Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Storm Over U.S. Ports At Senate Hearing; CBS Sues Howard Stern; Another Deadly Day In Iraq; Anna Nicole Smith At The Supreme Court; Future Of Weather-Proofing Your Home
Aired February 28, 2006 - 16:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's 5:00 p.m. here in Washington, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where news and information from around the world arrive at one place at the same time.
Happening now, the raging debate over U.S. -- the U.S. port deal heating up. Top Bush administration officials are sparring with senators. I'll speak with the Coast Guard admiral in charge of port security. And I'll ask Republican Senator John Warner why he hopes the port deal will eventually be a done deal.
It's 1:00 a.m. in Baghdad, where a bloody burst of violence is creating more bad blood between Shiites and Sunnis. Dozens are dead in a wake of -- in a wave of strikes today, including more attacks at Shiite mosques. Could this finally push Iraq into a civil war?
And it's a billion-dollar battle, a family feud between Anna Nicole Smith and her late husband's family. Who will get the lion's share of a vast estate? The highest court in the land is now a legal referee.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Attempts to quell a potential bipartisan rebellion, and the president drawing a line in the sand. There's a flurry of activity here in Washington today over the deal to allow a Middle Eastern company to manage six major U.S. ports.
We're on CNN "Security Watch."
Let's go to our congressional correspondent, Ed Henry. He's keeping track of all the late-breaking developments on Capitol Hill -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, from President Bush on down, Bush administration officials are really pushing back here on Capitol Hill defending this controversial port deal. In fact, right now, at a Senate Commerce Committee meeting hearing, various Bush officials are defending this deal, as well as we're hearing for the first time congressional testimony from Edward Bilkey, the chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, the company involved here.
Bilkey repeating what we heard earlier today from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, also here on the Hill, where he testified that despite these concerns raised in December by the Coast Guard, he believes the security aspects of this deal are sound, there are no concerns from Chertoff or Bilkey. They're saying this deal should go through.
But we're seeing a real split here on Capitol Hill among very senior Republicans. In one camp we see people like the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who earlier had concerns about this deal now saying he's growing more and more comfortable with this in the wake of the defense strategy from the White House. In the other camp we're seeing Republican senators like Olympia Snowe joining her colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, and saying she has deep concerns about this deal, not ready to sign on just yet.
Take a listen to Frist and Snowe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL FRIST (R,-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Then I began to do last year what some of the other members of the Senate can't do quite as easily, started having classified intelligence briefings, started talking to the Department of Homeland Security. Starting asking each of the cabinet members one by one through phone calls over the last several days what exactly went on in the process. Now, based on what I've heard today, it's made me much more comfortable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R), MAINE: What is troubling, Mr. Chairman, is the way in which this decision was arrived at. Both the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the director of National Intelligence undertook threat assessments simultaneously, including a Coast Guard report that was part of the DHS report. But it never rose to the highest levels of decision-making and leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Wolf, an interesting development just a few moments ago at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing. The chairman, Ted Stevens, asking some tough questions of Michael Jackson, the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, about whether or not he knew about this Coast Guard document that surfaced yesterday raising concerns about so-called intelligence gaps in this port deal.
Michael Jackson testifying he was not aware of this document before he signed off on the deal. And he added to the chairman that, in fact, he now wishes he had seen it before he signed off on it -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Was he asked about supposedly a Customs agency source of concern in addition to the Coast guard that Senator Schumer keeps hinting about?
HENRY: I have not seen Deputy Secretary Jackson asked about that. But you're right, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer today charged that he has anonymous sources who have told him that the Customs and Border agencies, basically there were officials there who also raised concerns that allegedly were ignored by the Department of Homeland Security. An official at that agency insisting they know of no document, they know of no officials who raised those concerns -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Ed Henry on Capitol Hill, watching the story for us. Ed, we'll get back to you. Thanks.
He's already threatened to veto any legislation that blocks the transaction. Now, despite all the scrutiny and political skirmishes, President Bush is making it clear where he stands. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My message to the Congress -- and I appreciate the fact that the companies concerned have asked Congress for a review of all of the security implications. Let me just make something clear to the American people. If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: We're going to have much more on the controversy over the port deal this hour. Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, he's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he'll be here in THE SITUATION ROOM to talk about why he hopes the deal can go forward.
We're also going to speak later in the hour with CNN's own Lou Dobbs about the vehement opposition he has to the deal.
Stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
This just in to CNN. There's word of a major lawsuit involving CBS and Howard Stern, the radio personality.
Ali Velshi, what are we picking up?
ALI VELSHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We just got this in from CBS Radio. Now, we had heard from Howard Stern earlier, so we knew this was coming.
CBS Radio has filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York against Howard Stern, his company, 112 Inc., his agent, Don Buchwald, and Sirius Satellite Radio. Now, according to the release from CBS Radio -- it's a 43-page complaint, we still want to get through it -- but the lawsuit is for compensatory and punitive damages, and they cite multiple breeches of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of CBS Radio broadcast time.
CBS further says in it's release that it seeks damage from Sirius Satellite Radio for unfair competition and for interference with Stern's CBS contract.
We are pursuing this, getting more information. I want to read through that complaint, get some reaction from Howard Stern. I'll get back to you with more on this -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks, Ali, very much.
CBS versus Howard Stern. We'll watch this story.
For our viewers, other news we're watching, including bad news in Iraq. Sectarian violence raging once again in Iraq after a very brief lull, with dozens of people killed in multiple attacks today.
CNN's Aneesh Raman is following the latest developments in Baghdad -- Aneesh.
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, a day after Baghdad emerged from extraordinary curfews as Iraqis were trying to go about their lives, a series of attacks rocked the capital, leaving dozens dead, scores wounded.
This morning, in the course of just about an hour, three explosions, including two car bombs and a suicide bomber who walked into a gas station, detonated among a crowd of people who were waiting to fill up their tanks.
Later, in the evening, a car bomb detonating in the neighborhood of Baghdad near a busy local market, as well as near a Shiite mosque. That attack killed at least 20. It took place in the same neighborhood where this morning a dawn attack took place on a Sunni mosque. There were no casualties given the time of the attack, but the mosque itself was severely damaged.
All of this as Iraq's government says the number of people killed since Wednesday's attack on that sacred Shia shrine is edging towards 400.
Saddam Hussein also was back in court today. The court resuming after two weeks off. A number of documents were presented by the prosecution, including documents that show Saddam signed execution orders of villagers from Dujail where he survived an assassination attempt back in July, 1992.
His two lead defense attorneys walked out after 10 minutes. The trial continued forward and is set to resume tomorrow -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Aneesh Raman in Baghdad.
Aneesh, thanks very much.
The nation's top intelligence official has a grim view of what would happen if Iraq falls into an all-out civil war. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, standing by with that story -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, officially, the Bush administration says Iraq is not in civil war, but as you say, top intelligence officials extremely worried. Indeed, in the last week, hundreds of Iraqis have died.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STARR (voice over): On Capitol Hill, an unusually frank assessment from two of the nation's top intelligence officers amid growing congressional concerns about the prospect for civil war in Iraq.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: If there was a civil war that broke out in Iraq, that the other regional powers would get involved, certainly Shia with Shia and Sunni with Sunni?
JOHN NEGROPONTE, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR: I think depending on the course of events, I think that may well be a temptation. You might see some kind of eruption of conflict between the Sunni and the Shia worlds, for example.
STARR: Behind the scenes, U.S. military intelligence is trying to identify militia and insurgent leaders who are sparking the unrest. But publicly, there are worries whether Iraq can overcome a divided society.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL MAPLES, DEFENSE INTEL. AGENCY: I do believe that this last week has been a very significant week in Iraq. The level of sectarian violence increased significantly on the ground based on the bombings of the mosque. And we saw exactly the deep divides that exist between the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq.
STARR: President Bush still saying U.S. troops will stay until Iraqis can defend their country.
BUSH: The choice is chaos or unity. The choice is a free society or a society dictated by the -- by evil people who will kill innocents.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STARR: Wolf, officially, U.S. troops are staying on the sidelines. In some cases, they are increasing their patrols with Iraqi forces, but they are trying to stay out of what they hope will not become a civil war -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Barbara Starr with the latest at the Pentagon. Thanks, Barbara.
Freeing an oppressed group of people from the brutal grip of a tyrant, President Bush has long used that as a rationale for the Iraq war. But three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's hope for a stable government are threatened by all of this sectarian violence.
And as CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield reports, that scenario is very familiar.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice over): In 1920, the British carved Iraq out of the dying Ottoman empire. They thought they would replace despotism with a new, enlightened nation. Instead, a nationalist revolt raged for a decade, killing some 100,000 people. Ultimately, the British retreated.
In Yugoslavia, Marshal Tito ruled as a dictator from World War II until his death in 1980. With that strongman gone, ancient enmity among Serbs, Croats and Muslims arose.
Slobodan Milosevic came to power, promising to avenge a 500-year- old military defeat. What followed was years of bloodshed, and tens of thousands died.
In Afghanistan, in the 1980s, covert aid from the United States helped the Mujehedin expel Soviet occupiers. A great Cold War victory, we thought.
And then, feuding factions turned on each other. The Taliban emerged triumphant, imposing a theocratic regime and providing safe haven for the work of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, with horrific consequences there and in the U.S.
And when Saddam Hussein was toppled by U.S. forces, the power vacuum was filled by feuding Shiites and Sunnis, two branches of Islam each claiming to be the legitimate heirs of the Prophet Mohammed, resuming a struggle that had gone on for nearly 1,400 years.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Jeff Greenfield reporting for us. Jeff Greenfield's our senior analyst.
Let's go up to New York once again. Jack Cafferty standing by -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, Americans have somewhat of a split personality when it comes to paying more for gasoline. In a "New York Times"-CBS News poll, 85 percent of those polled say they oppose a higher federal gasoline tax. Only 12 percent say they favor it. But a majority of people would actually go along with a tax hike in certain cases.
Fifty-five percent say they would support a tax increase if it reduced dependence on foreign oil. And 59 percent say they would support a tax increase if it reduced energy consumption and global warming.
So here's the question. Would you support a higher gas tax if it reduced global warming or dependence on foreign oil?
You can e-mail us your thoughts, CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile.
Greenfield says they have been fighting over there about this stuff for 1,400 years. I guess they're not probably going to stop by Saturday, you know.
BLITZER: I don't think so, Jack. Thanks.
Up ahead, the Coast Guard admiral in charge of port security, he's standing by. I'll ask him about the report being cited by critics of that controversial port deal.
Also, he met Osama bin Laden in prison. Now an Australian man convicted of ties to terror talk about his personal experience with al Qaeda.
And a former "Playboy" model gets her day in court. That would be the highest court in the nation, the United States Supreme Court. We're going to show you what Anna Nicole Smith is doing here in Washington.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Back now to our CNN "Security Watch" and our top story, the pending deal to hand over management of six major U.S. ports to a Middle Eastern company.
Today, the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, and the intelligence chief, John Negroponte, debated the wisdom of the deal with senators.
Let's get some details from our Justice correspondent, Kelli Arena -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, both Republicans and Democrats criticized the deal, claiming the government's initial approval of it was flawed. Now, today, they focused on yesterday's disclosure that the U.S. Coast Guard had raised concerns weeks ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice over): The Coast Guard insists its assessment of the proposed DP World deal was done early in the review process and in the end it was on board with the transaction.
REAR ADM. TOM GILMOUR, U.S. COAST GUARD: The conclusion that the coast guard came in this classified report was that DP World's acquisition of P&O in and of itself does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in the United States or its ports.
ARENA: Admiral Gilmour says several assurances were given to satisfy the Coast Guard's concern, which included questions about security operations, personnel, and foreign influence over the company. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff tried to convince lawmakers that those concerns were successfully dealt with.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: First of all, we will know any change in management or any change in personnel. We'll have the opportunity to check them against our watch lists or even require a more in-depth background check.
ARENA: Meanwhile, director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told Congress the DNI intelligence review green-lighted the deal, as well. NEGROPONTE: We assess that the threat to U.S. national security posed by DP World to be low. In other words -- and we didn't see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry.
ARENA: But he says that assessment was completed before the Coast Guard's, raising questions about why the intelligence community was not speaking with one voice.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: Certainly, if the Coast Guard is making an intelligence assessment after the DNI submits an intelligence assessment, we need to get this better focused.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: The Bush administration has agreed to a new 45-day review of the deal, but some lawmakers are not convinced that it won't be just a dog and pony show. Both Chertoff and Negroponte promised personal involvement in that process -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks, Kelli.
Kelli Arena reporting.
Critics say the Coast Guard report raises new important red flags. Coast Guard officials say it is being taken out of context.
For more now, we're joined here by Rear Admiral Craig Bone, the Coast Guard's director of port security.
Admiral, thanks very much for joining us.
Let's just be precise with what the concern -- that it was expressed in this interagency review by the Coast Guard. "There are many intelligence gaps," your report said, "concerning the potential for Dubai Ports World or P&O, the British company, assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger. The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities."
What are you talking about with these intelligence gaps?
REAR ADM. CRAIG BONE, U.S. COAST GUARD: Well, again, I think what you're -- what you have to do is put this into context. This report was developed months ago. And it...
BLITZER: This was in December.
BONE: Right. Well, actually, the early analysis even began before that timeframe. But...
BLITZER: But the date of this one was, what, December 12?
BONE: When you're talking about the report coming out. But the analysis is an ongoing analysis.
BLITZER: So when you talk about intelligence gaps, Admiral, what are you talking about?
BONE: Right. What we're talking about here is we're looking at both the operations itself and who is involved in the operations, which, again, we have gotten the assurances now from the company that we can look at those personnel and the operations. We've got visibility of the cargo as it moves through the system unlike we have anywhere else through those assurances.
And the other thing that we didn't have at the time was the other intelligence -- the other intelligence community assessment that you just heard that earlier. Although this came out...
BLITZER: But he said -- Ambassador Negroponte, he says that the intelligence assessment they had was done before these concerns were expressed by the Coast Guard.
BONE: Again, I think he's referring to the fact that they were put out into the press here in this last timeframe, in the last couple of days. I think, though, that what you are going to find is we are satisfied.
As we concluded in the report and as we've stated in the report, actually, at that time, that we did not believe -- at that time we continued to not believe that this DPW venture with P&O poses any significant threat to the national security of our ports.
BLITZER: Coast Guard will still remain in charge of security at these six ports. But listen to what Clark Kent Ervin, a former Homeland Security inspector general, CNN analyst, right now wrote in "The New York Times" a few days ago.
He said, "The Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators. They are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading."
Is he right?
BONE: Not completely. In most ports, in quite a few ports, you actually have a port authority who has responsibility for security.
Now, these individuals quite often do handle the cargo, and they are involved quite often with gate guards in the internal portions of the port operation. But I can tell you that we -- of the 3,200 port facilities -- and first off, we're talking about facilities, not the entire port itself, but the facilities themselves -- within those facilities we've had over 700 violations that we have issued as a result of that, 44 of which we have shut down operations at the facility or shut down cargo operations as a result of those violations.
So the idea that they are independently operating with no one monitoring their activity and these people are left to their own devices is a false sense. The other thing is...
BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt you on that point, Admiral. BONE: Sure.
BLITZER: So, Dubai Ports World, I assume they're going to hire and fire individuals who will work at these six ports in the United States. Does the Coast Guard get involved in helping them hire these individuals, making sure that they are not terrorists?
BONE: No. We don't have -- making sure they are not terrorists, yes.
BLITZER: How do you do that?
BONE: Because we're going to have visibility of the individuals themselves. The individuals...
BLITZER: Will do you background checks on these people they hire?
BONE: Well, first off, they have to come in with a visa.
BLITZER: Well, they can hire people here, too.
BONE: Well, and if the people are here, they have to be U.S. citizens. And yes, background checks will be conducted and can be conducted on those individuals.
BLITZER: By the Coast Guard?
BONE: Well, by the intelligence community as a whole. I wouldn't say necessarily by the Coast Guard alone.
BLITZER: Because who specifically will review the backgrounds of individuals hired by this United Arab Emirates firm?
BONE: I would say the Department of Homeland Security will carry out that function in cooperation with the intelligence community.
BLITZER: Can you tell the American people right now, Admiral, that you, as a representative of the United States Coast Guard, in charge of security at these ports, that you are absolutely, positively convinced that this deal represents absolutely no security threat to the American public?
BONE: OK. I think there's always a security threat. Threat is someone with intent or capability. And that can come from overseas, that can from inside the United States.
And so we have measures basically to address threat every day. There's no such thing as no threat.
BLITZER: But let's -- let me rephrase it, then. Can you assure the American public that the threat level will not increase as a result of this Dubai firm taking over the British firm's operations?
BONE: Yes, I can tell you that the measures that we have put into place will -- will assure that. BLITZER: Admiral, thanks very much for joining us. And good luck. I hope you're right.
BONE: Thank you.
BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.
And stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Coming up, on the controversial port deal, we're going to have more. Will the deal ever sail in? After the break I'll speak one on one with Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. He's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He's been holding hearings on this and other issues today.
And in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, what's a former member of the Taliban -- yes, the Taliban -- doing at Yale? We'll tell you why the student says he could have been a terror detainee at Guantanamo Bay but instead landed a position at one of the nation's most prestigious universities. Our Mary Snow has been in New Haven checking this story out.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: More now on the ports deal. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Virginia Republican John Warner, says the initial review process was flawed, but he supports the new 45-day review and he hopes the deal can be completed.
Senator Warner is here in THE SITUATION ROOM. He joins us now live.
Senator, you had a busy day today. Thanks for coming in to THE SITUATION ROOM.
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Delighted. This is important.
BLITZER: This is very important. Let's talk about ports now.
First of all, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, is very outspoken. He thinks this deal is not only flawed but potentially very dangerous.
"There's concerns among Republicans," he said, "that I have spoken to that the administration has not taken the investigation seriously. They want to have a real investigation, a very intense investigation."
How concerned are you right now that the administration didn't do its job to begin with?
WARNER: I said there was some flaws, we should have had sort of a stop-check so Congress would have been informed. I mean, it was so apparent.
BLITZER: Nobody consulted with you?
WARNER: No, none.
BLITZER: Isn't that shocking?
WARNER: Well, it's not shocking. Mind you, this process rolls on all of the time, case after case after case.
But that doesn't excuse the fact that someone should have seen, now, wait a minute, I think this is something Congress should not be part of the CFIUS process but speak to. So that's number one.
BLITZER: It wasn't only that you weren't consulted. They apparently didn't even consult with their own cabinet secretaries or the president.
WARNER: Right. Wolf, that's behind us. And in the next 45 days, we can look at what went wrong and try to bring back some fixes in the law if it's necessary.
We have got to keep our eye on looking forward. This nation is a vital partner in the war on terrorism.
BLITZER: Which nation?
WARNER: UAE.
BLITZER: United Arab Emirates.
WARNER: You bet, as is Qatar, which is next door, as is Bahrain, as is Kuwait.
And if we do not treat this nation fairly -- firmly, but fairly, then it could have repercussions all across those Arab nations which are helping us fight the war on terrorism. More of our ships docked and off-load and on-load...
BLITZER: But...
WARNER: ... in UAE than any other port.
BLITZER: But you know, Senator, because I know you have been to all those places.
WARNER: Yes.
BLITZER: I have been to all those places. I know the vulnerabilities that they have.
And, as much as they are cooperating with the United States and doing the U.S. a favor, if you will, it is in their best interests...
WARNER: It's in their interests.
BLITZER: ... to have those aircraft carriers, those ships...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... visit their ports. It strengthens them against their enemies in the region.
WARNER: You are absolutely right.
So, we're in it together. Now along comes this company. It's doing business in 30 nations throughout the world. Why would they put $6.8 billion in this investment, 10 percent of it here in the United States in six ports, and invoke or bring about or allow any other practice that currently is done wherever it is in the world to protect against terrorism as it relates to the containers and shipping?
BLITZER: The...
WARNER: It's not in their interests.
BLITZER: The way the administration handled it so far has resulted in these horrible numbers in a CBS poll that came out.
Should the UAE company operate U.S. ports? Twenty-one percent of the American people say yes. Seventy percent, including a majority of those who describe themselves as Republicans, say no. The administration has got an -- an enormous uphill struggle to convince the American people this is a good deal.
WARNER: And, Wolf, so do I. My phone is off the hook. They are very disappointed in the position I'm taking, in saying, in the interest of national security, this transaction ought to be treated fairly and objectively.
I fought, along with Senator Frist, to get the 45 days. We have got it. I actually met, at their invitation, with the company officials late into Saturday night, looked at the agreement, made a suggestion or two. And it is in place now. It is going forward.
So, America ought to sit back and say, all right, Congress, show us that this deal is in our security interests. And I'm prepared, no matter what the cost, to try and protect this deal from being treated unfairly; thereby, we can anticipate these Arab nations would pull back, if we don't treat them fairly. And, hopefully, this thing can go forward.
BLITZER: Let's...
WARNER: The president has made the right decision.
BLITZER: Let's talk about Iraq. You had...
WARNER: Yes.
BLITZER: ... hearings today, important hearings.
In the past hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the ranking Democrat on your committee, the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, was here. And he said this. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: What he publicly states is too rosy a scenario. It's too glowing. And it's -- it's not reflective of what the reality is or what our uniformed military people tell us, which is a little significantly gloomier than what Negroponte talks about in public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He is referring to the defense intelligence -- the intelligence chief, John Negroponte, who...
WARNER: Yes. He...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... who gave a relatively, he thought, overly optimistic assessment.
WARNER: Well, Carl Levin is a good partner.
We worked together. We sat side by side. I judged that Negroponte was very pragmatic and described the situation as he saw it. The next thing was General Maples, who is in charge of all the military intelligence. He, likewise -- both of them said, this situation is serious. It is fragile. And it is a need for this new government, newly elected in the December elections, to take hold and begin to run that country.
We liberated that country. Now we say to the Iraqi citizens, it is yours. It is your responsibility to protect it against internal strife, as well as external. We're there to help, but you have got to carry the burden of the fight.
BLITZER: No one loves the American armed forces as much as you do.
How worried are you that the 130,000-plus U.S. troops in Iraq right now could find themselves in the midst of a very bloody civil war?
WARNER: We have to look at that possibility.
Prudent planning, I'm certain, is going on. And I have discussed this with the Pentagon. They have got their orders as to what to do. Number one, we should not subject the American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in that civil war.
The Iraqi troops, which we have trained, there's 100 battalions now. Over half of those battalions are able to go into a fight and lead in that fight, with some continuing support from us, but take the lead, take the brunt.
And the true test -- and I put that very question to General Maples this morning -- if there is a situation that is tantamount to this civil war, will they fight? And the general who has been there and understands it said, they will fight. And they will fight to protect their country and try and keep this newly elected government in power.
BLITZER: Let's hope it works out.
Senator Warner, thanks for coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.
WARNER: You bet.
BLITZER: Good luck to you.
WARNER: Thank you.
BLITZER: And coming up here, we're following a developing story on Howard Stern -- one of America's biggest media companies filing a lawsuit against the shock jock -- Ali Velshi standing by with new details.
And, in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, the "New York Times" calls him the Taliban spin doctor. So, how does he wind up at Yale? That would be Yale University. It's a story you won't want to miss.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: It's not a case you see every day -- on one side, a celebrity who is a former famous -- very famous former stripper and a "Playboy" pinup -- on the other side, the family of a Texas oil tycoon -- in the middle, United States Supreme Court justices.
CNN's Brian Todd joining us from the Supreme Court now with what has happened today -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, like many other cases here, there were some very impressive technical arguments inside the chambers, but it was the petitioner herself who gave this event its drawing power.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice-over): She usually greets reporters with a flourish, but, outside the Supreme Court, Anna Nicole Smith looked flustered.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anna!
TODD: Inside, nine justices, who may not have kept tabs on her tabloid past, seemed to know every detail of her legal problems.
JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: This is not a case of the justices celebrity- shopping. This is a serious case. And Anna Nicole Smith is going to change the face of the law in this area.
TODD: Not bad for a stripper-turned-"Playboy"-model-turned- reality-TV-star.
Smith, who for this case is going by her legal name, Vickie Lynn Marshall, has been fighting for a decade to claim part of the fortune of her late husband, Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall. She was 26 when they married. He was 89.
ANNA NICOLE SMITH, WIDOW OF J. HOWARD MARSHALL: He wanted me to have it. And I will fight until the end.
TODD: The Supreme Court will determine which court has final say, a Texas state court that ruled Marshall's son, Pierce, was the sole heir, or a bankruptcy court, which sided with Smith.
The justices seemed sympathetic to Smith and her lawyers' argument that Marshall's son tampered with documents to block Smith from the money.
KENT RICHLAND, ATTORNEY FOR ANNA NICOLE SMITH: There was an effort to make a gift to Ms. Marshall. And it was that gift that was interfered with.
TODD: Pierce Marshall denies wrongdoing, and counters, his dad meant the inheritance for him long before the old man met Smith in a strip club.
ERIC BRUNSTAD, ATTORNEY FOR E. PIERCE MARSHALL: She says she just wants the money. The problem is that the money, again, under the estate plan, was designated to go to persons other than her.
TODD: Still, it's not clear how any of these arguments will bear on the court's ruling over who has jurisdiction.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: And the court should make that ruling by late June. Where is the money now? Well, neither side has it. It is tied up in escrow, while the lawyers fight it out -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Brian Todd, reporting from the Supreme Court, thanks.
Still to come, will Howard Stern wind up in court as well? We're following a developing story right now -- Ali Velshi standing by with details. We will go to him when we come back.
Plus, our own Lou Dobbs, he will join us in THE SITUATION ROOM to talk about the latest developments in that controversial port deal.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's a court case coming in from Florida.
Let's go to CNN's Zain Verjee at the CNN Center. She has got details.
What are we picking up, Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: We are learning of an important and interesting ruling, Wolf.
A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. government acted unreasonably, when it decided to send home 15 Cubans who basically made it to this bridge. It's an old abandoned bridge. It's known as the Old Seven Mile Bridge.
And the federal government basically made a case, saying, look, they have to be sent back, because, essentially, they were not on U.S. soil. Now, the federal government has been ordered by a U.S. district judge to make the best attempt it possibly can to repatriate and bring back these 15 Cubans who were sent back to Cuban.
Just for background, under U.S. government policy, if you are a Cuban, and you reach U.S. soil, you basically are allowed to stay in the United States. But if you are stopped at sea, you have to go back.
And what happened in this case is that the group was not stopped at sea -- everybody agrees on that -- but the U.S. government saying that this bridge doesn't actually count as dry land, because chunks of the bridge, as you see there in that picture, are missing, and it no longer connects to U.S. soil -- Wolf.
BLITZER: We will continue to watch this, Zain. Thanks very much.
Lou Dobbs getting ready for his program that begins right at the top of the hour.
Lou, what are you working on today?
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, thank you.
Coming up at 6:00 here on CNN, we will have, of course, all of the day's news. Also tonight, deep splits in the Republican Party over the Dubai ports deal -- my guest tonight, the powerful Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman, Senator Susan Collins.
I will also be talking with James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute. He says, critics of this port deal are nothing less than ethnic bigots.
And, as President Bush's approval rating plummets to the lowest level of his presidency, I will be joined by three of the country's top political analysts.
All of that, a great deal more, coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN. Please join us -- back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Lou, before I let you go, we just heard the admiral of the Coast Guard in charge of port security say -- and I asked him if he could tell the American people right now that there would be no significant increase in risk as a result of this Dubai company taking over from the British company in port operations at these six ports -- he said he could reassure the American public no increased risk.
DOBBS: Yes.
Well, I will tell you what. I want to -- I'm among those Americans who want to see a full review of this. We have had the assurances of the CFIUS committee. I will be more comfortable to hear what the U.S. Congress does with this.
And, so, I guess the short answer is, it is not a Dubai company. It is a Dubai government-owned company, and that is quite a different matter, and it is part of the equation here that has to be explored, period.
BLITZER: Lou is going to have a lot more on this story coming up in a few minutes on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT," beginning right at the top of the hour.
Lou, thanks very much.
Up ahead, we will have more on a developing story we're following -- Howard Stern being sued by his old employer. That would be CBS -- Ali Velshi standing by with details of the lawsuit that was just filed.
And would you support a higher gas tax if it reduced global warming or dependence on foreign oil? It's our question of the hour. Jack Cafferty is standing by with your e-mail.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's go back to Ali Velshi. He has got the "Bottom Line" on a developing story involving Howard Stern, the shock jock.
What are you getting, Ali?
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: I have got 45 pages -- 43 pages of a complaint that's been filed by CBS Radio, which was formally Infinity Broadcasting, here in New York at the Supreme Court.
It has been filed against Howard Stern, his agent, his company, and Sirius Satellite Radio. And it is lengthy, but it goes kind of like this, that -- and I -- you will excuse me for reading a little bit, to get this right.
But Howard Stern made his deal to go to Sirius Satellite Radio while he was still working at CBS News. And it is pretty much known to everybody that he was promoting his move to Sirius Satellite Radio while he worked for CBS. CBS says, as a result of that, Sirius met some subscriber targets that it wanted to meet, and Howard Stern got a big, big payout in January of this year, some 34 million shares.
They are saying that he got that payout and Sirius got those customers on CBS Radio's time, and they weren't compensated for it. I'm still working through the contract, through the deal and the -- and the lawsuit. I will get more to you as I get more on it myself -- Wolf. BLITZER: Ali, we will be watching. Thanks very much -- Ali Velshi reporting.
America Online got some mail today, a lot of angry e-mail over its new plan to introduce its new so-called pay-to-send service for large commercial companies. Could a new certified e-mail system prevent you from getting some of your most precious e-mail?
Our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton, following this story -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, at issue here is this certified e-mail.
This is kind of like certified mail. You might see something like in -- appear in your inbox soon, with a special seal. It means it has come from a company that has paid to send that e-mail. AOL, like CNN, a Time Warner company, has teamed up with Goodmail Systems. This is the Internet company developing this paid-for e-mail system.
Yahoo is also going to be offering it on a more limited basis. Now, AOL's move has drawn some criticism from a diverse group of companies today, organizations like MoveOn.org that send a lot of e- mails to their members, also the Gun Owners of America.
All these groups have teamed up to launch this new site, DearAOL.com. They have got an online petition trying to stop what they are calling an e-mail tax. At issue, they say they are worried that their e-mails will not get delivered if they don't pay. AOL insists that will not happen. This is just a way to give their customers peace of mind -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Abbi, thanks very much.
Let's go back to New York and Jack Cafferty -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Eighty-five percent of Americans say they oppose a higher federal gasoline tax, according to a new poll, but a majority of people actually would go along with a higher tax if certain cases were met, if, for example, it reduced global warming or our dependence on foreign oil.
So, the question we're asking is that. Would you support a higher gas tax if it reduced global warming or our dependence on foreign oil?
Rosemary in New York: "I'm from the Midwest. Plant more corn, sell more ethanol. Get rid of the gas tank altogether."
Joe in Dallas: "Of course I would support a gas tax, but only if there was some type of guaranteed oversight of where that money was going. I don't want to contribute to someone's idiotic bridge to nowhere."
Alex in Lancaster, PA: "If the last year hadn't been so outrageously costly with gas prices, I would have supported the higher tax. The problem is, I also need to eat. Too little, too late for a higher gas tax to save the Earth I would rather buy a sandwich and walk."
Mary in Asheville, North Carolina: "Jack, I would support a 'windfall profit tax' on all the oil companies, as the middle class in country is already 'taxed to death.'"
Mark in Chicago: "I would pay the tax if it was made 100 percent clear to me how the funds would be 100 percent directed to the alternative energy R&D efforts under way at places like the DOE and Johnson Controls."
And, finally, Spencer writes from Toronto: "I'm Canadian, but, if I lived in the U.S., I would support a higher gas tax. It's about time America threw off its dependence on foreign oil, and it's about time the U.S. take a stand to stop global warming."
Hey, Spencer, you don't live in the U.S., so butt out. I'm just kidding.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: We like our Canadian viewers. We like them a lot.
CAFFERTY: We have a bunch of them, too.
BLITZER: I know. They are good people up in Canada.
Thanks very much, Jack. See you in the next hour, 7:00 p.m. Eastern, back in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Up next, though, building a better home -- we are going to show you what the future may hold for folks who live in hurricane country.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: This Mardi Gras, some are partying in New Orleans. Others have the big challenge of trying to rebuild their homes and their neighborhoods, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
CNN's Miles O'Brien shows us the future of weather-proofing your home.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL, HOMEOWNER: We could rebuild our house. It would look exactly the same, but we don't want to do that.
I have lived in this area of New Orleans my whole life. My wife and I bought this house in 1999. And this was going to be where we were going to raise our kids. Basically, we had to throw away everything we owned. It's a horrible thing for anyone to have to go through. I never expected, in my life, that I would have to go through something like this. And I never, ever want to go through it again.
So, when I rebuild, I want to rebuild with that in mind, so that I'm not subjected to this happening to me again.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hurricane Katrina tested construction materials and techniques in unprecedented ways. But, in the future, Michael, and others like him, will find some new ways to withstand nature's fury.
(voice-over): Bob Hill is with the National Association of Homebuilders. He tests new building materials, from foundation to rooftop, to make sure they can stand up to Mother Nature.
Hill's team conducts moisture tests on plywood, simulates the force of high winds on walls, even mimics flying hurricane debris. Among the new ideas, impact-resistant film for windows, drywall that is less likely to harbor mold and fungus, and homes with highly reinforced safe rooms, where occupants could take refuge in a storm.
BOB HILL, DIRECTOR OF LABORATORY AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS: I'm confident that, when properly installed, the products that we test, they will certainly improve the damage-resistance of the house.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: We are back in THE SITUATION ROOM in one hour.
Coming up, what is a former member of the Taliban doing at Yale, one of America's most prestigious universities? Mary Snow has been looking into that.
I'm Wolf Blitzer.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
