination at the White House to insist upon one list, so that you have a focused, coordinated effort, where the FBI goes after the ones the FBI can get, the CIA goes after the ones the CIA can get, and the military does what it can.
There has been a complete failure of coordination at the White House.
R. SANCHEZ: You mean to tell me still to this day, after everything we heard leading up to 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission, as a matter of fact, that there are still obstacles between one agency and another?
JOHNSON: Yes.
R. SANCHEZ: In terms of talking to each other?
JOHNSON: Yes.
R. SANCHEZ: I thought that Homeland Security was supposed to solve all that.
JOHNSON: No. Homeland Security is in a completely different arena.
I once participated in an exercise that involved both offshore activities and activities onshore. And there came a time where there was an issue to coordinate, and someone raised from Department of Defense said, well, maybe we should have Homeland Security coordinate that, and three of the other agencies that I won't mention used an expletive that basically said, you have got to be kidding me.
So, there's still a fundamental problem of coordination. And the only way that has got to be sorted out is at the White House. And, unfortunately, both Stephen Hadley and Condoleezza Rice did a very poor job, as did their predecessors, Berger and Lake. We have not seen a good coordination at the White House since Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates were running it.
R. SANCHEZ: We have got a new team. As a matter of fact, that new team was announced just today by Barack Obama. And we're going to be explaining who they are, what their roles are going to be, and what they're going to have to explain when they go before some of their confirmation hearings as well.
We thank you, Larry, for taking time to talk to us.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Rick.
R. SANCHEZ: We will be calling on you again.
My partner here is going to be joining us in just a little bit. And you are going to be taking another part of this story, because a lot of people are asking, well, if they take these little boats and they're able to get into some place like Mumbai, why wouldn't they be able to do that in Boston or Miami or Washington or Baltimore, or any of the port cities here in the United States?
Let's tackle that. Let's talk about what could happen here in the United States when we come back.
By the way, we're also going to be listening to some of the things that you're saying here on Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook as well.
I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) R. SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back to the world headquarters of CNN. I'm Rick Sanchez.
We have got some comments coming in that I want to share with you.
Robert, let's start with the Twitter comments here. This is Leslie, who's watching our newscast right now. She says: "The war on terror is a war on an ideology. That's why it's impossible to win. Who's a target? Who's safe? Do you know?" she asks.
And then we have got this comment coming in on the report I gave you just moments ago about that cruise ship: "Yikes. That could put a major hole in the hull of the cruise industry."
Yes, it could. We will be following both of those stories.
Again, Larry Johnson has been joining us. He is going to stay with us, as well as Mike Brooks.
Why is -- direct question to you. You ready? Why is what happened in Mumbai less apt to happen here in the United States, or is it?
MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Because, since 9/11, Rick, I think we are a harder target for transnational terrorism. And I think there is more -- there is an information sharing, intelligence -- Larry was talking about that -- but I think between local, state, and federal, it's better than it was on 9/11.
I was -- you know, spent six years with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and that's when we all -- we had what they call -- and Larry knows about this -- the wall. If you were working a criminal case, and then you had intelligence come in, in relation to the criminal case, there wasn't that much sharing. It's better, but I still think the Department of Homeland Security, which he talked about, you know, and after 9/11 when they developed this...
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: A lot of people in that agency says it's a mess.
BROOKS: It is, 22 different agencies. Do they speak to each other? On some things, yes, some things, no. But could that happen here? Yes, it could. But I think there's better information sharing, better intelligence sharing here, because you figure, in India, there's 28 states, and they don't talk to each other.
R. SANCHEZ: But hold on. We're talking about 10 guys with machine guns who get into some big city and just start doing what they did in Mumbai.
Larry, what is to stop it from happening here?
JOHNSON: Well, Rick, have you ever been to Kansas City?
R. SANCHEZ: Sure.
JOHNSON: OK.
So, if I asked you -- if I took you in from the river at night, you would know how to get to the Crown Center, down to the Plaza, over to the Hyatt and then to Union Station to carry out an attack at night?
R. SANCHEZ: With a GPS.
JOHNSON: Well, what I'm telling you, what happened here is, either these individuals had conducted extensive surveillance of this area beforehand, because Harriman (ph) House, which -- that Jewish rest stop, that's not commonly known. That is special inside knowledge. So, they clearly had support either on the ground or they themselves were in...
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: OK. I understand your argument. But why couldn't those 10 guys -- and I'm asking this question because I fear it and as an American citizen, I'm thinking the same thing a lot of people are thinking. Why couldn't they do the same thing here in the United States? They couldn't do the reconnaissance, is that what you're saying?
JOHNSON: They could in theory.
But the reality is, number one, these guys, the jihadists, they don't travel well. As Mike correctly noted, we have gotten much better at cracking down and preventing them from getting in.
And, frankly, the local police are much more effective at collecting intelligence on what's going on in their communities than is the federal government, in my view.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: And you're right, Larry. And that's where the joint terrorism task forces, that's where they come into play, Rick, because they are -- the FBI can't do it by themselves. The CIA can do this.
But when you have task forces like this, that's what really hardens up your targets in each of the cities. And -- but there's one thing you still have to worry about, that law enforcement, that I worry about, my former colleagues worry about, and these are the lone wolves.
You know, as someone just on Twitter says, the ideology. Yes, al Qaeda -- everybody looks at al Qaeda as a group. And they look as...
R. SANCHEZ: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Yes. R. SANCHEZ: But it's also a mind-set. But then you have the local, homegrown terrorists here in the United States we have seen taken -- you know, you look at...
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: Timothy McVeigh.
BROOKS: Look at Timothy McVeigh.
So, those are the ones that scare me and scare everyone else, because all it takes, Rick, especially this time of the year, is someone with guns and explosives to go into a mall, go in a hotel, like we saw, and that's just...
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: Let me ask you guys the question. Look, the question that this person just brought up a minute ago here on Twitter, and it's an interesting one, if this is an ideology, how do you lessen the fierceness of that ideology?
Let me go ahead and put that back up for you, Robert. I know you wanted to show it. This is the question that we're talking about. And a lot of people really believe this, that you can't just go after it, as we said earlier, guns a'blazing, because it's a thought process. And you can't attack a thought process.
JOHNSON: Well, Rick, ultimately it's an international diplomatic effort, because India -- India faces the problem, Egypt faces the problem, Jordan faces the problem, even Syria. We have seen the Marriott bombings in Jordan. We have seen them in Pakistan.
So, at the end of the day, there has to be a coordinated, global effort. And some of that may involve military action. I'm not saying let's not use the military. Let's use the military where they can.
R. SANCHEZ: Right.
JOHNSON: Some of it may involve police action. Some of it is going to involve intelligence action.
The key to this is to have a coordinated process. And I was, frankly, happy to see General Jones put in as the national security adviser, because he's the one person that I think has the experience and the understanding to pull this off.
R. SANCHEZ: So does it seem is everyone else happy to see him there.
You, too, right?
BROOKS: Well, I'm also happy to see Eric Holder, because if you think -- if you recall, Eric Holder was the deputy attorney general under Clinton when we were attacked in 1998 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. I was there. I was in Nairobi having dinner when the FBI director at the time, Louis Freeh, got called out to the balcony on his secure phone.
He just got off the phone with President Clinton when they sent cruise missiles in a reasonable -- as a retaliation into Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. So, he's not a rookie to the terrorist...
(CROSSTALK)
R. SANCHEZ: He comes with experience.
BROOKS: Exactly.
R. SANCHEZ: Larry Johnson, my thanks to you. Mike Brooks, my thanks to you. Two great guests to have this conversation with. And I'm sure it edified a lot of folks who are listening in.
By the way, a lot of conversation has been going on in the last couple of months about Homeland Security. Who is going to be the new head of Homeland Security? Well, if she passes the confirmations, it would be Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona. But is she up to the job? Was she able to handle Joe Arpaio, as in Sheriff Joe Arpaio? We have looked into this and we have got some records we're going to share with you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: A lot of you commenting. I welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Last week, I was in jail in Wicklow, Ireland. Now, before you bloggers get too excited, I went there as a tourist with my wife and kids. It's an eerie, yet fascinating place.
And what we learned is that, for hundreds of years, people there were incarcerated, punished, and couldn't get out simply because they didn't have a couple of coins to rub together. They were poor. It was far from equal justice for all.
And it has me thinking about something today. As president-elect Obama names his new national security team, did a similar unequal system exist in Arizona? A Justice Department report indicated that, during the 1990s, the mid-1990s, to be exact, it did.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail was the subject of that federal investigation. And Janet Napolitano, who was a U.S. attorney at the time, was part of the investigation. So, what did she do about it or not do about some of the alleged jail abuses?
See, she's in the news today because president-elect Obama has chosen her to head the Department of Homeland Security. That's why we're going to be taking a look back -- more on that in just a bit. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back. Before we do anything else, I want to share with you some of the things that you are saying. So many hundreds of you watch this show at the same time while you're writing to us, or thousands in many cases, depending on the time.
Let's check this Facebook page that came in just moments ago. This is Jacques Casimir, talking about the specific situation in Mogadishu and Somalia about the piracy story we started the newscast with.
He says: "It's a symptom of growing socioeconomic issues in Africa. If we try to just stop individual pirates or operations and ignore the overlying issue of poverty, overpopulation and lack of economic and academic opportunity in Africa, we inevitably will be dealing with this crisis again, except in some new form."
Let's hope not.
And then part of the Sanchez posse over here, let's go over to Twitter, guys, if we could, Robert, switch over there. And this is what we're reading from acoreydavis, who is watching and says, "This recession is 60 percent financial crisis and 40 percent media hype."
Now, let's look at this story by Jim Acosta, because everybody has been in the news lately that's associated with Barack Obama, except the one man he's chosen to be his vice president. What will he have to do, Joe Biden, in undoing or doing what the former vice president has done?
A comparison with Dick Cheney by Jim Acosta.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On election night, Barack Obama and Joe Biden stood together in triumph, but ever since then, it's gotten more crowded around Mr. Obama. Many in Washington have noted this foreign policy guru now has to share the stage, whether it's with the president-elect's highly touted economic team or with expected cabinet heavy hitters like Hillary Clinton at stake, Robert Gates at the Pentagon, or Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services, to name a few.
KEN VOGEL, SENIOR REPORTER, POLITICO. COM: You have to wonder, what will Joe Biden do? What will his role be?
STEPHEN HESS, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I think Joe Biden is an ideal candidate.
ACOSTA: Former White House adviser Stephen Hess, who has written a workbook for the president-elect, insists Biden has a critical role to play, one of repairing the office of the vice president.
HESS: This is a position that has to -- that has to be reestablished after what we've seen for eight years when Dick Cheney was the vice president and assumed great powers or we think he assumed great powers. And now, it has to be re-adjusted back to what it really is.
ACOSTA: Something Biden had on his mind during the vice presidential debate.
JOE BIDEN (D), VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history.
ACOSTA: On the other hand as Cheney made clear as vice president, the job can be what you make of it.
VOGEL: Dick Cheney coming into the Bush administration in 2000 didn't have a very well-defined role either, and he ended up being one of the most powerful vice presidents in the United States history.
BIDEN: And I think it's fair to say --
ACOSTA: Also not to be discounted, Biden's three decades in Washington. He made plenty of friends across the aisle.
BIDEN: Go ask guys like Bob Bennett, a very conservative United States senator. Ask, you know -- you know, I mean, hell, I was asked to do Strom Thurmond's eulogy. It wasn't an accident.
ACOSTA: The transition team maintains Biden and president-elect will do more than just share cupcakes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
R. SANCHEZ: And, when we come back, we will tell exactly you what that new national security team looks like. We will itemize it for you person by person, and then tell you about one specific member of that group that has some questions to answer.
By the way, we will pose the questions when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
I'm going to introduce to you now the team that Barack Obama introduced today to the nation. This is his national security team. Obviously at the very top of the list, we're going to have the secretary of state. And that would be Hillary Clinton.
We have got these we can put up for you, so you can actually see all the different members of his new team. After Hillary Clinton, secretary of defense -- and this is an interesting choice because a lot of people were thinking he was going to go outside the present White House, and he's going to be going with Robert Gates.
National security adviser, as has been mentioned, General Jim Jones, former commandant of the Marines. Seems to be likable -- or at least liked by everyone who has been asked about General James Jones. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Attorney general, as aforementioned, Eric Holder. Homeland security chief will be Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona.
Now, speaking of Janet Napolitano, I want to show you some video now of a name that is probably going to come up during the confirmation hearings of Janet Napolitano. It's a name you have all heard before, no doubt. It is Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in the Phoenix area there around the Arizona area.
Now, here is why. His jails have been the subject of federal investigations, several of them. And just a few weeks ago, we learned that a federal judge ruled that he has violated the Constitution.
Up to $43 million have been paid out in lawsuits to inmates there who have filed suits against the county and against Arpaio -- '95, Napolitano, while U.S. attorney, was asked to investigate the jails and essentially gave Arpaio what would be similar to a clean bill of health and then later received an endorsement from Arpaio. She won as a result.
Joining us now is Tom Zoellner. He wrote for "The Arizona Republic" for many years. He's joining us by phone. He now has a new article in "Slate" magazine.
Now, thanks so much for being with us. Tom, you there?
TOM ZOELLNER, CONTRIBUTOR, SLATE.COM: Yes, I'm here.
R. SANCHEZ: 1995, she was asked to investigate the jails. She came out with the conclusion, Janet Napolitano did, of those jails there in Maricopa County that they were -- quote -- "strict, but fair."
Two years later, the Justice Department came out with its own report and said essentially what about that same -- about those same jails?
ZOELLNER: Well, what you had quoted Napolitano as saying there is actually something that she had said before the investigation really got going. And so she was essentially attempting to shield Arpaio from flak and criticism before the conclusions of the investigations were even underway.
R. SANCHEZ: So what are we to glean from that?
ZOELLNER: Well, I mean this must be understood in light of the fact that Joe Arpaio is an enormously popular figure in the State of Arizona. And for any politician to take him on would have been a political risk. This is a sheriff that, because of his splashy tactics, has earned approval ratings consistently in the 80s range.
R. SANCHEZ: But listen to what you just said there. You said that because he was so popular, she may have needed his endorsement.
So does that mean that she was willing to overlook some things that with any other sheriff most public officials -- or certainly an attorney general or -- pardon me, a U.S. attorney -- would not have overlooked? ZOELLNER: Only Janet Napolitano can answer that. But what can be said is that the investigation, which went on for two years -- Janet Napolitano presented the results of this on her last day as the federal prosecutor -- the U.S. attorney for the State of Arizona.
R. SANCHEZ: Is Arpaio that...
ZOELLNER: And...
R. SANCHEZ: Is Arpaio that -- pardon me. I interrupted you and I know you were trying to finish a thought. Go ahead and do it.
ZOELLNER: Only to say that this was her last day on the job and she -- she, in the minds of many Arizonans, had soft-pedaled the conclusions of the Justice Department investigation.
R. SANCHEZ: Well, you know, the reasons, I guess, Americans would be interested in something like this -- and it doesn't mean that she's disqualified from the position. And, by the way, we've called now to Janet -- to the governor's office and we've asked for comment. We've done it several times throughout the course of the day. And so far, what we've gotten from them is an official no comment on this story.
But a lot of people would be wondering with something like, you know, our national security, and specifically homeland security, it's kind of got that Big Brother feeling to it, doesn't it?
And if someone is going to be in that position, we need to know that they maybe haven't been able to deal with something like this in the past?
ZOELLNER: Well, Rick, I think you've hit on a central point here, which is that the Department of Homeland Security has a tremendous moral task in front of it right now. Not only is it a vast agency with management problems, but you know, we as a nation have a long way to go toward repairing our relationship with our own constitution. And few positions are as sensitive to that as the Department of Homeland Security.
And so while I don't think that, you know, Napolitano's relationship with the sheriff is a disqualifying factor, I do think it's something that needs to be taken into consideration, that does the person in this position have the backbone to take on excesses in law enforcement?
R. SANCHEZ: And that...
ZOELLNER: And I don't think, you know, an argument can really be made that the types of humiliations and abuses that Joe Arpaio -- Sheriff Joe Arpaio -- subjected inmates to in Arizona had any effect whatsoever on making Arizona a safer place.
R. SANCHEZ: And -- well, and let's be clear about this, because a lot of people are going to be listening to this argument -- and you've heard it before. And what they're going to say is so what, they're inmates.
These are people who have broken the law and why should we have pity for them?
We're talking about a jail.
That means some of these people have been arrested but haven't been proven to be guilty of anything, right?
ZOELLNER: That's an excellent point. I mean, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has oversight of not just people who have been convicted of crimes, but people who are awaiting trial. These are people who, under our Constitution, are innocent until proven guilty. And so, you know, the question needs to be asked -- is the humiliation of these people, you know, for the amusement and for the gratification of the electorate really an effective strategy toward law enforcement?
R. SANCHEZ: Politically effective but perhaps in other ways, as the Justice Department has cited, not -- when they cited many of these abuses.
Tom Zoellner, thanks so much for joining us and taking us through this.
And we should probably, in fairness to Janet Napolitano, mention once again that we have reached out to her and her office. And I should also mention that she did cite him -- Joe Arpaio -- for allegedly using jail money for immigrant raids, which would suggest that perhaps she has at least on one occasion, been hard on Joe Arpaio on this -- in this case.
So we thank you once again, Tom.
When we come back, we'll be talking about a priest who's telling people who voted for Barack Obama that they have sinned.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: I guess we were a little ahead of the curve on that because we said that there are people who are going to look at that situation with Joe Arpaio's jails and say so what, they're criminals.
Actually, they're not. They've only been charged, not found guilty, as Edgar Diaz wrote to us moments ago
"Why do they complain about jail conditions? They are criminals and some may have murdered. Why should we give them sympathy?"
Interesting. Recession is a word that has a very specific determination, as any one of the gazillion blogs have punished the poor journalist or broadcaster over the last year who even intimated that we are already in a recession.
Well, as of today, it's official -- not that we're in a recession now, but that we've actually been in one since December of 2007. And today it's been made official by the government office that measures such things. That would be the office of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Susan Lisovicz is joining us, now, as my head spins. And I think a lot of people are sitting at home trying to figure out does this mean that we've been in a recession all the time or does it mean we start the recession as of now officially?
What does it mean?
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It means what we all know, Rick, that the economy is sick. The NBER, by the way, is not a government agency. It's an independent group economists. And all they do is study expansion and contraction.
And what's happening in the economy is it's shrinking. The world's biggest economy is shrinking. We see it almost on a daily basis -- lay-offs with jobs; industrial production, which today, last month, hit a 26-year low; construction; the housing market; wages not keeping up with costs.
R. SANCHEZ: But, but...
LISOVICZ: The economy is sick.
R. SANCHEZ: Here's a question for you then.
If we're now being told that this thing actually started almost a year ago -- about 11 months and some change ago -- does that -- is that really good news because it means we're further along?
After all, most of these recessions last what, 15, 18 months or something like that?
LISOVICZ: Well, the last two recessions, Rick, were actually what are called short and shallow. The one in 2001 was from March to November. So it was eight months. And we have already exceeded that and we exceeded the one prior to it.
The concerns about this recession, Rick, is that it is going to be longer and more painful.
R. SANCHEZ: Yes.
LISOVICZ: And why is that?
It started in the housing market. And we -- you know, it's something that affects millions of us. And it spread because of people not being able to keep up with their mortgage payments, the banks then getting hit, the banks not lending, these mortgages that were that were then bundled up into these fancy, exotic, hard to understand securities and then financial firms taking losses.
It has spread across the entire economy and we are feeling it. And so it's going to be probably -- yes, it already is broader and deeper and more painful than the last one, which stemmed from the dot- com crash.
R. SANCHEZ: Well, we thank you for the explanation. And I thank you, by the way, for the clarification on that not being a government agency, as I had incorrectly alluded to.
Thanks, Susan.
LISOVICZ: Sure.
R. SANCHEZ: We'll talk to you in a little bit, as the market starts to close, where the numbers are. Ooh, ooh, not good.
LISOVICZ: Pretty painful, as well.
R. SANCHEZ: Yes.
Are you a sinner? If you voted for Barack Obama, some priests say yes.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): America's elderly population is booming. The Census Bureau estimates nearly 20 percent of Americans will be 65 or older by the year 2030.
"Money" magazine's Janice Revell says families are feeling stretched.
JANICE REVELL, SENIOR WRITER, MONEY MAGAZINE: These days, being in a so-called sandwiched situation, where you've got your kids to take care of, you've got your own retirement to fund and you've got parents who are aging and may need your help, this is becoming increasingly common.
ROMANS: Among those stuck in the middle, too many make the mistake of putting themselves last.
REVELL: You can't lose track of your own retirement goal, because, in the end, if you're not prepared for retirement, then all you're going to do is shift the burden onto your kids.
ROMANS: Revell suggests adult children help their parents plan for health care expenses.
REVELL: It's very common for elderly people to have far too much of their investments tied up in really, really low yielding savings accounts and checking accounts.
ROMANS: And talk about finances early, before an accident or illness occurs.
REVELL: Don't wait until a crisis hits, because when that happens, that's when you run into all kinds of bad situations where people are putting, you know, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 on their credit cards -- that happens all the time -- to help out their parents in case of medical emergencies.
ROMANS: Christine Romans, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: According to CNN's own statistics, 54 percent of the people in the United States who associate themselves as being Catholic or say they are Catholic voted for Barack Obama. Did they sin by doing so?
It's an interesting question, because it's not what the church officially is saying. But it is what some particular priests seem to be intimating about this.
I'll give you some examples. There is a woman who says a priest made her move her car because she had an Obama bumper sticker on it.
One priest has called the vote in and of itself "evil." That was a priest in South Carolina.
I want you to watch this report now. This is another report that's come into us just today from a reporter in California, from Modesto, California. It's a report on a priest there who has said or done something similar.
It's a fair report, where he gets a chance to explain himself.
Here is Cristi Jessee from KXTV.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(VIDEO CLIP)
CRISTI JESSEE, KXTV CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At St. Joseph's Catholic Church...
FATHER JOSEPH ILLO, ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH: Almighty, God bless you, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
JESSEE: Father Joseph Illo isn't afraid to preach about politics -- recently sending a letter to parishioners about their part in the outcome of the November election.
ILLO: And more clearly, if they supported the pro-abortion position and voted for candidates that supported that, that they should consider going to confession before going to communion.
JESSEE: Father Joseph says if you are Catholic and voted for Barack Obama knowing his stance on abortion, you may have sinned.
ILLO: Well, they may have. I mean I can't say. I'm just giving the guidelines and they have to make that decision themselves before God.
JESSEE: Father Joseph says he has no problem mixing church and state when human life is involved.
ILLO: These are the civil rights of a whole class of Americans who are unborn but are human beings, nonetheless.
JESSEE: Most parishioners stand in support of Father Joseph.
RICHARD MURRAY, PARISHIONER: I think it's great that the attention has been brought to the forefront. I completely support Father Joseph in his positions. He's clearly expressed that the most important thing is life.
CAMILLE IORNS, PARISHIONER: If they knew that Obama was pro- abortion and they were comfortable with that and voted for him, you know, despite that then it might be fair to say that they need confession.
JESSEE: And if you're willing to fess up, you'll have to wait your turn.
ILLO: Saturday and Friday we had long lines in the confessional. I can't tell you what they said.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
R. SANCHEZ: Few people understand the ongoings of the Catholic Church better than John Allen.
He is a senior Vatican analyst for us here on CNN. I'm sure you've seen him on many occasions. He's also a reporter or correspondent for the "National Catholic Reporter".
John, thanks so much for being with us. I'm going to read to you the line that the -- that the priest said.
This is Illo, right? He says, "I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously" -- referring to people who voted for Barack Obama.
What do you make of that?
JOHN ALLEN, CNN SENIOR VATICAN ANALYST: Well, Rick -- and it's great to see you again, by way. I think what Illo is giving voice to would be the sentiments of the kind of strongest pro-life constituency in the Catholic Church, for whom you almost get the sense sometimes that there's an eighth deadly sin, which is voting for the Democrats. And that is a -- that is a view that's out there, although, as you noted at the top of your setup, I mean, this not the official position of the church, either in the form of the U.S. bishops or the Vatican.
And, as a matter of fact, Father Joseph's own bishop, Bishop Stephen Blair, has actually distanced himself from this line, saying that he's actually convinced that there are a number of priests and even a number of bishops who may have voted for Obama.
So...
R. SANCHEZ: Well, you know, it's interesting, because there are -- you're right. There are many just individual cases like that. And we had seen this coming now for about a month. And my staff and I talked about it almost daily -- said, you know, there's not enough of them yet to be a story.
But we are seeing that there's a trend going on.
Look at this one. This is a quote from the Reverend Jay Scott Newman. He says -- let's put that up so John can see that, as well
"Pro-abortion politician -- voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
Good lord. Those are some strong words, John.
ALLEN: Well, and as you say, I mean it's not just individual priests scattered around the country who are saying those kinds of things. I mean just within the last few days, we had an American cardinal who works in the Vatican who described Obama's position on abortion as aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic.
And, again, I think what you've got, Rick, is that in the Catholic Church in the United States -- and let's not forget, there are 67 million Catholics in this country, which means there's a wide range of views.
R. SANCHEZ: Right.
ALLEN: I think on the substance of the church's teaching on abortion -- that is, that abortion is a tragedy -- you know, Catholics are basically united. On the question of how punitive you ought to be with people who disagree with that, I think there's a much wider range of opinion.
You know, the bishops of the United States met in Baltimore in the first part of November, just after the election, reiterated their strong opposition to abortion, but did not take the kind of line that -- that you're flashing on the screen.
R. SANCHEZ: So the church officially...
ALLEN: It's coming from individual priests at the grassroots.
R. SANCHEZ: Just to be clear, the Vatican is not coming out and condemning these guys. But at the same time, they're not in any way, shape or form embracing anything like what they're saying?
ALLEN: No. Listen, I mean the way things work in the Catholic Church is when the Vatican doesn't agree with something, it rarely condemns it, unless you're talking about outright heresy.
R. SANCHEZ: Right.
ALLEN: What it will do is simply not repeat it.
You know, the only official statement from the Vatican on the election of Barack Obama was a telegram of congratulations from Pope Benedict XVI, which was followed up by a conversation between these two men.
Rick, the Vatican has centuries of experience in dealing with governments that, in one way, shape or form, don't follow the line of the church. They're going to try to do business with Obama the same way they have with governments with governments throughout the centuries.
R. SANCHEZ: Yes. Interesting point. And -- because, again, they could be priests that tend to be on the liberal side or the conservative side and sometimes they've parishioners who are both in their audience. So why go in any one direction, is probably the question that some would ask.
So, we'll stay on top of this. John, good stuff. We thank you for joining us.
ALLEN: Appreciate it, Rick.
R. SANCHEZ: We're going to be back with just a little -- in just a little bit, talking about Sarah Palin campaigning in Georgia for someone who the "Anchorage Daily News" says she maybe shouldn't be campaigning for. We'll put that together for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
It's a long way from Alaska to Georgia, but that's exactly where Sarah Palin went today -- to Georgia, to campaign for Saxby Chambliss.
Here's a quote...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, COURTESY WSAV)
GOV. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And then my son, eight months later, on September 11th, he and his U.S. Army brigade being deployed to Iraq. In Georgia, you took good care of my son. And now my son and all our soldiers are taking good care of you. Thank you, Georgia, for the good training you provided them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
R. SANCHEZ: Matt Zencey is the editorial page editor for the "Anchorage Daily News." And writes that it's because of Sarah Palin's son and his service that she should not be campaigning for Saxby Chambliss in Georgia in his runoff with Jim Martin. I'll read it to you. Here's what he writes: "He was up against incumbent Democrat, Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War veteran who lost both legs and his right arm to a grenade during that conflict. Chambliss avoided serving in Vietnam. He got four student draft deferments. And when his number finally came up, he was medically disqualified with knee troubles. In the best Karl Rove fashion, Chambliss, the draft evader, attacked Cleland, the war hero, for being soft on terrorism -- distorting Cleland's votes about workplace rules for the new Homeland Security Department employees. Chambliss portrayed him as a tool of terrorists like Osama bin Laden."
Now, we, by the way, tried to have Matt Zencey join us. We were in some communication with him throughout the course of the day, but he's unable to join us. Leslie Sanchez is our analyst and she joins us now to give us her take on this.
Those are real strong words. And as you listen to them, you wonder what people will think of Palin's role here when it refers to Saxby Chambliss.
LESLIE SANCHEZ, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, there's two competing interests here. I mean, on the one side, you have a lot of Alaskans who are very concerned is their governor going to come home, take care of the interests of Alaska. And they're very sensitive to her travel and her expectations. And I will tell you this, they have high expectations for her when she returns and finally keeps boots on the ground in her home state.
R. SANCHEZ: Is the Max Cleland issue going to haunt Saxby Chambliss for a long period of time?
I know he's never apologized for those ads, but, boy, they keep coming can up over and over again.
L. SANCHEZ: Well, you know, it's a vicious game at the very end. And I think a lot of those messages get misconstrued and you have people kind of underlying what they think -- you know, interpreting it to be what they think.
Overall, I don't think it's going to have that type of effect. You have Chambliss, who has a very strong record in this area. And I think fundamentally people know him. That's the distinct difference.
R. SANCHEZ: Well, and, you know, to her credit, she's here campaigning and Barack Obama has not come and visited the state for Jim Martin, although some would have thought that he would have at this point.
Leslie Sanchez...
L. SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, you had Mitt Romney go to that state, as well, which is not unusual. This special election is basically about your ground game. It's getting your troops out. She has tremendous appeal among social conservatives in a red state. There is -- it's absolutely the right approach to use that energy and that interest. And if you look... R. SANCHEZ: George...
L. SANCHEZ: Go ahead.
R. SANCHEZ: And there's no question that Georgia is one of the red states, by the way.
(LAUGHTER)
R. SANCHEZ: Leslie Sanchez, thanks so much for being with us.
L. SANCHEZ: OK.
R. SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer is standing by now to give us a taste of what he's going to have coming up for us in just a little bit.
Wolf, what you got?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Rick.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on the stage together -- what he says about her, what she says about becoming the next secretary of State and what analysts say how they'll work together. We've got the story covered with the best political team on television.
Also, the latest on the investigation into the terror attacks in India -- what Indian officials are now learning from that one suspect they have in custody.
Plus, we're following the progress of that little boy whose parents were gunned down in that Jewish community center in Mumbai.
And the "R word" -- the official report is now in about the United States. No surprise, we're in a recession. But what is unusual is how long it's been going on.
All that, Rick, and a lot more coming up right here on THE SITUATION ROOM.
R. SANCHEZ: It's always good to see you, Wolf. We look forward to it.
By the way, you saw that number he just popped up there. That's the reason I've been rushing a little bit. I want to save time so we can talk about what's going on Wall Street with Ali Velshi.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
R. SANCHEZ: Another big number with a minus in front of it.
Ali Velshi and Susan Lisovicz to wrap things up for us. Put this in perspective for us, guys.
What's it mean?
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Susan will tell you, Rick, that it's not -- it's not because we heard that there was a recession. The folks on Wall Street and most Americans know more about that than most people do.
So, Susan take it away. What's going on?
LISOVICZ: Well, I mean, it's just that it's going to get worse before it gets better, Ali. I think that's -- and we have got a manufacturing report out, a 26-year low. We had five days of gains and now we erased half of them in one day. See you tomorrow, guys.
R. SANCHEZ: You guys are great. Thanks so much. I wish we had more time to talk about this. I'm sure we will throughout the course of the week.
Let's go now to Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Rick.
