Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Tonight
Afghan Battle Plan; Health Care Deal Breaker?; Video Games 101
Aired November 23, 2009 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, waiting on a war plan -- President Obama and his war council meeting tonight -- should more soldiers be sent into battle? And if so, where will the money come from?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy.
ROBERTS: Some Democrats are calling for new taxes on the rich to pay for any troop surge.
And mixed messages on the economy -- a classic case of good news/bad news -- the stock market has roared back, but millions can't find jobs. Is the recovery real? How confident should we be?
Also, the pitfalls of websites like Facebook. Sometimes posting too much information is not so friendly -- one woman's vacation photos have cost her big-time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because there are no precedents, it's a free for all right now.
ROBERTS: How careful do you need to be?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN TONIGHT live from New York. Here now, John Roberts.
ROBERTS: Good evening and thanks very much for joining us. Within the hour, President Obama will meet with his war council to debate the next move in Afghanistan. It will be the ninth and final time that the group will meet. Despite the drawn-out process, the White House says the president is only concerned about making the right call.
The meeting will focus on whether to send more soldiers into fight, and equally important, how to get them out. Cost is also a major concern. Some Democratic lawmakers looking for new ways to pay for a troop surge in Afghanistan have come up with an old idea, taxing the rich. Dan Lothian takes a look at President Obama's pending decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today...
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An announcement on Afghanistan is expected some time after Thanksgiving, but the president is still seeking answers to some critical questions on sending in more troops.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out.
LOTHIAN: The president has held meetings with his war council in the secure Situation Room since September. His top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, has recommended 40,000 additional troops. But any substantial increase will cost billions of dollars, and two leading Democrats, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and House Appropriations Chairman David Obey suggested in separate interviews that a war surtax might be necessary.
REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy.
LOTHIAN: Since a decision hasn't been made, the White House wouldn't comment on how to pay for it, so I asked spokesman Robert Gibbs if a war surtax had been part of the high-level discussions.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: How to pay for the war, yes.
LOTHIAN (on camera): And has taxes come up?
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: They haven't gotten deeply into the discussions on that.
LOTHIAN (voice-over): Experts agree the way forward in Afghanistan will require more than just troops. First and foremost, a stable government, special envoy Richard Holbrooke says the recent elections weren't perfect, but...
RICHARD HOLBROOKE, U.S. SPECIAL REP. TO AFGHANISTAN & PAKISTAN: They produced a winner and a legitimate government with which we intend to work as closely as possible.
LOTHIAN: And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the U.S. is open to discussions on what role rehabilitated members of the Taliban could play in the government.
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The issue of how to reintegrate members of the Taliban who renounce violence, renounce ties with al Qaeda is something that has been discussed at length.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LOTHIAN: White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if the White House is concerned at all about criticism that this drawn-out process makes it appear as if the president can't make up his mind, that he is indecisive. And he said this has not been wasted time. That it's a very critical, complex decision that the president has to make and he definitely wants to make sure that he gets it right -- John.
ROBERTS: Dan Lothian tonight for us at the White House -- Dan, thanks so much. We'll have much more on the president's big decision should he escalate the war in Afghanistan and how he might do it coming up later on, on CNN TONIGHT.
More now on the issue of costs, paying for two wars, on top of the massive health care plans in Congress total taxes will hit levels that rival socialist European countries. According to the Tax Foundation, a five percent war tax on the rich that some Democrats are calling for and the 5.4 percent tax to pay for the health care reform bill that's in the House will hit taxpayers hard. The Senate bill has an additional $370 billion in taxes, 17 new taxes to be exact. In all it would mean some Americans would end up paying more than 60 percent of their income in taxes, a staggering amount not seen in this country for decades.
Moving on now to the fight over health care reform and the steep road ahead for Democrats -- the vote over the weekend to start debate on health care legislation passed, just barely. Now some party moderates are saying any final bill that includes a government-run plan will be a deal breaker. Our congressional correspondent, Brianna Keilar, looks at what's going to happen to the public option.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: The road ahead is a long stretch, but we can see the finish line.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But listening to Majority Leader Harry Reid's own Democrats, the controversial government-run insurance plan currently in the bill might not survive the race.
SENATOR BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: I wouldn't support any kind of government-run insurance operation that would undermine the private insurance that 200 million Americans currently have.
KEILAR: Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's concerns are shared by Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Connecticut Independent, Joe Lieberman. He voted with Democrats Saturday to begin debating health care, but says he will vote against a health care overhaul if it includes a public option.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: We have a health care system that has real troubles. But we have an economic system that is in real crisis. And I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis.
KEILAR: Without Lieberman, Democrats would have to look across the aisle to hit the all-important 60-vote mark. Their logical, and possibly their only ally, Maine's Olympia Snowe -- she worked with Democrats on a compromise in the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year. Snowe supports a public option with a trigger, a government-run insurance plan that kicks in only if private insurers fail to provide accessible and affordable coverage.
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: Olympia Snowe would very likely come on if the trigger was reinstituted or made part of the bill. So we could be returning to the trigger and then, of course, we'll see, Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, really come back on to the scene and become a big player in this debate.
KEILAR (on camera): In addition to satisfying moderate Democrats, Democratic leaders also have the challenge of keeping liberal senators happy. For instance, Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and Ohio's Sherrod Brown are drawing their own line in the sand, saying they want a public option. And even Roland Burris, the Illinois senator appointed to fill President Obama's vacated Senate seat, says he will vote only for a public option. He is certainly not considered a political heavyweight, but his vote matters as much as any other.
Brianna Keilar, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: It was a great day for the Dow, finishing up 132 points to close within striking distance of the 10,500 Mark, but the economic messages are certainly mixed. The markets are up, the dollar is down, and unemployment continues to creep ever higher. So how to make sense of what's happening and what it all means to you. We call tonight on our chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi. So let's take this a couple of bites at a time, if we could, Ali.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
ROBERTS: First of all, why is the Dow up and why is the dollar down?
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well the Dow is up, and it's up quite substantially, by the way, up about 20 percent on the year, so if you look at your 401(k) and you see that kind of gain, that's why, if you've got a portfolio that represents the things that are in the Dow or the S&P 500. It's actually up 60 percent since March 9th, which was the bottom of the market.
Now here's the thing, John. This is very typical. At the end of a bear market, which usually is paired with a recession, you generally see a run up in stocks. This is unheard of. Usually you see 15 percent, a lot of people thought we might see 30 percent, we're up to 60 percent now, higher than where we were at the low.
Now the thing is the stocks are a great investment to be in. The dollar, we don't think about it the way investors do, but the dollar is an investment too. So when stocks are going up, money goes towards stocks, money goes towards commodities. It doesn't go toward the dollar. There's no point in investing in the dollar today because interest rates are nowhere. So when you buy bonds, you don't get anything on them. Look at the dollar. In the same period the Dow is up 20 percent, the dollar is down nine percent against a basket of other currencies in the world.
ROBERTS: So official U.S. policy is a strong dollar policy, but there are many people in this country who don't mind seeing a little weakness in the dollar, because it helps our exports.
VELSHI: Our manufacturing industry has been entirely decimated and as a result of that a low dollar means that the things we do make in this country, and there aren't a lot of them left, but those that we do make become cheaper for other people in other countries to buy. So yes, the official policy is in support of a stronger dollar, but there are a lot of people who would say it would be much better if we had a weaker dollar.
Now you know what happens is when the dollar weakens or there's a threat of inflation, both of which are present today, you see gold going up. And boy, have we seen gold going up. We are now up 32 percent on the year for an ounce of gold. This is quite remarkable. It doesn't often happen this way, but we've seen quite a run-up in the price of gold. It's a hedge against inflation and a weak dollar -- John.
ROBERTS: Wall Street doing really well. We're hearing about you know big profits in some of the investment houses like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROBERTS: Some people are going to have a very, very Merry Christmas when it comes to bonus time. At the same time, the unemployment situation in this country continues to worsen. How long is that expected to worsen and at the same time we got some interesting numbers on housing in the last few hours.
VELSHI: John, there are three things upon which the U.S. consumer finds prosperity. There are really three places you look. One is investments if you have a 401(k) or an IRA. We've talked about the stock market doing really well. The other is jobs. Without an income, it doesn't matter whether you have a 401(k) or a house. We've got an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent and we continue to lose jobs.
In fact the number of economists who were polled say that while the economy is recovering, we won't start to see jobs returning until about March, at least, of next year. And even then, it's going to be tepid, the amount of jobs we get back. That's the jobs picture. I said there are three things, investments, jobs, the third one is housing. A lot of Americans have their wealth tied up in housing. We did see some good reports on housing.
We saw new home sales increasing month over month by 10 percent. The median price of an existing home in the United States, that's a used home, if you will, is about 173,000 right now. That is down way more than 20 percent since the peak, but there are a lot of estimates that while home prices will continue to go down over the course of the next year, low-interest rates, low home prices, and this first-time home buyer's credit from the government, if it continues, really will make this a very good time to buy.
Interest rates, by the way, John, right now for a conforming mortgage, that's one under $417,000 for most of the country, if you have a 30-year fixed mortgage and you put 20 percent down, 4.83 percent. These are some of the lowest rates we're likely to ever see.
ROBERTS: That's a good deal. Our Ali Velshi tonight helping make sense of it all -- Ali, thanks so much.
VELSHI: My pleasure.
ROBERTS: Trouble continuing to mount today for embattled Governor Mark Sanford, the South Carolina Republican whose affair with an Argentinean lover exploded last summer into an international scandal is now facing 37 ethics charges. The civil charges for misuse of campaign money and state travel budgets carry a maximum of $74,000 in fines. The state attorney general is also weighing whether or not to pursue criminal charges.
Coming up, toxic danger made in China -- homeowners forced to pick their homes or their health.
Also, getting de-friended on Facebook may not be the worst of your worries. We'll tell you why sharing too much information online might not be such a good idea.
And police in Ohio have to go deep, really deep, to retrieve a stickup note from this not-so-sneaky suspected bank robber.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Seems that just about everybody has a Facebook page or some other profile online these days, but careful what you post on the Internet. There is growing concern over privacy on these social networking sites. In one recent case, a woman lost her sick leave benefits because her pictures on Facebook showed her looking happy and well. As Ines Ferre now tells us, the case has many rethinking what and what should not be made public.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
INES FERRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Be careful what you post. That's the message behind recent social networking controversies. Just ask Natalie Blanchard, who was on long-term disability for depression. Her payments were cut off after her insurers saw these pictures of her on Facebook, drinking at a Chippendale's event and at other celebrations.
NATALIE BLANCHARD, IBM EMPLOYEE: She told me that she (INAUDIBLE) picture on my Facebook and some sentence and that she said that I'm not sick.
FERRE: Blanchard's lawyer is suing the insurance company and her employer, IBM. Blanchard had been on sick leave since 2008.
TOM LAVIN, ATTORNEY: There are no precedents. It's a free-for- all right now. And probably there are no rules or boundaries.
FERRE: The insurance company said it could not comment on Blanchard's case, but in a statement said, "We would not terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook." But information from Facebook and other social networking sites has recently gotten employees and students in a lot of trouble. Just this month, a Georgia teacher said she was terminated after pictures of her drinking on vacation and a profane posting on her Facebook page were forwarded to the school's superintendent.
She's suing the school district for unfair dismissal. And two Indiana teenagers were banned from fall extracurricular activities for posting suggestive pictures on MySpace. The girls supposedly had set their MySpace pages so only friends could view the images, but someone copied the pictures, which ended up in the hands of the school principal. The ACLU is suing on their behalf, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FERRE: And as for Facebook, a spokesman told CNN that the Web site, quote, "offers users industry-leading tools to control access to their information", adding that it encourages users to configure their settings appropriately and to only accept friend requests from people they know and trust. And John, I should add that Blanchard's lawyer said that his client's settings were on "friends only."
ROBERTS: On "friends only" and yet they still got access to the information.
FERRE: Exactly.
ROBERTS: All right, well let's check on how that could possibly happen. Joining us now for more on Internet privacy and Facebook is Parry Aftab. She is an Internet security and safety and privacy expert. So how does it happen that she could have activated her "friends only" privacy settings, Parry, and still this insurance company, Manulife (ph), out of Canada got access to her information, was browsing her pictures thinking well you don't look very sick to us?
PARRY AFTAB, INTERNET SAFETY EXPERT: Well it's one of three different ways. Either she wasn't really "friends only" or she didn't do the other settings. Who can search for you and what can they find. It's not just saying only friends can see what my pictures are. You have to make sure that you've turned off search and you looked at all of the other ways of finding you. Or she accepted them as a friend and invited them in. So it's like a lock on a door. Unless it's locked and you shut the door, you're not going to be able to keep people out.
ROBERTS: Well explain to us the difference between the clicking "friends only" and the search function. AFTAB: Absolutely. Years ago, when Facebook started putting in privacy settings, they realized that people wanted more granularities. It's not just who can see all of your private pictures and your private information, but a lot of people were using Facebook to find their friends, find people you went to school with you. So they have all different settings, who can search for you and what they can see on search, as well as what pictures can they see, who can ask to see you, are your friends visible to others? And they have all of these different settings. You don't just click the top one; you have to look at them all.
ROBERTS: So you got to make sure that you go through this in a thorough fashion and know what security settings that you are choosing. Is this a warning, then, that you really need to be very, very careful what you post online? You know there are a couple of rules that seem pretty obvious. Never post a naked photograph of yourself on the Internet. Never have a photograph of yourself holding a stemmed glass on the Internet. And now this -- it's extended to parties and bars and vacations.
AFTAB: Well, you know, if you're doing something you're not supposed to be doing, you don't take a picture of it and put it on the Internet, even if it's only among people you think you can trust. So what we need to do is recognize if you don't want your parents, principals, police, or perspective employers or insurance companies or anyone else to see it, don't post it. And if you're going to post it, make sure you can control where it goes.
ROBERTS: You mentioned something very important here, Parry. Don't post anything that you shouldn't be doing. She says that she was doing exactly what she was supposed to. That she was being treated for depression, as Ines said. That her doctors said spend as much quality and fun time as you can with your friends and family.
She went on a vacation with her mother, posted a picture of that. She went to a bar with some friends, posted a picture of that. Went to a party with some friends, posted a picture of that. Can the insurance company take a look at those photographs online and say (INAUDIBLE) she doesn't look like she's suffering from depression to us, we're going to cut her off?
AFTAB: Well, I don't think that they made their decision -- or hopefully they didn't make their decision just on a picture. Insurance companies...
ROBERTS: That's what her attorney says.
AFTAB: Well, that's what her attorney says, but there are always two sides of this. Remember, I'm a lawyer. And I'd be out of business if there weren't two sides to all of this. But they send out private investigators all the time to see what people are doing when they say that they're disabled. And if they've got disability or other insurance, they go out and they hide behind cars and trees and look at what people are doing. In this case they're just looking online. So my guess is they saw this information and then somebody decided to dig further to see if she really was as depressed as she said she was and that's just ultimately a decision insurance companies make all the time and they have to defend all the time.
ROBERTS: Yes, as a well-known defense attorney friend of mine says when you're a defense attorney, you don't necessarily want to know the truth, you just want to build a good defense. But how common is it for an insurance company, for an employer, for an investigator to go online and troll for information about people?
AFTAB: Well, it's actually very common. A lot more common than it used to be. And it's almost -- if you don't do it, you're asking for trouble. So if there's information out there and you hire somebody and you should have known about it, what's your liability there? So I think as people are posting things online and everyone's using Facebook, there are about 350 million users, everybody in Canada is on Facebook.
It's the most popular Web site in the country today. As people are out there, you need to recognize people are looking. So go on, not as yourself, just as a stranger, and see what people can see about you. Then you should use not just Facebook, but Google yourself or Bing yourself and see what's out there about you too. If you're not looking out for your reputation online, who will?
ROBERTS: Parry Aftab, great suggestions tonight -- good to see you -- Ines Ferre, thanks so much.
In Ohio a suspected bank robber made one last desperate attempt to destroy evidence against him. He ate it. Police believe that this man walked into a bank, showed the teller a note and walked out with a bag of money. As police searched him for weapons, one officer found a piece of paper and threw it on the hood of the patrol car -- all of this captured on the dash cam.
You can see -- watch this -- the quick-thinking man looks at the note and says oh, evidence, I know what to do with that. He gobbled it up. Police searched his car, found a gun and a wad of money, but they couldn't find the note. They're probably going to have to search a little deeper for that note and there it goes.
Coming up, President Obama's decision on Afghanistan -- the president huddles again tonight with his national security team. We'll have the latest on the troops' debate and the expected decision date.
And the controversial White House campaign to make math and science fun for schoolchildren -- can it translate to higher test scores? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: President Obama today joining forces with Elmo, Big Bird, and thousands of video game programmers to push math and science to middle schoolers. The new White House campaign enlists companies in nonprofit groups to create educational activities for kids outside the classroom, but what about inside the classroom? Kitty Pilgrim looks at the latest efforts to make our kids more competitive.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At a presidential press briefing, two high school students demonstrate the robotic ball catcher they have built for a science project. Companies as diverse as Intel, Xerox, Kodak, and Time Warner Cable are pitching in with Astronaut Sally Ride and the non-profit Carnegie Corporation (ph) as part of the presidential program to advance math and science.
OBAMA: Sesame Street has begun a two-year initiative to teach young kids about math and science and Discovery Communications is going to deliver interactive science content to 60,000 schools, reaching 35 million students.
PILGRIM: President Obama hopes to involve one million students in after school competitions, and on National Lab Day, 10 million students will experiment on everything from rockets to windmills. The president promised an annual science fair at the White House. Educational organizations such as the American Institute for Research, a non-profit policy organization, say the new Obama program is commendable, but they say the real issue is the qualifications some teachers bring to the classroom.
TRACEY GRAY, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH: Many of the teachers teaching math and science, in fact, are not math or science majors. So they may be experts in how to teach reading, but they oftentimes find themselves teaching mathematics for lower grades, particularly from kindergarten, first, second, and third grades.
PILGRIM: In the United States, eighth graders rank ninth in mathematics behind Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Russia. In science, the U.S. ranks ninth behind the same countries plus England. And the U.S. graduated fewer math and science majors from institutions of higher education.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you compare the United States with other countries, what we see is China and India graduating a much greater number of students who not only are studying science and math, but also interested in entering careers in those fields.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Well, it seems the easiest part of this program is getting kids to participate. Part of this initiative is to make science and math fun. So, for example, Sony is expected to donate 1,000 Playstation games with an educational theme to libraries and community organizations in low-income areas. For now, it seems policymakers are looking for anything that works -- John.
ROBERTS: Part of the problem, I guess, Kitty, is getting young people involved in the sciences, getting them interested and involved in math. So is that not, at least, a good start?
PILGRIM: It's a great program. Every educator we talked to today thought it was a great idea and it was a really positive thing to do. But what they say is the fundamental problem is that you are not having math majors and science majors teaching math and science, particularly in the young grades where you start to spark some interest.
ROBERTS: All right, Kitty Pilgrim tonight -- Kitty, thank you.
Coming up, new evidence tonight of the devastation caused by Chinese drywall in American homes. Now people living inside those toxic walls are asking what's happening to their health.
And President Obama meeting with his war council within the hour about what to do next in Afghanistan -- two top foreign policy experts join me to discuss what the options are and what they mean for America's military.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: President Obama's meeting with his war council in the next 30 minutes as he nears a final decision on the military's future role in Afghanistan. That decision is now expected after the thanksgiving holiday.
Joining me for more now on the president's highly anticipated announcement is Hillary Mann Levertt. She's the CEO of Stratega. S he worked as the director for Persian Gulf affairs for President George W. Bush's national Security Council. She also served as a political adviser for the U.S. mission to the United Nations in the Clinton administration. Malou Innocent also joins us. She is a foreign policy analyst at the CATO Institute. As we said in tonight's strategy session the last the president has sort of indicated not to expect a decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan until after the holiday. Hillary, Republicans have accused him of risking the mission by dithering on this decision. Is there really any risk to him waiting, or is it the prudent thing to do?
HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, CEO, STRATEGA: Well, I think the wait has been detrimental for U.S. interests and for -- frankly, for our troops on the ground. Keep in mind that Obama initially sent 21,000 troops there before his initial strategy in March. Then we were told that his strategy unveiled in March of this year was going to be the strategy to win in Afghanistan. Then we found out from his special envoy that we don't know what victory would look like, we don't know what it would mean to win in Afghanistan. So the major problem is that he's put a huge question mark over all of the players and pieces on the ground for the strategy that we currently have.
ROBERTS: Malou, what do you think about that? You have suggested that the president finds himself in a lose/lose situation when he waits like this.
MALOU INNOCENT, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST, CATO: Right. I think President Obama has painted himself into a rhetorical corner with regards to Afghanistan. He's called it a war of necessity, a war we must win, but after the aftermath of the recent elections in Afghanistan, after Hamid Karzai won after the vote rigging and tainted elections, it was a rude awakening for the Obama administration in the sense that you need a legitimate host nation and that's incredibly lacking. But I think, also, the speculation over whether Obama's dithering or not, I think we risk vastly oversimplifying the complexity of the issue at hand. Again, this is not simply about the Taliban, anymore. This is a broader, regional complex issue. And this also sort of underscores the problem we have with al Qaeda. It is a global network. It has cells in many countries around the world. It's not simply based in Afghanistan anymore. It's in many other countries.
ROBERTS: You have said that the left will say by waiting, he had a chance to scale down mission and didn't. The right will say he waited too long to give Stanley McChrystal what he wanted. What do you think, Malou, is he doing the right thing by waiting, by gaining all the possibilities out here?
INNOCENT: Well now that you brought that up I think on the left, among his Democratic power base, in one sense, a year from now, if things do deteriorate in Afghanistan, as many people expect, that many people on his left will say that you didn't have -- you didn't take the opportunity to de-escalate the war. You actually increased the number of troops. And on the right, I think we'll see that many on the right will say that you didn't fully operationalize McChrystal's strategy. So again I think he'll take a beating on either side.
ROBERTS: Hillary, the white house seems to be getting this, at least in recent days, this idea that in addition to having more troops on the ground, if they are to go with the surge strategy, they also need to have an exit strategy.
MANN LEVERETT: I think they are focused on an exit strategy, although I don't know whether that is really going to be an exit strategy. What they need is a serious political strategy on the ground that takes players on the ground in Afghanistan as they are, not as we wish them to be. So it means stopping this alienation of the current government in Afghanistan and its president, for all of his flaws. We need to deal with him. We need to have a coherent political strategy that brings in all the players, the war lords, the Islamists, the militants, the tribal chiefs. We need a rigorous, relentless political strategy, not something that's focused on 10,000 more troops or 20,000 more troops or even 40,000 more troops.
ROBERTS: The issue of corruption, Malou, is huge in Afghanistan. President Karzai has appointed this corruption commission to look into it, but it is just so widespread, from the top all the way down. Is it realistic to expect that he can do anything about it? Is it a pipe dream for the United States to believe that there could be any kind of real representative corruption-free government in Afghanistan before it puts more troops in there?
INNOCENT: Well, I would agree with Hillary in the sense that we sort of lost focus of why we are in Afghanistan. The objective here is to go after al Qaeda network that was responsible for 9/11. And I think if we focus too heavily on eradicating corruption and further demonizing Hamid Karzai, which unfortunately has to be our partner for the next several years, that it serves to undermine our true purpose and the strategy in this region. And I think moving forward, we must understand that the center, the top-down look that we've had towards Afghanistan, of having a centrally administered facade placed on to it pre-existing society is historic. Has been historically been governed by an amalgamation of war lords.
ROBERTS: Let me ask you both this too just as we close out here. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed this at length the other day in one of these meetings. The idea of trying to win over leaders of the Taliban, those who are turned economic Taliban, by paying them more than the Taliban is paying them to fight. Instead of giving them $10 a day, the U.S. gives them $20, might save some money in the long run. It kind of worked in Iraq. Would it work, Hillary, in Afghanistan?
MANN LEVERETT: I don't think so. I think that's a wrong-headed strategy. What we need to be focused on is the Taliban who matter. The Taliban who have a say in the decision-making for the future of Afghanistan. They need a seat at the table. We can't wish them away or kill them off. Trying to convert the low-level people is a waste of time and will be counterproductive.
ROBERTS: Malou, what do you think?
INNOCENT: I think we have to go for the senior leadership. Those that have the decision-making process in their hands and that trial brings in the whole regional context. There are countries in this region that have an incentive to see Afghanistan remain weak, and unless we bring them to the table, we'll be there in perpetuity.
ROBERTS: Thanks for coming in.
Coming up, the NFL changes how it handles brain injuries among players. What could that mean for young football players around the country?
And toxic Chinese drywall. A new report today on what it's doing to your home and your health.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Alarming new evidence tonight that Vioxx, a popular painkiller, was known to increase the risk of heart attacks and death years before it was pulled from the market. According to a mental report out today, researchers concluded as far back as 2001 that Vioxx raised the risk of heart-related side effects by 35%. Merck, the maker of Vioxx, said in a statement that the new analysis used "unreliable methods and reached incorrect conclusions." Merck withdrew the drug, reaching sales of $2 billion annually, in 2004.
Tonight, one of the largest recalls of cribs in U.S. history. The consumer product safety commission along with stork craft manufacturing is pulling more than 2 million drop-side cribs from stores. Drop-side cribs are blamed for several infant deaths and dozens of injuries. More than 5 million cribs, bassinets, and playpens have been recalled over the past two years.
An alarming new study has found a link between important Chinese drywall and the corrosion of pipes and wires in dozens of homes. The Consumer Product Safety Commission along with other agencies are investigating complaints from thousands of homeowners in the south and southeast. As Sean Callebs tells us, homeowners are concerned about the possible health risks as well.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOAN GLICKMAN: I can't get rid of the smell.
CALLEBS: The federal government is confirming what Joan Glickman of Pompano Beach, Florida suspected all along, tainted drywall from China is giving off a harmful gas that's turning her air conditioning wiring black, causing it to fail. It's destroying electrical wiring and corroding metal throughout her home and she believes making her sick.
GLICKMAN: They can't tell me what's happening to me now, and more importantly they can't tell me what's going to happen to me in 20 years, you know. Am I going to end up with like asbestos person with lung cancer?
CALLEBS: In its report the Consumer Products Safety Commission says more testing is need to determine whether the gas might cause health problems. Florida Senator Bill Nelson whose state has seen more complaints than all others combined agrees with Joan Glickman. Nelson says, "We didn't learn a whole lot new today. I'm still disappointed the government is taking too long to establish whether there's a link between drywall, corrosion and health problems." Hydrogen sulfide is a noxious gas that smells like rotten eggs and corrodes metals through effected homes. Environmental health and engineers did a study for the CPSC and said warm, humid conditions magnify the problem.
JACK MCCARTHY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & ENGINEERING: We found a direct relationship between temperature and humidity levels that are in the homes, and the amount of hydrogen sulfide being given off by the wall board.
CALLEBS: There have been thousands of complaints about Chinese drywall and on the heels of this new report, the government is expecting more answers, and homeowners like Joan Glickman will have to wait, wondering whether their dream home is actually a ticking time bomb.
GLICKMAN: It's a huge letdown because it still didn't tell me how to fix it, who is going to fix it, how we go about fixing it, where the money comes from. This has left us in such a mess.
CALLEBS: For now, Glickman and her family have moved in with her mother. Her mortgage company is giving her a temporary break on payments, but she and owners like her will have to wait, wondering if their dream home is actually a ticking time bomb.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CALLEBS: Indeed, and Joan Glickman may have said it best, what a mess, indeed. Federal authorities believe they have a handle on all the existing inventories of this tainted drywall so no more make it into the market place. John, at the same time, the border patrol has been successful in making sure no new Chinese drywall came into the United States in 2009.
ROBERTS: Sean, Joan mentioned something very important there. She said, who is going to pay for this? Where is the money going to come from? Where is the money going to come from to rip all that Chinese drywall out and put back in some good drywall?
CALLEBS: It's a great question. The simple answer is, no one knows. There's a massive class action lawsuit that's been going on for months. That conceivably could provide something for the people who have been victimized. But it's not going to be insurance companies. They treat this as some kind of tainted product, so they say, it's not our fault, it's up to the people who put it in. So it is just a never-ending, chasing your tail type of thing that a lot of people down here who went through Katrina and tried to rebuild, it's just been very, very difficult for people throughout the southeast and many parts of the country.
ROBERTS: A big problem for a lot of folks down there, including the man who calls the superdome behind you there, home. The coach of the New Orleans saints has got the tainted drywall, doesn't he?
CALLEBS: Yes, he does. He has a $1 million home on the north shore. It was built about 95% tainted Chinese drywall. He says he's among the lucky. He has enough money where he can move down to a different part of Florida's beach and kind of ride this out and see what happens. But as he said, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.
ROBERTS: Sean Callebs tonight in the big easy, thanks so much.
Coming up, the NFL may be changing how it handles players with head injuries and concussions. What will these changes mean nor the pros and the millions of high school and college players across the country?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: The National Football League will soon change the way it handles players with concussions or head injuries. According to reports, teams will be required to seek advice from independent neurologists, not just team doctors to decide when a player can return after a head injury. News of this shift began to leak on Sunday, the same day two quarterbacks left games with head injuries. Joining us now is Dr. Robert Cantu. He's the co-director of the Neurological Sports Injury Center. Dr. Cantu testified in front of the house judiciary committee recently about football safety. He joins us tonight from Boston. And Alan Schwarz, sports reporter for "The New York Times."
Alan, is the NFL finally admitting it has a problem?
ALAN SCHWARZ, NEW YORK TIMES: I can't say that, you'd have to ask them. But they are upgrading the care that players receive, because receiving care from an independent physician is, by definition, better for the player than receiving an opinion from someone who is paid for and answers to the interests of the team. So what we're going to see, presumably, is that the players who admit that they have gotten a concussion, and let's remember, most of them don't, but when they do, they will probably be treated by someone who has a better understanding of their both short-term and long-term risks of going back on to the field.
ROBERTS: From a clinical perspective, Dr. Cantu, how do you believe it helps?
DR. ROBERT CANTU, NEUROLOGIST: Well, I think it helps having an independent person involved. The daughter of Hugh Culverhouse, the former homeowner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, is really the ones that voiced the concerns that the team physicians, at least when she was a don't necessarily always have the interest at heart of the players and a better arrangement would be if there were an independent expert to look into the areas, especially with regard to concussion.
ROBERTS: Can the independents of such a neurologist be assured? I assume they'll be paid by the NFL. If you're on the NFL's payroll, to some degree can you truly be independent?
CANTU: First of all, I think you need to -- to me, it's not important whether you're independent or not or that's not the only thing. You need to be an expert in the field and just because you're a neurosurgeon which quite frankly across this country handles much more brain trauma than do neurologists, but nonetheless, whether you're a neurologist or neurosurgeon you should have demonstrated an expertise in concussion management. I think that's the most important thing at least from my standpoint. How it's going to be funded? I don't think the NFL can fund it and have integrity be a part of it.
ROBERTS: Any idea how they would fund it?
SCHWARZ: The league has not gone into details as to how this will all work. They have been cagey about it. They wanted it to be known that they're doing something important. But when it comes to the details, how are these guys or woman for that matter, selected and compensated, they've offered no details whatsoever, nor for that matter has the players' union.
ROBERTS: The players have a responsibility in all of this as well. They want to be on the field as much as possible. They want their contract to be renewed. You're not providing to the stats when you're sitting on the bench with a concussion whether it be mild or whether it be a serious. Is it up to the players as well to say can I get checked out here?
SCHWARZ: I think there's no question, the ultimate responsibility for the players to receive the best care lies in the hands of the players themselves. The way that NFL players handle it will absolutely influence the way that 1.2 million kids play high school football every fall handle it, college players, pee-wee players. If the NFL players say, I got hurt, I have to come out of the game, that will go a long way to emphasizing the importance of this injury to amateur players. However, if they continue to downplay the effects of the injury and hide them from the doctors who now may be independent and experts, if they don't say anything, there's nothing the doctors can do.
ROBERTS: Doctor, tell us about the physiology of brain injuries. Is it cumulative? How much brain damage does a player experience in a single game compared to somebody who doesn't play the game of football?
CANTU: John, I think a couple of things are important. A concussion in almost every case is due to a violent shaking of the brain inside the skull. Usually from a direct hit to the head. Not always. It can be a whiplash type injury, such as being hit from behind and snapping your head back with enough force to produce it. Properly managed, the great majority of concussions will lead to complete recovery and won't necessarily lead somebody vulnerable to another concussion. There will come a point for most people where they've had enough brain trauma that the duration of symptoms get longer and the force is needed to impart a concussion become less. But generally speaking, properly managed, that's what's really crucial, properly managed concussions usually lead to a complete recovery.
ROBERTS: Some physicians, including Dr. Julien Bales, who used to be the team doctor for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Have said that the game fundamentally needs to change. That you can't be in the three- point stance anymore. You have to limit the number of hits.
SCHWARZ: Well, I think there are a number of different proposals. You could have weight limits for players. If you use your helmet, whether the player is defenseless or not, you get ejected. There are all sorts of things that could be done. There are things one could do to make a car safer. We could all drive around in ten- ton tanks and never get into serious car accidents. There are tradeoffs in every industry. How should these matters be handled with amateur players, with high school players that don't know any better.
ROBERTS: I know you'll be watching this closely as will we. Allen Schwartz thanks so much. Dr. Bob Cantu, good to talk to you.
CANTU: Thank you, John.
ROBERTS: The most expensive ever high-tech Hollywood film. It is still not finished.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: James Cameron's "Avatar" may be the most anticipated film of the holiday season. But can it live up to its expectations? Our Jason Carroll goes behind the scenes with the director as he races to finish his latest masterpiece.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He made millions terminating mankind battling aliens and when critics thought he couldn't top himself, James Cameron sunk the Titanic, making the highest-grossing film of all time, winning 1 academy awards.
JAMES CAMERON: I'm the king of the world.
CARROLL: Cameron has a thing for worlds, this time it's avatar's world.
CAMERON: We challenged ourselves on this film to go beyond what we collectively knew.
CARROLL: This is Cameron's imaginary planet, Pandora, inhabited by creatures and indigenous aliens. Humans can survive on Pandora. Special technology allows them to live through avatars.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is your avatar.
CARROLL: Cameron calls it a classic adventure with a love story. Due in theaters December 18th and still unfinished. This is an actual sound effects editing session. Opinions here are encouraged but it's clear who the boss is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you direct your movie, you can do it anyway you'd like.
CARROLL: Cameron knows Avatar is under intense scrutiny, costing 237 million and counting, it could be the most expensive movie ever made.
A lot of money spent on Avatar, a lot of pressure. Are you feeling the pressure?
CAMERON: Sure, you always do on a film. I think pressure's good for film makers.
CARROLL: He showed me where much of the money is being spent, visual effects.
CAMERON: There's 3,000 visual effects.
CARROLL: 3,000 visual effects?
CAMERON: That's a lot. Pretty much every scene is a visual effect.
CARROLL: Cameron updated technology, allowing him to mix 3-d, and computer animation. Fans can't wait but critics already saying Cameron's avatars look more like giant Smurfs.
Does it make you nervous? What does it do?
CAMERON: Actually a bit of relief. I think if everybody was embracing the film before the fact, the film could not live up to that expectation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not in Kansas anymore.
CAMERON: The film stands for itself. We'll get our fair day in court. CARROLL: Cameron will get his day in court on December 18th. That's when avatar is due to hit theaters. Before that can happen, he's got to finish the film; he's working around the clock up to the last minute, to make sure it's just right.
Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: That is a deadline. Thanks for being with us tonight.
