Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Two Sealed Indictments Handed to Duke Lacrosse Players in Rape Case; Poll Shows Congress Approval at Lowest Point since 1994; Bolten Suggests Staff Changes Coming at White House
Aired April 17, 2006 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much. And to our viewers you are 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 today's top stories.
Happening now, the Bush White House is on notice. New staff changes may be coming. It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington where the new chief of staff is urging some people to leave sooner rather than later. What's Josh Bolten planning and can it help the president's embattled team regroup.
Also this hour, retired U.S. generals keep battling over Donald Rumsfeld. Why is the president still standing behind his defense secretary. We'll examine the political pros and cons of showing Rumsfeld the door.
And Jerry Falwell versus Rudy Giuliani. The reverend is taking a stand against the Republican presidential prospect. We're tracking the former New York mayor's chances in a race for the White House.
I'm Wolf Blitzer, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
We're going to begin with a developing story out of Durham, North Carolina, Duke University specifically. Word of some possible indictments involving members of the Duke University Lacrosse team. Let's bring in our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin. He's watching the story. He's on the phone with us. Jeff, what do we know so far.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I'm relying on Jason Carroll. Jason Carroll was reporting that there are apparently two sealed indictments. It's pretty unusual to proceed by sealed indictment in a case where all the suspects are known to the public and they are not flight risks.
But I think the important point to remember is that at this point there is a lot we don't know about the evidence and about the facts of this case. Apparently, according to Jason, this case is going to be a criminal case.
BLITZER: Let's bring Jason in. He'll update our viewers who may just be tuning in on what he has learned. What do we know, Jason.
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this is according to a source that I spoke to today just a little while ago. He says that it is his belief that two sealed indictments were in fact submitted today. He says at this point it is his belief it's just the district attorney, the judge who preceded over this particular matter as well as the two attorneys representing the players are the only ones who know who the players are.
I asked him what the next legal course of action would be. He said it is his belief that the next order of action will be an order of arrest would be issued. If that is happening, he said the next thing that we should await to hear would be the arrest actually happening.
He also made a point of telling me that the two attorneys who represent what are believed to be the players called him asking him for advice late this afternoon. Wolf, this happening just a few moments ago.
An interesting point was brought up about how unusual this has been to have sealed indictments. It has upset the attorneys representing the players so much they actually considered having all 46 players show up here this morning, here at the courthouse, to make it clear to the district attorney that all of these young men are willing to cooperate. They scratched that plan for safety reasons but that definitely was a plan that was under consideration that was being discussed over the weekend.
Again, it is this sources belief that two sealed indictments were in fact submitted today.
BLITZER: The source you have, Jason, is saying the sealed indictments actually involve two players from the Duke University Lacrosse team. Is that right?
CARROLL: That is absolutely correct. It is his belief that they are two players from the Duke University Lacrosse team. He also made it clear that two lawyers, which are believed to be be representing the two players, actually called him fearing they are the two and seeking his advice.
In another point about some of the fear that has been existing with some of these players, some of these players were so concerned not knowing who would be two that would be indicted they have been running around all weekend getting their passports together, because, you know, Wolf once you're arrested you have to submit your passport. You have to and that over. Getting money together. Getting character letters together, letters of support saying they have got good character, getting ready to present that to the judge.
They have been very busy all weekend long getting all these things together thinking that today would be the day they would finally know, finally would be made clear to them and yet we still have this little bit of uncertainty because, again, as the source is telling me the two indictments were in fact sealed, which is why we didn't see their names on the list of the 81 that were handed down by the grand jury today.
Those 81 people who were indicted today, their names weren't on the list. We're thinking why aren't the names of any of the lacrosse players on the list. Either the grand jury didn't indict any of them or perhaps the proceeding ended up being sealed. This one source telling us that's in fact what happened. The two indictments were sealed which means they are not made to be public information.
BLITZER: Those 81 other indictments had nothing to do with the Duke University investigation that has been continuing. Let me bring in our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin. It sounds very suspicious, very unusual that the prosecutors in this particular case, if they are going to indict two players, would do it with sealed indictments but explain what their rational might be.
TOOBIN: The usual reason for a sealed indictment is the police and prosecutors want to arrest someone before they know they are indicted. If they know they are indicted they might flee the area. Here it seems unlikely any of the 46 were certainly well known on the Duke campus could flee or would flee anywhere.
I want to emphasize I don't know what the prosecutor is thinking and I think the business about sealed indictments is likely to be not terribly significant in the long run. It will probably be unsealed in the next day or so. Everyone will know who has been charged. They will be brought in for an arraignment. Bail will be set and the case will begin. I'm a little puzzled about the sealed indictments, but I think in the long run it's not likely to be very significant.
BLITZER: Hold on a second, Jeff. Jason, only last week some of the attorneys, the defense attorneys representing some of the players, were saying that the initial DNA evidence that came back showed that there was no DNA linking any of the players to this woman who has made the complaint. Has there been any change on that front?
CARROLL: No change at all that we're aware of. That fact still stands that it is their belief none of the DNA, according to the test results that came back, matched any of the players with this young woman.
Another point, Jeff was talking about how unusual this is. That's exactly what the defense attorneys were saying and in fact some of them even tell me that they offered the district attorney, they made an offer to him saying, look, anyone you choose to indict we would be more than happy to have them turn themselves into you. The district attorney, according to the defense attorney we spoke to, turned that offer down saying, no thanks. I'm not interested in you doing that.
BLITZER: What about the other point, Jeff Toobin. The fact if we can believe the defense attorney that there was no DNA evidence linking the players to this incident involving this woman, what does that say about the potential case that a prosecutor might have against these two players who now reportedly have been indicted under seal?
Jeff, are you there?
TOOBIN: Can you hear me?
I heard your question, Wolf. The question we don't know the answer to is did the DNA test positively identify someone else besides the 46. Where, if that's true, I can't imagine a case would go forward. Or were the results simply ambiguous. There was no DNA tie to anyone? In that case, which seems much more likely given the charges in the case, yes it makes the prosecution's case somewhat more difficult, but our prisons are full people who have been convicted of rape without DNA evidence.
There can be eyewitness identification. There can be admissions. There are all sorts of ways of proving a rape case without DNA. Sure, it's helpful but the absence of DNA does not mean a case could did not go forward.
BLITZER: The other point that came out last week, the suggestion, the allegation, by one of the police officers on the scene that this woman who makes the complaint of rape actually was drunk at the time. That's obviously going to be something that the prosecution potentially can have a problem with.
TOOBIN: That's potentially a problem, especially if as is likely the alleged victim is a key witness in the case, but it also bears mentioning that drunk women are frequently raped. In fact, that's an often scenario and that doesn't mean that the prosecutors can't bring the case. It is potentially a matter of proof that makes life more difficult for the prosecution but by no means does it suggest that there can't be a case here.
Unfortunately, drunk women are often the victims of rape. It makes a case more difficult. By no means does it make it impossible.
BLITZER: All right, Jeff Toobin, thanks very much. Jason Carroll on the scene for us. We're going to continue to watch this story and bring our viewers more information as we get it.
Just to recap, Jason Carroll reporting, based on a source in Durham, North Carolina. Two sealed indictments have been issued in connection with the rape case at Duke University. Two sealed indictments involving, according to this report, involving two of the players from the Duke University lacrosse team. We'll watch the story, get more information as it becomes available.
Let's move on now to some brand new red flags for the president and his party. A new Gallup poll out today shows Mr. Bush's job approval rating back down to an all-time low of 36 percent in the Gallup poll. And look at this, just 23 percent of Americans now approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job. That's the lowest level since 1994, just before the upset midterm election that gave Republicans control of both chambers of Congress.
With the White House on shaky political ground there's a new possibility of some pink slips coming up today, as well. The new White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten is beginning his first full week on the job by giving a heads up that personnel changes may be in the works. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appears to be staying put. Today his allies are pressing on with their push back against retired generals, six of them, who have been calling for his resignation. Our Candy Crowley and Bill Schneider are standing by. Let's go to our Suzanne Malveaux at the White House for a complete update -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, two and a half years is really a relatively short period of time for President Bush to get anything done. That is what his White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan conceded today.
It's also why his new Chief of Staff Josh Bolten is moving quickly, that is sooner as opposed to later, in getting a new team in place, whatever that team may look like. Bolten today offering members of the Bush team, the staff, a graceful way out before he makes possible changes.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice over): White House staff changes are on the way.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Josh has hit the ground running as chief of staff.
MALVEAUX: Josh Bolten, the president's new chief of staff, told senior advisers in his first closed door Monday morning meeting...
MCCLELLAN: If you are thinking about leaving sometime in the near future now would be a good time to do it.
MALVEAUX: Because Bolten said in the weeks ahead he will be making personnel changes to refresh and reenergize the president's team, using his first seven to 10 days on the job to evaluate how to improve White House operations. Some Republican strategists and Bush administration officials say Bolten is specifically focusing on White House communication and legislative affairs.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked whether he had any plans to leave.
MCCLELLAN: Look, I never speculate about personal matters.
MALVEAUX: But the White House is talking about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Breaking with tradition to remain mum on the issue, the president interrupted his Easter holiday to put out a statement, saying "he has my full support." White House aides insist despite calls for Rumsfeld to resign now coming from six retired generals Rumsfeld is here to stay.
MCCLELLAN: What the president did on Friday was make a strong statement reiterating his full support for Secretary Rumsfeld.
MALVEAUX: But speculation continues to swirl around the fate of Treasury Secretary John Snow. He appeared by the president's side today as he has over the past several weeks to deliver good economic numbers but has failed to get the kind of robust public endorsement Mr. Bush offered his defense secretary. McClellan says Bolten's first priority will be to fill positions that are already vacant including his old job as director of the Office of Management and Budget and that of domestic policy adviser held by Claude Allen, who resigned in February.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: Now, Wolf, it's unclear just how extensive these personnel changes will be. But Bolten said that he's going to put his stamp on things -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne thank you very much.
And we're going to get to Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley shortly, but I want to bring Jack Cafferty in right now. Another week, another set of questions.
Jack, how you doing?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good, Wolf.
It's about Rumsfeld. The chatter about whether he should stay or go, resign, be fired, continue. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former one, says it's a bad idea for these retired generals to criticize Rumsfeld. This is General Richard Myers. He defended Rumsfeld in an interview with ABC News yesterday.
Myers, the highest ranking military officer during Operation Iraqi Freedom, says that the criticism of Rumsfeld is in appropriate. Of course six retired generals are calling for him to resign over the war in Iraq.
The question is, is it inappropriate for retired military officers to call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation? And you know the address, so write to me and tell me what you think -- Wolf.
BLITZER: CaffertyFile@CNN.com or CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- just in case some of our viewers or newcomers, Jack, may have forgotten.
CAFFERTY: Thank you, Wolf, for doing my housekeeping.
BLITZER: Thank you.
CAFFERTY: Appreciate it.
BLITZER: And coming up, we'll have more on Rumsfeld, the politics, the poll numbers coming out today. Also, a deadly day in Israel. A suicide bombing in Tel Aviv brings conflicting responses from some Palestinian leaders. Zain Verjee is standing by with the details.
Plus, more on the defense of the defense secretary. The White House and the Pentagon stand up for Donald Rumsfeld. We'll talk to our Candy Crowley and Bill Schneider. They have got some new information, as well. Plus, how low can they go? The approval rating for Congress sinking even lower. What does that mean come November? I'll ask James Carville and J.C. Watts. That's coming up in our "Strategy Session" this hour. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Getting some new information coming into our Zain Verjee. She is back from a couple weeks off.
Good to have you back, Zain. What are you picking up?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, a former Florida professor, Sam Al-Arian, has pled guilty to conspiracy to raise funds for a terror organization. He has essentially agreed to be deported under a plea deal. That's a deal that's been approved by a U.S. district court judge in Tampa. He was a prominent Palestinian rights activist.
Now basically under this deal he has pled guilty to receiving funds and making contributions to the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad that has been designated a terrorist organization in the United States. The charge carries a maximum of five years in jail, but the Justice Department, Wolf, is saying that because of the time he's already served following his 2003 indictment, he's actually only expected to serve a few more months before he's deported.
The formal sentencing is going to happen on the first of May, and it is not clear exactly where he'll go. But we'll bring you more details when we get them.
To Iraq now where carnage, chaos and conflicting reactions today or to Israel now after a suicide bombing occurred in Tel Aviv. The attack killed the bomber and nine other people. Palestinian leaders are responding with conflicting remarks. The Hamas-led government saying that the attack was justified. While Palestinian authority President Mahmoud Abbas condemns the attack.
Meanwhile the White House had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCLELLAN: We condemn the terrorist attack today in Tel Aviv in the strongest possible terms. It's a despicable act of terrorism for which no excuse or justification is possible. We express our condolences to those who were injured, to the families of those who were killed and to the people in government of Israel. The burden of responsibility for preventing terrorist attacks, such as this one, rests with the Palestinian Authority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VERJEE: Now to Iraq, violence in Baghdad kills four people today. In one incident a civilian was killed and three others were hurt when a roadside bomb exploded near an army patrol. In another incident, three civilians died amid fighting between Iraqi security forces and insurgents at a police station in northern Baghdad. Meanwhile four U.S. Marines were killed over the weekend in Iraq. Now, that brings the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the war began to 2,376. Wolf?
BLITZER: Zain, thank you very much. Moving on back to politics here in Washington. As the violence continues in Iraq, President Bush insists Donald Rumsfeld is the right man to lead the Pentagon during some very challenging times. But Mr. Bush no doubt has additional reasons for standing behind his defense secretary. Let's bring in our senior political analyst Bill Schneider, he's watching this story. Bill?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, why is the White House closing ranks behind Donald Rumsfeld? Stubbornness, unwillingness to admit a mistake or is there a more political reason?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): For the past four and a half months, President Bush has been pursuing a political strategy on Iraq. The president said in December...
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We'll accept nothing less than complete victory.
SCHNEIDER: And in February...
BUSH: This country has one option and that's victory in Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: And this month...
BUSH: Victory is necessary and victory will be achieved.
SCHNEIDER: It's all based on a political reality: Americans do not want to fight an unwinnable war, not in Vietnam 40 years ago, not in Iraq now.
This month, 58 percent of the public said they thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq. But 58 percent also believed the U.S. is likely to succeed in Iraq. People still think the war is winnable. Rumsfeld's removal would undermine that argument and reinforce the view that the military has lost confidence in the administration's policy.
GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET.), FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER: Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission.
MAJ. GEN. PAUL EATON (RET.), U.S. ARMY: What I've got a problem with is a number of decisions that the secretary of defense made and I think that we need to change him out so that we don't repeat it in the future.
SCHNEIDER: So President Bush issued a statement praising Rumsfeld for relying on military advice about, quote, "how best to complete these missions."
MCCLELLAN: The secretary has led the Department of Defense during two wars. Wars that resulted in the liberation of 25 million people in Afghanistan and 25 million people in Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: The message is, Rumsfeld knows how to win.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: The perception that Iraq is degenerating into a civil war creates a huge problem for the Bush administration. Another country's civil war? That's the very definition of a war the U.S. cannot win. Wolf?
BLITZER: Bill, let's talk a little bit about these new Gallup poll numbers just out today. As far as the president's job approval rating, 36 percent approve. Now that's a record low. It ties the record low in the Gallup poll for President Bush five weeks ago. It was also at 36 percent but over the weeks since then it went up a little bit, but now it's back down to 36 percent.
And if you take a look at the approval rating for the GOP-led Congress, it's at a record low right now. Now, that's not the number we want to show. There's another number in the Gallup poll that shows that it's in the mid twenties right now, that's at 23 percent is the job approval number in this Gallup poll for the Republican-led Congress.
It hasn't been that bad for an incumbent party in Congress since 1994 when the Democrats lost in that mid-term election. I guess the bottom line is, over these past four or five weeks, the president has gone out, delivered numerous speeches, had town hall meetings. He doesn't seem to be able to turn things around at least in the short term. How bad is this for the administration and the Republican Party right now?
SCHNEIDER: Well it's clearly bad for Bush and the administration. But remember, he's not on the ballot. He can't run anymore. Members of Congress are on the ballot. That's why those congressional numbers are particularly bad news, 23 percent approval of the job Congress is doing.
They are on the ballot. That's the lowest figure since 1994, the last time we had a revolution in a congressional vote. What that suggests is the mood is building not just against President Bush, but there's a throw the bums out kind of mood based on corruption stories coming out of Congress and on the perception based on a lot of reality that this Congress is not doing very much. That mood could be very damaging for the Republican majority over and above people's feelings about the president.
BLITZER: All right, Bill, thank you very much -- Bill Schneider reporting for us.
Congressional Republicans clearly have reason to feel anxious in this midterm election year. And the uproar over Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq war isn't helping them rest any easier. Let's bring in our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley. Candy?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, midway through spring recess, Congress is scattered across the country and beyond leaving the president largely by himself defending his defense secretary. But if the past is pro-logged, this is not a fight Republicans want to join any way.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): Democrats got as close as they could.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: As I have previously, I call for the resignation of the secretary of defense for failure to do what he should have done.
CROWLEY: Mostly it has been Democrats calling for Rumsfeld's head. A few Republicans have done all but.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: It is well known because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I am calling for his removal.
CROWLEY: For Republicans, some of whom want to be president, most of whom believe the cabinet is the president's to fire or not, this is tricky.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: I don't see any great use in criticizing our secretary of defense in the midst of a war.
CROWLEY: Which as ringing endorsements go, isn't one. Freed by his ouster as Republican leader, Senator Trent Lott came closest to a direct hit.
"I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," he said. "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
That was 16 months ago, which gives you an idea how much sway that sort of thing holds at the Bush White House. And the secretary is not without Republican support, particularly among conservatives.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: You don't change horses to simply give a cosmetic appeal to a situation which is a long, difficult, and tough campaign by any standards.
CROWLEY: At the moment, said one Republican, there is no detectable surge for Rumsfeld to go. Still the calendar is beginning to collide with the polls. The war is the ball and chain that threatens to pull under the Republican majority in the fall elections.
"We need to turn the page in Iraq," said another senior Republican aide. "We cannot do it with Rumsfeld still there."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: That sentiment is probably more understandable than logical because a new defense secretary will have the same boss as the current one. And what most bothers voters is not who sits in the Pentagon, but what they see happening on the ground in Iraq. Wolf? BLITZER: All right, Candy, thank you very much -- Candy Crowley reporting for us.
Coming up, the battle over Donald Rumsfeld. We'll have more. I'll ask James Carville and J.C. Watts who's winning this political war.
Plus, we've got our eye on the midterm elections. With Congress hitting new lows in the polls, can the Democrats take back the House? Maybe even the Senate? Stick around, our "Strategy Session" is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Today, in our "Strategy Session," the debate over the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, continuing to rage -- should the top man at the Pentagon step down, or would a change in leadership hurt the war effort?
Joining us now, our CNN political analysts, Democratic strategist James Carville, former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts.
James, if you -- if you were a Republican -- and I know that's impossible...
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: ... but let's assume you were a Republican.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: All right.
BLITZER: And -- and if you felt...
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: ... as Candy was reporting privately, that Rumsfeld staying on as defense secretary would hurt the Republicans in November, how do you get that message through to the president and to the defense secretary?
CARVILLE: Well, you -- first of all, a lot of people are getting it through for me. So, I don't really need to. You have got five retired generals out there.
BLITZER: But the most important person...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... the president of the United States...
CARVILLE: Right.
BLITZER: ... says that Rumsfeld is doing a great job.
CARVILLE: Well, the -- I think -- I actually our -- our colleague Bill Schneider had it about right. The problem is, they have all this vested in -- in telling us that things are really going well in -- in Iraq, that there's a strategy for victory, and we're on course with this strategy for victory. So, if you fired the defense sec -- the secretary, they would ultimately be saying, wait, we're changing quarterbacks, for example, in the middle of the game that we're winning, because they are trying to convince us that they are winning the game.
I don't think that -- that their strategy to convince us we are winning is working, but that would certainly undermine everything the president has done.
BLITZER: J.C., you saw these poll numbers, the president's job approval number in the Gallup poll, new poll, only 36 percent -- the congressional job approval number, 23 percent. And that hasn't been that low since '94, when the Democrats lost their majority in the Senate and the House.
At what point do you think -- and is this -- is this even realistic -- that Rumsfeld, who is a good Republican, says to himself, "You know what, I don't want to hurt my party, and I'm going to have to step down"?
J.C. WATTS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I -- I think if you continue having generals say things, you continue to have people like John McCain say, you know, we have lost confidence, you know, that -- that eventually will -- will have an effect.
But -- but, Wolf, I don't think it's to that point. I think the president is -- is keeping the secretary in place because he feels like there are good things happening in -- in Iraq. You don't get rid of a -- in Washington, there has to be a scapegoat. There has to be somebody to point to, to blame.
If you are blaming him for political purposes, that's one thing. That -- that is totally different than blaming him because you think there's success, and it might hurt the opposition.
BLITZER: Here's a hypothetic...
WATTS: And I think that's a lot of what we're seeing.
BLITZER: Here -- here is a hypothetical for you, James.
CARVILLE: All right.
BLITZER: Let's say Rumsfeld, on his own, decided...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... you know what, I don't want to hurt my party...
CARVILLE: Right.
BLITZER: ... and I am becoming a lightning rod. I am so controversial. I will step down. The president then -- and this name has been out there for a while...
CARVILLE: Right.
BLITZER: ... brings in Joe Lieberman...
CARVILLE: Right.
BLITZER: ... to be his defense secretary.
What does that do for the Republican prospects in November?
CARVILLE: Not much.
And -- and -- and, again, I -- I don't think -- I'm not sure, if I was a Republican, I think I would be helped by a Rumsfeld resignation, to start with, because I think that would send a message that, hey, there really is nothing wrong.
BLITZER: So, there really is no incentive, then, to get rid of Rumsfeld...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... politically; is that what you're saying?
CARVILLE: I'm not -- I'm -- I'm saying, there's an -- there's an argument to be made that it would be politically damaging to get rid of him, that it would send out the contra message to what the White House is -- message that they're vested in, that they have a strategy, and the strategy is working.
The second thing is, I'm not sure -- it -- I mean, we're three defense secretaries away from doing well in Iraq. And they are, like, the father, the son and the Holy Ghost here. I mean, it's almost an impossible situation on the ground.
And by -- if you bring in Joe Lieberman, instead of Rumsfeld, is Joe Lieberman going to be capable of turning this situation around? I -- I doubt it. I mean, it's -- it's -- it's more governed by what is happening on the ground in Iraq than what is happening in the -- in a defense secretary's chair.
WATTS: But -- but -- but, James, if you brought in the father, son and the Holy Ghost...
(LAUGHTER)
WATTS: ... you still have the same critics out there.
CARVILLE: Well...
WATTS: It -- it doesn't matter if it is Joe Lieberman. I mean, Donald Rumsfeld is in a position, and the president is in a position, that, in Washington, you're going to have those type of critics. Wolf, look -- look at the numbers. You have got 15 percent more in the Army reenlisting, 15 percent more than what they thought. That, I think, in itself, is a good sign that good things are happening in Iraq.
You know, the people on the ground, they stay there. These generals, I -- I think, it's interesting, listening to them be critical of this thing. But, nevertheless, I think the president is saying, you guys want me to admit that I stole the cookies, when I really didn't steal the cookies.
And that's -- that's what this is all about.
BLITZER: I think one of the -- one of the fears that the administration has -- at least, this is what I have heard from top administration officials -- is, if they force Rumsfeld to leave, it would be seen by the insurgents, the terrorists, the enemies of the United States in that part of the world, as a -- a victory, that they could gloat: Look at what we did.
CARVILLE: Right.
BLITZER: We got rid of this architect of the war.
CARVILLE: Yes, that -- that may be. And -- and -- and they're entitled to that argument. It may or may not be true.
But what is clearly true, from a political standpoint is, I'm not sure you gain much. You may lose something by -- by -- by him resigning, or having -- allowing him to resign, because it -- it would be viewed by the public as an admission that things are not going well.
These generals out there are hurting the Republicans, because they are not used to being -- to having this -- you have two division commanders that were in Iraq saying that -- that Rumsfeld should go. They are not used to seeing this kind of -- they have never seen this kind of dissension between the...
BLITZER: James makes a good point.
CARVILLE: ... that uniformed services.
BLITZER: It's -- it's -- it's not unusual for James Carville to be criticizing Donald Rumsfeld.
CARVILLE: Yes.
BLITZER: But, when you have the former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, the former commander of the 1st Infantry Division going out and saying, Rumsfeld must go, that's -- that's news.
WATTS: But when -- when -- when they say that, Wolf, or they -- one of them talked about his arrogant management style. I -- I agree. I think Rumsfeld does have an arrogant management style, but that doesn't make you a bad defense secretary, because you have a -- an arrogant management style.
And, in times of war, I think you want somebody that's going to show a little moxie, and -- and -- and they're going to be strong in leading DOD.
However, let me -- let me say this about the political consequences here. I don't think you make these type of decisions based on politics and based on the critics.
I think this has to a sound strategic move, in terms of the war. And I don't think the president is close to being there...
BLITZER: All right.
WATTS: ... in terms of removing the secretary.
BLITZER: We -- we got to leave it there.
CARVILLE: All right.
BLITZER: J.C. and James...
CARVILLE: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: ... thanks very much, a good discussion in our "Strategy Session."
Up next, it's not always easy to admit being wrong, especially if you're the president of the United States. Our Jeff Greenfield standing by -- he will weigh with in some past White House mea culpas.
And this may look like THE SITUATION ROOM -- check it out -- but it's not. We're going to show you how "Saturday Night Live" had a little fun at our expense. You are going to want to stick around and see this.
Stay with us. You're in the real SITUATION ROOM, not the fake one.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: On this date in history, John F. Kennedy faced one of the biggest embarrassments of his short presidency. There may be some lessons in that for the current commander in chief.
Our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield, has more -- Jeff.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Wolf, today marks the 45th anniversary of a major disaster in American presidential history. It may also offer some lessons in what to say and what to learn from such a disaster.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD (voice-over): On April 17, 1961, a force of some 1,300 Cuban exiles, financed and trained by the CIA, attempted to topple the Marxist regime of Fidel Castro. The invaders were swiftly killed or captured.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1961)
JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This was a struggle of Cuban patriots against a Cuban dictator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: While President Kennedy privately complained he had been misled by optimistic predictions from the CIA and the military, he took a different public stance.
"As president," he said, "I bear sole responsibility."
Later, he and his brother Robert ransomed some 1,200 captured Bay of Pigs prisoners, in return for $62 million in food and medical supplies. They did this, in large measure, because they felt personal responsibility for the prisoners' confinement.
That was one striking demonstration of presidential responsibility.
There have been others: Carter's self-criticism during a 1979 speech on America's crisis of the spirit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1979)
JIMMY CARTER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "Mr. President, you're not leading this nation. You're just managing the government."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Or Ronald Reagan on the Iran-Contra affair.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me put that...
GREENFIELD: And there was this from President George W. Bush in 2004, when asked about his worst mistake.
BUSH: I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hasn't yet.
GREENFIELD: In more recent days, in talking about Iraq, Bush has said, we're learning from our mistakes.
BUSH: But I -- I do agree with your question that a president has got to be capable of looking back and learning from -- from, you know, how things could have been done differently. Great question. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREENFIELD: Wolf, two other notes from the Bay of Pigs are worth remembering. First, while he said he took sole responsibility for the mistake, Kennedy, shortly thereafter, replaced the head of the CIA.
Second, a year-and-a-half later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy was far more skeptical about the military plans for a strike on Cuba. Since we learned years later that Soviet officers had unilateral authority to launch nuclear missiles at the U.S. in the event of a strike, Kennedy's skepticism just may have avoided World War III -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jeff Greenfield, thank you very much.
Coming up, a Supreme Court ruling against the Reverend Jerry Falwell. We will tell you what was at stake and who wins.
And on this tax filing deadline day, are the top tax writers in Congress experts at filling out 1040s?
Find out, right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's a lot happening today on our "Political Radar."
In Illinois, the former Republican Governor George Ryan now stands convicted of racketeering and fraud. He sat stone-faced as the jury delivered its verdict today in a corruption case that ended his political career back in 2003. While in office, Ryan got international praise for commuting the death sentences of everyone on Illinois's death row. Now he's facing up to 20 years or more in prison. The 74-year-old Ryan is promising to appeal.
President Bush marked this IRS deadline day by touting the tax relief he championed and by urging Congress to extend it. He toured a stone distributing company in Virginia, took part in a roundtable discussion on taxes and the economy.
And if you're having a hard time completing your tax forms, you may find some comfort on Capitol Hill. The Associated Press reports that three of the four top senators and congressman in charge of writing tax laws pay professionals to file their returns.
Next hour, much more on your taxes. I will speak live with the IRS commissioner, Mark Everson. He's standing by to join me here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
And, just a few hours ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not hear an appeal from evangelist Jerry Falwell. The Reverend Falwell wanted the highest court to shut down a site critical of him.
Our Internet reporter, Jacki Schechner, has more on what is known as a gripe site -- Jacki. JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, this is Jerry Falwell's Web site, and this is Fallwell.com, again, the minister's Web site, and then Fallwell.com, with two L's. You can see, it doesn't look anything like it.
And that is exactly what the court said, that this is not taking away anything from Jerry Falwell's site. You can also take a look at the some of the things the court said. This is a site that basically criticizes Jerry Falwell's views on gay and lesbian people.
The court said, they are not trying to sell anything or take money away from Falwell, who actually does sell things on his Web site. The other thing they said is that there was no bad faith here. If you take a look at the close print, it says, you can click here to get to Jerry Falwell's site. And, in fact, you can. That takes you exactly to the Web site.
You can read the full decision from the court that was upheld over at the U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. We talked to his attorney today, by the way, Wolf. And they said they were disappointed, but they didn't expect the Supreme Court to hear it. They knew it was a long shot.
BLITZER: Jacki, thanks very much.
Let's get some context now on what this Falwell decision means. We will bring in our cyber-law expert, our senior Internet producer Alex Wellen, who is an attorney.
You specialize in these kind of issues as we saw the Supreme Court deciding today, in effect, deciding by not listening to the appeal.
ALEX WELLEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNET PRODUCER: Right.
BLITZER: Does this come as any surprise?
WELLEN: It doesn't come as a surprise. But it's an important decision.
It sets out there that a decision like this, conversation like this, speech like this, where you criticize someone, is protected. And even though there was trademark infringement alleged, it didn't happen. We saw -- saw from Jacki that it wasn't willful. We know that it wasn't in bad faith. And there was no financial gain -- so, again, important speech online, that's protected, without necessarily being sued.
BLITZER: This year, a midterm-election year, it's going to be played out, to a large degree, online. It's going to have an enormous impact. What does this decision today by the Supreme Court not to hear this case bode for the political process this year?
WELLEN: I think it's an important decision. And it's something that we were waiting for. We saw it with SamuelAlito.com. This was a Web site that was targeting Samuel Alito. It did not want to see his confirmation. And it criticized him. And there may have been some confusion by having it SamuelAlito.com. But, at the end of the day, they found that that site was acceptable.
And, here, we see it again with the Falwell site. It was very clear that he was criticized. He was criticized. It wasn't something associated with Jerry Falwell. So, as long as a site is critical, is -- no likelihood of confusion, and they're not making any money, we know now that a site like that is protected. And that will be important as we go into the elections, and we see people registering for all these different types of sites.
BLITZER: It's a whole new world out there, Alex. Thanks...
WELLEN: It sure is.
BLITZER: Thanks very much for that.
And, coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour: Does Rudy Giuliani have a prayer of getting the GOP presidential nominations -- nomination? Perhaps not, if the Reverend Jerry Falwell has anything to do with it. We will tell you what is going on.
And it looks like THE SITUATION ROOM -- it looks a lot like THE SITUATION ROOM, in fact -- but it's not. And that guy is not who he is pretending to be. We are going to tell you what is going on, on "Saturday Night Live." They had some fun at our expense -- my expense, too.
Thanks.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's check back with Zain.
As promised, Zain, you have got something funny in store...
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: ... for our viewers, our regular viewers, out there.
VERJEE: Yes, at your expense. So, that's even better.
You know, Wolf, they say that imitation is the best form of flattery. So, this may really be a sincere compliment, except that it is disguised as comedy.
Just take a look at this. It's from "Saturday Night Live." And, no, it's not really THE SITUATION ROOM.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hello. I'm Wolf Blitzer.
Tonight, on THE SITUATION ROOM, the president's poll numbers hit an all-time low, and the fallout has begun.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: A lot of people may be leaving, but so many great people are staying, Wolf. The president is staying.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Vice President Cheney is staying.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Condi is in it for the long haul.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Mrs. Bush will be staying, I assume.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Let's go now live to 16-year-old White House press secretary Brittany Doyle's first press conference.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Ms. Doyle, Ms. Doyle, Ms. Doyle...
LINDSAY LOHAN, ACTRESS: What?
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Norah O'Donnell, Ms. Doyle, NBC News.
General Zinni and Batiste have both called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.
LOHAN: The president isn't going to change his opinion about someone because people say bad stuff about him.
I mean, if someone came up to me and was, like, Norah O'Donnell is a slut, I would still be your friend.
(LAUGHTER)
LOHAN: It's not my business if you're super slutty.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(LAUGHTER)
VERJEE: Wolf, do you enjoy that?
BLITZER: I did. Lindsay Lohan, Wolf Blitzer in the same skit, that's pretty cute.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: We are going to have more of that skit later in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Zain, thanks very much for bringing it to our viewers.
Still to come: Are retired generals doing the right thing by calling for Donald Rumsfeld to resign? Or are they violating the military's marching orders, some code of ethics? Jack Cafferty will be back with your e-mail.
And we will also have the very latest on a still unfolding story: word of sealed indictments handed up in the investigation of an alleged rape by Duke University's lacrosse team, or at least two members. We are watching the story -- at the top of the hour, a complete update.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's check back with Jack. He has got "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: A former chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff thinks it's a bad idea for retired generals to criticize Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Retired General Richard Myers says, that criticism is inappropriate.
So, that's the question. Is it inappropriate or is it OK for these retired guys to say that Rumsfeld should take a hike?
Ed in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina: "At my last check, the First Amendment is still valid. Why should retired generals be restricted from voicing their opinions? I am retired from the military, 25 years, and I think he should resign as well. The lives of our fighting forces are more at risk every second that he is on the job."
Jim writes: "No, it wasn't inappropriate for six retired generals to suggest Don Rumsfeld resign, although it is unseemly. A better question is this: Who cares what they think? Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president, who -- and he isn't going anywhere. This is not a popularity contest. We are at war."
Dave in Santa Cruz, California: "I find it disgusting these generals secured their retirement before commenting on Rumsfeld's blunders and inadequacies. They should have spoken up while still in active service. It just shows they were more concerned for themselves than they were for their men."
Renee in Magalia, California: "It's not inappropriate. In fact, I consider it their duty to speak out about mismanagement of the war in Iraq. To fail to speak out about irresponsible, incompetent performance would be a dereliction of duty and conscience."
And Jeff in Edgewood, Kentucky writes: "I served in the Marine Corps during the initial invasion of Iraq. I think there are few people in America that have more of a right or duty to criticize Secretary Rumsfeld and call for his resignation. The actions of these generals, as long as they are not carried out for political gain, are the acts of patriots. Let us not forget, these generals are nearly powerless to criticize those who are appointed over them while they are serving on active duty and leading men in too few numbers on far too many deployments" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Very thoughtful e-mail from our viewers. Jack, thank you very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
