Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Bush Lays out Plan for Victory in Iraq; Reality on Ground in Iraq Open to Interpretation; Supreme Court Deciding Abortion Case; Shimon Peres Leaves Labor Party

Aired November 30, 2005 - 13:00   ET

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

KYRA PHILLIPS, HOST: From CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta, I'm Kyra Phillips. Here's a story that we're working on for you right now. A strategy for victory in Iraq. President Bush lays out his plan. Will it win the war and satisfy his critics?
Pilfered poles. More than 100 lamp posts disappearing from the streets of Baltimore but why?

And is it a Christmas tree or a holiday tree? The Capitol Hill controversy could be dampening the spirit of the season.

CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge. America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins, so long as I am your commander in chief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: The setting was the U.S. Naval Academy and the midshipmen did their duty. But the backdrop of President Bush's latest speech on the war in Iraq is a bruising public debate, one that resumed on Capitol Hill shortly after Mr. Bush left the stage

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It's all well and good to talk about being there with your troops, training on the ground and training until we are ready to leave. But that ignores what his own generals have told him. It ignores what the Iraqis themselves are telling us today.

General Casey has said very clearly that it is the large presence of American forces on the ground that feeds the insurgency and makes it more difficult for the Iraqis to assume responsibility, because they don't have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: Well, those won't be the last ones from either camp, especially with Iraq elections looming. We get a few words of wisdom from CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

Bill, what do you think? Does the president's speech, this 38- page blueprint, solve all the problems?

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it solves a little bit of a problem for him because he want to try to square the circle in some ways. He wants to say, "Look, we are not going to leave until we win." But he wants to show the American people that there's an end in sight and that the United States can get out of there.

Well, what's the answer? We're winning. He said that we're training Iraqi security forces. They'll be able to take over responsibility for their own defense.

In a way, it's reminiscent of what George Aiken, the former senator from Vermont, said back during the Vietnam era. He said the solution to the Vietnam problem was declare victory and go home. Well, in some was, that's what President Bush is beginning to do.

PHILLIPS: Democrats have their own dilemma too, though, right?

SCHNEIDER: Yes, Democrats do. They're under just as much -- as President Bush is under pressure to win, the Democratic base is under -- puts the Democrats under pressure to withdraw.

And you just heard Senator Kerry, who said the very presence of American forces in Iraq is making the problem worse, because it's creating a target for the insurgency, which is a justification for withdrawal.

While the Democrats want to put Bush -- they're demanding a plan from Bush and what they're saying to the president is, "We don't trust you. We want to see real evidence that we're making progress." There -- many Democrats are stopping short of demanding a precise timetable, but they're saying, "We want evidence; we want benchmarks."

The risk there for Democrats is if they demand tougher standards and benchmarks, that means the troops may have to stay longer.

PHILLIPS: Bill, as you sit here and you look through this national strategy, and of course, victory in Iraq, keyword victory, victory's listed all through out here, victory in Iraq defined, victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest, the benefits of victory in Iraq.

So if victory is the goal for getting out of Iraq, then how are the president and the Democrats truly defining it? You see -- well, I mean, is this just one definition? It seems so confusing.

SCHNEIDER: Well, the president talked today about victory. And he defined it as this. He said, "Iraq cannot become a haven for terrorists who threaten the United States and the rest of the world, Britain, Spain, Indonesia where there have been terrorist attacks, as well as the United States. We cannot let Iraq become another Afghanistan, which is what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, and it became a haven for terrorists and the Taliban. We can't leave it in that state."

And you know what? Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton most conspicuously, agree with that. They say the one thing we cannot allow is for Iraq to become a haven for terrorists. Part of that victory, of course, is that Iraqis have to take responsibility for making sure that their country is safe and being able to defend it. But the idea of victory essentially is the same for people on all sides of this debate.

PHILLIPS: Bill Schneider, thanks.

Well, as always, progress in Iraq depends on where one looks and how one defines progress. CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson has seen it all. He weighs in now from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Bush talked about 120 Iraqi army and police battalions being ready. About 40 of those battalions now ready to lead the fight, about 80 of those battalions ready to fight alongside U.S. troops.

It's not really clear how to define those categories of leading the fight and ready to fight. What we've seen on the ground, though, is there is a wide disparity between the readiness of some Iraqi battalions and the readiness of others. President Bush talked about it as being uneven.

And certainly the commanders, U.S. commanders who are here, who help oversee the training of Iraqi troops here, they say that the unevenness is because of the lack of good leadership in the Iraqi army. They say some leaders are good, some not so good.

Another comparison we could look at here, measuring what President Bush was saying in his speech to what we see on the ground. He talked about the September offensive in Tal Afar two months ago, compared it to the Fallujah offensive in November last year.

He said the Fallujah offensive, he said, by far, U.S. troops outnumbering Iraqi. In the Tal Afar offensive, he said 11 Iraqi battalions, five U.S. battalions, Iraqis leading the way.

But talking to journalists who were there for that offensive, they say, look, it was a U.S. plan. It required absolutely the use of heavy U.S. armor, U.S. air power, U.S. helicopters, and from the perspectives of some of the journalists there, they saw it as the U.S. troops leading the way on the ground.

And also, if we look at other offensives, Steel Curtain, up on the Syrian border about three or four weeks ago, and a new offensive just started in the west of Iraq, it is still U.S. troops outnumbering Iraqi troops at least 4-1. And I think this gives a clearer idea.

And the Iraqi troops, while getting ready, they still very much need the U.S. troops. U.S. troops still very much in the lead, despite the fact in Tal Afar, the Iraqi troops did outnumber the U.S. troops.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad. (END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: The cornerstone of the president's strategy for victory is training Iraqis to take on the burden of fighting insurgents. Once that happens, U.S. troops can start coming home. Will it work?

Joining us from Washington talk about it, James Fallows, national correspondent for "The Atlantic Monthly" magazine. He wrote the magazine's December cover story, "Why Iraq Has No Army."

Jim, great to see you.

JAMES FALLOWS, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY": Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.

PHILLIPS: It's a pleasure.

The tone of the article -- I mean, right at the very beginning of your in-depth report it says that an orderly exit from Iraq depends on the development of a viable security force. But the Iraqis aren't even close. The Bush administration doesn't take the policy seriously and it never has.

I want to get into more specific quotes from your article and then talk about what the president had to say. But after hearing the president's speech, looking back at your article, would you write it differently now?

FALLOWS: I don't think so, because I think there was an implicit admission by the president of one of the main points, which is until fairly recently this was a second or third or lower priority for the U.S., even though training an Iraqi security force has always been the indispensable factor, along with political reform, for getting the U.S. out of there.

And the arguments the president made, the anecdotes and statistics he quoted about things that are improving are true and generally agreed upon. Just the question is the perspective in which to put them.

One way to think about it, is that in the last year or two that the U.S. was in Vietnam, the U.S. was doing a better job of being able to fight against the Vietcong and south Vietnamese army was getting better, but they were so far behind and the overall situation was so dire, that it didn't matter. And the argument for many people whom I interviewed was the same situation: it is getting better now, but the overall situation is getting worse, around it, faster.

PHILLIPS: All right. Well, then, let's -- OK, perfect setup then. Let's take a quote from your article, where you wrote, "America's hopes today for an orderly exit from Iraq depend completely on the emergence of a viable Iraqi security force. All current indications suggest that no such viable Iraqi security force is about to emerge."

Now, here's what the president said today, Jim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces: 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space, hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block by block.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: So when you listen to that, do you think, then, that the Iraqi security force is emerging stronger and better?

FALLOWS: Well, certainly, it's stronger than it was a year ago or two years ago when there was very little effort from on the U.S. side. But I think your correspondent Nic Robertson made the exact point about this offensive that the president was referring to, which is that it was indispensable to have U.S. logistic support, U.S. air cover, U.S. planning, U.S. intelligence, all sorts of things, that no one imagines the Iraqis are going to have, you know, next year or the year after that or for many years into the future.

So if the U.S. is really serious about having an Iraqi force that can take main responsibility, it is quite a long process to shift these -- these processes. And think that's significant about why the president did not name any kind of time for which he thought this transition might occur.

PHILLIPS: You know, you bring an interesting point, if you think about how the war in Iraq started, it was air power. It was -- it was bombing the heck out of Iraq, and that is what gave those on the ground such an advantage.

But you bring up an interesting point: with regard to Iraqi police and military, the issue of air support hasn't even come up, and that's millions and millions of dollars if you're going to support that military with jets.

FALLOWS: Sure. And there's certain kind of -- you know, obviously this war will not fundamentally be won or lost from the air. Because this is, you know, insurgency campaigns are, like in guerrilla campaigns, where it depends on people who know the culture, can bring the hearts and minds as we've heard so often.

But there are certain elements of simple air logistics, of having helicopters to support them, and air intelligence, and it's just one of many illustrations of what the U.S., for the foreseeable future, is going to be involved in, if, again it takes this task seriously.

PHILLIPS: All right. Jim, in your article, you quote Ahmed Hashim from the Naval War College. You said, "U.S. trainers have made a heroic effort. But the Iraqi security forces are almost like a black hole. You put a lot in and little come back out."

And here's what the president said today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: General Marty Dempsey is the commander of the multinational security transition command. Here's what he says about the transformation of the Iraqi security forces. "It's beyond description. They are far better equipped, far better trained, than they once were. The Iraqi generals," Dempsey says, "are increasingly in control of their future and their own security. The Iraqi security forces are regaining control of the country."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: Are they regaining control, and are they less intimidated than they were in the past? Because a lot of them were being threatened. They were being killed.

FALLOWS: Certainly, I think that this illustrates one of the sort of meta themes of the whole question, which is that things which sound contradictory are both true.

It's true both that many Iraqis are brave. They're undergoing attack and assault and murder and all the rest, and they're still enlisting. It's true that there are a lot them who are standing up, and it's true that the commanding generals will talk about how things are improving.

It is simultaneously true that there are reports from people on the ground about the sectarian divisions within the forces, about the demoralization, about the fact they're not able to be, to be sort of swinging the battle against the insurgency.

So things are getting better but not getting better enough, and that's one of the essential dilemmas of the situation.

PHILLIPS: Jim Fallows, I always enjoy reading your work. Thanks for your time, Jim.

FALLOWS: My pleasure. Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Well, the abortion debate goes back before the Supreme Court. And just ahead, we're going to tell you about today's hearing and why this particular case is drawing so much attention.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Carol Lin now working a story for us in the newsroom. A developing situation at the Library of Congress -- Carol.

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Kyra, about 100 people have been evacuated. They're still milling around outside the building there. It's a part of the Library of Congress, which is right adjacent to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Apparently, there was a chlorine-like smell this morning. Two police officers, who were first responders to the scene, Capitol Hill police, have been taken to the hospital. No other injuries have been reported yet. They haven't yet identified the source of this chlorine-like smell. But as a precaution, they're keeping people outside.

They do say, though, that the situation is contained. It's in the Jefferson Building, right next to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kyra. We're going to stay on top of this story, and figure out what this may be.

PHILLIPS: All right. Keep checking in with you. Carol, thanks.

For the first time since John Roberts became chief justice, the Supreme Court took up the abortion debate today. It heard arguments on a New Hampshire law that requires minors to tell a parent before ending a pregnancy. That law includes an exception in cases when a mother's life is at stake but not when her health is at stake.

Here's what it sounded like as Justice Stephen Breyer questioned New Hampshire attorney general Kelly Ayotte, who was defending that law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER, U.S. SUPREME COURT: There are people in good faith on both side of this argument. And so how -- how do we know that the New Hampshire statute is going to do, not the statute that your competing harm's defense, is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?

KELLY AYOTTE, NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Justice Breyer, because the harm this is being weighed here is the harm of urgently providing care to this minor who needs it, as opposed to the harm that the act is trying to get at, which is notification of parents.

It's not whether or not the minor can have an abortion. The minor can always go forward and have an abortion under these circumstances. So people aren't weighing the right of the fetus in this instance to the right of the mother's health. So the weighing is quite easy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: CNN's Joe Johns was in the court today. Was everyone as talkative as Justice Breyer, Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A lot of talk there. Very vigorous questioning. A couple people I've talked to have suggested it wasn't the powerful kind of fight between the attorneys and the justices that you might see in another case. And it may be because the court was struggling with this issue of abortion while the court is in transition.

As you know, Chief Justice John Roberts is just now on the bench. Samuel Alito has yet to be nominated. So a lot of the members of the court who are asking questions seem to be trying to figure out whether it would be better to attempt to do some type of surgery on this law from New Hampshire or whether it would be better simply to remand it back to the courts that are lower and have them deal with it.

But some people are very comfortable at bottom with the notion of legislating from the bench. They don't want to try to interpret what the New Hampshire legislature was doing when it passed this law, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Joe, Jennifer Dalven argued for Planned Parenthood inside the court. Let's listen to what she had to say and talk about this for a minute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER DALVEN, ATTORNEY FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD: The unfortunate reality is that some pregnant teens experience medical emergencies for which the appropriate care is an immediate abortion. As the nation's leading medical authorities have explained, delaying appropriate care for even a very short period can be catastrophic and puts the teen at risk for liver damage, kidney damage, stroke and infertility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIPS: How did justices react to that, Joe?

JOHNS: Well, there's competing interests here. On the one hand, there's the health and welfare of a teenager, for example, who goes into a doctor's office and says, "I need an abortion." It's not necessarily life threatening. But there could be serious health implications, reproductive implications, for that patient.

On the other side of the coin, of course, is the right of parents to be notified. So pretty much have to look at this as a balancing act, the competing interests that the court always deals with when a case makes its way all the way here to the Supreme Court.

PHILLIPS: So what happens next and, of course, how does Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, her situation, play into all this?

JOHNS: Well, that's obviously the $24,000 question. What happens if this case gets decided, for example, before she leaves the bench -- well, obviously it would hold. But if this case isn't decided until after she leaves, there's the question about whether it could be reheard, for example, by Samuel Alito if he comes to the court in time.

There's a possibility of that. You know, there's a question of a 4-4 tie, for example. A lot of different possibilities there. It's basically confusion on this issue right now, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: As always, right, Joe?

JOHNS: Yes, well, you know, the law sometimes can be very settled and sometimes when political winds on the outside the United States Supreme Court are blowing, you know, you may have some issues. That's about all I can say.

PHILLIPS: That's true. And you being the top honor law student, you would know first hand.

JOHNS: Not honor, believe me.

PHILLIPS: Joe Johns, thank a lot, Joe.

JOHNS: All right, thanks.

PHILLIPS: A recent poll shows that Americans remain divided on abortion. Twenty-six percent of the people who participated in a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll earlier this month said that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Sixteen percent said it should be legal in most circumstances.

But 39 percent said that abortion should be legal in few circumstances. And 16 percent said it should be legal under no circumstances.

There was more of a consensus on parental notification, the subject of today's Supreme Court case. Sixty-nine percent said that minors should be required to get parental consent before getting an abortion. Twenty-eight percent said they should not.

Well, a family fighting for survival. We're going to take you once again to a village in Maluai (ph), where there's no food and very few resource. All that is left is parched earth, termites and bamboo. That plight with our Jeff Koinange, still ahead on LIVE FROM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Well, we were talking about Shimon Peres talking about quitting the Labor Party yesterday. Carol Lin, official now? He's gone back to Jerusalem and announced it?

LIN: That's right, Kyra. Of course, word leaked out earlier. But we wanted to find out, to see if he would make the announcement officially. Because so much has been changing in Israeli politics lately. And of course, what is ultimately at stake is whether these changes in Israeli politics will ultimately lead to a peace deal with the Palestinians.

So let's go to John Vause in Jerusalem with more on that -- John.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Carol.

Last week we had the political earthquake when Ariel Sharon announced that he was quitting his ruling Likud Party and forming a new centrist party.

A short time ago, from his Tel Aviv office, Shimon Peres delivered a major aftershock. He announced that after more than six decades of association with Israel's Labor Party and its forebears, he is now quitting the political party. He's also ending a 43-year run in the Israeli parliament. That is a record.

The reason for this, because last week he was dumped as the leader of the Labor Party in favor of the union boss Amir Peretz. So tonight he announced that he would be leaving Labor and that he will be giving his support to Ariel Sharon and that new political party.

A short time ago, he explained one of the reasons for his decision to leave and how difficult this decision was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIMON PERES, FORMER LABOR PARTY LEADER: We've all been in discussion with the United States to secure the region against the Iranian threat and the fanatic terrorists. My concern, which is deep, my hope, which is great, compelled me to a decision that is neither simple nor mundane. But I can't escape it. It has not been easy, but I have made my choice and my mind. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: So now the payoff for Shimon Peres, if Ariel Sharon, in fact, does manage to win a third term in office -- and all the opinion polls say at this stage he looks likely to do just that -- then Shimon Peres will probably get some kind of cabinet position, most likely in charge of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, as well as development of the Negev desert and the Galloway (ph) region -- Carol.

PHILLIPS: John, interesting development, too, because Shimon Peres was the one who shared the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize with Itzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. I'm wonder whether you've heard any feedback from the Palestinians as to what they think of this new coalition between former foes and whether it is more likely to lead to a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

VAUSE: Well, there's a couple of things here, Carol. As far as the Palestinians are concerned and Shimon Peres, there's not a lot of faith in Shimon Peres at the moment. They don't trust him. They don't believe that he has managed to have his way, if you like, in any coalition so far with Ariel Sharon, any coalition with the Likud Party.

They believe that whenever Shimon Peres has taken Labor into a national unity government with the Likud, then the Palestinians have been worse off for it. They believe he hasn't followed through on many of the promises and much of the potential, which they hoped would have come from having Shimon Peres, with his reputation as a peacemaker, with his Nobel Peace Prize under his belt.

So from the Palestinian side, there's very much a watch and wait and see what happens here.

We've been speaking with a lot of members from Ariel Sharon's new Kadima Party. They're openly saying that the major objective of this Kadima Party is to achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians. A Palestinian state, side by side with an Israeli state, a Palestinian state, in return for Israel's security.

The Palestinians, though, are saying that is a Palestinian state on Israeli terms. They don't like it. They believe it's all about unilateral actions. And they're worried. They're worried that Ariel Sharon will go ahead and leave them behind and continue with unilateral actions like we saw with the Gaza pullout earlier this year, carol.

LIN: All right, John, thank you very much.

So, Kyra it all depends on how much trust there is between the parties and whether Ariel Sharon can get tat majority in those elections in March.

PHILLIPS: Carol, thank you so much. John Vause, also, too.

Well, in business news today, a major setback for the maker of Blackberry devices. Uh-oh. Susan Lisovicz has the detail now from the New York Stock Exchange. This could be good news, as we like to call it our Crackberry, right?

(MARKET REPORT)

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