Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Tonight
War Plan Pitch; Afghanistan Exit Strategy; Tiger's P.R. Nightmare; White House Crashers; Wall Street vs. Main Street; Where are the Jobs?
Aired December 02, 2009 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, selling the surge, the Obama administration facing tough questions and sharp criticism from both sides of the aisle.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do not agree with escalating the war in Afghanistan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president was wrong to signal our intention to begin leaving Afghanistan on an arbitrary day.
HILL: Tiger's P.R. nightmare -- the golfing great admits to transgressions and letting down his family, a feast for the tabloids and its racy allegations of an affair.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pitfalls are the stories still continue. And you don't want the story to continue. You want to start ending the story. And by leaving those holes there, he continues the story.
HILL: So when will the story end? And will the public forgive and forget?
Plus, the alleged White House party crashers hitting another big time D.C. event tomorrow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got to have an invitation to get into the (INAUDIBLE).
HILL: This time, no question about the invite, it is official. It's from Congress and it comes with plenty of questions for the wannabe reality TV stars.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN TONIGHT live from New York. Here now Erica Hill.
HILL: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for being with us tonight. President Obama's Afghan strategy taking hits from all sides today as the White House really brings on its sales pitch, Republicans who support sending an additional 20,000 troops don't like the state of withdrawal date of mid 2011 and among Democrats the nay-sayers range from those with deep reservations about the surge to flat out opposition for the plan. Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill where the administration heard from skeptical lawmakers all day.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tough questions for the president's national security team. Most not about the 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, but confusion over whether the July 2011 date to start withdrawing is a hard deadline.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN ARMED SERVICES CMTE.: Is that date conditions based or not?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.
BASH: That sounded definitive, but the date certain became less certain when pressed by GOP senators who call a deadline a dangerous signal to the enemy.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Would we withdraw our forces based on conditions on the ground or based on an arbitrary date?
ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We will be in a position, in particularly uncontested areas where we will be able to begin that transition.
MCCAIN: Let's suppose you're not.
GATES: I think we will be in a position then to evaluate whether or not we can begin that transition in July.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCAIN: Which is it? It's got to be one or the other. It's got to be the appropriate conditions or it's got to be an arbitrary date.
GATES: We will have a thorough review in December 2010, if it appears that the strategy is not working and that we're not able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself.
BASH: Later, Secretary Gates admitted after that December 2010 assessment...
GATES: The president always has the freedom to adjust his decisions.
BASH: Secretary Clinton signaled flexibility, too.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Have we locked ourselves into leaving, Secretary Clinton in July 2011?
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving. But what we have done is to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan.
BASH: But the defense secretary conceded the exit date is aimed in part at politics at home.
GATES: I think the other audience, frankly, is the American people who are weary of eight years, after eight years of war. And to let them know this isn't going to go on for another 10 years.
BASH: That didn't convince some of the president's fellow Democrats at another hearing later in the House.
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: My fear, as is the fear of so many others is that we could easily get bogged down in an endless war.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not open-ended, and we are not going to escalate.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: Now, the defense secretary who at one point called the region, the epicenter of extremist Jihadism got quite passionate during the hearing, he said that every servicemen that is deployed does so with his signature, and he said, that would not happen, he wouldn't allow them to go there and get bogged down in Afghanistan if he doesn't think that there would be a success. He said, if he thought that, he wouldn't sign the orders -- Erica.
HILL: Strong words there -- Dana Bash for us on Capitol Hill -- Dana, thanks.
Meantime, those answers on the Hill that Dana just gave us some of really not enough to satisfy everyone today. The White House is also weighing in on this target date of July 2011 for U.S. troop withdrawal. Dan Lothian is at the White House tonight. Dan, Secretary Gates today admitting the president admitting he has, in his words, quote, "the freedom to adjust his decision". So tell us just how firm a pullout date is this.
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well you know from this (INAUDIBLE) today, at least, according to the White House and certainly the Pentagon as well, they believe that this goal of July 2011 is achievable. Of course, the big issue here is whether or not the Afghan Army will be able to take charge of their own security.
Now, certainly from the U.S. perspective what the White House -- the message the White House is trying to send is that this is not an open-ended commitment. They fully expect to put pressure on President Karzai to make sure that they make their necessary changes and take charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Part of that is to build in and incentivizing for the Afghans to do what they need to do. We can't and we won't be there forever. The role of providing security for the Afghans will have to rest primarily with Afghan national security forces. That's what this new dedication of resources will do, is accelerate that training.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LOTHIAN: Of course, a big question here is what happens if the Afghan security forces are not up and ready to go in 2011? Robert Gibbs saying that he doesn't want to deal in hypotheticals. But this White House certainly leaving the door open, saying at that time, that the situation can be reassessed. But the bottom line is they're seeing that month as a time when the drawdown will begin, but the pace of it will be determined by the conditions on the ground -- Erica.
HILL: All right, Dan, that's one aspect of it. The other part of this plan that's getting a little bit of attention -- not a little -- a lot I should say of attention -- is that $30 billion price tag.
LOTHIAN: That's right.
HILL: So what's the latest from the White House on how that will be paid for?
LOTHIAN: Well, we still haven't gotten any details at all. As you know up on capitol hill, there's been a lot of talk about potentially a supplemental being the answer to paying for it, as you pointed out, $30 billion perhaps even more than that. Now we can take a look at the budget you know from 2010, for Afghanistan, it's at $65 billion.
That's an increase of about 39.4 percent from last year. So you know there is that option, perhaps, of searching to see if there is any money there in the budget. And in fact budget directors here at the White House, officials at least saying that they will be looking there to see if there's additional money already budgeted that can be moved to this surge. And if not, then they'll have to assess it again and go to Capitol Hill to see where they can find those funds.
HILL: All right, we know we'll be hearing more about that in the coming days. Dan Lothian, thanks.
LOTHIAN: OK.
HILL: Among the other challenges, getting those additional forces in place and the president emphasizing last night that this deployment, he wants it to be quick, the goal all 30,000 additional troops in country in the next six months. Pentagon correspondent Chris Lawrence joining me in New York tonight -- Chris, that is very difficult, logistically alone. So how difficult is it going to be to meet that goal of 30,000 troops in country in six months?
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, from what we're hearing from military officials, pretty much impossible. I just don't think they're going to get there. You know back in 2007, in Iraq, you know the military rushed in five brigades within just five months, but they did so over paved roads and they had that huge staging area in the Kuwaiti desert.
Almost everything has got to come into Afghanistan through the air and starting now and for the next four to five months, weather. That severe winter weather is going to be a big problem. General Stanley McChrystal says when those troops get there, they're going to be taking the fight directly to the Taliban in places like Kandahar and Helmand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, U.S. COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN: We are going to focus with additional forces in the south. The south is going to be the main effort. I believe that by next summer, the uplift of new forces will make a difference on the ground significantly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAWRENCE: You know the first troops are going to leave in just a few weeks, Erica, and then a more signature portion probably in spring, March, April, but all 30,000 military officials are saying probably won't be there until late summer, early fall.
HILL: And you make such a good point. It's not about the boots on the ground, which we hear so much about. It's not about those 30,000 people; it's everything that they need to sustain them, too, while we're there, which is a huge endeavor in itself.
LAWRENCE: Yes.
HILL: Talk to us a little bit about training because we just heard some of this from Dan from the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs saying look you know this is really about training those Afghan forces. You mentioned last night in your piece about 4,000 troops being sent over specifically for that purpose. How is that really going to change things on the ground? You just got back.
LAWRENCE: Right now you've got people like the 82nd Airborne training Afghan police, so they're doing a heck of a job. I mean they're very dedicated, very disciplined, but they're combat paratroopers. They're not experts in things like evidence collection and things like that, so hopefully some of these four to 5,000 trainers will be specifically tasked with being able to train those forces.
Also, a big part of it is that a lot of people have told us, a lot of those troops there told us they need more people there to keep an eye on some of the Afghan forces. They're not ready to be there alone. And right now they're only stopping by some of these checkpoints once or twice a month. If they had more people then maybe they'd start to get out there more. General McChrystal said not only will these 4,000 trainers be there, but also what you're going to see is every single soldier there is going to be now partnered up with the Afghan forces.
HILL: And what about the NATO forces? How much of a role will they play in that training?
LAWRENCE: Well, you know when President Obama took office, Americans made up little over half of the troops in Afghanistan. He's pushed that now up to about 70 percent. The military officials say that they got some commitments from some NATO countries, about 1,800 from one, 2,000 from another that will help.
They haven't got specific on which countries yet. The bigger issue, I think, is what these forces are going to do. A lot of these NATO countries have such restrictions. They can't fight at night or they can't fight in this area. You know if you look at a map and you look where all the NATO countries are, for the most part, with the exception of the Brits, the Aussies, the Canadians and a few others, wherever you see the NATO countries those are nonviolent areas.
There's not a whole lot of fighting going on there. So I think that will be a big thing. Will these countries lift some of these restrictions because the coalition is called ISAF. It stands for International Security Assistance for us. But a lot of the U.S. troops have a joke that really ISAF stands for I saw Americans fighting.
HILL: Ouch.
LAWRENCE: The goal will be try to change that.
HILL: All right, Chris Lawrence, good to have you here and good to have you back with us in this country...
LAWRENCE: Yes.
HILL: ... back from Afghanistan recently.
The alleged gunman in the Fort Hood shooting rampage now going to face an additional 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder -- Major Nidal Malik Hasan will face those new charges. In addition to those 13 counts of premeditated murder, which had already been filed, he's of course accused of fatally shooting 13 people, wounding 32 others in the November 5th attack at Fort Hood. Hasan himself was wounded by two civilian police officers who responded to the scene. He is still being treated at a local hospital.
Coming up, a first-hand account of the war in Afghanistan and how the president's new strategy will really play out there on the ground, also Tiger's transgression -- his word there -- the golfer admits to letting his family down, but still, what is the real story?
And new developments tonight as the alleged White House party crashing, including new questions from Congress.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Talk about a rough patch, a Los Angeles woman now claiming she carried on a nearly three-year affair with Tiger Woods and she has hundreds of texts and pictures to prove it she says. Well a major magazine has released a voice mail the woman claims is from Woods. Woods, meantime, is apologizing for his quote, "transgressions", but not offering many more details and all of this is fueling the speculation about just what led to that early morning car crash last week and where this road is taking Tiger Woods. Susan Candiotti reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tiger's tangle with the fire hydrant may be over.
CINDY WILLIAMS, FHP SPOKESWOMAN: The Florida Highway Patrol has completed its investigation into this matter.
CANDIOTTI: But no sooner did Woods pay his $164 fine that the P.R. fiasco blasted into the stratosphere with new allegations of an affair. Cocktail waitress Jaime Grubbs (ph) seen in this TV reality show tells "Us Weekly" she and Tiger were an item starting in 2007. She produced a voice mail she claims came from Woods two days before Thanksgiving and that middle of the night crash.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Hey, it's Tiger. I need you to do me a huge favor. Can you please take your name off your phone? My wife went through my phone and may be calling you. If you can, please take your name off that and what do you call it, just have it as a number on the voice mail. Just have it as your telephone number. OK. You got to do this for me. Huge. Quickly. All right, bye."
CANDIOTTI: CNN could not independently authenticate the voice mail. Within hours, Woods responded but only on his Web site where no one could ask questions and he never directly admitted to an affair. "I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family."
Woods said he's a private man. "Personal sins should not require press releases", he said, "and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions." But will sticking to a statement be enough to salvage a dent in his carefully crafted squeaky clean image? Some P.R. experts are not impressed.
MIKE PAUL, IMAGE CONSULTANT: The pitfalls are the story still continues. And you don't want the story to continue. You want to start ending the story. And by leaving those holes there, he continues the story.
CANDIOTTI: On the Tiger Woods Web site, fans weighed in on their heroes P.R. mess. "He failed at the only thing that matters in life. Being true to your word on your wedding day." And another, "I am still and will always be a fan." Less clear is whether all his sponsors will stick with him. Some offer no comment. Nike said, quote, "Our relationship remains unchanged." Gatorade's reaction, "Tiger and his family have our support as they work through this private matter." Can Tiger Woods put this behind him without answering some hard questions?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to have some tough questions asked of you and you have the ability to answer them. Own the situation 110 percent. CANDIOTTI: If so, the public may forgive and forget. Depending on how well Tiger plays the game.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CANDIOTTI: And you know, Erica, the way he's handling or mishandling all of this will probably be studied by P.R. mavens for years to come. Don't you think?
HILL: It will be a bit of a case study indeed -- Susan Candiotti, thanks.
The White House tonight issuing new security guidelines for state dinners in the week of last week's gate crashing incident. And we're also getting new details of just how that couple was able to get past security and make their way into the exclusive state dinner, getting close to the president, as we've seen so many times in that picture.
The party crashers, as it turns out, could actually be attending another government function tomorrow, their presence has been officially requested at a hearing of the Homeland Security Committee. Lisa Sylvester is joining us now, so Lisa, lawmakers of course asking for this. Do we know if they're going to show up?
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well at this point we believe and we are hearing that they are. We have no reason to think that they would turn down this request after they allegedly crashed the White House. And lawmakers absolutely want to get to the bottom of all of this. Members of Congress are calling this breach very, very serious.
But in fact, this is not the first time that someone has entered the White House without proper authorization -- that according to Congressman Darrell Issa. Issa and other members of the House Oversight Government Committee they were briefed by the Secret Service today behind closed doors. Representative Issa, he recalled an incident, it was back in 1995 during the Clinton years. This was even before he was elected to Congress, when he was still a businessman; listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: This is not the first time. This has happened before. I can tell you for a fact and I'm on record that I got into the White House when my name wasn't on a slip during the Clinton administration when they had a South Lawn event for people on NAFTA. My name wasn't on. I was rejected. I then walked through with what I recall as the Xerox Group. They just came en masse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SYLVESTER: Wow, now Issa said in his case his name was supposed to be on the list. He was invited to the White House and in fact his employees were already inside at the time. Now the Secret Service told committee members today that the way the Salahis were able to get in was a single Secret Service agent cleared them in at the initial checkpoint, even though their names were not on the official guest list.
They then went through security screening without anyone questioning them further, and there was no one from the White House, Social Secretary's Office, posted you know with a clip board at the White House gate to confirm the guest list. So in response today, the White House issued new guidelines for official events. From now on, someone from the White House will be posted at the checkpoint. I asked the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Representative (INAUDIBLE) if there should be criminal charges filed against the Salahis and he said, quote, "It's an investigation, that's ongoing. No telling where it might end".
And tomorrow, as you mentioned, the House Homeland Security Committee will be holding a hearing. The Salahis we expect them to attend. But the White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, she has declined an invitation to testify. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, he was asked about this during the briefing and citing the separation of powers he said a member of the White House staff doesn't have to go before a congressional panel -- Erica.
HILL: And all -- all eyes will be on that panel tomorrow...
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: ... and to see just who shows up for it -- Lisa thanks.
Still ahead, why some members of Congress are organizing a march on Washington, also to come, President Obama's new war strategy. Just what are the chances for success in Afghanistan? And what really would success there look like? We'll talk with three people who have extensive first hand experience in a war-torn nation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: President Obama may have been talking about Afghanistan last night, but, frankly, the economy is still the issue for most Americans -- the biggest concern for many, unemployment. More than 15 million people are out of work in this country. But the stock market is actually making remarkable gains, which equates (INAUDIBLE) confusing signs in both the economy and its recovery. Kitty Pilgrim has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The stock market is up 60 percent off its lows of early last year, yet the unemployment rate is at a 26-year high and expected to continue rising. The U.S. dollar is in a free fall leading many Americans to worry about what's next.
BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy, and putting people to work here at home.
PILGRIM: Despite positive signs of an economic recovery and increase in consumer spending and a surprisingly strong housing market propped up by an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers, and low mortgage rates, many Americans feel insecure because of a single issue -- jobs. Larry Kantor is the head of research at Barclays Capital.
LARRY KANTOR, BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Given the panic collapse in spending that we saw last fall in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, firms were very aggressive cutting workers. Unfortunately it's also true on the upside that that's one of the last things to improve.
PILGRIM: That's borne out by the Federal Reserve's regional survey of the economy. Eight of the 12 said regions reported the economy had picked up since mid October but that labor markets remain weak, with further layoffs, sluggish hiring and high levels of unemployment -- more bad news for the nearly 16 million people already out of work.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The Obama administration has called for an economic summit tomorrow; it includes 130 business leaders, Wall Street executives and academics to talk about how to improve the unemployment picture and to jumpstart hiring in America.
HILL: Is that talk going to lead to action you think?
PILGRIM: You know of course employment is a lagging indicator. So it will -- the economy will have to pick up first before you see people taking a risk to hire more people.
HILL: Right (INAUDIBLE) Kitty, thanks.
House Democrats, meantime, up in arms over what they say is the Obama administration's inaction when it comes to the job losses across the country. As Jessica Yellin reports Democrats are now putting pressure on the president to do more to help unemployed Americans or else.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Millions of Americans without jobs, are they being ignored? Some Democrats in Congress say yes, and they blame their own leaders.
REP. BOBBY RUSH (D), ILLINOIS: Obviously, there's something that's not getting through to them.
YELLIN: He's not alone. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also slamming the White House, demanding the president do more to stem catastrophic job losses in minority communities.
REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: We're prepared to do what we need to do to truly represent our communities.
YELLIN: These members believe the stimulus is not reaching the hardest hit Americans. Some of their proposals -- redirect remaining stimulus and Wall Street bailout money to jobs programs, demand banks do more for homeowners facing foreclosure, and pass a new bill to spur job growth, essentially a stimulus by another name. The White House insists it's already focused on this issue, Thursday holding a jobs summit with CEOs, small business owners and others.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What I think the president wants to do is hear from them on the type of environment that we can have that would allow for that hiring to take place.
YELLIN: That's not good enough for these frustrated House members who say the White House listens too closely to business, especially Wall Street. Representative Rush has organized 128 House members to, as he said, bring the voices of the jobless to the table.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wall Street has been there for a while. Move over Wall Street because here comes Main Street.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
YELLIN: Now Erica, one way some of these members are threatening to turn up the heat on the White House is they're talking about organizing a massive march on Washington that would bring some of the millions of unemployed Americans right to the president's door step -- Erica.
HILL: That would be tough signal to ignore...
YELLIN: Exactly.
HILL: (INAUDIBLE) of people there -- Jessica, thanks.
We're going to continue looking at the economy a little bit later in the broadcast. We'll be joined by two of the country's leading financial experts, get their take on what you can do until this recession does finally come to an end.
Also ahead, the president's new war strategy, is it the right plan for victory?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: The White House is busy selling the Afghanistan war plan to Capitol Hill. The war time general has basically been doing the same on the ground. CNN's Fred Pleitgen looks at how General Stanley McChrystal is promoting this new strategy in the war zone.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRED PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On the day President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan and the influx of some 30,000 additional troops, the commanding general of ISAF, of NATO forces here in Afghanistan, is touring the country to sell that strategy to America and its NATO partners. He says that the majority of the new soldiers will be based right down here in the southern part of the country. He believes those troops are going to make a difference very fast. Here's what he had to say. GEN. STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, CMDR., U.S. FORCES, AFGHANISTAN: I believe that by next summer the uplift of new forces will make a difference on the ground significantly. I believe that by this time next year, we'll see a level of progress that will convince us that we can clearly articulate the progress and predict the effectiveness of our operations.
PLEITGEN: Now, McChrystal by no means painted a rosy picture of the situation here in Afghanistan, saying that in the past two years, violence in this country has risen by some 300 percent. However, he also said that in the course of the past eight years, while not everything has been going right, he feels that the U.S. army and also its allies have learned a lot about anti-insurgent tactics and also how to employ them. He says he believes the situation will move forward very quickly. He believes the U.S. and its allies will be able to take the fight to the Taliban and provide a security umbrella for the main task that he defined which is building up the Afghan security forces and governance in this country to try and give the people of this country security and also a perspective for the future.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Kandahar, Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: For more now on the president's plan and its chances for success, I'm joined by Peter Blaber, former delta force mission unit commander. He's also the author of "Mission, The Men and Me." Here in New York, Jeremy Scahill, the author of "Blackwater, the Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and also an investigative journalist for the "Nation." His story in the current issue is on the "Secret U.S. War." Michael Ware is also with us in the studio, CNN's international correspondent who of course has reported extensively from Iraq and Afghanistan. Good to have all of you here.
Michael, I want to start with you because I know it was something that you mentioned last night. You spent so much time there. You said last night, the key to this, really, is winning over the warlords. The average American sitting back, you hear that, you think, why on earth would the U.S. want to deal with warlords in Afghanistan?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, sadly, it's an unavoidable trait that the fundamental building blocks of the Afghan society are the warlords or the tribal chiefs, depending on what you want to call them. It's a very futile society. If you're up in some remote mountain valley, Kabul can exercise absolutely no authority over you or your village. So if you got a land dispute or any kind of problem, you go to the local big chief. That big chief will have another big chief. They're the people that America needs to be reaching out to. At night, in the villages, that's when the Taliban comes in. That's when the Taliban runs. That's when they have control. It's these people that can counter the Taliban at night and when America is not there. But only if we finally put it in their interest to do so.
HILL: So, Jeremy, how do you put it in their interests? How do you make it enticing to them to work with U.S. forces?
JEREMY SCAHILL, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, "THE NATION": I found it very interesting to read the communications from al Qaeda and from the Taliban both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, where there is a difference where they were essentially saying we're glad President Obama made this decision because it's a great recruiting tool for us. I think this really it has to be part of the calculus. How is the U.S. presence in Afghanistan affecting the swelling ranks of the Taliban and hindering the cooperation that Michael references here when talking about the other tribes?
HILL: There's a bit of that, too, is inflammatory language, is it not? They're going to say that no matter what?
SCAHILL: Well, of course. But I also think that we're seeing an increase in the ranks of the Taliban now in an unprecedented scale since the war was first launched. And we cannot eliminate what the glaring factor that the U.S. occupation presents in terms of being the fly paper for the al Qaeda and for Taliban.
HILL: Peter, you were there when the war first launched. You went in, and you thought small special op groups are really the way to make this happen. How do they end up helping dealing with the Taliban that you're dealing with today, which is not exactly the same as the Taliban that was there in 2001?
PETER BLABER, AUTHOR, "THE MISSION, THE MEN, AND ME": Sure. Well, the Taliban is a guerilla-type army, they move in small teams. They use hit and run tactics. They usually fight from terrain that they're familiar with. And they act still using the same terrain. And you know, to try to counter that type of tactics with large non- nimble forces is an exercise in futility. It just gives them more targets. And allows them to -- just plays into their game, which is that hit and run type of operation. So I really believe that we should go back to what we already know works, what's been tried and tested. In the early days of Afghanistan, when less than 500 interagency forces working together, in small cross-functional teams with their Afghan counterparts were able to overthrow all of al Qaeda and all of the Taliban. The situation has changed.
HILL: So are you confident from what you heard of the president's plan, yes, the numbers were much larger than the numbers you're talking about? But are you confident within the president's plan there is that strategy you that feel is needed to accomplish this?
BLABER: I believe that if any commanding general can recognize, employ that type of strategy, it's General McChrystal. So I am optimistic that General McChrystal will array and allocate his forces accordingly.
HILL: What about for you, Fred, is this plan something that's going to work there? Because you do need the support of the Afghan people. There wasn't so much talk about the Afghan people last night. The talk was really about the American people. PLEITGEN: Certainly. It's all very American centric. I'm going to tell you despite what others might say, America is now pretty much seen as an occupier. It may be an occupier with good intent. But you are an occupier, nonetheless. And as we know, occupiers have never fared well in Afghanistan.
HILL: Is it controversy over this --
PLEITGEN: No, they still are seeing foreign troops in their villages. They're still seeing foreign tanks. And we know what they do with foreigners even al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, from the very inception, from the very beginning of their alliance, Osama Bin Laden swore as the protector of the faithful and that was a very savvy PR move. Osama didn't want the Afghans to see a bunch of Arabs from al Qaeda to be imposing their will on Afghans and that's what we're doing.
SCAHILL: Let's remember, that there are, according to General Jones, the national security adviser, less than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan with no ability to strike. And he said on CNN in October that there is little chance of the Taliban rising up. Those are precisely the justifications the president laid out last night. So what are we talking about here? A career military guy in General Jones laying it on the line and then the president contradicting him in this address. I think there's a muddled message that ultimately is going to come back to bite the president.
HILL: You think there should be no troops at all?
SCAHILL: We need to have a sober discussion in this country on this question, is our continued occupation there, as Michael says, ultimately harming our national security? Are we creating fresh enemies that will blow back to us later? That to me should be one of the crucial questions.
HILL: We have only about 15 seconds for each of you, I'll start with you, Peter, is this decision by the president is it making the U.S. more or less safe?
BLABER: It's making us more safe. No matter what you think about the numbers in Afghanistan, one fact remains the same that a small disparate group of terrorists eat, live and wait to kill you and your family and destroy the western way of life. We can either take the fight to them or sit on our hands back here and wait for them to accomplish their mission. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather take the fight to them and destroy them before they have the opportunity to destroy our families, our country and our way of life.
HILL: More or less, I guess you're --
SCAHILL: Well, I guess it makes us less safe. By that standard, we should be invading Saudi Arabia tomorrow and overthrowing the monarchy dictatorship there. The fact is this makes us less safe as Americans. We're creating a disaster in terms of instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I think we're going to pay the price for years to come.
HILL: Michael, 15 seconds to answer this question. What is a win for the U.S. there?
WARE: A win for the U.S. is laden behind some kind of functioning state, whether it's recognizable to us or not, that could at least hold itself together in some fashion, prevent sanctuary to al Qaeda and you can walk away. Bottom line, America did not go there to save Afghan women, to educate Afghan children. America was tacitly accepting the existence of the Taliban government until al Qaeda came to strike. America's interest is simply denying sanctuary. You achieve that? Go home.
HILL: Those are some fighting words for a lot of people in this country that it's not about women or children but we're going have to leave it there.
WARE: It is what it is.
HILL: Michael Ware, Jeremy Scahill, Peter Blaber. Appreciate your insight all of you this evening. Thanks.
Just ahead, the stock market may be soaring, but so is the unemployment rate. So with Wall Street doing better, why is it not trickling down to Main Street? Two experts on finance and the economy join me.
And the case of a Brazilian boy and his American father brings a new focus on thousands of international child abductions. We'll bring you that story just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Scientists today getting the okay to use 13 new stem cell lines for federally funded research. Why is this a big deal? Well, because they've been waiting for some sometime now. The white house with restrictions in the spring, you may recall, those projects were actually on hold until the National Institute of Health could determine which stem cell lines were ethically appropriate to use. Now, the NIH says another 96 embryonic stem cell lines are actually under review. Stem cell research is seen as one of the most promising but of course also one of the most controversial fields of biomedical research.
In New York, lawmakers rejecting a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state. The state senate killed that bill. It has the support of the state assembly, also of New York's governor. Today's vote follows a Maine referenda that you may recall that struck down the law last month before it took effect. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in four states across the U.S. A law in New Hampshire will go into effect January 1.
A congressional hearing today on Capitol Hill on international child abductions. The hearing was focused on the case of Shawn Goldman. We told you about this boy a number of times, he was taken to Brazil by his mother five years ago. Well Shawn's mother has since died. Shawn's father has been fighting to bring him back home to the U.S. As Ines Ferre reports, Shawn's case is actually just one of thousands of similar cases of children around the world. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
INES FERRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For more than five years, David Goldman has been battling in Brazilian courts for custody of his 9- year-old son Shawn. In 2004, Goldman's then wife took Shawn to her homeland in Brazil and refused to bring him back. She died last year, but Shawn still remains with her family in Rio.
DAVID GOLDMAN, FATHER: It's devastating any parent, any grandparent can only go so low with that vision before they have to pull themselves out because it's just too painful. But there's only one way to keep going and that way is to keep going until my son is home.
FERRE: Goldman took his plea to Capitol Hill on Wednesday at a house hearing focused on international child abductions. A proposed bill would help to bring back Goldman's son and other children effected by a parent or legal guardian like Erica Toland held in Japan since 2003 or Karina Sylvester in Austria since 1995.
REP. CHRIS SMITH (R), NEW JERSEY: What our bill will do will say is enough is enough. It's time to impose sanctions on those countries have a pattern of non-cooperation. We're going to fight for our left- behind parents, we're going to fight for the American children who have been abducted, kidnapped. And that their country will not longer be a haven for these abducted children.
FERRE: The U.S. has repeatedly complained to Brazil for not adhering to the Haig convention, a treaty promoting international cooperation on child abduction. Brazil and the U.S. are both parties to the convention as is Austria. Japan is not. Washington is urging Tokyo to sign the pact.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FERRE: Now, the U.S. state department is handling about 1,900 cases related to international child abduction. The proposed house bill, would among other things, authorize more resources to help bring children back to the U.S.
HILL: Amazing to think there are that many kids out there.
FERRE: Experts are saying, until a child is on a plane, these cases are not over.
HILL: Or even off that plane back on U.S. soil, so true. Ines Ferre, thanks.
Just ahead, is the economy really in recovery? We're going to get the lowdown from two leading experts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: With the stock market gains, frankly, making a remarkable rebound, but it's not doing much to help you at home, probably, or the country's staggering job losses. We want to know why. Joining us for more on the economies rather confusing signs, Nicole Gelinas. She's a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and also the author "After the Fall, Saving Capitalism from Wall Street and Washington." And Janet Bodnar is deputy editor for Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Good to have both of you with us tonight.
As we talk so much about this disconnect here, Wall Street as we saw this week had its best close in 14 months. Unemployment though remains above 10%, a 26-year high and really it seems once again Nicole, the only people seeing it improving here are those bankers on Wall Street. Why is there always such a disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street which really needs some good news?
NICOLE GELINAS, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Right Erica and this is particularly pronounced right now because we have two economies, one that can expect bailouts and one that can't. These Wall Street firms are subsisting on different government guarantees some obvious like the T.A.R.P. money and some not so obvious. They are all still too big to fail. They can borrow money for nearly for free from the government and invest it in the stock markets all over the world, that is why the stock market, as well as other global markets, are going up.
HILL: Are doing so much better. And Janet, we hear all the time, we actually heard from Kitty Pilgrim in her piece earlier tonight that is really is, always, the workers who are one of the last things to improve. That's one of the last things the companies seem to invest in. But are there any signs we can look for to give people a little ray of hope?
JANET BODNAR, AUTHOR: Well I think so. You know it is true that traditionally, the labor market does tend to be a lagging indicator because you know Wall Street is looking at different things than workers are. When you see the economy start to turn around, or at least job losses start to slow, you know things are going to pick up. It may take a while but you know there are things that -- it really does happen, it's just a longer recovery time. Because you know, companies have prepared themselves for leaner times. And it's going to take a while for them to say, okay, we're confident that the economy really is going to pick up so we're going to start hiring again.
HILL: Realistically, we can find out that there's a chance that many of these companies will never have as many folks on the books as they did prior to the recession because they're learning to get by with less?
BODNAR: That's right. And there are going to be different fields. A lot of people think that exports over the next decade or so are going to be really important in the American economy. So companies that focus on exports that have products to export may do better than other companies. So you know it's always a shifting thing.
HILL: There's a couple of things to look at. The upside for some people, too, we try to look at the positives, Nicole. Some people have really seen a boost in their 401(k). That of course is directly tied to the market. That, though, doesn't pay your mortgage. It doesn't put food on the table. How important are those gains when it comes to looking at your personal wealth?
GELINAS: Well, it's better to be making money than losing money. But people who need this money within the next few years for retirement, for education, should not depend on becoming complacent and thinking that these gains can continue because it's going to be very hard for the government to exit all of these bailout problems, or programs. And we're not quite sure what that's going to look like.
HILL: So it could abort for some of those banks are getting better now?
GELINAS: Right. And as Janet said about beginning to export, that's very important, but the problem is some of these bailouts are delaying that from happening to the extent that they're encouraging people to continue spending money instead of investing money in industries that can export.
HILL: Right and sometimes spending money that they don't have it. With credit cards, some people heave to do at this point, that's the only way to get by. Janet, really quickly before we let you go, there are a number of financial regulations that have been passed. They're set to be enacted. Which of these is going to be most helpful to the consumers, do you think?
BODNAR: I think anything that lets them know what products they're buying, what kind of situations they're getting into are really important. That's kind of what happened to people a couple years ago when they started to get into trouble. They signed on to things they didn't understand. So I think that that's really going to be helpful. You know transparency is the buzzword. It may be possible for them to have so-called plain vanilla alternatives when they take on a mortgage. Anything like that that gives them more information is a good thing.
HILL: Perhaps a credit card contract you can understand without an attorney. Imagine that. Janet Bodnar, Nicole Gelinas, thanks for being with us.
Just ahead at the top of the hour, Campbell Brown. Hi Campbell.
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey there, Erica. The Obama administration took a big and controversial step today in research using embryonic stem cells. The head of the National Institute of Health is going to be here to tell us exactly what that means.
Plus, Lance Armstrong joining me to answer questions about getting back into professional cycling, and where he thinks we stand in the battle against cancer.
Also, our special series, genealogy, identity quests. You could have some big surprises lurking among your ancestors. We'll talk about that as well Erica.
HILL: Who knows we could be distant relatives Campbell. BROWN: I think we could. We might be.
HILL: Still ahead on CNN tonight Jesus Christ doesn't make the cut for jury duty in Alabama. Yes, you heard that correctly. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: I hope you're sitting down for this next story. It may sound unbelievable at first. Jesus Christ excused from jury duty in Alabama. Before you go getting upset, let's give you a little back story. Dorothy Lola Killingworth that had legally changed her name to Jesus Christ. She even had the driver's license to prove it. The 59- year-old resident didn't try to avoid her court appearance. She said she was perfectly happy to serve on jury duty. But court officials said the problem with Miss Jesus Christ is that she repeatedly asked more questions than she answered. Her name raises a few questions of its own.
Thanks for being with us tonight. I'm Erica Hill. Hope to see you tomorrow. Up next, Campbell Brown.
