Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
America Strikes Back: More U.S. Troops to Deploy to Afghanistan
Aired November 01, 2001 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Today on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: "America Strikes back."
Still defiant. A seemingly authentic letter from Osama bin Laden. What's his message this time?
A look to the past to answer current criticism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It took eight months after Pearl Harbor before the U.S. began a land campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What are the Pentagon's plans for ground troops?
On the home front, anthrax spreads to other states, leaving investigators baffled. And after a heated debate, a crucial vote looms on Capitol Hill.
And another debate continues on this show. What is the price for protecting the public?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES ZOGBY, ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE: It's bad law enforcement to simply use an ethnic-based profile.
REP. SCOTT MCINNIS (R), COLORADO: We need to use profiling for the security of this country. What you're trying to do is be so politically correct that we're actually gun shy...
ZOGBY: No, I'm actually trying to come up with a very precise launch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: ... those stories. And an Islamic ally enters the U.S. call to arms, as "America Strikes Back."
Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington. He didn't give us a time frame, but the secretary of defense did drop hints that more U.S. troops will be on the ground in Afghanistan. We'll go to the Pentagon live in just a moment, but first, let's go live to Joie Chen in Atlanta for a quick check of the latest developments -- Joie.
JOIE CHEN, CNN ANCHOR: That's right, Wolf. More U.S. special forces are to be sent to Afghanistan. That is the word today from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He didn't say how many, but he did say that the sooner they get there, the better. They will assist U.S. troops already on the ground in helping anti-Taliban forces and finding targets for allied war planes.
NATO ally Turkey today said it will send 90 troops to Afghanistan to help train Afghan forces fighting the Taliban. Now, this is important because Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country. The country's foreign minister says the move sends a message to the world that the U.S.-led war against terrorism is not a war against Islam.
U.S. war planes today kept up heavy bombing raids on Taliban front lines, forces north of the capital city, Kabul. The Pentagon says the strikes are in support of opposition Northern Alliance troops. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says their campaign is making "measurable progress" -- his words.
New letter reportedly from Osama bin Laden, condemned Pakistan's support of the allied war on terrorism. The letter was broadcast on the Al Jazeera network, but it has not been confirmed as authentic. The letter says Pakistan is now standing beneath the Christian banner, and urges Pakistanis to defend against what it calls a Christian crusade.
The anthrax contamination has spread again. Traces of the bacteria found in a postal facility in Kansas City, Missouri. More than 170 postal workers there are now receiving preventive antibiotics. And in Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, preliminary tests have found traces of anthrax at four Food and Drug Administration buildings.
Within the next few hours, a key vote is expected in the House on the Aviation Security Bill. For the most part, lawmakers are split along party lines. A big debate focus on whether to make all airport screeners federal employees. We'll get more on this in a minute.
Now we turn back to Wolf in Washington.
BLITZER: Thanks, Joie.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today delivered a spirited defense of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. At a briefing with reporters, Rumsfeld zeroed in on those critics who complain the campaign is taking too long. CNN military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre covered the briefing. He joins us now live with details -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Secretary Rumsfeld said that political considerations have not constrained the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan. But he said some practical constraints have. In fact, he mentioned a shortage of U.S. Army Green Berets and Air Force special operations troops on the ground to coordinate attacks.
They have been effective in recent days in those attacks that have been along the front line Taliban forces. But he said while several teams are -- quote -- "cocked and ready to go," they have not been able to get in the country, in some cases because of bad weather, in other cases because of ground fire that have forced U.S. helicopters to turn back.
But Rumsfeld said he expects those teams to get in soon, and begin increasingly the effectiveness of the U.S. military strikes. At the same time, he said the U.S. is dropping more aid and ammunition to opposition groups in other parts of the country. And they will try to put special forces there as well.
But again, he said the United States has to go slow so that the aid and ammunition doesn't fall into the hands of profiteers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: You just don't load up an airplane and start dropping it out from the sky in parachutes for people that you have not developed some sort of a relationship with, some sense of whether or not they're going to actually do something with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: Now, roughly 80 percent of the U.S. bombing is now pounding the front line Taliban troops to pave the way for an expected Northern Alliance advance on Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif. But some bombs are still hitting these caves where Al Qaeda forces are thought to be hunkered down. You can see this one had a secondary explosion that indicated ammunition or fuel was inside.
And again, the Pentagon denying that the military campaign has been any way constrained to accommodate the political concerns, and Secretary Rumsfeld again urging patience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUMSFELD: In the end, war is not about statistics, deadlines, short attention spans or 24-hour news cycles. It's about will, the projection of will, the clear, unambiguous determination of the president of the United States, and let there be no doubt about that, and the American people to see this through to certain victory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: The U.S. military strategy at this point it to cut off the supply lines, cut off the ammunition supplies and the command and control so that those troops on the front lines are isolated and have nowhere to go -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, thank you very much. Also at the Pentagon briefing today, officials said the yellow color of food packets being dropped to help Afghan civilians will be changed. The reason? Cluster bombs being dropped on Taliban forces are also painted yellow. Officials fear unexploded cluster bombs, roughly the size of a beer can, could be mistaken for a food packet.
Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers says it's unfortunate that the color is the same. And he said the food packet color will be changed to blue. Asked about criticism of the use of cluster bombs, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld minced no words in defending the weapon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUMSFELD: They're being used on front line Al Qaeda and Taliban troops. To try to kill them, is why we're using them, to be perfectly blunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUMSFELD: Rumsfeld also once again accused the Taliban of using Afghan people as human shields.
Many key developments on the military front now. Joining us now to talk about all of it, CNN military analyst, Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd.
General Shepperd, first of all, on the whole issue that has come up in the past 24 hours: carpet bombing of front line Taliban positions. I want to go to our map over here on our telestrator. We're told that the carpet bombing has gone along some of the front line positions, let's say, around here, but the Northern Alliance is over here. Between Mazar-e-Sharif, the strategic hold that the Taliban is still controlling, around Bagram, this Air Base that has gone back and forth between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban forces.
Is that kind of carpet bombing, which of course became so familiar during the Vietnam War, is that likely to have much of an impact?
RETIRED MAJ. GEN. DON SHEPPERD, USAF: General It should have an impact over time, Wolf. It brings together several of the elements that Jamie McIntyre and Secretary Rumsfeld, whom we heard from the Pentagon, reported.
First of all, you have to have a liaison with troops on the ground -- special forces. This is what they do. They establish trust, they get information, they decide where to put these carpets, if you will.
Now, "carpet" is an unfortunate term. But what it means is a pattern of bombs on the ground, normally dropped from high altitude, by a bomber, sometimes in formation, sometimes not. But you have you to know where things are. And the whole idea of this is cut off supplies, cut off ammunition and kill troops on the ground as well. That's what it's about.
BLITZER: They are usually 500-pound bombs. These are so-called dumb bombs, as opposed to the smart, precision-guided bombs, 750 pounds. Can they make any impact on those caves where, presumably, the Taliban command and control, the leadership are hiding?
SHEPPERD: Well, this is not the type of bomb you'd use on a cave. You try to get something inside the cave, or something that penetrated the cave. This normally goes off on the surface. You can also set the fuse to set it off with a slight delay. You'd use it on a cave mouth, but not to get inside a cave.
This is meant for troops, in a pattern where you don't know exactly where they are, so you bomb the area, hoping to kill anything of military value in that area.
BLITZER: And basically, they've been used throughout these weeks of the air war, which is now in its fourth week. But right now for the first time, they're being used along the front. Let's go back to this map to show our viewers -- around here, to try to help the Northern Alliance gain some strategic footholds up here in the north before the winter sets in.
SHEPPERD: Right, Mazar-e-Sharif is key resupplier in the north. The Taliban gets supplies in that area. Kabul also, of course, being the capital, has other significance. But again, the whole idea is to find out exactly where they are in these areas -- not specifically in which hole, but what area they're in, and hit them with these bombers.
BLITZER: There was a strategically, potentially politically significant -- I don't know military, how significant -- development. Turkey, announcing it will send some special operations forces into northern Afghanistan to help the Northern Alliance to work with the U.S. Turkey of course, being predominantly Muslim nation, a member of NATO.
Militarily, is that significant, or is it largely symbolic?
SHEPPERD: It's both. It's symbolic for obvious reasons, but it's also militarily significant. The Turks are tough. They have been tough for years. They have been with us in many of our forays militarily over the years. They were with us, for instance, in Korea and what have you. They are very, very experienced troops. They've had a lot of problem with terrorism in their own country. And you can see those pictures. These guys know what they're doing, and we want them on our side.
BLITZER: OK. General Shepperd, always good to get your expertise. Thank you very much.
And in the next edition of WOLF BLITZER REPORTS -- that comes up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, join me and three experts in the war room. We'll talk about the war on the ground inside Afghanistan -- how is it going? I'll ask former CIA director, James Woolsey, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Richard Shelby, and former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
We'll also be taking your e-mail questions. Go to cnn.com/wolf. Click on "Send questions." We'll use them at 7:00 p.m., Eastern, 4:00 Pacific. If you thought last night's World Series game was close, there is a nail biter going on right now and the stakes are much higher. The fight over the future of airline security is taking place inside the U.S. Capitol building.
The two teams are familiar to you, mostly Democrats on one side, mostly Republicans on the other. If the House Democrats win, airport security workers at nation's largest airports would become federal employees. Most House Republicans want federal supervision of airline security workers, but say workers should not necessarily be federal employees.
You do the math. It seems the Republicans have the edge. There are 220 of them, 211 Democrats. Add in two independents and the fact that lawmakers don't always vote with their own party, the outcome of course is less certain.
Joining us now from Capitol Hill is CNN Congressional correspondent Kate Snow. She is following this very, very closely. Right now, Kate, which side appears to have the edge?
KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wish I could tell you, Wolf. Right now, it's a toss-up. It's like the tenth inning of a baseball game. It's absolutely too close to call. Both sides saying that they think it's going to be between one or two votes, dividing the two sides. And a lot of pressure right now on Republicans. I was talking with one member who said at the beginning of the day there were about 13 Republicans who were willing to back the Democratic bill, the Senate version of this bill backing federal employees for airport security.
Now there are, at the end of the day, about half of that, about six or seven members who seem to be willing to go that route. A lot of them have been convinced that they should vote along with the House Republican leadership and along with the president. This member of Congress that I was speaking with says the pressure right now is as intense as it was years ago in 1994, when they debated the crime bill here on Capitol Hill. He said he hasn't seen it this intense since then -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Kate, there's a poll that just came out by the IPSOS Reed company, shows 49 percent want federal supervision, 44 percent want a federal takeover, 4 percent want either and 4 percent want neither. What kind of pressure does all that put on lawmakers, Kate?
SNOW: I think that reflects what's happening with lawmakers. That reflects what's happening on Capitol Hill. There's a real division, and it's sort of 50/50. Some people think the right way is to using a federal work force, and others think that the right way to go is just having federal supervision. Both sides pointing to real world examples in Europe and Israel, where they're able to make their cases, where they have some combination of the two.
But that sort of illustrates the divide that we're seeing here on Capitol Hill. BLITZER: And, Kate, we heard from J.C. Watts and Martin Frost in the last hour. That vote expected some time between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. CNN, of course, will have the vote as it becomes available. Thanks to Kate Snow. Thank very much.
And of course,President Bush hasn't been in the background on all of this. Today he met with 19 key Republicans for what might be described as a little arm-twisting. For that, we turn to CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace.
Kelly, the White House has been lobbying hard on this. Is the president optimistic he's going to get his way?
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's very interesting. White House officials, publicly and privately, really still saying they believe this is going to be a very close vote.
But if you take a look at that meeting the president had with those 19 House Republicans, talking to a couple of Republican lawmakers that came out of that meeting, they thought the president was rather persuasive, and they thought he did quite a good job changing some minds. We know he's been on the phone a bit, calling some moderate Democrats and Republicans.
He met with a group of Democrats and a group of Republicans earlier in the week. We're told by senior administration officials his message is he thinks the bill sponsored by Republicans in the House is the most effective way to ensure you're getting the best workers, the best passenger and baggage screeners, and that you can terminate workers very quickly if they're not doing the job.
Again, the White House watching this very, very closely. I was told, Wolf, by one House Republican aide who said in the end, if Republicans win, they believe it will be the president as the decisive factor. A lot of friendly arm twisting, but some even saying that -- Republican lawmakers saying they get the sense the president is running this war against terrorism, and at this point in time they want to give him what he wants -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And as you know, The Democratic version, basically the Democratic version did pass the Senate by 100-0 vote. Let's say the Republicans lose in the House, the Democrat version passes. What's the president going to do? He could of course veto it, if he wanted to.
WALLACE: That is the key question, because Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, on a Sunday talk show, said the president doesn't want to sign that Senate bill, but if it came to his desk he would sign it.
Well, since then, White House aides publicly and privately have been saying: Look, we won't address any hypotheticals. We want the Republican bill in the House. We hope a measure that closely resembles that gets to the president.
But clearly, they're not ruling out signing that Senate bill. Because, Wolf, it would be politically difficult, you could say, for this white House to go ahead and veto such a bill. Right now all they're saying is all bets are on, that they're trying to get this House Republican bill passed, and they'll address hypotheticals after that.
Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Kelly Wallace at the White House, thank you very much. And Congressman Jack Quinn was one of those Republican lawmakers who sat down with President Bush today. He joins us now to tell us what took place.
Congressman Quinn, thank you very much.
You're a moderate Republican from my hometown of Buffalo. What did the president say to you?
REP. JACK QUINN (R), NEW YORK: Well, I've been called a lot worse, Wolf, besides a moderate Republican, over the years, but thanks anyway.
The president made a very compelling argument today. I spoke with him on the phone privately about 8:00 this morning, and then I was at the White House about noontime today. And he really made a compelling argument, for me, at lest, and I think quite a few others.
And basically, what he said is, if we're going to give him the responsibility to make the skies safe, he needs the flexibility to do that, and to do it properly. And that made sense to me, and it made sense to a lot of other lawmakers who were there.
BLITZER: You're going to obviously vote with your Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives. Did you get the sense that the other 18 Republicans who were at that meeting with you and the president are going to follow the same course?
QUINN: Well, I think Kate's right: it's tough to handicap this one. The numbers are very, very close, but we came out of the meeting at the White House convinced that we needed to support our president.
And the bottom line to all this is, I think whether you are on the Democrat side or the Republican side, the skies will be safer when this is over. And security is going to be out of the hands of the airlines and into the hands of the federal government, to varying degrees of one side or the other. But it will be much better than what we had before, and the American public should feel safe about that, regardless of what we do in there in an hour.
BLITZER: As you know, a lot of Americans who go through those security checkpoints, even now, since September 11th, don't feel very confident that the personnel there are doing a really adequate job. What, specifically, did you hear from the president is going to make a big difference, as far as these private contractors who work at those metal detectors at the airports? What's the biggest change going to be? QUINN: Well, I think the biggest change for the flying public, and for the same people I talk to in Buffalo that fly in the planes back and forth all over the country -- and we heard it from Norm Mineta, as well as the president, that's the secretary of transportation -- is right now, what's going to happen is a federal armed marshal is going to stand at every single one of these screening posts all across the country in every single airport.
And they're going to watch, after we certify the company, and we certify the individual screeners that are there, by the federal government, and we're going to suet a higher pay, probably more like a customs agent, at about 24 or $25,000 a year. That law enforcement, federal law enforcement official that will be at every single screening post, if they see something done wrong, or the proper rules not followed, they're going to take those people off the job immediately. And they'll decertify the company that hired them.
So, I was convinced today that we're going to have uniformity across the country. We're going to have a federal presence there, that's for sure. And people should feel safe. They're going to feel safer, regardless of the politics that's played out here this afternoon. We're going to be in better shape, no matter which road we end up on.
BLITZER: Congressman Jack Quinn of Buffalo, New York, thanks for joining us.
QUINN: Thank you.
BLITZER: We always appreciate having you on the program.
And just ahead here, a letter from Osama bin Laden. How will it be read by Pakistanis? We'll talk to an expert.
Also, should we be using racial and ethnic profiling as a weapon in the war on terrorism?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOGBY: I'm dealing with this issue every single day because I'm getting the victims who are calling me, and I've been dealing with this issue for 10 years.
MCINNIS: Not based solely on ethnic...
ZOGBY: A 69-year-old Syrian woman who gets her luggage strewn all over the floor because she was singled out because she had head scarf on. It is wrong. And let me tell you something...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Congressman Scott McInnis and Jim Zogby are back for round two of a provocative debate. That's next on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Welcome back.
They spoke for six minute on our program yesterday, and the appearance caused a flood of e-mail. The topic: should racial or ethnic profiling be allowed to help protect airline passengers?
The guests, Congressman Scott McInnis of Colorado, who supports profiling. Jim Zogby of the Arab American Institute, who opposes it.
Gentlemen, welcome back. And before I begin the questioning, I want to read some of the e-mail that we did receive over the Internet on our Web site.
Bruce Moore of Glendale, Arizona says this: "1.) It's not racial profiling. It may be ethnic, but not racial. 2.) How many Swedes have hijacked a plane in the last 100 years? This PC junk has gone far enough."
Rajaram of Washington, D.C. writes this: "This is with regard to Representative McInnis' call for profiling. By his argument, all white Anglo-Saxon males driving pickup trucks, with or without gun racks, should have been stopped on national highways after the Oklahoma City bombing."
Now, let's begin with you, Congressman McInnis. What do you say to Rajaram, who makes that point?
MCINNIS: Well, he's off base. I'm not even sure what he is trying to do. The key here is that race should not be excluded as one of the elements in building a risk profile or a threat profile. It is essential for the nation's security, and we should not confuse here who the victims are.
It is essential for this nation's security to allow the ethnic element as a portion of the profile that we put together for risk assessment.
BLITZER: Jim Zogby, as you know, you're very sensitive to this, I've known you for many years. All of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were of Arab Middle Eastern ancestry. All of those on the most wanted list, the world's most wanted list that the president put out, were of Arab Middle Eastern ancestry.
Why is Congressman McInnis wrong in saying the United States should get involved in this kind of profiling of passengers?
ZOGBY: Well, what Congressman McInnis is saying right now is not something I disagree with. But what he was saying yesterday, and what has been said and what has been done by airports across the country is wrong. That is to say, using ethnicity as the single element in the profile. And in fact, that's what we're seeing.
When the pilot comes back and says, "I'm not flying with Muhammad on the plane," or when three guys who happen to be Indian but are dark and make the pilot uncomfortable, and so they're asked off the plane, or in the dozen or more cases that we've had where, in fact, the ethnicity factor alone was used, it is wrong.
And so my point is that, you can develop a computerized system. You can develop something that avoids this kind of subjective prejudice becoming policy, and come up with a profile that does work, and that does in fact help screen out people who may be a problem.
We had it in place. It wasn't used. The 19 individuals could have in fact been profiled, not so much based on their ethnicity, but on the fact that they bought one-way tickets with cash for first class tickets. That was a problem.
If the plane had been secure, if in fact, the pilot's door had been bolted, as the FAA had recommended a decade ago...
BLITZER: Mr. Zogby...
ZOGBY: And if no weapon of any kind was allowed on the plane, it doesn't matter who was on the plane. Nothing could have been done. I agree to get these guys out of our airways, but I don't agree you create a solely subjective based ethnic profile is the way to do it.
MCINNIS: Mr. Zogby, let me clarify. Last night -- and you need to take a look at the script, because you're misleading the viewers out there. I didn't say that should the sole element. In fact, I said just the opposite, No. 1.
No. 2, what I did say directly at is every time we use racial or ethnic background as an element in profiling, you should quit playing the race card. You should quit trying to be so politically correct that you put the nation's security at risk. And I'll tell you, it is happening out there. We've got people out there that are afraid to approach an individual, because they're afraid they're going to be accused of racial profiling.
We've got to allow law enforcement to use this as one of the elements in building threat profiling. And so you do agree with me on that, and it's time to put the race card aside and worry about the nation's security, and not confuse the victims.
ZOGBY: Congressman, what I'm looking at are the cases that have come to us and how this has been implemented. When Darrell Issa, Republican member of Congress -- and I wasn't playing...
MCINNIS: You said that last night. I understand that.
ZOGBY: I wasn't playing partisan politics. When he was denied access to a plane because of his last name, when we have a number of cases of people with simply the name Muhammad, who are on the plane, seated in their seats, who had passed all the security clearances, who were known by the airlines because they're frequent flyers, when they were asked off the plane because they didn't want to fly with someone named Muhammad. That's what I'm objecting to.
MCINNIS: Well, Mr. Zogby, you had one case with Muhammad.
ZOGBY: No, I have many cases. MCINNIS: Let me make an analogy to this, Mr. Zogby. The analogy is because we have a couple of stupid arrests -- and the examples you use are obviously extreme examples of stupid behavior by law enforcement, and I agree with that. But what you're saying is because we have some false arrests, or because we have stupid arrests, we shouldn't make any more arrests.
ZOGBY: That's not what I am saying, Congressman.
MCINNIS: That's exactly how you're coming across.
ZOGBY: That's not what I'm saying. And in fact, what I'm saying is if you create a profile, ethnicity can be part of the profile.
MCINNIS: OK, then you agree with me.
ZOGBY: But what we are seeing in fact, in practice, is that is not the case. We are seeing a more subjective use of this as what may be the only question that is being used, which is one of the reasons why the screening of the people who get these jobs is maybe the most important thing we are doing, so that in fact we don't end up pulling off the guys who are between -- simply between 20 and 40, happen to be of Arab descent.
Darrell Issa, in fact, was quite complimented by the fact that he was confused as being someone 20 to 40. But I have two boys. One is at the Justice Department, one is a senior in college. They, if you simply use the profile, Arab male between 20 and 40, they fit that description. It has got to be better than that, and that's not how it's being done right now.
MCINNIS: It is how it's being done. I think you have overstated the abuse. And my concern -- look, I'm not coming after you personally. I'm just saying that overstatement of this abuse then makes those examiners gun shy. They're are afraid to ask people some of these questions -- people that maybe ought to be asked questions, because they're afraid they're going to be accused of racial profiling.
The race card has been way overplayed here. And look, I feel -- you know, I do not condone inappropriate behavior by law enforcement. But I think you've overstated the case. And gosh darn it, we've got to get back to national security, and we have to remember who the real victims are here, and that's the World Trade Center.
ZOGBY: Gosh darn it, Congressman, I agree with you that we want to make the airways safe. But not at the expense of innocent people...
MCINNIS: It's not happening.
ZOGBY: It is happening. Let's improve the system.
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: If we can agree on improving the system, the we're all together on the same page.
MCINNIS: By remember, innocent people are required to open their suitcases when they go through that. That's an inconvenience, and I'm sorry. But that's one of the factors...
ZOGBY: But, Congressman, I have too many cases reported to me where, in fact, ethnicity was the only thing and people were humiliated in a way that was simply wrong. It doesn't make us safer.
MCINNIS: Mr. Zogby, you are overstating the case, and I'm telling you, this country will suffer as a result, because you continually play the race card, and continually try to be politically correct at the expense of this nation's...
ZOGBY: Anyone who knows me knows that's not the case, Congressman, and you are overstating the case.
BLITZER: Let me ask you, Congressman McInnis. As you know, during World War II, one of the ugliest chapters in U.S. history, when Japanese-Americans, very loyal, hard working people, were rounded up and put in camps simply because of their ethnic, their background as Japanese-Americans. It's left a horrible taste in the mouths of many Americans, who see the potential, a slippery slope out there, if you start doing this kind of thing, even on a modest level, with Arab- Americans.
MCINNIS: Well, let me tell you, Mr. Blitzer, that I agree with you. That was a sad and a black moment in our history that all of us regret occurred. No one has suggested anything close to detention centers because somebody is of an Arab ethnic background, or Muslim, or of the Islam faith.
But what I'm afraid, Mr. Blitzer, what's going to happen here is that we -- this race card will be played so hard that people that should be asked questions will not be asked questions because these -- the examiners and the profile they're trying to put together, of which ethnic background should be one of the elements, they won't be asked because they're afraid they're going to be accused of racial profiling.
And I'm telling you, it's hurting law enforcement efforts out there.
ZOGBY: Congressman, listen. I've spoken with law enforcement personnel, and they tell me that ethnic-based profiling is bad law enforcement. It chases them down a path to go to a...
MCINNIS: Well, Mr. Zogby, you're getting off the -- we're not talking about solely...
ZOGBY: Congressman, I let you finish your comments and you're doing it again.
MCINNIS: OK, you're right. Go ahead. Go ahead.
ZOGBY: OK. The fact is, is that too many people are stopped. Too many people who aren't the culprits are stopped, and law enforcement wastes resources. And if you want to worry about detention centers, unfortunately, we may be getting there. Unless the attorney general...
MCGINNIS: We're not -- that's baloney. I am going to interrupt today. That is wrong. Look...
ZOGBY: Helps us disaggregate...
MCGINNIS: Nobody has suggested detention centers.
ZOGBY: ...these people who are being detained right now, we may not know how close we are.
MCGINNIS: Mr. Zogby, Mr. Zogby...
ZOGBY: The fact is, is that we are getting reports of people who are being picked up all over the country. We don't know what they are being charged with. We don't know what they have done. And in fact, the law enforcement agencies are not telling us what they have done. I think a net has been cast too wide, and I think it is difficult. I want to stop terrorists as much as you. Maybe more than you.
MCGINNIS: Mr. Zogby, OK. Now let me say my part.
ZOGBY: Because I want to see law enforcement be effective.
MCGINNIS: You are wrong and you know you are wrong when you suggest that even -- that there's any hint at all for detention center in this country. You That's -- you are way off base and you're trying -- you're trying to...
ZOGBY: 1986. The INS issued a plan on alien detention centers.
MCGINNIS: Are you going to let me finish?
ZOGBY: And they built one down in Oakdale, Louisiana.
MCGINNIS: Are you going to let me finish now, Mr. Zogby?
ZOGBY: I will.
MCGINNIS: The key here is I agree -- you agree with me that racial profiling because of a person's race should not be the sole element of a profile.
ZOGBY: We agree.
MCGINNIS: But at the same time, you should not exclude ethnic background as one of the elements of a profile. And that's the message I am trying to get across for you for the nation's security.
ZOGBY: Well, you cloud up the message with every thing you say. But other than that, we agree.
BLITZER: All right, gentlemen. Unfortunately -- unfortunately, gentlemen, we have to leave it right there. I want it thank both of our guests, Congressman Scott McInnis, Jim Zogby, two very, very passionately held views. A good debate here on our program over two days. Thanks to both of you for joining us.
ZOGBY: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: And Washington's battle over money to rebuild New York. We will speak to a Congresswoman who says the federal government, the Bush administration is not going to give New York City what it had promised. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. This just in, we have from the governor of California, Governor Gray Davis telling reporters that, in his words, "credible threats" have been made against some landmark bridges out in California, including the Golden Gate and Bay Bridge in the San Francisco area as well as the Coronado bridge in San Diego.
We are going to be following this development, the governor of California warning about credible threats against some landmark bridges, presumably by terrorists out in California. We will have more as this program continues.
Meanwhile, on September 18, one week after the terrorist attacks, President Bush signed a $40 billion emergency aid package. Half was to go to the military and half to New York. But today an issue about just how much immediate financial help New York can expect from Washington has come up.
Joining us now Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. She is a Democrat from New York. You met with the budget director Mitch Daniels today, Congresswoman. What did he tell you?
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D), NEW YORK: Well, along with many of my colleagues I expressed my concern that out of the 40 billion -- of which 20 billion was to come to New York -- only less than 10 billion has been allocated to us.
The site is still burning. There are tremendous needs, and we need the money now. The 20 billion was supposed to a floor, not a ceiling. And there are tremendous needs. And we are being told to wait. We can't wait. We need it now. And...
BLITZER: What was his explanation? Why is less than 10 billion available if there was an initial pledge of 20 billion? What was his explanation?
MALONEY: Well, actually, he didn't even give one. He just said, it will be there in the future. But the promise was part of the 20 billion package. And if you are part of the 20 billion package, then you don't have compete with all the other concerns in another budget. So New York is being short changed at this point.
We have tremendous needs. We were pledged 20 billion the day -- I just got off the phone with the chancellor from New York City, Chancellor Levy. He has asked for 100 million to help with the schools that have faced dislocation. That has been turned down.
The business people with their concerns, and then their concerns have been turned down. And people are making decisions now whether to stay or leave New York. And if the assistance isn't there now, it is going to deeply hurt our economy and New York's economy, not only New York state but our entire country.
BLITZER: But is this just simply, Congresswoman Maloney, a budgeting, bookkeeping procedure. He said the 20 billion, if it's needed, will be available. But maybe only 10 billion or so, nine and a half billion, needed right now to get the ball rolling.
MALONEY: Well, listen. According to our mayor and our governor, we need the money now. We can definitely spend it in this year's fiscal budget. And if we don't have it now, then we are in position of going back with a tin cup and begging and competing against all the other concerns that the country faces.
We were pledged 20 billion out of the 40 billion. The country knows that New York needs this money. We were hurt tremendously. Congress just passed a stimulus package on the House side that didn't anything in it for New York. So I'm not going to be confident or rest unless -- until we have the money allocated for New York.
BLITZER: All right.
MALONEY: You either have it or you don't. And at this point we don't.
BLITZER: Congresswoman Maloney, we are going to also -- we are standing by. We are hoping to get some reaction from the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. Of course, once we do, we will put that reaction on this program. I want to thank you for joining us.
MALONEY: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you. And a new letter reportedly from Osama bin Laden reportedly condemns Pakistan's government and calls for the defense of Islam. Our analyst examines the new correspondence and its significance. That and much more, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. For another perspective now from Capitol Hill, Congressman Jim Walsh, Republican of New York, who also attended that meeting with the budget director, Mitch Daniels.
Carolyn Maloney, the Democratic congresswoman, says that Mitch Daniels said only half -- less than half of the 20 million originally -- 20 billion originally promised by President Bush will actually be delivered -- at least in the near term -- to New York City. What is the -- what is the issue here?
REP. JIM WALSH (R), NEW YORK: Well, what the -- what the director said was that the commitment made by the president is a commitment. It's a -- and as I see it, it's a -- $20 billion is a floor, not a ceiling. The question is, when. When do we get it all?
And the fact of the matter is New York City has spent just about $2.5 billion so far. Over 9 billion has been (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in New York. And this next tranche in this supplemental will provide another approximately $3 billion, including $700 million in direct grants to those businesses that were damaged in the attack. So you know, we all agree that the commitment is there.
The issue becomes when will the money be -- all of it be available. And the fact of matter is we have defense issues, border issues, counterterrorism issues, bioterrorism issues, that have to be dealt with the same amount of money. My view is, what we need do is to emit an additional emergency supplemental to provide more money for all of these things.
BLITZER: Congressman Walsh, you know this is a political mine field in the New York City area. They were expecting $20 billion. If they are told now that only -- they are only going to be guaranteed -- at least in the near term -- 9 1/2 or 10 billion, that in effect might be seen as a message from Washington to New York, you know, you don't need all that money in the aftermath of this horrendous tragedy.
WALSH: That's not the case. The fact of the matter is the money has flowed to New York City. There is money available to them as -- as the cleanup work continues. And the point now is it's not the total amount. The commitment is worth $20 billion.
The issues are how do we get money to workers for unemployment insurance, workers compensation, other worker assistance, and how do we get money to the businesses that need to establish and make the decisions to stay there long term. There is no doubt that the money is coming. There is no doubt that will be coming quickly. The question is, will they get all $20 billion by the first of year? I suspect that they won't. But I suspect that there will be more than $20 billion available over the next several months.
BLITZER: All right. Congressman Jim Walsh, Republican of New York. Thanks for joining us. A different perspective on that meeting with Mitch Daniels.
I want to go back to a story we reported a few minutes ago. Governor Gray Davis of California warning that there are serious, credible threats against some of the landmark bridges in the California area. We now have an excerpt of what the governor had to say. Let's listen:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: A credible threat that there will be an effort made between November 2 and November 7 to destroy one of those bridges.
Well before we received that threat, we had taken elaborate security measures with the highway patrol, the Coast Guard and other local law enforcement officials to protect the bridges. We have tightened security even more since the receipt of those threats, and I am today authorizing General Monroe of the National Guard to assign additional National Guard personnel to those bridges in whatever numbers he feels is appropriate.
We are bound and determined to protect Californians and the vital assets of this state. And protection of our bridges, our water system, our electricity grid ranks very high on our priority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Governor Gray Davis of California saying there is a credible threat -- there have been some credible threats warning of terrorist attacks potentially against some of the landmark bridges in California, including the Golden Gate and Bay Bridge in -- Bay Bridges in the San Francisco area as well as that huge Coronado bridge in the San Diego area.
We are going to be continuing to monitor this development. But once again, Governor Gray Davis taking steps to protect the bridges -- the main bridges -- bridges we all know in California.
Let's move on -- on now to another development today. A letter reportedly from Osama bin Laden urging Pakistanis to defend Islam. The letter, hand delivered to the al Jazeera television network today, appears to be signed by bin Laden. It says President Bush is at the head of a Christian crusade.
Part of the letter reads like this. Quote: "The Pakistani government has stood under the banner of the cross, and God said tell the hypocrites that they shall meet painful punishment." Joining us now is Mansoor Ijaz, he is a Pakistani analyst, an American.
Mr. Ijaz, what kind of impact do these letters have on the public in Pakistan, where as you know, there is some widespread sympathy for the Taliban, if not for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
MANSOOR IJAZ, ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I think that you have to divide the Pakistani population into three segments: the first segment is the one or two percent of religious radicals that believe in the Taliban's view of Islam and those people who would essentially join the Taliban at a moment's notice. And they have tried in the past week or so to do that and have not yet been successful. But they trying.
The second segment is the one that bin Laden's letter is really geared towards, and that is the segment of society which is fundamentalist in its thinking process, but it's not yet -- it's sitting on the fence. You can think of it as people sitting on the fence who have not yet flipped the switch to the radical side but could very easily do so if this bombing campaign don't produce a tangible result very soon.
So those are the people, I think, that bin Laden was addressing with this letter. I think the key thing here is the timing of the letter and the intent to essentially divide the war as -- describe the war as one of Islam against Christianity, rather than what we have described it as, as a war on terrorism. BLITZER: Let me move on to talk about another issue of deep concern to U.S. officials here in Washington. Namely, the nuclear stockpile in Pakistan. You are a trained nuclear scientist, your father helped develop Pakistan's nuclear program. Is Pakistan right now -- if there is a takeover, is Pakistan vulnerable to a loss of those nuclear weapons, potentially to the hands of radical groups?
IJAZ: If I may say it this way, Wolf, these are not lollipops that you take out of the candy store and hand over to bin Laden.
Pakistan's nuclear program is set up in the following way. The weapons themselves are not assembled weapons. They are weapons that we know can in fact be assembled and can work, but they are actually put in component parts and held in different parts of the country. Now, a couple of those weapons are probably assemblable on very short notice in case there was a strike from India or some other place.
But essentially these are weapons that are not put in one place that can be captured in the way that, for example, Sy Hersh's article described in the -- in the "New Yorker" last month.
The other point that has to be made is that the brain trust that runs the nuclear program in Pakistan is also equally segmented. The person who is responsible for enrichment of the uranium is not aware of what is going on with the person who is responsible for machine core shells or who is not responsible for the missile components.
So in a sense all of this divided in such a way that it provides its own self-governing mechanism to ensure that it doesn't get out of control.
BLITZER: Mansoor Ijaz, thanks for your expertise on both of those issues. We will have you back at -- in the not-too-distant future. Thank you very much.
IJAZ: Thank you.
BLITZER: And when we come back we will have more on the latest development in California. The governor warning of potential terrorist threats against landmark bridges in the San Francisco and San Diego areas. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: We are following a breaking story in California, where the governor, Gray Davis, has just announced that there is credible threats against some of the landmark bridges in California, including the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge in the San Francisco area and the Coronado Bridge in the San Diego area.
I want to go to CNN's Thelma Gutierrez. She is in our Los Angeles office. She has more now on these late-breaking developments. Thelma?
THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, this afternoon California Governor Gray Davis, at a press conference to announce the special adviser to state security, also took the opportunity to alert the public of what he called a "second credible terrorist threat" to the state of California.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVIS: First, I want to refer to the threat you may be aware of against the suspension bridges in California. We believe there is a credible threat that there will be an effort made between November 2 and November 7 to destroy one of those bridges.
Well before we received that threat, we had taken elaborate security measures with the highway patrol, the Coast Guard and other local law enforcement officials to protect the bridges. We have tightened security even more since receipt of those threats, and I am today authorizing General Monroe of the National Guard to assign additional National Guard personnel to those bridges in whatever numbers he feels is appropriate.
We are bound and determined to protect Californians and the vital assets of this state: and protection of our bridges, our water system, our electricity grid, ranks very high on our priority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUTIERREZ: Now, the first credible threat came last month when reportedly movie studios in and around the Los Angeles area were identified as potential targets.
Again, this afternoon, California Governor Gray Davis announced that four suspension bridges in California: the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in San Francisco area, the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the Port of Los Angeles and the Coronado Bay Bridge in San Diego.
The governor said that the threats extend from November 2 through November 7 and specifically target rush-hour traffic time periods. He would not elaborate on more beyond than that.
Now, we did talk to Matt McLaughlin from the FBI office in Los Angeles. He said that the information had not been corroborated and that is exactly why a statement had not been made prior to the governor's statement this afternoon. Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Well, Thelma, there seems -- seems to be some sort of disconnect there between what the FBI is saying and what the governor of California is saying.
GUTIERREZ: Well, there certainly is, Wolf. And we are waiting for further information from the FBI office to exactly tell us why that has happened. Again, the governor has come out and said this is the second threat -- credible threat made to the Los Angeles area, to California, since September 11th.
BLITZER: The governor was joined by the head of the National Guard in California. Is it conceivable that he would go out and alarm the people of California with this kind of announcement warning of a credible threat against those bridges during rush-hour traffic -- specifically between November 2 and November 7 -- without that kind of hard evidence? Is there anything to suggest he would just shoot off like that, as a loose cannon?
GUTIERREZ: Wolf, that's curious question. Of course, I guess they have to come out and let people know that in fact there are threats against Californians that have been made and that have been deemed credible, though he is not able to elaborate on exactly where that information is coming from. But again, I guess more importantly, the information not corroborated by the FBI here in Los Angeles. Again, a disconnect and a curious question at that.
BLITZER: And of course, people are going to be watching very carefully, monitoring those bridges, presumably other sites in California. You also mentioned, Thelma, while I have you, that a threat against Hollywood studios had been received. What -- precisely what do you know about that?
GUTIERREZ: Well, only, Wolf, that those threats had been made right after 9-11. The Hollywood studios, Warner Brothers Studios -- had put barricades up in front of the property. Mail is being searched, as we understand it. Fan mail is not even coming to the studios. It is actually going to a warehouse in another area to be sorted out before it is brought in. But again, those threats taken to be very credible.
BLITZER: So far, most of the activity -- most of the action involving at least the anthrax scare here on the east coast of the United States. And now the west coast, of course, getting involved as well. We are going to take a quick break. We are going to continue to monitor these late-breaking developments. When we come back, a final word. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A unique and moving ceremony in New York City today. The city's Fire Department graduated its first group of firefighters since the September 11 attacks. As the 240 would-be firefighters received their diplomas, six chairs were left empty to honor the six cadets killed at the World Trade Center. The New York City Fire Department lost more than 340 firefighters on September 11.
I'll be back in one hour with more coverage, including interviews with a CIA -- former CIA Director, James Woolsey. We'll also go into the war room to assess how the war in Afghanistan is going. Until then, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. CNN's coverage continues next with "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE." That begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
