Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

American Airlines Flight 587; Missing Weapons Update; On the Bench

Aired October 26, 2004 - 14:00   ET

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

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


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: So what caused Flight 587 to crash? Investigators ready their final report on an accident that had a lot of people suspecting terrorism at first.
Seven days and hundreds of miles to go. Which candidate will get the final momentum to move into the White House?

On the bench. The illness of the chief justice raises an important question. What if a member of the Supreme Court gets too sick to serve?

And Vice President Cheney speaking in glowing terms about the war in Iraq. Your e-mails on that subject this hour.

From the CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Miles O'Brien. Kyra Phillips is off today. This hour of CNN's LIVE FROM begins right now.

It was a hell storm in Belle Harbor two months and one day after the 9/11 attacks. Suspicion of terror were unavoidable, but almost two years after American Airlines Flight 587 crashed and burned in a neighborhood on the outskirts of John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, federal safety regulators say the copilot, the first officer, made fatal mistakes.

CNN's Kathleen Koch is following developments in Washington at the National Transportation Safety Board. She joins us now live -- Kathleen.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Miles, the NTSB has been in hearings for roughly four hours this morning. Now they're taking a break. And what they've been doing throughout the course of the morning is basically laying out what happened in this accident and potentially why. And then the why is something that the board members will vote on later in the day.

Obviously, what initially happened, as everyone recalls, that plane crossed some turbulence. In trying to recover from the turbulence, the first officer moved the rudder, the big fin on the back of the tail fin, the moveable piece, back and forth, back and forth. That snapped the tail fin off.

Now, the chief investigator today in talking about the likely causes of this, he dispensed first of all, with one of the early pieces of conjecture, and then again pointed to the most likely causes that they're coming to at this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BENZON, NTSB CHIEF INVESTIGATOR: Throughout the course of this investigation, no evidence was found to suggest any terrorist intent. This accident was unique in several ways. It was the first time a major structural component fabricated out of composite material failed in flight on a commercial airplane.

Also, it was the first major loss of an airbus airplane on U.S. soil. In addition, several human performance and airplane characteristics combined in a most unfortunate way to cause this accident.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOCH: Now, when it comes to human performance, that is, indeed, the pilot's or the copilot's action moving that tail fin back and forth, as he had been trained to do to recover from an upset. And when it comes to the airplane characteristics, what the board is look at is the very sensitive rudder on the A-300-600 that makes it possible for pilots using it, what was initially considered being normal maneuvering speeds, to rip that tail off.

Now, this has been a very, very difficult morning for the families. They saw some actual video from toll plaza cameras that recorded the aircraft coming down. Some families, it was simply too much for them to bear. Some of them broke down in tears.

Some of them also that we talked to were very concerned about -- concerned the NTSB cited today that both airline and the airplane manufacturer airbus could have been a better -- done a better job in sharing information about this aircraft, about its design and past incidents that it's had.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): On behalf of all the families, we would like to say that airbus, we consider airbus as criminal. And the question is why? Because they were transporting in terms of providing all the information so this accident on Flight 587 could be avoided. And that's the reason why we're asking the FAA to play a major role and be tougher in terms of requesting the information from the manufacturer, as well as from the carrier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOCH: And so, again, safety officials saying they believe there will be a very important moral lesson after this hearing concludes today, that information sharing is critical in keeping the flying public safe -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Kathleen Koch in Washington. Thank you very much.

You know, when an airliner crashes, it almost always is the result of a unique series of circumstances that ultimately lead to the tragedy. And usually, if any one of those unique circumstances, those twists of fate, had not occurred, the tragedy would have been averted. So while the lead paragraph today may say pilot error was the cause of the loss of American 587, it is, in fact, more subtle and complex than that. And what's more, there are some pilots who say it is unfair to blame the flight crew in this case at all.

We're joined now by John David from the Allied Pilots Association.

John, good to have you with us.

JOHN DAVID, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: Thank you, Miles. It's good to be here.

O'BRIEN: Is it accurate to say pilot error here, or does that not tell the whole story?

DAVID: That doesn't tell the whole story at all, Miles. These pilots were acting perfectly normally. They violated no procedures and exceeded no limitations.

They were hampered by the very unusual flight characteristics of this airplane. It's a highly sensitive airplane, much more sensitive than any other aircraft operating today. Additionally, they were hampered by the fact that Airbus Industries hadn't shared what it knew about this very unique airplane and what it knew about a prior incident with Flight 903.

O'BRIEN: So what you're saying is there is a potential flaw, or the allegation is that there is a flaw in the design of the Airbus A- 300. Why hasn't the NTSB come to that same conclusion.

DAVID: The NTSB has concluded that today, Miles. They talked about the sensitivities of this rudder system, much more unique than any other aircraft operating. And they're going to make a recommendation to effect change in that.

O'BRIEN: All right. But, nevertheless, pilot error is the lead line in all this. Is that fair?

DAVID: No, sir, that absolutely is not fair. I trained the first officer, spent six weeks training with him on the A-300. I know what kind of pilot he was.

He was an excellent pilot. We did all the scenarios which they talked about here today, and he never made any unusual movements, any unusual flight control implements.

O'BRIEN: And let me ask you this. In all the traing you had -- and I know that all of the airlines after a crash in Pittsburgh did some refresher and added training on this whole so-called upset recovery, what happens when you run into a wake turbulence, a lot of training in this area -- was anyone ever told there's an amount of rudder pressure that you can put on those pedals, those rudder pedals, to cause that rudder to go back and forth that can cause the whole thing to break apart?

DAVID: No, sir, we were never informed that. We were never informed of any of the deficiencies of the system in its pedal travel distances or its pedal forces. We had no knowledge, and it never came to our flight manuals until unfortunately after the 587 tragedy.

O'BRIEN: Well, and let's take a look at this to help people understand, because we've got a lot of jargon going here. We have a little bit of animation.

What we're talking about here is using the rudder, which is at back end of the vertical stabilizer. You call it the tail. In cases where you're kind of put off to your side because of this wake turbulence, which this particular airplane flew through, you are told to step on those rudder pedals which move that rudder and thus right the craft. So really, when you look at it, did the first officer do anything wrong?

DAVID: No, sir, the first officer acted just within the limits of his airplane and his training. He didn't make unusual flight control inputs.

He was responding to what he was feeling in the airplane. And his responses were perfectly normal, and, like I said, exceeded no limitations and were not abnormal.

O'BRIEN: So why would the NTSB come up with this finding of pilot error? Is there some other motive, perhaps?

DAVID: I can't speak unfortunately for the NTSB, sir. But I know that they did realize the fact that these pilots did maintain and do perfectly normal maneuvers. And they were hampered by this very unique airplane, which has really strange handling characteristics.

O'BRIEN: But are they covering -- are they covering for Airbus for some reason?

DAVID: I can't speak to that, sir.

O'BRIEN: All right.

DAVID: Their motivations are something that is beyond my scope.

O'BRIEN: All right. John David, thanks for your time with the Allied Pilots Association.

DAVID: You're welcome, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Appreciate you joining us here on LIVE FROM.

One week to go before Americans go to the polls. Hard to believe that.

The candidates are going in every direction in that same handful of states, that well-worn path. For George W. Bush, all about Wisconsin today, a state that Al Gore won by fewer than 2,000 votes in the year 2000. Of course, 2,000 votes that go-around was a lot. This is Bush on the record in Richland Center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My opponent has a history. It's a record. I like to tell people I'm running on my record.

He's not running on his. He's running from his record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Up next, Cuba City, Wisconsin, population 2,074. More than the margin in 2000. And then the president departs for Dubuque in Iowa.

John Kerry was also in the Dairy State today, accusing his opponent of trying to keep those missing Iraqi explosives on the down- low. In what aides are calling Kerry's last official speech of the campaign, the Democrat turned to the headlines bolster some familiar themes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And what did the president have to say about the missing explosives? Not a word. Complete silence, despite devastating evidence that hays administration's failure here put our troops and citizens in greater danger.

George Bush has not offered a single word of explanation. His silence confirms what I have been saying for months. President Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: The next stop for Kerry, Las Vegas, Nevada, followed by Albuquerque, New Mexico. Then a red eye, and we mean red, back to Iowa. Long day on the campaign trail.

Where do the candidates stand today? We'll check the latest poll numbers with Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport. That's at the bottom of the hour right here on LIVE FROM. You'll want to stay tuned for that.

In Iraq, the fight continues to focus in part on that rebel-held stronghold of Falluja. Today, another airstrike aimed at a suspected terrorist hideout. U.S. military officials say one of those killed a known associate of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Hours later, a warning from insurgents on this video. Masked gunmen promised unprecedented strikes against U.S.-led troops in Iraq if there is an all-out offensive in Falluja.

Before that in Baghdad, a U.S. military convoy came other attack. A mother and her daughter were killed in the firefight that ensued as a result of that.

And Iraq's interim prime minister points the finger at multinational forces. Ayad Allawi says their intelligence is partly to blame for the massacre of Iraqi army recruits. The 44 soldiers and four drivers were ambushed by insurgents over the weekend outside of Baghdad. The recruits were traveling unarmed and unescorted.

But troubles in Iraq aside, Vice President Cheney says the U.S. effort has been a success there. Cheney spoke last night at a town hall meeting in Wilmington, Ohio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's been a remarkable success story to date when you look at what's been accomplished overall. I think the president deserves great credit for it. The other credit, and most of the credit, a good part of the credit needs to go specifically as well to the men and women of the United States armed forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Now, in response, John Kerry said today that Cheney is out of touch if he thinks Iraq is a success story.

Well, what do you think? Is Cheney right? Is Iraq a success?

Send your comments to livefrom@cnn.com. Be prepared to have them read a little later on the air. Include your first name and your location. That would help. All of that a later this hour on LIVE FROM.

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist recovering from cancer treatment. Will his illness affect some potentially big decisions in the near future? We'll talk about it with a man who knows the inner workings of the court just ahead.

And will the Sox meet the curse in St. Louis? We're live from the Cardinals' home field just ahead.

And Ashlee Simpson is singing like a canary about the out-of-sync lip synch incident. New developments on her Milli Vanilli-esque scandal a little later on LIVE FROM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Let's get back to that missing weapons story in Iraq, those hundreds of tons of explosives that really can't be accounted for. Some new information is coming out today. But how the weapons vanished and whether Americans dropped the ball, all of that remains unclear. With the latest on the story, we turn now to our Pentagon correspondent, CNN's Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: A whole lot of questions, but very few answers. Now, there is, in fact, a bit of an investigation going on. The Pentagon has asked the Iraq Survey Group, which are the weapons inspectors, and the multinational force, the troops in Iraq, to look into this whole matter and come back with a comprehensive report on exactly what happened, the timeline, who knew what when and what was done about all of it. And so there are no answers to any of those questions at the moment. But we can examine, as you say, what some of the questions are.

When was the last time the 380 tons of high explosives was actually known to be at this facility? Well, the IAEA in Vienna says that they visited the site back in March 2003, before the war began, and they were able to pretty much conclude that the material was there and intact.

So did the Pentagon know that? Did they know when the U.S. soldiers passed through there after Baghdad fell that they should be looking for that material?

It's not clear at this point whether the weapons inspectors in Vienna ever told the Bush administration, and when they told them, if they, that that material was there. We have conflicting information on that.

Some people say that it was only a couple of weeks ago, October, 2004, 18 months later, when the Iraqis wrote to the IAEA that all of this came to light. But that's not absolutely confirmed yet. It is not clear whether the IAEA ever told the Bush administration that these high explosives were there, when the last time is that they were seen.

So then there's another logical train of thought. What could have happened to them?

Well, this is nearly, as you say, 480 tons of material. That's a big lot of stuff. Not very likely chance that somebody sent a trail of wheelbarrows up to the back gate and hauled it out of there.

This was in containers, it was in sealed containers, it weighs a considerable amount. So the question is, was it moved before the war started, after the war started? At what point was it removed, and how would it have been moved out of there?

It likely would have taken a significant number of trucks or vehicles to load up those barrels and haul them away. Was it seen by U.S. intelligence at any point? Did they miss this? Did they even know it was there?

What's very significant is who we're not hearing from just yet. And that is the Iraqi Survey Group, the weapons inspectors and the element of the U.S. intelligence community that would have known something about it. They have not yet publicly weighed in about what they knew and when they knew it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Guilty, that is the plea convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo gave just moments ago to charges of murder and attempted capital murder. The charges stem from two attacks in October 2002, in Virginia.

By pleading guilty, Malvo avoids the possibility of being sentenced to death. Malvo already serving a life sentence for another sniper killing in that spree.

A surprise in the Scott Peterson murder trial. Defense attorney Mark Geragos rested his case today without calling anymore witnesses. Prosecutors expected to call eight rebuttal witnesses tomorrow, and closing arguments begin next week.

As expected, Peterson did not take the stand in his defense. If convicted of killing his wife and unborn son, Peterson could be sentenced to death.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist remains hospitalized today at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda as he recovers from throat surgery. Rehnquist, diagnosed with thyroid cancer, reportedly plans to return to the bench on Monday. Now, although we don't have a complete picture of Rehnquist's condition or the prognosis, the situation does raise questions about the nine charged with upholding the judicial branch of our government.

Ed Lazarus, former Supreme Court clerk, is the author of "Closed Chambers," a look at a he describes as a highly secretive institution that writes many of its own rules. He joins us from our Los Angeles bureau to talk about the implications of an aging bench.

Good to have you with us, sir.

ED LAZARUS, FMR. SUPREME COURT CLERK: Pleasure to be here.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's -- first of all, let's talk about this notion of being back to work on Monday. And I'm not going to ask you any medical questions here, but let's assume for a moment that he's still a little groggy after surgery. A Supreme Court justice, the chief justice, doesn't necessarily have to report to Capitol Hill to do his work, correct?

LAZARUS: That's absolutely right. The chief justice could be at home, he could even be in the hospital. As long as he's awake and alert, he can have the briefs taken to him. He can listen to tapes of oral arguments.

He's got his four law clerks who can help him out. So the work of the court can be done basically by telecommuting, with some rare exceptions.

O'BRIEN: Well, it's interesting, because we think of the court and many of its traditions as somewhat anachronistic. And yet, they're pretty good about being able to work at home as well.

LAZARUS: Oh, yes, a great deal of work gets done outside of the court. In fact, Justice John Paul Stevens, the eldest of the justices, spends a great deal of time in Florida. And so he has material sent down to his winter home there, and he does his work from there. And so this would not be unusual for the court at all.

O'BRIEN: All right. More on Stevens in just a moment. But I do want you to explain to folks what the Constitution says about a succession plan for the justices in case they're ill, infirmed in any way. I believe it is precisely nothing, right?

LAZARUS: Well, that's -- that's basically right. The justices have, "life tenure." And that means just that.

There's no way for them to be removed under the Constitution except through the impeachment process if they've committed some high crime or misdemeanor. Just like a president can't be removed except by impeachment.

O'BRIEN: So -- and it's the same impeachment process that we've seen actually unfold a couple of times in our past. The House of Representatives holds a trial, and so forth, and that has never happened, has never occurred for a justice of the Supreme Court. So if there is a justice that is ill over time -- and surely this has happened in the history of our republic -- what have been sort of the informal arrangements that have been worked out?

LAZARUS: Well, in the modern era, this occurred in the mid 1970s with Justice William O. Douglas, who suffered an incapacitating stroke while on the bench but did not want to retire. And the other eight justices got together and they basically signed a secret pact that if the court -- if those eight were split 4-4 over any case, making Justice Douglas's decision the decisive vote, they would push the case off to the next term and they wouldn't decide it, because they didn't believe that Justice Douglas was up to it.

And, in fact, Justice White objected to that procedure because he felt it wasn't called for in the Constitution for one of the justices to be cut out by the other eight. But that's what happened. Nobody knew about it for many years, but there was this secret agreement, and eventually Justice Douglas did pass away and his seat was actually filled by John Paul Stevens.

O'BRIEN: But it was a moot agreement. It was never employed, correct?

LAZARUS: Well, no, it did come up during that term, that some case got pushed off that might otherwise have been decided.

O'BRIEN: All right. Interesting.

Let's talk quickly, before we get away here. Here's a court that has -- this particular group of nine justices, what, about 10 years now? And there -- it raises the issue of their age and their ability to continue their job.

Obviously, Justice Stevens comes up in these conversation quite a bit. Why don't you just tell us about the relative health of this court and what the thinking is who might retire when. LAZARUS: Well, Justice Stevens is the eldest of the justices at 84. Chief Justice Rehnquist is next, and Sandra Day O'Connor after that. So those are the three that are focused on most often as potential retirees.

You also have now with -- with Chief Justice Rehnquist four justices who have experienced cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has, Stevens has, O'Connor has, and now the chief.

So you have a court that is aging together. They've been together longer than any group since the 1820s without a retirement. And I think it is almost a foregone conclusion at this point that the next president will get at least one appointment, and perhaps more than that.

O'BRIEN: Ed Lazarus is the author of "Closed Chambers." It's a fascinating read. We appreciate your insights on the court, as always.

LAZARUS: My pleasure. Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Thanks for your time.

Candidates are hitting hard at the swing states right now, but are they really making an impact? We've got the latest Gallup polls ahead on LIVE FROM.

LARRY SMITH, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Larry Smith in St. Louis. Coming up, the recipe for the Cardinals. Can some home cooking and a Boston insider cook up a victory in game three? I'll have a preview.

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Mary Snow at the New York Stock Exchange. How will the huge merger in the cell phone industry help or hamper your service? I'll have the details when CNN's LIVE FROM continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Aired October 26, 2004 - 14:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: So what caused Flight 587 to crash? Investigators ready their final report on an accident that had a lot of people suspecting terrorism at first.
Seven days and hundreds of miles to go. Which candidate will get the final momentum to move into the White House?

On the bench. The illness of the chief justice raises an important question. What if a member of the Supreme Court gets too sick to serve?

And Vice President Cheney speaking in glowing terms about the war in Iraq. Your e-mails on that subject this hour.

From the CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Miles O'Brien. Kyra Phillips is off today. This hour of CNN's LIVE FROM begins right now.

It was a hell storm in Belle Harbor two months and one day after the 9/11 attacks. Suspicion of terror were unavoidable, but almost two years after American Airlines Flight 587 crashed and burned in a neighborhood on the outskirts of John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, federal safety regulators say the copilot, the first officer, made fatal mistakes.

CNN's Kathleen Koch is following developments in Washington at the National Transportation Safety Board. She joins us now live -- Kathleen.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Miles, the NTSB has been in hearings for roughly four hours this morning. Now they're taking a break. And what they've been doing throughout the course of the morning is basically laying out what happened in this accident and potentially why. And then the why is something that the board members will vote on later in the day.

Obviously, what initially happened, as everyone recalls, that plane crossed some turbulence. In trying to recover from the turbulence, the first officer moved the rudder, the big fin on the back of the tail fin, the moveable piece, back and forth, back and forth. That snapped the tail fin off.

Now, the chief investigator today in talking about the likely causes of this, he dispensed first of all, with one of the early pieces of conjecture, and then again pointed to the most likely causes that they're coming to at this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT BENZON, NTSB CHIEF INVESTIGATOR: Throughout the course of this investigation, no evidence was found to suggest any terrorist intent. This accident was unique in several ways. It was the first time a major structural component fabricated out of composite material failed in flight on a commercial airplane.

Also, it was the first major loss of an airbus airplane on U.S. soil. In addition, several human performance and airplane characteristics combined in a most unfortunate way to cause this accident.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOCH: Now, when it comes to human performance, that is, indeed, the pilot's or the copilot's action moving that tail fin back and forth, as he had been trained to do to recover from an upset. And when it comes to the airplane characteristics, what the board is look at is the very sensitive rudder on the A-300-600 that makes it possible for pilots using it, what was initially considered being normal maneuvering speeds, to rip that tail off.

Now, this has been a very, very difficult morning for the families. They saw some actual video from toll plaza cameras that recorded the aircraft coming down. Some families, it was simply too much for them to bear. Some of them broke down in tears.

Some of them also that we talked to were very concerned about -- concerned the NTSB cited today that both airline and the airplane manufacturer airbus could have been a better -- done a better job in sharing information about this aircraft, about its design and past incidents that it's had.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): On behalf of all the families, we would like to say that airbus, we consider airbus as criminal. And the question is why? Because they were transporting in terms of providing all the information so this accident on Flight 587 could be avoided. And that's the reason why we're asking the FAA to play a major role and be tougher in terms of requesting the information from the manufacturer, as well as from the carrier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOCH: And so, again, safety officials saying they believe there will be a very important moral lesson after this hearing concludes today, that information sharing is critical in keeping the flying public safe -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Kathleen Koch in Washington. Thank you very much.

You know, when an airliner crashes, it almost always is the result of a unique series of circumstances that ultimately lead to the tragedy. And usually, if any one of those unique circumstances, those twists of fate, had not occurred, the tragedy would have been averted. So while the lead paragraph today may say pilot error was the cause of the loss of American 587, it is, in fact, more subtle and complex than that. And what's more, there are some pilots who say it is unfair to blame the flight crew in this case at all.

We're joined now by John David from the Allied Pilots Association.

John, good to have you with us.

JOHN DAVID, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION: Thank you, Miles. It's good to be here.

O'BRIEN: Is it accurate to say pilot error here, or does that not tell the whole story?

DAVID: That doesn't tell the whole story at all, Miles. These pilots were acting perfectly normally. They violated no procedures and exceeded no limitations.

They were hampered by the very unusual flight characteristics of this airplane. It's a highly sensitive airplane, much more sensitive than any other aircraft operating today. Additionally, they were hampered by the fact that Airbus Industries hadn't shared what it knew about this very unique airplane and what it knew about a prior incident with Flight 903.

O'BRIEN: So what you're saying is there is a potential flaw, or the allegation is that there is a flaw in the design of the Airbus A- 300. Why hasn't the NTSB come to that same conclusion.

DAVID: The NTSB has concluded that today, Miles. They talked about the sensitivities of this rudder system, much more unique than any other aircraft operating. And they're going to make a recommendation to effect change in that.

O'BRIEN: All right. But, nevertheless, pilot error is the lead line in all this. Is that fair?

DAVID: No, sir, that absolutely is not fair. I trained the first officer, spent six weeks training with him on the A-300. I know what kind of pilot he was.

He was an excellent pilot. We did all the scenarios which they talked about here today, and he never made any unusual movements, any unusual flight control implements.

O'BRIEN: And let me ask you this. In all the traing you had -- and I know that all of the airlines after a crash in Pittsburgh did some refresher and added training on this whole so-called upset recovery, what happens when you run into a wake turbulence, a lot of training in this area -- was anyone ever told there's an amount of rudder pressure that you can put on those pedals, those rudder pedals, to cause that rudder to go back and forth that can cause the whole thing to break apart?

DAVID: No, sir, we were never informed that. We were never informed of any of the deficiencies of the system in its pedal travel distances or its pedal forces. We had no knowledge, and it never came to our flight manuals until unfortunately after the 587 tragedy.

O'BRIEN: Well, and let's take a look at this to help people understand, because we've got a lot of jargon going here. We have a little bit of animation.

What we're talking about here is using the rudder, which is at back end of the vertical stabilizer. You call it the tail. In cases where you're kind of put off to your side because of this wake turbulence, which this particular airplane flew through, you are told to step on those rudder pedals which move that rudder and thus right the craft. So really, when you look at it, did the first officer do anything wrong?

DAVID: No, sir, the first officer acted just within the limits of his airplane and his training. He didn't make unusual flight control inputs.

He was responding to what he was feeling in the airplane. And his responses were perfectly normal, and, like I said, exceeded no limitations and were not abnormal.

O'BRIEN: So why would the NTSB come up with this finding of pilot error? Is there some other motive, perhaps?

DAVID: I can't speak unfortunately for the NTSB, sir. But I know that they did realize the fact that these pilots did maintain and do perfectly normal maneuvers. And they were hampered by this very unique airplane, which has really strange handling characteristics.

O'BRIEN: But are they covering -- are they covering for Airbus for some reason?

DAVID: I can't speak to that, sir.

O'BRIEN: All right.

DAVID: Their motivations are something that is beyond my scope.

O'BRIEN: All right. John David, thanks for your time with the Allied Pilots Association.

DAVID: You're welcome, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Appreciate you joining us here on LIVE FROM.

One week to go before Americans go to the polls. Hard to believe that.

The candidates are going in every direction in that same handful of states, that well-worn path. For George W. Bush, all about Wisconsin today, a state that Al Gore won by fewer than 2,000 votes in the year 2000. Of course, 2,000 votes that go-around was a lot. This is Bush on the record in Richland Center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My opponent has a history. It's a record. I like to tell people I'm running on my record.

He's not running on his. He's running from his record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Up next, Cuba City, Wisconsin, population 2,074. More than the margin in 2000. And then the president departs for Dubuque in Iowa.

John Kerry was also in the Dairy State today, accusing his opponent of trying to keep those missing Iraqi explosives on the down- low. In what aides are calling Kerry's last official speech of the campaign, the Democrat turned to the headlines bolster some familiar themes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And what did the president have to say about the missing explosives? Not a word. Complete silence, despite devastating evidence that hays administration's failure here put our troops and citizens in greater danger.

George Bush has not offered a single word of explanation. His silence confirms what I have been saying for months. President Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: The next stop for Kerry, Las Vegas, Nevada, followed by Albuquerque, New Mexico. Then a red eye, and we mean red, back to Iowa. Long day on the campaign trail.

Where do the candidates stand today? We'll check the latest poll numbers with Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport. That's at the bottom of the hour right here on LIVE FROM. You'll want to stay tuned for that.

In Iraq, the fight continues to focus in part on that rebel-held stronghold of Falluja. Today, another airstrike aimed at a suspected terrorist hideout. U.S. military officials say one of those killed a known associate of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Hours later, a warning from insurgents on this video. Masked gunmen promised unprecedented strikes against U.S.-led troops in Iraq if there is an all-out offensive in Falluja.

Before that in Baghdad, a U.S. military convoy came other attack. A mother and her daughter were killed in the firefight that ensued as a result of that.

And Iraq's interim prime minister points the finger at multinational forces. Ayad Allawi says their intelligence is partly to blame for the massacre of Iraqi army recruits. The 44 soldiers and four drivers were ambushed by insurgents over the weekend outside of Baghdad. The recruits were traveling unarmed and unescorted.

But troubles in Iraq aside, Vice President Cheney says the U.S. effort has been a success there. Cheney spoke last night at a town hall meeting in Wilmington, Ohio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's been a remarkable success story to date when you look at what's been accomplished overall. I think the president deserves great credit for it. The other credit, and most of the credit, a good part of the credit needs to go specifically as well to the men and women of the United States armed forces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Now, in response, John Kerry said today that Cheney is out of touch if he thinks Iraq is a success story.

Well, what do you think? Is Cheney right? Is Iraq a success?

Send your comments to livefrom@cnn.com. Be prepared to have them read a little later on the air. Include your first name and your location. That would help. All of that a later this hour on LIVE FROM.

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist recovering from cancer treatment. Will his illness affect some potentially big decisions in the near future? We'll talk about it with a man who knows the inner workings of the court just ahead.

And will the Sox meet the curse in St. Louis? We're live from the Cardinals' home field just ahead.

And Ashlee Simpson is singing like a canary about the out-of-sync lip synch incident. New developments on her Milli Vanilli-esque scandal a little later on LIVE FROM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Let's get back to that missing weapons story in Iraq, those hundreds of tons of explosives that really can't be accounted for. Some new information is coming out today. But how the weapons vanished and whether Americans dropped the ball, all of that remains unclear. With the latest on the story, we turn now to our Pentagon correspondent, CNN's Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: A whole lot of questions, but very few answers. Now, there is, in fact, a bit of an investigation going on. The Pentagon has asked the Iraq Survey Group, which are the weapons inspectors, and the multinational force, the troops in Iraq, to look into this whole matter and come back with a comprehensive report on exactly what happened, the timeline, who knew what when and what was done about all of it. And so there are no answers to any of those questions at the moment. But we can examine, as you say, what some of the questions are.

When was the last time the 380 tons of high explosives was actually known to be at this facility? Well, the IAEA in Vienna says that they visited the site back in March 2003, before the war began, and they were able to pretty much conclude that the material was there and intact.

So did the Pentagon know that? Did they know when the U.S. soldiers passed through there after Baghdad fell that they should be looking for that material?

It's not clear at this point whether the weapons inspectors in Vienna ever told the Bush administration, and when they told them, if they, that that material was there. We have conflicting information on that.

Some people say that it was only a couple of weeks ago, October, 2004, 18 months later, when the Iraqis wrote to the IAEA that all of this came to light. But that's not absolutely confirmed yet. It is not clear whether the IAEA ever told the Bush administration that these high explosives were there, when the last time is that they were seen.

So then there's another logical train of thought. What could have happened to them?

Well, this is nearly, as you say, 480 tons of material. That's a big lot of stuff. Not very likely chance that somebody sent a trail of wheelbarrows up to the back gate and hauled it out of there.

This was in containers, it was in sealed containers, it weighs a considerable amount. So the question is, was it moved before the war started, after the war started? At what point was it removed, and how would it have been moved out of there?

It likely would have taken a significant number of trucks or vehicles to load up those barrels and haul them away. Was it seen by U.S. intelligence at any point? Did they miss this? Did they even know it was there?

What's very significant is who we're not hearing from just yet. And that is the Iraqi Survey Group, the weapons inspectors and the element of the U.S. intelligence community that would have known something about it. They have not yet publicly weighed in about what they knew and when they knew it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Guilty, that is the plea convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo gave just moments ago to charges of murder and attempted capital murder. The charges stem from two attacks in October 2002, in Virginia.

By pleading guilty, Malvo avoids the possibility of being sentenced to death. Malvo already serving a life sentence for another sniper killing in that spree.

A surprise in the Scott Peterson murder trial. Defense attorney Mark Geragos rested his case today without calling anymore witnesses. Prosecutors expected to call eight rebuttal witnesses tomorrow, and closing arguments begin next week.

As expected, Peterson did not take the stand in his defense. If convicted of killing his wife and unborn son, Peterson could be sentenced to death.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist remains hospitalized today at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda as he recovers from throat surgery. Rehnquist, diagnosed with thyroid cancer, reportedly plans to return to the bench on Monday. Now, although we don't have a complete picture of Rehnquist's condition or the prognosis, the situation does raise questions about the nine charged with upholding the judicial branch of our government.

Ed Lazarus, former Supreme Court clerk, is the author of "Closed Chambers," a look at a he describes as a highly secretive institution that writes many of its own rules. He joins us from our Los Angeles bureau to talk about the implications of an aging bench.

Good to have you with us, sir.

ED LAZARUS, FMR. SUPREME COURT CLERK: Pleasure to be here.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's -- first of all, let's talk about this notion of being back to work on Monday. And I'm not going to ask you any medical questions here, but let's assume for a moment that he's still a little groggy after surgery. A Supreme Court justice, the chief justice, doesn't necessarily have to report to Capitol Hill to do his work, correct?

LAZARUS: That's absolutely right. The chief justice could be at home, he could even be in the hospital. As long as he's awake and alert, he can have the briefs taken to him. He can listen to tapes of oral arguments.

He's got his four law clerks who can help him out. So the work of the court can be done basically by telecommuting, with some rare exceptions.

O'BRIEN: Well, it's interesting, because we think of the court and many of its traditions as somewhat anachronistic. And yet, they're pretty good about being able to work at home as well.

LAZARUS: Oh, yes, a great deal of work gets done outside of the court. In fact, Justice John Paul Stevens, the eldest of the justices, spends a great deal of time in Florida. And so he has material sent down to his winter home there, and he does his work from there. And so this would not be unusual for the court at all.

O'BRIEN: All right. More on Stevens in just a moment. But I do want you to explain to folks what the Constitution says about a succession plan for the justices in case they're ill, infirmed in any way. I believe it is precisely nothing, right?

LAZARUS: Well, that's -- that's basically right. The justices have, "life tenure." And that means just that.

There's no way for them to be removed under the Constitution except through the impeachment process if they've committed some high crime or misdemeanor. Just like a president can't be removed except by impeachment.

O'BRIEN: So -- and it's the same impeachment process that we've seen actually unfold a couple of times in our past. The House of Representatives holds a trial, and so forth, and that has never happened, has never occurred for a justice of the Supreme Court. So if there is a justice that is ill over time -- and surely this has happened in the history of our republic -- what have been sort of the informal arrangements that have been worked out?

LAZARUS: Well, in the modern era, this occurred in the mid 1970s with Justice William O. Douglas, who suffered an incapacitating stroke while on the bench but did not want to retire. And the other eight justices got together and they basically signed a secret pact that if the court -- if those eight were split 4-4 over any case, making Justice Douglas's decision the decisive vote, they would push the case off to the next term and they wouldn't decide it, because they didn't believe that Justice Douglas was up to it.

And, in fact, Justice White objected to that procedure because he felt it wasn't called for in the Constitution for one of the justices to be cut out by the other eight. But that's what happened. Nobody knew about it for many years, but there was this secret agreement, and eventually Justice Douglas did pass away and his seat was actually filled by John Paul Stevens.

O'BRIEN: But it was a moot agreement. It was never employed, correct?

LAZARUS: Well, no, it did come up during that term, that some case got pushed off that might otherwise have been decided.

O'BRIEN: All right. Interesting.

Let's talk quickly, before we get away here. Here's a court that has -- this particular group of nine justices, what, about 10 years now? And there -- it raises the issue of their age and their ability to continue their job.

Obviously, Justice Stevens comes up in these conversation quite a bit. Why don't you just tell us about the relative health of this court and what the thinking is who might retire when. LAZARUS: Well, Justice Stevens is the eldest of the justices at 84. Chief Justice Rehnquist is next, and Sandra Day O'Connor after that. So those are the three that are focused on most often as potential retirees.

You also have now with -- with Chief Justice Rehnquist four justices who have experienced cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has, Stevens has, O'Connor has, and now the chief.

So you have a court that is aging together. They've been together longer than any group since the 1820s without a retirement. And I think it is almost a foregone conclusion at this point that the next president will get at least one appointment, and perhaps more than that.

O'BRIEN: Ed Lazarus is the author of "Closed Chambers." It's a fascinating read. We appreciate your insights on the court, as always.

LAZARUS: My pleasure. Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Thanks for your time.

Candidates are hitting hard at the swing states right now, but are they really making an impact? We've got the latest Gallup polls ahead on LIVE FROM.

LARRY SMITH, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Larry Smith in St. Louis. Coming up, the recipe for the Cardinals. Can some home cooking and a Boston insider cook up a victory in game three? I'll have a preview.

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Mary Snow at the New York Stock Exchange. How will the huge merger in the cell phone industry help or hamper your service? I'll have the details when CNN's LIVE FROM continues right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com