American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
June 10th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

We Listen!

American Morning’s Wednesday audience was horrified to see the alleged killer of Dr. Tiller being given prominent coverage for his views.

  • Gabe: Why is the media bothering to pay attention to Dr. Tiller's killer? He is only a murderous, unrepentant fanatic, a man who thinks he's God. To shower him attention is to fan his self-importance and troubled views. It also comes as a moral slap to the memory of the man he killed in a temple of God. Why don't you try interviewing some of the women whose health and even life Tiller may have saved? In highlighting this murderer you are only pandering to pro-life views. Get your priorities straight. PS. I'm against abortion as such but support it when necessary.
  • Carla: You really need to quit glorifying the terrorist Roeder and his terrorist agenda. Why don't you instead do some research and reporting on why women seek abortions, and/or why our society puts such shame and scorn on unwed mothers. I'm really sickened by seeing and hearing this deranged zealot murderer. The Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist Organization is alive, well, murdering, and still planning in America. Beware!
  • Paul: I don't know about you're sentiment, but, as far as I'm concerned, life under those tali-baptist religious fanatics that killed Doctor Tiller would likely be no better than life under the murderous tali-ban. Damn all fanatics!!

What do you think about Dr. Tiller’s alleged murderer being given media attention? Would such an action trigger “copy-cat” murders? Should the alleged killer be considered a “terrorist” as suggested by one viewer? Should he be given the right to voice his opinion or should others who are official “spokespersons” be the ones to express themselves?


Filed under: We Listen
June 10th, 2009
12:35 PM ET
June 10th, 2009
12:08 PM ET

Pay as you go?

We landed an interview with Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee yesterday to talk about the president’s plans to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

Conrad says, “We're headed for a cliff. A fiscal cliff." He’s trying to sound the alarm and get people to pay attention to the fact that the nation’s deficit is now projected to be 1.8 trillion dollars this year. A record when it comes to red ink.

He fears the president will not be able to keep his promise to cut the deficit in half in four years. Why? Check out our story and find out:

Filed under: Economy • Politics
June 10th, 2009
11:57 AM ET

FAA whistleblower alleges safety concerns were ignored

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="FAA inspector Christopher Monteleon says the agency put business interests above safety."]

By Laura Dolan and Allan Chernoff

A Senate hearing this afternoon will examine the Federal Aviation Administration and its oversight of air carriers. Some FAA inspectors say the FAA is too "cozy" with the airlines.

We spoke with one inspector who noted problems at regional airline Colgan Air a full year before the tragic crash in February near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people.

Christopher Monteleon was in charge of overseeing Colgan Air's addition of a new aircraft to its fleet – the Bombardier Dash 8 Q-400 – the same model involved in the Buffalo crash.

Monteleon reported trouble during Colgan Air's testing of the new plane in January 2008.

"I observed from the cockpit operations all day long for the first day, and I observed unsafe practices. And I observed violations of the safety regulations. I observed pilots flying too fast for the design of the aircraft," said Monteleon.

In his report Monteleon noted 'the aircraft exceeded air speed limitation three times" and the pilots failed to note those violations so the plane could be properly inspected.

Excessive speed did not cause the February crash. The NTSB’s preliminary findings pointed to pilot error and mentioned pilot fatigue as a factor. But other problems Monteleon says he spotted at Colgan mirror issues uncovered in the Buffalo crash.


Filed under: Airline safety
June 10th, 2009
11:03 AM ET

Actor is 'dying' to make a living

Mike Doyle is dying to make a living. Literally. He has made a name for himself as the actor who “dies” all the time onscreen. But what is it like to get killed so often? We met the very “alive” actor and he told us how he actually gained his trademark status. “The first time out, I thought, oh interesting, it would be fun to die,” he said. “And now when I turn the page, I’m like, ‘Oh, man. Again? Again?'”

And what is his technique to making the scenes so believable? "It’s not as easy as you think," he says. In one of his death scenes he kept his eyes closed and they started to flicker, so he figured next time – play a dead man with his eyes open.

Fortunately for moviegoers who want to see him staying alive, his next role is with Nicole Kidman in the upcoming movie, "The Rabbit Hole." He won’t have to rehearse playing dead for that one, but who knows now that casting agents get to see him play out his last goodbyes so well in our CNN "American Morning" piece.

Filed under: Entertainment
June 10th, 2009
10:37 AM ET

Commentary: No risk-free Gitmo solution

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Former Deputy Asst. Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson says there is no risk-free solution to bring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S."]

The first terror detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba arrived in New York City yesterday to stand trial. Many from both parties don't want him or any other detainee here. The transfer is said by some to be a key test for President Obama's plan to have the prison camp closed within a year of taking office.

Cully Stimson is a former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs. He’s been to Gitmo several times. He spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Wednesday.

John Roberts: This is being talked about by some people as a big test case for closing Guantanamo. Do you see it that way?

Cully Stimson: I don't, John. It's a unique case. Remember, he was indicted for his alleged involvement in the '98 East Africa bombings. His four co-conspirators have already been tried and convicted. So this is unique. This is not, as some are suggesting, a huge test case beginning a trend of removing detainees from Guantanamo to the United States. So I just see it as a one-off.

Roberts: So what is the significance of this case?

Stimson: It’s significant in the sense that it’s finishing up unfinished business from the '98 bombings. And so once you eliminate or move one detainee from Guantanamo somewhere else, that is one less person you have to deal with at Guantanamo. But it's finishing up unfinished business. Obviously he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is a strong case.


Filed under: Guantanamo
« older posts