Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Bush Flies Over Baghdad After Meeting With Trrops in Doha; Raines, Boyd of "NY Times" Resign

Aired June 05, 2003 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER (voice-over): Bush over Baghdad. The president gets an aerial view of Iraq after a triumphant visit with the troops.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And that mission has been accomplished.

BLITZER: But is victory complete without weapons of mass destruction?

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The commissioner has not, at any time during the inspections in Iraq, found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction.

BLITZER: A shocking headline at "The New York Times." More heads roll, this time at the top.

Martha Stewart strikes back. A public campaign to defend her reputation.

And it's not even in bookstores yet, but the debate is on. Is Hillary Clinton's new book a heartfelt revelation or a politician's self-promotion?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: CNN live this hour, Wolf Blitzer Reports, live from the nation's capital, with correspondents from around the world.

WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts now.

BLITZER: It's Thursday, June 5, 2003. Hello from Washington. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting.

We're standing by right now to hear directly from the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. He's meeting behind closed doors, has been for some time, with selected members of the U.S. Congress, but shortly will be coming before the microphones.

On the agenda, two very different views of Iraq, what's unfolding now. Today, the commander-in-chief got a firsthand look from Air Force One as he headed home from headquarters in Qatar. There he told the U.S. troops their mission to liberate Iraq has been accomplished.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Day by day, the United States and our coalition partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi citizens. We also understand that a more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water. Things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: On the ground today in Iraq, the reality may be somewhat different. Yet another soldier was killed and five more wounded when they were attacked near Fallujah, in central Iraq. That brings to 39 the number of American troops killed in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat back on May 1.

For more on the security situation unfolding right now, let's go live to CNN's Matthew Chance. He's in Baghdad -- Matthew.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you very much, Wolf.

And the security situation here being underlined by the death that soldier in Fallujah, about 30 kilometers -- 30 miles, rather -- to the west of Baghdad. It's just the latest incident in the area that has seen a number of clashes between U.S. forces and what U.S. commanders say are somewhat organized opposition elements, remnants, perhaps of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The situation there commented upon by Mr. Bush saying that, you know, increased security, water and electricity supplies would make all the difference. But these are the issues being felt by many Iraqis as the ones that have not been dealt with very well, by the U.S. administrators and by U.S. forces.

Certainly supplies of things like electricity and water were far from secure under the regime of Saddam Hussein. But it is these issues that many Iraqis blame the U.S. for, their situation now, their insecurity. They say there's not enough security on the streets for them, that they still have very unsecure supplies of electricity and water. They say the U.S. and its officials should have worked harder and much faster to get those supplies connected, Wolf.

BLITZER: Chance on the scene for us in Baghdad. Thanks very much, Matthew.

Here at home, the debate apparently is sharpening over the whereabouts of the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A lot of people are wondering, where are they?

As Congressional critics question the pre-war intelligence cited by the Bush administration, the president today vowed that the hunt will continue. But the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, warned that on -- based on his experiences, it won't be easy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: The commission has not, at any time during the inspections in Iraq, found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of prescribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: For more on the weapons controversy, the dangerous ground situation in Iraq and the efforts to build a new Iraq, let's turn to U.S. Representative Jane Harman. She's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.

Are you as frustrated as a lot of other people are that so far no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: I'm concerned about it. You talk about security on the ground in Iraq -- my working assumption is that the weapons of mass destruction are buried underground, some body knows where they are and if they are unearthed while our troops are in place, they could cause enormous harm to Americans.

BLITZER: So you believe that they're there, that they're some place, they haven't been sent out of Iraq or destroyed?

HARMAN: Well, any of those scenarios is possible. All we've found so far is two or three mobile vans capable of making biological weapons. I disagree with the president that that's conclusive proof that there was adequate WMD to pose a clear and present danger.

But nonetheless I think we will find more. It's good news that we've sent over 1,100 more people this week, under the supervision of a general from the Defense Intelligence Agency, to look for these weapons.

BLITZER: And I know you've been briefed on that.

You had a chance to speak with Ambassador Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civil administrator in Iraq. You spoke with him today on the phone. What's his message?

HARMAN: Well, let me say first that Jerry Bremer is a very qualified guy. He chaired something called the Commission on Terrorism from 1999 to 2000. I was a member of that commission and I have high regard. He's the best possible choice. I only wish he'd been there months earlier.

He says Iraq is a shattered place. Those are tough words and just starting with security, then moving to quality of life, not only for Iraqis, but American troops and the folks working for him, and then moving on to establishing some kind of civil society is a huge order. He's in there for the long haul. I just hope that this administration commits the resources and the effort to back him up. He will fail unless the resources and the effort are made by the administration.

BLITZER: Well, do you have any doubt that the Bush administration, which went to war to liberate Iraq, is going to simply walk away from that issue?

HARMAN: Well, I don't -- they say they're going to, you know, hang in there. However, the record in Afghanistan isn't great. And backing up to the last administration, which had four nation-building exercises, including Haiti and Somalia, those efforts were failures. We did better in Kosovo where we committed resources.

It's all a question of resources and effort, and we're talking 160,000 troops or more, or police equivalents on the ground, and maybe as much as $20 billion with a "B" over five years. Not all these resources coming from the U.S. We should internationalize the effort. But if they're not there, we're not going to get Iraq to a place that it needs to be to have its own democracy and a decent standard of living.

BLITZER: Based on everything you've heard -- and you're a member of the Intelligence Committee, privy to a lot of the nation's most sensitive information. How long will U.S. troops in those big numbers -- 160,000 -- have to remain on the ground in Iraq?

HARMAN: Well, I don't know the answer to that precisely. I think a presence that's very large will have to remain on the ground in Iraq for a long time. I don't know what the numbers are.

The Council on Foreign Relations, which is looking at this -- I think they said 75,000 to 100,000 troops. But they could be international troops. There are other troops in place. The Brits and Poles are there, and maybe other folks will join the effort.

Certainly, NGOs and international relief organizations are now helping us. That's a good thing. And the U.N. has sent a special representative, an experienced ambassador named Demello, pursuant to the 14 to zip resolution of the Security Council, which we played a role in. That's a victory for Secretary of State Powell.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Jane Harman, thanks for coming over.

HARMAN: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Here's your turn to weigh in on story. Our "Web Question of the Day" is this: "Did President Bush exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability?" We'll have the results later in this broadcast. You can vote. Go to my Web page, cnn.com/wolf.

While you're there, I'd love to hear from you directly. Please send me your comments. I'll try to read some of them on the air each day at the end of this program. That's also, of course, where you can read my daily online column, cnn.com/wolf. Let's turn now to another huge story that broke today. A major shakeup at "The New York Times", which has been rocked by plagiarism scandal in recent weeks. Two top executives are resigning.

CNN's Michael Okwu is joining us live from New York now. He's on the scene with details -- Michael.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, good afternoon.

Call it a day of resignation here at "The New York Times." Howell Raines, the executive editor of "The Times" and Gerald Boyd, the managing editor, both stepped down this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OKWU (voice-over): Staff sources say Raines and Boyd addressed the newsroom at 10:30 in what was described as an impromptu morning gathering, the staff's mood sad and stunned. Twenty minutes later applause, not so much in celebration of the institution's future as staffers said, but rather an awkward appreciation of the two men's past. This former "Times" photographer put it this way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know whether this is like a birth or a funeral, but it's something. So I wanted to be here.

OKWU: "Times" publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. accepted their resignations just three weeks after saying he would not. "Howell and Gerald have tendered their RealNetworks," he said in a statement, "and I have accepted them with sadness based on what we believe is best for `The Times.'"

It is the latest chapter of perhaps the darkest saga in "The Times" 152-year history, set off by the serial fabrication of former "Times" reporter Jason Blair.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the wake of what I believe is the Jayson Blair (UNINTELLIGIBLE), that not only the executive editor, but the managing editor, two top journalists in this country, have had to step down is not something that you are going to see anybody at "The New York Times" dancing in the aisles over.

And an e-mail to CNN, Blair said, quote, "I'm sorry to hear that more people have fallen in this sequence of events that I unleashed. I wish the rolling heads had stopped with me."

For weeks, staffers have privately complained that Raines and Boyd had ignored warning signals. Now many are expressing relief.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that is now a clean break and that that's probably a good thing. It makes me feel sad personally for the individuals, but we're not getting back to work. We've been thinking about this and talking about this constantly, it's been a distraction.

OKWU: Others are expressing joy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I'm so happy! (END VIDEOTAPE)

OKWU: "The New York Times" has always been considered the paper of record, so imagine this: one of the women you just heard from, Debbie Sontag, a reporter with "The Times Sunday magazine" said that in the last several weeks she's had to actually send press clippings of some of her former work to potential interview subjects. Why? Because many of those subjects expressed some doubts and reservations about the accuracy and integrity of the paper -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Amazing stuff that's going on. Michael Okwu, thanks very much.

Let's get some more perspective now on what's going on. Joining me to discuss these high-profile departures and the scandals that have prompted them is Cynthia Cotts. She's the media critic for "The Village Voice" in New York.

Cynthia, thanks so much for joining us. What are you hearing right now from your sources inside the newsroom at "The New York Times." What's the mood? What's going on right now?

CYNTHIA COTTS, MEDIA CRITIC, "THE VILLAGE VOICE": Well, what I heard today, Wolf, from my sources was three different kinds of reactions: surprise that these resignations came as quickly as they did, speculation about who's going to come into power next and a certain sense of satisfaction that this was the proper resolution for the scandals.

BLITZER: Is there a sense you're getting who is going to emerge as the next executive editor, the editor in chief, if you will, of "The New York Times" after Joe Lelyveld, who's the former executive editor. He's coming in on a temporary basis.

COTTS: Right. Well there are a lot of names that have been thrown out and I think "The Times" said today that they would be looking both inside the company and outside the company for a successor to Raines.

One thing that seems to be certain is that a good candidate for managing editor is the metro editor, John Landman, who is very well respected by the staff.

BLITZER: What is the mood, morale like for these reporters, these editors, the others at "The New York Times," base on what you can tell?

COTTS: Well the morale has been so bad for so long that I think these people are exhausted. But I think right now they're very sad that these two men had to step down. They both are very talented in their own ways.

But there's also a sense of, as they said, a sort of satisfaction and relief because many people within "The Times" felt that Howell Raines' style management was not fit for this newsroom. BLITZER: How do you -- I'm still having a tough time understanding how Jayson Blair, the young reporter, could write fiction for "The New York Times" for so long and get away with it. Where were the editors? Where were those who would have the failsafe, the kind of vetting system that would check what he was writing?

COTTS: Well, if you take what Jayson Blair says as true, which is hard to do, he said that he only began writing fiction towards the very end, the last few months of his tenure at "The Times." I think what he -- his problems were that he had a bad record of lots of mistakes, he was sometimes unreliable, and editors tolerated that and let him go along and they gave him major assignments.

I think it was more a sense of, this was a kid who was promoted too quickly and he wasn't trained.

BLITZER: Obviously there were a lot of alarm bells, but the top people, including Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, clearly were not paying close enough attention.

Cynthia, unfortunately, we have to leave it right there. Cynthia Cotts of "The Village Voice."

COTTS: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you very much.

And it's happening right now. Any moment we're expecting to hear from the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He's ready to speak out on Iraq. He's been briefing members of Congress behind closed doors. We'll go live to Capitol Hill. That's coming up.

Also, Martha Stewart. She's on the move. A public relations campaign to save her name. But will it help spare her from doing potentially, at least, some hard time?

Plus, satanic cults and brown vans. Scott Peterson heads back to court, while a defense team promises a blockbuster.

And new revelations from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tell-all. Hear what she calls the most devastating experience of her life. All that, first, today's "News Quiz."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER (voice-over): What's the largest selling daily newspaper in the United States? "The Wall Street Journal", "The New York Times", "USA Today", "The Washington Post"? The answer coming up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Prosecutors hit her with a criminal indictment. Now Martha Stewart is striking right back by reaching out directly to you. We'll explain. That's coming up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER (voice-over): Earlier we asked what's the largest selling daily newspaper in the United States? The answer, "USA Today". It was the first national newspaper to go color, and has been giving the competition a run for the money ever since.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Remember, we're standing by to hear directly from the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He's on Capitol Hill. We'll go there live as soon as he comes before our microphones.

In the meantime, the Attorney General John Ashcroft was also on Capitol Hill today asking for more weapons to use in the war on terror. Let's go live to our justice correspondent Kelli Arena. She's here with me -- Kelli.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the attorney general for the first time publicly revealed new powers that he will be seeking. This as he defended the Justice Department's actions since the September 11 attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): The attorney general held up a copy of an al Qaeda declaration of war against America as he asked lawmakers to expand the Patriot Act.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Unfortunately the law has several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses.

ARENA: Congress passed the act one month after the September 11 attacks, and as a result, federal agents can more easily access records, obtain wiretaps and conduct searches.

ASHCROFT: The Patriot Act gave us the tools we need to integrate our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to win the war on terror.

ARENA: But lawmakers, citing a new report sharply critical of how the Justice Department treated illegal aliens detained in the 9/11 investigation, pressed Ashcroft on whether rights are being violated in the name of national security.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Isn't a fact that after you rounded up these individuals, you found that they had no involvement with terrorist activity?

ASHCROFT: In all of the conduct of the activities of the Justice Department, we have not violated the law. And we will not violate the law. We will uphold the law.

ARENA: Concerns over the detention policy helped fuel the continuing debate over how the Patriot Act Is being implemented. Many of the provisions of the Act expire in 2005, and Congress must act to extend them or make them permanent.

The attorney general urged Congress to do that and more. Ashcroft wants to ensure that individuals who train with a terrorist organization can be more easily charged with a crime. He asked for new authority to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials, and to let him seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act which kills Americans.

LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: Before the Congress gives the Justice Department new powers, the Justice Department needs to justify what it has done with the powers that Congress gave them in October of 2001.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: But the attorney general says the new powers have already resulted in concrete success. The arrest and prosecution of suspected terrorists and not a single attack on U.S. soil, Wolf.

BLITZER: Kelli Arena with an important story. Kelli, thanks very much.

He's facing critical questions on Iraq right now and at any moment he'll emerge from behind closed doors. The defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, expected to answer reporters' questions. We're standing by. We'll have live coverage.

Also, love or hate her, Hillary Rodham Clinton's telling all apparently and she's clearly raising lots of eyebrows. New details from her new book.

And Serena Williams fights the good fight but loses the battle. That, much more, still to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Martha Stewart is putting up a very public fight against the charges she's facing from allegations of insider trade. Those charges resulting from those initial allegations. She's launched a full-scale media campaign affirming her innocence and trying to rally support.

CNN's Allan Chernoff has been following this story from day one. He's joining now once again live from New York -- Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, after getting slapped with civil and criminal charges yesterday, Martha Stewart is taking her fight to the people. She's hoping that her status as a domestic icon will help her defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Before facing the government in a court of law, Martha Stewart is trying to win in the court of public opinion. An ad from Stewart in "USA Today" pledges: "I will fight to clear my name." Ms. Stewart promotes a new Web site, marthatalks.com, and invites supporters to send her e-mail -- all an effort to gain public support.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Part of me kind of says, you know, Why can't they just leave her alone?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I happen to think she's guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she is found guilty, she's pretty much done for.

CHERNOFF: Some defense lawyers say the PR campaign could help Stewart.

ROBERT HEIM, MEYERS & HEIM: This will have an affect on both the government and the court, because the government's really looking for the public interest and to do what's right and what's just. And if there is that type of support for Martha Stewart, even if it's subconsciously, it will affect the government and the type of relief it's seeking from a court.

CHERNOFF: Stewart is accused of a cover-up, trying to prevent investigators from learning if she had inside information when she sold stock in biotech firm ImClone.

Prosecutors deny they are singling Stewart out.

JAMES COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY: Martha Stewart may be famous, but that's no reason for treating her differently from any other defendant.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: Legal analysts say that Stewart's publicity campaign may be the beginning of what they call a soundbyte trial with prosecutors saying this is purely a matter of Martha Stewart having lied to the government, and the defense saying Martha Stewart is being made to be a scapegoat.

Wolf, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for June 19.

BLITZER: June 19. All right, Allan, I guess it was inevitable. But now everyone seems to be talking about the color schemes on the Web site that she unveiled today. What are they saying? What are you hearing?

CHERNOFF: Well, Wolf, you could have guessed it. Of course, Martha Stewart did design this Web site and those colors are her pick. They are robins egg blue and granny smith apple.

By the way, the Web site has had, according to her spokesperson, more than 1.5 million hits today, more than 12,000 e-mails sent to her.

BLITZER: That's amazing. All right. Allan Chernoff, thanks for the good reporting.

Let's get a little bit more perspective now about all of this, the criminal and civil charges awaiting Martha Stewart. Alan Reynolds is with the Cato Institute. He's joining us here from our Washington bureau.

Alan, thanks very much for joining us.

ALAN REYNOLDS, CATO INSTITUTE: Glad to be here.

BLITZER: You believe this is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Why?

REYNOLDS: Well, first of all, the case has changed completely. It's no longer about insider trading at a criminal level. It's about lying, and the only evidence really they have that she's lying is a liar -- I mean, a proven liar, her assistant broker, Faneuil, who says, Well, I wasn't lying before, but now I'm telling -- I was lying before, but now I'm telling the truth.

It's really a very shaky case. The insider trading case at the civil level is innovative and creative to say the least and some very serious people like Steve Bainbridge at UCLA Law School say -- the real expert on insider trading -- say they haven't got much.

BLITZER: The government, the prosecutors, the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York -- they say she lied to investigators, she destroyed, she changed evidence, she obstructed justice in a sense. Why was this a legitimate crime?

REYNOLDS: Well -- what -- justice for whom? For herself.

Basically they were accusing her -- in the press, by the way, not formally -- in "The New York Times" of one year ago, June 7, accused her of trading on a tip from Sam Waksal because Sam Waksal was a friend of hers.

She's now officially innocent of that claim and yet that trashed her stock. It took it down from $19 to $11. A lot of people got hurt by that accusation, which was totally false.

Now to say that she's obstructing justice is, first of all, to agree with the rather nit picking arguments about lying. Lying consists of things like -- she says I don't recall certain details about a conversation of December 27, 2001. Hey, she's 61. Maybe she doesn't recall it. But they're pretty sure she does recall it.

BLITZER: But doesn't -- don't the prosecutors do this all the time when they think they have someone who committed a crime. They might not be able to prove the initial crime, but there's plenty of evidence of the cover-up that they -- that forces them, in effect, to go -- not ignore that.

REYNOLDS: Well, they spent a year deciding what the crime was. Now they've come up with three and they're all the same crime, repackaged in various ways. The same crime consisting of -- you didn't -- it isn't that you did anything wrong by selling a stock. Everybody was selling the stock on the 27th. It was falling like a stone. There were only two days for the FDA to approve Erbitux, so speculators were speculating. That wasn't a crime.

But what was a crime is that you don't explain why you did it the way we want you to explain it or the way Mr. Faneuil thinks you should have explained it.

BLITZER: Yesterday -- yes, I was going to say, yesterday we had a guest here who thought that if her name was Mike Stewart -- in other words, if this had been a man instead of a woman, the government wouldn't have gone after him.

Do you believe that?

REYNOLDS: I don't think that's it. I if had been anybody unfamous, and we know there were lots of them. By December 15 of that year, there were 77 million shorts on that stock. She had 39 hundred. Seventy-seven million come into the market, 3900 is not worth diddly squat. It's stupid to make a big deal out of that.

BLITZER: Everybody seems to be making a big deal out of it. We'll continue to watch this story unfold. Alan Reynolds, of the Cato Institute, thanks for your insight.

A brown van and a satanic cult. Does new evidence point away from Scott Peterson or is the defense team simply playing with public opinion?

Also, senator, former first lady, and political lightning rod, Hillary Clinton tells her side of the story.

Is this the start of a run for the White House?

And U.S. troops pulling back from the Korean demilitarized zone.

Is this the beginning of the end after 50 years?

We'll get answers from the Pentagon.

We're also standing by. The defense secretary expected to speak to reporters on Capitol Hill.

That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS, live this hour from the nation's capital. Here now is Wolf Blitzer.

BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN. We're standing by to hear from the defense secretary of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld. You are looking at live pictures on capitol hill. He's been briefing members of the House of Representatives behind closed doors.

Among the issues on the agenda, where are those weapons of mass destruction? Why haven't they shown up yet?

No evidence so far. We're going to be going live to Capitol Hill to hear from the secretary of defense as soon as he comes forward. We'll also get some new developments on homeland security. All that coming up. First, the latest headlines.

(NEWSBREAK)

BLITZER: As it flashes back between yellow and orange, that color-coded terror alert system is causing enormous headaches for officials around the country. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, today, addressed that problem, as well as other threats that may trigger the next alert.

Let's go live to CNN's Jeanne Meserve, she's covering that -- Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Ridge, says the color-coded alert system is undergoing refinement. He would like the system to be more specific so the level can be raised only in threatens areas or industries, rather than nationwide. But Ridge says the intelligence right now he says is too generic, that al Qaeda members in custody aren't providing that kind of detail. The threat level has been moved up and down four times in the past year. Some state and local officials talk about disregarding it. Ridge says he understands their frustration but says, but what if something happened in one their cities and they hadn't taken any preventative actions, in his words, "god forbid."

In other tidbits from the secretary, he says there is no existing information to suggest weapons of mass destruction that might have been in Iraq have been turned over to terrorists. And some members of his department are in Israel, gather idea's about the profiling of lone wolf suicide bombers, statics to prevent such attacks and out how to reconfigure hard and soft targets to minimize damage should they strike here in the U.S.

BLITZER: Sounds like a prudent measure.

Jeanne Meserve, thanks very much for that report.

For decades it's been one of the most tense and heavily manned borders in the world. Now the United States has agreed to dismantle its bases and pull back troops from the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, is following this historic development, I dare say -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The Pentagon says this is simply a realignment of the troops. In fact, in order to increase its capability, what's happening is the U.S. and South Korea have agreed for a plan for pulling about 14,000 troops back from near the DMZ, essentially out of range of North Korea's more than 11,000 artillery pieces and instead consolidating them south of the -- of Seoul where they will be poised to launch a quick attack on the North the event of war. Now the North Koreans are complaining that that's a bit provocative, but the U.S. insists these moves are defensive, only to increase deterrence.

Currently, some 14,000 troops of the 2nd Infantry Division are spread out over two dozen different facilities. This plan would consolidate them initially in two camps north of Seoul. And then over the coming years the U.S. would move to a system where they were concentrated all 37,000 troops in two major hubs in the southern part of the country. Again, the idea is to be able to be poised to launch a quick attack or counterattack in the event of war.

The U.S. would also be sending more Patriot missiles and also some of those new army striker vehicles to try to implement a new policy of having a faster, speedier, more mobile force. These changes will take place over a number of years. It's still not clear whether in the end it will result in any reduction of U.S. forces there. But the U.S. says it will amount to a significant increase in the military capability of the forces there.

BLITZER: Jamie, very briefly if they move those forces to the southern part of South Korea, they are less vulnerable to a preemptive North Korean first strike lets say.

MCINTYRE: Well, the big concern about North Korea is that it's got more than 11,000 artillery pieces in range of Seoul. And with those troops up near the border, they're very vulnerable. They are in a more strategic position if they are south of Seoul and can launch an attack from there.

BLITZER: It's pretty frightening. I've been there, as have you. And we can testify, it's probably still the most dangerous place on earth.

Jamie McIntyre, thanks very much.

Hillary Clinton revealed. We have new details from her tell all book.

Will it change the mind of the critics?

We'll have a debate.

That's coming up.

First a look at some other news making headlines around the world.

Russian officials say a female suicide bomber blew up a bus carrying air force personnel, killing at least 17 people. It happened on the outskirts of a base near Chechnya, where Russian forces are battling separatists groups.

The Australian navy rescued two men trying to cross the Indian Ocean in a row boat. Bad weather battered both them and their vessel. The rowers say they might try again. Pope John Paul II is in Croatia on the 100th international trip of his papacy. The 83-year-old pope has covered more than 700,000 miles in the last 25 years, visiting 600 cities in 179 countries.

And the Rolling Stones kicked off the European leg of their world tour in Munich. They'll spend the summer performing across the continent, then return to Asia for concerts that were postponed because of the SARS epidemic.

And that's our look around the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

BLITZER: When we come back, Senator Hillary Clinton. She's getting tough on herself. Is her book worthy of buying or bashing? We have two guests coming up. They disagree on a lot. Let's see what they have to say.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. Yesterday we reported on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's sensational new book on the highs and extreme lows of her White House years. The book, entitled "Living History", comes out Monday.

But the Associated Press got an early copy, at least part of it. A leak that has publisher Simon & Schuster fighting that, supposedly, threatening to sue the AP.

In discussing her husband's affair with the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Mrs. Clinton writes, and here I'm quoting, "I didn't know whether our marriage could or should survive such a stinging betrayal. This was the most devastating, shocking and hurtful experience of my life."

But the former first lady also talks about her at times aggressive role in health care reform. She writes, "on bad days I faulted myself for botching health care, coming on too strong and galvanizing our opponents."

Joining us now to talk about this new book, the former Clinton White House counsel Lenny Davis. And the syndicated columnist, contributing editor of "The National Review", and regular panelist on "LATE EDITION" Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah, is this book worthy of buying as far as you can tell right now?

JONAH GOLDBERG, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "NATIONAL REVIEW": I'm not going to buy it. And so far the only leak that has come out has already been contested three different ways as probably not even being true. My gut reaction is always distrust anything that comes out of the Clinton camp. If this was a normal person coming out with an $8 million book there would be so much incentive to create buzz. I don't believe this leak. I think Simon & Schuster orchestrated this. I pretty sure that the leak came from Simon & Schuster and it's all to just generate buzz.

BLITZER: You know the accusation is -- you well know, Lanny -- is that how could she not have believed all the allegations for, what? Six months from January until August? She waited until August to finally believe that there was an affair. You believed it from day one, didn't you?

LANNY DAVIS, FRM. WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL: First of all, I don't judge other people's relationships, marriages, what they believe or disbelief about their spouses. It certainly is consistent with human nature to be in denial when you have a relationship with somebody and you don't want to believe the worst.

BLITZER: A smart woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton?

DAVIS: Sometimes the smarter people that I know in relationships engaged in denial because they'd rather not face the pain of the opposite.

As far as I was concerned, I had hoped, I had prayed, that President Clinton hadn't done this deed that hurt Hillary Clinton so badly.

And I am not surprised at all that my friend Jonah disbelieves anything that Mrs. Clinton says. The fact that she is a popular senator from New York and is telling a history that everybody is interested in and will probably be No. 1 on the best seller list is not going to make my friend Jonah...

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: Only 27 percent of Hillary Clinton's own constituents, according to the Marris (ph) poll, which I saw reported on this network, think that she wrote this book for anything but cynical reasons.

BLITZER: When you say cynical reasons what do you mean?

GOLDBERG: Either for the money or to get ready for her presidential campaign. "Washington Post"'s Peter Baker has already -- you know, his version of events completely differs different from Hillary Clinton's.

Peter Baker's an excellent reporter. I'll take his word over Hillary's any day.

BLITZER: And he writes that David Kendall, their attorney, told her days earlier, before the president told her, yes, there was an inappropriate sexual relation there. DAVIS: Actually, I haven't read Mrs. Clinton's book yet, so I'm going to reserve judgment. But as far as I can tell from the Associated Press, she is talking about when she first had to finally confront the truth.

Whatever people were telling her for months and months about what she should or shouldn't believe, the final moment of recognition is -- Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. But it's sort of silly to have a debate about this when the book is about is about one of the most successful teams in the White House. And the performance ratings of the president...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... you know people are going to focus on Monica Lewinsky and the...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: The salaciousness of focusing on this AP leak, at least we've gotten it out of our systems. We can move on to the important...

GOLDBERG: I don't dispute that. I think the only reason the focus AP is that's the only thing that's out so far and it's already got untruths in it.

Regardless, the larger point is, Lanny says, it's the most successful team in a long time, all that kind of stuff. Bill Clinton ran on the two-for-the-price-of-for-one sort of thing. They are the ones who consistently, over their political career, put their marriage into center stage. They're the ones who said it is a team, it a political partnership.

You can't then say, oh, well, we can't judge their partnership when this is the very thing Lanny is sitting here celebrating.

DAVIS: I certainly think that anyone can judge a partnership. I think President and Mrs. Bush are a great team and I judge them favorably as being a great team.

The fact is that on leaving office, President Clinton had a 65 percent approval rating. Today Senator Clinton is one of the most popular political figures...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: A president approval rating is performance in office. And Senator Clinton's approval rating is performance in office and the book is a history that the American people want to read because it tells the truth about a very interesting and important critical...

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: ... telling pollsters that they don't believe she wrote this book for anything other than the money or to launch her presidential career. And the idea that she's going to tell the truth in it when she's got to keep her presidential career in line...

BLITZER: We got to wrap it up.

But, Lanny, is she going to run in 2008?

DAVIS: I don't think she will run 2008 because I think she loves being a U.S. senator. But I know if she does run, she'll be elected president and Jonah will have a very bad eight-year, two-terms of Hillary.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Another Clinton coming in, following another Bush. We'll see what happens.

GOLDBERG: She was great for conservatism the first time around.

BLITZER: We got to leave it right there. Jonah Goldberg and Lanny Davis, we'll continue this conversation.

Our hot "Web Question of the Day" is this, on a much more serious note: did President Bush exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability? You can still vote. We'll have the results immediately when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in on "Our Web Question of the Day." Look at his, President Bush, this is the question, did he exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability? Seventy-six percent of you say yes, 24 percent of you say no. Remember, we always tell you this, this is not a scientific poll.

A reminder, you can always watch us everyday, weekdays, 5 p.m. Eastern, 2 p.m. on the West Coast, as well as noon Eastern.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Raines, Boyd of "NY Times" Resign>


Aired June 5, 2003 - 17:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER (voice-over): Bush over Baghdad. The president gets an aerial view of Iraq after a triumphant visit with the troops.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And that mission has been accomplished.

BLITZER: But is victory complete without weapons of mass destruction?

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The commissioner has not, at any time during the inspections in Iraq, found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction.

BLITZER: A shocking headline at "The New York Times." More heads roll, this time at the top.

Martha Stewart strikes back. A public campaign to defend her reputation.

And it's not even in bookstores yet, but the debate is on. Is Hillary Clinton's new book a heartfelt revelation or a politician's self-promotion?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: CNN live this hour, Wolf Blitzer Reports, live from the nation's capital, with correspondents from around the world.

WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts now.

BLITZER: It's Thursday, June 5, 2003. Hello from Washington. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting.

We're standing by right now to hear directly from the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. He's meeting behind closed doors, has been for some time, with selected members of the U.S. Congress, but shortly will be coming before the microphones.

On the agenda, two very different views of Iraq, what's unfolding now. Today, the commander-in-chief got a firsthand look from Air Force One as he headed home from headquarters in Qatar. There he told the U.S. troops their mission to liberate Iraq has been accomplished.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Day by day, the United States and our coalition partners are making the streets safer for the Iraqi citizens. We also understand that a more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water. Things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: On the ground today in Iraq, the reality may be somewhat different. Yet another soldier was killed and five more wounded when they were attacked near Fallujah, in central Iraq. That brings to 39 the number of American troops killed in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat back on May 1.

For more on the security situation unfolding right now, let's go live to CNN's Matthew Chance. He's in Baghdad -- Matthew.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you very much, Wolf.

And the security situation here being underlined by the death that soldier in Fallujah, about 30 kilometers -- 30 miles, rather -- to the west of Baghdad. It's just the latest incident in the area that has seen a number of clashes between U.S. forces and what U.S. commanders say are somewhat organized opposition elements, remnants, perhaps of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The situation there commented upon by Mr. Bush saying that, you know, increased security, water and electricity supplies would make all the difference. But these are the issues being felt by many Iraqis as the ones that have not been dealt with very well, by the U.S. administrators and by U.S. forces.

Certainly supplies of things like electricity and water were far from secure under the regime of Saddam Hussein. But it is these issues that many Iraqis blame the U.S. for, their situation now, their insecurity. They say there's not enough security on the streets for them, that they still have very unsecure supplies of electricity and water. They say the U.S. and its officials should have worked harder and much faster to get those supplies connected, Wolf.

BLITZER: Chance on the scene for us in Baghdad. Thanks very much, Matthew.

Here at home, the debate apparently is sharpening over the whereabouts of the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A lot of people are wondering, where are they?

As Congressional critics question the pre-war intelligence cited by the Bush administration, the president today vowed that the hunt will continue. But the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Dr. Hans Blix, warned that on -- based on his experiences, it won't be easy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLIX: The commission has not, at any time during the inspections in Iraq, found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of prescribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: For more on the weapons controversy, the dangerous ground situation in Iraq and the efforts to build a new Iraq, let's turn to U.S. Representative Jane Harman. She's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.

Are you as frustrated as a lot of other people are that so far no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: I'm concerned about it. You talk about security on the ground in Iraq -- my working assumption is that the weapons of mass destruction are buried underground, some body knows where they are and if they are unearthed while our troops are in place, they could cause enormous harm to Americans.

BLITZER: So you believe that they're there, that they're some place, they haven't been sent out of Iraq or destroyed?

HARMAN: Well, any of those scenarios is possible. All we've found so far is two or three mobile vans capable of making biological weapons. I disagree with the president that that's conclusive proof that there was adequate WMD to pose a clear and present danger.

But nonetheless I think we will find more. It's good news that we've sent over 1,100 more people this week, under the supervision of a general from the Defense Intelligence Agency, to look for these weapons.

BLITZER: And I know you've been briefed on that.

You had a chance to speak with Ambassador Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civil administrator in Iraq. You spoke with him today on the phone. What's his message?

HARMAN: Well, let me say first that Jerry Bremer is a very qualified guy. He chaired something called the Commission on Terrorism from 1999 to 2000. I was a member of that commission and I have high regard. He's the best possible choice. I only wish he'd been there months earlier.

He says Iraq is a shattered place. Those are tough words and just starting with security, then moving to quality of life, not only for Iraqis, but American troops and the folks working for him, and then moving on to establishing some kind of civil society is a huge order. He's in there for the long haul. I just hope that this administration commits the resources and the effort to back him up. He will fail unless the resources and the effort are made by the administration.

BLITZER: Well, do you have any doubt that the Bush administration, which went to war to liberate Iraq, is going to simply walk away from that issue?

HARMAN: Well, I don't -- they say they're going to, you know, hang in there. However, the record in Afghanistan isn't great. And backing up to the last administration, which had four nation-building exercises, including Haiti and Somalia, those efforts were failures. We did better in Kosovo where we committed resources.

It's all a question of resources and effort, and we're talking 160,000 troops or more, or police equivalents on the ground, and maybe as much as $20 billion with a "B" over five years. Not all these resources coming from the U.S. We should internationalize the effort. But if they're not there, we're not going to get Iraq to a place that it needs to be to have its own democracy and a decent standard of living.

BLITZER: Based on everything you've heard -- and you're a member of the Intelligence Committee, privy to a lot of the nation's most sensitive information. How long will U.S. troops in those big numbers -- 160,000 -- have to remain on the ground in Iraq?

HARMAN: Well, I don't know the answer to that precisely. I think a presence that's very large will have to remain on the ground in Iraq for a long time. I don't know what the numbers are.

The Council on Foreign Relations, which is looking at this -- I think they said 75,000 to 100,000 troops. But they could be international troops. There are other troops in place. The Brits and Poles are there, and maybe other folks will join the effort.

Certainly, NGOs and international relief organizations are now helping us. That's a good thing. And the U.N. has sent a special representative, an experienced ambassador named Demello, pursuant to the 14 to zip resolution of the Security Council, which we played a role in. That's a victory for Secretary of State Powell.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Jane Harman, thanks for coming over.

HARMAN: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Here's your turn to weigh in on story. Our "Web Question of the Day" is this: "Did President Bush exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability?" We'll have the results later in this broadcast. You can vote. Go to my Web page, cnn.com/wolf.

While you're there, I'd love to hear from you directly. Please send me your comments. I'll try to read some of them on the air each day at the end of this program. That's also, of course, where you can read my daily online column, cnn.com/wolf. Let's turn now to another huge story that broke today. A major shakeup at "The New York Times", which has been rocked by plagiarism scandal in recent weeks. Two top executives are resigning.

CNN's Michael Okwu is joining us live from New York now. He's on the scene with details -- Michael.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, good afternoon.

Call it a day of resignation here at "The New York Times." Howell Raines, the executive editor of "The Times" and Gerald Boyd, the managing editor, both stepped down this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OKWU (voice-over): Staff sources say Raines and Boyd addressed the newsroom at 10:30 in what was described as an impromptu morning gathering, the staff's mood sad and stunned. Twenty minutes later applause, not so much in celebration of the institution's future as staffers said, but rather an awkward appreciation of the two men's past. This former "Times" photographer put it this way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know whether this is like a birth or a funeral, but it's something. So I wanted to be here.

OKWU: "Times" publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. accepted their resignations just three weeks after saying he would not. "Howell and Gerald have tendered their RealNetworks," he said in a statement, "and I have accepted them with sadness based on what we believe is best for `The Times.'"

It is the latest chapter of perhaps the darkest saga in "The Times" 152-year history, set off by the serial fabrication of former "Times" reporter Jason Blair.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the wake of what I believe is the Jayson Blair (UNINTELLIGIBLE), that not only the executive editor, but the managing editor, two top journalists in this country, have had to step down is not something that you are going to see anybody at "The New York Times" dancing in the aisles over.

And an e-mail to CNN, Blair said, quote, "I'm sorry to hear that more people have fallen in this sequence of events that I unleashed. I wish the rolling heads had stopped with me."

For weeks, staffers have privately complained that Raines and Boyd had ignored warning signals. Now many are expressing relief.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that is now a clean break and that that's probably a good thing. It makes me feel sad personally for the individuals, but we're not getting back to work. We've been thinking about this and talking about this constantly, it's been a distraction.

OKWU: Others are expressing joy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I'm so happy! (END VIDEOTAPE)

OKWU: "The New York Times" has always been considered the paper of record, so imagine this: one of the women you just heard from, Debbie Sontag, a reporter with "The Times Sunday magazine" said that in the last several weeks she's had to actually send press clippings of some of her former work to potential interview subjects. Why? Because many of those subjects expressed some doubts and reservations about the accuracy and integrity of the paper -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Amazing stuff that's going on. Michael Okwu, thanks very much.

Let's get some more perspective now on what's going on. Joining me to discuss these high-profile departures and the scandals that have prompted them is Cynthia Cotts. She's the media critic for "The Village Voice" in New York.

Cynthia, thanks so much for joining us. What are you hearing right now from your sources inside the newsroom at "The New York Times." What's the mood? What's going on right now?

CYNTHIA COTTS, MEDIA CRITIC, "THE VILLAGE VOICE": Well, what I heard today, Wolf, from my sources was three different kinds of reactions: surprise that these resignations came as quickly as they did, speculation about who's going to come into power next and a certain sense of satisfaction that this was the proper resolution for the scandals.

BLITZER: Is there a sense you're getting who is going to emerge as the next executive editor, the editor in chief, if you will, of "The New York Times" after Joe Lelyveld, who's the former executive editor. He's coming in on a temporary basis.

COTTS: Right. Well there are a lot of names that have been thrown out and I think "The Times" said today that they would be looking both inside the company and outside the company for a successor to Raines.

One thing that seems to be certain is that a good candidate for managing editor is the metro editor, John Landman, who is very well respected by the staff.

BLITZER: What is the mood, morale like for these reporters, these editors, the others at "The New York Times," base on what you can tell?

COTTS: Well the morale has been so bad for so long that I think these people are exhausted. But I think right now they're very sad that these two men had to step down. They both are very talented in their own ways.

But there's also a sense of, as they said, a sort of satisfaction and relief because many people within "The Times" felt that Howell Raines' style management was not fit for this newsroom. BLITZER: How do you -- I'm still having a tough time understanding how Jayson Blair, the young reporter, could write fiction for "The New York Times" for so long and get away with it. Where were the editors? Where were those who would have the failsafe, the kind of vetting system that would check what he was writing?

COTTS: Well, if you take what Jayson Blair says as true, which is hard to do, he said that he only began writing fiction towards the very end, the last few months of his tenure at "The Times." I think what he -- his problems were that he had a bad record of lots of mistakes, he was sometimes unreliable, and editors tolerated that and let him go along and they gave him major assignments.

I think it was more a sense of, this was a kid who was promoted too quickly and he wasn't trained.

BLITZER: Obviously there were a lot of alarm bells, but the top people, including Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, clearly were not paying close enough attention.

Cynthia, unfortunately, we have to leave it right there. Cynthia Cotts of "The Village Voice."

COTTS: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you very much.

And it's happening right now. Any moment we're expecting to hear from the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He's ready to speak out on Iraq. He's been briefing members of Congress behind closed doors. We'll go live to Capitol Hill. That's coming up.

Also, Martha Stewart. She's on the move. A public relations campaign to save her name. But will it help spare her from doing potentially, at least, some hard time?

Plus, satanic cults and brown vans. Scott Peterson heads back to court, while a defense team promises a blockbuster.

And new revelations from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tell-all. Hear what she calls the most devastating experience of her life. All that, first, today's "News Quiz."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER (voice-over): What's the largest selling daily newspaper in the United States? "The Wall Street Journal", "The New York Times", "USA Today", "The Washington Post"? The answer coming up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Prosecutors hit her with a criminal indictment. Now Martha Stewart is striking right back by reaching out directly to you. We'll explain. That's coming up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER (voice-over): Earlier we asked what's the largest selling daily newspaper in the United States? The answer, "USA Today". It was the first national newspaper to go color, and has been giving the competition a run for the money ever since.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Remember, we're standing by to hear directly from the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He's on Capitol Hill. We'll go there live as soon as he comes before our microphones.

In the meantime, the Attorney General John Ashcroft was also on Capitol Hill today asking for more weapons to use in the war on terror. Let's go live to our justice correspondent Kelli Arena. She's here with me -- Kelli.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the attorney general for the first time publicly revealed new powers that he will be seeking. This as he defended the Justice Department's actions since the September 11 attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): The attorney general held up a copy of an al Qaeda declaration of war against America as he asked lawmakers to expand the Patriot Act.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Unfortunately the law has several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses.

ARENA: Congress passed the act one month after the September 11 attacks, and as a result, federal agents can more easily access records, obtain wiretaps and conduct searches.

ASHCROFT: The Patriot Act gave us the tools we need to integrate our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to win the war on terror.

ARENA: But lawmakers, citing a new report sharply critical of how the Justice Department treated illegal aliens detained in the 9/11 investigation, pressed Ashcroft on whether rights are being violated in the name of national security.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: Isn't a fact that after you rounded up these individuals, you found that they had no involvement with terrorist activity?

ASHCROFT: In all of the conduct of the activities of the Justice Department, we have not violated the law. And we will not violate the law. We will uphold the law.

ARENA: Concerns over the detention policy helped fuel the continuing debate over how the Patriot Act Is being implemented. Many of the provisions of the Act expire in 2005, and Congress must act to extend them or make them permanent.

The attorney general urged Congress to do that and more. Ashcroft wants to ensure that individuals who train with a terrorist organization can be more easily charged with a crime. He asked for new authority to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials, and to let him seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act which kills Americans.

LAURA MURPHY, ACLU: Before the Congress gives the Justice Department new powers, the Justice Department needs to justify what it has done with the powers that Congress gave them in October of 2001.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: But the attorney general says the new powers have already resulted in concrete success. The arrest and prosecution of suspected terrorists and not a single attack on U.S. soil, Wolf.

BLITZER: Kelli Arena with an important story. Kelli, thanks very much.

He's facing critical questions on Iraq right now and at any moment he'll emerge from behind closed doors. The defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, expected to answer reporters' questions. We're standing by. We'll have live coverage.

Also, love or hate her, Hillary Rodham Clinton's telling all apparently and she's clearly raising lots of eyebrows. New details from her new book.

And Serena Williams fights the good fight but loses the battle. That, much more, still to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Martha Stewart is putting up a very public fight against the charges she's facing from allegations of insider trade. Those charges resulting from those initial allegations. She's launched a full-scale media campaign affirming her innocence and trying to rally support.

CNN's Allan Chernoff has been following this story from day one. He's joining now once again live from New York -- Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, after getting slapped with civil and criminal charges yesterday, Martha Stewart is taking her fight to the people. She's hoping that her status as a domestic icon will help her defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Before facing the government in a court of law, Martha Stewart is trying to win in the court of public opinion. An ad from Stewart in "USA Today" pledges: "I will fight to clear my name." Ms. Stewart promotes a new Web site, marthatalks.com, and invites supporters to send her e-mail -- all an effort to gain public support.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Part of me kind of says, you know, Why can't they just leave her alone?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I happen to think she's guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she is found guilty, she's pretty much done for.

CHERNOFF: Some defense lawyers say the PR campaign could help Stewart.

ROBERT HEIM, MEYERS & HEIM: This will have an affect on both the government and the court, because the government's really looking for the public interest and to do what's right and what's just. And if there is that type of support for Martha Stewart, even if it's subconsciously, it will affect the government and the type of relief it's seeking from a court.

CHERNOFF: Stewart is accused of a cover-up, trying to prevent investigators from learning if she had inside information when she sold stock in biotech firm ImClone.

Prosecutors deny they are singling Stewart out.

JAMES COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY: Martha Stewart may be famous, but that's no reason for treating her differently from any other defendant.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: Legal analysts say that Stewart's publicity campaign may be the beginning of what they call a soundbyte trial with prosecutors saying this is purely a matter of Martha Stewart having lied to the government, and the defense saying Martha Stewart is being made to be a scapegoat.

Wolf, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for June 19.

BLITZER: June 19. All right, Allan, I guess it was inevitable. But now everyone seems to be talking about the color schemes on the Web site that she unveiled today. What are they saying? What are you hearing?

CHERNOFF: Well, Wolf, you could have guessed it. Of course, Martha Stewart did design this Web site and those colors are her pick. They are robins egg blue and granny smith apple.

By the way, the Web site has had, according to her spokesperson, more than 1.5 million hits today, more than 12,000 e-mails sent to her.

BLITZER: That's amazing. All right. Allan Chernoff, thanks for the good reporting.

Let's get a little bit more perspective now about all of this, the criminal and civil charges awaiting Martha Stewart. Alan Reynolds is with the Cato Institute. He's joining us here from our Washington bureau.

Alan, thanks very much for joining us.

ALAN REYNOLDS, CATO INSTITUTE: Glad to be here.

BLITZER: You believe this is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Why?

REYNOLDS: Well, first of all, the case has changed completely. It's no longer about insider trading at a criminal level. It's about lying, and the only evidence really they have that she's lying is a liar -- I mean, a proven liar, her assistant broker, Faneuil, who says, Well, I wasn't lying before, but now I'm telling -- I was lying before, but now I'm telling the truth.

It's really a very shaky case. The insider trading case at the civil level is innovative and creative to say the least and some very serious people like Steve Bainbridge at UCLA Law School say -- the real expert on insider trading -- say they haven't got much.

BLITZER: The government, the prosecutors, the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York -- they say she lied to investigators, she destroyed, she changed evidence, she obstructed justice in a sense. Why was this a legitimate crime?

REYNOLDS: Well -- what -- justice for whom? For herself.

Basically they were accusing her -- in the press, by the way, not formally -- in "The New York Times" of one year ago, June 7, accused her of trading on a tip from Sam Waksal because Sam Waksal was a friend of hers.

She's now officially innocent of that claim and yet that trashed her stock. It took it down from $19 to $11. A lot of people got hurt by that accusation, which was totally false.

Now to say that she's obstructing justice is, first of all, to agree with the rather nit picking arguments about lying. Lying consists of things like -- she says I don't recall certain details about a conversation of December 27, 2001. Hey, she's 61. Maybe she doesn't recall it. But they're pretty sure she does recall it.

BLITZER: But doesn't -- don't the prosecutors do this all the time when they think they have someone who committed a crime. They might not be able to prove the initial crime, but there's plenty of evidence of the cover-up that they -- that forces them, in effect, to go -- not ignore that.

REYNOLDS: Well, they spent a year deciding what the crime was. Now they've come up with three and they're all the same crime, repackaged in various ways. The same crime consisting of -- you didn't -- it isn't that you did anything wrong by selling a stock. Everybody was selling the stock on the 27th. It was falling like a stone. There were only two days for the FDA to approve Erbitux, so speculators were speculating. That wasn't a crime.

But what was a crime is that you don't explain why you did it the way we want you to explain it or the way Mr. Faneuil thinks you should have explained it.

BLITZER: Yesterday -- yes, I was going to say, yesterday we had a guest here who thought that if her name was Mike Stewart -- in other words, if this had been a man instead of a woman, the government wouldn't have gone after him.

Do you believe that?

REYNOLDS: I don't think that's it. I if had been anybody unfamous, and we know there were lots of them. By December 15 of that year, there were 77 million shorts on that stock. She had 39 hundred. Seventy-seven million come into the market, 3900 is not worth diddly squat. It's stupid to make a big deal out of that.

BLITZER: Everybody seems to be making a big deal out of it. We'll continue to watch this story unfold. Alan Reynolds, of the Cato Institute, thanks for your insight.

A brown van and a satanic cult. Does new evidence point away from Scott Peterson or is the defense team simply playing with public opinion?

Also, senator, former first lady, and political lightning rod, Hillary Clinton tells her side of the story.

Is this the start of a run for the White House?

And U.S. troops pulling back from the Korean demilitarized zone.

Is this the beginning of the end after 50 years?

We'll get answers from the Pentagon.

We're also standing by. The defense secretary expected to speak to reporters on Capitol Hill.

That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS, live this hour from the nation's capital. Here now is Wolf Blitzer.

BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN. We're standing by to hear from the defense secretary of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld. You are looking at live pictures on capitol hill. He's been briefing members of the House of Representatives behind closed doors.

Among the issues on the agenda, where are those weapons of mass destruction? Why haven't they shown up yet?

No evidence so far. We're going to be going live to Capitol Hill to hear from the secretary of defense as soon as he comes forward. We'll also get some new developments on homeland security. All that coming up. First, the latest headlines.

(NEWSBREAK)

BLITZER: As it flashes back between yellow and orange, that color-coded terror alert system is causing enormous headaches for officials around the country. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, today, addressed that problem, as well as other threats that may trigger the next alert.

Let's go live to CNN's Jeanne Meserve, she's covering that -- Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Ridge, says the color-coded alert system is undergoing refinement. He would like the system to be more specific so the level can be raised only in threatens areas or industries, rather than nationwide. But Ridge says the intelligence right now he says is too generic, that al Qaeda members in custody aren't providing that kind of detail. The threat level has been moved up and down four times in the past year. Some state and local officials talk about disregarding it. Ridge says he understands their frustration but says, but what if something happened in one their cities and they hadn't taken any preventative actions, in his words, "god forbid."

In other tidbits from the secretary, he says there is no existing information to suggest weapons of mass destruction that might have been in Iraq have been turned over to terrorists. And some members of his department are in Israel, gather idea's about the profiling of lone wolf suicide bombers, statics to prevent such attacks and out how to reconfigure hard and soft targets to minimize damage should they strike here in the U.S.

BLITZER: Sounds like a prudent measure.

Jeanne Meserve, thanks very much for that report.

For decades it's been one of the most tense and heavily manned borders in the world. Now the United States has agreed to dismantle its bases and pull back troops from the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, is following this historic development, I dare say -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: The Pentagon says this is simply a realignment of the troops. In fact, in order to increase its capability, what's happening is the U.S. and South Korea have agreed for a plan for pulling about 14,000 troops back from near the DMZ, essentially out of range of North Korea's more than 11,000 artillery pieces and instead consolidating them south of the -- of Seoul where they will be poised to launch a quick attack on the North the event of war. Now the North Koreans are complaining that that's a bit provocative, but the U.S. insists these moves are defensive, only to increase deterrence.

Currently, some 14,000 troops of the 2nd Infantry Division are spread out over two dozen different facilities. This plan would consolidate them initially in two camps north of Seoul. And then over the coming years the U.S. would move to a system where they were concentrated all 37,000 troops in two major hubs in the southern part of the country. Again, the idea is to be able to be poised to launch a quick attack or counterattack in the event of war.

The U.S. would also be sending more Patriot missiles and also some of those new army striker vehicles to try to implement a new policy of having a faster, speedier, more mobile force. These changes will take place over a number of years. It's still not clear whether in the end it will result in any reduction of U.S. forces there. But the U.S. says it will amount to a significant increase in the military capability of the forces there.

BLITZER: Jamie, very briefly if they move those forces to the southern part of South Korea, they are less vulnerable to a preemptive North Korean first strike lets say.

MCINTYRE: Well, the big concern about North Korea is that it's got more than 11,000 artillery pieces in range of Seoul. And with those troops up near the border, they're very vulnerable. They are in a more strategic position if they are south of Seoul and can launch an attack from there.

BLITZER: It's pretty frightening. I've been there, as have you. And we can testify, it's probably still the most dangerous place on earth.

Jamie McIntyre, thanks very much.

Hillary Clinton revealed. We have new details from her tell all book.

Will it change the mind of the critics?

We'll have a debate.

That's coming up.

First a look at some other news making headlines around the world.

Russian officials say a female suicide bomber blew up a bus carrying air force personnel, killing at least 17 people. It happened on the outskirts of a base near Chechnya, where Russian forces are battling separatists groups.

The Australian navy rescued two men trying to cross the Indian Ocean in a row boat. Bad weather battered both them and their vessel. The rowers say they might try again. Pope John Paul II is in Croatia on the 100th international trip of his papacy. The 83-year-old pope has covered more than 700,000 miles in the last 25 years, visiting 600 cities in 179 countries.

And the Rolling Stones kicked off the European leg of their world tour in Munich. They'll spend the summer performing across the continent, then return to Asia for concerts that were postponed because of the SARS epidemic.

And that's our look around the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

BLITZER: When we come back, Senator Hillary Clinton. She's getting tough on herself. Is her book worthy of buying or bashing? We have two guests coming up. They disagree on a lot. Let's see what they have to say.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. Yesterday we reported on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's sensational new book on the highs and extreme lows of her White House years. The book, entitled "Living History", comes out Monday.

But the Associated Press got an early copy, at least part of it. A leak that has publisher Simon & Schuster fighting that, supposedly, threatening to sue the AP.

In discussing her husband's affair with the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Mrs. Clinton writes, and here I'm quoting, "I didn't know whether our marriage could or should survive such a stinging betrayal. This was the most devastating, shocking and hurtful experience of my life."

But the former first lady also talks about her at times aggressive role in health care reform. She writes, "on bad days I faulted myself for botching health care, coming on too strong and galvanizing our opponents."

Joining us now to talk about this new book, the former Clinton White House counsel Lenny Davis. And the syndicated columnist, contributing editor of "The National Review", and regular panelist on "LATE EDITION" Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah, is this book worthy of buying as far as you can tell right now?

JONAH GOLDBERG, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, "NATIONAL REVIEW": I'm not going to buy it. And so far the only leak that has come out has already been contested three different ways as probably not even being true. My gut reaction is always distrust anything that comes out of the Clinton camp. If this was a normal person coming out with an $8 million book there would be so much incentive to create buzz. I don't believe this leak. I think Simon & Schuster orchestrated this. I pretty sure that the leak came from Simon & Schuster and it's all to just generate buzz.

BLITZER: You know the accusation is -- you well know, Lanny -- is that how could she not have believed all the allegations for, what? Six months from January until August? She waited until August to finally believe that there was an affair. You believed it from day one, didn't you?

LANNY DAVIS, FRM. WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL COUNSEL: First of all, I don't judge other people's relationships, marriages, what they believe or disbelief about their spouses. It certainly is consistent with human nature to be in denial when you have a relationship with somebody and you don't want to believe the worst.

BLITZER: A smart woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton?

DAVIS: Sometimes the smarter people that I know in relationships engaged in denial because they'd rather not face the pain of the opposite.

As far as I was concerned, I had hoped, I had prayed, that President Clinton hadn't done this deed that hurt Hillary Clinton so badly.

And I am not surprised at all that my friend Jonah disbelieves anything that Mrs. Clinton says. The fact that she is a popular senator from New York and is telling a history that everybody is interested in and will probably be No. 1 on the best seller list is not going to make my friend Jonah...

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: Only 27 percent of Hillary Clinton's own constituents, according to the Marris (ph) poll, which I saw reported on this network, think that she wrote this book for anything but cynical reasons.

BLITZER: When you say cynical reasons what do you mean?

GOLDBERG: Either for the money or to get ready for her presidential campaign. "Washington Post"'s Peter Baker has already -- you know, his version of events completely differs different from Hillary Clinton's.

Peter Baker's an excellent reporter. I'll take his word over Hillary's any day.

BLITZER: And he writes that David Kendall, their attorney, told her days earlier, before the president told her, yes, there was an inappropriate sexual relation there. DAVIS: Actually, I haven't read Mrs. Clinton's book yet, so I'm going to reserve judgment. But as far as I can tell from the Associated Press, she is talking about when she first had to finally confront the truth.

Whatever people were telling her for months and months about what she should or shouldn't believe, the final moment of recognition is -- Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. But it's sort of silly to have a debate about this when the book is about is about one of the most successful teams in the White House. And the performance ratings of the president...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... you know people are going to focus on Monica Lewinsky and the...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: The salaciousness of focusing on this AP leak, at least we've gotten it out of our systems. We can move on to the important...

GOLDBERG: I don't dispute that. I think the only reason the focus AP is that's the only thing that's out so far and it's already got untruths in it.

Regardless, the larger point is, Lanny says, it's the most successful team in a long time, all that kind of stuff. Bill Clinton ran on the two-for-the-price-of-for-one sort of thing. They are the ones who consistently, over their political career, put their marriage into center stage. They're the ones who said it is a team, it a political partnership.

You can't then say, oh, well, we can't judge their partnership when this is the very thing Lanny is sitting here celebrating.

DAVIS: I certainly think that anyone can judge a partnership. I think President and Mrs. Bush are a great team and I judge them favorably as being a great team.

The fact is that on leaving office, President Clinton had a 65 percent approval rating. Today Senator Clinton is one of the most popular political figures...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: A president approval rating is performance in office. And Senator Clinton's approval rating is performance in office and the book is a history that the American people want to read because it tells the truth about a very interesting and important critical...

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: ... telling pollsters that they don't believe she wrote this book for anything other than the money or to launch her presidential career. And the idea that she's going to tell the truth in it when she's got to keep her presidential career in line...

BLITZER: We got to wrap it up.

But, Lanny, is she going to run in 2008?

DAVIS: I don't think she will run 2008 because I think she loves being a U.S. senator. But I know if she does run, she'll be elected president and Jonah will have a very bad eight-year, two-terms of Hillary.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Another Clinton coming in, following another Bush. We'll see what happens.

GOLDBERG: She was great for conservatism the first time around.

BLITZER: We got to leave it right there. Jonah Goldberg and Lanny Davis, we'll continue this conversation.

Our hot "Web Question of the Day" is this, on a much more serious note: did President Bush exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability? You can still vote. We'll have the results immediately when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in on "Our Web Question of the Day." Look at his, President Bush, this is the question, did he exaggerate Iraq's weapons capability? Seventy-six percent of you say yes, 24 percent of you say no. Remember, we always tell you this, this is not a scientific poll.

A reminder, you can always watch us everyday, weekdays, 5 p.m. Eastern, 2 p.m. on the West Coast, as well as noon Eastern.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Raines, Boyd of "NY Times" Resign>