CNN HOTLINE: Rating The President's Speech
JACK CAFFERTY, HOST, CNN HOTLINE: Good evening from New York City. I'm Jack Cafferty our CNN HOTLINE number 1-800-310-4CNN. An emotional day in Washington and across the country, we'll talk to some members of Congress, as well as, some former Presidential speechwriters, including the man who wrote George W. Bush's father's speech -- presidential speech, that he delivered on television on the night of the start of Desert Storm. Where he delivered the famous line about drawing the line in the sand. We'll also be joined by CNN correspondents from around the world. Take a phone call right away. We begin with Ben, who is in New Hampshire as we solicit America's view on the events in the Nation's capital tonight. Good evening Ben. You there? Ben you've got to stay up later than that, this is a 2-hour program and it's only 12:01. Let's begin with the news Garrick Utley will have the latest headlines for us. Garrick?</s>GARRICK UTLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks Jack at this midnight hour here east coast time in New York City where two of those disastrous attacks occurred, the big story, as elsewhere is President Bush's speech before Congress and to the American people. Indeed to a worldwide audience this evening. It certainly was an impressive, articulate speech and we're going to hear more from the speechwriters about that this evening. There is not doubt about how it went over in Congress. Lawmakers from both parties were firmly behind the President there, in the Congressional Chamber. More than a dozen times, members of the House, Senate, the Military leaders, members of the Supreme Court, diplomats, they rose to their feet to cheer the President. Also, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was there, showing that he's a strong ally in this cause. The President was especially blunt in his demands to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden, of course, has been seeking shelter for a number of years. Here's what he said:</s>GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And, hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.</s>UTLEY: How about that? That suggestion would have to be approved by the Taliban's top cleric, who according to opposition sources, in the North of the country say, he, himself has now gone into hiding. In New York City, Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced a big, another sad increase in the number of people presumed missing at the Trade Center. More than 6,300, he said, are now list of missing and feared dead after the attacks there a week ago on Tuesday. He said this is due to the reports coming from the Consulates of other countries who've been tabulating the number of their citizens that have been missing. That's why the number is so high. But, the Mayor offered this footnote, so to speak, he said that some of these names may be duplicated on more than one list, that total may just decrease a bit, but don't expect it to go done very much. Giuliani also says at least six more months of heavy work of digging and clean up will be required after the attacks there. In upstate New York, a memorial for the victims of last week's attacks drew about 15 thousand people to downtown Syracuse. The vigil lasted 90 minutes and included prayers from clergy of several faiths there. And, of course, there will be vigils will be going on in communities all over the country for days and weeks to come. One point, I just wanted to add here, we discovered in the news this evening. We just heard a moment ago how Rudy Giuliani said the total is so high, because foreigners have been added to that list. Bush tonight before Congress, Jack, was asking for international support to join this coalitional, this alliance against terrorism. A couple of facts, who was lost there from various parts of the world? Philippines, 19 Filipinos lost, Columbia 20, Australia 20, Japan 24, Canada 35 to 50, India 91 missing, feared dead, Germany 100 to 150 of the World Trade Centers, Great Britain 250. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that the attack on the World Trade Centers of New York city, was the most severe and worst attack on the British people since World War II. It truly was a World Trade Center. Jack?</s>CAFFERTY: I was touched by the moment tonight, Garrick, in the speech were the President acknowledge Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the audience. And Tony Blair talked earlier in the evening about how America stood by the Brits in World War II when the blitzkrieg was on and London was being bombed and the Germans were trying desperately to take Britain, he made reference to that. He said that was my father's generation, and I'm just here to tell you and the American people that we're here to stand by you now, in this your hour of need. It was a very touching moment.</s>UTLEY: Good.</s>CAFFERTY: Thanks Garrick very much. Garrick Utley. Let's go to our White House correspondent Kelly Wallace, who is live in Washington. Did you get a chance to watch the speech, Kelly?</s>KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I watched the speech, Jack. And, listening to every reaction to it, it seems like the President did exactly what he needed to do.</s>CAFFERTY: What'd you think, was this a defining moment for him? You've covered this guy on a fairly regular basis, some have been a little reluctant to, perhaps, embrace him, too the degree that we had embraced predecessors. It's early in the Administration, but there was that little bit of hesitancy on some of the issues. Did this go a long way towards, sort of, him taking charge, maybe tonight?</s>WALLACE: Well, definitely. It was without a doubt, it was a defining moment and an opportunity, certainly, for the President to, sort of, rise to the occasion. Facing a challenge, no one could have expected this Administration would have to face just nine months in office. And, he had to do a number of things and everyone says he did it very well. Some tough talk, but also a lot of grace, I was definitely struck at the end of the speech, you know, he remembering all those who lost their lives in this. He talked about how people will continue to remember their faces and their voices and then, Jack, you saw him hold up that badge, and that was the mother of a Port Authority Police Officer who was killed in the World Trade Center attack. She had given that badge to the President after they met, when the President was in New York City. The President saying he would hold on to that badge, and that was going to be his reminder for his resolve to fight, not only those terrorist responsible for last weeks deadly attack, but to sort of, rid the world of all terrorism, around the world. And, he also had to do a couple of other things. He had to try to urge the American people to be patient. Talking about how this is going to be a ware unlike any this country has every seen. The resolve was there. Jack, you heard him say to the military "be ready". He said that, "the hour is coming or will come when the U.S. will act". He, also, of course, sent a very blunt message to countries around the world. Basically, either you're with us or you're with the terrorist. And, then, of course, Garrick reporting, a very blunt message to the ruling Taliban militia, turn over Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, or, you know, you'll see what will happen. So, he had some tough talk, but also, I thought of grace to remember those who lost their lives and so many people effected by these tragedies. Jack?</s>CAFFERTY: One man conspicuous by his absence, of course, was Vice President Dick Cheney; he was not in attendance for security reasons. Did you ever think you'd live to see the day when we had military aircraft flying cover over the Nation's capital, while the President addresses the Congress? It was pretty strange.</s>WALLACE: Absolutely, and that was...</s>CAFFERTY: Were you aware of the presence of the helicopters or the jets? Were you outside at any time where you could hear them or see them?</s>WALLACE: No, I was not aware of that, could not hear them or see them. Certainly struck though, without a doubt, anytime the President of the United States goes before Congress to deliver an address, you always have the Vice President of the United States sitting right behind him. So, that was a dramatic difference here because of the high security situation, the Vice President not in attendance. Also, a cabinet member, I don't know exactly which cabinet member that is, was not there, again because of the security precautions. And, to of course, keep a line of succession should anything happen. So, it was an extraordinary night, and even by what heard, from Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, following the speech. They said, you know, we don't stand here as Democrats, we don't stand here as republicans, we stand here as Americans. Jack, you know, just two weeks ago, there was so much, partisan bickering over the budget, over social security surpluses, over what to do about a variety of domestic issues, and, clearly in those halls of Congress, Democrats Republicans standing united. And, the President facing a dramatic challenge and Democrats and Republicans both say he really hit the ball out of the ballpark tonight.</s>CAFFERTY: It will be interesting to see how long the spirit of bipartisanship holds up, if this becomes a protracted situation and issues that have divided the two aisles before, come to the floor. We'll have to wait and see. But, at least for the moment, everybody's pulling the same direction. Thanks Kelly.</s>WALLACE: Absolutely. Sure.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. We've got a caller in Illinois, Conrad good evening.</s>CONRAD: Yes, Hi.</s>CAFFERTY: How you doing?</s>CONRAD: Real good, real good.</s>CAFFERTY: Did you watch the President?</s>CONRAD: What's that sir?</s>CAFFERTY: Did you watch the President?</s>CONRAD: I was at work. I work afternoon shift. But, I came home and they were having the highlights of his speech on the news when I came in.</s>CAFFERTY: He was as good as I'd ever seen him, tonight. It was a pretty impressive performance. What can I help you with?</s>CONRAD: I just wanted to call in, and you know, you were taking calls from viewers, and I wanted to say that I'm with the President. And, I'm all for him on this.</s>CAFFERTY: Terrific. I would be surprised if there was anybody in this Country tonight who doesn't feel similarly. We have a couple of members of Congress. We were talking about the spirit cooperation, we have a couple members of Congress with us tonight as our firsts guests. They are both in Washington D.C., where we're going now to get reaction to the President's speech, and to the events that are unfolding. On the left of your screen is Congressman Gary Ackerman, he's a Democratic Representative from Queens, here in New York City. And, on the right of the screen, from Washington, also, Congressman J.D. Hayworth who is a Republican from Arizona. Gentlemen, welcome to HOTLINE is nice to have you both with us. Mr. Ackerman let me talk with you first and get your reaction to President Bush's performance tonight.</s>REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: I think he hit a grand slam home run, right out of the park. He made us feel real proud. I think that a lot of people that I've been speaking to of late, were very, very concerned as to whether or not the President was going to be up for the task. He seemed a bit tentative at first, and unsure of himself. He's shaken that all off. He's gotten up there, you know, he's a guy I think that none of us would be afraid of being in the fox hole with. Congressman Hayworth is this night that defines the young President's administration? We understand, we don't know what's in the future, but at least, for now.</s>REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: Jack, tonight our President offered an extraordinarily eloquent speech, at an extraordinarily difficult time. And, part of the poetry of his prose is that fact that he is so plain spoken. He laid out in no uncertain terms the fact that this would be a difficult road ahead. And, yes, and if you make it tantamount to coming of age, growing into the office. I think American's are comfortable with their Commander and Chief. And, confident, that even though the road ahead is tough, we have the right man in the right job, and we're united as Americans.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah, he was just terrific periodically through the speech. We were talking on this program the other night about his way with the language. I happen to like the way he talks, because he goes right to the heart of what's in his mind. And, it comes right out, and he uses words that I can understand, because I grew up out in that part of the Country, as well. At one point tonight he was talking about what this Country was going to do, and he looked right in the camera and he was talking about terrorism. And, this is a quote, he says "you know what, we're not going to allow it". I mean, you just can't say it any plainer than that. I mean, that's good. Let me ask both of you a couple of questions about some things that were in the speech and there and we can kind of kick this around as you want. The one thing that he tried to make clear, I thought, was an appeal to the people of Afghanistan. He talked about Islamic fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden and the terrorist as one group of people. He talked about the Taliban as being the government responsible for hosting bin Laden and his colleagues, but he tried to separate the Muslim people from that. My question to both of you is, how do you wage war against the Taliban and against bin Laden, without including by de facto, by definition the Afghan people.</s>ACKERMAN: It's going to be a very, very difficult road to hoe, but in the meantime, the President said all the right things. He had to indicate and he did so very well, that the Muslim world is not our enemy, we don't mean them any harm. We appreciate their religion. He explained some of the basic precepts of their religion to the American people, calling it a peaceful religion. And, separated out the terrorist saying that they basically, have taken this religion and perverted it to do things that the religion does not tolerate or permit. And, if he is successful, and this is the hard part, in actually, separating them out, from the Afghan people in the minds of the Afghan people, and ostracizing them, then it would be a little bit less hard. It's not going to be easy, by less hard to accomplish our goals. But, in the end, I think, that there is no way that the Taliban is going to hand bin Laden over. And, most of the Afghan people will fall in line behind their leadership.</s>CAFFERTY: Congressman Hayworth.</s>HAYWORTH: Right Jack, let's also understand that in Afghanistan, itself, a group opposing the Taliban, I believe called, the Northern Alliance, indeed, we saw the coverage on CNN of bombs in the early hours after the shocking attack on New York and Washington. The Northern Alliance is at work. There are actions a foot in Afghanistan. The President obviously painting with a broad brush tonight, outlining general things, not telegraphing his punches or detailing our military strategy, but don't be surprised if we become closely aligned with that Northern Alliance and help their efforts to turn out the Taliban.</s>ACKERMAN: The Congressman's right, you can put a heavy bet on that. That the enemy of our enemy is our enemies, at least this particular instance, at this particular time.</s>CAFFERTY: You mean the enemy of our enemy is our friend.</s>ACKERMAN: Is our friend -- yes -- I'm sorry. You're going to see I think, us helping and supporting in one way or another the Northern Alliance.</s>CAFFERTY: OK. Let's get a call in here, Richard in New Jersey, good evening.</s>RICHARD: Hello?</s>CAFFERTY: Hello.</s>RICHARD: My name is Richard Hoffis (ph), New Jersey. My point is that since this is such a new situation, we're at war with not a nation state, but terrorism in general, don't you think we should be using a different term than war.</s>CAFFERTY: What would you suggest?</s>RICHARD: Maybe we could come up with a new term. I'm not talking about double stink or anything, but just something that -</s>CAFFERTY: Something that defines being different from the conventional idea of warfare. That's not a bad idea, but I at a loss for what we might call it right off the top of my head. Let me ask our two Congressman a couple of other things. At one point, and I thought this was one of the best lines in the whole speech, he was talking about the terrorist and he said, the leadership of these terrorist will follow the leaders of fascism, Nazism, and Totalitarianism into history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. But, he didn't say anything about Communism, why not do you suppose?</s>HAYWORTH: That is a very interesting point, Jack, I'm not entirely sure, perhaps the speech read better for him. In terms of performance, if you noted, the President tonight was very much as ease. Given the enormity of his task, one of the challenges, and I know you'll talk with speechwriters, a little bit later, to make sure that clean spoken rhythm is there, in the authoritative situation, it may have been quite simply that it flowed better for him. But, I was curious about that, as well. It was reminiscent, however, of President Reagan's line about the former Soviet Union being relegated to the dust bin of history.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, somebody suggested -- go ahead Congressman Ackerman.</s>ACKERMAN: I think that was my favorite line in the whole speech, as well. I thought it was a great line. Why he left Communism, I guess, is a matter of speculation, perhaps he didn't want to fall into the trap of, you know, we've seen the Republicans do a lot of red baiting, et cetera, et cetera. He didn't want to make this a political exercise.</s>CAFFERTY: How about the idea that he might want Communist China or the People's Republic of China, because we need their cooperation.</s>ACKERMAN: Exactly the point I was just trying to make. There are still some countries that are rather communistic in their view. And, they are very, very important countries and countries that we need in this alliance. There are absolutely essential and we can't write them off, they represent a big portion of the world, yet today.</s>CAFFERTY: You think it isn't different, I read something the other day, we even asked Cuba if they knew anything that might be helpful.</s>CAFFERTY: Anne's on the phone in Massachusetts, good evening. Anne?</s>ANNE: Hello.</s>CAFFERTY: Hello.</s>ANNE: Hi I'm calling because first of all I want to say the President did a wonderful job, I've never been more proud of him.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah, he was good tonight.</s>ANNE: He was extremely eloquent and I guess one concern that I've had for several years about our country is immigration. And, I feel that a lot of terrorist have actually been able to just walk into our country because we don't have a good immigration policy.</s>CAFFERTY: That's a very legitimate point to discuss and we have two gentlemen in Washington that can address that. Congressman J.D. Hayworth from Arizona, he is a Republican. And, on the left of your screen Gary Ackerman, he's a Democrat, represents Queens. What about immigration, national security issues that are no doubt going to be the subject of heated debated as we move forward in the wake of the tragedy of last week?</s>HAYWORTH: Well, I think it's very important, Jack, to reassess, and isn't it appropriate we're both from Border States, New York bordering Canada, Arizona bordering Mexico. Indeed, we saw within the past several months, the fact that some terrorist were apprehended at the Canadian border. And, we have similar concerns, as Anne articulated, about the border to our south. I think it's important to understand, that while free trade is important, we are going to have to preserve the integrity of our borders. That is a constitutional mission given to the Federal government. And, it is especially important at this sensitive time, that we heighten scrutiny. It's going to be a very important point of Governor Ridge now, as a new cabinet level secretary to help coordinate in terms of homeland defense.</s>CAFFERTY: Congressman Ackerman, New York City has probably as diverse a population as any city in the world. We literally have people here from every nationality, every society, every country. A couple of weeks back President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox had lengthy discussions over whether or not to grant amnesty to some 3 million Mexicans, who are in this country illegally, who are gainfully employed, who are contributing to the economy, but never the less, are in this country illegally. There are many people that you could say the same about in New York City. What about the immigration situation and how do you guard against abuses of people's rights, to the degree that illegal aliens have them, in trying to figure out who's safe to leave here and who isn't?</s>ACKERMAN: First I think that we have to be very careful not speak out against immigration and all immigrants and, I think, that we're all being very careful and we're all concerned about that. It's essential that we have an immigration policy that works. And, it's important that we have new people coming to this country from other places, because they lend to our strength. But, that being said, there has to be a process in place and people have to be vetted. Whether it be on the border with Mexico or Canada, any state that has an airport is a border state, because we find that these people seem to be coming in and flying in from anywhere. This fellow Atta, who's on the watch list, he shouldn't have been allowed in the country, just came in, and didn't even have false i.d. He just had his own picture identification, used his own name and went through the whole process just like that.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah, one of the New York papers had pictures of him coming through airport security in Maine on his way to Boston the morning of the hijacking. Like you or me.</s>ACKERMAN: Just as blatant as can be. That's right. And, we have to do a better job. But, it's not just somebody who comes here from Mexico for a better way of life and is doing a job and is doing things, except for the fact that he or she might have entered the country illegally. Are doing things that we think are very positive contributions to our society. So, we're going to have to basically, vetted these people. We're going to have to check them out a lot more carefully. And, that's going take a little bit more wear with all, more resources, more personnel and greater technology.</s>CAFFERTY: In Kansas, we have Tim on the line. Good evening Tim.</s>TIM: Howdy. A couple of things actually, I want say that I was watching it last week, and the President tonight. I'm beginning to think, that perhaps, with aviation at least, that we're not really interested in fixing the problem. We're trying to make everybody feel good and not make things change. I come from an aviation background, using ground control approach the way the military does, we could basically put on lock out autopilot on planes today. So, that what happened their would not have occurred.</s>CAFFERTY: Explain this to me. I'm not of aviation background and I'm sure a lot of listeners are not either. But, what do you mean when you say lock out autopilot?</s>TIM: Image this. You're on an airplane the pilot is threatened by somebody trying to take over the plane, he flips a switch. What that switch does is it puts the plane on autopilot, whatever, course it's designed to do and goes to, the Congressman there might know, I believe we have about 10,000 SAC bases mothballed worldwide, send the plane to a SAC base, land it there, we could do it worldwide if we chose to.</s>CAFFERTY: In other words, put it down in the middle of nowhere, where it can't be a threat to anybody and then deal with it once it's on the ground. But, once you disable the ability of a pilot to fly the plane, it's a preordained what computer program, that when you throw the switch, it just takes over and there's nothing you can do about it after that? Is that what you're saying?</s>TIM: Definitely, the funny thing is everybody's afraid of that, but if anybody's familiar with like, the triple seven, or most of the planes that are out there today, they're already computer controlled.</s>CAFFERTY: Sure. Let's ask the two gentlemen in Washington, because the whole problem of airline security is central to what happened here. There has been all kinds of discussions in the last sever, or eight or nine days, about what needs to be done. And, more than that, what measures are going to be effective. And, I'd be anxious to hear from both of you.</s>ACKERMAN: I think the one that comes to people's minds first is basically, keep these people locked out of the cockpit. If you can isolate the two cabins, then we wouldn't have this problem. You know, they could reek havoc with other members of the crew or passengers, and that's a terrible thing. But, they would find that useless because their real goal is to commandeer the plane, and if they can't do that then they're stuck. So, I think getting the steel doors up there that lock from the inside, and can't open from the outside, is the first thing that we have to do. And, that's what we do for security in our own homes. I don't understand why this hasn't been done before.</s>CAFFERTY: Good point. What about that Congressman Hayworth?</s>HAYWORTH: Well, Jack, I think the comments from Tim point out the value of CNN HOTLINE, it's like a town home meeting of the year. There's an idea that comes in, I didn't know about. I don't have really and aviation background, but with the computer programs, that's interesting, that's worth exploring. The thing I'd like to express to all of you, and especially, Tim, is that this is very much a work in progress. Gary mentioned strengthening the door to the flight deck. Some pilots have asked to carry firearms. We will probably go back to a sky marshal plan that was mentioned, earlier tonight. And, the Attorney General moving forward in that direction. So, we will do a number of things to strengthen and safeguard air travel in the days ahead. But, it is very much a work in progress.</s>CAFFERTY: OK. Gentlemen, I ask you to stay with me here as we move into the next half hour. I've got to do a station break, which we'll do right now. And then HOTLINE will continue after this.</s>BUSH: We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists.</s>CAFFERTY: President Bush, in what was arguably his finest hour, went before the joint session of Congress and the nation, tonight, to define America's role in a global battle against terrorism going forward. He received standing ovations. The speech lasted a little over 30 minutes. He was interrupted by applause some 30 times, and just got A plus right across. So he was terrific. The president was just terrific. Joining us, in the first part of HOTLINE tonight, from Washington, two congressmen, Republican J.D. Hayworth from Arizona; Democrat Gary Ackerman from Queens. Before we go back to the congressman, let us get caught up in the news headlines. And for that we go to the distinguished, the urbane, the sophisticated and the wise, Garrick Utley.</s>UTLEY: All right, Jack, that's laying it on too much tonight. But we're talking about the president's -- thanking him, nonetheless -- the president's speech tonight was very articulate. You know, Jack, it got me to thinking about previous speeches. We remember in our memory bank the president, John F. Kennedy, who told Americans to ask what they can do for their country. Well, tonight the president was doing some asking. He asked Americans, first and foremost, to be patient. He asked the American military to be ready to carry out any orders when they come down the pipeline. And he asked the Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, to accept the new cabinet position to defend the homeland against terrorist attacks. Boy, what kind of a job is that going to be? But his most stern words came as a demand of the nations that harbor terrorists themselves. Mr. Bush ordered the Taliban in Afghanistan to hand over terrorist leaders and open the camps that train them there.</s>BUSH: I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield. I will not rest. I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fair, justice and cruelty, have always been at war; and we know that god is not neutral between them.</s>UTLEY: In New York City, the number of missing and presumed dead, now, has jumped by nearly 1,000 to more than 6,000. That's due to new reports from other countries about missing citizens who may have been in the buildings under attack. Forty U.S. Senators witnessed that devastation first hand, during a visit Thursday to New York. The group is one of the largest ever to travel out -- together outside -- the nation's capital. Friday, Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and FBI Director, Robert Mueller, will tour the site in New York. Both men were in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Thursday, at the crash site of United Airlines' flight 93. Ashcroft, there, praised the heroics of the passengers who apparently foiled the hijackers plan to crash into the White House -- or the Capitol -- it's believed.</s>JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: In the midst of this tragedy is a testimony of the American spirit of individuals who bravely and courageously were willing to endure additional risks and pay an ultimate price so that others would be more secure.</s>UTLEY: And federal authorities have made another security decision in the wake of last week's attacks. The FAA is temporarily prohibiting flights over major open-air assemblies, such as professional and college sports stadiums, just to be sure. Well, one other note -- a question really for you, Jack, and for viewers across the country here on CNN's HOTLINE. We know that the death toll or, the missing and believed dead, is more than 6,000 from the World Trade Center attacks. The final toll may near 7,000. It's hard to imagine that. But, how many people were wounded? If you're talking about six or seven thousand missing and presumed dead, how many people do you think are in New York City hospitals, still being treated for injuries? Thousands, hundreds? The answer: 30, Jack, only 30.</s>CAFFERTY: Wow.</s>UTLEY: Apparently, the situation was so tragic, so devastating, you were either lost and presumed dead, or you suffered some minor injuries and were released. But only 30 people were injured so seriously they're still in the hospital for treatment. That says something about the devastating nature of this attack, I think. That's a remarkable statistic. There was -- what about a 17- minute period, Garrick, between the impact on tower one and the impact and tower two? And the job that firms and individuals and firemen and cops and everybody did in evacuating that second tower and getting people out of there -- I mean, we have to remember, the World Trade Center has a capacity of a 50,000 people. And while 6,300 is a horrible, horrible number, it could have been oh, so much worse.</s>CAFFERTY: Thanks. Garrick Utley, with the latest news. The president, tonight, talked about how the country is united. How the world, in fact, is united behind the United States and how we, in America, stand united, shoulder to shoulder. The members of the House and Senate echoing those words. But as time goes on, and as this becomes perhaps a long and protracted and expensive and bloody struggle, it's interesting, perhaps, to get the opinions of the two gentlemen on the program tonight, as to what issues may frame the debate going forward. We're not always going to agree on everything, and I'm interested in Congressman Hayworth and Ackerman's thoughts on where we may start to disagree as time goes on. What are the issues that eventually may serve to begin to divide the Congress?</s>HAYWORTH: Well, Jack, obviously, in other times, Gary and I have significant disagreements. I guess it was the social scientist, Herbert Maslow, who worked out the hierarchy of needs, where you need food and shelter and protection. In terms of our national hierarchy of needs, it's quite simple, we're talking about national survival. For my part, I do hope Congress will resist the temptation to come 535 arm-chaired generals and presume to tell our commander in chief how he should conduct this new type of war. That is one possibility as time wears on. But I think right now, what we really have to capitalize on is this sense of unity we enjoy.</s>CAFFERTY: Congressman Ackerman?</s>ACKERMAN: I think the president enjoys the full support of the entire Congress. And, for the first time in a long time, we've really all come together. We all recognize that in this kind of a situation, there's only one person who is the commander in chief and who calls the shots. That being said, as long as the president keeps dealing the Congress in -- which he has thus far -- making sure that it's recognized that we have a separation of powers in three different branches of government, and the Congress is one of them. We have the power of the purse string as well. And we are willing and most anxious to provide the president and the administration with all of the wherewithal that they need, and then some, to meet the challenge that faces us. But we're just concerned and so far, we're very pleased, that this is a process in which we all participate.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. Andrea's (ph) on the phone in Georgia. Good evening.</s>ANDREA (ph): Hi. I have a question about the role that Condoleezza Rice will play as national security adviser ...</s>CAFFERTY: OK.</s>ANDREA (ph): ... versus what Governor Ridge has been appointed to do as homeland adviser -- or homeland security?</s>CAFFERTY: That's a good question. Now we -- President Bush wants to create a new cabinet level position. I believe you're right. I think it's director of homeland security. He's named Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to that post. A short while ago Governor Ridge said he will accept. How will his assignment differ from Condoleezza Rice's role as a national security adviser to the president?</s>ACKERMAN: Well the governor's role -- or the secretary soon to be role -- is going to be protecting the homeland and doing the internal security that we need, starting from our borders and working inward. Condoleezza Rice's main responsibility is to advise the president, overall, on the international situation. And there certainly is, and the potential is there, for her to have more of a conflict with Secretary of State, Powell, than it will the governor. One is Mr. Inside, and one is Mrs. Outside.</s>CAFFERTY: Congressman Hayworth, do we need another government agency? We spend an awful lot of money for security for the Central Intelligence Agency, for the FBI, for the CIA, for -- you know, all kinds of security, which apparently -- based on what happened eight days ago -- wasn't functioning at its best. How does the creation of another government department supposed to make us feel any safer?</s>HAYWORTH: Well, Jack, I think the situation that exists right now -- the criticism has come from a lack of coordination in responsible parties. Often, those of us who cast a leery eye toward larger government point out that there's oft times duplication of responsibility, or some ambiguity in terms of who controls what. Now we have a situation where Secretary Designate Ridge will be in charge of the coordination of homeland defense. There will be some overlap; there'll be a situation where the administration and the challenge for the president is to lay out -- in terms of job description -- exactly where one authority ends and the other begins. But it is the challenge of coordinating this -- Governor Ridge has proven to be an able administrator during his days has Pennsylvania Governor. And the president believes he is the man to coordinate this. And certainly at a time of national crisis and war -- this new type of warfare -- I would concur with the president's decision.</s>ACKERMAN: Yeah, I want to agree with that, if I may, and carry it even one step further. I don't know if a lot of folks know that our intelligence services are precluded by their own rules from even talking to each other. So sometimes one has one theory and a set of information or a set of facts as they see it, and another agency has something that's completely different and sometimes agrees and is sometimes contradictory. And there's nobody on the inside, with the exception, of course, of the president, that's pulling all that together. Especially looking at it from the internal security question. I think that the governor is going to be doing a lot of that. Consider that -- you know, from the borders in, we have Customs, we have the FBI, we have the information that comes in from the CIA, we have Immigration, we have airport security, we have rail transportation, we have bridges and tunnels and everything you can think of. This is a real big job that the new secretary's going to have.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. We have Elma on the phone in Texas. Your former governor looked pretty good tonight.</s>ELMA: Yeah. And I'm very proud of him for being so strong, and he has a whole lot on in his shoulders and we're behind him. My question and concern is that he said that a lot of these terrorists have been caught. I want to know what's going to happen to them. Are they just going to keep them in prison, jail? And wouldn't that be a bigger concern because, most probably, we won't get to catch all of them.</s>CAFFERTY: One of the questions that I've been reading about in the papers is if, in fact, some of these terrorists are rounded up, where will they be put on trial? A caller to this program, a couple of nights ago, pointed out that it would probably be difficult for them to get a fair trial from an impartial jury if the trials were held here in the United States. The theory that I've been reading about is that they would probably be tried before something like the World Court in the Hague or some -- on some neutral site. What happens to them after they're convicted, I have no idea. I suppose it's possible that they can be executed, but ...</s>HAYWORTH: If I might, I don't think they can be tried in the Hague, unless somehow they are declared to be international criminals or are violating international law. They've committed crimes against American citizens on American soil. And the venue for that would be here. And it is very true that a lot of times terrorists strike out ...</s>CAFFERTY: But they've committed crimes against citizens from a whole lot of other countries as well, though, haven't they Mr. Ackerman?</s>ACKERMAN: They have. But, you know, most countries, including ourselves, with the exception of instances of terrorism, do not have jurisdiction if a crime is committed on your citizenry in another country. We have something called the long statute of the law. So if that happens to an American while traveling abroad, if we can get that person here -- the perpetrator -- we can try him here. But most other countries, with the exception of Israel, don't have that rule in place.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. I got ...</s>HAYWORTH: Let me also suggest ...</s>CAFFERTY: ... 30 seconds, Congressman Hayworth. I'll give you the last word.</s>HAYWORTH: OK. Very quickly, Jack, I think we need to be very careful in this. I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on</s>TV. CAFFERTY: No, no.</s>HAYWORTH: But I think we have to watch out in terms of looking at this as some sort of -- seeking some sort of litigious remedy -- going to court. We are in a new type of war.</s>CAFFERTY: That's a good point.</s>HAYWORTH: We have to understand that these folks who reek havoc have committed acts of wars against the United States. They are prisoners of war. We should utilize whatever means, whatever it takes, to get information from these people to help us in this fight.</s>CAFFERTY: That's a very good point. I want to thank both of you. I'm going to move the program forward from here. We've been talking with Republican Congressman, J.D. Hayworth, of Arizona; Democratic Congressman, Gary Ackerman, of Queens; both from Washington DC. Gentlemen, thank you for appearing on HOTLINE tonight. We'll talk to you again soon. We'll be back with more of the program right after these messages. Stick around.</s>CAFFERTY: Welcome back to CNN's HOTLINE. I'm Jack Cafferty. We're live in New York City; it is 12:50, Eastern Daylight Time. So how did President Bush's speech compare to other historical presidential addresses? Daniel McGroarty was a speech writer for President Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush. He is the author of that famous "Line in The Sand" speech that was delivered the night of the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. Also, in Washington, Tom Rosshirt, who's a former speech writer and presidential assistant to President Clinton. Gentlemen, welcome to HOTLINE. It's nice to have you both with us. Let me begin, if I can, with you, Mr. McGroarty, do you think dad was proud sitting there in Texas watching his son tonight?</s>DANIEL MCGROARTY, PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITER: I think he had to be. The president, tonight, had to succeed on a lot of different levels. And I think he did. He had to command -- which everybody understood -- he had to console, he had to unite, and he had to explain. And I think that really -- he showed a lot of strength across all of those different elements in a single speech. And that's going to be enormously helpful. It is, however, just the first conversation, I think, in a new kind of way of speaking about a new kind of war. And it's going to take a while for this to kind of sink in -- in what it means to the American people. And I think the president will be back again, educating all of us and working with all of us to try to explain exactly what's going to be in store.</s>CAFFERTY: But this was a good first step, you'll agree?</s>MCGROARTY: I think it's a very good first step. It's really so different than previous speeches on ...</s>CAFFERTY: Oh, yeah.</s>MCGROARTY: ... related to conflicts.</s>CAFFERTY: Tom, let me ask you. You worked for maybe the second best presidential speaker after Ronald Reagan and since, maybe, FDR. Clinton was a natural -- I mean, if there was a strength he had, it was to stand in front of a group of people and just charm their pants off. That was not one of the qualities attributed to this president, particularly, earlier in his administration. Now the last week or ten days, he has shown signs of what we saw tonight. How much extra pressure was on him because of not having that natural ability to just be at ease and fluid and communicative like a Reagan or a Clinton?</s>TOM ROSSHIRT, FORMER CLINTON SPEECHWRITER: Well, I think he does have a lot of skill. And I think if you watched early in the debates during the campaign, when he spoke on education, when he spoke on subjects that he had a great deal of comfort with, he was strong and very powerful. Well, he understands these issues now. There's no question. He came tonight to get a mandate from the American people to do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to defeat terror. He laid out the evil of the enemy, he laid out plans, he laid out a goal, and he gave the nation a great deal of confidence by showing so much confidence himself. He's in command.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. Let's take a call from Mayur in California. Good evening.</s>MAYUR: Good evening, sir. Hi, I'm calling from California. I have a question to ask. I've viewed the American television, and everyone in the world knows that Pakistan is a neighboring country that has provided support to terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and also from holding cross border terrorism and terrorist organizations continue to flourish in Pakistan. My question is that why has the U.S. government not taken any action against Pakistan?</s>CAFFERTY: I think, because among other things, they need Pakistan strategically. They need Pakistan to cooperate in helping us set up operations to perhaps wage war against Afghanistan. And, you have to remember that the governments that tend to support the Islamic fundamentalists -- at least as I understand it -- are also, to a degree, held hostage by the Islamic fundamentalists. The Taliban and Osama bin Laden are like a cobra and a mongoose. They sort of stay at opposite ends of the pen and stay out of each other's way. And that's how they get along. Let me -- let me go back to our speech writers. I'm curious -- I mentioned, Daniel, that you wrote the speech where George Bush Sr. had the great line that he'd drawn a line in the sand. There was a line in this speech tonight: The terrorist leaders will follow -- and I'm not sure I have the first part of this exactly right -- the terrorist leaders will follow the leaders of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism into history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Do they know that's a home run line before he ever walks in to begin the speech? I mean, that's just a great line.</s>MCGROARTY: That's a great -- I'll tell you what's interesting about that whole passage is you can easily imagine the speech moving forward without that kind of section. That takes this conflict to a philosophical level and puts it in a larger context. It's a marvelous piece of speech work. And I think it's really something that helps position it for the American people as they're understanding this thing. I think the writers, in terms of putting this together and the president rehearsing it for the last couple of days, understood the value of that particular section. But this whole speech was very well crafted, very well put together.</s>CAFFERTY: Let's get Kelly Wallace in here real quickly from the White House. She's listened to an awful lot of these speeches. And we were talking to you earlier, Kelly, President Bush getting high marks just right across the board. How good was he tonight?</s>WALLACE: He was so very good. I mean, the thing was, he had to do a number of things here. And by all accounts, he did it. He also looked very, very comfortable. I have watched him give a number of speeches. And this one, he seemed to be extremely comfortable. Maybe the most comfortable I've ever seen him, and definitely in command. It was obviously a speech that had been worked on, that he had been rehearsing. But you definitely got the sense that there was sort of a passion behind those words. And so he had to -- I guess I was struck by the balance that he achieved there. The sense of strength and command and the tough talk, the demands for the ruling Taliban militia, as well as to any country engaging in terrorism or supporting terrorist organizations. And then the great -- you know, recognizing the wife of a passenger on that Pennsylvania plane, saluting New York City Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, and New York Governor, George Pataki, and holding up that badge. It was just sort of the sense that this president is going to -- over the next four years, or if he's in the White House for eight years, that that badge will likely be a constant reminder that he must do everything he can or else he's failing to try to rid the world of this terrorist organization -- all these terrorist organizations.</s>CAFFERTY: Why do I think we'll see that badge again in future speeches.</s>WALLACE: I think we might. And you know, Jack, I wanted to mention one other thing, too, which I think shows you how the president did on this speech. My boyfriend actually called me from New York to tell me that the Rangers -- the New York Rangers -- were playing in Philadelphia tonight -- the Philadelphia Flyers -- and the president's speech was played on the Robotron throughout -- the whole speech was played. And, at one point, I guess they were taking the speech down to get the play underway, and the crowd started booing. So they put the speech up. So they basically interrupted the hockey game so hockey players and fans could watch the president's speech. And people were chanting, "U.S.A., U.S.A." I don't recall any other sporting event where they would play the president's speech to interrupt play. I thought that was rather extraordinary.</s>CAFFERTY: You know -- did he also tell you that the coaches agreed at the end of the president's speech to call off the third period? They didn't even play it.</s>WALLACE: Oh.</s>CAFFERTY: The teams shook hands and went home. It was a two to two tie.</s>WALLACE: Incredible. I didn't hear that part of the story.</s>CAFFERTY: Unbelievable. And the Rangers and the Flyers truly do hate each other, for those of you across the country that don't follow it. There were 96 penalty minutes -- 96 penalty minutes -- in the first period. Tom Rosshirt, you wrote for President Clinton. What was the most memorable speech that you had a hand in crafting for him?</s>ROSSHIRT: Well, it came, actually, toward the end and it was an unusual situation, because it was the trip to Vietnam. And for us, there were so many constituencies and so much American emotion was bound up in it, as the emotion of our host countries. It was a communist government; we were trying to encourage them to open, which creates a big dilemma for them. They cannot have the economic growth they need to stay in power unless they open their society and their economy. But if they open their economy, they endanger their own survival as a regime. So that was difficult and it was done -- and I think to the approval of veterans, and that was very gratifying, I think, to everyone involved.</s>CAFFERTY: You also -- I got 30 seconds to a station break -- you also worked as a special assistant to the president. Did President Clinton lean over your shoulder when it was time to work on one of these major speeches? What kind of a role did he take in his speeches?</s>ROSSHIRT: In a speech such as this one, his behavior would be, I believe, much the same as President Bush's. He would rehearse it several times in the theater in the White House and have a very big hand in writing it himself.</s>CAFFERTY: He did write a lot of it himself, or at least put forth the ideas that went into it?</s>ROSSERT: An address to the joint session of Congress -- absolutely.</s>CAFFERTY: OK. Let me take a station break. This is fascinating stuff. We'll be back. You're watching CNN's HOTLINE and it's coming up on one o'clock. We'll head into the second hour of the broadcast after this.</s>CAFFERTY: I'm not here, oh, yeah I am. Those are live pictures from a Los Angeles county fair in Pomona, California. They're celebrating the flag and the country and all like that and it's a nightly part of the fair festivities. Coming up this hour on the program we'll get a live report from Paul Vercammen who joined us last evening from California. He's out at the fair tonight and we'll check in with Paul a bit later. We begin the second hour as we always do with the latest news headlines and for that we go to my friend, Garrick Utley. Gary.</s>UTLEY: Thanks, Jack. This early morning hour, of course, topping the latest developments of President Bush's speech before Congress. He spoke up before a united Congress and a worried nation and of course, was speaking with an international audience. The President vowed to avenge the terrorist attacks in New York and in Washington D.C.</s>PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.</s>UTLEY: Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, Islamic clerics are urging Osama Bin Laden to get out of that country. The Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, is reportedly considering that recommendation. The Bush administration is rejecting any delay, instead is calling for the Taliban to act and to act now. The Islamic clerics are asking the US not to attack Afghanistan but to show patience, that's the word patience, and to continue its investigation. The investigation into the attacks continues in this country, as crews in New York continue to comb through the rubble. The number of missing or presumed dead rose to 6,333 on Thursday. Other countries are pouring in with reports about possible missing citizens from those nations who may have been in the World Trade Center buildings when they collapsed. The confirmed death toll stands at 241, with 170 of those victims identified as of now. A forty-member group of US Senators toured the wreckage of the World Trade Center on Thursday. This is one of the largest groups of US Senators to ever travel together outside Washington. Congress, the Bush administration just reached a deal to help the airline industry, and it's in very, very sad shape. The bailout agreement could help the ailing industry stay afloat in the coming months. The House is expected to approve the package first, followed by the Senate later on Friday. And that's the latest stuff to help the airline industry. One note I just want to bring up here, Jack, we also know the President tonight created a new cabinet position. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania will be in charge on Homeland Defense. That's a new term we're going to hear, Homeland Defense, a new concept, but it's a real need right now. I have my own little experience that I also crossed the East River in Brooklyn down on the waterfront of the docks just across from the World Trade Center at the site of the attacks and learning about containers. Here's what Governor Ridge is going to face. Listen to these facts: There are about 5.8 million containers, these big forty foot containers that come into this country each year. How do you search them all? You search very few of them. It takes five customs agents nearly three hours to thoroughly search a forty foot container. And with six million containers, you try to do the math. Not only that, Jack, but a container can land at Long Beach, California, go on a truck or a train, go across the country to Chicago or New York, let's say, which is it's official port of entry and the importer doesn't have to provide a manifest of the contents of that cargo, what's in that container, traveling to the U.S. until it reaches its port of entry. That can take up to thirty days. And then there are the Fed EXs, the DHL's, the UPS shipments that absolutely, positively have to be there overnight, are you going to search them? How do you mount an effective Homeland Defense? We should have some sympathy and support for Tom Ridge and his new job. Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah, it's a big job, indeed. As a journalist, reporter, you have spent a good part of your adult life on airplanes, flying all over the world. You were talking about the proposed bailout of the industry. There was some good news on the airline front today. I heard they're going to stop serving food. And if you've eaten airline food, that's not good news, that's great news. Apparently it's a way to save money, but you know those gourmet meals that come in the brown paper sack? So, then, no more of those. All right, thanks, Garrick Utley. Sheri in California, good evening.</s>SHERI: Yes, hello?</s>CAFFERTY: Hi.</s>SHERI: Hi, first I'd like to say your show's been very informative.</s>CAFFERTY: Glad you enjoy it.</s>SHERI: The question that I have is there's so many different groups around the world. What's the definition of what a terrorist is?</s>CAFFERTY: According to President Bush, and I've made a couple of notes and you'll forgive the glasses, but the way he described the worldwide terrorism network is sort of like, if you can think of a mafia, in terms of organized crime. The overseeing body is something called al Qaeda, and there are cells and organizations, the Islamic jihad, Osama Bin Laden's group, the Islamic Fundamentalists, operating in some sixty different countries. So there, according to, apparently, our intelligence gathering, there are several organizations. They are, they have cells, or groups, that are active all around the world in sixty nations and they all apparently operate under this umbrella organization, al Qaeda. That's the best explanation I've found and that was one that was part of the President's speech tonight. Mike in Illinois, good evening.</s>MIKE: Yes, sir. Hello?</s>CAFFERTY: Hello.</s>MIKE: Yes, sir, yeah. I compare it, like I said; I think this'll be as big as the Gettysburg Address. I mean it's just the biggest thing that's ever happened to me. I'm a 33-year old, self employed flooring installer. But, you know, I think it; the way that I see it is, see if I can put it ...</s>CAFFERTY: Did we lose him? I'm sorry. It was an emotional speech, it got to me and I'm a lot older than you are, Mike. I was sitting in my office and I was moved, I was stirred. We've got two presidential speechwriters on the program; let's get back to them. Daniel McGroarty, you wrote for President Bush's father. This is a totally unfair question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Which one of them is the better speaker, based on what we say from the young Bush tonight?</s>MCGROARTY: I think, you know, I think every president can find their style and their way to communicate and I think it's a question of when you can rise to the moment. George W. Bush tonight, you know, he had his line in the speech where he said, "We have, we've found our mission and our moment." And he said that about the country, but if you really think about it, it's very much a way of looking at George W. Bush in this instance. He's found his mission and his moment and he's rising to the task.</s>CAFFERTY: Take us back for a minute to the speech that you crafted for his father, which contained the great line about drawing the line in the sand.</s>MCGROARTY: Actually, the speech I was thinking of tonight the speech that lead off Desert Storm on January 16, 1991.</s>CAFFERTY: Right.</s>MCGROARTY: And I was looking it up earlier in the day and I'm really struck by how different the situations are. When we talk about the new war and the new way of talking about it and understanding this war, that was a war that had a very decisive beginning and a very definitive end. And the war we're talking about tonight, one of the small phrases that struck me in this speech was a statement about covert operations, "Secret, even in success." President Bush said that ...</s>CAFFERTY: I circled that right here on a piece of paper. It's funny I drew a circle around it because I wanted to ask one of the other people about it. "Secret, even in success," implies a lot of things, doesn't it?</s>MCGROARTY: It implies that we're going to have a very hard time scoring out. When we're winning and how we're winning, you can't imagine a parade down Constitution Avenue declaring a victory in the war on terrorism. When will this war ever really be over? That's why I say this is the beginning of a conversation with the American people. It's going to be a very different type of conflict to explain, to understand and I like that the President asked questions and then offered answers tonight. You know, a speech is a monologue and the President really turned it into kind of a dialogue or a conversation and I thought that was a very, very nice touch.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah, it was almost like he borrowed a page out of Ronald Reagan's speech making book. Including people from the audience and having people there that he could refer to. Of course, all of us in New York very proud that our mayor and our governor were present. Tom Rosshirt, what's more important on a night like this, the speech or the speaker?</s>ROSSHIRT: I don't think you can distinguish the two and that's why it was so successful. They did an excellent job blending it.</s>CAFFERTY: ... and our governor were present. Tom Rosshirt, what's more important on a night like this, the speech or the speaker?</s>ROSSHIRT: I don't think you can distinguish the two and that's why it was so successful. They did an excellent job blending it. I think that President Bush has found his voice, because there is nothing in that speech that you would find it hard to imagine him saying or thinking up on his own. So, they worked together seamlessly and I think he did a remarkable job describing the patience that it's going to take. I mean that he, if people had to vote now to give him a mandate to carry forward with his plans, it would be a nearly unanimous vote. Now, it's going to be a long, long process and he understands that. But, he does not need to improve his performance; he just needs to sustain his current level of performance, I think, to keep the confidence of the American people.</s>CAFFERTY: Sometimes greatness comes with great challenge, and he's certainly got his hands full.</s>ROSSHIRT: He'll rise into it.</s>CAFFERTY: Yeah. What goes through your mind when your listening to a speech like the one we all heard tonight, written by someone else? Is that like Colfax watching Drysdale pitch?</s>ROSSHIRT: I am a very grateful fan. I'm rooting' for the President. I remember vividly the speech President Bush gave in September after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and he said this will not stand. I remember rooting enormously for him in that speech. So, I'm just an admiring spectator.</s>CAFFERTY: Is there a line or a phrase that you remember from a speech that President Clinton gave that stands with a couple of those that you just referred to?</s>ROSSHIRT: Well, it was interesting. Once I was fortunate enough to talk to Ted Sorenson briefly about speech writing these days versus in Kennedy's days, and he said that these days very often high rhetoric doesn't command the day. It doesn't rule as it did and sometimes a very effective line is a very simple line. People will long remember President Clinton for saying "save Social Security first," and Clinton's speechwriters had their own story about bringing a draft to the President that they worked over for days and days and days, and he would cross out huge sections of it and say, "I can't say this, this is just words." He really wanted to speak to people and he would sort of gently chide us for trying to carve out these noble phrases.</s>CAFFERTY: Right.</s>ROSSHIRT: He just wanted to be talking to people as if, speak publicly as if he were speaking privately.</s>CAFFERTY: The news director I had back a hundred years ago said, "Write the news copy like you're talking. Just write like you talk." We've got Ann on the phone in California. Hi, Anne.</s>ANNE: Hi. I thought the President's performance tonight was stellar, but I have a totally different point of view from his. I'm wondering if you wanted to entertain that.</s>CAFFERTY: Absolutely. That's what this program is for.</s>ANNE: Great. I've been watching every night since you started. The line that I would sort of like to open to continuing dialogue is the fact that we have defeated fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism, and there's been a lot of conversation about why Communism wasn't mentioned.</s>CAFFERTY: Right.</s>ANNE: Two other forms of behavior wasn't mentioned. One is colonialism, the other one is imperialism. And, the other question I have is: At what scale do behaviors become terrorism?</s>CAFFERTY: The first part of the question, obviously you're suggesting that we didn't leave out some of the practices that this country and perhaps other free societies have been guilty of over the years, colonialism, imperialism. The second one I'm not qualified to even begin to answer, but I appreciate your bringing the question up. We're going to say goodbye to the two speechwriters on the program now. Tom Rosshirt who wrote for President Clinton and special assistant to the President and Daniel McGroarty who wrote for President George Herbert Walker Bush, right? Did I do that right?</s>MCGROARTY: You did.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. I appreciate both of you coming on the broadcast. Thanks a lot for your insight and thoughts and we'll talk again as this thing moves forward.</s>ROSSHIRT: Appreciate it. Thanks very much, Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: All right. We'll take a break; we'll come back. What about civil liberties? Are they in danger because of changes in laws that are being proposed under the guise of being better able to combat terrorism? We'll talk about it in a little bit.</s>CAFFERTY: Welcome back, 1:17 Eastern Daylight Time and you're watching CNN's HOTLINE. I'm Jack Cafferty. The program's coming to you live from New York City. But right now we're going to swing all the way across the country and check in with Paul Vercammen who's at the L.A. County fair in Pamona. Those were some great fireworks we saw there a few minutes ago. How's it going, Paul?</s>PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well we're doing great and of course a lot of people feeling patriotic watched those fireworks with great interest. One note about the L.A. County fair, it's the largest attended county fair, 1.2 million last year. People showed up, well that's not going to happen this year because of what happened. Also, a great deal of generosity here. They gave their proceeds from last Friday night entirely to the American Red Cross Relief Fund and that totaled a quarter of a million dollars. Let's get a number of opinions here. A lot of people either watched or listened to President Bush's speech. Here, at the fair we've got the Cramer family from Upland, Mike, Patrick and Leah. First off, give us your rating. How did the President fair tonight with that speech.</s>MIKE CRAMER: I would give him high ratings. I felt that it was a very reasoned and I was not all that surprised with the conclusions that came out of that. I think the violation that took place last Tuesday, we'd all hope there'd be some immediate satisfaction in some form of identification of the perpetrators and some kind of immediate response, but when you've given it time to think about what we're up against and he's preparing the nation for what the reality of what the situation is. And I think he laid the situation out very well for us to accept what we're up against here. And I don't think there is an easy answer. I wish him god speed in what our mission is.</s>VERCAMMEN: OK, let's talk to your son, Patrick. Let's talk some foreign policy, here. He talked about either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. What do you think about drawing that proverbial line in the sand?</s>PATRICK CRAMER: I think it's very important that we take the cooperation that we've received in the region with open arms, and that we don't demand too much from these nations in that part of the world because we can't create a new enemy. We need them as friends, and we to seek justice and not revenge. And the cooperation that we've received from them so far, I mean, I can't believe -- especially like Pakistan and nations like that. We need to make sure that we don't create unrest in the neighboring countries. We could create a whole new enemy by doing that and involving innocent people. We have to be sure that we get what we have to get and that we're calculated in our efforts to do that.</s>VERCAMMEN: Let's go now to your sister as we continue on at the LA county fair. Leah, you have a daughter now, four months old. Your concerns as a parent.</s>LEAH KRAMER: I guess I'm just comforted by the fact that we are trying to find out who the real perpetrators are and we're not going to impose the same feelings of hopelessness that they've imposed on us by taking civilian lives and killing women and children. I think that was the worst part of it for us, when civilians were killed.</s>VERCAMMEN: What sort of resolution would you like to see happen?</s>CRAMER: I don't know. I've been really emotional this past week and I hold a lot of respect for the people who make the decisions because it's very difficult.</s>VERCAMMEN: We thank you so much, the Cramer family, from the nearby Upland, California. By the way, that's in San Bernardino County, but it's close here to the L.A. County fair where a lot of people watched that speech tonight. And as they gathered, many of them took very long, thoughtful assessment of what the president had to say, Jack. Now, back to you.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, Paul, thanks very much. Paul Vercammen, live at the Los Angeles county fair. And we go from California to Pakistan. Tom Mintier with a live report from Islamabad. Tom's been kind enough to join us each night this program's been on the air. And I look forward to these reports. Tom, how are you?</s>TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fine, Jack. The message from President Bush was crystal clear and it was a unified message from the U.S. and the U.S. Congress and the Senate. Most people here probably didn't hear President Bush's speech because it came very early in the morning. But I'm sure officials of the government were watching very intently, every word that was said by the president. What is less clear is what's coming out of Afghanistan, what's going on there. We had the day-and-a-half meeting of the religious clerics in Kabul. But what came out was asking the Taliban leadership to ask Osama Bin Laden to voluntarily leave the country to go somewhere else. That was immediately rejected by the White House, saying that that's not what we're looking for. Now is the time for action not for talking. So I met with the foreign minister here in Pakistan last night at an event here in Islamabad and asked him about how significant that was, asking Osama bin Laden to voluntarily leave the country. And he said, "Well, it's really unprecedented because he has been a guest of Afghanistan for the past five years through thick and thin. And for them to simply come up and say, you're not really welcome to stay here anymore was a significant development. And he said the rest of the world should not downplay the significance of that. I also asked him if Osama bin Laden came to the border with Pakistan, what would you do. And he told me he would be quite unwelcome. So we're waiting here - today is a day of strike in Pakistan and we're going to be able to gauge public opinion somewhat by the demonstrations in the street. We already hear from AFP that demonstrations in Karachi. The police are using batons to beat back people on the street. We've had protests in Karachi that have brought out three or 4,000 people in the last couple of days and also in Peshawar. But today, we're expecting much larger demonstrations, possibly more violent. And it will be a test of the government and the security apparatus in Pakistan to really keep a lid on them. And when President Musharraf talked to the public the other night, he admitted that as many as 10 to 15 percent may not be sided with the government in its decision to help the United States. He called it a minority and he called on the majority to really sway public opinion in this country. We will see what the minority is going to do today after Friday prayers, what they're going to do on the street. They have already made it quite clear that they're opposed to what the government is doing. What remains to be seen is how vocal and how violent they will be in putting their point across -- Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, thanks a lot. Tom Mintier in Islamabad, Pakistan. America is for all intensive purposes in a state of war, as the president was talking about this evening, people, presumably, will have to make certain sacrifices, including, possibly giving up some of their civil liberties in the interest of national security and defense. David Sobel is general counsel of the Electric Privacy Information Center, a fierce defender of the First Amendment and individual rights. Mr. Sobel, it's nice to have you on the program tonight. Welcome to CNN's Hotline.</s>DAVID SOBEL, PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER: Thanks, Jack. Thanks for having me.</s>CAFFERTY: Did you -- did you watch the president tonight?</s>SOBEL: I did.</s>CAFFERTY: What did you think?</s>SOBEL: I thought the president did a very impressive job of explaining the situation and the challenge that the country faces. I found that he didn't, however, talk about the issue that most concerns my organization and many others, which is the question of how we are going to strike the balance now between the legitimate needs of security and the traditional civil liberties and privacy rights of American citizens. And I think that really is a critical issue that needs to be addressed as we forward.</s>CAFFERTY: Can we break it down and define the top three or four areas under that umbrella of concern that perhaps will be the most urgent issues for your organization as this thing begins to unfold?</s>SOBEL: Well, I think the first list of priority items are matters that are addressed in the administration's proposed legislation that could be introduced as early as today, Friday, here in Washington in Congress. That proposal address is a couple of areas of particular concern. One is the whole area of electronic surveillance and wire-tapping and monitoring Internet activity.</s>CAFFERTY: Help me out with something. I don't mean to interrupt. But Attorney General John Ashcroft was speaking a couple of days ago and the subject of wire-tapping came up. And as I understood what he was saying, he would like to have the law changed because as it stands now, according to the attorney general, when you've got authority to do a wire tap, you have the authority to wire tap a phone number. And with the age of cell phones and even disposable telephones, he would like the law changed so that we could have the authority, as a country, to do a wiretap on the individual. Is that what you understood him to say and why do you suppose he's asking that and why does that bother you? Why is that a problem?</s>SOBEL: That is one of the proposals. There is a really large of proposals that are contained in the bill. It's a 25-page bill. It's just now taking final form and we're just now starting to analyze it. This is -- my organization as well as members of Congress are just really starting to assess these proposals. But on the issue that you address, yes, the claim has been made that the inability to follow an individual as opposed to a particular telephone number creates impediments for law enforcement. That might be but it hasn't been established. We don't yet know enough about what if any legal impediments confronted the FBI and the intelligence agencies in advance of the attacks last week. And I think one of the problems here is we don't really know enough yet about what potential problems law enforcement did encounter to really start prescribing solutions. The other point that I think is worth making is that although obviously, the concern right now is investigating the terrorism, the proposals that are being made are not limited to terrorism investigations. They are across the board changes to our wiretap laws. The same changes would apply equally to drug investigations, gambling investigations. So while there might be some particular emergency need right now in the area of terrorism investigation, one of the concerns is that this is a very broad proposal that would fundamentally alter our entire legal scheme for conducting these very intrusive investigations.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, I'm going to have to do a little station break here. We're talking to David Sobel of Washington, D.C., general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. It's time for a station break. We'll continue our discussion with Mr. Sobel and toward the end of this program, just want to give you a heads up, we're going to have devote the last 10 minutes or so just for your calls. So if you've got something you like to say about tonight, the president's speech, the situation our country's in, you'll have your shot. We'll open the lines up and let you have this thing all to yourselves for the last 10 minutes or so. Back after this.</s>GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.</s>BUSH: Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps so we make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open for negotiation or discussion.</s>UTLEY: President Bush's words of warning backed up tonight by -- in these early morning hours, by action. U.S. military aircraft into deploy from Camp Lejeune in the United States to be ready for any combat missions or when they're ordered to go in. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's Grand Islamic Council recommended that the Taliban ask -- that's the word they use -- ask Bin Laden to leave the country. But the White House has rejected that idea, saying it does not even begin to meet what it's asking for, in fact, demanding. In the meantime, in this country, the daunting and just the fatiguing task of picking the rubble at the twin tower disaster sight in New York City continues around the clock. Only 241 people are confirmed dead in that terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. And today the mayor of New York, Giuliani said the number of missing and presumed dead has risen to 6,333. In his speech to the nation, the president vowed to help New York rebuild with billions of dollars if necessary. But of course, you cannot rebuild the lives that had been lost. Also, a rescue plan last night for the nation's faltering airlines. And in the days to come, Congress and the administration have agreed to pump up to $15 billion into the industry hit hard by last week's terrorist attacks. And now back to the president's speech. It had a special impact tonight. It put an NHL exhibition game on ice last night. The start of the third period of the game between the New York Rangers and the Philadelphia Flyers was delayed and then it was called off as fans demanded to watch Mr. Bush's address to Congress instead of the game. The game ended in a two, two tie with handshakes all around between the two teams there. We've been reporting for some time now the various impacts, what's been lost. First and foremost, human lives, businesses destroyed or distributed, Jack, as we know. But another piece of evidence of the price of this, indeed evidence itself, listen to this -- "among those things lost in the World Trade Center was evidence being held by federal agencies for trials." A lot of this evidence was for drug trials and federal charges. It's gone. It's dust down there. Physical evidence, such as drugs that had been seized. The files, of course, can be reconstituted but you can't reconstitute or recreate that physical evidence. And you can see the problem facing prosecutors when these trials are being held there. The defense counsel for some person's charge is going to say, "Well, your honor, show us the evidence." The prosecutor is going to have to say, "I'm sorry. It was destroyed in the World Trade Center on September 11." What's the judge going to say, case dismissed.</s>CAFFERTY: Yes, it's incredible. All kinds of stories you don't think about until the time's passed. Thanks, Garrick. Garrick Utley with the latest news. We have a caller in Michigan. Jerry, you have a question for our guest, David Sobel.</s>JERRY: Yes, one of the -- one of the things I'd like to say first off is that I'm glad we finally have a president that we can all proud of. And so my question is for the gentlemen that you're speaking with tonight, as much as I respect their desire to protect our civil liberties, especially the citizens in this country, my question is how much are these organizations that he represents willing to give a little or I guess concede a little bit to the needs of the nation versus the needs of an individual?</s>CAFFERTY: Yes, there is a philosophical argument I suppose, Mr. Sobel, that you could make that in times like these we might all be called upon to make sacrifices. Are you -- are you at all amenable to the idea of some temporary suspension perhaps of certain kinds of freedoms in order to accomplish the goals that the president laid out tonight?</s>SOBEL: Well, this -- that is one of the ideas that has been floated, that, if in fact, there is an emergency situation that requires law enforcement to have some additional powers that it doesn't traditionally have, that perhaps Congress should consider the idea of making those changes on a temporary basis and then reevaluating them at some point when we're able to look at this in a more deliberate way without operating under the threat that we now operate under. But I think of you know, the general question of sacrificing tradeoffs, privacy versus security, we do that all the time. And I think the American people are very reasonable about that. And it depends on the circumstances. Clearly, when we go to an airport, particularly now, there are tradeoffs that we make and we understand the need for that. I think that the question is what are the circumstances and what is the need. And I just think we need to have a debate about those issues in this county. And that's healthy and that's what our system is about. There's a far-reaching investigation going on right now. I think we'd all benefit from getting a little bit more information from that investigation to understand exactly what the security breakdowns were last week. And let's address those and really try to pinpoint the problems.</s>CAFFERTY: That's fair enough. Another area that was up for discussion before you joined the program tonight was where and how these terrorists, in the event that they're captured, might be tried. And it was pointed out that in the event of their capture, it may fall to prosecutors to try them with evidence that was collected perhaps by foreign governments in ways that would be ruled unconstitutional here. So there are all kinds of questions that come up in the event that these people are captured and that we'd put them on trial. I'm going to have to say good evening to you here but I invite you to come back and we'll explore some of these issues. I'm sure the debate in Congress will get up and going stronger than ever here in the next week or two, once the whole mechanism in Washington begins to return to normal. I thank you for being with us.</s>SOBEL: Thanks for having me.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. We're going to pause for a couple of commercial messages. Then we're going to take calls from you. But in between those two things, Barry Bonds hit number 64 tonight. We've got the pictures. We'll share. Stick around.</s>CAFFERTY: We're going to go back to the Los Angeles County Fair in Pomona, California. Before that though, I mentioned Barry Bonds. The president told us all to get back to work. Barry Bonds got back to work tonight in San Francisco. Check this out.</s>ANNOUNCER: ... tomorrow night. They've got to win, win, win when they play Houston. Bonds to center field.</s>CAFFERTY: How about that? And he hit his 64th home run eight games earlier than Mark McGwire hit his 64th home run in the season that the McGwire set the all-time record of 70. This came in the game, Giants against the Astros. The Giants lost the game and lost the series. But this guy, that was just on prior, they have 15 games remaining, which means now, for him to get to 71, let's see, he hit 64, he's got to hit about one home run every other game for the remainder of the season. But he is ahead of Mark McGwire's pace and better take a break and just observe that. I mentioned Paul Vercammen out at the Los Angeles County Fair. And we're going to go back out there now and get a second report from Paul, who has a couple of firefighters with him -- Paul.</s>VERCAMMEN: Jack, let me tell you this, I think you've got a sense of this the last couple of nights that we've been talking to people, that there's just tremendous love out here on the West Coast for New York. And a lot of people out here just feel helpless, like they want to do something for the victims, that they want to do something for those firefighters. And look at this, there's sort of a mini city here as this fair goes on. And these firefighters have done more than share. What happened was that Pat here and Bruce -- good to see you gentlemen -- at their station, nickel by nickel, dollar by dollar, dime by dime, you raised money for relief for the firefighters' families. Tell us what spawned this.</s>PAT LONG, CALIFORNIA FIREFIGHTER: The Fair Flags came to us and asked us about it, said do you guys want to have a fund raiser here? And we said, "Yes, I guess so." And we basically stood up from the fire station with boots and they filled up our boots. And there's just an outpouring of public support. And they came up and just wanted a hug and talk and give us donations. And it goes straight to the New York firefighters and families.</s>VERCAMMEN: How tough has this been for you, as firefighter's captain, I'd like to ask this to you? These are your brothers and these are your men and you watched the hurt and pain that went through there a half continent away.</s>CAPT. BRUCE MOXSEY, CALIFORNIA FIREFIGHTER: Oh, it's been hard on everybody. I think we understand, you know, what those guys went through. I think the public has a real hard -- it's just real hard on the public. And over the weekend, the donations and the outpouring, it was just -- it was great to watch us interact with the public. And I think that's what they needed to do, just talk, be, you know, just comforting. And that -- and we got a lot of it too because of the outpouring from them. It was -- it was -- it was great, just absolutely great.</s>VERCAMMEN: Let's turn to this now, I know that both of you watched President Bush's speech earlier, as did many people by the way here at the fair. They showed it on a large screen. And I'm going to get your impressions here. How do you think he fared with that speech?</s>LONG: I thought it was excellent. It was riveting and probably the best speech out there. And he covered all the ground. He talked about, you know, the peace and the war and the conflict. And he just covered everything that there was to cover on it. I was very impressed.</s>VERCAMMEN: Captain, I know you said that you were happy to hear that the president outlined some goals. Tell us about that.</s>MOXSEY: Well, I'm just glad that he was able to -- that he has a plan and he's got goals, measurable goals even though that I think the road to getting there is going to be a bit difficult and there's going to be some plans that are going to be a lot different than any other war that we've -- that we've fought before in any other conflict. The other part I liked was that he was telling the American people and the world that this war, this conflict, is not against any political or racial or religious, you know, entity. It's against a fanatical people in one of those entities.</s>VERCAMMEN: Great, we thank you so much for taking time out. And good luck to you by the way. I hope you raise even more money for your brother and to New York City. Well, there you have it here from the L.A. County Fair. The West Coast, of course, it sighs on President Bush tonight as he delivered that speech, Jack. And of course, as you saw from the firefighters and others, many people thinking of the people of New York and Washington out here. Back to you now, Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: It's amazing, as you point out, the support and the unity of -- these people are -- they have no idea of what they started. They just don't have a clue. This country is an amazing place. Thanks very much, Paul. As promised, the last few minutes of the broadcast are yours. We've Mary on the phone in New York. How are you doing?</s>MARY: Hi, my name is Mary. And I live on Long Island. I have a question about the integrity of the coverage that I'm hearing. I was watching form the very beginning and heard that there were eight planes hijacked and four had hit their mark. And I understand that that was incorrect. But I also have understood that there were something in the area of 50,000 people normally operating in the Trade Center. And they are now telling us that there are something in the area of 5,000 missing. Why is that we cannot hear the truth? Why can't -- why can't the news -- I understand that Mr. Giuliani is trying to spare us the terrible possibilities but shouldn't we hear the truth?</s>CAFFERTY: Well, if I may, let's go to the first point that there were eight planes hijacked and four hit their targets. I think that that proved to be not true. Either that or the other four are still up there some place. So that wasn't true. But at the -- in the early moments of the story, nobody knew. And so, you know, you're probably better to ail on the side of caution that there was a possibility there were eight planes up there. Maybe the public should know about that. As far as the World Trade Center is concerned, we talked a little bit about it. You said you watched the program from the beginning. We talked a little bit about it earlier, just briefly. Yes, the capacity of the World Trade Center is 50,000 people. And yes, the number of people missing and presumed dead is just 6,000. But two things happened -- the first plane hit the first tower, causing an explosion and fire and no doubt killing some people at impact. That tower began to burn. At that time, the rest of that tower and tower two began an evacuation process. There were 17 or 18 minutes between the time the first plane hit and the second one did. During that time, fire officials, company executives, building security people hastened an evacuation of all of the people that were in there. The other thing is the buildings weren't full at the time. You'll remember this happened fairly early in the morning, before everybody had gotten to work. So while the news media is guilty of perhaps to rushing to judgment. In a story like this, it's almost impossible to get it 100 percent accurate from the very get go. And often times, it is more important to get the information out, i.e. terrorists have bombed the World Trade Center than to withhold information because there is some question about the accuracy of some of the tangential details. I think that's the word. Debbie's on the phone in California, how are you doing?</s>DEBBIE: Hi, Jack. I just wanted to take a moment to commend the New York 911 dispatchers. I can't...</s>CAFFERTY: Yes.</s>DEBBIE: ... begin to imagine the types of calls they received in those first few moments.</s>CAFFERTY: There was -- there were a couple of other heroes too in conjunction with that, the 911 dispatchers. There was apparently a woman in one of the schools -- there were schools close by -- who immediately ordered the evacuation of the schools, got all the kids out. She's credited with probably saving their lives. And then I heard today on the radio, somebody at the FAA immediately ordered all planes out of the sky and onto the ground. And that was a courageous a gutsy call to be made on very short notice. So there were some quick thinking folks during the height of this thing. Marie is on the phone in New York -- Marie.</s>MARIE: Hi, I was -- hi, Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: How are you doing?</s>MARIE: I was going to say an awful lot of people are stepping up to the plate, our president, Barry Bonds and all these terrific people of New York who did a wonderful job. My complaint is I do not want $1 of my tax money used, first of all, for the congressmen to sit there and point fingers. They should point fingers at their noses first. Many of them sit on committees that were supposed to be watching over in their oversight capacity.</s>CAFFERTY: That's absolutely a fair comment.</s>MARIE: Failure started there. The second part on civil liberties, I don't know if you recall, we had picture taking at the Super Bowl last year...</s>CAFFERTY: Right.</s>MARIE: ... of U.S. citizens mostly going in and out of a sports event, which was a normal occurrence in America. I just flew back -- it took me six hours from LAX to Newark. By the time I stepped into the airport and got on the plane, it was six hours. Fine. I picked up my daughter in Newark yesterday. And the time the flight landed and three flights landed, international flights -- from the time she landed and got out to our waiting area where we picked her up, an half an hour.</s>CAFFERTY: How was the flight?</s>MARIE: Excuse me?</s>CAFFERTY: How was the flight? You said you flew back from L.A. to Newark.</s>MARIE: It was a little scary. But you know what, I think that everything's being done that has to be done.</s>CAFFERTY: All right, Mike's on the phone in my home state of Nevada. Mike, what part of Nevada are you in?</s>MIKE: Ely, Jack.</s>CAFFERTY: Oh, Ely, all right, that's up in the northeast. I grew up in Reno. How are doing tonight? What can we do for you?</s>MIKE: I'm doing good. I just had a question about Bill Maher's comment, about the cowards in the military. I wanted to get your thoughts on that.</s>CAFFERTY: For the rest of the people watching, Bill Maher hosts a program on ABC, "Politically Incorrect" and apparently, there was some comment that he made. Mike, can you -- can you remember -- I read about this in the paper but I don't want to misquote him. Tell me what he said.</s>MIKE: Well, I'm sure if I remember exactly. I don't know if he said that there were cowards in the military or the cowardly way our military...</s>CAFFERTY: Oh, I know what it was. I remember now. He was talking about -- he was talking about the fact that a cowardly approach to fighting a war was to use the smart bombs and allow the airplanes with these computer-guided and laser-guided bombs to do the damage. And it caused all kinds of ruckus. And he later clarified, saying that he was not casting aberrations on the men and women of the military. It was -- you know, it was one of the things that you file it under, "This is Not Helpful." All right?</s>MIKE: Right.</s>CAFFERTY: Kevin in North Carolina. Hello, Kevin.</s>KEVIN: Good evening, Jack. How are you today?</s>CAFFERTY: Good.</s>KEVIN: OK, my first -- my prayers are out to the victims and to all the volunteers that are doing such hard work. But my concern is if we do -- it happens to Bin Laden that did this, we do have to catch him, his followers. I'm very concerned about his followers.</s>CAFFERTY: Well, one of the things that Bin Laden has vowed is that he'll never be taken alive. And one of the reasons -- probably two reasons -- one is he's probably, you know, one on one a spineless weasel but the other reason is that if he's killed, he becomes even a bigger martyr and a bigger figure in the Fundamentalist Islamic Movement than he is now. And as I understand it, there are people around him that have instructions that in the event his capture is threatened, they are to simply execute him. He is not to be taken alive under any circumstances. Let's talk to Tim in Florida. Hi, Tim.</s>TIM: Hey, good morning, Jack. How are you doing?</s>CAFFERTY: Good morning. I'm good.</s>TIM: A couple of quick things -- first and foremost, I want to get your reaction, wouldn't you agree that, you know, American in essence is being called to arms in the sense that we, as citizens, because this battle is not only going to be fought on other grounds but right here as well, that we need to be a little bit more aware of our surroundings and people that we're with and what's going on. And secondly, it was interesting. I was watching a documentary on Pearl Harbor. And in 1941, when FDR went before Congress and they voted, at that time, there was also one holdout.</s>CAFFERTY: One dissenting vote even though the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. I didn't know that. I -- that was a suggestion I read about tonight or actually I got an e-mail from somebody who said what if -- you know, what if we all took a few minutes out from, you know, trying to make a dollar in pursuit of their careers and trying to pay for the kids tuition and all the things that we go about every day and took some time to get to know the people around us, the neighbors. What if we had some barbecues and some -- and you know, and you think, you know. But then you think about and it's the kind of thing you're talking about -- be aware of your surroundings, get to know the people around you. Maybe it's a good idea that we all do a little more of that. Let's get a comment from Bill in Virginia. Hi, Bill.</s>BILL: Hey, good evening.</s>CAFFERTY: Good evening.</s>BILL: A simple comment on the subject of the war and what we should call it. As I understand it, the War Powers Act hasn't been invoked and we're really dealing with more of a medical or surgical operation here very similar to the treatment of cancer. We may find that, for a short period of time, the treatment is worse than the illness. But it's necessary, once we're through it, we'll all be better off and safer for it. The president's call for patience and loyalty to the commitment that was made is vital. As American people, we need unity and support of our government.</s>CAFFERTY: I couldn't agree more and you said it -- you said it very well. Thanks, Bill. Before we leave you tonight, we're coming up on 1:55 and it's time for us to get out of the way. By the way, in a little more than an hour from now, for those of you who didn't see, the president's address to the joint session of Congress and the nation, will be replayed here on CNN. You know, that police badge the president held up tonight? It belonged to a Port Authority cop. There it is in his hand there. A guy named George Howard. And back in 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed, George Howard was one of the guys on the scene saving lives, helping people out of the bombed out garage and away from -- and away from that tragic situation. Last week, when the hijackers slammed their airplanes in the World Trade Center, George Howard was off duty. He heard the announcement. He jumped in his car. He raced to the scene and he was killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center. In 1993, he was interviewed by a reporter who asked him about his heroic deeds of the day and this is what he said and it's a quote -- he said, "There's no single hero story. Everybody just did his job today. That's what they pay us for." That's the cop's badge that's in the president's pocket. And that wraps it up from New York City. I'm Jack Cafferty. Thanks for watching. Good night. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com