Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
License Plate Debate; Pentagon: New Plan for Withdrawing Troops From Iraq
Aired June 26, 2006 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Is it constitutional to put "Choose Life" on a state license plate? Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the issue, leaving intact existing rulings in Tennessee and Louisiana.
Let's get the latest from our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, these specialty plates were first introduced in Florida. They're now available in about a dozen states, prompting multiple lawsuits from groups that oppose their use. Because the Supreme Court refused to rule on the issue today, that means these plates are still legal in Louisiana and in Tennessee.
The ACLU in Tennessee was opposing the use of these plates. One of the reasons they said is there was no counterpart plate opposite available, no "Choose Choice" plate that was offered. They said today they were disappointed. They're pushing for this also in Ohio.
A spokesman for Choose Life, the organization in Florida, said he had wished that the Supreme Court had taken up the entire case to establish settled law on the issue nationwide -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Abbi, thank you.
And to our viewers, you're 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, is that his final answer?
It's 5:00 p.m. here in Washington, where President Bush adds to the guessing game concerning when U.S. troops might return from Iraq. But a new report says guestimates of when, how, and how many troops will come home are already answered.
Trying "The Times." In fact, "The New York Times." One lawmaker wants "The New York Times" prosecuted after it unveiled the secret program monitoring the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. Does the freedom of the press mean publishing all the news that might not be fit to print?
And what's a few billion dollars among friends? The world's second richest man tells the world's richest man you can't take it with you.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Fresh violence and talk of troop withdrawals tops the news from Iraq this hour. Bombings in predominantly Shiite marketplaces have killed at least 24 people and wounded more than 70 today.
Meanwhile, the White House is staying tight-lipped about reports the top U.S. military man in Iraq is recommending the withdrawal of 7,000 U.S. troops by September, 20,000 by the end -- another 20,000 by the end of next year.
Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, is standing by with details, but let's begin at the White House with our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, clearly a bad today in Iraq. And, of course, the number one issue for voters is Iraq.
Democrats, Republicans and the White House all know this. And so as it gets closer and closer to midterm elections, the more aggressive they become in trying to shape the debate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice over): At the White House a violent overnight storm took out this 100-year-old American elm tree, but it's the political storm brewing over Iraq that has Washington all abluster.
Democrats are charging that a plan under consideration by the U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, to possibly pull out as many as 10,000 U.S. troops by as early as the fall is politically motivated.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: The September or October surprise, with the president and Republicans proclaiming victory and announcing troop redeployment just in time for the midterm elections.
MALVEAUX: The president categorically refuted the charge.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground.
MALVEAUX: But Democrats are fuming over not one, but two bills that were shot down by Republicans last week which called for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. Republicans painted the Democrats' proposal as a move to cut and run. Both sides, nervous about the midterm election, are trying to gain the upper hand in the Iraq debate, with Democrats now arguing their proposals are in line with the Pentagon's and that it's Republican lawmakers who are out of step.
REID: It's clear that congressional Republicans stand alone in opposition to troop redeployments apart from the American people.
MALVEAUX: But a look at the substance of both Democratic plans show the bill offered by senators Jack Reed and Carl Levin, which calls for phased redeployment of troops by the end of 2006, is similar to General Casey's reported plan, which aims at pulling out two combat brigades by the end of the year.
But the White House says the Democratic plan was not sound.
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What Senator Levin did not mention is conditions on the ground. What Senator Levin wanted to do was to get out.
MALVEAUX: The other Democratic proposal by senators John Kerry and Russ Feingold is substantially different than the Pentagon's. It calls for pulling out all U.S. troops by the summer of 2007. The Pentagon reportedly wants to phase out tens of thousand of troops by the end of next year, but does not have a hard deadline for complete withdrawal.
STU ROTHENBERG, POLITICAL ANALYST: They wanted a date certain complete withdrawal, and that's not we're talking about. We're talking about a very, very limited withdrawal based on circumstances on the ground.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: And, Wolf, political analysts say what may be just as important as withdrawing troops is really what does happen on the ground in Iraq. If there are more bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, that ultimately if you pull out some 10,000 U.S. troops sometime this year or next year, that it's not really going to have that much standing with the American people if it's just bad news coming out of Iraq -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Is there any sense that the president is going to be speaking out more forcefully anytime soon on this specific issue of troop withdrawal?
MALVEAUX: Well, you're going to hear the president talk about it, but again, he's going to -- he's not going to go into specifics here, Wolf. They really do not want to get caught up in that trap. They consider it a political trap, if you will, to give numbers, to give a timetable.
Ultimately, they are going to put the onus here on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi leadership. So you'll hear the president talk about troops, but you'll also hear him talk about really bolstering the Iraqi leadership and making it a much stronger government.
BLITZER: All right, Suzanne. Thanks very much.
Jamie McIntyre is at the Pentagon. Let's get some of the facts behind all the politics.
Jamie, what are you picking up? JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Pentagon officials concede that General Casey has been doing a lot of thinking about troop reduction, some considering of options. But what they say he hasn't done is made any recommendations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice over): The Pentagon insists there is no new plan for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, just the same old plan to gradually cut U.S. force levels by not replacing some troops as they rotate out later this year. And that plan comes with the same old caveats.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: As the Iraqi forces continue to take over bases in provinces and areas of responsibility and move into the lead, we expect that General Casey will come back and make a recommendation after he has had those discussions which he has not yet had.
MCINTYRE: CNN reported last week that what Casey has in mind to start is simply not replacing two brigades when they rotate out of Iraq later this year. That would cut U.S. troop levels by between 6,000 and 10,000 troops, with further reductions to come as conditions allow.
Three days later, "The New York Times" reported essentially the same thing, putting the initial troop cuts at about 7,000 and adding that another eight brigades, roughly 28,000 troops, might be cut in 2007. Casey's steadfastly refuses to share his private thinking, believing that, like any announcement of a timetable, would tie his hands.
GEN. GEORGE CASEY, COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES, IRAQ: I feel it would limit my flexibility. I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable.
MCINTYRE: Casey says he hasn't yet talked troop cuts with the new Iraqi government. One reason he's reluctant to say anything publicly. But already Casey is working with Iraqis on what's been dubbed an unofficial road map to begin turning over to local control some of the 18 provinces in the relatively calm areas of Iraq, beginning with two in the north and two in the south.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: And, Wolf, whether you call it an unofficial road map or a phased redeployment, General Casey has made one thing clear. He doesn't want to be locked into any troop pullouts until he's sure he doesn't need those troops in the future -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Switching gears briefly, I understand there's a developing story we're following out on the West Coast, a plane crash? What's going on?
MCINTYRE: We're just getting details, Wolf, of a training exercise in which two U.S. Navy F-18s, single-seat versions of those planes, apparently collided in mid air while they were flying next to each other. One of the pilots was killed. We're told the other one was able to reject and he's been recovered, but his condition at this point has not yet been disclosed -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. When we get some more information, Jamie, you'll update our viewers. Thanks very much for that.
Meanwhile, amidst all of this, there are questions swirling around the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's reconciliation plan. Will its amnesty provisions extend to insurgents, especially those who've killed U.S. troops?
CNN Senior International Correspondent Nic Robertson is in Baghdad with details -- Nic.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's been barely 24 hours since Iraq's prime minister laid out his reconciliation plan for the country. And already, his offer of amnesty for insurgents is causing some concern.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON (voice over): In trying to unite Iraqis, the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is dividing Americans. At issue, this statement...
ZALMAY KHALILZAD, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ (through translator): Pardons for detainees who are proven to have not been involved in any criminal acts, terrorist activities, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
ROBERTSON: It's part of his reconciliation plan delivered Sunday. But does he mean freedom for men who've killed and maimed U.S. troops? Listen carefully to the apparent partial veto in the words of the U.S. ambassador.
KHALILZAD: What I've excluded is the irreconcilables, those who want the old regime back and those who are al Qaeda terrorist supporters.
ROBERTSON: But that leaves the door open for nationalist insurgents who have been attacking American soldiers because they say U.S. troops are occupiers. However, nationalists have killed Iraqis, too. And by Maliki's definition, that would appear to rule them out.
The catch here is Maliki wants Sunnis, who are the majority of the insurgents, to support his new Shia-led government.
NOURI AL-MALIKI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Those who wish to request pardons should condemn violence and promise to support the elected national government and to abide by the law.
ROBERTSON: And on this point, the U.S. ambassador is on the same page.
KHALILZAD: Assuming they accept the principles of this new Iraq, lay down their arms, reconcile, that as this initiative calls for can be dialogued with them, bringing them into the political process. And we support that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON: Well, it appears that whatever ambiguity exists in this offer of amnesty, Iraq's prime minister is intent on pulling as many people as he can in line with this new government -- Wolf.
BLITZER: We're going to have more on this coming up. Nic, thank you very much.
William Cohen, the former defense secretary, standing by.
In the meantime, let's check in with Jack Cafferty once again in New York -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: "I know what I want to do and it makes sense to get going." That's Warren Buffett talking about his decision to give away almost all of his $44 billion fortune.
He's the world's second richest man. He'll begin transferring stock in his company, Berkshire Hathaway, to five different foundations. Most of it's going to go to a foundation run by the world's richest man. That would be Bill Gates.
Buffett says he chose Bill and Melinda Gates' charitable group because it was already scaled up and can productively use his money right away. The Gates Foundation focuses mostly on overseas health programs, things like fighting malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.
So we want you to think big here for a minute. The question is this: If you had $44 billion, whom would you give it to?
My address is -- no. E-mail us at caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/caffertyfile -- Wolf.
BLITZER: You just want a little -- tiny little piece of that, right?
CAFFERTY: It wouldn't take much, and you'd never see me again.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Jack Cafferty, thanks very much.
Up ahead, the fierce debate pitting freedom of the press against national security. We're going to show you why some say the news media should be prosecuted for revealing government anti-terror tactics.
Also, floodwaters inundate parts of metro Washington, D.C. Up to a foot of rain has fallen in some of the outlying areas. Is more on the way?
And on patrol with the National Guard in New Orleans, trying to keep crime out of the city as it struggles to bounce back.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: This just coming into CNN. I want to update our viewers. We're getting this from The Associated Press.
The Port of Hueneme -- that's in Ventura County in California -- apparently has just been closed down this afternoon while authorities are investigating what they describe as a possible terrorist threat on a cargo ship. According to the AP, a port official says the action was taken just before noon Pacific Time after a dock worker discovered a possible threat written in the cargo hold of a ship carrying bananas from Guatemala.
The port official says the message read this: "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
We're going to check this story out. This just coming in from The Associated Press. The port of Hueneme in California apparently closed as they investigate what this is all about. Apparent threat, but we'll get some more information and bring you up to speed as soon as we know more about this story.
In the meantime, President Bush isn't say much yet publicly about reports his top military commander in Iraq is advocating withdrawing thousands of U.S. troops from Iraq starting in September.
Joining us now to discuss what this could mean is the former defense secretary, William Cohen. He's a key member of the CNN Security Council and the chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group here in Washington.
Here's what the president said earlier today when asked about this report. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: In terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground. And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed as achieving victory. And that's what we want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. So what do you make of this? "The New York Times" gets this leak, apparently General Casey speaking about it while he was at the Pentagon back here in Washington last week. It goes out with a story which is pretty dramatic, and Democrats say, you know what, that's what we're calling for, why are we getting hammered for doing exactly what the commanding general is recommending?
WILLIAM COHEN, FMR. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, first of all, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised about this. You and I have had discussions for nearly the past year in which we've talked about the fact that we were likely to see significant discussions before the fall, the November elections.
I'm surprised that the number being talked about actually is so few. And this would seem to validate what President Bush is saying in terms of the generals on the ground will make those kinds of decisions. But I frankly think we need to have a political cease- fire. There's too much politics being played on both ends of this particular debate.
On the one hand, Democrats are upset and angry that they feel they've been misled into a -- a winless war. On the other hand, I think it's wrong for Republicans to continue to use phrases like "cut and run," implying people like Jack Murtha or John Kerry or Senator Reed, or others who have had to face the reality of blood and mud in warfare are being accused of being either less than patriotic or cowards. I think that's entirely wrong.
There are legitimate issues to be raised, and it ought to be done in a responsible fashion. And we ought to drop the politics on both sides.
BLITZER: You don't get to be a four-star general usually -- and you've dealt with a lot of them when you were at the Pentagon -- if you don't have a good political savvy sense out there.
How much pressure is on a general like General Casey to come up with a withdrawal plan before the November election?
COHEN: I think General Casey -- I have enormous respect for him -- I think he is obviously aware of the political pressures involved. I don't think he would make a recommendation if he felt this was going to, in fact, compromise what they have achieved today or what they hope to achieve in the relatively near future. I think it would be a mistake for him to do so, I believe that he would think it a mistake and would not yield to that kind of pressure.
BLITZER: Here's how he phrased it when he was at the Pentagon last week. I'll play this excerpt. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY: I don't like it, I feel it would limit my flexibility. I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable. And I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He was referring specifically to that one recommendation, Russ Feingold and Senator John Kerry, that all U.S. troops be out by July of next year.
COHEN: Well, I think what he's made very clear, he would like to have more flexibility and make that determination consistent with what he sees on the ground, what the political situation is in Iraq as far as the Iraqi government is concerned, what our allies are doing -- we've seen the Japanese decide to pull out their engineers, so-called, from the area. We've seen that the British are talking about reducing the size of their presence.
What I see coming out of this is simply a draft proposal which may or may not be upscaled or decreased, depending on the situation on the ground. So I think once again we ought to drop the rhetoric. I think our soldiers are entitled to a much more responsible debate. And I think the American people are entitled to a much more responsible debate.
BLITZER: It's probably not going to happen, though. You know Washington a lot better than I.
COHEN: I do, but I think it's important that we speak out and call for a return to some sense of unity while our men and women are out there fighting and dying. We need to have some sense of consensus. If the Democrats are close to the Republicans on the issue, or vice versa, so be it. Let's go forward and see if we can't resolve this and get out as quickly as we can, as responsibly as we can.
BLITZER: William Cohen, thanks for coming in.
COHEN: Nice to be here.
BLITZER: Zain Verjee is off today. Sophia Choi is joining us from the CNN Center with a closer look at some other important stories -- Sophia.
SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, Wolf.
Well, here's something we've been following. Debate is under way in the Senate over a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag. The measure seeks to make it unconstitutional to burn or otherwise vandalize the stars and stripes.
The Senate Judiciary committee approved the proposed amendment on an 11-7 vote this month. Now, if it passes the full Senate, it still must be ratified by 38 of the 50 states.
The Supreme Court has decided to review a case that will determine what role, if any, the federal government should play in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Now, this case pits 12 states against the current administration, which argues that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Well, the states say it is and, therefore, subject to federal regulation to reduce emissions.
The Supreme Court today found the capital punishment law in Kansas to be constitutional. The law requires juries to impose a death sentence if the brutality of the crime and the circumstances behind it bear equal weight. Today's ruling highlights the high court's deep division over the issue of capital punishment. The decision, by the way, was 5-4.
And the second trial for a Texas mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub five years ago is now under way. In opening statements today, prosecutors said Andrea Yates knew it was wrong, but killed her children anyway so she would be punished for being a bad mother.
She's pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Her first conviction was thrown out because of faulty testimony.
And those are some of the stories making headlines right now.
Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Thanks, Sophia, very much.
And we're following that developing story on the West Coast. A port, a major port, Hueneme, in Ventura County, apparently closed, according to The Associated Press, because of some sort of terror threat on a cargo ship coming in from Guatemala. A message, according to The Associated Press, reading from aboard that ship, "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
We're going to go out there. We're going to get some more on this developing story out on the West Coast.
Also coming up, flashfloods hitting the Washington, D.C., area, pounded by heavy rain. Flood watches and warnings are posted across much of the region. We're going to show you the latest.
Plus, are the news media hurting government efforts to fight terror? And if so, should they be punished? We're going to show you what's behind the growing debate.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Our Los Angeles bureau has now confirmed the story that we've been reporting for the past several moments, an AP story from the port of Hueneme in Ventura County. That's north of Los Angeles.
That port has been shut down, according to authorities there, because of some sort of possible terrorist threat coming from a cargo ship. Apparently, the ship carrying bananas from Guatemala.
The AP quoting one port official as saying that there was a message that said this: "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
Our L.A. bureau now. CNN confirming that the port of Hueneme has been shut down. We're going to follow this story, go out there live, get some more information, let you know exactly what's going on. When we know it, you'll know it right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Other news we're following. All the news, but is it fit to print? Right now there's a battle between the need for a free press and the need for discretion when it comes to disclosing sensitive information concerning national security. Let's bring in our Mary Snow. She's following this story and has some new developments -- Mary.
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, just a short time ago we received a copy of a letter Congressman Peter King sent to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. King is asking for an investigation into possible charges against the press for what he says is a disregard for national security, and he takes specific aim at "The New York Times."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW (voice over): Is disclosing a secret government program to track the money trail of terrorists a matter of public interest or a blow to national security? The debate is so fierce the president is weighing in after "The New York Times" first reported the story last week, followed by the "Los Angeles Times" and "Wall Street Journal."
BUSH: The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.
SNOW: Radio talk shows and conservative blogs have targeted "The Times" with sharp criticism, and so has Vice President Dick Cheney.
RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "The New York Times" has now made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future.
SNOW: On Sunday, "New York Times" editor Bill Keller took the rare step of explaining the decision to publish the story saying, it "... followed weeks of discussion between administration officials and 'The Times.'" And he called the administration's arguments against publishing the story puzzling and half-hearted.
Republican Congressman Peter King, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says "The New York Times" may have violated the Espionage Act.
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: I believe that the attorney general of the United States should begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of "The New York Times." And that would include the writers who wrote the story, the editors who worked on it, and the publisher.
SNOW: King also criticized the paper for disclosing the NSA telephone wiretapping program last year. Media observers say journalists have the responsibility to ask the question, does the public have enough information about the war on terror?
TOM PATTERSON, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: So the press asked itself essentially who's going to shine the light on this administration if it's not us? And so I think the press is feeling a different kind of burden than it normally does, and it's somewhat less inclined to bend over to, you know, the imploring of the administration that it not take things public. (END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: Now, we have called "The New York Times" and "The Los Angeles Times" for reaction. We have not yet received a response. "The Wall Street Journal" did issue a statement. Part of it reads -- quote -- "We believe both our readers and the government will well -- were well served," that is, "and no laws were broken in the reporting of this story" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Mary, thanks very much -- Mary Snow reporting.
So, how should the news media handle competing interests of keeping the public informed, while not informing terrorists how the United States is hunting them down?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Joining us is Geneva Overholser from the University of Missouri School of Journalism, a former ombudsman at "The Washington Post," and Hugh Hewitt, the radio talk show host syndicated around the country.
Thanks to both of you for joining us.
Geneva, I will start with you.
Doesn't a newspaper have responsibilities in -- when deciding when to go forward with information that could affect the lives of the American people?
GENEVA OVERHOLSER, CURTIS B. HURLEY CHAIR IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS REPORTING, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Absolutely, crushing responsibilities, Wolf.
And every newspaper paper editor I have known -- and I'm proud to have been one myself -- exercises those responsibilities with a great deal of caution. They weigh heavily what might be the impact of printing the information they have. And, of course, they start on the assumption that they are going to share with the public what they know, and then they can consider the various challenges that are put before them that may, in some instances, keep them from printing the information.
BLITZER: Hugh, the executive editor of "The New York Times," Bill Keller, wrote a lengthy piece yesterday, saying they carefully weighed the pros and cons. In the end, they decided the American people have a right to know what's going on.
HUGH HEWITT, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Wolf, Bill Keller's letter was wholly unresponsive to the many criticisms that have come in at the paper after Friday's story.
And I would like to begin by just making three key points. First, media does not have an exemption from the national security laws of the United States. There is no such thing. There is no special status. They're just like every other citizen walking around.
Number two, the national security laws of the United States prohibit, upon pain of criminal penalty, the release of certain types of information. Whether or not Friday's story contained that information is still being looked in to, but it's possible.
Number three, whether or not it was a criminal act, it certainly was an act that injured our ability to track terrorists.
As T.F. Boggs, who was a -- a sergeant in Iraq, wrote to Bill Keller, he helped kill American soldiers with the release of that story. It's a very serious thing that they did. And I hope that the House and the Senate take it up as a matter of congressional interest in -- in response.
BLITZER: All right, Geneva, you want to respond to those points?
OVERHOLSER: Absolutely.
In fact, it would be a very rare thing if journalists were to be charged criminally under national security breaches. This country is founded on the notion that one of the most important brakes on power is the freedom of the press, which enables people to understand what is being done in their name.
And, in this story, as in many stories recently, including about secret prisons in Europe and including about wireless wiretapping -- warrantless wiretapping, we are dealing here with information that I think thoughtful editors have decided that it is important for the public to know. So...
BLITZER: Let me read -- let -- let me also elaborate, Hugh. I will read to you what Bill Keller wrote on the specific point that you raised that they were giving the terrorists information that they need to know to kill Americans. I will read a -- from the letter he wrote.
"A secondary argument against publishing the backing story was the publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported, indeed trumpeted, by the Treasury Department that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international backing system because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."
What do you say to the argument that there was nothing in this story that really tipped off the terrorists to anything that they don't already know?
HEWITT: Two things.
One, it's disingenuous, because at least two terrorists are specifically cited in these reports as having been captured as a result of the SWIFT program. Now it will only require terrorists familiar with what they had done to reverse-engineer that which they had done to figure out what ought not to be done in the future.
It seems to me to be completely inane to argue that this very highly classified program, about which 20 officials, according to Keller, had grave doubts about how far it is, etcetera, did not have instrumental function in bringing people to justice and stopping the financing of attacks.
And, again, I would ask people to read Sergeant Boggs' letter about how money matters to the insurgency in Iraq and other places where Americans are under attack.
I would also note that Geneva did not contest -- and I think it's important to underscore this -- they can put out anything they want and cannot be restrained, but they do not have an exemption, nor has ever there been an exemption, for the mainstream media, or any branch in the media, from the national security laws of the United States.
The reason the prosecutions have been rare -- in fact, nonexistent in modern times -- is because the media used to be responsible in times of war. Bill Keller...
BLITZER: All right.
HEWITT: ... and "The New York Times" and the Los Angeles Times, irresponsible. That's why now, at a minimum, we ought to look into who it was that leaked the material to them, because that's also a prosecutable offense. And we ought to get a grand jury looking into it. But, most importantly, what do the House and the Senate think about elite media endangering American lives and the national security?
OVERHOLSER: You know...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: All right. Let's -- let's let...
HEWITT: I think the House and the Senate ought to be debating...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Let's let Geneva respond.
OVERHOLSER: Hugh's construction of the media is way off base, if I may so, Hugh, with all due respect.
The media in this country have always been at their strongest when they do challenge power. And, in fact, the greatest failures of the media in recent years, I think many would agree, have been failures to challenge power.
It's not an easy thing to live in a democracy. The government would always rather be able simply to put out the official line. But the more power it takes unto itself, the more important it is that there be members of the media who put before the public and the judiciary information that they would not otherwise have so that we can operate according to own our laws, which are not about cleanness and simplicity of government, but about fairness and justice. And openness is absolutely essential for that.
BLITZER: Aren't you afraid, Hugh, that what you're recommending, a criminal investigation of "The New York Times" and other media outlets, is going to have an enormous chilling effect, and, in the end, the American public is going to be the big loser?
HEWITT: A couple of responses, Wolf.
First, what Geneva said was wholly unresponsive to the very narrow point I'm making. I am talking about the national security laws in a time of war. There is no exemption for media. They are free to publish whatever they want because of papers -- cases like the Pentagon Papers.
But as pointed out over and over again in the courts, if they violate the laws, they don't have a special status. They don't have a special pleading. Geneva is not better than any person viewing this show right now. Americans have to oblige themselves to do the law.
It won't chill whistle-blowing. It will not in any way corral the legitimate functions of the press. It's a very narrow point, which is that they cannot help Americans get killed by publishing the most sensitive information.
BLITZER: All right.
HEWITT: And as for the chilling effect, I want it to chill these sorts of leaks, because they're illegal and they endanger American lives.
BLITZER: We're out of time, but, Geneva, I'll give you the last word. Go ahead.
OVERHOLSER: Well, that very narrow effect would be extremely chilling for the American public. It's not about whether the press is somehow special. It's whether the press can continue to give the public the information it needs. And, by your own admission, this would have a chilling effect.
I certainly hope that we don't start jailing journalists based on flimsy, if existent, national security breach contentions.
BLITZER: Geneva Overholser and Hugh Hewitt, a good discussion. Thanks to both of you for coming in.
HEWITT: Thanks, Wolf.
OVERHOLSER: Thank you.
HEWITT: Thanks, Geneva.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And more now on the developing story we're following from out on the West Coast.
We're getting some live pictures now in from Port Hueneme in California. That's in Ventura County. It's been closed, according to authorities there, after what's being described as a possible terrorist threat coming in on this cargo ship.
This is a cargo ship, a 30,000-ton refrigerated vessel that arrived from Guatemala. It -- crew -- the crew of about 20 people have been evacuated. Workers outside, according to the Associated Press, are being kept out. Anyone inside is allowed to remain.
They're checking out what's being described as a threat, some sort of warning, a message that read, according to the Associated Press, this -- quote -- "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
These are live pictures you're seeing from -- from Port Hueneme, out in California.
Chris Lawrence is our correspondent in Los Angeles.
First of all, Chris, tell our viewers where exactly this is, Hueneme, how far away from Los Angeles. How significant of a port is this?
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's about 60 miles northwest of us here in Los Angeles. And it is the only deepwater harbor between the city of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay. It's one of the most important ports on the West Coast.
It's our -- probably or chief export port for citrus products. It's also where the United States takes in a lot of automobiles and citrus -- citrus products from other countries, very significant port. It consists of about two terminals. And from what we are hearing right now, workers are still being kept out of that area.
As you mentioned earlier, one of the ships was coming in carrying bananas from Guatemala. That is one of the major import centers for bananas. And, apparently, this threat was written in a marker on a metal pillar inside the ship itself. So, right now, you have got the FBI, you have got local officials looking into that.
We will just reiterate what the message read. It said, "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
Right now, no indication at all that any kind of explosive material has been found. It's a written threat that, again, was scrawled on the inside of the ship on a metal pillar with a marker. And that is what they are checking out right now -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And this is a huge ship. So -- so, basically, this support is -- is closer to Santa Barbara, let's say, than it is to Los Angeles; is that -- is that geographically fair?
LAWRENCE: Yes, that's -- that's fair; that's fair. It's about 60 miles away from here, kind of almost if you split -- a little closer to Santa Barbara, but almost if you would split the difference between the two.
BLITZER: This is a huge ship. And, so, this is a huge port. I wasn't familiar with it, Hueneme. But I assume it can -- if it can handle these kinds of huge ships, this is a major facility out on the West Coast.
LAWRENCE: Yes, that's right.
I mean, the length of the entrance channel, for example, is more than 2,000 feet. You know, the depth in the harbor is 35 feet. So, it -- it has the capability, as a deepwater harbor, to take in some of these ships that would be inaccessible in other parts along the West Coast, in California in particular.
BLITZER: And we're told, also, according to the Associated Press, that federal authorities, including the FBI, and local officials are currently on the scene investigating.
And these are live pictures that we're showing our viewers right now coming in from the port, Hueneme, out in -- out in Los Angeles -- out in California, about 60 miles north of Los Angeles.
Stand by, Chris.
We are going to be coming back to this story. We're hoping to speak with one of the port officials. That's coming up.
We will take a quick break.
Remember, stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security -- more from Port Hueneme right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're following a developing story out from the port of Hueneme out on the West Coast in California. These are live pictures. This is a huge ship that's being investigated right now, came in from Guatemala, a 30,000-ton refrigerated vessel. About 20 people were on board.
Apparently, some sort of note was scribbled that authorities are investigating, whether it's a possible terrorist threat.
Jeanne Meserve is our homeland security correspondent.
Jeanne, you have been checking this story out. What are you picking out?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, from a U.S. Coast Guard official, this note was discovered on the stanchion in the cargo hold of the ship by a crew member, reported by this crew member.
According to the U.S. Coast Guard officials, the note read, "This nitroglycerin is for G.W. and his Jewish friends" -- unquote.
According to the Coast Guard, there was an explosive ordnance team that went on the ship, walked through, and has found nothing. So, at this point, it is just the threat on the note. But, out of an abundance of caution, they have closed the port, as this investigation continues -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Do we know if the note, Jeanne, was written in English or in Spanish?
MESERVE: I asked that very question. And the official with whom I spoke wasn't certain. I would guess, since they have this wording down, that it would have been English, but I don't know definitively.
BLITZER: Because I noticed the AP story says "Jewish cronies," whereas the Reuters story says "Jewish friends." And I'm wondering if this is translation.
MESERVE: Perhaps it is.
I think, also, that the AP was saying "George W. Bush." According to the official I talked to, it just said "G.W." So, one wouldn't have thought that would have been a translation problem. So...
BLITZER: And...
MESERVE: ... maybe it's just a -- a game of telephone, where things change after it goes through a couple of people.
BLITZER: I assume Coast Guard takes a -- a major role in this investigation.
But we're also told that FBI agents are on the scene, other federal authorities, and certainly local authorities out in California as well. This is a multi-jurisdictional investigation.
MESERVE: Sure.
Well, a port is a very complex sort of law enforcement situation. There are private entities. There's the ocean side. There's the land side. There are local authorities. There are federal authorities, all of which get some part of the action.
So, when you do have a response like this, it tends to be many- headed. You have people coming from many different directions, responding. And here, obviously, you need some people with some expertise in -- in bomb detection to -- to -- as they try and figure out what exactly they're dealing with.
BLITZER: And these are live pictures we're seeing from the Port of Hueneme out in California.
Jeanne, stand by.
Chris Lawrence is Los Angeles. He's picking up information as well.
Give our viewers a sense of the potential significance of this port, Chris.
LAWRENCE: Well, Wolf, Jeanne mentioned that it was a -- a boat carrying bananas into the U.S. that was stopped and where they found this threat.
That's not uncommon. In fact, if many of our viewers ate a banana for breakfast, chances are there's a good chance that it did come through that port. It's one of the top 10 ports in the country for the import of bananas, also for automobiles, one of the top exports -- areas for citrus products here in the United States.
It is about -- if you know where Los Angeles and Santa Barbara is, about split the difference, And Port Hueneme is about right in the middle of that, perhaps a little bit closer to Santa Barbara. It's the only deepwater harbor between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area.
And because it has protection from the Channel Islands, protection from storms, because of those Channel Islands right there, it's also the primary support facility for a lot of the offshore oil industry in the central California region -- so, significant port, international port, has a deepwater canyon outlying the -- the harbor area, so, able to handle those big ships. Like, Wolf, you mentioned, a 30,000 size ship, this port has the ability to handle those big vessels like that.
BLITZER: All right. Let's hope it's nothing. But we will continue to monitor this story.
Chris, thanks very much.
And, remember, to our viewers, stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Lou Dobbs getting ready for his program that begins right at the top of the hour, standing by to tell us what he's working on.
Hi, Lou.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Hi, Wolf.
Coming up at 6:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN: When the top American general in Iraq considers withdrawal of our troops, how is that different from when Senate Democrats do the same thing? Should we be describing all plans for withdrawal from Iraq as cut-and-run? We will have that special report tonight.
Also: The Bush administration's so-called free-trade policies are not only threatening our national sovereignty, but making our entire judicial system, including the U.S. Supreme Court, subservient to international tribunals.
We will have that report for you and a new National Academy of Sciences study that shows industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are, at the very least, possibly responsible for global warming. Three of the world's leading climatologists who wrote the original study will join me tonight to talk about what we can do about global warming and why we are doing so little.
And I will be talking with a syndicated columnist tonight who, on the subject of illegal immigration, says I pander to racists and xenophobes. I will have a few things to say to him as well tonight. We hope you will join us -- back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: A full show coming up at the top of the hour -- Lou, thank you very much.
And coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: cars floating in parking lots and a large tree falling down on the White House lawn -- torrential rains wreaking havoc on much of the Northeast. We are going to show you what is going on.
Jack Cafferty also giving you a billion dollars for your thoughts, not in actual cash, but as currency for your consideration. If you had $44 billion, who would you give it to?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Happening now: flood watches and warnings across the Washington, D.C. metro area and beyond -- as much as a foot of rain has fallen on some of the major cities, and there's more in the forecast.
CNN's Brian Todd is joining us from nearby Alexandria, Virginia, where it's very wet -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the rain has fallen in very heavy bursts for the past two days. It's caused a lot of flash flooding here and throughout the region.
This is what we're looking at. They're pumping thousands of gallons of water out of this office park here in Alexandria. It's go no place to go but the street here. You see some pumps over here. You see water hoses beyond this white car over here. I will motion him to pass us, so you can see it a little better.
You have got, as I say, thousands of gallons of water being pump out of this water park. Beyond this is the Capital Beltway, which this section right here was closed because of a mudslide here earlier today.
I am going to give you another indication, Wolf, of the kind of water we're looking at here. The flash flooding came up very suddenly, as you mentioned, up to a foot of water in some parts of this region. We are going to show you this parking garage here, this office park in Alexandria.
I'm going to ask my cameraman, Ron Hallum (ph), to get a little low here.
At least two or three feet of water in here. You have got cars still stranded in there. And Ron can pan over here and you can see the waterline. It was at least two or three feet beyond that.
Now, this is not the end of it, Wolf. The National Weather Service, we spoke to them just a few moments ago. They say the rain is going to continue throughout the Northeast for the next two days, 48 hours.
Flood watches are in effect from northeastern Georgia up through Vermont. Now, flood warnings, those go through tomorrow evening. Flood warnings are in effect for this region that are being extended for the next few hours -- flash flooding all over the place, several roads closed in this region. It's not over for at least two days -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Brian, thanks very much for that.
We will take a quick break. We will update you on what's going on in California, the closing of a major port out near Los Angeles, a possible terrorist threat.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We're watching that developing story. The Port of Hueneme out in California has been shut down, a possible -- possible -- terror threat. These are live pictures you're seeing.
Joining us now on the phone is Captain Ron Nelson. He's a Ventura County -- with the Ventura County Sheriff's Department.
What's going on, based on the information you're getting, Captain?
CAPTAIN RON NELSON, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: I don't have a lot of information, other than, our bomb squad was called in by -- to assist with the Port Hueneme Police Department and several federal agencies in regard to a ship at the port for a possible explosive device, or some kind of threatening device may have been on the ship.
So, our -- our bomb squad personnel did some kind of a search on board the ship and the surrounding area. And they have not found anything. So, right now, I think we're pretty much out of it, but Port Hueneme and other federal agents are continuing the investigation.
BLITZER: It's been about three hours since this information developed. Is the bomb search over?
NELSON: I don't know to what degree any kind of a bomb search is over. I know that our -- our resources that were sent out there were fairly confident that they couldn't find anything. So, who knows what is going to happen from here. I'm sure some kind of an investigation will continue.
BLITZER: We will continue to monitor it for our viewers.
Captain Ron Nelson, with the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, thanks very much. We will check back with you.
And stay with CNN for continuing coverage. As soon as we get more information on this possible terror threat out in California, we will bring it to you.
Let's, in the meantime, go to Jack Cafferty. He's in New York -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: The world's second richest man -- that would be Warren Buffett -- is going to give away almost all of his $44 billion to charity. Most of it will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The question we asked is: If you had that much, $44 billion, whom would you give it to?
Becky writes from Tennessee: "I would endow some organization to see that high school and elementary school teachers and librarians are paid what they deserve."
Jennie in New Jersey: "I would give my fortune to shelters and animal rescue groups across the country. Millions of adoptable animals are killed every year because of lack of funds. He should give part of his fortune to animal shelters."
Paul in Middletown, New York: "Warren Buffett should transfer as much of his money as necessary to those who would begin an alternative political party that would rise about the Republican regressives and the impotent Democrats."
Shirley in Longboat Key, Florida: "Mr. Buffett should seriously reconsider his gift to the Bill Gates Foundation. Most of that goes overseas. We need homeless shelters, medical service for our poor, etcetera. We are bankrupt from our generosity to foreigners, while they spit in our face. He made his money here. Charity begins at home."
Jessie, Ponca City, Oklahoma: "How about the state of Kansas? They don't get the FEMA money for hurricanes or earthquakes. There's nothing there to bomb. And the CNN weather guys always stand in front of them while they talk about the rest of the country. They could use some of the money to start a publicity campaign for tourism, change their motto to: Come to Kansas. We don't suck as bad as we used to."
And Colby in Brooklyn, New York: "Warren Buffett is giving away 85 percent of his fortune? Big deal. I do that every month. It's called rent. I bet he has a lot more left over than I do."
(LAUGHTER)
CAFFERTY: Wolf.
BLITZER: Jack, stand by for a second.
I want to update our viewers on what is going on out in California. The -- the terror -- possible terror threat out at the Port of Hueneme -- that's -- north of Los Angeles -- these are live pictures -- we're getting this in from our Jeanne Meserve.
The commander, the Coast Guard commander on the scene out there, Jeff Carter (ph), says the port has not been closed by the Coast Guard. He says the port director would have the authority to slow down traffic. The U.S. government, the federal government, so far has taken no such action.
We have just heard that a bomb squad was on the scene investigating what's going on from the Ventura County Sheriff's Department.
You're looking at law enforcement personnel now on this 30,000- ton vessel that came in from Guatemala, apparently bringing in bananas to California. We are watching this.
The note that apparently had been written, the message that caused all of this alarm was, "This nitro is for you, Mr. George W. Bush, and your Jewish cronies."
We are going to continue to watch this story -- much more coming up later tonight in THE SITUATION ROOM, 7:00 p.m. Eastern, one hour from now.
Until then, thanks very much for joining us.
Let's go to Lou Dobbs. Lou is standing by in New York -- Lou.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
