Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
The Anthrax Investigation
Aired October 16, 2001 - 22:00 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.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone. If you're keeping track, it has been five weeks now. There are too many numbers to keep track of. The thousands who died on September 11th, the tens of thousands who have lost their jobs since. There are the thousands of military men and women involved in the war effort, thousands of reservists waiting. There are the number of bombing runs, the number of missiles fired, numbers all.
And here are a couple more. One dead, three infected, four exposed. It doesn't sound like much, but those are the anthrax numbers, and there is no reason to believe tonight that they will not grow.
The tests on the anthrax mailed to Senator Tom Daschle are now in, and here's how the powder is being described: "not amateurish, high grade, potent," all suggesting sophistication -- enough for some on Capitol Hill to make the next connection, that the terrorism may be backed by a nation, perhaps Iraq.
Another key development: similar handwriting on the Daschle letter and the one opened by an assistant to Tom Brokaw, who has a skin form of anthrax. And from the Pentagon today, the latest pictures of the damage, as more than 100 warplanes continued their intense attacks on Taliban troops and military sites in Afghanistan.
And back to where this dangerous world was born: ground zero, where just a fraction of those killed have been pulled from the rubble, work that will go on day and night as the snow begins to fall in the months ahead. One demolition expert down there summed up the challenge facing the cleanup and the crews this way: "How do you eat an elephant?"
We have much to cover. We begin with a whip around the world, some headlines around the world, beginning with the anthrax investigation and CNN's Eileen O'Connor.
Eileen, the headline?
EILEEN O'CONNOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, CNN has learned from government officials that lab tests of anthrax samples recovered so far indicate, while sophisticated, they were natural in origin, not genetically engineered, and not weaponized. Despite some similarities among letters sent in New York and Washington, which could be helpful, investigators aren't ruling any group or individuals, here and abroad, in or out.
BROWN: We'll have more from Eileen coming up.
There are some questions about how the government has been handling the anthrax scare. Covering that, CNN's Jeanne Meserve -- Jeanne.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a lot of questions being asked about the quality and consistency of the information coming from the Bush administration about anthrax. Is it terrorism or isn't it? Does the federal government have what it needs to take on the anthrax threat, or don't it?
The answers to these and other questions have been at times contradictory, and that's prompting some to ask, is the public's trust being undermined, is the federal government breeding anxiety rather than calming it? Aaron.
BROWN: Jeanne, we'll be looking at those questions coming up in a few moments.
To the White House next, the president preparing for his first overseas trip since September 11. Senior White House correspondent John King working on that -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, another interesting day. The president tried to explain all this to children today. Evil, he said, but he also admitted he more questions than answered.
As you noted, he leaves for China in the morning. Many might ask how can the commander-in-chief head overseas in the middle of a military campaign? The White House says the president can keep track of that just fine, no matter where he is, and that there are very important gains to be made on the diplomatic and financial fronts on the war on terrorism.
BROWN: John, we'll be getting back to you shortly as well.
Crucial meetings today in both India and Pakistan for Secretary of State Powell. Christiane Amanpour has spent her day working on that -- Christiane.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, there have been heavy tensions for Secretary Powell over the disputed border of Kashmir. This, between two nuclear powers. And Secretary Powell will be telling both India, after telling Pakistan, to cool it on Kashmir.
In the meantime there has been another heavy night of air raids on Afghanistan, including on Kandahar. Our sources say that the AC- 130 gun ships were again in operation. The U.S. also admitting a 1,000-pound bomb inadvertently struck a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul yesterday.
BROWN: The view from overseas. We'll be getting back to all of our correspondents as we go along in the next hour. We begin with the anthrax investigation, which took a very important turn today. We now know that the letter to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle did contain anthrax. And not just any anthrax, if you can use that expression.
It's being described as a potent form, and the implications of that cannot be underestimated. It suggests the anthrax was not cooked up by some amateur terrorist using a teenager's chemistry set. This came from someone, some source who knew what they were doing, and who might -- again, might -- have had help from some nations with expertise in this, that could supply investigators with important clues.
There's also one more connection here to note, that between the Daschle letter and the letter sent to "NBC Nightly News." They share a postmark, Trenton, and similar handwriting. CNN's Eileen O'Connor has been working on this very complex investigation, and she joins us again -- Eileen.
O'CONNOR: Well, Aaron, there is some good news tonight. Government officials tell CNN that while that anthrax may have been virulent, it indicates -- the early indicates that it is not genetically engineered, and not weaponized. And that is, again, potentially good news.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Released by the Justice Department, the envelopes of the letters sent to NBC and to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle showed similar handwriting, and the same postmark.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We believe that there may be other envelopes, that this would kind of give people a hint, that if you see an envelope like this, that you don't recognize, you might want to be careful
O'CONNOR: CNN has learned the NBC letter contained language threatening to Israel and the United States, and warned the recipient to take medication. It ended by praising Allah. Sources say the letter to Daschle was threatening as well.
In addition, both were processed at the same suburban New Jersey facility, a state that has caught investigators' attention before. Some of the suspected hijackers, sources say, stayed in this apartment in Patterson, New Jersey, before the attacks.
And New Jersey was a base for Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and his followers. He's in prison for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Still, the FBI says it's drawing no conclusions.
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: While organized terrorism has not been ruled out, so far we have found no direct link to organized terrorism.
O'CONNOR: Another thing investigators are pursuing, with the help of the CDC, the form, the concentration and the strain of the anthrax involved in each case.
MUELLER: To discuss at this point any similarities would be premature, because those tests have not been concluded.
O'CONNOR: That information could help investigators determine the source, and whether this is state-sponsored terrorism. Senators, given a preliminary briefing, say the letter sent to Daschle contained a high grade of anthrax. Sources say that means virulent.
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Clearly it suggests a level of expertise that's disturbing. And that might also suggest the presence of some state involvement, by a nation that had been involved in producing weapons of mass destruction.
O'CONNOR: Sources close to the investigation say that doesn't necessarily rule out individuals.
JAVED ALI, BIOWEAPONS EXPERT: I think it's still too early to tell definitely whether that is from a state-sponsored source, or that is from another terrorist organization that managed to acquired the material themselves, or develop it themselves, or even steal it themselves.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'CONNOR: Investigative sources say that while not exactly the same, the letter to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw and the letter to the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, the wording of those letters -- the threats were very similar, at least not a mirror image. And both did have a reference to Allah.
Now, again, investigative sources say they're not ruling out the possibility that this could be some kind of domestic terrorist group or an individual who may well be trying to plant evidence or language in the letters to be intentionally misleading, to try to point the finger overseas or to other groups -- Aaron.
BROWN: Just square one thing for me. You said not genetically altered and not weaponized, but still very potent. Are those things at all contradictory?
O'CONNOR: Still very potent could mean that it -- it is a person who has some sophisticated knowledge, some chemistry knowledge. But it could still be produced in a lab -- not necessarily right in your garage. But this could be with laboratory equipment, a pharmacologist, a doctor, someone who could be associated with the group. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it was a lot of very expensive equipment that could only be bought by a state, that would have the money.
Also, again, Aaron, a lot is going to depend on the strains of anthrax. Was it something that could have been gotten from a lab, for instance, commercially in the last few years? What they're saying is, that while it takes some sophistication, it's possible. If someone was able to get that strain, they could reproduce it and they could then also produce enough of it in this powderized form to be sending it in these envelopes.
Another thing a military intelligence source told me today. Look, if it was state-sponsored, one of the things that's questionable: Why hasn't it been in a big enough quantity that it's been put out, for instance, in a crop duster, or in some kind of bigger weapon? Why small envelopes? Aaron.
BROWN: Good questions all, Eileen. Thank you, Eileen O'Connor, working the story for us.
As you can imagine, hundreds of FBI agents are working the anthrax case. Some of the best journalists in the country are working it as well. Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" is one of them. He joins us now.
Michael, good evening. It's nice to have you with us.
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": Good evening, Aaron.
BROWN: Is there at all a shifting view in the government, from your reporting, on who might be responsible? That is, from the early days, the Florida days, to today?
ISIKOFF: Sure. There is. Last week about this time, people tended to be dismissive. The gut instincts of most top law enforcement officials was that this was some lone wolf, some kook, some nut, but somebody with malicious intent, obviously. But somebody not operating in conjunction with anybody else. That was the operating theory, based on, at that point, just the information from Florida.
As the incidents have multiplied and grown, and as the number of exposures have grown, that has shifted to a much more sinister view, and a view that it's much more likely to have been an organized effort that may have involved more than one individual, perhaps a group. But we can't stress enough here, Aaron, just how many gaps there still are, how much is unknown.
Just take one example, the letters that have been referred to tonight, involving -- that were sent to NBC News and to Senator Daschle's office, which had similar handwriting, similar postmarks in Trenton, New Jersey, and political threats.
They both contained political threats. My understanding is the letter to Senator Daschle had language to the effect, "9-11-01, death to America." And the one to NBC had references to anti-Israeli activity. No. 1, that doesn't hook up with the modus operandi of the perpetrators of the September 11th assault.
Remember, they didn't leave any message at all. The hijackers, they never indicated why they were doing things. That isn't the way they did business. And No. 2, the Florida incident, which is, you know, the one lethal incident that we know of, of an anthrax attack, we have no indication, nobody remembers getting a political threat of that nature. In fact, the only letter that people remember that contained some powder that might have been related to this, they remember as a fan letter involving Jennifer Lopez. Now, the FBI has not been able to recover that letter. It's been thrown out, so we don't know that was the source of the anthrax. But certainly, nobody remembers anything similar to the letters that Daschle and NBC News received.
BROWN: Michael, I'm sorry...
ISIKOFF: I'm just saying that just shows how little we yet understand about the totality of this.
BROWN: Twenty seconds or so, do you have the feeling that they have made -- they, the government, has made significant progress yet, or are they still kind of flailing around out there?
ISIKOFF: Well, I mean, clearly progress is being made in the investigation as we draw, you know, connections between the things like the NBC News and the Daschle letter.
But there are just so many uncertainties, and I do sense that this still flummoxes federal law enforcement.
BROWN: Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" magazine has been reporting this story aggressively now for more than a week. Thanks for joining us. It's nice to see you again.
We have much more ahead. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The Bush administration, which seemed to say all the right things in the days after the initial attack on September 11, has, some would argue tonight, been struggling a bit to find the right pitch, where anthrax is concerned.
That is, in some respects, understandable, given how much the administration is dealing with, and the newness and the potential for panic where bioterrorism is concerned. CNN's Jeanne Meserve has been working on the administration's response -- Jeanne.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, at the moment there are more unknowns than knowns in the anthrax investigation. Information is coming in fast, and it changes from day to day, even hour to hour. Some experts outside of government say that explains some of the contradictory statements that have come from various federal officials.
But in the view of others, the fact that members of the Bush administration seem to be reading from different pages could undermine public confidence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): From the same administration, in the same hour, these two statements. ASHCROFT: Anytime anyone sends anthrax through the mail, it's an act of terror. It's terrorism.
QUESTION: Should the American public now assume there's bioterrorism happening within the United States?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. That's a determination that will be made by the appropriate law enforcement officials.
MESERVE: It isn't the first time since the anthrax alarms started ringing that there have been inconsistencies in the government message. Take, for instance, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson's contradictory comments, on whether the government has enough of the antibiotic Cipro on hand to deal with anthrax.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOMMY THOMPSON, HHS SECRETARY: There's enough available. We have an ample supply. And I want everybody to know that we have plenty of supply.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMPSON: We're are going in and requesting from Congress enough money to purchase an additional 10 million dosages, to treat 10 million more Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: Some experts say the administration is violating the basic rules of information management: get correct information out quickly, update it often and be consistent. Failure to do that, they say, can increase public anxiety and distrust.
AMY SMITHSON, BIOTERRORISM EXPERT: Pretty soon, the public goes, wait a minute, I am getting contradictory messages here. What do I believe? And that kind of contributes to the problem.
MESERVE: But speaking with one voice in a situation that involves so many arms of government is tough. Indeed, even questions about the consistency of information bring inconsistent responses.
ASHCROFT: Prevention sometimes requires a different conduct on the part of an agency, than prosecution does. And we've had to reorient ourselves in the context of terrorism.
FLEISCHER: Even should speak accurately, in all that they do. It's worth noting that in the developments of this anthrax story, I've seen a wide discrepancy in the media about how many people, for example, have been exposed.
MESERVE: Experts say the federal government should take a page from Rudy Giuliani's book. SMITHSON: I give him an A.
MESERVE: The mayor is the go-to man for public comment in New York. He has been forthright, and in that alone, the experts say, the public has found some measure of comfort.
RUDY GIULIANI, MAYOR OF NEW YORK: I'm going to go open some mail later, and you can come and you can help me open it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE: Some experts think it would be a good idea for the administration to have a single point person speaking for the federal government in a situation like this. And that person could be Tom Ridge, the director of Homeland Security. But most people I've spoken to think that is down the road. Ridge has only been on the job for a week, and in the words of one expert I spoke to -- quote -- "he isn't just learning the players, he's still learning the playing field."
Aaron?
BROWN: Jeanne, that was my question. You answered it. Thank you. Jeanne Meserve, working the government response to the anthrax case tonight.
Experts call the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle's office, as we said earlier, sophisticated stuff. Making it takes some know-how. How much know-how is the question. One answer leads to a demented biologist. The other could lead to a country.
The Pentagon says 10 countries may be making anthrax. One of them, Iraq, is trading shots with the United States. so it's very tempting at the very least, to connect the dots. But ought we?
Charles Duelfer supervised the U.N. inspections team that went into Iraq after the Gulf War. He joins us from Washington tonight. Good evening.
CHARLES DUELFER, RESIDENT SCHOLAR: Good evening, Aaron.
BROWN: Do you see Iraqi fingerprints on this? We've been kicking this around now for two days here. Do you see them there?
DUELFER: Well, there's a lot of people who would like to believe that, as you mentioned. There are two possibilities. One is that Iraq provided some sort of technical expertise to people who subsequently became involved in this activity. That's a more likely possibility, in my view.
The other be possibility is that Iraq is directly involved. What we saw in 1991, is that Saddam Hussein and his regime were deterred by the United States from using weapons of mass destruction in that war. They felt that they would be damaged, that Saddam himself would be targeted, and perhaps killed.
If what has happened in the last 10 years is that Saddam is no longer deterred -- and I think that's a pretty sad commentary on the U.S. policy during the past decade, and how Iraq views the U.S. military and its willingness to use it.
BROWN: I want to make sure I understood the first two things you laid out there. You laid out two possibilities. Are those the only two possibilities, or were you just laying them out as the only two possibilities that involved Iraq?
DUELFER: Those are the only two which involve Iraq. I think a lot of other countries could be involved. It's quite possible that people could have been trained, or they could have been involved in some of the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, that are not directly related to a state-sponsored activity.
BROWN: Is it -- will it be possible to know who came up with the anthrax, who developed the anthrax, or what country may have been involved or perhaps not involved, by simply identifying the genetic strain itself? Will that answer that question?
DUELFER: That kind of information might eliminate some possibilities, but it won't give you the answer.
For example, if it turns out that the genetic make-up of the anthrax involved in the United States was of the type that has been discussed -- related to Iowa, this Ames type, that has been spread so far around the world, it won't really tell you much.
We know, in the case of Iraq, where they got the anthrax which they declared to us. It was from -- actually, it was from an American source. But we don't know if that was the only source that they had, and many countries, including Iraq, can isolate anthrax from their own domestic sources. So it really won't give you a conclusive answer.
BROWN: And does the information tonight -- that this very potent anthrax that turned up in the Daschle letter was not genetically altered, was not weaponized -- does that provide a clue that either points to or points away from anyone in particular?
DUELFER: Well, I think it eliminates some of the nutters that you might imagine, somebody, you know, cooking this stuff up with you know, homemade materials. The fact that it's weaponized, I'm not sure how that term is being applied. But if it is meant to mean that there is a high concentration of spores...
BROWN: I'm sorry. Not weaponized. I may have misspoken, that it is not weaponized.
DUELFER: Well, whatever the distinction is, weaponized versus non-weaponized, I'm not sure what is meant by that in this context. It may mean a very concentrated spore form, which still could be done by an individual, with the appropriate equipment.
The question whether it's genetically engineered, that really kind of eliminates very sophisticated approaches only. Genetic engineering is something the Iraqis were only beginning to touch upon.
BROWN: Mr. Duelfer, thanks for your help tonight. We appreciate it very much.
DUELFER: Thank you, Aaron.
BROWN: The president is off to China in the morning. We'll have more on that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: When Air Force One sets down in Shanghai on Thursday, it won't look like any presidential arrival we've ever seen, assuming we can see it at all. To call it low-key would be an understatement. Everything that visiting presidents like to do, this president won't be doing. It goes well beyond normal security, which, if you've ever seen it, is always tight.
So again, we go to CNN's senior White House correspondent, John King, who is outside the White House, as always, tonight. John?
KING: Aaron, the White House says China has been giving extraordinary cooperation in the security arrangements overseas. The president has full confidence in the secret service, the White House says. And when he travels overseas, state-of-the-art secure communications, officials here say he can keep track of the war in Afghanistan much like he can, sitting in the basement of the White House. So it is a trip worth making, they say, because of the potential for progress on the war's other fronts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): One goal is to make a political point; another, to make important diplomatic gains.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The president feels very strongly, as he has said to the American people, that we have to go about the business of doing what makes America strong. And he believes that one of his most important tasks as president is to work on strengthening our alliances.
KING: At first glance, the idea of the commander in chief leaving the country in the middle of an overseas military campaign might seem odd. In 1998, for example, President Clinton abruptly canceled his trip to the same summit, the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum.
Back then, there was a showdown with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over United Nations weapons inspections. The military campaign in Afghanistan is in its second week, and there was talk at the highest levels of the administration about canceling the president's Asia trip.
Mr. Bush had planned stops in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing. Those were postponed, but the president insisted on attending the economic summit in Shanghai.
DANA DILLON, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: APEC not happening would be the damage. If the terrorists were to force the point where APEC didn't happen, that would be a failure.
KING: Mr. Bush will meet separately with more than a half-dozen leaders, including the presidents of Russia and China. And the president expects the 21-member group to send him home with a new diplomatic weapon for the evolving war.
JAMES STEINBERG, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: A strong statement condemning terrorism will help reinforce the sense that the United States is not alone, that there is a broad-based international support for this effort. And I think that will help very considerably.
KING: The dispute with Beijing over the EP-3 surveillance plane is all but forgotten. And both governments are working hand in hand to make sure the president is safe while he's in Shanghai. Administration officials say Chinese cooperation has been extraordinary, even to the point of allowing U.S. military escorts of Air Force One into Chinese air space.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And while the president is away, look for the vice president to be a bit more visible, including a trip up to New York, his first visit to the site of the World Trade Center, to survey the damage and get an update on the recovery effort from Mayor Giuliani -- Aaron.
BROWN: John, thank you. Have a safe trip, and we soon will talk to you from China. Our senior White House correspondent, John King.
Secretary of State Powell is on a mission that may be even more delicate than the president's. He's trying to get Pakistan and India to stop shooting at each other over the disputed territory of Kashmir. The United States needs both these countries to keep their guns holstered so, as Christiane Amanpour wrote earlier today, the United States can conduct its war in peace. That was easily the best line of the day.
Christiane is still on station in Islamabad today -- Christiane?
AMANPOUR: Well, Aaron, precisely what the United States, in fact, no other person in the international community wants, is a flare-up over Kashmir, at this or any time. Kashmir, as we know, is one of the most dangerous places, because it's disputed between two nuclear powers. And certainly, the U.S. has made it very clear to both countries, in this war against terrorism, that they want them to stand down.
Well, on Monday, just ahead of Secretary Powell's visit here to Pakistan, there was a flare-up with India firing across the border into Pakistan proper. And again yesterday, it continued. Secretary Powell has been telling both Pakistan and India -- he's meeting with the Indian prime minister today -- to please stand down while this war on terrorism continues.
And indeed, for a long time, they want Pakistan and India now to resume dialogue on this issue of Kashmir. Again, India saying that it's taking punitive action against Pakistan, which it accuses of infiltrating Kashmir with insurgence. Pakistan denying it, and saying that India is planning destabilizing moves.
What's clear is that India seems to be rather angry that Pakistan is getting a lot of attention over its cooperation with the war on terrorism. Yesterday the Pakistani president did pledge continued support for the United States through the military campaign, as long as it lasts.
The military campaign continues. We heard from our sources today that there are more daytime bombing raids. In Kandahar, particularly, the AC-130 gunships, according to our sources, are in operation again.
Yesterday, there was another mishit by the United States. Amongst its hits on military targets, it also struck a warehouse belonging to the ICRC, the Red Cross, in Kabul. This, one of the warehouses that keeps food, wheat and blankets and other shelter. The ICRC reacting quite angrily, saying that it had a red cross on the top of the building. The United States regretting the strike on this civilian target -- Aaron.
BROWN: Christiane, thanks. Christiane Amanpour in Islamabad for us today.
As you probably know by now -- surely you must -- al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news channel that has played such a prominent role in reporting on the U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan -- it has provided much of the video you have seen from inside Afghanistan, and it has been the outlet for the three video statements released last week by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
So now, someone claiming to represent al Qaeda has asked al- Jazeera and CNN to submit written questions for Osama bin Laden, questions, it says, bin Laden will answer on videotape and send that tape back to al-Jazeera. This proposal came into al-Jazeera, which then notified CNN.
We do have questions we would like to put to Mr. bin Laden, but first we need to be absolutely clear with you about this process. This is going to sound a little technical, but we want to be very precise now.
For one, CNN doesn't know where bin Laden is or if he is even alive. We do not know how al Qaeda communicates with al Jazeera or how al Jazeera plans to get the questions to bin Laden. We agree to no prohibitions or preconditions from Osama bin Laden's organization or from al-Jazeera television in the matter. And by asking these questions, we make no commitment to air the answers. We'll look at the tape. If there is a tape, we will decide how much or how little to run. If we believe his comments are not newsworthy, we won't run any of them.
And just to anticipate one other area of possible dispute, we will share the answers, the tape with other news organizations, who can then do with them as they see fit. That's the deal we are making. Here are the questions that we're going to ask.
No. 1: "Your spokesman has praised the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent people and threatened to carry out more attacks involving planes and tall buildings. How can you and your followers advocate the killing of innocent people?"
"What was your role and the role of the al Qaeda organization in the September 11 attacks?"
"What was your role and your organization's role in the subsequent anthrax attacks in the United States?
"Did any of the September 11 hijackers or their accomplices receive al Qaeda financial support or training at al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and was any other government or organization involved?"
"In the past, you have called on your followers to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Do you or your followers have any such weapons, and if so, will those weapons be used?"
"The vast majority of Muslim and Arab leaders, including Muslim clerics and Yasser Arafat, say there is no justification in Islam for the terrorist attacks you advocate, and they have denounced you and your followers and your self-declared holy war. How do you respond to that criticism?"
Those are the questions that we will put to him. We have no idea if we'll get any answers back. And again, we will run only that which we think is newsworthy. We do promise that along the way we will report back to you as this rather unusual -- let's go with that -- unusual process unfolds.
Up next, one senator's plan to ensure a steady supply of Cipro, the anthrax drug. We'll talk with Charles Schumer, senator from New York, in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: About midafternoon today, we heard of a fascinating idea. We don't know if it'll fly, but it's an interesting idea to increase the supply of Cipro, which is the drug used to treat anthrax. It's currently made by Bayer, a large pharmaceutical company. They hold the patent on it. Senator Charles Schumer suggested perhaps other companies should make a generic form.
The senator is with us now, the senator from New York.
It's nice to see you again, sir.
Why don't you briefly outline it, if you can? There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask, but basically you have other people make it.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Yeah, there are three generic drug manufacturers that have already applied for preliminary permission from the FDA to make the generic version of Cipro. It's the same exact drug except it would cost 50 to 75 percent less.
And under a relatively little-known statute -- but it's law -- the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services have the power to allow these generic drug companies to produce the drug even though the patent that Bayer has -- Bayer is the brand-name manufacturer -- hasn't expired yet.
This could do three things: One, it could greatly increase the supply at a time when we're short of it. Two, it would greatly reduce the price, at least that the government will purchase. If Secretary Thompson allocated close to $700 million, he'd probably get two to three times the Cipro under our proposal. And three, it could alleviate a lot of people's fears that there won't be enough Cipro around because there's only producer, which there is now, and thus they might not horde as much of it and relieve the shortage that way.
BROWN: Let's try and do two other questions here. Nothing I've seen on the wires at least today indicate, or tonight, indicate the Bush administration is rushing to embrace this idea.
SCHUMER: I have talked to the deputy secretary of HHS, Claude Allen. He seemed very interested in the idea. We've sent them all the papers. We think they'll get back to us in less than a week as to whether we should do this.
I don't see any downside, and I can't imagine they wouldn't do it. And certainly Bayer is responding. They late today, after we put out our idea, said they were going to increase production, which previously they had been much less eager and willing to do.
BROWN: That was the second thing I was going to ask you about. Whether you got the administration's attention, you clearly got Bayer's attention. They said they'll go 24 hours a day, they'll freeze the price. Is that what you were going for here, just to try and put as much pressure on Bayer as you possibly could?
SCHUMER: No. I still think it's -- when you have an emergency situation, which we clearly have with anthrax, I think you don't want to rely on one producer, and particularly one producer that is still charging through the roof. To say they'll freeze the price isn't of much consolation when the generic price would be half to a third as much. And so we're trying to get other alternative producers, but clearly Bayer is worried. Even the -- what they've said they'd do can't hurt. It's good.
BROWN: Senator, thanks. It was a very -- I don't know if it will -- I've said it before. I don't know if it'll work. It's a fascinating, very clever idea. Senator Charles...
SCHUMER: Yeah, it could really solve things, and it's a hidden statute that people haven't paid attention to, and I'm urging HHS to go forward with it.
BROWN: I bet they're looking at it now, senator. Thank you.
SCHUMER: They are. They are. BROWN: Senator Charles Schumer, the senior senator from the state of New York.
Coming up next, a history teacher who wears the scars of a painful chapter in the Army's history. The lessons he teaches when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: When the bombs began to fall on Afghanistan, special forces had already been on the ground there. We've heard a great deal about special forces, men -- at least we assume they're mostly men -- who are what the Army likes to call "the edge of the spear": go in first when it's most dangerous.
We know a lot about what they do. We know less about who they are.
Tonight, you're going to meet one of these soldiers in his new office.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE GOODALE, TEACHER/RETIRED ARMY RANGER: Honestly I haven't even looked at your grade lately. A history teacher that takes charge.
BROWN (voice-over): These days Mike Goodale is a high-school history teacher in suburban Chicago, a history teacher who takes charge.
GOODALE: All right, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), come on up. Come on up. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you, go.
BROWN: And he must be one of the very few high-school teachers in the country who can tell his students this.
GOODALE: When they find out I've been shot with an AK-47 it's an eye-opener.
BROWN: This is what Mike Goodale used to do. He was an Army Ranger, a special operations sergeant whose job it was to be on the ground first to call in friendly fire on the enemy positions.
GOODALE: For example, I controlled helicopter gunships, artillery, mortars. In a pinch, I could be called to talk to fighter aircraft or naval gunfire. That sort of thing. And that's what I did.
BROWN: He did it during a hellish fire fight that was the last time American special operation forces were engaged in the world until perhaps now.
GOODALE: There was fire from the minute we got there. We could hear rounds going by us as we were sliding down the ropes to get to the ground. BROWN: It was Sunday morning in early October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia.
GOODALE: Lead started flying from every possible point.
BROWN: Mike Goodale's Ranger task force had been ordered into the streets to help protect Delta Force soldiers who were attempting to capture high-level aides to a Somali warlord, Mohammed Aidid.
Then a Ranger helicopter, a Blackhawk, was shot down. Goodale and his unit were ordered to rescue the crew.
GOODALE: The helicopter crashed about five or six blocks from us. And so we had to make our way to that, and the problem is it's in Somali streets, which are fairly twisted and dusty and there were a bunch of individuals there that didn't like us. And so they were trying to stop us at every doorway and window that was there.
BROWN: Stop the Rangers, he said, by firing hundreds and hundreds of rounds from AK-47s, and one of those rounds found him.
GOODALE: We were trying to cross a four-way intersection, and at -- I was the second person in line. One of the squad leaders was right in front of me, and he was watching to the right, down the road. And he was firing that direction. I was right behind him firing forward and squatting down.
At that point then, the bullet came in. It hit the underside of my thigh and then came out my left butt cheek.
BROWN: Wounded, Goodale was dragged to a nearby shed where things only got worse.
GOODALE: I heard a small explosion of gunfire out there and somebody screamed. And as it turns out, it was my lieutenant. They dragged him into the building, and he was absolutely -- he was going to be ineffective. The bullet came in and shattered his shin, and he was immediately going into shock.
BROWN: Goodale, his lieutenant and several other Rangers would spend the next 17 hours in that shed before a huge rescue force managed to free them. But it was a horrible bloody day: 18 American soldiers were killed, more than 70 wounded. But the Rangers, he said, would have gone back.
GOODALE: If it comes down to the last man on the ground, they'll do it. They may not -- they won't willingly lay down their lives, but they will definitely -- they'll finish what they are told to do. And that's just -- that's the mentality of the special operations community: Do whatever it takes to get the job done.
BROWN: Today Mike Goodale is certain that some of his friends with that kind of dedication are either on the ground in Afghanistan or about to go.
GOODALE: I wouldn't doubt at all that, you know, I have some friends that are in the special operations community, that they're not preparing or training in some way for some sort of a mission in Afghanistan, whatever it may be.
BROWN: And if you wonder just how that relates to today's high school students, especially after the events of September 11th, Goodale has a ready answer.
GOODALE: I think it adds to my effectiveness being able to add in experiences that I have been through. I guess, you know, I have lived a part of history. Most Americans don't know about it, but it's still a valid part, and at some point I can bring that into my classroom environment and let students know that there are people out there that do things when they're asked of them whether they want to or not.
BROWN: Goodale wears a bracelet every day now, a bracelet in memory of one of his friends, Sergeant Lorenzo Ruiz, who was kill that October day in Somalia. It is a reminder of the brutality of war, and to his students, it is a reminder also.
GOODALE: There's not a student that comes out of my class that doesn't understand that warfare involves death and that people get hurt. It's not -- it's not a system of glory, and you know, heroes and that kind of thing. It's not about that. Unfortunately, when wars happen, people die, and every one of my students comes out of my class knowing that that's what happens.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And just one more note here. That wounded lieutenant that Mike Goodale talked about, the one who was shot in the shin, he recovered. He's on active duty tonight with the Delta Force, special operations.
Still to come tonight, well, just imagine.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It was February 7, 1964 when the Beatles arrived at New York's Kennedy Airport: hundreds of screaming fans. It was September 11, 2001 when one of them had another memorable but very different experience at Kennedy. Sir Paul McCartney was grounded on a runway and saw the World Trade Center in flames that day, clearly moved by what he saw.
He's now organized an all-star concert at New York's Madison Square Garden for this Saturday night, wrote a new song in tribute to New York's police and fire departments, and today sat down with CNN's Laurin Sydney.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LAURIN SYDNEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Paul, I want to take you back to September 11th. Like everybody, you were devastated, you felt helpless, and you were actually right here in New York City. PAUL MCCARTNEY, MUSICIAN: Yes, I was at JFK on the runway waiting to take off, a few planes ahead of us, when the captain made the announcement that there had been a terrible accident in New York. Nobody knew what it was. But we could actually see it from JFK. And then I stayed for the week following that, and the whole sort of drama unfolded, you know, so I felt very much a part of it.
SYDNEY: So much so, as a side note, your dad was actually a volunteer fireman in Liverpool during World War II, so you've lived with a hero.
MCCARTNEY: Yeah, I must say I never really thought of him like that. Well, he's your dad, you know, and you hear he's a fireman, and you just sort of think, oh, that's pretty good. Well, I must say this really brought it home to me. I was like, "Wow, you know, he's a fireman." That's a dangerous job.
And you know, like you say, I saw the news and saw the guys who had to go back into the building. It was very heroic, to say the least.
SYDNEY: And then you decided that you truly wanted to do something to honor the heroes, and you're lending your name and your talent this Saturday night to VH-1 and AOL, a concert for New York.
MCCARTNEY: Yeah, I was planning to do a concert of my own. Originally, I was due to go back to England and then start planning a concert in Russia. That suddenly seemed not very appropriate, so I thought, well, I'd like to do a concert here. And it was just going to be me. Then I heard that there were a lot of other concerts, a lot of efforts that were being mounted. And a friend of mine persuaded me to do this one. So we've all pooled our resources. We're just going to do one big show instead lots of little ones.
SYDNEY: There are lots of unconfirmed reports that perhaps George and Ringo are going to join you on Saturday night. Is there...
MCCARTNEY: Unfortunately, whenever we -- whenever I do anything, there's always that. If you check back your records, it happens every time I go out.
No, we've said to people we won't get back together again, because there's one very important person missing: ie, John. When I look over to my left and he's not there, something I don't want to do, and the others agree. So you won't ever see the Beatles reform.
SYDNEY: One thing we can confirm is that you are donating the proceeds of your single to the firefighters fund.
MCCARTNEY: Uh-hmm, and the proceeds of the night, the concert. So, you know, we're going to raise an appreciable amount of money, which is a good thing.
SYDNEY: Paul, you are known and have been known as the poet laureate of perhaps one generation, maybe even two generations. Have you written anything since September 11th? MCCARTNEY: Yes, I wrote a little song that was just about freedom. It seemed to me that what the attack was on, besides the physical things of the buildings, was on the freedom that you enjoy in America. After World War II, you know, give me your huddled masses: This is where people came for a new life and for this freedom. You talk to women, women are equal here. Sometimes more than equal. Well, that's great. It's based on merit, this country.
But the main thing is it's freedom. So, yeah, I wrote a song about freedom, about how it's my right, and anyone who would take it away would have to answer. And it's not a sort of war song in as much it's a defense of democracy and freedom.
SYDNEY: Could you possibly share a couple of lyrics with us?
MCCARTNEY: Yeah, this is my right, a right given by God to live a free life, to live in freedom. Those are a couple.
SYDNEY: OK, and I appreciate it. And one last question, we turn to music now for strength. Some of us turn to music to escape. Who do you turn to?
MCCARTNEY: In music?
SYDNEY: Just in life, in devastating times, just to...
MCCARTNEY: I have very, very wide tastes. It depends on the mood. A song I've been playing recently is Brian Wilson's Beach Boys, "God Only Knows," which I find a very emotional piece. There's also a record that I was part of and it was made for the American Cancer Society, a CD called "Music for Hope," which is very appropriate in these times. And a bunch of other stuff. Like I say, it depends on what mood. If I want to be uplifted, it might be something more modern, a little bit more funky.
SYDNEY: What are you going to do Saturday night?
MCCARTNEY: I have a few songs picked out and I hope will be a surprise.
SYDNEY: Obviously then you're not going to share them, but thank you so much for sharing the time today.
MCCARTNEY: It's a pleasure.
SYDNEY: Sir Paul, thank you.
MCCARTNEY: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Tremendous buzz in the building today when he was here. We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was a great mom. She really devoted a lot of attention to Sebastian. Any time anyone would sort of like come near or talk about Sebastian, her face would like light up. And you know, Sebastian really started becoming her world. It was a difficult -- difficult delivery and stuff, because we almost lost Sebastian, and I think that added to Felicia's like really like intense desire to be, you know, the best mom that she could be.
She's taught me, she taught me how to be a better man and definitely how to be a great human being, because she was really a great human being.
I'm going to miss, you know, having her there as we grow up, as he grows up. And I miss my friend. I used to come home and talk about everything, even sometimes not talking, just having her there. That's what I'm going to miss a lot.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
