CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Presidential Election Race; Super Bowl Half Time Show

Aired February 07, 2004 - 10:00 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.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Suzanne Malveaux ON THE STORY in this election year of questions that keep coming up about what the U.S. knew and should have known about Iraq before the war.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Nashville, Tennessee, ON THE STORY of the Democratic presidential campaign and John Kerry riding high. His rivals hoping to stop his momentum.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kathleen Hays in Boca Raton, Florida, ON THE STORY of a balancing act, the United States talking to allies about the weak dollar and big budget deficits, talking to U.S. voters about jobs.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN SENIOR U.N. PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss in New York ON THE STORY of the United Nations back in Iraq to help the Iraqis. Will they also come to the rescue of the U.S.?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena ON THE STORY of the poison scare on Capitol Hill this week, is it terrorism or old-fashioned crime? We'll also talk about Janet Jackson, the reaction and the apologies. We'll talk about the latest court decision in Massachusetts about gay marriage and its impact on the presidential campaign. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.

Zap us an e-mail to OnTheStory@cnn.com.

Now we go straight ahead to Kelly Wallace and the front-runner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We will take nothing for granted. We will compete everywhere. And in November, we will beat George W. Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was John Kerry Tuesday night after he won five out of seven presidential contests. A short time from now, he will be holding a rally inside, not outside, you can see it is snowing here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Here is the strategy for the Kerry campaign. They are hoping the senator goes three for three this weekend with wins today in Washington State and Michigan, tomorrow in Main. Also hoping for victories on Tuesday in Tennessee and Virginia. They say that will show that John Kerry can win in the South and could also lead to a narrowing of this presidential field.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, it's obvious that President Bush is just really very eager to take on the front-runner. And although they say he's not watching closely about this, they are already responding. They're attacking his legislative record. They are talking about gay marriage. They are really trying to make some distinctions between the president and Senator Kerry. How are they reacting to that? Do they think that that is a positive sign that the president's folks are coming out and they're already fighting?

WALLACE: Well, you know, Suzanne, it was even a week ago or so when we asked the senator when the Republicans were coming out and attacking him, he called it -- quote -- "the greatest form of flattery." The Democrats, the Kerry campaign definitely responding quickly.

What they are saying is that if the Republicans will come after him and attack John Kerry on issues such as his national security record, they are going to hit back and hit back hard. They say they've learned lessons from way back in the Dukakis campaign. They say the problem there is that Dukakis was labeled as a northerner and a liberal and that Dukakis didn't fight back quickly enough to prevent that from happening. So they say everything could be on the table if Republicans attack John Kerry.

HAYS: You know, Kelly, it's interesting, you know a lot of the stories just two or three months ago, the White House was saying great, we're going to run up against Howard Dean, a flaming liberal, against the war, you know, bring him on. Now, of course, Howard Dean's prospects seem so much weaker. What about the other candidates in the field?

WALLACE: Well, there's another interesting side bar here and that is between Wesley Clark and John Edwards. The two of them are really duking it out, namely in Tennessee and perhaps in Virginia, too. Both of them trying to become the southern alternative to John Kerry. Wesley Clark has actually gone on the offensive, attacking John Edwards and also John Kerry. The clear indication is that one of those men, if they don't do well in both states or either state, it could severely, severely impact the rest of their presidential campaign.

And then you also have, of course, Howard Dean. Howard Dean had once been saying that he was hoping to kind of resurrect his campaign today in Washington State and Michigan. Well, he made a decision a few days ago to sort of put all his eggs in the Wisconsin February 17 primary, indicating that's a must-win for him. So he's looking ahead. If he doesn't win there, he and his aides have pretty much indicated they think it will be pretty hard for him to continue from then on. NEISLOSS: You know Suzanne mentioned in this laundry list of issues that the candidates have to face the gay marriage issue. It seems like this could be a potential stumbling point for Kerry. He doesn't necessarily have a great distinction from his position and Bush's. So what does this mean? What are you hearing about how they are going to strategize on that point?

WALLACE: Well, talking to some Republicans, they say that there's a little bit of a contradiction in John Kerry's record. He is 1 of 14 senators who voted against a measure in 1996 that would have prevented states from recognizing same-sex marriages. He said he did that to prevent gay bashing in the United States Senate. He says he opposes gay marriages and supports civil unions, having gay couples get equal protections under the law.

But Republicans we talked to on the phone over the past few days say they could make this an issue. We asked the senator about that the other day and he responded rather aggressively. He said look, if Republicans want to come after me with that, they should take a look at Vice President Dick Cheney's own position. The senator saying his position is the same as the vice president's. And so kind of trying to respond aggressively to prevent any attacks on his own record.

ARENA: Kelly, has there been any discussion about jockeying for the vice presidential slot? I heard a little bit about Edwards this week when he first said that he would bow out of South if he didn't win South Carolina. Have you heard anything?

WALLACE: Well, this is such a prickly issue, Kelli, especially with John Edwards, because every time he is asked that, he gets very angry and says why don't you ask John Kerry if he'd like to be my vice presidential nominee?

We have asked even aides we were traveling on the plane with the senator and one of his top aides, and a reporter asked what kind of discussion has there been about a vice presidential candidate? And this aide saying absolutely none. And this reporter said come on, you have to be thinking about it. And this person said look, we're taking it step by step. We have got to win the nomination first. So you know they are trying to say they're not talking about it.

It was very interesting, though, Howard Dean in a radio interview, I believe yesterday, was asked if he would accept the invitation if someone asked him to be vice presidential running mate. And Howard Dean saying well, he would do what would ever would be best for the Democratic Party. It seemed to indicate that he was indicating he might be open if anyone wanted to ask him if he doesn't win the nomination himself.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, last Tuesday I was holding a panel of undecided voters, all African-American, excellent panel. And it was really interesting. They started off all undecided, and then about half of them went for John Kerry, and then a couple for Edwards. Are you saying the candidates are making an extra effort, are they looking at that particular voter block? Are they concerned coming up next Tuesday or even the weeks to come that they really need to do a better job of winning voters over?

WALLACE: You know, Suzanne, and that panel I thought was so interesting. You're really seeing a different kind of campaigning right now, a national campaign strategy. Whereas in Iowa and New Hampshire, these candidates could spend days and days having town hall meetings and one on one and question-and-answer sessions with reporters. Right now they're hop-scotching from state to state. And so you don't really get a sense where these candidates can spend a great deal of time saying OK, who's undecided in this room, let me answer your questions and try and win you over.

That said, the key of course is to win over these undecideds. What they are all these candidates are hoping to do is with momentum, with national exposure, with advertising, with just local press. That's going to be the way, they hope, to win over these undecided voters. But again, it's that one-on-one campaigning is really not happening right now.

MALVEAUX: Of course the political calendar is part of the decisions that the White House this week about investigating the 9/11 attacks and intelligence before the Iraq war. I'm back on that story in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush on Thursday signaling that -- signaling that despite the uproar over prewar intelligence and no weapons of mass destruction to be found, he's more than ready to defend his policy this election year.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

President Bush and his administration had a very tough week, the last 10 days. Essentially what has happened, they did not -- they didn't get the bounce they expected out of the State of the Union Address. You had David Kay who came out and said we don't think there are any weapons of mass destruction. CIA director George Tenet, as well, expressing doubt concerning these investigations. This administration is very aggressive, they're on the offensive now, they're trying to defend Bush administration's policies.

ARENA: All this in the campaign year, election year. So tell me, they had originally said, the administration, that they wouldn't start officially campaigning until the spring. So would -- can you assume that they'll move that up? MALVEAUX: Well this is -- this is definitely going to be kicked up. I mean they were talking about the spring. They were also talking about officially when they were going to recognize the front- runner. Now we are talking about just weeks away. They have already geared up.

And the thing that they are concerned about here is that the Democrats have been hammering them for weeks now. You see these Democrat primaries. And they know -- I mean, 50 -- less than 50 percent in the polls now, his approval rating, and a lot of people are beginning to question again, examine again, why did this country go to war.

White House aides, people who I have spoken to say look, the president needs to get out front on the issue. He needs to talk about why it was that the country did go to war. And one of the things that's really extraordinary that's going to happen today is that he is taping a one-hour interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." We're going to see those excerpts tomorrow. And he is going to sit down and answer questions for an hour about his policies.

WALLACE: Suzanne, that's what I wanted to pick up on. Tell us -- take us behind the scenes about that, because when we were all sitting on the campaign bus and another reporter said hey, did you hear, President Bush is going to go one on one for a full hour with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press?" Another report said wow, the White House must be getting worried. What's the sense of aides over at the White House?

MALVEAUX: Well you know this is a unique situation because it's the first time that President Bush has sat down for this one-on-one interview. Other presidents have done it before. He has not since he began in his office.

But what they see, this is definitely a sign that things are not going well. They are not shaping the debate. And what the administration feels most comfortable with is when they are the ones who are in charge, they are leading ahead and actually shaping the debate on television. They realize that they've been getting a lot of knocks, a lot of hits and they are falling behind.

HAYS: Suzanne, what about the other sign that the administration realizes that it's got to be responsive to the criticisms being raised and not just on the Democratic campaign? But I think for a lot of Americans a decision to extend the 9/11 Commission that was very, very touchy for a lot of the 9/11 families. Finally giving in to the idea that there needs to be an investigation, a commission to look at what the prewar intelligence was, what it wasn't, where things fell through.

MALVEAUX: Well here is the thing, the 9/11 Commission, they had been asking for that extension. Initially the administration aides were saying no, look, we really don't want this to fall into that potential window when it's really close to election time. There might be things that come out that are potentially damaging or Democrats can use it to their advantage. They didn't win that argument. The political calculus was is that it's really less costly if we go ahead, negotiate, let's show that we're being cooperative and offer that extension.

The other thing, of course, was the independent investigation on intelligence. This is something, too, that they initially didn't want to do but they decided that they needed to move forward. And that if they didn't, it was going to become an issue in the campaign over and over and over again. People were going to call for this type of independent inquiry, including the Republicans who had become very vocal publicly about the administration cooperating.

NEISLOSS: What can you say, Suzanne, about how that intelligence panel is going to be put together? Because I can tell you from the sort of international view, the only way to clean up this whole intelligence weapons mess, if it can be cleaned up, is really to do this thorough independent investigation. So do they -- do you have the sense that they really get that idea?

MALVEAUX: I think they get that. The thing that they are being most criticized about, of course, is the fact that this is something a panel that the president chose all of the people to be on. So of course you have got a lot of questions over whether or not they are going to be able to be objective. It's one of the main reasons why they picked Senator McCain to be a part of it, because you know he's a critic, he's a maverick, he'll say what he wants to say.

But again, this is -- this is someone who also was just campaigning for the president a couple of weeks ago. So there are a lot of issues. And the big question here is whether or not they're going to get at the issue of how this intelligence was interpreted. The argument that the White House made that this threat of weapons of mass destruction was imminent to the United States. That may be a question that isn't resolved out of this panel. And you've got six other ones as well.

ARENA: What about the fact that they haven't been able to find a sitting Democrat who has been -- who has been willing to be part of that panel? How much of a handicap is that going to be?

MALVEAUX: They have four Democrats that are on the panel now. But as you had mentioned, yes, they don't have somebody who is currently in office who is a Democrat. And they are having a difficult time of finding somebody who will actually go ahead and accept that position.

There are some people -- there are some rumors of people who they have actually asked who have declined. And they want to make sure that they get somebody who is willing and respected among those in the Democratic Party to participate. And that is something that they have not yet worked out.

They have two more panelists that they have to select. There's been a lot of talk about whether or not David Kay would participate. He has said that he has not been asked. But we have seen -- we have actually seen him at the White House a couple of times recently, a number of meetings, so we'll see what happens. ARENA: All right.

Well from terrorism to the one person who can dominate it all, national security, politics, the works, Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl show-off. We're back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET JACKSON, SINGER: Unfortunately, the whole thing went wrong in the end. I am really sorry if I offended anyone. That was truly not my intention.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: So she says she's sorry. Janet Jackson can benefit from a storm of publicity. And from the White House to your house, it seemed everyone has an opinion.

I don't know about you, Suzanne, but this -- I mean OK, it is -- it is funny, but I was listening (ph) to the apology. But I have to say, I, being a mom, and my kids were around when that happened, and, you know, it just seemed so -- just too coincidental that he says you know, I'm going to get you naked by the end of the song, and there it is for the world to see.

MALVEAUX: I was totally naive. I actually thought it was an accident in the beginning and then people started E-mailing me. You know well here's another photo, here's another photo. And then I thought, well, OK, maybe they actually did plan this whole thing.

But even the first lady weighed in on this and said she was offended. She was upset because children were watching. And I mean I had missed it the first time around and I couldn't believe it when I woke up the next morning. I -- they didn't say anything about the game, they didn't say anything about the commercials, it was just Janet Jackson.

NEISLOSS: And since when has she gotten this much publicity? I mean it's really -- the sexually suggestive dancing has gotten really not as much play as this one bit of Janet Jackson. And it's one of those instances where the media is part of just repeating this thing that we all think is so horrible, but hey, it's really great video. So here we are, again, bringing it back.

HAYS: Well I think it -- you know it really -- I think it really touches a nerve though, because I think a lot of people are concerned about the...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

HAYS: ... how far we've gotten in terms of what is on television, what our kids are watching. I think -- in fact, if you look at a star who is really a star right now, Beyonce Knowles who sang the "Star Spangled Banner" in an elegant white suit, she seemed to really get what she was doing. The momentous moment, singing the "Star Spangled Banner." Now granted this was a half time show. But I think also the NFL got it wrong, that MTV got it wrong, because I think a lot of people complained that the half time show was not really up to par, they really didn't care for it, quite apart from Janet Jackson's breast.

WALLACE: OK, I want to jump in here a little bit. As you can see, there's a little bit of a sign feud going on behind me. I've asked all these different campaigns. I said, you know, we're talking about Janet Jackson possibly revealing her breast right now, do you care? And they're like we don't care, we're going to be back behind you.

I'm going to say something, probably get me in trouble, but there was a woman writer, the "New York Times" wrote about this, talking about the big debate, talking about you know CBS and who should be held accountable. But then she said something else, she said perhaps there is one positive here, and then she said that Janet Jackson has the breast of a middle aged woman. And I thought -- you know, hey, you know, that's what this reporter said that maybe there is a good positive that comes out of here. And someone help me out here, come on.

MALVEAUX: And quite a -- look, but, Kelly, that doesn't mean you're going to expose yours, I mean, you know, or any of us for God's sake.

WALLACE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not to say...

ARENA: But the thing that just cracks me up, though, Kelly is that you know here we have MTV, which is hardly noted for "G" rated fare, you know, and everyone is acting so shocked. And I love when the FCC commissioners come out and say -- do they only watch television one day a year, because there's an awful lot that goes on on television. And I just know...

HAYS: But, Kelly, but...

ARENA: ... I think you look at it differently when you're a parent of young children. And I know that there is an awful lot of stuff on television. There's no more family hour.

HAYS: But, Kelly, -- but you don't let your kids watch MTV, do you? I mean you -- well this is network, this is broadcast. I think that's the difference. If you turn on MTV, you know what you're going to get in for. I think when people tune into the Super Bowl, that we're used -- everyone is used to a lot more being on television. But I just think a lot of people feel like, hey, I'm watching, I want to be able to choose if I am going to expose my kids to that or not. And I think that's why it touched a nerve. And I don't even think people are so mad at Janet Jackson is that I just think, for many people, they feel like the envelope has been pushed so far and maybe a lot of families are finally saying hey, we have to think about what we're doing.

(CROSSTALK) MALVEAUX: Think of the reaction, though. I think it's kind of strange though, because they have taken it out of context. Because you have "ER" that says OK, well now we are not going to have an 80- year-old woman's breast exposed in some kind of operation, a scene from there.

ARENA: I know, that was ridiculous.

MALVEAUX: I mean I think that doesn't really acknowledge that there is a certain context in which that's completely, you know, appropriate, if you're actually seeing someone's body at that time. I mean what do you think about the reaction here?

NEISLOSS: But you know so much political hay is being made out of this.

WALLACE: Well I agree with Suzanne that you have to be...

NEISLOSS: So much political hay is being made out of the sexual explicit material that's on television and you wonder, is this going to be one of those opportunities where everyone looks around and says well what about the violence? There's a lot of violence on TV that's really damaging. Why aren't we talking about that? We're focusing far too much on maybe just a bare breast. So there's a lot of room for talking about what else influences our children.

WALLACE: That's a great point, Liz, but there's also -- I think we -- you know picking up on Suzanne's point, a fine line here, because you know you are hearing about an FCC investigation and lots of movement ahead. And you know there's a delicate line here. You just want to sort of be able to walk it, what's appropriate, what's not appropriate. And you don't want to move in the realm of censorship or want to see that the federal government is sort of stepping in and in some way kind of telling the broadcast channels everything that they can or can not do. I think it's a delicate line that everyone is going to have to walk in the days ahead.

ARENA: All right. Well we're all fired up amidst the hoopla about Janet Jackson, a new attack with a deadly poison here in Washington. I'm back ON THE STORY of the Ricin threat after this and a check on what's making headlines at this hour.

ANNOUNCER: Kelli Arena is CNN's justice correspondent. Earlier, she worked for CNN's Financial News. The New York Festival has awarded her a 2002 best correspondent award.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I know that -- that you're probably in a better position to confront these challenges today than we were two years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: These challenge, that's Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. He's talking about the contamination of a part of a Senate office building, with a deadly poison ricin, and a reminder that the anthrax case is still wide open two years later.

Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.

The bottom line here is that there was some ricin found in the mailroom of the Senate majority leader's office. No ricin anywhere else that they have discovered. No letter. No delivery mechanism that they know of. So, they don't know how the ricin got there. They have no strong leads at this time. And no connection to some previous ricin letters that were sent. So we are -- it's seeming very much like the anthrax investigation. Nobody really knowing how it got there or why.

HAYS: Well, you know, Kelli, it's kind of sad how we're having to learn about all these deadly poisons. Ricin, of course, is the scariest thing, I think, no known antidote. In some cases it's hard to detect. And another thing disturbing about this -- I wonder what light you can shed is why the fact this was found was held from the public for so many days?

ARENA: No. Well, this ricin was not. This discovery of this ricin was not held from the public. What was held from the public for a while, was that there was a letter that was sent to the White House in November, that was intercepted at an off mail faci -- an off site facility, mail facility that had a letter attached to it. Saying that it was from a trucker, someone who owned a fleet, who was very upset about new trucking regulations, signed "Fallen Angel," and making a threat to dump some more ricin.

Well, it turns out the Secret Service, of course, being in charge of White House security, did -- started the testing on this, to find out what was -- if it was ricin. And held that information for six days from law enforcement. But then we never heard from the White House about it, until after the fact. So they didn't come out right away and say, oh, hey, wait a minute, you know, we got rice -- we were sent ricin, too. And maybe it's all related.

MALVEAUX: Right. And there were a lot of the questions to the White House about that as well. And What Scott McClellan, the spokesperson, was saying, was that it was not a public health threat. Therefore, they felt that they didn't need to alert the public about this, that there were certain agencies, intelligence, federal agencies that were talking amongst themselves at the time. But it wasn't the same thing as what happened on the Hill. It was still an open investigation.

WALLACE: And Kelli, watching -- Kelli, watching the coverage, it of course reminded all of us of the anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill. Where do things stand in the investigation into those attacks?

ARENA: Not a single arrest has been made. Not a single suspect has been named. There doesn't seem to be any strong lead that is being pursued at this time. The science continues. What they've been trying to do for several months is to figure out how the anthrax was made in the first place, which they think can get them back to the originating lab. Which will then hopefully allow them to narrow this ever-revolving list of suspects that they have. But some people in the scientific community don't think that that will be a successful effort. They don't think that that will help investigatively.

But that's what's so scary because there are even where some people suggesting could this be the person who sent the anthrax that is now sending the ricin? And of course there's no evidence to support any of that. There's not even any evidence to support that this ricin is connected to the ricin that was sent, you know, to the White House. And then there was other ricin that was found in Greenville, South Carolina, with the same sort of threatening level from the, you know, alleged trucker. So they really don't have anything to go on at this point.

NEISLOSS: You really get the feeling that with all these sort of materials getting into the delivery chain that there really isn't much that law enforcement officials are going to be able to do. Do you have the feeling, when you talk to them, that there is any way of controlling this? Or whether it's just inevitable, that sooner or later there will be some sort of toxic substance that really makes its way through again?

ARENA: Well, you know what Liz? You bring up a very good point, because a lot of law enforcement officials have said just that. Look, anyone can mail something and you don't know. Which is why they've put all this security in place. You know, there -- it's taken to an offsite facility, it's irradiated, then it goes through another facility, and you know, it's shaked out.

But what we found out was that there are certain circumstances where mail is coming in from district offices and so on, is actually FedExed to the home of a staffer -- a Senate staffer here in Washington, and then brought in manually. And brought to us. So there is a certain amount of mail that's circumventing that security system. So that's being looked at as well to see if maybe that was the culprit. Again, no evidence to suggest any of that, but it is a problem.

MALVEAUX: What have they learned from the anthrax scares? Because since then -- I mean you brought up a really good point before when you were saying back then that they held a news conference at the mail facility that was contaminated and everybody had to be put on cipro.

ARENA: Right.

MALVEAUX: Obviously, they've come for...

ARENA: They have. And you saw the immediate closure, you know, blocking off of this area. You know, closing of not only the building where the ricin was found, but other Senate office buildings. Major teams of people in there, you know, the HAZMAT teams that were in there doing air checks and so on. I mean the first time around, as I said earlier, which we didn't say it for our audience. But they had a press conference at a postal facility that had anthrax contamination. And all of the journalists and everybody had to go on Cipro. It was crazy. So they've really learned a lot about how to deal with these situations.

NEISLOSS: Well, Kelli, we're going to have to say good-bye to another Kelly. Thanks to Kelly Wallace who has to get back on the political trail. We will be watching her reports.

Up next, can the United Nations help the U.S. solve its problems in Iraq? I'm back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOFI ANNAN, SECRETARY-GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS: We are going to go there to help the Iraqis, to help them establish a Kelly government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan putting the emphasis on helping the Iraqi people, not the U.S., as he sat in the Oval Office this week next to President Bush.

Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.

That emphasis is going to be extremely important for the United Nations and for Kofi Annan. And that is to separate the U.N. from the U.S. They are not there simply to prop up the U.S. plans. But they say, and Annan has said today about a team, an election team that's going there, he is going in to help the Iraqi and help them figure out how to get to elections, how to get back to self-rule.

ARENA: Liz, how much of an issue is U.S. credibility at this point, when you're dealing -- when you're dealing with the U.N. -- how much of an issue is that? We said there were WMD. There aren't.

NEISLOSS: Well, the U.S. credibility issue is very much tied up in what they tried to tell the U.N., certainly a year ago. We're looking at an ironic anniversary this week. It was one year since Colin Powell went in and made this very dramatic weapons presentation. He was holding up viles of anthrax. He was saying this is what the Iraqis have. And the U.S. credibility was put on the line by this presentation.

This week, though, the irony was, he had to come back to the U.N. It was for a meeting on Liberia. He came into the U.N., said I make no apologies for that presentation. We had solid evidence at the time. And he basically backed up the case for war.

Aired February 7, 2004 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Suzanne Malveaux ON THE STORY in this election year of questions that keep coming up about what the U.S. knew and should have known about Iraq before the war.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Nashville, Tennessee, ON THE STORY of the Democratic presidential campaign and John Kerry riding high. His rivals hoping to stop his momentum.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kathleen Hays in Boca Raton, Florida, ON THE STORY of a balancing act, the United States talking to allies about the weak dollar and big budget deficits, talking to U.S. voters about jobs.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN SENIOR U.N. PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss in New York ON THE STORY of the United Nations back in Iraq to help the Iraqis. Will they also come to the rescue of the U.S.?

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena ON THE STORY of the poison scare on Capitol Hill this week, is it terrorism or old-fashioned crime? We'll also talk about Janet Jackson, the reaction and the apologies. We'll talk about the latest court decision in Massachusetts about gay marriage and its impact on the presidential campaign. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.

Zap us an e-mail to OnTheStory@cnn.com.

Now we go straight ahead to Kelly Wallace and the front-runner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We will take nothing for granted. We will compete everywhere. And in November, we will beat George W. Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was John Kerry Tuesday night after he won five out of seven presidential contests. A short time from now, he will be holding a rally inside, not outside, you can see it is snowing here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Here is the strategy for the Kerry campaign. They are hoping the senator goes three for three this weekend with wins today in Washington State and Michigan, tomorrow in Main. Also hoping for victories on Tuesday in Tennessee and Virginia. They say that will show that John Kerry can win in the South and could also lead to a narrowing of this presidential field.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, it's obvious that President Bush is just really very eager to take on the front-runner. And although they say he's not watching closely about this, they are already responding. They're attacking his legislative record. They are talking about gay marriage. They are really trying to make some distinctions between the president and Senator Kerry. How are they reacting to that? Do they think that that is a positive sign that the president's folks are coming out and they're already fighting?

WALLACE: Well, you know, Suzanne, it was even a week ago or so when we asked the senator when the Republicans were coming out and attacking him, he called it -- quote -- "the greatest form of flattery." The Democrats, the Kerry campaign definitely responding quickly.

What they are saying is that if the Republicans will come after him and attack John Kerry on issues such as his national security record, they are going to hit back and hit back hard. They say they've learned lessons from way back in the Dukakis campaign. They say the problem there is that Dukakis was labeled as a northerner and a liberal and that Dukakis didn't fight back quickly enough to prevent that from happening. So they say everything could be on the table if Republicans attack John Kerry.

HAYS: You know, Kelly, it's interesting, you know a lot of the stories just two or three months ago, the White House was saying great, we're going to run up against Howard Dean, a flaming liberal, against the war, you know, bring him on. Now, of course, Howard Dean's prospects seem so much weaker. What about the other candidates in the field?

WALLACE: Well, there's another interesting side bar here and that is between Wesley Clark and John Edwards. The two of them are really duking it out, namely in Tennessee and perhaps in Virginia, too. Both of them trying to become the southern alternative to John Kerry. Wesley Clark has actually gone on the offensive, attacking John Edwards and also John Kerry. The clear indication is that one of those men, if they don't do well in both states or either state, it could severely, severely impact the rest of their presidential campaign.

And then you also have, of course, Howard Dean. Howard Dean had once been saying that he was hoping to kind of resurrect his campaign today in Washington State and Michigan. Well, he made a decision a few days ago to sort of put all his eggs in the Wisconsin February 17 primary, indicating that's a must-win for him. So he's looking ahead. If he doesn't win there, he and his aides have pretty much indicated they think it will be pretty hard for him to continue from then on. NEISLOSS: You know Suzanne mentioned in this laundry list of issues that the candidates have to face the gay marriage issue. It seems like this could be a potential stumbling point for Kerry. He doesn't necessarily have a great distinction from his position and Bush's. So what does this mean? What are you hearing about how they are going to strategize on that point?

WALLACE: Well, talking to some Republicans, they say that there's a little bit of a contradiction in John Kerry's record. He is 1 of 14 senators who voted against a measure in 1996 that would have prevented states from recognizing same-sex marriages. He said he did that to prevent gay bashing in the United States Senate. He says he opposes gay marriages and supports civil unions, having gay couples get equal protections under the law.

But Republicans we talked to on the phone over the past few days say they could make this an issue. We asked the senator about that the other day and he responded rather aggressively. He said look, if Republicans want to come after me with that, they should take a look at Vice President Dick Cheney's own position. The senator saying his position is the same as the vice president's. And so kind of trying to respond aggressively to prevent any attacks on his own record.

ARENA: Kelly, has there been any discussion about jockeying for the vice presidential slot? I heard a little bit about Edwards this week when he first said that he would bow out of South if he didn't win South Carolina. Have you heard anything?

WALLACE: Well, this is such a prickly issue, Kelli, especially with John Edwards, because every time he is asked that, he gets very angry and says why don't you ask John Kerry if he'd like to be my vice presidential nominee?

We have asked even aides we were traveling on the plane with the senator and one of his top aides, and a reporter asked what kind of discussion has there been about a vice presidential candidate? And this aide saying absolutely none. And this reporter said come on, you have to be thinking about it. And this person said look, we're taking it step by step. We have got to win the nomination first. So you know they are trying to say they're not talking about it.

It was very interesting, though, Howard Dean in a radio interview, I believe yesterday, was asked if he would accept the invitation if someone asked him to be vice presidential running mate. And Howard Dean saying well, he would do what would ever would be best for the Democratic Party. It seemed to indicate that he was indicating he might be open if anyone wanted to ask him if he doesn't win the nomination himself.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, last Tuesday I was holding a panel of undecided voters, all African-American, excellent panel. And it was really interesting. They started off all undecided, and then about half of them went for John Kerry, and then a couple for Edwards. Are you saying the candidates are making an extra effort, are they looking at that particular voter block? Are they concerned coming up next Tuesday or even the weeks to come that they really need to do a better job of winning voters over?

WALLACE: You know, Suzanne, and that panel I thought was so interesting. You're really seeing a different kind of campaigning right now, a national campaign strategy. Whereas in Iowa and New Hampshire, these candidates could spend days and days having town hall meetings and one on one and question-and-answer sessions with reporters. Right now they're hop-scotching from state to state. And so you don't really get a sense where these candidates can spend a great deal of time saying OK, who's undecided in this room, let me answer your questions and try and win you over.

That said, the key of course is to win over these undecideds. What they are all these candidates are hoping to do is with momentum, with national exposure, with advertising, with just local press. That's going to be the way, they hope, to win over these undecided voters. But again, it's that one-on-one campaigning is really not happening right now.

MALVEAUX: Of course the political calendar is part of the decisions that the White House this week about investigating the 9/11 attacks and intelligence before the Iraq war. I'm back on that story in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush on Thursday signaling that -- signaling that despite the uproar over prewar intelligence and no weapons of mass destruction to be found, he's more than ready to defend his policy this election year.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

President Bush and his administration had a very tough week, the last 10 days. Essentially what has happened, they did not -- they didn't get the bounce they expected out of the State of the Union Address. You had David Kay who came out and said we don't think there are any weapons of mass destruction. CIA director George Tenet, as well, expressing doubt concerning these investigations. This administration is very aggressive, they're on the offensive now, they're trying to defend Bush administration's policies.

ARENA: All this in the campaign year, election year. So tell me, they had originally said, the administration, that they wouldn't start officially campaigning until the spring. So would -- can you assume that they'll move that up? MALVEAUX: Well this is -- this is definitely going to be kicked up. I mean they were talking about the spring. They were also talking about officially when they were going to recognize the front- runner. Now we are talking about just weeks away. They have already geared up.

And the thing that they are concerned about here is that the Democrats have been hammering them for weeks now. You see these Democrat primaries. And they know -- I mean, 50 -- less than 50 percent in the polls now, his approval rating, and a lot of people are beginning to question again, examine again, why did this country go to war.

White House aides, people who I have spoken to say look, the president needs to get out front on the issue. He needs to talk about why it was that the country did go to war. And one of the things that's really extraordinary that's going to happen today is that he is taping a one-hour interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." We're going to see those excerpts tomorrow. And he is going to sit down and answer questions for an hour about his policies.

WALLACE: Suzanne, that's what I wanted to pick up on. Tell us -- take us behind the scenes about that, because when we were all sitting on the campaign bus and another reporter said hey, did you hear, President Bush is going to go one on one for a full hour with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press?" Another report said wow, the White House must be getting worried. What's the sense of aides over at the White House?

MALVEAUX: Well you know this is a unique situation because it's the first time that President Bush has sat down for this one-on-one interview. Other presidents have done it before. He has not since he began in his office.

But what they see, this is definitely a sign that things are not going well. They are not shaping the debate. And what the administration feels most comfortable with is when they are the ones who are in charge, they are leading ahead and actually shaping the debate on television. They realize that they've been getting a lot of knocks, a lot of hits and they are falling behind.

HAYS: Suzanne, what about the other sign that the administration realizes that it's got to be responsive to the criticisms being raised and not just on the Democratic campaign? But I think for a lot of Americans a decision to extend the 9/11 Commission that was very, very touchy for a lot of the 9/11 families. Finally giving in to the idea that there needs to be an investigation, a commission to look at what the prewar intelligence was, what it wasn't, where things fell through.

MALVEAUX: Well here is the thing, the 9/11 Commission, they had been asking for that extension. Initially the administration aides were saying no, look, we really don't want this to fall into that potential window when it's really close to election time. There might be things that come out that are potentially damaging or Democrats can use it to their advantage. They didn't win that argument. The political calculus was is that it's really less costly if we go ahead, negotiate, let's show that we're being cooperative and offer that extension.

The other thing, of course, was the independent investigation on intelligence. This is something, too, that they initially didn't want to do but they decided that they needed to move forward. And that if they didn't, it was going to become an issue in the campaign over and over and over again. People were going to call for this type of independent inquiry, including the Republicans who had become very vocal publicly about the administration cooperating.

NEISLOSS: What can you say, Suzanne, about how that intelligence panel is going to be put together? Because I can tell you from the sort of international view, the only way to clean up this whole intelligence weapons mess, if it can be cleaned up, is really to do this thorough independent investigation. So do they -- do you have the sense that they really get that idea?

MALVEAUX: I think they get that. The thing that they are being most criticized about, of course, is the fact that this is something a panel that the president chose all of the people to be on. So of course you have got a lot of questions over whether or not they are going to be able to be objective. It's one of the main reasons why they picked Senator McCain to be a part of it, because you know he's a critic, he's a maverick, he'll say what he wants to say.

But again, this is -- this is someone who also was just campaigning for the president a couple of weeks ago. So there are a lot of issues. And the big question here is whether or not they're going to get at the issue of how this intelligence was interpreted. The argument that the White House made that this threat of weapons of mass destruction was imminent to the United States. That may be a question that isn't resolved out of this panel. And you've got six other ones as well.

ARENA: What about the fact that they haven't been able to find a sitting Democrat who has been -- who has been willing to be part of that panel? How much of a handicap is that going to be?

MALVEAUX: They have four Democrats that are on the panel now. But as you had mentioned, yes, they don't have somebody who is currently in office who is a Democrat. And they are having a difficult time of finding somebody who will actually go ahead and accept that position.

There are some people -- there are some rumors of people who they have actually asked who have declined. And they want to make sure that they get somebody who is willing and respected among those in the Democratic Party to participate. And that is something that they have not yet worked out.

They have two more panelists that they have to select. There's been a lot of talk about whether or not David Kay would participate. He has said that he has not been asked. But we have seen -- we have actually seen him at the White House a couple of times recently, a number of meetings, so we'll see what happens. ARENA: All right.

Well from terrorism to the one person who can dominate it all, national security, politics, the works, Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl show-off. We're back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET JACKSON, SINGER: Unfortunately, the whole thing went wrong in the end. I am really sorry if I offended anyone. That was truly not my intention.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: So she says she's sorry. Janet Jackson can benefit from a storm of publicity. And from the White House to your house, it seemed everyone has an opinion.

I don't know about you, Suzanne, but this -- I mean OK, it is -- it is funny, but I was listening (ph) to the apology. But I have to say, I, being a mom, and my kids were around when that happened, and, you know, it just seemed so -- just too coincidental that he says you know, I'm going to get you naked by the end of the song, and there it is for the world to see.

MALVEAUX: I was totally naive. I actually thought it was an accident in the beginning and then people started E-mailing me. You know well here's another photo, here's another photo. And then I thought, well, OK, maybe they actually did plan this whole thing.

But even the first lady weighed in on this and said she was offended. She was upset because children were watching. And I mean I had missed it the first time around and I couldn't believe it when I woke up the next morning. I -- they didn't say anything about the game, they didn't say anything about the commercials, it was just Janet Jackson.

NEISLOSS: And since when has she gotten this much publicity? I mean it's really -- the sexually suggestive dancing has gotten really not as much play as this one bit of Janet Jackson. And it's one of those instances where the media is part of just repeating this thing that we all think is so horrible, but hey, it's really great video. So here we are, again, bringing it back.

HAYS: Well I think it -- you know it really -- I think it really touches a nerve though, because I think a lot of people are concerned about the...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

HAYS: ... how far we've gotten in terms of what is on television, what our kids are watching. I think -- in fact, if you look at a star who is really a star right now, Beyonce Knowles who sang the "Star Spangled Banner" in an elegant white suit, she seemed to really get what she was doing. The momentous moment, singing the "Star Spangled Banner." Now granted this was a half time show. But I think also the NFL got it wrong, that MTV got it wrong, because I think a lot of people complained that the half time show was not really up to par, they really didn't care for it, quite apart from Janet Jackson's breast.

WALLACE: OK, I want to jump in here a little bit. As you can see, there's a little bit of a sign feud going on behind me. I've asked all these different campaigns. I said, you know, we're talking about Janet Jackson possibly revealing her breast right now, do you care? And they're like we don't care, we're going to be back behind you.

I'm going to say something, probably get me in trouble, but there was a woman writer, the "New York Times" wrote about this, talking about the big debate, talking about you know CBS and who should be held accountable. But then she said something else, she said perhaps there is one positive here, and then she said that Janet Jackson has the breast of a middle aged woman. And I thought -- you know, hey, you know, that's what this reporter said that maybe there is a good positive that comes out of here. And someone help me out here, come on.

MALVEAUX: And quite a -- look, but, Kelly, that doesn't mean you're going to expose yours, I mean, you know, or any of us for God's sake.

WALLACE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not to say...

ARENA: But the thing that just cracks me up, though, Kelly is that you know here we have MTV, which is hardly noted for "G" rated fare, you know, and everyone is acting so shocked. And I love when the FCC commissioners come out and say -- do they only watch television one day a year, because there's an awful lot that goes on on television. And I just know...

HAYS: But, Kelly, but...

ARENA: ... I think you look at it differently when you're a parent of young children. And I know that there is an awful lot of stuff on television. There's no more family hour.

HAYS: But, Kelly, -- but you don't let your kids watch MTV, do you? I mean you -- well this is network, this is broadcast. I think that's the difference. If you turn on MTV, you know what you're going to get in for. I think when people tune into the Super Bowl, that we're used -- everyone is used to a lot more being on television. But I just think a lot of people feel like, hey, I'm watching, I want to be able to choose if I am going to expose my kids to that or not. And I think that's why it touched a nerve. And I don't even think people are so mad at Janet Jackson is that I just think, for many people, they feel like the envelope has been pushed so far and maybe a lot of families are finally saying hey, we have to think about what we're doing.

(CROSSTALK) MALVEAUX: Think of the reaction, though. I think it's kind of strange though, because they have taken it out of context. Because you have "ER" that says OK, well now we are not going to have an 80- year-old woman's breast exposed in some kind of operation, a scene from there.

ARENA: I know, that was ridiculous.

MALVEAUX: I mean I think that doesn't really acknowledge that there is a certain context in which that's completely, you know, appropriate, if you're actually seeing someone's body at that time. I mean what do you think about the reaction here?

NEISLOSS: But you know so much political hay is being made out of this.

WALLACE: Well I agree with Suzanne that you have to be...

NEISLOSS: So much political hay is being made out of the sexual explicit material that's on television and you wonder, is this going to be one of those opportunities where everyone looks around and says well what about the violence? There's a lot of violence on TV that's really damaging. Why aren't we talking about that? We're focusing far too much on maybe just a bare breast. So there's a lot of room for talking about what else influences our children.

WALLACE: That's a great point, Liz, but there's also -- I think we -- you know picking up on Suzanne's point, a fine line here, because you know you are hearing about an FCC investigation and lots of movement ahead. And you know there's a delicate line here. You just want to sort of be able to walk it, what's appropriate, what's not appropriate. And you don't want to move in the realm of censorship or want to see that the federal government is sort of stepping in and in some way kind of telling the broadcast channels everything that they can or can not do. I think it's a delicate line that everyone is going to have to walk in the days ahead.

ARENA: All right. Well we're all fired up amidst the hoopla about Janet Jackson, a new attack with a deadly poison here in Washington. I'm back ON THE STORY of the Ricin threat after this and a check on what's making headlines at this hour.

ANNOUNCER: Kelli Arena is CNN's justice correspondent. Earlier, she worked for CNN's Financial News. The New York Festival has awarded her a 2002 best correspondent award.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I know that -- that you're probably in a better position to confront these challenges today than we were two years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: These challenge, that's Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. He's talking about the contamination of a part of a Senate office building, with a deadly poison ricin, and a reminder that the anthrax case is still wide open two years later.

Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.

The bottom line here is that there was some ricin found in the mailroom of the Senate majority leader's office. No ricin anywhere else that they have discovered. No letter. No delivery mechanism that they know of. So, they don't know how the ricin got there. They have no strong leads at this time. And no connection to some previous ricin letters that were sent. So we are -- it's seeming very much like the anthrax investigation. Nobody really knowing how it got there or why.

HAYS: Well, you know, Kelli, it's kind of sad how we're having to learn about all these deadly poisons. Ricin, of course, is the scariest thing, I think, no known antidote. In some cases it's hard to detect. And another thing disturbing about this -- I wonder what light you can shed is why the fact this was found was held from the public for so many days?

ARENA: No. Well, this ricin was not. This discovery of this ricin was not held from the public. What was held from the public for a while, was that there was a letter that was sent to the White House in November, that was intercepted at an off mail faci -- an off site facility, mail facility that had a letter attached to it. Saying that it was from a trucker, someone who owned a fleet, who was very upset about new trucking regulations, signed "Fallen Angel," and making a threat to dump some more ricin.

Well, it turns out the Secret Service, of course, being in charge of White House security, did -- started the testing on this, to find out what was -- if it was ricin. And held that information for six days from law enforcement. But then we never heard from the White House about it, until after the fact. So they didn't come out right away and say, oh, hey, wait a minute, you know, we got rice -- we were sent ricin, too. And maybe it's all related.

MALVEAUX: Right. And there were a lot of the questions to the White House about that as well. And What Scott McClellan, the spokesperson, was saying, was that it was not a public health threat. Therefore, they felt that they didn't need to alert the public about this, that there were certain agencies, intelligence, federal agencies that were talking amongst themselves at the time. But it wasn't the same thing as what happened on the Hill. It was still an open investigation.

WALLACE: And Kelli, watching -- Kelli, watching the coverage, it of course reminded all of us of the anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill. Where do things stand in the investigation into those attacks?

ARENA: Not a single arrest has been made. Not a single suspect has been named. There doesn't seem to be any strong lead that is being pursued at this time. The science continues. What they've been trying to do for several months is to figure out how the anthrax was made in the first place, which they think can get them back to the originating lab. Which will then hopefully allow them to narrow this ever-revolving list of suspects that they have. But some people in the scientific community don't think that that will be a successful effort. They don't think that that will help investigatively.

But that's what's so scary because there are even where some people suggesting could this be the person who sent the anthrax that is now sending the ricin? And of course there's no evidence to support any of that. There's not even any evidence to support that this ricin is connected to the ricin that was sent, you know, to the White House. And then there was other ricin that was found in Greenville, South Carolina, with the same sort of threatening level from the, you know, alleged trucker. So they really don't have anything to go on at this point.

NEISLOSS: You really get the feeling that with all these sort of materials getting into the delivery chain that there really isn't much that law enforcement officials are going to be able to do. Do you have the feeling, when you talk to them, that there is any way of controlling this? Or whether it's just inevitable, that sooner or later there will be some sort of toxic substance that really makes its way through again?

ARENA: Well, you know what Liz? You bring up a very good point, because a lot of law enforcement officials have said just that. Look, anyone can mail something and you don't know. Which is why they've put all this security in place. You know, there -- it's taken to an offsite facility, it's irradiated, then it goes through another facility, and you know, it's shaked out.

But what we found out was that there are certain circumstances where mail is coming in from district offices and so on, is actually FedExed to the home of a staffer -- a Senate staffer here in Washington, and then brought in manually. And brought to us. So there is a certain amount of mail that's circumventing that security system. So that's being looked at as well to see if maybe that was the culprit. Again, no evidence to suggest any of that, but it is a problem.

MALVEAUX: What have they learned from the anthrax scares? Because since then -- I mean you brought up a really good point before when you were saying back then that they held a news conference at the mail facility that was contaminated and everybody had to be put on cipro.

ARENA: Right.

MALVEAUX: Obviously, they've come for...

ARENA: They have. And you saw the immediate closure, you know, blocking off of this area. You know, closing of not only the building where the ricin was found, but other Senate office buildings. Major teams of people in there, you know, the HAZMAT teams that were in there doing air checks and so on. I mean the first time around, as I said earlier, which we didn't say it for our audience. But they had a press conference at a postal facility that had anthrax contamination. And all of the journalists and everybody had to go on Cipro. It was crazy. So they've really learned a lot about how to deal with these situations.

NEISLOSS: Well, Kelli, we're going to have to say good-bye to another Kelly. Thanks to Kelly Wallace who has to get back on the political trail. We will be watching her reports.

Up next, can the United Nations help the U.S. solve its problems in Iraq? I'm back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOFI ANNAN, SECRETARY-GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS: We are going to go there to help the Iraqis, to help them establish a Kelly government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan putting the emphasis on helping the Iraqi people, not the U.S., as he sat in the Oval Office this week next to President Bush.

Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.

That emphasis is going to be extremely important for the United Nations and for Kofi Annan. And that is to separate the U.N. from the U.S. They are not there simply to prop up the U.S. plans. But they say, and Annan has said today about a team, an election team that's going there, he is going in to help the Iraqi and help them figure out how to get to elections, how to get back to self-rule.

ARENA: Liz, how much of an issue is U.S. credibility at this point, when you're dealing -- when you're dealing with the U.N. -- how much of an issue is that? We said there were WMD. There aren't.

NEISLOSS: Well, the U.S. credibility issue is very much tied up in what they tried to tell the U.N., certainly a year ago. We're looking at an ironic anniversary this week. It was one year since Colin Powell went in and made this very dramatic weapons presentation. He was holding up viles of anthrax. He was saying this is what the Iraqis have. And the U.S. credibility was put on the line by this presentation.

This week, though, the irony was, he had to come back to the U.N. It was for a meeting on Liberia. He came into the U.N., said I make no apologies for that presentation. We had solid evidence at the time. And he basically backed up the case for war.