Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
USADA to Reveal Evidence Against Lance Armstrong; Senate Investigates Libya Attack
Aired October 10, 2012 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Here we go. Top of the hour two, breaking news, I'm Brooke Baldwin. Cyclist Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor, seven-time Tour De France winner, sports idol to millions.
Today, he is accused of running a high level operation using performance enhancing drugs. According to this statement here, this is from USADA. It's an acronym for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the CEO here basically says that Armstrong and his U.S.P.F. cycling team ran, get this, let me quote this for you -- "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program the sport of cycling has ever seen."
The agency is about to release 1,000 pages of evidence in its long- running effort to prove the cycling great cheated by using these performance-enhancing drugs. Among the evidence, according to USADA, financial payments, they have e-mails, they have scientific data, lab test results.
And, listen to this, they have testimony from 11 members of Armstrong's cycling team, including the teammate who rode next to Armstrong during all seven of his winning Tour de France runs.
The man considered Armstrong's unofficial lieutenant, he's George Hincapie, who also admitted today that he too used performance- enhancing drugs.
"USA Today" sports columnist Christine Brennan on the phone with me. Sitting next to me, our senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen. Got some questions to throw to you in just a minute.
But, Christine, let me begin with you. The USADA basically here from what I can tell, from what I have read, they're accusing Lance Armstrong of doping for years and as we pointed out, they say they have 1,000 pages of evidence, including testimony that he did it.
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY": That's right, Brooke. And, in fact, this is what occurred in late August with the news that Lance was being banned. People might remember that from six weeks ago or so.
Now, what we're seeing, that was the news that day, banned and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Now this is the evidence. And part of the reason I think we're finding out about so much of this is because Lance has been so defiant.
Lance Armstrong obviously is saying that he is not guilty. He's been at war with U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, USADA. So USADA is at war with Lance Armstrong and it is showing people exactly how deep and how significant the evidence is against Lance Armstrong and I think this is devastating for the image of Lance Armstrong.
BALDWIN: I want to talk about this testing with Elizabeth here in just a second. But just so we all see this, Armstrong's attorney did write a letter to USADA yesterday saying in part -- quote -- "USADA has continued its efforts to coerce and manufacture evidence from other riders through threats and sweetheart deals, and generated self- serving media coverage through leaks and piecemeal release of tired, disproven allegations."
They go on, "This reasoned decision will be a farce. While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig."
You point out recently Armstrong dropped the lawsuit against USADA. But when you hear this language, the strong language coming from the attorney here, what do you make of that, Christine?
BRENNAN: You know, Brooke, about a year-and-a-half ago, Lance Armstrong tweeted that he welcomed USADA's investigation and he knew exactly what it entailed.
Obviously, now they don't like this. And that's understandable. That's human nature. But Lance Armstrong himself welcomed USADA. It's in a tweet that is out there and he said he would look forward to being exonerated.
If you welcome USADA, you get an investigation. And this is what the investigation entailed. If we as a culture don't like this, if Lance doesn't like it, Brooke, if we as a nation decide we don't like this and this attack, well, then give Marion Jones back her Olympic gold medals from Sydney because this is how they caught Marion Jones.
And, by the way, let's just open the floodgates and let all the cheaters who have been caught, let them get their medals and their titles back because this is exactly how the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency works. It is sanctioned. It is a long-running process. And Lance Armstrong apparently wants the rules to be different for him.
BALDWIN: Christine, stay on the phone with me.
I want to just ask Elizabeth that. Basically, he's self-described as the most tested athlete in the world. He's taken people in the middle of the night testing him. How do the tests work?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: The tests are done -- it is different for different sports and different competitions, but it can be a random test or sometimes they will test the winners, and the people that came in first, second or third will get a test after they win.
What they're looking for is a bunch of different things. These are all of the prohibited -- this is the prohibited list from the world Anti-Doping Agency. They may be looking for drugs like steroids, they might be looking for hormones like testosterone or human growth hormone, or they might be looking -- and this is a relatively new on the scene -- for methods that would increase the amount of oxygen going to your muscles.
This is especially important in cycling. There is a drug called EPO that does that. There is another. This one is I think one that a lot of people haven't heard of. There is also autologous blood transfusion, which means you take your own blood, put it in the fridge, let it stay there for a while.
Your body will say, wow, I'm missing some red blood cells and make more and that will send more blood to your -- more oxygen rather to your muscles. And then the second step is you take the blood out of the fridge and give it to yourself and then you have even more.
And that can be -- that's not -- that's harder to test for because there is no foreign substance in your body. It is your own blood.
BALDWIN: So then how could one beat a test?
COHEN: There are a couple of different ways that people have tried to do it. For example, you can do micro-dosing.
Instead of taking one big dose of whatever it is you're taking, you take little tiny doses over a long period of time and hope to stay under the radar. The other thing that you can do is what I was referring to before, is this taking your own blood, taking out your own blood, waiting for your body to react, which is a good thing, and then giving it back to yourself.
It is to the point where what they try to do for that, all that they can do is with one of the few things they do is look for signs of plastic in your blood because that blood had to go in and out of plastic tubing. So they are looking for teeny-tiny amounts of plastic. But that -- giving yourself your own blood is -- it is a good trick because there is nothing foreign in your body then.
BALDWIN: So given all of that, Christine Brennan, 20 seconds, does Lance -- ever does his legacy, is it forever marred by this? What about the sport of cycling?
BRENNAN: Yes, I think it is marred forever.
And that was the choice he made when he gave up his fight, Brooke. And as Elizabeth was talking about, the bad chemists are way ahead of the good chemists. The fact he never failed a drug test means nothing. Marion Jones never failed a drug test. And she was seen as one of the great -- sadly, one of the great cheaters of her -- of this generation.
That's the nature of sports these days. And Lance is hoping others don't realize that, but we do and I think that's the reality he faces today.
BALDWIN: Christine Brennan, sports columnist, "USA Today," Elizabeth Cohen, thank you, both, ladies. I really appreciate it. Also, a big story we're following on Capitol Hill today, this hearing happening right now. Organizers say they are finding facts. Critics say it is all about finding fault with the Obama administration, count them with me, 27 days here left before that November 6 presidential election.
And basically the mission, the goal of this hearing is to learn what exactly happened in Benghazi, in Libya, in the months and even the day of the September 11 attack at these two compounds.
First you see here, this is the U.S. Consulate and then just about half a mile away, you see the safe house. Four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and security officers Glen Doherty and Ty Woods.
The chairman of this House Oversight Committee, they're the ones who initiated this hearing today, opened up this whole thing, basically saying the State Department was "coming clean" as it released new details just last night, details that included with officials saying the attack at the consulate was impossible to defend, and then just this afternoon, much of the testimony is focusing on information that requests for additional security in Libya had been denied.
And the person who had a hand in denying some of the requests, her name is Charlene Lamb, an assistant secretary of state, and she definitely was on the defense today after Congressman Dan Burton asked why she did not support keeping 16 troops at one compound in Tripoli.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN BURTON (R), INDIANA: You did not agree with that assessment that they need those there?
CHARLENE LAMB, U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: No, sir. We had been training people...
(CROSSTALK)
BURTON: No, no. I just want to know did you or did you not say that if that was presented to you, you would not accept it?
LAMB: He was...
BURTON: Did you or did you not say?
LAMB: Yes, sir, I said that, personally, I would not support it.
BURTON: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
BURTON: Why is that? You knew about all the other attacks that had taken place. There had been 12, 14.
LAMB: We had been training local Libyans and arming them for almost a year.
(CROSSTALK)
BURTON: Well, let me just interrupt and say that the local Libyan militia that was there, many of them supposedly were told by friends and relatives that there was going to be an imminent attack on that compound. And so many of them left. They didn't want to be involved in the attack.
LAMB: Sir, with due...
(CROSSTALK)
BURTON: Wait, wait, wait.
LAMB: OK. Sorry.
BURTON: I don't understand why you would say that out of hand that you don't think those 16 troops should be there.
LAMB: Sir, with due respect, they're in Tripoli. They were not in Benghazi.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: And that is just a piece of what was happening there today on the Hill.
Here she is, Fran Townsend, our CNN national security contributor, also a member of the CIA External Advisory Committee, and just this past August, Fran went to Libya with her employer MacAndrews & Forbes.
Fran, welcome.
I know you have been in the weeds on this story, you have excellent sources, you have been breaking sort of different nuggets along the way. I just want to ask you, you have been listening to this hearing. What is your biggest takeaway thus far?
FRANCES TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: I think as average Americans listen to this testimony, the greatest frustration is you just are waiting for someone to stand up and say, you know, we have four dead Americans, we obviously didn't have enough security. Let's go back and figure out why we didn't understand the threat.
You would respect somebody saying that. But everyone is Washington is so busy covering their own equities and covering their own decision process that it is very difficult to discern what the actual truth was.
Brooke, as you know, I was in Libya shortly before the tragic attack and met with Ambassador Stevens. It was obvious to me as a private person the deteriorating security situation in Tripoli. And as I talked to the ambassador, it was clear that this security deterioration was even worse as you went east. So this was not a secret. I think it is really shameful, frankly, that we can't seem to get anyone to take responsibility and say, you know what, we need to learn why we didn't understand this threat, given that there were two attacks on this consulate before the attack that killed our ambassador.
BALDWIN: You hear from Chairman Issa here today and talking how the State Department really from the get-go never thought that this was connected to that Prophet Mohammed, that anti-Muslim film, and, you know, your sources have been saying from really day one that this was absolutely a terrorist attack. And then you have, of course, the information coming out late last night, sort of right before today's hearing.
You have all these sort of balls up in the air. What do you make of all of the inconsistencies from the administration?
TOWNSEND: Well, look, I think in the first 48 to 72 hours, you have got to expect it's sort of the fog of battle as we hear from the military, right?
Whenever there is an attack or battle, oftentimes the first details that come out are inaccurate. That doesn't explain -- we are -- literally tomorrow will be the one-month anniversary of that attack. The fact is they knew well before last night when they held a staged call with reporters to announce that they knew there had never been a protest at the Benghazi consulate. They have known that for some time.
They chose to hold that information and then release it on the eve of the hearing so it didn't come out at the hearing. The whole way this has been handled, frankly, raises real questions. Now, there is no point to sort of the partisan bickering that we see in Washington now.
What we have to understand is where the system failed, what we need to do to strengthen it and how do we protect our other embassies and consulates around the world.
BALDWIN: All good questions. Fran Townsend, I'm glad you also just reminded all of us that at the heart of all this, four Americans are dead.
Fran Townsend, we appreciate it.
Now this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is I think Paul's first debate. I may be wrong. He may have done something in high school, I don't know.
BALDWIN: You see, that's not correct. Why? Because I will be speaking live with the very first congressional opponent Paul Ryan ever debated. I'm Brooke Baldwin. The news is now. (voice-over): The Supreme Court hears a case that could impact affirmative action all across the U.S. and at the center of it all, a white student.
Plus, prepared for war, everything from body bags to billy clubs found in one passenger's luggage.
And:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The media lies. The media are for Obama.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got to be honest, I can't stand it. It's brutal. It's definitely one-sided.
BALDWIN: Gary Tuchman follows Paul Ryan on the trail and hears a lot of doubt about polls.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Should your race, should your ethnicity be considered when you apply to college?
Hours ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on this case that could change affirmative action really as we know it.
Want to begin here with this young woman who began this entire legal fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABIGAIL FISHER, FILED LAWSUIT: I hope the court rules that a student's race and ethnicity should not be considered when applying to the University of Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: That is Abigail Fisher. She claims the University of Texas at Austin rejected her college application in 2008 based upon a policy that she says is unfair to white applicants.
Joe Johns is following this case for us from Washington.
And, Joe, how did the justices react to the arguments today?
JOE JOHNS, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, the word I'm using is predictable.
I think the justices behaved very predictably. Before -- you know, when you get in the court, you listen to their questions, and you listen to the arguments to try to get a sense of where they might come down before the opinion is written. And when I listened, I heard the justices on the right taking a very critical view, expressing a lot of skepticism about the use of racial preferences in college admissions. Justice Roberts hammering one of the attorneys about the absurdity of trying to determine classroom diversity among students who come from mixed-race families. A lot of skepticism expressed about how a university can use any metrics at all to determine when it has reached the right mix of minority students to achieve diversity.
It has been called critical mass. This is an idea that came out of a case nine years ago, Grutter v. Bollinger, University of Michigan. This is a case that the president of the University of Texas referred to today after he sat in on the court hearing.
Listen to what the University of Texas president had to say, Bill Powers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL POWERS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: We made the case that the University of Texas has crafted an admissions policy that includes race as one of many factors and that meets the strict guidelines established by this court in the Grutter decision nine years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: So if anything, I think the headline here is that affirmative action or race-based preferences in college education definitely coming under attack of the court today -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: So you point out this case or he points out this case from nine years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld affirmative action. In that time, what has changed since then with the justices?
JOHNS: The major thing that has changed frankly is the court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in that case.
She's no longer on the court. She's been replaced by a conservative and now the question is whether because of the mix you have on the court, if they will go ahead and make some changes to this case that sort of has become the law of the land, Brooke.
BALDWIN: Interestingly, if there is a tie, as we know, Justice Kagan recused herself, they will then have to default to that case from nine years ago.
Joe Johns, thank you very much.
Coming up here, this is a tough one, this dying woman suffering from leukemia, on the trip of a lifetime, checking off items on her bucket list. She claims she was humiliated and her feeding tube contaminated all at the hands of the TSA. You will hear her story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Right here at the get-go, this is just one of those stories that is a tough story to tell and it has conflicting accounts of exactly what happened. So we're going to give you both sides here and you decide. Take a look. This is Michelle Dunaj. She's 34, she's dying of leukemia. In fact, she has months to live. Just last week she was fulfilling an item on her bucket list. She wanted to go to Hawaii, have a Hawaiian vacation. So her trip took her through Seattle SeaTac Airport and that's where she says her trouble began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE DUNAJ, TRAVELER: I had five total bags of these.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Dunaj says the TSA humiliated her at the airport, contaminating her feeding tube, asking her to pull up her shirt when they felt tubes that were running from her stomach to her chest and according to this young woman, refusing to give her a private search when she asked for one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DUNAJ: They just said that it was fine, the location that we were at was fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Dunaj says she was asked to move long after the pat-down and that a TSA agent punctured one of the saline bags she was carrying with her.
For its part, the TSA says this didn't happen. The agency released this statement to our Seattle affiliate, KOMO-TV -- quote -- "At no point did a TSA officer open the passenger's medically necessary liquids and the passenger was never asked to remove or pull off any bandages." The TSA said here in a statement going on, "After reviewing video from the security checkpoint, we have determined that our screening procedures were followed."
Now, so far the TSA has not released that video. So here is the thing. TSA says one thing, and this 34-year-old woman dying of leukemia says another. Of course, my heart goes out to this woman. But without seeing the video of the actual screening, we just can't be sure.
But what we do have to ask is what does Michelle Dunaj get from all of this? She says she doesn't want what she says happened to her to happen to anyone else in her condition. Here she is in her own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DUNAJ: When somebody wants to take a trip, especially what I call an end-of-life trip, because you want to see your family and friends, then it becomes -- it is even more important than just taking a trip.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: As a postscript to this story, Dunaj says Hawaii was number one on her bucket list and it was the most beautiful place she says she's ever seen.
Friends say Dunaj is now completely exhausted and is not taking any calls. One week from today, she will enter hospice care in her Michigan hometown. And we, of course, wish her well.
BALDWIN: Now this: a death to tell you about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX KARRAS, ACTOR: That's very rude. I want you to go to your room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Alex Karras, known to many simply as Webster's dad from the popular '80s TV sitcom and so many others, this is an all-star Detroit Lions defensive lineman. Alex Karras died early today in Los Angeles. His family says he battled kidney and heart disease, dementia and stomach cancer.
Back in April, he joined more than 3,000 other former football players who are suing the NFL over head injuries. Alex Karras was 77 years old.
And just one day until the first and only vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney suggested this debate might just be Ryan's first, but my next guest knows better, because she debated Ryan in 1998 and she says Ryan is a master of ambush politics, her words.
Also another word, she says he's slick.
We will talk to Lydia Spottswood next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: I hope you did, I don't know if you did hear Mitt Romney speaking with Wolf Blitzer about the election campaign.
Here he is. He is handicapping tomorrow night's debate between Paul Ryan, his running mate, of course, and the vice president. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: You know, I -- I don't know how Paul will -- will deal with his debate. Obviously, the vice president has done, I don't know, 15 or 20 debates during his lifetime, experienced debater.
This is, I think Paul's first debate. I may be wrong. He may have done something in high school, I don't know.
But it'll -- you know, it will be a new experience for a -- for Paul. But I'm sure he'll do fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So, Romney says it is Ryan's first debate, or so he thinks. He says he's not totally sure.
I can tell you that it is not Paul Ryan's first debate. In fact, We have found Paul Ryan's opponent from his initial run for Congress. This was back in 1998. She is Democrat Lydia Spotswood.
She debated Paul Ryan and she joins me now on the phone from Milwaukee.
Lydia Spottswood, welcome to you. Let's go back, if we can, to 1998 and let's listen briefly to your opponent at the time, 28-year-old Paul Ryan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN, REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I'm not as interested in bringing star-studded celebrities in from Washington to tell people to vote for me or vote for somebody else, I want to talk to people one-on-one so they know what I believe in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Twenty-eight, how about that?
I have to wonder, Lydia, was it easy to underestimate your youthful opponent there?
LYDIA SPOTTSWOOD, PAUL RYAN'S 1998 CONGRESSIONAL OPPONENT (via telephone): Oh, it was very easy, obviously. I was old enough to be his mom. I still am.
BALDWIN: And you pointed that out during the debate.
SPOTTSWOOD (via telephone): I sure did, but what I found was someone who is very, very slick.
He was able to really use the debate format, basically, to his own ends. He had a tendency to play fast and loose with the format.
And he actually developed a shtick, if you will, of pretended indignation whenever he didn't like a question.
And, you know, he was very evasive. He would often rotate to his own script and completely ignore the moderator and it was fascinating actually watching this and Romney's debate with the president.
It felt like it -- you know, I was watching a lot of the same stuff.
BALDWIN: Hearing your words, Lydia, these are some pretty harsh words you have for Paul Ryan.
You just said pretended indignation. You said slick. I've read evasive, bullying, deceptive, phony, and quite a few more.
Can we get specific? Can you give me one example of Ryan behaving as a bully, your word? SPOTTSWOOD (via telephone): Well, absolutely. You know, on the campaign trail, he basically portrayed himself as the paycheck- protection candidate. That was his little moniker he gave himself as he doodled around.
But when you would try to pin him down, what he was really talking about was trying to protect people's paychecks from taxes.
And, so, when you would try to delve into that question with him, his big mantra was flatter, fairer, simpler taxes.
If you tried to get him to be specific on tax policy, he would immediately become evasive and rotate into his stump speech, so you couldn't get him to actually answer questions.
And you could see when he was pressed to answer a specific question that he would get a little surly.
BALDWIN: We will check his surly factor tomorrow night and see how specific he can get and, also, you know, same holds true for the vice president.
But also from what I read, Lydia, as you described it, at the time as we point out, 28-year-old Paul Ryan, unmarried, you know, no kids, was turning up at these events with his sister-in-law and her baby and from what I can tell, you're suggesting that he was suggesting that this was his family, that this was his wife, his child.
SPOTTSWOOD (via telephone): Well, you know, he was creating visual wallpaper throughout the course of his campaign.
Not only was he out on the trail with extended family members and that left a visual impression on the minds of a lot of folks, but even in his campaign ads, he was creating the intentional perception that he had been involved in the construction industry.
And you can understand, I mean, he needed to create a narrative that helped him to fit in better to the district. Since he had left for college, basically, all he had done was get up into his elbows with politics in Washington with folks like John Boehner and Sam Brownback and Bob Kasten.
So, he had been schooling himself very carefully in the art of politics, both majoring in political science and then working with politicians.
So, when he came back to the district, it was clear that he was at pains to really present a somewhat different narrative to the voters of the district.
BALDWIN: I'm hearing these words, Lydia, and I just have to ask, you know, when you say "visual wallpaper," back to the indignation, are you still irked so many years later that you lost?
SPOTTSWOOD (via telephone): Well, you know, there was a feeling that, you know, he used surreptitious names. But when I look back at my own license and I feel very blessed, we went through a situation in our family where someone was very, very ill and I look back and know that if I had won that election, I likely would have had to leave Congress to come back home for that family situation.
Fortunately, we saw a full recovery and I had a chance to go on and really work with other families in similar situations, so I don't personally have a feeling of, you know, gee ...
BALDWIN: Just curious. I'm just listening to you and I just wanted to ask. I know that was 1998, but I know you'll be watching. I presume you'll be watching, yes, tomorrow night?
SPOTTSWOOD (via telephone): Oh, I'll absolutely be watching and I expect to see a lot of the same things again.
BALDWIN: All right, Lydia Spottswood, we will watch for him. We will watch for the vice president, as well. Thank you so much for calling in, facing Paul Ryan in a debate back in 1998.
And just a quick reminder to all of you. Of course, stay with us here at CNN for debate night in America.
Vice President Joe Biden, Congressman Paul Ryan to get really their turn to tackle the most pressing issues facing our country. Watch the v.p. debate tomorrow night. Our coverage begins at 7:00 on CNN and CNN.com.
Also, this today, what did the White House know? When did they know it? Lawmakers grilling the Obama administration about that attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and today became very, very political.
We'll talk with Wolf Blitzer next, but here is a taste of what's happening right now.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Two-hundred-and-thirty security instances in Libya between June of 2011 and July of 2012.
Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi, 2 of which at the U.S. diplomatic compound and the scene of the September 11th 2012, terrorist attacks and we are still saying, I think it's the result of a video that was on YouTube and this is based on intelligence.
Now, listen, I've got to ask you, Ambassador Kennedy, because you say you couldn't possibly have had a different idea about things than Secretary Rice did when she went before the nation on September 16th.
I'm going to tell you this thing smells from every single -- listen, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
And for you to come in here and say, well, it was based on some of the things I knew, but I can't tell you all I knew. We've got have four Americans dead and I got to tell you it's very upsetting for me to go back home and look at those people in the eye, people who don't do what we do here with all the briefings and all the intelligence, just guys that go out and work every day and women that go out and work every day and they can come home and they can figure it out, but we're still trying to figure it out and piece it together and you watch it in real time?
And the account wasn't there of the ambassador was that night saying good-bye to a Turkish friend outside the gates and everything was quiet.
But, my goodness, those terrorists got a hold of that or these Islamic extremists got a hold of that video and between 8:30 and 9:40, they decided to just go crazy and Africa's on fire.
And Mr. Mercer (ph), thank you for pointing out, as Mr. Romney did, that hope is not a strategy and I feel sorry for you and Lieutenant Colonel Wood to have to come here because it is you who are on the ground.
You're not watching in some far away room in real time. Your people are there in real time. We've watched our colleagues be killed.
And the question doesn't become what is it that we didn't know. It is because we have become lax. We have dumbed down. We've turned down the dial.
You know ...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: First, just the sheer shock of the U.S. ambassador killed in an attack on one of the country's consulates here in Libya, then the slow realization that this attack was no spur-of-the-moment kind of attack, but planned, a deliberate and brutal attack by terrorists.
And now this House committee, the House oversight committee, wants to know what the White House knew, what did State Department officials know when it came to security threats, to U.S. interests in Libya and, more importantly, when did they know it?
Hearings still underway right now. Live pictures here from the Hill. I want you to listen to this exchange. This is between committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Deputy Secretary of State Charlene Lamb.
It starts quiet enough, but wait for it, because it gets testy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPESENTATIVE DARRELL ISSA (R), OVERSIGHT & GOVERNMENT REFORM CHAIRMAN: A compound owned by us in severing like a consulate was, in fact, breached less than 60 days before, approximately 60 days before, the murder of the ambassador in that facility. Isn't that true?
CHARLENE LAMB, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Sir, we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon. ISSA: My time has expired. To start off by saying you had the correct number and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead and people are in the hospital recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility, somehow doesn't seem to ring true to the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: I want to bring in Wolf Blitzer in Washington and, Wolf, I just want to get straight to Hillary Clinton. Because my question is, you know, she has incredibly high approval ratings. She has been touted as a possible presidential candidate come 2016. Where is she today and how might all of this cloud her legacy?
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Those are great questions and there's no easy answers.
I do know what the chairman, Darrell Issa, the man you had in that exchange, the congressman, he says he's pleased. He's been saying relatively nice things about the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, herself, because she has made available for his committee testimony, and you saw it today, from senior officials.
She has not herself testified, but other ranking officials at the State Department have gone before Darrell Issa's committee to testify today and they've provided a lot of documents, information that the committee wants to have in its legitimate pursuit of congressional oversight.
How could this have happened? Let's learn the lessons. Make sure it doesn't happen down the road.
Clearly, there were blunders. Everyone recognizes there were major blunders leading up to this. This was the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and all U.S. facilities around the world should have been on heightened alert, especially in the place like Benghazi, Libya, where there were numerous reports that there were al Qaeda-related terrorists operating out there, not all these rebels who overthrew Gadhafi in Libya were necessarily, you know, small-"D" democrats, shall we say?
So, there were serious problems and let's learn the lessons of what happened.
I think the biggest blunder the administration made was in going forward, in that -- in the public statements in the days that followed. They certainly left the impression that it was similar to the demonstrations taking place in Cairo and elsewhere as a result of that 14-minute little YouTube trailer, that anti-Muslim trailer, when it's now clear that what happened in Benghazi, Libya ...
BALDWIN: It was a terrorist attack.
BLITZER: ... had nothing to do at all with that 14-minute trailer. You had Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, went on five Sunday talk shows, five days after the anniversary, and insisted that it was similar to what happened in some of the other diplomatic missions.
BALDWIN: OK, Wolf, I know you're going to be all over this today.
By the way, excellent interview with Mitt Romney yesterday.
BLITZER: Thank you.
BALDWIN: We appreciate it. We'll see you at the top of the hour.
BLITZER: Thank you. See you then.
BALDWIN: And that fungal meningitis we have been reporting on for, what, the better part of a week or so is now a lot worse. We have brand-new numbers just in, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: The number of sick people continues to grow in this meningitis outbreak in the U.S. We have just learned 137 people are now reported ill from a non-contagious form of the disease. That is up a couple of notches from 119. That was what we had yesterday.
In total here, in terms of deaths, that number stands at 12 and, at the center of it all, these contaminated steroid injections that 13,000 people may have received.
The FDA says it does not have the authority to regulate pharmacies like the one linked to this case, but two members of Congress are introducing new legislation to change that.
Political polls, what is with all the distrust over all these numbers? Voters just like you weighed in and our correspondent here, Gary Tuchman, heard the complaints. He joins me next with that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: Legendary CEO Jack Welch is taking a lot of heat today after doubling down on this tweet. This is his tweet about the unemployment numbers released last Friday.
Here's the former GE's chief tweet. Quote, "Unbelievable jobs numbers. These Chicago guys will do anything. Can't debate, so change numbers."
Well, now, take a look what Welch writes today in the op-ed page in "The Wall Street Journal." He is certainly not at all backing down. Let me quote him.
Quote, "Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8 percent unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last week is downright implausible and that is why I made a stink about it."
Welch also cited "The Wall Street Journal" in his e-mail ending his deal to write for "Fortune:" after the magazine criticized his jobs- conspiracy tweet. Welch writes that he gets better, quote/unquote, "traction" with the daily paper.
Now, when it comes to distrust in numbers and reporting, Jack Welch certainly is not alone.
Take a look at what Gary Tuchman uncovered about voters, about polls and, yep, the media when he followed Paul Ryan on the stump.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Before he walks into this college gymnasium in Rochester, Michigan, the crowd's already been whipped into a frenzy.
And on the same day when Paul Ryan's done with his campaign speech here in Swanton, Ohio ...
RYAN: I really appreciate it. Thank you.
TUCHMAN: ... there's no shortage of enthusiastic supporters hoping to shake the vice presidential candidate's hand.
Ryan then delivers a well-received stump speech.
RYAN: We need to change presidents and we need to elect Mitt Romney the next president of the United States.
TUCHMAN: But amid the enthusiasm, there is anger among many people at these rallies, seething anger at the news media.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The media lies. The media are for Obama.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I got to be honest, I can't stand it. It's brutal. It's definitely one-sided.
KID ROCK, MUSICIAN: Let's hear it for Paul Ryan.
TUCHMAN: Paul Ryan has said it himself that he believes there was media bias against the GOP ticket.
And at these rallies, a widespread belief that presidential preference polls are part of that conspiracy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think the polling is very fair. I believe that there are a lot more Romney supporters out there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the polls are biased, too. I think they're pulling more Democrats and more favor for the Democrats.
TUCHMAN: Do you think the pollsters want the Obama ticket to be in front?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think they're shaping them for Obama. I mean, the media -- it's the liberal media and whatever -- they'll do whatever they can to help him. TUCHMAN: Do you think that the polls that have shown that Obama's in the lead are inaccurate?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. I don't believe those. I don't believe them. I know they had a poll that said that the polls were wrong. They had a poll that said the polls were wrong, so I don't believe that.
TUCHMAN: You believe the poll that said the polls are wrong?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I don't believe any of it.
TUCHMAN: It's easy to bash polls and pollsters and not at all unusual, but it becomes more complicated when new polling comes out that indicate your candidate is in front.
That's what happened in the middle of our day with Ryan, that a Pew Research poll showed Romney-Ryan ticket in the lead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody says that the polls are skewed in one way, you know?
TUCHMAN: A recent poll has come out that shows Romney in front. How do you feel about that poll?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he got a good bump out of the debate.
TUCHMAN: So you're saying you believe that poll?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
TUCHMAN: For the people in this room, it is indeed tempting to now believe these latest numbers, but not everyone is ready to believe.
The Pew Research poll shows Romney in front now. Do you think that poll's accurate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably as accurate as any of them that are out there.
TUCHMAN: So you don't think there's a difference?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
TUCHMAN: This woman had one thought she very much wanted to express.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the only poll that's going to count is the one on November 6th.
TUCHMAN: You can argue with what many people here are saying, but you can't argue with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Gary Tuchman, wow, that's a lot of people, a lot of opinions. Biased, not fair these polls, the one woman saying there's a poll that says they're all wrong. I don't know what that poll is, but any who.
What about the Democrats, though? Once those polls start swinging away from President Obama, did they feel the same way?
TUCHMAN: We're hearing increasingly over the last week that the news media, including us, have done too much coverage of last week's debate because we want Obama to look bad.
That's what a lot of people are saying because we want the race to get closer, so we're hearing it now from the Democrats, too, about media bias.
BALDWIN: OK. Gary Tuchman, thank you.
And now this, this young face of courage, this young girl marked for death by Taliban gunmen. They stopped her school bus, they opened fire, simply because she dared to defy them. We're going to hear from her, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: This next story has outraged so many people around the world, I know, including some of you.
A 14-year-old girl targeted for death because she had the strength, the audacity to speak up for something children in this country so much take for granted, even groan about from time to time, the right to go to school.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALALA YOUSUFZAI, PAKISTANI EDUCATION ACTIVIST: I have the right of education. I have the right to play. I have the right to sing. I have the right to talk. I have the right to go to market. I have the right to speak up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: That is Malala Yousufzai late last year.
She is in the hospital today. She's fighting for her life. Why? Because she was attacked by the Taliban in Pakistan, whose goal is to rob Malala and girls just like her of the right to go to school.
They hunted her down on a school bus, asking for her by name, and then they shot her.
Why would a young girl put her life on the line when so many others are afraid to speak up, afraid to leave their own rooms? Here's what she told us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YOUSUFZAI: Don't stay in your room because God will ask you on the day of judgment that where were you when your people were asking you, when your school fellows were asking you and when your school was asking you that I am being blown up.
When your people need you, you should come up. You should come and you should stand up for their rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Again, that interview was a couple months ago. I can tell you now that surgeons have been working for three hours to remove a bullet that was lodged in Malala's neck.
She is alive for now, but the Taliban are not giving up. They say next time she will not survive. Malala, 14-years old.
Thanks so much for being with me here on this Wednesday. I'm Brooke Baldwin.
Now to Wolf Blitzer for "THE SITUATION ROOM." Wolf?
