Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Is The Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional?; WorldCom Caught in Accounting Scandal
Aired June 26, 2002 - 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.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening everyone. A pledge from us tonight: We pledge, here on NEWSNIGHT, to tell the story about the pledge with as little yelling as possible, as much perspective as we can muster.
The decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying the pledge is unconstitutional with the words "under God," set off more patriotic fireworks than the Gruccis have stored up for next Thursday night. It is the kind of story Roger Ailes dreams of.
Before we get to the nuts and bolts on the decision, before we look at the political firestorm that erupted this afternoon, we want to take a quick look over at the pledge over time.
I just turned 35, and I didn't realize, until today, that the pledge hasn't always been the same over this century. In fact, it had almost as many make-overs as Cher. And, from what I can tell at least, that is a lot of make-overs.
The pledge was written by a Baptist minister, curiously enough a socialist, and it was first recited on October 12, 1892, by 12 million kids across America: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
After a couple of nips and tucks in the 1920s, it came into its current form on Flag Day, 1954, height of the Cold War, when President Eisenhower agreed to add the words "under God." So you may be asking, what happens now? Well, apologies to the 9th Circuit Court, but God only knows.
Now, if you thought the crocodiles we showed you last night knew how to rip into something, you need to check out the scene today in Washington. You would not have wanted to be standing between a politician and a microphone today on Capitol Hill.
We begin the whip with the political uproar and posturing over the pledge. No better reporter to cover all that than Candy Crowley. Candy, the headline.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, if there were a political Richter scale this would have been an 8.5. That San Francisco decision really rocked Capitol Hill and filled the hallowed halls with the sound of outrage.
COOPER: I look forward to seeing your report tonight. The reaction tonight from President Bush, from the place where you won't hear the pledge, you'll only hear "O, Canada." Senior White House correspondent John King is traveling with the president and is in Calgary tonight.
John, the headline.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, when the president was told of this court decision, he said, quote, "That is ridiculous." Tonight the Justice Department looking into ways to beat the others into court to challenge it.
COOPER: A real switch now to the NBA draft and a really, really tall guy from China. Jaime FlorCruz is not the tall guy, but he can tell us about him from Beijing tonight.
Jaime, the headline.
JAIME FLORCRUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, China's 7'5 basketball star was in our CNN Beijing bureau this morning. And I watched him wait for David Stern to announce this year's No. 1 pick. I can tell you more about him and China's basketball -- Anderson.
COOPER: All right. That will be later in the program. Back with all of you in a moment. Also, coming up tonight, a stunner in the corporate world, as if the stock market needed another. WorldCom cooked the books by nearly $4 billion. Even the president spoke out on the scandal today. We'll talk with Andy Serwer of "Fortune Magazine."
Jeanne Meserve will get us up to date on the Elizabeth Smart case. It just keeps getting on and on.
Bob Franken will give us a preview of some Supreme Court rulings expected tomorrow, including another court decision that involves schools, church and the state. A debate over vouchers.
And, a pretty dangerous thing to do these days, appear on a morning TV show. It's the latest installment in our salute to awkward TV. Break out the Orville Redenbacher, you don't want to miss the chance to squirm through this one. It was fun.
All that ahead, but we begin with the pledge. Today, in San Francisco, a federal appeals court ruled, in effect, it is OK for school children to pledge allegiance to the flag, to the republic for which it stands, but not to one nation under God.
Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, writing for the 9th Circuit Court, declared the pledge unconstitutional because it promotes religion. Quote, "A profession that we are a nation under God," he wrote, "is no different from a profession, we are a nation under Jesus, or Vishnu or Zeus." In other words, Judge Goodwin took the words, "under God," literally, not generically, as in, "in God we trust," or, "God bless this honorable court." Words spoken, by the way, at the Supreme Court, where this case appears to be headed.
That is, if there is anything left of it by the time it gets there, judging from how lawmakers tore into the decision today.
Again, Candy Crowley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: I pledge allegiance to the flag...
CROWLEY (voice-over): Neither rain, nor snow, nor a three-judge panel will stop these House members.
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
CROWLEY: Say this for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They've done more for bipartisanship than anyone since Osama bin Laden. On Capitol Hill, they awaited the mic like planes stacked up over O'Hare. They were stunned, they were shocked, they were sputtering.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE,(D-SD) SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: This decision is nuts. This decision is just nuts.
CROWLEY: And, they were a little over the top.
SEN. GEORGE ALLEN (R), VIRGINIA: Will they imprison school choirs? Have the school directors imprisoned because the children are singing "God Bless America?" Who knows what's next out of the 9th Circuit.
CROWLEY: Please stop to appreciate this moment.
REP. DICK ARMEY, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Got to be one of the most asinine things I ever heard about.
CROWLEY: Because almost never does the Republican congressman from Texas agree with the senior Democratic senator from West Virginia.
SEN. ROBERT BRYD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge.
CROWLEY: Yes, but how did they really feel?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Torricelli, aye. Mr. Nelson of Florida, aye.
CROWLEY: You get the feeling they'd have voted twice, if they could. With Jesse Helms out for surgery, senators voted only once on a resolution denouncing the decision.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The aye's are 99, the nays are zero.
CROWLEY: You kind of felt a little sorry for Dianne Feinstein from California, home to, you guessed it, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: I find this decision, at best, very embarrassing.
CROWLEY: That aside, Feinstein's political acuity is intact.
FEINSTEIN: One was a Nixon judge, one is a Carter judge, and the dissenting judge was a George Bush Sr. judge.
CROWLEY: It is defensive politics, because a unanimous vote doesn't mean there isn't a political foothold here. And, sure enough, Republicans stepped in.
SEN. TRENT LOTT, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Remember, the greatest attack and resistance by the Democrats in the Senate has been on the circuit appellate nominees.
CROWLEY: But do not expect Democrats to sit still while Republicans tie them to this decision. One of the first out of the box on this issue was a 2004 hope-to-be.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court somewhere at some time, but I've never heard of it.
CROWLEY: Think this overstates the politics? Consider this: Democrats were scarce at the House pledge-fest. The Republican leadership said it had not arranged the event, and so had no control over who got told about it and who didn't.
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: God bless America, my home sweet home
CROWLEY: Let us pray -- oops, strike that -- let us hope that motherhood and apple pie are not on a court docket somewhere.
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS: ... my home sweet home.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Round two tomorrow, Anderson, where the House will vote on the same resolution the Senate passed today. And the Senate majority leader has suggested that all Senate members show up at 9:30 so they can all say the Pledge of Allegiance together -- Anderson.
COOPER: Man, this is the kind of love fest that politicians just love. They dream about this kind of thing.
CROWLEY: They do, they do. But, you know, give it a couple of days.
COOPER: Yes. What does come next? You talked about what's going to happen tomorrow. What, realistically, can they do?
CROWLEY: Realistically, nothing. I mean, they'll rant and rave about it for awhile. And they've said that they want to be helpful in the court case, because they obviously know this is going to go on up the ladder. So they've directed that the Senate lawyer be helpful in whatever suit -- in whatever way they can to take this on to the court system. It's really in the courts. But it's a perfect issue to be on Capitol Hill around the Fourth of July. Don't you think?
COOPER: It doesn't get any better than that. As I said -- I said earlier in the piece -- in the show, it's kind of story Roger Ailes dreams about.
CROWLEY: No comment.
COOPER: All right, thanks a lot, Candy. Great report.
The White House view now, which comes tonight from western Canada, where the president is attending a summit of the G-8 industrialized nations. So, it is back to CNN's John King, we go, who is traveling with the president.
KING: Listen, those leaders are gathering about 55 miles from here in Calgary, in a remote town called Kananaskis. Mr. Bush there today, discussing weighty issues like the Middle East, like the war on terrorism, with his fellow industrialized leaders.
Aides told them of the decision. We were told the president's initial reaction was one of disbelief. He said something to the effect of, "the court did what?" Mr. Bush himself has not spoken about this, but knowing there was a debate already unleashing back in Washington, he sent his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, out to voice the president's disagreement and disbelief.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous. The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase "God save the United States and this honorable court." The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the Creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer and, of course, our currency says, "in God we trust."
The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision. And the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The most likely option for the Department of Justice, we are told, is to file a brief, a friendly brief, with whoever the first -- is first into the court in San Francisco to appeal this decision. Again, we haven't heard it directly from the president himself, but do not be surprised if we do so early tomorrow.
In the words of one senior White House official, "This will be resolved in the courts quickly. This decision, no doubt, will be returned." But this official also making note of the fact, that Candy just did, that we are in a congressional election year in the United States, and when it comes to politics, this one is tee ball -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, John, did the White House know that, you know, this was coming down the pike, or were they caught pretty much unprepared for this?
KING: Well, the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office keep track of all the significant cases in the court. The Pledge of Allegiance is obviously important from a civic standpoint, but it has become in the past, including in George Bush Sr.'s presidential campaign back in 1988, a political issue from time to time. It is a decision that caught them off-guard in the sense that they were surprised at the ultimate ruling. Not as surprised in the sense that they knew the case was in the courts.
Again, look for the Justice Department quite quickly to file a friend of the court brief, challenging this court ruling. And the administration, some saying, bring it on to Washington. That they would love to have this debate come onto Washington in an election year. They fully anticipate the conservative majority on the Supreme Court would throw out the decision quite quickly.
COOPER: All right. John King, thanks very much. As Candy Crowley said earlier, round two begins tomorrow.
We think it is fair to say that no matter which side of the debate you are on, when it comes to the wording of the pledge, the idea of the pledge, the totality of it, means a lot to all of us. The notion that 31 words, or even 29, if you take out "under God," that these words can tie us together is, I think, comforting, and inspiring and uplifting.
Last October, we all needed a bit, we needed all three of those things, in fact. And we got it from a tradition started a decade ago by a retired school teacher named Paula Burton. At 2 p.m., on October 12, you may remember, school children, from one end of the country to the other, stood up, put their hands on their hearts and here's how it played on our news, then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHILDREN: I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
(singing): May we bide her, and guide her, through the night to the light from above. From the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam. God bless America, my home sweet home. God bless America, my home sweet home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That was our news then.
Joining us now in Anaheim, California, the creator of that Pledge Across America, Paula Burton. Thank you very much for being with us this evening. Where were you when you heard about this ruling today?
PAULA BURTON, PLEDGE ACROSS AMERICA: I'd just walked in. I'd had my hair done and I had a group of volunteers in my home getting prepared for an education -- getting ready for our Washington, D.C. trip next week. And I walked in, and they said, "Paula, do you realize what's happened?" And of course, I stood dumbfounded as I listened to the court ruling.
COOPER: What went through your mind?
BURTON: At first I thought, hmm. I was surprised and yet I was not surprised. It's interesting. Sometimes one person can bring up a subject that ignites the nation, and what it really does is ignite our nation to unify and to actually solidify our unity. And that's been very apparent from our president right down to our own elected officials here in Orange County.
COOPER: So you actually see a positive...
BURTON: Oh, absolutely positive. Absolutely. Yes. In fact, we have already contacted all state governors and all superintendents of education. We have a letter from Secretary Ron Page, and that, along with our CD, has gone to every state governor, like I said, and state Department of Education, notifying them of the October 11 national school celebration.
And part of that celebration is the Pledge Across America. What you need to know is that the Pledge of Allegiance was actually written for a national school celebration. And it was done in 1892, and when I discovered that, I thought, what a great unifying idea, to acknowledge our children's achievements.
COOPER: Let's talk about the Pledge Across America. When did you first come up with the idea and what was it that exactly sparked the idea?
BURTON: The idea was sparked 10 years ago when we established our non-profit organization. And one of our board members said, wouldn't it be great if part of our national school celebration -- it was Judy Diehl said, if we promoted a Pledge Across America. And I embraced that. And as an organization, which I founded, we have promoted the Pledge Across America ever since. But it took the 9/11 to get the United States government involved.
COOPER: I think, though, the pledge means different things to different people and is important in different ways. What does it mean to you, what is the significance to you?
BURTON: Well, it has tremendous significance. First of all, I'm an immigrant. I have the great pleasure of being a naturalized citizen. And when you take it upon yourself for citizenship, you are asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in unity with the others. And there is great pride that comes with that. When you feel that responsibility and you feel that that is an oath that defines the principles upon which our nation was founded. To me it's -- if you do nothing more than teach the youth the verbiage of pledge, you've come a long way in teaching about our traditional American values and our heritage.
COOPER: And the term "under God" is essential to the pledge, in your opinion?
BURTON: I think it's essential in the pledge, since it is in, and we believe in our traditional American values. As we've talked before, "under God" does not necessarily refer to a religious statement. I think it's a spiritual unifying reference or statement that can mean a number of things.
And "under God," if a person chooses not to, simply has to not say those words. I'm a teacher. I've taught many school children and, as a substitute, a multitude of classrooms I've approached. And that's when I first began this research on the Pledge of Allegiance, because I delighted in saying it, some meant apathy. And with this apathy, I put the word indivisible on the board and said, "Define it for me." The kids were excited. They said, Ms. Burton, what a silly question. It means you can't see it.
Well, I began to see teach the verbiage of the pledge. And then decided, when I discovered that it was written in 1892, when the pledge centennial came about, we promoted the biggest pledge centennial in the nation, and we put the Pledge of Allegiance to music. Primarily to teach children, that not only are we indivisible as a nation, but there's an allegiance and they need to know the meaning of what loyalty is all about and that fact that it begins with the self.
And if you could have been at that national school celebration at Pledge Across America, were we -- CNN covered that, by the way, on the West coast, it was an electrifying experience for our youth. It was fabulous.
COOPER: Well, we very much appreciate you being with us tonight. No doubt we will be hearing a lot more about the Pledge Across America.
BURTON: Well, you've got to join us on October 11.
COOPER: I'd be happy to.
BURTON: We're going to continue this until the president asks me to not do so.
COOPER: And I doubt that's likely to happen. So, thank you very much. I'm sure we'll be talking again.
BURTON: And thank you for contacting me. Good night.
COOPER: Good night, take care.
Ahead, on "NewsNight," another case of church and state, this one involving the Supreme Court and school vouchers. But straight ahead, a multi-billion dollar case of deja vu. Enron, you ain't alone.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: So the award for headline you should have listened to months ago goes tonight to the "New York Times." Back in April, they wrote, quote, "Recent good news for WorldCom may only mask deeper problems."
Today we got a very ugly look at the deeper problems: And there are about 3.8 billion of them. That is how much WorldCom hid on its books, billions that should have been marked as expenses, but were not, all to buff up the bottom line.
Now this was a huge story, overshadowing most everything else, until the pledge story broke, that is. President Bush called the WorldCom news outrageous, and regulators filed civil fraud charges against the telecom giant.
Joining us now to talk about the latest corporate scandal, someone who had his own timely headline at the beginning of May, beware of telecom stocks. Andy Serwer, of "Fortune Magazine."
ANDY SERWER, FORTUNE MAGAZINE: Sometimes we get it right even; right?
COOPER: So what went wrong with Telecom?
SERWER: Basically what happened is, when you talk about the Internet bubble of the 1990s, it really was a Telecom bubble. All these companies expanded. They bought other companies. WorldCom in particular just bought hundreds and hundreds of companies, expanded, took on massive amounts of debt. And then they just hit the wall.
And you couple that with this outrageous, as everyone is calling it, and it is outrageous, accounting fraud and shenanigans, and you have companies that are now at death's door, particularly WorldCom.
COOPER: Was this just a matter of, you know, one or two individuals? Or is there -- it seems to me that in lot of these companies, there was a culture, a corporate culture, which the bottom line was, you know, get the -- keep the stock price up at all costs? No matter what it takes.
SERWER: I think you -- That phrase corporate culture is exactly right. And it was sort of a market-wide culture, Anderson. Back in the 1990s, way back then, it seems like so long ago, especially these companies that were so acquisitive, that built, that tried to get bigger and bigger, and bigger. Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, these were companies that kept adding pieces on.
The culture was to boost profits, the culture was to make stock price go up. And the reason they were doing that is because these executives were compensated based on increasing profits, on making the stock go up. They had stock options, hundreds and thousands of stock options that would only pay off if the stock kept going north. COOPER: And, I mean, a lot of people seemed to have a role in this. It wasn't -- it was the auditors, I mean it was the stock analysts, the regulators. Where was everybody?
SERWER: What happened was, I think, so many of those parties you just talked about were complicit. That's the problem. The auditors are supposed to be watch dogs. But were they really? No. They were too busy selling consulting services to these companies, number one.
Number two, they didn't want to say no, because they didn't want to lose them as customers. The analysts, as we know now, of course, complicit in the process. They wanted to get investment banking business from these companies. They wanted to keep in good stead with these businesses. And the regulators, frankly, I have to say were asleep at the switch.
COOPER: So any more word about Tyco, as well?
SERWER: Yes. I mean, just another guy, Dennis Kozlowski, the ex-CEO of Tyco, indicted again. Remember, he's the guy who tried to, apparently, shift art out of New York City to avoid a million dollars of taxes. The government said, Hey, send in your paperwork on that. He said, OK I'll send it in. Oops, this particular document doesn't look good. I won't send that one in. The government apparently has caught him. They're saying that that's tampering with evidence, and so they're going to nail him. They're going to nail him on the things that are easiest.
And this is maybe true with Martha Stewart, skipping over to the other scandal. They're looking at her for perjury. You know, they're not necessarily interested in going after the hard stuff. They're interested in going after the things they could nail them on.
COOPER: Well, it's also the old story, the cover-up is going to get you.
SERWER: Exactly. Or like Al Capone back in the days of the gangsters: the tax man got him. Remember? It wasn't actually the violence, you know, it was the Internal Revenue Service.
COOPER: And now Martha's analyst -- basically, the analyst's assistant is now back-tracking?
SERWER: Yes. You basically have Martha Stewart's story, her broker Peter Bokanovic and his assistant Fanial. These three people sort of all have different stories, they don't add up, they don't jive. The regulators, the congressional investigators are now saying they're not looking to give Bokanovic immunity. They want to make sure all the stories fit together. And they don't. And they're going to sit them all down. And they're going to make sure that they do. They're going to put all of them in trouble if that happens.
COOPER: And I've got to ask you, first thing I did today when I looked at my stock portfolio, and I'm thinking to myself, and I don't have the answer, you know, is there another WorldCom in the stocks I'm holding. Is that -- What can a small investor do? It seems like, unless you're hobnobbing with Martha Stewart at these parties, you don't get the information.
SERWER: Yeah, I mean that -- it really is a scary environment. And I'll be honest with you, Anderson, as a small investor there really isn't a lot you can to protect yourself in terms of...
COOPER: Oh, great. Oh, great.
SERWER: It's true, though. I'll be honest with you. You can't -- you don't have the expertise to be able to detect a WorldCom in your portfolio.
The one thing I can tell you is, own what you understand, but if the company changes its business, ala Enron, ala Tyco, be a little wary. And if there's every a scandal, if the company announces something, get out of it. Don't wait for the company to rebuild itself, because invariably, there's more trouble. I would just say get out of it.
COOPER: All right. Andy Serwer, "Fortune Magazine." Thanks a lot.
Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, should Yasser Arafat be on the ballot when Palestinians choose a new leader? Or should the Israelis give him another one-way ticket to Tunisia?
But first, an update on the search for Elizabeth Smart. That's when NEWSNIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: On now with the latest developments in the Elizabeth Smart case. And once again, the focus is squarely on handyman Richard Ricci. Yesterday the police issued a public appeal for any information of Ricci's whereabouts around the time that Elizabeth was kidnapped. Of course, they're also delving into his past for any clues. What exactly happened when Ricci did work at the Smarts' house, a year ago?
Here's Jeanne Meserve, from Salt Lake City.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: During the search of Richard Ricci's trailer, investigators found items belonging to the Smart family. And Ricci has admitted taking them. According to a parole official, Ricci said he took them a year ago while working as a handyman, not during Elizabeth Smart's abduction.
At the estimated time of the abduction, Ricci's wife says he was at home with her.
RICCI: He was at home with me all night. Probably got up at about 3 to go to the bathroom. I saw him get up, I saw him get back in. And he woke up -- we wake up at 6, 6:30, no later, every morning.
MESERVE: At the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City, Ricci's wife was questioned by a federal grand jury yesterday. DAVID SMITH, RICCI FAMILY ATTORNEY: We're not pulling any punches here. They wanted to see what they could do to further the case, if they have one, against him.
MESERVE: While refusing to talk about this case specifically, the FBI says compelling testimony before a grand jury can be a big boost to an investigation.
DAN ROBERTS, FBI, SALT LAKE CITY: They are on the record. And if they ever change their story later on, they have to deal with the consequences of that.
MESERVE (on camera): Which would be?
ROBERTS: Criminal penalties.
MESERVE (voice-over): Other developments: Sources close to the investigation say seat covers are missing from Ricci's white Jeep. And unlike most burglars who prefer to enter empty dwellings, investigators say Ricci has a history of entering occupied homes at night. And over the past 24 hours, information from interviews with Ricci's neighbors has tightened the focus on him.
ROBERTS: I would say that we have learned more things about Mr. Ricci's whereabouts in the week in question that have made him more interesting to us.
MESERVE (on camera): Investigators say they have received a total of three ransom demands, none of them credible. The latest for $350,000 was traced to a prison facility in California, and charges may be brought. But at this late date, kidnapping for ransom seems an unlikely scenario.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Salt Lake City, Utah.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: We have a quick piece of breaking news for you now. We have some video from affiliate KTLA in Los Angeles. These are pictures of a wildfires burning now alongside, and it appears onto a freeway about 15 miles east of L.A. You're looking at the 15 freeway near the Cajon Pass. Authorities have shut the freeway down and, as you can imagine, traffic is a mess there right now.
Still ahead tonight, Katie Couric's Coulter catfight and additional alliteration by nebulously nervous network newsmen. But first, we go back to the Middle East, where plans for elections seem to be breaking out all over. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: More reaction today from the Arab world to President Bush's plan for the Middle East. The head of the Arab League, embracing what he called the positive points and calling for more dialogue with the U.S. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said pretty much the same thing, taking exception with the president's call for new Palestinian leadership, calling that a matter for the Palestinians, not Washington to decide.
And on the West Bank, it looks like that process is getting underway. Here now, Wolf Blitzer.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): It didn't take the Palestinians very long to respond to President Bush's call for major reforms.
SAEB ERAKAT, PALESTINIAN CHIEF NEGOTIATOR: President Arafat officially declares today that the elections of the president of the Palestinian Authority and the election of the Palestinian Legislative Council will he held on January 2003. The date will be between the 10th and the 20th.
BLITZER: From the Bush administration's perspective, that was good news. The bad news: An aide to the Palestinian leader says Arafat will run again. At the G-8 summit in Canada, President Bush didn't back away from his call for a new Palestinian leadership.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I meant what I said, that there needs to change. If people are interested in peace, something else has got to happen. We're mired in a situation now where there's terror on the one hand and hopelessness on the other, and that is unacceptable.
BLITZER: U.S. officials privately go further, insisting neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell has any intention of meeting with Arafat in the near future. The U.S. objective now, to try to isolate the Palestinian leader.
That, of course, is welcome news to Israeli officials. Their forces continue to consolidate positions on the West Bank, including in Hebron, an action, the Israelis say, designed to preempt Palestinian terror strikes.
(on camera): As a result, the Palestinians find themselves between a rock and a hard place. The Israelis are stepping up their anti-terror siege and the United States is demanding that the Palestinian Authority reinvent itself.
Wolf Blitzer, CNN, Jerusalem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: So if Arafat runs, how will the elections play out? And what shape will any reforms take? All things to talk about with our next guest. Joining us now in Washington, Diana Buttu, legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Thanks very much for being with us tonight.
DIANA BUTTU, LEGAL ADVISER, PLO: My pleasure.
COOPER: I just want to ask you, these elections coming up in January, do you think Yasser Arafat will win? BUTTU: I think that he has a very strong chance of winning. He's an incredibly popular leader in the occupied territories. But, of course, there are other candidates who may put their names into the ring.
But it highlights one issue that I think needs to be addressed, which is this isn't about one person. This is about the occupation. And the sooner that we understand that it is about the occupation and not one person, we'll be able to move forward.
COOPER: Well, let me ask you about that. There are those who would say, look, if Yasser Arafat -- if this is not about one person and if Yasser Arafat is the patriot that he says that he is, why doesn't he just say, look, a Palestinian state is, you know, a very realistic possibility right now. There's this timetable. I'll step aside.
If one person is standing in the way of a Palestinian state, why doesn't he get out of the way?
BUTTU: Well, he certainly may get out of the way. But at the end of the day, will that bring peace and freedom to the Palestinians? I don't think so, because what has happened is that Israel has set condition after condition after condition because they've simply proven, time and again, that they're not interested in peace. They're more interested in land.
Israel has faced one equation and one equation only, does it want land or does it want peace? And it has repeatedly chosen land, and in so doing, has set conditions for peace.
COOPER: Well, those are certainly arguable points, and we don't have the time to get into them tonight. I do want to ask you about this report in "The New York Times" today saying that Bush's policy was largely affected by continued Arafat finance and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the group which claim responsibility for a recent bus bombing which killed six people.
You give legal advice to the negotiating team of the Palestinians. Does the PLO still continue to support the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?
BUTTU: In fact, they have never supported the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. I have seen these documents, and as a lawyer, I can tell you that these documents prove absolutely nothing. They do not demonstrate that there is any intent to finance terrorism, that there is any terrorist operations going on. It simply is a trail of money going from one person to another, paltry sums. We're talking about $350. Who exactly would blow up themselves up for $350?
COOPER: Well, a lot of people, actually. But the "New York Times"...
BUTTU: No, they don't.
COOPER: The "New York Times" reports $20,000 was given by Yasser Arafat's people to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. You're saying that is not true?
BUTTU: No, it's absolutely not true. In fact, what we have seen is that money has not been given to these organizations, that all transfers had stopped. This was something that stopped well back in December before Al Aqsa had even begun to carry out any suicide bombings inside Israel.
COOPER: As you said, there are people who are opposed to Arafat within the Palestinian movement. And there is growing frustration over corruption. I mean, is there anything that Arafat or the PLO is actionably doing to fight corruption?
BUTTU: Yes, definitely. In fact, what has happened is there has been a great push for reform, not only on the part of the external world, who for some reason seems to want to meddle in internal Palestinian affairs, but by the Palestinians themselves. They're calling for very strict reforms and very stringent reforms. Everything from financial reforms to the way that the PLO is set up to the way that the PA is set up. So these are things that the Palestinians themselves have been calling for, and it is something that the Palestinians themselves will work towards pushing.
COOPER: All right. Diana Buttu, legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, thank you very much for being with us tonight.
BUTTU: My pleasure. Thank you.
COOPER: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the No. 1 NBA draft pick. But first, the Supreme Court and a child's right to an education. CNN's Bob Franken is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: So we had already planned to do a segment on the Supreme Court and the schools when the Pledge of Allegiance story broke today. But the 9th Circuit stole our thunder. It also gave us that special gift we all treasure, a segue. The Pledge is headed, almost certainly, to the Supreme Court.
Two other issues, school vouchers and school drug testing, have already arrived. Rulings on both expected tomorrow. CNN's Bob Franken joins us now with more -- Bob.
FRANKEN: And, Anderson, this is cause for celebration. This is actually a double segue because, of course, the issue is separation of church and state, which is the issue in the Pledge of Allegiance case. And it's also the case when we're dealing with the most important issue probably that the Supreme Court will handle this session. And that is Cleveland school vouchers.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): It is one of the most emotional legal questions of our times, and well it should be. At issue, the quality of education for millions of our children, or regrettably, the lack of quality in the public school systems, particularly urban public school systems throughout the United States.
But are vouchers the answer? Is government funding to send children to private schools, when most of the money ends up in religious schools, constitutional?
Cleveland, Ohio, provides such vouchers for students from substandard public schools. But the parent of one student, Doris Simmons-Harris, sued the board of education, charging that vouchers that are widely used to help pay for parochial schools, violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is going to be a lesson on the first commandment.
FRANKEN: Federal lower courts have ruled at both levels that the constitutional commandment prohibits funding for religious education, and that vouchers do just that.
HOLLYN HOLLMAN, BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The question is whether the state can subsidize religious indoctrination in parochial schools.
FRANKEN: But supporters of vouchers have argued for years that the real issue is other fundamental values in the United States.
SISTER KAREN, PRINCIPAL, ST. FRANCIS SCHOOL: I think it's about children. I think it's about education. And I think it's about parent choice.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN (on camera): And certain recurring themes as one goes through any Supreme Court session. Religion is certainly one of them. Schools is one of them. And in recent years, one of them has been drug testing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): This was not about drug tests for student athletes. The Supreme Court had already ruled that was OK to protect the physical safety of the student athlete. This time, the question involved all extracurricular activities.
The case: Lindsay Earls versus the board of education of Tecumseh Public High School. In 1998, the students at the Oklahoma high school were confronted with a sweeping new regulation. If they participated in the choir, the band, debating team, whatever the after-school activity, they had to take a drug test.
GOV. FRANK KEATING (R), OKLAHOMA: To attack the problem at the youngest level is to assure, at least, we hope we can assure, that the problem will be less significant when those people become adults.
FRANKEN: Choir member then Lindsay Earls filed a lawsuit.
LINDSAY EARLS, FORMER STUDENT, TECUMSEH H.S.: Just because we're going to school doesn't give them the right to be able to just come in and take things from our bodies and make us prove that we're innocent of something before -- you know, that we're not doing anyway.
FRANKEN: A federal district court upheld the school board, but an appeals court overturned it last year, deciding that drug testing for all extracurricular activity violated the rights of students who had given no evidence of a drug problem.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): Now justice does move slowly. Lindsey Earls is no longer in her high school. She is a student at Dartmouth. But she certainly leaves a legacy at her high school, will leave a legacy at schools across the nation. Of course, legacies, Anderson, is what the Supreme Court is all about.
COOPER: Well, is there any indication or any sense whether the Supreme Court may actually reverse the lower court's rulings on both these issues?
FRANKEN: Well, you never can predict the Supreme Court. And the one people have been paying the most attention to, the case when it was heard, the questioning seemed to suggest that the school vouchers may be upheld. But oftentimes, what happens is the questioning really masks the true feelings of the justices. Bottom line is who knows.
COOPER: I mean, on the drug testing issue, it really boils down to, I mean, the reason the testing of high school sports teams was allowed was a question of physical safety of the athletes. That same argument cannot be made for the school choir?
FRANKEN: You probably have to do quite a bit of a stretch and say that the use of drugs, of course, is considered by most people to be a physical threat. But in the particular case of the choir or the future farmers or something like that, the differentiation that was made is unlike athletes, as you say, there is no immediate cause to worry about physical harm.
COOPER: All right. Bob Franken, thanks very much for joining us tonight.
Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a really, really, really tall guy in Beijing. But first, our favorite awkward TV moment of the day featuring none other than Katie Couric.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: "Segment Seven." So I hope you were with us yesterday, because we began tracking our favorite moments of awkward morning television. And there are so many. Yesterday's was a particularly good one, Martha v. Clayson. Hope you saw it.
Today, the gods of morning TV continues to bless us. On the "Today Show," Katie Couric went Minilo Blanik (ph) to Nine West against aggressively blonde Ann Coulter. It started off badly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TODAY SHOW")
KATIE COURIC, CO-HOST: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me, and this is not what you call me the Eva Braun of liberalism, which I'll ask you about.
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
COURIC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thanks. That makes me feel so much better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: All right. So it's getting a little frosty in there. "Slander," that's the yell of the title of the book Coulter is promoting. It has the startling premise that, get this, the media is liberally biased. That's right, liberally biased. I mean, I haven't heard that since, well, since Bernie Goldberg wrote his book earlier this year.
Sadly on "Today," the fists didn't fly, but the phony smiles certainly did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COULTER: That was a grossly unfair characterization. But who's characterization was it? It wasn't Edmund Morris (ph). He certainly denies it.
COURIC: Well, actually, he backpedaled considerably. If you had read the book by Edmund Morris (ph), you would have seen that...
COULTER: I did.
COURIC: ... he was extremely critical of Ronald Reagan.
COULTER: No, I didn't like the book, but he didn't call him an airhead.
COURIC: In the book, he called him an apparent...
COULTER: The "Today Show" called him an airhead.
COURIC: He did call him an apparent airhead. I have the quote right here if you like me to read it.
COULTER: No. I read the quote and it's in my book.
COURIC: He said that...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Is there a cat in here? What happened there?
Finally from us, China's hottest export, or at least its tallest export. His name is Yao Ming. Now, I can already hear the crowds chanting his name. Yao Ming. Yao Ming. Yao Ming. The Chinese basketball sensation was taken No. 1 at tonight's NBA draft by the Houston Rockets. Yao Ming was about 7,000 miles away in Beijing in our bureau, as a matter of fact, when the announcement came. But thanks to the wonders of satellite technology, he could hear it.
CNN Jaime FlorCruz is there. Jaime, how was it?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID STERN, NBA COMMISSIONER: With the first pick of the 2002 NBA draft, the Houston Rockets select Yao Ming.
JAIME FLORCRUZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After long contract negotiations and an agonizing wait, Yao Ming is joining the NBA.
YAO MING, HOUSTON ROCKETS DRAFT PICK: I'm very happy to join the Houston Rockets. Hi, Houston. I'm coming.
FLORCRUZ: The towering presence at 7'5", Yao Ming has a soft shooting touch and seemingly limitless potential, credentials good enough to play with the world's best.
Yao Ming was picked by the Houston Rockets, which is gambling to rebuild a team around a lanky center from Shanghai. As a NBA rookie, the 21-year-old Yao Ming stands to get a four-year contract worth at least $9 million. He could earn millions more in advertising, a mind- boggling bonanza in a nation where the average yearly income per person is less than $1,000.
Yao Ming will not be able to keep all his earnings. Government regulation require him to give half of it as compensation to the Chinese Sports Authorities and to his former team in the Chinese Basketball Association. For Yao Ming, however, haggling endlessly over money is less important than the freedom to play in the premiere league.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): Anderson, Yao Ming follows the footsteps of two other Chinese stars who played in the NBA last season. The trio anchors the so-called moving great wall. To the Chinese use, Yao Ming is a source of national pride. And to China as well, he is a source of national pride and, in a way, a source of extra income -- Anderson.
COOPER: I should say so. I can't believe he has got to give half of his earnings basically to the Chinese government?
FLORCRUZ: Yes, he is. Well, that's scandalous in most countries. But for most Chinese, they can accept the fact that the state, the government, had taken care of him from childhood. And it's about -- it's only fair that he gives back to the state, to the country. So it's not a totally scandalous thing here -- Anderson.
COOPER: So, how did he get so big? I mean, were his parents basketball players? Are they also very large? FLORCRUZ: Yes. His father is 6'9". His mom is 6'4". They were here this morning as well. And I almost had a stiff neck just watching the three of them, all this morning. So they are -- he's endowed with the physique and good fundamentals to play in the basketball league.
The question is will he have the time to acquire the toughness, intensity and experience that he needs in the match-up with massive giants like Shaquille O'Neal -- Anderson.
COOPER: I must admit, I expected to see maybe a little bit of a bigger reaction. I mean, the guy just got picked, you know, No. 1 in the draft. You know, he's earning $9 million. He didn't seem all that excited.
FLORCRUZ: Yao Ming is a very shy man. He's 21-year-old. He's a little coy. But he also knows that he needs to cope with a lot of cultural shocks. I asked him, for example, what he will do to prepare him for that. He said he is working on his English and he's learning to drive. He says he wants a big car -- Anderson.
COOPER: Well, he should fit it right in in America then with a big car. Thanks very much, Jaime FlorCruz. Nice story.
And that's about it from NEWSNIGHT tonight. Thanks very much for joining us. I'm Anderson Cooper sitting in for Aaron Brown. I'll be here all week unless they change their minds. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
