Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
U.S. Military Commander in Iraq Raises Possibility of Adding More Troops; U.S. Marines Lock Down Fallujah
Aired April 05, 2004 - 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Happening now. For the first time, the U.S. military commander in charge of Iraq is raising the possibility of asking for more U.S troops as bloody attacks against the U.S.-led coalition intensify now on two fronts. Stand by for hard news on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
Coalition crackdown. U.S. marines lay down the law with a lockdown on Fallujah.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY: These are the first of a series of actions taken to attack anti-coalition and anti-Iraqi forces.
BLITZER: But as Sunni and Shiite anger mounts so do doubts. Are more troops needed?
Confronting the criticism.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop it.
BLITZER: Will public testimony put an end to persistent questions? I'll speak with former senator Bob Kerrey of the 9/11 Commission.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger. He's wounded. Hit him. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Go forward of it and hit him.
BLITZER: A CNN special report, engaging the enemy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you have a guy pointing a weapon at you, you know, you got to kill him before he kills you.
BLITZER: But how far is too far on the battlefield?
A mother gone mad. She bludgeoned her two young sons to death. Now questions over the verdict.
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Monday, April 5, 2004.
(END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: It's the start of what could become a worst case scenario for U.S. forces in Iraq. On top of battling insurgents they are now having violent and deadly encounters with Shiite Muslims who had mostly been cooperating at least until now. While U.S. forces lock down Fallujah where four American civilians were murdered last week, fresh fighting broke out in Baghdad today. Some of the worst since the end of the war. In all, 13 Americans died over the weekend. Coalition officials have announced arrest warrants for the anti- American cleric they say is behind the violence. CNN's Jim Clancy begins our coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. was battling on two fronts Monday. In Fallujah, U.S. marines shut down highways and warned residents to stay indoors even as they targeted suspected strongholds of insurgents there. There was some fighting still no one is pretending this is the major push into Fallujah. On the second front, it was a radical Shia Muslim cleric who seemed to make the most headlines in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr wants U.S. forces out of the country. His militant followers spurned a wave of violence against American troops causing the heaviest U.S. casualties in Baghdad in any single day since the war.
Monday, U.S. forces say they would take down his private army.
KIMMITT: Not only are militias banned inside of Iraq, and when those militias turn to violent acts where we take actions against them. But we'll also go for the leadership, their leadership organs, the people at the top, the people in the middle, the people that are inciting, the people that are planning, the people that are executing the violence.
CLANCY: Though the U.S. increased appreciate from the air, al- Sadr supporters torched an armored vehicle on the ground in a Baghdad suburb. To the south in Basra, al-Sadr supporters forced their way into the governor's office. They are now in a standoff with British forces. Muqtada al-Sadr has a power base, mostly among the urban unemployed and poor. His own militia, his own courts his own prisons. Add to all of that he has his own arrest warrant outstanding in connection with the murder a year ago of a rival cleric.
The pro-western anti-Saddam Abdul Majid al-Khoei was escorted into Iraq by the U.S. military. He started to establish himself in his home, the holy city of Najaf. Only days after his return he was stabbed and slashed to death in the shadow of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines. Already some followers and aides to al-Sadr have been arrested in the murder probe. The big question no one can answer is whether these clashes have left him weakened or whether he will emerge stronger in the eyes of Iraq's Shia Muslim majority. Jim Clancy, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: So what else do we know about Muqtada al-Sadr? We know he's the younger son of a prominent Shia Ayatollah who was murdered along with two other sons in 1999 likely by Saddam Hussein's regime. Al-Sadr controls a militia believed to number in the thousands and he's known for his anti-American stance.
Meanwhile sources tell CNN the increased violence has the top U.S. commander in the region looking for ways to increase the number of troops in Iraq if the situation continues to deteriorate. Our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre is standing by with that -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: After months of insisting the U.S. doesn't need more American troops in Iraq to bring security to the country, CNN has learned that the top U.S. commander has asked for options as a contingency plan, just in case. Now the Pentagon insists it's just prudent military planning but sources tell CNN that the weekend of violent demonstrations by Iraqi Shiites has prompted U.S. central commander General John Abizaid to order options drawn up for a quick infusion of additional U.S. troops, if needed.
Pentagon officials stress that there's been no request for the troops. Right now U.S. commanders believe they have adequate forces on the ground. The planning is for a, quote, "worst-case scenario in the event that violence, quote, gets out of control." Because the U.S. is in the middle of a massive troop rotation, it has a temporary spike in the number of U.S. troops up from 120,000 at the beginning of the year to 134,000 now. And sources say the more likely scenarios for troops to be rotated around or switched around within the country.
But still the planning for additional troops even though remote is a reflection of how seriously the U.S. takes the situation in Baghdad and to the south where the Shia majority in the country, which had been cooperating with the U.S.-led occupation force has now been demonstrating sometimes violently. The U.S. believes it needs to move against the radical cleric and his 3,000 strong militia in order to make sure the situation does not get out of hand -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Thanks, Jamie, very much.
Despite talk of a possible troop build-up, President Bush is insisting his administration will stick to its self-imposed deadline for putting Iraq back in Iraqi hands.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): President Bush says the June 30 deadline for transferring control of Iraq will be met.
BUSH: We are now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. No, the date remains firm.
BLITZER: Mr. Bush was reacting to suggestions from this weekend from several influential lawmaker, Democrats and Republicans that the Iraqis may not yet be ready to assume control. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: We set that date without getting the support of the U.N. We set that unilaterally, we now are trying hard to get the U.N. involved, but without the support of the international community, that date could really backfire on us.
BLITZER: The president is hoping the U.N. and its special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi will help find a way to come up with a viable Iraqi political authority to assume control. So far, it,s unclear which Iraqis will take charge. In advance of the deadline, the president acknowledges the on the ground military situation in Iraq could get even worse.
BUSH: My judgment is that the closer we come to the deadline the more likely these people will challenge our will. In other words, it provides a convenient excuse to attack.
BLITZER: The June 30 deadline was announced by civil administrator Paul Bremer last November amid charges from Democratic presidential candidates that the Bush administration was getting into an Iraqi quagmire. Democrats charged that June 30 was politically convenient for the White House a month before the Democratic Convention in Boston and two months before the Republican Convention in New York. The White House has flatly rejected charges the election year calendar had anything do with the deadline. Despite the continued criticism and the latest upsurge of Sunni and Shiite attacks aimed at U.S. and coalition forces, the president says the U.S. will not cut and run.
BUSH: The message to the Iraqi citizens is they don't have to fear that America will turn and run. And that's an important message for them to hear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: For some perspective on this very complex situation we're joined now by our world affairs analyst, the former defense secretary William Cohen. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us. This June 30 deadline, the president says it's firm. It's going to happen. But there are serious risks here.
WILLIAM COHEN, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: There are risks. I think the president feels that by setting a deadline you are going to give a very strong incentive for the political forces, at least, to come together to accept that responsibility. Not having a deadline means that you never reach a conclusion and you'd have more debate taking place in the political side as well as the potential military conflict that's ongoing. So setting a deadline is not bad in itself. The question becomes is there going to be that kind of galvanizing force of setting that date and having all the political elements within Iraq agree that they should move forward and accept that political legitimacy and responsibility.
BLITZER: Now let's be clear, make sure our viewers understand that even after June 30 the U.S. military is going to stay robust, big numbers in Iraq even though the civilian administration of Ambassador Bremer, that, presumably, goes away. COHEN: Absolutely. The military has to stay. This is not a situation where the military can afford to walk away or the coalition forces afford to walk away without seeing the entire region descend into anarchy and chaos. They are going to stay along hopefully with a greater increase of international participation.
BLITZER: Is it possible that with the elimination of Paul Bremer's presence there, there is simply a U.S. embassy, an American ambassador there, backed up by U.S. troops, it could actually improve the security situation without that visible presence of a military occupation?
COHEN: Well, we're going to have a visible military presence under any circumstances, the real issue is whether or not there's going to be a command and control structure. Whether the new government as such or the temporary government is going to be in a position to exercise political influence and that remains very much up in the air at this point.
BLITZER: Is it -- is it fair to say as Senator Kennedy is suggesting today that Iraq in effect has become for President Bush a Vietnam?
COHEN: I don't think we should make that analogy. It's a very difficult situation. What we want to do is not to undermine our situation there but to try to find a way that we can generate greater international support as well as maintain the support we have here at home. If you look at Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, Senator Biden, that's a coalition of the willing that I hope the president will continue to call upon to hold the cohesiveness of the American public together behind those leaders on Capitol Hill as well.
BLITZER: All of a sudden today after months and months of saying the U.S. has enough troops in Iraq, we hear General Abizaid, the commander of the region, the central commander say, well you know what, I need some options, maybe we have to increase the number of troops in Iraq. How surprised were you when you heard that news today?
COHEN: Well, this may be the tipping point. I think General Abizaid is looking at the dynamics of what has happened over the weekend to see if we don't take much or more aggressive action to deal with this in a forceful but measured manner, we may find an uprising taking place on two fronts dealing not only with the Sunni Triangle and all of the elements there but also now with a growing anti- Americanism on the part of the Shia majority population.
So this is at a very dangerous point. I think the general wants to have as much in the way of options as he can. Frankly I've always felt that more is better early on in the game rather than a need to suppress and to break the back of the opposition and we're an occupying force but we haven't really suppressed the adversaries at this point. I think he wants to have that capability and he ought to have it.
BLITZER: A lot of people looking back and remembering what the former army chief of staff General Shinseki recommended more than a year ago, a lot more troops. 200,000 going in. He was roundly criticized by some in the Pentagon and the administration for throwing out that number.
COHEN: Well, he was. And I have great respect for the general, but we are where we are. Now the question is what do we do from this point forward. Can we, in fact, flex muscle with the marines coming in, at the same time have a more measured approach, also, with the -- you have the hammer for those who are unwilling to work with you and the honey you hope will appeal to sweet reason. That people will see that the future lies with building a government to Iraq and a pro- democracy government. So the real task is going to be can we exercise military might and do it in a way that's responsible, that we don't create more enemies than we currently have right now.
BLITZER: Secretary Cohen, thanks for joining us.
Here's your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our web question of the day is this, should the U.S. send more troops to Iraq? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.
President Bush defends his administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Let me just be very clear about this. Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I would have stopped the attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Strong words ahead of Condoleezza Rice's highly anticipated public testimony. I'll get a preview and speak live with 9/11 Commission member former senator Bob Kerrey. Also ahead...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Harsh accusations, explosive accusations, in fact, Senator Ted Kennedy's verbal attacks on the president.
And this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had a weapon, we killed him. That's just all there is to it.
QUESTION: It's that simple?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That simple. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Rules of engagement. When is it acceptable to shoot a wounded enemy combatant? The answer may not be so simple.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: President Bush says he's looking forward to Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday before the 9/11 Commission. The president says his national security adviser will lay out the facts about his administration's strong stand against terrorism. Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is with the president in St. Louis -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, President Bush and the vice president together will testify before the 9/11 Commission in the next two weeks. As you know, the president and his administration initially were against the commission. They have since done a series of aboutfaces, some turn arounds. President Bush today saying he is looking forward to going before that commission. The president also elaborating a bit on his thinking about allowing his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to publicly testify.
He said he was assured that her testimony would not jeopardize executive privilege. He said that she will go ahead and lay out the facts and that he thinks she will do a great job. The president also previewing somewhat of what we can expect to hear from him in the next couple of weeks before that body. He said, again, he reiterated that his administration did everything he could to protect the American people prior to September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Make no mistake about it. If we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop it. And what is important for them to hear, not only is that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, that this country immediately went on war footing and we went to war against al Qaeda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: The president will also make the case as well that he was not distracted by Iraq. That in the days following September 11 that he kept his eye on al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. As you know, Wolf, of course, those questions will be answered in private in the next couple of weeks -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne Malveaux reporting for us in St. Louis today. Thank you, Suzanne.
The president was on the receiving end of another strongly worded attack by Senator Edward Kennedy. Here's our congressional correspondent Joe Johns. Tell us precisely what the senator had on his mind today. JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, wolf, this is a battle of the campaign 2004 surrogate. Senator Ted Kennedy in his role as a top administration critic trading words today with a leading Republican.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS (voice-over): In a speech at a Washington think tank Senator Edward Kennedy who is John Kerry's closest ally on Capitol Hill said President Bush has the biggest credibility gap since Richard Nixon and has misled the country on Iraq.
KENNEDY: Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam and this country needs a new president.
JOHNS: Later in an interview with CNN's Larry King, Kennedy explained what he meant.
KENNEDY: We didn't understand what we were getting ourselves into in Vietnam. We don't understand what we're doing in Iraq. We had misrepresentations about what we were able do militarily in Vietnam. I think we are finding that out in Iraq as well. That is basically the similarity.
JOHNS: Kennedy's remarks comparing Iraq to Vietnam brought an immediate response from the Senate's No. 2 Republican.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY WHIP: Today the senator mounted another vicious attack on the president. By leveling claims so outrageous, so completely outrageous that I'm not going to repeat them here on the Senate floor although they are being carried on television, across the world. Presumably even in Baghdad. Where those who are fighting Americans in the street can view them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: McConnell also accused Kennedy of trying to score political points arguing that both parties need to come together to try to fight the real enemy, al Qaeda. Back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Joe Johns reporting from the Senate. Usually it's much more colleagueal (ph). Getting nasty a little bit today. Thanks very much, Joe, for that report.
And this programming note. An important programming note to our viewers. Senator Edward Kennedy will be a guest on "LARRY KING LIVE" tonight. That airs 9:00 p.m. Eastern. 6:00 Pacific.
Investigating the 9/11 terror attacks. Just ahead I'll speak live with one of the commission members, former senator Bob Kerrey.
Plus this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're definitely facing a new brand of terrorism, a kind of terrorism that we didn't really know much about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Europe now on alert. New threats made against Spain vowing to turn the country into an inferno.
Mother acquitted. Why the jury spared this Texas mother accused of fatally bludgeoning her children.
Black-out answers. The final report on what caused the lights to go out last summer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The alleged mastermind of last month's train bombings in Madrid is dead but other suspects remain at large and a newly released letter threatens more attacks. CNN's Madrid bureau chief Al Goodman has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AL GOODMAN, CNN MADRID BUREAU CHIEF: This was supposed to be a relaxing Easter week holiday but Spain remains a nation under threat from terrorism. This made public Monday. A letter faxed to Spanish newspaper "ABC" from an Islamic group linked to al Qaeda. It vows to turn Spain into an inferno unless Spanish troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Its delivery comes as police press their hunt for suspects, March 11 Madrid commuter train attacks that killed 190 people.
Police closed in on terror suspects in a Madrid suburb on Saturday but they blew themselves up as police raided the apartment. Authorities believe five suspects died including the coordinator of the March attacks. But others believed linked to the bombings remain at large.
ANGEL ACEBES, SPANISH INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): Investigation will focus on the arrest of some who might have escaped. These Moroccan men wanted on international arrest warrants issued in Spain for the train bombings are thought to be among those at large. Spain, which for years has faced militant Basque violence is still trying to come to grips with the Islamic terrorism.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are definitely facing a new brand of terrorism, a kind of terrorism that we didn't really know much about.
GOODMAN: The stakes could not be higher, if, in fact, al Qaeda wants western democracies to have constant anxiety as one newspaper editorial suggests then for now it seems to have Spain very much on edge. Al Goodman, CNN, Madrid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: The panel investigating 9/11 hears from Condoleezza Rice in just three days. Enough time for speculation to soar on what she might say? Coming up, I'll speak to a man who will be asking at least some of the questions, former senator Bob Kerrey.
A mother gone mad, she stoned two of her sons to death. But a Texas jury says she is not guilty of murder. It is a verdict that has a small town talking.
Plus this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After we killed him it was a question of was this guy a hostile person, you know, should we have killed him? Should we have engaged him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: A CNN special report you will want to see, engaging the enemy. The controversy surrounding these pictures in Iraq. It's coming up this hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: From our studios in Washington, once again Wolf Blitzer.
BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN.
Taking center stage, Condoleezza Rice prepares to testify publicly about 9/11. I'll speak with one commission member, Senator Bob Kerrey. That's still to come.
First, though, a quick check of the latest headlines.
The judge in the Jayson Williams manslaughter trial has stopped the trial and ordered a one-week delay. The defense will get the extra time to study new evidence it just received from the prosecution. Defense lawyers say they may ask for a mistrial.
The verdict is in on what caused last summer's massive power blackout in eight states and into Canada. A joint U.S.-Canadian task force report says the power industry disregarded its own rules and that the blackout could have been and should have been prevented. The report also said another major outage could happen unless certain regulations are put into place.
Bank of America announced today that it is cutting 12,500 jobs. The bank just completed a merger with FleetBoston Financial Corporation. The number of jobs lost represents about 7 percent of the combined company's work force.
Now a very sensitive subject in a time of war. Two video clips have raised serious questions about whether U.S. troops in the heat of combat might have been too anxious to kill wounded Iraqis. The dramatic videos have also prompted the U.S. military to investigate both incidents. And in one case, U.S. Marines have been cleared of any wrongdoing. More on the videos and the issues they raise from our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. First, though, a warning. The story we are about to air shows Iraqi combatants being shot to death.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): When is it acceptable for U.S. troops to kill wounded enemy fighters? Here, U.S. Marines who just fought their way to Baghdad encounter armed Iraqi guards at an industrial site thought to be a possible location of WMD. In video first aired on the "CNN PRESENTS" documentary "Fit to Kill," a wounded Iraqi is seen getting up. As the CNN cameraman captures the scene, he is felled by a single shot.
SGT. ANTHONY RIDDLES, U.S. MARINES: Everyone was like, yes, yes. Everyone is up on the roof cheering and everything, just because we got a guy pointing a weapon at you. You know, you got to kill him before he kills you.
MCINTYRE: Afterwards, though, some of the Marines had second thoughts.
CORP. CASEY BROMER, U.S. MARINES: After we killed him, there was a question of, was this guy a hostile person? You know, shoe we have killed him? Should we have engaged him? We could have waited and one of our friendly -- or one of our other companies would have picked him up. Maybe he would have surrendered.
MCINTYRE: Seven months later, as the U.S. is embroiled in a guerrilla war with Iraqi insurgents, U.S. Army Apache helicopter pilots using a nighttime infrared targeting system fire a second volley of .30-millimeter cannon fire at an Iraqi who appears to still be moving.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger, he's wounded.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hit him. The truck and him, go forward of it and hit him.
MCINTYRE: Recently, the German television network ARD aired the tapes, along with analysis from a retired American three-star general who called both killings inexcusable.
RETIRED LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, U.S. ARMY: According to the Geneva Convention, this is murder.
MCINTYRE: But when we played the tapes again for General Gard, including this shot showing how the telephoto lens on CNN's camera made the Marines appear much closer to the Iraqis than they were, he softened his criticism.
GARD: I had the impression that when the Marine shot the individual lying on the ground, that he was very close by.
MCINTYRE: Still, Gard, a former president of the National Defense University, questions why in both cases the wounded Iraqis could not have been captured alive, especially the man gravely wounded by the Marines.
GARD: He does appear from that tape to be incapacitated to the point that he can no longer offer any resistance. And I didn't see any particular reason why he needed to be killed.
MCINTYRE: But the German television broadcast included this sequence from the helicopter tape showing the suspected Iraqi fighters dumping what appears to be a weapon in a field.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is running off into the field. See this?
MCINTYRE: That potential threat makes them fair game up to a point, according to experts on the international law of armed conflict.
JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Even though they look like sitting ducks, there's nothing wrong with the engagement.
MCINTYRE: James Carafano is a former West Point instructor now with the Heritage Foundation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger. He's wounded. Hit him.
CARAFANO: I think you know that is a part of the tape that people might find problematic.
MCINTYRE: The legal and moral question, when is it acceptable to shoot a wounded enemy fighter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The truck.
CARAFANO: Because somebody is wounded necessarily, and injured doesn't necessarily mean that they definitely are not a combatant whatsoever. Really, at the end of the day, it's almost -- unless somebody actually surrenders and gets taken into custody, it's really difficult in a combat situation to critique.
MCINTYRE: Nevertheless, the gritty combat footage raises questions about whether U.S. troops always act within the Geneva Conventions, says law professor Robert Goldman of American University, who has served as a consultant to human rights groups investigating military atrocities.
ROBERT GOLDMAN, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Certainly it is something that would warrant raising questions with the military about. But I don't think that anyone in good faith, frankly, who knows the law could say that this is conclusive.
MCINTYRE: The term of art is French (SPEAKING IN FRENCH) in English, out of the battle, defined as no longer able or willing to engage in hostile acts.
According to the applicable 1949 Geneva Convention, it is a grave breech of the law of war to cause death or serious to injury to someone who is incapacitated by wounds, incapable of defending himself or otherwise engaging in a hostile act.
RIDDLES: Those were our specific rules of engagement. Anyone that has a weapon, they are hostile.
BROMER: He had a weapon and we killed him. That's just all there is to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's that simple.
BROMER: It's that simple.
MCINTYRE: For the wounded on the battlefield the fatal decision is often deciding to move or crawl to shelter.
GOLDMAN: He may be dazed at first and he's not at wounded as seriously as one thinks that he is, and yet he still has access to weapons. Does he have grenades? He can lob those grenades. That wasn't that far away from where this is being done. These are close questions.
MCINTYRE (on camera): Pentagon officials say all U.S. military personnel get training in the law of war. But when in the heat of battle, the threat is unclear, troops are given wide latitude. Pentagon sources say an initial investigation of the Marines seen on the CNN video has cleared them of wrongdoing. The case of the Army helicopter pilots remains under review.
(voice-over): Shooting a wounded man is never easy.
BROMER: Just kind of left a real sticky, like a sour taste to it. It was just -- it was bad.
MCINTYRE: None of our experts was willing to say a war crime had been committed.
GOLDMAN: We don't have all of the context. Again, these are judgment calls, frequently split-second judgment calls that have to be made. We're sitting back in the greater tranquility.
CARAFANO: Making these life-and-death decisions in a split second with the information that's available to a soldier when he's standing there, they are tough things.
GARD: But, again, it's one of the gray judgment areas. And it's very difficult from observing on the tape to draw any definite conclusions.
MCINTYRE: Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: The life--and-death issues facing soldiers in battle are not new. But what is new is that modern technology can now create a permanent record. That's a record of events that occur and decisions that are made all in a split second. When it comes to the rules of engagement it doesn't make the soldiers choices or lessons learned any easier.
Two mothers, two trials and two very different verdicts. They both killed their children but only one is serving time. Why this mother avoided a guilt verdict.
On the spot, Condoleezza Rice preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. Just ahead, the inside take on what she'll face. I'll speak live with the key member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Bob Kerrey.
First, though, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he's no longer bound by a promise he once made not to harm Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and he predicted there may be no Palestinian state for many, many years. His comments came as Israeli forces went on high alert against possible Palestinian attacks over the Passover holiday.
Powell in Haiti. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a trip to Haiti to meet with Haitian leaders and U.S. military forces. The U.S. forces were sent to restore stability as Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power.
Queens crossing. Britain's Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philip, are in France to help celebrate the 100th anniversary of a treaty that ended colonial rivalries between the nations. The royal couple arrived aboard the Eurostar shuttle train. They were greeted in Paris by the French President Jacques Chirac.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In Texas Saturday, jurors acquitted Deanna Laney of murder charges in the killings of two of her sons. They found she was insane at the time. But what about Andrea Yates? She also killed her children. Her attorney said she was insane and now she's in a Texas jail for at least 40 years.
CNN's Brian Todd looks at the different cases.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two disturbed mothers, both kill their own children with their own hands, seven innocent lives taken, the reasons seemingly only in the mother's minds.
DEANNA LANEY, DEFENDANT: And I concluded that I was going to have to kill my family with a rock. TODD: Eerie similarities but opposite verdicts in the cases of Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney. Yates drowns her five children in the family bathtub. Laney bludgeons two of her sons to death with a rock, a third son seriously injured. Both crimes committed in Texas. Both mothers plead insanity.
LANEY: I feel like I obeyed God and I believe that there will be good out of this.
TODD: Deanna Laney's plea and testimony are effective.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not guilty by reason of insanity.
TODD: But in the Andrea Yates case the jury doesn't buy it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment.
TODD: Why will one mother walk into a mental hospital and possibly walk free one day while the other sits in prison for life?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The psychiatric testimony is the whole thing in these insanity cases.
TODD: In fact, a psychiatrist may have made the crucial difference. In the Laney case, every expert, including a key forensic psychiatrist hired by the prosecution, testified Deanna Laney was insane.
DR. PARK DIETZ, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: She believed this was a trial by God and that after killing the children, they would be resurrected.
TODD: That same psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, testified in Andrea Yates' trial that Yates was not insane. Yates' attorney, George Parnham, who also consulted with Deanna Laney's defense team, told us Dr. Dietz's reasoning was that since Yates claimed the devil was living inside her she could recognize evil, therefore knew right from wrong. We tried to reach Dr. Dietz today. He was unavailable for comment.
Another possible difference, prosecutors in the Laney trial did not seek the death penalty. In the Yates trial, they did. Legal experts say jurors qualified to give the death penalty are generally less sympathetic to the insanity defense. Overall, the jury is, as always, a critical factor according to the experts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their life experiences, how they view certain things morally, or what views they bring with them to the courtroom are very much involved in these kind of judgments.
TODD: Even technically experts say two different juries can see identical evidence in identical cases and reach different conclusions.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Condoleezza Rice getting ready to testify, history very much on the line. Just ahead, I'll speak with live with a key member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Bob Kerrey.
First, though, a look at some stories you may have missed this past weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Strong thunderstorms flooded creeks, roads and homes in parts of Texas and New Mexico. Hail was a foot deep in one Texas city and at least 30 people were forced to evacuate.
Florida fires. A 200 acre brushfire near Jacksonville closed Interstate 95 for hours. It was one of several brushfires across the state following weeks of dry, windy weather.
Then there were two. Connecticut edged Duke 79-78. And Georgia Tech slipped by Oklahoma state 67-65, setting up tonight's UConn- Georgia Tech game for the NCAA men's basketball championship.
And that's our weekend snapshot.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: All eyes will be back on the 9/11 Commission hearings this Thursday morning, when the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice testifies in public and under oath.
One of the commission members joining us now from New York, former Senator Bob Kerrey. He's president of the New University in New York.
Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
What's the most important question or series of questions you would like to ask Dr. Rice?
BOB KERREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, before I get to that, I think the hardest thing for the commission is to try to hold together in a nonpartisan way. That will be exceptionally difficult because of the intensity of interest in Dr. Rice appearing all by herself.
But Dr. Rice was at the nexus of both the most significant foreign policy as well the most significant domestic policy decisions that were being made in 2001. So the central question is, what sort of action did you take, knowing that al Qaeda was one of the top threats to the United States of America? Because that information was delivered loud and clear by the Clinton administration.
You can fault the Clinton administration for not doing enough, as I do. But now it comes time to answer the question, given the level of the threat, what did you do? What were the series of actions that you took to make certain that this disaster didn't happen?
BLITZER: Because, as you know, there was a lot of intelligence reports, the intelligence community, law enforcement were getting that summer of a potential threat. And the question is, if certain action had been taken, could 9/11 have been averted? The chairman and the vice chairman said yesterday they think possibly it could have been averted.
KERREY: Well, I think that's probably right. You flip it around and say if I had been the national security adviser, could I have prevented it? And I'm not sure I could have. So it's very difficult in this kind of questioning to constantly make that declaration.
But the public needs to understand that. This is not a personal attack on Dr. Rice. It's -- she had significant foreign and domestic policy authorities. And on the 6th of July, for example, there's a famous meeting of the deputies where they were called together to try to come up with a response to these threats that kept coming in, especially inside the United States.
The INS was here. FBI was there, lots of people who were there, many of whom have been called to the carpet and asked the question, why didn't you do more when you had not only general threats, but specific information about these terrorist cells that we knew were operating inside the United States?
BLITZER: You have already questioned her in private, you and your nine colleagues of the commission for some four hours. What do you want to learn now that you don't already know?
KERREY: Well, there's a number of things.
But the most important thing is, it's not us. It's the American public getting the opportunity to hear publicly the individual who was at the nexus and foreign and domestic policy decisions that were critical to keep the people of the United States of America safe.
As to the specific questions, there are some very specific questions that we need to hear under oath that we have essentially already asked Sandy Berger, the previous national security adviser. And he testified under oath. And when we have any kind of a conflict of fact, it's much better to have both of the individuals under oath. So it's essentially the same set of questions that I asked Sandy Berger that I now put to Dr. Rice.
Why didn't we declare war on an organization that declared war on us? They killed us in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. They killed us at the Cole in 2000. Why didn't we regard that as a threat that was more serious than the threat of North Korea or China? Why didn't we make a declaration of war and mobilize both our foreign and our domestic policy organizations accordingly?
After the warning came in, in 2001, what were the series of actions that you took to make certain that we were as safe as possible here in the United States? BLITZER: Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser in both the Clinton the Bush White Houses, says for that President Bush terrorism was an important issue but not an urgent issue, unlike the situation in the Clinton administration. Is that a substantive difference that you'll want to press Dr. Rice on?
KERREY: I don't think -- she may want to press on that a bit, but the truth, it's not just Dick Clarke. It's Hugh Shelton. It's Bob Woodward. It's Paul O'Neill and lots of other people have made that observation.
It's understandable, by the way. If you grow up in an era where nation states are the threat, if you prepare yourself to deal with that particular threat, this is a different kind of a threat. It's a non-nation state actor. If they just come and say, look, this guy was 8,000 miles away out in the wilds of Afghanistan, we just didn't think he had the capability to doing this, that's an understandable conclusion, very understandable conclusion.
As I said, if I had been the national security adviser, I'm not sure I would have done it that much differently. But it doesn't work to push this off and say, gee, we didn't -- it wasn't our fault. We just did what the Clintons did. It doesn't work for me to say, I spent eight months developing a plan that, as I look at the plan, wasn't materially different than what was in place when you came into office.
BLITZER: Are you satisfied with the arrangement worked out between the commission and the president and the vice president, that they will appear privately behind closed doors, not under oath before the commission?
KERREY: I think that we should never ask the president to testify under oath and we should never require him to appear publicly. So, yes. The answer is yes.
Would I like to have a little more time? Yes. Would I rather do the two individuals separately? Yes. But, look, you've got the commander in chief and the vice president of the United States, the two most powerful people in the United States of America, with plenty other things to do other than meeting with us. So I'm satisfied with the arrangement we have.
BLITZER: Bob Kerrey, as usual, thanks very much for joining us. He's the president of the New School University in New York. We'll be watching Thursday morning. Appreciate it.
KERREY: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: And please join us Thursday morning. CNN will have special live coverage of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. That will begin 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Spring has arrived. And with it comes, of course, baseball. President Bush puts his best pitch forward to celebrate the start of America's favorite pastime. Plus, the results of our hot "Web Question of the Day" when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in our "Web Question of the Day." Should the U.S. send more troops to Iraq? Look at this: 36 percent of you say yes; 64 percent of you say no. Remember, this is not a scientific poll.
It is time for our Major League snapshot of the day. And it definitely has a lot of Oval Office appeal. President Bush tossed out the opening pitch at Busch Stadium -- no relation -- in Saint Louis. It's the season opener for the Saint Louis Cardinals. They're playing the Milwaukee Brewers. Look at that. Vice President Dick Cheney acted -- that move in Cincinnati. He threw out the first pitch for the Reds' opening game against the Chicago Cubs. Good work all around.
A reminder, you can always catch WOLF BLITZER REPORTS weekdays 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired April 5, 2004 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Happening now. For the first time, the U.S. military commander in charge of Iraq is raising the possibility of asking for more U.S troops as bloody attacks against the U.S.-led coalition intensify now on two fronts. Stand by for hard news on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
Coalition crackdown. U.S. marines lay down the law with a lockdown on Fallujah.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY: These are the first of a series of actions taken to attack anti-coalition and anti-Iraqi forces.
BLITZER: But as Sunni and Shiite anger mounts so do doubts. Are more troops needed?
Confronting the criticism.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop it.
BLITZER: Will public testimony put an end to persistent questions? I'll speak with former senator Bob Kerrey of the 9/11 Commission.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger. He's wounded. Hit him. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Go forward of it and hit him.
BLITZER: A CNN special report, engaging the enemy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you have a guy pointing a weapon at you, you know, you got to kill him before he kills you.
BLITZER: But how far is too far on the battlefield?
A mother gone mad. She bludgeoned her two young sons to death. Now questions over the verdict.
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Monday, April 5, 2004.
(END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: It's the start of what could become a worst case scenario for U.S. forces in Iraq. On top of battling insurgents they are now having violent and deadly encounters with Shiite Muslims who had mostly been cooperating at least until now. While U.S. forces lock down Fallujah where four American civilians were murdered last week, fresh fighting broke out in Baghdad today. Some of the worst since the end of the war. In all, 13 Americans died over the weekend. Coalition officials have announced arrest warrants for the anti- American cleric they say is behind the violence. CNN's Jim Clancy begins our coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. was battling on two fronts Monday. In Fallujah, U.S. marines shut down highways and warned residents to stay indoors even as they targeted suspected strongholds of insurgents there. There was some fighting still no one is pretending this is the major push into Fallujah. On the second front, it was a radical Shia Muslim cleric who seemed to make the most headlines in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr wants U.S. forces out of the country. His militant followers spurned a wave of violence against American troops causing the heaviest U.S. casualties in Baghdad in any single day since the war.
Monday, U.S. forces say they would take down his private army.
KIMMITT: Not only are militias banned inside of Iraq, and when those militias turn to violent acts where we take actions against them. But we'll also go for the leadership, their leadership organs, the people at the top, the people in the middle, the people that are inciting, the people that are planning, the people that are executing the violence.
CLANCY: Though the U.S. increased appreciate from the air, al- Sadr supporters torched an armored vehicle on the ground in a Baghdad suburb. To the south in Basra, al-Sadr supporters forced their way into the governor's office. They are now in a standoff with British forces. Muqtada al-Sadr has a power base, mostly among the urban unemployed and poor. His own militia, his own courts his own prisons. Add to all of that he has his own arrest warrant outstanding in connection with the murder a year ago of a rival cleric.
The pro-western anti-Saddam Abdul Majid al-Khoei was escorted into Iraq by the U.S. military. He started to establish himself in his home, the holy city of Najaf. Only days after his return he was stabbed and slashed to death in the shadow of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines. Already some followers and aides to al-Sadr have been arrested in the murder probe. The big question no one can answer is whether these clashes have left him weakened or whether he will emerge stronger in the eyes of Iraq's Shia Muslim majority. Jim Clancy, CNN, Baghdad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: So what else do we know about Muqtada al-Sadr? We know he's the younger son of a prominent Shia Ayatollah who was murdered along with two other sons in 1999 likely by Saddam Hussein's regime. Al-Sadr controls a militia believed to number in the thousands and he's known for his anti-American stance.
Meanwhile sources tell CNN the increased violence has the top U.S. commander in the region looking for ways to increase the number of troops in Iraq if the situation continues to deteriorate. Our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre is standing by with that -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: After months of insisting the U.S. doesn't need more American troops in Iraq to bring security to the country, CNN has learned that the top U.S. commander has asked for options as a contingency plan, just in case. Now the Pentagon insists it's just prudent military planning but sources tell CNN that the weekend of violent demonstrations by Iraqi Shiites has prompted U.S. central commander General John Abizaid to order options drawn up for a quick infusion of additional U.S. troops, if needed.
Pentagon officials stress that there's been no request for the troops. Right now U.S. commanders believe they have adequate forces on the ground. The planning is for a, quote, "worst-case scenario in the event that violence, quote, gets out of control." Because the U.S. is in the middle of a massive troop rotation, it has a temporary spike in the number of U.S. troops up from 120,000 at the beginning of the year to 134,000 now. And sources say the more likely scenarios for troops to be rotated around or switched around within the country.
But still the planning for additional troops even though remote is a reflection of how seriously the U.S. takes the situation in Baghdad and to the south where the Shia majority in the country, which had been cooperating with the U.S.-led occupation force has now been demonstrating sometimes violently. The U.S. believes it needs to move against the radical cleric and his 3,000 strong militia in order to make sure the situation does not get out of hand -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. Thanks, Jamie, very much.
Despite talk of a possible troop build-up, President Bush is insisting his administration will stick to its self-imposed deadline for putting Iraq back in Iraqi hands.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): President Bush says the June 30 deadline for transferring control of Iraq will be met.
BUSH: We are now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. No, the date remains firm.
BLITZER: Mr. Bush was reacting to suggestions from this weekend from several influential lawmaker, Democrats and Republicans that the Iraqis may not yet be ready to assume control. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: We set that date without getting the support of the U.N. We set that unilaterally, we now are trying hard to get the U.N. involved, but without the support of the international community, that date could really backfire on us.
BLITZER: The president is hoping the U.N. and its special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi will help find a way to come up with a viable Iraqi political authority to assume control. So far, it,s unclear which Iraqis will take charge. In advance of the deadline, the president acknowledges the on the ground military situation in Iraq could get even worse.
BUSH: My judgment is that the closer we come to the deadline the more likely these people will challenge our will. In other words, it provides a convenient excuse to attack.
BLITZER: The June 30 deadline was announced by civil administrator Paul Bremer last November amid charges from Democratic presidential candidates that the Bush administration was getting into an Iraqi quagmire. Democrats charged that June 30 was politically convenient for the White House a month before the Democratic Convention in Boston and two months before the Republican Convention in New York. The White House has flatly rejected charges the election year calendar had anything do with the deadline. Despite the continued criticism and the latest upsurge of Sunni and Shiite attacks aimed at U.S. and coalition forces, the president says the U.S. will not cut and run.
BUSH: The message to the Iraqi citizens is they don't have to fear that America will turn and run. And that's an important message for them to hear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: For some perspective on this very complex situation we're joined now by our world affairs analyst, the former defense secretary William Cohen. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for joining us. This June 30 deadline, the president says it's firm. It's going to happen. But there are serious risks here.
WILLIAM COHEN, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: There are risks. I think the president feels that by setting a deadline you are going to give a very strong incentive for the political forces, at least, to come together to accept that responsibility. Not having a deadline means that you never reach a conclusion and you'd have more debate taking place in the political side as well as the potential military conflict that's ongoing. So setting a deadline is not bad in itself. The question becomes is there going to be that kind of galvanizing force of setting that date and having all the political elements within Iraq agree that they should move forward and accept that political legitimacy and responsibility.
BLITZER: Now let's be clear, make sure our viewers understand that even after June 30 the U.S. military is going to stay robust, big numbers in Iraq even though the civilian administration of Ambassador Bremer, that, presumably, goes away. COHEN: Absolutely. The military has to stay. This is not a situation where the military can afford to walk away or the coalition forces afford to walk away without seeing the entire region descend into anarchy and chaos. They are going to stay along hopefully with a greater increase of international participation.
BLITZER: Is it possible that with the elimination of Paul Bremer's presence there, there is simply a U.S. embassy, an American ambassador there, backed up by U.S. troops, it could actually improve the security situation without that visible presence of a military occupation?
COHEN: Well, we're going to have a visible military presence under any circumstances, the real issue is whether or not there's going to be a command and control structure. Whether the new government as such or the temporary government is going to be in a position to exercise political influence and that remains very much up in the air at this point.
BLITZER: Is it -- is it fair to say as Senator Kennedy is suggesting today that Iraq in effect has become for President Bush a Vietnam?
COHEN: I don't think we should make that analogy. It's a very difficult situation. What we want to do is not to undermine our situation there but to try to find a way that we can generate greater international support as well as maintain the support we have here at home. If you look at Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, Senator Biden, that's a coalition of the willing that I hope the president will continue to call upon to hold the cohesiveness of the American public together behind those leaders on Capitol Hill as well.
BLITZER: All of a sudden today after months and months of saying the U.S. has enough troops in Iraq, we hear General Abizaid, the commander of the region, the central commander say, well you know what, I need some options, maybe we have to increase the number of troops in Iraq. How surprised were you when you heard that news today?
COHEN: Well, this may be the tipping point. I think General Abizaid is looking at the dynamics of what has happened over the weekend to see if we don't take much or more aggressive action to deal with this in a forceful but measured manner, we may find an uprising taking place on two fronts dealing not only with the Sunni Triangle and all of the elements there but also now with a growing anti- Americanism on the part of the Shia majority population.
So this is at a very dangerous point. I think the general wants to have as much in the way of options as he can. Frankly I've always felt that more is better early on in the game rather than a need to suppress and to break the back of the opposition and we're an occupying force but we haven't really suppressed the adversaries at this point. I think he wants to have that capability and he ought to have it.
BLITZER: A lot of people looking back and remembering what the former army chief of staff General Shinseki recommended more than a year ago, a lot more troops. 200,000 going in. He was roundly criticized by some in the Pentagon and the administration for throwing out that number.
COHEN: Well, he was. And I have great respect for the general, but we are where we are. Now the question is what do we do from this point forward. Can we, in fact, flex muscle with the marines coming in, at the same time have a more measured approach, also, with the -- you have the hammer for those who are unwilling to work with you and the honey you hope will appeal to sweet reason. That people will see that the future lies with building a government to Iraq and a pro- democracy government. So the real task is going to be can we exercise military might and do it in a way that's responsible, that we don't create more enemies than we currently have right now.
BLITZER: Secretary Cohen, thanks for joining us.
Here's your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our web question of the day is this, should the U.S. send more troops to Iraq? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.
President Bush defends his administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Let me just be very clear about this. Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I would have stopped the attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Strong words ahead of Condoleezza Rice's highly anticipated public testimony. I'll get a preview and speak live with 9/11 Commission member former senator Bob Kerrey. Also ahead...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Harsh accusations, explosive accusations, in fact, Senator Ted Kennedy's verbal attacks on the president.
And this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had a weapon, we killed him. That's just all there is to it.
QUESTION: It's that simple?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That simple. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Rules of engagement. When is it acceptable to shoot a wounded enemy combatant? The answer may not be so simple.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: President Bush says he's looking forward to Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday before the 9/11 Commission. The president says his national security adviser will lay out the facts about his administration's strong stand against terrorism. Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is with the president in St. Louis -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, President Bush and the vice president together will testify before the 9/11 Commission in the next two weeks. As you know, the president and his administration initially were against the commission. They have since done a series of aboutfaces, some turn arounds. President Bush today saying he is looking forward to going before that commission. The president also elaborating a bit on his thinking about allowing his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to publicly testify.
He said he was assured that her testimony would not jeopardize executive privilege. He said that she will go ahead and lay out the facts and that he thinks she will do a great job. The president also previewing somewhat of what we can expect to hear from him in the next couple of weeks before that body. He said, again, he reiterated that his administration did everything he could to protect the American people prior to September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Make no mistake about it. If we had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop it. And what is important for them to hear, not only is that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, that this country immediately went on war footing and we went to war against al Qaeda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: The president will also make the case as well that he was not distracted by Iraq. That in the days following September 11 that he kept his eye on al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. As you know, Wolf, of course, those questions will be answered in private in the next couple of weeks -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne Malveaux reporting for us in St. Louis today. Thank you, Suzanne.
The president was on the receiving end of another strongly worded attack by Senator Edward Kennedy. Here's our congressional correspondent Joe Johns. Tell us precisely what the senator had on his mind today. JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, wolf, this is a battle of the campaign 2004 surrogate. Senator Ted Kennedy in his role as a top administration critic trading words today with a leading Republican.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS (voice-over): In a speech at a Washington think tank Senator Edward Kennedy who is John Kerry's closest ally on Capitol Hill said President Bush has the biggest credibility gap since Richard Nixon and has misled the country on Iraq.
KENNEDY: Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam and this country needs a new president.
JOHNS: Later in an interview with CNN's Larry King, Kennedy explained what he meant.
KENNEDY: We didn't understand what we were getting ourselves into in Vietnam. We don't understand what we're doing in Iraq. We had misrepresentations about what we were able do militarily in Vietnam. I think we are finding that out in Iraq as well. That is basically the similarity.
JOHNS: Kennedy's remarks comparing Iraq to Vietnam brought an immediate response from the Senate's No. 2 Republican.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY WHIP: Today the senator mounted another vicious attack on the president. By leveling claims so outrageous, so completely outrageous that I'm not going to repeat them here on the Senate floor although they are being carried on television, across the world. Presumably even in Baghdad. Where those who are fighting Americans in the street can view them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: McConnell also accused Kennedy of trying to score political points arguing that both parties need to come together to try to fight the real enemy, al Qaeda. Back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Joe Johns reporting from the Senate. Usually it's much more colleagueal (ph). Getting nasty a little bit today. Thanks very much, Joe, for that report.
And this programming note. An important programming note to our viewers. Senator Edward Kennedy will be a guest on "LARRY KING LIVE" tonight. That airs 9:00 p.m. Eastern. 6:00 Pacific.
Investigating the 9/11 terror attacks. Just ahead I'll speak live with one of the commission members, former senator Bob Kerrey.
Plus this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're definitely facing a new brand of terrorism, a kind of terrorism that we didn't really know much about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Europe now on alert. New threats made against Spain vowing to turn the country into an inferno.
Mother acquitted. Why the jury spared this Texas mother accused of fatally bludgeoning her children.
Black-out answers. The final report on what caused the lights to go out last summer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The alleged mastermind of last month's train bombings in Madrid is dead but other suspects remain at large and a newly released letter threatens more attacks. CNN's Madrid bureau chief Al Goodman has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AL GOODMAN, CNN MADRID BUREAU CHIEF: This was supposed to be a relaxing Easter week holiday but Spain remains a nation under threat from terrorism. This made public Monday. A letter faxed to Spanish newspaper "ABC" from an Islamic group linked to al Qaeda. It vows to turn Spain into an inferno unless Spanish troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Its delivery comes as police press their hunt for suspects, March 11 Madrid commuter train attacks that killed 190 people.
Police closed in on terror suspects in a Madrid suburb on Saturday but they blew themselves up as police raided the apartment. Authorities believe five suspects died including the coordinator of the March attacks. But others believed linked to the bombings remain at large.
ANGEL ACEBES, SPANISH INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): Investigation will focus on the arrest of some who might have escaped. These Moroccan men wanted on international arrest warrants issued in Spain for the train bombings are thought to be among those at large. Spain, which for years has faced militant Basque violence is still trying to come to grips with the Islamic terrorism.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are definitely facing a new brand of terrorism, a kind of terrorism that we didn't really know much about.
GOODMAN: The stakes could not be higher, if, in fact, al Qaeda wants western democracies to have constant anxiety as one newspaper editorial suggests then for now it seems to have Spain very much on edge. Al Goodman, CNN, Madrid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: The panel investigating 9/11 hears from Condoleezza Rice in just three days. Enough time for speculation to soar on what she might say? Coming up, I'll speak to a man who will be asking at least some of the questions, former senator Bob Kerrey.
A mother gone mad, she stoned two of her sons to death. But a Texas jury says she is not guilty of murder. It is a verdict that has a small town talking.
Plus this...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After we killed him it was a question of was this guy a hostile person, you know, should we have killed him? Should we have engaged him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: A CNN special report you will want to see, engaging the enemy. The controversy surrounding these pictures in Iraq. It's coming up this hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: From our studios in Washington, once again Wolf Blitzer.
BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN.
Taking center stage, Condoleezza Rice prepares to testify publicly about 9/11. I'll speak with one commission member, Senator Bob Kerrey. That's still to come.
First, though, a quick check of the latest headlines.
The judge in the Jayson Williams manslaughter trial has stopped the trial and ordered a one-week delay. The defense will get the extra time to study new evidence it just received from the prosecution. Defense lawyers say they may ask for a mistrial.
The verdict is in on what caused last summer's massive power blackout in eight states and into Canada. A joint U.S.-Canadian task force report says the power industry disregarded its own rules and that the blackout could have been and should have been prevented. The report also said another major outage could happen unless certain regulations are put into place.
Bank of America announced today that it is cutting 12,500 jobs. The bank just completed a merger with FleetBoston Financial Corporation. The number of jobs lost represents about 7 percent of the combined company's work force.
Now a very sensitive subject in a time of war. Two video clips have raised serious questions about whether U.S. troops in the heat of combat might have been too anxious to kill wounded Iraqis. The dramatic videos have also prompted the U.S. military to investigate both incidents. And in one case, U.S. Marines have been cleared of any wrongdoing. More on the videos and the issues they raise from our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. First, though, a warning. The story we are about to air shows Iraqi combatants being shot to death.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): When is it acceptable for U.S. troops to kill wounded enemy fighters? Here, U.S. Marines who just fought their way to Baghdad encounter armed Iraqi guards at an industrial site thought to be a possible location of WMD. In video first aired on the "CNN PRESENTS" documentary "Fit to Kill," a wounded Iraqi is seen getting up. As the CNN cameraman captures the scene, he is felled by a single shot.
SGT. ANTHONY RIDDLES, U.S. MARINES: Everyone was like, yes, yes. Everyone is up on the roof cheering and everything, just because we got a guy pointing a weapon at you. You know, you got to kill him before he kills you.
MCINTYRE: Afterwards, though, some of the Marines had second thoughts.
CORP. CASEY BROMER, U.S. MARINES: After we killed him, there was a question of, was this guy a hostile person? You know, shoe we have killed him? Should we have engaged him? We could have waited and one of our friendly -- or one of our other companies would have picked him up. Maybe he would have surrendered.
MCINTYRE: Seven months later, as the U.S. is embroiled in a guerrilla war with Iraqi insurgents, U.S. Army Apache helicopter pilots using a nighttime infrared targeting system fire a second volley of .30-millimeter cannon fire at an Iraqi who appears to still be moving.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger, he's wounded.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hit him. The truck and him, go forward of it and hit him.
MCINTYRE: Recently, the German television network ARD aired the tapes, along with analysis from a retired American three-star general who called both killings inexcusable.
RETIRED LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, U.S. ARMY: According to the Geneva Convention, this is murder.
MCINTYRE: But when we played the tapes again for General Gard, including this shot showing how the telephoto lens on CNN's camera made the Marines appear much closer to the Iraqis than they were, he softened his criticism.
GARD: I had the impression that when the Marine shot the individual lying on the ground, that he was very close by.
MCINTYRE: Still, Gard, a former president of the National Defense University, questions why in both cases the wounded Iraqis could not have been captured alive, especially the man gravely wounded by the Marines.
GARD: He does appear from that tape to be incapacitated to the point that he can no longer offer any resistance. And I didn't see any particular reason why he needed to be killed.
MCINTYRE: But the German television broadcast included this sequence from the helicopter tape showing the suspected Iraqi fighters dumping what appears to be a weapon in a field.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is running off into the field. See this?
MCINTYRE: That potential threat makes them fair game up to a point, according to experts on the international law of armed conflict.
JAMES CARAFANO, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Even though they look like sitting ducks, there's nothing wrong with the engagement.
MCINTYRE: James Carafano is a former West Point instructor now with the Heritage Foundation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger. He's wounded. Hit him.
CARAFANO: I think you know that is a part of the tape that people might find problematic.
MCINTYRE: The legal and moral question, when is it acceptable to shoot a wounded enemy fighter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The truck.
CARAFANO: Because somebody is wounded necessarily, and injured doesn't necessarily mean that they definitely are not a combatant whatsoever. Really, at the end of the day, it's almost -- unless somebody actually surrenders and gets taken into custody, it's really difficult in a combat situation to critique.
MCINTYRE: Nevertheless, the gritty combat footage raises questions about whether U.S. troops always act within the Geneva Conventions, says law professor Robert Goldman of American University, who has served as a consultant to human rights groups investigating military atrocities.
ROBERT GOLDMAN, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Certainly it is something that would warrant raising questions with the military about. But I don't think that anyone in good faith, frankly, who knows the law could say that this is conclusive.
MCINTYRE: The term of art is French (SPEAKING IN FRENCH) in English, out of the battle, defined as no longer able or willing to engage in hostile acts.
According to the applicable 1949 Geneva Convention, it is a grave breech of the law of war to cause death or serious to injury to someone who is incapacitated by wounds, incapable of defending himself or otherwise engaging in a hostile act.
RIDDLES: Those were our specific rules of engagement. Anyone that has a weapon, they are hostile.
BROMER: He had a weapon and we killed him. That's just all there is to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's that simple.
BROMER: It's that simple.
MCINTYRE: For the wounded on the battlefield the fatal decision is often deciding to move or crawl to shelter.
GOLDMAN: He may be dazed at first and he's not at wounded as seriously as one thinks that he is, and yet he still has access to weapons. Does he have grenades? He can lob those grenades. That wasn't that far away from where this is being done. These are close questions.
MCINTYRE (on camera): Pentagon officials say all U.S. military personnel get training in the law of war. But when in the heat of battle, the threat is unclear, troops are given wide latitude. Pentagon sources say an initial investigation of the Marines seen on the CNN video has cleared them of wrongdoing. The case of the Army helicopter pilots remains under review.
(voice-over): Shooting a wounded man is never easy.
BROMER: Just kind of left a real sticky, like a sour taste to it. It was just -- it was bad.
MCINTYRE: None of our experts was willing to say a war crime had been committed.
GOLDMAN: We don't have all of the context. Again, these are judgment calls, frequently split-second judgment calls that have to be made. We're sitting back in the greater tranquility.
CARAFANO: Making these life-and-death decisions in a split second with the information that's available to a soldier when he's standing there, they are tough things.
GARD: But, again, it's one of the gray judgment areas. And it's very difficult from observing on the tape to draw any definite conclusions.
MCINTYRE: Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: The life--and-death issues facing soldiers in battle are not new. But what is new is that modern technology can now create a permanent record. That's a record of events that occur and decisions that are made all in a split second. When it comes to the rules of engagement it doesn't make the soldiers choices or lessons learned any easier.
Two mothers, two trials and two very different verdicts. They both killed their children but only one is serving time. Why this mother avoided a guilt verdict.
On the spot, Condoleezza Rice preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. Just ahead, the inside take on what she'll face. I'll speak live with the key member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Bob Kerrey.
First, though, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon says he's no longer bound by a promise he once made not to harm Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and he predicted there may be no Palestinian state for many, many years. His comments came as Israeli forces went on high alert against possible Palestinian attacks over the Passover holiday.
Powell in Haiti. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a trip to Haiti to meet with Haitian leaders and U.S. military forces. The U.S. forces were sent to restore stability as Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power.
Queens crossing. Britain's Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philip, are in France to help celebrate the 100th anniversary of a treaty that ended colonial rivalries between the nations. The royal couple arrived aboard the Eurostar shuttle train. They were greeted in Paris by the French President Jacques Chirac.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In Texas Saturday, jurors acquitted Deanna Laney of murder charges in the killings of two of her sons. They found she was insane at the time. But what about Andrea Yates? She also killed her children. Her attorney said she was insane and now she's in a Texas jail for at least 40 years.
CNN's Brian Todd looks at the different cases.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two disturbed mothers, both kill their own children with their own hands, seven innocent lives taken, the reasons seemingly only in the mother's minds.
DEANNA LANEY, DEFENDANT: And I concluded that I was going to have to kill my family with a rock. TODD: Eerie similarities but opposite verdicts in the cases of Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney. Yates drowns her five children in the family bathtub. Laney bludgeons two of her sons to death with a rock, a third son seriously injured. Both crimes committed in Texas. Both mothers plead insanity.
LANEY: I feel like I obeyed God and I believe that there will be good out of this.
TODD: Deanna Laney's plea and testimony are effective.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not guilty by reason of insanity.
TODD: But in the Andrea Yates case the jury doesn't buy it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment.
TODD: Why will one mother walk into a mental hospital and possibly walk free one day while the other sits in prison for life?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The psychiatric testimony is the whole thing in these insanity cases.
TODD: In fact, a psychiatrist may have made the crucial difference. In the Laney case, every expert, including a key forensic psychiatrist hired by the prosecution, testified Deanna Laney was insane.
DR. PARK DIETZ, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: She believed this was a trial by God and that after killing the children, they would be resurrected.
TODD: That same psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, testified in Andrea Yates' trial that Yates was not insane. Yates' attorney, George Parnham, who also consulted with Deanna Laney's defense team, told us Dr. Dietz's reasoning was that since Yates claimed the devil was living inside her she could recognize evil, therefore knew right from wrong. We tried to reach Dr. Dietz today. He was unavailable for comment.
Another possible difference, prosecutors in the Laney trial did not seek the death penalty. In the Yates trial, they did. Legal experts say jurors qualified to give the death penalty are generally less sympathetic to the insanity defense. Overall, the jury is, as always, a critical factor according to the experts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their life experiences, how they view certain things morally, or what views they bring with them to the courtroom are very much involved in these kind of judgments.
TODD: Even technically experts say two different juries can see identical evidence in identical cases and reach different conclusions.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Condoleezza Rice getting ready to testify, history very much on the line. Just ahead, I'll speak with live with a key member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Bob Kerrey.
First, though, a look at some stories you may have missed this past weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Strong thunderstorms flooded creeks, roads and homes in parts of Texas and New Mexico. Hail was a foot deep in one Texas city and at least 30 people were forced to evacuate.
Florida fires. A 200 acre brushfire near Jacksonville closed Interstate 95 for hours. It was one of several brushfires across the state following weeks of dry, windy weather.
Then there were two. Connecticut edged Duke 79-78. And Georgia Tech slipped by Oklahoma state 67-65, setting up tonight's UConn- Georgia Tech game for the NCAA men's basketball championship.
And that's our weekend snapshot.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: All eyes will be back on the 9/11 Commission hearings this Thursday morning, when the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice testifies in public and under oath.
One of the commission members joining us now from New York, former Senator Bob Kerrey. He's president of the New University in New York.
Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
What's the most important question or series of questions you would like to ask Dr. Rice?
BOB KERREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, before I get to that, I think the hardest thing for the commission is to try to hold together in a nonpartisan way. That will be exceptionally difficult because of the intensity of interest in Dr. Rice appearing all by herself.
But Dr. Rice was at the nexus of both the most significant foreign policy as well the most significant domestic policy decisions that were being made in 2001. So the central question is, what sort of action did you take, knowing that al Qaeda was one of the top threats to the United States of America? Because that information was delivered loud and clear by the Clinton administration.
You can fault the Clinton administration for not doing enough, as I do. But now it comes time to answer the question, given the level of the threat, what did you do? What were the series of actions that you took to make certain that this disaster didn't happen?
BLITZER: Because, as you know, there was a lot of intelligence reports, the intelligence community, law enforcement were getting that summer of a potential threat. And the question is, if certain action had been taken, could 9/11 have been averted? The chairman and the vice chairman said yesterday they think possibly it could have been averted.
KERREY: Well, I think that's probably right. You flip it around and say if I had been the national security adviser, could I have prevented it? And I'm not sure I could have. So it's very difficult in this kind of questioning to constantly make that declaration.
But the public needs to understand that. This is not a personal attack on Dr. Rice. It's -- she had significant foreign and domestic policy authorities. And on the 6th of July, for example, there's a famous meeting of the deputies where they were called together to try to come up with a response to these threats that kept coming in, especially inside the United States.
The INS was here. FBI was there, lots of people who were there, many of whom have been called to the carpet and asked the question, why didn't you do more when you had not only general threats, but specific information about these terrorist cells that we knew were operating inside the United States?
BLITZER: You have already questioned her in private, you and your nine colleagues of the commission for some four hours. What do you want to learn now that you don't already know?
KERREY: Well, there's a number of things.
But the most important thing is, it's not us. It's the American public getting the opportunity to hear publicly the individual who was at the nexus and foreign and domestic policy decisions that were critical to keep the people of the United States of America safe.
As to the specific questions, there are some very specific questions that we need to hear under oath that we have essentially already asked Sandy Berger, the previous national security adviser. And he testified under oath. And when we have any kind of a conflict of fact, it's much better to have both of the individuals under oath. So it's essentially the same set of questions that I asked Sandy Berger that I now put to Dr. Rice.
Why didn't we declare war on an organization that declared war on us? They killed us in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. They killed us at the Cole in 2000. Why didn't we regard that as a threat that was more serious than the threat of North Korea or China? Why didn't we make a declaration of war and mobilize both our foreign and our domestic policy organizations accordingly?
After the warning came in, in 2001, what were the series of actions that you took to make certain that we were as safe as possible here in the United States? BLITZER: Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser in both the Clinton the Bush White Houses, says for that President Bush terrorism was an important issue but not an urgent issue, unlike the situation in the Clinton administration. Is that a substantive difference that you'll want to press Dr. Rice on?
KERREY: I don't think -- she may want to press on that a bit, but the truth, it's not just Dick Clarke. It's Hugh Shelton. It's Bob Woodward. It's Paul O'Neill and lots of other people have made that observation.
It's understandable, by the way. If you grow up in an era where nation states are the threat, if you prepare yourself to deal with that particular threat, this is a different kind of a threat. It's a non-nation state actor. If they just come and say, look, this guy was 8,000 miles away out in the wilds of Afghanistan, we just didn't think he had the capability to doing this, that's an understandable conclusion, very understandable conclusion.
As I said, if I had been the national security adviser, I'm not sure I would have done it that much differently. But it doesn't work to push this off and say, gee, we didn't -- it wasn't our fault. We just did what the Clintons did. It doesn't work for me to say, I spent eight months developing a plan that, as I look at the plan, wasn't materially different than what was in place when you came into office.
BLITZER: Are you satisfied with the arrangement worked out between the commission and the president and the vice president, that they will appear privately behind closed doors, not under oath before the commission?
KERREY: I think that we should never ask the president to testify under oath and we should never require him to appear publicly. So, yes. The answer is yes.
Would I like to have a little more time? Yes. Would I rather do the two individuals separately? Yes. But, look, you've got the commander in chief and the vice president of the United States, the two most powerful people in the United States of America, with plenty other things to do other than meeting with us. So I'm satisfied with the arrangement we have.
BLITZER: Bob Kerrey, as usual, thanks very much for joining us. He's the president of the New School University in New York. We'll be watching Thursday morning. Appreciate it.
KERREY: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: And please join us Thursday morning. CNN will have special live coverage of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. That will begin 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Spring has arrived. And with it comes, of course, baseball. President Bush puts his best pitch forward to celebrate the start of America's favorite pastime. Plus, the results of our hot "Web Question of the Day" when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in our "Web Question of the Day." Should the U.S. send more troops to Iraq? Look at this: 36 percent of you say yes; 64 percent of you say no. Remember, this is not a scientific poll.
It is time for our Major League snapshot of the day. And it definitely has a lot of Oval Office appeal. President Bush tossed out the opening pitch at Busch Stadium -- no relation -- in Saint Louis. It's the season opener for the Saint Louis Cardinals. They're playing the Milwaukee Brewers. Look at that. Vice President Dick Cheney acted -- that move in Cincinnati. He threw out the first pitch for the Reds' opening game against the Chicago Cubs. Good work all around.
A reminder, you can always catch WOLF BLITZER REPORTS weekdays 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
