Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Pentagon Briefing; New York Bouncer Indicted in Grad Student Murder; Pennsylvania Woman Returns Home Ten Years After Kidnapping

Aired March 23, 2006 - 14:00   ET

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

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: In Baghdad, at least 33 more people are dead in a series of car bombs. More than 60 people were hurt in attacks primarily aimed at Iraqi security forces.
The other big news from Iraq, the rescue of three Western hostages. At this hour, they're alive and well.

We'll have more, of course, on these top stories out of Iraq later in the hour.

Meanwhile, happy are the peacemakers. Three Western hostages free after weeks and the murder of a fellow captive and fellow Christian peace activist, Tom Fox. Coalition forces burst into a home near Baghdad to find the aid workers tied up but alone.

We're hoping to get more now from the Pentagon as we go there live.

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: In the coming days, I plan to travel to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to pay my respects to the passengers of Flight 93 who brought down the plane that hijackers had planned to use as a weapon against our country and our government.

In the years since September 11th no part of the world has been spared the brutality of the terrorists: London, Madrid, Casablanca, to name a few.

Consider some of their acts.

In Russia, extremists killed 186 schoolchildren, some as young as 20 months old.

In Israel, terrorists hid a grenade under a baby.

And in Iraq, according to the mayor of Tal Afar, terrorists placed explosives inside the corpse of children to kill grieving parents coming to retrieve their bodies.

Imagine what the beheaders and the hostage-takers would do were they to accomplish their goal of establishing a safe haven in Iraq, how a victory for them would aid their cause, their efforts to raise money and their recruiting efforts.

It seems to be comforting to some to hope that there might be some way to placate this enemy; that somehow, if we acted differently, the violence, the conflict ahead, might just go away. But this enemy seeks no armistice with free people. They've called America an enemy of God. They have said of Americans and Europeans, quote, "Their wives will be widowed and their children will be orphaned," unquoted; and that, quote, "Jihad against the United States does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula," unquote.

The question of our time is whether we face this enemy on their terms or on our terms, on their territory or our territory, where they are on offense or where they are on defense.

Not too long ago, a guardsman wounded in Iraq said about September 11th, quote, "The longer it goes since it happened, the less people seem to think about it. I think about it every day," he said.

Not a day passes that this department -- when we're not considering if everything possible has been done to safeguard our nation and our people. Not a day passes when we do not think and pray for the men and women wearing the uniform.

We ask our commanders on the ground at every opportunity if there's something we ought to be doing differently, or if there's a new threat that we need to combat.

In our 200-plus years, America has learned some important lessons. One is that weakness is provocative, it tempts aggressors; that appeasement is dangerous; and that military strategists and warfighters need to always be prepared for the unforeseen and the unexpected.

And surely, we can relate to what President Roosevelt said two days after Pearl Harbor. He said, quote, "We are now in this war. We are all in it all the way. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories, the changing fortunes of war."

Today as well, we can prevail only if we are in it all the way. We can, we must and we will see it through to completion, the mission for which these young Americans and their families have sacrificed, carrying with us the memory of those who have lost their lives in the battle, in the twin towers of the World Trade Center, here in this building where we sit today, or in a quiet field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Admiral Giambastiani?

ADMIRAL EDMUND GIAMBASTIANI JR. (USN), VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

And good afternoon.

I'd like to briefly mention the department's release tomorrow of the Iraqi perspective project report. This project was conducted by the United States Joint Forces Command lessons-learned team.

The report focuses on the perspective of the senior Iraqi civilian and military leadership of military operations conducted from March through May of 2003.

These perspectives were gathered through a series of interviews as well as extensive review of captured documents.

The goal of this effort was to determine how our own coalition operations were viewed and understood by the opposing side, and what insights such analysis offers for future operations.

I should point out that this is the first such review of this scale since the end of World War II, when the United States undertook a similar task understanding how the German and Japanese civilian and military leadership viewed the war.

This report provides insights into the nature of Saddam's regime, the regime's strategic calculus, operational planning, military effectiveness and execution of the Iraqi defense.

This perspective project is assisting the department in developing Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons learned from what we would call a balanced, holistic view of the battlefield cause and effect.

And finally, Mr. Secretary, as you said, I know that we're seeing the passing of the baton from Charlie to Bob today.

We're ready for your questions, sir.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you a question about the current situation in Iraq.

To what extent do you think the failure of the Iraqi leaders thus far to form a government is adding fuel to the sectarian tensions and perhaps emboldening insurgents?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think I'd reverse it.

I think the fact that the government has not yet been formed and the leadership has not quite yet found the arrangements that they can comfortably agree to means that the favorable effect that should come from an establishment of a government is being delayed.

And the inevitable effect of that is that some of the violence and incidents that are occurring might have ended earlier had they been able to fashion a government at an earlier time.

Who knows? Until it's done, it's not done. We talk to the folks out there, of course, every day, and they feel that progress is being made. But it hasn't yet happened. It's unhelpful.

QUESTION: It's not worsening -- it's not contributing to the violence in any way?

RUMSFELD: Well, if one believes, as I do, that a good government, a competent government, a government that's seen as inclusive and seen as governing from the center, that gets about the task of serving the Iraqi people -- the 8 or 10 or 12 or whatever million people it was that went out and voted risked their lives and went out and voted, and started representing the people that went out and voted, and serving the people that went out and voted, I believe that that would be a good thing for the country and would reduce the level of violence.

So to the extent that isn't happening, obviously, the level of violence continue and people are being killed, and that's unfortunate. And they need to get about the task.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, there are voices in the Congress and elsewhere, including some belonging to retired senior military members, who are calling for your resignation.

RUMSFELD: Ah.

QUESTION: The president says he supports you and that you're doing a good job. If that support continues, do you plan to stay for the rest of his second term?

RUMSFELD: Those kinds of calls have been going on for five-plus years. And the president has asked me not to get involved in politics and that's politics.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up, if I may, Mr. Secretary. You're not a young man by some standards, although you're obviously in very good health, you're a wealthy man by many standards.

RUMSFELD: What is this about? I thought we were having a press conference.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Isn't there some (INAUDIBLE) step down and smell the roses, perhaps, or, you know, take it easy for a while?

RUMSFELD: No, I'm hard at the job, working hard, and getting up every day and thinking what we can do for the troops and the wonderful people who serve our country.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, President Bush this week indicated that he expected U.S. troops to be in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2009.

RUMSFELD: I saw that.

QUESTION: Are you planning for that contingency? And what strain, if any, do you think will be placed on the military by maintaining troop rotations to Iraq for that extended period of time?

RUMSFELD: I think the stress on our military, interestingly, is being eased by the way the force is being managed.

We have moved thousands of military people out of civilian positions and back in to military positions, where they belong. The Army has been aggressively modularizing their force and increasing the number of combat brigades that are available. We've been successful in reducing the extent to which the Guard and the Reserve are being called upon, from something in excess of 40 percent of the deployed force, today it's down around 20 percent of the deployed force.

GIAMBASTIANI: Nineteen, actually.

RUMSFELD: Nineteen percent, that's close to 20.

GIAMBASTIANI: Yes, sir.

RUMSFELD: Yes.

And it is -- good progress is being made.

RUMSFELD: And I would anticipate, as we've said, that as the Afghan and Iraqi security forces continue to take over more and more responsibility, we'll continue to reduce down our forces and that any stress on the force would be eased rather than increased.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, sir, the first part of the question, are you planning for troops to be in Iraq until the beginning of 2009?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think the way the president's repeated it -- first of all, I don't think that's what he said. But in any event...

QUESTION: That future presidents would make the decision on the presence of U.S. troops.

RUMSFELD: I've avoided predicting timing. I remember when a secretary of defense announced that they were putting troops -- I think it was in Bosnia or Kosovo and they would be out in six or eight months -- by Christmas, I think.

QUESTION: That was a president, Mr. Secretary.

RUMSFELD: A president?

And they were there 10 years later. And I think guessing about things like that -- I mean, you'd have to define it. It would take a lot of time.

I mean, we may be helping to train and equip some forces in Iraq in 2009. Are we making plans to do that? We're making plans to assist the Iraqis and the Afghans in training and equipping their forces so that they can take over the responsibility.

And as the president said, it's condition-based. I'm not going to get into speculating about specific numbers or on specific dates. It just isn't fruitful.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, on the formation of the Iraqi government, yesterday General Pace, in Saudi Arabia, said he had underestimated the reluctance of the Iraqis to form a unified government. And he blamed it on decades of fear under Saddam's regime. I'm wondering if you share that view.

RUMSFELD: Well, certainly, you cannot have a regime -- I didn't see his remarks so I can't respond about his remarks. But any time you have a regime as vicious and repressive as the Saddam Hussein regime was, it is not a formula for creating bold, entrepreneurial people. Anyone who stuck their head up got popped and thrown in the jail or killed, put in one of the mass graves.

So it does take time for people to develop the skill sets to do something they've not done before, and that's to politic and negotiate and compromise.

And if you think of what they're doing, there's no question but that the terrorists are trying to prevent the establishment of the government. That's obvious. Why else would they have gone after the Golden Dome shrine?

They failed. It's going to happen. They tried to stop the elections. They tried to stop the constitution from being ratified. Now, have they delayed it? Probably. They probably have. And is that harmful? Yes.

But I think that the people have demonstrated a lot of courage. Think of all the people who volunteered to go into the Iraqi security forces. Think of all the people who volunteered to run for office. Think of all the people who are out politicking now and trying to negotiate out and find the formula for a government that will give enough confidence to the Iraqi people that they can put their faith in it. That's a big thing they're doing. It's not easy.

QUESTION: This is the third day in a row we've seen fairly major attacks organized against Iraqi police guarding captured terrorists or suspected terrorists. Do you feel or see a trend there on well- organized attacks in Iraq?

GIAMBASTIANI: I don't think we see any indication.

They're always organized to one degree or another.

GIAMBASTIANI: What's important is is when you look at them over the long term. You have two attacks in two days, is that a trend? I don't know.

But what I would tell you is, what is a trend continues to be the overall performance of the Iraqi security forces here, working with coalition forces.

I think what's particularly important is this Arbaeen celebration, this very long march from Baghdad down to Najaf and back to Baghdad. By anybody's estimate, somewhere between 2 million, 2.5 million, 3 million pilgrims. Very uneventful, minimal attacks, very successful. Iraqi security forces doing a very good job. General Casey, as a matter of fact, has reported to us that he's flown up and down the route to look at these pilgrims, and a very successful pilgrimage.

Those are the types of things that are happening. So I can't tell you if it's a trend. It's two days.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Admiral, ask you about a good news story, if I can.

RUMSFELD: Oh, don't. We wouldn't know how to handle it.

(LAUGHTER)

That would be a stunner.

Cameras, make sure you get this.

QUESTION: The successful raid to free the hostages held in Iraq; wondering if you can tell me anything about how that came down, and what, if any, was the involvement of U.S. forces in that.

RUMSFELD: Go ahead.

GIAMBASTIANI: What I would tell you is, is that Major General Lynch this morning, earlier today, spoke on this subject and he provided what details we have and we can release. It was a coalition operation and I'll leave it to what he said earlier today. It was successful.

QUESTION: What role did Canadian and British special forces play in this?

GIAMBASTIANI: I'm going leave it to what Major General Lynch said this morning. It's a coalition operation.

QUESTION: Would you care to comment, Secretary, on the release of the hostages this morning?

RUMSFELD: No, I liked his answer.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, given the performance of the Iraqi security forces that the admiral just talked about, are you still confident that the size of the U.S. force in Iraq can be brought down significantly this year?

RUMSFELD: I don't know how many times I have to answer this. The level of the forces -- we'll try it one more time. All together.

The level of the forces in Iraq will depend on the conditions on the ground and the recommendations of the commanders. And if you can predict precisely what the conditions on the ground will be and what the recommendations of the commander will be, I can tell you precisely what the trajectory, up or down or level, might be of those troops.

We anticipate that they'll go down. And the reason we anticipate they'll go down is because we think the government will be formed and it will meet with reasonable acceptance and that the Iraqi security forces will continue to be performing well and that we will continue to pass over battlespace, bases and responsibility to the Iraqi security forces.

QUESTION: Have you received any recommendations from your commanders? RUMSFELD: No, except the one I announced, which was that we took one of the call-forward battalions, brought it into Baghdad because General Casey felt it would be desirable to have it there during the Arbaeen pilgrimage period and until the formation of the new government.

RUMSFELD: And since that latter condition has not occurred, it's still there doing a good job.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, we've been told that General Casey's inquiry into the Lincoln Group in Iraq will decide very narrowly that there were no violations because there's no specific prohibition against paying to plant military articles anonymously.

Putting aside what the investigation may or may not say, is it time for this department to announce a new policy or guidance or directive? What will that say, do you think? And should this practice be specifically prohibited?

RUMSFELD: My understanding is that your understanding's correct: that General Casey did ask for a study of what took place, and that it's finished but he hasn't reviewed it and it's not been sent here, and that the rumor is that it does not find anything that was done outside of policy because the policy is silent on that issue, as I understand it.

When it is sent here and as it is being sent, obviously, we're addressing the broader question, not the question of whether policy was breached -- which it wasn't, apparently -- but the broader question.

And when we have something to announce with respect to it, we will.

QUESTION: General Pace was quoted today as saying...

RUMSFELD: I saw that.

QUESTION: ... that he believes there should be transparency and that readers should know if an article was planted with military money. That seems to say that he's against this sort of activity.

RUMSFELD: It does.

QUESTION: Do you agree with that?

RUMSFELD: With your interpretation of what it seems to say? Yes, I do.

QUESTION: General Pace is right that this is a bad practice?

RUMSFELD: No, I said we would take it under advisement and take a look at it. I'm not going to make a judgment off the top of my head.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I'm just curious, do you feel at all embattled at this point in your tenure? Given the fact that...

RUMSFELD: No.

QUESTION: Aside from the retired two-star general calling you incompetent and asking you to step down in an op-ed over the weekend, you also had a column from Maureen Dowd in which she quoted an unnamed administrative official saying that you don't pull the same sway in meetings and that you're treated as, quote, "an eccentric old uncle who's ignored."

(LAUGHTER)

RUMSFELD: You like to repeat all of that stuff, don't you...

(LAUGHTER)

... on camera?

Did you get that?

(LAUGHTER)

Let's make sure you got it.

He loves that stuff. It's a sure way to get on camera. You'll be on the evening news.

QUESTION: I know you like to have the facts in the premise of the question.

RUMSFELD: Yes, I do. And you did it very well.

(LAUGHTER)

No.

QUESTION: You could do one-arm pushups and put all this to rest

RUMSFELD: The answer is no.

QUESTION: Do you hold the same sway in meetings?

RUMSFELD: Oh, come on, I'm not going get into that.

QUESTION: Sir, in your opening statement, you said...

RUMSFELD: If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: I'll take that as a sound bite.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: In your opening statement, you said this war will only be won, quote, "only if we're in it all the way."

I think that statement's going to be parsed, because there are a lot of people who've been complaining from the start that the country's never been in this war all the way, that the force that was sent over was smaller, that taxes have been cut rather than raised to pay a $300 billion war bill.

I wonder if you can talk about if you think the nation is in it all the way, and if not, what more ought to be done to assure victory.

RUMSFELD: You know, it's a good question, unlike some of the others we've had today.

World War II had characteristics that were so notably different than this. But that's been true in most of the wars, that they've been different. And I've been alive for a number of them.

Clearly, it is a different thing for people to internalize this thing called a global war on terror or the struggle that's taking place in the world between violent extremists and people who don't believe in their view of the world.

RUMSFELD: I think that the American people do feel an anxiety about the problem of terrorism. They understand the fact that so many cities have been hit and they recognize that 3,000 people were killed here in this country, but that it is a more distant thing and a less immediate conflict or struggle than some previous wars.

I think that -- I was quoting, as I recall, Franklin Roosevelt. And I would say that our society is in this struggle and that they are attentive to it and that they are concerned. I sense an awareness of the danger.

I would also say that any time you have terrorist networks that are able to do what they did on September 11th and do what they did in Bali and London and Madrid and many, many other locations, and we know that there are people in our world that are developing and proliferating very, very powerful weapons that can impose damage on our people of considerable magnitude, that one has to be concerned about it.

QUESTION: Poll numbers show that people are declining in their support for the war, that people who did support the invasion are now losing support. Doesn't that suggest that we're not in it all the way and that something else has to be done?

RUMSFELD: I don't know which particular polls, but I have read that polls may be down and are down in some instances.

I think it depends partly on the people who have watched polls over the decades. They do tend to go up and down, depending on circumstances.

And, if every time a poll went down, somebody changed their policy or changed their position or tossed in the towel, we wouldn't have a country today. There have been plenty of times polls have been down in our history when people have persevered and been resolute and prevailed ultimately. And that's what will happen in this instance.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the number of wounded Americans is down in the first months of this year, the number of Americans wounded in Iraq. Is that a blip? Is that a real trend? What accounts for that?

RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't think -- I don't want to -- it depends on what time period you're looking at. And I think it's not something that I...

QUESTION: But it's not a real trend as far as you're concerned?

RUMSFELD: I haven't seen any analytical work on it.

I know that our field commanders are spending a great deal of effort to try to adjust tactics, techniques and procedures to the circumstance on the ground. And needless to say, the enemy has a brain also and is adjusting their tactics, techniques and procedures.

But the Joint Forces Command and our training commands around this country are spending a great deal of time training our forces before they're rotated in. There's a good, long period of left seat/right seat pass-over where they can get situational awareness.

And they're doing a great deal to try to reduce the risks to our troops, as you know. But I think -- I'm not to going to say that a one- or two- or three-month trend is reflective of all the effort that's going into it. I hope it is.

QUESTION: The South Korean government wants to conclude the transfer of wartime command and control over South Korean army. If it happens so, how will it affect the security and stability of Korean Peninsula?

RUMSFELD: Well, you're correct, the South Korean government has raised the question as to when might it be appropriate to transfer responsibility to the Korean command. And that is something that gets discussed. And no time has been set.

Everyone agrees that 55 years after the war it's reasonable that the South Korean forces would increasingly take on more and more responsibility. They're doing that. And as they continue to take on more and more responsibility, the United States will be able to reduce its troops.

And one would hope that we, the United States, and the South Korean government would do what we do at a pace and in a manner that would not inject an instability into the Korean Peninsula. And I'm confident we will not inject an instability into the peninsula.

QUESTION: Do you think that within this year you'll be able to start?

RUMSFELD: No, no, I don't at all. QUESTION: South Korean President Roh wanted to...

RUMSFELD: I don't think that's correct. I could be wrong. I haven't read everything he said.

But my impression is that the discussions I've had with the Korean minister and the cable traffic I've seen is that they want the subject raised -- which we do, too; we think that's just fine -- and then we'd set about a path to see that the South Korean military evolves into a position where it would be appropriate for them to have that control.

And you know, what period of time that might be is not something that's been determined, because it's partly a function of the pace at which the South Korean government is going to be able to make investments and increase their capabilities in a way that they could assume that responsibility. But it's something we both agree is desirable.

GIAMBASTIANI: And this is the path that the combatant commander, General Bell, is on; just what the secretary described.

QUESTION: Another question for Admiral Giambastiani.

RUMSFELD: You want to try somebody who hasn't asked?

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask him about his...

RUMSFELD: I think I'd like to hear -- I want to hear what she has to say before I know if I want to get into it. It can't be worse than him.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You never know.

I wanted to actually follow up on Thom Shanker's question and just ask you to clarify one thing you said in your opening remarks about the war on terror.

In terms of Thom's question, sir, clearly you have voiced your views about the news media in the past. Your view is on the record of accuracy, fairness and completeness by the news media in its reporting on Iraq.

So I'm curious where that leaves any room, in your mind, on the question of payment for articles; how you square even still contemplating it, given your view...

RUMSFELD: I'm not contemplating it or not contemplating it. I'm trying to understand what was done, and I don't yet.

My understanding is that the only things that were put out were accurate. No one was putting out anything that was inaccurate. So your question contained that element when you said "accurate," truthful. So my understanding is that nothing was put out that was not truthful, and I wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that it was -- unless the report suggests to the contrary, and I haven't seen the report.

QUESTION: What people are raising is the question of the ethics...

RUMSFELD: I understand what they're raising. I understand. And I am not going to defend it, because I don't have sufficient knowledge about what actually was done at what level by whom and for what purpose.

RUMSFELD: And I'm, kind of, old-fashioned: I like to engage my brain before my mouth.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you to clarify something in your opening remark on the war on terrorism?

When you were defining the U.S. enemies in the war on terror, I thought it was interesting, you specifically mentioned the Beslan school massacre in Russia, you mentioned the situation in Israel.

Is this, sort of, broadening of what the Bush administration perceives the terrorist threat to be to the American people to these other areas?

And do you now consider Iran part of the long war on terror, defining that long war as the war against al Qaeda and its affiliate movements?

RUMSFELD: I don't know about the preface to the question on Iran.

I think I was trying to characterize the nature of people who terrorize and behead people and kill children and plant bombs in corpses; and pointing out that that is a problem in the world that there are people like that, they are doing it in lots of places on the globe. And the point I was making, I think, was in that context.

With respect to Iran, we know that Iran is the major sponsor of Hezbollah, an active terrorist organization and a very well-known one. And that that has been their path and one of the instruments that they've used consistently.

QUESTION: Is Iran part of the U.S. long war on terror?

RUMSFELD: Terrorism is.

QUESTION: Is Iran?

RUMSFELD: I think I'm going to leave Iran to the Department of State and the president, except with respect to what they're doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. And I feel comfortable commenting on that.

But I'm not going to get into -- the president has spoken very clearly on what he thinks of Iran. QUESTION: Do you hold out any hopes that the proposed talks between Ambassador Khalilzad and a representative from Iran could contribute positively toward the situation in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: I don't have any idea. I just don't.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) question on the lessons-learned study? I'm just curious -- Admiral, you mentioned it in your opening statement. And I know that we'll get (INAUDIBLE)...

RUMSFELD: We'll make this the last question.

QUESTION: ... tomorrow. But I'm just curious, is there any -- can you share with us at all just any of the insights, maybe something you found interesting about what the Iraqi military or civilian leadership was thinking that maybe you didn't know or that you found out as a result of this study? Is there anything you can share with us?

GIAMBASTIANI: I think I'd like to leave to it what you're going to see tomorrow, because if I highlight one issue in 30 seconds here, everybody's going to focus on that, and, frankly, the work is more important in its totality.

There are a lot of things we learned in that, and that's the reason why we do this. That's why we do the lessons learned.

And remember what we were trying to do here. We always do lessons learned with what we call blue, U.S. or coalition, looking at the U.S. and coalition. Then the next step is, we have the United States try to red team what the other side would do. That's the next level.

This is the last level, where we actually talk to, interview and read the documents that we can to understand what the other side's perception of us was, what we did, and why they are doing what they do.

That's why we are looking at that. And if there's any message I want to give you, it's that one right there.

QUESTION: Without saying what's in the report, were you surprised at all about what...

GIAMBASTIANI: We learned things that we didn't expect, and you'll see them in the report, I can guarantee it. There were surprises in there and there are a few -- there always are. That's why we do these.

RUMSFELD: I sat down and got -- I forgot what it was -- a 40- minute briefing or something -- 45 minutes -- and then asked for a couple more hours. This is months and months and months ago. I haven't seen the -- this is an unclassified version, obviously.

But I must say that having a chance to see the lessons learned from the U.S. side and then looking at it from the Iraqi side, I found absolutely fascinating.

I think it's a good piece of work. And it's fairly typical of the Pentagon to be willing to invest time and effort of thoughtful people to go back and see what actually took place and what did people think at the moment and what can we learn from that so we can do things better in the future.

PHILLIPS: You've been watching a live briefing there at the Pentagon. We wanted to hear more about the rescue mission that took place in Iraq. We've been telling you about coalition forces bursting into this home in Baghdad, finding the three colleagues of murdered American hostage Tom Fox. Those Christian peace activists were taken out of there. Their captors were not there.

We're going to try to work details on that rescue. All we could get from the Pentagon, as you probably heard, is that it was a coalition mission. Not many details coming out. We're going to talk to Jamie McIntyre, of course, coming up in the next hour.

Meanwhile, a developing story out of New York City. Just a short time ago, Darryl Littlejohn was arraigned on charges of murdering graduate student Imette St. Guillen.

CNN's Allan Chernoff brings us up to speed -- Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kyra, a very dramatic moment just a few seconds ago. In fact, Imette St. Guillen's mother Maureen and her sister Alejandra (ph) are in that police van, and they're about to leave the courthouse. They just made comments to the media here, the sister saying that Imette had a passion for life and that the world lost something special.

Inside of the courtroom, both mother and sister were crying, sobbing, as Darryl Littlejohn did enter, handcuffed. Mr. Littlejohn, the bouncer from the bar where Imette St. Guillen was last seen alive, did enter handcuffed. Mr. Littlejohn, the bouncer from the bar where Imette St. Guillen was last seen alive, pled not guilty to murder one and murder two, murder in the first and second degrees. He, of course, accused of killing Imette St. Guillen, the 24-year-old graduate student in criminal justice who was a lot of seen alive at that bar in Soho in Manhattan.

So the arraignment has just taken place. Meanwhile, police and the district attorney here in Brooklyn say he have extensive evidence they will present that trial to prove that, in fact, Darryl Littlejohn is guilty of killing Imette St. Guillen.

Among those items of evidence, they say witnesses saw Mr. Littlejohn escort Imette St. Guillen out of the bar on February 25th at 4:00 in the morning. They also say that DNA evidence ties Darryl Littlejohn to the plastic ties that were wrapped around Imette St. Guillen's wrists. Her legs also were tied, her body was dumped in an empty lot in Brooklyn, and she also was covered in a blanket. On that blanket and also on the tape that covered her face, the police say they found fibers from a carpet in Darryl Littlejohn's home, and also fibers from jackets that Darryl Littlejohn owns. The police also said this morning that only 20 percent of the forensic analysis has been done, so they are hoping that they will have further evidence that they can bring once this case actually does go to trial -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Allan Chernoff, we'll keep checking in with you as new developments take place.

Also, straight ahead, we're going to be talking about that SWAT team right now that's surrounding a mobile home in New Port Richey, near Nazi flags you can see here flying. Two people were stabbed overnight. The SWAT team right now is in standoff with individuals. Not sure how many are inside that trailer at this time right now. We are monitoring that. We'll bring you more as we get it.

Also, reunited and it's feeling so good. A Pennsylvania woman is home for the first time since she vanished ten years ago. It's a remarkable story of captivity, survival and abuse. Hear it all when LIVE FROM continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Straight to Carol Lin, working that story out of Florida. What's the latest, Carol?

CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: That's right, Kyra. We're been covering this standoff at a trailer home that's decorated with neo-Nazi flags. It's right next door to a stabbing scene from the previous night. A 45-year-old woman and 17-year-old boy were stabbed by a masked intruder.

So deputy sheriffs surrounded this trailer home, and just in the last hour, they have -- a 34-year-old man emerged from that trailer. They're questioning this young man. They're not saying that he's a suspect per se, but according to officials, they believe that he might be involved in that stabbing incident. We have more now from Bay News 9 reporter Michelle Kay.

MICHELLE KAY, BAY NEWS 9 REPORTER: Well, to fill you in, there was a double stabbing this morning. A woman by the name of Tricia Wells (ph) wells was speaking with us, and said she had just gotten back from the hospital with multiple stab wounds, and stitches on her face, and both hands bandaged up.

She says that early this morning, a man with a gas mask came into her house and began stabbing her, and also a 17-year-old boy, a guest at her home who is a friend of her son's. Both of the victims were airlifted out. Tricia Wells was able to come home, but still, she's shaken up, physically and emotionally scarred. The 17-year-old victim is believed to be in critical condition.

The sheriff's office wanted to get a search warrant to go into the home next door. Doug Tobin (ph) with the sheriff's office told me that there was evidence at the scene where the victims were living that indicated that maybe the person who was responsible for the stabbing may live next door. This is the house that we've been telling you about all morning. It's a house that has several red flags with swastikas on it. It's a very sore subject, and a very tense subject in this neighborhood. There have been ongoing disputes between the neighbors of these people who have the flags out front for a long time, and even between the victim's home, the sheriff's office says, and the home where the flags are flying.

So the sheriff's office made entry into that home around 1:45 this afternoon and removed a 35-year-old white male. They say that he has not been arrested but they are questioning him about the double stabbing, but there's been a lot of talk about is this a skinhead, Nazi situation here?

I can tell you that officials from two law enforcement agencies tell me that the people who are dwellers of that home with the flags flying out front are self-proclaimed members of the American Nazi Party. So what we have here is two stabbing victims, one out of the hospital.

We'll get with you in a second here. People are stopping by to ask what happened because it's a big deal in this neighborhood. One victim is out of the hospital, she's recovering, she's walking around, obviously, shaken up. And the a 17-year-old boy is in critical condition with the sheriff's department having one person in custody that they're questioning -- Erica (sic).

LIN: All right, that was Michelle Kay from Bay News 9 giving us the latest on the situation. So, Kyra, she was reporting he's 35. Our bureau is saying he's 34. But regardless, they are questioning him right now.

This took several hours because they called the SWAT team in to surround that mobile home because, according to the public information officer I interviewed about an hour ago, she said that this particular household had a reputation for having weapons.

So they wanted to make sure this would go down peacefully and it has. They have a man that they are questioning right now in those stabbing attacks next door -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Carol Lin, thanks so much.

A cold case, a missing person, a mystery that stumped Pennsylvania police for a decade. Today that person is missing no more, but a new bunch of new questions arises. CNN's Robin Meade has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBIN MEADE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tanya Kach was 14 years old when she vanished in 1996. She says that she's been living with a 48-year-old middle school security guard just two miles from her father's house. Police say the man kept her locked in his house for four years and then only occasionally let her out in public. TANYA KACH, MISSING SINCE 1996: How did I find God those years? I read the Bible, I prayed the rosary, I talked to him every day. I had morning prayers, night prayers.

MEADE: Then one day she walked into this market where she had befriended the owner and his family.

JOE SPARICO, HELPED MISSING WOMAN: She was shaking very bad -- very, very bad. She was very nervous -- very nervous, very scared. Very scared for her life, I think.

MEADE: Police say the suspect used mind games to keep Kach with him and convince her that no one cared what happened to her. He now faces sexual assault charges. His lawyer said that Kach went with him willingly, even though she was only 14 years old. Kach says that she wants to go back to school and get her high school diploma. Meanwhile, she has a lot of catching up to do with her father.

JERRY KACH, TANYA KACH'S FATHER: I never gave up hope, never quit looking. And I just want to say thank you to all of the people who have helped make this moment and this reunion possible. From the bottom of my heart, thank you, because I got my girl.

T. KACH: My dad loves me.

MEADE: Robin Meade, CNN, Headline News.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: Well, a new scene in the search for Natalee Holloway after a new witness supposedly gave police in Aruba specific details that revive the investigation. The focus again, a landmark on Aruba, a lighthouse already thoroughly searched. The police chief says they'll use cadaver sniffing dogs there, working on the theory the Alabama teen's body may have been reburied. Natalee Holloway vanished last may.

Dire predictions from a group of scientists. The sea level could be rising at a much faster pace than expected.

The news keeps coming, we'll keep bringing it to you. More LIVE FROM next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIPS: Imagine beachfront property in Midtown Manhattan or Florida losing its Keys -- dire predictions from a group of scientists who see coastlines forming over time because of global warming.

Out meteorologist Bonnie Schneider here to bring us the big picture. Hey, Bonnie.

BONNIE SCHNEIDER, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, Kyra, we've heard a lot about the Earth's temperatures slowly warming and sea levels rising slowly as a result. But new research indicates this may be happening at a much faster pace. According to the report today in the journal of "Science," the Earth's warming temperatures could be on track to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets sooner than previous expected, and lead to a sea level rise as much as 20 feet.

The new findings predict that if current new trends continue, by the year 2100, the Earth will be at least four degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is right now. If that were to happen, the temperature could then be comparable to what it was nearly 130,000 years ago. Going back to that time, portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets melted, resulting in a sea level about 20 feet higher than it is now.

So what could this possibly mean for U.S. cities in the year 2100? Take New York, for example. Using Google Earth, we can zoom into the Wall Street area, which sits at 13 feet above sea level. If the sea level were to rise 20 feet above where it is now, Wall Street would be submerged.

Heading south now to Florida. Miami is only between three and five feet above sea level. So, according to the study, it could also be well below sea level in the year 2100. And, finally, the city of New Orleans. We saw what happened when the levees failed after Hurricane Katrina. When it comes to elevation, Borboun Street in the French Quarter is also between three and five feet above sea level, and that's actually one of the higher points in the city, since most of it sit below sea level.

Here what's you're looking at the the Google Earth, combined with study's findings of what sections of New Orleans, indicated by the red color, could possibly be submerged in the future. Now, if the study's worst case fears turns out to be true, protecting New Orleans from floods and storm surge could be an even bigger challenge 100 years from now.

So that's kind of looking at one case scenario if what could happen if these study's findings prove to be true. It is certainly very frightening indeed -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: All right, Bonnie Schneider, appreciate the details.

Well, a pretty little trinket blamed for killing a Minnesota toddler. Not because of choking; it was lead poisoning. The 4-year- old reportedly swallowed a piece of the jewelry given away with Reebok children's shoes. Now Reebok is recalling 300,000 children's charm bracelets which the Consumers Products Safety Commission says contain high levels of lead. The Dollar Tree chain is al also recalling more than half a million necklace and ring sets found to contain lead. For more information, check out www.cpsc.gov.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's great that wi-fi technology exists, but if I need to spend all day searching for a hot spot, it doesn't help me. Wi-fi is a way to get on the Internet wirelessly, and a hot spot is a public place you can do it it. Right now, if I need to get information, I've got to scramble around to try to find the nearest hot spot. I want get access everywhere. I want access on the street corners, in a subway, in a bus, so that I can get access to whatever information I want, whenever and wherever I am.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Hot spots are great, but what if you're in the cold abyss that lies between them? Might as well be digital Siberia. So how long before we can connect wirelessly wherever, whenever, seamlessly? Now, that would be hot!

(voice-over): Frank Hanzlik is director of the Wi-Fi Alliance, which sets standards for the technology, and he says wi-fi is spreading like wildfire.

FRANK HANZLIK, DIRECTOR, WI-FI ALLIANCE: One of the things that we're really going to see over the next few years is this notion, really, of seamless connectivity. So you're actually going to stay connected using a variety of different networks. You're not going to know you're on one network or another network. You're just going to stay connected with the best network at the lowest cost.

O'BRIEN: In other words, you could use one mobile device everywhere -- home, office, on the road -- painlessly tapping into a quilt of networks without missing an e-mail or a call.

HANZLIK: The nice thing about wi-fi is we're really just getting started. We're seeing wi-fi move into consumer electronics products, but we're also seeing wi-fi moving in the future into cars. So vehicle navigation systems, intelligent highway management systems, those kind of things, are really going to enable us to travel with a lot more intelligence and a lot more convenience, as well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(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