(BEGAN IN PROGRESS)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: -- the strongest sanctions to date. I want to thank the government's representative here that have joined in this effort. It's had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard. It's had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth.
Sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program either. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Kom. So at this late hour, there's only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. And that's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Red lines don't lead to war. Red lines prevent war. Just look at NATO's charter. It made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all. And NATO's red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century. President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.
In fact, it's the failure to place red lines that's often invited aggression. If the western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided. In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.
Clear red lines have also worked with Iran. Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off. Now, red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran's nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program, on Iran's efforts to enrich uranium.
Now, let me explain why. Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it. The simplest example is gun powder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and you set off the gun powder. In the case of Iran's plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gun powder was enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator.
For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse. For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in big -- very big industrial plants. Those uranium plants are visible and they're still vulnerable.
In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator, the fuse, in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months. The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That's a country that's bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined.
The same is true for the small facility in which they could assembly a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are, you won't find that facility either. So, in fact, the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.
So how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it? Well, let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here's a diagram. This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.
The first stage, they have to enrich enough low enriched uranium. The second stage, they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium. And the third stage and final stage, they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.
Where's Iran? Iran's completed the first stage. Took them many years. But they completed it and they're 70 percent of the way there. Now they're well into the second stage. And by next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they'll have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks. Before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
Now, each day that point is getting closer. And that's why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that's why everyone should have a sense of urgency. Now, there are some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead. Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the prime minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They foiled many attacks. They've saved many lives. But they are not foolproof. For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn't know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain. Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?
Ladies and gentlemen, the relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is, at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb? The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target. And I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. And this will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.
Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran cannot be contained. I very much appreciate the president's position, as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel, it unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world. What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved. Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue. And I'm confident that we can chart a path forward together.
Ladies and gentlemen, the clash between modernity and medieval need not be a clash between progress and tradition. The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values, the foundations of our national strength.
At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality and advance human rights. We championed these principles, not despite of our traditions, but because of them. We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah, to treat all with dignity and compassion. To pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace. These are the timeless values of my people. And these are the Jewish people's greatest gift to mankind. Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedoms and protect our common civilization.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: That was the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the United Nations General Assembly. And perhaps in the most clear and specific way we have ever seen with a red magic marker and a diagram outlining the clear red line for the Iran nuclear program. In effect, once that red line is hit, and he outlined the three different stages, once they reach that red line, that could lead to military intervention. There is so much to talk about with regard to what we just heard from the Israeli leader. I want to bring in first Jill Dougherty. She covers foreign affairs for us and she is live there in New York.
And, Jill, let me just begin with just this -- this is the first time we have seen the prime minister of Israel be so specific in terms of a red line and Iran.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, he literally took out a pen and drew a red line. You can't really get that more specific.
And he also defined exactly what he means by that stage, that red line that Iran cannot cross. And you could also say that he put a timeline on it. So he is saying that if they reached this second stage, not the final stage of enriching uranium, but the second stage, that they cannot go beyond that. And he said that they expect that the Iranians would reach that stage someplace I think he said in the late spring --
DOUGHERTY: Or summer that they would complete. So, you're looking at the Israeli prime minister essentially saying that something, if they continue, something has to happen by spring or at the very latest summer.
And also, Brooke, you know, you have to say that he took on President Obama.
DOUGHERTY: He mentioned President Obama at the end. But all the way through he was saying some believe that, some believe that you can contain Iran, some believe -- that is all really answering what President Obama is saying, because President Obama does not want to draw a red line.
DOUGHERTY: So it was quite dramatic, I think.
BALDWIN: When I was taking notes when he was talking specifically, you know, about the Cuba Missile Crisis and he was talking about JFK and how it was clear, you know, then he drew a red line and then he went on to say, you know, without drawing a clear red line, that very much so could lead to war. And as you cover the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, stopping short recently of drawing that red line. So I immediately, Jill Dougherty, thought, he is talking to the White House.
DOUGHERTY: Right. And, you know, I guess if you want the find out what the Obama administration thinks. Essentially they think that even if you have all of these preparatory steps, that the political decision, the final political decision to create a bomb has not apparently been made by the Iranians. And so at this point the Obama administration would argue, you watch them very closely. You do what you can. You inspect. You use intelligence, et cetera. But you don't hit them before that decision is made. Before they get to what is called the breakout capacity. So it's quite different. And you're seeing, you know, the prime minister making that very clear.
BALDWIN: Very clear, as you point out, with that red magic marker. Jill Dougherty, thank you. We're going to come back to you a little later.
I want to bring in Richard Roth, who covers the United Nations for us.
And, Richard, my question to you is, is this the Colin Powell moment? Is this the case for war against Iran?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, Netanyahu has said things like this but never in such dramatic fashion on the world stage. He's an experienced user of the media. He knows his speech is being televised. We saw the prop there you were talking about with Jill Dougherty. He's raising the stakes on the U.S. and President Obama.
I don't think it's a Colin Powell moment. I mean as we -- turned out later, there was no Colin -- it was not true. So I don't know if you're hinting that maybe this is a false call to act with an attack on Iran. I think a little too soon to tell yet.
Four rounds of sanctions from the Security Council. Netanyahu clearly saying they haven't worked enough, give sanctions more time. If you could threaten Iran with these so-called red lines, three stages there that they -- he says the Iranians are working towards to achieve its first nuclear bomb.
Of course Iran says they just want to use nuclear research for scientific purposes, such as medical isotopes and for providing electricity for their citizens. Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, when he was here the other day, didn't really talk much about the nuclear program in his final speech here, but everyone is focused on what's going on in the labs, why did they hide for so long inside mountains various facilities?
Netanyahu talked about the secrecy of the Iranian program and he said that we can't wait much longer. Israel and the U.S. can chart, though, he said, a common path for thwarting Iran's nuclear program. As you know, he and President Obama have not had the greatest relations on this. The two men will talk by phone tomorrow.
BALDWIN: OK. Richard Roth for us at the United Nations. Richard, thank you.
And, again, just to underline the timetable that the prime minister outlined, he said Iran, this is according to IAEA reports, facts as he called it, well into stage number two out of three different stages for enriching this uranium before essentially lighting the fuse on a nuclear bomb. And by next spring or summer he said they will finish stage two and move on to that final stage. And that is where he drew that red line on that diagram.
BALDWIN: Here we are back live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Brooke Baldwin.
In case you missed it, a very clear, very specific coming from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking in front of the United Nations General Assembly moments ago. Speaking for just about 25 minutes or so. And what he did, here he is walking out, what he did was pulled up a diagram of a bomb and a fuse and for the first time in very clear language, with a red magic marker, drew on this bomb where that clear red line would be which would then trigger military action when it comes to Iran and their nuclear program.
I want to get reaction both with Poppy Harlow, who I know we have standing by with members of the Jewish community in New York, but I want to go to Sara Sidner first because she is in Jerusalem.
And, Sara Sidner, we ran your piece yesterday. And for folks who missed it, you reported on what could be considered a double standard. Israel asking Iran to, you know, comply with many an expectation, rule, sanction. But at the same time, is Israel complying?
But nuclear weapons is one thing. Israel does not confirm nor deny whether or not it has nuclear weaponry. It also does not threaten countries with annihilation. And that is one thing that we hear over and over and over again from its leaders. They say while we maintain opacity when it comes to our nuclear program, we do not confirm or deny it. They're very clear in saying, we also do not say we're going to annihilate another country. That we're going -- that nothing will be left of another country if we're attacked. So they don't use that kind of rhetoric.
There are people here, though, a very small group but a growing group of people, who have talking about this kind of double standard and worried that because there seems to be a double standard, that most people in the region believes that Israel has nuclear weapons, that that in and of itself is a threat. The leadership here says that's hogwash. They're saying, look, we've been threatened over and over and over again and we believe that they will carry out those threats. And if they get nuclear weapons, you do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of someone making threats like that against another country.
BALDWIN: So then here's the obvious -- here's the follow-up question to that, Sara. In terms of specifics, we heard then, you know, with Netanyahu outlining where Iran's nuclear program starts -- stands today and where it may stand come next spring, summer and fall. But if and when they hit that red line, as he outlined on that diagram, then what? Do we know specifically what that will then trigger militarily?
SIDNER: This is the question. This is the million dollar question. If indeed that red line is crossed by Iran, what are the consequences? If Israel has been trying to work with the United States and has been trying to push the United States to come up with what the consequences will be, Israel has talked about the fact that everything is still on the table. And everything you can read into that mean that a strike is possible. The question is whether it's going to be a unilateral strike. And I can tell you, there is a new poll that was put out here this month and the poll asked Israelis whether or not they thought it was a good idea if provoked that they would go for a unilateral strike here in Israel without the backing of the U.S. Sixty-five percent of Israelis polled said, no. They believe they need the backing of the U.S. I think it's pretty clear the Israeli leaders really think they -- they need the backing of the U.S. and that's why you're seeing a lot of these talks and a lot of this tension between the United States and Israel. Does the United States plan on backing Israel if it decides that a strike is necessary?
BALDWIN: President Obama speaking Tuesday in front of the General Assembly stressing the U.S. would, and I'm quote, "do what we must" to stop Teheran. Hasn't ruled out military options but would like to see, you know, sanctions and multilateral negotiations continue before anything else happens. Sara Sidner for me in Jerusalem. Sara, I so appreciate it.
BALDWIN: And with the U.S. presidential election now 40 days away, how are members of the Jewish community, potential voters here, reacting to the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and also President Obama's response to the pressure from Israel when it comes to Iran and their nuclear program.
Let me go straight to CNN's Poppy Harlow. She's live for me in New York.
And, Poppy, I know you were at a Yom Kippur event last night and this was -- just to be transparent -- this was before, obviously, we just heard from the prime minister.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right.
BALDWIN: But we did have a sense that he would be really drawing a line in the sand, issuing this clear red line. You talked to these folks. What did they say?
HARLOW: You know, we went to two different homes last night, Brooke, for that Yom Kippur break fast. Two Jewish families, their friends, with two very distinct views.
First off, let's start with the Romney supporters. You know, they would be applauding, I can bet you, Netanyahu drawing physically that red line on that bomb today in his address at the U.N. because they thinking that the U.S. position, when it comes to Iran's nuclear program, is not strong enough. Mitt Romney has used really strong language in recent weeks saying things like President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus. And these folks agree. I want you to take a listen to why they oppose the U.S. stance right now, say the U.S. is not drawing a red line where it needs to on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARTHUR SCHECHNER, ROMNEY SUPPORTER: Netanyahu is right. He has a problem on his hands of major, major proportions and he needs some help. And I think that President Obama has not given him any help.
HARLOW: Michael, you're nodding.
MICHAEL SCHECHNER, ROMNEY SUPPORTER: I agree. I think that the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons capability is a serious threat, not just to Israel, not just to the other Middle Eastern countries, the Europe, to the United States.
HARLOW: so what response would you like to see from president Obama now?
MICHAEL SCHECHNER: I think we're past the time for talking. I think we're past the time of saying we'll stop them. Sanctions. All of that stuff.
HARLOW: Now, on the other side, Brooke, the folks in the household that really supports President Obama and U.S. policy on Iran right now said we have to think past right now and think about long term Israeli-U.S. relations and just how important this partnership, this alliance is.
So they weighed in to me telling me why they think Benjamin Netanyahu being so public with his criticism, frankly, of President Obama's stance right now is hurting Israel. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAROL BARASH, OBAMA SUPPORTER: I think he's made it hard for the United States to keep Israel with this special ally status that it's had because the United States can't be pushed around by anyone. I think Obama's being rationale and reasonable to a bully right now.
HARLOW: Does the president taking the Iran threat seriously enough right now or does Netanyahu have a point?
DANNI MICHAELI, OBAMA SUPPORTER: Is it really possible to believe that the American president is not taking a nuclear threat from any nation seriously?
PETER SHAPIRO, OBAMA SUPPORTER: He has built an international coalition. He has succeeded in building an embargo against Iran that's unprecedented. You know? He's moved, he's moved the position against Iran way further than it was when he came in to office. We have got to give him some credit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: And Brooke, when you look at the numbers in the election 40 days away, here's what we know. Historically, Jewish voters have voted for the Democratic candidate. We know that, you know, 78 percent voted for President Obama in 2008.
When you look at the recent polling from Gallup, 70 percent of Jewish voters are backing the president, 27 Mitt Romney. However, Mitt Romney is clearly going after that conservative Jewish vote criticizing the president for things like not meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu.
And now we know just came in a few hours ago, the president will talk to Netanyahu on the phone tomorrow. Interesting, though, following the speech how much they are going to talk about that red line that we clearly saw, most clearly as you said, today.
BALDWIN: Yes, hopefully, we'll get some sort of readout on that conversation as you point out. There's been criticism in the time that the president was in New York he didn't meet with world leaders, i.e., Benjamin Netanyahu. Poppy Harlow for me in New York. Poppy, thank you so much.
BALDWIN: As we approach the election, tons of interest in new voting restrictions initiated by Republicans in about two dozen states. Republicans say they're stamping out fraud. Democrats say the alleged fraud is practically nonexistent and harder to make it harder to vote, folks likely to vote for a Democrat.
Have you seen this video on YouTube? We had to get creative, clean it up, pretty good. So we found a sliver of it for you. This is comedian, Sarah Silverman. Close to 2 million hits in a week.
OK, I'm being told we don't have that at the moment, but we'll get it for you in a minute. It's funny stuff. But picture I.D., have it with you -- joining me now from ground zero in this debate over voter rolls, Marc Caputo, of the "Miami Herald."
Marc Caputo, your Elections Department in Florida has just performed a sweep of voter rolls and from what you're reporting today they found potentially number I saw 198 names on the rolls of potential noncitizens, 1-9-8. How did they find these potential discrepancies?
MARC CAPUTO, "MIAMI HERALD": Well, what they did is they used a federal database to help match up names from the Florida voter rolls and in comparing the two, they came up with a starting list of about 200, 198 now and initial previous list about 207.
We spot checked of them. We spot checked the list, some of them are noncitizens. There's a woman in Panama City who said, I've been voting for years and in fact, she had. We looked back since 2000, she voted ten times.
She didn't know that she couldn't vote as a noncitizen, but she and her husband said she plans to vote again. That was kind of an outlier case. Some other folks we met, there were some complicated immigration problems or issues.
Some folks from the Virgin Islands, it wasn't clear if they were citizens or not. They appear to be citizens. On the list of 198, about 36 that we found had voted in the past, sometimes repeatedly, other times once or twice.
CAPUTO: Well, that's a good question. There's a long complicated history this started last year. The state came up with an initial potential wide net of 180,000. They whittled it down to 25,000 and then to 2,700 and then finally federal permission through the immigration database and fed 1,700 names through there.
Out came about 200 names. Of the 200 names of potential noncitizens, it looks like about 36 or some say 39 have voted or may have voted. So right now it's incumbent on the county elections supervisor to go through those lists, contact those people, find out what's happening and if need be, forward those names on the prosecutors.
BALDWIN: So then if and when that happens, might these people face criminal charges, might there be more purging of some of these rolls? Where does this go?
CAPUTO: Well, that's a good question. Some people probably if it's shown voted and weren't citizens certainly face third-degree felony charges. There's not going to be a whole lot of purging. The Florida Elections Code, the statutes do have a series of checks and balances that don't allow them to instantly strike you from the rolls.
However, it can be made a bit of a pain in the rear or the neck as it were if you're on the list and you say, look, I'm really a citizen. You have to go out of the way to prove it. Otherwise, there's a possibility to show up on Election Day, you might have to cast a provisional ballot.
And some folks say provisional ballots might not count as much as regular ballots, but that's a whole other debate for a whole other time.
BALDWIN: OK, Marc Caputo, maybe we'll have that later. Marc Caputo with the "Miami Herald," thank you very much.
CAPUTO: Thank you.
BALDWIN: And like magic we now have the clip of Sarah Silverman. You may think it's funny. You may think it's crude, but again, let's roll it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, a lot of these laws require you to have a state-issued picture I.D. like a driver's license. But more than 21 million Americans don't have driver's licenses.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My veteran photo I.D. card?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is your address on it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I lost my legs for this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: All right, moving on to something that pretty sure you haven't yet heard. We have just gotten word from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that as of today, for the very first time, the jobs picture slipped into positive territory for the Obama presidency.
What do we mean by that? Stay with me because it may be important politically. We're going to kick it up to New York to Alison Kosik. What is the news? What specifically are we hearing from the Labor Department -- Alison.
ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: OK, so let me take you back as to what happened here. What happened was some government numbers on jobs created in this country were crunched and re-crunched and it turns out that the results that the government came up with are in President Obama's favor because what they show is that these jobs numbers, these job numbers show that the president has recovered every single job lost on his watch and then some.
What the Labor Department did was revise these numbers higher saying 386,000 more jobs were created last year than initially thought so here's some of the math for you. In the year following President Obama's inauguration, the economy lost 4.3 million jobs.
But if you add in today's revised numbers, 4.4 million jobs have now been created since 2010. That makes the president a net job creator. There are now 125,000 more jobs created than before he took office.
But you know, we got to temper it a bit, give you some perspective. We are three years after the recession. We have still only recovered about half of the jobs lost since 2008 and hiring clearly isn't strong enough to keep up with population growth.
Not to mention that the kinds of jobs being created are not necessarily higher income jobs -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: Here's the other but, though, Alison Kosik because I can just hear people thinking scratching their heads and thinking, fishy? You know, this is very suspicious, recalculating the numbers right before the election, 40 days to go. Is there anything suspect here?
KOSIK: OK, that's a good question because everybody wants to know that because the timing is a little suspect. But from what we can tell there's no conspiracy here. This is really how the Bureau of Labor Statistics operates.
It goes ahead and revised the figures very frequently as it gets more and more information. In fact, these numbers could still be revised again in January.
And you know this because when we come out with the jobs report every month, there are often revisions to the previous months. So revisions are just sort of a name of the game when it comes to calculating how many jobs are created in this country.
BALDWIN: Eight years ago, one man was diagnosed with cancer and he soon lost his appetite and finding foods he could actually eat became essentially beating his disease. Now he and his mother teamed up to help other children. Dr. Sanjay Gupta has their story in today's "Human Factor."
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fabien Navidi Kasmai is what you'd call an old soul. He's always been advanced. When he was 10, he won a writing contest that gave him an opportunity to interview First Lady Laura Bush.
He's been constantly challenging himself. But at age 11, Fabien faced a biggest challenge of all. He was diagnosed with Stage III Hodgkin's lymphoma.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then it becomes a blur because tests and all kinds of scans and they put me in surgery.
GUPTA: His mother, Danielle Navidi, watched Fabian go from a happy, healthy boy to a very sick child.
DANIELLE NAVIDI, FABIEN'S MOTHER: There's no greater nightmare. He was left more ill as a result of the treatments, you know, the rebuilding was such a journey, getting him back, his strength and health back.
GUPTA: With chemotherapy and radiation treatments, Fabien began to lose his appetite. His mother became frustrated looking for new ways to feed her son. The things he used to like no longer tasted any good. So Danielle kept experimenting with foods, cooking things he would eat, but were also healthy for him so he could fight the cancer.
FABIEN NAVIDI KASMAI, CANCER SURVIVOR: It's still boils down to the fact that you can do it or you can't do it. We're going to do it. So we got to do it the best way we can.
GUPTA: For nearly 10 years since Fabien's diagnosis and after a year of treatment and countless follow-up visits, he remains cancer free.
NAVIDI: Do you like blueberries?
GUPTA: His mom is now a certified nutritionist who teaches other families how to cook healthy meals that taste good for children who have cancer.
Some of her recipes can now be found in a cookbook entitled "Happily Hungry," which Danielle and Fabien collaborated on because there is so very little information available to help children with cancer eat healthier during their treatment.
NAVIDI: You have to look at it as an opportunity to rebuild them in the best way possible.
GUPTA: The book is full of colorful recipes designed with a child in mind. Categorized by a symptom describing why each recipe is important. The Navidis hope the dishes will help children get well just like they did for Fabien.
Today, Fabien is a senior at Temple University in Philadelphia studying film. He's backed to challenging himself by graduating from college next May at the age of 19. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN.
BALDWIN: Sanjay, thank you. And just make sure you watch Sanjay, his show is called "Sanjay Gupta M.D." It airs Saturday at 4:30 in the afternoon Eastern Time and Sunday at 7:30 a.m. Eastern.
Well, get ready for the next big thing in health insurance at work. You know that open enrolment season rolling around and this year, employees of two big companies face a huge change.
Sears Holding and Darden Restaurants that included Olive Garden and Red Lobster, they are tossing out the old way of providing health care benefits instead they are offering a choice between HMOs and PPOs.
Both companies are giving their workers cash to buy health insurance from an online insurance marketplace. Yes, just like the insurance exchanges under Obamacare. Workers will choose their own insurance company and level of benefits from a range of options and bet other big companies watching very closely to see how well this works.
Coming up next, a CNN exclusive. We are now getting word, FBI agents haven't even stepped foot on the crime scene in Benghazi where those four Americans were killed including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. All of this as fears are intensifying. Al Qaeda's setting up shop in Libya.
BALDWIN: It has been now more than two weeks since that attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, killed four Americans including the U.S. ambassador there, Chris Stevens.
And we are just now learning FBI agents haven't even stepped foot on the scene there. What's more, the crime scene isn't even secure yet.
FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: What we found out today from senior law enforcement officials is that while the FBI has finally made it to Tripoli, they've never made it to Benghazi.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They haven't been on the ground in Benghazi? TOWNSEND: They have not. In fact, it was taking so long to get permission to get into Tripoli. The FBI deployed their personnel to a location in the region so they be closer. They have conducted interviews at the State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack.
But they've not again able to get -- they have gotten as far as Tripoli now, but they've never gotten to Benghazi. They made a request that the crime scene be secured.
As we know from our Arwa Damon's reporting and other public reporting, the State Department -- we don't know whether or not the State Department put the request to the Libyans and whether it was denied or what happened to it. What we know for sure is the crime scene is never secured.
BALDWIN: CNN's national security analyst Fran Townsend reporting there with Anderson. Fran will be joining me next hour to talk about precisely this. But I want to bring in editor-at-large for "Time" magazine, Bobby Ghosh. Bobby, welcome back.
BOBBY GHOSH, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Thanks.
BALDWIN: You just wrote this piece in "Time" magazine coming out tomorrow. It's called "The Rise of the Salafis," the Islamist extremist in the Middle East. And in your reporting in this article I read, you point to a specific Salafi militant group that is thought to have conducted that attack in Benghazi. Tell me what you know.
GHOSH: Our local reporting suggests that -- and the Libyan government seems to believe the group known as (inaudible) was responsible for the attack. There's a lot of to'ing and fro'ing in the State Department here about just how much involvement this group had.
Whether this was long planned attack, there had been some indication suggesting that this was a spur of the moment thing. They saw a protest in front of the American consulate and decided to take advantage of that, take cover among the protesters and make this attack.
There have been other reports suggesting that they planned this all along, but most people in Libya are fingering the Salafi of the group that's -- has been responsible for this attack.
BALDWIN: I want to quote you from your article talking about these groups. Quote, "If the democratically elected governments of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen represent the flowering of the Arab spring, the newly assertive Salafis are its weeds.
Flourishing in soil fertilized by free expression and poorly tended by weak governments." You know, anyone who gardens knows weeds are tough to eliminate, depends on the gardener.
If you continue the metaphor, talking about the governments, especially, you know, the new president of Egypt, President Morsy formerly of the Muslim Brotherhood as you point, they are reluctant to fight these groups or even the moderate Libyan group simply cannot. Why?
GHOSH: Well, for several reasons. For one thing, government -- running a country and securing, these things are all new to these groups. I mean, it was not that long ago, only months ago the Muslim Brotherhood of President Morsy was at the receiving end of this kind of the kind of things that he now needs to do with the Salafis.
He and his people were regarded as the bad guys. So that's one problem. The second problem, the Salafis won 20 percent of the vote in the election. It's not like they are an illegitimate group. They have some political legitimacy.
And then after all, once you replaced a totalitarian dictator who was known for beating up and beating down on his people, you can't really politically be seen as doing the same thing with the group that wins 20 percent of the vote.
So they have some genuine concerns and problems and that's actually giving the Salafis more oxygen to breathe and more fertilizer to grow in the region.
BALDWIN: So then where does that leave the United States? You know the NATO efforts in places like Libya for months and months helping, assisting with the Arab spring, bring about the change. Are we now haunted by the efforts there?
GHOSH: No. I think the Arab spring states will come to terms with this in time. The question is whether we have the patience or whether we have the time. What the United States can do is protect its people, its embassies, its interests the best it can and then keep putting pressure.
We saw in Egypt that after President Obama called President Morsy, gave him a quite stern talking to by all accounts President Morsy then was forced to take action and I think lesson was learned there by the Egyptians and others.
And it was not even in Libya, for instance, the government immediately came out and criticized the attack on the consulate. In Yemen, the government criticized the attack on the embassy. It's not even. The problem is sort of different levels of seriousness in different countries.
And you know, he to me was saying, Brooke, there are porous borders, there are all these weapons. You know, they are very much so, very bad guys in places like Libya and it seems like that the Libyan government is not able to shut them down.
GHOSH: Well, it's a terrorism problem that's concealed within a law and order problem. The terrorist groups are actually very small, but a significant law and order problem. Lots of Libyans have weapons and the government doesn't have control over its security forces, doesn't have the faith of its police forces to actually go and begin to clean up the sort of weapons cache.
They have been trying since the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, there's been actually this is reassuring and public anger against militias with weapons and that run around these Libyan cities. They're the law.
And so there is a turn in the public mode and that's empowering the governments. They don't really have reliable police forces or reliable intelligence services, reliable militaries even. That will take time.
BALDWIN: Bobby Ghosh, I have a feeling we'll continue the conversation. As you point out, it takes time, thank you so much, "Time" magazine editor at large.
GHOSH: Thank you.