Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
U.S. Troops Question Secretary Rumsfeld At Town Hall Meeting
Aired December 08, 2004 - 13:30 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.
ERIC PHILIPS, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: According to the Associated Press, as well as Detroit reports, we know that Jermaine O'Neal is now charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault and battery, while his teammates, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Anthony Johnson and David Harrison were all charged with one count each.
Assault and battery charges carry a maximum penalty of 93 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. And it is interesting to note that Pacers center, David Harrison was not punished by the NBA -- was not punished by the NBA. But he is expected to face criminal charges and, in fact, he was one of those charged.
Again, five fans are also expected to be charged with misdemeanor assault and battery for their role in the mayhem. One fan will be charged with a felony assault charge for accusations of throwing a chair.
That news conference confirming all of these charges expected to take place in just a little while. And then tomorrow, the players association is meeting with an arbiter, trying to get those suspensions reduced or thrown out altogether.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And now let's talk about the criteria for some of these charges because we know, of course, there is the videotape that these investigators looked over, time and time again, to try to see if there were any season ticket holders in addition to identifying some of the players.
But apparently, there were a number of reports they looked over as well. Those reports including what?
PHILIPS: Well, they were looking at eyewitness reports. They're trying to gather as much information as they possibly can to figure out what happened, what precipitated this unprecedented, you know, disturbance at a game like this.
So they've been talking to those who were at the game. They've been looking at the videotape from different angles. They've been trying to figure out if they can see things that, perhaps, we couldn't see just from watching it on TV, like if we may have been at our homes, or something like that.
They've been trying to gather as much information so that when they brought these charges forward, they would have a very solid ground to stand on and that these charges would stick.
Remember, not only are they charging these players from a criminal standpoint just because it's in accordance with the law, but they want to send a message. And that message to the American people is that this is not something that's going to be acceptable in major sports, be it basketball, baseball, football or any other major sport.
They want the players to know it. They want the fans to know it. And they don't want to see this happen again.
WHITFIELD: And just because we know of five players so far, and it's expected five fans might be charged, is it also to be expected that it just may be more than that, that this may be just the beginning?
PHILIPS: It could be more than that. At this point, we're hearing it's the five fans...
WHITFIELD: Because it sure looked like more than 10 people involved in this brawl.
PHILIPS: I mean, you saw fisticuffs flying everywhere.
WHITFIELD: Sure.
PHILIPS: I mean, it looked like there could have been a lot more people involved than just that.
WHITFIELD: OK.
PHILIPS: And like I said, the fact that David Harrison was not punished by the NBA...
WHITFIELD: Yes.
PHILIPS: ... but that he did face these criminal charges is evidence that they're looking beyond just what the NBA saw or what they may have seen on that particular night.
WHITFIELD: All right. Eric Philips, thanks so much, appreciate it.
PHILIPS: All right.
WHITFIELD: All right -- Kyra?
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: I want to take you straight to the Pentagon now, live press briefing that's taking place -- Brigadier General David Rodriguez and also Pentagon spokesperson Larry DiRita.
We're trying to monitor, see if they have any comments about Donald Rumsfeld in Kuwait and how he pretty much got hammered by the soldiers there.
LARRY DIRITA, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: ... superb job of turning around a component of the defense industrial base that was doing different things.
The Army prioritized a much greater need for armored vehicles across the board, including armored humvees. They improvised with add-on kits that could be used to attach to existing humvees. And then they also went out and sought additional production capability.
And it's one of the great sort of stories of what happens in the United States when the country is at war. When the country is at war, the war begins, and then we start to mobilize.
And this is a perfect example of the kind of mobilization that took place. The president added -- has added -- probably a $1 billion, $1.2 billion, I think, and counting, to the defense budget to specifically pay for armored vehicles since the first fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill.
That said, we're now producing something on the order of 450 armored humvees a month. So, it's multiples of what we were producing just a year ago, a little bit more than a year ago.
In the theater, there are approximately three out of every four humvees is armored. In this particular unit, in which the young man asked the question, the way that unit is arranging to move into Iraq, that unit will transport its vehicles -- it's a brigade combat team. There are something on the order of 1,000 vehicles on the brigade combat team, of all types.
It will fall in on existing armored humvees in its area of responsibility in Iraq for a unit that will be leaving Iraq. And the commander estimates that there's plus or minus 200 armored humvees that the unit will be, as I said, falling in on -- in other words, taking responsibility for a departing unit's vehicles.
The commander -- I called him because I saw the town hall meeting, myself. And it raised the same question in my mind. So I called the commander and just tried to get a sense of what the actual circumstances are.
And as -- in addition to the things I have just told you, what he said was that the policy is that units move into the theater. Vehicles that are driven by soldiers are armored. If they are not armored, they are not driven. They're convoyed in on other vehicles and they're used in base operations, base camp operations inside of Iraq. They do not leave the base camp.
So the Army and combatant commander in the region has a policy. It's a policy that involves substantial mobilization of the defense industrial base to provide a need that -- for all the priorities that we were focused on prior to 9/11, was not being filled. It's now a need that needs to be filled and is being filled.
The -- as to whether an individual unit might be taken advantage of equipment that's about to be returned to the United States and seeing if there's some aspects of that equipment that they can use for themselves before it goes to the United States, and maybe taking components out of it, that's a very standard practice to sort of just take advantage of, essentially, retrograde equipment that's going to return to the United States. And if a unit -- the policy has been if a unit determines that it would like to use some of that, it goes and gets access to it. I don't know that that's specifically what the young man was referring to. But I think the point is that there's a plan for the rotation of forces that involves substantial numbers of production of armored vehicles.
The commanders there recognize that they would want more armored hum -- vehicles, a year or so ago. And we've gone about the task, including providing the funds to do it.
But let me also just -- you know, the secretary goes to visit with troops so that he can hear the entire range of things that troops have on their minds. It is very common for the secretary to hear from troops about a situation that their family may be having difficulty getting access to continuing education on base or something like that.
They don't have the kinds of programs at their facility that they wish they had for their families. It runs the gamut. At this same town hall, I was watching it this morning, as I said. You know, it was available on the Pentagon channel. We'll post the transcript here shortly.
The range of questions was quite typical. There was a soldier who asked whether, for example, the chaplain of one of the units asked if the secretary would be prepared to take his unit to Disneyland on his plane.
There was another soldier who wanted to make sure that his team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, were going to -- he was sure was going to go to the Superbowl and he wanted to make sure there was going to be television access while they were inside of Iraq.
There was, I think, a very positive interaction that the secretary had after the event, probably spent 45 minutes shaking hands and taking photos, which is a very typical aspect of these kinds of events.
So, I watched it. I thought it was a very standard...
PHILLIPS: Pentagon spokesperson, Larry DiRita there, briefing reporters, responding to some parts of give and take between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and soldiers in Kuwait.
We saw some pretty hard-hitting questions from soldiers directed towards the secretary of defense about lack of resources going into combat, lack of armored humvees -- first time we've really seen soldiers ask those types of questions to the secretary of defense.
Larry DiRita responding, saying that the president has added to the defense budget, that they believe they have laid out a strong number of armored humvees and continue to do so.
It's an interesting give and take between soldiers and the secretary of defense. We haven't yet seen -- we'll continue to follow it and see what comes out of it. Until then, we're going to take a quick break and talk more about this with General Don Shepperd straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: A pep talk turned into more of a grilling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Rumsfeld was speaking to U.S. troops in Kuwait City when he was hit with a barrage of questions about equipment shortages, tours of duty and pay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED U.S. SOLDIER: We're helping, or trying to help about 150 soldiers get their contingency travel pay. We've gone through the chain of command. We've tried IG channels.
These soldiers have gone, some since July, without getting travel pay, thousands of dollars. They're having creditors call them at home, call their spouses at home, threatening collection action.
We have a big problem. There seems to be a problem with the defense, defense finance accounting service. Can you help us understand what that problem is, Mr. Secretary? Or even better, can you point us to a resource that will help get these soldiers paid?
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Can someone here get the details of the unit he's talking about? That's just not right.
Folks who have earned money and are due money ought to be able to get the money, and they ought not to have to put their families under stress while they're waiting for the money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Were these the kind of questions that Donald Rumsfeld was expecting? How unusual is this for troops to be so candid with their top boss?
Joining me from Los Angeles is CNN military analyst and retired Air Force general, Don Shepperd.
Good to see you, general.
MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: How are you, Fredricka?
WHITFIELD: I'm doing pretty good.
Well, it's not unusual to have this kind of forum of an easy Q and A session between the troops and a visiting secretary. But isn't it unusual to see that this kind of tone was borderline confrontational?
SHEPPERD: No it really isn't. I tell you, it's just like TV. When you put yourself in front of the troops, you better be ready for the tough questions. And I've seen Secretary Rumsfeld get a lot tougher questions in other forums than that.
The troops will talk directly to you. And they're going to tell you their concerns. And generally speaking, you don't have the slightest idea about the real answers to the questions. You have to go to the chain of command later to get the answers.
And this was a tough day for the secretary, Fredricka?
WHITFIELD: Well, is it your feeling that this tone was one that was produced by a pretty pervasive sense of frustration among the troops there because some of those troops, when they did ask questions, they got applause from the supporting audience there.
SHEPPERD: Yes, I think this troops, the troops in the audience, were in a large part guardsmen and reservists. And reportedly, the tough question came from a Tennessee Army national guardsman.
I thought the tone of the question was respectful and right to the point. His question is, look, we're going into combat. We don't have the up-armored vehicles that we think we need, so where are they and why don't we have them?
That's a good, tough question.
The harsh reality is nobody thought the insurgency was going to be this tough or go on this long, and we're still short of vehicles despite the fact that we are manufacturing them at a very rapid rate.
We're still short of the vehicles, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: We saw the one response from Donald Rumsfeld, who said, well, let's get that information so we can try and follow up on that. People should be paid as they are expected to be.
At the same time, there was another response where he said, you know, responding to one of the troops, that you shouldn't be looking for the -- you know, looking for a particular Army as opposed to dealing with the Army that you have.
So you have to wonder if comments like that are further agitating or if they are in any way pacifying?
SHEPPERD: Well, I don't know whether they're pacifying or not. The harsh reality is that when you go into war, everybody wants to be in a tank and be surrounded by armor.
The reality is you don't.
There are reports that these troops were scrounging metal and scrounging glass out of dumps and Jerry rigging their vehicles. The harsh reality, again, is, as reported earlier by CNN, their vehicles are often convoyed further north.
And then when they get further north to their actual locations and go on combat operations, they go in vehicles that are properly armored. But the troops don't see that, and they don't know about it. So again, I think you're seeing the frustration of people that have been there, that have thought they were going home, that have now been extended. And you're seeing the shortage of equipment frustrations.
These are natural among troops, not surprising to me or anybody that's dealt with this, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Well, it would seem the Pentagon would have to respond with more than just lip service because otherwise, there would be some dwindling of this real verve to serve.
SHEPPERD: Yes, we're an all-volunteer military. When you volunteer, you sign up for certain things. Some of it you realize. Some of it you really don't until later.
The harsh reality is they can keep you as long as they need you in the military. Even after you are supposedly able to get out, they can extend your tour, which has been done.
And of course, they can send you into combat even if you don't think you have all of the equipment you need.
We're getting better at it. We're getting the equipment we need, but it's slower than the troops want up there. And of course it affects morale and it engenders the type of questions you heard today, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: General Don Shepperd joining us today from Los Angeles. Thanks so much for your time.
SHEPPERD: Pleasure.
WHITFIELD: Kyra?
PHILLIPS: Back now to the U.N. "oil for food" flap and the tarnish it's threatening to leave on Kofi Annan's leadership.
No U.N. member state has called for Annan's ouster, but some U.S. lawmakers have called for that and worse.
Joining me to look at Annan's tenure in its totality are journalists Nile Gardiner of the "National Review" and Ian Williams of "The Nation".
Gentlemen, great to have you both.
IAN WILLIAMS, "THE NATION": Good to see you.
NILE GARDINER, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Hi, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right.
Let's look at the leadership of Kofi Annan for a moment. Putting the "oil for food" scandal aside, let's look at terrorism, WMD, Sudan, Iran. Nile, how has he been as a leader on all these other issues? GARDINER: I think that Kofi Annan has been a spectacular failure, not only with regard to the "oil for food" program but also in terms of his dealings with various dictatorships on the world stage.
He has simply failed to stand up to figures such as Saddam Hussein. He failed to stand up to the genocide in Rwanda and in Bosnia when he was head of U.N. peacekeeping.
He is now failing to deal with the genocide in Sudan. He is also, I think, extremely weak in dealing with the crisis currently taking place with regard to Iran, an extremely ineffectual secretary general who has been, I think, a monumental failure as leader of the United Nations.
PHILLIPS: Ian, do you think that Kofi Annan has been that disastrous of a leader?
WILLIAMS: No, his position is weak. In Rwanda, it was the United States that said on no account, whatsoever, should any additional peacekeeping troops be sent there and were prepared to veto any move to do it.
In Bosnia, it was Clinton and the United States which resisted sending any troops in there to back up what was happening.
In Sudan, it's the United States, Ambassador Danforth, who recently started back pedaling after Kofi Annan had been putting on the pressure all year, and said that, well, really we should try to bribe the Sudanese into behaving properly.
So, I mean, what we have here is a persistent pattern of the failures of the United States being blamed upon the United Nations. And then, of course, on to Kofi Annan who, in the terms of his office, has been, I think, by the estimation of most statesmen across world -- and stateswomen -- has been fairly, spectacularly successful because he has managed to be a diplomat.
When he went to see Saddam Hussein, for example, I've seen some of the conservative commentators talk about he's someone who he could do business with. But they forget that he also said that there's nothing like diplomacy when backed up with the threat of force.
He doesn't have his own force. He has to rely upon others to deliver. And far, far too often they fail.
PHILLIPS: Well, let's talk about the "oil for food" scandal, now, then. Aside from -- Ian, you're saying all those other issues, it wasn't Kofi Annan's (hp) fault or the U.N.'s fault. But let's look at "oil for food."
I mean, this is something the U.N. was in charge of, Kofi Annan was in charge of, from setting the prices to letting other companies get a part of this. And now you've got this connection with his son allegedly getting payoffs through this whole deal.
So, Nile, is it big enough of a scandal that he should resign over that?
GARDINER: Well, think that Kofi Annan is in deep trouble with regard to the "oil for food" scandal. At the very least, he stands accused of huge mismanagement on an epic scale.
And there is serious evidence emerging against senior U.N. officials with regard to the management of this program, including the Benon Savan, the man Annan appointed to head the oil for food program.
But oil for food, I think, is just simply part of the bigger picture -- a culture of secrecy, mismanagement, sleaze and corruption at the heart of the United Nations.
Even the U.N.'s own staff employee union recently passed a resolution of no confidence in the senior management of the United Nations following a wave of internal scandals.
In addition to that, Kofi Annan has just accepted institutional responsibility for widespread human rights abuses by U.N. civilian and peacekeeping personnel in the Congo. This is a scandal, perhaps 100 times bigger than Abu Ghraib, which is about to explode in the U.N.'s face.
This is a man in serious trouble. He no longer has the confidence of the United States government, and he is facing widespread calls for his resignation on Capitol Hill.
So, the U.N.'s employee union passing this vote of no confidence, yet today, before the security council, when Kofi Annan stood before the members, he got a standing ovation. Why, Ian?
WILLIAMS: Well because nobody else agrees with Mr. Gardiner. The staff union actually hastily came back and declared total support. And I'm really interested to see somebody who worked with Margaret Thatcher...
GARDINER: That's completely wrong, actually.
WILLIAMS: ... allowing trade unions to decide who their boss is going to be.
I'd really like to hear what he thinks if the UAW decided to vote on the CEO of Ford or General Motors.
GARDINER: You could stick to the truth, actually. What you said just now quite untrue.
WILLIAMS: But more to the point is the oil for food program, which he quite wisely skipped here because he knows that the whole thing is a furor brought out of nothing.
Most of that was money was smuggled -- was revenue from smuggled oil that was smuggled with the full knowledge and blessing of the United States, the United Kingdom...
PHILLIPS: But shouldn't Kofi Annan have... WILLIAMS: ... with the full knowledge of Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIPS: Ian. Ian -- let me ask -- Ian, let me ask you a question. It's the U.N. that appointed inspectors that was -- they were supposed to monitor where that oil was coming from and where it was going and if the aid was getting in there.
I mean, it was U.N. inspectors that were supposed to be in charge of that.
WILLIAMS: Most of the aid did get in. Most of those people -- most of Iraq, by the end, were dependent on U.N. food supplies. That was why, in fact, the occupation authorities asked the U.N. to continue the program after the beginning of the occupation.
And it was so successful that at the end of the occupation, the first thing the U.S. did was to get the security council to hand over $8 billion in surplus to the Iraqi occupation, which was then, as far as we know, given to Halliburton on no-bid contracts because the international audience had not got any access.
GARDINER: If I could respond to this...
WILLIAMS: That is the real oil for food scandal.
PHILLIPS: Final thought, Nile. Final thought, Nile.
GARDINER: I'm sorry, Ian. You are living in cloud cookoo land if you think the oil for food scandal is some sort of invented scandal.
This is a gigantic scandal, a shameful episode in the history of the United Nations. We need to clean up the U.N., fundamentally reform it.
And I think that most of your suggestions and allegations here are simply untrue. You need to check your facts, get those facts right.
PHILLIPS: Nile Gardiner, Ian Williams, you can follow both of these gentlemen as they write for the "National Review" and "The Nation."
Interesting -- interesting stuff, guys. Thank you very much.
GARDINER: Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: Straight ahead on a lighter note, he'll take a hot cup of Joe and play you a sad, sad song.
That's a good one.
It's one thing when a hobo does it, but when an elephant does it, well, he gets on LIVE FROM. What can I tell you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Yes, that's right, a wacky pachyderm is captivating visitors at an elephant sanctuary in Southern India.
This is Andol (ph), age 12. He's quite a fan of a couple of things that make him a bit of a standout, a harmonica and, yes, a hot coffee.
Apparently, elephants are rather musical creatures. But Andol (ph) is the only one in this region to pick up performing with a harmonica.
His keeper says he only parts with the instrument to eat or to have a java jolt.
WHITFIELD: And hopefully it's not too hot.
PHILLIPS: Can you imagine?
WHITFIELD: It seems to go down nice and smooth.
PHILLIPS: So like coffee, espresso, cafe latte.
WHITFIELD: He likes it straight.
All right. Well, coming up in our second hour of LIVE FROM.
PHILLIPS: Charges in that notorious basket brawl, the prosecutor's news conference is expected at the top of the hour. We've got a full court press of coverage.
LIVE FROM's "Hour of Power" begins right now.
(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 December 8, 2004 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIC PHILIPS, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: According to the Associated Press, as well as Detroit reports, we know that Jermaine O'Neal is now charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault and battery, while his teammates, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Anthony Johnson and David Harrison were all charged with one count each.
Assault and battery charges carry a maximum penalty of 93 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. And it is interesting to note that Pacers center, David Harrison was not punished by the NBA -- was not punished by the NBA. But he is expected to face criminal charges and, in fact, he was one of those charged.
Again, five fans are also expected to be charged with misdemeanor assault and battery for their role in the mayhem. One fan will be charged with a felony assault charge for accusations of throwing a chair.
That news conference confirming all of these charges expected to take place in just a little while. And then tomorrow, the players association is meeting with an arbiter, trying to get those suspensions reduced or thrown out altogether.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And now let's talk about the criteria for some of these charges because we know, of course, there is the videotape that these investigators looked over, time and time again, to try to see if there were any season ticket holders in addition to identifying some of the players.
But apparently, there were a number of reports they looked over as well. Those reports including what?
PHILIPS: Well, they were looking at eyewitness reports. They're trying to gather as much information as they possibly can to figure out what happened, what precipitated this unprecedented, you know, disturbance at a game like this.
So they've been talking to those who were at the game. They've been looking at the videotape from different angles. They've been trying to figure out if they can see things that, perhaps, we couldn't see just from watching it on TV, like if we may have been at our homes, or something like that.
They've been trying to gather as much information so that when they brought these charges forward, they would have a very solid ground to stand on and that these charges would stick.
Remember, not only are they charging these players from a criminal standpoint just because it's in accordance with the law, but they want to send a message. And that message to the American people is that this is not something that's going to be acceptable in major sports, be it basketball, baseball, football or any other major sport.
They want the players to know it. They want the fans to know it. And they don't want to see this happen again.
WHITFIELD: And just because we know of five players so far, and it's expected five fans might be charged, is it also to be expected that it just may be more than that, that this may be just the beginning?
PHILIPS: It could be more than that. At this point, we're hearing it's the five fans...
WHITFIELD: Because it sure looked like more than 10 people involved in this brawl.
PHILIPS: I mean, you saw fisticuffs flying everywhere.
WHITFIELD: Sure.
PHILIPS: I mean, it looked like there could have been a lot more people involved than just that.
WHITFIELD: OK.
PHILIPS: And like I said, the fact that David Harrison was not punished by the NBA...
WHITFIELD: Yes.
PHILIPS: ... but that he did face these criminal charges is evidence that they're looking beyond just what the NBA saw or what they may have seen on that particular night.
WHITFIELD: All right. Eric Philips, thanks so much, appreciate it.
PHILIPS: All right.
WHITFIELD: All right -- Kyra?
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: I want to take you straight to the Pentagon now, live press briefing that's taking place -- Brigadier General David Rodriguez and also Pentagon spokesperson Larry DiRita.
We're trying to monitor, see if they have any comments about Donald Rumsfeld in Kuwait and how he pretty much got hammered by the soldiers there.
LARRY DIRITA, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: ... superb job of turning around a component of the defense industrial base that was doing different things.
The Army prioritized a much greater need for armored vehicles across the board, including armored humvees. They improvised with add-on kits that could be used to attach to existing humvees. And then they also went out and sought additional production capability.
And it's one of the great sort of stories of what happens in the United States when the country is at war. When the country is at war, the war begins, and then we start to mobilize.
And this is a perfect example of the kind of mobilization that took place. The president added -- has added -- probably a $1 billion, $1.2 billion, I think, and counting, to the defense budget to specifically pay for armored vehicles since the first fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill.
That said, we're now producing something on the order of 450 armored humvees a month. So, it's multiples of what we were producing just a year ago, a little bit more than a year ago.
In the theater, there are approximately three out of every four humvees is armored. In this particular unit, in which the young man asked the question, the way that unit is arranging to move into Iraq, that unit will transport its vehicles -- it's a brigade combat team. There are something on the order of 1,000 vehicles on the brigade combat team, of all types.
It will fall in on existing armored humvees in its area of responsibility in Iraq for a unit that will be leaving Iraq. And the commander estimates that there's plus or minus 200 armored humvees that the unit will be, as I said, falling in on -- in other words, taking responsibility for a departing unit's vehicles.
The commander -- I called him because I saw the town hall meeting, myself. And it raised the same question in my mind. So I called the commander and just tried to get a sense of what the actual circumstances are.
And as -- in addition to the things I have just told you, what he said was that the policy is that units move into the theater. Vehicles that are driven by soldiers are armored. If they are not armored, they are not driven. They're convoyed in on other vehicles and they're used in base operations, base camp operations inside of Iraq. They do not leave the base camp.
So the Army and combatant commander in the region has a policy. It's a policy that involves substantial mobilization of the defense industrial base to provide a need that -- for all the priorities that we were focused on prior to 9/11, was not being filled. It's now a need that needs to be filled and is being filled.
The -- as to whether an individual unit might be taken advantage of equipment that's about to be returned to the United States and seeing if there's some aspects of that equipment that they can use for themselves before it goes to the United States, and maybe taking components out of it, that's a very standard practice to sort of just take advantage of, essentially, retrograde equipment that's going to return to the United States. And if a unit -- the policy has been if a unit determines that it would like to use some of that, it goes and gets access to it. I don't know that that's specifically what the young man was referring to. But I think the point is that there's a plan for the rotation of forces that involves substantial numbers of production of armored vehicles.
The commanders there recognize that they would want more armored hum -- vehicles, a year or so ago. And we've gone about the task, including providing the funds to do it.
But let me also just -- you know, the secretary goes to visit with troops so that he can hear the entire range of things that troops have on their minds. It is very common for the secretary to hear from troops about a situation that their family may be having difficulty getting access to continuing education on base or something like that.
They don't have the kinds of programs at their facility that they wish they had for their families. It runs the gamut. At this same town hall, I was watching it this morning, as I said. You know, it was available on the Pentagon channel. We'll post the transcript here shortly.
The range of questions was quite typical. There was a soldier who asked whether, for example, the chaplain of one of the units asked if the secretary would be prepared to take his unit to Disneyland on his plane.
There was another soldier who wanted to make sure that his team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, were going to -- he was sure was going to go to the Superbowl and he wanted to make sure there was going to be television access while they were inside of Iraq.
There was, I think, a very positive interaction that the secretary had after the event, probably spent 45 minutes shaking hands and taking photos, which is a very typical aspect of these kinds of events.
So, I watched it. I thought it was a very standard...
PHILLIPS: Pentagon spokesperson, Larry DiRita there, briefing reporters, responding to some parts of give and take between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and soldiers in Kuwait.
We saw some pretty hard-hitting questions from soldiers directed towards the secretary of defense about lack of resources going into combat, lack of armored humvees -- first time we've really seen soldiers ask those types of questions to the secretary of defense.
Larry DiRita responding, saying that the president has added to the defense budget, that they believe they have laid out a strong number of armored humvees and continue to do so.
It's an interesting give and take between soldiers and the secretary of defense. We haven't yet seen -- we'll continue to follow it and see what comes out of it. Until then, we're going to take a quick break and talk more about this with General Don Shepperd straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: A pep talk turned into more of a grilling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today. Rumsfeld was speaking to U.S. troops in Kuwait City when he was hit with a barrage of questions about equipment shortages, tours of duty and pay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED U.S. SOLDIER: We're helping, or trying to help about 150 soldiers get their contingency travel pay. We've gone through the chain of command. We've tried IG channels.
These soldiers have gone, some since July, without getting travel pay, thousands of dollars. They're having creditors call them at home, call their spouses at home, threatening collection action.
We have a big problem. There seems to be a problem with the defense, defense finance accounting service. Can you help us understand what that problem is, Mr. Secretary? Or even better, can you point us to a resource that will help get these soldiers paid?
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Can someone here get the details of the unit he's talking about? That's just not right.
Folks who have earned money and are due money ought to be able to get the money, and they ought not to have to put their families under stress while they're waiting for the money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Were these the kind of questions that Donald Rumsfeld was expecting? How unusual is this for troops to be so candid with their top boss?
Joining me from Los Angeles is CNN military analyst and retired Air Force general, Don Shepperd.
Good to see you, general.
MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: How are you, Fredricka?
WHITFIELD: I'm doing pretty good.
Well, it's not unusual to have this kind of forum of an easy Q and A session between the troops and a visiting secretary. But isn't it unusual to see that this kind of tone was borderline confrontational?
SHEPPERD: No it really isn't. I tell you, it's just like TV. When you put yourself in front of the troops, you better be ready for the tough questions. And I've seen Secretary Rumsfeld get a lot tougher questions in other forums than that.
The troops will talk directly to you. And they're going to tell you their concerns. And generally speaking, you don't have the slightest idea about the real answers to the questions. You have to go to the chain of command later to get the answers.
And this was a tough day for the secretary, Fredricka?
WHITFIELD: Well, is it your feeling that this tone was one that was produced by a pretty pervasive sense of frustration among the troops there because some of those troops, when they did ask questions, they got applause from the supporting audience there.
SHEPPERD: Yes, I think this troops, the troops in the audience, were in a large part guardsmen and reservists. And reportedly, the tough question came from a Tennessee Army national guardsman.
I thought the tone of the question was respectful and right to the point. His question is, look, we're going into combat. We don't have the up-armored vehicles that we think we need, so where are they and why don't we have them?
That's a good, tough question.
The harsh reality is nobody thought the insurgency was going to be this tough or go on this long, and we're still short of vehicles despite the fact that we are manufacturing them at a very rapid rate.
We're still short of the vehicles, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: We saw the one response from Donald Rumsfeld, who said, well, let's get that information so we can try and follow up on that. People should be paid as they are expected to be.
At the same time, there was another response where he said, you know, responding to one of the troops, that you shouldn't be looking for the -- you know, looking for a particular Army as opposed to dealing with the Army that you have.
So you have to wonder if comments like that are further agitating or if they are in any way pacifying?
SHEPPERD: Well, I don't know whether they're pacifying or not. The harsh reality is that when you go into war, everybody wants to be in a tank and be surrounded by armor.
The reality is you don't.
There are reports that these troops were scrounging metal and scrounging glass out of dumps and Jerry rigging their vehicles. The harsh reality, again, is, as reported earlier by CNN, their vehicles are often convoyed further north.
And then when they get further north to their actual locations and go on combat operations, they go in vehicles that are properly armored. But the troops don't see that, and they don't know about it. So again, I think you're seeing the frustration of people that have been there, that have thought they were going home, that have now been extended. And you're seeing the shortage of equipment frustrations.
These are natural among troops, not surprising to me or anybody that's dealt with this, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Well, it would seem the Pentagon would have to respond with more than just lip service because otherwise, there would be some dwindling of this real verve to serve.
SHEPPERD: Yes, we're an all-volunteer military. When you volunteer, you sign up for certain things. Some of it you realize. Some of it you really don't until later.
The harsh reality is they can keep you as long as they need you in the military. Even after you are supposedly able to get out, they can extend your tour, which has been done.
And of course, they can send you into combat even if you don't think you have all of the equipment you need.
We're getting better at it. We're getting the equipment we need, but it's slower than the troops want up there. And of course it affects morale and it engenders the type of questions you heard today, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: General Don Shepperd joining us today from Los Angeles. Thanks so much for your time.
SHEPPERD: Pleasure.
WHITFIELD: Kyra?
PHILLIPS: Back now to the U.N. "oil for food" flap and the tarnish it's threatening to leave on Kofi Annan's leadership.
No U.N. member state has called for Annan's ouster, but some U.S. lawmakers have called for that and worse.
Joining me to look at Annan's tenure in its totality are journalists Nile Gardiner of the "National Review" and Ian Williams of "The Nation".
Gentlemen, great to have you both.
IAN WILLIAMS, "THE NATION": Good to see you.
NILE GARDINER, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Hi, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right.
Let's look at the leadership of Kofi Annan for a moment. Putting the "oil for food" scandal aside, let's look at terrorism, WMD, Sudan, Iran. Nile, how has he been as a leader on all these other issues? GARDINER: I think that Kofi Annan has been a spectacular failure, not only with regard to the "oil for food" program but also in terms of his dealings with various dictatorships on the world stage.
He has simply failed to stand up to figures such as Saddam Hussein. He failed to stand up to the genocide in Rwanda and in Bosnia when he was head of U.N. peacekeeping.
He is now failing to deal with the genocide in Sudan. He is also, I think, extremely weak in dealing with the crisis currently taking place with regard to Iran, an extremely ineffectual secretary general who has been, I think, a monumental failure as leader of the United Nations.
PHILLIPS: Ian, do you think that Kofi Annan has been that disastrous of a leader?
WILLIAMS: No, his position is weak. In Rwanda, it was the United States that said on no account, whatsoever, should any additional peacekeeping troops be sent there and were prepared to veto any move to do it.
In Bosnia, it was Clinton and the United States which resisted sending any troops in there to back up what was happening.
In Sudan, it's the United States, Ambassador Danforth, who recently started back pedaling after Kofi Annan had been putting on the pressure all year, and said that, well, really we should try to bribe the Sudanese into behaving properly.
So, I mean, what we have here is a persistent pattern of the failures of the United States being blamed upon the United Nations. And then, of course, on to Kofi Annan who, in the terms of his office, has been, I think, by the estimation of most statesmen across world -- and stateswomen -- has been fairly, spectacularly successful because he has managed to be a diplomat.
When he went to see Saddam Hussein, for example, I've seen some of the conservative commentators talk about he's someone who he could do business with. But they forget that he also said that there's nothing like diplomacy when backed up with the threat of force.
He doesn't have his own force. He has to rely upon others to deliver. And far, far too often they fail.
PHILLIPS: Well, let's talk about the "oil for food" scandal, now, then. Aside from -- Ian, you're saying all those other issues, it wasn't Kofi Annan's (hp) fault or the U.N.'s fault. But let's look at "oil for food."
I mean, this is something the U.N. was in charge of, Kofi Annan was in charge of, from setting the prices to letting other companies get a part of this. And now you've got this connection with his son allegedly getting payoffs through this whole deal.
So, Nile, is it big enough of a scandal that he should resign over that?
GARDINER: Well, think that Kofi Annan is in deep trouble with regard to the "oil for food" scandal. At the very least, he stands accused of huge mismanagement on an epic scale.
And there is serious evidence emerging against senior U.N. officials with regard to the management of this program, including the Benon Savan, the man Annan appointed to head the oil for food program.
But oil for food, I think, is just simply part of the bigger picture -- a culture of secrecy, mismanagement, sleaze and corruption at the heart of the United Nations.
Even the U.N.'s own staff employee union recently passed a resolution of no confidence in the senior management of the United Nations following a wave of internal scandals.
In addition to that, Kofi Annan has just accepted institutional responsibility for widespread human rights abuses by U.N. civilian and peacekeeping personnel in the Congo. This is a scandal, perhaps 100 times bigger than Abu Ghraib, which is about to explode in the U.N.'s face.
This is a man in serious trouble. He no longer has the confidence of the United States government, and he is facing widespread calls for his resignation on Capitol Hill.
So, the U.N.'s employee union passing this vote of no confidence, yet today, before the security council, when Kofi Annan stood before the members, he got a standing ovation. Why, Ian?
WILLIAMS: Well because nobody else agrees with Mr. Gardiner. The staff union actually hastily came back and declared total support. And I'm really interested to see somebody who worked with Margaret Thatcher...
GARDINER: That's completely wrong, actually.
WILLIAMS: ... allowing trade unions to decide who their boss is going to be.
I'd really like to hear what he thinks if the UAW decided to vote on the CEO of Ford or General Motors.
GARDINER: You could stick to the truth, actually. What you said just now quite untrue.
WILLIAMS: But more to the point is the oil for food program, which he quite wisely skipped here because he knows that the whole thing is a furor brought out of nothing.
Most of that was money was smuggled -- was revenue from smuggled oil that was smuggled with the full knowledge and blessing of the United States, the United Kingdom...
PHILLIPS: But shouldn't Kofi Annan have... WILLIAMS: ... with the full knowledge of Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIPS: Ian. Ian -- let me ask -- Ian, let me ask you a question. It's the U.N. that appointed inspectors that was -- they were supposed to monitor where that oil was coming from and where it was going and if the aid was getting in there.
I mean, it was U.N. inspectors that were supposed to be in charge of that.
WILLIAMS: Most of the aid did get in. Most of those people -- most of Iraq, by the end, were dependent on U.N. food supplies. That was why, in fact, the occupation authorities asked the U.N. to continue the program after the beginning of the occupation.
And it was so successful that at the end of the occupation, the first thing the U.S. did was to get the security council to hand over $8 billion in surplus to the Iraqi occupation, which was then, as far as we know, given to Halliburton on no-bid contracts because the international audience had not got any access.
GARDINER: If I could respond to this...
WILLIAMS: That is the real oil for food scandal.
PHILLIPS: Final thought, Nile. Final thought, Nile.
GARDINER: I'm sorry, Ian. You are living in cloud cookoo land if you think the oil for food scandal is some sort of invented scandal.
This is a gigantic scandal, a shameful episode in the history of the United Nations. We need to clean up the U.N., fundamentally reform it.
And I think that most of your suggestions and allegations here are simply untrue. You need to check your facts, get those facts right.
PHILLIPS: Nile Gardiner, Ian Williams, you can follow both of these gentlemen as they write for the "National Review" and "The Nation."
Interesting -- interesting stuff, guys. Thank you very much.
GARDINER: Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: Straight ahead on a lighter note, he'll take a hot cup of Joe and play you a sad, sad song.
That's a good one.
It's one thing when a hobo does it, but when an elephant does it, well, he gets on LIVE FROM. What can I tell you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Yes, that's right, a wacky pachyderm is captivating visitors at an elephant sanctuary in Southern India.
This is Andol (ph), age 12. He's quite a fan of a couple of things that make him a bit of a standout, a harmonica and, yes, a hot coffee.
Apparently, elephants are rather musical creatures. But Andol (ph) is the only one in this region to pick up performing with a harmonica.
His keeper says he only parts with the instrument to eat or to have a java jolt.
WHITFIELD: And hopefully it's not too hot.
PHILLIPS: Can you imagine?
WHITFIELD: It seems to go down nice and smooth.
PHILLIPS: So like coffee, espresso, cafe latte.
WHITFIELD: He likes it straight.
All right. Well, coming up in our second hour of LIVE FROM.
PHILLIPS: Charges in that notorious basket brawl, the prosecutor's news conference is expected at the top of the hour. We've got a full court press of coverage.
LIVE FROM's "Hour of Power" begins right now.
(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
