The Web      Powered by
powered by Yahoo!


Return to Transcripts main page


Tony Blair Takes Responsibility For Bad Intelligence; Rumors Fly Over GOP Ticket; Insurgents Strike Again in Iraq

Aired July 15, 2004 - 20:00   ET


PAUL ZAHN, HOST: Bill Clinton had his Roger. Jimmy Carter had his Bill. Richard Nixon had his Donald. And now John Edwards has his Wesley Blake. Tonight the brotherhood of black sheep.
And Tony Blair took the heat.


TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM: I have to accept, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of biological weapons ready to deploy.


ZAHN: In Japan, they take a deep bow and bow out, and But In America, politics means sometimes never having to say you're sorry.

Good evening. Welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much for joining us.

It seems that in every presidential campaign, there is a sibling out there waiting to be an embarrassment to one of the candidates. Well, This Time around, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards may be the unlucky one. According to a report in "The New York Daily News," Edwards brother, Wesley Blake Edwards, has a history of drunk driving arrest, losing his license and is wanted in Colorado on a DWI charge. The senator said today that he is troubled by this news.

David Mattingly, has more.


DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If your name is John Edwards and you're running for vice president, you probably shouldn't be too worried when you're younger brother makes headlines for allegedly being a very, very bad driver. Presidential politics are full of bad boy brothers.

ALLAN LICHTMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: It seems to be that if you're high achieving enough and hard-driving enough to become a president, there's got to be some brother that you drive to drink or to petty crime. Troublesome presidential brothers are as old as the republic and seem as common as five cent coins.

MATTINGLY: For every Jimmy, there is a Billy. For every Phil, there is a Roger. For every W, there is a Neil. Papers from a nasty divorce reveal Neil Bush was doing the nasty with women who mysteriously showed up at his hotel room. Brother Neil also agreed to pay part of the settlement without admitting guilt after being implicated in the savings and loan scandal when his dad was president. It made for political cartooning gold.

MIKE LUKOVICH, EDITORIAL CARTOONIST: You actually sort of feel for these politicians knowing, you know, there's not a damn thing you can do about relatives that are going to do what they are going to do.

MATTINGLY: Billy Carter seemed to love to keep them laughing as the abashed beer drinking self-proclaimed red neck. He tried to cash with books and merchandising, and once wisely pointed out beer is not a good cocktail party drink, especially in a home where you don't know where the bathroom is. In public, the brothers were all smiles. But no one was laughing when Billy was investigated by the Justice Department for a $200,000 loan and deals he made with Libyan businessmen.

Clinton opponents didn't think it was very funny either when half brother Roger Clinton got a presidential pardon wiping the slate clean of his cocaine incarcerated past. Roger was investigated for allegedly taking money to lobby the president to pardon others, claims that he deny. There wasn't any real political damage here. The Clinton presidency was over. Besides, investigations ran in the family.

LUKOVICH: That relationship sometimes you don't know who was embarrassing who the worse.

MATTINGLY (on camera): In the public eye, it's always good for brothers to be close, after all, everyone likes to think that the commander in chief has the love and respect of his siblings. But historically, the problem always begins when it's believed that that closeness is being used for political influence or profit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What the public wants when it comes to presidential siblings is that they be neither seen nor heard.

MATTINGLY: So maybe LBJ had the right idea when he assigned secret service agents to his binge drinking brother Sam as a way to keep him out of trouble and out of the headlines. A pattern of behavior that might of dated back to childhood. Big brother Lyndon keeping an eye on the rebellious little brother.

Some speculate it might be some of these early male relationships that lead to adult rivalries and competition, even in the White House. That might explain why presidential sisters rarely make the news!

LUKOVICH: Every day in politics, men seem to be the ones that are goofing up and maybe that would be one reason why it would be nice to have a woman president one day.


ZAHN: Only one of the reasons. Our David Mattingly in Atlanta. The senator released this statement, "I love my brother very much. I am of course troubled by this news. He shouldn't have done what he did, he knows that. And he his dealing with it."

Joining us now from Los Angeles, Carl Sperrazza Anthony, author of "America's First Families," and other books with presidential families.

Always good to see you, Carl, welcome.


ZAHN: So, what's the deal here, embarrassing brothers just come with presidential territory?

ANTHONY: Well, they do. I think really what it is is putting these sort of lines of perfection on human beings and while some of these men, interestingly enough, I looked this up the other day, almost half of all of our presidents, actually, over half of all of our presidents have been first-born sons.

And I can tell you from personal experience, the expectation sometimes on the eldest son in terms of sort of keeping things, you know, on the up and up, puts pressure on that eldest son and usually will go with it. But the others are left in the wake and I think sometimes feeling a bit resentful. I would say certainly that presidential mothers may, in fact, have a little hand in all of this. But, really, we're just talking about folks who are going about the daily business of living and sometimes make mistakes.

ZAHN: There is also analysis that you're also talking about a lot of homes where there were restrained resources. And there has been a suggestion with these first-born sons that a lot of those resources were directly applied to them and some of these other kids got short changed.

ANTHONY: I think is there a lot of truth to that. You certainly do find that in the dynamics of these families, that many of the presidents have grown up in. Certainly, for example, the most -- one of the most famous families, the Kennedy family, President Kennedy's two younger brothers, Robert and Edward, were also raised with a great sense of self-esteem and by their father and were encouraged to go into the family business of politics.

But certainly when you look back to people like William McKinley or Ulysses S. Grant, their brothers were almost drifters and certainly long before they became president, their brothers were always looking for, you know, the map to easy street. You know, making as much money with as little work as possible. But I would also say this.

When your brother is running for president or is president, it's a no-win situation usually for a brother or sometimes actually for the first male son of the president, because if you just decide to follow your own path and you know are a car salesman or in the case of Billy Carter, a gas station owner, people are always going to compare you to your brother and say, ah, you're the loser. Sometimes, in fact, people who resent your brother won't turn business in your direction and then, of course, other times, people try to carry favor with the president think that by giving a business opportunity to the brother who needs it, you know, that that will work out and, of course, then they get criticized for it.

ZAHN: I think it's interesting how much the mindset of the American public has changed. Because a lot of these presidents were so embarrassed by the foibles of their brothers, but I am hearing from a number of analysts today that John Edwards should be out there and as part of a strategy, actually be talking about how much he loved his brother, how much he paid for his home, and how much he's rooting him and actually use it as a way to access voters.

ANTHONY: Well, you know, I think that's a very good strategy. And I would say this, too. You know, Lyndon Johnson did all he could for his brother, Sam. He lived there at the White House. He was given a job at the Democratic National Committee. It's not like these presidents are completely insensitive to the situations of their brothers.

But, basically, you know, I think the case could be made that if you've got enough of a strong ego to think that you're capable of running the country and having great influence in the world, that, you know, members of your family are sometimes -- they're psyche and emotional health is going to be sacrificed for the good of getting you into the White House.

ZAHN: Got that right. Carl Sperrazza Anthony, thank you for your time tonight.

ANTHONY: Thank you, Paula.

ZAHN: Appreciate it. Coming up next will Dick Cheney still be on the GOP ticket come November, we'll debate that.


ZAHN: Senator John Kerry picked a running mate last week and there has been a lot of speculation about President Bush's running mate. Rumors have been swirling around Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney might be dumped from the Republican presidential ticket.

Well, today, the speculation even landed on the front page of a major national newspaper. Are the rumors well-founded or are they baseless? Here is Elaine Quijano.


ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The White House says there's no doubt Vice President Dick Cheney is on the Republican presidential ticket to stay, despite rumors to the contrary published on the front page of the New York Times.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, this is a campaign season. There's going to be a lot of inside the beltway rumor mongering going on and that's all this is.

QUIJANO: Fueling the rumor mill in part, public opinion. A recent Gallup Poll found the vice president's favorable rating trailed the Democratic V.P pick John Edwards by 9 percentage points. And in a separate survey looking at swing voters, the gap was wider.

ED SARPOLOUS, MICHIGAN POLLSTER: Some 60 percent of those voters really like John Edwards. Amongst that same group, only 25 to 28 percent like Dick Cheney.

QUIJANO: Given the tight race, those numbers worry some Republicans with some wishing outloud options others would only whisper.

ALFONSE D'AMATO, FRM. REPUBLICAN SENATOR: I think that Secretary Powell would be one of those, and my good friend John McCain would be another.

QUIJANO: But at every campaign stop, President Bush has made clear he's happy with his choice.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm running with a great American in Dick Cheney. He's a solid, solid citizen.

We got a fabulous vice president in Dick Cheney.

QUIJANO: Yet, there are still questions about whether Mr. Cheney could be a political albatross.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Many people are looking for a scapegoat for their frustrations about things like Enron and Halliburton, about the long and ugly post war Iraqi situation and Dick Cheney is a convenient scapegoat for comics and cynics and Democrats.

QUIJANO: As for the concerns about how Mr. Cheney stacks up against his competition? Even he poked fun at the issue.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Somebody said to me the other day that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks and charm. I said, how do you think I got this job?

QUIJANO: The Bush-Cheney campaign points to the vice president's experience in Washington as an asset and a big advantage over John Edwards. They also say Mr. Cheney is a strong fundraiser, well-liked by supporters. They say Mr. Cheney, since he started campaigning more than a year ago, has attended 46 Bush-Cheney fundraisers.


ZAHN: That was Elaine Quijano in Washington. So is vice president Cheney a liability to the Republican ticket? Joining me now to debate that in Washington, Jonah Goldberg, editor of "National Review Online" and a supporter of Vice President Cheney.

And here in New York, democratic strategist Doug Schoen. He thinks Mr. Cheney is bad for the GOP ticket.

Is there any way you'd keep him on the ticket, Doug?

DOUG SCHOEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think the loyalty has a lot to do with politics. But other than loyalty, he was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has been a real failure for the Bush administration, the ties to Halliburton and Enron are all in Cheney's lap given his position pre-administration. I think he's an albatross around their neck.

ZAHN: So, no scapegoating in your judgment?

SCHOEN: I don't think it's scapegoating, I think it's hardheaded political judgment that suggests that his policies have failed and his corporate ties are suspect as we go into the heat of the election season.

ZAHN: Why isn't that that true, Jonah Goldberg?

JONAH GOLDBERG, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: Look, if he doesn't like Dick Cheney, that's fine, and he thinks Dick Cheney is a bad guy, that's fine. If the Democrats want to talk about Dick Cheney rather than talking about the fact that John Edwards had a small bounce, that's fine.

But I will say this categorically, I think this is the silliest nonstory not going to happen thing that's come up so far this year. The New York Times, I don't blame you guys for talking about this, because everyone else is, but the New York Times should be ashamed of itself.

ZAHN: Wait a minute! Wasn't it Al D'Amato who started this guessing game?


GOLDBERG: The only thing surprising about Al D'Amato saying this was that it showed that Al D'Amato is still alive. I've talked to Congressmen and, I've talked to people in the administration, I've talked to every Republican I know, I've talked to pollsters, there is nothing to this story. Dick Cheney's poll numbers are almost identical to Al Gore's poll numbers in June of 2000.

SCHOEN: That's not true.

GOLDBERG: In June of 2000. Look it up, Doug.

SCHOEN: I did and I worked for Bill Clinton. And I know that Al Gore and Bill Clinton were virtually identical. Dick Cheney is about one half of George Bush's popularity. And given his...

GOLDBERG: I didn't say George Bush, I said Al Gore.

SCHOEN: Positions on the issues, he is really a problem for George Bush, because he is the one...

GOLDBERG: I still don't think it's true.

SCHOEN: ...who pushed George Bush. He is the one who said there is a link to weapons of mass destruction. He was the one who said that there was an al Qaeda link to Iraq. All of which has been problematic.

ZAHN: But there is most poll to show that it has eroded his base with the more conservative wing of the Republican Party, is there?

SCHOEN: That's not enough people to get elected. Bush needs 50 percent and Dick Cheney in the New York Times poll was down to 21 percent, half of George Bush's popularity. So is this a real problem for the Republicans.

GOLDBERG: Look. Sometimes it gets silly talking about polls. But look. According to the bipartisan Battle Ground Poll, which is run by Salinda Lake and Ed Goaz (ph), among voters who care about national security foremost, taxes foremost, the economy foremost, fighting terrorists foremost Dick Cheney has 10-point leads in all of those categories.

ZAHN: Jonah, how is he going to help President Bush with swing voters?

SCHOEN: He's not.

GOLDBERG: Look, but that's not the point. This is a base election. It is historically always the case that vice presidential candidates come election day are polarizing figures. That's what they're supposed to be

SCHOEN: Don't think that's true.

GOLDBERG: I guarantee you John Edwards poll numbers will be coming why. The a reason why Dick Cheney is popular with 82 percent of the Republican Party.

SCHOEN: John Edwards...

GOLDBERG: The convention is going to be full of moderates. The conservatives need to have something. It is simply not going to happen. Doug, I will eat the front page of the New York Times if barring, heaven forbid, a heart attack, Dick Cheney is bumped from this ticket.

SCHOEN: You know, John Edwards...

ZAHN: I guess I would like to see you have to do that, Doug.

SCHOEN: Well, no because I'm saying it's a prediction even true or not.

I think from the Republicans point of view it would be the best possible news if Cheney one way or another got off the ticket and Jonah had to eat the paper. But I would tell you, Kerry and Edwards bring people together, appeal to swing voters, balance each other nicely and offer the Democrats a program of hope and optimism about international relations...

ZAHN: Who would be your dream candidate for President Bush then, if you were to replace Dick Cheney?

SCHOEN: It would be Colin Powell, it would be John McCain, Rudy Giuliani.

GOLDBERG: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) doesn't help very much, if you squish him in.

SCHOEN: One of those three people would get 70 percent of the American people to employ the choice. And frankly, that would be tough for Democrats. We Democrats are only too happy to have a polarizing, divisive figure who has been wrong on the Republican ticket.

ZAHN: All right, you're saying McCain isn't the answer, Johan. How about Colin Powell?

GOLDBERG: Yes, look, Colin Powell would help, except for the fact that it would cause a blood bath within the Republican Party, because he is not a popular guy among movement conservatives in the Republican Party.

And regardless, the costs of dumping Cheney in terms of admitting failure. Now, Doug wants to talk about all of these policies that Dick Cheney is associated with. George Bush is running on those policies. He's running on Iraq. The idea that somehow George Bush is going to admit that he was wrong about Dick Cheney doesn't pass the laugh test.

Besides, this administration doesn't think Dick Cheney is a liability. They are running him in swing states. They are putting him out there as the face of this administration. It's just not going to happen.

ZAHN: Doug, you get the last word tonight.

SCHOEN: You know, with a 20 percent favorable, with those policies having failed and the Democrats offering a stronger America, closer links to our allies abroad, I think this is all for the good for the Democrats.

ZAHN: You sound like you're working for John Kerry.

SCHOEN: I'm not, but this is what I think has been working for the Democrats.

GOLDBERG: But you're working for the Democrats.

SCHOEN: I'm absolute a Democrat and I always have been.

ZAHN: And we know, Jonah, you support the vice president. GOLDBERG: Yes, but I'm a journalist. I don't know a single liberal journalist who think this is a real story. I guarantee you it's not a story. Tim Russert tonight, not a story.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen, we got to leave it there. Jonah Goldberg, Doug Schoen, thank you both.

When we come back, words that come back to haunt you. The John Kerry statement that's become the signature sound bite of the Bush campaign.


ZAHN: Welcome back. Today at the NAACP convention, Senator John Kerry took jabs at President Bush for not speaking before the civil rights group. The president will no doubt respond next week when he speaks to a largely African-American audience at the Urban League conference.

In the meantime, the president and his campaign are taking other opportunities to launch attacks against Senator Kerry. Their weapon of choice? One of the senators own votes.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yesterday, my opponent said he is proud that he and his running mate voted against funding the troops.

ZAHN (voice-over): President Bush this week.

BUSH: Now, listen. He's entitled to do his view. He's entitled to his view.

ZAHN: His focus? Senator John Kerry's vote against the $87 billion bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BUSH: But members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them.

ZAHN: That has become a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign through his speeches, through the campaign's website and press releases and through its advertising campaign.

AD ANNOUNCER: And what does Kerry say now?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

AD ANNOUNCER: Wrong on defense.

ZAHN: There he goes again, says the Bush campaign. John Kerry flip-flopping on Iraq.

Here is how that vote actually happened. Last September, the Bush administration asked Congress to dole out $87 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but the president didn't want to raise taxes to cover the cost. That same month, Senators John Kerry and Joe Biden proposed an amendment that would reduce the Bush tax cut on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to pay for the extra spending.

KERRY: We are a going to pay that $87 billion for Iraq, it ought to come out of that $690 billion tax cut.

ZAHN: It was an idea the Bush administration opposed. The Republican-controlled Senate voted on the Biden-Kerry amendment in October and rejected it.

15 days later, the Senate voted on the original war funding bill without the amendment. That's when Kerry voted no. But this time, the bill passed.


ZAHN: The bottom line, thanks to the spin, Senator Kerry is now viewed as someone who voted for the war but against funding the troops. Joining me now from Washington to talk about this, regular contributor and "TIME" magazine correspondent Joe Klein. Always good to see you, Joe, welcome.

JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Good to be here, Paula.

ZAHN: So you're traveling with the president last week and I understand he told you he is firmly committed to continue to spread this message? How committed?

KLEIN: He didn't tell me that. But what I saw was that this was the emotional heart of his pitch at each stop. And he would say very firmly, jab his finger and he'd say, "the president of the United States must speak clearly and mean what he says." And this is something that I think that the Bush administration believes or the Bush campaign believes is a real trump card in their race against John Kerry. It is front and center of their flip flop argument and it's difficult for Kerry to counter because in order to do it, you have to do what you just very, very clearly did, which is walk your way through that $87 billion vote. Kerry had a rationale for it, but it's a difficult rationale to sell.

ZAHN: So you don't think at this stage of the process there is anything John Kerry can say that will resonate with the public?

KLEIN: Well, I don't know. I don't know whether that's the case. I mean, there's always something you can say, always a way to explain it. I mean, Kerry can say, as he has said, that he was opposed to the Bush policies in Iraq and he was trying to lodge a protest vote and if it had been a question of his vote being the deciding one, he would have voted for the $87 billion but, then again, that's pretty complicated, too.

The truth of the matter is on this vote that it took place at a point when John Kerry's political fortunes were very, very down. Howard Dean was surging. Howard Dean was against the war, against the $87 billion and a lot people believe, a lot of Kerry's colleagues believe and some of the people on his staff have told me that this was a political vote to try and deal with the Howard Dean phenomenon.

ZAHN: A political vote in retrospect. Would it have been possible for him, begrudgingly, to have voted yes twice? Yes, on his own amendment and come back and say, look it didn't pass and I'm reluctantly voting for this but I don't want it to appear as though troops are over there unsupported?

KLEIN: Of course, it would have been possible and in fact that's what Joe Biden counseled him to do. Biden said publicly "I told John to vote for this." And that he thought -- he thought that this was -- I think he called it a stupid vote.

Now, John Kerry has now said that he was proud of the vote, which I think may dig the hole a little bit deeper. And to the extent that the discussion is about this rather than the wisdom of going into Iraq and also the wisdom of the president, the administration's kind of nonpolicies for what was going to happen after the war was over, the fact that the discussions about this is very good for President Bush and not so good for John Kerry.

ZAHN: You mentioned earlier on, obviously, through the Bush campaign work, they believe this is the ultimate trump card. Do you think it is or is this issue going to resonate all that much with the public on this one vote?

KLEIN: Well, I think that this is going to depend -- that at a certain point -- and it hasn't happened yet -- John Kerry is going to have to explain very, very clearly what he thought about the war, why he voted for it, whether he thinks that vote was a mistake now or the right thing to do, what he thinks should happen next.

This is a very complicated issue. Complicated is a word that political consultants hate to hear and, yet, I believe that this issue is at the center of the campaign and John Kerry won't win unless he really plainly explains this to the American people. Look for him to try and do that during his convention speech week after next.

ZAHN: Final thought on the speculation about Dick Cheney being dumped from the ticket. We just had a spirited discussion in our previous segment with one guest suggesting that this is much to ado about nothing, there's no real movement underway to do so. What do you think?

KLEIN: Oh, absolutely. Jonah Goldberg was absolutely right. This is an incredibly stupid story that's being spread by the media and by Democrats in terms of disinformation...

ZAHN: Since when is Al D'Amato a Democrat?

KLEIN: Al D'Amato was speaking off the top of his head. There were a lot of -- there's some panic on K Street that the lobbying wing of the Republican party

Doug Schoen was right that Cheney is a problem for Bush, but he can't be dumped because that would be a total admission of failure of all of his major policies, as Jonah said. But you know, it's a fun story; it's an inside the beltway story. It isn't -- But it isn't a true story. There isn't real -- there isn't a real debate going on within the Bush campaign: "Do we keep this guy or not?"

There are also rumors spreading about whether or not to dump Donald Rumsfeld, also untrue. These are the kind of rumors you get at this point in the campaign.

The other party usually -- Al D'Amato was doing the Democrats' work for them. The other party is usually the one that spreads these. In 1992, the rumor was spreading that George Bush, the elder, was going to dump Dan Quayle.

It's all part of politics, but it's not something that we should take all that seriously.

ZAHN: Joe Klein, appreciate it.


ZAHN: And one more campaign note tonight. This is a live picture of John Kerry at a rally in front of a West Virginia state capitol in Charleston. President Bush will be there tomorrow campaigning.

When we come back, fighting back. A new plan to stop the violence and weed out Iraqi insurgents.


ZAHN: Over the last day in Iraq, 17 people have died in a series of attacks. The worst was in the western town of Hadithah, where a car bomb blew up near a police station, killing 10 people. At least 30 others were injured.

Well, today's Iraq interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, announced plans to set up a new intelligence service to battle the insurgents who are behind these attacks.

Joining us is now, Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf. Welcome, Jane.

Before we get to a discussion about this new intelligence service, why do you believe we've seen such an increase in violence over the last 48 hours?

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Paula, it's kind of puzzling, because actually it had been really quiet for the past couple of weeks. So quiet, in fact, that we were out just awhile ago at night here in Baghdad and there were weddings. There were police cars in the streets. There are people shopping. It seems almost normal.

So this came at a huge shock, but what it really is sending a message of is that this is unpredictable violence that, even though it seems safe, that this could come up at any time.

ZAHN: Once you put this new intelligence service in place, though, how long will it take for it to be effective at all?

ARRAF: It's a really great question. And the -- essentially, it takes as long as the will of the Iraqi people, officials would say, and as long as it takes to set up an intelligence service in a country which has very bad memories of Iraqi intelligence.

This was an intelligence service that propped up Saddam Hussein. Now they say this will not be the same kind of thing.

And it's indisputable. You cannot track down insurgents, you cannot find out who is doing these attacks without Iraq intelligence. The Americans can't do it, no matter how much firepower, how many troops they have.

ARRAF: Let's turn our attention now to the fate of the Filipino person who has been held hostage now for weeks. What is his status?

ARRAF: Well, that seems to be kind of hopeful. Now here is a truck driver, a Filipino truck driver, father of eight, sending money back home, who has been taken captive and threatened with beheading if the Philippines, a close ally to the U.S. doesn't pull out its troops.

But lo and behold, they have announced they are pulling out their troops and, according to a video released by the Arab language network, Al Jazeera, he is going to be freed. No indication he's been freed yet, but that does appear very hopeful.

ZAHN: There is some less hopeful news about the status of what we now believe to be one of the Bulgarian hostages that was being held. Can you confirm tonight what happened to him?

ARRAF: Apparently, there has been a body found. According to Iraqi police in the northern city of Mosul and according to diplomats, a body has been pulled out of the river in Mosul.

Now, this body has been beheaded his hands tied behind, his back wearing an orange jumpsuit. They believe it is at least one of the two Bulgarians. It's unclear whether two bodies have been found or just one. But at least one of those Bulgarian hostages.

Another driver, two drivers who were carrying used cars to Iraq captured, and at least one of them has been beheaded.

ZAHN: Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf, thanks so much.

ARRAF: Thank you.

ZAHN: We turn now to someone who helped train the new Iraqi police force, former New York City police commissioner and former senior Iraq policy advisor, Bernard Kerik.

Always good to see you. Welcome.


ZAHN: So do you think this new intelligence service will work?

KERIK: Absolutely.

ZAHN: Why?

KERIK: The key behind combating terrorism here in the United States and abroad in Iraq is going to be intelligence. They need to know who these people are, where they're coming from and how they're get into the country.

They're infiltrating the communities. We need intelligence services to locate them, identify them, and either give us the ability to capture or kill them. The intelligence -- the new intelligence services can do that.

ZAHN: And, yet, some of these same men that you're going to have to rely on today were very loyal to Saddam Hussein.

KERIK: Well, you're going to have -- there is going to have to be a vetting period, a vetting conducted by the new Iraqi government. You know, who are these people being put into these positions?

The people that committed former atrocities under Saddam, that were the murderers -- you have to remember, the general security directorate, which is -- that's what this is, in the former regime reported directly to Saddam and his immediate generals under the interior ministry.

ZAHN: Sure.

KERIK: They were the Mukhabarat. They were the torturers, the murderers, the people that went out and did all of his dirty business.

ZAHN: So why should we trust them now?

KERIK: Well, you don't trust all of them, but there a lot of them. There are a lot of them out there that were basically there because they had to be. They were assigned there.

Don't take the murderers, but he had hundreds of these people out there. Take the ones you can trust. Take the ones you can turn. Take the ones that you can guarantee now are going to be loyal to the new regime.

And the Iraqi people can make that determination. We can't. The coalition can't, but the Iraqis can. Use them.

ZAHN: Well, the Iraqi people might be able to do that, but you're talking months and months of sifting through the good from the bad.

KERIK: Well, not necessarily, because a lot of these people have been looked at for the last six months. A lot of these people we were trying to recruit, we were talking to when we were -- when I was in Iraq seven months ago, eight months ago. They were looking at them then.

So I'm sure over the last six months, they've identified leadership within those ranks that they can pull out and start this new intelligence service.

ZAHN: The last 48 hours have been pretty disheartening in Iraq. You seem to have a couple of weeks of calm, now some pretty big attacks.

KERIK: It wasn't even -- It wasn't even really calm. I mean, we've had consistent attacks. Not at the levels we had prior to the transfer of sovereignty. But this is all -- all things that were anticipated.

We've seen some bigger attacks in the last few days. But we've also seen a very dedicated, a very courageous and a very aggressive Allawi, the prime minister, who is setting the stage, who is out there in the field supporting its troops.

And he's getting a lot of support from the Iraqi people, which we didn't -- I didn't anticipate two or three or four months ago. A lot of support from the Iraqi people, and that's going to help force the security.

ZAHN: Why did you doubt that support?

KERIK: Well, I guess -- I guess -- you know, when you looked at the governing council six months ago, eight months ago, nine months ago, you didn't see all of their capabilities, all of their ability.

They weren't out front. They were still building putting together their government. Allawi has been put in charge. He is -- obviously, he's out there. He's getting a lot of support from the Iraqi people. We didn't experience that. We didn't get to see that three months ago, four months ago, but we're seeing it today.

ZAHN: What do you think this means for U.S. troops that are on duty in Iraq?

KERIK: I think it's phenomenal for the U.S. troops.

ZAHN: Do you think they'll be any safer?

KERIK: They'll be safer. If the intelligence mechanisms work they'll be safer, because we'll go into the heart of these communities and pull these people out.

In the last few days, they've captured a number of people that were involved in the Najaf bombing, the Karbala bombing, and some of the other major bombings throughout Iraq. They're captured them. They're in custody. They're debriefing them, and this intelligence service will all be a part of that.

ZAHN: I hope you're right.

Bernard Kerik, thank you for dropping by tonight. KERIK: Thank you.

ZAHN: Appreciate it.

And after the break, Martha, the rocky road from icon to possible inmate.

And the art of the apology.


ZAHN: Tomorrow, of course, judgment day for Martha Stewart. Four months after she was convicted of lying to federal investigators, she will find out what her future holds: freedom or the indignity of prison khakis.

Here is senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): When the story first broke two years ago, Martha Stewart all but dismissed it.

MARTHA STEWART, OMNIMEDIA FOUNDER: My employees and I are hard at work at making our company the best Omnimedia company in the world, Jane, and we will continue to do that. And I want to focus on my salad.

TOOBIN: She had sold about $230,000 in ImClone stock on the same day that her friend, ImClone CEO Sam Waksal, tried to dump thousands of shares, just before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the company's main product.

Sam Waksal pled guilty to insider trading. But was Martha Stewart guilty, too?

She was never charged with criminal insider trading. But the government did claim that she lied repeatedly to federal investigators at the U.S. attorney's office.

After a six-week trial earlier this year, a jury agreed, and Martha Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, guilty of obstruction of justice, and guilty of two counts of making false statements.

Judge Miriam Goldberg Cedarbaum will sentence Stewart tomorrow. Stewart's lawyers have asked for community service. But the federal sentencing guidelines appear to call for a prison sentence of between 10 and 16 months, probably in a facility like this one in Danbury, Connecticut, not far from Stewart's home.

So was it worth it? Consider this. Martha Stewart has resigned as chairman and CEO of her company. Her billion dollar business empire is imperiled, her reputation damaged and now her very freedom is on the line and all over a transaction that involved less than 1/10th of one percent of her net worth.


ZAHN: I think Jeffrey Toobin answered that question for us right there, implicit in all those answers. He joins us now.

TOOBIN: It's just such a waste! It's just so awful. Here she created this wonderful business, full of creative people and threw it away over this stupid lie that she didn't have to tell.

ZAHN: So what's going to happen tomorrow? You'll be in the courtroom. What do you think we'll see?

TOOBIN: Her lawyers will speak. The really interesting question and I don't know the answer is will she speak? What will she do? Because she's got to thread a difficult needle.

She maintains her innocence to this point. So what does she do? Is she defiant? That's not going to help her get a lower sentence.

ZAHN: No. And if she shows remorse, implicit in that is the acknowledgment that she blew it.

TOOBIN: That she was guilty, which she is going to argue on her appeal she wasn't. So she's got to threat that needle. I think she'll say something. I think she'll talk about how...

ZAHN: What can she say that's going to appease anybody?

TOOBIN: Well, I think she will say publicly that she's sorry that these events happened in a way that doesn't acknowledge her guilt. But I think she'll express some general sense of sorrow.

ZAHN: And how will the judge react to a statement like that that's that neutral?

TOOBIN: I am 95 percent sure that Judge Cedarbaum already has made up her mind and, barring a earthquake tomorrow, nothing she says will matter very much.

ZAHN: Why are you so convinced she's made up her mind?

TOOBIN: Well, because I know federal judge, you know, having practiced in there, I think they basically make up their minds before they go in. What the defendant sentence says rarely makes much difference.

ZAHN: So what is she considering?

TOOBIN: She has a wide range of options. This is unusual. Usually, the guidelines are very narrow. There's not much leeway.

Here, she could get probation, unlikely. She could get a prison time as long as maybe two years. My guess, and it's really only a guess is that there will be some sort of split sentence where she'll get maybe six months in prison and six months house arrest.

That's the kind of sentence that Judge Cedarbaum has done before. She's not a very heavy sentencer, but she does believe that white- collar criminals do deserve some time in prison.

ZAHN: Once again, we're playing with hypotheticals, but you're a smart guy and you do understand the federal court system. If you end up with a split sentence, how would that be viewed, you think, by the public?

TOOBIN: I think it would probably be viewed as fairly fair. I think there isn't a great deal of blood lust to see this woman thrown away for a long time.

I mean, it's important to keep some perspective. She committed a crime, but she didn't kill anybody. She didn't steal any money. It was not the crime of the century. But she walked into the FBI and the U.S. attorney and just lied in their face over and over again, and she was convicted of that and that kind of thing does deserve some punishment.

ZAHN: Earlier, you mentioned this Danbury facility that's not too far from her home in Connecticut. Describe to us the conditions under which she would be held if that ends up being the situation.

TOOBIN: You know, in a way it's better to be a male white collar criminal than female, because there are so few female white collar criminals, they tend to be lumped in with the higher security and higher risk defendants.

So this is very far from a country club. I mean, it's not an abusive place. She's in no physical danger. But her every moment will be monitored. She will have, you know, lights on, lights off, no choice in food. She'll have to do a job.

ZAHN: You don't cop an attitude?

TOOBIN: No. This is not -- this is not a pleasant place. This is not a country club. A male prisoner convicted of a similar crime will have better options than Martha Stewart will.

ZAHN: So in advance of this sentencing tomorrow, the moral of the story here is what?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think the government really did set an example here. This was a useful message for the government to send.

I think corporate executives and everyone else, when they walk into a U.S. attorney's office, they're going to think twice about lying to those agents. Because they say, "Hey, you know, Martha Stewart, she got nailed for this."

ZAHN: Sure. You'll be our eyes and ears for us tomorrow. Look forward to having you back tomorrow night.

TOOBIN: It should be interesting.

ZAHN: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks.

And again, we will have special coverage of Martha Stewart's sentencing and all the latest reaction right here starting at 8 p.m. Eastern Time.

Still to come here, power politics and the fine art of saying I'm sorry.


ZAHN: You make a mistake; you're caught; you say you're sorry. Now, while that may sound simple enough, apologizing is usually one of the hardest things to do, especially in American politics.

But it can be done. And with a little skill, it doesn't have to be so painful.

Our Tom Foreman looks at the art of the apology.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When a British report on Iraq came out this week, outlining intelligence failures in the run-up to war, Prime Minister Tony Blair was on the spot. And the Kerry campaign quickly pointed out how President Bush's friend and ally handled it.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What Tony Blair said was, "I take full responsibility for the mistakes."

FOREMAN: but if Democrats think this will make George Bush apologize for the war, they could be waiting awhile. Apologies here are political dynamite.


FOREMAN: Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

TURLEY: If you do it right, people can take you to their breast, hug you like one of their own. If you do it wrong, they'll never forget it.

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRSIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't believe that I warrant it, because I'm not a crook.

FOREMAN: Bad apologies and good ones are hard to define but easy to recognize.

Ronald Reagan gained public support when he owned up to the arms for hostage deal.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE: I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration.

FOREMAN: Of course, technically, what Reagan offered was not an apology, which fully admits guilt, but rather than an apologia, an explanation for an apparent mistake. It is a distinction which Turley says was not lost on Bill Clinton. TURLEY: He knew that people loved the confessant. They loved the penitent man. But they don't often forgive the guilty man. So he developed a way to confess without admitting to anything, and people loved him for it.


JOHN CLEESE, COMEDIAN: All right, all right, I apologize.

KLINE: You're really sorry?

CLEESE: I'm really, really sorry. I apologize unreservedly.

KLINE: You take it back?

FOREMAN: The problem is in movies and life, there a down side to even good apologies.

(on camera): If the politician waits too long when an apology is due, it can seem forced and dishonest when it comes, but leaders who say "I'm sorry" too soon appear weak.

FATHER JOHN LANGAN, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Then there are other cases where an apology is a fairly desperate maneuver. Because everything else has been tried and efforts of concealment, efforts of denial have just failed to work.

FOREMAN (voice-over): No wonder in Washington, the apology has become an art form, practiced by many and mastered by few.


ZAHN: Our own Tom Foreman in Washington. We'll be right back.


ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here. Thanks so much for being with us tonight.

Tomorrow, a special PAULA ZAHN NOW, Martha Stewart's sentencing, the effect it will have on her company and her career. We'll look at all that tomorrow night.

In the meantime, "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.


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.