Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Palestinian Elections; Is White House Ducking Tough Questions About Hurricane Katrina?

Aired January 25, 2006 - 07:00   ET

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

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Miles O'Brien.
The U.S. watching a crucial Palestinian election this morning with a group linked to terror poised to grab power. We're live in the West Bank on this developing story.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Soledad O'Brien.

Is the White House ducking tough questions about Hurricane Katrina? At least one key senator says, yes, they are. We'll take a closer look this morning.

M. O'BRIEN: And Fidel Castro calls American cockroaches. What's got the Cuban leader so upset this time. That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

Los cucarachas.

S. O'BRIEN: Las cucarachas.

M. O'BRIEN: Las cucarachas -- las.

S. O'BRIEN: Yes, and I don't think he meant it in a positive sort of way.

M. O'BRIEN: No, no, no, not at all.

S. O'BRIEN: We're talking about Fidel Castro. We'll have that story ahead this morning.

First, though, let's talk about the super secret National Security Agency, the NSA, about to thrown right into the spotlight. President Bush is going to take a tour of the agency today, third day of a media blitz really to defend domestic spying without warrants.

Suzanne Malveaux is live for us at the White House.

Hey, Suzanne, good morning.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.

This really is an extraordinary development when you think about it. The National Security agency really was kept a secret. The government not even acknowledging its existence for years. Today President Bush will be going there in Fort Laurel, Maryland, he'll be taking a tour, talking to people who work there and actually making remarks to the traveling press. All of this, of course, Soledad, part of an extraordinary method strategy, if you will, by the White House to defend this domestic spying program, a program that essentially is eavesdropping on a call that is coming into the United States on leave the United States with suspected terrorist on the other end -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: Really, an aggressive strategy, you have to say, Suzanne. Give me a sense where this strategy sort of fits into the bigger picture for the White House.

MALVEAUX: Well, certainly they are trying to accomplish three things here. First and foremost, what they're hoping to do is minimize the political damage. You know, there are congressional hearings next year -- I mean, rather next month. They want to make sure that this doesn't really hurt the Republicans.

Secondly, of course, they're trying to exploit that perception, or misperception, that Democrats are weak when it comes to national defense.

Third, they really are trying to frame the debate before those congressional hearings, to say this is a matter of national security, not legality.

S. O'BRIEN: Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for us this morning. Suzanne, thanks.

MALVEAUX: Sure.

M. O'BRIEN: The White House on the defensive on another front as well. The issue is Hurricane Katrina and whether dire warnings were shrugged off. In the Senate, they are asking some tough questions, and they say they're getting stonewalled.

Here's AMERICAN MORNING's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you all. Please be seated.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just hours before Katrina hit. At 1:47 a.m. Eastern, the department of Homeland Security warned, quote "Any storm rated category 4 or greater will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching."

But just days after the storm, President Bush suggested what ultimately happened was unexpected.

BUSH: I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm, but these levees got breached, and as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded, and now we're having to deal with it.

WALLACE: The president's point, according to his spokesman, was that once the storm made landfall and the levees weren't breached, no one thought they would collapse later.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: There were numerous media reports saying that New Orleans had dodged the bullet, and I can pull those up for you and show you those. So that's what the president was referring to.

WALLACE: Two days before Katrina, there was another ominous warning. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, predicted Hurricane Katrina would exceed the impact of a emergency exercise, a fictional category-three storm Dubbed Pam. Pam's anticipated impacted, 60,000 lives lost and more than one million people forced from their homes. But after Katrina, the FEMA director at the time suggested no one could have predicted the scale of the damage.

MICHAEL BROWN, FMR. FEMA DIRECTOR: Katrina was much larger than we expected, it covered a much larger area than we expected.

WALLACE: Ditto from the Homeland Security secretary.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECY.: That perfect storm of combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight.

WALLACE: House and Senate congressional committees, as well as the White House, are looking into whether that is true, conducting separate investigations into the government's preparation for and response to Katrina.

(on camera): And they are also asking this question. If it happened again, would we be ready?

Kelly Wallace, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

M. O'BRIEN: So, is it a stonewall, or is the White House simply protecting privileged communication? We'll talk to Senator Joe Lieberman about the Katrina inquiry coming up at 9:00 Eastern, right here on AMERICAN MORNING.

Well, is the U.S. Army stretched too thin to win in Iraq? A new report commissioned by the Pentagon says the army cannot keep rotating troops into Afghanistan and Iraq at the rate they've been going. That may be why the Pentagon is reducing troops in Iraq this year. The report's author is a says this, quote, "In a race against time to adjust to the demands of war or risk breaking the force in the form of a catastrophic decline."

I think I didn't read that right. In any case, it risks breaking the force. The report does say that the Army is a highly effecting fighting force -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: Let's talk about what is happening in today's Palestinian elections. Polling is under way in Gaza and the West Bank, and the choice for voters could be between peace or continuing the deadly confrontation with Israel. It's sort of down to that. Let's go right to John Vause. He's in Ramallah, downtown Ramallah this morning for us.

Hey, John, good morning again.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Soledad.

We're getting some more numbers in from the Central Elections Commission, showing that there's been a very strong voter turnout over the last few hours. Down in Gaza, a 50 percent voter turnout. Here in the West Bank, 20 percent turnout. Incredibly high figures with about another five hours to go before the polling stations close.

The Palestinians are calling this a festival of democracy.

Take a look around here, Almanaz Gray (ph). You can see the thousands of campaign posters which are being put up over the last couple of weeks, a three-week campaign, a hard-fought campaign between two parties really, Fatah and Hamas. And they put their campaign posters up everywhere. Fatah, the old party of Yasser Arafat, facing this challenge from Hamas. And as you say, Soledad, a choice between peace negotiations and no peace negotiations. Hamas responsible for a wave of suicide bombings against Israel, refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist, refusing to disarm.

But there is of course hope that if Hamas enters the mainstream political process that it may become tamed by politics and may eventually deal with Israel. That is the hope, the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that power will simply embolden Hamas and that it will infiltrate every aspect of government. That is being put forward by Israelis who have been very, very worried about Hamas participation in these elections -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: Yes, one would imagine. When you look at that best- case scenario versus the worst-case that you're laying out, overall what's Israel saying about a possible Hamas victory?

VAUSE: Well, what we have to look at is the numbers in the parliament, how many seats Hamas ends up with. Will Hamas actually take part in a coalition government? Will they be part of the cabinet? What ministries Hamas will end up with.

The likely scenario, though, is that Hamas, if it does go into government, will end up with the lower portfolios, health, education, that kind of thing, and that the Israelis will then end up dealing with the non-Hamas members of the government.

But what is most likely, though, if we take a look up here, at this guy up here, Soledad, this is Salam Fayyad. He is the corruption-fighting finance minister. He's an independent, and he's running a small third-way party, and he could very well end up being the next prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. There's a lot of pressure from the Israelis and also from the Americans and the Egyptians to make him prime minister. So if he is the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, then there is some hope that those peace negotiations can resume -- Soledad. S. O'BRIEN: So it sounds like it's still sort of an open race. Why do you think Hamas is getting so much support from Palestinians?

VAUSE: I think really this is a protest vote against Fatah. Palestinians are angry. They are angry that Fatah has simply failed to deliver on the basic promises, failed to deliver the basic services, to say nothing of the Palestinian state, the national aspirations and for peace and security.

Also there is perception that Fatah has been a power for so long that it's just simply inefficient and corrupt, so a lot of people with going to vote for Hamas, doesn't mean that they support their radical views, their stance against Israel or support the suicide bombings; they're just angry with Fatah and they want a change -- Soledad.

S. O'BRIEN: I guess we'll wait and see how the election turns out.

John Vause is monitoring the polling this morning for us.

Thanks, John.

Another salvo to tell you about in the war of words between the United States and Cuba. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in Tuesday's organized anti-American protest. But as Cuban leader Fidel Castro and the crowd neared the U.S. diplomatic mission, a new message board was flicked on by the Americans inside. The ticker shows news and messages, including quotes from Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln. Needless to say, Castro is not a big fan of the ticker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. FIDEL CASTRO, CUBA (through translator): They have turned on that little sign. Cockcoaches are so valued. It seemed that little Bush gave the order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

S. O'BRIEN: Castro called for the march to protest an immigration case in the United States that involves a former CIA operative who, Castro claims, tried to assassinate him.

(WEATHER REPORT)

S. O'BRIEN: Got some terrifying moments for passengers on a bus in Florida to tell you about this morning. Take a look at this surveillance videotape. People absolutely sent flying when the bus collides with a dump truck. Look at the videotape. The folks just go flying through the bus.

M. O'BRIEN: Don't you wish they had seat belts? A lot of time when I'm on a bus...

S. O'BRIEN: A lot of debate about that, you know, seatbelts on buses.

M. O'BRIEN: School buses in particular, I know, but you know, why not. Anyway, go ahead.

S. O'BRIEN: Part of the reason is they don't know if people would be able to get out of the bus fast enough if there were an accident and were children in a schoolbus. That's been the debate over time. But on this particular case, 17 people actually, including the driver, had to be taken to the hospital. Luckily, believe it or not, when you look at this videotape, the injuries were kind of minor. Bruises, maybe broken bones, but nothing more major than that, which is really good news. I mean, check out the damage to the bus. Could of been much worse, as they say.

M. O'BRIEN: You know, they say any landing you walk away from is a good one. We have a couple of examples of that for you. A father and son aboard a plane in Fresno, California walked away, a little banged up, a broken thumb for one of them. Their engine quit at 6,000 feet. Emergency landing checklist: best glide speed, look for a field, try a restart, fuel cutoff, pray.

S. O'BRIEN: Emphasize the pray!

M. O'BRIEN: In the end, a good conclusion, as good as you could hope for in that circumstance.

And this one, a student pilot walked away uninjured from this plane as well, probably among his first solos, I would guess. He apparently landed hard at the Lantana Airport in Florida on that Cessna 152, veered off the runway. He might want to take a few flights with an instructor before he gets back in the saddle, as they say.

S. O'BRIEN: Again, that's a good ending. It could be worse.

M. O'BRIEN: Yes, he's got a little explaining to do. But at least, he's explaining.

S. O'BRIEN: Yes, he's around to tell about it.

M. O'BRIEN: That's right.

S. O'BRIEN: Ahead this morning, we're going to say goodbye to the WB and UPN, say hello to a new network. Andy was just telling us about this. It's called the CW.

M. O'BRIEN: The CW?

S. O'BRIEN: The CW.

M. O'BRIEN: What does that stand for, do you know?

S. O'BRIEN: CBS and WB combining forces together. But what are we going to see on TV? What does a change of name mean for some of the shows, like "Gilmore Girls" or "Everybody Hates Chris." We'll take a look at that ahead this morning.

M. O'BRIEN: Also, Pixar finds a permanent home in the house of the mouse. Disney buying the studio behind "The Incredibles" and other hit movies. Is it a match made in cartoon heaven.

S. O'BRIEN: And later, more proof that nothing in life is free, even the pope's words. I bet they're expensive actually. We're going to take a look at this story ahead this morning.

M. O'BRIEN: Does he charge.

S. O'BRIEN: That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

M. O'BRIEN: All right.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MARKET REPORT)

M. O'BRIEN: Coming up, the White House said nobody could have predicted the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. The only problem is, a lot of folks did. And they sent their warnings to the White House as well. We'll talk to one of the experts who rang the alarm bell, ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

M. O'BRIEN: So what did the president know and when did he know it, as Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast? While the president expressed surprise the storm breached levees in New Orleans after it happened, it was no surprise to people who study hurricanes and their countermeasures. A hurricane expert at Louisiana State University, Ivor Van Heerden was among those raising red flags as Katrina approached. He joins us now from New Orleans.

Professor Van Heerden, good to have you back with us.

IVOR VAN HEERDEN, BRIEFED WHITE HOUSE: Thank you.

M. O'BRIEN: Let's talk about -- before we get into the warnings right on the eve of Katrina, let's go back for a minute, to July 2004. This is -- for those of you who have been following this story, you'll know what Hurricane Pam was all about. This was a simulated hurricane and how the response would be. In that report to the government, you said this, among other things: A slow-moving category-three hurricane, or stronger, could cause levee overtopping and complete flooding of New Orleans. Estimates are that 300,000 persons would be trapped, 700,000 homeless, thousands could perish." That was back in July of 2004. Numbers are a little high, but other than that, very prescient.

I'm curious, what happened to that report? Was there any response, or did it just meet with silence?

VAN HEERDEN: Well, we -- you know, I presented that scenario to a White House official, we gave them a CD, a report was produced at the end of the exercise, but it seems like there was a disconnect between the actual exercise and what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

M. O'BRIEN: So what happened? Did it get brushed off? How high level was this White House staffer that you briefed?

VAN HEERDEN: My understanding was it was somebody from -- directly from the White House. I don't have the person's name, but a very, very senior official. I briefed him for 15 minutes, gave a PowerPoint presentation, and then gave them a copy of the CD that described the exact scenario that we were calling for in Pam, which, in many ways, was duplicated during Katrina.

M. O'BRIEN: And did you have any evidence, after that report was delivered, that the government was acting upon it?

VAN HEERDEN: The idea was we were going to have a second Pam exercise in 2005, where we would of gone over some of the other issues, but that exercise got called off because of a lack of funding.

M. O'BRIEN: Of course, instead you got the real thing instead of an exercise, unfortunately. Let's talk about the more eminent warnings which you gave, about 30 hours before Katrina hit, you felt compelled to dash off an e-mail to FEMA, the department of Homeland Security. Tell us about that and tell us what the response was to that.

VAN HEERDEN: We use a very sophisticated storm-surge model, known as ad ADCIRC. We run it on our supercomputer at LSU. And at 10:00 on Saturday night, before the storm, some 36 hours early, we put out a surge simulation that showed New Orleans flooding, and we sent out an e-mail that said New Orleans will flood, and sent that to very, very wide list, including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA officials. So that was then picked up by the media. So there was absolutely an awful amount of warning that New Orleans was going to flood. And we also stressed that the levees could fail, because we had seen this during Hurricane Betsy, and we felt the same thing could happen again.

M. O'BRIEN: And did you get no response at all?

VAN HEERDEN: No response from Homeland Security. The Centers of Disease Control immediately contacted us, and we did a very lengthy phone conference about the public health impacts, but they were the only ones who contacted us.

M. O'BRIEN: All right, final thought here. This must make you a bit angry. You're an expert. You spend a lot of time studying these things. You try to warn people who are in our leadership. But on the other hand, it's difficult even when you say it, even when you simulate it, it's difficult to envision the reality, isn't it?

VAN HEERDEN: You know, the lackadaisical federal response, and I say that as a disaster science specialist, really caught us unawares. And we really encourage these various investigations, because we need to get to the bottom of this. If we can't get it right in New Orleans, are we going to get it right when San Francisco gets an earthquake, or we get another big surge somewhere else in the United States? We got to get to the bottom of this, whether it was cultural, socioeconomic, whatever the reason, we need to understand why we had this lackadaisical response. M. O'BRIEN: Good words. Thank you, Professor Van Heerden, always a pleasure having you drop by -- Soledad.

VAN HEERDEN: Thank you very much.

S. O'BRIEN: Straight ahead this morning, when you're dealing with the pope, believe it or not, words don't come cheap. The controversial decision to charge for some of his teachings. That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.

(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