Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Deadly Attack in Kabul's Luxury Hotel; Fires, Floods Threaten U.S. Nukes
Aired June 28, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Breaking news tonight. Terror in Kabul. When most Americans think of Afghanistan, we imagine a landscape of caves and rugged terrain. A culture of corruption and violence. But then there's the Hotel Intercontinental high atop a hill. A favorite stop for American dignitaries, their Web site calls it a summer palace. Your destination in Kabul.
Luxurious furnishings, gorgeous views, gourmet food, glamour. The kind you might see in a movie about international diplomats. Tonight it looks more like a scene from "Apocalypse Now." We've just gotten this video in. The vast structure is engulfed in flames.
Witnesses say Taliban terrorists have been hurling rocket- propelled grenades from the roof, at least six Talibans stormed the hotel hours ago. And it's not clear if the terrifying siege is over yet. How many are dead, how did the terrorists penetrate what was believed to be the safest place in the city?
We'll have a live report from the hotel in just a moment. And full coverage of what this means to America's plan to leave Afghanistan.
But first, a look at the other stories we're drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Los Alamos is burning. Fifty thousand acres and counting. What if the fire reaches the nuclear lab? I'll ask Michio Kaku could this be another Fukushima in the making.
And the businessman who wants to be president. Herman Cain knows his pizza. But when it comes to the tough questions --
HERMAN CAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That is not an answerable question.
SPITZER: Sure it is.
CAIN: No, it is not.
SPITZER: But you're --
CAIN: No, it is not.
SPITZER: Can he take the heat?
Then the clocking is ticking. Raise the debt ceiling or risk default? Senator John Cornyn says he has the answer. E.D. Hill asks him, can Congress get it together before time runs out?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Bur first, breaking news from Afghanistan. At least eight people confirmed dead so far tonight in a brazen attack on a Hotel Intercontinental in Kabul. A group of gunmen including suicide bombers stormed the hotel, firing on Afghan security forces and anyone else who got in their way.
There are reports the hotel was full at the time of the attack, with a wedding taking place pool side and a party going on in the ballroom. The Taliban is claiming responsibility for what seems to be a highly organized assault. Information is still coming in.
Journalist Bette Dam is at the hotel.
Bette, what's happening now?
BETTE DAM, JOURNALIST BASED IN KABUL, AFGHANISTAN (via phone): Well, now it's calming down a little bit, although I heard a gunshot like a second ago. A very heavy gunshot is going on now. The hotel is completely on fire now. It seemed to be calmed down, but I don't know, I'm approaching the hotel now, and (INAUDIBLE) to get on a safe position.
SPITZER: And as you get closer to the hotel, when you say the entire hotel is engulfed in flames, is this a consequence of the attacks, do you know or can you know, from the helicopters and NATO helicopters came in later in the assault to try to finally kill the remaining Taliban terrorists who were there on top of the hotel?
Is that when the fires broke out? Or can you tell if the fires were set by the Taliban in an effort to destroy the hotel?
DAM: No, what we heard and what we saw ourselves is that the suiciders at some point after three hours of firefighting, went up on the roof, then the helicopters came, they started shooting at the helicopters and they answered with fire as well. And then the hotel started burning.
SPITZER: Now you have been there virtually the entire day. The Taliban put out a statement, I believe, in which they claim that their terrorists, their troops were going floor to floor, room to room. Do you have any verification of that that is in fact the case? Do you know if the people who were staying, the residents, or the -- those who were staying in the hotel were in fact chased by the Taliban terrorists? DAM: Yes, they were going -- that's what we heard. They were going from room to room, and that's why it took so long. It took four and a half hours, an attack here in the hotel, with people from the Taliban, they claim that they're walking around. Not exploding themselves immediately but they started shooting.
SPITZER: And then --
DAM: Honestly now, what happened in the hotel, how many people were killed? The first amount is a 10 but it can be more.
SPITZER: Right. Look, as you say, it is unclear what happened, the reports that are coming out are contradictory evolving moment by moment. But just very quickly, as you are there, you're still hearing gunfire which would seem to refute the notion that we had heard maybe an hour or so ago that the last of the Taliban assault terrorists have been killed? So you still are hearing gunfire?
DAM: Yes -- no. No, no. I am approaching it now. And even the ambulance is holding on. The fire is starting again as we speak. I will try to find out what's going on.
SPITZER: All right. Bette Dam, thank you so much and stay safe.
DAM: Thank you.
SPITZER: Stay safe.
DAM: Thank you so much.
SPITZER: We are now joined by journalist Erin Cunningham. She was at the hotel with Bette and has been keeping us updated on all of the latest developments. She joins us live from Kabul via phone.
Erin, can you hear me?
ERIN CUNNINGHAM, JOURNALIST BASED IN KABUL AFGHANISTAN (via phone): Yes.
SPITZER: So to the best of your knowledge, you were there earlier in the day, what happened at the beginning of this assault? What led everybody to understand the Taliban was there? Was it massive explosions? How did this evolve over the early hours?
CUNNINGHAM: Well, it began initially as an assault on the hotel where the Taliban insurgents apparently detonated their explosives at the gate of the hotel after gunmen formed in in order to take control of the premises.
After that it evolved into a fairly intense artillery and gun battle over the course of five hours. I was here when RPGs were being launched from the roof by Taliban insurgents into the city as well as what sounded like mortar fire later on in the morning.
Now the operation seemed to have concluded with NATO helicopters firing on the hotel, however, we're continuing to hear gunfire as we speak now. And ambulances are speeding back and forth along the roads leading to the hotel. The fire seems to have died out. But things are still very tense.
SPITZER: Now do your best to give us a sense of what the security is as you enter the hotel. In other words, we have been hearing so much recently about the beefed up security across Kabul, but certainly in a hotel like this. What security would the terrorists have needed to breach? What would they have needed to go through in order to take over the hotel?
CUNNINGHAM: Right now -- with my view of the hotel right now, it's very clear there are a number of hills with trees and other bushes that insurgents could easily take cover in in order to approach the hotel.
Now I know that Afghan security forces maintain a number of checkpoints for vehicles and people along the roads and main entrances to this hotel. However, I don't know if they were prepared for an attack that would include insurgents coming up from either side of the hills to attack the hotel.
SPITZER: So Erin, if I hear you properly, despite having a full display of security at the front, there are open fields or open areas behind or on the sides of the hotel from which terrorists can simply approach laden with vests filled with explosives? It doesn't suggest that you have a full perimeter or any meaningful security around the hotel at all?
CUNNINGHAM: Right. Yes. And that's not something I ask say for certain. But with the view that I have now, it looks like that would be an easier way to approach the hotel during an attack. However, I'm unsure if Afghan security forces maintain security around the perimeter last night.
SPITZER: I mean, I don't mean to ask a very elementary question, but how silly is it to have three checkpoints in the front and absolutely nothing on the side or behind the hotel so terrorists can simply come up the hill laden with explosives and then take over? I mean this is out of a bad cartoon for how you structure hotel security or any type of security. And yet we've been told this is one of the safest places in Kabul.
Is this typical of what you have seen? Is this typical of the sorts of security that are actually implemented and put in place?
CUNNINGHAM: Right. Yes, I think that on a number of occasions the security has been inadequate in various places and very obvious breaches occurred when Afghan security forces were guarding certain compounds, hotels, shopping centers, et cetera, in Kabul.
SPITZER: All right, Erin --
CUNNINGHAM: But unfortunately, right now it's unclear how the attack unfolded from which way they approached, if the guard fired back at them. Right now, all of the details are sketchy. No one is really giving us good information. But we're doing the best that we can so --
SPITZER: Yes, look, Erin, obviously this is not only a dangerous situation -- we thank you obviously for being there -- but also an evolving situation in terms of what we know and how much we will know at the end of the day.
Certainly however puts seriously in doubt all the assertions about the improvements that we have been told about in security, especially around key places such as Hotel Intercontinental which is supposed to be one of the safest places in Kabul.
Erin, thank you so much for that report.
CUNNINGHAM: Right.
SPITZER: Tom Foreman here in D.C. or in D.C. -- I'm in New York -- is digging into where the Intercontinental sits within Kabul. He has found out more about how this attack played out.
Tom, what can you tell us?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Eliot, you and Erin really were hitting on some key points you have to consider when you look at exactly where this happened. Let's fly into Kabul here and take a look at the general lay of the land.
Here's the city. You see a lot of buildings down in here, the main city sitting over here. Right over in this area is where we're going to look at the hotel itself. And I want to talk about the land in a minute. Let's talk about the facility first.
This building is a three-star hotel, 200 rooms, opened in 1969, the nation's first international luxury hotel. It is of some interest that it's not actually connected to the Intercontinental Hotel chain that you know now. It was once, it no longer is.
Nonetheless this is a place that has attracted a lot of visitors to the area. It's big. The attack came at 10:00 at night when a lot of people would have been there. And indeed, look at this -- the area around it, Eliot. If you look at it compared to the other ones you're looking at a minute ago with all the buildings, there's a lot of open space out here.
Now depending on the time of the year, you may have more greenery, that sort of thing going around here. But if you even move in and look at some of a ground level view of this place, you'll see that it sits a bit up on a knoll here with a lot of potential approaches out there. A lot of ground to guard especially if your focus is mainly on the roads coming in.
I want to fly around and show you some of the other areas. You get a general view of what's around it. That's Kabul University over here on this side. But look at the roads. If you're guarding the roads, you're really only guarding one major entrance in this area, maybe some of this action over here, but again we widen it out, look at all the space that we get around the hotel in general. There are houses and then a lot of empty space here. We talked about attacks coming in here. Who knows what security is like out here, Eliot? We do know this however. This is not that far, about two miles from where the government center is here. So that's the distance we're talking about. It's really quite an interesting way of looking at this -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, Tom, you make such an important point there. The way they have set up the structure there, the security there, it sounds to me like a bank where you have a big guard out front and then a big back door with a sign over it saying the vault is here, and nobody guarding the back door.
I mean it just sounds kind of ludicrous. And now we are seeing how infirm the security there really is.
You made a critical point. 10:00 at night, a lot of people hunkering down at the hotel but also a lot of parties. And we hear -- I don't know if you know about this -- there were diplomats there from around Afghanistan.
Do we know who was there and why?
FOREMAN: We don't know -- I don't know a lot of details of who was there, although you can bet in a hotel like this a lot of big players would traditionally stay at a place like this.
But I want to point something out, Eliot. If you move in here closely, you talk about the big road out front? Look at all these little paths. This is a fairly decent dirt road leading in here, but look at all these little paths. Simply cutting over the hillside here. Clearly paths that have been trodden down by somebody, up through here. There are paths cutting through these trees. Similarly down here.
Any one of these, obviously, can be a place where people on foot -- we're talking about a fairly small group of people here -- could come toward the facility. Again the critical question is going to be what kind of perimeter security was around here, mindful of who the guests were in that hotel, particularly at that hour. Some people are going to have to ask.
And I'll tell you this, Eliot. You know this, I know this from traveling to a lot of places like this. When we talk about security, it is a relative term compared to what we're used to in this country.
When you talk about security in Kabul, there are places that are more secure and less secure. There's no place that's really secure by standards that we can rely on in the sense that we think we can in this country.
SPITZER: Tom, I think that is such a critically important point and thank you for that report.
And clearly a devastating carefully coordinated attack on a tightly guarded hotel in Afghanistan's capital city. And it appears to be a message from the Taliban, we can do what we want and we'll still be there when you go.
Jamie Rubin is a former State Department official, executive editor of the Bloomberg View, and Tricia Degennaro is an international security specialist.
Welcome. One question before we go to break and then we'll come back. We'll have a full conversation. And this is the big question.
Do you think this is a message from the Taliban to us, to America, and if so, what is it? In 15 seconds or less. Tricia.
PATRICIA DEGENNARO, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SPECIALIST: It's a message, and it's saying we're here and a sustainable political solution is not going to happen any time quickly, so get prepared.
SPITZER: Jamie?
JAMES RUBIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE BLOOMBERG VIEW: Well, clearly they're aware of the president's speech. The Taliban are very good at information warfare. They want the world to know they can do what they want, can in Kabul, and you're leaving, we'll still be here. I think that's the message.
SPITZER: It seems to me that this attack is their direct rebuttal, direct response to the president's speech of last week in which he claimed progress. He's there saying to us, you call this progress? This is our territory, our country, not yours.
All right, guys, hold it right there. We'll be coming back for more on this breaking news. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Breaking news. The Taliban attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. We're back with Bloomberg View editor and former State Department official Jamie Rubin and with international security specialist Tricia Degennaro.
Jamie, let me start with you for a second. There are and have been caveats placed on the claims of improved security by the president and General Petraeus and others. But at its root, is this really what progress looks like in Kabul and Afghanistan?
RUBIN: Well, yes, we need to realize this is a big complex place. There is not going to be the level of security that the Western world is used to. Look at Iraq where people think we've succeeded to a degree. Every day there's an explosion in a part of town and there's attacks in Baghdad. There's attacks in the Sunni areas, across the country, and we're -- we think we're doing well there, and we are doing well.
We need to be careful about making relative judgment. General Petraeus has been very, very careful in what he said about the gains that we've made. He's used these phrases over and over again, fragile and reversible. Fragile means that with a concentration of Taliban forces on a hotel like this in almost any city in Afghanistan. They can take it over probably, overcome Afghan security, and then the Afghans have to call for the United States or others to come help them. That's the reality of Afghanistan.
The level of security the rest of the world is used to is never going to happen there in the next year or two. But there was progress. It was fragile and it's reversible. And what the Taliban are saying now is if you guys are leaving, which is unfortunately the message they got no matter how much the president tried to qualify it -- the message they got is we're withdrawing.
Well, they're saying here's what happens when you withdraw.
SPITZER: Well, that's where I wanted to go. You're absolutely right. At a relative level there -- you are correct. Security is never going to be perfect, it will never be Midtown Manhattan, it will never be what we accept as real security here in the United States or even in most of the world.
But, Tricia, let me ask you this. Does it go beyond that and does it challenge the very premise of the entire argument being made by the president which is that we have succeeded sufficiently, militarily, to now enter a negotiated resolution with a willing partner on the other side?
In other words, are they -- whoever they may be? And that's -- it's obviously a tough question. Are they saying, forget it, we're not going to negotiate a meaningful peace with you?
DEGENNARO: Well, I think it challenges the assumption that we've done anything substantial over the 10 years, I mean in the last couple of years for sure things changed under a unified command with General McChrystal and now General Petraeus.
There have been missing links, though, and the first link is that you're going to see an ongoing insurgency because the Taliban still feels they own Afghanistan. And they have every right to be the government.
And the second part of that is that we have been missing the civilian and relationship building part where the military gets in there, they create some kind of semblance of nonviolence or calm, and then there's no civilian counterparts to come in there and help them with that.
So we're missing those two things. Now we're trying to ramp that up, but we haven't been able to do it quickly enough. And they're telling us, we're not ready to go, and they're happy to see us go.
SPITZER: Well, the Taliban, which so quickly claimed responsibility for this attack, clearly wants us to interpret it in a particular way.
Jamie, what do you think the message from them to us is meant to be one week after the president's speech? Less than one week after the president's speech. And is this either a precursor to a negotiation? So they're saying the terms of the negotiation now shift? Or are they saying forget it, we're simply not going to talk to you?
RUBIN: The idea here was that through the gains that we've made over the last two years which are real but fragile and reversible. The idea was the Taliban was going to feel sustained pressure through drone attacks and ground forces, sufficient to make them amenable to a negotiation that previously they weren't prepared to participate in at all.
I believe from the people that I speak to who know this business very well, there have been some signs of a willingness to negotiate. That doesn't mean a willingness to capitulate and to accept our terms, but a willingness to negotiate. And there is now a process where military power and diplomatic power have to be used in sync.
So that the Taliban are saying we still have plenty of capability, don't expect us to roll over in these negotiations, and we're saying we've made significant progress, and we're hoping the momentum has shifted and the Taliban will be willing to negotiate. But that doesn't mean we get an outcome.
Remember -- everyone has to remember, just beginning talks, beginning negotiations is not a resolution to Afghanistan. You have to succeed at those negotiations.
SPITZER: Tricia, yes?
DEGENNARO: Yes. There's just two pieces of this negotiation. I mean there are members that call themselves Taliban that, you know, happen to already be in a lot of governance positions throughout the country. And I think the -- you know, the premise is to help those guys get on board and help those people come into the fold.
But I mean the other part of that is what do you do with the leadership? That (INAUDIBLE) -- you know the parts that are in Pakistan right now, the Haqqani, Mullah Omar himself. You're not going to be able to negotiate with any of these guys and you're not going to be able to bring them in government, unless you're willing to give up anything and everything we've gained now which then I'm going to say is probably very little.
SPITZER: Well, look, I agree with you. I share your view, we gained very little and this challenges the notion we gained anything at all.
But let me ask you this, Jamie. Do you think this is also perhaps an internal fight within Taliban? In other words, there may be some factions who are saying, yes, let's begin the negotiations and others who are saying, let's make it impossible for those negotiations to move forward.
It's certainly difficult for the president at this moment, this evening, to go before the American people as he's going to tomorrow at a press conference and rationalize and explain how we can begin to negotiate with a terrorist group like this that has just perpetrated this act?
RUBIN: There are many different Taliban at many different levels, and the people who really have studied them for a lifetime and explained this to me, I don't pretend to be that person. But what I understand is there are some in Pakistan who have particular allegiances that you just mentioned.
There are some who are local and are fighting occupiers. There are some who are just paid to -- by -- from outsiders. So there's a whole bunch of Taliban. The hard part for a negotiator is how do you identify sufficient leadership that have control over all these people, so that if you make a deal with them, which again is still a hypothetical, that it will be followed.
All of this is an indicator, and what the message you ask, is that this is really, really hard. Don't hold out great hope that a negotiated solution can resolve in Afghanistan what we haven't been able to resolve ourselves on the ground with a major military force.
SPITZER: And let me pick up, Jamie, on what you just said, and Tricia, ask you this question.
Even if we negotiate and get to some resolution, as Jamie said before, the moment we disappear -- you said this -- what happens next? What is our capacity to enforce any agreement we enter when we're there once we leave?
DEGENNARO: Well, that's again the problem. We don't have any capacity to enforce. You know? We have to figure out -- there are some talk that some Taliban leaders want certain control over areas in the region, and some just want -- they want their position back.
Mullah Omar wants his government back, and that's the bottom line. And so you are probably seeing two sides to this story. I just think it's pretty naive to think we can negotiate with them. We need to get the Afghans together. We need to take another opportunity -- we always fail to miss an opportunity. During the elections we did it.
Get them in a room, which is a loya jurga organization, get them and hold that space so they can figure out how they want to move forward and get their own political house in order. Because the way that it's going now is just not working.
SPITZER: All right. As we've all just seen today how difficult and dangerous and treacherous this is, it knows no bounds.
Jamie Rubin, Tricia Degennaro, thanks so much for being here. An evolving and complicated situation.
Up next, thousands of acres are burning in New Mexico. What if they spread to the nuclear lab in Los Alamos?
But first, E.D. Hill is here. E.D., you're talking to the power players in the debt ceiling showdown. What have you learned?
HILL: Well, 38 days before the government needs to borrow more money to pay its bills, Democrats say approve it, Republicans say wait -- first figure out how to cut spending. We'll talk to Senator John Cornyn about what deal might work -- Eliot.
SPITZER: All right, E.D. Looking forward to it. Senator Corny will shed some light on where the Republicans stand.
When we come back, wildfires threatening the nuclear facility at Los Alamos. Michio Kaku has a warning. Coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: More nuclear sites threatened tonight by raging fires and flooding. This time not in Japan, but right here in the United States.
In Nebraska, floodwaters from the Platte River have surrounded the Fort Calhoun power plant. Though temporarily offline, the plant does contain radioactive material.
And in New Mexico, a ferocious wildfire, one that's consumed 44,000 acres, is lapping dangerously close to the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory. A scary situation.
Joining me again is physicist Michio Kaku, professor at City University and author of "Physics of the Future."
Welcome back. I want to talk about "Physics of the Moment," the here and now. How scared should we be about these disasters?
MICHIO KAKU, THEORETICAL PHYSICS PROFESSOR, CUNY: This is an unprecedented situation. A triple whammy. Two nuclear power stations in Nebraska and that a raging out of control fire right on the doorstep of America's crown jewel. The Los Alamos National Laboratory where the atomic bomb was first created. This is unprecedented.
SPITZER: Now the site in Nebraska was offline. They had already shut it down. Does that mean that there is none of the concern about the meltdown that we had in Fukushima, the triple meltdown in Fukushima? So being offline minimizes the risk? Is that fair to say or not?
KAKU: To some degree. However, it's like Fukushima in slow motion. In Fukushima, the tipping point was reached in the first minutes of the tsunami.
Here we have a few days before we reach the tipping point. Now the tipping point is when we reach 1,014 feet above sea water. If the flood waters reach that point, at that point all hell will break loose.
But we're not there yet, floodwaters are actually going down right now.
SPITZER: OK, at least in Nebraska - now just so it's clear, the water hasn't gone up 1,000 feet. That's above sea level. This is a river that begins, I don't know, probably what, 900 feet above sea level?
KAKU: Right now, it's at 1,007 feet above sea level is the flood water. If it goes seven more feet, it's going to be really bad.
SPITZER: All right, and then what happens? This nuclear power plant same design as Fukushima?
KAKU: That's right. The Cooper Station nuclear power plant is a carbon copy of the General Electric boiling water reactor at Fukushima. There are eerie parallels between the two, but this accident is in slow motion.
SPITZER: So they'll have more time either to clamp down, remove the waste. Is the issue of waste in a pool again something to be worried about?
KAKU: Exactly. At Fort Calhoun, there's 600,000 to 800,000 pounds of high level nuclear waste. Yes, the plant has shut down temporarily, but there are large quantities of nuclear waste on site.
SPITZER: OK, on talking about nuclear waste, Los Alamos has a - I read here and I haven't verified this, but it says, 3.5 miles from the fires, where 60 mile an hour winds are blowing this fire. There are 30,055 gallon drums of plutonium contaminated waste. They're stored above ground in fabric tents. This doesn't sound safe to me somehow.
KAKU: Well, the news is, we no longer store our hydrogen bombs at Los Alamos, and also the accelerator, the experimental reactors, they've been secured.
So for the most part, many of the waste dumps on site and there a lot of them have been secured. The danger is unsecured sites like the 30,000 barrels of nuclear waste containing plutonium that you mentioned.
If the fire gets closer and it's going at 60 miles an hour winds are blowing the fire, at that point the canisters in principle could pop open, releasing plutonium contaminated materials and perhaps even releasing plutonium in the air.
And plutonium dioxide is the most toxic chemical known to science. A micro gram that you can't even see can give you lung cancer.
SPITZER: That's what mystifies me. I read here 30 and again, this is something that has been put by the - an anti-nuclear group called Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety so I haven't verified it.
But if it's true, 30,000 of these 55 gallon drums with this plutonium contaminated stuff, does it make sense to store it this way at this time?
KAKU: You recall that -- the Los Alamos National Laboratory is huge on the level of 30 square miles. It started checker board with all these nuclear waste sites there. Many of them had been secured.
Remember that 11 years ago, we had an even bigger fire, and as a consequence they had 11 years to secure these sites. But some of the sites have not yet been secured.
And the government itself is very tight lipped about the status of those canisters right now. They will admit that they're there.
SPITZER: What is the disaster scenario? Is it fire raging through all 30,000 canisters leading to explosions or some sort -- or the canisters themselves open up?
KAKU: The government mentioned that there's a canyon separating these 30,000 waste canisters from the bulk of the fire itself, 3.5 miles away.
But with the winds whipping at 60 miles an hour, particles, embers could easily fly over and perhaps even engulf these canisters. At that point they over pressurize, they pop right open and then they contain fluids.
Let's say fluids not only contaminated clothing and gloves, but radioactive fluids. The fluids could begin to boil and with the boiling, it releases plutonium dioxide particles into the air. Then the winds carry it downstream in a plume.
SPITZER: Real quick, the message here seems to be -- at least one of the many messages, just as it was in Fukushima that the real crisis we have not dealt with nuclear power is waste disposal.
KAKU: That's one of the big problems. Remember that our engineers don't plan for the 100 year storm. This is the 100 year fire. In Nebraska, we're seeing the 100-year flood.
Because we don't prepare for these things, when they happen, we're caught flat footed. Realized that in Nebraska, last year, none of these preparations were in place last year. We had to scramble to get these preparations made in Nebraska.
SPITZER: You know, these events that - the black swan events, you know, when you get a black swan not a white swan, things that aren't supposed to happen do happen, earth shattering, earth changing and we don't prepare for them.
KAKU: And they could more frequently with more flooding. We could have inundated nuclear power plants.
SPITZER: All right, Professor Michio Kaku, always great to get your insights. Thank you for coming on.
Up next, is running the company the same as running a country? I'll ask Herman Cain. He made a fortune selling pizzas. Did that prepare him to be president? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Now to meet the candidates, Michele Bachmann is stealing all the headlines with strong poll numbers in Iowa. But lurking in third place and holding steady is businessman Herman Cain at 10 percent.
Cain is unveiling his jobs plan tomorrow, the type of plan that has been sorely missing from the other candidates. I wanted to find out more specifics of the economic program from the Tea Party favorite so I sat down with him a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Joining me now is Herman Cain, the candidate for president of the United States. Thank you so much for joining me.
HERMAN CAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks, Eliot, my pleasure.
SPITZER: Look, you are running a campaign these days, both untraditional and also it's going to revolutionary when it comes to what government does and how it does it. I want to ask some specifics here to see if we can get a better sense of what it's going to be all about.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: You have said that excessive regulation is inhibiting innovation.
CAIN: Yes.
SPITZER: Which regulations?
CAIN: Try this one, Shell Oil did a study off the coast of Alaska, they spent $2 billion. They were all ready to go and to do some drilling.
At the last minute, the federal government said we will not give you a permit when they had an indication earlier that they were going to get a permit. Now why did the government say that they wouldn't give them a permit after they spent $2 billion?
Because they say that a study that they have indicates that it's going to do some harm to a town that's located, you know, 70 miles away as the pro flat.
SPITZER: I don't know those facts, I'll defer to you on those facts. Let's me ask you since we're talking - let's stick with innovation for a second.
Move outside the energy sector where I think most folks would say environmental regulation, given what happened in the gulf and with BP. Some reasoned environmental regulations appropriate. Give me another area where regulation has stymied innovation.
Silicon Valley or something related to the tech sector, something relation to - even Wall Street, give me one example.
CAIN: Let's take what the National Labor Relations Board did recently to Boeing in South Carolina.
SPITZER: Right.
CAIN: The National Labor Relations Board is trying to intimidate Boeing --
SPITZER: That's not innovation --
CAIN: Job expansion is innovation.
SPITZER: No, I want to focus on innovation here.
CAIN: Job expansion is innovation.
SPITZER: This is where they were going to put a plant.
CAIN: Yes, this is where they were going to put a plant.
SPITZER: But that's a separate issue. I want to talk about any -- any one regulation that you think is stifling innovation?
CAIN: Elliot, I can't give you one innovation, I'm speaking generally, and you're trying to pin me down on one.
SPITZER: Well, you're running for president, I think it's fair to do.
CAIN: I'll make the deal with you. The next time I come, I will have a specific point for you.
SPITZER: That's a deal.
CAIN: Let's do it that way. Here's the other danger about me walking in here with one specific one.
SPITZER: Right.
CAIN: Because then people will focus on that one, when there are many of them. We need to address the problem -- let me say this, Eliot. My approach to every issue is to make sure we're working on the right problem, not working on one piece of the problem.
Secondly, make sure that we assign the right priority, not the one piece of the priority. This is what I'm saying we have to do a proper assessment, generally speaking based upon the feedback, the people closest to the problem based upon the feedback.
We feel as if they're overregulated. This is why I'm coming to the conclusion that we did --
SPITZER: Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE is the chair of the president's Job Creation Commission, right?
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: As part of what the Obama administration is doing, they've just looked at all the regs out there with an effort to eliminate the regs that were cumbersome.
CAIN: What did they find?
SPITZER: I'm asking you that. Do you know what they found?
CAIN: I don't know what they found.
SPITZER: Did you look at the report?
CAIN: I have not seen the report.
SPITZER: If they got business folks involved, do you think they did an adequate job?
CAIN: I don't know, because I haven't seen the report.
SPITZER: OK.
CAIN: But I have looked at the Debt Commission report and some of the items that were in there --
SPITZER: OK, let's switch to that. Do you think they did a good job there?
CAIN: I think they identified a number of items, but they didn't produce a plan.
SPITZER: I think it's a plan. I mean, I saw a plan to cut $4 trillion over a 10-year period, is that enough?
CAIN: No.
SPITZER: How much should we cut this year?
CAIN: Eliot, I can't tell you how much we need to cut this year until I look at the programs in detail as a person who has access to all the information.
SPITZER: But wait a minute.
CAIN: Eliot, you keep trying to pick a number a group, a rule, an item and make that the whole case. This is why we don't solve problems in Washington, D.C.
SPITZER: No, no, no. Just so it's clear, I'm trying to solve problems by drilling down on facts and specifics, because generalities don't solve problems.
CAIN: I agree with you. SPITZER: Saying you want to get rid of excess regulation sounds good, but it doesn't mean anything if you can't tell me which one, Herman. All right, tell me which one.
CAIN: I would be able to which ones, Eliot. I can't tell you which ones right now.
SPITZER: So let's do this on the budget, $4 trillion over 10 years you said is not enough.
CAIN: I think the -- it's not enough because we added $4 trillion in two years.
SPITZER: OK, so how much is enough? I'm just asking you a simple question, how much is enough?
CAIN: Eliot, that is not an answerable question.
SPITZER: Sure it is.
CAIN: No, it is not. No, it is not.
SPITZER: Unfortunately, it is not enough.
CAIN: Eliot, because we grew it by $4 trillion in two years, OK, and I happen to believe that if you approach solving the right problem, which is what I'm proposing, I am not going to let you pin me down on a specific.
Listen to me for a moment in terms of what my approach to problem solving is. At least give me that. The first thing you do is to make sure you are working on the right problem.
Secondly, that you sign the right priority. This is my approach and this is the approach of a lot of successful business people. Thirdly, you surround yourself with the right people so you can put together the plans.
Now you can't put together a good plan to solve the problem until you do the analysis and you're trying to extract one thing out of many in order to say, OK, yes, I might be -- I would be able to give you -- I'll be able to give you a specific of some of these things in the future.
SPITZER: Are you saying you have not done the analysis yet?
CAIN: I have done some of the analysis on some of these issues, Eliot.
SPITZER: OK, so that's why I'm just asking for -- this is a number that you have to have some ballpark sense, how much do you think we need to cut over the next 10 years so we can bring ourselves back toward balance?
CAIN: I think $5 trillion.
SPITZER: We have to cut?
CAIN: I believe we will have to cut. I believe we need to be $5 trillion because we've already added $4 trillion. We need to bring that down as well as start to dig into what we've already done.
SPITZER: Let me ask you a question. Let me take something off your web site. These are some of you said in the interview. I just want to make sure we can understand - I apologize I'll put my glasses on.
It says here, we're going to prioritize paying interest on the debt. Then the defense, Social Security, Medicare bills and then put everything else on the table for dramatic cuts, right?
CAIN: If they had done it a year ago.
SPITZER: But is that a fair approach?
CAIN: That's a fair approach.
SPITZER: How much -- the things I just listed, do you know roughly what percentage of the budget that comes to?
CAIN: Probably about 50 percent.
SPITZER: It's actually closer to about 65 percent, but fair enough. It's actually $2.367 trillion out of $3.8 trillion. Now that leaves a bit over $1.4 trillion left total. How much do you want to cut out of that?
CAIN: I would have to look at it, Eliot.
SPITZER: What I'm trying to understand is, I want to know -- right now the negotiations at the White House?
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: They're trying to deal with concrete hard numbers.
CAIN: Yes.
SPITZER: To figure out if we should raise the debt ceiling.
CAIN: Right.
SPITZER: If it were up to you, would you vote right now to raise the debt ceiling without cuts?
CAIN: I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling, Eliot. The point I'm trying to make is that a year ago, you could have put a plan in place where you would not have to raise it --
SPITZER: But, we're not a year ago. I'm just trying to understand --
CAIN: No, I'm not going to say what I would do in a crisis that I would not have allowed to happen.
SPITZER: OK.
CAIN: I would not have allowed this crisis to happen.
SPITZER: I'll accept that as a given, but now it has happened. You're going to president if you win this race on January 20th of 2013. We have the crisis, how much do you want to cut in next year's budget?
CAIN: What I'm going to say, Eliot, I'm not going to answer that question for you because I would not have allowed it to become a crisis. You're not going to pin me on that, OK? I'm not going to answer that question.
SPITZER: OK, you know, we have got to wrap. Herman Cain, it is always a pleasure to chat with you. It is fun and it is feisty and I hope you'll come back and have those specific answers for us.
CAIN: I will come back, I hope you have the right questions for me.
SPITZER: I always will. Thank you for coming in.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: That was a good time. Coming up next, the debt ceiling for some in Congress, it has to be raised. For others it's a line in the sand. Senator John Cornyn says he has a way to break the impasse. E.D. Hill gets the details when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Welcome back. Breaking news from the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul, Afghanistan, where the Taliban attacked earlier today leaving at least eight dead and fighting continued until the top of the hour just moments ago.
Breaking news, Saiz Ahmed, an American citizen who was in the hotel has just left. We have him on the phone. Ahmed, can you hear us?
SAIZ AHMED (via telephone): Very faintly, but I can hear you.
SPITZER: All right. Please describe to us, if you can, how long were you there, what did you see, how did this you be fold. Describe the whole situation, if you could, please.
AHMED: Well, from what I remember it started in the evening time after dinner around I think 9:00 or 10:00. What sounded like initially actually I thought it was construction because ironically there was a sign on the elevator that said in Farsi, in English, forgive us for our construction noise, things like that.
The lights turned out and the shots got louder it was clear it was gunfire and you knew something was going on. Then it was just five or six hours, I wasn't keeping count. We just got out about an hour ago.
And I should say the reason I took this interview is that apparently there are a lot of people stuck here, including Americans and Turkish citizens who recently got picked up. I just wanted to make sure that everybody got out who need to because we just ran down from the hills.
They told us everything was safe and then shooting started again, and I don't really see a difference from that about half an hour ago and now. It seems like it could just start again any moment.
E.D. HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Mr. Ahmed, when you first heard the shots, where exactly were you and where did you go?
AHMED: On the fourth floor, I was in my room. Just come back from dinner, and the lights are out so it's pitch black dark, and then we just heard gunshots sporadically and then some explosions from here and there.
And then the thing that I think I'm sure made everybody scared was the explosions seemed to be getting closer and closer and closer. Eventually I heard gunshots. It sounded like it was on my floor. In general for the whole five or six hours, all I knew is that there were people shooting from inside the building.
I didn't know who. And people shooting from outside back and forth at each other. I could hear glass breaking and all that. I didn't know who was shooting, who was on my floor. Eventually my family here in Kabul, America is calling, the U.S. Embassy is calling.
They all said did you stay in the room? That's what I did and I would have done that anyway because I had no idea who was shooting back and forth. Around 4:00 or 5:00 maybe, I could be off on the time, but I heard people speaking English, which I'm guessing -- which sounded like foreign forces.
So I figured that -- and then they started saying that people could come out and whatnot. They made us -- they made me put my hands up and speak very slowly so that, you know, I wouldn't get shot, but after that they escorted us away. So the kind of rescue was great.
The thing that I'm concerned about was they told us everything was safe literally, and people were laughing, speaking with their families. I was speaking with my family, but then shooting started.
Just within a few feet away, everybody ducked, and a few people remaining, including myself just ran down the hill and we're at the bottom of the hill now and it seems like it's all right here now because there's a lot of reporters and whatnot.
HILL: What exactly are you doing at the hotel? Why are you in that area?
AHMED: Why am I in Kabul I assume is the question.
HILL: You said you have family there. AHMED: I'm a PHd student. I came for this week, supposed to be leaving on Friday. I have family here that I visited, and so I'm actually waiting for -- looking for my aunt's driver that is around here.
So if you don't mind, if there's nobody else that needs a ride, which is actually why I wanted to stay here because there are a few people who just look completely lost. And I don't see them and I think they found a ride so --
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed, can I ask -- can you still hear us?
AHMED: Can you still hear me?
SPITZER: Yes, we can hear you.
AHMED: I don't know if I'm talking --
SPITZER: No, we can hear you loud and clear. My question is did you come into any contact? I gather from your description that you didn't but I want to be clear, did you come into contact at all with anybody that you believe was from the Taliban, those who are perpetrating these acts during the course of the shooting day?
AHMED: Absolutely not. I mean, I think I might not be here if that was the case. I was imaging in my mind what would I do if I did. I thought, you know, maybe I could pass, I could convince them what they're doing is stupid, that, you know, to target civilians like this.
This is just -- people were just enjoying their dinner here, and, you know, it's just -- it's just really -- so, no, I didn't. And then, you know, to be honest since I have your ear now, it makes you very mad. I'm very mad about this war on all sides and all people who are participating.
You know, if I had a message to give to Mr. Obama, I think he's a great man, but I would say this war needs to end now, and this war that his predecessor started and could have been avoided.
And forgive me for going off, but this is what I was thinking in my room when I didn't know if I would see my wife again or see my family again, and I think this is the life of Afghans for the past 10 years.
This war -- you know, and thankfully the loss -- the capture -- I'm sorry the killing of Bin Laden, see, I was sitting there thinking that could have -- couldn't that have been done secretly without a war in the way that it was done?
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed --
AHMED: You would have had the cooperation of all the neighboring countries instead of this war that's killed so many innocent Afghans and continues to.
SPITZER: Can you ask you this question?
AHMED: Sorry for going off but --
SPITZER: No, no.
AHMED: That what I was thinking the whole time. I was actually angry. I was angry at the people carrying out that horrific deed, going here and shooting at innocent people.
You know, this war that is just -- honestly, the feeling that keeps coming back is that it seems unnecessary. There could have been some other means.
SPITZER: Given what you have just gone through --
AHMED: And I want President Obama to think about that. I want everybody involved who has forces here on Afghan soil to think about that. There's got to be a peaceful solution. This is crazy.
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed, let me ask you this, since you have just gone through this terrorist strike and you're at the hotel and there are we now believe at least eight people killed and you have family who live in Afghanistan --
AHMED: I'm sorry, did you say there are innocent people killed because I was told that none were. Only the attackers and terrorists were killed. Did you say there were innocent people killed?
SPITZER: The information is terribly sketchy at this point and so it may be that what you've been told will turn out to be the case. So let us put that aside. Let's hope you're correct.
AHMED: We were told -- and the reason I'm asking is not just for wondering. It's personal. One of my best friend's fathers was one floor below me. His wife and daughters and son were calling asking me and I was going back and forth asking his son asking should I go. Should I go downstairs? Should I go downstairs to go check on him.
He was one floor. I just went for a walk with him yesterday and I have been told that he's been taken away from here, I have been told he's safe, but I haven't seen him and that's the reason I'm waiting here.
HILL: Let's hope that is the case. Let me ask you now, do you feel safe now?
AHMED: That's what I was saying at the beginning, ma'am. Like I feel safer than I have ever since it started, but at the same time like I said, about an hour ago or two hours ago when we were taken out, we were told repeatedly everything is fine, everything is fine, and people were laughing, literally sitting there with their phones taking pictures and then gunshots started. And when you think about it, it makes sense because it seems -- the roads are open. Anybody can come here from my observation. I could be wrong.
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed, can I interrupt for one second? AHMED: I was a little -- if I can be, I know the people out there are doing the best they can. I think they're doing a great job. They're very -- they followed, and I think there were some -- the first soldier I met I believe was Australian.
And they were very -- all very solid and did their job to the best of their ability, but I'm a little concerned that this area might not be as safe as people are being told.
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed, we got literally five seconds left. What message is the Taliban sending by perpetrating this act in five seconds, I hate to do it to you?
AHMED: You know, I don't care what the Taliban is saying. This is a message for anybody who watches that this war has created, you know, people in desperate situation.
SPITZER: Mr. Ahmed, I hate to do it. We have just got to go. It is our hour's up. We thank you for joining us tonight. Stay safe. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. We will bring you E.D.'s interview with Senator John Cornyn tomorrow evening. On behalf of E.D. and me, good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
