Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
Plane Forces Capitol Evacuation; I.D. Law Moves Through Senate; Battle Over Bolton
Aired May 12, 2005 - 10:30 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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yesterday's frantic evacuation sent some 35,000 people rushing from Washington landmarks and office buildings, but were they potentially running head-long into even greater dangers?
Let's take a look at the events as they set in motion. When the plane left Smoketown, Pennsylvania, it headed towards Washington, a very unforeseen welcome. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was at the White House, Joe Johns on Capitol Hill.
Suzanne, first, you're just coming out of the White House daily gaggle with some new information?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, that's right. People are looking carefully, very closely at the president's role in all of this, during that 15-minute security scare yesterday. What many people found to be incredible here is the news that we got late in the day that the president was not notified of the scare until after it was all over. You may recall yesterday, the president was not here at the White House. He was in suburban Maryland on a bicycle ride. He was with his Secret Service detail.
And Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, explaining that because the president was never in any danger, that people were being evacuated, taken care of here at the White House, and because there was no need to call for an order to shoot this plane down before it approached the White House, that the Secret Service made the determination that he did not need to know while all of this was taking place. More than 30,000 people being evacuated from various sites.
We asked McClellan about this this morning specifically. He says that the president was satisfied that security protocols were followed. He gave us more details about it, saying that the security detail traveling with the president were notified about what was taking place during that 15-minute window.
He also said a military aide traveling in very close contact with the president was also in communication with the White House situation room about what was developing. We don't know if that individual was riding side by side on a bicycle or in a vehicle, but we do know that he was informed.
A lot of people still have questions about that, however -- there was quite a bit of confusion and some questions. People saying where was the president and the leadership during this time? McClellan saying that he is satisfied, however, that this was handled properly. Having said that, however, Daryn, there is going to be an investigation on how all of this unfolded. It involves the White House, it involves deputy chief of staff Joe Hagan, it involves secret service. They're going to be looking at what went wrong, what went right, what could have improved.
Have to say, another thing that is being questioned, of course -- we have these in our offices. This is the emergency notification system. They're in each of the offices of the media and they are also positioned at various places inside the White House complex. Essentially, after the September 11th attacks, there was a system -- an intercom system that was set up that would allow for a tone to ring and then a message that would be delivered in a case of an emergency.
So, for instance, if there's an evacuation, it would say "Emergency, emergency, evacuate, evacuate." That type of thing. That system did not work yesterday. There were many people who were inside of the White House, at least in the briefing complex, that had no idea what was taking place during that 15-minute period. McClellan again saying this morning they are going to review all the systems in place and figure out how they can improve upon this the next time around -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Suzanne, meanwhile, I'd like to get a personal perspective here. You were at the White House at work, as you're supposed to be on a Wednesday morning. You said that the information you got, you knew very clearly that they weren't kidding about getting out of the building.
MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. We were actually in our basement office initially. We heard something on one of the monitor that sounded unusual. So I grabbed my press pass, grabbed the cell phone, went running upstairs. And that is exactly when we realized that there was something going on outside. There were uniformed detail Secret Service who were yelling, "This is no joke," screaming, essentially, for us to run and to get out.
Initially there was some confusion, however, Daryn, because at one moment, they were saying, "Get back in the building. Stay on the grounds." At another moment, perhaps just a minute later, they were saying, "Leave quick, get out of here." So obviously, things were escalating. Obviously, they were making some split-second decisions on where would be the safest place for us to go during that evacuation. But Daryn, so, a lot of unanswered questions today that, of course, we are getting to the bottom of.
KAGAN: See, all those workouts not wasted, my friend. You're in shape, ready to go either direction.
MALVEAUX: Ready to run!
KAGAN: Yeah, so you were at the White House. Our Joe Johns was on Capitol Hill. Joe, you also knew immediately that something was up.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's for sure, Daryn. You know, it's funny, you're talking about those enunciator systems, the public address systems. We have those over here, too. They also have the alarms that go off whenever something is going on. Of course, the first notice we got of a problem was seeing the Senate being evacuated on a TV screen. We didn't hear the enunciators go off until later. So, that was our first sense of -- we got to get out of this building.
Now, authorities are telling us they think this went well. The police chief, of course, says it took about seven to eight minutes before he started deciding to evacuate. Evacuation completed in five to six minutes. One question, of course, is whether it was reasonable to evacuate, given the fact that this was a very small plane.
Police Chief Terry Gainer talked about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF TERRENCE GAINER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: The size of the aircraft, its speed, its altitude, are all things we would factor into the evacuation issue. But, size alone wouldn't be the driving issue. The fact that it was smaller -- there's some comfort in the type of damage it would cause, but since I don't know what was in it, that could also be very damaging.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Here at the Capitol, the vast majority of members of Congress we've spoke with said they thought the evacuation went pretty well, given the circumstances. There were still some concerns articulated just on back channels by probably a handful of members to their leadership. And that was that when they went down the stairs during the evacuation, some of the members actually had to merge with tourists, and it made it harder for them to get out of the building. Of course, we've heard no such complaints over here on the Senate side -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Joe Johns, thank you so much. And if anybody was watching yesterday live around noon Eastern, Joe Johns and Suzanne Malveaux and their crews doing excellent jobs of reporting while they were evacuating all at the same time. So thank you. Good to have you guys on with us.
So what did federal officials do right? What did they do wrong? How did it all work in the security alert? Our security analyst Richard Falkenrath joins us from Washington, D.C. to do some Thursday- morning quarterbacking. Good morning.
RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: In an earlier Joe Johns piece, I think the numbers were 25,000 people on Capitol Hill. They all got out in five or six minutes, which sounds pretty good. Did it work?
FALKENRATH: Well, the evacuation procedures went pretty fast, but maybe not fast enough. In that sort of situation, you've got probably less time than that for a fast-plying airplane or even a slow-flying airplane. At three miles out, you're flying 150 miles an hour, you maybe have 60, 90 seconds before impact. So five, six minutes may be good, but it's probably not good enough in a real threat situation.
KAGAN: So you would say still room for improvement, especially, it sounds like, with these enunciators they're talking about, to let people know there really is an emergency.
FALKENRATH: Yes, enunciators are a problem. And we also need to think about whether evacuation, rushing out on the street, is exactly the right thing to do. In some cases, it may be better to shelter in place and to stay in the building. And I have a feeling the security officials in the Congress and in the administration are looking at that question.
KAGAN: Well, speaking of the administration, what do you make of this news that President Bush didn't know what was going on until it was all over with?
FALKENRATH Well, I'm sure he's not very happy about that. He needs to stay informed in realtime when a situation like this is developing. It's not always possible, but it is his expectation, I think, that he will know if there's a major security situation developing in the skies over the Capitol. I'm sure he wants to know as it's happening.
KAGAN: So you don't want a false alarm like this, but it sounds like some things can be learned from it.
FALKENRATH: Well, many things can be learned from it, that's for sure. But I also am not sure this was a false alarm. This was the deepest penetration into the most restricted airspace in the nation. And so that's a very big deal. To my knowledge, no plane has come that close to the White House since 9/11. And so, in that respect, at least, it wasn't a false alarm. That plane was in a place where it was not supposed to be, heading a direction it was not supposed to head.
KAGAN: OK, so that's a good point. And these appear to be two men who really kind of got there by accident, which sounds incredible. Didn't even realize what was going on. No charges will be filed at this time. So what does that tell you about what someone could do if they wanted to get into that airspace?
FALKENRATH: Well, it's a pretty serious threat. If someone really wants to get into that airspace with a fast-moving aircraft, it's a tough target to defend against. But, there are a lot of defenses around downtown Washington. The F-16s were on top of the airplane and could have shot it down at a moment's notice. There are also ground-based missile batteries around downtown Washington. They, I'm sure, had lighted up the airplane and also could have shot it down. So there are last lines of defenses that were not engaged in this case, hopefully will never be engaged, but that do provide some level of protection to downtown Washington.
KAGAN: All right, and on the downside, do people we don't want to get information get information from watching this happen?
FALKENRATH: Yes, they probably do, but they also learn that the airspace around Washington is very tightly protected. And I have a feeling most of the people who might still be contemplating an attack of this kind are going to say, gee, maybe we better find a different scenario, a different attack option.
KAGAN: Yes, maybe they'll just stay home, make us all happy.
FALKENRATH: Well, we'll see.
KAGAN: Yes. Richard Falkenrath, thank you for your insight. Appreciate that.
FALKENRATH: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: We will be focusing on Iraq just ahead. No end to the violence there. More suicide bombers strike. This attack happened in a busy marketplace in Baghdad. We'll bring you the latest details.
Plus, that real I.D. law will make it harder for illegal immigrants to secure U.S. driver's licenses, but who else might be impacted? Just might surprise you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Turning now to the latest developments in Iraq, a dozen people died this morning from a suicide car bomb at a busy marketplace in Baghdad. Fifty-six other people were wounded. A second car bomb in another part of the capital injured five people.
Another top aide to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was captured last month. That's according to the Iraqi government. The man is described as a financier of al Zarqawi's terror network.
And in the oil-for-food investigation, a French official and a British member of parliament deny corruption allegations issued today by a U.S. Senate panel. The Senate report accuses the officials of receiving allocations worth millions of barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.
We have an update now on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The Army will not file criminal charges against the former military intelligence chief at Abu Ghraib. That decision coming as court proceedings begin today for a servicemember charged in the case. CNN Veronica De La Cruz is at the dotcom desk, and she has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, CNN ANCHOR: Court-martial proceedings begin this week for the ninth and final soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. At CNN.com, the investigation, the fallout and the status of the soldiers charged.
Army Specialist Sabrina Harmon is the last soldier to face a military trial today at Ft. Hood, Texas. In this interactive gallery, click through the status of all nine soldiers charged, from Charles Graner, who was the first soldier to face court martial, to Lynndie England, whose case is now up in the air following a mistrial last week.
The damage from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has been hard to measure. However, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told CNN's Larry King he twice offered to resign.
Reports were filed by Major General Antonio Taguba, former Defense Secretary, James Schlesinger and the Army. You can read the findings of their reports online.
And find out how others fared in the scandal, from Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was demoted one rank by President Bush.
For a closer look at the impact of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse case, you can log on to cnn.com/law. From the dotcom newsdesk, I'm Veronica De La Cruz.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAGAN: Still ahead on CNN LIVE TODAY, say cheese. You're going to need to do that. We're going to find out why. You'll have to have more than a smile to get a driver's license in the near future.
Plus, Wal-Mart's woes are putting a damper on Wall Street today. I check of the financial markets coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Let's take a look at other stories making news coast-to- coast. The FBI is still on the lookout for the so-called "bag lady bandit." The suspect is linked to 10 supermarket bank robberies in the San Francisco Bay Area since March. Agents gave her the "bag lady" nickname because, they say, she uses a handbag to stash the stolen money.
Driver's in Chicago will have to watch how they use their cell phone. A new law bans handheld cell phone use while driving -- an exception made for 911 calls. Motorists will face a $50 fine. That fine increases to $200 if the driver is involved in an accident. The ban goes into effect in July.
Imagine falling nine stories from a condo balcony. It happened to a 70-year-old woman, and she lived to tell about it. Gloria D'Amati (ph) was cleaning her balcony when she tumbled over the railing. She landed on the first-floor canopy. She was taken to the hospital with a broken arm and some minor injury.
And how about this: Fortune cookies have led literally to a fortune. A-hundred-and-ten Powerball players around the country chose the winning numbers they found inside their fortune cookie. The winners get at least $100,000 each. The fortune cookies came from a New York factory, where people might be lining up to get the next batch. (STOCK MARKET REPORT)
KAGAN: $82 billion in emergency funding, in war funding in Iraq, was signed into law, soon after the bill landed on President Bush's desk. Tucked into the new law is a provision known as Real I.D. It basically requires states to verify a person's legal status before issuing a driver's license. That would seem simple enough, except it's not.
CNN's Bill Tucker explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The privilege of driving is one granted and controlled by a state. And the initial reaction to the Real I.D. Act is an old-fashioned one.
MICHAEL BALBONI (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATE: The driver's license is the most basic interface between a citizen and its government, and it should reflect the different systems throughout the state. And it's a state issue, so the states should have been able to work it out.
TUCKER: The states have been working on developing standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and were three months away from a federally-directed deadline under the Intelligence Reform Bill. They now have three years, because that's the new deadline under Real I.D.
Forty states currently require some proof of legal status before granting a license. Ten states offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Utah and Tennessee provide illegal aliens driver's certificates, which cannot be used as identification, which brings up a simple point.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: The states are free, actually, to opt out of this law altogether. The only problem is, is that their citizens will be affected by not being able to use driver's licenses to, say, enter federal buildings or travel on airplanes. They'll have to bring with them some other federally approved form of identification, like a passport.
TUCKER: A number of problems do need to be resolved, such as standards for document verification and developing a secure national network to allow states to check on the status of a license from another state.
Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Let's go ahead and check the time around the country. Currently 10:53 in Washington D.C., where the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote today on the nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. 7:53 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, where the launch of a global weather-tracking satellite has been delayed another day because of high winds. We are back in a moment with a quick check of your forecast.
(WEATHER REPORT)
KAGAN: Want to go live to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they're considering the nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. representative to the United Nations. This is George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican. He has not said how he's going to vote. Let's listen in.
SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R), OHIO: As I matter of fact, I understand all the senior people, or five of them, they're leaving right now. For example, Anne Patterson (ph), who is highly regarded is moving to another position. I've been told by several people that if he gets there, to be successful, he's going to need somebody like Anne Patterson to get the job done for him.
As such, Mr. Bolton's going to face a challenge. These people are gone right now. He's going to have find some new ones. But his challenge right now is to inspire, lead and manage a new team, a staff of 150 individuals that he will need to rely on to get the job done.
We have all witnessed the testimony and observations related to Mr. Bolton's interpersonal and management skills. I have concerns about Mr. Bolton's ability to inspire and lead a team so that he can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him. And I'm not the only one.
I understand that 59 U.S. diplomats who served under administrations from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the committee saying that Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the job. I want to note that the interview given by Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson (ph), has said that Mr. Bolton would be -- would make an abysmal ambassador, that he is "incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views."
I would also like to highlight the words of another person that I highly respect who worked with Mr. Bolton and told me that if Mr. Bolton were confirmed he'd be OK for a short time, but within six months, his poor interpersonal skills and lack of self-discipline would cause major problems.
Additionally, I want to note my concern that Colin Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered to over the last four years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by former secretaries of state recommending Mr. Bolton's confirmation. He's the one that had to deal with him on a day-to-day basis. He's the one that's more capable of commenting about whether or not he's got the ability to get the job done. And his name was not on that letter.
We are facing an era of foreign relations in which the choice for our ambassador to the United Nations should be one of the most thoughtful decisions we make. The candidate needs to be both a diplomat and a manager.
A manager's important. Interpersonal skills are important. The way you treat other people, do you treat them with dignity and respect, very important.
You must have the ability to persuade and inspire our friends, to communicate and convince, to listen, to absorb the ideas of others. Without such virtues, we will face more challenges in our efforts to win the war on terrorism, to spread democracy, and to foster stability globally.
The question is, is John Bolton the best person for the job? The administration has said they believe he's the right man. They say that despite his interpersonal shortcomings, he knows the U.N. and he can reform the organization and make it more powerful and relevant to the world.
Now, let me say, there's no doubt that John Bolton should be commended and thanked for his service and his particular achievements. He has accomplished some important objectives against great odds.
As a sponsor of legislation that established an office on global anti-Semitism in the State Department legislation that I worked very hard to get passed, I am particularly impressed by his work to combat global anti-Semitism. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bolton that we must get the U.N. to change its anti-Israeli bias.
Further, I'm impressed by Mr. Bolton's achievements in the area of arms control, specifically the Moscow treaty, the G8 Global Partnership fund and the president's Proliferation Security Initiative.
Despite these successes, there's no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador. As Carl Ford said, he is a kiss-up and kick-down leader who will not tolerate those who disagree with him and who goes out of his way to retaliate for their disagreement.
As Ambassador Hubbard said, he does not listen when an esteemed colleague offers suggestions to temper language in a speech. And as I've already mentioned, former Secretary Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkinson (ph), said he would be an abysmal ambassador.
As some others who have worked closely with Mr. Bolton stated, he's an ideologue and fosters an atmosphere of intimidation. He does not tolerate disagreement, he does not tolerate dissent.
Another esteemed individual that has worked with Mr. Bolton told me that even when he had success, he had the tendency to lord it over and say, hey, boy, look what I did. Carl Ford testified that he never has seen anyone behave as badly in all his days at the State Department, and that he would not even have testified before this committee if John Bolton had simply followed protocol and set simple rules of management. You know, just follow the procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after pouring over the hundreds of pages of testimony -- and, you know, I wasn't here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it -- I believe that John Bolton would have been fired, fired if he worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is note the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community in the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.
I worry about the signal that we're sending to thousands of individuals under the State Department who are serving their country in foreign service and civil service, living at posts across the world, and, in some cases, risking their lives. Also, they can represent our country, promote diplomacy, and contribute to the safety of Americans everywhere.
I just returned from a trip to the Balkans. I had a chance to spend four days with people from the State Department. He's not what they considered to be the ideal person, Mr. Chairman, to be our ambassador to the United States -- or to the United Nations. And I think it's important that we think about the signal that we send out there to those people that are all over this world that are doing the very best job that they can to represent the United States of America.
This is an important nomination by the president. What we're saying to these people when we confirm such an individual to one of the highest positions, what are we saying?
I want to emphasize that I've weighed Mr. Bolton's strengths carefully. I have weighed the fact that this is the president's nominee. All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the president's nominee.
However, in this case, all things are not equal. It's a different world today than it was four years ago.
Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who have hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to heaven is through jihad and against the world, particularly the U.S. We most recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.
After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I've come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton. The world needs an ambassador who's interested in encouraging other people's points of view and discouraging any atmosphere of intimidation.
The world needs an American ambassador to the U.N. who will show that the United States' respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, that we are team players and consensus builders and promoters of symbiotic relationships. In moving forward with the international community, we should remember the words of the great Scott poet who said, "Oh, that some great power would give me the wisdom to see myself as other people see me."
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I'm not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
My hope is on a bipartisan basis we can send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will. If that goes to the floor, I would plead to my colleagues in the Senate to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all the pertinent material.
So often we get nominees and we don't spend the time to look into the background of the individual and to ask themselves several questions. Will John Bolton do the best job possible representing a transatlantic face of America at the U.N.? Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N. despite his damaged credibility?
Will he share information with the right individuals, and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so he can make the most informed decision? Is he capable of advancing the president and the secretary of state's effort to advance our public diplomacy?
Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, common decency and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, uphold democracy as a team with our fellow nations?
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, I have met with Mr. Bolton on two occasions, spent almost two hours with him. I like Mr. Bolton. I think he's a decent man.
Our conversations have been candid and cordial. But, Mr. Chairman, I really don't believe he's the best man that we can send to the United Nations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. And I'll turn to...
KAGAN: Well, we've been waiting to get that indication from Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican, yet making it very clear that he is no fan of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The senator saying that John Bolton is the poster child of what a U.S. representative to the United Nations should not be.
Doing a little bit of math here on this committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there are 10 Republicans, eight Democrats. That's along party lines. But as you saw Senator Voinovich saying, he's not going to support John Bolton. That would make it a 9-9 tie.
Let's bring our Andrea Koppel in to ask what happens now.
We also heard Senator Voinovich saying he does think this should go to a full vote to the floor of the Senate -- Andrea. ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, keep in mind that Senator Voinovich is only the second person out of 18 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to speak as yet. We haven't heard from other Republicans on the committee, people like Lincoln Chafee of Nebraska, who has also been on the fence, off the fence, really trying to sort of keep his options open going into the vote.
And we saw just last month that it was really Mr. Voinovich, Senator Voinovich, who threw the big curveball and shocked everyone on the committee when out of the blue he said that he could not in good conscience support the vote and felt they needed more time to go over the allegations that were before the committee. And then it was only after that point that you saw Lincoln Chafee and even Chuck Hagel of Nebraska then also expressing their reservations.
So right at this moment it looks like the vote would be 9-9, but we have to hear from the other Republicans on the committee before we can make that kind of determination. But you really have to wonder what is going through the chairman, Richard Lugar's mind, going into this morning's meeting.
He predicted that it would be strictly a vote down party lines, which would have been 10-8. Clearly, Senator Voinovich demonstrating his reputation as an independent voter, as someone who votes his conscience and proving it yet again, if this vote goes forward today as planned -- Daryn
KAGAN: All right. Let's listen again, this time to Senator Joe Biden.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: We all are elected officials in the most significant legislative body, I would -- I would say, in the history of the world. And we all know, though, that each of our parties have overwhelming requirements sometimes to meet the concerns of portions of our party. And that was implied to me as one of the reasons why Mr. Bolton was being nominated.
The question I asked was, "Do you know, Madame Secretary, how much difficulty Mr. Bolton caused for Secretary Powell, your predecessor?" And the answer was yes. But there had been a discussion. And there was a need to find important votes for Mr. Bolton, who has been an admirable and bright and patriotic servant of this country for a long time.
And I asked the rhetorical question, "If you couldn't say no now to that nomination, how are you going to say no if in fact he breaches the control that you indicate to me that will be imposed upon him?" I don't know the answer to that, but I would suggest that if there is a need to appoint him for reasons, including and beyond his capacity, then it may be difficult if, in fact, he strays. But that is not for me to decide.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together for a long time. I think it's fair to say we've never had a cross harsh word. And we will not, as far as I'm concerned, have one over this. But your opening statement makes it sort of sound that it's self-evident that Mr. Bolton was going to be the guy to be nominated to the United Nations.
I would ask a rhetorical question. Was anyone here in the Senate when Bolton's name was mentioned, unless you had been briefed ahead of time? Did any one of you say, "Ah, that fits. That's just what I was thinking. That's just what I was thinking, U.N., Bolton, U.N.?"
I'm not being facetious. I'm being deadly earnest.
I think it goes tot this whole question of whether or not everybody is out just on a witch hunt to go after Mr. Bolton. You must admit that this was an unusual, if not surprising, nomination.
If someone had said Mr. Bolton was going to head up -- he was going to be brought in, I would have been less surprised, myself, if he was going to be -- have the spot Mr. Hadley has, a more -- in some senses, a much more critical spot.
I would have been less surprised about that. But it's a little bit like if one of us announced we're going to go back and run for the state legislature. It would kind of surprise me. It wouldn't fit.
I want to make a second point. We did not seek out any witnesses. I don't -- I don't know whether you meant to imply, Mr. Chairman, but it sounded -- might sound to some like the Democrats are out there trying to dig up all they can on Bolton.
I had nothing to do, nor did any of you, with what now is 102 former career ambassadors, Republican, Democrat, Republican appointees, Democrat appointees. To the best of my knowledge, my word as -- I know of no Democrat that had anything to do with getting those folks to write us a letter.
Tom Hubbard, the ambassador to South Korea, he contacted us after hearing Mr. Bolton's testimony. We did not contact Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Westermann, nobody contacted Mr. Westermann first. That came from Mr. Westermann in an inquiry by the Intelligence Committee as to whether or not anyone had been -- felt intimidated.
Mr. Westermann came forward to the Intelligence Committee. We found out from the intelligence committee. We did not go to Mr. Westermann.
Ms. Townsel -- and I agree, the evidence is not absolutely conclusive. I agree with you. I think you honestly stated it, as you always do. But we didn't go to Mrs. Townsel.
She wrote an open letter to us. I never met the women. Never even heard of her before.
So, I want to make the point that not only did we not seek out these witnesses, it would have been irresponsible in terms of our constitutional responsibility not to talk to them as they came forward or seek out corroboration and/or contradictory statements relative to what they had to say. And I might point out the primary witnesses that we interviewed who have the most incredibly damaging things to say -- let me rephrase that -- who have some very damaging things to say about Mr. Bolton's actions are all in a Republican administration.
We did not go to a former administration. We did not go to the Clinton administration to find former assistant secretaries or heads of NIR or -- yes, INR. These are all Republicans. If not Republicans, appointees and/or serving under a Republican administration.
And further, the argument that we need John Bolton for reform at the U.N., and comparing him to Pat Moynihan, reminded me of that famous phrase of our friend some Texas, Senator Bentsen. I knew Pat Moynihan, and he's -- and I know John Bolton, and he's no Pat Moynihan. I mean, I find that the biggest stretch -- you know, that old phrase we Irish say, Pat's probably rolling over in his grave hearing that comparison.
And so we're not saying -- one last point before I get into the detail -- we're not saying Mr. Bolton is not a patriotic American, has not done very good things in his career, has been a failure. We're not saying that.
What we're saying is, he's done some very good things. One that comes to mind, referenced by our colleague from Ohio, the anti-Zionist resolution, getting it repealed.
That's a big deal. That's a big deal, a notable accomplishment. But that does not a U.N. ambassador make.
A lot of people have done very good things who turn out not to be qualified or the right person for other assignments.
Mr. Chairman, my intention obviously is not to keep our committee vote beyond the 3:00 p.m. agreement we have decided on, but I feel obliged to lay out for the record one of my -- my -- my institutional concerns here.
I recognize that the State Department, the CIA and AID have provided hundreds of pages of documents and declassified many of them. I don't minimize that.
State and CIA have made -- have made government officials available for interviews, and more than once. But this cooperation has been grudging, to say the least.
Prior to April 11 hearing, very little cooperation was provided to the Democratic request until you, Mr. Chairman, stepped in. After our first meeting on April 19, we made additional document requests to the department. The chairman intervened again to help, but he also implicitly invited the department to ignore part of our request, saying that some of our requests were "extremely broad and may have marginal relevance to specific allegations." The letter then expressed hope that certain specific requests would be fulfilled, a list that omitted four parts of the minority request. The department took the hint, and it has failed to turn over some important materials related to preparations of speeches and testimony.
Even after, even after we narrowed our request, at the urging of the State Department, only...
KAGAN: You're listening in to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is Senator Joe Biden. Not surprisingly, he is not in favor of the nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Even more interesting, before that, was hearing from Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, making it clear he does not support the nomination. He didn't exactly indicate how he would vote in the -- in committee, because he did say he does believe it should go to the floor of the full Senate.
So we're going to learn a lot more about the future of John Bolton coming up
Also ahead, we're going to go to Santa Maria, California, focus on the Michael Jackson trial. What did Macaulay Culkin have to say on -- say on the stand? We will get more on that just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Live pictures from Capitol Hill. That's Senator Joe Biden. We are continuing to listen in to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as they consider the nomination of John Bolton to be the next ambassador, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. More on that just ahead.
Right now, let's focus on Santa Maria, California, where the prosecution contends Michael Jackson molested several other boys besides the accuser in the case. One that they are making that accusation about is former child actor Macaulay Culkin. But Culkin has told jurors Jackson did no such thing.
Jim Moret, longtime friend, former CNN anchor. He now covers the Jackson trial for "Inside Edition."
Jim, how are you?
JIM MORET, LEGAL ANALYST: I'm great, Daryn. It's good to be with you.
KAGAN: Good to have you here. Now, you were inside the courtroom yesterday when Macaulay Culkin was on the stand for about 90 minutes.
MORET: Right.
KAGAN: What was that like? MORET: Complete silence has he walked in. He was very affable, very conversational, seemed very comfortable, smiled a great deal. And, you know, he was one of several witnesses that the defense has brought on, alleged victims of Michael Jackson's molestation. And he, along with two other boys, said, "Nothing happened while I was at Neverland."
He was good friends with Michael Jackson after the "Home Alone" movie. Michael Jackson actually got in touch with Macaulay Culkin and they formed a special friendship.
Now, Culkin was very important for one reason. He said, "Michael Jackson understood me and I understood him. I was a child star. He was a child star." And Macaulay Culkin really helped open this window to give us a view into this strange world of what it's like to be Michael Jackson.
You see, the defense has this theory that Michael Jackson isn't like the rest of us. He sleeps with boys, but he doesn't do anything inappropriate with him. And his life is not like ours, so it's hard for us to compare our morals to him. Macaulay Culkin really opened the door to that.
The second part of that attack was with a video. Remember that Martin Bashir video that really started all of this investigation? Well, while that was being shot, Michael Jackson had his own camera crew videotaping, and he had outtakes which were shown for about two- and-a-half hours yesterday. More are going to be shown in the next few minutes.
And that is essentially Michael Jackson talking for two-and-a- half hours about how horrible his childhood was, how it was stunted, how he clings to that childhood. That's why he built Neverland, that's why he likes to surround himself with children, because he trusts them.
And effectively, Michael Jackson is testifying without the need for cross-examination. So we're seeing a big turn here. And what the defense wants the jury to do is make this leap to say, you know what, maybe Michael Jackson is different from the rest of us.
KAGAN: I want to go back to Macaulay Culkin for a second. He did say on the stand that he slept in the same bed with Michael Jackson a number of times, that nothing untoward happened besides that kind of strange fact right there. But earlier, this jury heard both a chef and a maid say they saw inappropriate behavior between Michael Jackson and Macaulay Culkin.
Which do you think will have greater credibility with this jury?
MORET: Well, the testimony you're talking about was a food server who said that at the arcade at about 3:00 in the morning, when he was delivering French fries to Michael Jackson, one of these strange requests he'd get in the middle of the night, he saw Michael Jackson holding Macaulay Culkin up to an arcade machine, a video machine, and that he was holding him with one hand and groping him with another.
Macaulay Culkin was not specifically asked about that event. However, he was asked point blank: "Did Michael Jackson do anything inappropriate with you? Did he molest you? What do you think about allegations that he touched you?"
And he said, "I think those are absolutely ridiculous."
I think it's very powerful when you have a person who was allegedly a victim who looks at the jurors and says nothing happened. I'm the person it supposedly happened to, it didn't happen.
The eyewitness who testified was standing about 30 foot away, it was 3:00 in the morning. You could argue the lighting wasn't good. But when you have the alleged victim, and he says nothing happened, that's very powerful
KAGAN: Jim Moret. We can see more of your coverage on "Inside Edition." And, of course, it's always good to have you here on CNN.
MORET: Great to be here.
KAGAN: Thank you, Jim.
MORET: Thanks.
KAGAN: We're going to have a lot more ahead from Washington, D.C. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee currently talking about a potential vote on John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Also, we expect to hear from President Bush. He'll be holding Rose Garden ceremony. Want to see if he has anything to say about yesterday's scare at the White House and on Capitol Hill when a single-engine plane flew into restricted airspace.
That's just ahead. Right now a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Let's take a look at what's happening "Now in the News."
A meeting on Capitol Hill right now could set the stage for a showdown in the filibuster fight. The Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting to consider three of President Bush's nominees, and, in fact, has voted to send one of those to the full Senate for Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr. That one's going to the Senate floor. Democrats have threatened filibusters to block nominations they consider out of the mainstream.
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 May 12, 2005 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yesterday's frantic evacuation sent some 35,000 people rushing from Washington landmarks and office buildings, but were they potentially running head-long into even greater dangers?
Let's take a look at the events as they set in motion. When the plane left Smoketown, Pennsylvania, it headed towards Washington, a very unforeseen welcome. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux was at the White House, Joe Johns on Capitol Hill.
Suzanne, first, you're just coming out of the White House daily gaggle with some new information?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, that's right. People are looking carefully, very closely at the president's role in all of this, during that 15-minute security scare yesterday. What many people found to be incredible here is the news that we got late in the day that the president was not notified of the scare until after it was all over. You may recall yesterday, the president was not here at the White House. He was in suburban Maryland on a bicycle ride. He was with his Secret Service detail.
And Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, explaining that because the president was never in any danger, that people were being evacuated, taken care of here at the White House, and because there was no need to call for an order to shoot this plane down before it approached the White House, that the Secret Service made the determination that he did not need to know while all of this was taking place. More than 30,000 people being evacuated from various sites.
We asked McClellan about this this morning specifically. He says that the president was satisfied that security protocols were followed. He gave us more details about it, saying that the security detail traveling with the president were notified about what was taking place during that 15-minute window.
He also said a military aide traveling in very close contact with the president was also in communication with the White House situation room about what was developing. We don't know if that individual was riding side by side on a bicycle or in a vehicle, but we do know that he was informed.
A lot of people still have questions about that, however -- there was quite a bit of confusion and some questions. People saying where was the president and the leadership during this time? McClellan saying that he is satisfied, however, that this was handled properly. Having said that, however, Daryn, there is going to be an investigation on how all of this unfolded. It involves the White House, it involves deputy chief of staff Joe Hagan, it involves secret service. They're going to be looking at what went wrong, what went right, what could have improved.
Have to say, another thing that is being questioned, of course -- we have these in our offices. This is the emergency notification system. They're in each of the offices of the media and they are also positioned at various places inside the White House complex. Essentially, after the September 11th attacks, there was a system -- an intercom system that was set up that would allow for a tone to ring and then a message that would be delivered in a case of an emergency.
So, for instance, if there's an evacuation, it would say "Emergency, emergency, evacuate, evacuate." That type of thing. That system did not work yesterday. There were many people who were inside of the White House, at least in the briefing complex, that had no idea what was taking place during that 15-minute period. McClellan again saying this morning they are going to review all the systems in place and figure out how they can improve upon this the next time around -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Suzanne, meanwhile, I'd like to get a personal perspective here. You were at the White House at work, as you're supposed to be on a Wednesday morning. You said that the information you got, you knew very clearly that they weren't kidding about getting out of the building.
MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. We were actually in our basement office initially. We heard something on one of the monitor that sounded unusual. So I grabbed my press pass, grabbed the cell phone, went running upstairs. And that is exactly when we realized that there was something going on outside. There were uniformed detail Secret Service who were yelling, "This is no joke," screaming, essentially, for us to run and to get out.
Initially there was some confusion, however, Daryn, because at one moment, they were saying, "Get back in the building. Stay on the grounds." At another moment, perhaps just a minute later, they were saying, "Leave quick, get out of here." So obviously, things were escalating. Obviously, they were making some split-second decisions on where would be the safest place for us to go during that evacuation. But Daryn, so, a lot of unanswered questions today that, of course, we are getting to the bottom of.
KAGAN: See, all those workouts not wasted, my friend. You're in shape, ready to go either direction.
MALVEAUX: Ready to run!
KAGAN: Yeah, so you were at the White House. Our Joe Johns was on Capitol Hill. Joe, you also knew immediately that something was up.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's for sure, Daryn. You know, it's funny, you're talking about those enunciator systems, the public address systems. We have those over here, too. They also have the alarms that go off whenever something is going on. Of course, the first notice we got of a problem was seeing the Senate being evacuated on a TV screen. We didn't hear the enunciators go off until later. So, that was our first sense of -- we got to get out of this building.
Now, authorities are telling us they think this went well. The police chief, of course, says it took about seven to eight minutes before he started deciding to evacuate. Evacuation completed in five to six minutes. One question, of course, is whether it was reasonable to evacuate, given the fact that this was a very small plane.
Police Chief Terry Gainer talked about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF TERRENCE GAINER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: The size of the aircraft, its speed, its altitude, are all things we would factor into the evacuation issue. But, size alone wouldn't be the driving issue. The fact that it was smaller -- there's some comfort in the type of damage it would cause, but since I don't know what was in it, that could also be very damaging.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Here at the Capitol, the vast majority of members of Congress we've spoke with said they thought the evacuation went pretty well, given the circumstances. There were still some concerns articulated just on back channels by probably a handful of members to their leadership. And that was that when they went down the stairs during the evacuation, some of the members actually had to merge with tourists, and it made it harder for them to get out of the building. Of course, we've heard no such complaints over here on the Senate side -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Joe Johns, thank you so much. And if anybody was watching yesterday live around noon Eastern, Joe Johns and Suzanne Malveaux and their crews doing excellent jobs of reporting while they were evacuating all at the same time. So thank you. Good to have you guys on with us.
So what did federal officials do right? What did they do wrong? How did it all work in the security alert? Our security analyst Richard Falkenrath joins us from Washington, D.C. to do some Thursday- morning quarterbacking. Good morning.
RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Good morning, Daryn.
KAGAN: In an earlier Joe Johns piece, I think the numbers were 25,000 people on Capitol Hill. They all got out in five or six minutes, which sounds pretty good. Did it work?
FALKENRATH: Well, the evacuation procedures went pretty fast, but maybe not fast enough. In that sort of situation, you've got probably less time than that for a fast-plying airplane or even a slow-flying airplane. At three miles out, you're flying 150 miles an hour, you maybe have 60, 90 seconds before impact. So five, six minutes may be good, but it's probably not good enough in a real threat situation.
KAGAN: So you would say still room for improvement, especially, it sounds like, with these enunciators they're talking about, to let people know there really is an emergency.
FALKENRATH: Yes, enunciators are a problem. And we also need to think about whether evacuation, rushing out on the street, is exactly the right thing to do. In some cases, it may be better to shelter in place and to stay in the building. And I have a feeling the security officials in the Congress and in the administration are looking at that question.
KAGAN: Well, speaking of the administration, what do you make of this news that President Bush didn't know what was going on until it was all over with?
FALKENRATH Well, I'm sure he's not very happy about that. He needs to stay informed in realtime when a situation like this is developing. It's not always possible, but it is his expectation, I think, that he will know if there's a major security situation developing in the skies over the Capitol. I'm sure he wants to know as it's happening.
KAGAN: So you don't want a false alarm like this, but it sounds like some things can be learned from it.
FALKENRATH: Well, many things can be learned from it, that's for sure. But I also am not sure this was a false alarm. This was the deepest penetration into the most restricted airspace in the nation. And so that's a very big deal. To my knowledge, no plane has come that close to the White House since 9/11. And so, in that respect, at least, it wasn't a false alarm. That plane was in a place where it was not supposed to be, heading a direction it was not supposed to head.
KAGAN: OK, so that's a good point. And these appear to be two men who really kind of got there by accident, which sounds incredible. Didn't even realize what was going on. No charges will be filed at this time. So what does that tell you about what someone could do if they wanted to get into that airspace?
FALKENRATH: Well, it's a pretty serious threat. If someone really wants to get into that airspace with a fast-moving aircraft, it's a tough target to defend against. But, there are a lot of defenses around downtown Washington. The F-16s were on top of the airplane and could have shot it down at a moment's notice. There are also ground-based missile batteries around downtown Washington. They, I'm sure, had lighted up the airplane and also could have shot it down. So there are last lines of defenses that were not engaged in this case, hopefully will never be engaged, but that do provide some level of protection to downtown Washington.
KAGAN: All right, and on the downside, do people we don't want to get information get information from watching this happen?
FALKENRATH: Yes, they probably do, but they also learn that the airspace around Washington is very tightly protected. And I have a feeling most of the people who might still be contemplating an attack of this kind are going to say, gee, maybe we better find a different scenario, a different attack option.
KAGAN: Yes, maybe they'll just stay home, make us all happy.
FALKENRATH: Well, we'll see.
KAGAN: Yes. Richard Falkenrath, thank you for your insight. Appreciate that.
FALKENRATH: Thank you, Daryn.
KAGAN: We will be focusing on Iraq just ahead. No end to the violence there. More suicide bombers strike. This attack happened in a busy marketplace in Baghdad. We'll bring you the latest details.
Plus, that real I.D. law will make it harder for illegal immigrants to secure U.S. driver's licenses, but who else might be impacted? Just might surprise you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Turning now to the latest developments in Iraq, a dozen people died this morning from a suicide car bomb at a busy marketplace in Baghdad. Fifty-six other people were wounded. A second car bomb in another part of the capital injured five people.
Another top aide to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was captured last month. That's according to the Iraqi government. The man is described as a financier of al Zarqawi's terror network.
And in the oil-for-food investigation, a French official and a British member of parliament deny corruption allegations issued today by a U.S. Senate panel. The Senate report accuses the officials of receiving allocations worth millions of barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.
We have an update now on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The Army will not file criminal charges against the former military intelligence chief at Abu Ghraib. That decision coming as court proceedings begin today for a servicemember charged in the case. CNN Veronica De La Cruz is at the dotcom desk, and she has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VERONICA DE LA CRUZ, CNN ANCHOR: Court-martial proceedings begin this week for the ninth and final soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. At CNN.com, the investigation, the fallout and the status of the soldiers charged.
Army Specialist Sabrina Harmon is the last soldier to face a military trial today at Ft. Hood, Texas. In this interactive gallery, click through the status of all nine soldiers charged, from Charles Graner, who was the first soldier to face court martial, to Lynndie England, whose case is now up in the air following a mistrial last week.
The damage from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has been hard to measure. However, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told CNN's Larry King he twice offered to resign.
Reports were filed by Major General Antonio Taguba, former Defense Secretary, James Schlesinger and the Army. You can read the findings of their reports online.
And find out how others fared in the scandal, from Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was demoted one rank by President Bush.
For a closer look at the impact of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse case, you can log on to cnn.com/law. From the dotcom newsdesk, I'm Veronica De La Cruz.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAGAN: Still ahead on CNN LIVE TODAY, say cheese. You're going to need to do that. We're going to find out why. You'll have to have more than a smile to get a driver's license in the near future.
Plus, Wal-Mart's woes are putting a damper on Wall Street today. I check of the financial markets coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Let's take a look at other stories making news coast-to- coast. The FBI is still on the lookout for the so-called "bag lady bandit." The suspect is linked to 10 supermarket bank robberies in the San Francisco Bay Area since March. Agents gave her the "bag lady" nickname because, they say, she uses a handbag to stash the stolen money.
Driver's in Chicago will have to watch how they use their cell phone. A new law bans handheld cell phone use while driving -- an exception made for 911 calls. Motorists will face a $50 fine. That fine increases to $200 if the driver is involved in an accident. The ban goes into effect in July.
Imagine falling nine stories from a condo balcony. It happened to a 70-year-old woman, and she lived to tell about it. Gloria D'Amati (ph) was cleaning her balcony when she tumbled over the railing. She landed on the first-floor canopy. She was taken to the hospital with a broken arm and some minor injury.
And how about this: Fortune cookies have led literally to a fortune. A-hundred-and-ten Powerball players around the country chose the winning numbers they found inside their fortune cookie. The winners get at least $100,000 each. The fortune cookies came from a New York factory, where people might be lining up to get the next batch. (STOCK MARKET REPORT)
KAGAN: $82 billion in emergency funding, in war funding in Iraq, was signed into law, soon after the bill landed on President Bush's desk. Tucked into the new law is a provision known as Real I.D. It basically requires states to verify a person's legal status before issuing a driver's license. That would seem simple enough, except it's not.
CNN's Bill Tucker explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The privilege of driving is one granted and controlled by a state. And the initial reaction to the Real I.D. Act is an old-fashioned one.
MICHAEL BALBONI (R), NEW YORK STATE SENATE: The driver's license is the most basic interface between a citizen and its government, and it should reflect the different systems throughout the state. And it's a state issue, so the states should have been able to work it out.
TUCKER: The states have been working on developing standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and were three months away from a federally-directed deadline under the Intelligence Reform Bill. They now have three years, because that's the new deadline under Real I.D.
Forty states currently require some proof of legal status before granting a license. Ten states offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Utah and Tennessee provide illegal aliens driver's certificates, which cannot be used as identification, which brings up a simple point.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: The states are free, actually, to opt out of this law altogether. The only problem is, is that their citizens will be affected by not being able to use driver's licenses to, say, enter federal buildings or travel on airplanes. They'll have to bring with them some other federally approved form of identification, like a passport.
TUCKER: A number of problems do need to be resolved, such as standards for document verification and developing a secure national network to allow states to check on the status of a license from another state.
Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Let's go ahead and check the time around the country. Currently 10:53 in Washington D.C., where the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could vote today on the nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. 7:53 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, where the launch of a global weather-tracking satellite has been delayed another day because of high winds. We are back in a moment with a quick check of your forecast.
(WEATHER REPORT)
KAGAN: Want to go live to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they're considering the nomination of John Bolton as the next U.S. representative to the United Nations. This is George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican. He has not said how he's going to vote. Let's listen in.
SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R), OHIO: As I matter of fact, I understand all the senior people, or five of them, they're leaving right now. For example, Anne Patterson (ph), who is highly regarded is moving to another position. I've been told by several people that if he gets there, to be successful, he's going to need somebody like Anne Patterson to get the job done for him.
As such, Mr. Bolton's going to face a challenge. These people are gone right now. He's going to have find some new ones. But his challenge right now is to inspire, lead and manage a new team, a staff of 150 individuals that he will need to rely on to get the job done.
We have all witnessed the testimony and observations related to Mr. Bolton's interpersonal and management skills. I have concerns about Mr. Bolton's ability to inspire and lead a team so that he can be as effective as possible in completing the important task before him. And I'm not the only one.
I understand that 59 U.S. diplomats who served under administrations from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the committee saying that Mr. Bolton is the wrong man for the job. I want to note that the interview given by Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson (ph), has said that Mr. Bolton would be -- would make an abysmal ambassador, that he is "incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views."
I would also like to highlight the words of another person that I highly respect who worked with Mr. Bolton and told me that if Mr. Bolton were confirmed he'd be OK for a short time, but within six months, his poor interpersonal skills and lack of self-discipline would cause major problems.
Additionally, I want to note my concern that Colin Powell, the person to whom Mr. Bolton answered to over the last four years, was conspicuously absent from a letter signed by former secretaries of state recommending Mr. Bolton's confirmation. He's the one that had to deal with him on a day-to-day basis. He's the one that's more capable of commenting about whether or not he's got the ability to get the job done. And his name was not on that letter.
We are facing an era of foreign relations in which the choice for our ambassador to the United Nations should be one of the most thoughtful decisions we make. The candidate needs to be both a diplomat and a manager.
A manager's important. Interpersonal skills are important. The way you treat other people, do you treat them with dignity and respect, very important.
You must have the ability to persuade and inspire our friends, to communicate and convince, to listen, to absorb the ideas of others. Without such virtues, we will face more challenges in our efforts to win the war on terrorism, to spread democracy, and to foster stability globally.
The question is, is John Bolton the best person for the job? The administration has said they believe he's the right man. They say that despite his interpersonal shortcomings, he knows the U.N. and he can reform the organization and make it more powerful and relevant to the world.
Now, let me say, there's no doubt that John Bolton should be commended and thanked for his service and his particular achievements. He has accomplished some important objectives against great odds.
As a sponsor of legislation that established an office on global anti-Semitism in the State Department legislation that I worked very hard to get passed, I am particularly impressed by his work to combat global anti-Semitism. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bolton that we must get the U.N. to change its anti-Israeli bias.
Further, I'm impressed by Mr. Bolton's achievements in the area of arms control, specifically the Moscow treaty, the G8 Global Partnership fund and the president's Proliferation Security Initiative.
Despite these successes, there's no doubt that Mr. Bolton has serious deficiencies in the areas that are critical to be a good ambassador. As Carl Ford said, he is a kiss-up and kick-down leader who will not tolerate those who disagree with him and who goes out of his way to retaliate for their disagreement.
As Ambassador Hubbard said, he does not listen when an esteemed colleague offers suggestions to temper language in a speech. And as I've already mentioned, former Secretary Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkinson (ph), said he would be an abysmal ambassador.
As some others who have worked closely with Mr. Bolton stated, he's an ideologue and fosters an atmosphere of intimidation. He does not tolerate disagreement, he does not tolerate dissent.
Another esteemed individual that has worked with Mr. Bolton told me that even when he had success, he had the tendency to lord it over and say, hey, boy, look what I did. Carl Ford testified that he never has seen anyone behave as badly in all his days at the State Department, and that he would not even have testified before this committee if John Bolton had simply followed protocol and set simple rules of management. You know, just follow the procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after pouring over the hundreds of pages of testimony -- and, you know, I wasn't here for those hearings, but I did my penance, I read all of it -- I believe that John Bolton would have been fired, fired if he worked for a major corporation. This is not the behavior of true leader who upholds the kind of democracy that President Bush is seeking to promote globally. This is note the behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community in the United Nations. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.
I worry about the signal that we're sending to thousands of individuals under the State Department who are serving their country in foreign service and civil service, living at posts across the world, and, in some cases, risking their lives. Also, they can represent our country, promote diplomacy, and contribute to the safety of Americans everywhere.
I just returned from a trip to the Balkans. I had a chance to spend four days with people from the State Department. He's not what they considered to be the ideal person, Mr. Chairman, to be our ambassador to the United States -- or to the United Nations. And I think it's important that we think about the signal that we send out there to those people that are all over this world that are doing the very best job that they can to represent the United States of America.
This is an important nomination by the president. What we're saying to these people when we confirm such an individual to one of the highest positions, what are we saying?
I want to emphasize that I've weighed Mr. Bolton's strengths carefully. I have weighed the fact that this is the president's nominee. All things being equal, it is my proclivity to support the president's nominee.
However, in this case, all things are not equal. It's a different world today than it was four years ago.
Our enemies are Muslim extremists and religious fanatics who have hijacked the Koran and have convinced people that the way to get to heaven is through jihad and against the world, particularly the U.S. We most recognize that to be successful in this war, one of our most important tools is public diplomacy.
After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading hundreds of pages of transcripts and asking for guidance from above, I've come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton. The world needs an ambassador who's interested in encouraging other people's points of view and discouraging any atmosphere of intimidation.
The world needs an American ambassador to the U.N. who will show that the United States' respect for other countries and intermediary organizations, that we are team players and consensus builders and promoters of symbiotic relationships. In moving forward with the international community, we should remember the words of the great Scott poet who said, "Oh, that some great power would give me the wisdom to see myself as other people see me."
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I'm not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
My hope is on a bipartisan basis we can send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the floor without recommendation and let the Senate work its will. If that goes to the floor, I would plead to my colleagues in the Senate to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all the pertinent material.
So often we get nominees and we don't spend the time to look into the background of the individual and to ask themselves several questions. Will John Bolton do the best job possible representing a transatlantic face of America at the U.N.? Will he be able to pursue the needed reforms at the U.N. despite his damaged credibility?
Will he share information with the right individuals, and will he solicit information from the right individuals, including his subordinates, so he can make the most informed decision? Is he capable of advancing the president and the secretary of state's effort to advance our public diplomacy?
Does he have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, common decency and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory? Will he recognize and seize opportunities to repair and strengthen relationships, promote peace, uphold democracy as a team with our fellow nations?
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, I have met with Mr. Bolton on two occasions, spent almost two hours with him. I like Mr. Bolton. I think he's a decent man.
Our conversations have been candid and cordial. But, Mr. Chairman, I really don't believe he's the best man that we can send to the United Nations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. And I'll turn to...
KAGAN: Well, we've been waiting to get that indication from Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican, yet making it very clear that he is no fan of John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The senator saying that John Bolton is the poster child of what a U.S. representative to the United Nations should not be.
Doing a little bit of math here on this committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there are 10 Republicans, eight Democrats. That's along party lines. But as you saw Senator Voinovich saying, he's not going to support John Bolton. That would make it a 9-9 tie.
Let's bring our Andrea Koppel in to ask what happens now.
We also heard Senator Voinovich saying he does think this should go to a full vote to the floor of the Senate -- Andrea. ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPT. CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, keep in mind that Senator Voinovich is only the second person out of 18 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to speak as yet. We haven't heard from other Republicans on the committee, people like Lincoln Chafee of Nebraska, who has also been on the fence, off the fence, really trying to sort of keep his options open going into the vote.
And we saw just last month that it was really Mr. Voinovich, Senator Voinovich, who threw the big curveball and shocked everyone on the committee when out of the blue he said that he could not in good conscience support the vote and felt they needed more time to go over the allegations that were before the committee. And then it was only after that point that you saw Lincoln Chafee and even Chuck Hagel of Nebraska then also expressing their reservations.
So right at this moment it looks like the vote would be 9-9, but we have to hear from the other Republicans on the committee before we can make that kind of determination. But you really have to wonder what is going through the chairman, Richard Lugar's mind, going into this morning's meeting.
He predicted that it would be strictly a vote down party lines, which would have been 10-8. Clearly, Senator Voinovich demonstrating his reputation as an independent voter, as someone who votes his conscience and proving it yet again, if this vote goes forward today as planned -- Daryn
KAGAN: All right. Let's listen again, this time to Senator Joe Biden.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: We all are elected officials in the most significant legislative body, I would -- I would say, in the history of the world. And we all know, though, that each of our parties have overwhelming requirements sometimes to meet the concerns of portions of our party. And that was implied to me as one of the reasons why Mr. Bolton was being nominated.
The question I asked was, "Do you know, Madame Secretary, how much difficulty Mr. Bolton caused for Secretary Powell, your predecessor?" And the answer was yes. But there had been a discussion. And there was a need to find important votes for Mr. Bolton, who has been an admirable and bright and patriotic servant of this country for a long time.
And I asked the rhetorical question, "If you couldn't say no now to that nomination, how are you going to say no if in fact he breaches the control that you indicate to me that will be imposed upon him?" I don't know the answer to that, but I would suggest that if there is a need to appoint him for reasons, including and beyond his capacity, then it may be difficult if, in fact, he strays. But that is not for me to decide.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together for a long time. I think it's fair to say we've never had a cross harsh word. And we will not, as far as I'm concerned, have one over this. But your opening statement makes it sort of sound that it's self-evident that Mr. Bolton was going to be the guy to be nominated to the United Nations.
I would ask a rhetorical question. Was anyone here in the Senate when Bolton's name was mentioned, unless you had been briefed ahead of time? Did any one of you say, "Ah, that fits. That's just what I was thinking. That's just what I was thinking, U.N., Bolton, U.N.?"
I'm not being facetious. I'm being deadly earnest.
I think it goes tot this whole question of whether or not everybody is out just on a witch hunt to go after Mr. Bolton. You must admit that this was an unusual, if not surprising, nomination.
If someone had said Mr. Bolton was going to head up -- he was going to be brought in, I would have been less surprised, myself, if he was going to be -- have the spot Mr. Hadley has, a more -- in some senses, a much more critical spot.
I would have been less surprised about that. But it's a little bit like if one of us announced we're going to go back and run for the state legislature. It would kind of surprise me. It wouldn't fit.
I want to make a second point. We did not seek out any witnesses. I don't -- I don't know whether you meant to imply, Mr. Chairman, but it sounded -- might sound to some like the Democrats are out there trying to dig up all they can on Bolton.
I had nothing to do, nor did any of you, with what now is 102 former career ambassadors, Republican, Democrat, Republican appointees, Democrat appointees. To the best of my knowledge, my word as -- I know of no Democrat that had anything to do with getting those folks to write us a letter.
Tom Hubbard, the ambassador to South Korea, he contacted us after hearing Mr. Bolton's testimony. We did not contact Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Westermann, nobody contacted Mr. Westermann first. That came from Mr. Westermann in an inquiry by the Intelligence Committee as to whether or not anyone had been -- felt intimidated.
Mr. Westermann came forward to the Intelligence Committee. We found out from the intelligence committee. We did not go to Mr. Westermann.
Ms. Townsel -- and I agree, the evidence is not absolutely conclusive. I agree with you. I think you honestly stated it, as you always do. But we didn't go to Mrs. Townsel.
She wrote an open letter to us. I never met the women. Never even heard of her before.
So, I want to make the point that not only did we not seek out these witnesses, it would have been irresponsible in terms of our constitutional responsibility not to talk to them as they came forward or seek out corroboration and/or contradictory statements relative to what they had to say. And I might point out the primary witnesses that we interviewed who have the most incredibly damaging things to say -- let me rephrase that -- who have some very damaging things to say about Mr. Bolton's actions are all in a Republican administration.
We did not go to a former administration. We did not go to the Clinton administration to find former assistant secretaries or heads of NIR or -- yes, INR. These are all Republicans. If not Republicans, appointees and/or serving under a Republican administration.
And further, the argument that we need John Bolton for reform at the U.N., and comparing him to Pat Moynihan, reminded me of that famous phrase of our friend some Texas, Senator Bentsen. I knew Pat Moynihan, and he's -- and I know John Bolton, and he's no Pat Moynihan. I mean, I find that the biggest stretch -- you know, that old phrase we Irish say, Pat's probably rolling over in his grave hearing that comparison.
And so we're not saying -- one last point before I get into the detail -- we're not saying Mr. Bolton is not a patriotic American, has not done very good things in his career, has been a failure. We're not saying that.
What we're saying is, he's done some very good things. One that comes to mind, referenced by our colleague from Ohio, the anti-Zionist resolution, getting it repealed.
That's a big deal. That's a big deal, a notable accomplishment. But that does not a U.N. ambassador make.
A lot of people have done very good things who turn out not to be qualified or the right person for other assignments.
Mr. Chairman, my intention obviously is not to keep our committee vote beyond the 3:00 p.m. agreement we have decided on, but I feel obliged to lay out for the record one of my -- my -- my institutional concerns here.
I recognize that the State Department, the CIA and AID have provided hundreds of pages of documents and declassified many of them. I don't minimize that.
State and CIA have made -- have made government officials available for interviews, and more than once. But this cooperation has been grudging, to say the least.
Prior to April 11 hearing, very little cooperation was provided to the Democratic request until you, Mr. Chairman, stepped in. After our first meeting on April 19, we made additional document requests to the department. The chairman intervened again to help, but he also implicitly invited the department to ignore part of our request, saying that some of our requests were "extremely broad and may have marginal relevance to specific allegations." The letter then expressed hope that certain specific requests would be fulfilled, a list that omitted four parts of the minority request. The department took the hint, and it has failed to turn over some important materials related to preparations of speeches and testimony.
Even after, even after we narrowed our request, at the urging of the State Department, only...
KAGAN: You're listening in to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is Senator Joe Biden. Not surprisingly, he is not in favor of the nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Even more interesting, before that, was hearing from Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, making it clear he does not support the nomination. He didn't exactly indicate how he would vote in the -- in committee, because he did say he does believe it should go to the floor of the full Senate.
So we're going to learn a lot more about the future of John Bolton coming up
Also ahead, we're going to go to Santa Maria, California, focus on the Michael Jackson trial. What did Macaulay Culkin have to say on -- say on the stand? We will get more on that just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Live pictures from Capitol Hill. That's Senator Joe Biden. We are continuing to listen in to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as they consider the nomination of John Bolton to be the next ambassador, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. More on that just ahead.
Right now, let's focus on Santa Maria, California, where the prosecution contends Michael Jackson molested several other boys besides the accuser in the case. One that they are making that accusation about is former child actor Macaulay Culkin. But Culkin has told jurors Jackson did no such thing.
Jim Moret, longtime friend, former CNN anchor. He now covers the Jackson trial for "Inside Edition."
Jim, how are you?
JIM MORET, LEGAL ANALYST: I'm great, Daryn. It's good to be with you.
KAGAN: Good to have you here. Now, you were inside the courtroom yesterday when Macaulay Culkin was on the stand for about 90 minutes.
MORET: Right.
KAGAN: What was that like? MORET: Complete silence has he walked in. He was very affable, very conversational, seemed very comfortable, smiled a great deal. And, you know, he was one of several witnesses that the defense has brought on, alleged victims of Michael Jackson's molestation. And he, along with two other boys, said, "Nothing happened while I was at Neverland."
He was good friends with Michael Jackson after the "Home Alone" movie. Michael Jackson actually got in touch with Macaulay Culkin and they formed a special friendship.
Now, Culkin was very important for one reason. He said, "Michael Jackson understood me and I understood him. I was a child star. He was a child star." And Macaulay Culkin really helped open this window to give us a view into this strange world of what it's like to be Michael Jackson.
You see, the defense has this theory that Michael Jackson isn't like the rest of us. He sleeps with boys, but he doesn't do anything inappropriate with him. And his life is not like ours, so it's hard for us to compare our morals to him. Macaulay Culkin really opened the door to that.
The second part of that attack was with a video. Remember that Martin Bashir video that really started all of this investigation? Well, while that was being shot, Michael Jackson had his own camera crew videotaping, and he had outtakes which were shown for about two- and-a-half hours yesterday. More are going to be shown in the next few minutes.
And that is essentially Michael Jackson talking for two-and-a- half hours about how horrible his childhood was, how it was stunted, how he clings to that childhood. That's why he built Neverland, that's why he likes to surround himself with children, because he trusts them.
And effectively, Michael Jackson is testifying without the need for cross-examination. So we're seeing a big turn here. And what the defense wants the jury to do is make this leap to say, you know what, maybe Michael Jackson is different from the rest of us.
KAGAN: I want to go back to Macaulay Culkin for a second. He did say on the stand that he slept in the same bed with Michael Jackson a number of times, that nothing untoward happened besides that kind of strange fact right there. But earlier, this jury heard both a chef and a maid say they saw inappropriate behavior between Michael Jackson and Macaulay Culkin.
Which do you think will have greater credibility with this jury?
MORET: Well, the testimony you're talking about was a food server who said that at the arcade at about 3:00 in the morning, when he was delivering French fries to Michael Jackson, one of these strange requests he'd get in the middle of the night, he saw Michael Jackson holding Macaulay Culkin up to an arcade machine, a video machine, and that he was holding him with one hand and groping him with another.
Macaulay Culkin was not specifically asked about that event. However, he was asked point blank: "Did Michael Jackson do anything inappropriate with you? Did he molest you? What do you think about allegations that he touched you?"
And he said, "I think those are absolutely ridiculous."
I think it's very powerful when you have a person who was allegedly a victim who looks at the jurors and says nothing happened. I'm the person it supposedly happened to, it didn't happen.
The eyewitness who testified was standing about 30 foot away, it was 3:00 in the morning. You could argue the lighting wasn't good. But when you have the alleged victim, and he says nothing happened, that's very powerful
KAGAN: Jim Moret. We can see more of your coverage on "Inside Edition." And, of course, it's always good to have you here on CNN.
MORET: Great to be here.
KAGAN: Thank you, Jim.
MORET: Thanks.
KAGAN: We're going to have a lot more ahead from Washington, D.C. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee currently talking about a potential vote on John Bolton as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Also, we expect to hear from President Bush. He'll be holding Rose Garden ceremony. Want to see if he has anything to say about yesterday's scare at the White House and on Capitol Hill when a single-engine plane flew into restricted airspace.
That's just ahead. Right now a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Let's take a look at what's happening "Now in the News."
A meeting on Capitol Hill right now could set the stage for a showdown in the filibuster fight. The Senate Judiciary Committee is meeting to consider three of President Bush's nominees, and, in fact, has voted to send one of those to the full Senate for Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr. That one's going to the Senate floor. Democrats have threatened filibusters to block nominations they consider out of the mainstream.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
