Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
A Deal Reached in Iraqi Weapons Inspections; Powell Calls on Security Council to Draft New Resolution
Aired October 01, 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.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again. I'm Aaron Brown.
If it were not that the stakes were so high and that hundreds, indeed, thousands of lives could well be lost, many of them American, the chess game going on tonight over the U.N. inspectors would be absolutely fascinating and more than a little bit amusing. The U.N. inspections team reached a deal with the Iraqi government today. Now reaching a deal and actually being allowed to implement the deal is another matter.
The Iraqis have been known to renege, to put it kindly. And that is one way of stopping the inspections.
And then late today the secretary of state said there is another. He implied the United States would not allow U.N. weapons inspectors to go into Iraq without a new, different, tougher resolution from the U.N. Security Council.
And we understand the point the secretary is making. The administration is trying to negotiate with members of the Security Council, and that negotiating position was cut off at the knees by today's agreement.
But the secretary's remarks create some problems of their own. They play to a perception that the United States doesn't really want a deal on inspections. That the administration is hell-bent on war, that the president can't take yes for an answer. That is a political issue in this country, where the debate on Iraq is just getting serious, and seems likely to fuel opposition abroad, where already fair or not, the administration is seen as trigger happy.
As we said, if it were not that the stakes were so high, the chess game would be fascinating and a little bit amusing. But, of course, they are. And it's Iraq that begins "The Whip" and much of the program this evening.
An agreement today about weapons inspections came out of Vienna. Christiane Amanpour has been there covering that. Christiane, the headline, please.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, under threat of pressure, Iraq has essentially capitulated now twice in two weeks. Two weeks ago saying it would allow weapons inspectors back unconditionally, and after two days of talks in Vienna, saying that access to all sites was open, except for those presidential sites.
BROWN: Christiane, thank you. Back with you at the top of the program tonight.
Now on to the news the secretary of state made late this afternoon. Andrea Koppel at the State Department for us. Andrea, the headline.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Secretary of State Colin Powell put it this way, he said there is no magic calendar as to when the U.N. weapons inspector have to go in. They should go in when they have the authority to do so. Something the U.S. believes won't happen until there is a new U.N. resolution in place.
BROWN: More on that in a few moments.
On to the White House, and quite a statement today about Saddam and how to handle him from the White House spokesman. That, and more, tonight at the White House. Suzanne Malveaux has the duty. Suzanne, the headline from you.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, instead of the White House controlling the debate, rather, instead, it was doing damage control. The issue: U.S. policy concerning assassinating Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.
And one political story to deal with tonight, the mess in New Jersey after yesterday's exit by Senator Torricelli. Deborah Feyerick is covering that. This has been an all-day assignment. Deborah, the headline from you.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, New Jersey Democrats have a new Senate candidate. The big question, though, is will he make it on to the ballot for the November elections?
BROWN: Thank you. And we're back to you and the rest of you in just a moment.
Also coming up tonight, a crucial player in the Senate debate over Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who has been very much on the cautious side, urging the United States not to go it alone. Also, we'll get the buzz, and there's a lot of it, on what will happen in the world of politics now that the New Jersey Senate race is being thrown to the courts and to a new candidate. Craig Crawford of "The Political Hotline" joins us.
Remembering Walter Annenburg, a media legend throughout the 20th century who spent his life and his billions trying to erase the misdeeds of his father. A fascinating character.
And he's not the only one on the program tonight. You'll also meet Ernest Withers if you stay with us until the end. We hope you do. He framed so much of the U.S. civil rights era with his camera. He didn't always get the credit he deserved. You'll see the pictures and meet him as we go along as well.
All of that to come in the hour ahead. We begin with the "yes" today from Iraq and the difficulty the Bush administration has in taking "yes," at least this particular kind of "yes" for an answer. With the United States pushing the U.N. Security Council for a tougher new weapons inspection program, the Iraqis today agreed to abide by the old one.
Here again, CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Two days of talks in Vienna led the Iraqi government to reverse the position it's held for the past four years. Iraq now says the U.N. can carry out weapons inspections mandated under existing resolutions.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: On the question of axis, it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate unconditional and unrestricted access.
AMANPOUR: All sites except the eight presidential sites. Restrictions on them were agreed to by the U.N. secretary general and later enshrined in a resolution. The U.S. would have to muster a majority in the Security Council to annul that deal. However, in a significant move, Iraq will now lift restrictions it imposed on other sensitive sites, such as key ministry buildings.
GEN. AMR AL-SADI, IRAQI DELEGATION: We have come to a very practical arrangement that we would from our side anticipate every inspection to sort of go to sensitive sites. And we will take the measures that will cancel the need for a waiting period and getting approvals.
AMANPOUR: Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix says that Iraq has also agreed to all of the practical arrangements for weapons inspections, including the use of aircraft and helicopters for reconnaissance. Although Iraq says security in the U.S. no-fly zones was out of its hands.
General Amr al-Sadi said that he was happy an agreement had been reached and, along with Blix, described the talks as business-like and focused. Iraq also handed over four CD-Roms containing four years of information that it owes the U.N. about what's been happening at so- called dual-use facilities that inspectors suspect can be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. Both sides said weapons inspectors could be back in Iraq by mid-October.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, two questions remain. Whether the agreement here translates into actual implementation on the ground and perhaps, more importantly, how the agreement here would be effected if new and stiffer demands are issued by the United Nations -- Aaron.
BROWN: I don't suppose you want to throw out an answer to that last most intriguing question? Because that seems to be where we're headed. The United States want a new deal. Will the Iraqis come back and bargain, do you think?
AMANPOUR: Well that's very interesting. First of all, the official position from Baghdad, as you've been hearing, is that no new resolution. But in private, when we've been talking to Iraqi diplomats, they have said they fully expect there to be a new resolution, and one that is likely to be a compromise between the tough U.S. position and the French and Russian position, who, as you know, resist this new resolution language.
In any event, they're saying that they probably would accept a new resolution, but it really remains in the realm of let's wait and see.
BROWN: So let's wait and see. Christiane Amanpour in Vienna for us this evening.
The deal, if that's what it is, sent the secretary of state to the podium late this afternoon. It's not that the United States doesn't want these inspections, he said, it's that the deal made under the old resolution simply will not work. No one should be surprised by this.
The administration has been clear that it doesn't believe in the old resolutions and that it has history on its side. So the better questions might be these: What can the administration do? Who will help? And did the Iraqis outmaneuver the Bush administration, at least for today?
Here again, CNN's Andrea Koppel.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KOPPEL (voice-over): Concern the news from Vienna would derail U.S. efforts to secure a new U.N. resolution, Secretary Powell reminded the world who is running this show.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Dr. Blix as an agent of the Security Council will carry out what the Security Council instructs him to do. And our position is that he should get such new instructions in the form of a new resolution.
KOPPEL: Powell has said the U.S. would, in his words, "thwart the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, until a top new U.N. mandate is in place." A proposed U.S. draft resolution obtained by CNN demands Iraq provide a full and complete list of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons before inspections begin. Unrestricted access to presidential sites. And authorizes the use of all necessary means, if Iraq fails to comply.
POWELL: We are absolutely convinced that we can make the case that a new resolution with tough standards is appropriate with consequences associated with further violation so that we're not back here a year from now talking about this all over again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOPPEL: But even as the Bush administration pushes the U.N. to adopt its resolution, CNN has learned that the State Department is preparing a contingency plan just in case enough Security Council members don't sign on. But before this compromise, two separate resolutions could be introduced, Aaron. State Department officials predict that there will be a big battle within the Bush administration first.
BROWN: Another big battle. We've talked a lot about the two -- about the differences in opinion on whether there needs to be one resolution or two, depending on which side in this discussion you're on. Let me set that aside for a second.
When the secretary of state talked about thwarting the inspections, did he indicate how that would happen?
KOPPEL: No, he didn't. Reporters -- actually, he didn't explicitly mention that at today's briefing, Aaron. He said that actually two weeks ago before the House International Relations Committee during testimony. But privately, a senior State Department official repeated those words and said the U.S. would thwart it.
We had been told reading between the lines what they're trying to say is, guys, it doesn't make any sense, in fact, it would be incredibly dangerous for U.N. weapons inspectors to go back to Iraq before a new resolution is in place because, as you know, the U.S. is threatening to go it alone if the Security Council doesn't approve it, which would put, Aaron, the weapons inspectors right in the middle of a potential war.
BROWN: Well, we'll leave it at that. That's an intriguing possibility on its own. Thank you, Andrea. Good to see you again. Andrea Koppel at the State Department.
Next stop, the White House and the iron law of being the White House spokesperson, which is, whatever else you do, do not make news on your own. It is the law of the current spokesman, Ari Fleischer might have written himself, so good as he is sticking to it.
So what happened today? Was it frustration at working the Iraq story day after day, question after question? Or is the spokesman caught up, like the rest of us, in "The Sopranos" new season?
Because for a minute we could have sworn he was talking about having Saddam Hussein whacked. Here again, White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice-over): The Bush administration's call for a regime change today reached a new pitch, when White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the cost of a possible war with Iraq.
FLEISCHER: I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves is substantially less than that.
MALVEAUX: Was this a signal that the Bush administration would support the Iraqi people, sending Saddam into exile or possibly assassinating him?
(on camera): I'm asking you if you intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqis, you know, person, put a bullet in his head?
FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes. Thank you. Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes.
MALVEAUX: Fleischer later said he was simply making a rhetorical point that the U.S. policy, barring assassinations of foreign leaders by U.S. officials, still stands. But that no one would cry over the loss of Saddam Hussein.
President Bush is still trying to win support for congressional resolution that would give him broad authority to use military force against Saddam. But Republican Senator Richard Lugar, in meetings with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Council Al Gonzalez, is pushing for a bipartisan resolution that would give the president the green light for military action only if it's used to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Bush is insisting he cannot be limited when it comes to going after Saddam.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't want to get a resolution which ties my hands, a resolution which is weaker than that which was passed out of the Congress in 1998. The Congress in 1998 passed a very strong resolution. It wisely recognized that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Was a threat in '98, and he's more of a threat four years later.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: Now Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had hoped to have that resolution that could be presented before the Senate floor as early as tomorrow to begin the debate, but Congressional aides are now telling us that they may have to put that on hold. House lawmakers who met with the president late today actually were a lot more optimistic. They believe they'll have a resolution to the president's liking perhaps as early as tomorrow. The president is going to be meeting with congressional lawmakers, the leaders here at the White House, for a breakfast meeting -- Aaron.
BROWN: Suzanne, if the president doesn't want to be limited simply to dismantling weapons of mass destruction, what else is it that he wants included in the resolution?
MALVEAUX: Well some of the other things that he would like to have included would also be actually to return some of those prisoners back to Kuwait, as well as some of their resources, to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. Some of the own atrocities and torture that he has committed to his own people. These are just some of the resolutions that have been broken by Saddam Hussein that they believe he should be held to account.
BROWN: And is the White House saying, in its view, unless all of those resolutions, human rights, the prisoners and the rest, unless all of them are acted upon by the Iraqis, then the United States exercises the right, or reserves the right to go to war?
MALVEAUX: Well the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was actually asked that question this week, whether or not they make any type of distinction between dealing with weapons of mass destruction and all these other U.N. resolutions, that Saddam Hussein has not complied. He says that he first, and foremost, says that he must comply with the weapons of mass destruction, dismantling them, but that they also consider these other U.N. resolutions part of the whole package.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.
War on terrorism next. And if the foreign policy side seems especially knotty this evening, the domestic side isn't much clearer.
The story continues to be what kind of balance to strike between the rights of the accused and public safety. Today's chapter concerns the policy again of detaining people indefinitely and mostly in secret on the suspicion they are somehow connected with terrorism. We say mostly secret because judges have recently begun to question the administration's policy and have started nudging the cases out in the open as best they can.
Such was the case in Detroit today. Here's CNN Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: As the government held an immigration hearing for Rabih Haddad, the first open hearing for a detainee with suspected links to terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft strongly defended the government's detention policy and other terror-fighting tactics.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our actions are firmly rooted in the Constitution, secure in historical and judicial precedent and consistent with the laws passed by the Congress.
ARENA: Haddad's case has become the rallying cry for opponents of secret hearings. He is the chairman of the Muslim charity Global Relief Foundation and has been in custody for nine months because of suspected links to terrorism and for visa violations. The charity's assets have also been frozen.
Haddad's case has been conducted mostly in secret. But a judge ordered the Justice Department to grant a new and open detention hearing for Haddad or release him.
DAVID COLE, GEORGETOWN LAW CENTER : I think it is absolutely critical. Because the rule of law only operates if it operates in full view so that the public, the press, the family members, people interested, can ensure that, in fact, this man is being afforded a fair trial.
ARENA: The government's war on terror has been sharply criticized by some who argue the very civil liberties the government is trying to defend are being undermined in the process. But Ashcroft sees it differently.
ASHCROFT: Neutralize potential terrorist threats by getting violators off the street by any means possible as quickly as possible. Detain individuals who pose a national security risk for any violations of criminal or immigration laws. Delay only if there's a valid national security reason.
ARENA (on camera): The government argues Haddad is a national security risk and would be a threat if let out on bail. Haddad says that's simply not true and that his work in the community proves it. He remains in federal custody.
Kelli Arena, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, the story that has shocked Milwaukee and beyond.
Up next, the soap opera of the New Jersey Senate race and control of the Senate as well.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Don't know what it was like where you live, but quite a reaction in the papers out East this morning to the exit speech yesterday by New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli. He came off to many as a sort of political Frankenstein, combining all the bad parts of other politicians. The ethical slipperiness of Bill Clinton, the tin ear of Al Gore and the bottomless self-pity of Richard Nixon.
New Jersey Democrats, though, had a lot more on their mind. Petitions to file to get a new candidate on the ballot, and a small matter of finding that new candidate to go on the ballot. Tonight they found a taker and gave New Jersey a strong dose of deja vu in the process. Here again, CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (voice-over): New Jersey's top Democrats at the governor's mansion wrangling over candidates before a late-day call and then an offer.
FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), RET. U.S. SENATOR, NEW JERSEY: I enjoyed the 18 years that I spent in the Senate, and if I can do more (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I want to do it. FEYERICK: Frank Lautenberg, a former senator, stepping up to take the place of scandal-tainted Robert Torricelli. But will Lautenberg make it onto the ballot or into the race? That's what New Jersey Supreme Court will be deciding. The deadline for ballot changes having come and gone weeks ago.
Democrats say, deadline aside, the law allows them to fill the empty spot.
ANGELO GENOVA, DEMOCRATIC PARTY ATTORNEY: The right of the voter to exercise a free and competitive choice is paramount to any technical nicety that might be suggested by a time limitation in a statute.
FEYERICK: The Republicans argue the last-minute change could set a horrendous precedent, with political parties feeling free to swap candidates lagging in the polls. Republicans also say the change could violate the rights of military and absentee voters, who have already received their ballots.
WILLIAM BARONI, ATTORNEY FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: Some of us remember a state not too far south from here a few years ago where every vote did count. And absentee ballots for military people, there was quite an issue about that. We don't want New Jersey to become the chaos that was Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: Frank Lautenberg officially announced he was in the race just about an hour ago. He joked with just five weeks until the November election this will be the shortest campaign he's ever run. But he says he'll fight just as hard. The Republican candidate, Douglas Forrester, saying changing the rules of the game at this point is unprecedented. As for the Supreme Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court, judges will be hearing oral arguments from both Republicans and Democrats at 10:00 tomorrow morning -- Aaron.
BROWN: And these judges on the Supreme Court, not to be a cynic, are political appointees?
FEYERICK: They are political appointees. There are four Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent. But many of them were appointed under Christie Todd Whitman.
BROWN: And I thought I read somewhere today that the Republicans in Washington indicated if they were to lose in New Jersey, they would take this to the U.S. Supreme Court, which means this really is a replay of Florida.
FEYERICK: Absolutely a replay of Florida. And you see all the wrangling and the movement between different courts. It feels the same just being there.
BROWN: Thank you, Deborah. Can't wait to go through that all again, can you? Not a lot of public events -- well, let me do it this way. You can bet there was a frenzy of private meetings and a few jammed phone lines between New Jersey and Washington today. It's a story where the personal and political on both sides are really important, and we have someone who knows the political landscape and the personal landscape in this story pretty well.
Craig Crawford from the must read political Web site: "The Hotline." Craig, it's good to see you again.
CRAIG CRAWFORD, "THE HOTLINE": Hi Aaron.
BROWN: Let's deal with Mr. Lautenberg, first. Gee I bet Mr. Torricelli, Senator Torricelli is really happy they found Mr. Lautenberg...
CRAWFORD: This really adds to his humiliation, because the background is Lautenberg and Torricelli are no friends. They've dueled for many years, even though they're in the same party. And word was that Torricelli was holding out for a condition that they would not pick Lautenberg when he agreed to quit. And this could complicate the other scenario that some Democrats fear they may need, is for Torricelli to quit the seat altogether, so the governor of New Jersey can appoint Lautenberg to the seat before the election.
BROWN: I don't -- Craig, maybe -- well, not maybe, I'm sure you can explain to me why this makes sense. How does that change what ultimately is a battle over the law and what the intent of the law is?
CRAWFORD: The only way to avoid the courts is for the governor to appoint Lautenberg to the seat, and then you've got the Carnahan model. You remember Missouri, when the Democrat died in a plane crash. His wife was appointed to the seat and then stood, but not on the ballot, and still won. That was against now Attorney General Ashcroft.
So in that scenario, it makes it easier for Democrats to elect Lautenberg, if he actually is the sitting senator. The other extension of that scenario would be to actually cancel the election and hold a new one later on under New Jersey law, 30 days out. If at least by 30 days out this happens, then they could have a new election. Although that law is kind of murky actually.
BROWN: And just to be clear, even if Mr. Lautenberg were to be -- if Senator Torricelli were to resign and Mr. Lautenberg were to take the seat, the name Torricelli would still be on the ballot, wouldn't it?
CRAWFORD: Right. The only way to get Lautenberg's name on the ballot would be to invoke this law that would allow the governor to basically cancel this election and call for a new one. At that point, if that were to happen, you might see the Republicans toy with the idea with a new candidate.
Many of them are not really too thrilled about their candidate. He was great when Torricelli was the Democrat nominee. And then you might see something like the Republicans pick Christie Todd Whitman to run. That's extending the scenario quite a bit, but it's within the realm.
BROWN: Well everything's within the realm right now. Half a minute. Two other possibilities fell by the wayside today, two congressmen. What do you know?
CRAWFORD: Yes, I think part of what happened there, Aaron, despite what they say, is Dick Gephardt may not have been thrilled about losing -- about Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader, poaching on his members. There's a battle for control of the House as well. And particularly, Frank Pallone, the congressman who was one of the rumored choices, who said he didn't do it because his wife didn't want him to, that's a tough seat for Democrats. Losing him in that race could have meant losing that seat.
I think some of that was going on. You know what? It's all politics.
BROWN: This is about as political a story as you'll ever get. Craig, thank you.
CRAWFORD: Yes, this is Florida 2000 meets "The Sopranos," I think.
BROWN: Thank you very much. And I knew you had a punch line. I didn't know where it was coming from. Thank you, Craig Crawford, from "The Hotline." And if you're into politics, check that out.
On to a crime story tonight. Nothing amusing here. This comes from Milwaukee.
One of the most chilling things we heard about this came from a witness who said it was like a game to them. "It" was a savage beating on Sunday of a man, a beating with rakes, shovels and bats, a man who died today. And "them," according to police, were a bunch of neighborhood kids, one as young as 10.
An appalling story from every conceivable angle. Here's CNN's Jason Carroll.
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The porch where Charlie Young Jr. was beaten Sunday night still show signs of his violent struggle. It's a crime that has shocked Milwaukee, because some of those accused of it are children.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It makes me sad that we live in an age and a time where people have such an insensitivity to human life.
CARROLL: The trouble began in this neighborhood after have boys threw an egg at Young. Young chased them and hit one of them in the face. The boys decided to retaliate. They gathered friends and started after him.
ARTHUR JONES, MILWAUKEE CHIEF OF POLICE: They proceeded to chase Mr. Young. Along the way and in the process of the chase, these individuals armed themselves with baseball bats, shovels, broom handles, tree limbs, a folding chair, a plastic milk crate and a rake.
CARROLL: Young ended up here on Anthony Brown's front porch. Brown did not want us to show his face, while he told a chilling tale of what happened to Young.
ANTHONY BROWN, WITNESS: He said, Help me. He ran out, he said help me. I'm seeing these kids coming behind him. He runs up in the house. They dragged him out the house and continued to beat him. I had a few kids come to the window there. My window was broken out.
CARROLL: Came through your window?
BROWN: Came through the window.
CARROLL: Young suffered severe head trauma from the beating. He died late Tuesday. His family unable to understand how something like this could happen t.
KEITH YOUNG, VICTIMS BROTHER: Was unhuman -- unhuman what they did. All I can say is, if they -- if they had any kind of heart about how they would want their family or brother treated, they wouldn't have did that.
CARROLL: At leat 10 people are in custody. The youngest is just 10 years old.
Police know who the others are, and they say it's just a matter of time before they find them.
Jason Carroll, CNN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT: a man who made a mint off of "TV Guide," among other things. Gave a lot of it away, too. Walter Annenberg's story in a little bit.
Up next: the latest on Iraq's connection with al Qaeda.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: If there's a Holy Grail right now for the Bush administration, it lies in finding the connection -- if there is one to be found -- between Iraq and the events of September 11. And for every intelligence officer chasing down leads, there's a reporter chasing him. Or perhaps it's the other way around. In our experience, reporters like it best the second way.
We're fairly certain "Newsweek's" Michael Isikoff does. He's got a great story running in the latest edition in the magazine. And Michael joins us from Washington tonight.
It's good to see you. The administration has talked a lot about al Qaeda connections to Iraq, but it has never been very clear what they are. Do you believe you know?
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK" INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: No. There's a lot that remains unanswered here.
And there have been a lot of claims asserted quite forcefully by administration officials with very little evidence or details to back them up.
We did focus on one that struck us, and struck me, as among the most intriguing, which is the case of an Iraqi national named Amad Shakir (ph), who was actually picked up right after September 11 last year in the Qatar on suspicions of involvement in terrorism. The FBI quickly identified him as a major league terror suspect. He had been -- phone records linked him in Qatar to some of the suspects in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in the 1994 Manila plot to blow up civilian airlines over the Pacific Ocean.
And more significantly, he was in Malaysia, in Kuala Lumpur and believed to be have been in attendance at that critical January 2000 Kuala Lumpur summit where two of the hijackers were present, one of the key suspects in the bombing of the USS Cole was present. It is believed to be a seminal planning meeting for al Qaeda for its attacks on the United States.
This suspect Shakir is then let go after September 11, hops a plane to Amman, Jordan; on his way to Baghdad gets stopped by the Jordanians who, again, pick him up. He spends three months in detention in Jordan, and for reasons that are, at present, inexplicable, he is let go, he vanishes, and U.S. intelligence has now identified him as being in Iraq.
BROWN: Now here's the problem I have, and you tell me if you can straighten this out: He is an Iraqi national.
ISIKOFF: Correct.
BROWN: That is different, it seems to me, to being an al Qaeda operative who is coordinating with Iraq.
I mean, there are Saudi nationals, but we don't hold the Saudi government responsible, correct?
ISIKOFF: Absolutely.
Here's what we know. We know that he was identified by the FBI as a major league suspect with al Qaeda connections, including two of the operatives behind the September 11 plot. We know that he was picked up by an allied intelligence service and held for three months. And then we know that he was let go.
He was let go without any explanation. And given who he was, and given who the FBI suspected he was, it's very hard to understand why he was let go. And we know he ends up in Iraq. That's what we know. It raises a whole host of questions for the U.S. government. It raises the possibility -- and a number of people in the U.S. government believe that it's a strong possibility -- that he has some Iraqi government ties, and that they may have been instrumental in springing him loose from the Jordanians when they had him in custody.
That remains unproven.
But, again, of all the evidence that I've seen, this remains the most tantalizing because it raises the most questions.
And it is the -- it is the one case -- that I know of, at least -- that could draw what is, to this point, been a pretty tenuous connection between Iraq and the events of the 11th?
ISIKOFF: It could. I mean, you know, again, as you pointed out, he is an Iraqi national. We know that when he got out of Amman he flew immediately to Baghdad and felt that he had safe harbor there.
Would he have done that if he didn't feel that somebody there was going to protect him? We don't know.
But I do know that the U.S. government -- U.S. government officials have been extremely skittish about answering questions about this issue.
BROWN: Michael, it's good to see you. Thanks for your reporting on this, and we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.
ISIKOFF: Any time.
BROWN: Read more about this in "Newsweek" magazine this week.
Before we go to break, a couple of quick items making news around the world.
First, the Annual Labour Party Convention in Blackpool, England. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair giving a stem-winder of a speech in support of the United States government on Iraq. It was a tough crowd. His party is divided, and not just over the prospect of war.
Yesterday the prime minister survived a close party vote on Iraq, but lost another on a domestic issue, neither one officially binding, but both could signal political trouble for Mr. Blair down the road.
And no, it's not Groundhog Day; Isidore was last week. This is Hurricane Lili. It hit Western Cuba today right about where Isidore struck. A lot of flooding and damage. No casualties to report. Lili is now gathering strength and heading toward the U.S. Gulf Coast. Storm watches up again. Residents have begun planning their second evacuation in about a week.
Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a look back at the civil rights movement through the lens of a photographer who saw it all.
And up next, a man who made a mint out of telling us what was on the tube.
This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Walter Annenberg, one of the richest men in the country, the man behind "TV Guide," among other magazines, died today. Mr. Annenberg was 94. His is not a rags-to-riches story in the classic sense, though his father's was, with a twist: It went rags to riches, to jail.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): Walter Annenberg's father landed in this country from East Prussia, not only penniless, but barefoot. His shoes had washed overboard in the stormy passage across the Atlantic.
Still, in all, within a few decades, the elder Annenberg was a multimillionaire and a jailed tax evader from whom his son inherited a passel of troubles, a huge debt to Uncle Sam, and the daily racing form, among other newspapers.
Then Walter Annenberg dreamed up a couple of publications on his own. There was "Seventeen" magazine, the country's first magazine for teenage girls.
And there was "TV Guide," the jewel in the crown of what would be the Annenberg media empire.
Having spent years making good, restoring the family fortune and the family name, Annenberg spent years doing good. Giving away billions, mostly to large, educational institutions. There are the Annenberg schools of communications at the University of Pennsylvania and at UCLA.
But then he gave $100 million to a small institution. The prep school he attended in the 1920s. And his billion dollar art collection -- well, he gave that to the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Walter Annenberg had the ear of presidents from Dwight Eisenhower on.
He served as Richard Nixon's ambassador to Great Britain. Pretty remarkable for a man whose father fetched up on these shores shoeless, made a fortune, then died in disgrace not long after leaving a federal prison.
ANNENBERG: I've had the best out of this country. I owe it a great deal.
BROWN: Whatever else American success stories may be, they are rarely simple.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Mr. Annenberg was 94. A few other stories making news around the country, beginning on Wall Street. Something we could use a bit more of this new quarter: buying.
Stocks soared about $300 billion in market value created in the process. Seems like a lot of money to me. Several reasons floated about, included decent earnings and Iraq's agreement with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Or, it could just be that the markets have been beaten down enough to draw investors back in.
In Montana today, freedom for a man we talked about last night on the program. Jimmy Ray Bromgard, who spent 15 years in prison for allegedly raping an 8-year-old girl. He was let go after DNA tests cleared him. Prosecutors are asking for a review of other cases involving the state crime lab expert in Bromgard's case. They say he gave testimony that did not hold up scientifically.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the photographer who captured the stories of the civil rights movement up close. That's a little bit later.
Next, we talk with Senator Chuck Hagel about his views on Iraq.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, we can't seem to avoid the Iraq issue no matter where we turn today. More now on the domestic side of the story. You heard the president earlier on the program today pushing for a strong show of support from the Congress, and taking some exception with a compromise that's being floated out there. The head count still shows him getting much of what he wants but there remain a tough bipartisan kernel of doubt.
And among those speaking up, is Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who yesterday issued a strong warning against going it alone in Iraq.
We talked to the senator earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Senator, do you think we are at a point where war is inevitable, that the administration has committed itself to a course and it can't really pull back without losing face?
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: No, I don't think we are committed to an inevitable course of war. I think the president's speech to the United Nations three weeks ago was really the turning point on that.
He appropriately went before the United Nations, placed the Iraqi issue before the United Nations. I thought gave his best speech he's given since he's been president. We are working the diplomatic ground with the United Nations, with the Security Council, with our friends and allies, and I don't think it is inevitable that we go to war.
Are the clouds there? Yes, they are. The president needs a resolution. Which he will get. And needs the cooperation of our allies., hopefully the United Nations will be with us on this, to prepare us in the event that that is the last alternative left.
BROWN: I want to -- just one more question on this -- I want to try to get a couple other things done.
The impact on the one hand, the president goes to the United Nations, says, We want to work with you, but then almost in the same breath the administration says, But if we have to go it alone we will, which sounds a bit -- a little bit like, We'll take our ball and go home.
HAGEL: That's a concern I have had. I think a number of members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have had.
I think the president has to be careful if he does not undercut his strong high-ground diplomatic position here, all the good that he gained from that U.N. speech.
It is important that we play this through. The inspections, working with our allies and then, in the end, if there is no other option, then war, then we're prepared to do that.
But I do think we have to be careful here not to undercut a strong position that he has been able to, I think, cut out for himself and our own country, in going before the United Nations and reaching out for cooperation.
BROWN: In your speech yesterday, you quoted the columnist Thomas Friedman saying this is a war of choice. I wonder if the administration would agree with that, because it seems to me that the administration's position is that the national security of the country requires this action to be taken if there is -- if there's no diplomatic settlement.
HAGEL: I can't speak for the administration, nor their interpretation of Mr. Friedman's column or my speech that I gave yesterday, but I agree with Tom Friedman in that this is a matter of choice, because we have some options here. We must exhaust those options. And in the end, maybe there won't be any options left, other than the alternative of a military operation to force Saddam Hussein to give up what he has already pledged and agreed to give up, and that is weapons of mass destruction.
BROWN: Senator, just a final question. I think it would not be unfair say you were, if not the first voice, among the very first voices to speak cautiously about the possibility of a war with Iraq. I'm curious if your own experience as a young man in Vietnam shaped the decision, not so much your position, but a belief that the thing had to be debated pretty thoroughly?
HAGEL: Oh, I don't think there's any question, Aaron, that it has. I don't consider myself a guardian for the spirit of the 58,000 men and women whose names are registered on the Vietnam Veteran Memorial Wall in Washington, but I do believe I owe this country, and certainly the people who put me in office, some judgment here. Some reasoned process.
If we are to commit this nation to war, that's serious business. It could end up in great tragedy all around.
If we go to war, I hope it doesn't. I hope that we are able to fulfill the commitments that we are making in a way that minimizes death and destruction that war brings. But we can't gamble on that.
I am now where I am and I need to work this through. Each member of Congress needs to take this seriously. Am I any wiser than other members of Congress because of my Vietnam veteran experience? Of course not.
But I am touched in ways, with my own experience, that many members are not touched in. So I try to apply that, Aaron, to a judgment, but that's not the only dynamic of my judgment.
BROWN: Senator, we, as I said to you before we start, we appreciate your time. A lot -- I know a lot of people are pulling at you in lots of different directions these days, and to spend five or six minutes with us is much appreciated.
Thank you and good luck.
HAGEL: Thank you, Aaron.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel on NEWSNIGHT.
Next on the program, the civil rights movement through the eyes of a man who saw it and photographed it all. Nice closing piece tonight.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Finally from us tonight, bearing witness to the Civil Rights Era with camera in hand. It seems our week to remember those typical days. Last night, James Meredith on the 40th anniversary of what one person called the last battle of the Civil War -- the rioting that preceded Mr. Meredith's enrollment at Ole Miss University.
And tonight it's Ernest Withers. Mr. Withers shot some of the most memorable and important pictures of that time. You'll recognize some of them. They are history many of you will recall. You probably don't know much about the man who shot them, which was fine with him, but not -- we confess -- to us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (SINGING)
TONY DECANEAS, DIRECTOR, PANOPTICON GALLERY: I think one of the most powerful images is the image of Martin Luther King being arrested at Medgar Evers' funeral -- the expression on his face is so pained. I knew the image, I'd seen it in "LIFE" magazine, probably, or "TIME" -- and yet there had never been a connection between that and Ernest Withers.
And it turns out that Ernest often times had exposed rolls of film to UPI and AP stringers they would get the byline and Ernest got his money and he was happy with that arrangement. Was never envious of their fame. To him the message getting out was more important.
ERNEST WITHERS, PHOTOGRAPHER: This is the very beginning of the "I'm a Man" labor.
The black newspapers that didn't get white service, they hired me to go throughout the South when racial incidents occurred. The murder of Emmitt Till, the original bus ride, Martin Luther King. Even protests within our own city.
DECANEAS: A lot of Ernest's photographs are good, simply because he had the courage to take them. There were times when Ernest got beat up, his cameras were smashed, his film was destroyed. It never, ever got in the way of taking pictures.
WITHERS: Although I was frightened -- that is something in terms of the level of responsibility that you have to stick to it until the end.
BEVERLY ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE DIR., NATL. CIVIL RIGHTS MUSEUM: I believe he probably has somewhat comprehensive body of work on the movement today.
When you look at his pictures you feel as if you where there. Because he captures sort of everyday faces and images in such a powerful way that it places you right next to the person.
WITHERS: ... Elvis Presley.
DECANEAS: He also photographed the entire music scene in Memphis. He has pictures of Elvis Presley. Kind of cracked the myth that Elvis wasn't greatful to the black community. He was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with black musicians. Ernest has the photographs to prove it.
His photographs documenting the Negro Baseball Leagues -- something that existed because of segregation and no longer exists because segregation was banned.
ROBERTSON: That's a big one.
I was the baby in the stroller with my dad. My family was very active. You had to demonstrate for my rights -- the future rights of the next generation. What I find striking is the facial expressions of the police officers. It's not one of, We're all glad we're out here together. I've had a lot friends and family that have seen photographs, and I hope when they look at the picture, they realize where we were in '61 at a people. Where we've come to today. The courage that it's taken to come this far. So it gives me pride.
I think it takes many, many years to understand the value of history and for us to understand the value of his work and for us to understand the value of the movement.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think of you very often when I see your work around -- how are you?
WITHERS: Fine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You look wonderful.
WITHERS: I can't find the fountain of youth! I'm looking for it.
DECANEAS: He lovers being a photographer, and he loves life. And the two just coincide. Fortunately, he's got long life genes and he's living to enjoy it.
WITHERS: I've made more than 6 million to 8 million pictures in a lifetime, and that's a lot of pictures. Each day that I'm Ernest Withers the photographer, I'll be expected to make pictures. So I'll be making pictures until I get 105.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: That's the work of NEWSNIGHT producer Sarah Coil (ph). Nicely done.
And that's the program for tonight. We're all back tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. We hope you'll join us as well. Until then, I'm Aaron Brown in New York. Good night from all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
on Security Council to Draft New Resolution>
Aired October 1, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening, again. I'm Aaron Brown.
If it were not that the stakes were so high and that hundreds, indeed, thousands of lives could well be lost, many of them American, the chess game going on tonight over the U.N. inspectors would be absolutely fascinating and more than a little bit amusing. The U.N. inspections team reached a deal with the Iraqi government today. Now reaching a deal and actually being allowed to implement the deal is another matter.
The Iraqis have been known to renege, to put it kindly. And that is one way of stopping the inspections.
And then late today the secretary of state said there is another. He implied the United States would not allow U.N. weapons inspectors to go into Iraq without a new, different, tougher resolution from the U.N. Security Council.
And we understand the point the secretary is making. The administration is trying to negotiate with members of the Security Council, and that negotiating position was cut off at the knees by today's agreement.
But the secretary's remarks create some problems of their own. They play to a perception that the United States doesn't really want a deal on inspections. That the administration is hell-bent on war, that the president can't take yes for an answer. That is a political issue in this country, where the debate on Iraq is just getting serious, and seems likely to fuel opposition abroad, where already fair or not, the administration is seen as trigger happy.
As we said, if it were not that the stakes were so high, the chess game would be fascinating and a little bit amusing. But, of course, they are. And it's Iraq that begins "The Whip" and much of the program this evening.
An agreement today about weapons inspections came out of Vienna. Christiane Amanpour has been there covering that. Christiane, the headline, please.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, under threat of pressure, Iraq has essentially capitulated now twice in two weeks. Two weeks ago saying it would allow weapons inspectors back unconditionally, and after two days of talks in Vienna, saying that access to all sites was open, except for those presidential sites.
BROWN: Christiane, thank you. Back with you at the top of the program tonight.
Now on to the news the secretary of state made late this afternoon. Andrea Koppel at the State Department for us. Andrea, the headline.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Secretary of State Colin Powell put it this way, he said there is no magic calendar as to when the U.N. weapons inspector have to go in. They should go in when they have the authority to do so. Something the U.S. believes won't happen until there is a new U.N. resolution in place.
BROWN: More on that in a few moments.
On to the White House, and quite a statement today about Saddam and how to handle him from the White House spokesman. That, and more, tonight at the White House. Suzanne Malveaux has the duty. Suzanne, the headline from you.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, instead of the White House controlling the debate, rather, instead, it was doing damage control. The issue: U.S. policy concerning assassinating Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.
And one political story to deal with tonight, the mess in New Jersey after yesterday's exit by Senator Torricelli. Deborah Feyerick is covering that. This has been an all-day assignment. Deborah, the headline from you.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Aaron, New Jersey Democrats have a new Senate candidate. The big question, though, is will he make it on to the ballot for the November elections?
BROWN: Thank you. And we're back to you and the rest of you in just a moment.
Also coming up tonight, a crucial player in the Senate debate over Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who has been very much on the cautious side, urging the United States not to go it alone. Also, we'll get the buzz, and there's a lot of it, on what will happen in the world of politics now that the New Jersey Senate race is being thrown to the courts and to a new candidate. Craig Crawford of "The Political Hotline" joins us.
Remembering Walter Annenburg, a media legend throughout the 20th century who spent his life and his billions trying to erase the misdeeds of his father. A fascinating character.
And he's not the only one on the program tonight. You'll also meet Ernest Withers if you stay with us until the end. We hope you do. He framed so much of the U.S. civil rights era with his camera. He didn't always get the credit he deserved. You'll see the pictures and meet him as we go along as well.
All of that to come in the hour ahead. We begin with the "yes" today from Iraq and the difficulty the Bush administration has in taking "yes," at least this particular kind of "yes" for an answer. With the United States pushing the U.N. Security Council for a tougher new weapons inspection program, the Iraqis today agreed to abide by the old one.
Here again, CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Two days of talks in Vienna led the Iraqi government to reverse the position it's held for the past four years. Iraq now says the U.N. can carry out weapons inspections mandated under existing resolutions.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: On the question of axis, it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate unconditional and unrestricted access.
AMANPOUR: All sites except the eight presidential sites. Restrictions on them were agreed to by the U.N. secretary general and later enshrined in a resolution. The U.S. would have to muster a majority in the Security Council to annul that deal. However, in a significant move, Iraq will now lift restrictions it imposed on other sensitive sites, such as key ministry buildings.
GEN. AMR AL-SADI, IRAQI DELEGATION: We have come to a very practical arrangement that we would from our side anticipate every inspection to sort of go to sensitive sites. And we will take the measures that will cancel the need for a waiting period and getting approvals.
AMANPOUR: Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix says that Iraq has also agreed to all of the practical arrangements for weapons inspections, including the use of aircraft and helicopters for reconnaissance. Although Iraq says security in the U.S. no-fly zones was out of its hands.
General Amr al-Sadi said that he was happy an agreement had been reached and, along with Blix, described the talks as business-like and focused. Iraq also handed over four CD-Roms containing four years of information that it owes the U.N. about what's been happening at so- called dual-use facilities that inspectors suspect can be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. Both sides said weapons inspectors could be back in Iraq by mid-October.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, two questions remain. Whether the agreement here translates into actual implementation on the ground and perhaps, more importantly, how the agreement here would be effected if new and stiffer demands are issued by the United Nations -- Aaron.
BROWN: I don't suppose you want to throw out an answer to that last most intriguing question? Because that seems to be where we're headed. The United States want a new deal. Will the Iraqis come back and bargain, do you think?
AMANPOUR: Well that's very interesting. First of all, the official position from Baghdad, as you've been hearing, is that no new resolution. But in private, when we've been talking to Iraqi diplomats, they have said they fully expect there to be a new resolution, and one that is likely to be a compromise between the tough U.S. position and the French and Russian position, who, as you know, resist this new resolution language.
In any event, they're saying that they probably would accept a new resolution, but it really remains in the realm of let's wait and see.
BROWN: So let's wait and see. Christiane Amanpour in Vienna for us this evening.
The deal, if that's what it is, sent the secretary of state to the podium late this afternoon. It's not that the United States doesn't want these inspections, he said, it's that the deal made under the old resolution simply will not work. No one should be surprised by this.
The administration has been clear that it doesn't believe in the old resolutions and that it has history on its side. So the better questions might be these: What can the administration do? Who will help? And did the Iraqis outmaneuver the Bush administration, at least for today?
Here again, CNN's Andrea Koppel.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KOPPEL (voice-over): Concern the news from Vienna would derail U.S. efforts to secure a new U.N. resolution, Secretary Powell reminded the world who is running this show.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Dr. Blix as an agent of the Security Council will carry out what the Security Council instructs him to do. And our position is that he should get such new instructions in the form of a new resolution.
KOPPEL: Powell has said the U.S. would, in his words, "thwart the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, until a top new U.N. mandate is in place." A proposed U.S. draft resolution obtained by CNN demands Iraq provide a full and complete list of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons before inspections begin. Unrestricted access to presidential sites. And authorizes the use of all necessary means, if Iraq fails to comply.
POWELL: We are absolutely convinced that we can make the case that a new resolution with tough standards is appropriate with consequences associated with further violation so that we're not back here a year from now talking about this all over again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KOPPEL: But even as the Bush administration pushes the U.N. to adopt its resolution, CNN has learned that the State Department is preparing a contingency plan just in case enough Security Council members don't sign on. But before this compromise, two separate resolutions could be introduced, Aaron. State Department officials predict that there will be a big battle within the Bush administration first.
BROWN: Another big battle. We've talked a lot about the two -- about the differences in opinion on whether there needs to be one resolution or two, depending on which side in this discussion you're on. Let me set that aside for a second.
When the secretary of state talked about thwarting the inspections, did he indicate how that would happen?
KOPPEL: No, he didn't. Reporters -- actually, he didn't explicitly mention that at today's briefing, Aaron. He said that actually two weeks ago before the House International Relations Committee during testimony. But privately, a senior State Department official repeated those words and said the U.S. would thwart it.
We had been told reading between the lines what they're trying to say is, guys, it doesn't make any sense, in fact, it would be incredibly dangerous for U.N. weapons inspectors to go back to Iraq before a new resolution is in place because, as you know, the U.S. is threatening to go it alone if the Security Council doesn't approve it, which would put, Aaron, the weapons inspectors right in the middle of a potential war.
BROWN: Well, we'll leave it at that. That's an intriguing possibility on its own. Thank you, Andrea. Good to see you again. Andrea Koppel at the State Department.
Next stop, the White House and the iron law of being the White House spokesperson, which is, whatever else you do, do not make news on your own. It is the law of the current spokesman, Ari Fleischer might have written himself, so good as he is sticking to it.
So what happened today? Was it frustration at working the Iraq story day after day, question after question? Or is the spokesman caught up, like the rest of us, in "The Sopranos" new season?
Because for a minute we could have sworn he was talking about having Saddam Hussein whacked. Here again, White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX (voice-over): The Bush administration's call for a regime change today reached a new pitch, when White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the cost of a possible war with Iraq.
FLEISCHER: I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves is substantially less than that.
MALVEAUX: Was this a signal that the Bush administration would support the Iraqi people, sending Saddam into exile or possibly assassinating him?
(on camera): I'm asking you if you intend to advocate from that podium that some Iraqis, you know, person, put a bullet in his head?
FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes. Thank you. Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes.
MALVEAUX: Fleischer later said he was simply making a rhetorical point that the U.S. policy, barring assassinations of foreign leaders by U.S. officials, still stands. But that no one would cry over the loss of Saddam Hussein.
President Bush is still trying to win support for congressional resolution that would give him broad authority to use military force against Saddam. But Republican Senator Richard Lugar, in meetings with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Council Al Gonzalez, is pushing for a bipartisan resolution that would give the president the green light for military action only if it's used to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Bush is insisting he cannot be limited when it comes to going after Saddam.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't want to get a resolution which ties my hands, a resolution which is weaker than that which was passed out of the Congress in 1998. The Congress in 1998 passed a very strong resolution. It wisely recognized that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Was a threat in '98, and he's more of a threat four years later.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: Now Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had hoped to have that resolution that could be presented before the Senate floor as early as tomorrow to begin the debate, but Congressional aides are now telling us that they may have to put that on hold. House lawmakers who met with the president late today actually were a lot more optimistic. They believe they'll have a resolution to the president's liking perhaps as early as tomorrow. The president is going to be meeting with congressional lawmakers, the leaders here at the White House, for a breakfast meeting -- Aaron.
BROWN: Suzanne, if the president doesn't want to be limited simply to dismantling weapons of mass destruction, what else is it that he wants included in the resolution?
MALVEAUX: Well some of the other things that he would like to have included would also be actually to return some of those prisoners back to Kuwait, as well as some of their resources, to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. Some of the own atrocities and torture that he has committed to his own people. These are just some of the resolutions that have been broken by Saddam Hussein that they believe he should be held to account.
BROWN: And is the White House saying, in its view, unless all of those resolutions, human rights, the prisoners and the rest, unless all of them are acted upon by the Iraqis, then the United States exercises the right, or reserves the right to go to war?
MALVEAUX: Well the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was actually asked that question this week, whether or not they make any type of distinction between dealing with weapons of mass destruction and all these other U.N. resolutions, that Saddam Hussein has not complied. He says that he first, and foremost, says that he must comply with the weapons of mass destruction, dismantling them, but that they also consider these other U.N. resolutions part of the whole package.
BROWN: Suzanne, thank you. Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.
War on terrorism next. And if the foreign policy side seems especially knotty this evening, the domestic side isn't much clearer.
The story continues to be what kind of balance to strike between the rights of the accused and public safety. Today's chapter concerns the policy again of detaining people indefinitely and mostly in secret on the suspicion they are somehow connected with terrorism. We say mostly secret because judges have recently begun to question the administration's policy and have started nudging the cases out in the open as best they can.
Such was the case in Detroit today. Here's CNN Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: As the government held an immigration hearing for Rabih Haddad, the first open hearing for a detainee with suspected links to terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft strongly defended the government's detention policy and other terror-fighting tactics.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our actions are firmly rooted in the Constitution, secure in historical and judicial precedent and consistent with the laws passed by the Congress.
ARENA: Haddad's case has become the rallying cry for opponents of secret hearings. He is the chairman of the Muslim charity Global Relief Foundation and has been in custody for nine months because of suspected links to terrorism and for visa violations. The charity's assets have also been frozen.
Haddad's case has been conducted mostly in secret. But a judge ordered the Justice Department to grant a new and open detention hearing for Haddad or release him.
DAVID COLE, GEORGETOWN LAW CENTER : I think it is absolutely critical. Because the rule of law only operates if it operates in full view so that the public, the press, the family members, people interested, can ensure that, in fact, this man is being afforded a fair trial.
ARENA: The government's war on terror has been sharply criticized by some who argue the very civil liberties the government is trying to defend are being undermined in the process. But Ashcroft sees it differently.
ASHCROFT: Neutralize potential terrorist threats by getting violators off the street by any means possible as quickly as possible. Detain individuals who pose a national security risk for any violations of criminal or immigration laws. Delay only if there's a valid national security reason.
ARENA (on camera): The government argues Haddad is a national security risk and would be a threat if let out on bail. Haddad says that's simply not true and that his work in the community proves it. He remains in federal custody.
Kelli Arena, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, the story that has shocked Milwaukee and beyond.
Up next, the soap opera of the New Jersey Senate race and control of the Senate as well.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Don't know what it was like where you live, but quite a reaction in the papers out East this morning to the exit speech yesterday by New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli. He came off to many as a sort of political Frankenstein, combining all the bad parts of other politicians. The ethical slipperiness of Bill Clinton, the tin ear of Al Gore and the bottomless self-pity of Richard Nixon.
New Jersey Democrats, though, had a lot more on their mind. Petitions to file to get a new candidate on the ballot, and a small matter of finding that new candidate to go on the ballot. Tonight they found a taker and gave New Jersey a strong dose of deja vu in the process. Here again, CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (voice-over): New Jersey's top Democrats at the governor's mansion wrangling over candidates before a late-day call and then an offer.
FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), RET. U.S. SENATOR, NEW JERSEY: I enjoyed the 18 years that I spent in the Senate, and if I can do more (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I want to do it. FEYERICK: Frank Lautenberg, a former senator, stepping up to take the place of scandal-tainted Robert Torricelli. But will Lautenberg make it onto the ballot or into the race? That's what New Jersey Supreme Court will be deciding. The deadline for ballot changes having come and gone weeks ago.
Democrats say, deadline aside, the law allows them to fill the empty spot.
ANGELO GENOVA, DEMOCRATIC PARTY ATTORNEY: The right of the voter to exercise a free and competitive choice is paramount to any technical nicety that might be suggested by a time limitation in a statute.
FEYERICK: The Republicans argue the last-minute change could set a horrendous precedent, with political parties feeling free to swap candidates lagging in the polls. Republicans also say the change could violate the rights of military and absentee voters, who have already received their ballots.
WILLIAM BARONI, ATTORNEY FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: Some of us remember a state not too far south from here a few years ago where every vote did count. And absentee ballots for military people, there was quite an issue about that. We don't want New Jersey to become the chaos that was Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: Frank Lautenberg officially announced he was in the race just about an hour ago. He joked with just five weeks until the November election this will be the shortest campaign he's ever run. But he says he'll fight just as hard. The Republican candidate, Douglas Forrester, saying changing the rules of the game at this point is unprecedented. As for the Supreme Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court, judges will be hearing oral arguments from both Republicans and Democrats at 10:00 tomorrow morning -- Aaron.
BROWN: And these judges on the Supreme Court, not to be a cynic, are political appointees?
FEYERICK: They are political appointees. There are four Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent. But many of them were appointed under Christie Todd Whitman.
BROWN: And I thought I read somewhere today that the Republicans in Washington indicated if they were to lose in New Jersey, they would take this to the U.S. Supreme Court, which means this really is a replay of Florida.
FEYERICK: Absolutely a replay of Florida. And you see all the wrangling and the movement between different courts. It feels the same just being there.
BROWN: Thank you, Deborah. Can't wait to go through that all again, can you? Not a lot of public events -- well, let me do it this way. You can bet there was a frenzy of private meetings and a few jammed phone lines between New Jersey and Washington today. It's a story where the personal and political on both sides are really important, and we have someone who knows the political landscape and the personal landscape in this story pretty well.
Craig Crawford from the must read political Web site: "The Hotline." Craig, it's good to see you again.
CRAIG CRAWFORD, "THE HOTLINE": Hi Aaron.
BROWN: Let's deal with Mr. Lautenberg, first. Gee I bet Mr. Torricelli, Senator Torricelli is really happy they found Mr. Lautenberg...
CRAWFORD: This really adds to his humiliation, because the background is Lautenberg and Torricelli are no friends. They've dueled for many years, even though they're in the same party. And word was that Torricelli was holding out for a condition that they would not pick Lautenberg when he agreed to quit. And this could complicate the other scenario that some Democrats fear they may need, is for Torricelli to quit the seat altogether, so the governor of New Jersey can appoint Lautenberg to the seat before the election.
BROWN: I don't -- Craig, maybe -- well, not maybe, I'm sure you can explain to me why this makes sense. How does that change what ultimately is a battle over the law and what the intent of the law is?
CRAWFORD: The only way to avoid the courts is for the governor to appoint Lautenberg to the seat, and then you've got the Carnahan model. You remember Missouri, when the Democrat died in a plane crash. His wife was appointed to the seat and then stood, but not on the ballot, and still won. That was against now Attorney General Ashcroft.
So in that scenario, it makes it easier for Democrats to elect Lautenberg, if he actually is the sitting senator. The other extension of that scenario would be to actually cancel the election and hold a new one later on under New Jersey law, 30 days out. If at least by 30 days out this happens, then they could have a new election. Although that law is kind of murky actually.
BROWN: And just to be clear, even if Mr. Lautenberg were to be -- if Senator Torricelli were to resign and Mr. Lautenberg were to take the seat, the name Torricelli would still be on the ballot, wouldn't it?
CRAWFORD: Right. The only way to get Lautenberg's name on the ballot would be to invoke this law that would allow the governor to basically cancel this election and call for a new one. At that point, if that were to happen, you might see the Republicans toy with the idea with a new candidate.
Many of them are not really too thrilled about their candidate. He was great when Torricelli was the Democrat nominee. And then you might see something like the Republicans pick Christie Todd Whitman to run. That's extending the scenario quite a bit, but it's within the realm.
BROWN: Well everything's within the realm right now. Half a minute. Two other possibilities fell by the wayside today, two congressmen. What do you know?
CRAWFORD: Yes, I think part of what happened there, Aaron, despite what they say, is Dick Gephardt may not have been thrilled about losing -- about Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader, poaching on his members. There's a battle for control of the House as well. And particularly, Frank Pallone, the congressman who was one of the rumored choices, who said he didn't do it because his wife didn't want him to, that's a tough seat for Democrats. Losing him in that race could have meant losing that seat.
I think some of that was going on. You know what? It's all politics.
BROWN: This is about as political a story as you'll ever get. Craig, thank you.
CRAWFORD: Yes, this is Florida 2000 meets "The Sopranos," I think.
BROWN: Thank you very much. And I knew you had a punch line. I didn't know where it was coming from. Thank you, Craig Crawford, from "The Hotline." And if you're into politics, check that out.
On to a crime story tonight. Nothing amusing here. This comes from Milwaukee.
One of the most chilling things we heard about this came from a witness who said it was like a game to them. "It" was a savage beating on Sunday of a man, a beating with rakes, shovels and bats, a man who died today. And "them," according to police, were a bunch of neighborhood kids, one as young as 10.
An appalling story from every conceivable angle. Here's CNN's Jason Carroll.
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The porch where Charlie Young Jr. was beaten Sunday night still show signs of his violent struggle. It's a crime that has shocked Milwaukee, because some of those accused of it are children.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It makes me sad that we live in an age and a time where people have such an insensitivity to human life.
CARROLL: The trouble began in this neighborhood after have boys threw an egg at Young. Young chased them and hit one of them in the face. The boys decided to retaliate. They gathered friends and started after him.
ARTHUR JONES, MILWAUKEE CHIEF OF POLICE: They proceeded to chase Mr. Young. Along the way and in the process of the chase, these individuals armed themselves with baseball bats, shovels, broom handles, tree limbs, a folding chair, a plastic milk crate and a rake.
CARROLL: Young ended up here on Anthony Brown's front porch. Brown did not want us to show his face, while he told a chilling tale of what happened to Young.
ANTHONY BROWN, WITNESS: He said, Help me. He ran out, he said help me. I'm seeing these kids coming behind him. He runs up in the house. They dragged him out the house and continued to beat him. I had a few kids come to the window there. My window was broken out.
CARROLL: Came through your window?
BROWN: Came through the window.
CARROLL: Young suffered severe head trauma from the beating. He died late Tuesday. His family unable to understand how something like this could happen t.
KEITH YOUNG, VICTIMS BROTHER: Was unhuman -- unhuman what they did. All I can say is, if they -- if they had any kind of heart about how they would want their family or brother treated, they wouldn't have did that.
CARROLL: At leat 10 people are in custody. The youngest is just 10 years old.
Police know who the others are, and they say it's just a matter of time before they find them.
Jason Carroll, CNN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT: a man who made a mint off of "TV Guide," among other things. Gave a lot of it away, too. Walter Annenberg's story in a little bit.
Up next: the latest on Iraq's connection with al Qaeda.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: If there's a Holy Grail right now for the Bush administration, it lies in finding the connection -- if there is one to be found -- between Iraq and the events of September 11. And for every intelligence officer chasing down leads, there's a reporter chasing him. Or perhaps it's the other way around. In our experience, reporters like it best the second way.
We're fairly certain "Newsweek's" Michael Isikoff does. He's got a great story running in the latest edition in the magazine. And Michael joins us from Washington tonight.
It's good to see you. The administration has talked a lot about al Qaeda connections to Iraq, but it has never been very clear what they are. Do you believe you know?
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK" INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: No. There's a lot that remains unanswered here.
And there have been a lot of claims asserted quite forcefully by administration officials with very little evidence or details to back them up.
We did focus on one that struck us, and struck me, as among the most intriguing, which is the case of an Iraqi national named Amad Shakir (ph), who was actually picked up right after September 11 last year in the Qatar on suspicions of involvement in terrorism. The FBI quickly identified him as a major league terror suspect. He had been -- phone records linked him in Qatar to some of the suspects in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in the 1994 Manila plot to blow up civilian airlines over the Pacific Ocean.
And more significantly, he was in Malaysia, in Kuala Lumpur and believed to be have been in attendance at that critical January 2000 Kuala Lumpur summit where two of the hijackers were present, one of the key suspects in the bombing of the USS Cole was present. It is believed to be a seminal planning meeting for al Qaeda for its attacks on the United States.
This suspect Shakir is then let go after September 11, hops a plane to Amman, Jordan; on his way to Baghdad gets stopped by the Jordanians who, again, pick him up. He spends three months in detention in Jordan, and for reasons that are, at present, inexplicable, he is let go, he vanishes, and U.S. intelligence has now identified him as being in Iraq.
BROWN: Now here's the problem I have, and you tell me if you can straighten this out: He is an Iraqi national.
ISIKOFF: Correct.
BROWN: That is different, it seems to me, to being an al Qaeda operative who is coordinating with Iraq.
I mean, there are Saudi nationals, but we don't hold the Saudi government responsible, correct?
ISIKOFF: Absolutely.
Here's what we know. We know that he was identified by the FBI as a major league suspect with al Qaeda connections, including two of the operatives behind the September 11 plot. We know that he was picked up by an allied intelligence service and held for three months. And then we know that he was let go.
He was let go without any explanation. And given who he was, and given who the FBI suspected he was, it's very hard to understand why he was let go. And we know he ends up in Iraq. That's what we know. It raises a whole host of questions for the U.S. government. It raises the possibility -- and a number of people in the U.S. government believe that it's a strong possibility -- that he has some Iraqi government ties, and that they may have been instrumental in springing him loose from the Jordanians when they had him in custody.
That remains unproven.
But, again, of all the evidence that I've seen, this remains the most tantalizing because it raises the most questions.
And it is the -- it is the one case -- that I know of, at least -- that could draw what is, to this point, been a pretty tenuous connection between Iraq and the events of the 11th?
ISIKOFF: It could. I mean, you know, again, as you pointed out, he is an Iraqi national. We know that when he got out of Amman he flew immediately to Baghdad and felt that he had safe harbor there.
Would he have done that if he didn't feel that somebody there was going to protect him? We don't know.
But I do know that the U.S. government -- U.S. government officials have been extremely skittish about answering questions about this issue.
BROWN: Michael, it's good to see you. Thanks for your reporting on this, and we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.
ISIKOFF: Any time.
BROWN: Read more about this in "Newsweek" magazine this week.
Before we go to break, a couple of quick items making news around the world.
First, the Annual Labour Party Convention in Blackpool, England. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair giving a stem-winder of a speech in support of the United States government on Iraq. It was a tough crowd. His party is divided, and not just over the prospect of war.
Yesterday the prime minister survived a close party vote on Iraq, but lost another on a domestic issue, neither one officially binding, but both could signal political trouble for Mr. Blair down the road.
And no, it's not Groundhog Day; Isidore was last week. This is Hurricane Lili. It hit Western Cuba today right about where Isidore struck. A lot of flooding and damage. No casualties to report. Lili is now gathering strength and heading toward the U.S. Gulf Coast. Storm watches up again. Residents have begun planning their second evacuation in about a week.
Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a look back at the civil rights movement through the lens of a photographer who saw it all.
And up next, a man who made a mint out of telling us what was on the tube.
This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Walter Annenberg, one of the richest men in the country, the man behind "TV Guide," among other magazines, died today. Mr. Annenberg was 94. His is not a rags-to-riches story in the classic sense, though his father's was, with a twist: It went rags to riches, to jail.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): Walter Annenberg's father landed in this country from East Prussia, not only penniless, but barefoot. His shoes had washed overboard in the stormy passage across the Atlantic.
Still, in all, within a few decades, the elder Annenberg was a multimillionaire and a jailed tax evader from whom his son inherited a passel of troubles, a huge debt to Uncle Sam, and the daily racing form, among other newspapers.
Then Walter Annenberg dreamed up a couple of publications on his own. There was "Seventeen" magazine, the country's first magazine for teenage girls.
And there was "TV Guide," the jewel in the crown of what would be the Annenberg media empire.
Having spent years making good, restoring the family fortune and the family name, Annenberg spent years doing good. Giving away billions, mostly to large, educational institutions. There are the Annenberg schools of communications at the University of Pennsylvania and at UCLA.
But then he gave $100 million to a small institution. The prep school he attended in the 1920s. And his billion dollar art collection -- well, he gave that to the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Walter Annenberg had the ear of presidents from Dwight Eisenhower on.
He served as Richard Nixon's ambassador to Great Britain. Pretty remarkable for a man whose father fetched up on these shores shoeless, made a fortune, then died in disgrace not long after leaving a federal prison.
ANNENBERG: I've had the best out of this country. I owe it a great deal.
BROWN: Whatever else American success stories may be, they are rarely simple.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Mr. Annenberg was 94. A few other stories making news around the country, beginning on Wall Street. Something we could use a bit more of this new quarter: buying.
Stocks soared about $300 billion in market value created in the process. Seems like a lot of money to me. Several reasons floated about, included decent earnings and Iraq's agreement with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Or, it could just be that the markets have been beaten down enough to draw investors back in.
In Montana today, freedom for a man we talked about last night on the program. Jimmy Ray Bromgard, who spent 15 years in prison for allegedly raping an 8-year-old girl. He was let go after DNA tests cleared him. Prosecutors are asking for a review of other cases involving the state crime lab expert in Bromgard's case. They say he gave testimony that did not hold up scientifically.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the photographer who captured the stories of the civil rights movement up close. That's a little bit later.
Next, we talk with Senator Chuck Hagel about his views on Iraq.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, we can't seem to avoid the Iraq issue no matter where we turn today. More now on the domestic side of the story. You heard the president earlier on the program today pushing for a strong show of support from the Congress, and taking some exception with a compromise that's being floated out there. The head count still shows him getting much of what he wants but there remain a tough bipartisan kernel of doubt.
And among those speaking up, is Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who yesterday issued a strong warning against going it alone in Iraq.
We talked to the senator earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Senator, do you think we are at a point where war is inevitable, that the administration has committed itself to a course and it can't really pull back without losing face?
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: No, I don't think we are committed to an inevitable course of war. I think the president's speech to the United Nations three weeks ago was really the turning point on that.
He appropriately went before the United Nations, placed the Iraqi issue before the United Nations. I thought gave his best speech he's given since he's been president. We are working the diplomatic ground with the United Nations, with the Security Council, with our friends and allies, and I don't think it is inevitable that we go to war.
Are the clouds there? Yes, they are. The president needs a resolution. Which he will get. And needs the cooperation of our allies., hopefully the United Nations will be with us on this, to prepare us in the event that that is the last alternative left.
BROWN: I want to -- just one more question on this -- I want to try to get a couple other things done.
The impact on the one hand, the president goes to the United Nations, says, We want to work with you, but then almost in the same breath the administration says, But if we have to go it alone we will, which sounds a bit -- a little bit like, We'll take our ball and go home.
HAGEL: That's a concern I have had. I think a number of members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have had.
I think the president has to be careful if he does not undercut his strong high-ground diplomatic position here, all the good that he gained from that U.N. speech.
It is important that we play this through. The inspections, working with our allies and then, in the end, if there is no other option, then war, then we're prepared to do that.
But I do think we have to be careful here not to undercut a strong position that he has been able to, I think, cut out for himself and our own country, in going before the United Nations and reaching out for cooperation.
BROWN: In your speech yesterday, you quoted the columnist Thomas Friedman saying this is a war of choice. I wonder if the administration would agree with that, because it seems to me that the administration's position is that the national security of the country requires this action to be taken if there is -- if there's no diplomatic settlement.
HAGEL: I can't speak for the administration, nor their interpretation of Mr. Friedman's column or my speech that I gave yesterday, but I agree with Tom Friedman in that this is a matter of choice, because we have some options here. We must exhaust those options. And in the end, maybe there won't be any options left, other than the alternative of a military operation to force Saddam Hussein to give up what he has already pledged and agreed to give up, and that is weapons of mass destruction.
BROWN: Senator, just a final question. I think it would not be unfair say you were, if not the first voice, among the very first voices to speak cautiously about the possibility of a war with Iraq. I'm curious if your own experience as a young man in Vietnam shaped the decision, not so much your position, but a belief that the thing had to be debated pretty thoroughly?
HAGEL: Oh, I don't think there's any question, Aaron, that it has. I don't consider myself a guardian for the spirit of the 58,000 men and women whose names are registered on the Vietnam Veteran Memorial Wall in Washington, but I do believe I owe this country, and certainly the people who put me in office, some judgment here. Some reasoned process.
If we are to commit this nation to war, that's serious business. It could end up in great tragedy all around.
If we go to war, I hope it doesn't. I hope that we are able to fulfill the commitments that we are making in a way that minimizes death and destruction that war brings. But we can't gamble on that.
I am now where I am and I need to work this through. Each member of Congress needs to take this seriously. Am I any wiser than other members of Congress because of my Vietnam veteran experience? Of course not.
But I am touched in ways, with my own experience, that many members are not touched in. So I try to apply that, Aaron, to a judgment, but that's not the only dynamic of my judgment.
BROWN: Senator, we, as I said to you before we start, we appreciate your time. A lot -- I know a lot of people are pulling at you in lots of different directions these days, and to spend five or six minutes with us is much appreciated.
Thank you and good luck.
HAGEL: Thank you, Aaron.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel on NEWSNIGHT.
Next on the program, the civil rights movement through the eyes of a man who saw it and photographed it all. Nice closing piece tonight.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Finally from us tonight, bearing witness to the Civil Rights Era with camera in hand. It seems our week to remember those typical days. Last night, James Meredith on the 40th anniversary of what one person called the last battle of the Civil War -- the rioting that preceded Mr. Meredith's enrollment at Ole Miss University.
And tonight it's Ernest Withers. Mr. Withers shot some of the most memorable and important pictures of that time. You'll recognize some of them. They are history many of you will recall. You probably don't know much about the man who shot them, which was fine with him, but not -- we confess -- to us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (SINGING)
TONY DECANEAS, DIRECTOR, PANOPTICON GALLERY: I think one of the most powerful images is the image of Martin Luther King being arrested at Medgar Evers' funeral -- the expression on his face is so pained. I knew the image, I'd seen it in "LIFE" magazine, probably, or "TIME" -- and yet there had never been a connection between that and Ernest Withers.
And it turns out that Ernest often times had exposed rolls of film to UPI and AP stringers they would get the byline and Ernest got his money and he was happy with that arrangement. Was never envious of their fame. To him the message getting out was more important.
ERNEST WITHERS, PHOTOGRAPHER: This is the very beginning of the "I'm a Man" labor.
The black newspapers that didn't get white service, they hired me to go throughout the South when racial incidents occurred. The murder of Emmitt Till, the original bus ride, Martin Luther King. Even protests within our own city.
DECANEAS: A lot of Ernest's photographs are good, simply because he had the courage to take them. There were times when Ernest got beat up, his cameras were smashed, his film was destroyed. It never, ever got in the way of taking pictures.
WITHERS: Although I was frightened -- that is something in terms of the level of responsibility that you have to stick to it until the end.
BEVERLY ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE DIR., NATL. CIVIL RIGHTS MUSEUM: I believe he probably has somewhat comprehensive body of work on the movement today.
When you look at his pictures you feel as if you where there. Because he captures sort of everyday faces and images in such a powerful way that it places you right next to the person.
WITHERS: ... Elvis Presley.
DECANEAS: He also photographed the entire music scene in Memphis. He has pictures of Elvis Presley. Kind of cracked the myth that Elvis wasn't greatful to the black community. He was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with black musicians. Ernest has the photographs to prove it.
His photographs documenting the Negro Baseball Leagues -- something that existed because of segregation and no longer exists because segregation was banned.
ROBERTSON: That's a big one.
I was the baby in the stroller with my dad. My family was very active. You had to demonstrate for my rights -- the future rights of the next generation. What I find striking is the facial expressions of the police officers. It's not one of, We're all glad we're out here together. I've had a lot friends and family that have seen photographs, and I hope when they look at the picture, they realize where we were in '61 at a people. Where we've come to today. The courage that it's taken to come this far. So it gives me pride.
I think it takes many, many years to understand the value of history and for us to understand the value of his work and for us to understand the value of the movement.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think of you very often when I see your work around -- how are you?
WITHERS: Fine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You look wonderful.
WITHERS: I can't find the fountain of youth! I'm looking for it.
DECANEAS: He lovers being a photographer, and he loves life. And the two just coincide. Fortunately, he's got long life genes and he's living to enjoy it.
WITHERS: I've made more than 6 million to 8 million pictures in a lifetime, and that's a lot of pictures. Each day that I'm Ernest Withers the photographer, I'll be expected to make pictures. So I'll be making pictures until I get 105.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: That's the work of NEWSNIGHT producer Sarah Coil (ph). Nicely done.
And that's the program for tonight. We're all back tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. We hope you'll join us as well. Until then, I'm Aaron Brown in New York. Good night from all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
on Security Council to Draft New Resolution>
