Return to Transcripts main page

News from CNN

Vanity Fair: Deep Throat Revealed; President Bush Holds Session With Reporters; Future of EU

Aired May 31, 2005 - 12:00   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 ANCHOR: Unbelievable story that is breaking at this hour. Deep Throat revealed.
"Vanity Fair" reports that former law enforcement official Mark Felt is the informer who leaked to Woodward and Bernstein on the Watergate scandal that toppled President Nixon. Carl Bernstein now has released a statement saying he remains unwilling to reveal the source's identity until the source's death. Now 91 years old, he felt that it was the number two official at the FBI during Watergate.

First, today, of course, we want to go on with this breaking news story. Absolutely incredible. We have with us two people who know a lot about this subject.

Bruce Morton, you, of course, you covered during CBS, Watergate, as well as our own Bill Schneider, who can give us some historical perspective.

First of all, tell us, what do we know that's in this "Vanity Fair" article? Both of you have been -- had a chance to take a look at it. Do we believe that this story is actually true?

BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There's no reason for Mr. Felt to lie about, it I suppose. On the other hand, he's 91 years old. He's living in retirement. How good is his memory, how good his mind these days? Those are the kinds of things you don't know about somebody that old.

There are three other people who know who Deep Throat was, Ben Bradley who was "The Post's" publisher back then, Woodward, Bernstein, and they have all so far declined to say yes or no. So I think absent some piece of evidence, this is going to be a terrific story that we can't quite be sure of.

You know, why would he make it up? I don't know. It's the last, oldest Watergate myth. It's the oldest Washington mystery, I guess -- you know, back to the 1970s, 30-some years ago.

But you can't quite nail it down. The old rule is that two sources. This fellow's one.

MALVEAUX: Now, Bill, why would he come forward at this time? I mean, obviously, Woodward has said that they would never reveal the source until they had his consent, that he had passed away.

Obviously he is ill at this point. Would it be because he wants to have the fame, have the glory? Is this just something that's come up very -- you know, serendipity? What do you think?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, his daughter used the very new age term. She said that -- she suggested it might be a good idea while he was still alive to get closure. I don't know what that means. He is 91 years old.

Apparently it happened almost unwittingly, that he and his daughter, according to "Vanity Fair's" report, he and his daughter were watching a Watergate special on television. And she asked her father, "Do you want Deep Throat would wanted to get rid of Nixon?" And her father replied, "No, I was not trying to bring him down. I was only -- he was only doing his duty."

So he seemed to veer back and forth between the first person and the third person. So it appears that almost an inadvertent admission, acknowledgement by someone quite elderly. And I agree with Bruce, we have to be very cautious about this, because he's old and it his to be corroborated.

MALVEAUX: So you're saying you think it could have been accidental?

SCHNEIDER: It sounds like -- it sounds like -- what is the word? There's a Freudian term, that it was his subconscious at work, that he acknowledged it perhaps without intending to.

MALVEAUX: Now, tell us, who is Felt? Why would he actually know this? Why would he have access?

MORTON: He was the number two man at the FBI, so he would probably know a lot about the investigation. Most of us, I think, who've been guessing over the years have guessed people in the campaign organization, people in the White House.

I always thought that Leonard Garment might be. He was a lawyer in Nixon's White House, but he died a few years ago and there was no announcements. I was wrong. But the FBI would probably know most of this stuff.

The most important thing that Deep Throat did was to say to Woodward three words, "Follow the money." Because what happened after they followed the money was that they traced some of the funds that one the burglars had on him back to money that had been contributed to the re-elect the president campaign.

MALVEAUX: Right.

Now, I understand we also have our legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, who is also joining us as well.

Perhaps, Jeff, if you can tell us, give us a sense of why do we suspect that Felt was one of the top people, candidates, for Deep Throat? I know that there had been some articles that had been written before about the possibility that it was -- that it was him. And also even on the Nixon tapes that he was one of the people mentioned as a possibility, at least someone who was leaking. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. The gist of the suspicion of Mark Felt is that he was at the FBI. And the FBI was, in essence, the target of the White House cover-up.

Remember, what the Nixon White House was trying to do was pay money, pay hush money to the Watergate burglars and others so that they wouldn't disclose why -- they conducted the Watergate break-in. So it was the FBI investigating the cover-up and investigating the break-in.

So it was the FBI who was the victim of the cover-up. So someone in the FBI might be angry.

Felt was the person most directly involved in the investigation. He was supervising it. He was also a politically savvy person. He'd been around Washington for a long time. So he was the obvious suspect when the FBI side of -- the FBI group of suspects was thought about.

MALVEAUX: And, Jeff, obviously it's rather incredible to think about the way news breaks so quickly in this 24-hour news cycle. And this is really a story that has lasted for decades.

It's almost unbelievable, unconscionable to those of us who are growing up in the business. And it is so difficult to keep a secret like this.

How do you suppose that that actually -- that they were able do that, if in fact it is true, that is just breaking now?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think the world was very different in 1974. For one thing I was 14 years old in 1974. But the news media was different.

You know, we're celebrating the 25th anniversary of CNN, which didn't start until 1980. "The Washington Post" had the Watergate story virtually to itself for a long time. No one else really pursued it very aggressively.

That wouldn't be possible today with the incredible crush of media. So, you know, Woodward and Bernstein really were alone on this story for a long time. And I think the media has changed in such a way, and you need only look the at Lewinsky story, which played out on cable TV 24 hours a day, how different (INAUDIBLE) Washington scandals is now.

It's simply -- you couldn't have that tantalizing information the way there was in 1972, 1973, 1974, and not having a pack of reporters after it in the way that you certainly would now.

MALVEAUX: And, Jeff, CNN is just getting some statements from Carl Bernstein, as well as Woodward. I'm going to go ahead and read them very briefly here.

Bernstein said he is not going to do any interviews at this time, but he passed this along to CNN, the following statement. He says, "As in the past, we're not going to say anything about this. There have been many books, articles and speculation about the identity of the individual known as Deep Throat. We've said all along that when that person dies we will disclose his identity and describe in context and great detail our dealings with him."

"With all our confidential sources we agreed not to identify them until their death. Nothing has changed that. No one has released us from any pledge. We will not identify Deep Throat until his death."

And then, also, we are getting a statement -- CNN getting a statement here from Bob Woodward, saying -- and I'm quoting here -- he says, "I have seen the reports in 'Vanity Fair,' and I'll tell you, as I have said in the past over the past 30 years, that neither Carl Bernstein nor Ben Bradley nor I are going to say anything at all regarding the identity of Deep Throat."

He would not even comment on his relationship with Mark Felt, we are total. That he says -- and I'm quoting here -- "We've gone down this road for 30 years. And for 30 years we have not said anything. That won't change today because of the report in 'Vanity Fair.'"

I want to ask the two of you, why was it so important that they hold this source so close, that he remain anonymous?

MORTON: Well, the oldest rule in this business, as you know perfectly well, Suzanne, is if you tell the guy you won't reveal who he is, you keep your word. You know, it's a basic bargain any investigative reporter makes with a source. Anonymity? Sure, you've got it.

And once you've said that, you're supposed to mean it.

MALVEAUX: Now, would this -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

SCHNEIDER: I was going to say, anonymous sources have become recently a very big -- hot subject of controversy, and a lot of news organizations have said they're going to rely on them much less. Some of them said they won't even use them anymore.

Well, this is the original -- not the original, but one of the biggest anonymous sources ever to remain anonymous for 30 years. It's quite remarkable, having brought down a president.

MALVEAUX: Now, would this -- would this story actually would have been revealed? Would Nixon have been brought down in Watergate if not for Deep Throat? He was that central a character to this story?

MORTON: It's very hard. A lot of different things happened.

Deep Throat was very important. John McCord, one of the burglars writing a letter to Judge Sirica who heard that case, saying there's a cover-up going on here, it was very important. Every time this story looked as if it might sort of fade away, something happened. And maybe the most important thing that happened is when a man named Alexander Butterfield, who had some obscure job at the FAA, told the Senate Watergate Committee saying, yes, there was a recording session. I have always thought that if Richard Nixon had burned the tapes, he would have walked. But once the tapes were known, he probably couldn't.

SCHNEIDER: I remember the remarkable moment when the very day that there was the acknowledgement by Nixon on the tapes that he knew something about the burglary, then it was all over within -- within hours. But it took those tapes really to bring him down. That wasn't the -- Deep Throat.

MALVEAUX: Now, this obviously must take you back to a time when both of you were there. You were covering it.

What does this conjure up in terms of your head that moment? I mean, the tension that must have been building around that story.

MORTON: Well, Butterfield, I think Leslie Stahl was the main CBS person. And nobody know why they called Butterfield. This guy works for the FAA. What's he doing here?

And she went over and lifted up the tag on his briefcase it see if some clue, you know, slash-FBI or something. Well, it wasn't.

But the day I remember that did in the Nixon presidency was walking by the majority whip's office on the House side, and there's this mob of reporters, which I of course joined. Good herd animal.

Well, there's a new tape. There's a new tape.

MALVEAUX: Right. Right. Sure.

MORTON: And here is this tape with Nixon saying, can't we get the CIA to cover this thing up, in a fact. That's not a quote, but it's pretty close. Answering, no, Mr. President, you couldn't. And he didn't have half a dozen votes after that was over.

SCHNEIDER: Yes. This was a big shock, I remember, to Americans, because they never imagined that a president would lie to the American people. It was totally unexpected. It was unfathomable that a president in the White House would be lying to the American people and would be complicit in covering up a crime.

I mean, this was incredible. It was a great shock to the system and created a tremendous amount of public distrust.

I always thought that one of the things that brought Nixon down was when people heard or saw what was in the White House tapes, they read what was on those tapes...

MALVEAUX: Right. Right. Sure.

SCHNEIDER: ... and they heard the lack of decorum in the White House. I remember at the time thinking a president should curse, should use that kind of language, this sort of harshness, the partisanship that was going on in the Oval Office, that was very dismaying to the public. And I think that's one of the points that Nixon's support really fell away.

MORTON: Well, it's interesting. If you listen to some of the Kennedy tapes during the Cuban missile crisis -- he had a tape system, too -- nobody talks like that.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

MORTON: You know, Mr. Secretary, Senator, very polite, very -- we're talking about nuclear war. I mean, you could end the planet here. But nobody is using bad language.

And the Nixon tapes, I've been in rooms listening, you know, with young researchers who'd never heard any of this. And the first SOB comes out. Good heavens, that's a president.

And we lived with the affects of that, yet, the distrust of authority, the distrust of the White House. That's ebbed, but it sure hasn't gone away.

MALVEAUX: Great. Thank you very much. We're going to wrap this. Thank you so much, Bruce Morton, and, of course, Bill Schneider, veteran correspondents to help us make sense of all of this, to take us back in time just a little bit.

And we'll see how that story unfolds. After the break, we'll bring you a little bit about President Bush's press conference.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(JOINED INN PROGRESS)

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ...saying that it is absurd.

For the most part, he was pushing pressure on Congress to pass legislation, like the energy legislation and other measures, the budget, the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. And also pushed very hard on Social Security reform, that those same polls show is not doing very well right now, even though he has been 27 states thus far and is going through a 28th later this week.

But the question comes up, then, as it's being asked very discreetly right now, is the president losing momentum?

MALVEAUX: Bob, I guess that brings me to my...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... happened instantly in Washington, D.C. I know that part of your job is to follow the process and to follow the politics, and who's up and who's down. But I've been around here long enough to tell you and to tell the people listening, things just don't happen overnight, it takes a while. And one thing is for certain, it takes a president willing to push people to do hard things. Just keep in mind we haven't had an energy strategy in this country for over a decade. And the Social Security issue hasn't been on the table since 1983. I mean, seriously on the table. And so I'm asking Congress to do some difficult things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: And the president said, in fact, the pace here can be so slow sometimes it's like -- quoting him -- "like water cutting through a rock." And Suzanne, everybody was too polite that that usually takes several thousand years to have an effect.

MALVEAUX: Well, I'm glad you were so polite, Bob.

I have to ask, too, about the timing of this. Why do you suppose he held this press conference now, just after the holiday? I guess Congress out of session. A time perhaps to capture the limelight?

FRANKEN: Well, I was going to say this was a slow news day until about an hour ago.

MALVEAUX: And I know that you mentioned the polls as well. You said I guess his popularity about 46 percent now. But the one thing that he does actually score well with is his handling of the war on terrorism.

I noticed that he did bring that up several times, that he felt that, in the end, despite this rising insurgency, that ultimately the United States was going to be successful. An important point, I imagine, for the president to make.

FRANKEN: It is, but in all the other categories, including a really interesting one, whether you agree with the president's position, he is really beginning to falter. By the way, the answer to that question in terms of numbers was only 40 percent.

MALVEAUX: Thank you very much, Bob.

And joining us now from New York, CNN senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield. And here, of course, in Washington, our own CNN's Ed Henry.

I want to start off with you, Ed.

You know, this president is one who likes to talk about political capital. The first press conference he had, he was very excited, very confident that he won the re-election. Talked about it very much so. But it doesn't really seem to be paying off very well.

We see Social Security so far a thumbs' down. We see energy, another thumbs' down. Wavering on the Bolton nomination. And it seems as if this compromise with the judges, that no one is happy with this.

Is there a concern here that he is just not effective, even dealing with his Republican Party?

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Clearly, there's a concern. You heard the president beating up on the Democrats a bit, saying he's tired of these filibusters on John Bolton. But also on the judicial nominees that you mentioned. But he also clearly has to be a bit frustrated with the Republican Congress as well.

The Democrats do not run the Congress. It's a Republican Congress. And you mentioned that press conference right after the election when the president was talking about political capital. That capital was coming not just from his re-election, but the fact that Republicans had strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, including 55 Republicans in the Senate very close to having a filibuster-proof chamber.

There were high expectations from this president, but also from Republican voters around the country that they were going to finally make progress on those issues you mentioned, like Social Security reform. But just this past Friday, the conservative "Wall Street Journal" editorial page had a blistering editorial, saying this Congress had been a disappointment.

So, yes, there's frustration at the White House with the Democrats. But clearly some frustration with the Republicans as well.

MALVEAUX: And Jeff, a question for you as well. Of course, this is really the first Republican president with -- who has been re- elected a second term with a Republican Congress since Calvin Coolidge, and he really does not seem to be able to move his domestic agenda ahead.

What does he need to do to convince those leaders in Congress that he needs to be more effective? Or is he in fact turning into a lame duck president?

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: I think that's way too early. I mean, one of the things we need to keep in mind is that the day-to- day, back-and-forth may conceal the broader reality.

The president has an enormous advantage, compared to past second- term presidents, particularly Republican presidents. There aren't going to be hostile investigative committees chasing him. He's going to be in a much better position to get his appointments to the courts and to hide positions confirmed.

The problem that he has, and the problem that any second-term president has is now they know -- his own party members know -- that they're on their own in a sense. They don't have to rally behind him to win a second term. One of the most significant Republicans in a previous Congress told me last year, "We're going to stay with him in lockstep until November 2004, and then we're going to start, you know, having our own agendas."

Look, you've got I don't know how many members of the Republican Senate think they ought to be the next president. But it's a heck of a large number. And they're going to be pursuing their own goals. But I still believe that the loyalty that this president engenders in the conservative base -- he is a more popular president among those people even than Ronald Reagan -- is still the weapon that we may see employed to get reluctant senators on his side. I think if it weren't there that popularity, for example, John Bolton would be a lot more likely not to be confirmed than is likely to be the case. So I think we ought to be very careful before assuming this president has lost his political capital.

MALVEAUX: But, Jeff, you mentioned, too, about the conservative Christians, a very strong group for the president. But clearly, there was a setback with the stem cell research situation.

You had the House that went for it, extended federal funding. The Christian -- they're not -- they're not pleased at all with that. I mean, just how popular, how powerful is this group for the president, or is he losing favor?

GREENFIELD: Well, I was talking actually about a broader conservative base than just the evangelicals. But I think you heard today the president said flatly, if that bill passes he's going to veto it.

And while the Senate may be in a position to possibly override that veto, it's almost impossible to believe the House will. That's only going to strengthen the president among his hard conservative base, the hard core of that base. And the question is whether they are going to begin to put pressure on reluctant congressional Republicans to stay with the president.

Just as an example, it's hard to imagine any Republican senator who wants to be the presidential nomination in a few years to break with that base and hope that that nominee, that candidate can get nominated. So I think the president still has some pretty strong political cards despite the fact that his popularity is down, and despite the fact he's getting some push back, to use that retched cliche, from some of the members from his own party.

Let's just see how this plays out.

MALVEAUX: And Ed, real quick, last question for you. Of course, next year, voters are going to look at all of the House members, they're going to look at a third of the Senate. What difference does it make, the president's -- his influence now in terms of whether or not those Republicans get those seats next year?

HENRY: Well, as Jeff pointed out, that's part of the reason why there's been some difficulty on Social Security reform. You have Republicans on the Hill going their own way and seeing the president is not up for election again. They are in '06. They're nervous about that.

I think the best thing the president has going in his favor is himself. He is his best secret political weapon.

And as you mentioned, Bob Franken mentioned that analogy about water cutting through a rock. This is a president, as Jeff pointed out, who does not give up.

He doesn't watch the polls. He doesn't care what the commentators are saying. He's going to stick with it.

And on Social Security, he is still grinding it out, day in, day out, even though a lot of people are saying he's not going to get it. He believes he will.

MALVEAUX: Ed Henry, thank you very much for your insight, as well as Jeff Greenfield.

Now, when NEWS FROM CNN returns, the European Union after French voters said non on a proposed constitution. What happens now? Analysis live from Paris in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A change of power in France, where voters just two days ago turned thumbs down on the European Union's constitution. That rejection in part over economic policies and high unemployment, which also plague other countries in Europe.

Joining us to talk from Paris about the implications, Patrice De Beer, former London correspondent for "Le Monde," and in London, CNN European political editor Robin Oakley.

Robin, I want to start with you.

First, of course, we saw them name the new prime minister, Dominique de Villepin. We have heard of him before. He was the one who really on the world stage was the face of France as anti-war stance in the U.N. Security Council.

There is much that has been made about the U.S. and France mending relations. It was just back in Europe we saw President Bush ding with French President Jacques Chirac. The joke was that they put the "French" back in the French fries. But in all seriousness, what is the impact on U.S.-French relations because of this?

Well, we seem to have lost Robin Oakley. Let's see if -- let's go to a break at the moment. We'll see if we can get him back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Violence sparks more of the same in Karachi, Pakistan. An angry crowd sets fire to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, killing six workers. Police say four burned to death, two others died hiding in a walk-in freezer. The mob, protesting yesterday's deadly attack on a neighborhood mosque, also torched two gas stations and a number of vehicles.

Panic in Banda Aceh as a moderate earthquake rocks Indonesia's Aceh province. That region still trying to recover from December's devastating earthquake and resulting tsunami. Today's quake, a magnitude 5.6, was centered around 90 miles offshore. No word yet on the condition of the child known as Peru's little mermaid. Now a year old, she was born with her legs fused from her thighs to her ankles. Overnight, doctors were to begin the first of three complicated operations to separate those legs.

Now, more again on our top story, one that has intrigued the nation for decades. "Vanity Fair" reports that former law enforcement official Mark Felt is the mysterious source known as Deep Throat. He's the unidentified Washington insider who leaked information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of "The Washington Post," defining the Watergate scandal and helping people to topple President Nixon.

Bernstein has released a statement saying he remains unwilling to reveal the source's identity until the source's death. Now 91, Felt was the number two official at the FBI during Watergate. Now, out of all news events CNN has covered over the past 25 years, it may be the defining moment for us.

Now, Bruce Morton, we'd like you to -- ask you a couple of questions about this story that is unfolding and, of course, all the buzz here in Washington about Mark Felt. Tell us what you know about him and tell us specifically -- there was an instruction that they gave the journalists when they said follow the money. What kind of role would Felt have had in the FBI in following that money?

BRUCE MORTON, CNN ANCHOR: Well, that's one of the reasons he seemed less likely than some other people, I think. It was easier to think of people in the campaign to re-elect the president, as the Nixon re-election was called, people in the White House. But what Woodward and Bernstein did was, in fact, follow the money, the actual currency which was found on one of the Watergate burglars, traced the numbers, and lo and behold, that currency had been contributed to the re-election campaign.

So you knew right away there was a link. There wasn't some little third-rate burglary as then White House press secretary Ron Ziegler called it. This was big stuff, went to the president's re- election campaign.

MALVEAUX: And how would Felt have known? How would he know where the money was? How would he have followed that trace?

MORTON: Well, I don't know exactly. If you're in the FBI, I think you're privy to a lot of information, you know, some of it valid, some of it not. But Lord knows information is flowing across your desk. And he probably had access to campaign finance records, things like that.

MALVEAUX: And you and I talked about this in the break a little bit. How do you confirm this story? "Vanity Fair" is reporting it. They say he came out and said he is Deep Throat. How can you confirm? How do we even know?

MORTON: Well, "Vanity Fair" said that. "Vanity Fair" also said that he's 91 years old, that his memory is failing, that he first told a daughter. But it's hard. There are three other people, aside from Mr. Throat, whoever he may be, who know the answer to this question. And they are Woodward, Bernstein and Ben Bradley, who back then was the editor of "The Post." And they have all so far said we've always said we will say when he dies and that's still our policy. So I don't see, short of, you know, divine revelation, a spirit appearing in the news room or something -- I don't think you can confirm this thing. I just don't.

MALVEAUX: And Jeff, do you agree with that? It's the first time I've heard him mentioned as Mr. Throat. But do you agree? Is there any way that you can confirm this story, short of asking him is this true? Is he reliable?

GREENFIELD: Well, I simply don't know the man. I don't know what state he's in at age 91. If the three people who do know are insane or if you want a definitive answer, we may have to wait until Mr. Felt dies or, you know, there's some other basis. But I want to come back to one point that we haven't yet talked about. I think Jeff Toobin raised it about an hour ago.

For me, the real question, the most intriguing story, is not this guessing game of who is Deep Throat. But if this is the case, that the number two man on the FBI was Deep Throat, the question is why? Remember the exchange that you'd been dealing with, where his daughter supposedly said in the third person, do you think Deep Throat wanted to bring down Nixon, and Mark Felt supposedly says, no, I was just doing my duty. There has been enormous speculation over the years that the FBI was out to take Richard Nixon down, either because they felt he was misusing them or because of some internecine political battle.

Now, remember one other thing. The tape that brought Nixon ultimately down was a tape that revealed that six days after the Watergate break-in -- I think that's the number, Bruce can correct me -- he had said, can't we use the CIA to tell the FBI to back off? And it is entirely possible that what we are going to finally find out is whether the FBI felt so aggrieved by what President Nixon was doing that they actually, in the presence of Mark Felt, among others, set out to make sure that the public knew what he was up to.

And to me, that's the most intriguing thing that this "Vanity Fair" article, so far from what we know, may not be able to answer. I don't know if Bruce has something about that he wants to jump in on that, as well.

MALVEAUX: Well, Bruce, tell us, how likely is a scenario is that?

MORTON: It's a perfectly good scenario. Jeff could think of a half a dozen others, I expect. So could I. You know, by the time the actual smoking gun tape came out, the one that had him saying can't we get the CIA to get the FBI to lay off of this thing, this was this very down far down the road. We'd had the Senate Watergate hearings. The House Judiciary committee had its hearings. The committee had approved three, if I'm remembering rightly, articles of impeachment against the president. And he was already losing support in the House at a terrific rate. Now once this tape came out, there was just nothing left.

GREENFIELD: But my point, Bruce, is that it may well have been that the FBI knew, way early in the game, long before any of the things you're talking about, that Nixon wanted to use the CIA, to use the -- to tell the FBI to back off. In other words, if there was resentment or anger within the law enforcement officials that the president, that the White House, was misusing them, they would have known that very shortly after the break-in. And that possibly could explain why the number two man in the FBI was dealing with Bob Woodward and telling him follow the money, and telling him there is more here than meets the eye.

MORTON: Yes, I think there's even some reference on one of the tapes, Jeff. You memory may be better than mine on this, where Nixon or somebody talks to Pat Gray at the FBI, saying can't we -- come on, guys, can't we just kind of...

GREENFIELD: Yes.

MALVEAUX: We're going to have to continue debate a little bit later. We're going to wrap this up. We'll get back to you.

But more on the night the bombs began falling in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. We were right in the middle of it. A look back, when NEWS FROM CNN returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A change of power in France, where voters just two days ago turned thumbs down on the European Union's constitution. That rejection, in part, over economic policies and high unemployment, which also plagued other nations in Europe.

Joining us from Paris, CNN's European political editor Robin Oakley.

Robin, thanks for being with us. Quick question for you. We know there's a new Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin. We know that he, of course, really was the face of the -- France's anti-war movement, when it came to U.S. invasion in Iraq. We saw a lot of fence mending between the United States, President Bush, Jacques Chirac sharing French fries, putting the French back in French fries was the joke back then in Europe.

But of course, in all seriousness, what does this mean for U.S. and France relations?

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN EUROPEAN POLITICAL EDITOR: Well, I think are there memories of course of Dominique De Villepin leading the fight against the second U.N. resolution authorizing war in Iraq. That's not going to be forgotten quickly in the White House and in the State Department. But it has to be said, relations between France and the United States have improved considerably, as they have across the whole of Europe. The visits here in Europe. President and Condoleezza Rice earlier this year. There's been much more cooperation on the Iran nuclear question, on the question of the E.U. resuming arm's sales to China. Much more cooperative spirit about.

And of course Dominique De Villepin has lately been at the interior ministry, rather than in foreign affairs, not so much involved with those kinds of issues.

But certainly there's going to be a fairly turbulent area ahead in terms of relations between France and the rest of the European Union. Now, France, for its own domestic reasons largely, has scotched the prospects of that E.U. constitution. And of course the United States always wanted that constitution to go through, because back from the days of Henry Kissinger, the U.S. complaint has been, what telephone number do we ring when we want to talk to Europe? And the whole idea in the constitution was to have a European president and a European foreign minister giving a clear voice of Europe.

But I have with me here, Patrice De Beer, the former correspondent of "Le Monde." Suzanne, let me ask him, what kind of difference the arrival of Dominique De Villepin as prime minister is going to make, both to a damaged president in France and to Europe?

PATRICE DE BEER, FMR. "LE MONDE" CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dominique De Villepin is very different person from his predecessor. He wants to show that he's a man of action. But he's also a man with -- more geared toward diplomatic issues, government issues. He was a man always wanted, as you said, to serve France, rather know that the French people. He's never been elected. I don't think he will have many problems dealing with foreign countries, with foreign affairs. But he will have much more problems dealing with ordinary Frenchman. Nicholas Sarcozi (ph), archrival, once said, he wants to talk with the people, but he never traveled coach.

OAKLEY: Of course he's never been elected to anything. People are saying that the constitution referendum went wrong, because there a huge gap between the French elite, the governing classes, and the ordinary people. Is Dominique De Villepin a man who can bridge that gap?

DE BEER: Well, he doesn't look to be one, but he has to learn fast if he wants to, because his grasp of the ordinary people, of all of these people who voted no, not necessarily because they're against Europe, but because they were afraid of unemployment, these people needs convincing. He needs to have a social policy to deal with their fears, and there's no money in the coffers.

OAKLEY: Patrice De Beer, thank you very much.

DE BEER: Thank you.

And now back to you, Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Robin, thank you very much, as well as Mr. De Beer.

Now some have called the moment this network came of age. On January 16th, 1991, CNN was in its 11th year, yet still considered an upstart. That perception changed when a CNN team braved a night of fierce bombardment to report the opening shots of the first Gulf War. Here's a remarkable look back.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BERNARD SHAW, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: CNN's original plan was for me to interview President Saddam Hussein and to depart.

The routine for interviewing Saddam Hussein is very scripted. You check into the Al Rashid Hotel, and you become a prisoner in your own hotel room, because it is there that you wait for the phone call.

The first day, no call. Into the night, no call. The second, third, fourth day, still no call.

As we sat in Baghdad, we were aware of the forces being brought to bear into the theater.

TOM JOHNSON, FORMER CNN PRESIDENT: My own personal view was that we should pull them out.

I was convinced that if we left our people in, that they would be killed.

MARK BIELLO, CNN PHOTOGRAPHER: A lot of major networks were ordering their people out for the safety. Because no one could guarantee the safety of Western journalists.

SHAW: You're on the threshold of the biggest story in the world. You're in the capital of the, quote, "enemy," unquote. What do you do?

JOHNSON: I was called by three of the highest ranking officials in the government. A call that really sealed it for me was President Bush. I don't remember the exact words, but to the best of my memory he said, Tom, your staff in Baghdad is in grave jeopardy. You should pull them out.

SHAW: Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, said, those who want to stay can stay.

JOHNSON: I'll never forget what Ted said to me. That is the decision and you will not overturn me, pal.

SHAW: My plan was to leave the next morning.

JOHNSON: As it happened, the bombs started falling that night.

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight, the battle has been joined.

SHAW: Once the war broke out, I was trapped.

Something is happening outside. The skies over Baghdad have been illuminated. We're seeing bright flashes going off all over the sky.

My attitude always has been, the hotter the story, the cooler I become. I save my emotions for later.

SADDAM HUSSEIN (through translator): Bush, the Satan, has perpetrated this crime. And the great battle has been initiated, the mother of all battles.

JOHNSON: When the bombs came down, first equipment to go in Iraq was communications equipment. We had a backup way to get out audio.

SHAW: Let's describe to our viewers what we're seeing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're still with us, you can hear the bombs now. They're hitting the center of the city.

SHAW: Whoa, holy cow.

BIELLO: We were routed to an underground telephone system, because whoever decided they did not want to tie up two fiber-optic lines 24 hours, seven days a week for us.

PETER ARNETT, FORMER CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now, the sirens are sounding for the first time. The Iraqis have informed us.

BOB FURNAD, FORMER EXECUTIVE VP: All of a sudden, there was silence. We lost all audio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They just cut the line!

FURNAD: And, of course, our biggest fright was that the bomb had hit the hotel where they were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, Baghdad!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Line's dead.

FURNAD: There was a hush in the control room.

JOHN HOLLIMAN, FORMER CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Atlanta. Atlanta, this is Holliman.

FURNAD: You could feel the relief in that room. You could feel the physical strain coming out of people's bodies.

HOLLIMAN: I don't know if you're able to hear me now or not, but I'm going to continue to talk to you as long as I can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And everybody loved those three guys who were over there risking their lives for this coverage.

HOLLIMAN: I am going to put a microphone out the window. I think you'll be able to hear this sound.

SHAW: I didn't care about video. In effect, we were doing radio on television.

Clearly, I've never been there, but it feels like we're in the center of hell. What we did in Iraq and from that hotel constituted the first time a war had been covered live as it was happening.

FURNAD: I looked up at the other monitors, and on the ABC affiliate monitor was CNN. On the CBS affiliate monitor, it was CNN. On the NBC affiliate monitor, it was CNN. The fact was that everybody stole it and put it on the air.

JOHNSON: Some analyst said that he thought that night that CNN was reaching at least a billion viewers around the world.

I still consider it something of a miracle that those who were in that hotel survived.

SHAW: It has been a long night for us. It has been a night none of us will ever forget. And that's the latest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Unbelievably powerful. That story and other "Defining Moments" in the history CNN will be presented tomorrow night to mark our 25th anniversary. It will be a remarkable evening. It begins at 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: That's our show for today. Wolf will be back tomorrow, as well as later today and every weekday at 5:00 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." He'll have more on the big story in "Vanity Fair" magazine naming a former top FBI official as the legendary and mysterious source known as Deep Throat.

Thanks for watching NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Suzanne Malveaux. "LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Tony Harris is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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


Aired May 31, 2005 - 12:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Unbelievable story that is breaking at this hour. Deep Throat revealed.
"Vanity Fair" reports that former law enforcement official Mark Felt is the informer who leaked to Woodward and Bernstein on the Watergate scandal that toppled President Nixon. Carl Bernstein now has released a statement saying he remains unwilling to reveal the source's identity until the source's death. Now 91 years old, he felt that it was the number two official at the FBI during Watergate.

First, today, of course, we want to go on with this breaking news story. Absolutely incredible. We have with us two people who know a lot about this subject.

Bruce Morton, you, of course, you covered during CBS, Watergate, as well as our own Bill Schneider, who can give us some historical perspective.

First of all, tell us, what do we know that's in this "Vanity Fair" article? Both of you have been -- had a chance to take a look at it. Do we believe that this story is actually true?

BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There's no reason for Mr. Felt to lie about, it I suppose. On the other hand, he's 91 years old. He's living in retirement. How good is his memory, how good his mind these days? Those are the kinds of things you don't know about somebody that old.

There are three other people who know who Deep Throat was, Ben Bradley who was "The Post's" publisher back then, Woodward, Bernstein, and they have all so far declined to say yes or no. So I think absent some piece of evidence, this is going to be a terrific story that we can't quite be sure of.

You know, why would he make it up? I don't know. It's the last, oldest Watergate myth. It's the oldest Washington mystery, I guess -- you know, back to the 1970s, 30-some years ago.

But you can't quite nail it down. The old rule is that two sources. This fellow's one.

MALVEAUX: Now, Bill, why would he come forward at this time? I mean, obviously, Woodward has said that they would never reveal the source until they had his consent, that he had passed away.

Obviously he is ill at this point. Would it be because he wants to have the fame, have the glory? Is this just something that's come up very -- you know, serendipity? What do you think?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, his daughter used the very new age term. She said that -- she suggested it might be a good idea while he was still alive to get closure. I don't know what that means. He is 91 years old.

Apparently it happened almost unwittingly, that he and his daughter, according to "Vanity Fair's" report, he and his daughter were watching a Watergate special on television. And she asked her father, "Do you want Deep Throat would wanted to get rid of Nixon?" And her father replied, "No, I was not trying to bring him down. I was only -- he was only doing his duty."

So he seemed to veer back and forth between the first person and the third person. So it appears that almost an inadvertent admission, acknowledgement by someone quite elderly. And I agree with Bruce, we have to be very cautious about this, because he's old and it his to be corroborated.

MALVEAUX: So you're saying you think it could have been accidental?

SCHNEIDER: It sounds like -- it sounds like -- what is the word? There's a Freudian term, that it was his subconscious at work, that he acknowledged it perhaps without intending to.

MALVEAUX: Now, tell us, who is Felt? Why would he actually know this? Why would he have access?

MORTON: He was the number two man at the FBI, so he would probably know a lot about the investigation. Most of us, I think, who've been guessing over the years have guessed people in the campaign organization, people in the White House.

I always thought that Leonard Garment might be. He was a lawyer in Nixon's White House, but he died a few years ago and there was no announcements. I was wrong. But the FBI would probably know most of this stuff.

The most important thing that Deep Throat did was to say to Woodward three words, "Follow the money." Because what happened after they followed the money was that they traced some of the funds that one the burglars had on him back to money that had been contributed to the re-elect the president campaign.

MALVEAUX: Right.

Now, I understand we also have our legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, who is also joining us as well.

Perhaps, Jeff, if you can tell us, give us a sense of why do we suspect that Felt was one of the top people, candidates, for Deep Throat? I know that there had been some articles that had been written before about the possibility that it was -- that it was him. And also even on the Nixon tapes that he was one of the people mentioned as a possibility, at least someone who was leaking. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. The gist of the suspicion of Mark Felt is that he was at the FBI. And the FBI was, in essence, the target of the White House cover-up.

Remember, what the Nixon White House was trying to do was pay money, pay hush money to the Watergate burglars and others so that they wouldn't disclose why -- they conducted the Watergate break-in. So it was the FBI investigating the cover-up and investigating the break-in.

So it was the FBI who was the victim of the cover-up. So someone in the FBI might be angry.

Felt was the person most directly involved in the investigation. He was supervising it. He was also a politically savvy person. He'd been around Washington for a long time. So he was the obvious suspect when the FBI side of -- the FBI group of suspects was thought about.

MALVEAUX: And, Jeff, obviously it's rather incredible to think about the way news breaks so quickly in this 24-hour news cycle. And this is really a story that has lasted for decades.

It's almost unbelievable, unconscionable to those of us who are growing up in the business. And it is so difficult to keep a secret like this.

How do you suppose that that actually -- that they were able do that, if in fact it is true, that is just breaking now?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, I think the world was very different in 1974. For one thing I was 14 years old in 1974. But the news media was different.

You know, we're celebrating the 25th anniversary of CNN, which didn't start until 1980. "The Washington Post" had the Watergate story virtually to itself for a long time. No one else really pursued it very aggressively.

That wouldn't be possible today with the incredible crush of media. So, you know, Woodward and Bernstein really were alone on this story for a long time. And I think the media has changed in such a way, and you need only look the at Lewinsky story, which played out on cable TV 24 hours a day, how different (INAUDIBLE) Washington scandals is now.

It's simply -- you couldn't have that tantalizing information the way there was in 1972, 1973, 1974, and not having a pack of reporters after it in the way that you certainly would now.

MALVEAUX: And, Jeff, CNN is just getting some statements from Carl Bernstein, as well as Woodward. I'm going to go ahead and read them very briefly here.

Bernstein said he is not going to do any interviews at this time, but he passed this along to CNN, the following statement. He says, "As in the past, we're not going to say anything about this. There have been many books, articles and speculation about the identity of the individual known as Deep Throat. We've said all along that when that person dies we will disclose his identity and describe in context and great detail our dealings with him."

"With all our confidential sources we agreed not to identify them until their death. Nothing has changed that. No one has released us from any pledge. We will not identify Deep Throat until his death."

And then, also, we are getting a statement -- CNN getting a statement here from Bob Woodward, saying -- and I'm quoting here -- he says, "I have seen the reports in 'Vanity Fair,' and I'll tell you, as I have said in the past over the past 30 years, that neither Carl Bernstein nor Ben Bradley nor I are going to say anything at all regarding the identity of Deep Throat."

He would not even comment on his relationship with Mark Felt, we are total. That he says -- and I'm quoting here -- "We've gone down this road for 30 years. And for 30 years we have not said anything. That won't change today because of the report in 'Vanity Fair.'"

I want to ask the two of you, why was it so important that they hold this source so close, that he remain anonymous?

MORTON: Well, the oldest rule in this business, as you know perfectly well, Suzanne, is if you tell the guy you won't reveal who he is, you keep your word. You know, it's a basic bargain any investigative reporter makes with a source. Anonymity? Sure, you've got it.

And once you've said that, you're supposed to mean it.

MALVEAUX: Now, would this -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

SCHNEIDER: I was going to say, anonymous sources have become recently a very big -- hot subject of controversy, and a lot of news organizations have said they're going to rely on them much less. Some of them said they won't even use them anymore.

Well, this is the original -- not the original, but one of the biggest anonymous sources ever to remain anonymous for 30 years. It's quite remarkable, having brought down a president.

MALVEAUX: Now, would this -- would this story actually would have been revealed? Would Nixon have been brought down in Watergate if not for Deep Throat? He was that central a character to this story?

MORTON: It's very hard. A lot of different things happened.

Deep Throat was very important. John McCord, one of the burglars writing a letter to Judge Sirica who heard that case, saying there's a cover-up going on here, it was very important. Every time this story looked as if it might sort of fade away, something happened. And maybe the most important thing that happened is when a man named Alexander Butterfield, who had some obscure job at the FAA, told the Senate Watergate Committee saying, yes, there was a recording session. I have always thought that if Richard Nixon had burned the tapes, he would have walked. But once the tapes were known, he probably couldn't.

SCHNEIDER: I remember the remarkable moment when the very day that there was the acknowledgement by Nixon on the tapes that he knew something about the burglary, then it was all over within -- within hours. But it took those tapes really to bring him down. That wasn't the -- Deep Throat.

MALVEAUX: Now, this obviously must take you back to a time when both of you were there. You were covering it.

What does this conjure up in terms of your head that moment? I mean, the tension that must have been building around that story.

MORTON: Well, Butterfield, I think Leslie Stahl was the main CBS person. And nobody know why they called Butterfield. This guy works for the FAA. What's he doing here?

And she went over and lifted up the tag on his briefcase it see if some clue, you know, slash-FBI or something. Well, it wasn't.

But the day I remember that did in the Nixon presidency was walking by the majority whip's office on the House side, and there's this mob of reporters, which I of course joined. Good herd animal.

Well, there's a new tape. There's a new tape.

MALVEAUX: Right. Right. Sure.

MORTON: And here is this tape with Nixon saying, can't we get the CIA to cover this thing up, in a fact. That's not a quote, but it's pretty close. Answering, no, Mr. President, you couldn't. And he didn't have half a dozen votes after that was over.

SCHNEIDER: Yes. This was a big shock, I remember, to Americans, because they never imagined that a president would lie to the American people. It was totally unexpected. It was unfathomable that a president in the White House would be lying to the American people and would be complicit in covering up a crime.

I mean, this was incredible. It was a great shock to the system and created a tremendous amount of public distrust.

I always thought that one of the things that brought Nixon down was when people heard or saw what was in the White House tapes, they read what was on those tapes...

MALVEAUX: Right. Right. Sure.

SCHNEIDER: ... and they heard the lack of decorum in the White House. I remember at the time thinking a president should curse, should use that kind of language, this sort of harshness, the partisanship that was going on in the Oval Office, that was very dismaying to the public. And I think that's one of the points that Nixon's support really fell away.

MORTON: Well, it's interesting. If you listen to some of the Kennedy tapes during the Cuban missile crisis -- he had a tape system, too -- nobody talks like that.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

MORTON: You know, Mr. Secretary, Senator, very polite, very -- we're talking about nuclear war. I mean, you could end the planet here. But nobody is using bad language.

And the Nixon tapes, I've been in rooms listening, you know, with young researchers who'd never heard any of this. And the first SOB comes out. Good heavens, that's a president.

And we lived with the affects of that, yet, the distrust of authority, the distrust of the White House. That's ebbed, but it sure hasn't gone away.

MALVEAUX: Great. Thank you very much. We're going to wrap this. Thank you so much, Bruce Morton, and, of course, Bill Schneider, veteran correspondents to help us make sense of all of this, to take us back in time just a little bit.

And we'll see how that story unfolds. After the break, we'll bring you a little bit about President Bush's press conference.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(JOINED INN PROGRESS)

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ...saying that it is absurd.

For the most part, he was pushing pressure on Congress to pass legislation, like the energy legislation and other measures, the budget, the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. And also pushed very hard on Social Security reform, that those same polls show is not doing very well right now, even though he has been 27 states thus far and is going through a 28th later this week.

But the question comes up, then, as it's being asked very discreetly right now, is the president losing momentum?

MALVEAUX: Bob, I guess that brings me to my...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... happened instantly in Washington, D.C. I know that part of your job is to follow the process and to follow the politics, and who's up and who's down. But I've been around here long enough to tell you and to tell the people listening, things just don't happen overnight, it takes a while. And one thing is for certain, it takes a president willing to push people to do hard things. Just keep in mind we haven't had an energy strategy in this country for over a decade. And the Social Security issue hasn't been on the table since 1983. I mean, seriously on the table. And so I'm asking Congress to do some difficult things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: And the president said, in fact, the pace here can be so slow sometimes it's like -- quoting him -- "like water cutting through a rock." And Suzanne, everybody was too polite that that usually takes several thousand years to have an effect.

MALVEAUX: Well, I'm glad you were so polite, Bob.

I have to ask, too, about the timing of this. Why do you suppose he held this press conference now, just after the holiday? I guess Congress out of session. A time perhaps to capture the limelight?

FRANKEN: Well, I was going to say this was a slow news day until about an hour ago.

MALVEAUX: And I know that you mentioned the polls as well. You said I guess his popularity about 46 percent now. But the one thing that he does actually score well with is his handling of the war on terrorism.

I noticed that he did bring that up several times, that he felt that, in the end, despite this rising insurgency, that ultimately the United States was going to be successful. An important point, I imagine, for the president to make.

FRANKEN: It is, but in all the other categories, including a really interesting one, whether you agree with the president's position, he is really beginning to falter. By the way, the answer to that question in terms of numbers was only 40 percent.

MALVEAUX: Thank you very much, Bob.

And joining us now from New York, CNN senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield. And here, of course, in Washington, our own CNN's Ed Henry.

I want to start off with you, Ed.

You know, this president is one who likes to talk about political capital. The first press conference he had, he was very excited, very confident that he won the re-election. Talked about it very much so. But it doesn't really seem to be paying off very well.

We see Social Security so far a thumbs' down. We see energy, another thumbs' down. Wavering on the Bolton nomination. And it seems as if this compromise with the judges, that no one is happy with this.

Is there a concern here that he is just not effective, even dealing with his Republican Party?

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Clearly, there's a concern. You heard the president beating up on the Democrats a bit, saying he's tired of these filibusters on John Bolton. But also on the judicial nominees that you mentioned. But he also clearly has to be a bit frustrated with the Republican Congress as well.

The Democrats do not run the Congress. It's a Republican Congress. And you mentioned that press conference right after the election when the president was talking about political capital. That capital was coming not just from his re-election, but the fact that Republicans had strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, including 55 Republicans in the Senate very close to having a filibuster-proof chamber.

There were high expectations from this president, but also from Republican voters around the country that they were going to finally make progress on those issues you mentioned, like Social Security reform. But just this past Friday, the conservative "Wall Street Journal" editorial page had a blistering editorial, saying this Congress had been a disappointment.

So, yes, there's frustration at the White House with the Democrats. But clearly some frustration with the Republicans as well.

MALVEAUX: And Jeff, a question for you as well. Of course, this is really the first Republican president with -- who has been re- elected a second term with a Republican Congress since Calvin Coolidge, and he really does not seem to be able to move his domestic agenda ahead.

What does he need to do to convince those leaders in Congress that he needs to be more effective? Or is he in fact turning into a lame duck president?

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: I think that's way too early. I mean, one of the things we need to keep in mind is that the day-to- day, back-and-forth may conceal the broader reality.

The president has an enormous advantage, compared to past second- term presidents, particularly Republican presidents. There aren't going to be hostile investigative committees chasing him. He's going to be in a much better position to get his appointments to the courts and to hide positions confirmed.

The problem that he has, and the problem that any second-term president has is now they know -- his own party members know -- that they're on their own in a sense. They don't have to rally behind him to win a second term. One of the most significant Republicans in a previous Congress told me last year, "We're going to stay with him in lockstep until November 2004, and then we're going to start, you know, having our own agendas."

Look, you've got I don't know how many members of the Republican Senate think they ought to be the next president. But it's a heck of a large number. And they're going to be pursuing their own goals. But I still believe that the loyalty that this president engenders in the conservative base -- he is a more popular president among those people even than Ronald Reagan -- is still the weapon that we may see employed to get reluctant senators on his side. I think if it weren't there that popularity, for example, John Bolton would be a lot more likely not to be confirmed than is likely to be the case. So I think we ought to be very careful before assuming this president has lost his political capital.

MALVEAUX: But, Jeff, you mentioned, too, about the conservative Christians, a very strong group for the president. But clearly, there was a setback with the stem cell research situation.

You had the House that went for it, extended federal funding. The Christian -- they're not -- they're not pleased at all with that. I mean, just how popular, how powerful is this group for the president, or is he losing favor?

GREENFIELD: Well, I was talking actually about a broader conservative base than just the evangelicals. But I think you heard today the president said flatly, if that bill passes he's going to veto it.

And while the Senate may be in a position to possibly override that veto, it's almost impossible to believe the House will. That's only going to strengthen the president among his hard conservative base, the hard core of that base. And the question is whether they are going to begin to put pressure on reluctant congressional Republicans to stay with the president.

Just as an example, it's hard to imagine any Republican senator who wants to be the presidential nomination in a few years to break with that base and hope that that nominee, that candidate can get nominated. So I think the president still has some pretty strong political cards despite the fact that his popularity is down, and despite the fact he's getting some push back, to use that retched cliche, from some of the members from his own party.

Let's just see how this plays out.

MALVEAUX: And Ed, real quick, last question for you. Of course, next year, voters are going to look at all of the House members, they're going to look at a third of the Senate. What difference does it make, the president's -- his influence now in terms of whether or not those Republicans get those seats next year?

HENRY: Well, as Jeff pointed out, that's part of the reason why there's been some difficulty on Social Security reform. You have Republicans on the Hill going their own way and seeing the president is not up for election again. They are in '06. They're nervous about that.

I think the best thing the president has going in his favor is himself. He is his best secret political weapon.

And as you mentioned, Bob Franken mentioned that analogy about water cutting through a rock. This is a president, as Jeff pointed out, who does not give up.

He doesn't watch the polls. He doesn't care what the commentators are saying. He's going to stick with it.

And on Social Security, he is still grinding it out, day in, day out, even though a lot of people are saying he's not going to get it. He believes he will.

MALVEAUX: Ed Henry, thank you very much for your insight, as well as Jeff Greenfield.

Now, when NEWS FROM CNN returns, the European Union after French voters said non on a proposed constitution. What happens now? Analysis live from Paris in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A change of power in France, where voters just two days ago turned thumbs down on the European Union's constitution. That rejection in part over economic policies and high unemployment, which also plague other countries in Europe.

Joining us to talk from Paris about the implications, Patrice De Beer, former London correspondent for "Le Monde," and in London, CNN European political editor Robin Oakley.

Robin, I want to start with you.

First, of course, we saw them name the new prime minister, Dominique de Villepin. We have heard of him before. He was the one who really on the world stage was the face of France as anti-war stance in the U.N. Security Council.

There is much that has been made about the U.S. and France mending relations. It was just back in Europe we saw President Bush ding with French President Jacques Chirac. The joke was that they put the "French" back in the French fries. But in all seriousness, what is the impact on U.S.-French relations because of this?

Well, we seem to have lost Robin Oakley. Let's see if -- let's go to a break at the moment. We'll see if we can get him back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Violence sparks more of the same in Karachi, Pakistan. An angry crowd sets fire to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, killing six workers. Police say four burned to death, two others died hiding in a walk-in freezer. The mob, protesting yesterday's deadly attack on a neighborhood mosque, also torched two gas stations and a number of vehicles.

Panic in Banda Aceh as a moderate earthquake rocks Indonesia's Aceh province. That region still trying to recover from December's devastating earthquake and resulting tsunami. Today's quake, a magnitude 5.6, was centered around 90 miles offshore. No word yet on the condition of the child known as Peru's little mermaid. Now a year old, she was born with her legs fused from her thighs to her ankles. Overnight, doctors were to begin the first of three complicated operations to separate those legs.

Now, more again on our top story, one that has intrigued the nation for decades. "Vanity Fair" reports that former law enforcement official Mark Felt is the mysterious source known as Deep Throat. He's the unidentified Washington insider who leaked information to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of "The Washington Post," defining the Watergate scandal and helping people to topple President Nixon.

Bernstein has released a statement saying he remains unwilling to reveal the source's identity until the source's death. Now 91, Felt was the number two official at the FBI during Watergate. Now, out of all news events CNN has covered over the past 25 years, it may be the defining moment for us.

Now, Bruce Morton, we'd like you to -- ask you a couple of questions about this story that is unfolding and, of course, all the buzz here in Washington about Mark Felt. Tell us what you know about him and tell us specifically -- there was an instruction that they gave the journalists when they said follow the money. What kind of role would Felt have had in the FBI in following that money?

BRUCE MORTON, CNN ANCHOR: Well, that's one of the reasons he seemed less likely than some other people, I think. It was easier to think of people in the campaign to re-elect the president, as the Nixon re-election was called, people in the White House. But what Woodward and Bernstein did was, in fact, follow the money, the actual currency which was found on one of the Watergate burglars, traced the numbers, and lo and behold, that currency had been contributed to the re-election campaign.

So you knew right away there was a link. There wasn't some little third-rate burglary as then White House press secretary Ron Ziegler called it. This was big stuff, went to the president's re- election campaign.

MALVEAUX: And how would Felt have known? How would he know where the money was? How would he have followed that trace?

MORTON: Well, I don't know exactly. If you're in the FBI, I think you're privy to a lot of information, you know, some of it valid, some of it not. But Lord knows information is flowing across your desk. And he probably had access to campaign finance records, things like that.

MALVEAUX: And you and I talked about this in the break a little bit. How do you confirm this story? "Vanity Fair" is reporting it. They say he came out and said he is Deep Throat. How can you confirm? How do we even know?

MORTON: Well, "Vanity Fair" said that. "Vanity Fair" also said that he's 91 years old, that his memory is failing, that he first told a daughter. But it's hard. There are three other people, aside from Mr. Throat, whoever he may be, who know the answer to this question. And they are Woodward, Bernstein and Ben Bradley, who back then was the editor of "The Post." And they have all so far said we've always said we will say when he dies and that's still our policy. So I don't see, short of, you know, divine revelation, a spirit appearing in the news room or something -- I don't think you can confirm this thing. I just don't.

MALVEAUX: And Jeff, do you agree with that? It's the first time I've heard him mentioned as Mr. Throat. But do you agree? Is there any way that you can confirm this story, short of asking him is this true? Is he reliable?

GREENFIELD: Well, I simply don't know the man. I don't know what state he's in at age 91. If the three people who do know are insane or if you want a definitive answer, we may have to wait until Mr. Felt dies or, you know, there's some other basis. But I want to come back to one point that we haven't yet talked about. I think Jeff Toobin raised it about an hour ago.

For me, the real question, the most intriguing story, is not this guessing game of who is Deep Throat. But if this is the case, that the number two man on the FBI was Deep Throat, the question is why? Remember the exchange that you'd been dealing with, where his daughter supposedly said in the third person, do you think Deep Throat wanted to bring down Nixon, and Mark Felt supposedly says, no, I was just doing my duty. There has been enormous speculation over the years that the FBI was out to take Richard Nixon down, either because they felt he was misusing them or because of some internecine political battle.

Now, remember one other thing. The tape that brought Nixon ultimately down was a tape that revealed that six days after the Watergate break-in -- I think that's the number, Bruce can correct me -- he had said, can't we use the CIA to tell the FBI to back off? And it is entirely possible that what we are going to finally find out is whether the FBI felt so aggrieved by what President Nixon was doing that they actually, in the presence of Mark Felt, among others, set out to make sure that the public knew what he was up to.

And to me, that's the most intriguing thing that this "Vanity Fair" article, so far from what we know, may not be able to answer. I don't know if Bruce has something about that he wants to jump in on that, as well.

MALVEAUX: Well, Bruce, tell us, how likely is a scenario is that?

MORTON: It's a perfectly good scenario. Jeff could think of a half a dozen others, I expect. So could I. You know, by the time the actual smoking gun tape came out, the one that had him saying can't we get the CIA to get the FBI to lay off of this thing, this was this very down far down the road. We'd had the Senate Watergate hearings. The House Judiciary committee had its hearings. The committee had approved three, if I'm remembering rightly, articles of impeachment against the president. And he was already losing support in the House at a terrific rate. Now once this tape came out, there was just nothing left.

GREENFIELD: But my point, Bruce, is that it may well have been that the FBI knew, way early in the game, long before any of the things you're talking about, that Nixon wanted to use the CIA, to use the -- to tell the FBI to back off. In other words, if there was resentment or anger within the law enforcement officials that the president, that the White House, was misusing them, they would have known that very shortly after the break-in. And that possibly could explain why the number two man in the FBI was dealing with Bob Woodward and telling him follow the money, and telling him there is more here than meets the eye.

MORTON: Yes, I think there's even some reference on one of the tapes, Jeff. You memory may be better than mine on this, where Nixon or somebody talks to Pat Gray at the FBI, saying can't we -- come on, guys, can't we just kind of...

GREENFIELD: Yes.

MALVEAUX: We're going to have to continue debate a little bit later. We're going to wrap this up. We'll get back to you.

But more on the night the bombs began falling in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. We were right in the middle of it. A look back, when NEWS FROM CNN returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A change of power in France, where voters just two days ago turned thumbs down on the European Union's constitution. That rejection, in part, over economic policies and high unemployment, which also plagued other nations in Europe.

Joining us from Paris, CNN's European political editor Robin Oakley.

Robin, thanks for being with us. Quick question for you. We know there's a new Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin. We know that he, of course, really was the face of the -- France's anti-war movement, when it came to U.S. invasion in Iraq. We saw a lot of fence mending between the United States, President Bush, Jacques Chirac sharing French fries, putting the French back in French fries was the joke back then in Europe.

But of course, in all seriousness, what does this mean for U.S. and France relations?

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN EUROPEAN POLITICAL EDITOR: Well, I think are there memories of course of Dominique De Villepin leading the fight against the second U.N. resolution authorizing war in Iraq. That's not going to be forgotten quickly in the White House and in the State Department. But it has to be said, relations between France and the United States have improved considerably, as they have across the whole of Europe. The visits here in Europe. President and Condoleezza Rice earlier this year. There's been much more cooperation on the Iran nuclear question, on the question of the E.U. resuming arm's sales to China. Much more cooperative spirit about.

And of course Dominique De Villepin has lately been at the interior ministry, rather than in foreign affairs, not so much involved with those kinds of issues.

But certainly there's going to be a fairly turbulent area ahead in terms of relations between France and the rest of the European Union. Now, France, for its own domestic reasons largely, has scotched the prospects of that E.U. constitution. And of course the United States always wanted that constitution to go through, because back from the days of Henry Kissinger, the U.S. complaint has been, what telephone number do we ring when we want to talk to Europe? And the whole idea in the constitution was to have a European president and a European foreign minister giving a clear voice of Europe.

But I have with me here, Patrice De Beer, the former correspondent of "Le Monde." Suzanne, let me ask him, what kind of difference the arrival of Dominique De Villepin as prime minister is going to make, both to a damaged president in France and to Europe?

PATRICE DE BEER, FMR. "LE MONDE" CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dominique De Villepin is very different person from his predecessor. He wants to show that he's a man of action. But he's also a man with -- more geared toward diplomatic issues, government issues. He was a man always wanted, as you said, to serve France, rather know that the French people. He's never been elected. I don't think he will have many problems dealing with foreign countries, with foreign affairs. But he will have much more problems dealing with ordinary Frenchman. Nicholas Sarcozi (ph), archrival, once said, he wants to talk with the people, but he never traveled coach.

OAKLEY: Of course he's never been elected to anything. People are saying that the constitution referendum went wrong, because there a huge gap between the French elite, the governing classes, and the ordinary people. Is Dominique De Villepin a man who can bridge that gap?

DE BEER: Well, he doesn't look to be one, but he has to learn fast if he wants to, because his grasp of the ordinary people, of all of these people who voted no, not necessarily because they're against Europe, but because they were afraid of unemployment, these people needs convincing. He needs to have a social policy to deal with their fears, and there's no money in the coffers.

OAKLEY: Patrice De Beer, thank you very much.

DE BEER: Thank you.

And now back to you, Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: Robin, thank you very much, as well as Mr. De Beer.

Now some have called the moment this network came of age. On January 16th, 1991, CNN was in its 11th year, yet still considered an upstart. That perception changed when a CNN team braved a night of fierce bombardment to report the opening shots of the first Gulf War. Here's a remarkable look back.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BERNARD SHAW, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: CNN's original plan was for me to interview President Saddam Hussein and to depart.

The routine for interviewing Saddam Hussein is very scripted. You check into the Al Rashid Hotel, and you become a prisoner in your own hotel room, because it is there that you wait for the phone call.

The first day, no call. Into the night, no call. The second, third, fourth day, still no call.

As we sat in Baghdad, we were aware of the forces being brought to bear into the theater.

TOM JOHNSON, FORMER CNN PRESIDENT: My own personal view was that we should pull them out.

I was convinced that if we left our people in, that they would be killed.

MARK BIELLO, CNN PHOTOGRAPHER: A lot of major networks were ordering their people out for the safety. Because no one could guarantee the safety of Western journalists.

SHAW: You're on the threshold of the biggest story in the world. You're in the capital of the, quote, "enemy," unquote. What do you do?

JOHNSON: I was called by three of the highest ranking officials in the government. A call that really sealed it for me was President Bush. I don't remember the exact words, but to the best of my memory he said, Tom, your staff in Baghdad is in grave jeopardy. You should pull them out.

SHAW: Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, said, those who want to stay can stay.

JOHNSON: I'll never forget what Ted said to me. That is the decision and you will not overturn me, pal.

SHAW: My plan was to leave the next morning.

JOHNSON: As it happened, the bombs started falling that night.

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight, the battle has been joined.

SHAW: Once the war broke out, I was trapped.

Something is happening outside. The skies over Baghdad have been illuminated. We're seeing bright flashes going off all over the sky.

My attitude always has been, the hotter the story, the cooler I become. I save my emotions for later.

SADDAM HUSSEIN (through translator): Bush, the Satan, has perpetrated this crime. And the great battle has been initiated, the mother of all battles.

JOHNSON: When the bombs came down, first equipment to go in Iraq was communications equipment. We had a backup way to get out audio.

SHAW: Let's describe to our viewers what we're seeing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you're still with us, you can hear the bombs now. They're hitting the center of the city.

SHAW: Whoa, holy cow.

BIELLO: We were routed to an underground telephone system, because whoever decided they did not want to tie up two fiber-optic lines 24 hours, seven days a week for us.

PETER ARNETT, FORMER CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now, the sirens are sounding for the first time. The Iraqis have informed us.

BOB FURNAD, FORMER EXECUTIVE VP: All of a sudden, there was silence. We lost all audio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They just cut the line!

FURNAD: And, of course, our biggest fright was that the bomb had hit the hotel where they were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello, Baghdad!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Line's dead.

FURNAD: There was a hush in the control room.

JOHN HOLLIMAN, FORMER CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Atlanta. Atlanta, this is Holliman.

FURNAD: You could feel the relief in that room. You could feel the physical strain coming out of people's bodies.

HOLLIMAN: I don't know if you're able to hear me now or not, but I'm going to continue to talk to you as long as I can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And everybody loved those three guys who were over there risking their lives for this coverage.

HOLLIMAN: I am going to put a microphone out the window. I think you'll be able to hear this sound.

SHAW: I didn't care about video. In effect, we were doing radio on television.

Clearly, I've never been there, but it feels like we're in the center of hell. What we did in Iraq and from that hotel constituted the first time a war had been covered live as it was happening.

FURNAD: I looked up at the other monitors, and on the ABC affiliate monitor was CNN. On the CBS affiliate monitor, it was CNN. On the NBC affiliate monitor, it was CNN. The fact was that everybody stole it and put it on the air.

JOHNSON: Some analyst said that he thought that night that CNN was reaching at least a billion viewers around the world.

I still consider it something of a miracle that those who were in that hotel survived.

SHAW: It has been a long night for us. It has been a night none of us will ever forget. And that's the latest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Unbelievably powerful. That story and other "Defining Moments" in the history CNN will be presented tomorrow night to mark our 25th anniversary. It will be a remarkable evening. It begins at 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: That's our show for today. Wolf will be back tomorrow, as well as later today and every weekday at 5:00 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." He'll have more on the big story in "Vanity Fair" magazine naming a former top FBI official as the legendary and mysterious source known as Deep Throat.

Thanks for watching NEWS FROM CNN. I'm Suzanne Malveaux. "LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Tony Harris is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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