Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. And Israel Tackle Iran Threat; Rebels Kill 14-Year-Old By Sniper In Syria; 39 Die In Tornadoes And Storms; Gingrich Pins Hopes On Super Tuesday; Romney's Super Tuesday Momentum; Holder To Talk On Targeted Killings; Eighth Advertiser Drops Limbaugh; NFL Accusing New Orleans Saints; Interview With Guitarist and Actor Steven Van Zant

Aired March 05, 2012 - 13:00   ET

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

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour. I'm Suzanne Malveaux. I want to get you up to speed. The nuclear threat from Iran affects everything from the possibility of U.S. military action on the ground, another Middle East war, even the price you pay for gas. That is why we're all over this story. The critical meeting today between President Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Looking at it from all angles, President Obama reiterating that military force is an option to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Things getting uglier in Syria. Eight people died today at the hands of their own government, that is according to opposition activists. One of the dead was just 14 years old. A victim of sniper fire near a (INAUDIBLE.)

Brutal deadly tornadoes tearing across Midwest and South, you can see the devastation right there, Kentucky and Indiana. Now, people are just trying to rebuild property, their lives, all of this here. The relentless storm system impacting millions of people, 39 people lost their lives, and the National Weather Service says 42 tornadoes slammed 10 states on Friday alone.

We are just one day away from Super Tuesday. The biggest day so far in the race for the Republican nomination, and it is a make or break day for who? Newt Gingrich. He's campaigning in Tennessee at this hour. Gingrich is counting on a win in neighboring Georgia, right here, and other southern states to keep this campaign going. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, he is riding high into Super Tuesday. He won Washington state over the weekend.

So, is it OK to kill an a U.S. citizen with alleged terrorist ties to Al Qaeda? Attorney General, Eric Holder, he says yes. He's addressing a big controversy over targeted killings today, that is in a speech over at Northwestern University. An official familiar with the speech says that it is unlikely that Holder will mention Anwar Moriwaki by name. Now, who's that? He's the American who was targeted in a drone attack last September in Yemen.

An eighth company now has dropped. As for Rush Limbaugh radio show, the most listened to radio show in the country, AOL, is the latest to basically lash out against him after Limbaugh called a college student a slut. The student has testified in support of contraceptive health coverage. In case you missed what this was all about and how it started, here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, TALK RADIO HOST: What does this say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Rumbaugh -- Limbaugh rather, sorry, has since apologized for the comment.

The United States and Israel are standing together against the threat of a nuclear Iran. What are the rumblings of a possible attack mean for people who actually live there in Iran? Ivan Watson, he is joining us from Istanbul, Turkey. Ivan, I know that you had a chance to be there, to talk to folks. Do they fear that they will be under attack and that that attack is imminent from Israel or perhaps even the United States?

IVAN WATSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, I was only allowed to be in there for about five days so it's hard to gauge. But compared to previous visits, 2003, 2005, for example, when Iranians actually -- they found out I was an American and they'd ask, are you guys go to attack us? Seriously asking me that question some 10 years ago. I didn't hear that question coming from ordinary Iranians on this trip. They seem to be constantly living with talk of -- beating of the war drums coming from the U.S. and Israel, and they are used to it.

However, the government there does make great propagandistic use of this type of talk, threats, that military options are on the table, they use them in the Friday elections arguing in a public relations campaign that was really overwhelming that the U.S. did not want Iranians to go to vote and, thus, it was their patriotic duty to go and vote and that may have worked on some Iranian voters.

It's interesting, one spokesman for Iran's opposition green movement, which has all been but crushed, he wrote in an (INAUDIBLE) a couple days ago that if there was an attack on Iran, some hard line conservative elements in that regime would find it as a blessing because then they could wrap themselves around the Iranian (INAUDIBLE), crush all remaining internal dissent, and give more legitimacy to their own government -- Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Are folks there -- are they impacted by these sanctions? We keep talking about crippling sanctions. Is it really having an effect on the people there and perhaps how the Iranian government will behave?

WATSON: There's no question that the Iranian economy is going through hardship, recent hardship. The Iranian currency has dropped -- it has lost half of its value against the U.S. dollar in just the last three or four months. That has also pushed inflation where people are complaining about the rapid hike in price of basic commodities like rice and milk. People involved in import and export of goods. One of them said that his business was about to go bust. So, yes, people are feeling economic pressure right now in Iran but it's not clear whether that's a direct impact of economic sanctions or perhaps some bad government internal economic policy, Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: All right, Ivan Watson. Thank you very much, Ivan.

Here's a rundown from the stories that we're covering over the next hour. First, millions of Americans who may have diabetes, may soon have a new way to fight it. Meet a girl who got an experimental artificial pancreas.

And the NFL commission accuses New Orleans Saints of paying players to injure their opponents. They're not the only team under investigation.

Then this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, need a little help here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE.)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lunch? That's what you have (INAUDIBLE.) Lunch is over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: All right. Former "Sopranos" star Stevie Van Zandt who's got a new show. Guess what he's playing? Yes, a monster, again. We're going to talk to little Stevie about his new role and his latest album with Bruce Springsteen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: 42 tornadoes slam across 10 states. Many people lost their loved ones. The death toll stands right now at 39. Some town pretty much were much wiped out. In Indiana, for instance, the cleanup is complicated because there was snow that fell overnight. And a lot of people, they lost their homes, they had to spend the evenings in shelters, and hundreds of National Guard troops, they're trying to help with these recovery efforts.

So, we want to go on beyond the numbers here because this is really about people. Some of the victims of these storms say they might never recover. There is one woman, she survived the tornado that slammed into Holton, Indiana, but she lost the love of her life. Patti Prater, she was engaged just one day before the tornado hit. And her fiance, he was in the mobile home with her when it was picked up and it was tossed around by those winds.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATTI PRADER: I've lost everything. I've lost my boyfriend, my fiance, I've lost my home, everything in it. I lost my animals, my dog, everything. It's just so hard for me to believe that he's not here. It felt like I was floating, flying, is what I could feel like, and I could feel myself going through the walls of the trailer. I remember thinking when it first hit and I first kind of like fell backwards, that my first thoughts in my head was, this is it, this is my time, I'm going to die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: We wish Patti all the strength and all the best. We know this is a very hard, hard time. There are so many tornadoes and pretty early in the season and it just seems like it's just so much worse than what we've seen in the past. I want to bring in Jacqui Jeras. How does this compare to what we saw even last spring?

JACQUI JERAS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, we think this is going to be one of the worst tornado outbreaks at least for the month of March. And it's hard to compare things directly because the numbers that we're looking at are still preliminary. We're going to be pouring through data like this. And take a look at this, this is a new radar image that we have to show you that shows all of the tracks or all the paths of rotating thunderstorms.

And this is one of the tools that the meteorologists are going to be using to help analyze it. And this really gives you a perspective on how widespread it is and how many states it covers. But it also shows you some of these very violent, long track tornadoes that you can see that were on the ground for well over 30 miles. So, there's so many of them. It's just amazing.

The preliminary reports at this time are that there were about 117 tornadoes that occurred out of this outbreak. So far, only 50 of them have been confirmed. Now, the big benchmark, of course, we talk about, the big outbreak that happened last April that killed more than 300 people, and here's how we compare apple to apples is that these are the warnings that were issued for tornadoes only on Friday, 303 of them up there. This is from the April outbreak, from April 27th to the 28th. Look at the number up here, 688.

So, we're talking likely double the number of tornadoes from last year's outbreak compared to what we have for today. It was excellent forecast verification, though, take a look. These are all of the tornado reports, Suzanne, and that's the high-risk outlook that was issued by the SBC, so the forecast verification very, very excellent. And we'll continue to see those numbers, unfortunately, if tornadoes continue to go up. But probably in the top 10 to 20 percent busiest start to the year for tornadoes.

MALVEAUX: All right. Thank you, Jacqui. To find out how more on how you can actually help those who've been impacted by the tornadoes, you can go to CNN.com/impact. You're going to find a whole bunch of groups, ways that you can actually help people who are in need. That is CNN.com/impact. Well, the NFL is accusing New Orleans Saints of paying players to injure their opponents. And they're not the only team under investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: NFL players allegedly paid bonuses to injure opposing team players. There are more developments in this NFL investigation into the New Orleans Saints. The NFL says the team's former defensive coordinator paid as much as $1,500 to players to knock someone out of the game. Our Ed Lavandera, he's joining us from Dallas with more.

Ed, exactly what are the accusations here?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the NFL said at the end of last week that it had completed its investigation into the New Orleans Saints football team and found that anywhere between 22 and 27 football players, and during the last three seasons dating back to 2009, the year that the New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl, had participated in a program that was basically administered and run by the team's defensive coordinator. A man by the name of Gregg Williams.

And according to the NFL's investigation, they say they have multiple sources that explained to them that players were paid -- and this wasn't anything that was officially done by the Saint's team. It was something that was done, according to the NFL, between these players and this coach -- that they could be paid anywhere up to $1,500 for knocking a player out of a game, $1,000 if they had to be carted off the field.

And there were also payments made out for interceptions and fumble recoveries and that sort of thing. But, clearly, these severe hits and these punishing hits is what's getting so much attention because the NFL has been focusing dramatically over the last year on controlling and making -- trying to make this game safer. A game that is already very violent.

But they are investigating these claims. They say they've had multiple sources that have come forward with information. And there's also talk that during -- while Gregg Williams coached at the Washington Redskins, "The Washington Post" is also reporting that that team is under investigation to figure out how this program might have worked there as well.

Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: So, Ed, we're already hearing from viewers weighing in on all this and they're saying, look, you know, football is a violent sport here. Maybe it's not such a big deal. What's all the controversy over?

LAVANDERA: Well, look, to be very clear about this, there's no question football is an incredibly violent sport. But the NFL said that they go out of its way every year to warn teams about these rules and that this, in their words, this is a clear rules violation. That there is a rule in the -- in the rules say noncontract bonuses, that no bonus or award may directly or indirectly be offered, promised, announced or paid to a player for his or his team's performance against a particular team. These are rules that they say are clearly lined out and that this is why, specifically, this story is getting so much attention and it's become such a big deal.

MALVEAUX: All right, Ed, thank you so much.

Of course that brings us to the "Talk Back" question today. We want to hear from you. Should NFL teams be punished for bounty programs or are hard hits just part of the game? We want to hear what you have to say, comments. Leave them at facebook.com/suzannecnn. I'm going to have some of them later in the hour.

And it is a threat that affects national security, as well as financial stability. We're concluding (ph) gas prices. President Obama and the Israeli prime minister meeting to discuss the nuclear threat from Iran and what to do about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Two allies confronting a common enemy. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting to discuss the nuclear threat from Iran and what to do about it. It's an issue that effects everything from national security, to possible war, to the price of gas. The two leaders say that they are united in their goal of preventing a nuclear Iran. So at the start of the meeting, President Obama said that he supports Israel's security and it is unwavering.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As I've said repeatedly, the bond between our two countries is unbreakable. My personal commitment, a commitment that is consistent with the history of other occupants of this Oval Office, our commitment to the security of Israel, is rock solid. And as I've said to the prime minister, in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security.

This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people to people contacts that we have between our two countries.

During the course of this meeting, we'll talk about the regional issues that are taking place. And I look forward to the prime minister sharing with me his ideas about how we can increase the prospects of peace and security in the region.

We will discuss the issues that continue to be a focus of not only our foreign policy, but also the prime ministers, how we can potentially bring about a calmer set of discussions between the Israelis and the Palestinians and arrive at a peaceful resolution to that long-standing conflict. It is a very difficult thing to do in light of the context right now, but I know that the prime minister remains committed to try to achieve that. And obviously a large topic of conversation will be Iran, which I devoted a lot of time to in my speech to APEC yesterday and I know that the prime minister has been focused on for a long period of time.

Let me just reiterate a couple of points on that. Number one, we all know that it's unacceptable from Israel's perspective to have a country with a nuclear weapon that has called for the destruction of Israel.

But as I emphasized yesterday, it is profoundly in the United States' interest as well to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions of the world. We do not want the possibility of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists, and we do not want a regime that has been a state sponsor of terrorism being able to feel that it can act even more aggressively or with impunity as a consequence of its nuclear power. That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever with respect to Iran.

We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue. But ultimately the Iranians regime has to make a decision to move in that direction. A decision that they have not made thus far. And as I emphasized, even as we will continue on the diplomatic front, we will continue to tighten pressure when it comes to sanctions. I reserve all options.

And my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are on the table, I mean it.

Having said that, I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the costs of any military action. And I want to assure both the American people and the Israeli people that we are in constant and close consultation. I think the levels of coordination and consultation between our militaries and our intelligence, not just on this issue but on a broad range of issues, has been unprecedented. And I intend to make sure that that continues during what will be a series of difficult months, I suspect, in 2012.

So, prime minister, we welcome you and we appreciate very much the friendship of the Israeli people. You can count on that friendship always being reciprocated from the United States.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.

OBAMA: Thank you.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

Well, Mr. President, thank you for those kind words. And thank you, too, for that strong speech yesterday. And I want to thank you also for the warm hospitality that you've shown me and my delegation.

The alliance between our two countries is deeply appreciated by me and by everyone in Israel. And I think that, as you said, when Americans look around the Middle East today, they see one reliable, stable, faithful ally of the United States, and that's the democracy of Israel. Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that too. You know, for them, you're the great Satan, we're the little Satan. For them, we are you and you are us. And you know something, Mr. President, at least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you and you are us. We're together. So if there's one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today is that Israel and America stand together.

I think that above and beyond that, are two principles, long-standing principle of American policy that you reiterated yesterday in your speech, that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself by itself, against any threat and that when it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the right, sovereign right to make its own decisions. I believe that's why you'll appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself. And, after all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people, control over our destiny. And that's why my supreme responsibility, as prime minister of Israel, is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.

So I thank you very much, Mr. President, for your friendship and I look forward to our discussions. Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: The country that many believe is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Now the president is drawing a line in the sand. Sound familiar? We're going to talk about the parallels between the Iraq War and what's happening right now in Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Could we be looking at another possible war or be pulled into another conflict in the Middle East? Well, President Obama is talking tough on the fight to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranian government. He is also reupping his commitment to Israel in the face of danger.

Dan Senor, he's joining us. He was the senior adviser to the Pentagon and President Bush during the Iraq War and currently works on Mitt Romney's campaign.

Dan, you and I used to talk together all the time during the Iraq war --

(CROSSTALK)

DAN SENOR, FORMER PENTAGON AND WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: I remember it well. I remember it well.

MALVEAUX: Yes, you do. SENOR: Sort of.

MALVEAUX: Yes. Well, we heard the president and we heard Netanyahu, both of them weighing in on this. And the president is saying now he's got Israel's back, and, you know, if they decide they're going to go ahead and go up against Iran. Are you satisfied, do you believe, that the Jewish community here in this country is satisfied with that kind of backing?

SENOR: Well, there are really two questions here, Suzanne. One is whether or not Israel wants to outsource decisions and the capacity to make decisions down the road for Israel security.

The whole founding of the modern state of Israel was founded in part so that the Jewish state, the Jewish people, would not have to rely on other people for its own defense, particularly after the experience of the Holocaust.

So for an Israeli leader to hear, don't worry, Israel, don't do anything, we have your back, we'll take care of it, is delegating an enormous amount of responsibility to another party.

The second question is, even if they're prepared to do that, even if they're willing to delegate that responsibility, the next question is, do they trust that Obama will act? And that has been the concern, given events of the last several years. But the administration has said a lot of things and done a lot of things -- the Obama administration -- that have given many Israeli leaders -- raise real serious questions for them about whether or not the Obama administration will act if it needs to.

MALVEAUX: And we heard from Netanyahu himself, though, who says he is the great Satan, that U.S. is a little fate (ph) when it comes to Iran. So if you have Netanyahu essentially saying there is no daylight between us when it comes to the policy in dealing with Iran, what more assurances do you need or do you want from this president?

SENOR: Well, look, I do believe the president means that when he says there's no daylight between the United States and Israel. I think that he believes that. But the challenge here is for -- it was Netanyahu who said, we're the little Satan, you're the big Satan, meaning if they are going after us, they're going after you; if they're going after you, they are going after us.

MALVEAUX: Sure.

SENOR: The concern is that the president may believe that there's no daylight between the U.S. and Israel but the president may also believe that military action is not the proper course and is not in the interest of the United States and it's not in the interest of Israel. So the president could easily argue, could convince himself, military action is a bad idea.

What happens -- the question that we're wrestling with, that the Israelis are wrestling with, that many in this country are wrestling with, is what happens if the United States, if the president believes that military action is not the right course but Israel does believe it's the only course; however, by virtue of Israel waiting, it's too late for Israel to deal with it?

Then Israel's leaders have no options and that's what the prime minister said today. He said something very important in that Oval Office meeting. He said it's important for Israel to maintain its capacity to control its own fate. It's got to maintain its own ability to maintain these decisions. You can't outsource them. In fact, the issue is, if they wait, they may lose that optionality.

MALVEAUX: Dan, I talked to general spider marks, who believes that an attack from Israel against Iran is imminent. Do you agree with that scenario, do you think that that's how this is playing out now?

SENOR: I think that there is going to be -- if I were to have to make a prediction, these things are very hard to know, I think they're -- I do not think diplomacy is working.

I don't think diplomacy will work. I think we're passing the point at which sanctions can have an effect, which means unless there is regime change in Iran, unless the character of the government changes, if it ceases to be in this inquisitive mode of just focused entirely on acquiring nuclear weapons, it seems to me the only option is military action.

The only question is, then, who does it? The United States or Israel?

MALVEAUX: We're going to leave it there. Dan, good to see you again, as always.

I'm going to talk next with the president of the Iranian-American Council talking about the realities of a potential conflict.

Plus, you probably -- you know him. Yes, you do, from "Sopranos," or as a member of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band. Check it out. (INAUDIBLE) Steven van Zandt. He's joining us live as well.

(MUSIC PLAYING, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, "BORN IN THE U.S.A.")

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: More now on the story driving the day. The threat of a nuclear Iran. Israeli's (sic) prime minister is at the White House. There's been some friction before between these two world leaders but they can agree on one thing, that they are going to take on the threat of a nuclear Iran together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: For them, you are the great Satan, we are the little Satan. For them, we are you are you are us. And you know something, Mr. President, at least on this last point, I think they are right. We are you and you are us. We're together. (END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Trita Parsi, he's joining us from Washington. He's the president of the Iranian-American Council. He's also the author of "Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy with Iran." Trita, thanks for being with us here.

First of all, we have seen a lot of tension over the last couple of weeks. It's been escalating over the last 48 hours, about the possibility of this conflict between Israel and Iran. And listening to these leaders today, and what you've heard, do you think that diplomacy -- diplomacy alone -- will be able to convince Iran to put down its -- potentially put down those elements of its weapons program?

TRITA PARSI, PRESIDENT, IRANIAN-AMERICAN COUNCIL: Well, I agree with the president, who said that we have to pursue diplomacy because at the end of the day, the only way that you actually can convince a country not to pursue a nuclear weapon and as the president said, his estimation of the U.S. government that the Iranians have not made a decision to build a bomb, at least not yet, the only way you can do that is by convincing them that it does not lie in their interest to do so.

You can only achieve that through diplomacy. If you think that one can bomb the country and by that convince it that it's not valuable for it to have a nuclear deterrence, then I think one is sadly mistaken.

And so as a result, the president is realizing the difficulty of this situation and realizes that beyond diplomacy, there really isn't any path that can reach to a successful situation in which Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

MALVEAUX: How much of this do you think is politics playing out here, the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has the power, the authority to call for elections up until 2013? You also have presidential politics taking place in this country as well, that both of these leaders seem to be making such tough statements and taking such a tough stand against Iran?

PARSI: Well, politics is actually most of all of this, because it's precisely because of domestic politics in Iran, in the United States, as well as the actions of the Israeli government, that rendered the likelihood of diplomacy that Obama pursued in the first round, not to be sufficient, not to be strong and sustaining enough to actually be able to succeed.

It was as one Obama administration official told me, a single roll of the dice. You had to work either right away or not at all and there's no such thing as fast food diplomacy. And domestic politics on all sides have rendered the type of patience needed to make diplomacy succeed all too difficult to muster.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you respond to my previous guest, Dan Senor, who says that, you know, the time for diplomacy essentially is running out, that you have a threat, and that Israel's -- the target, the threshold that Israel has in allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon, that's -- we're pretty much there.

PARSI: Well, actually, the threshold of the Israelis and part of the reason why there is a conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama administration, as well as with the U.S. military, is because the Israeli threshold is not that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, it is that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapons capability.

That's where we probably already are. And that's why the United States and why the president has been pretty firm in rejecting the Israeli red line and adopting the red line of Iran not having a nuclear weapon.

And it's a significant, a crucial difference between the two governments, and in spite of all of the nice talk, that is a difference that remains in which the Israeli government so far has failed to convince Obama to adopt that Israeli red line, which, incidentally, is the same red line as the Bush administration pursued.

MALVEAUX: All right. Trita Parsi, thank you so much. We appreciate a perspective as well.

PARSI: Thank you.

A new Bruce Springsteen album pulls no punches about politics. And Wall Street, the one and only Steven van Zandt. He's joining us to talk about "Wrecking Ball."

(MUSIC PLAYING, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, "BORN TO RUN")

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's back. You might know him from "The Sopranos," or a member of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band. Steven van Zandt, he's returned as the wiseguy in a Netflix original series, "Lilyhammer." And he's got a new album as well out of the box, Bruce Springsteen, "Wrecking Ball", it's called, well, the talented one and only joins us from New York.

Thanks for coming on. It looks like you've been pretty busy. You've got a new show, a new album. You've never been afraid to kind of speak your mind. Tell us about "Wrecking Ball," what's behind it?

STEVEN VAN ZANDT, MUSICIAN AND ACTOR: Well, "Wrecking Ball" is Bruce Springsteen's new album. We visited occasionally, but it's really more of a solo album than an E Street Band album. However, we are -- we will be doing -- the tour starts next week at the Apollo, I am thrilled to say, and the album is out soon, right? It's like next week or now or something.

But it's -- all I can say is it's very, very good, and very inspiring, and I'm proud to call him my friend, somebody who continues to write at such a high level at this stage of the game. It's just amazing to me. MALVEAUX: You know, let's take a listen here. This is your single, "Jack of All Trades", from NBC "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon." Let's take a listen.

(MUSIC PLAYING, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, "JACK OF ALL TRADES")

MALVEAUX: And I understand -- you know, talk a little bit about where our country is and the fact that people are suffering pretty tough economic times. You and Bruce have always brought that to light. How do you think things are going for folks?

VAN ZANDT: Well, we are in a very weird place. And, yes, I think the album addresses that in a way that should be addressed. And, you know, at this point I think we take an independent position of, you know, it's not a partisan position to say that people need to be working and have opportunities and equal opportunities and all that sort of basic American stuff.

I think it's -- we've gone off the rails a little bit, you know, and we need to fix that stuff. So it's good to be addressed and just open up the questions.

MALVEAUX: Sure.

VAN ZANDT: You know, we keep -- you know, we seem to keep having the wrong conversations in this country instead of, you know, talking about the real issues, you know, we're distracted by all this nonsense, you know.

Tell me a little about the new series, "Lilyhammer." It's actually -- it's really unique, because it's not going to be on TV but Netflix and you're going to play a gangster?

VAN ZANDT: I am playing a gangster again, by popular demand. No, I really didn't intend to play a gangster again so soon, but the Norwegian writers came to me, and so we have a terrific idea. A gangster goes into a witness protection program in Norway, and I thought, you know what, that's such a good idea, I can't resist it.

So, yes, it is made for Norwegian TV, but Netflix picked it up, and as a first original programming which I'm very proud of. And Netflix is TV. Netflix is the new TV.

MALVEAUX: Yes, it's the future of TV. Is your character, is it similar to the one you played on "The Sopranos"? Are you the same kind of guy?

VAN ZANDT: Well, he looks similar, you know, but not really. Not really. Silvio was, you know, very concerned with taking care of Tony Soprano and was very cautious, and the only guy, really, on "The Sopranos," who didn't want to be the boss, where this guy, Frank "The Fixer" Tagliano, he's really a boss.

So he's more outgoing, he's a little bit -- he's a little bit wilder and gets into all kinds of situations in Norway, where there is no crime and it's a very, very straight society, you know. MALVEAUX: Yes. And what's the main character's name again? Tagliano? Is that right?

VAN ZANDT: Frank "The Fixer" Tagliano, yes.

MALVEAUX: Frank "The Fixer" Tagliano.

That's a great gangster name there.

VAN ZANDT: Yes, you know. So, yes, it's very exciting. It was exciting to work over there because the actors are terrific and the writers are great. And, you know, I became one of the writers and one of the producers, and I'm very proud of it, really. And very, very happy that Netflix picked it up.

MALVEAUX: Well, thank you, and good to see you again. You got a lot of fans over here. Part of our team, they were all rooting for you there, and loved to have you on. So we'll be looking forward to it. We'll be watching. Thanks.

VAN ZANDT: We'll be down in your neighborhood soon, in Atlanta.

MALVEAUX: Oh, good. Oh, great. OK, well, join us on the set. We'll have you on the set next time.

VAN ZANDT: OK.

MALVEAUX: All right. Thanks, Steven.

You've been sounding off on the "Talk Back" question of the day. Should NFL teams with bounty programs be punished or is tough play, hard hits, just part of the game? The NFL conducted an investigation of my team, the New Orleans Saints, and they found the defensive coordinator for three seasons was offering bonuses for hurting opposing players.

They got $1,500 for knocking a player out of the game. James writes, "Teams should absolutely be punished for paying for their players to injure the opponents."

Paul says, "The NFL with its special focus on player safety the past few years has to use the Saints to send a message on this issue or risk coming off as hypocrites. Monetary incentives to injure are simply wrong."

Jimmy writes, "Heck, no. So long as they're not permanently injuring them, like knee hits or helmet hits, it's a rough game and they should expect this. After all, the NFL stands for 'not for long.'"

Wow. Thanks, all of you, for writing in. We got some really passionate responses. Obviously we're going to have more of those on my Facebook page and Twitter as well.

And a medical device that acts like a pancreas could change the lives of millions of diabetics if the FDA approves it. Want you to meet a girl whose life was changed by it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Celebrity chef Paula Deen is getting sued. Former employee Lisa Jackson claims that Deen's brother, Bubba Ayers (ph), sexually harassed and assaulted her at work in Georgia. Jackson began working with the Paula Deen family companies back in 2005. She says she left in 2010 after she could no longer bear this abusive treatment. We're going to have more on the story as it develops.

Last month Deen made news for hiding her diabetes, despite making money off of rich and sugary Southern-style cooking.

This is being called a game changer for almost 5 million diabetics in this country who use insulin. Now Elizabeth Cohen, she's got the story of a young girl, who was one of the first to try it out.

Elizabeth, I understand -- am I overstating this when I say it's a game changer?

ELIZABETH COHEN, SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: No, you're not overstating it at all. If this device works and is approved by the FDA, it will be a game changer, and it's called the artificial pancreas. And it's not -- it's not implanted. It doesn't go inside you, it gets strapped outside of you and it does the work that a pancreas can no longer do when someone has diabetes.

And so the way it works now -- well, we visited with one of the young people who got to try this. And her name is Elle Shaheen, and she lives in New Hampshire, and at home, ally has to prick her finger 10 to 12 times a day and then estimate how much insulin she needs.

And it's -- they don't -- you can't always get it right, so sometimes she has sugar lows and she crashes. Her mother wakes up every three hours at night to make sure she's not crashing in the middle of the night.

And the artificial pancreas would change all that, because it would test her glucose for her and use algorithms to figure out how much insulin she needs. So we talked to them earlier this morning, and we'll see what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELLE SHAHEEN, DIABETIC: I won't have to test my blood sugar, estimate how many -- how much insulin I have to take.

STEFANY SHAHEEN, ELLE'S MOTHER: We're very anxious to have the opportunity to use the device in a home setting. We spent three days at Mass General Hospital with the device, and we were very inspired by the promise and what a difference it could make in Elle's life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Now, as you just heard Elle's mom say, Elle used this device in the hospital. That's because it's still being studied, and diabetics aren't allowed to just take this home. They can only use it when they're being observed in the hospital.

MALVEAUX: So it's clinical trials. When would we expect that Elle would be able to use something like this?

COHEN: You know, doctors say that they expect this to be approved within the next four years, so that's actually pretty soon.

MALVEAUX: All right. Well, good news for her.

All right, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

And we continue in the CNN Newsroom. Up next with Brooke Baldwin.

BROOKE BALDWIN, ANCHOR, CNN NEWSROOM: Suzanne, thank you so much.