Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Thousands of War Documents Leaked; Built Ford Tough: Allen Mulally Discusses Ford's Earnings, 2011 Explorer Launch; Hayward's Heave-Ho; 19 Years for 14,000 Deaths in Khmer Rouge Trial

Aired July 26, 2010 - 13:00   ET

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

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: You ready? Your world revealed. CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Ali Velshi.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Tony, great to see you, thank you so much. I'll take it from here.

I'm Ali Velshi. I'm going to be with you for the next two hours today and every weekday, taking every important topic we cover a step further. We're going to try and give you a legal of detail that will help you put your world into context.

Let's get started. This one is important. A purportedly unfiltered foxhole view of the ware in Afghanistan, a picture of war that appears to be bogged down by rugged territory, and a determined enemy that's been fighting foreign invaders for decades. All of and much more contained in more than 90,000 classified military documents released on the Internet by the self-proclaimed whistle blower Web site Wikileaks. This happened last night.

These logs cover the war between 2004 and January of this year. They were published today in the "New York Times" and two other overseas publications. CNN has not independently confirmed the documents, but we are in the process of reviewing them now.

Here are some key points of the logs from the "New York Times." No. 1, we discussed this last week on this show. Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has allegedly been aiding the Taliban and the Afghan Taliban for years. The founders of Wikileaks say there's evidence of what he calls war crimes committed during the war. The Taliban allegedly using shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and other air crafts. These missiles helped Afghan guerillas defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

There have been a huge number of civilians killed in the war, caught in the crossfire, both in land and air operations and also secret U.S. commando raids against Taliban leaders. Some have been very successful; others have resulted in civilian deaths.

Again, one of the most devastating points in these documents is the allegation that Pakistan's spy agency is supplying weapons, training and even planning some operations for the Afghan Taliban.

Now, on Friday, I spoke with Matt Waldman. This is before these Wikileaks were made. Matt Waldman is an independent analyst who, through his own research, has come to the same conclusion about Pakistan's intelligence agency helping the Taliban. He has visited Afghanistan numerous times and interviewed Taliban field commanders, Taliban officials, foreign diplomats, and other analysts. Here's part of what he told us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT WALDMAN, INDEPENDENT ANALYST: Well, this is research that we conducted over six months, and as you say, we interviewed a very large number of individuals, all of whom who have some experience or knowledge of the insurgency in Afghanistan, as well as insurgents themselves.

And what was remarkable about this research was that there was a great deal of agreement between the different interviewees about the level of support from Pakistan being provided to the insurgents. And, of course, it's in terms of sanctuaries, so the fact that insurgents can cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan, where they're relatively safe, where they can reequip, where they rearm, where they can prepare for future attacks. And/or, indeed, in other respects in terms of the supplies that they have or indeed the training.

(END VIDEO CIP)

VELSHI: This is remarkably important, because of the fact that Pakistan is a large recipient of U.S. money. They are the bulwark against the Taliban in that part of the -- in that part of the world.

So later on in the show, I'll bring you more of my conversation with Matt Waldman, very revealing conversation.

In the meantime, let's get back to this Wikileaks and these documents. The leaking of the classified documents has triggered outrage from Washington to Kabul to Pakistan. Here are some examples.

The White House strongly condemned the leaks. National security adviser James Jones denounced them as irresponsible. The Pentagon says it's studying the documents to determine any potential damage to the lives of troops and to U.S. allies.

And from Kabul, the Afghan government said it's shocked by the information in the documents, saying they are open to the reality of the Afghan war. The Pakistani government says the reports that its spy agency is aiding the Taliban are baseless. They have faced these reports before, and they've had the same response. And a former chief of the ISI -- this is Pakistan's intelligence agency -- says the reports are, quote, "absolutely and utterly false."

Now, the White House briefing -- the daily White House briefing is expected to start at any moment, and this issue is expected to be topic No. 1. We're going to bring it to you live as soon as it starts, but first let me bring in Nic Robertson. He's in London. He's our senior international correspondent, who has covered Afghanistan for as long as we've been covering Afghanistan. Nic, anything in here real quickly, before we go to this White House briefing, anything in here that is surprising or particularly new to you? I know you haven't had a chance to go through much of it, but as you've seen what's come out.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's the detail, Ali. You've got to lock at all this detail. It's more detail than we've ever seen before. And the newspapers, "New York Times" and others were able to compare what's come out. These documents, these reports, of individual events, attacks or whatever and then compare that to what's happened in the subsequent days and the information that's come out.

And sometimes it appears that, in their reporting, that these documents and the initial reports from the troops on the ground don't measure up to the facts, civilian casualties higher than initially reported, for example. It's all those tiny details that give you this granular, granular picture of what's been happening in the war. And that's where what the Wikileaks boss said he was trying to do there.

VELSHI: Is that a good thing in terms of the war effort? What are those people who are -- who executing this war saying about this? Is this damaging or is this helpful?

ROBERTSON: Damaging. Absolutely they say it's damaging. It's damaging, they say, because it puts troops in harm's way. It gives away factual details about how troops operate, the fact that U.S. troops know that heat-seeking surface missiles are being used against them. It's something that they didn't want to put in the Taliban's domain, or the Taliban will use this against U.S. troops, and the will look at all the analysis that will go on on other Web sites, on the Internet, and that they will use this to their advantage in the field. They will use this -- these civilian casualty reports in their own propaganda. So it can be potentially damaging that way.

Of course, the people who are putting this out are saying, look, if you're going to fight a war, everyone really needs to know the details of what's happening.

And we are learning here details of things that we cannot and have not been able to find out on the ground, despite multiple questions on certain issues. So it is revealing. It is revealing information we haven't been able to get to thus far, and it's not until you go through all these documents you can really put it in a big analysis, and really frame it better than this sort of snapshot that we're getting so far, Ali.

VELSHI: All right, Nic, you stand by. We're going to go to the White House where, as we said, this is obviously going to be dealt with by the reporters in there. They're going to ask the White House what this is all about. Stay with me. This is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

GIBBS: It's like a library in here all of a sudden.

Yes, hold on, stragglers are coming.

QUESTION: Are they from Boston? The Boston straggler?

GIBBS: If you have to explain it, it's (inaudible). I got it, but --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Yes. We'll check back, like, on Thursday and we'll --

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: That works.

GIBBS: Yes? Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Thanks, Robert. Two questions. A few on Wikileaks.

What was the president's reaction when he heard about the leaking of these documents?

GIBBS: Well, I remember talking to the president sometime last week after discussions with news organizations that these stories were coming.

Look, I think our reaction to this type of material, a breach of federal law, is -- is always the same, and that is, whenever you have the potential for names and for operations and for programs to be out there in the public domain, that it, besides being against the law, has the potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, was he personally angered by this? Did he demand answers or investigations?

GIBBS: Well, there is an ongoing investigation that predated the end of last week into -- into leaks of highly classified secret documents.

QUESTION: Does the White House believe that the documents raise doubt about whether Pakistan is a reliable partner in fighting terrorism?

GIBBS: Well, let's understand a few things about -- about the documents.

Based on what we've seen, I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed, either by you all or by representatives of the U.S. government, for quite some time.

We have certainly known about safe havens in Pakistan. We have been concerned about civilian casualties for quite some time. And on both of those -- both of those aspects, we've -- we've taken steps to make improvements.

I think just the last time General Petraeus testified in front of the Senate, there was a fairly robust discussion about the historical relationships that have been had between -- between the Taliban and Pakistan's intelligence services.

QUESTION: So no doubts about Pakistan's trustworthiness or --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: No, no.

Look, I think the president was clear back in March of 2009 that there was no blank check for Pakistan; that Pakistan had to change the way it dealt with us; it had to make progress on safe havens.

Look, it's in the interest of the Pakistanis, because we certainly saw last year those extremists that enjoyed a safe haven there turning their eye on -- on innocent Pakistanis. That's why you've seen Pakistan make progress in -- in moving against extremists in Swat and in South Waziristan.

But at the same time, even as they make progress, we understand that the status quo is not acceptable and that we have to continue moving this relationship in the right direction.

QUESTION: One more quick one on this: What do you think this says about the ability of the government to protect confidential information when leaks like this can occur?

GIBBS: Look, I think there is no doubt that this is a concerning development in operational security. And as we said earlier, it -- is -- it poses a very real and potential threat to those that are working hard every day to keep us safe.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you quickly about Congressman Rangel and the ethics charges that he faces. Is it the preference of the White House that he reach a deal and put this behind him (inaudible)?

GIBBS: You know, I -- don't have anything on that. I've been opposed on the Wikileaks.

QUESTION: Are you worried that will be a distraction if it carries on to September?

GIBBS: I don't. Let me get some information.

QUESTION: On the Wikileaks, one of the questions that this raises is whether it makes sense for the United States to continue to give billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan if they are helping the Taliban. And I'm wondering if that is a concern and what you think --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, I -- again, as I said a minute ago, on March 27, 2009, the president said, after years of mixed results, "We will not and cannot provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out Al Qaida and the violent extremists within its borders."

Again, I am not going to stand here on July the 26th and tell you that all is well.

I will tell you that we have made progress in moving this relationship forward, in having the Pakistanis, as I said earlier, address the issue of safe havens, the issue of extremists operating in that country, by undertaking operations, again, in Swat and in South Waziristan.

Because, over the course of the past more than year and a half, what the Pakistanis have found is that those -- the extremists that once enjoyed complete safe haven in parts of their country now threaten their country.

So they've taken steps. We want to continue to work with them to take more steps.

We understand that we are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11, that -- ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. That's why we're there, and that's why we're going to continue to make progress on this relationship.

QUESTION: A blank check is one thing, but is there enough progress there to justify the aid that is being given to them?

GIBBS: Again, look, we -- I think -- I think it was -- even if you look at some of the comments the secretary of state made just last week in Pakistan, and, you know, our -- our criticism has been relayed both publicly and privately. And we will continue to do so in order to move this relationship forward.

QUESTION: And I know you're unhappy about the leak, but could you talk about how that part of the issue is characterized in the memos and whether you think it's actually --

GIBBS: Which --

QUESTION: -- in terms of -- in terms of Pakistan's role?

GIBBS: Look, I'm -- again, I would point you to -- as I said a minute ago, I don't know that what is being said or what is being reported isn't -- isn't something that hasn't been discussed fairly publicly, again, by named U.S. officials and in many news stories. I mean, the New York Times had a story on this topic in -- in March of 2009, written by the same authors.

QUESTION: OK. (OFF-MIKE) I also want to ask you where things stand with the consumer regulator decision. How soon is -- is the president going to make a decision?

GIBBS: I don't have an update on the timeline from last week, in which I said I did not think that things were immediate. I know that the president will look at this job and the several other jobs that are created as part of this legislation and make an announcement.

QUESTION: And what criteria is he going to be looking at? I know you don't want to talk publicly about the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates but --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, look, I think we've got a number of -- as we've talked about here and with many of you on the phone, I think we've got many good candidates.

And, again, I think if you look back at the reason that the president and the team wanted to create a bureau that dealt with consumer issues -- because even as we look back at the debate and look back at the issues that were involved in this debate, most people's interaction with the financial system is -- is not on a Wall Street trading level. It's -- it's in getting a loan. It's in getting the capital to create or expand a small business, to buy a home. And I think ensuring that there are protections for those on Main Street, in order to interact on a daily basis with the financial system, are tremendously important.

QUESTION: Is Wall Street's opposition to Warren going to be weighed in the decision-making process?

GIBBS: I said this last week and I'll repeat it again.

I think Elizabeth Warren is a terrific candidate. I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her. And I think she's very confirmable for this job.

QUESTION: Robert, back on Wikileaks, a couple times now you've said in the last couple of moments that a lot of this information is not really new; that named U.S. government officials have said some of this same information in public.

GIBBS: Well, I'm not saying it's -- yes, I said were weren't any new revelations in the material.

QUESTION: So how does it harm national security if we've known this already?

GIBBS: Well, because you've got -- it's not the content as much as it is there are names, there are operations, there's logistics, there's sources. All of that information out in a public way has the potential to do harm. If somebody is cooperating with the federal government and their name is listed in an action report, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that that could potentially put a group or an individual at great personal risk.

QUESTION: But is part of the concern as well that this is going to embarrass government officials because maybe the war in Afghanistan is a lot worse off than this administration and the previous administration let on?

GIBBS: Well, again, that's why I would go back to my first point, which is in terms of broad revelations, there aren't any that we see in these documents. And let's understand this. When you talk about the way the war is going in Afghanistan, the documents purportedly cover from, I think, January 2004 to December 2009. I can't speak for the conduct of that war from an operational perspective for most of that time.

I do know that when the president came into office in 2009, he, in the first few months, ordered an increase in the number of our troops, having spent two years talking about how our efforts in Afghanistan were greatly under-resourced, increased resources in troops to provide security for an election, and then, as you well know, conducted a fairly comprehensive and painstaking review of our policy, which resulted in December 1st, 2009's speech about a new direction in Afghanistan.

And I would say this: We came in talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, not as simply two separate and distinct countries, which put emphasis on our relationship and the actions of Pakistan.

QUESTION: Right.

But even if there is a new policy put in place in December of 2009, does that erase the mistakes that may have been made years in advance of that?

GIBBS: Well, of course not --

QUESTION: How can that turn -- or --

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: -- but do these documents then suggest that this war is too far gone --

GIBBS: No.

QUESTION: -- to turn around with one policy change?

GIBBS: No, I don't -- I don't -- I don't, in any way, think the documents suggest that. And I haven't seen anybody to suggest that, except to say this. The -- we agreed that the direction -- this administration spent a large part of 2007 and 2008 campaigning to be this administration and saying that the way that the war had been prosecuted, the resources that hadn't been devoted to it, threatened our national security.

That's -- remember, we had a fairly grand debate about whether or not the central front in this war was Iraq or Afghanistan. We weighed in pretty heavily on Afghanistan, because, for years and years and years, more troops were needed, more troops actually had been requested by the commanding general, but no troops were forthcoming.

That's why the president increased our number of troops heading into an important election period and why we took steps through a, again, painstaking and comprehensive review to come up with a new strategy. QUESTION: But even after that painstaking review, these documents are suggesting that the Pakistani government has representatives of its spy agencies, essentially, meeting with representatives of the Taliban --

GIBBS: But, again --

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: -- plotting to attack American soldiers and Afghan officials.

GIBBS: Let me just make sure --

QUESTION: How can that suggest the war is going well?

GIBBS: No, no. You're conflating about seven issues into one question. But let's be clear. I don't -- I don't think --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Let me finish. Let me finish.

QUESTION: Afghan officials are working with the Taliban. How can the war be going well? That's one question.

GIBBS: Again, I'm saying that the war -- the direction of our relationship with Pakistan, based on steps that we've asked them to take, has improved that relationship, right?

QUESTION: OK, because last week, Secretary Clinton said that the U.S. and Pakistan are, quote, "partners joined in common cause."

GIBBS: Yes.

QUESTION: Despite these documents --

GIBBS: Again --

QUESTION: -- the U.S. and Pakistan are joined in common cause?

GIBBS: Yes, in fighting -- in fighting -- as I just mentioned a few moments ago, in fighting extremists that are within that border.

Again, go back to last year. Remember last year --

QUESTION: Sure.

GIBBS: -- when these extremists decided they were going to march on the capital in Pakistan? That became a threat to Pakistan. For the first time ever, you saw -- you saw Pakistan fighting back against violent extremists that had otherwise enjoyed safe havens.

When -- when General Jones refers to in his statement the actions that they took in Swat and South Waziristan, that's exactly what we're talking about. The point I would make on the premise of your question, understand that the documents go through December of 2009. I don't know if you meant to conflate actions -- let's just say that the documents --

QUESTION: Well, have the documents stopped? Do we know for sure that the Pakistani intelligence is no longer working with the Taliban?

GIBBS: Well, again, these documents -- I think they're making progress and, again, I'd refer you to --

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: We're making progress, but it has not ended even after --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: I -- I -- I -- again, I would point you to the hearing that was conducted just a month ago -- less than a month ago with General Petraeus where this was talked about.

Nobody's here to declare mission accomplished. You've not heard that phrase uttered or emitted by us as a way of saying that everything is going well.

Understand this: that we got involved in this region of the world after September 11th, and then for years and years and years and years this area was neglected, it was under-resourced, it was under- funded. That's what led the president to say that what we needed to do was focus on what was going on in Afghanistan. That's why we're here.

QUESTION: Two questions, Robert.

The first one is, given the apparent ease that Mr. Manning was able to obtain and transfer these documents, has the White House or anyone in the administration ordered any kind of immediate change to make sure that this is not --

GIBBS: I would point you to the Department of Defense that should be able to discuss what changes they've made in operational security.

QUESTION: Do you have any insight into what Mr. Manning may have been motivated by?

GIBBS: Not personally, no. I -- I -- I don't know if the Department of Defense would have something.

QUESTION: (inaudible) the president's reaction, can you give us any kind of insight in terms of was he angry, was he concerned, was he worried?

GIBBS: Well, look, I think anytime you -- you -- anytime in which more than 90,000 top secret documents, which are against the law for me to give to you, would -- I think it would be safe to say it's alarming to find 90,000 of them published on a website.

QUESTION: Last question: Also on Ms. Sherrod, I wondered if you had any word on whether she'll accept a job that's been offered and if there's any timeframe for that?

GIBBS: That's a question for her.

QUESTION: Following up, I know how you feel about this, but the conventional wisdom in Washington is that the White House is trying to keep the focus on the release of the documents rather than what's in the documents.

GIBBS: No, no, I --

QUESTION: You say the president's very concerned with this release, this breach of federal law, but is he concerned with evidence in these documents about civilian casualties, about cooperation between the Taliban and the ISI?

GIBBS: Let's be clear again: The -- the statements that the president made in March of 2009 very much understand the complicating aspects of our relationship with both of these two countries, the existence of, as I said, historical relationships between the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence. And look, during the recent debate about General McChrystal, remember a decent part of the Rolling Stone article discusses frustration within our own military about rules of engagement around civilian casualties.

So we're not trying to either conventionally -- through conventional wisdom trying to deflect anything. I'm -- what I'm really saying is that what -- what has been, I think what is known about our relationship and our efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are not markedly changed by what is in these documents. In fact, I think if, again, you go back to March of 2009, what the president says, we are clearly taking steps to make progress in dealing with Pakistan's safe havens.

Certainly dealing with civilian casualties, we all know that in efforts like this to win hearts and minds, you're certainly not going to do that with -- with innocent civilians caught tragically in the crossfire.

QUESTION: In reading these documents, if they're true, you can't help but be shocked by what you read in here about some of the horrible things that have happened. Has the president read enough of it himself to be shocked --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: I -- I -- I don't know.

Look, I want to be clear. The president does not need to read a leaked document on the Internet today to be shocked and horrified by unnecessary -- and every civilian casualty is unnecessary -- casualty of innocent life. GIBBS: We can go back -- and I've been asked about them inside this briefing room for well over a year -- times in which our commander at that point, General McChrystal, Ambassador Eikenberry -- former General Eikenberry had gone to see different places around Afghanistan that -- that had seen horrific civilian causalities.

Look, each and every -- as I said, each and every casualty -- innocent civilian casualty is a tragedy and it makes the job against the extremists much, much harder.

QUESTION: On the -- does the president believe that the release of these documents has harmed or will harm the war effort overall?

GIBBS: Again, I think any time in which you potentially put those that could be -- whose names could be in these documents, missions and operations -- their documents are classified and rated secret for a reason. And I think that's -- that's the law.

QUESTION: So it's a setback for the war effort?

GIBBS: No, I think it's concerning that you have -- you certainly have operational security concerns.

Again, I think many of our challenges in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are the same today as they were last week. I don't think anybody would tell you that they anticipate that progress isn't going to be slow and difficult in both of these two countries. That's -- that's why --

QUESTION: I'm still not clear on where you are on this.

I mean, it's a pretty fundamental question. Do these documents constitute a setback to the war effort in Afghanistan?

GIBBS: I think they constitute a potentially national security concern.

QUESTION: The White House has made a point to say that Wikileaks is not an objective news outlet, but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I just wonder if you could explain how that's relevant to the accuracy of the documents.

GIBBS: I think that the -- I think that the founder of Wikileaks, if I'm -- if I read his interviews correctly today, comparing troops in Afghanistan to the secret East German police, is certainly something that we would fundamentally disagree with and something that has -- somebody that clearly has an agenda.

QUESTION: That may be the case, but does that in any way impact the accuracy of these documents? For example, are you suggesting they selectively held back documents that would be more favorable --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: I don't -- I don't -- I don't -- I'm --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: I'm not afforded -- nobody in this government was afforded the opportunity to see what they do or don't have. I don't -- I don't know that this question is relevant for me as much as it is for -- for him.

QUESTION: I just wondered if by making this point, you're trying to, I guess, attack the credibility of the documents that are out there.

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: No, no.

Again, I have -- I have not -- I certainly have not reviewed 90,000 documents. This got brought to us late last week. Again, what I -- the coverage I read off of the news documents doesn't I think materially change the challenges that we have in each of these two countries.

As I said a second ago, I don't think the challenges that you have listed on a piece of paper this time last week are, quite honestly, different, based on what we read in this documents at this time this week.

I think the challenges that we've had and the historical relationship with Pakistan intelligence and the Taliban were certainly something we were working to address. So it's not -- that in and of itself isn't -- isn't a surprise.

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Working on safe havens in Pakistan and their impact on our efforts in the war, all of those things -- I think all of those things many of you all have covered.

QUESTION: Is the administration confident it has the leaker in custody?

GIBBS: I'm not going to get into discussing the aspects of the investigation that's ongoing.

QUESTION: Robert, do you think -- do you have any comment on the position taken by the U.S. government in the letter written by Richard LeBaron, deputy chief of the U.S. embassy in London, eight days before the Megrahi release, wherein the U.S. supposedly preferred the use of compassionate release over prisoner transfer agreements? And do you have --

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, let's be -- let's be clear.

One, I think the letter has been released by the State Department.

Two, there was not a preference -- the preference that was enunciated in this letter, the preference that was enunciated in the president's call to Prime Minister Brown, the preference enunciated by John Brennan and others who contacted the Scots directly, was that Al Megrahi should not be released.

We think that was the right decision, not to -- we think the decision not to release him -- we agree with that today. We -- that's what we publicly stated prior to the release.

The letter says -- and I think this is borne out if you look at the pictures of what happened -- in the event that the Scots make the decision that we do not think they should make, whatever you do, do not let him travel to Libya. Do not let him have a hero's welcome coming home.

We also I think -- and the letter clearly states, and I'm not sure this was covered in the Sunday Times, which was we asked for an independent medical examination of Megrahi to ensure that the medical representation about having only three months to live was, indeed, supported independently.

The preference --

VELSHI: All right. That's White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs. Most of this conversation at today's White House briefing has been about those leaks of tens of thousands of documents on Wikileaks, or at least the publication of those leaked intel documents about the war in Afghanistan. Robert Gibbs saying that the founder of Wikileaks is serious -- is somebody who clearly has an agenda. We're going to talk a little bit this, and what Wikileaks is -- it's a self- proclaimed whistle blower site.

Listen, I just want to change channels for a little bit. We'll come back to Wikileaks and the Afghan war in a bit, but Ford Motors, the only American car company to not file for bankruptcy, we've got the CEO here to tell us where the auto industry is headed for Ford, for all those autoworkers and for the American economy. What it means for you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Well, from huge bailouts to some big scares on the road, we have seen a lot of bad from car companies in the last couple of years. But Ford seems to be heading in the opposite direction. CEO Allen Mulally joins us from our New York bureau right now.

Allen, good to see you again.

ALLEN MULALLY, PRESIDENT & CEO, FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Good to see you, Ali.

VELSHI: You know, Allen, whenever we talk about Ford, a number of people ask me, you know, isn't this just sort of free air time for Ford, and aren't we promoting what they're doing? But fortunately, I've been going back a few years and doing this, sort of separating Ford from the pack several years ago, because Ford, starting just before you came on board from Boeing, really did things to situate itself for the oncoming recession. And now you guys have reported this major profit.

I want to hear from you, Allen, somebody who oversees this company and so many workers and has seen so much devastation. Are we out of the woods for the auto companies in the United States yet?

MULALLY: Well, I think that we're on the recovery, Ali, and our best -- our best guidance going forward is that the recovery in the United States, the expansion of the economic activity, the GDP, is going to continue through the rest of 2010 maybe in the 3 to 3.5 percent range. Also, we see that recovery continuing slowly, versus the past recoveries from recession also in 2011.

When it comes to the auto industry itself, that means about a 11.5 to 12 million industry in the United States this year and then increasing, you know, modestly in 2011. And that's what we have provided our guidance against in our financials against that.

VELSHI: All of the U.S. automakers have had the same issue. They have had to confront things within the company that need to be fixed, greater efficiency within the company, something you got started in about 2006, and then they've got those external problems. So a couple years ago, it was the lack of availability of credit for people who wanted to buy a car, and the fact that people were very uncertain about the economy so they didn't to buy a car.

What are the head winds now for you and for your competitors in terms of the things that are outside of Ford, outside of your company?

MULALLY: Well, I think that the most important thing for all of us is the continuing recovery and growth of the U.S. economy, and the economies around the world. We have been through a very traumatic time with this last recession and, of course, it's shaken all of our confidence. But all of the signs that we have seen now as a result of the fiscal and the monetary policy tell us that we are recovering slower than the past, but a very positive trajectory.

And the neat thing, Ali, as you pointed out is the decisions we took nearly four years ago, was to focus on the Ford brand, take our production down, get back to profitability, match the real demand, and then accelerate development of all of these new cars and trucks that we're seeing today. So it's gratifying on our part at Ford to have the vehicles that people really do want and value as the economic recovery progresses.

VELSHI: Let's talk about jobs that are coming back or factories that are being retooled. You just announced -- you just unveiled the 2011 Ford Explorer today. I understand that President Obama is going to be visiting a factory in the south side of Chicago. Is that the factory you're making these at?

MULALLY: Absolutely. And, you know, Ali, this is a terrific story and just another proof point of the recovery. Because, you know, clearly we revealed the new Explorer today and we have produced over the years nearly 6 million Explorers and Ali, over 4 million are still on the road today and every year 140,000 Explorer owners are trading their vehicles in, and most of them want another Explorer.

And so one of the big messages that we received from them and the rest of the market was that they really wanted a reinvention of the new Explorer with the quality, the fuel efficiency, the safety, the smart design like my Ford and all of the rest of the Ford vehicles have. And that's what we're launching today.

And back to your question about Chicago, what's really neat is we are now investing $400 million in our Chicago operations. We're going to create 1,200 jobs. And then with our suppliers, we're going to create another 600 jobs in 23 states around the United States.

And you know, another neat proof point about the Explorer is it is the most exported vehicle out of the United States. We export the Explorer to 90 countries around the world. So it's just another indication that, you know, we believe in the recovery, and we're investing in the recovery, and we're going to have the products that people really do want and value.

VELSHI: Give me some sense of where, through your prism of seeing workers and seeing car dealers, you think this economy is going to go over the course of the next year. I know that you've said that you feel demand might weaken a little bit as people get a little bit concerned about what their future is, if we don't see job creation in this country. Are you worried that we might get into a double-dip recession?

MULALLY: Well, I think it's a really good question, too, Ali, because, you know, in most recoveries from recession, there is an initial hire growth, and then it slows up a little bit, but stays on a trajectory to come back and keep growing. I think that's what we've maybe seen over the last couple months, but clearly it's looking better, we're back on that trajectory.

And we are -- our assessment is, I think with most economists and also the Fed, that we're going to see an expansion in the United States for 2010 of somewhere between 3 percent and 3.5 percent and growing some more after that. So I think we see most of the signs saying that we're going to have a steady, slower than in the past recovery, but a good, steady recovery for all of us.

VELSHI: All right. I'll put you in the optimistic column, which you have kind of always been. I guess that's kind of your thing. But we'll keep talking about this, and I hope you're right. I hope we're not going for another dip in this recession.

Sorry we couldn't be in the same place, but hopefully we get to try out some cars again soon and take them around the track and get excited about the auto industry again.

Allen, good to see you again. Thanks very much for being with us.

MULALLY: Good to see you, Ali.

VELSHI: Allen Mulally, the CEO of Ford Motor. They announced a massive profit for the quarter just on Friday. You can see more about things that happen having to do with your money on "YOUR $$$$$" Saturdays at 1:00 p.m. and Sunday at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time.

All right, the whispers building to a dull roar today. Tony Hayward may be on the verge of getting his life back, that's what he asked for. We'll get the latest on a possible shuffle at the top of BP live from London when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK, day 98 of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil has stopped flowing, at least for now, but there's still a lot of disaster out there. Let's go straight to London.

BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, his future is in question, it's in jeopardy. In fact, this may be his last day as the head of BP. Don't know for that sure, we're going to hear about it later, but Jim Boulden is in London in front of BP headquarters. He has been following this very closely.

What's your sense of it, Jim?

JIM BOULDEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ali, I think the sense is that that Mr. Hayward will lose his job as CEO officially overnight and we'll hear about it tomorrow morning, Tuesday morning, when BP announces its second quarter results, that's when we'll hear the economic impact of the Gulf spill on BP.

But more interestingly, I think, is that Tony Hayward has been able to stick it out so long, and that he is very likely to stick around longer. Even though he may lose the job as CEO, they're talking about a possible transition period for two months, that is one of the speculations that is out there. And that also he might actually join the joint venture BP has in Russia called TNK-BP.

So it doesn't look like he's going away completely, but that he certainly will step out of the limelight and allow an American, Bob Dudley, to step in. That seems to be where BP is heading tonight.

VELSHI: You and I talked about Bob Dudley before. He was an official at Amoco which merged with BP some years ago. He's -- it would be very unusual. This is a stalwart British company to possibly be headed by an American. What's the logic of this and what would change under Dudley? I mean, would any of what's going on at BP actually change as a result of what's changing at the top of the company?

BOULDEN: I think it would be fascinating, wouldn't it? Bob Dudley who is as an American, grew up in Mississippi, went to college in Illinois and SMU, who is known through Amoco, so more Americans will know him than people here in the UK, certainly, and it would be the first American, certainly, to run BP. It would actually put this American face, this American voice on this story, and on the cleanup.

And it would certainly be a way for BP, they would hope, to rebuild their reputation in the U.S. by showing that they would put this man who has been at the company between Amoco and BP for a very long time, and to put him in charge of everything. And that would certainly, they would hope, send a signal to the White House and Congress.

VELSHI: Is it more than a signal, Jim, though? The problem with Tony Hayward, was it operational or that he had become such a lightning bolt for bad public relations? I mean, do they really think it would signify a change in the way they do things? And I know Dudley comes with system some particular experience that is useful with respect to deepwater drilling, but is there any speculation that it would change?

BOULDEN: One of the things bob Dudley did was ran TNK-BP for BP until 2008, and it was a very difficult time for BP with the Russians and it got very messy and he actually had to leave. But he cut his teeth on that deal and I'm sure the board were very grateful for him to do that.

And then, of course, you remember last month he took over the day-to-day operations of the clean-up for BP in the U.S. and so the board would have seen how well he did that. And I think you would agree that certainly the temperature has been lowered in the U.S. since that happened.

And then Tony Hayward came back here, he went and saw Russia, he went to the Middle East to talk to investors. He certainly has come out of the media spotlight at the moment.

And now that the well has been capped, we can talk about whether temporarily or forever, but the well is at least temporarily capped, this seems to be a good time for BP to make the switch.

VELSHI: All right, Jim, you'll be on top of the story and I think we can probably expect this announcement to come sometime after midnight Eastern time, midnight or 1:00. It'll be tomorrow morning London time that we expect to hear about this announcement, correct?

BOULDEN: Exactly.

VELSHI: All right, Jim, thanks very much for staying on top of it for us.

Jim Boulden outside BP headquarters. Obviously, anything we hear, we will bring to you any developments as we have for the last three months.

Everybody is arguing about this new immigration law that goes into effect in Arizona this week. CNN has a new poll out about how you feel about it. We're going to crunch the numbers for you as soon as we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Let me bring you up to speed with some of the top stories we're following right now at CNN. Lots of reaction today to a website's release of secret U.S. military reports about Afghanistan. According to "The New York Times," which was granted access to the document by Wikileaks, the group that obtained them, U.S. forces have gathered intelligence about Pakistani officials actively aiding the Afghan insurgency. Just minutes ago, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said the U.S. relationship with Pakistan won't be markedly changed by the reports. We'll stay on that story and bring you more about Wikileaks and those documents.

BP's board meets tonight, we're expecting a big announcement to follow. Reports out of London have CEO Tony Hayward negotiating his exit from his job after months of PR missteps in the Gulf oil disaster. His expected successor is American BP executive Robert Dudley.

Arizona's tough new immigration goes into effect on Thursday. A new CNN Opinion Research poll suggest most Americans want to get tough an illegal immigration. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed say the government's focus should be on stopping the illegal flow of illegal immigrants to the U.S. and deporting illegal immigrants who are here now.

All right, time now for "Globe Trekking." We start in Phnom Pen, the Cambodian capital is where a U.N. court today convicted a notorious Khmer Rouge executioner of crimes against humanity on a breathtaking scale. CNN's Dan Rivers was there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Chamber finds Kaing Guek Eav guilty.

DAN RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He stood apparently emotionless, the diminutive former math teacher who presided over the deaths of more than 14,000 people at a secret torture camp called S- 21.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thirty-five years of imprisonment.

RIVERS: Kaing Guek Eav, alias Comrade Duch, remained impassive. So, too, did those watching on TVs across Cambodia as the 35-year sentence was imposed. It later emerged he will only serve less than 19 years, taking into account time already behind bars.

KARIM A. A. KHAN, LAWYER FOR CIVIL PARTIES: Given Duch's age and the 19-year sentence that he has to serve from today, the reality is that he will be an exceptionally old man in all likelihood at the time he is released.

RIVERS: But outside, there was fury. Survivor Chim Mae (ph) railing at Duch's demeanor and the sentence, which many felt was too lenient.

THEARY SENG, ORPHANED BY KHMER ROUGE: It's a slap. It's an insult to the survivors. It's an insult to those loved ones lost. So it's not acceptable. RIVERS: These were among the crimes against humanity the court found Duch guilty of presiding over. Inmates of S-21 were tortured to death while shackled to iron bed frames, scenes of unspeakable brutality uncovered by invading Vietnamese soldiers as they stumbled into S-21 in 1979. These images showed the world just how Pol Pot's ultra-Maoist experiment had become.

Kerry Hamill (ph) was among the handful of westerns tortured to death inside S-21. Outside the court, brother Rob acknowledged the historic nature of the verdict.

ROB HAMILL, BROTHER OF VICTIM: It's a completion of -- for my brother. It's -- you know, our family suffered a great deal and the people of Cambodia suffered enormously and I only hope this is the first shackle to be broken.

RIVERS: For many, this is a landmark in Cambodia's troubled history that sends a clear message --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty.

RIVERS: Dan Rivers, CNN, Phnom Pen, Cambodia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: Want to bring you some breaking news.

We've been telling you about BP's CEO Tony Hayward. We do not have confirmation yet that he is going to be stepping down or being pushed aside at a board meeting that is taking place tomorrow morning London time, tonight our time. What we do have is our Matthew Chance has a comment from BP-TNK. Jim Boulden was just talking to us about that. That is the Russian BP joint venture in Russia.

An BP-TNK official tells CNN that as part of Hayward's severance package he may be offered a number of directorships or consultant positions at jointly owned BP oil ventures like TNK-BP. So that is not a confirmation that he is out, but the fact is there are active discussions about what it is he's doing.

We understand that an announcement will be made with respect to a management change at BP late tonight after midnight tonight Eastern time, which is tomorrow morning London time, when BP releases its quarterly earnings. The expectation is that Tony Hayward will be out. Bob Dudley, Robert Dudley, formerly of Amoco and the senior man for BP in the United States, will take over as the CEO of BP, the British company, an American will take over at that of the top of that. Those are the reports we have and that Tony Hayward will probably move over to BP-TNK, which is the BP Russian joint venture. I'll keep you posted on anything we get about that.

We're going to take a break. Next, a look at a big idea that's scheduled to become reality later this year. It's a completely new car designed to carry wheelchair passengers. You're going to want to see this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Today's "Big 'I'" could be today or it could be 20 years ago. It's the 20th anniversary of the ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act. It was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush July 26th, 1990. And there's something we've come across to commemorate it, which I think is interesting.

It's a Florida-based company that is making -- it's called Vehicle Production Group. It's making a car specifically designed to carry wheelchair-bound passengers. Production vehicles usually have to be modified in order to take somebody in a wheelchair, but this is going to be the first one factory produced to accommodate wheelchair.

It's called the MV-1, stands for first mobility vehicle. It's got a deployable access ramp, a door opening that's 36 inches wide, 56 inches tall, room for the wheelchair in the front of the vehicle which allows the disabled passenger to sit right next to the driver. Also room in there for service dogs and other passengers. Nice looking car too.

It was designed with help from the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, which is a spinal energy center at the University of Miami. The advantages it has over converted vehicles is that a conversion can actually affect the vehicle's structural integrity and this is smaller than a typical van, which means it will be classified as a car.

Fourteen million Americans use wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Production for this thing is going to start in Indiana later this year. Prices will come out -- or will start under $40,000. We'll keep an eye on that. It's a good "Big 'I'".

War documents that you were never supposed to see, thousands of them have been leaked. Reaction is pouring in from across the globe and we are all over it. Stay with me. I'll tell you more about Wikileaks and those documents when we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)