The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Wife of Daniel Pearl; Condoleezza Rice Set to Testify Before 9/11 Commission

Aired March 30, 2004 - 20:00   ET


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn.
It is Tuesday, March 30, 2004.


ZAHN (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight: The White House does a 180 on the 9/11 investigation. Condoleezza Rice will testify under oath, with some strings attached. Will the American public hear the whole truth?

She lost her husband in the war on terror, but should Mariane Pearl get the same money that 9/11 victims get? She's taking her case to Congress. And tonight, she joins us live to defend her fight.

And move over, Lady Liberty. So long, Central Park. There's a new tourist attraction in the Big Apple. We look at the draw of the Donald.


ZAHN: All of that ahead, but first, here's what you need to know right now.

Now the CIA's new Iraq weapons hunter says the country may still be hiding weapons of mass destruction. Today, Charles Duelfer told two congressional panels that the agency often receives credible reports about concealed caches of weapons in Iraq.

Duelfer also spoke exclusively with CNN national security correspondent David Ensor.


DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When Charles Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, left the job in Iraq, he told the world he didn't expect any weapons of mass destruction to be found. Charles Duelfer is much more cautious.

CHARLES DUELFER, CHIEF U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We continue to receive reports almost on a daily basis of hidden weapons, of hidden materials, which we have to investigate. But, in addition to that, we want to broaden out the work and look at the totality of the program, including where the regime was headed with respect to weapons of mass destruction. ENSOR: Has the six weeks changed in any way your perception of how likely it is that weapons will actually be found?

DUELFER: Well, in an odd way, I have found it more likely that there will be weapons there. I'm not saying that there is a high probability we'll find them, but what I have found is that the reluctance on the part of Iraqi scientists to come forward is much stronger than I'd anticipated.

There's a fear that, if they're seen to be cooperating with the United States and its coalition partners, that regime elements may seek retribution on them. So there's an enormous reluctance on the part of scientists to come forward. This is more akin to a homicide investigation than to simply a search to find existing weapons.

ENSOR: What about Saddam Hussein? Has he told you anything useful about the weapons of mass destruction programs?

DUELFER: At this stage, I don't want to characterize what he has said but it is something that we're examining in the totality of the statements being given by him as well as his subordinates.

ENSOR: He is talking?

DUELFER: He's talking, but the content is the question.

ENSOR: Now, you're an old hand at the business of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You were the deputy director of UNSCOM for the United Nations. Going back this time, what strikes you? What has surprised you?

DUELFER: One key difference is I would have thought that it would be easier now. And, in fact, the process of investigation now is actually more difficult, you know, if for no other reason because of the security issues.

I've got a lot of armored cars which are riddled with bullet holes that our inspectors were in. And were they not armored, these people would be injured or dead.

ENSOR: So you think before the end of this year you might have a report?

DUELFER: Well, I don't know, but it will probably be months, not years, but months.

ENSOR: Duelfer is still trying to sort out what legal authority his team will operate under after sovereignty is turned back over to an Iraqi government at the end of June. His team is pushing hard to be finishing up not too long after that, if they can.

David Ensor, CNN, Washington.


ZAHN: Thanks so much. "In Focus" tonight, history being made under pressure at the White House. The president gives unprecedented permission for his national security adviser to be questioned under oath and in public by the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The leaders of Congress and the commission agree. They agree with me that the circumstances of this case are unique because the events of September 11, 2001, were unique. At my direction, Judge Gonzales has informed the commission that Dr. Rice will participate in an open public hearing.


ZAHN: The president and vice president also agreed to answer questions in a private session with the entire panel of investigators, another major compromise.

Let's talk about why this is so extraordinary. Joining us now from Philadelphia Richard Ben-Veniste, who is on the 9/11 Commission and presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

Welcome to you both.


ZAHN: Mr. Ben-Veniste, why do you think the White House caved?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, 9/11 COMMISSION: I think it was the right thing to make Dr. Rice available. It was a big distraction to suggest that she shouldn't appear before us. We are not a congressional body.

There is ample precedent for presidential advisers to appear before Congress, going all the way back to President Roosevelt's chief of staff, Admiral Leahy, who testified in the Pearl Harbor inquiry. We had Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sandy Berger, and other presidential advisers all testifying before Congress. So while an argument could be made against it, certainly, the circumstances of the 9/11 catastrophe really argue for full cooperation by the president and a full cooperation with our inquiry.

It's the right thing to do, and I think the president finally got it.

ZAHN: Mr. Ben-Veniste, what are some of the key questions that you want answered from Condoleezza Rice.

BEN-VENISTE: Certainly, we want to know why we were not able to prevent the 9/11 attack itself. We had a great deal of intelligence information. That information was not utilized effectively to prevent the attack.

We certainly knew that two al Qaeda operatives were in the United States, and yet that information was not transmitted to those who could help thwart the attack. We certainly didn't know the specifics, but we knew a man named Moussaoui with connections to jihadist elements in Europe was here learning, trying to learn how to fly a commercial airliner, not landing it, not taking it off.

We knew a number of things that, had they been appropriately and effectively utilized, perhaps, perhaps we could have prevented the 9/11 attack.

ZAHN: The White House also agreeing for the vice president to testify together with the president. Why didn't the commission insist that they testify separately?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, at this point, you remember, Paula, that the president first had said he would only give us an hour and then only meet with two out of the 10 commissioners. They've come a long way. I don't know, frankly, why they are asking to have this interview conducted in tandem.

ZAHN: Do you think it's weird?

BEN-VENISTE: Pardon me?

ZAHN: Do you think it's strange?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it is strange, yes. But, frankly, I think we can direct our questions to the appropriate witness. If this is the format that they insist upon, then so be it. But at least we will have 10 commissioners. No one will be excluded among the commission. And I think that's appropriate. No such exclusions were suggested, much less required, by either former President Clinton or former Vice President Gore.

Douglas, as you listen to Mr. Ben-Veniste talk, you heard him lay out a pretty powerful case of historically what has happened over the years in terms of presidential advisers testifying before commissions and similar bodies. Did you see this decision today as precedent- setting or not?


I saw it as an important moment, though, in the political campaign of 2004. President Bush has not wanted this commission from the start. And I he thought that to not have Rice testify was the smart thing and then let her loose on all the TV talk shows over the weekend and it would go away. Instead, it seemed like Clarke was beating Rice, if you like, on the one on one.

So the political calculations in this are, let's get this behind us now. It's going to be another bad week for the White House. We might even go into one more week. But by letting Rice testify, it will blow over. It's not going to be an issue in September, October. If they did not let her speak, columnists and Democrats and others would have started getting their conspiratorial buttons pushed, and they would have been saying that the White House has something to hide. And you don't want to seem like you're hiding something in a presidential election year. ZAHN: And down the road, Douglas, what impact do you think this decision to allow her to testify will have on any sort of balance of relationship between a president and his national security adviser?

BRINKLEY: Well, I looked at the letter that the counsel to the president, Alberto Gonzales, actually drafted, and the language is very clear, and your little clip had the same thing.

President Bush wants to make it clear this is an exception to the rule. This is not some verdict on executive privilege, which dates back to the time of Thomas Jefferson worrying about Aaron Burr. And each president has their own kind of executive privilege moment.

Richard Nixon even in 1973 allowed Ehrlichman and Haldeman, his two top aides, to testify. And, of course, Condoleezza Rice is not being subpoenaed here. So he is, if you will, loaning her to the commission, and he wants to make it clear that this is not a history- changing moment. It's unique because 9/11 was unique. And you're sitting there with a gallery with many people who lost a loved one on 9/11, and the Bush White House doesn't want to seem that they're cold and insensitive and not feeling the pain of those people.

ZAHN: Douglas Brinkley. Thank you for joining us.

Richard Ben-Veniste, good luck with the very important work of the commission.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you. Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Coming up, the candidates or their friends have come up with some of the nastiest ads yet. We're going to tell you how well it's working.

He was killed by al Qaeda. She was left a widow because of it. Should Mariane Pearl be eligible for money from the 9/11 Victims Fund? I'll ask her. She'll join us live.

And the judge in the Scott Peterson murder case takes action to investigate charges of a plot to stack the jury.


ZAHN: Democrat John Kerry finds himself slipping in the polls even after a week of negative 9/11 investigation news for the president. Could the Bush campaign's attack ads be responsible?

Joining us now from Washington, "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts Paul Begala, Tucker Carlson.

Welcome, gentlemen. Always good to see you.


ZAHN: We're going to start off this evening by taking a look at an ad by the Bush campaign.


NARRATOR: Raising taxes is a habit of Kerry's. He supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times. Maybe John Kerry just doesn't understand what his ideas mean to the rest of us.


ZAHN: Paul, candidate Kerry has taken quite a pounding over the last week. How much do you credit the ads with his decline in the polls?

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Oh, I think a fair amount. I think television advertising can affect the head-to-head horse race poll eight months before the election. We know that. We've seen it. And the president has run some clever ads. That's a funny ad. It's done some damage to Kerry.

The question is, will it really drive voting behavior in November? No. It's a huge waste of money. It's the president money. He raised it fair and square, so far as we know. He has a perfect right to spend it as he sees fit, and it will have a transient effect today. But it's not going to last until November.

ZAHN: All right, Paul, you just said, as far as we know. You're not suggesting that funds are being illegally used here, are you? You just said that facetiously.


BEGALA: No, no, but I don't trust this crowd as far as I can throw them. I don't trust this crowd as far as I can throw them.


ZAHN: Tucker, the president taking some knocks, too. Let's take a look at an ad the is airing starting tonight.


NARRATOR: George Bush shamelessly exploited 9/11 in his campaign commercials. Now Richard Clarke, his former counterterrorism chief, said:

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism.


ZAHN: So, Tucker, will these ads damage the president's credibility?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": What a creepy looking ad. You watch that ad and your first thought is, there must be something hiding under my bed. It's very sort of sinister-looking. I don't think. It can't help. No attacks help in the end. But this particular attack, that the president is somehow through negligence responsible for 9/11, hasn't worked so far. I think most people find it implausible. Most people know intuitively that no president, the last two presidents, this and the one before him, took terrorism seriously enough.

I think the effect of ads is probably overrated. And they may have something to do with the fact that people who make ads tend to be running or helping to run presidential campaigns. They have a real financial interest in pretending that ads make all the difference. In a national election, people know a lot about the candidates independent of ads.

BEGALA: Tucker is right.

At the end of the day, people are going to base their vote on the free press information that they hear. That is, they're going to watch your show. Maybe a few of them will watch "CROSSFIRE." They're going to read the newspaper. This is a high-saliency, high- information election. It's not a congressional race in Missouri City, Texas. So we're going to base our decision, most voters, on what we see in the free press.

ZAHN: That's certainly why the argument about the free press makes no sense to me, what Paul is saying. In the end, you're saying the candidates are going to get a better ride out of what they see on these television shows, and they're going to learn more


ZAHN: ... stick with these ads?

CARLSON: Well, a lot of things that Paul says make actually no sense, and I'm glad that you point that out, Paula. I think it's an excellent point.

No, again, though, I do agree with Paul. Think about what it would mean to be an American voter in September or October and be swayed by an ad. That would suggest you haven't made up your mind at that point. In September, October, you haven't made up your mind about who you're going to vote for?

BEGALA: Paula, here's why -- I used to run campaigns, and I did for 20 years. I put the smartest people in the campaign working on the free press, and the 11th smartest person making the ads.

And here's why. In a high-saliency race, a presidential race, the quality and the quantity of information that we get from the news media is so much higher and the credibility of that information is so much higher, that a good campaign will spend its time trying to affect the free press coverage, put the candidate in good pictures, make sure that he or she has the right sound bit to say, frame up the debate the way that you want it.

And the ads will be fine, but they'll come and go. You can win the presidency in a general election without running a single ad. It's all the free press. I'm telling you.

ZAHN: Well, I think you've made it pretty certain, Paul, you'll never work for an advertising firm.


CARLSON: But you know what? They make all the money on the campaigns. Those guys end up really rich. They get a percentage of the ad buy.

ZAHN: Sure.

CARLSON: All the money sent to the stations, they get a percentage of it.

The one way that ads help is, they inject issues into the campaign. So only a small number of people actually see the spot, but the ideas contained in the spot will filter down through newspapers, shows like yours, to ordinary people. So it is a good way to inject something into the bloodstream of the campaign or the debate.

ZAHN: Tucker Carlson, Paul Begala, thank you both.

BEGALA: Thanks.

CARLSON: Thanks, Paula.

ZAHN: More than two years after the first anthrax letters, are we better prepared for a bioattack? I'll ask an anthrax victim about living through her terror.

And your baby's first close-up, fetal photographs with incredible detail. But now ultrasound shops in the mall are raising some health questions. In fact, it's the federal government that's raising those questions. Maybe you shouldn't do this at the mall after all.


ZAHN: There are some new concerns about U.S. preparedness against bioterrorism. More than 2 1/2 years after the anthrax letter attacks that killed five people, the Pentagon has just released parts of a report written just after the attacks identifying widespread weaknesses in America's ability to confront a bioterror attack. We're going to get to that in just a moment.

But, first, we're going to hear from anthrax survivor Norma Wallace. She was infected in October of 2001 while she was working for the Postal Service in New Jersey. Today, she told me that she is still struggling with her exposure to anthrax.


NORMA WALLACE, VICTIM OF ANTHRAX ATTACK: I still have the chronic fatigue. I was just recently at the doctor for a shortness of breath. The joint pain is still there. The memory impediment is still there. I think that, from all that I've learned about the bacteria itself, it's more systematic than is formally believed.

ZAHN: What still keeps you awake at night?

WALLACE: More pain than anything else, joint pain.

ZAHN: But the fear of another attack?

WALLACE: The fear of another attack?

ZAHN: You look at this study and although it's a couple years old, it really does point to some huge weaknesses in our infrastructure in confronting a potential future attack. Do you fear this will happen again?

WALLACE: Well, the anthrax could happen again in another form, because you can administer it three different ways. So, yes, there's a possibility that that could happen.

ZAHN: Are you angry about what's happened to you?

WALLACE: Somewhat.

But being the kind of person that I am, knowing that it's so important to forgive, to move on with your life, I do forgive the people or persons responsible, because I'm just so blessed to have a future to look forward to. You know, I keep in touch with Mrs. Moore (ph). And her husband passed away in Washington, D.C. Her husband died because of the anthrax because the doctor was not astute enough to catch the fact that he was suffering from that.

ZAHN: So you feel grateful that at least you were ultimately...

WALLACE: I am very grateful.

ZAHN: ... diagnosed properly.

WALLACE: Oh, very much so, yes.

ZAHN: Well, Norma Wallace, we appreciate your sharing your story tonight.

WALLACE: Thank you.

ZAHN: Thank you so much and good luck to you.


ZAHN: So just how prepared is the U.S. for another bioterrorist attack?

Joining me now from Washington is "New York Times" senior investigative reporter Judith Miller, who covers the bioterror beat.

Welcome, Judith.


ZAHN: Pretty tough study just released on the 2001 anthrax scare. How vulnerable is the U.S. to another anthrax attack?

MILLER: Well, I think the issue is relative: How secure are we or how vulnerable are we compared to how vulnerable we were before the October, 2001, anthrax letters?

And I think the answer has got to be we are safer today than we were before that attack, but we are probably still not safe enough.

ZAHN: So what has not been done?

MILLER: Well, I think the stuff that has not been done is really the very hardest thing to do and the thing that needs to be done the most, which is investing in public health infrastructure.

Now, it's true that the Bush administration is spending hundreds of millions of dollars now on basic research into new vaccines and antibiotics, but investing in the men and the women, the pharmacists, the doctors, the nurses, the first-responders who keep us safe and who would identify an unnatural event or illness of some kind is really what takes time and money. And there, the money has been a little slow in coming.

ZAHN: And when you think about trying to prepare for that, do we even know from experts which biological agent it is that they fear the most?

MILLER: Well, yes.

The administration actually has a list, and it's based largely on the list from the previous administration of the most likely agents or pathogens to be used in a bioterrorist attack. And one by one, the strategy is to take those agents off the table as a potential weapon. Let me give you an example.

Anthrax, which we know, even though it's not contagious person to person, is deadly. It can be easily inhaled. The kill ratio is very high. And yet the administration has invested heavily in supplementing these stockpiles of Cipro and other antibiotics throughout the country, so that, if there is an attack, antidotes are readily available. And that makes it less likely that a terrorist would be able to kill people with that pathogen. And so he's less likely to use that pathogen. That's the thinking at least. That's the strategy.

ZAHN: Realistically, can we ever feel safe here in the United States from the threat of a biological weapons attack?

MILLER: Well, you know, I think, after 9/11, I don't think we're ever going to have the sense of, if not invulnerability, real security that many Americans, that many of us had before that event. I think it's a real psychological and emotional turning point. We're always going to have to live with the possibility that someday, some way, somehow, something can happen. ZAHN: Judith Miller, always good to have you on the air with us. Thanks so much.

MILLER: Nice to see you, Paula. Bye.

ZAHN: Coming up, a fund for victims of 9/11 rejects a claim by Danny Pearl's widow, even though her husband was a victim of al Qaeda. She's going to tell me live why she is fighting that decision.

And could old accusations against Michael Jackson come back to haunt him? We're going to tell you what CNN sources are saying.

And tomorrow, the male model who claims he was the other man in the marriage of Carolyn Bessette and JFK Jr. We'll put Michael Bergin on the spot.


ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now. Low-income families in Los Angeles may get some help paying the street light bill, after all. Yesterday we told you that LA requires some households to pay $1,600 for each street light in their neighborhood. Well, today councilman Tony Cardenas, who appeared in our program, asked the city to set aside money to help poor neighborhoods get lighted.

Embattled pop star Michael Jackson was on Capitol Hill this afternoon. He had a private meeting with a Pennsylvania congressman to discuss the fight against AIDS in Africa. Meanwhile, the grand jury in the child molestation case against Jackson met again in secret today. Jeffrey Toobin will have more on that a little bit later on in this program.

Moving on now, the widow of "The Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl is appealing the rejection of her request for money from the 9/11 compensation fund. Now, that fund was set up for families of those who died in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia on 9/11. But Pearl was murdered by al Qaeda in 2002 in Pakistan while working on a story about Islamic extremism.

Mariane Pearl joins us now, with her attorney, Robert Kelner. Good to see both of you. Welcome.


ZAHN: This isn't an easy fight that you have on your hands. Why do you think you would be entitled to this money that could come close to $2 million of a tax-free payment?

PEARL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I'm kidding. To me, you know, the fact that Danny was killed by the people who were the same people who perpetrated 9/11 attacks and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the same -- you know, I got a phone call from the White House telling me that it's exactly the same person. But also, I knew that it was the same values, it was the same act, and it was the same intention. So for me, I had no questions on whether it was the same thing. But Bob is actually the person who told me, Well, that might have also a financial implication and a justice, you know, implication. So that's why.

ZAHN: And sure -- and what we are hearing, though, from some calls we made to some family members of victims of 9/11, their heart goes out to you. I don't know of any American who wasn't touched by your loss. But they say, Hey, wait a minute. Danny Pearl willingly took this very dangerous assignment on in Pakistan. He knew what he was up against. Those are strikingly different circumstances than people innocently walking into office buildings or into the Pentagon or getting on an airplane thinking they were going to travel across the country.

ROBERT KELNER, ATTORNEY FOR MARIANE PEARL: I really don't feel that way. I think that what Danny Pearl was doing was what people -- many thousands of people were doing, which was to investigate a story. The reason that Danny was killed was that he was an American symbol. "The Wall Street Journal" certainly is as much a financial symbol of the United States as the World Trade Center was a financial symbol of the United States. This was a person just going about his life. He was innocent. And he was murdered specifically because he was an American symbol of capitalism and of the country that these people obviously hate.

I think that there's an identity of the murderer, in that it was Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the exact person that he -- by his hand, Danny died. And this is the exact person that masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The purpose of the legislation was to protect victims of terrorism, and the only difference between Danny Pearl and all of the people that died in the World Trade Center is the date and the location. But the purpose, in my opinion, should be exactly the same, and that's why I've advised Mariane to make this application.

ZAHN: I've heard what you just said, and it's a powerful argument. But there are still people who are out there who don't equate what happened to your husband with what happened to other victims on 9/11. What else do you want them to understand about why you're fighting this so ferociously?

PEARL: I think you know what? I'm going to, you know, be very honest. It's an appeal, so I think that, and I think it's legitimate. And to me, it's not so much a monetary issue, it's more, you know, what would be the difference between Adam, for instance, and the 103 women that were pregnant and whose husband died in the World Trade Center? You know, when we tell the story, what's going to be the difference? That's what it is.

And I tell you what. You know, if people think it's not legitimate, if the U.S. government thinks it's not legitimate, then don't do it. I know he's going to hate me for saying that, but it's OK, you know, because that's exactly what it is. And ultimately, it is, you know, do we recognize that fact? Did Danny represent, you know, "The Wall Street Journal," and then, you know, was taken -- his life was taken as a symbol of America? So that's what it is, yes.

ZAHN: I think the concerns some of these legislators have is over the precedent that might be set.

PEARL: Right.

ZAHN: Do you make these same kind of payments to Americans serving in combat who lose their lives in the war on terrorism? How about the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing? Where do you, as a taxpayer, stop...

PEARL: Right.

ZAHN: I hate to use this word, but the floodgates...


ZAHN: ... the word people have been using all day long.

KELNER: I think that the difference is this was a targeted killing. This is not a random bomb. This is an American that was specifically captured, who was specifically killed for al Qaeda purposes. This is very different from many of the other cases. And I certainly am not taking the position that something shouldn't be done for those victims. All of these people have -- these families have had horrible losses. But the single most analogous situation to 9/11 is the Daniel Pearl case.

ZAHN: How are you and your little guy getting along?


ZAHN: You have a beautiful little 2-year-old son that your husband left you.

PEARL: Yes, you know, he's good. Yes, he's a good kid. He's 21 -- he's almost two years, and he's happy so far.

ZAHN: But you have to confront the reality of your husband's death on a daily basis.

PEARL: Yes, you know? It's very -- it is also a financial issue. It is getting to the point where he's going to start going to school. So then, you know, the expenses are going to grow. And it's very expensive to raise a kid, you know, as every single mother knows. But more -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I can always go to war (ph) again and feed him, you know? But it is more, I mean, for me, a question of justice. You know, who's going to represent him? Who's going to protect this kid? he doesn't have to be with me. He can be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) That's fine, you know? But -- and in terms of the other people who are involved, I -- you know, I can't say anything in a legal standpoint because I just don't know.

ZAHN: Sure.

PEARL: So it's a difficult situation, and I know it's difficult. But in terms of empathy, of course, their life is not, you know, worth less or more than Danny's.

ZAHN: No. I don't think anybody's thinking that. PEARL: So it's -- you know, so it's almost like we're talking about two different languages, the legal and the human standpoint. I can only give you the human one, you know?

ZAHN: Well, we appreciate you sharing your fight with us tonight, and we'll be following it closely from here.

KELNER: Thank you for having us.

PEARL: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Thank you for stopping by.

Mariane's Pearl's application for money raises the question just how far should compensation for victims of terrorism go? Joining us now from San Francisco, Bernie Ward of KGO radio. He believes all victims of terrorism should receive compensation. And in Philadelphia, attorney and 1210-AM talk show host Michael Smerconish, who says the fund should be limited to the relatives of those killed on 9/11. Welcome, gentlemen.

The statute is clear, Bernie. Why do you feel as strongly as do you?

BERNIE WARD, TALK SHOW HOST, KGO RADIO: Well, because -- because all the people dead are dead. Unless somebody died differently on September 11 than did in Oklahoma City, this idea that we, as taxpayers, are going to make one group of people wealthy while the rest sit back in the backwaters -- I would be outraged if I was the family of somebody who died in Oklahoma City and I watched somebody who died, you know, on September 11, and they got $7 million.

ZAHN: Let me ask...

WARD: Seven million dollars!

ZAHN: Well, what about Mariane Pearl? Do you think she's entitled to compensation?

WARD: I think -- I don't think she's entitled to compensation under the September 11 thing because he didn't die on September 11. I mean, that's pretty straightforward. But if we are in the business of compensating victims of terrorism, which is what this is all about, then I don't understand how Daniel Pearl dying in Pakistan is any different than somebody dying in Oklahoma City, somebody dying of anthrax, and somebody dying on September 11. If we don't want to compensate them, then nobody should be. But the idea that if I lost a loved one on September 11, I'm getting 7 million bucks, but if I happen to lose him in Oklahoma City, I'm getting bupkus, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

ZAHN: What about that, Michael? And what about the argument Bernie just made, that -- why isn't Danny Pearl to be considered a victim of terrorism?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TALK SHOW HOST, 1210-AM: Well, he is a victim of terrorism, but he's not a victim of terrorism that should be compensated by American taxpayers. I offer my condolences to Mrs. Pearl, but her husband died in a personal tragedy, 9/11 was a national tragedy. And there's an element of this, Paula, that has yet to be discussed, and that's the overall financial element. Let's not forget that the 9/11 victim compensation fund was a bail-out of the airlines. It was a realization by Congress that the litigation could bury the airline industry as a result of 9/11. There's no element of that in the Pearl case. And if you write a check to Danny Pearl's estate -- if an American tourist were on one of those trains in Madrid last week, are we going to write them a check? Where does it end? It would be a never-ending Pandora's box.

ZAHN: That's a good question for Bernie to answer because he believes that all victims of terrorism should be entitled to some kind of compensation. How would you answer that, Bernie? Where do you draw the line?

WARD: Well, you draw the line -- if you're going to do September 11 -- national tragedy. What was a bigger national tragedy than Oklahoma City? Because somebody -- because an American did it? You mean, if Arabs kill you, you get money, but if Americans kill you, you don't?

SMERCONISH: Well, you've got...

WARD: I mean, that makes no sense whatsoever.

SMERCONISH: Bernie, you have a dramatically different death count on 9/11 versus Oklahoma City.

WARD: Oh, so it's a matter of how many people got killed!


WARD: That's the only reason why they're getting compensation?

SMERCONISH: Well, there was almost a three-fold difference. And it's not only how many people died, but it's also what it represented, a whole new era in American history, where we were attacked by our own -- on our own soil by foreign sources. I think that any American would say this was unprecedented.

WARD: Wait a minute! Wait a minute! What does that got to do with whether -- what does that got to do with somebody getting 7 million bucks and somebody else getting zip? You mean that Timothy McVeigh, the people who died because of Timothy McVeigh, they don't get compensation because he was an American?

SMERCONISH: The realization is that there were not lawsuits that were going to be filed by the victims of Oklahoma City that would have brought down an entire industry in this country. Congress, in its wisdom, said...

WARD: Yes, that's the great argument -- that's the great argument of the free marketeers, you know, the...


SMERCONISH: Take it up with Congress. That was the real reason.

WARD: Well, I -- that's my point, isn't it? My point is that my tax money -- my tax money should not be going to just people who died on September 11 because of the airlines. If you're going to have a victims' compensation fund, then it should apply to anybody who's a victim!

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen...

WARD: If not, then they ought to cut it off right now. But that somebody won the lottery because their husband got killed on September 11, so they get...

SMERCONISH: That's a harsh statement.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen...

WARD: ... that's ridiculous!

ZAHN: ... we got to leave it there.


ZAHN: I think we will bring you back when we actually debate a national fund that's being considered to fund just what Bernie's talking about, all victims of terrorism. Thank you for both of your perspectives.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Still more to come here. Fetal photographs of your unborn child. You can get them at some shopping malls, but have you heard about the warnings from our government? And...





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His hair's a little weird.


ZAHN: Yes, well, nobody's perfect. The tourists are lining up to snap, see and buy anything Donald.


ZAHN: Well, maybe there's one in your local mall now. Maybe one is coming to you soon. We are talking about prenatal portrait centers, shops that do 3-D ultrasounds for expectant parents. The pictures are always pretty exciting to look at, but the government now is worried about safety in such a non-clinical setting. Joining us now from Salt Lake City, Dr. Leon Hansen, founder of Fetal Fotos and certified OB-GYN. And from Los Angeles, Dr. Larry Platt, past president of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, who wants these businesses regulated. Welcome to you both.

Dr. Platt, what's the government so worried about here?

DR. LARRY PLATT, PAST PRES., AMERICAN INST. OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE: Well, ultrasound is an energy form, and to date, there's no way we can prove anything's safe. We can't prove ultrasound's safe. Although in over 40 years we've not shown an effect of ultrasound on the fetus, there's just no way we can prove it's safe.

ZAHN: So what?

PLATT: So it should be used...

ZAHN: So if you have one done in the hands of an amateur, what's the worst thing that can happen to you?

PLATT: Well, there are a lot of things that can happen. One is the wrong diagnosis or no diagnosis. I think we always believe risk- benefit. And if there's no benefit that's going to be obtained from it on a medical basis, it shouldn't be used.

ZAHN: Dr. Hansen, what is your recommendation?

DR. LEON HANSEN, FOUNDER, FETAL FOTOS: Well, I agree that it is a very important form of energy and it needs to be prudently. There are major benefits for these pregnant and expectant mothers who have this procedure done. And to date, again, as Dr. Platt stated, there's no evidence that it is harmful. We've done over 50,000 scans on expectant mothers, and to date know of no harmful effects. I don't have one medical report of a patient who's had anything but a good experience, at least in one of our local Fetal Foto stores.

ZAHN: But the concern on the government's part, Dr. Hansen, is that perhaps someone will attempt to misdiagnose an expectant mother and the baby, and when there are no regulations in place to safeguard against that.

HANSEN: Well, that's certainly a great concern. I mean, I'm an obstetrician myself and have done this for 20 years, and it is important. We, at least at Fetal Fotos, have tried for 10 years to make sure that every patient has a practicing physician or health care provider that is supervising their care before they even come in. You can't just walk in, as is portrayed in many news media, that you can just get an ultrasound as you're walking through the mall. You have to have written permission from your physician. We send a report back with the expectant mother to her physician. We call the physician immediately if we see anything wrong.

We've had hundreds of cases where we've been able to find things that weren't found because the patient hadn't had an ultrasound or hadn't been able to or was maybe with a health care provider that didn't have access to ultrasounds, such as midwives and family practitioners.

ZAHN: Right. Well, as far as the government's concerned, consumers beware. Doctors Hansen and Platt, thank you for educating us tonight. Appreciate it.

The latest attraction on New York's 5th Avenue, the craze for all things Donald fires up tourism. And Jeffrey Toobin cuts through the legalese to explain the latest twists in the Dennis Kozlowski mega- fraud trial.


ZAHN: Well, if you're like most Americans, you're probably not getting enough sleep. But what about your kids? Well, a surprising study from the National Sleep Foundation says children, even infants, are getting less sleep than they should. So how much sleep do kids really need, and what's at risk if they don't get enough? Time for a "High Five" on that, five quick questions, five answers, straight and to the point. Our frequent contributor, Dr. Drew Pinsky, joins us now from Los Angeles.

Hi, Doctor. How're you doing tonight?


ZAHN: So how widespread is this problem?

PINSKY: Listen, it's very widespread. It's rather shocking, these numbers. As much as two thirds of children between the age of 3 months and 10 years of age -- 3 months and 10 years -- two thirds of them at least twice a week are having disturbances of sleep -- sleepwalking, night terrors, snoring, restlessness, and sleep that is not sufficient.

ZAHN: So what should these kids be getting?

PINSKY: They should be getting -- well, it depends on the age that you're looking at. If you're looking at the, say, 3 to 6-year- old, you should be getting 11 to 13 hours of sleep a night. From the 1st grade to the 5th grade, they should be getting 10 hours. And in fact, this study looked at what parents thought, say, the 1st grade to 5th grader need, the parent predicted about 9 hours. They were getting 9, 9-and-a-half, when, in fact, they need 10.

ZAHN: Yes, what do they expect when we get half of the sleep we're supposed to have? On to question No. 3.

PINSKY: Well, that's...

ZAHN: So is this our fault, as parents? Are we overbooking, are we overstimulating our kids?

PINSKY: There's no doubt this is a parenting issue. We are the ones responsible to be sure they get the sleep that they need. Now, first of all, we need to know what it is that they need. We need to understand that we're underestimating the amount that they need, and we need to talk to our doctors about it. Parents are not talking to physicians, physicians are not talking to doctors (ph) about it.

As many as 52 percent of kids 10 years of age have a television in their room, 20 percent of babies have a television in their room. And this study was very clear that those kids with televisions in their room slept less well for shorter periods of time. I think parents think that by sticking a television in there, they're going to somehow soothe them to sleep. Quite the opposite occurs.

ZAHN: So what kind of problems does this chronic sleep deprivation lead to?

PINSKY: Well, one of the things I think we've heard an awful lot about these days is the problems with young people and obesity, and this may be part of that story, that sleep apnea, it looks like, is a relatively common thing in young people. And they don't specifically make this correlation, but I suspect it might be related to the weight and obesity problem. There's problems, obviously, if you've been sleep-deprived, of injuries and accidents from being clumsy. Also problems with concentration, irritability the next day. And this study went so far as to say perhaps it's contributing to the high incidence of ADHD.

ZAHN: All right, so if we're sleep-deprived as kids, does that mean we'll be sleep-deprived as adults? That's our final question, question No. 5.

PINSKY: And it really does mean that, that kids that don't learn proper sleep hygiene and proper sleep mechanisms early in life, it only tends to build on itself and get worse later. Look at just the phenomenon of being able to put oneself to sleep. You need to learn that at a young age, to go to the self-soothe without a television, lie down at an appropriate time and sleep. That is something, if you do not learn young, you're not going to learn later.

ZAHN: Dr. Drew, I guess we'll just have to sleep on your advice tonight.

PINSKY: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: Thank you. Well, at least, we hope to.

Donald Trump is riding high these days on TV with his reality show "The Apprentice," but his Atlantic City resorts are in danger of going under, according to the Associated Press, citing the company's annual report just out today. Still, Trump can be happy that his TV show has turned him into New York City's hottest tourist attraction. Jeanne Moos reports.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tourists pose in front of Playboy. They pose in front of Tiffany. But those spots have been trumped by the onslaught of tourists posing in front of Trump Tower.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The one place he wanted to see, Trump. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And here I am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because of the famous clip at the end of the show, when the cab takes off and...

MOOS: You know, after Donald says...


MOOS: ... and the loser leaves, dragging a suitcase like a tail between her legs. Tourists seem especially fired up by the words...




MOOS: In case anyone needs a cue card, a huge ad hangs from Trump Tower. The city has issued four tickets telling Trump to remove illegal signage. No banner ads allowed on classy 5th Avenue.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because it cheapens the building.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, it's his towers, so he should be able to do what he wants.

MOOS: Fines run as high as 2,500 bucks per ticket, chump change for Trump. A spokesperson says, "I don't see a reason why we wouldn't keep it up until the show's finale on April 15."


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're fired. And the hair!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His hair's a little weird.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His hair needs help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, his hair's sweet!

MOOS: Trump's new book devotes a chapter to it. "My hair is 100 percent mine. No animals have been harmed in the creation of my hairstyle."

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": Now, it's not a toupe. It is not a comb-over.

TRUMP: Oh, don't mess it up too much!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In all honesty, his hair looks better on this than it does on him.

MOOS: This being Trump's wax figure at Madame Toussaud's.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm afraid he's going to say, You're fired! MOOS: Even as "The New York Times" raises the specter of Trump's casino empire facing bankruptcy, his show biz career is soaring. Trump's book includes a cartoon showing Donald Duck saying, "I remember when I was the Donald." Now we're all trying to be the Donald.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His hand is going...



MOOS: If only we could figure out how to get the fingers right.

TRUMP: You're fired.


MOOS: You're hired. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.


ZAHN: Yes, I'd hire her.

Tumult in some high-profile trials. We're going to update the latest legal wrangling in the Scott Peterson case and more.


ZAHN: Jury selection is typically a tedious process, but it got very fiery today at the Scott Peterson trial. Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos, accused one prospective juror of having said Peterson is guilty and having vowed to make sure he got everything he deserves.

Let's cut to the chase with Jeffrey Toobin right now to find out what that means.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That means he's trying to...

ZAHN: So that juror's gone!

TOOBIN: Well, it means he's trying to get her off the jury. He, in fact, is getting a witness, an informant in to testify about this juror having said what he alleged she said.

ZAHN: I know, but it goes beyond that. Don't you want to show that the whole jury pool...

TOOBIN: Exactly.

ZAHN: ... is tainted in some way?

TOOBIN: He's trying to show that the change of venue that he did receive to get the case moved to San Mateo is not good enough, that this venue isn't fair, either. So he's laying the groundwork for an appeal, if Peterson is ultimately convicted.

ZAHN: Moving on to the Tyco case and Dennis Kozlowski's fate. At one point, it looked like this thing might have gone to a mistrial today. It didn't. What next?

TOOBIN: And now the jury deliberations seem to have resumed relatively normally. The jury is asking for exhibits, asking for read-backs. Day eight is over. No verdict, but no impasse. So it looks like the crisis has passed. Another mistrial denied.

ZAHN: And back on the ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh front, the Michael Jackson case. We have learned today that an attorney who represented two victims in the past, who had accused Michael Jackson, right, of child molestation, now appeared before a grand jury?

TOOBIN: Larry Feldman, a very distinguished lawyer in Los Angeles who represented both the '93 accuser, the one who got all that settlement, which Larry Feldman got for him, and also represented the current accuser. He testified before the grand jury. This grand jury is obviously considering the '93 incident as possible proof of the current incident having taken place.

ZAHN: That is not good for Michael Jackson.

TOOBIN: It's not good for Michael Jackson. It's also a big change in the law in recent years, is that because Jackson was not convicted of anything in '93, he couldn't have been -- this couldn't have been used against him. Now it can.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks so much.

And we thank you all for joining us tonight. Appreciate your being with us. We'll be back same time, same place tomorrow night. Hope to see you then. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.


International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.