Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Richardson on Korean Tensions; Too Much Intelligence?; Obama's Turnaround

Aired December 22, 2010 - 20:00   ET

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

KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, welcome to the program. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Up first tonight, our first glimpse behind the nuclear curtain in North Korea since nuclear war was averted earlier this week.

An exclusive interview with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the man who negotiated with North Koreans. He may just have played the key role in stopping the launching of nuclear missiles.

PARKER: And even now South Korea is preparing to begin more military exercises, perhaps more provocation for North Korea.

Joining us now from New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson in his first in-depth interview since his return from North Korea.

Welcome, Governor.

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: Thank you. Nice to be with you, guys.

PARKER: Glad you're home safely. So just how close were we to war?

RICHARDSON: Well, we were very close. When I got there, the North Koreans were saying to me they were going to retaliate immensely. The tension was very high. It was a tinder box.

And I said to them, look, this is the worst you can do if you retaliate. This is a chance for you to be statesmen-like for a change, which you haven't been lately, and it's important that you also look at some arms control measures that I had proposed, more IAEA inspectors, sell your spent fuel rods, hotline, and I think they've turned the corner a little bit, recognizing they've got to be more pragmatic.

SPITZER: What's face fascinating is that what you're suggesting is that they responded to your -- not only your magic words and your brilliant oratorical skills but the rationale of what you were suggesting.

And so would that -- do you want to believe that the North Koreans really are rational players here? And that everything they've done until now is part of a concerted strategy to get to this result?

RICHARDSON: No, Eliot, you know, they're very unpredictable. You don't know what they're going to do next. That's something I've learned dealing with them the last seven years. They're going through a leadership issue right now with the youngest son of Kim Jong-Il probably being groomed to take over.

So I think a lot of their recent actions that have been terrible, like the sinking of the ship, the killing of civilians, increased uranium activity, has been sort of internal shows of force.

Look, I'm not taking credit for toning them down. And I do think that my visit was timely. That we had an impact. That they responded. Especially their military person that I talked to, the top military and the top nuclear negotiator was, look, you guys, if you want negotiations with the six-party countries.

If you want to have some assistance in the areas of food -- your people are in very bad shape -- energy assistance, you want sanctions lifted eventually, you can't keep acting like this. And one way that you can send a signal to the international community is take some arms control measures but don't retaliate.

This is a drill by the South Koreans. It's -- they're legitimate self-defense. It's going to be a routine drill. Stop all this rhetoric and act like international players and international community. And I believe they responded. And things have cooled down a bit. But it's still a tinder box out there.

PARKER: What -- you know, you say that you think your visit there was timely. And we would agree with that. But we think it was so timely that we'd like to see you permanently stationed in North Korea to stave off these problems when they arise.

Can you tell us a little bit about what the meetings were like? I mean what did the environment feel like? Were you ever scared? I mean how did that feel to you?

RICHARDSON: Well, they are very -- the North Koreans, we met with military officials, foreign ministry officials, the vice president of the country. They all start out giving their speech, their propaganda speech, that the U.S. and South Korea, the sources of all evil, that they're -- they're not irresponsible people. That they really didn't shoot that ship down.

And after that is done, which is obligatory because they've got a lot of people from their audience listening to them, we get into serious stuff. And in the past when I've been there, they keep this dogma up. You get some concessions from them. But this time they were listening.

And they were in a mood I believe where they felt, look, we've gone too far into the precipice of being totally isolated and know one is talking to us, no one is giving us any credit. Maybe we're going to change. I think that's why they invited me there. I didn't go there to vacation. I was invited by their chief nuclear negotiator. I didn't -- the Obama administration had asked me twice before not to go in the past when things were really, really hot. And I didn't. But this time they kind of said, OK, and I went. Totally unofficially. I'm not representing them. And I believe we did some good.

SPITZER: Let me ask you, you referred to the critical terms of the agreement. You did get the North Koreans to agree to the IAEA inspectors and the sale of the rods to presumably South Korea and the hotline.

What do you take away from that in terms of what North Korea will do with its nuclear program which has obviously been the major point of contention between them and certainly the United States?

RICHARDSON: This hotline which is so obviously needed between North and South Korea -- maybe a commission of the U.S. military commission, North Korea and South Korea -- to tour those disputed areas in the -- in the western sea, to just avert these kind of disasters.

They're sending a signal that they're ready to reengage. But I think the United States and other countries, we should say, all right, guys, let's verify before we trust you. And -- but at least they're sending a signal that we're not going to be isolated much longer. We're ready to reengage.

Now who's going to make the next move? And that's good because the tension has -- has decreased dramatically. But it's still a tinder box. And we've got to be guided by very careful diplomacy.

PARKER: Governor, can you explain what the hotline is and how that works exactly?

RICHARDSON: What it is, Kathleen, is simply a telephone system between the top leadership of North and South Korea. They have actually put forth these proposals before but they never happen.

It's sort of like the old hotline between us and the Russians in case there was some kind of nuclear altercation. This is at the highest levels. This is preventive measures that could be taken, a communications system that doesn't exist.

You've got to understand that the United States and South Korea, we haven't been talking to the North Koreans, hardly at all for the past year, like zero. And so you -- when you don't talk -- and especially our militaries, and you have these drills on both sides, the possibility of miscalculation is huge.

SPITZER: You know you talk about the need for verification. It is so critical because just a few weeks ago, of course, there was the revelation that North Korea had an establishment with thousands of centrifuges and the capacity to enrich uranium that frankly far surpassed anything anybody in the west had understood. So there seems to be this sort of back and forth. Where on the one hand they're saying look how advanced we are, now we'll invite you in to negotiate with you. Clearly, they're playing these cards with some sort of strategy that we don't seem quite to have understood fully yet.

RICHARDSON: That's right, Eliot. I mean, what -- their biggest card is their nuclear weapons. I don't know how many they have. There are estimates anywhere between four and 10.

Now why is it in our interest for them to be eliminated? One, we want stability in that peninsula. We have a close alliance with South Korea. We have 27,000 American troops on the DMZ.

We don't want that area to be a tinder box. We've got to get China more engaged in putting pressure on North Korea. But for their own reasons, they're not doing much. So eventually, it's going to be the six countries negotiating with the North Koreans and they're not going to give up these nuclear weapons for free.

They're going to want some kind of financial benefits like energy assistance, like the old Clinton agreement of nuclear reactors. Hopefully, they'll want more energy efficient systems. They'll want food. That grain. They've got a lot of people hurting. Some starving.

They're going to need an end to sanctions. We have every conceivable sanction on North Korea. Economic sanctions. Political sanctions. So I think they want to get out under that, especially now that there's a leadership transition. Doesn't mean we should trust them. All I'm saying is there's got to be engagement, negotiation.

I never have felt that our foreign policy is well served by isolating the Cubas, the Irans, and North Koreas. Despite the fact we have differences. I think you've got to negotiate. Doesn't mean you're going to do what they want. But keeping them isolated, hunker down, sanctioned, I don't think it's ever worked.

And this is why I believe we need some kind of engagement with North Korea. But it's got to be carefully done. It's got to involve the six countries. And it's got to be with verification. With benchmarks. But right now not talking, hoping they don't retaliate, that's not the way to go.

But I think our policy has been firm. We're anchored with South Korea. But maybe now that they gave us this opening, somebody should respond to them and say, OK, do those arms control measures you told Richardson, and then we'll talk and let's see where we go.

PARKER: All right, Governor Bill Richardson, fascinating conversation.

RICHARDSON: Thank you.

PARKER: We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Do you think it was a good idea to create this office and can it be fixed so that it works appropriately?

R. JAMES WOOLSEY, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: I think it would have been better to stay with what we had. But I do think it can work with the right people in the job.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Today's top story, travelers looking for reassurance from the government on security this holiday season were anything but reassured by the shocking revelation that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence went almost an entire work day without being briefed on the break up of a major UK terror plot.

At 3:45 p.m., more than 15 hours after the raids, ABC's Diane Sawyer asked the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, about the story, and here's how he responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: London. How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? Any of the things that they have seen were coming here?

Director Clapper?

JOHN BRENNAN, WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: He read the arrest of the 12 individuals --

SAWYER: The arrest of the 12.

BRENNAN: -- by the British this morning.

SAWYER: Yes.

BRENNAN: This is something that the British informed us about early this morning and what was taking place.

SAWYER (voice-over): Later in the interview, I came back to the director. Did he really not know?

(On camera): I was a little bit surprised you didn't know about London, Director Clapper.

JAMES CLAPPER, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR: I'm sorry. I didn't.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Joining us now to talk about all of this is James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence under President Clinton. Welcome, Mr. Woolsey.

Good to be with you.

PARKER: Mister Woolsey, first, we want to take a look at a clip. Here's President Bush announcing the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Basing these authorities in a single official who reports directly to me will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated and more efficient and more effective.

And the new structure will help ensure greater information sharing among federal departments and agencies and also with appropriate state and local authorities.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Now this office was created on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to solve one problem, information did not get where it needed to go, and nine years later, we seem to still have the problem.

What do you think is going on here?

WOOLSEY: I'm not sure this is an information sharing problem in the sense of the CIA not talking enough to DIA and so forth. I think this is more, really, kind of a public relations glitch. Somebody on Jim Clapper's staff should have told him in the morning that during the wee hours these arrests have been made in Britain and then he would have at least known about it.

But he probably didn't have any operational role in working with the Brits on this. I hope we were, as a government, helping them and worked closely with them. But we probably didn't know more something that the CIA would have been involved in. So it looks bad that he didn't know about it. But I don't think it's particularly a reflection of the substantive information sharing problem which preceded 9/11.

SPITZER: But clearly this is not his best day in the media. But I guess the question I want to ask is, put this one incident aside. Is it symbolic or emblematic of a larger problem? The position was created basically as an umbrella over 16 intensely powerful agencies.

None of which really wanted to report to this new position, the director of National Intelligence. Look at -- you know, look on the screen there. You see all the various symbols of the agencies. Can it work? In other words, is this merely one more layer of bureaucracy?

When you're director of the CIA, you certainly didn't want to be sharing with some other bureaucracy. Can this work in the long run? WOOLSEY: The job I had was called director of Central Intelligence because it was a combination essentially of the jobs that Leon Panetta and Jim Clapper have now and it was essentially split in two, so Jim Clapper is sort of a strong chairman of the board in a way.

He's not an operator, whereas Panetta and the other agency heads -- they're only three or four major strong ones -- run intelligence operations. I think this setup is not ideal. Frankly, I like the earlier one better. But I think this could work with the right people in the job. And it seems to me that Clapper and Panetta are old pros.

They've been around this world politics in Washington and government, and in Clapper's case, intelligence for many years. And if the system can work, it would probably work with them. And there is some layering and so forth.

But I don't think that's what happened here. I think what happened here is just that some staffer who had communications responsibility didn't mention this to him.

SPITZER: Look, having been an executive in large organizations where when I looked at a flow chart and I saw multiple organizations doing the same thing, I always said why, why are we duplicating? It will lead to confusion. It will lead to a lack of information flow.

I look at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and the acronyms go on and on. Hundreds of billions of dollars we believe being spent on intelligence. Clearly a critical mission for the nation to protect ourselves.

But having said that when these multiple agencies are fighting over jurisdiction, wouldn't it have been wiser to concentrate them under fewer, rather than to once again expand and add another layer on top? It just doesn't seem to be working to me.

WOOLSEY: I think there was a jurisdictional feud to some extent between Admiral Blair when he was DNI and Leon Panetta is head of the CIA. I think Admiral Blair wanted to be the final authority for appointing liaison officers country by country to deal with foreign intelligence services.

Typically that's always been done in the past by the director of the CIA. And that was preserved for Panetta. Also the staff of the DNI has gotten to be quite large. It's well over 1,000 and I think people were thinking of it being dozens when this job was created because the DNI is sort of a strong chairman of the board for the whole community.

And as I said, there are really only three or four that needs to pay much attention to. Most of those agencies are quite small. But it is an important job. I think probably having such a large staff kind of gets in the way and generates sometimes conflicts between the DIA and DCIA that didn't occur before.

PARKER: Well, he -- you know, this is certainly a glitch, but he's the fifth director of National Intelligence in five years. So when you say this thing can work if we have the right people, what is it -- what kind of right person do we need?

Because clearly either we haven't had the right people or the job is too overwhelming or the turf skirmishing as such that nobody can really manage it. What do you think -- who are we looking for here?

WOOLSEY: Well, I think Jim has the right background when he was director of DIA in the early '90s when I was DCI. He did a very good job. Then he's headed up the Reconnaissance Mapping Agency.

He's been an intelligence officer his whole career. He's not partisan. He's a straight shooter. I think we're not going to do better than Jim Clapper in this job. And if it turns out I'm wrong, and this is not just a glitch, that it's an example of a breakdown across the board in communications, I think I'd have to say if Jim Clapper and Leon Panetta can't make this system work, then maybe we ought to rethink it because it can't really probably be made to work.

Every time you have a reorganization, it takes years to get things kind of sorted out. And most Congress -- people in Congress and in various commissions get put together, they always want to reorganize. Because reorganization is one of the only things they can talk about.

So getting the right people in the jobs, doing -- making some policy changes, often those are classified. And you can't -- the only thing you can talk about and show you've done something is if you reorganize. So I think you ought to be slow to reorganize.

I'm not yet ready to throw in the towel on this new system even though I didn't really want it implemented in the first place.

PARKER: All right, Mr. Woolsey, before we let you go, I just want to clarify one point. You said a couple of times that you think the system could work but that would suggest that you do not think it is currently working.

WOOLSEY: Well, the jury is still kind of out from my point of view. I'm so reluctant to reorganize. Yet again I'd like to see it work. I think Jim Clapper and Leon Panetta are both fine individuals. I've known them both for 30 years. They're really very able. And I think they may well be able to make it work. I guess the way I'd put it is the jury's still out.

PARKER: All right, James Woolsey, thank you so much for joining us.

WOOLSEY: Thank you. Good to be with you.

SPITZER: Thank you.

PARKER: Coming up, Americans have been amazed to see our government actually working for at least a couple of weeks but can this last? We'll ask David Gergen. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: He's a clutch player. He likes coming and scoring at the last minute. And he enjoys that. He plays for that. And, you know, some people are really good at rising to that occasion. But I did feel particularly with his press conference today that he looked more presidential than we've seen him.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: After a dismal few months, President Barack Obama is ending the year on a high note. Congress pushed through a flurry of bills before the holiday recess, including "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the START treaty.

SPITZER: Earlier today the president held a press conference touting these successes and how Congress came together despite predictions of gridlock.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If there's any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it's that we are not doomed to endless gridlock. We've shown in the wake of the November elections that we have the capacity not only to make progress but to make progress together.

And I'm not naive. I know there will be tough fights in the months ahead. But my hope heading into the New Year is that we can continue to heed the message of the American people and hold to a spirit of common purpose in 2011 and beyond.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Joining us now to discuss whether the president has regained the momentum, David Gergen, former presidential adviser.

Welcome, David.

GERGEN: Thank you.

SPITZER: You know, I just got -- I don't believe in coincidences, David. And I know you visited the White House recently. Gave them some of your wisdom. Suddenly there's a flurry of successes, so is this all your magic? And more importantly, are you going back as chief of staff to the president in the coming year?

GERGEN: Come on, Eliot, you know better than both those things. And this was -- the president and his team, his current team, deserve an awful lot of credit for this. They did a -- I think they played it very smartly with this. I think Harry Reid was smart.

It does seem to me that he's found a new way of governing. And with the end of the elections, he's no longer relying on going up to a Democratic caucus and getting Democratic victories from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Instead, what he did in each one of these three victories he got was he formed an alliance outside the Democratic caucus that really helped to bring public opinion his way and then sway votes in the Congress.

On the big tax bill, he worked with the Republican leadership, got it done. On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he had Secretary Gates, who is a very influential figure in Washington these days, along with the head of the Joint Chiefs, who lined up with him, they helped to really drive home the point that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal was sound policy.

And then on this final one, on the START treaty, this really turned around when he brought in the former secretaries of state, Republicans, and that reversed the momentum.

PARKER: David, you know, it takes every president a year or two to kind of come into his own and sort of figure out how to do, how to do the job really. Do you feel like this is partly Barack Obama kind of figuring out who he is and how he wants to operate?

GERGEN: That's an interesting insight. I think yes, I think the experience has helped him. We also know, Kathleen, as Richard Wolffe, who's written a recent biography, argues that he's a clutch player. He likes coming in and scoring at the last minute. And he enjoys that. He plays for that. And you know some people are really good at rising to that occasion.

SPITZER: The distinction I would make -- and I agree with you, these are very nice victories for the White House, for the president. But I think there's a fundamental distinction between "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and START, a social issue and a foreign policy issue, as opposed to the fiscal related issues that are waiting for him come January where he's going to be facing a very different, and I think, a more rigid Republican Party where there will be tougher issues, where there may not be as much give on either side.

That I think is where the real tensions are going to emerge.

GERGEN: I think you're right. This is -- the Republicans got a big victory here, too, in this -- they stopped that omnibus spending bill. It does set up huge showdowns over taxes on two issues. This continuing resolution they passed on the deficit. It runs on the budget spending -- runs out in March. It means they've got to have a new bill to fund the government.

And secondly, as you know, Eliot, the government has kind of break through the ceiling on the national debt, and the Congress has got to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Both of those give the Republicans a lot of leverage. And I think we're going to have real showdowns February, March.

PARKER: In his press conference, President Obama was asked about the tax cuts. Let's take a quick listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Look, the frustration that people felt about that was frustration I shared. And I've said that before. And I'll probably say it again. I don't think that over the long run we can afford a series of tax breaks for people who are doing very well and don't need it.

We're doing well when Bill Clinton was in office. They were still rich then. And they will still be rich if those tax cuts went away.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: David, what's your take on that? He sounded -- is he still sounding presidential there?

GERGEN: I thought he was. You know, I don't know quite know where he's going to go on this budget. He's going to have to look at Medicare. He's going to have to look at other things. And he's going to have to look at, frankly, at changes in taxes, which are going to put the squeeze not only on the more affluent, as I think we should, but I don't see how we get from here towards balance without increasing the cost to the middle class.

SPITZER: Thank you, David. Still ahead, an openly gay soldier on whether he'll serve our country again. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY WOODS, DISCHARGED IRAQ WAR VETERAN: You know the entire time, I couldn't help but think about the 60,000 some-odd gays and lesbians who are currently serving on active duty, who starting today could begin the process of breathing a sigh of relief because no longer do they have to look over their shoulders or about witch hunts or about losing their career. And that's something that I think is just so amazing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: With all the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the true impact was really brought home to all of us last month when Anthony Woods was on our program.

PARKER: Anthony Woods went to West Point and he served two tours of duty in Iraq, rising to captain's rank and earning a bronze star. Then he took a stand and volunteered his sexual orientation knowing that this would mean his discharge.

SPITZER: It was clearly the military's loss. Asked if he would serve again, here is what he told us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY WOODS, DISCHARGED IRAQ WAR VETERAN: I'm looking forward to the day that I am able to put on our nation's uniform and once again say that I am ready and willing to serve anywhere you want to send me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Well, he's going to have a chance because today he was in Washington, D.C. to watch President Obama sign the repeal and we asked him back to New York to tell us about it.

Welcome, Anthony. So good to see you.

ANTHONY WOODS, DISCHARGED IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Thanks so much. Thanks for having me back.

SPITZER: And congratulations.

PARKER: Congratulations.

WOODS: It's an amazing day.

PARKER: Tell us what it was like being there.

WOODS: You know, the entire time I couldn't help but think about the 60,000 some-odd gays and lesbians who are currently serving on active duty who starting today can begin the process of breathing a sigh of relief because no longer do they have to look over their shoulders, worry about witch hunts, worry about losing their career. And that's something that I think is just so amazing. When you think about right now as we get into the holiday season, they're corresponding with loved ones, those are things that generally could get them discharged if they were intercepted. And now, finally, soon the day is going to come when they don't have to worry about those sorts of things.

PARKER: Let's take a quick look at what you got to see today so everybody else can see.

WOODS: Great.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love.

(APPLAUSE)

As Admiral Mike Mullen has said, our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Anthony, why do you think it took so long?

WOODS: You know, this was a challenging process the entire way. But I've been really proud to see, you know, that we've made this far eventually. And it took a lot of work. I was really excited to see the level of emphasis from Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and then ultimately the president and really making this day happen. It took a long time because there's always been very serious opposition to the idea of gays and lesbians able to serve and be treated equally in the military but we finally reached the day where that's closer.

SPITZER: In the years you were in service, did you personally sense or see discrimination?

WOODS: I did not. And as I realized during my time in Iraq, having to lie about who you are is not something that's necessary to be successful on the battlefield. And I realize the military is an extremely professional organization where I didn't see homophobia, I didn't see racism, I didn't see these sorts of things as an everyday occurrence, that were commonplace and it was something that we could easily overcome if it ever arose.

PARKER: One of the concerns, of course, has been the safety of gays and lesbians within that environment. And so are you concerned at all that some people might retaliate out of anger or a lack of understanding?

WOODS: I certainly would caution folks to be smart about this transition period. But we have a military with the most amazing noncommissioned officers and officers who are extremely professional, extremely leadership oriented who can take care of this challenge and make sure that every service member is treated with respect and dignity.

SPITZER: You know, it seems to me that the military has been one of those remarkable institutions in our society that when it came to racial integration, sexual integration, in terms of men and women working together, and now integration in terms of sexual orientation, it has been a catalyst in such a critical way. And I just think this is another remarkable moment for the military, proving it can take our society forward. And I think you're a great example of that. Are you planning to reenlist and join this effort?

WOODS: Yes, my partner Zach and I are starting to look over the options that are out there. I'm really excited about rejoining the military. And as soon as the Pentagon figures out exactly how that's going to work and how folks like myself who were discharged can rejoin, I'll be the first in line.

SPITZER: You said he will reenlist. Has he been in the military as well?

WOODS: No, this is -- we talk over our options. You know, when I left the military, I was a single person. And now I have a family to think about. And so I'm excited about rejoining the military with Zach at my side.

PARKER: There are parameters within the military that preclude the concerns a lot of people have.

WOODS: Exactly.

PARKER: Or at least would minimize them.

WOODS: I'd be the first to tell you that I am really glad that we're looking at changing policies just a way that we don't create special rules for gays and lesbians and special barracks and special bathrooms. That we're going to start everyone the same. And there are already rules on the books as you mentioned, Kathleen, that make it very, very clear that inappropriate behavior between any service member won't be tolerated and will be immediately rectified. And so those same rules will go into effect and govern any inappropriate behavior between anyone.

SPITZER: It struck me that listening to the president today, it was one of the most powerful statements he's made in quite some time. People have been saying, has he lost his voice, has he lost his energy?

WOODS: Yes.

SPITZER: Today, I thought he had his cadence and the emotion was there. It seemed as though this was an issue he deeply, deeply cared about. Was that the emotive feel in the room today?

WOODS: It was really a feeling of jubilation. And I felt it on both sides because the president and the vice president who were both there, you could tell they were very excited about making good on a campaign promise. And the room was filled with a lot of folks who've been very strongly in support of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And finally they're breathing this sigh of relief because many of them have been fighting this since before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was the law of the land. They've been in this for decades now. And so, finally, we've reached the promised land, so to speak.

PARKER: A lot of it is just familiarity, you know. When you talk to people who have gays in their lives, they are much more accepting. Those who haven't had that experience are, you know, they have a lack of understanding --

WOODS: That's true in the military. You see the Pentagon's working group study also show that for those who have actually had a gay and lesbian service member in their unit who they knew of, 92 percent of them said it didn't affect their unit and they didn't have an issue with it. And I think that's kind of the case going forward.

SPITZER: This is also an issue I have sensed over the years. Trying to be active in pushing forward the issue of same-sex rights here in New York State is generational.

WOODS: Yes.

SPITZER: Those below the age of let's say 30 to 35 to a much greater degree just take it as a given. Of course, one could not even consider discriminating, differentiating and view on people different based on sexual orientation.

WOODS: Exactly.

SPITZER: The older generation is not yet as acclimated to that. Now I wonder as the military goes forward and the younger generation begins to move up into the ranks of the most senior cadre of officers, I think it will become easier for everybody to be comfortable with this.

WOODS: I think that's absolutely right. I couldn't agree with you more.

SPITZER: Let's certainly hope that is the case.

WOODS: Absolutely.

PARKER: Well, congratulations, and thank you for your service.

WOODS: Thank you so much. Looking forward to serving again.

PARKER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Today, President Obama signed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The president made history today but it wasn't the first time the president had used his pen to change the military and in so doing change the country.

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln began to recruit black soldiers into the Union Army. Many Americans opposed it, but the civil war was still in doubt and Lincoln's reelection was up for grabs. Lincoln needed victories and he needed soldiers. The addition of nearly 200,000 black troops helped give him both. It also showed the nation that the courage and patriotism of black soldiers could not be doubted.

PARKER: African-Americans continued to serve in so-called colored units with white officers in charge. But change was coming and once again, the military was the battleground. Women had served as nurses and volunteers since Washington's day but after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt established the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps or the WAACs. Suddenly, women were in uniform too. And they didn't just sing and dance and make coffee but equal status was still a long way off. So when World War II ended and women went home, they and the country would never be the same.

SPITZER: In 1948, President Harry Truman defied fierce opposition and ended segregation in the military. Urging the president to action, a new movement was taking shape, the civil rights movement. And 16 years later, the Civil Rights Act became law.

Today, with the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the next chapter has begun. The military has always been the way we homogenize this country, which is why I believe in some sort of national service.

PARKER: Once more, we change the military. It will surely change us. SPITZER: When we come back, a deal was reached today on the 9/11 responders health bill. We'll talk to a firefighter who was at Ground Zero and has since been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNY SPECHT, 9/11 FIRST-RESPONDER: That's why I think I took up this battle because I didn't want to sit at home and I didn't want to feel sorry for myself. And I had made a promise to two very good men, firefighter John McNamara and firefighter Richie Mannetta (ph), who unfortunately passed. I made a promise to them that their story would be told.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In the final vote of the 111th Congress, the House passed a $4.2 billion health care bill to give free health care to 9/11 first responders and reopen the victim's compensation fund for five years. The legislation is named after NYPD Detective James Zadroga who died of a respiratory illness after 9/11. Medical experts though are divided over the cause of Zadroga's death. The medical examiner says it was related to drug use. Other experts maintain it was because he inhaled the dust at Ground Zero after 9/11.

PARKER: Other first responders suffer from a range of illnesses including cancer and lung disease. And in just a minute, we'll hear one New York City firefighter's personal story. But first, joining us tonight, to talk about the symptoms many of the first responders have and the links to Ground Zero is our chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Sanjay, thank you for joining us.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for having me.

SPITZER: You know, in the world of lawyering where people are suing to recover and be paid for injuries, this issue of causation is always really the pivot point. So you as the doctor who would be called in as the expert witness, having viewed these studies, having thought about this, are you comfortable that there is, in fact, a causal link here so we can say yes, these workers really deserve this sort of payment? It was not only an act of heroism but they also were injured by virtue of being there, inhaling all of this stuff, the dust and all the other things?

GUPTA: You start to see a trend that develops. It is not cause and effect, Eliot, by any means. But I think at some point in the medical establishment, we start to make educated guesses and recognize that these things tend to have harmful effects. Some of the composites in that dust and smoke that you're seeing there can have an effect on the human body. And it seems to get worse with dosing.

PARKER: In one of my former lives, I was a science writer and had a little bit of exposure to epidemiological studies. And, of course, a good one would also conclude compounding factors what other exposures people might have had that could have led to cancer. So did you have a chance to look at the studies that they did and did you feel confident that they had taken into consideration all those other factors that might have influenced these outcomes?

GUPTA: I'm glad you brought that up. And yes, I mean, we literally looked through dozens of studies. Over the last eight years, we've been reading these studies pretty continuously.

Two things. One is what was the level of these various diseases prior to 9/11? And that same population of workers, rescue workers, first responders, what was the incidents of some of these problems? And it did go up. And again, in the trends that I described, more dosing, more problems. And the other thing, what was the incidents of these problems and people who lived in that particular area? So the air quality overall in that particular area, that financial district, was it causing some problems already? You can compare it to after 9/11. You can compare it to before, and you can also compare it to different parts of the country, even different parts of the city of New York. And taking all of that in aggregate, there does seem to be some sort of influence here from, again, all those images you're just showing on people's health, specifically respiratory health. I don't want to overreach, overextend here, but taken in aggregate, I think you can make that conclusion.

PARKER: OK, Sanjay. Thank you so much for joining us.

GUPTA: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

SPITZER: Thank you.

Joining us now is one of the firefighters who led the effort to get this bill passed. Kenny Specht was a New York City firefighter from 1996 to 2008. He was at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and for weeks thereafter. And he's been battling thyroid cancer since 2007.

Thank you for being here.

KENNY SPECHT, 9/11 FIRST-RESPONDER: Oh, my pleasure, thanks for having me.

PARKER: Thanks for being with us.

Well, let's just start with this. You were at Ground Zero so you have a very personal connection to this. And as Eliot said, you've been fighting thyroid cancer since 2007. How you doing?

SPECHT: Well, if I can go on record first by saying that everybody in the New York City Fire Department today unfortunately watched what happened in Chicago. Chicago lost two firefighters today. And our thoughts and prayers go out to our brothers and sisters in the Chicago Fire Department.

SPITZER: As well they should. SPECHT: I'm doing all right. I'm doing well. I have to be honest with you. I'm happy for life. I've had a rebirth really. And I consider myself fortunate. Very, very, very fortunate. And really, that's why I think I took up this battle because I didn't want to sit at home and I didn't want to feel sorry for myself. And I had made a promise to two very good men, firefighter John McNamara and firefighter Richie Mannetta (ph), who unfortunately passed. I made a promise to them that their story would be told. And it's my hope that today -- it's my hope today that their story was heard.

SPITZER: Well, first, I admire your fortitude and your spirit and congratulate you and thank you for your service.

SPECHT: Thank you, sir.

SPITZER: And also congratulate you on what you accomplished today, you and so many others. How do you view the deal that has just been passed through the Congress? Is this a big success? Is this something you're proud of?

SPECHT: I think that we're very proud. It's a compromise. I think that we were always willing to compromise. You see, we always knew that the perfect could not stand in the way of the good. The bill was necessary. It provides finances for the medical monitoring programs. These medical monitoring programs is so vitally important and like I said, today's victory hopefully will show that the medical monitoring programs will be a success.

SPITZER: We'll just get those numbers. I think we can put something up on the screen here, so everybody will understand.

This is a big deal. This is $4.2 billion total. $1.5 billion for health benefits and $2.7 billion for compensation. So you're talking a lot of money going to the right purpose, which is to take care of the folks like you and others who responded on that tragic day. Went right into the pit as it was called. Many losing their lives. People exposing themselves to toxins, to dangerous fumes, Digging desperately to go through the rubble to see who could be saved on that day when, you know, the world came to a standstill and some, like you, bravely acted. And so, again, a great victory. Big money, but all deserved. And we thank you for that fact.

SPECHT: Really, I thank you for having me. And like I said, hopefully, hopefully we'll look back after the programs, after the five-year programs and say they were a success and that they really assisted those that needed it the most.

PARKER: The type of cancer you have, thyroid cancer, is also associated with chemical exposure?

SPECHT: Absolutely. In a male, first and foremost, it would be family history.

PARKER: Right.

SPECHT: I don't have any. And then second to that would be exposure to radiation or another chemical toxic agent. So I lost my thyroid completely. Again, my cancer was found early and early detection is absolutely the most important part of recovery. And that's why I consider myself fortunate.

I didn't know that I was sick. I was injured at a fire in Queens and I was transported to the hospital. And during the medical exam for my injuries from the fire, the radiologist walked in and said that they had found a problem with my thyroid. I had two cancerous tumors on it. That's the reason I consider myself lucky because I didn't feel medically like there was something wrong. And I didn't go to the doctor. I was fortunate to have my cancer detected early enough.

SPITZER: Were you surprised when this issue first came up, when you went down to Capitol Hill, the vehemence of the opposition? You had in New York after 9/11, everybody, PD, the Fire Department, the first responders, you were the heroes. Everybody got that. Somehow you listen to some of the voices in Congress the past couple of weeks and months, you got the sense that, wait a minute, they had a different imagery. How do you make sense of that?

SPECHT: We got the sense that some elected officials in other parts of the country thought that this was a New York issue. I'll always say that if we had sold this bill nine years ago, we'd have 100 percent participation. Unfortunately, the past nine years, we've had a recession. We're now a country that's nine years at war. And I respect those situations that this country has faced. And I think most 9/11 responders do.

We understand that there was a place in line. And we respected our place in line. However, we were getting worried certainly that we were down to the last seconds of the calendar year for this particular Congress. And we didn't understand why. We fought and we pushed a rock uphill. As difficult as it was, I hope that this country sees today that what was accomplished by a select few people shows that if you do get involved in the politics, if you do get involved in the things that concern you, the battle will be difficult. The hill -- the hill will be high. But if you band together and remain together, the good will outweigh the bad. You will win. And today, hopefully -- hopefully, we see it as a win and those that are affected the most hopefully win.

PARKER: All right. Kenny Specht, thank you so much for being with us.

SPECHT: Thank you so much for having me.

SPITZER: Congratulations.

PARKER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Hello, I'm Joe Johns. More of "PARKER SPITZER" in a moment. First, the latest.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is under house arrest and speaking out. Assange told MSNBC that his critics including Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are trying to make names for themselves by bashing him. Assange is free on bail related to sexual allegation in Sweden.

The parents of a gay Rutgers University student who committed suicide have notified the school they may sue. As you may recall, Tyler Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate and another student allegedly streamed online his sexual encounter with another man. The university says it is not responsible for Clementi's suicide.

And tonight on "360," the director of National Intelligence in the U.S. is not told that dozens of terror suspects were arrested in Britain. How could this happen? We're keeping them honest.

That's the latest. Now back to "PARKER SPITZER."

PARKER: That's it for tonight. Join us again tomorrow night.

SPITZER: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.