Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Taliban Comeback in Afghanistan?; Obama vs. Clinton Fallout; Iraqis Not Welcome in United States?; What Should Be Done about Iraqi Refugees?; What Next in Anna Nicole Case?; Anna Nicole's Bodyguard Describes Her Death

Aired February 23, 2007 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone.
We will have more on Anna Nicole Smith. Her mom isn't giving up her fight, not yet. Two weeks after the messy battle over Smith's body and baby began, there are more unresolved questions than ever, including which court actually has jurisdiction and who may have faxed the new judge a fake court order.

But we begin tonight with a serious threat in Afghanistan, where a bloody spring looks to be just around the corner. Today, the Taliban's military commander vowed that this will be the deadliest year yet for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. He said his 6,000 fighters are ready to launch the deadly offensive they have been promising, just as soon as the weather warms up.

His warnings came as al Qaeda, which has long been friendly with the Taliban, posted another video on the Internet. Take a look. Al Qaeda says the video was made last year and shows fighters firing missiles at a U.S. base in Afghanistan. But it doesn't actually show the base. And CNN hasn't been able to confirm the video's authenticity.

But similar videos have been posted in the past, including this one made almost -- last year.


COOPER (voice-over): Crude and chilling -- you are looking at what is purportedly videotape of al Qaeda fighters building a bomb. The nails are put into the IED to create maximum destruction.

According to IntelCenter, a terrorism monitoring group, this terror tape was made by al Qaeda in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border in early 2006. U.S. intelligence officials say, al Qaeda's influence in the area is increasing, and they are teaching their deadly bomb building and suicide bombing techniques to the Taliban.

The flash point for both groups is an area known as Waziristan, a province in Pakistan. It's a haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban, a base, U.S. military officials say, to conduct cross-border raids into Afghanistan.

Pakistan says it's an ally in the war on terror, but recently signed a peace deal in Waziristan with pro-Taliban militants -- this after dozens of Pakistani soldiers and tribal elders were killed in this area. On the tape, we see what purportedly are members of al Qaeda openly conducting training exercises in Pakistan. Guns are fired and rocket-propelled grenades are launched.

Then, at night, they leave their position for what IntelCenter says is an attack on a Pakistani military outpost. First, we hear the pops of gunfire. They're followed by explosions -- then, the apparent aftermath. We see what appears to be the bodies of Pakistani soldiers, as al Qaeda fighters take weapons and ammunition.

The tape ends with al Qaeda setting fire to the outpost -- the flames and the bodies a bloody testament to al Qaeda's growing strength.


COOPER: Well, that is, of course, the grim reality. More than five years after U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and capture Osama bin Laden, both enemies remain serious threats.

Today, Britain says it's going to send another 1,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to help NATO's counteroffensive this spring.

Joining me now is Rick Barton with the Center For Strategic and International Studies, and also CNN's Nic Robertson.

Guys, thanks for being with us.

Nic, you know, most reports say and most of the intelligence experts I have talked to say to that Pakistani forces are doing little to rid the border areas of al Qaeda and Taliban. In fact, they have signed, essentially, this cease-fire deal with them.

Is -- is there -- is there any evidence -- I mean, Pakistan says that -- that what they are doing is actually helping the war on terror. Is there any evidence to support that? Or is all the evidence showing that attacks across the border are up?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The evidence does show that the attacks across the are up.

When the Pakistani government signed that peace deal in north Waziristan, the attacks went up threefold across the border. Pakistani officials say: We are doing our best. Look at the number of our soldiers that have been attacked and killed by al Qaeda.

Why is al Qaeda, Taliban and their supporters doing that? This is a very independent border region. It's never been controlled by any government before. The tribes, ideologically, are very closely aligned with Taliban and al Qaeda, very extreme religious views. That's why they draw the support there. That's why they are able to attack the Pakistani forces.

But intelligence sources we talk to along that border say that Pakistani intelligence, their ISI intelligence service, will sometimes come along where the security forces have perhaps arrested, detained somebody from al Qaeda, free the al Qaeda person. There are competing interests, but the main interest along that border is one of independence and one of ideological support for al Qaeda.

So, whatever deal the Pakistani government has struck, it's not working along that border to protect U.S. troops on the front line of terrorism right inside -- right inside Afghanistan across the border -- Anderson.

COOPER: And -- and, Rick, in your report, you say that 2007 could become a breaking point in Afghanistan, unless there's a realistic assessment of the situation on -- on the ground.

What can the U.S. and its allies do at this point to turn the tide?

RICK BARTON, SENIOR ADVISER, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: We think that we have to focus on Helmand and Kandahar provinces, where the tribal troops are strongest, where the Taliban is likeliest to mount its biggest offensive, and where it really has a good, solid base.

That means that we are going to have to double the troops there. We have to double the number of helicopters there. We have to have the rapid-response capability, to let the Afghan authorities know that, if they're policemen, they're soldiers, they're local mayors, they won't have to wait more than 15 minutes to be saved if they are -- if they are attacked.

Without that, we are going to have a real problem. And the problem will just spread throughout the country. And that's why it's a worrying trend right now for most Afghans, because they see growing insecurity throughout the country.

COOPER: Nic, what about the -- the capabilities of NATO and U.S. forces there? I mean, you and I spent time at a base right along the border. A lot of American troops from the 10th Mountain Division are working incredibly hard every day.

NATO has all these rules, though, about where their troops can be deployed. You know, German troops are in one part of a country, and can't be moved to another part of the country. How much of that is a problem?

ROBERTSON: It's a massive problem. It's a huge problem.

President Bush, in his recent speech, was very hard on NATO, saying that NATO nations must do more to contribute. And there -- there have been contributions recently, such as the Icelandic nation offering air support. But it's -- it's on the ground where the troops are needed.

And the problem is, many NATO nations don't want to get into a situation where the rules of engagement mean that their troops are going to get involved in firefight and be put in harm's way. It's politically unpalatable, if we look at what has happened to Italy. And that issue alone of support for Italian troops in Afghanistan seems to be perhaps on the verge of bringing down the current government there, so -- or the current prime minister, at least.

So -- so, it -- it is a tough issue for these NATO members. Should they put their troops in harm's way? And most of them seem to be opting not to do that. And that is completely hamstringing NATO's ability to put in the assets it needs to provide the security that's much needed at the moment to defeat the Taliban.

COOPER: Yes, I -- I think that bears repeating. It's going to come as a lot of surprise to certainly a lot of Americans, and -- and maybe even family members of service members who are there, that NATO countries will send the troops there, maybe, but they won't send them to the areas where there's actually fighting.

In -- in your report, Rick, you talk about that there has been really disintegration in all aspects of society across Afghanistan, except, I think you mentioned, women's rights.

BARTON: Women feel more positive about their -- their current position. And there has been some economic advancement as well.

But, because of the growing insecurity, and because of the feeling that the reconstruction is not reaching the average Afghan, there's a sense of disappointment. And what's ending up happening is that Afghans are going back to cutting their own deals. That's the way the country worked for the last 20 years. That's not a good base to rebuild or restart a nation. And, so, that's what's really troublesome.

COOPER: It's the unfinished war. And -- and a lot of the troops over there will tell you it's the forgotten war. They feel that all the focus is on Iraq.

We are going to continue to focus on what's happening in Afghanistan a lot in the coming months.

Rick Barton, appreciate your expertise.


COOPER: And, Nic Robertson, thanks as well.

That's the grim reality. More than five years after U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, capture bin Laden, both enemies remain serious threats. Today, Britain said it's going to send another thousand soldiers to Afghanistan, as we talked about that.

We're going to have more from Afghanistan coming up in just a moment.

But, first, let's take a look at what happened at the trial of Anna Nicole Smith today.

John Zarrella has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN MIAMI BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): In a tone both questioning and exasperated, Broward County Judge Lawrence Korda wondered:


ZARRELLA: Korda, a family court judge, was asked by attorneys for Anna Nicole Smith's ex-boyfriend, Larry Birkhead, to order a DNA sample taken from Smith's 5-month-old daughter, Dannielynn, who is in the Bahamas.

SUSAN BROWN, ATTORNEY FOR LARRY BIRKHEAD: This is about Anna Nicole Smith running from Larry Birkhead....


BROWN: .. because Larry Birkhead is the father of this child. And we should be permitted to prove it, either in California, here, the Bahamas, somewhere.

HAAS: Immediately, forthwith.

BROWN: This child -- this child needs a father. She has nobody.

ZARRELLA: But, during the brief hearing, Korda made it clear where he was leaning.

KORDA: At this point, I don't think that I have jurisdiction. But I'm not going to shut the door completely at this point. It appears to be that that's where I'm going.

ZARRELLA: Korda may decide Monday on whether he has jurisdiction to rule on anything.

Outside the courthouse, the crush of media from around the world pressed for any nugget or sliver of news. An hour up the road, in West Palm Beach, a far more subdued media was waiting, too, all day. Attorneys for Smith's mother were expected to show up and file an appeal of Thursday's ruling that gave custody of the body to baby Dannielynn's court-appointed guardian.

They did ask for a stay in Broward court, but couldn't get the papers together in time to appeal.

MARSHAL GLEN RUBIN, 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: We have not received anything. We have a cutoff time at 5:00. It's 5:00. It's too late for us to act on anything. So, we now have to wait until Monday morning.

ZARRELLA: Down the road, Broward County Medical Examiner Joshua Perper received this fax, what appeared to be an order from a California court, saying Florida had no legal right to decide where Smith's body should be buried. It claimed Judge Larry Seidlin's ruling Thursday is null and void and moot: "There is no legal basis for any court but this jurisdiction." Florida authorities called California to check, and found out the order was fake. Authorities in both states are looking for the wise guy who forged the document.

The testiest legal wranglings, with the media in tow, may be in the Bahamas next week, where at least one hearing on paternity of Smith's baby Dannielynn, is set for Monday.

As the second week in the Anna Nicole Smith saga ends, the only thing clear right now, her body is still not buried and still not going anywhere.


COOPER: So, John, what happens next? What -- what's the next step?

ZARRELLA: Well, a quiet weekend, hopefully, Anderson, and then a flurry of legal activity on Monday. Here at the appeals court, we expect an appeal to be filed -- down in Broward County, actions in possibly two courts, one ruling on a stay, another on whether they can get DNA from Dannielynn -- that's pretty questionable -- and then at least one, and possibly two, hearings taking place Monday in the Bahamas -- so, a very, very busy week ahead.

And, clearly, no -- nowhere close, Anderson, to an end in sight in this case -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right, John Zarrella, thanks for that.

To give you an idea of how saturated the coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith case has become, check out tonight's "Raw Data."

Over the last 24 hours alone, U.S. TV stationed aired about 148,000 segments about Smith. As for the name Anna Nicole Smith, a Google search came up with more than 22 million hits.

Still to come: the man who tried to save Anna Nicole Smith's life when she collapsed in the Florida hotel, her bodyguard, in his own words.

Plus, this:


COOPER (voice-over): The Tinseltown tussle, Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama, a ringleader, a Hollywood movie mogul, and an Obama supporter who has lashed out at the Clintons. Camp Clinton fires back, demanding an apology.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's not clear to me why I -- why would I be apologizing for someone else's remarks?

COOPER: But has he changed his mind? And who really won this round?

Plus: Iraqis on the run.

"SARAH," IRAQI REFUGEE: There were bullets rushing at home. Someone was firing at home.

COOPER: She fled, seeking a new life in the U.S. Seven thousand Iraqi refugees will get the welcome mat this year, but not everyone wants them here -- all angles when 360 continues.



COOPER: While campaigning today in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama didn't mention his rival, Hillary Clinton. The closest he came to the H-word was when he said he doesn't want to raise money in Hollywood all the time this campaign season.

That's because Hollywood can be treacherous for aspiring presidents, as Obama learned the hard way this week.

Here's CNN's Candy Crowley.


CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Who is sorry now? Well, Barack Obama told "The New York Times" that his preference in the future is not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played, which sounds a little bit like he's sorry his campaign got into it with Hillary Clinton's campaign.


PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The both of them looked like 12-year-olds.


CROWLEY: To review the bidding: David Geffen, a Hollywood producer, is a former fund-raiser and friend of the Clintons -- operative word, former.

Geffen, while hosting a Hollywood fund-raiser for Barack Obama, let loose on his former friends in an interview with columnist Maureen Dowd. Among other things, he called the Clinton's liars, and suggested Senator Clinton was unelectable.

This sent camp Clinton into orbit, and it demanded Obama immediately condemn Geffen's remarks and give back the money Geffen helped raise. Obama, though, responded with a caustic note, saying the Clintons never had problems with Geffen when he was fund-raising for them and staying overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom. Ouch.

By week's end, Obama was saying he didn't know his staff issued that statement, which Clintonites don't believe. Anyhoo, add up the score of the first mud-wrestle of the season, and give camp Clinton points for following the candidate's rules laid out in her first trip to Des Moines in late January.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: When you are attacked, you have to deck your opponent.

CROWLEY: She was talking about Republicans at the time, but if the shoe fits.

On the other side, give Obama props for neatly sidestepping the fact that Mr. Geffen had just raised $1.3 million for Obama's presidential bid.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons. That doesn't really have anything to do with our campaign.

CROWLEY: So, who won? Answer: Well, naturally John Edwards, et al.

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So, I think round one went to what I call the second-tier candidates, who are waiting for the top-tier candidates to stumble, so that they can get on stage.

CROWLEY: And so it goes. Eleven months before anybody casts a vote, they are throwing punches.

Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.


COOPER: Well, the first thing big dustup between the two Democratic front-runners.

Joining me now to sort through all the fallout, former presidential adviser David Geffen.

David, do you agree with Candy Crowley that -- that perhaps some of the big winners in this were the second-tier -- so-called second- tier candidates, John Edwards and the like?

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Yes. I think that John Edwards essentially held people's coats and let them fight it out, and he does emerge unscathed and -- and a little bit ahead.

But I -- I think the big loser in this, actually, was Hillary Clinton. You know, it's understandable that, when somebody attacks you, you deck them, as she says. But, when you go after a fly with a sledgehammer, you can get the fly, but you often cause a lot of ruckus.

And, in this case, I -- you know, it's a judgment call. And it's always easy to second-guess. But it does seem to me, Anderson, that, when they were sitting there in the Clinton camp, and saw this column appear by Maureen Dowd, they could have let it go, and it just would have been a source of chatter in the political class, but nobody else in the country would have paid attention.

Instead, now, we have had like a three-day running story, which has only served to, every day, people are hearing the David Geffen condemnations and critiques. So, it's given a lot of airtime to what David Geffen had to say, which has been critical of Mrs. Clinton.

Now, did Barack...


COOPER: It -- it also -- it's also the core criticism of Senator Clinton. I mean, this is what even those who, you know, like the Clintons, or -- or support the Democratic Party, this is what they say about Senator Clinton, that she's unelectable.

GERGEN: I -- I agree with that. But, you know, so far -- you know, you usually leave these kinds of criticisms to the people in the other party.

When you take somebody in your own camp and elevate his -- you know, he -- you know, he broke with the Clintons. But, when you elevate that, you give voice to that, and -- and raise a lot of doubts in people's minds.

And I -- I think that there was a sense of -- it left people with a sense of, there's a heavy-handedness in the Clinton camp, not only with this, but in a sort of Terry McAuliffe's sort of jocular comments in Los Angeles: You're either for us or you're against us.

But people come away from that thinking, if you cross the Clintons, they will strike -- you know, if you cross Hillary Clinton, she's going to strike you off her camp. You will never have access to her or anything like that.

I don't think that's where she wants to be at this stage of the campaign. She is very likely to be the nominee of the party. She's going to want to unite the party when this is over. I don't think it serves her well. Now, I have to say that Barack Obama in -- has now admitted that his camp misplayed this, too, in the sense that they...


COOPER: Right, because he's been running, saying he's -- he's going to be above the fray.

GERGEN: Right, he's going to be a different kind of candidate.

And -- and his own spokesman sort of played it in a very traditional way. He fired back. He was sharp about the Lincoln Bedroom, as Candy Crowley said.

But, you know, I -- and, so, I think he didn't come out of this smelling like roses. But he's given -- you know, he's given more of a free pass by the press, because he is the neophyte. He is the amateur in the race at this point. Now, he has got to sharpen up. But I think it only reinforced a lot of stereotypes about Mrs. Clinton, which is not where she wants to be. For that reason, I think she paid the heavier price.

It's -- it's -- it's early. Listen, it's a small event. But, you know, as with everything else, these things are cumulative. So, if you have two, three or four of these kind of things, then she will pay a very heavy price.

COOPER: You know, you have talked, in the past, about the importance of a staff in all of this.

GERGEN: Right.

COOPER: And does this say something about Barack Obama's staff and/or his organization, that a statement is put out that he says he doesn't know about?

GERGEN: It does, indeed. And -- and it says they are not quite there yet, that they are -- they are -- they are young. They are green. They are making some mistakes.

You know, it's so darn early that that -- that won't matter in the end. And it does seem to me that he probably will sound pretty authentic by saying: Gee, we just made a mistake. I don't want to play this game.

But he can't afford to have three or four of these either. He's a much -- he's a much more vulnerable candidate than Mrs. Clinton is, because we know so little about him, so that, if he showed he really wasn't up to playing the game over a period of time, I think that would rapidly disqualify him. So, he doesn't want a lot of these either.

But I think, if you look at the totality of it, it just gave people a sense, I think, that, somehow -- I have been in Texas this week. I'm now in North Carolina. And, in both places, I -- people were telling me: Gee, that's not quite what we really are looking for in Mrs. Clinton at this point.

They are looking for something different.

COOPER: It is going to be a fascinating race, no matter who...


GERGEN: ... fascinating...


GERGEN: And a long race, too, Anderson.



GERGEN: Very long.

COOPER: Very long, indeed.


COOPER: I sense we will be talking a lot.


COOPER: David, thanks very much. Have a good weekend.

GERGEN: Take care. Bye.

COOPER: The war is -- the war in Iraq, of course, an issue on the campaign trail -- it's also driven millions of Iraqis from their homes. Does the U.S. have a responsibility to help relocate them? What do you think?

We're talking about 50,000 refugees every month, according to the U.N. We will have both sides of this contentious debate about whether some of these Iraqi refugees should be allowed here in the United States. Only a couple hundred have been so far. We will let you decide.

Plus: what really happened in the moments before Anna Nicole Smith's death. You are going to hear from her bodyguard, who says he tried desperately to revive her when she collapsed, in his own words -- when 360 continues.


COOPER: Those images, Iraqis searching through the rubble after an insurgent attack leveled buildings in Ramadi.

It is situations like this that have driven millions of Iraqis from their homes since the war began. Almost two million are -- are in Iraq and homeless. Many others have fled to Arab countries. Only a few hundred are here in the United States, even though we started the war, of course. Just last week, the State Department announced it plans to accept 7,000 Iraqi refugees into the U.S. this year. Already, the plan is stirring debate.

CNN's Randi Kaye reports.


RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When U.S. troops first entered Baghdad in 2003, this woman was there. She was thrilled, brought them flowers.

Two years later, though, when she needed a visa, so her family could flee the growing sectarian violence, she says the U.S. turned its back.

(on camera): When you look at the numbers, the United States accepted just 202 refugees from Iraq last year, even though they had 70,000 slots open.

"SARAH," IRAQI REFUGEE: That's shocking.

KAYE (voice-over): Afraid for her family's safety, she asked we not use her real name. So, we will call her "Sarah."

She believes her family was targeted because they are Christians. One day in Iraq, she woke up to gunfire.

SARAH: There were bullets rushing at home. Someone was firing at home.

KAYE (on camera): When did you say, "I must leave"?

SARAH: We started to notice that there is a car following us. It was following us for a long time. We noticed that there are three men in the car. They were -- they were carrying guns, and they were aiming the guns toward us. They started shooting.

KAYE: The U.N. says there are nearly four million Iraqi refugees today. The overwhelming majority of them fled their homes after the war began. Tens of thousands more flee every month. Yet, fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees have been admitted to the U.S. in the last four years.

(voice-over): This year, the U.S. plans to accept 7,000 Iraqi refugees, too few for Sarah, but this is politics, so it's too many for others.

Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo warned President Bush, accepting refugees "would be a colossal mistake, and would very likely violate U.S. law."

And, just last week, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, who opposed the Iraq war as a U.S. House member, said: "I think Ohio and Ohioans have contributed a lot to Iraq, in terms of blood, sweat and too many tears. I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration's failed policies."

Ohio has lost 138 soldiers in Iraq. On Monday, Governor Strickland tried to clarify his remarks.

GOV. TED STRICKLAND (D), OHIO: Seven thousand Iraqis, out of several million, is an insignificant response to a huge problem. And that's what I was trying to say. And I believe my comments have been misunderstood.

KAYE: And now the governor seems to be saying the opposite of his original position. Today, he told us, "My administration and Ohio would welcome innocent Iraqi civilians who are fleeing their war-torn country."

Many Iraqis requesting visas have been helping U.S. troops in Iraq, but that's risky, and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. Senators have heard testimony about beheadings, after terrorists forced those sympathetic Iraqis to confess they were spies working for the U.S.

(on camera): Is there some sort of moral obligation on the part of the U.S. to help...

SARAH: Definitely. I mean, they came to the...

KAYE: ... people like you?

SARAH: They came to the country. They took out the old regime. And they should have more moral responsibilities toward the Iraqi people.

KAYE (voice-over): It took six months, but Sarah got her visa to the U.S. She now lives with her uncle in New Jersey.

She's thankful she's here, but angry she's separated from her family. The U.S. didn't grant any of them a visa.

(on camera): Do you wish Iraq had never been invaded?

SARAH: Yes. At least I would be there. And now I even lost my life. I lost the security. I lost my country.


COOPER: Randi, how do they make the decisions about which refugees get into the United States?

KAYE: It's quite a process, Anderson. The State Department actually identifies the refugees first. Then, the Department of Homeland Security sends teams to interview those people. They will go to Jordan, Syria, Iraq, anywhere, actually.

As far as who gets into the U.S., Anderson, lots of factors go into determining that. Those who have helped the U.S. during the war are priority No. 1, along with those who are targets and have a compelling reason to get out.

Next would be anyone the U.S. has a special interest in. And finally those hoping to be reunited with family already here in the U.S.

This interview process, Anderson, can take months, maybe even up to a year. And homeland security's main concern, I'm told, of course, is making sure the refugees don't have any membership, past or present, to a terrorist organization.

COOPER: All right, Randi, thanks for that.

Coming up next, a heated debate on whether the U.S. should help Iraqi refugees. What do you think?

Congressman Tom Tancredo, and we'll have a little talk with him and a spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Both are very passionate about this, both with much different views.

Also ahead tonight...


COOPER (voice-over): They walked out of court together yesterday.

LARRY BIRKHEAD, ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S EX-BOYFRIEND: We all loved Anna. And it's in her best interest to come together to lay her to rest.

COOPER: Not so fast. Instead of joining forces, they're still divided over Anna Nicole's body and her baby. Tonight, the latest developments.

Plus, big ships carrying explosive cargo. Earthquake fears. Or trapped inside.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are fully engulfed, fully engulfed building. We have people on fire inside.

COOPER: Terror target. Manmade or from Mother Nature. A special report. "The Edge of Disaster: Are You Prepared?" when 360 continues.


COOPER: Well, we've been talking about the growing humanitarian crisis that the war in Iraq has created, forcing millions of Iraqis from their homes.

Almost 2 million are in Iraq and homeless. Many others have fled to Arab countries. One million are in Syria; 750,000 are in Jordan; and somewhere between 80,000 and 130,000 are believed to be in Egypt; and 40,000 are in Lebanon.

Only a few hundred are actually here in the United States. Now before the break, we told you about the Bush administration's new plan to allow some 7,000 Iraqi refugees into the U.S. this year. People who have helped the U.S., worked as interpreters or who face real threats.

The plan is facing fierce opposition from both sides of the aisle and sparked an intense debate. I saw just how passionate people on either side of the issue are when I spoke with Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Edina Lekovic of the Muslim Public Affairs Council earlier tonight.


COOPER: Congressman Tancredo, some of the Iraqis are applying for refugee status. These are people who have risked their lives working for U.S. forces as translators, doing intelligence work, as drivers. There are those who say, look, why shouldn't we help those?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: I'll tell you one reason why we shouldn't. Not too long ago we found out about a number of Iraqis here in the United States that had committed some other crimes. That is to say, they committed -- they were aliens here. They committed a crime. They were tried, convicted. They were supposed to be deported under those kind of conditions.

Come to find out, Iraq is a country, one of about 20, that refuses to accept their aliens back to their country after they've committed other crimes in the United States.

I don't care what they've done in Iraq before. There is a law, actually on the books today, Anderson, that says that if a country refuses to take back its aliens that have committed crimes in the United States, we should not give them any visas.

COOPER: All right, you know what about this? The congressman is saying, look, there's a law in the books, which we're not supposed to allow Iraqis in if they're not willing to accept Iraqis who have committed crimes back into Iraq.

EDINA LEKOVIC, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Well, look, that seems like a bit of political maneuvering and selective application of the laws, given that the Iraqi people should not be standing there to pay the price for this type of selective application.

What we're talking about is a humanitarian crisis on the scale that certain humanitarian organizations are saying could soon rival the crisis in Darfur.

COOPER: Well, Congressman, if they did decide to change that law in Iraq, if Iraq did accept it, would you then be in favor of allowing some 7,000 Iraqi refugees into America?

TANCREDO: I would be in favor of accepting those that can be actually identified as coming here under humanitarian conditions and as refugees. That policy we've already established.

But I'll tell you that, you know, it isn't as if these people, first of all, are trapped in Iraq. That's another situation. Where they are today, for the most part, is not in Iraq. They have gone to other countries. And now we are thinking about being pressured to take them from the countries where they are presently occupying.

LEKOVIC: Hold on there, with all due respect, Congressman, there are over 100,000 Iraqis who are fleeing Iraq each month, according to the U.N. There are over 2 million refugees from Iraq, as well as 1.7 million internally displaced people. There is a huge crisis on our hands here.

And right now, that burden is unfairly being shouldered by nations in the region like Jordan and Syria, which haven't even signed onto the U.N. convention on refugees. And our own nation has.

COOPER: What Edina seems to be arguing is that there is a moral obligation, given that we went to war, that we take care of a certain number of refugees since this war has created.

TANCREDO: Yes. COOPER: Do you believe that?

TANCREDO: We have done that in the past, certainly in Vietnam and other places. And I understand that. And I'm telling you that we have a refugee policy. It is the most liberal in the world. There are no caps on it. I understand that.

My complaint here and concern is with the Iraqi government today. The fact is, we should use this as pressure to get them to accept back their people who have committed crimes when they're here.

COOPER: What do you think should be done with -- with that huge tide of refugees?

TANCREDO: Well, what should be done with them is being done. And that -- in the case of what we can do. That is to try and construct -- help construct an Iraqi government in which those people can feel safe to return to the country of origin. That is the real task here.

COOPER: Edina, I'll give you the last word.

LEKOVIC: Well, that's just a part of the picture: 7,000 is a very paltry number. And we can't forget the fact here that there are people involved. There are people whose lives have been devastated. We have promised that we would save -- we would rescue them from malnutrition, from mayhem, from murder.

And that is precisely what they are facing every day and why they are leaving the country in large droves.

Congressman Tancredo is the same man who a few years ago said that we should consider taking out Mecca in order to send a message to the terrorists. So...

TANCREDO: Whoa -- that is absolutely...

LEKOVIC: ... this gentleman is not the man to be...

TANCREDO: You have no respect, ma'am, because you would say a thing like that.

LEKOVIC: ... discussing this type of problem to preserve all human life.

TANCREDO: Well, that is absolutely untrue that I said we should take out Mecca in order to send a message.

LEKOVIC: Sir, you said we should consider it.

TANCREDO: It was never to, quote, "send a message." And that is an entirely inaccurate way...

LEKOVIC: Sir, did you say that we should consider taking out Mecca? TANCREDO: What I said was, well, do you want to fight that battle again? I'm happy to. But what I'm telling you is what you just said is not only inaccurate, but I think it's disingenuous.


COOPER: Well, as always, we care about the facts on 360. We checked the transcript of Congressman Tancredo's interview with talk show host Pat Campbell.

When asked how he would respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, he said, quote, "If this happens in the United States and we determined that it is the result of extremist fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites."

Campbell said, "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"

And Tancredo responded, "Yes."

Up next on 360, a few twist in the bizarre battle over Anna Nicole Smith's body. Our legal experts their way in.

Plus, Anna Nicole's bodyguard describes how he tried to save her life, in his own words.


COOPER: That's the question, why do we remain vulnerable after billions spent? Imagine another 9/11. You're trapped in a gridlock in a crowded stadium. How would you escape? Here's one chilling scenario from CNN's David Mattingly.

What you're about to see is fiction, but some fear it could happen.


DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the scenario. A summer afternoon in Philadelphia, the parking lot still filling up with fans streaming into the stadium for a Phillies home game. The beer, cold; the air, warm. The ballpark fills with anticipation as the players take the field.

(on camera) But as the first pitch rockets toward home plate, none of the 45,000 inside has any idea of the terrible turn their lives are about to take. That's because terrorists not far away are moving forward on a plot to turn this stadium into both a spectacular political statement, and a mass grave.


COOPER: We're going to take an in-depth look at this stunning scenario and others and how we're all living on the "Edge of Disaster". That's in the next hour of 360. But first back to the Anna Nicole Smith case. Far from over, the fight of her body and baby took new twists and turns today. She won't be buried just yet. The legal battles are still playing out.

For some perspectives on today's developments, earlier I spoke with CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, Court TV anchor Lisa Bloom and former U.S. attorney Kendal Coffey.


COOPER: So Jeffrey, this family court judge, Judge Korda, says he's not even sure if he has jurisdiction in the case. Do you think he does?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think he may not have jurisdiction. This is a child who was in the Bahamas, which is not just a separate state; it's a separate country. And I don't see how he has the authority to order a DNA test when he has no authority over anyone in that country.

LISA BLOOM, COURT TV ANCHOR: Come on. It's only 60 miles from Florida.

COOPER: But it is another country, Lisa. Do you think...

BLOOM: I'm joking. Of course, I'm joking, OK. Apparently it fell flat.

Look, Anderson, go through California to Florida, and it's still the U.S. And Jeffrey is right. Of course, it's a separate jurisdiction in the Bahamas. Nobody in the U.S. has jurisdiction over a baby in the Bahamas.

But there was a second issue in Florida today that the judge might have had jurisdiction over, and that is the simple removal of DNA from Anna Nicole's body, which was done last week, and giving that to the attorneys for Larry Birkhead. They asked for that. I think the Florida judge does properly have jurisdiction over that.

COOPER: Well, Kendall, I mean, wouldn't all this just be resolved if a court, whichever court, just forced everybody to take a DNA test? Why hasn't that happened? Will that happen?

KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I think it requires really not that you get some DNA from the dad. It's all about the baby, who's in the Bahamas. And as our guests are pointing out, so far there doesn't seem to be any order that can require the baby.

Now we can all wonder whether there is some kind of investigators sort of floating around the Bahamas trying to get, who knows, anything from a dirty diaper to a fingernail. Because sooner or later, somebody's going to try to make that connection. But up until now, hasn't happened in any court.

TOOBIN: And you know, Anderson, there's actually a potentially very sinister thing going on here. Howard Stern obviously wants custody of this baby. He has not -- refused to take a DNA test. The law of the Bahamas is that getting a positive DNA test does not necessarily mean the father has rights. So he could be assigned -- be the father in the Bahamas without taking a DNA test.

So I mean, it certainly seems like he has found a jurisdiction where he can be named the father without taking a DNA test. And there may never be a DNA test.

BLOOM: And that's not an accident.

COOPER: How is that possible?

BLOOM: And that's not an accident, Anderson. There was testimony in the hearing yesterday from the son-in-law, Ben Thompson, who owns the house where Anna Nicole and Howard and the baby had been living, that that's why Anna Nicole and Howard Stern went there in the first place.

Because they knew that the laws of the Bahamas would favor an unmarried mother co-habiting with a man that was not the father of the baby, that it would protect their rights to be the parents of the baby. That's why they went to the Bahamas. That's why Howard Stern has stayed in the Bahamas, because their laws are more favorable to that couple than they would have been in the U.S.

COOPER: So even if it's proved through DNA that Howard Stern is not the father, under Bahamian law, he can still be the father?

TOOBIN: Well, it would never be proved that he was not the father, because they could not get a test of the baby's DNA or Howard Stern's DNA. So he would simply be in custody of the child. He would raise the child. Bahamian law would treat him as the father. And there would never be a genetic proof that he was the father, but...

COOPER: But Kendall -- Kendall brings up the idea of, you know, private investigators, and God knows there's enough money involved in all this, to, you know, pick up a diaper from the trash outside their house and be able to determine the child's DNA from that.

COFFEY: Well, it could happen that way, Anderson, and maybe the Bahamian courts, which apparently are going to have some hearings on it Monday, would simply order it.

It may not be as entertaining a process as we've had for the last week. But I have to tell you on behalf of the Florida legal community, we are really glad that the showbiz is over. I mean, we had hanging chads. Now we have this. It's great to be talking about some legal issues for a change.

BLOOM: And Anderson, you can't use the word "never." That baby's DNA is going to get taken either by order of a Bahamian court or by some news agency or private investigator getting DNA. It's not difficult to do. What's Howard Stern going to do? Keep that baby holed up in a mansion for the rest of her days? It's not possible. In fact, they'll probably get evicted from that mansion. They may not even have residency in the Bahamas much longer.

TOOBIN: But the point is, as I understand Bahamian law, first place, they may not get an official DNA test. But even if they got a DNA test that said Howard Stern was not the biological father, he could still be treated as the father under Bahamian law.

And that's a chilling thought as an American, where a biological tie is all you need to establish parental rights here.

COOPER: But in order for him to take part in this -- in this other suit in order to get the money, wouldn't he have to come to the United States? And wouldn't -- if he entered the United States or brought the child the United States, wouldn't that then make them...

BLOOM: No, he wouldn't have to be in the United States. Because Howard Stern testified in a hearing that he has a 6 percent contingency on about a $100 million judgment that he's expecting to get.

Translation, if that money comes, he's entitled to about $6 million. That's money already earned under an attorney's contingency fee agreement. He's entitled to that wherever he is in the world.

TOOBIN: And Dannielynn is certainly going to be the heir to her mother's estate. So the money will go to her, and thus, presumably her father will be able to control it and share in it.

COOPER: We're going to have to leave it there. Lisa Bloom, Kendall Coffey and Jeff Toobin, thanks.

COFFEY: Hey, thank you.

Cooper: Well, coming up next, Anna Nicole Smith's bodyguard talks about her final moments.

Plus, worst case scenario: terrorists unleashing a toxic cloud at a ballpark, or an earthquake rupturing fragile levees in California. "The Edge of Disaster", our special report, when 360 continues


COOPER: Before the break, we were looking at the legal angles in the Anna Nicole Smith case. Now, a personal perspective. Moe Brighthaupt spent four years as Anna Nicole's bodyguard and rushed to her side when she learned she was in trouble.

He spoke to CNN's Larry King earlier tonight. Here's the bodyguard in his own words.


MOE BRIGHTHAUPT, ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S BODYGUARD: I pushed off the covers off the bed, and I looked at her. And Anna had very voluptuous, beautiful lips and full lips. And when I saw her, her lips didn't look right. They looked kind of pale and blue.

So I slapped her on the face and tried to wake her up. When she didn't wake up, I picked her up off the bed and placed her on the floor so I could have a kind of a hard surface to -- just in case I had to do CPR.

So I checked for a pulse, and I thought I felt a pulse, but it probably just was my imagination.

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": When did you know that you probably had lost her while you were doing CPR in the room?

BRIGHTHAUPT: Well, you know, I -- I don't know if it was my arrogance or -- I just, I never thought I lost her, actually. I mean, in the back of my mind, I thought I lost her, but, you know, I see it in my head all the time. And I just you know -- when I had my lips around her lips, blowing -- breathing life, breathing air in her, and it blew back, I just -- deep down I just figured that she was going to, you know, see her son Daniel.

Because every time she was sleep and wake up, she would say that Daniel was lost. I mean, she was a grieving mother, a grieving mother. That's what people don't understand.

KING: How close, Moe was the mother/son relationship?

BRIGHTHAUPT: Well, it takes me to the story of Adam and Eve. When God had Adam in the Garden of Eden, he took a rib from Adam and gave it to the woman to make Eve. And when Daniel passed, it was like that rib was taken from her. And that rib was the closest to her heart.

That's why I always say that, beyond all the speculations and everything, Anna died from a broken heart. She just couldn't get over it.


COOPER: And the case continues.

Just ahead in our next hour, a special report, "Edge of Disaster", an in-depth look at why, after so many billions of dollars have been spent, why we're still vulnerable in this post-9/11 world.

And we're going to look at how we're vulnerable, from terrorism to natural disasters. Some nightmare scenarios that could happen and the simple steps that could keep us safe. That's next on 360.


COOPER: Good evening.

Our purpose tonight is not to scare you, but the truth is we're living on borrowed time, flirting with disaster, a super power acting powerless against the next great threat.

And there are many threats on the horizon: blackouts, earthquakes, hurricanes like Katrina, a bird flu pandemic, another 9/11. The reality may be not if they can happen, but when, and where and how catastrophic they'll be.

In his new book "The Edge of Disaster", Stephen Flynn shows us how dangerously unprepared we are for what is no longer unthinkable.

Over the next hour, we'll talk to Flynn and lay out nightmare scenarios that are predictable and preventable. This is a wakeup call to our government at every level, one that can no longer be ignored.

Consider the war on terror. Now the White House says taking the battle overseas makes us safer here at home.