Return to Transcripts main page


Intel: North Korea Can Launch Nuclear Attack; White House: Obama Didn't Approve Jay-Z's Cuba Trip; Secret Recordings; Interview with Ted Nugent on Gun Policies

Aired April 11, 2013 - 19:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: OUTFRONT next, breaking news, intelligence shows that North Korea has nuclear capable warheads. Live to Seoul we will go.

Plus, has the president caught himself in a celebrity trap? Rapper Jay-Z slams Obama in a new wrap.

And the motor city mad man comes out front. I'll ask Ted Nugent if he's lost the battle against gun control. Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, we have breaking news. North Korea may now be able to launch a nuclear attack. Today, we learned that the Pentagon's intelligence arm has assessed with, quote, "moderate confidence" that North Korea has the ability to fire nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles.

Chris Lawrence is working his sources at the Pentagon tonight. Kyung Lah is in Seoul, of course, it is tomorrow morning there. Chris, we have known for a while that North Korea had nuclear capabilities and we knew that they had missile capabilities.

But what we didn't know was that they could actually put those two things together. What are you learning?

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I can tell you that the announcement of this potential capability came as a complete shock to folks here in the Pentagon who were shocked to hear this mention in an open hearing on Capitol Hill today, Erin.

Basically, Congressman Doug Lamborn referenced this defense intelligence assessment that said that with a moderate degree of certainty, they felt that North Korea had developed a capability -- to develop nuclear weapons with the capability to deliver them via ballistic missiles.

What we have just learned is that the administration will be releasing a statement very shortly clarifying some of these remarks. It will basically say that their assessment is that North Korea has not developed and tested a fully functional nuclear warhead.

So, again, the difference, nuclear weapons versus nuclear warheads and the assessment is going to be that North Korea has not yet fully tested and developed a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on the end of a missile.

We've also learned there is another aspect of this that this information was never meant become public. In fact, officials are telling us that what Congressman Lamborn read from was mistakenly identified as unclassified.

It was meant to be classified. It was marked as unclassified and that's what he read from in the open hearing there.

BURNETT: Which, of course, could be significant. Kyung, as we go to new Seoul, I want to share a statement we are just getting from an administration official to CNN saying we do not believe the North Koreans have tested these types of weapons and they have not been fully developed. So obviously trying to talk a little bit around this, but how alarming is this development given where you are tonight, Kyung?

KYUNG LAH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, very alarming if it does indeed to be you entirely accurate because it suggests these incremental steps by North Korea certainly has an impact on South Korea. The nation's capital of South Korea, Seoul, is one hour away from the DMZ, one hour south.

South Korea feels it has the biggest bull's eye on it. And the incremental steps, the smaller reports towards North Korea stepping toward a nuclear warhead, is very alarming here in South Korea. And it supports a shift in public sentiment, which is alarming to America.

The latest polls, national polls of how South Koreans feel about arming themselves with nuclear weapons, South Korea itself having nuclear weapons, it shifted upwards, 60 percent to 70 percent of South Koreans now feel that they should have their own nuclear weapons program.

That's very concerning to America. South Korea arms itself with nuclear weapons then we have a potential regional arms race because Japan will want to respond. China will then want to respond and that, Erin, is a very, very concerning thing to America.

BURNETT: Extremely, extremely concerning. Let me just ask you, Chris, as the administration official here as I said is trying to clarify this situation that is getting so much attention. You know, in terms of saying we don't believe they tested the weapons.

They're not fully developed. So, yes, they may have a nuclear part and they may have the missile part, but we're maybe trying to back off a little bit this whole idea that we're able -- that they're able to put them together.

What's your take on that and why they would be saying that if what was read from today was obviously a formal document just classified?

LAWRENCE: I think here's the bottom line, Erin. I think fears that they right now today can marry a nuclear warhead on top of a missile and send it in any sort of intermediate range direction that is not going to happen.

I don't think what this is saying is they don't have that capability, but they progressed and they have shown some progress and I think you see that reflected not only in the U.S. rushing a new missile defense system to Guam, but also beefing up the missile defense system in Alaska that protects the U.S. mainland as well.

Moves we have seen in the past few weeks, which may be reflected in an overall feeling that North Korea has progressed further than initially thought.

BURNETT: Obviously calling into question the intelligence of the west and the United States really had. Chris Lawrence, thank you very much. Chris Lawrence is reporting from the Pentagon there with that breaking news.

OUTFRONT tonight, Gordon Chang, the author of "Nuclear Showdown, North Korea Takes on the World." We'll be joined by retired General Cedric Leighton in just a moment.

But Gordon, let me start with you. You know, this reporting that came out today saying that the United States says North Korea can put nuclear material into a missile. Obviously, tonight an administration official to CNN trying to say that they don't believe the weapons have been tested and they haven't been fully developed. But how significant is this possible development?

GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR, "NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN: NORTH KOREA TAKES ON THE WORLD": We knew all along that they would be able to do this at some point. I mean, if it's not now, it will be a year from now.

So you know, when we look at this, this is a predictable development. Of course, it's significant because marrying a nuclear device to a long range missile means that they can reach out and cause great devastation and even worse.

You know, they can threaten to do this and that's why I think that year's crisis is worse than before. Yes, there is a lot of internal reasons peculiar to the regime, but also because they now have more capability. So they now feel they can threaten more. Next year, the crisis is going to be even worse than this year.

BURNETT: Let me bring in retired Colonel Cedric Leighton now. Colonel Leighton, does this force the United States' hand. You know, the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, said just a few weeks ago, to quote him, "The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state nor will we stand by while they seek to develop a nuclear arms missile that can target the United States."

So this is a possible development that we're learning about tonight mean that North Korea has crossed what many call a red line and that the United States has to act?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, USAF (RETIRED): It's possible that they have crossed a certain red line. But I think the United States is going to wait for there to be some actual test firings or some actual actions that in term of actually deploying these weapons. Once that happens then they will have crossed that red line. But until that happens, I think the administration is going to stand back.

BURNETT: Bob Baier, Colonel, earlier this week told me the United States really doesn't have good intelligence in North Korea. He said he has been talking a lot of CIA officials who have been there on the ground.

Pentagon spokesman, George Little, has disputed that when he came on this program, but the fact is we've said they can't get a weapon and now it seems that they may be further along in that process than we actually thought. Is the intelligence that the United States has good enough?

LEIGHTON: No, it's never good enough, Erin, the problem that we have is we have a lack of sources in the human community, which is known as human intelligence, in other words, spying. Our technical intelligence is actually pretty good.

But you cannot gauge a person's thought process, their intentions and the other artful forms of intelligence just through technical means alone. And that's what our significant weakness is it's judging the intentions and ability to actually analyze those intentions is not 100 percent.

BURNETT: Right. And Gordon, it's difficult because the Obama administration has seemed to have, by the way, a very consistent response to the threats coming out of North Korea, but here is what it is. Here's President Obama just today and some of his team recently. I want to play it so everyone understands what I mean about consistency.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Now's the time for North Korea to end the kind of belligerent approach.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bellicose rhetoric.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bellicose rhetoric.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a bellicose rhetoric.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Belligerent rhetoric.

CARNEY: Bellicose, unhelpful and unconstructive rhetoric and actions.


BURNETT: Now aside from bellicose and belligerent getting the most use in the English language that they probably gotten in a long time, I don't want to make light of this, but Gordon, is this really the only response that the U.S. has to call it bellicose and belligerent and hope that it stops? CHANG: Yes. I think the Obama administration is really caught flatfooted because they don't know what to do. You know, they talk about trying to go to Beijing and getting the Chinese to help.

But you know, Xi Jinping on Sunday came out with those really terrible words. And you know, everyone said he was rebuking North Korea. But what he was really doing was stinging attack on the United States as "People's Daily" made clear on Tuesday.

So, you know, the Chinese aren't going to help us. I don't think the people in Washington have a clue as to what to do. Because this is not the way they thought the world was going to work.

And so right now I think that they're trying to figure out how they're going to craft the strategy. And they've got to think of one pretty quickly because our allies in the region are becoming unnerved by this and, you know, the South Koreans, they want their own bomb.

BURNETT: All right, well, thank you both very much. Again, as we're reporting here, the very latest that we have is that South Korea may have the ability to have a missile and put it -- and nuclear material and put those two things together.

The U.S. military apparently shocked that this was a classified document and revealed today. And now others in the administration are trying to back down off a little bit and say they don't believe the North Koreans tested or fully developed a nuclear warhead.

We're going to keep following the situation as headlines come in tonight. But still to come, Jay-z responds to critics of his Cuba trip with a new rap song, one of his targets, the president.

Plus, a break in the Mitch McConnell wiretapping case. We now know how a liberal magazine got a hold of the private recordings.

And then Ted Nugent, he said he'll own the debate on gun control. He's going to come OUTFRONT live.

And our shout out for tonight, shark.


BURNETT: Our second STORY, OUTFRONT, does Jay-z still have Obama's back? Jay-z took to the mic today releasing a rap title "Open Letter" in which he responded to critics. He was questioned the legality of his recent trip to Cuba.

In the song, Jay-z also alludes to having a conversation about the trip with the president of the United States. After that song was released, the White House was very quick to distance itself suddenly from Jay-z's trip.


CARNEY: I guess nothing rhymes with treasury. Because treasury offers and gives licenses for travel as you know and the White House has nothing to do with it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So are you saying he did not, the president did not have a conversation with Jay-z?

CARNEY: I'm absolutely saying that the White House to the president on down had nothing to do with anybody's travel to Cuba. That is something that treasury handles.


BURNETT: There is something about the look on Jay's face that is priceless there.

All right, OUTFRONT tonight, CNN contributor, Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary to President George Bush. Ari, can you imagine how Jay must have felt? You're like, please. All right, CNN contributor, L.Z. Granderson also joins us.

L.Z., let me start with you. On TMZ, this of course, made a top story. The headline there was Jay-z raps about Cuba trip. Obama said you're going to get me impeached. Now these two guys are friends.

They've been building a friendship. Jay-z has helped the president raise money, $4 million during a fundraiser for the White House. Is Jay-z throwing the president under the bus here by implying that if their conversations about this came out, the president would be in trouble?

L.Z. GRANDERSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No. It's a rap song. You know the thing that upsets me most is that this isn't one of Jay-z's best. He has done better story telling in the past. This is a mediocre kind of rap song. That is the only thing I'm most upset about.

The fact that we're getting upset over what is referenced in a rap song really perplexes me. I mean, if people really want to look into Jay-Z's lyrics and his entire chronology of songs, he talks about things like poverty, growing up poor.

He talks about police brutality. He talks about being pulled over and driving while black. That's a whole bunch of things that Jay-Z is talking about. So why we focus on this one throwaway line in this mediocre rap song is beyond, I don't know, comprehension for me.

BURNETT: Well, it maybe a mediocre rap song. I'll leave you to judge that, but Ari, it is an interesting line that he puts in there. And it does sort of feed into some will say into a broader narrative that some tried to create about the president. And John McCain in 2008 ran an ad talking about President Obama being the biggest celebrity, talking about who he hung out with. Here's that.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?

(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: Now they try to say that was a bad thing. Obviously, people liked him being the biggest celebrity in the world, Ari. But the editor of the "National Review" wrote, what Republicans didn't consider is being a celebrity is a priceless asset in contemporary America.

Celebrities are the gods of our pop culture. We let them play by different rules. We read about them in magazines and watch them on TV. We obsess about them and identify them. The 230 members of the House don't have a chance against the president let alone a celebrity. Is he right that the president benefits from all this?

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, it's interesting historically. People who are governors, senators, congressman, they don't get to hang out with famous people too much. But as soon as they become president, they're magnets. It was true in the Clinton White House.

You had all kinds of Hollywood people come through. Once George Bush took office, the Hollywood people had no interest in coming through anymore, but a lot of athletes did. A lot of people at ball games in Baltimore or Washington, would come into the White House.

It was well known around baseball, for example, you can come and we'll take you around the west wing and meet the president. Now we're back to Hollywood coming through the White House. It is part of Americana. It is part of the presidency to be able to rub shoulders with people from these big walks of life.

The issue to me is consistency though. I think there is hypocrisy with the president. He loves going after the rich except when he is raising money from them, Jay-Z and all of his friends and his fundraisers.

He loves to criticize the life of the rich and he criticizes people who fly in corporate jets. Does he criticize those who fly on Hollywood jets and the movie stars? No. He is inconsistent about it and that's what I don't like about it. He can hang out with whoever he wants. Anybody can be his friend. I just wish he would be consistent.

BURNETT: L.Z., he's got the point. The president, by the way, he had Justin Timberlake for a party at the White House this week. Isn't that inconsistent?

GRANDERSON: You know, first of all, I just can't believe Ari is going to start this history with the White House and Hollywood and the Clinton administration. We can go all the way back to, you know, Shirley Temple meeting with Eleanor Roosevelt.

I mean, this has been going on for decades and decades and decades. Frank Sinatra was at the White House with President Reagan so much that people wrote the White House hoping to get tickets to a Frank Sinatra concert.

So this isn't about Republican or Democrat. This is about the White House and the presidency and Hollywood, regardless who is in it, always gravitated towards it.

BURNETT: Speaking of hypocrisy, what about the issue of canceling the White House tours when Justin Timberlake comes for a party at the White House the same week?

GRANDERSON: I don't know the details who is paying for it. I don't know the details as to whether or not this was Justin Timberlake's idea. I don't know if it was for a fundraiser. I know it was for an organization. I can't really speak to that.

All I really know is that Justin Timberlake has the number one album for the last three weeks and is not unusable of the president regardless of which period of time he happens to be with to host celebrities, to host athletes, to bring them in when they won championships. There is nothing unusual.

BURNETT: All right, well, thanks very much to both of you. We appreciate it and let us know what you think, everybody, on that one.

Still to come, new developments in the Mitch McConnell wiretapping case. How a liberal magazine got its hands on the private reporting. We have a special report.

Plus a new Barbie doll depicting a woman from Mexico. Is it racist? We investigate it.

And this police department is well funded. We take a ride with Dubai 5-0.


BURNETT: Our third story, OUTFRONT, secret recordings. So tonight, we're learning who might have been behind the leaked audiotapes of Senator Mitch McConnell and his campaign strategy against Ashley Judd?

You may remember on Tuesday we told you the FBI got involved in the case after McConnell said his Louisville office had been bugged. Jim Acosta is OUTFRONT with the latest.


JIM ACOSTA, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a break in a campaign who done it? According to an official with the local Democratic Party in Louisville, two members of the liberal group "Progress Kentucky" were behind the secret recording of a strategy session as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's re- election headquarters back in February.

JACOB CONWAY, JEFFERSON COUNTY KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC PARTY: They were there. They overheard this salacious conference and decided to record it.

ACOSTA: Jacob Conway tells CNN he's not sure why members in the group were there in the first place, but that they told him they were right outside the room. He adds that their account of what they heard matches the recording revealed by left leaning magazine "Mother Jones."

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MINORITY LEADER: I assume most of you have played the game Whac-A-Mole. This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign.

ACOSTA: The recording features McConnell and his campaign team going through the research on potential opponents including actress Ashley Judd who has since declined to run.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jesse can go in a chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she's suffered some suicidal tendencies.

ACOSTA: Conway says the two activists were so excited about what they had, they couldn't wait to share the news.

CONWAY: One of them told me about it and then I ran into the other one and asked him about it. They told me about it the same weekend that it happened. And I didn't really pay any other mind to it until the "Mother Jones" story broke and when I heard the "Mother Jones," the tape, it was the exact same thing that they told me was discussed, I put two and two together.

ACOSTA: As it turns out the same group named by Conway was singled out by McConnell at a news conference Tuesday.

MCCONNELL: Well, as you know, last month, my wife's ethnicity was attacked by a left wing group in Kentucky and then parentally they also bugged my headquarters.

ACOSTA: In response to the McConnell campaign's allegation that its headquarters was bugged, the FBI has launched an investigation. A source close to the campaign says agents pulled the building surveillance footage.

JESSE BENTON, MCCONNELL CAMPAIGN MANAGER: They were here for about an hour. They checked out the office. They took a lot of pictures. They examined our personal devices and they, I believe they swept the office.

ACOSTA: Retired FBI agent, Tom Fuentes, says the case will likely hinge on whether the conversation could be overheard.

TOM FUENTES, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: The investigation is going to have to determine if the individuals are being truthful that they overheard this conversation out in the hallway or near the elevator and the people in the meeting were speaking in such a loud manner that they had no trouble not only hearing it but recording it.

ACOSTA: Conway says he believe the two activists used something as simple as a smartphone to make the recording, not a bug.

CONWAY: This is not Watergate as our senior senator has described it.

(END VIDEOTAPE) ACOSTA: As for "Progress Kentucky," CNN has tried to contact the group, but our calls have not been returned. Meanwhile, the McConnell campaign says it's disturbed by the allegations of the group's involvement, but had no further comment. And Democratic Party officials in Louisville insist they have nothing to do with the recording -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right, thanks, Jim.

Still to come, one of the most vocal gun advocates in the country comes OUTFRONT. I'll ask Ted Nugent about background checks and whether the government is going to confiscate guns.

Plus, cops say a suspect who went on a slashing and stabbing spree was looking to wear the faces of his victims.

And tonight's shout out, man versus shark. Just take a look at this video of a fisherman in Hawaii reeling in a tuna. He gets the fish close to the tie kayak and then a tiger shark is going to leap out of the water and try to steal his catch.

Look at that. I mean, you're in a kayak, people. The shark circled back, slammed into the kayak and got what it came for, his fish. Here's the guy's reaction.

Yes, you lost the fish, but you know what? You gained the OUTFRONT shout out and you're still alive.


BURNETT: Welcome back to the second half of OUTFRONT. We start the second half with stories we care about, where we focus on our reporting from the front lines.

We are learning some disturbing new details about Dylan Quick. That is the man accused of stabbing 14 people at a Texas college. According to court documents, quick told police that he fantasized about cutting people's faces off and wearing them as masks. He said the fantasies started when he was 8 years old and he told investigators he also fantasized about necrophilia and cannibalism.

Dr. Reid Malloy (ph), a forensic psychologist, tells us that those types of fantasies are extremely rare even among suspects in violent crimes with multiple victims.

Well, the activist group anonymous is getting involved in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, a Canadian teen who committed suicide after he was allegedly gang-raped and bullied. In a statement directed at law enforcement, Anonymous warned police to take immediate legal action or else they'd release the names of the teens that they say committed the rape.

Sherry Bane (ph), a friend of Rita's mother, told us the family doesn't support vigilante justice. She says the situation began with bullying so it makes no sense to use that same type of behavior on others. Well, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are recalling about 3.4 million vehicles worldwide. The reason: defective air bags. So far, most of the vehicles recalled are from the years 2000 to 2003. Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla among them. The problem is the air bags deploy with too much pressure and, therefore, hurt you.

Jeff Bartlett (ph) of "Consumer Reports" says it's a huge recall but it is unlikely to have a long term effect on the companies' reputations.

It has been 616 days since the United States lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back? Well, as usual, not very much. But today, first time jobless claims fell by more than economists expected, which helps cower the Dow and S&P 500 to a record close.

And now our fourth story OUTFRONT: bring on the gun debate.

So the Senate voted 68-31 to overcome a Republican-led filibuster and will begin the most significant debate on new gun legislation in this country in nearly two decades. The vote comes a day after a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on purchases at gun shows and on the internet. It does, though, exclude personal transfers of guns. Now the NRA rejected the proposal saying it would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners.

OUTFRONT tonight, Ted Nugent, the legendary rocker, has more than 200 guns and is one of the NRA's most vocal supporters.

And, Ted, I really appreciate having you come on. There's a lot of things I wanted to talk to you about.

But I want to start with the background checks in that bill in Washington. It includes gun shows. It includes gun shows. It includes people buying guns online. But it doesn't have a background check if you buy a gun from a friend or a family member.

Do you support the bill?

TED NUGENT, GUITARIST/NRA BOARD MEMBER: I do not. Thank you for speaking so clearly, Erin, because I value every word you say out here in the wilderness.

No, I don't support the bill. I agree with the 90 plus percent of the law enforcement heroes out there, the real warriors on the street that reject this as a feel good measure. Right now, it's only a single percentile that are rejected with the current background checks. So it's a problem that just doesn't exist. We don't need to fix something that doesn't need fixing.

So I reject it out of hand as a feel good measure that's not going to accomplish anything. It won't stop any shootings. That's for sure.

BURNETT: So you're saying if we enforce the background checks we have better now, you would stop more people from buying guns and that would be the way to go instead of passing broader background checks?

NUGENT: Erin, I like the sound of that. You've been doing your home work. Yes, absolutely. It's unanimous in law enforcement, in the court systems out there. Even Chicago, the murder capital that's a gun-free zone with the strictest gun control laws in America, they don't prosecute those that are stopped from buying guns.

And of the 76,000 that were denied because of clerical errors or positive-negative that were finally OK'd, only 44 of those 76,000 turned out to be someone who were properly denied firearms and they weren't prosecuted.

So, we need to enforce the laws. This has been we the people, the families that are members of the National Rifle Association, this is our mantra all along. We know who these recidivistic monsters are. We know who the felons are. The court system let out on to our streets.

Why are we going after all the people that are causing no problems like me and like the NRA members and all the hundreds of millions of American gun owners and why are we ignoring the felons?

BURNETT: Well, another thing though that -- this doesn't capture is the issue of people with mental health. I want to ask you about that, because, you know, here in New York state they're trying to deal with it, Ted, as you're probably aware. There are gun laws passed this year that other states may copy.

And it allows the states to confiscate a weapon from people under the following circumstances, one, if you're suffering from mental illness, two, if you've been convicted of a violent felony offense which is what you referred to, and three, if the court has issued a order of protection against you. So if you're a husband threatening your wife or your children.

But I want to focus in on this, because any of those cases, cases in which you wouldn't support the government taking away someone's gun? I mean, after all, James Holmes and Adam Lanza were both mentally ill in some way.

NUGENT: Sure. No, those categories, as you stated them, would be universally supported by people who want to keep guns out of dangerous people's hands. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy out there that would put Ted Kennedy on the no fly list over and over and over again which I happen to support, but that was the mistake. He shouldn't have been on the no-fly list. The bureaucracy won't accurately or responsibly or legally identify someone with mental issues.

And you know how easy it is for feuding lovers or feuding friends or feuding neighbors to issue a protection order against someone falsely.

So I don't trust the court system. And I sure don't trust the bureaucracies to ascertain who is dangerous and who's not. They have actually categorized the heroes of the military, Erin, warriors returning home putting their lives on the line, they've generalized and categorized some of these heroes with no evidence as being mentally unstable who can't have a Second Amendment that they fought and died to protect.

So you see where -- see this incredibly dangerous slippery slope when you give that kind of control to bureaucrats that have blown that kind of control over and over again?

BURNETT: Well, but they're also trying to do is rely on doctors. And you look at James Holmes who killed those people in the Colorado movie theater, right? I mean his psychiatrist had tried to reach out to law enforcement. If there had been a background check and that had shown up, he might not have been able to get a gun. That would have saved lives.

NUGENT: Well, yes. I would trust you and me to make that decision because in every instance, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, certainly Sandy Hook, everybody family members, school mates, co-workers, neighbors, people who encountered every one of these maniacs have -- had alerted people in the past over and over again but nobody did anything. So that's the kind of evidence that we should act upon. But not just a random accusation.

We've got to be careful. When it is documented --

BURNETT: But that was a doctor, which is what this law would do.

NUGENT: I would go with that.


BURNETT: Rely on doctors.

NUGENT: Sure. Multiple evidence like that, I would support. I think everybody would support that.

Every one of those nut jobs should have been in a cage a long time before they committed they're heinous acts.

BURNETT: So do you think the government, if there is documentation of background checks, I know you don't necessarily agree with expanding them. I get that. But there is a background check. There is documentation of that background check.

This bill says that that would not create a national registry of guns. Do you agree?

NUGENT: Again, the concept is sound. But I just don't trust the government. I don't trust the government that claims it's going to reduce the budget while they increase the budget, a government that sends F-16s.

And here's one for you, Erin. I think we can both agree that we need to stop gun trafficking. Do you agree that?

BURNETT: Stop gun trafficking? Yes. NUGENT: Gun -- illegal gun trafficking.


NUGENT: Then you would support my recommendation that we arrest Eric Holder.

BURNETT: Well, I don't support that.

NUGENT: Well --

BURNETT: I have to admit I don't support that.

NUGENT: Well, Fast and Furious was a gun trafficking.

Well, I do.

BURNETT: All right. Well, that's --


NUGENT: That's how you stop gun trafficking.

BURNETT: I mean that's your right in America to have that opinion.

NUGENT: Well, you want to stop gun trafficking, let's go after the guy that is trafficking guns and that is Eric Holder.

BURNETT: All right. Well, we'll leave it there, Ted. I would love to continue.

They've been trying to have me wrap for a couple minutes. But I hope you can come back on and we can continue our conversation. Thanks again, sir.

NUGENT: I will. I love you madly.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you.

And still to come, the new Barbie doll, is it racist? We have investigated this today. We have all the controversial items that come with Mattel's new Mexican dolls.

And critics blast the latest Victoria's Secret campaign. What is it about the new angel that upset so many fans?


BURNETT: We're back with tonight's "Outer Circle", where we reach out to our sources around the world.

And I would be so remiss tonight if I didn't begin in Dubai where a new high end addition to the police patrol is causing quite a stir. A Lamborghini Aventador. That shows how much I know about driving a Lamborghini. Well, anyway, Amir Daftari is following the story. And earlier, I asked if the new luxury patrol car is going to help with safety or if it's really all about show?


AMIR DAFTARI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erin, drivers here in the UAE are being extra careful these days. Plenty of people around here live life in the fast lane. But now, the police can definitely keep up with them.

The force in Dubai added the Lamborghini Aventador to its fleet. Now, it's capable of speeds over 200 miles an hour, and get this, it costs more than half a million dollars.

Now, when you see cars like this, you might think they're just for show. In this case, you're probably right. One Dubai official says the super car won't be deployed to fight crime. Instead, it will be kept in the city's tourist areas to, quote, "show how classy Dubai is" -- Erin.


BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much. I have learned it is Aventador.

Now, we go to Jerusalem where five women were detained for worshipping at the western wall. They were later released without charges. Their offense though was wearing prayer shawls and performing religious rituals that ultra orthodox Jews say are reserved only for men.

Sara Sidner is covering the story in Jerusalem and I asked her what we know about the women.


SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Erin, this is certainly not the first time this has happened to the group who calls itself women of the wall. They have been trying for more than two decades to be able to go down to the Western Wall, the holiest site for Jews to pray, and pray the way they want to pray. They say this is about the discrimination.

But the Israeli courts in 2003, stuck by the side of traditionalists. Now, what the courts had decided in 2003 is the women could go somewhere on the property and pray the way they like.

But the women say that simply not enough. They feel this is discriminatory.

But now the prime minister and the president of Israel is starting to weigh in. The prime minister is forming a task force, looking for a solution on this very long conflict.

And the women say they simply will not give up their fight. They say it's a fight for equality -- Erin.


BURNETT: Thank you, Sarah.

And now, let's check in with Anderson with a look at what's coming up on "A.C. 360."

Hey, Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Erin. Yes, obviously, we've got a lot more on this breaking news on "360." The new report that could dramatically what we know about North Korea's ability to militarize its nuclear capabilities. Can they actually put a nuclear device on the missiles that North Korea is currently pointing toward U.S. territories and allies? We go to the Pentagon and South Korea for live reports.

Also talk to the man who disclosed the information in a hearing in Capitol Hill, the congressman who did that.

Also, the storm system that dumped ice and snow in the Midwest, it's now ripping through the South, dropping tornadoes, leaving a path of destruction. At least one person is dead. We'll tell where you it's headed next and what to expect.

Those stories, also a "360" exclusive. A father has his two young kids kidnapped by their own mother and taken to Egypt. He's been fighting for 12 years now to get them back. The U.S. criminal and civil courts rulings carry no weight in Egypt.

We have his story all ahead and a lot more at the top of the hour, Erin.

BURNETT: All right, Anderson. We'll see you in a few minutes.

And now our fifth story OUTFRONT: Barbie, stylish or stereotypical and offensive?

So, there is a new collection of dolls hitting the store shelves that which are called the Barbie Dolls of the World.

This one is from Australia. You might be able to see a koala bear looking like it is eating this poor woman.

At any rate, it is not this one but the one from Mexico that has some people angry. According to Mattel, the doll comes, in their words, dressed for a fabulous fiesta in her vibrant pink dress with rough ruffles lace and brightly colored ribbon accents. She also comes with a Chihuahua.

And that has some people calling out the company for being racially insensitive. Mattel stands by the doll saying Mexico Barbie is one of the 100 Barbie dolls of the world. Current dolls wear a country-inspired outfit and passport and animal."

Some people are angry with the passport with Mexico, but that is a small percentage of people in a separate issue.

Is the doll offensive or just creative?

OUTFRONT tonight, our contributor Reihan Salam, Stephanie Miller, radio show host, and political comedian, Dean Obeidallah.

OK. Great to have all of you with us.

Let me start with you, Stephanie. I was thinking about this today. I, you know, didn't have Barbies growing up.

A lot of the dolls are pretty compelling. Critics say look at the bright pink ribbons and dress and that Chihuahua really offended people. Is this offensive or is it just colorful?

STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO HOST: How do I say this in a word, Erin? Yes. Yes, it is.

A Mexican doll with a Chihuahua? I believe the Indian Barbie has a monkey. Really, people? Really? Like where do we get these dolls, at stereotypes are us?

I mean, and having a passport, really? Really, is there like a little Sheriff Joe Arpaio doll or a Jan Brewer asking for her papers? Like really? Come on.

BURNETT: Those are the Ken doll equivalents.

Dean, she brings up -- let me show the China doll.


BURNETT: This is China. By the way, it was all sold out. And the reason I say that is because the panda was stolen off this one. OK? It comes with the panda. I just want to say it's very stereotypical for all of them.

OBEIDALLAH: It's true. And they all have a passport.

BURNETT: And a very high slit, (INAUDIBLE) as a Barbie.

OBEIDALLAH: It's like home shopping club now on CNN.

This is not the only one with a passport, the Mexican one, first of all. Second of all, the only thing I would say about the Mexican Barbie, the Chihuahua to me is intriguing. I know a lot of Mexicans. They don't carry Chihuahuas with them. The only people I know with Chihuahuas are Paris Hilton.

But to be honest with you, the doll's goal is to teach other culture. It's a starting point. It's not the only point. It's not an exhaust (ph) of treaties and culture. But I would buy it for my young nieces, let them play with it.

BURNETT: Reihan, does this start up in a wrong place? I mean, OK, I picked the Australian one because she's white, OK? You can't say this is racially insensitive but it is hugely culturally stereotypical. She's wearing a khaki skirt and outback shirt, I mean, for God's sake. Barbies are all about stereotypical, by the way, with their skinny little legs and big boobs. They always have been.

REIHAN SALAM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Let me drop some knowledge on OUTFRONT viewers, very interesting and new information, Erin, which is that for the last three quarters, Barbie sales have been plummeting. Mattel has been doing decently because of popular lines like Monster High but also American girl plays. These American girl dolls are super educational, whereas Barbie was previously --

BURNETT: And they tell the story of a girl from a country comes to the U.S. Right.

SALAM: Barbie is teaching you to have extremely bizarro proportions and to kind of wear super high heels and -

BURNETT: Talking about the waist.

SALAM: Exactly. They're trying to figure out what's the thing American girl is doing. And another thing is that a lot of young girls now are into mobile device play. The parents are spending money on iPads, iPhones, super educational stuff.

So, I actually feel we're in a moment where kids have lost patience with Barbies. I think they're into --


BURNETT: Stephanie, that probably would make you happy. Can you imagine if Barbie finally went away?

MILLER: Oh, please. I would like to take this moment on national TV to say thank you, Barbie, thank you for a lifetime of eating disorders and a bad body image. Thanks a lot.

SALAM: Would it make you happier if the Mexican doll was fat? Is that really the concern, Stephanie? Or is it the stereotypes of the doll?

I mean, that's what I'm trying to get at. We're just on body image, because I've heard that before. Are these racially insensitive or are they teaching tools?

To me, they're the beginning of a teaching tool. I wish there was -- I'm half Palestinian, I wish there was a Palestinian doll so people could learn about Palestinian culture in a normal human way.


BURNETT: There are some offensive things you could think of with any --

OBEIDALLAH: Of course you can.

(CROSSTALK) OBEIDALLAH: You could have border patrol agent, another doll with that. That would be wrong.

MILLER: It's a horrible teaching tool that teaches racism and also a bad body image.

SALAM: Look, Mexico is a country, it's not just about the psycho drama we have about different immigrant groups. It's fundamentally -- you know, Mexico is a fast growing flourishing country with a vibrant culture. And guess what? Chihuahuas are actually, you know, a Mexican breed of dog.

I think that's -- you know, the idea that it's offensive to me is silly. Barbies are offensive because they're lame. But the idea that Mexican Barbie --

MILLER: That should be the immigration reform bill. Do you have your Chihuahua? Oh, well, then you can't get in, then.

SALAM: It's not a Mexican-American doll. It's a doll from Mexico which is -- it's a fast growing, vibrant country and it's not about our psycho drama. It's about a real place.


BURNETT: All right. Thanks to all three of you. We're keeping the China Barbie because the panda was stolen and Toys "R" Us said we couldn't return it. I now have my first Barbie.

All right.

Every day we take a look outside the day's top stories for the OUTFRONT "Outtake". Tonight, Victoria's Secret. It's been criticized a lot over the years with many people saying that their ads, catalogs and annual fashion shows highlight just one kind of woman.

But after years of criticism, the lingerie company has finally decided to become more inclusive and showcase more diversity. One of their models now has short hair.

Sorry. I try to deliver with a straight face. Victoria's Secret model Karlie Kloss cut her hair off two days before last year's Victoria's Secret runway show. Back then, the company forced her to wear $75,000 worth of hair extensions to hide her new hairdo. No joke.

But not anymore. For this year's Victoria's Secret very sexy campaign, Kloss will be allowed to go au naturel, so to speak, and become the company's first short-haired angel. There has been huge reaction to the decision and a lot of it disappointingly negative with a lot of people saying short hair just isn't sexy.

I think the whole thing is rather ridiculous mostly because Victoria's Secret is so behind the times. I mean, there have been so many famous females cutting their hair in the past few years, do you read "Us Weekly." The company's decision isn't groundbreaking, it's just their way of playing catch-up with the trend.

And no matter what an underwear company says or does, I seriously doubt it will inspire people to drastically change their look. They're not blazing any trails here. Of course, I could be wrong. I guess you just have to stay tuned to CNN -- wow, I'm sorry, Anderson -- to find out.

The essay is next. And it's downright rude.


BURNETT: If you don't like this story, it could cost you some friends. According to a survey conducted by the firm VitalSmarts, almost 80 percent of people have said they noticed a huge increase in online rudeness and what's more, it's spilling into the real world. One out of five people surveyed say they have limited contact with someone because of an impolite exchange online.

Two out of five say they've cut someone off all together, in the real world, because of something that person did online. Truth of the matter is, I have noticed the same thing with all technology, not just social media. It seems like we're constantly e-mailing, texting, messaging with friends and family. It feels like you talk more but a lot of it's just kind of -- well, noise. Sometimes it feels like you might as well be total strangers and you actually choose to do that instead of seeing each other.

We may be communicating more but it feels like we're definitely saying less.

Thanks so much for watching. See you back here same time tomorrow.

"ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.