Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Bush And Homeland Security Chief Briefed Before Katrina; Bush In New Delhi To Open Talks With India's Prime Minister; Explosive New Charges In Ports Controversy; Bill Pits Church Against State; Howard Dean Interview; Justice Alito Sends Letter of Thanks to Religious Right Leader; Advances In Technology To Keep Soldiers Safe
Aired March 01, 2006 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And to our viewers, you're now in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you the day's top stories.
Happening now, early warnings about Hurricane Katrina, and they were caught on tape. Confidential video just obtained shows the president of the United States and his top aides in a dramatic and sometimes agonizing briefing. Did they ignore the alarm bells? We have the video in hand right now, and you're about to see it here.
Also this hour, the president overseas in a surprise trip to Afghanistan. We're going to take you to the front lines of the war on terror to protest lives in India. It's 5:30 a.m. Thursday in New Delhi, and we're live with the president.
And a new bombshell in the battle over port security. It's 7:00 p.m. here in Washington where a powerful Republican has let loose with new and very serious charges against the president. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Tonight, a potential new embarrassment for the Bush administration still trying to recover from its slow response to Hurricane Katrina. A confidential video obtained by the Associated Press is now public. It shows the president and his homeland security chief being briefed by videoconference the day before the storm hit six months ago.
We have a team of correspondents standing by to cover the striking new developments. Our Dana Bash is with us. Jeanne Meserve is with us. Let's start with CNN's Tom Foreman with the overview.
What exactly have we learned, Tom?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, what we're learning is more of the same, but that matters in this case. There's been a slow case building against the White House and Homeland Security from the beginning, principally because they said from the beginning, "Nobody knew what was coming. Nobody could have foreseen the failure of the levee. Nobody could have foreseen all these people stranded."
This videotape obtained by AP points out that, yes, they had more warning, which we've known before in print. But we're now seeing it ourselves. Specifically, I want to look at what the president says on this tape right before the storm hits. This is the assurance that he is giving to disaster managers all throughout the region in this private conference. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property. And we pray for no loss of life, of course.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: Now, the question is, exactly why and how could they make that assurance when there's evidence on these tapes, and we've heard before, he was being warned, and so was the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff.
Specifically, look at this tape, where Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the guy who lost this job over this, was specifically talking about problems of not being able to get everyone out of New Orleans, and saying this could be a problem right after the storm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BROWN, FORMER FEMA DIRECTOR: I believe I also heard there's no mandatory -- evacuations are not taking place (INAUDIBLE) prisoners out of prisons, and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: What this really is, Wolf, is visual confirmation of things we've known all along, which is that the administration was told explicitly what was coming despite the fact they denied it later on -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Is the Associated Press explaining how they got a hold of this very sensitive video, internal deliberations on the eve just before Hurricane Katrina struck, showing the president in what were thought to be secure teleconferences?
FOREMAN: Not explaining it yet, Wolf. And obviously, there are going to be a lot of questions about that because there are so many questions about security everywhere these days.
BLITZER: All right. Let's bring in our homeland security correspondent Jeanne Meserve.
Jeanne, you've had a chance to digest what this is a little bit. Give us some perspective.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I talked tonight to Andy Lester. Andy is the attorney for Michael Brown, the former FEMA chief, who, as Tom mentioned, lost his job over this incident. His reaction was this to the transcripts and the tape: "It shows that Michael Brown was sounding the alarm, was talking to the White House, was talking to DHS. He was repeatedly saying' Move things forward. Push the envelope. Jump over the envelope.'
Michael Brown the only person who has lost his job over this. He has said in front of a congressional committee that he feels that he was made the scapegoat in this affair. And he has said that he did not report directly to Michael Chertoff during this aftermath of Katrina because he felt it was a waste of time.
Now, Michael Chertoff has said that he feels that was willful insubordination. And other officials at the Department of Homeland Security have said that Brown's failure to report through the department was one reason why the department didn't have clarity on exactly what was happening in New Orleans.
Again, Andy Lester, Michael Brown's attorney, saying tonight, "These transcripts shows that contrary to some allegations made by some people in the department that Michael Brown was making sure that his superiors were fully informed. It is simply untrue that he was not."
We also spoke to the Department of Homeland Security to get their reaction. A spokesman said to us that after all the hearings under oath, after all of the documents that have been provided, there is nothing new or insightful here, referring to the tapes and the documents.
BLITZER: All right, Jeanne. Thanks very much.
Let's bring in our White House correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, what are they saying at the White House?
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, essentially what they're saying is that the video that we now see is a snapshot. And that is one specific briefing that the president was engaged in. And they say he was engaged in a lot of different briefings.
What you saw there was from August 28th. Yes, perhaps he didn't ask any specific questions in that briefing. But they do point out at that the president also come in and said that he had had earlier briefings in the day from Max Mayfield.
The other thing that they're doing is they're pointing to some new information, or at least maybe a new illustration, that they say backs up their point that they've been making for a very long time, including last week when they released their Katrina report.
They say that the president was fully engaged. And they point to a quote that I'll read you from August 29th from a briefing at 12:00 noon. And it's quoting Michael Brown, the then-FEMA director.
And he says, quote, "I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford, and then again on Air Force One. He remains very, very interested in the situation. He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had questions about the dome. He's asking about reports of breaches. He's asking about hospitals. He's very engaged. And he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ask."
He goes on to say, "I say that only because I want everyone to recognize and know and appreciate of everybody here of how serious the situation remains." So what the White House is essentially saying is, "Look at that particular quote," that you have Michael Brown himself saying the president was engaged.
So perhaps in the piece of video that we showed, Mr. Bush wasn't asking questions. But they insist he was asking questions. But again, to speak to the bigger point that Tom Foreman made, this, in the big picture, does perhaps prove what we already knew, that the federal officials who were involved from the president on down perhaps were essentially engaged, but essentially didn't necessarily have a clue, as nobody had, what was coming, or what they really, really needed to deal with this situation.
BLITZER: And this picture we see from this video, Dana -- the president, he's in that conference room over at the Crawford ranch where he was on this teleconference from?
BASH: Yes. It's August 28th. The president -- it was a Sunday before the hurricane hit. And the president was in Crawford that day. And he did engage in this particular briefing from Crawford. And that was the same day that Mr. Bush came out for the first time in public and talked about this, and talked about the need for people in these areas to evacuate. That was the same day.
BLITZER: All right. Thanks, Dana, very much.
Let's bring in our Anderson Cooper. He's on the scene for us in New Orleans right. Give us a little flavor. Six months after Hurricane Katrina, what's the mood over there, Anderson, as far as the president of the United States is concerned, the response, the federal government's response, to Hurricane Katrina?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, certainly, Wolf, a lot of people here feel that they have been abandoned really from the -- even before this storm in those hours and days right before. These revelations that we just learned today, this information released to the Associated Press I think is only going to confirm a lot of those feelings.
People here had heard the president saying days after Katrina struck that this was unprecedented and unpredictable and that no one really expected the levees to fail as they did or to be breached or to overtop. That certainly seems not to have been the case. There was plenty of prediction of that, plenty of anticipation of that. And now we know quite detailed discussion of that.
I think it's going to only add to sort of the sense that some people here have of failures, not just at the local and the state level, but certainly today the focus really being on the failures at the federal level. And I think there's a lot of frustration and anger that people really haven't stepped up and just admitted what they did wrong and admitted the mistakes that they made. I think a lot of people here feel that it's very human to make mistakes, and it's fine if people didn't anticipate the storm. But there's no reason not to just stand up and say that.
You know, a lot of people here are concerned about with what happens when the hurricane season starts less than 100 days from now. Could the same thing happen again? And unless the mistakes of the past are admitted and owned up to and repaired and fixed, it very easily could happen again here. At least that's what a lot of people here will tell me.
BLITZER: You know, questions that I've been getting in email, the federal government, plus all the private contributions, tens of billions of dollars have been sent into that Gulf Coast region in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Yet people still feel abandoned and neglected. There seems to be a disconnect there, Anderson. What's going on?
COOPER: Well, you know, there's the abandonment and neglect that happened in the immediate aftermath of the storm in those first several weeks. That's one set of issues. The other set of issues is what continues to go on now. Repeatedly, people here -- I mean, everyone has some sort of story about them waiting for a trailer that has yet to arrive.
You know, tens of thousands of trailers have been requested. Only a fraction of the requests have actually been filled. Only a fraction of the trailers have actually showed up. You know, just today, there were police officers being evicted from one of the ships that they had been living on for the last several months.
So a lot of money has been pouring in here, and people are very appreciative of that, there's no doubt about it. But the needs are so great, Wolf. And you see that on the streets in these neighborhoods, and there's no clear plan yet on what or when or how places are going to get rebuilt.
BLITZER: Anderson is going to have a lot more on this story coming up, 10:00 p.m. Eastern, "ANDERSON COOPER 360" on the scene in New Orleans. Anderson, thanks very much. Dana, thanks to you. Jeanne Meserve, Tom Foreman as well.
Let's bring in Jack Cafferty now with "The Cafferty File". He's got a question on this subject -- Jack?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Wolf. So in the end, the administration apparently knew quite a bit more than they let on about Katrina. In fact, a lot more, according to this AP story. They were told before the storm ever made landfall that the levees in New Orleans probably wouldn't hold.
And yet, the president said in an interview several days after Katrina that they had no idea the levees wouldn't hold. Michael Brown expressed concern about the Superdome, pointing out it was below sea level, wondering whether the roof would hold during a category four or five storm. And yet, thousands of people were put in there anyway. Fortunately, the roof did hold.
Nevertheless, more than 1,000 people died in Katrina. How many of those lives could have been saved if the government had been paying better attention before the storm? We'll never know. But if it's even just one, it's a national disgrace.
We're better than that. Or we used to be. Maybe we're not anymore. Here's the question, how damaging is the new Katrina video for the Bush administration? You can email us at caffertyfile@CNN.com, or you can go to CNN.com/caffertyfile.
BLITZER: Jack, thanks very much. And we're going to have more on this story coming up throughout this hour.
We'll move to India right now, though. Building anger at the United States. Protesters gearing up for new demonstrations against President Bush on his first trip to the world's largest democracy. Mr. Bush is in New Delhi about to open talks with India's prime minister.
Hours earlier, the president effectively upstaged his own arrival in India by making a surprise stop in Afghanistan beforehand. Our White House correspondent Elaine Quijano is traveling with the president. She's joining us now live from New Delhi -- Elaine?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Wolf. Afghanistan was certainly not on the president's official schedule. But, you know, rumors about a possibly visit there have been circulating for weeks. And up until the very end, White House officials, though, were keeping it quiet.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUIJANO: A short time after takeoff from a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One we were not heading to India, but instead making a stop in Afghanistan for President Bush's first ever visit to that country. It was a 20-minute chopper ride to Kabul and the presidential palace, where Mr. Bush pledged his support for Afghan president Hamid Karzai and his government.
BUSH: We're impressed by the progress that your country's making, Mr. President. A lot of it has to do with your leadership.
QUIJANO: Mr. Bush also said he was confident Osama bin Laden and Taliban Mullah Omar would be brought to justice.
BUSH: It's not a matter of if they're captured and brought to justice, it's when they're brought to justice.
QUIJANO: Later, the president officially opened the new embassy in Kabul. And at Bagram, he told hundreds of cheering U.S. and coalition troops the United States will not cut and run. BUSH: I assure you that this government of yours will not blink, we will not yield. We're on the right course, and the world is going to be a better place because of your service.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUIJANO: Now, aides say that President Bush has been saying he's wanted to go to Afghanistan for some time, and actually signed off on it about eight weeks early. That's when the White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin first approached the president and Andy Card, the chief of staff, about the idea. The president, of course, agreeing to do it then -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Elaine Quijano on the seat for us in New Delhi. Elaine, good work. Thanks very much.
Coming up, explosive new charges tonight in the ports controversy from a key Republican congressman. We're going to have the details of his concerns about possible ties to terror.
Also, the Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean joins us here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We'll talk about the port controversy, the midterm elections, and more.
Plus, a controversial new bill aimed at illegal immigration. We're going to show you how it's pitting church against state. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In our CNN security watch tonight, explosive new charges in the port security controversy. And they come from a powerful Republican, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Our correspondents Mary Snow are standing by. Mary Snow is in New York, Ed Henry is here in Washington.
Ed, let's start with you.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Congressman Peter King is declaring to CNN that contrary to various Bush administration claims, the initial review of this port deal did not, in fact, probe whether D.P. World has ties to terrorism.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Republican Peter King alleges when the controversy first broke, he spoke to officials at the Treasury and Homeland Security departments involved in approving the deal.
REP. PETER KING (R-NY), CHAIRMAN OF HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: I started asking them question about, "Did you check the al Qaeda questions of the companies? Is there anyone there before 9/11 who's still there now who could pose a problem?" And I was told, "Congressman, you don't understand. We don't conduct a thorough investigation. We just asked the intelligence director if there was anything on file. And he said no." HENRY: When pressed on Bush administration claims that there was a thorough review of security implications of the deal, King responded sharply.
KING: They should be educating themselves. They should doing the investigation that they should have done during the first days when there should have been an automatic 45-day investigation. Now, I can't emphasize enough, there's been no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Now, Congressman King right now is meeting behind closed doors in a classified briefing with various Bush officials, demanding answers to some of these questions he's raising. We've already spoken to the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. We understand his office is being represented in this classified briefing.
They say they cannot publicly respond to Congressman King's charges because his assessment of this deal in terms of security is classified. But they point to Negroponte's testimony on the Hill this week where he said, number one, there were no red flags in his assessment in terms of security. And number two, he's prepared to answer any other questions that come up during the new 45-day review, Wolf?
BLITZER: And we'll standby to hear what Congressman King might say after he emerges from that closed hearing. Thanks very much for that, Ed.
There's another factor in the ports controversy that some say should be enough to derail the deal. That would be the United Arab Emirates and its policy of supporting the Arab boycott against Washington's close ally, Israel. CNN's Mary Snow is in New York. She's covering this part of the story -- Mary?
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, because of that boycott, at least one major Jewish organization in the U.S. is calling on the administration to scuttle the ports deal. It also joins other critics who have been challenging the administration.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: The latest objection over the Dubai Ports World deal, who the company doesn't do business with. It is own by Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, which supports an economic ban on Israel. Anti- Defamation leader Abe Foxman says that alone should, in his words, torpedo the deal that would allow the Arab company to operate six U.S. ports.
ABE FOXMAN, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: At this stage of the game, to reward an Arab company who still maintains and continues to discriminate against a friend and ally of the United States would be inappropriate and hypocritical.
SNOW: At the State Department, more questions about the ports deal.
ADAM ERELI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Obviously, the United States wants to see the boycott against Israel dropped completely by everybody. And that's our position. We want to see that. We are working toward that, frankly, with the government of the UAE.
SNOW: Currently, Israel has ties with two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan. And has on-again, off-again relations with nations like Qatar. Just how sensitive the issue is could be seen on Capitol Hill Tuesday when a Dubai Ports World executive was grilled about Dubai's role in the boycott.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: I asked you if they respect the boycott, yes or no. Do they support and respect the boycott? Say it again.
EDWARD BILKEY, COO, DUBAI PORTS WORLD: I would imagine they would.
BOXER: Dubai Ports World's chief operating officer points out that his company deals with Israel.
BILKEY: The largest Israeli shipping company is one of our largest clients. We serve everyone in many of our terminals around the world.
SNOW: Despite the boycott controversy, there are ways to save the deal.
JOEL MOWBRAY, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What this comes down to is how much the administration wants this deal to happen. Because there are ways that they could have Dubai Ports World reshaped, restructured in order to be compliant with the law, but still largely intact.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: Now, the company D.P. World is trying to distinguish itself from the government of the UAE, which supports the boycott. The company's chief officer pointed has pointed out that D.P. world lists Israeli shipping company Zim (ph) as one of its largest clients -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Mary Snow, thanks very much. And not only that, they say Zim is a close client, and they see the emir of the United Arab Emirates, the emir in Dubai, supports their policy of having that kind of relationship, even though the UAE formally sets economic boycott against Israel. A complicated story. One we're going to be pursuing over the next several days. And stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Still to come here in THE SITUATION ROOM, church-state showdown over tough new legislation aimed at illegal immigrants. We're going to tell you why an American cardinal now says he's prepared to break the law and will order his priests to do the same thing.
Plus, Howard Dean. My interview with the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He's going to join us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: My interview with Howard Dean, that's coming up.
But let's check some other news we're following. A bill targeting illegal immigration is pitting church against state. And it's drawing the attention of one of the top Roman Catholic officials in this country. CNN's Peter Viles joining us now live from Los Angeles. He has this story -- Peter.
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, that official is Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, leader of 5 million Catholics and the biggest diocese in the United States. The message he put out today on Ash Wednesday, quote, "justice for immigrants."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: On Ash Wednesday, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles spoke in defense of illegal immigrants.
CARDINAL ROGER MAHONEY, LOS ANGELES: The bishops are asking all of us across the country to enter into prayer and special fasting, remembering and recalling our own immigrant roots to make sure that we don't slam the door in the faces of those who are here.
VILES: Mahoney also defended giving charity to those here illegally.
MAHONEY: We must be able to minister to people regardless of how they got here. People come to our catholic charities. We need to be able to administer to these people in the name of Christ.
VILES: At issue, a House-passed bill that states in part whoever assists, encourages, directs or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States shall be punished.
TOD TAMBERG, ARCHDIOCESE SPOKESMAN: It would criminalize humanitarian gestures like giving a sandwich to a starving person if that person happened to be undocumented. And it could even intrude inside the doors of the church.
VILES: Those who favor the House bill say it would crack down on the business of smuggling illegal aliens and anyone who knowingly harbors them.
IRA MEHLMAN, FEDERATION FOR IMMIGRANT REFORM: You have certain institutions that have provided shelter, knowingly help people to get into this country illegally, remain here illegally. And no institution, even religious institutions, are above the law.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: Wolf, one important point on this. Cardinal Mahoney certainly out front on thus, but he is not alone. This was an effort today of the entire Catholic Church across America, 195 diocese, this message coming down to 60 Catholics across America today, Wolf.
BLITZER: Peter, thanks very much. Peter Viles in L.A.
There's been a bipartisan uproar over the Dubai port deal, but top Democrats as yet another opening -- a potential opening, at least -- to try to take down the Bush administration with congressional elections looming and a wide-open presidential race two years away.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And joining us now is the chairman of the Democratic Party, the former governor of the Vermont, Howard Dean. Governor, thanks very much for joining us.
HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Thanks for having me on, Wolf.
BLITZER: Let's talk several subjects. Ports first. The Dubai port deal, specifically. The president says this represents no threat to U.S. national security. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Let me 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 endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you believe him?
BUSH: I think there's probably no doubt in his mind. The problem is, he hasn't gotten the information from his own administration. The Coast Guard raised the issue shortly before this deal was done and said, "We can't guarantee security here." So once again, the president doesn't seem to be in touch with folks who are in his own administration who are telling him something, and he's doing the opposite.
BLITZER: He acknowledges that he wasn't informed as the committee, the interagency committee, was reviewing it. But since then, he has been briefed on what's going on. In fact, the Coast Guard now, the admiral who's in charge of port security, was here in THE SITUATION ROOM yesterday. And despite some earlier misgiving, they say they have been reassured. Listen to this exchange with Rear Admiral Craig Bone. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Can 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?
REAR ADM. CRAIG BONE, COAST GUARD: Yes, I can tell you that the measures that we put into place will assure that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And he's a professional. He's not a political operative or anything. He's the guy in charge of port security for the Coast Guard.
DEAN: Here's my concern about this, Wolf. First of all, I'm not sure that any foreign company-controlled government (sic) ought to be -- government-controlled foreign entity ought to be controlling our ports. The Chinese government controls Long Beach in Los Angeles. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't ...
BLITZER: Eighty percent of the port operations in the United States are controlled by foreign companies.
DEAN: Yeah, but you know what? The ports aren't secure. The ports are not secure.
BLITZER: But that's the responsibility of the Coast Guard, the Customs Agency. The U.S. government is supposed to be in charge of security. They just handle the cargo.
DEAN: Well, there's another issue we're going to come to in a minute. But in terms of the safety, why would we let a foreign government control our access to our ports?
BLITZER: This has been going on for the past 20 or 30 years. The U.S. has basically stopped operating the ports and outsourced it to foreign companies.
DEAN: But that might not be such a good thing. For example, who is checking on the containers that are coming into this country? We know that 95 percent of them come in uninspected. Who is -- you know, who's checking on ...
BLITZER: The government's supposed to do that.
DEAN: Yes, they are supposed to do that. They're a miserable failure. We have not been -- the ports have not been secured since this administration sort of supposedly cranked everybody up on 9/11.
Here's the other point. In the case of Dubai, I believe that the United Arab Emirates is an ally in the war on terror for most of the time. But the fact is, this company boycotts one of our most important allies, which is Israel.
BLITZER: They denied that. I spoke to Ted Bilkey, who is the chief operating officer for Dubai Ports World. He was right here in THE SITUATION ROOM. He says they've had a long-standing relationship with Zim, the major Israeli shipping line. And the chairman of Zim is a good friend, and they've been dealing them with them for a long time.
DEAN: What was reported ...
BLITZER: He said the emir of the United Arab Emirates, of Dubai itself, knows about this relationship and supports it.
DEAN: Well, maybe it would be a good thing, then, to clear all this up, if the United Arab Emirates would recognize the state of Israel.
BLITZER: They don't have relations with Israel, but underneath the surface, apparently, there are some dealings that the Israelis have with the UAE.
DEAN: But the other -- you know, perhaps we ought to get this straightened out before we rush right into this. I mean, I absolutely think that we need to wait for 45 days and find out if this really works for us or not. And I absolutely think that there is a big question about whether we should let any foreign government-owned company, whether it's Chinese or whether it's Europe -- United Arab Emirates or whatever it is. I think there's a real question about why we outsource our security to other countries.
BLITZER: But the British -- the British, which own this P&O, you wouldn't have even been happy with that, even though that was a privately-owned British company.
DEAN: It was a privately-owned British company. I don't think that's so good, either. I really -- look, when security is at hand -- we can outsource a lot of things. Security should not be one of them.
BLITZER: Here is what Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee -- he was here yesterday in THE SITUATION ROOM, as well -- what he says would happen if the United States were to end this deal with Dubai Ports World right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R) VIRGINIA: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: That's the argument that they make, that the United States is looking for friends in the Arab world, in the Muslim world. The United Arab Emirates is a friend. It's a major port that the U.S. has in Dubai, access to. And if the U.S. were now to cut them off, it would send a very negative message.
DEAN: I'm not looking to hold Dubai to a different standard than any other country. I simply question whether we ought to be outsourcing our own security. That's what this is. We do not have control over our ports. I did not know that a British company controlled our ports. I did not know until I was on the West Coast week that a Chinese company controlled access to Long Beach in Los Angeles. I don't think that's a good idea.
I think we ought to -- look, globalization is all great and all that stuff. Globalization of our security -- you know, our security is our country's security. It seems to me that the basic bottom line is here that we probably ought not to be outsourcing our security in our ports.
BLITZER: Let's talk about the war in Iraq right now. Listen to what the vice president, Dick Cheney, said yesterday, because he seemed to be taking direct aim at you. Listen to this.
DEAN: I doubt it, but ...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some have suggested this war is not winnable, and a few seem almost eager to conclude that the struggle is already lost. They are wrong. The only way to lose this fight is to quit, and quitting is not an option.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: I said he seemed to be taking direct aim at you because you had been quoted as saying the war was not winnable.
DEAN: Well, I don't think the war is winnable under this leadership. This is a leadership that has made the biggest mess, not just of this war, but of our security in general. Here we are, five years into the presidency of George W. Bush. The North Koreans still have nuclear weapons, the Iranians are about to get them. Our troops are sent into battle without adequate body armor. Our ports are not secure, and now we find that they're being run under the jurisdiction of other countries.
What is this administration? Karl Rove thinks that security is going to be the issue? It's going to be the issue, all right. It's going to be the issue that elects Democrats. These people cannot figure out how to defend America in a reasonable way. And I think the American people are sick of this. And you've seen the polls as well as I have.
BLITZER: The Democratic Party, though, seems to be all over the place, from John Murtha saying a phased withdrawal is important, to Joe Lieberman, who said the other day this: "In my opinion, we are better off with Saddam Hussein gone, and we now have an opportunity to build within Iraq a self-governing, modernizing country that will really provide an alternative in the Arab world to the hatred and suicidal death that al Qaeda offers." The Democrats don't speak with one voice by any means.
DEAN: You're always going to get some outliers. I think everybody would agree that we're better off that Saddam has gone, but certainly not safer. But Joe is out there, with supporting the president. I think most Democrats -- and Chuck Hagel sometimes supports us. You're always going to get a few people in each party that are with the other side, and that's fine.
The truth is, there is something approaching consensus in the Democratic side. There's not a lot of difference between Joe Biden and Jack Murtha. There may be some difference on timing, but the -- we know we have to leave Iraq. We know we can't stay there. We know this president's idea of staying there forever or whatever it was that Dick Cheney said -- we've heard that in Vietnam. We're not going to make the same mistake twice.
The truth of the matter is, you cannot have a permanent commitment to a failed strategy. This president never had a strategy to win in Iraq.
Let me remind you and the audience: Donald Rumsfeld's testimony before the Congress that said the Iraqi oil was going to pay for all this -- here we are, $400 billion added to our deficit, because that wasn't true; that General Shinseki testified that we needed more troops, but this administration ignored him.
These folks did not know what they were getting into. They did not think about it. We're in it now. We've got to make the best of it. But we do not need to make our brave troops sitting ducks, which is what the president of the United States has done.
BLITZER: You say national security is going to be a winning issue for Democrats. Evan Bayh, who himself is a Democrat, senator from Indiana, former governor, thinking about running for president, said this -- he said, "I think there's a certain element of denial about how we" -- the Democratic party -- "are viewed, perhaps incorrectly, but viewed nonetheless by many Americans as being deficient on national security. Frankly, our fellow citizens have doubts about us. We have work to do."
DEAN: I think that's less true now than it was. I read that speech. It was a very good speech, and there were some lines in there that were really important, talking about the Republican deficiencies on defense. So the truth is -- you've seen the polls. You know that for the first time, Americans now believe that Democrats are more likely to succeed in defending America than Republicans are.
This has been one enormous mistake after another in this administration. Part of defending America is to maintain our moral leadership in the world. This president hasn't done that, either.
BLITZER: A lot of Democratic strategists, though, feel frustrated that the Democrats have not been able to capitalize on the failures that they perceive of this administration. Barack Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes."
DEAN: I await the positive message from the Hill. I absolutely agree with that. But I actually that in -- although, in all due respect to Senator Obama, who I am a huge fan of -- we are getting it together with a message. Our message is very clear.
We want honesty and integrity back in our government again. We want a national security -- a tough, strong national security policy, but one that relies on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies. We want a health care system that works for everybody, like 36 other countries have. We want American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence as a new industry to generate them. And we want a strong public education system to give us opportunity and optimism back in America. I think that's a good place to start.
BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple little political questions while I have you. Cash on hand for the Democratic Party as of January 1st, 2006: $5.5 million for the DNC; $34 million for the RNC. What happened to all that Democratic money?
DEAN: We're rebuilding the party. We've raised 20 percent more than we ever have before in an off year. We've got 200 operatives right now in every state in the country. And we've won four special elections in a row in Mississippi, seven out of eight in New Hampshire. First African-American mayor in Mobile, Alabama. We now have the mayorship in the largest county -- a million people -- in Utah. We're starting to win in states that used to be core Republican states.
If you want to build this party, you've got to invest the money to do it, and that's what I'm doing.
BLITZER: Senator Clinton of New York says Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, is obsessed with her. Do you think he is?
DEAN: I have no idea. I try to stay away from Karl Rove's thinking. It's gotten the president in a lot of trouble, and so I don't have any comment on what Karl Rove has to say.
BLITZER: One final question: there is a book that's out there that suggests the president thought the Osama bin Laden tape that emerged a couple days before the presidential election in 2004 helped him get re-elected. Do you think it did?
DEAN: You know, I don't -- that's political inside-the-beltway gossip. I don't pay any attention to that. I'm a straight-ahead guy. I want to win in 2006, and I think we can take back the House, quite possible the Senate, and I think we can take five or seven governorships back. That's what I'm focussed on.
The American people deserve a different kind of leadership than they're getting now, and I aim to have the Democratic Party provide that leadership.
BLITZER: Governor Dean, thanks for coming in to THE SITUATION ROOM.
DEAN: Thank you. It was my pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Up ahead, a Supreme Court justice sends a letter to an outspoken conservative after his confirmation. It might not sound like a huge deal, that is until you mention the names Samuel Alito and James Dobson of the group Focus on the Family in the same sentence. We're going live to the Supreme Court for details. That's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has many people to thank for supporting his appointment. One of them is a controversial conservative. CNN's Brian Todd is joining us from the Supreme Court with details -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, a thank you letter to the Reverend James Dobson was made public today by Reverend Dobson himself. Reverend James Dobson is the head of Focus on the Family, a very conservative group out of Colorado. Reverend Dobson is also a religious broadcaster. He made public the contents of this letter today.
Now, the letter, as reported by the Associated Press, reads in part, "My headgates thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months." He's talking about confirmation. "I would greatly appreciate it if you convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me they were praying for me and for my family during this period."
According to the A.P., the letter goes on to say, quote, "I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me." And he also says, "I hope we have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future." That's Justice Alito expressing that sentiment to the Reverend James Dobson.
Contacted by CNN, a spokeswomen for the Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the letter. But she also said that Alito sent scores of letters, all of which contained about the same tone to other supporters and to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that the letters expressed no political view.
Several court watchers have also told us that letters like this one do not violate any judicial ethics. Tonight it has created a political tempest. The group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have called this letter, quote, grossly inappropriate.
The Reverend Barry Lynn issued a statement on his own, saying, quote, "Justice Alito should follow the commands of the Constitution, not the orders of Dobson and the religious right. This note strongly suggest that Alito is carrying out a right wing agenda instead of being a justice for all." That from the group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
It's important to note Alito was confirmed in January by a Senate vote of 48-52. During his confirmation hearings in the fall, Democrats had questioned whether he was too conservative. In the end, they did accept his credentials, Wolf?
BLITZER: Brian Todd at the Supreme Court. Thank you very much.
Let's get some more now on this Samuel Alito letter. Let's bring in our Internet report Jacki Schechner.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Focus on the Family has a Web site. You can go online and hear that radio broadcast. This is James Dobson reading from that letter from his own voice. It helps to skip ahead to about 17 minutes in this recording. That's exactly where he reads from this letter himself.
As for reaction online, it's early, but we're seeing it come in as Brian mentioned from au.org calling it grossly inappropriate. Some of the liberal bloggers questioning weather or not it's even ethical. But a lot of people are simply not surprised. Comments rolling in saying, what did you expect? Wolf.
BLITZER: Jacki, thanks very much. Just ahead on THE SITUATION ROOM, more on the early warnings of Hurricane Katrina obtained in that newly acquired video. Jack Cafferty is taking your e-mail. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: This just coming into CNN right now. In Oklahoma, crews are battling wildfires in several locations across the state. You're looking at these live pictures right now. A state-wide burn ban is now in effect. Low humidity, high winds and drought conditions are fueling the fires.
More than 2,300 wildfires have charred more than 500,000 acres of Oklahoma since November. Look at those pictures. It looks like the state, at least a good chunk of it, is on fire. We'll watch this story and get more on CNN. In the meantime, Ali Velshi is off today. Let's check in with Zain at the CNN center in Atlanta for a quick check of the bottom line. Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, the U.S. government is more than tripling the supply of drugs that would be used to treat a possible bird flu pandemic. Right now the U.S. has enough drugs to treat about five and a half million people, but an order placed today would cover an additional 14 million people. The Bush administration eventually wants to stockpile enough anti-viral drugs to treat a quarter of the U.S. population.
Northwest Airlines reached a tentative agreement with flight attendants today that could avert a strike. But Northwest failed to reach new contract terms with the pilots, and a judge is to decide whether the airline can just toss out the contract and impose its own terms. Northwest says that the deal with flight attendants basically involves a pay cut. The union says management backed down on using more foreign flight attendants on overseas flights -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much.
Up ahead, our question of the hour, concerning our top story of the hour. How damaging is the new Hurricane Katrina video for the Bush administration? Jack Cafferty with your e-mail right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Let's get right to Jack in New York -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Startling new video from the Associated Press show the federal disaster officials warning President Bush before Hurricane Katrina ever made land just how bad the storm could be, that it could breach the levees, it could put lives at risk in the Superdome.
The question is how damaging is this new Katrina video for the Bush administration?
Ingrid in Zachary, Louisiana, where the storm ravaged the coastline: "Hopefully this video will be as damaging to President Bush as was the missing gap in the Watergate tapes."
Larry in Sibley, Iowa: "Jack, the real question is, does the Bush administration care if it's damaging?"
Jim, in Brighton, Michigan: "The blatant lies, callous disregard for the security and safety of New Orleans and our borders should only spell one thing, impeachment."
Kathy writes, "the video will have no impact. After it leaves the Rove talking points spin machine, Bush will give himself the Medal of Freedom. Heck of a job, W!"
Tom in Florida: "It might only convince the remaining 34 percent of Americans what the rest of us already know."
And Jason writes, "stick a fork in it, it's done. Only Bush could take a disaster of biblical proportions and make it worse" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jack, see you tomorrow, thanks very much.
Still ahead, protecting U.S. troops in the future -- cutting-edge technologies that could keep those who serve our country safer. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: This week, CNN is looking at the future of security. Today, CNN's Miles O'Brien shows us the future of security for our troops, ideas to keep them safer on the battlefield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had to train over 900 Iraqis in combat. But we'd like to do this work with fewer American lives at risk.
Pretty much you have to drive everywhere in Iraq. We did probably several hundred convoys in these thin-skinned pickup trucks. In the time I was there, we had about a half a dozen killed and 43 wounded.
Unmanned convoys would reduce casualties entirely, but we still have a long ways to go, particularly when it comes to convoys and IED defense.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, have been blamed for more than 700 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. But what if we could put robots in harm's way instead?
(voice-over): Scott Myers is an executive with General Dynamics, a company that specializes in unmanned warfare.
SCOTT MYERS, PRESIDENT, GENERAL DYNAMICS ROBOTIC SYSTEMS: I believe that the way we operate right in the military, it will be completely different 15 years from now due to robotic technology.
O'BRIEN: Right now, the unmanned vehicle is not entirely autonomous. It uses sensors as well as commands from a man-lead vehicle to avoid obstacles and navigate rugged terrain.
But if all goes well, Myers says this could one day lead to completely unmanned convoys. But don't look for robotic soldiers anytime soon.
MYERS: We consider these robots as really co-combatants, and not that we're replacing the soldiers, but they can be more effective and do their job safely.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security. That's it for us. Don't forget, we're here in THE SITUATION ROOM weekdays 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Eastern, as well as 7:00 p.m. Eastern.
Until tomorrow, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. Let's head up to New York. Paula Zahn is standing by.
Hi, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
