Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
General Stanley McChrystal Resigns; BP's Latest Mishap
Aired June 23, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(VIDEO CLIP IN PROGRESS)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That's the strategy that we agreed to last fall. That is the policy that we are carrying out in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and partners who have stood by us and paid the ultimate price through the loss of their young people at war. They are with us because the interests and values that we share, and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century.
And General Petraeus and I were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. I'm extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. It should be clear to everybody he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. And he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult post.
Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall. And he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place.
In his current post at Central Command, he was worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan; he has worked closely with Congress; he has worked closely with the Afghan and Pakistan governments, and with all our partners in the region.
OBAMA: He has my full confidence. And I am urging the Senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible.
Let me conclude by saying that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that I have made today. Indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who I have come to respect and admire.
But the reasons that led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding.
So, once again, I thank General McChrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and to the success of our mission in Afghanistan.
I look forward to working with General Petraeus and my entire national security team to succeed in our mission.
And I reaffirm that America stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend it.
Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFED REPORTER: Mr. President, can this war be won?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: There's always the unanswered question. "Mr. President, can this war be won?"
Interestingly enough, it's a question that Candy Crowley has been asking in "STATE OF THE UNION" in recent weeks, and she's had plenty of guests on to talk about that.
And Candy is good enough to join us now.
Interestingly enough, there are two guests. I couldn't think of two people to talk to right now out of the president's speech who are better than these two, one because he is a retired brigadier general, Mark Kimmitt, who is going to be joining us here in just a little bit and giving us his perspective, and, of course, Candy Crowley, because she's been around the block in Washington and has seen moments like this in the past.
Candy, what is -- what is your takeaway after watching this all come down to a boil today, with the president of the United States coming out, and historically -- you know, I say that again -- relieving a four-star general of his command in the middle of a war?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Sure, and they -- and leaving no doubt as to who is in charge.
I think this is a -- I honestly have to tell you that, going into this, a couple hours before it, I could have seen it go either way, but the odds on were that he was going to have to let McChrystal go.
Why? Because it was such an affront to the civilian leadership. I mean, they took on, you know, Joe Biden. They took on retired General Jim Jones. He took on Ambassador Holbrooke, I mean -- or his staff did, McChrystal's staff did.
It was just really hard in the end to see how the president could stand for that, and not look weak if he let it go. But I thought the president made a really important point, and it was -- it was -- lacked in -- any kind of personal animosity. He said: I admire him. I respect him. I'm sad to do this. But I have to have a team.
And suddenly I sort of had this vision of General McChrystal trying to talk to Joe Biden somewhere down the line or to Ambassador Holbrooke after they have read essentially what -- what McChrystal and his staff think of them.
So, in the end, I think he probably didn't have a choice but to do this. And I think he acquitted it really well.
SANCHEZ: General, what is the takeaway on this? Because -- and let me tell you from which the reference point is that I ask you this question.
You and I both know a lot of guys in the military. And, oftentimes, they do go through periods of favoring one side or another. I would hearken to say that, right now, they tend to favor Republicans more than Democrats. There was a time in our history when the Democrats were known as the war guys, and the Republicans were the peaceniks. Now things have kind of turned around.
And you do hear a lot of guys in the military say, you know, they're for the -- the stauncher or harder stridden -- striding conservatives, for example. Is -- is -- is there a lesson here -- now to the question -- is there a lesson here, with this Stanley McChrystal episode, that you need to be careful what you say and how you say it?
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK KIMMITT (RET.), FORMER U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANS AND STRATEGY: Well -- well, absolutely.
I mean, at the end of the day, this isn't about whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. He is the president. He is the commander of chief. Our structure of civil military relations is civilian control over the military.
We are -- we are held to a different standard in the military. We are held to the standard that we will not speak poorly of our leadership. And politics have nothing to do with it. It has to do with respect for the people that America elected to the position of president.
SANCHEZ: But, if the -- if the -- but if -- if the -- if the commander of our troops in Afghanistan felt that it was OK to talk this way in front of his brass and in front of a reporter, what else is being said, and what else is going on over there that maybe we should be concerned about, or should we?
KIMMITT: Well, first of all, to suggest that this was something that was done routinely and frequently, I think we don't have any substantiation...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: It's not a suggestion, sir. It's a question.
(CROSSTALK)
KIMMITT: It may have just been an unguarded moment, some people away from the battlefield that were just -- a little locker room talk.
Nonetheless, it was unacceptable. And, as we have found out, it was unforgivable. The president lost confidence in his commander. And no commander can serve if he doesn't have the confidence of the president above him and his leadership above him.
It is unfortunate. General McChrystal is a brilliant warrior, a -- one of the best of his generation. And it is sad that he leaves after 34 years of service on this note.
SANCHEZ: We're so glad we have you, Brigadier General -- retired Brigadier General Kimmitt.
Stay right there, sir. We're coming back, and we will continue this discussion.
As we go to break, the reporter who actually filed this story told me here on the air yesterday that General McChrystal knew that he was on the record. He actually told me he had the tape recorder running and that the general could see it while he was making many of the comments that he did.
Here's a little bit of that interview, as we go to break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL HASTINGS, "ROLLING STONE": I think this is one of the most significant issues with the American strategy in Afghanistan right now, is that the troops aren't buying it. It's as simple as that.
I have not found a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan who likes the new rules of engagement and who really thinks these directives are worthwhile.
I stopped at Kandahar today. I had a soldier come up to me and say, hey, I heard you did that story on General McChrystal. You know, we like the guy, but it's good that that's getting out there. That's a true sort of anger and it's sort of being expressed.
And it's really a widespread, widespread feeling. And I think the failure to communicate his strategy is also a failure, in some senses, of his leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I will tell you, one of the unanswered questions out there -- welcome back, everyone. This is RICK'S LIST. My thanks to you for being with us.
One of the still unanswered questions out there is, throughout the day, has there been any pushback, any excuse made by the general, McChrystal? Was there any attempt to explain away the article or the behavior? What was said when the president was meeting with the general?
And will we ever know?
We have got three fine guests joining us right now. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt is good enough to join us -- retired Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, I should say -- with some perspective on what's going on over there. Also joining us, of course, is Candy Crowley.
And with us now as well, in Washington, is Dan Lothian.
Dan, just let -- let me start with you. Have you heard -- I know how these things go, and, little by little, we will get a little more reporting as the day goes on -- have we heard at this point if there was any attempt made by McChrystal to try to -- and, you know, choose the words you want -- excuse, explain away, rationalize his behavior or the article by "Rolling Stone"?
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, yesterday, I mentioned that I wish I could be a fly on the wall...
SANCHEZ: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
LOTHIAN: ... to get that information, because we still are not getting that information.
I was in a background briefing with a senior administration official, and we asked that question as to, can you give us some of the details of what happened in this 32-minute meeting that General McChrystal had with the president?
And we didn't get any details at all, simply that the president called him here because he wanted to give him a chance to sort of explain himself. But the specifics as to what he said, we still don't know. But we keep digging for that, Rick.
SANCHEZ: So, you mean -- and I -- maybe time, in and of itself, is a part of the determinate here.
How long did they speak? Or how long were they in that room together?
LOTHIAN: Right. They were in the 32 meetings -- 32 minutes.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
LOTHIAN: And then, after that, there was another meeting which took place for about 45 minutes, Secretary Gates and others who were sort of deciding the next step forward, and then, of course, you know, the meeting for about 30 minutes, where the entire national security team talked about...
SANCHEZ: So...
LOTHIAN: The president talked -- spoke with them about the decision going forward. SANCHEZ: So, Candy, for all we know, he could have walked in there and done something as simple as, you know, Mr. President, I messed up, sir. I apologize. And, you know, I will take whatever punishment you want to hand out. And for all we know, he could have said nothing more than that.
CROWLEY: And he could have said, I'm going to submit my resignation. And the president should have said -- could have said, well, I accept it because I was going to fire you anyway.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: I mean, I think...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
CROWLEY: ... you know, certainly, the president knew which way he was going. Nobody has denied anything that was said in this article or that was quoted in this article.
I -- so, once you're over that part, and you're not saying I was taken out of context or I didn't do this...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
CROWLEY: ... or I didn't do that, what is there left to say?
SANCHEZ: Well, I guess -- I guess...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I guess the argument I would make there is, you know, you could say, I'm a good guy. I have generally done a good job for you, sir. I may have screwed up this one time, but if you trusted me, I will go back to Afghanistan and I will see this mission through.
I mean, that's the only thing I can think of that he could have said.
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Sure, but you would still have the overriding problem of, who's in charge here? And it's civilian control, and that's the president of the United States. And how is he going to work with the rest of the team? I mean, I think those were the two kind of overriding -- it wasn't -- you know, the president had praise for McChrystal.
SANCHEZ: He did.
CROWLEY: But, you know, it's just not feasible that McChrystal could have stayed there, looking at this now, could have stayed there, and dealt with the people that he has to deal with, after dissing them all over "Rolling Stone."
SANCHEZ: Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, sir, did the president have any other choice here? If you were in his shoes, would you have done the same?
KIMMITT: I certainly wouldn't want to speculate on the president's decision. He made the decision, and the most important thing is, there really was no good decision.
He was going to be criticized and will be criticized either way. At the end of the day, it would appear that the president reached down into his own gut and made what he felt to be the best decision. And I suspect and I know that the military will support that. I know General McChrystal supports that.
And the military will move on...
SANCHEZ: Do you...
KIMMITT: ... from here to...
SANCHEZ: Do you...
KIMMITT: ... to accomplish the mission.
SANCHEZ: Do you support that? Do you believe that McChrystal straddled the line of insubordination?
KIMMITT: We command with the trust and confidence of our leadership. If our leadership loses trust and confidence in our abilities to command, then it's our responsibility to offer our resignation.
Stan McChrystal did that, as an honorable man. He is an honorable man. He may have screwed up in this case, but he is an honorable man.
SANCHEZ: Hmm.
KIMMITT: The president made a decision, and there is no use dwelling on it.
SANCHEZ: My thanks to you, sir, for taking the time to join us on this and be so up front and forward in your -- you know, in words that I know are difficult for you to share with the American audience.
By the way, McChrystal is out, but what about his strategy for fighting the Taliban? We're live in Afghanistan and we're going to be taking you through that in this special report that we're bringing you today.
And you are not going to believe, you are simply not going to believe what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today. If it looks to you like there is more oil spewing out of there, you're right -- a lot more oil. Something is missing. I will tell you why.
Chad is going to join me to get us through that in just a little bit. Just when you thought things you thought things couldn't get any worse in the Gulf of Mexico, they have.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
And Chad Myers is about to join me here.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But, before you go to a picture of -- of our ugly mugs -- all right, present company excluded?
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Is that where you want me to go with this?
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: All right.
SANCHEZ: Take a look at this.
MYERS: Speak for yourself.
SANCHEZ: Now, you notice something a little -- a little different about this? If you were watching this yesterday, it didn't look like this.
Some time today, in the last two or three hours, we were told that something happened that has caused BP to have to admit that, guess what? There's a ton more oil suddenly spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, because they had a -- and this is my last word, Chad, and then I will turn it over to you -- they had a little accident.
MYERS: They did. They don't know who was driving it, but somebody -- somebody crashed into a pipe.
SANCHEZ: You mean those -- those little robotic things down there?
MYERS: Yes. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: That's the story.
The story is that a pipe that was bringing down warm water and methanol and then all those things to stop the hydrates -- remember the big containment dome that was supposed to work, the big -- the fix-all thing that never worked at all?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Right.
MYERS: That -- the hydrates form in there because the gases and the oil expanding so fast, gets very cold, almost like freezing water, because the air is expanding... (CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So, they got rid of the cap.
MYERS: They got -- they had to take the cap off because the rover crashed into the pipe that was pumping down the warm water that was stopping the hydrates from happening.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: You can't make this stuff up.
MYERS: Who's driving?
SANCHEZ: I mean, so...
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: So, now more -- how much more oil? Do we know yet? Or I imagine it's going to take a while to figure that out.
MYERS: We know how much they were capturing yesterday, which was a new record, almost 25,000 barrels, 100,000 gallons of oil.
SANCHEZ: That was good.
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Key word, was.
MYERS: Not anymore.
SANCHEZ: Oh, my goodness.
MYERS: Now, seven -- I -- I worked it out.
Seven hundred and fifty gallons a minute are coming out of that pipe right now.
SANCHEZ: As we're looking at it right now.
MYERS: On top of what was still coming out yesterday. But they were capturing an additional 750 gallons a minute that now they are not capturing.
SANCHEZ: And do we know how long this is going to last, this perilous situation that we now find ourselves in today?
MYERS: I believe they need to fix the kink in the pipe, and they need to reestablish the -- the flow of warm water and methanol down into the cap, so they can position it. Remember how long it took last time?
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: They tried like eight times to get the thing fixed right. So, this could be gallons and gallons and gallons.
SANCHEZ: That's amazing.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: You know, I hate the word barrels.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: So, I trans -- I translate everything to gallons.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MYERS: If you take this and you put it into a swimming pool, a backyard swimming pool, two backyard swimming pools are getting filled up every hour with oil coming out of that...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Going into the Gulf of Mexico.
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: And we wait to see what the reaction or the effect is going to be along the coastline, including parts of Florida, which many people are still wondering if they're going to get hit. We will wait for weather patterns, right?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: A lot of that has to do with weather patterns.
MYERS: And in the -- in the coming days, we're going to talk to some experts about the mammals that are now being affected, because now the oil being so close to the shore, now we are affecting things that we can see.
You know, if you don't see it, it's 40 miles out, it's not so bad, because you don't see it. Once you start seeing dead dolphins wash up onshore -- and we have today -- it hits home.
SANCHEZ: Speaking of dolphin, you know, I just went down to the Florida Keys.
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I spent a week down there, as I do every year. And I had a lot of long conversations with a lot of the fishing guys down there, who know the Keys as well as anybody, because they have been fishing them for years.
MYERS: Mm-hmm.
SANCHEZ: I will share some of those stories with you and certainly our viewers in the coming day.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Thanks. Appreciate it.
MYERS: Absolutely. All the time.
SANCHEZ: All right. In case you're just now joining us, maybe just now getting home from work, General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of command by the president of the United States, no longer in charge of the Afghanistan war.
It has been a historic news day. We are all over this story, what it means, from the White House to the Pentagon to the battlefield. We have correspondents in all of those venues.
Also, a quick update now from a story that we have been covering since the first we went on the air. Take a look at this. This is a 5.0 earthquake that rattled Ottawa. People in the room start heading for the door. Look at the speaker. Look at his reaction. And now he kind of sums things up. Listen to what he says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't always exit with such drama. But...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Interesting way of ending a news conference, huh? In the middle of an earthquake.
The good news is, we understand there is no major damage or casualties to report, but we're still on it. If we get any more information, we will share it with you.
This is your national conversation. This is RICK'S LIST. I'm Rick Sanchez. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. This is RICK'S LIST.
We were mentioning just a little while ago in my conversation with Dan Lothian and Candy Crowley, both of whom have been doing amazing work for us, by the way -- we really do have some of the best correspondents on this network. They have been on this story from the very beginning.
And we were talking about what reaction or what General Stanley McChrystal may have said to the president of the United States.
I should share with you that we have gotten a message, a statement put out by General Stanley McChrystal.
"This morning the president accepted my resignation," I read, "as commander of U.S. and NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the president's strategy in Afghanistan," he goes on to write, "and I'm deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people."
General McChrystal goes on to say, "It was out of respect for this commitment and a desire to see the mission succeed that I have tendered my resignation." And he goes on to say, "It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest."
So, that is the final word, we assume, from General Stanley McChrystal on this day, as he accepts his -- his being relieved of command as the man in charge of our forces in Afghanistan.
Mike Baker is a former CIA covert operations officer, and he now runs a private intelligence and security firm called Diligence -- is that Diligence, LLC?
MIKE BAKER, FORMER CIA COVERT OPERATIONS OFFICER: It is. It is.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't reading that wrong.
BAKER: Sure.
SANCHEZ: Your take on the actions by the president of the United States. And let me start you where I started a lot of folks. Did the president of the United States handle this correctly, in your opinion?
BAKER: Well, I think he handled it the only way he could. I don't think that he really had any other options. You couldn't overlook the -- the -- the statements made by the general and his aides.
It's -- it's a little astounding that...
SANCHEZ: Was -- was -- was he...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Was he insubordinate? Do you believe the general was insubordinate?
BAKER: You know what? I have no idea, you know, how broad you want to make the meaning of insubordinate.
He spoke out of turn. You know, they -- they did the right thing.
SANCHEZ: OK.
BAKER: It's -- there's a bigger issue here, though, which is the prosecution of the war, itself, and -- and, you know, how we move forward...
SANCHEZ: All right.
BAKER: ... and whether what they were saying is -- is something that the other troops are -- thinking on a regular basis.
SANCHEZ: Let's talk about that. What the -- the troops in this article seems to be saying -- seems to be saying, collectively, is that they're extremely frustrated. They're not quite sure what hell -- what the hell it is that we're doing over there, why they're not given full permission to go out and act like soldiers.
They don't seem to be very satisfied. And then you have on one case the general himself saying that we, our side, doesn't have the initiative in this battle.
I mean, that's a heck of a thing for a general or a commander in a war to say nine years, let me remind you, into a war.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: What are we as Americans to make of this?
BAKER: Yes.
Well, I think there will be a lot of confusion, because, for the -- quite a while now, the flavor of the month has been this counterinsurgency strategy. And, of course, McChrystal has been the face of that.
You know, in reality, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to counterinsurgency. The problem is, it was a tasty idea: Hey, we're going to do this. We're going to build up a sound government. We're going to minimize the casualties. You know, we're going to get the Afghans on board. You know, hey, happy days.
But, you know, the -- the troops on the ground, and I think all the way up through his aides and the general himself, have been seeing that it's not working the way we had hoped.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know what's interesting about this? I mean, let's face it. We went in there. Let's look at this historically, because we have a tendency to forget. We went in there because a bunch of bad guys, one guy named bin Laden and a couple of others as well, number two and a number three, both attacked the United States of America.
And we were going to go out there and we were going to go show them, we were going to get back at them. Well, in an effort to get back at them, it appears that former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld screwed that up.
I mean, I have had guys on this show come and tell me we knew exactly where bin Laden was. We could have taken him out, and a political decision was made not to take them out. So, not doing that and having those guys out there still, what is the purpose of the war in Afghanistan? BAKER: Well, that -- it's a great question. I suspect it's not a question that, at the 30,000-foot range, has been asked, because I would argue that, after 9/11, we did the right thing. We went in with the goal of dismantling the Taliban, of taking away that safe haven for al Qaeda.
You have got the issue obviously with bin Laden, and that continues to haunt us. But have we had a conversation that said, you know what, is this in our national security interest the way that it was after 9/11? I would argue that it's not.
You know, the idea that we're going to somehow build a pseudo, somewhat stable democratic society in Afghanistan? You know, is that -- is that really in our national security interests?
SANCHEZ: Do you -- let me go back to that point -- the point I just raised, because now I'm more interested in it than ever.
If we had been able to take out bin Laden and Zawahri and Mullah Omar, the three bad guys, all right, the guys who we were -- pointed to at that time and saying these are the guys who attacked us, if we had taken those three guys out, imprisoned them, killed them, taken them to trial, whatever the case might be, would we have had a reason to stay there?
BAKER: Well, I think we would have because there was this lingering, you know, feeling that we had abandoned Afghanistan when we moved the Soviets out of there all those years ago, and it wasn't that many years ago. And so I think there would have been an impetus to stay regardless of getting those three.
And I think much like what the conversation was about McChrystal in saying, well, this war is more than one general, honest to God, al Qaeda is much more than bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. So getting those, we also shouldn't somehow think that we would have closed down al Qaeda at that point and we would all be living in a peaceful world now.
That wouldn't have happened.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting.
Now, you think, by the way -- the one final question before I let you go, the effort that -- the strategy that we're using now, winning strategy, do you think?
BAKER: You know, I think if we had the stomach to stay there for 20, 25, 30 years, and if the public and the Congress had that stomach, had that will, then maybe we would end up with something like what we hoped for, some stable government. I think you can probably read into what I'm saying, that I don't necessarily believe it's a winning strategy, and I don't believe that it's in our best interests at this point.
Nobody really wants to pull the plug on this. You know, again, you have that problem, we should leave. Well, somehow, then, it's misinterpreted that you're not supporting our troops.
SANCHEZ: But maybe it takes earnest, tough people like yourself to go on television and tell Americans if you really want this, you've got to stick it out for 25 or 30 years. Those are your words, not mine. And then maybe you start putting things in perspective and people start scratching their heads and wondering, well, is this really what we want to do?
And I don't have the answer to that question. I'm here to ask the questions, not answer them. But it's interesting that you would put it in that perspective, 25 to 30 years. That's a long time. I can almost hear Americans kind of shaking their heads as they hear you say that.
BAKER: Well, you think about it in the way that the Taliban or the Afghans think about time. You also look at the history.
I mean, we've got some recent history in terms of the Soviets as to what this means to be entrenched in a country like this. But if we were having that conversation, and we were honest about it, and people got on board said it, then maybe we're working our way towards something. I don't think we've got the will.
SANCHEZ: Interestingly put.
Mike Baker, former CIA covert operations officer.
My thanks, sir, for taking time to join us today.
BAKER: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Much more on the resignation of General McChrystal ahead, including a closer look at his replacement, General David Petraeus, and the reaction that General Petraeus has been getting thus far.
And then a check of our follow-up list. Jamaican police have finally captured the alleged drug lord Christopher Dudus after a month-long manhunt. A botched attempt to cuff him in May led to four days of deadly gun fights in the streets of Kingston, the shutdown of a hospital, and the near takeover of the police station itself. Jamaican leaders are calling for calm today.
His last name, by the way -- I reserved that for you -- Coke.
THE LIST scrolls on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Well, we told you just a little while ago when Chad was over here talking to us about what's going on with BP that we're trying to get answers to see when BP is going to be able to recap this thing so as much oil as is getting out now -- in case you haven't heard the news, they had an accident down there and a bunch more oil is now getting out.
Well, we just did get a tweet. We follow people who are relevant to our newscasts. And we just got a tweet a little while ago.
Here is David Vitter. He sent us this.
He says, "Following up with BP and administration to work on immediately replacing the containment system and somehow getting the leak capped."
Again. I guess we should add the word "again" there as we look at it.
Also this --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOE BARTON (R), TEXAS: I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Apologizing to BP sounds like a certain career ender. But is it? Can this congressman go on as a ranking member of the Energy Committee after doing that to or for the people that he is supposed to be looking over?
Also, Joran van der Sloot is back in the news. This time because his mother has come out and spoken out. Is she helping or hurting his cause, his murder case?
Brooke Baldwin is going to be sharing some brand new information on this story. This is fascinating story, that his mom would come out and say these things.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Who knows you best? Your mom.
SANCHEZ: Your mom. Well, at least in our case, right?
BALDWIN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: We're going to be right back with Brooke's list.
Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: OK. We've been getting a lot of reactions coming in from a lot of politicians, both on the left and on the right. I understand Carl Levin has commented.
Do you mind if we do this together?
BALDWIN: Go for it.
SANCHEZ: You ready, Brooke Baldwin?
Let's listen to what he has to say about the McChrystal decision by the president.
Let's tap into that if we could..
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: General Petraeus made clear last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee his agreement with that policy, and he also made it clear then, and he reiterated it to me this afternoon in my office, that what will be conditions-based is not whether reductions begin in July, 2011, but the pace of those reductions.
As to the timing of the confirmation hearing on General Petraeus's nomination, it will be no later than next Tuesday. We're going to try to make it obviously as quickly as we possibly can. I talked to General Petraeus about that this afternoon, and he felt that would be fine, if it could be held no later than next Tuesday.
OK. Let me open it up.
Yes?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You have the other side. You heard, interestingly enough, John McCain, earlier in our newscast, commenting on the fact that he didn't think we should have a deadline. And now we're hearing Carl Levin seeming to intimate that we need to speed up the process of getting our troops home from Afghanistan. Same story, two completely different perspectives on it, one from the left and one from the right.
And we obviously will continue to follow both for you.
Brooke Baldwin is joining us now. She brings us everything that is trending. And that means, what are people talking about on the Web? What are people saying on the Internet? What are people twittering about?
And I'll tell you what they're twittering about, aside from this big story.
BALDWIN: Stanley McChrystal.
SANCHEZ: Yes. That's the big story.
BALDWIN: He's trending today as well, yes.
SANCHEZ: But, you know, people are fascinated by Joran van der Sloot.
BALDWIN: They are.
SANCHEZ: And everything having to do with him and Natalee, and everything else that's gone on with it.
So, now we understand his mother has jumped in the fray?
BALDWIN: Right. So we've heard from ex-girlfriends, we've heard from Natalee Holloway's family. But now we're hearing from his mother.
This interview that was done in Aruba, by an Aruban TV station. And let me just give you a little bit of color as to what really came out of this interview.
You know, first things first, this is Anita van der Sloot. There she is with Joran some time ago. And she said instead of Joran going to Peru, she said -- get this -- her son was actually supposed to be headed to the Netherlands for treatment at a mental institution to deal with -- her words, not mine -- a possible personality disorder and his gambling problems.
Instead, as we all know, he went on to Lima. And then once she heard about Flores' murder, she said she felt like she was living in a bad movie.
I want to read you this quote from this interview. She said, "I hope he'll get a chance to talk to the parents of Stephany Flores, and that he can tell them what happened. And I apologize to them. And he is my son, and he is not a monster."
"He could be very gentle, but it could be that he has a bipolar personality. I hope he gets the help to become a better human being."
Now, she also went on in this interview to say, yes, even as police -- remember, after everything happened in that hotel room -- as police were searching for him, he hopped in that cab. He headed to Chile.
She told them while he was in that cab, he picked up his cell phone, he called his mother. And she said in that phone call, you know, he became emotional. He was crying.
She said, you know, son, you're wanted for murder. And he said, That can't be. That's impossible. She said to him, turn around, go to the police, turn yourself in.
Anita van der Sloot also talked about the timing of this whole thing. Keep in mind that the day that this murder happened, it happened down to the day, five years later, from when Natalee Holloway disappeared. Here's what she said about the timing issue.
She said, "I believe in karma. I believe that very strongly. I believe that if you do things that you shouldn't do, that a lot of (EXPLETIVE DELETED) happens to you."
She said, "He didn't want to listen to his parents. He didn't listen to me this last time. I tried to do my best. I don't think I could have done more. If he is involved, he needs to be punished."
Final mention, you know, as we know, he's down at this Castro Castro prison, right on the outskirts of Lima. And this interviewer asked the mother, look, "Would you go visit your son in that prison?" And she said no.
SANCHEZ: Really?
BALDWIN: No. She's not going.
Very different Anita van der Sloot from when she was proclaiming his innocence five years ago on the Natalee Holloway story. Very different woman.
SANCHEZ: Yes. It sounds like she's kind of given up on him.
BALDWIN: It could be.
SANCHEZ: At least that's what it sounds like to me.
BALDWIN: That's the latest chapter.
SANCHEZ: Tough call.
Good stuff. Appreciate it.
BALDWIN: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: All right. Republicans said they were livid once this guy, a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, apologized to BP. However, many of them had been quoted saying pretty much the same thing, except they just didn't apologize directly to BP.
Do you think that he deserves to be on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On" on this day? And if so, why?
I'll tell you as THE LIST scrolls on.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
One of the highest ranking members of the committee that is supposed to oversee the people who caused the oil spill in the Gulf gets to keep his job. Now, you'd think that it's because he's doing a real good job, right? Because he's holding BP's feet to the fire, right?
That remains to be seen. But his claim to fame is actually for apologizing to BP.
Here now, "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
Congressman Joe Barton from Texas retains his ranking position on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, we hear today, even after saying this to Tony Hayward --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARTON: I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anybody else, but I apologize. (END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: He apologized -- apologized to BP. He later apologized for apologizing. And it should be noted that he wasn't alone.
Many, many members of the Republican leadership were criticizing the president for starting this escrow account to make them, BP, pay for the mess in the Gulf. Interestingly enough, there's a new CNN poll out today that shows 82 percent of all Americans approve of that very same escrow fund, saying, yes, BP should be forced to pay, and it should be right there in a contract.
The fact is, most Americans feel like they have been shaken down, to use a term used in the hearing, by oil companies for years. And this latest oily mess by BP and friends is not going to get them much general sympathy from the American populous.
But that's not the case with Congressman Barton of Texas. So, we did a little checking on the congressman because we wanted to know more about him. And here's what we found out that we thought you would want to know.
He's not speaking out today, but his entire record on BP is on his congressional Web site. And then there's this -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Barton has accepted more than $300,000 -- more than $300,000 -- from the oil and gas industry since 2007 alone.
We thought you'd want to know that.
And it's far more than the highest amount of any member on the House Energy Committee, any member. And he's the highest ranking Republican on that committee.
There was talk that he would lose that ranking, but guess what? No. He is staying right where he is, which some of his critics would argue is right in the pocket of the oil and gas industry.
And for that, he, today, is number one on "The List U Don't Want 2 Be On."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
Wolf Blitzer is joining us now here on RICK'S LIST.
Hey, I was just reading some tweets, Wolf, from some folks in Buffalo, and they were telling me that it was like a boom, then everything shook, and then there was a rolling sensation, a wide- ranging area felt it.
Folks in your hometown got a bit of a scare today from that earthquake up in Canada.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I know. Toronto, they did, too, which is not that far away. So that's always scary. But let's hope it's not too serious.
SANCHEZ: Yes. No, the good news is it doesn't look like there's been any loss of life in this as of yet, and obviously we at CNN are going to keep checking.
The big news obviously is Stanley McChrystal. It was really an interesting day.
All things considered, are you surprised that the reaction from the right has been pretty acceptable, if not praiseworthy, of how the president handled this?
BLITZER: No, the president was very, very smart in picking General David Petraeus, who is beloved not only by mainstream folks, but on the left and the right. A lot of folks like him.
They respect him. He's a highly regarded General. And the president made a smart move in picking him.
If he had gone with a lesser-known General, there may have been some criticism. But he was very, very clever in picking General Petraeus. It worked out well. And the reaction has been very favorable.
You can't let a general, a four-star general, no matter how highly respected and decorated as General McChrystal is, you can't let a general just go off the way he and his aides did in that "Rolling Stone" article. You've got to deal with it, and the president did.
SANCHEZ: Well, the interesting part of it now is we turn the focus on to Afghanistan, itself. I've gotten a lot of tweets, and a lot of folks that I respect telling me today, you know, in one good way, this has Americans thinking about a war that they don't often think about enough.
BLITZER: It's going to focus a lot of attention. And, you know, the next year is going to be critical -- the next six months, between now and the end of this year.
It's not very encouraging right now when you see what's happening. The Marjah offensive did not necessarily work out all that great. They've had to delay the Kandahar offensive, at least until the fall, ,because they weren't ready. There's a lot of lack of confidence in President Karzai's government right now.
So, it's not looking great. And if you read, as we discussed yesterday, that whole article in "Rolling Stone," it's not a pretty picture in Afghanistan right now.
SANCHEZ: Not at all.
Good stuff, Wolf.
Look forward to "THE SITUATION ROOM" today with Wolf Blitzer in just a little bit. And we're going to be right back with more. In fact, what we can expect now from General Petraeus is one of the questions that we're going to focus on when we come back right here on your list, your national conversation, RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Few people know David Petraeus like my next guest. Peter Mansoor, his last military assignment was as a colonel in General Petraeus's executive office in Iraq.
Peter, good to join us, sir. Thanks so much for being here. We appreciate your time.
COL. PETER MANSOOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, thank you for having me on.
SANCHEZ: Do you believe that after everything that General Petraeus has done, as busy as he has been with this last video we saw of him passing out and people around him saying he really is dead tired, that he really is the man to be able to handle this situation?
MANSOOR: Well, I think he is. And the reason is, if you don't want a general to go in and have to conduct yet another reassessment of the war, and provide yet more recommendations to the president, he's absolutely the right guy.
He's been in on the crafting of the strategy. He's endorsed -- go ahead.
SANCHEZ: But you would agree that he is one tired puppy? I mean, this guy has been asked over the last seven or eight years to do an awful lot for his country, and it seems he has done it all very well. But, you know, at what time does the well run dry?
MANSOOR: Well, he's been ridden pretty hard. The good news is that he is in great physical condition. He has really paid attention to his health.
And I believe that he'll be able to go into Afghanistan and do a great job. And what he needs is someone around him to make sure that he meters his energy level, and that's one of the things that I helped do during the surge.
SANCHEZ: You know what I want to ask you about? I'm a bit of a student of history. I don't have a Ph.D. in military history like you do, but I've always been fascinated by MacArthur and his ego and his comportment, and how he literally did things that may have caused men to die, because he really was, it seemed to me -- correct me if I'm wrong -- he truly was insubordinate.
The comparison to MacArthur with this latest case with the general is probably not apt, right?
MANSOOR: I don't think so. What General McChrystal did was not insubordinate, in my opinion. It was just rude. And he didn't do what General Petraeus says is the job number one of a commanding General, and that's to set the right tone. And he didn't set the right tone among his personal staff. He was incredibly ill served by the people around him, and as a result his bags are packed.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, and the president made that point as soon as he started talking today. He said, look, I'm not doing this because I have a difference in policy with him. I have a difference with his conduct.
That was totally different. MacArthur literally did what he wanted to do despite what he was being told by his superiors, right? Pushing north into the Chinese territory, or into North Korea, thumbing his nose at the Chinese, and eventually causing a lot of those guys to get killed by the Chinese.
MANSOOR: And threatening to use nuclear weapons when it wasn't national policy --
SANCHEZ: To boot.
MANSOOR: -- to do so. So, yes, I agree.
SANCHEZ: It's a different situation.
Do you believe that General Petraeus has everything that he needs now there in Afghanistan as far as the support from the troops to get this job done?
MANSOOR: I think the troops will welcome him warmly. They know he is a proven combat commander, he's got a proven record. He has their best interests at heart, and he understands the strategy. And he's going to be in it to win.
So, yes, I think the troops are going to accept it and they'll move on very quickly.
SANCHEZ: Peter Mansoor, who knows the general very well.
Thank you, sir, for taking time to join us today.
MANSOOR: My pleasure. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: All right.
Now to "THE SITUATION ROOM."
Before that, folks, do you want to wave?
We've got some guests here, as we do every day in the summer.
Here's what you need to say: "Now to Wolf Blitzer."
Give it to me. Ready? Go.
