Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

U.S., Britain Try to Round Up Security Council Votes; White House Frustrated With France, Blix; ISI Briefs Reporters on Mohammed's Capture

Aired March 10, 2003 - 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, everyone.
We were thinking abut soldiers today, more than 200,000 Americans, another 40,000 or so British soldiers in the deserts of Kuwait, on ships in the Gulf and in front of computer terminals in Qatar. And surely they, like the rest of us, are wondering when the war will begin, if the war will begin. But unlike most of us, their stakes are much higher.

Surely the know that both at home and around the world there are plenty of people who disagree that war is the only option. Because in this day and age, even in the remote Kuwaiti desert, they are likely to have seen anti-war protests on TV. So what must they think? When they see the demonstrations at home, do they see it as a great exercise in democracy, the very thing they may be called upon to bring to Iraq? Or do they see it as a lack of support? They are, for the most part, too young to remember Vietnam, but do they fear they're about to become the villains of the anti-war movement? And that did happen during Vietnam and it was a great tragedy.

It is decidedly American to challenge the wisdom of the government. Given history, it would be hard to think of anything more American. But should the tone and manner change when so many young and men women are likely to be in danger? That is one question we'll take a look at tonight.

But the road to that question begins with a few others. First the latest on diplomacy.

Richard Roth is where he almost always is, at the United Nations. Richard, a headline from you tonight.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the U.S. and Britain want more time to round up votes. The swinging six want more time to swing uncommitted, while giving Iraq more time. And instead of the usual droning speeches at the Security Council, a debate on drones -- Aaron.

BROWN: Richard, thank you.

On to the White House and the strategy that is constantly evolving in small but important ways. Our senior White House correspondent, John King, has the watch tonight. John, a headline. JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, both the president and the secretary of state quite busy today trying to round up the votes. But tonight the White House concedes it is still far short and, because of that dynamic, increasingly complaints about the French and increasing irritation about the chief weapons inspector -- Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you.

To Pakistan now and Tom Mintier on the videophone. He got a new perspective on the arrest of al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. So Tom, a headline.

TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, an incredible story tonight. Pakistan's supersecret spy agency, the ISI, opening their doors and giving reporters a briefing and look at the arrest of Shaikh Mohammed. This was a videotape that they made and they edited and they showed it to reporters inside their headquarters yesterday. When we asked for a copy, they first laughed at us and then said, We'll see what we can do. But so far, we don't have the tape.

BROWN: Tom, thank you. We look forward to hearing what you did see. Back with all of your shortly.

Also coming up tonight, Monday, the 10th of March, it has long been feared that Iraq may try to destroy its own oil fields if there is a U.S. invasion. Now the U.S. says it has evidence that Iraq plans to do just that. Barbara Starr will report the story from the Pentagon tonight.

And we'll look at the lonely place the British prime minister has found himself in and we'll talk with "Newsweek" diplomatic correspondent Richard Wolffe as well.

And a lot of young kids love it, including some of the young Americans in Kuwait. A drink that helps you stay awake and a business that's on the rise. That's "Segment Seven" tonight.

All that to come in the hour ahead. But we begin at the United Nations. Maybe what we've seen over the last few weeks, the arm twisting and hands out diplomacy is what always goes on behind the scenes. But it reminds us of the old saying about not watching sausage being made. It's not appetizing. And a lot of sausage is being made over at the United Nations.

Ideas are being floated around, veiled threats are being made, and today a pretty good dustup of what was in the inspectors' report to the Security Council on Friday and what was left out.

Reporting for us tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): It seemed the only question remaining at the United Nations Security Council, when's the vote?

JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMB. TO THE U.N.: Not tomorrow.

ROTH: The U.S. had threatened to call for a vote as early as Tuesday but the timetable is slipping, probably to the end of the week. That's because the U.S. is still seeking the required nine votes in favor without a veto from France, Russia or China. The undecided six countries on the Council huddled, hoping to find a compromise between the permanent powers. They feel a rush to vote on war and peace.

ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS, ANGOLAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: We are not yet there. We are not yet there. We're not yet raising hands. We're not sitting in the Council voting.

ROTH: Some of the uncommitted members would like to give Iraq a month to cooperate with specific disarmament orders, way beyond the proposed U.S. resolution deadline of March 17. The British may not want to extend the deadline that far, but are moving towards a set of tests for Iraq, based on the judgment of weapons inspectors.

Inside the evening session, the chief inspector, Hans Blix, was questioned by the U.S. about the recent discovery in Iraq, of an unmanned aerial vehicle which is capable of spraying biological and chemical weapons.

Blix declined to specifically highlight the finding in his public briefing to the Security Council last Friday. U.S. officials were upset that Blix did not mention the discovery and now seek to tell swing voters.

JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: It would appear that this unmanned aerial vehicle that was discovered would have the kind of characteristics that would be of great concern.

ROTH: Diplomats say the U.S. did not attack Blix behind closed doors, but asked for his strategy for handling the drone issue. Blix assured the Council he would never withhold information. He stated though, no matter its flying ranger, the drone is a violation of U.N. resolutions.

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: They should have declared it, as I said, yes. They should have declared it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Asked about frustration by U.S. officials that he downplayed the drone discovery, Blix said -- quote -- "everybody is trying to squeeze us to get as much mileage out of us as possible."

Inside the Security Council, tomorrow at the beginning of the day, without a planned vote, speeches by all the members of the United Nations, any one who wants to comment on Iraq -- Aaron.

BROWN: Are the nonaligned countries talking simply to each other or are they negotiating with the French side and the American side, if you will, to try and find the common ground? ROTH: They speak for many reasons. They speak for national consumption back home. They speak out of frustration that many of them are naturally not on the Security Council and they watch and wait and see the battle going on. And they also speak, hopefully, en masse, according to them, to maybe sway one of the undecideds, to keep the pressure on. And most of them think President Saddam Hussein has shown enough cooperation to warrant more time.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. Richard at the U.N. tonight.

The French and Russian views seemed to harden. France's president went on television tonight and made it plain: France, he said, will veto any resolution that leads to war.

Discouraging but not unexpected at the White House, where personal diplomacy was again the order of the day, even if it means compromising some.

Here again, our senior White House correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): A day of urgent telephone diplomacy and a smile despite the enormous stakes.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If the United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein.

KING: But if the White House loses at the Security Council this week, that other international body would be an ad hoc coalition assembled by President Bush in defiance of the United Nations.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired.

KING: So every effort is being made to round up the votes. This conversation with President Jiang Zemin of China, one of many urgent calls placed by the president.

In addition to China, Mr. Bush's call list included the leaders of Japan, South Africa, Turkey, Senegal, Nigeria, Oman and Spain. Of that list, China and Spain are Security Council members.

Secretary of State Powell had lunch with Guinea's foreign minister and phoned Security Council members Angola, Mexico and Pakistan as well as Security Council allies Spain and Britain.

With the calls came some flexibility. Sources tell CNN U.S. officials are open to adding specific disarmament demands on Iraq and perhaps even moving the March 17 deadline back a few days if it brings a Security Council majority.

FLEISCHER: There are ideas that are being explored and looked at and so it is too soon to say what the final document that will be voted on will include.

KING: But the administration says it is adamant that the Council will vote this week on a resolution clearing the way for war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Now, glaringly missing from the president's call list, the French president, Jacques Chirac. It's been more than a month since those two leaders spoke, Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac. White house officials now say there could be ramifications to the relationship if France exercises that veto on the Council. The public line here at the White House is it is not over until the votes are counted, but privately many officials say the best Mr. Bush might hope for is some sort of a moral victory, to get majority support on the Council but have the resolution defeated because of a veto from France -- Aaron.

BROWN: Is there a drop dead date here that you know of, where they'll negotiate up to that date but no farther?

KING: As of just a few moments ago, senior officials tell us the vote will be this week. They say they don't have a drop dead date as to how far Mr. Bush would be willing to extend the March 17 deadline, although they insist it is only a few days, perhaps a week, some officials say, if it would get you the votes.

But in terms of the vote, they say the president said he wanted the vote this week and he will not move from that. If there was progress being made in the negotiations, perhaps they would be flexible, but they don't think they're going to get that far. They think the vote will be this week and if they had to bet right now, they think they're going to lose.

BROWN: John, thank you. Senior White House correspondent, John King.

More now on personal diplomacy, or in this case, the lack of it between the two men. The American secretary of state and the French foreign minister. And while it is tempting to personalize the situation, the gap between France and the United States cannot entirely be blamed on bad chemistry, though better chemistry might have narrowed the divide.

The irony, of course, is that's precisely what many expected of these two men. Here's CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin battling across the diplomatic divine. On one side is Villepin, strongly opposed to war, on the other, Powell, equally convinced military force is the only option left. With a U.N. Security Council vote only days away, time for diplomacy is fast running out.

Villepin this week traveling to Angola, Cameroon and Guinea in a single day, personally lobbying the leaders of three of the six undecided members of the Security Council.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): I think we share the same concern, put the United Nations at the heart of any solution.

KOPPEL: Powell, hosting Guinea's foreign minister at a private State Department lunch, adamantly denying the diplomacy had become personal.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm in no competition with Dominique de Villepin. He does what he has to do and I do what I have to do. We are both working for causes we believe in.

KOPPEL: Villepin, who is fluent in English, and a former spokesman at the French embassy in Washington, was expected by many to be pro-American. While Powell, known for his moderate views, was Europe's hope the U.S. would work in a multilateral framework.

PHILIP GORDON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: One of the striking things is, as we watch Villepin and Powell go head to head on this issue is how far we've come from two years ago when they were both appointed, and everyone was assuming and believing that these were the two who were going to repair the French-American relationship.

KOPPEL: Both men are described as incredibly charismatic and loyal to their presidents.

(on camera): And Powell, a retired four-star general, will fight for his commander-in-chief because he's loyal to the system, while Villepin, because of a close personal relationship with French President Jacques Chirac, which dates back years.

Andrea Koppel, CNN, at the State Department.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: One more note out of the State Department tonight. A senior U.S. diplomat has resigned his job in protest to the U.S. policy on Iraq. In a letter to Secretary of State Powell, John Brown (ph) wrote that he couldn't support President Bush's "war plans," in quotes, and that the president has failed to explain the costs of the war and to take international public opinion into account.

And now to the if war should come portion of the broadcast. Expect much more of this in the days ahead. Tonight, the headline is troubling developments in Iraq's oil fields. It's reported by Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There are signs Iraq has moved explosives into its northern oil fields near Kirkuk, U.S. officials tell CNN. That would set the stage for a possible environmental disaster if Saddam Hussein orders the 500 northern oil wells destroyed. At the White House, officials declined to confirm specifics, but noted it's reminiscent of Iraq's destruction of Kuwait's oil fields as troops retreated to Baghdad.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If we enter into hostilities, this will be a pattern that will be repeated many times, just as in 1991.

STARR: U.S. officials say there is also activity in the south, at the Rumailah oil fields near Kuwait. Iraqi infantry troops have been seen moving through the area, which contains 1,000 oil wells. Officials confirmed weeks ago that large amounts of explosives have been moved south.

But in the north, the new intelligence about explosives at Kirkuk, the first indicator that the Iraqi regime will go to the ultimate lengths to keep those oil fields from local Kurdish control.

The Pentagon says it could cost $50 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Revenue from oil now seen as vital to financing the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. Oil experts believe Iraq will have problems rejoining the post-war international oil market.

GEORGE BERANEK, PETROLEUM FINANCE CO.: That's going to depend not only on whether there's any damage to the infrastructure during a war, but how stable a government is and how stable the civil situation is in Iraq after a war.

STARR (on camera): If there is war, U.S. troops are now poised to move quickly to both the northern and southern oil fields to keep Saddam Hussein's government from blowing them up.

Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Well, all over the Mideast, there are small signs of the increasing tension, as war appears to come nearer. The families of U.S. diplomats in both Oman and the United Arab Emirates were told today they could leave those countries at government expense because of increased security concerns.

In Iraq itself, reality appears to be sinking in as well, not necessarily in government circles, which operates in a sort of reality distortion fields, but in the homes and in the schools. Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If a bomb fell on our school, the teacher tells her class, remember, we have lots of windows. No ordinary lessons now. These teenaged girls being prepared for war. In the schoolyard, training how to survive bombing. Teachers in this Baghdad school hoping these lessons will save lives.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course, we taught them the first aid, how to treat injured people.

ROBERTSON: At the weekly Iraqi briefing on weapons inspections, confirmation the country readying for war.

GEN. HOUSSAM AMIN, NATL. MONITORING DIRECTORATE.: We are preparing ourself for a war, at the same time we are working to resolve the outstanding issues with the UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

ROBERTSON: Issues including the destruction of Al Samoud two missiles, another six destroyed this day.

AMIN: We are directing the destruction of Al Samoud 2 to give the opportunity to our friends in the Security Council to defend our case.

ROBERTSON: Amin indicating Iraq will do enough to head off a U.S.- and British-backed U.N. resolution demanding disarmament by March 17th.

AMIN: We think that these attempts will be refused by the other states.

ROBERTSON: In schoolyards across Iraq, preparations for war continue as officials realize even U.N. support may not head off war.

(on camera): While counting on divisions at the U.N. to slow moves to war, Iraqi officials say they are considering one more initiative -- inviting Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the two U.N. weapons chiefs to Baghdad for talks on March 17, the day the deadline expires.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, more on the diplomatic dance on Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair facing a revolt by a member of his own cabinet, and we'll talk with Richard Wolffe, the chief diplomatic correspondent of "Newsweek" magazine about the ongoing negotiations over a U.N. vote as well. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: When all is said and done, the most interesting person in this whole Iraq story may turn out to be the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. For most of his political life, he's been accused of keeping one finger to the wind, never taking a tough stand, only the popular one. They won't be saying that anymore.

Public opinion at home is largely against him, sometimes viciously so. And now comes the threat of rebellion from within his own cabinet. No wonder he's working desperately to find some middle ground at the U.N. Here's CNN's Robin Oakley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Trouble enough for Tony Blair at the U.N.. Now there's more closer to home. Clare Short, the international development secretary in his cabinet, has accused him of being deeply reckless with the authority of the U.N., with his government and with his own future. If he helps to invade Iraq without securing a second U.N. Security Council resolution, she told BBC Radio, she'll quit the Blair cabinet.

CLARE SHORT, BRITISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY: If there is not U.N. authority for military action or if there is not U.N. authority for the reconstruction of the country, I will not uphold the breach of international law or this undermining of the U.N. and I will resign from the government.

OAKLEY: Blair has already faced a huge rebellion, with 122 of his 400 Labour Party MPs voting against him on Iraq. Clare Short's words can only make things worse.

DOUG HENDERSON, FORMER LABOR MINISTER: I think that will encourage a lot of other people in the party who have kept their head down, especially members of parliament. So I would expect there -- or anticipate there to be a larger vote next time. Hard to put a figure on it, perhaps over 150.

OAKLEY: The outspoken minister was swiftly rebuked by loyalist ministers.

ALAN MILBURN, BRITISH HEALTH MINISTER: I have to say I was somewhat surprised by what Clare had to say and her manner of saying it. Not least because I would have thought she would have wanted to raise those issues face to face with the prime minister in the first instance, rather than through the media.

OAKLEY: But why did Blair, after speaking to her twice, keep Clare Short in his cabinet, when in the past such disloyalty would have brought instant dismissal? With polls finding only 15 percent of the public ready to back a war not sanctioned by the U.N., the rebels believe they know why.

GRAHAM ALLEN, FORMER LABOR MINISTER: Clare is only saying what most people in the parliamentary Labour Party and, indeed, most people in the country are saying that we shouldn't rush headlong into war on George W. Bush's timetable.

OAKLEY (on camera): Clare Short clearly isn't long for the Blair cabinet. If it goes to war without U.N. backing, she'll quit. But if he does secure that crucial second U.N. Security Council resolution and succeeds in a swift action, her desertion at a key moment won't be quickly forgotten.

The key question is, how many others will follow her threatened example? Robin Oakley, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Mr. Blair's predicament is not his and his alone. "Newsweek" diplomatic correspondent Richard Wolffe writes about the price of friendship, what the United States has to do and say to help support his loyal friends. Mr. Wolffe joins us from Washington tonight. Good to have you on the program.

RICHARD WOLFFE, DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, NEWSWEEK: Good to be with you.

BROWN: How much of what we see playing out here in New York at the United Nations and on the phone at the White House and the State Department is to try and help Prime Minister Blair?

WOLFFE: Almost entirely, I'd have to say. You know, my conversations with administration officials have made it completely clear that there is no real need for the U.S. to get the second resolution, that this really is something that Blair has pushed very hard for. And to be honest, it goes right back to September when the president went to the United Nations in the first place. British officials worked very closely with Secretary of State Colin Powell to get the White House to go to the U.N. in the first place. They really need that right now with that second resolution. It's hard to overstate just how important this is for Tony Blair.

BROWN: Does the administration, when you talk to administration sources, do they at all regret the path they've chosen? Do they feel they have been outfoxed along the way, in an effort to help Mr. Blair?

WOLFFE: You don't hear that right now. That's partly because they're playing it very tough. Tough with the Brits as well, who are often complaining behind the scenes, of course, that they don't have more time, but they've had to really kind of screw out this extra time from the White House. The administration hasn't been so undiplomatic as to say, look, this is all a big mess that the Brits have got us into.

However, there is still sniping at Colin Powell. There are people out there who said, you know, this guy has been reluctant about war from the beginning. He doesn't believe in this whole process. At the moment, though, they're holding the fire just a little down on Tony Blair, because they can see, quite honestly, what kind of risks he's taking.

BROWN: How much -- well, in Britain and I guess elsewhere, too, how much of the resistance to the American argument is, in a sense, personal? It is that they do not like the president?

WOLFFE: That's a huge factor. In some ways, President Bush has come to embody many aspects of America that people don't like. The kind of rhetoric he uses, sense of perhaps arrogance. They also confer on American presidents the characteristics or the prejudices they have about America. For instance, they question his intellect or they say that he's acting for cynical reasons. So it's quite a complex personal relationship. And maybe a uniquely personal relationship that Bush has -- that American presidents have generally with the rest of the world.

BROWN: But they see a contrast between the candidate George Bush who talked about a strong but humble foreign policy and the execution of the foreign policy, which around the world is not seen as especially humble?

WOLFFE: People made a view of him in the campaign, where I followed him very closely. And they haven't really changed it. They haven't really seen the development, the transition of George W. Bush through September 11, how he gained in stature in America. They really haven't kind of bought that idea that he's got this kind of a mission, that he really feels seriously the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

BROWN: About a minute left. Let's try and do two things. Do you think that it is reasonable at this point to assume that the British and the Americans will find the nine votes they need at the Security Council?

WOLFFE: I don't think it's reasonable at all. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't put money on it. And administration officials have always said the votes will come around. They haven't so far. I think we'd see more wavering on the side of America if that was going to happen.

BROWN: And is there -- in your talking to people, do you have a sense that there is any -- any compromise the American side and the British side would accept that could close the deal with those countries that are wavering?

WOLFFE: Well, there are compromises that the British would accept. The dirty secret of all of this is that the British are a bit closer, in fact, far closer to the French than appearances would allow you to believe. But I don't think those compromises are going to come from the White House. And the March 17 date, for instance, the Brits wanted to push that out. The White House said no.

BROWN: Richard, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you.

WOLFFE: Thank you.

BROWN: Richard Wolffe, the chief diplomatic correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, more on the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda operative. New information released by the Pakistanis on when and how he was captured. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Sometimes a story can make you shake with frustration for what might have been or, in this case, for what might have been prevented.

A report in "The New York Times" that the FBI was close to catching Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, considered a key planner of 9/11, years before the attack. He got away when officials in Qatar reportedly tipped him off, something even harder to take when we saw that "The Times" continue to run, even now, almost now a year and a half later, obituaries of those who were killed on 9/11.

Well, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's luck did run out in Pakistan earlier this month.

And we go back to Tom Mintier, who got a glimpse, literally, of how the capture went down -- Tom.

MINTIER: Aaron, it was an incredible day.

We were invited by the ISI, Pakistan's super-secret intelligence agency, to their headquarters for a briefing and a viewing of a videotape. The videotape lasted about seven or eight minutes. And it showed police officers going in and making the arrest. Now, this was almost like a police-based reality show. It was an edited videotape. It wasn't the raw tape. It was edited quite well.

They had several angles of the officers going in and making the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Now, we did not see his face in the video, but they said that the portions that were edited out indeed showed his face. We did see the officers going in, confiscating items inside his room, placing handcuffs on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and taking him away.

So, it was incredible that this video existed. It was incredible that the ISI showed it to us. We asked for a copy. And so far, they have said: No, not yet. We'll think about it.

BROWN: Well, that part is not incredible. Why did they show it, any idea?

MINTIER: I think they showed it because the news of the arrest came from somewhere else. And they were extremely keen to show reporters what they were doing in their counterterrorism efforts, those they had arrested, those they turned over to the U.S. and other nations for investigation.

They went out of their way to show us what they considered to be the hierarchy of al Qaeda. They also told us that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had nothing to say for the first couple of days of interrogation, except to nod his head that he was who they said he would be. After two days, they say, he started talking and revealed to them that he says he had a meeting with Osama bin Laden somewhere in the month of December, but he would not provide any details of that meeting, who else was there, what was on the agenda, where it was held.

So the interrogation continues. But the information that they're getting from what he left behind apparently is quite good for investigators. They say, at one point, that they were months behind Osama bin Laden, then days behind, and now maybe even hours behind, but no update on when they might arrest him, when they might take into custody, or where he might exactly be.

BROWN: Did you see any Americans in the video, anyone you could identify as an American?

MINTIER: No. It's difficult to say, because this video was edited. All we saw were Pakistanis.

But it's interesting that the briefing at the very top of the video was conducted in English for the officers. You see a roomful of Pakistanis coordinated on this raid in English. And then you see the head of the ISI checking out their bulletproof vests before they load up in a truck and go conduct the raid. So, obviously, this videotape was distributed with the intent to show that it was only Pakistanis who were involved. They said there were no foreign what they termed foreign nationals on the ground conducting the raid, but they did receive assistance from the U.S. in electronic intelligence.

BROWN: Tom Mintier, thank you -- Tom Mintier in Pakistan, who saw the tape.

Other stories to get in before we break here: The man who would run a war in the Gulf starts off our look at stories making news around the country. General Tommy Franks heads back to Qatar tonight. The Pentagon says not to read anything special into that. Also, today, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says he has decided to take no official action on allegations the general jeopardized classified information during official trips in which his wife accompanied him. He promised to be more careful of security secrets in the future.

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware left a hospital in Florida today without his gallbladder. He was vacationing with his family in Fort Myers. On Saturday, the senator was suffering stomach pains, so he went to the hospital. And yesterday, he had the surgery. He's expected to be just fine.

And another funeral today in Arlington National Cemetery -- this would have been astronaut Laurel Clark's 42nd birthday. She was laid to rest beside two crew mates from Columbia, not far from the memorial to the Challenger astronauts. She leaves behind a husband and an 8- year-old son.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT: another major anti-war push outside the United Nations. We'll talk to two of those involved: actress Jessica Lange, former Congressman Tom Andrews.

And later, in segment seven: the new hot drink preferred by American soldiers.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT: on the front lines against the war. We'll talk with actress Jessica Lange and former Congressman Tom Andrews.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We heard about someone who had this to say about the war in Iraq: "I'll support anything my president does." The strange thing is, she was talking about Martin Sheen, who, of course, isn't a real president. He just plays one on TV.

There's quite a debate going on about celebrities and public opinion. Should media give them a platform? There is no settling that here, so we'll just say this. If someone is active on either side, celebrity or not, they deserve the opportunity to be heard. So tonight, someone you've probably heard of and someone you probably haven't: actress Jessica Lange and former Congressman Tom Andrews. They join us tonight.

They joined earlier today in delivering a petition to the United Nations, signed, they say, by more than one million people all opposed to a war with Iraq.

Good to have you both with us.

JESSICA LANGE, ACTRESS: Thanks.

TOM ANDREWS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, WIN WITHOUT WAR: Thank you.

BROWN: Let me -- I got a note today, an e-mail today. It was actually very calm and thoughtful. And one of the things the writer asked was: "What do you think that these 250,000 American troops overseas think when they see these anti-war demonstrations going on?"

LANGE: Well, that hearkens back to another time. I'm sure that we all remember, with Vietnam, the opposition to that particular war and the effect that that had on the servicemen there.

I think there's a difference, however, in that we have not gone to war yet. And I think what the demonstrators around the world are saying is, it is not inevitable. It does not have to be inevitable. There is still time for us to try to negotiate this peacefully. And what I feel very strongly about is that I don't think anybody who is demonstrating against this war is demonstrating against the men and women who are serving in the armed services, obviously not.

I mean, I have full -- I am in full support of these men and women who are there. I would love to see them come home.

BROWN: Sure.

LANGE: I would love to see them not be put in harm's way. And I would love to see them not have to be responsible for the death and destruction that is looming ahead. So, I feel very strongly that these protests are not against these people. They are not against the men and women that are serving.

BROWN: Sure.

But just -- I don't want to spend all our time on this, but I thought it was an interesting note and it was thoughtfully written. And it's fair to bring it up. Do you worry that these 19-, 18-year- olds over there, 22-year-olds, see this and wonder what the folks back home are thinking?

ANDREWS: Well, Aaron, I hope that they're seeing democracy in action, democracy at its finest.

And, of course, as Jessica is saying, we want to have Americans come home and have them all come home and have them all be safe. And we do not want to see us involved in a war, in an invasion, and a multi-year occupation. We're talking about up to 10 years of a military occupation, taking a sovereign Arab country in the most volatile region in the world and having a military occupation of that country, all when we can control and disarm Saddam Hussein without killing innocent Iraqis.

BROWN: But we haven't.

ANDREWS: We have.

BROWN: Well, no, we haven't for 12 years. This is the argument the president makes, certainly, and supporters make, is that, for 12 years, there have been these resolutions. And nobody -- I don't think anybody on either side of this conversation believes that the guy has disarmed.

ANDREWS: Well, here's the untold story, Aaron, of this.

We took out 95 percent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction with those weapons inspectors. Now, that's more weapons of mass destruction than our entire military took out during the Gulf War. Right now, we have Al Samoud 2 missiles being destroyed as we speak, mustard gas being destroyed as we speak. We're going in to find those V.X. and anthrax supplies that were supposedly destroyed in a disposal until that we're now investigating with advanced technology.

This process is working. And the inspectors have said to us: Look, this is significant progress. It's heartening to see this being done and made. Give us the time to complete the job. And we're saying, we think that that's very reasonable. If we can disarm him without killing innocent Iraqis or putting our men and women at risk, why not? Why not?

BROWN: Do you think the president is being honest?

LANGE: I think he's -- I don't think he has been honest with the American people. No, I don't. I think it's a lot of political rhetoric. I think...

BROWN: What do you think he's dishonest about or not honest about?

LANGE: Well, first of all, they keep presenting all the reasons that we have to resort to force there -- and, I mean, as we have discussed many times in these debates, that none of those have been supported to justify these kind of ends.

I personally object to the kind of moral platform that he uses now, this kind of religious hubris, that it is grounds of -- that, in his words, in the great moral tradition of our country. I find that inexcusable, to use that kind of rhetoric on the American people. ANDREWS: And, of course, Aaron, he hasn't leveled with the American people.

BROWN: On?

ANDREWS: He hasn't told us how much this could cost. He says that, well, we'll get to that later.

BROWN: Well, I'll give you a number, $90 billion.

ANDREWS: OK.

BROWN: Does that change the argument?

ANDREWS: No.

I'll tell you, if he would look at the American people and say, look, it's going to cost us $90. Most say hundreds of billions of dollars. A Yale economist just told us $1.3 trillion. That will drive this economy into the worst recession it's seen in some time. And when Americans -- here's the thing.

If you look at the polls, Aaron, you'll find out that the more Americans know about this, the more they're opposed to it. And I think the reason that we're not getting the straight answers from the administration and perhaps why the Congress, frankly, are not insisting upon straight answers is because the more you know, the more you don't like it. A five-year occupation, a 10-year occupation in one of the most dangerous parts of the world? Come on.

BROWN: Thank you both for coming in.

LANGE: Thanks.

BROWN: Nice to meet you both.

ANDREWS: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you. Good luck.

We'll check morning papers from around the country, around the world -- that would be tomorrow morning's papers -- in a moment.

And later: the new drink of American soldiers. And, believe me, this is not your father's Coca-Cola.

But this is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And coming up next on NEWSNIGHT: morning papers, tomorrow morning's papers, from around the country and the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Time to check tomorrow morning's papers. You've got this now. I don't have to keep emphasizing that it's tomorrow morning's papers, tomorrow morning's papers from around the country and around the world, with and without glasses.

"Times of London": We talked about Tony Blair -- I'm over here -- Tony Blair and his problems. First of all, it's a picture of the prime minister. "Voters Reject Blair's Call to Arms." And then it has a poll. It's really ugly for Prime Minister Blair. That's the gist of it.

But the story I like, down at the bottom here: "Thomas Gets TV Psychologists All Steamed Up." This is Thomas the Tank Engine, OK? This psychologist says that watching kids -- or kids watching Thomas makes them violent. I always wondered why my daughter wants to crash a train every time she sees one.

"The Australian": "U.S. Searches for Smoking Gun," kind of a -- that's the tone of headlines in the international press, basically, today.

"Detroit Free Press": very good front-page story, I must say -- and did -- "War on Terror Faces First Trial." These are four young men who were arrested in the Detroit area. They go on trial. Will it be a boom or bust in the war on terrorism? Very nice take by the "Detroit Free Press" on that.

How we doing on time? OK.

"The Boston Herald," the president on the front page. "Talk to Me" is the headline.

And I'm going to do one more. We'll see.

Up at the top, "Chicago Sun-Times": "Norah Jones Forced to Move Out of Her House." "The New York Post" put a picture of this poor woman's house in the paper. And now she has to leave.

Segment seven in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We've been looking for a reason to run this story. And, today, one fell right into our lap.

It's about a new drink that some of the troops in Kuwait are said to be requesting, perfect for those long, dry nights they're facing, a drink that's jampacked with caffeine. We profiled the entrepreneur a while back who was making quite a splash with another group of young people, people who also need to stay wide awake, but for admittedly less weighty reasons, a business that's "On the Rise."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOBY BUPPERT, CEO, BAWLS GUARANA: Hi, I'm Hoby Buppert. And these are the headquarters for BAWLS Guarana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guarana. May I help you? BUPPERT: The product is basically a high-caffeine soft drink. There are no vitamins, no minerals. It won't make you healthy. It will just keep you up, up, up, up. The name BAWLS stands for Brazilian American Wild Life Society. Guarana, it only grows on vines. So, because they're in the rain forest, you can get guarana.

The guarana berry is very similar to the coffee bean. It contains a lot of caffeine. That's what we make the soft drink with. It contains about triple the caffeine of Coca-Cola.

And this is my office here. When I started this company, I was 23 years old. I did the concept as independent study my senior year at Cornell University. And after that, I had to get a job. So I put the business plan into action.

The most challenging part of really the whole thing, of course, was getting the financing. I went to the banks just about getting a loan.

So maybe he is selling more BAWLS and he is making more money off BAWLS than he is off the actual candy.

We've actually -- we've been pretty lucky. We've either doubled sales or more every year since we have started. Luckily, we have found a very strong niche within the computer gaming industry. You're talking about a market that's generated more sales than movies last year. So, it's really a great market to be a part of.

We're in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) zone in Manhattan. And what we have here tonight is a LAN party.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In order to play the games for so long, they need to stay up. They need to stay awake. BAWLS allows them to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jason, how many is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four BAWLS I had tonight. That doesn't sound right, but that's a lot of caffeine.

BUPPERT: We're now distributed in 31 states. Bottling facilities are in Newark, New Jersey, St. Louis, Missouri, and Los Angeles, California.

We're here at our bottling facility here in Hillside, New Jersey, where we bottle our BAWLS Guarana.

We produced just over a half-million cases this year. The bottles are coming from Germany. The caps come from Ecuador. And the guarana comes from Brazil.

Don't expect to get any shut-eye. In fact, don't even expect to blink. Special nonslip bottle for when your hands start shaking.

I can't tell you the number of people who said, this will never work, that, you're wasting your time. So, I think that it's really just something you really have to believe in yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love BAWLS. I really do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Now you can go to sleep, if you can go to sleep.

We're back here tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. Hope you are, too. Good night for 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





White House Frustrated With France, Blix; ISI Briefs Reporters on Mohammed's Capture>


Aired March 10, 2003 - 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, everyone.
We were thinking abut soldiers today, more than 200,000 Americans, another 40,000 or so British soldiers in the deserts of Kuwait, on ships in the Gulf and in front of computer terminals in Qatar. And surely they, like the rest of us, are wondering when the war will begin, if the war will begin. But unlike most of us, their stakes are much higher.

Surely the know that both at home and around the world there are plenty of people who disagree that war is the only option. Because in this day and age, even in the remote Kuwaiti desert, they are likely to have seen anti-war protests on TV. So what must they think? When they see the demonstrations at home, do they see it as a great exercise in democracy, the very thing they may be called upon to bring to Iraq? Or do they see it as a lack of support? They are, for the most part, too young to remember Vietnam, but do they fear they're about to become the villains of the anti-war movement? And that did happen during Vietnam and it was a great tragedy.

It is decidedly American to challenge the wisdom of the government. Given history, it would be hard to think of anything more American. But should the tone and manner change when so many young and men women are likely to be in danger? That is one question we'll take a look at tonight.

But the road to that question begins with a few others. First the latest on diplomacy.

Richard Roth is where he almost always is, at the United Nations. Richard, a headline from you tonight.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the U.S. and Britain want more time to round up votes. The swinging six want more time to swing uncommitted, while giving Iraq more time. And instead of the usual droning speeches at the Security Council, a debate on drones -- Aaron.

BROWN: Richard, thank you.

On to the White House and the strategy that is constantly evolving in small but important ways. Our senior White House correspondent, John King, has the watch tonight. John, a headline. JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, both the president and the secretary of state quite busy today trying to round up the votes. But tonight the White House concedes it is still far short and, because of that dynamic, increasingly complaints about the French and increasing irritation about the chief weapons inspector -- Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you.

To Pakistan now and Tom Mintier on the videophone. He got a new perspective on the arrest of al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. So Tom, a headline.

TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, an incredible story tonight. Pakistan's supersecret spy agency, the ISI, opening their doors and giving reporters a briefing and look at the arrest of Shaikh Mohammed. This was a videotape that they made and they edited and they showed it to reporters inside their headquarters yesterday. When we asked for a copy, they first laughed at us and then said, We'll see what we can do. But so far, we don't have the tape.

BROWN: Tom, thank you. We look forward to hearing what you did see. Back with all of your shortly.

Also coming up tonight, Monday, the 10th of March, it has long been feared that Iraq may try to destroy its own oil fields if there is a U.S. invasion. Now the U.S. says it has evidence that Iraq plans to do just that. Barbara Starr will report the story from the Pentagon tonight.

And we'll look at the lonely place the British prime minister has found himself in and we'll talk with "Newsweek" diplomatic correspondent Richard Wolffe as well.

And a lot of young kids love it, including some of the young Americans in Kuwait. A drink that helps you stay awake and a business that's on the rise. That's "Segment Seven" tonight.

All that to come in the hour ahead. But we begin at the United Nations. Maybe what we've seen over the last few weeks, the arm twisting and hands out diplomacy is what always goes on behind the scenes. But it reminds us of the old saying about not watching sausage being made. It's not appetizing. And a lot of sausage is being made over at the United Nations.

Ideas are being floated around, veiled threats are being made, and today a pretty good dustup of what was in the inspectors' report to the Security Council on Friday and what was left out.

Reporting for us tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): It seemed the only question remaining at the United Nations Security Council, when's the vote?

JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMB. TO THE U.N.: Not tomorrow.

ROTH: The U.S. had threatened to call for a vote as early as Tuesday but the timetable is slipping, probably to the end of the week. That's because the U.S. is still seeking the required nine votes in favor without a veto from France, Russia or China. The undecided six countries on the Council huddled, hoping to find a compromise between the permanent powers. They feel a rush to vote on war and peace.

ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS, ANGOLAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: We are not yet there. We are not yet there. We're not yet raising hands. We're not sitting in the Council voting.

ROTH: Some of the uncommitted members would like to give Iraq a month to cooperate with specific disarmament orders, way beyond the proposed U.S. resolution deadline of March 17. The British may not want to extend the deadline that far, but are moving towards a set of tests for Iraq, based on the judgment of weapons inspectors.

Inside the evening session, the chief inspector, Hans Blix, was questioned by the U.S. about the recent discovery in Iraq, of an unmanned aerial vehicle which is capable of spraying biological and chemical weapons.

Blix declined to specifically highlight the finding in his public briefing to the Security Council last Friday. U.S. officials were upset that Blix did not mention the discovery and now seek to tell swing voters.

JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: It would appear that this unmanned aerial vehicle that was discovered would have the kind of characteristics that would be of great concern.

ROTH: Diplomats say the U.S. did not attack Blix behind closed doors, but asked for his strategy for handling the drone issue. Blix assured the Council he would never withhold information. He stated though, no matter its flying ranger, the drone is a violation of U.N. resolutions.

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: They should have declared it, as I said, yes. They should have declared it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Asked about frustration by U.S. officials that he downplayed the drone discovery, Blix said -- quote -- "everybody is trying to squeeze us to get as much mileage out of us as possible."

Inside the Security Council, tomorrow at the beginning of the day, without a planned vote, speeches by all the members of the United Nations, any one who wants to comment on Iraq -- Aaron.

BROWN: Are the nonaligned countries talking simply to each other or are they negotiating with the French side and the American side, if you will, to try and find the common ground? ROTH: They speak for many reasons. They speak for national consumption back home. They speak out of frustration that many of them are naturally not on the Security Council and they watch and wait and see the battle going on. And they also speak, hopefully, en masse, according to them, to maybe sway one of the undecideds, to keep the pressure on. And most of them think President Saddam Hussein has shown enough cooperation to warrant more time.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. Richard at the U.N. tonight.

The French and Russian views seemed to harden. France's president went on television tonight and made it plain: France, he said, will veto any resolution that leads to war.

Discouraging but not unexpected at the White House, where personal diplomacy was again the order of the day, even if it means compromising some.

Here again, our senior White House correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): A day of urgent telephone diplomacy and a smile despite the enormous stakes.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If the United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein.

KING: But if the White House loses at the Security Council this week, that other international body would be an ad hoc coalition assembled by President Bush in defiance of the United Nations.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired.

KING: So every effort is being made to round up the votes. This conversation with President Jiang Zemin of China, one of many urgent calls placed by the president.

In addition to China, Mr. Bush's call list included the leaders of Japan, South Africa, Turkey, Senegal, Nigeria, Oman and Spain. Of that list, China and Spain are Security Council members.

Secretary of State Powell had lunch with Guinea's foreign minister and phoned Security Council members Angola, Mexico and Pakistan as well as Security Council allies Spain and Britain.

With the calls came some flexibility. Sources tell CNN U.S. officials are open to adding specific disarmament demands on Iraq and perhaps even moving the March 17 deadline back a few days if it brings a Security Council majority.

FLEISCHER: There are ideas that are being explored and looked at and so it is too soon to say what the final document that will be voted on will include.

KING: But the administration says it is adamant that the Council will vote this week on a resolution clearing the way for war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Now, glaringly missing from the president's call list, the French president, Jacques Chirac. It's been more than a month since those two leaders spoke, Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac. White house officials now say there could be ramifications to the relationship if France exercises that veto on the Council. The public line here at the White House is it is not over until the votes are counted, but privately many officials say the best Mr. Bush might hope for is some sort of a moral victory, to get majority support on the Council but have the resolution defeated because of a veto from France -- Aaron.

BROWN: Is there a drop dead date here that you know of, where they'll negotiate up to that date but no farther?

KING: As of just a few moments ago, senior officials tell us the vote will be this week. They say they don't have a drop dead date as to how far Mr. Bush would be willing to extend the March 17 deadline, although they insist it is only a few days, perhaps a week, some officials say, if it would get you the votes.

But in terms of the vote, they say the president said he wanted the vote this week and he will not move from that. If there was progress being made in the negotiations, perhaps they would be flexible, but they don't think they're going to get that far. They think the vote will be this week and if they had to bet right now, they think they're going to lose.

BROWN: John, thank you. Senior White House correspondent, John King.

More now on personal diplomacy, or in this case, the lack of it between the two men. The American secretary of state and the French foreign minister. And while it is tempting to personalize the situation, the gap between France and the United States cannot entirely be blamed on bad chemistry, though better chemistry might have narrowed the divide.

The irony, of course, is that's precisely what many expected of these two men. Here's CNN's Andrea Koppel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin battling across the diplomatic divine. On one side is Villepin, strongly opposed to war, on the other, Powell, equally convinced military force is the only option left. With a U.N. Security Council vote only days away, time for diplomacy is fast running out.

Villepin this week traveling to Angola, Cameroon and Guinea in a single day, personally lobbying the leaders of three of the six undecided members of the Security Council.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): I think we share the same concern, put the United Nations at the heart of any solution.

KOPPEL: Powell, hosting Guinea's foreign minister at a private State Department lunch, adamantly denying the diplomacy had become personal.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm in no competition with Dominique de Villepin. He does what he has to do and I do what I have to do. We are both working for causes we believe in.

KOPPEL: Villepin, who is fluent in English, and a former spokesman at the French embassy in Washington, was expected by many to be pro-American. While Powell, known for his moderate views, was Europe's hope the U.S. would work in a multilateral framework.

PHILIP GORDON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: One of the striking things is, as we watch Villepin and Powell go head to head on this issue is how far we've come from two years ago when they were both appointed, and everyone was assuming and believing that these were the two who were going to repair the French-American relationship.

KOPPEL: Both men are described as incredibly charismatic and loyal to their presidents.

(on camera): And Powell, a retired four-star general, will fight for his commander-in-chief because he's loyal to the system, while Villepin, because of a close personal relationship with French President Jacques Chirac, which dates back years.

Andrea Koppel, CNN, at the State Department.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: One more note out of the State Department tonight. A senior U.S. diplomat has resigned his job in protest to the U.S. policy on Iraq. In a letter to Secretary of State Powell, John Brown (ph) wrote that he couldn't support President Bush's "war plans," in quotes, and that the president has failed to explain the costs of the war and to take international public opinion into account.

And now to the if war should come portion of the broadcast. Expect much more of this in the days ahead. Tonight, the headline is troubling developments in Iraq's oil fields. It's reported by Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There are signs Iraq has moved explosives into its northern oil fields near Kirkuk, U.S. officials tell CNN. That would set the stage for a possible environmental disaster if Saddam Hussein orders the 500 northern oil wells destroyed. At the White House, officials declined to confirm specifics, but noted it's reminiscent of Iraq's destruction of Kuwait's oil fields as troops retreated to Baghdad.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: If we enter into hostilities, this will be a pattern that will be repeated many times, just as in 1991.

STARR: U.S. officials say there is also activity in the south, at the Rumailah oil fields near Kuwait. Iraqi infantry troops have been seen moving through the area, which contains 1,000 oil wells. Officials confirmed weeks ago that large amounts of explosives have been moved south.

But in the north, the new intelligence about explosives at Kirkuk, the first indicator that the Iraqi regime will go to the ultimate lengths to keep those oil fields from local Kurdish control.

The Pentagon says it could cost $50 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Revenue from oil now seen as vital to financing the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. Oil experts believe Iraq will have problems rejoining the post-war international oil market.

GEORGE BERANEK, PETROLEUM FINANCE CO.: That's going to depend not only on whether there's any damage to the infrastructure during a war, but how stable a government is and how stable the civil situation is in Iraq after a war.

STARR (on camera): If there is war, U.S. troops are now poised to move quickly to both the northern and southern oil fields to keep Saddam Hussein's government from blowing them up.

Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Well, all over the Mideast, there are small signs of the increasing tension, as war appears to come nearer. The families of U.S. diplomats in both Oman and the United Arab Emirates were told today they could leave those countries at government expense because of increased security concerns.

In Iraq itself, reality appears to be sinking in as well, not necessarily in government circles, which operates in a sort of reality distortion fields, but in the homes and in the schools. Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If a bomb fell on our school, the teacher tells her class, remember, we have lots of windows. No ordinary lessons now. These teenaged girls being prepared for war. In the schoolyard, training how to survive bombing. Teachers in this Baghdad school hoping these lessons will save lives.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course, we taught them the first aid, how to treat injured people.

ROBERTSON: At the weekly Iraqi briefing on weapons inspections, confirmation the country readying for war.

GEN. HOUSSAM AMIN, NATL. MONITORING DIRECTORATE.: We are preparing ourself for a war, at the same time we are working to resolve the outstanding issues with the UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

ROBERTSON: Issues including the destruction of Al Samoud two missiles, another six destroyed this day.

AMIN: We are directing the destruction of Al Samoud 2 to give the opportunity to our friends in the Security Council to defend our case.

ROBERTSON: Amin indicating Iraq will do enough to head off a U.S.- and British-backed U.N. resolution demanding disarmament by March 17th.

AMIN: We think that these attempts will be refused by the other states.

ROBERTSON: In schoolyards across Iraq, preparations for war continue as officials realize even U.N. support may not head off war.

(on camera): While counting on divisions at the U.N. to slow moves to war, Iraqi officials say they are considering one more initiative -- inviting Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the two U.N. weapons chiefs to Baghdad for talks on March 17, the day the deadline expires.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, more on the diplomatic dance on Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair facing a revolt by a member of his own cabinet, and we'll talk with Richard Wolffe, the chief diplomatic correspondent of "Newsweek" magazine about the ongoing negotiations over a U.N. vote as well. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: When all is said and done, the most interesting person in this whole Iraq story may turn out to be the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. For most of his political life, he's been accused of keeping one finger to the wind, never taking a tough stand, only the popular one. They won't be saying that anymore.

Public opinion at home is largely against him, sometimes viciously so. And now comes the threat of rebellion from within his own cabinet. No wonder he's working desperately to find some middle ground at the U.N. Here's CNN's Robin Oakley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Trouble enough for Tony Blair at the U.N.. Now there's more closer to home. Clare Short, the international development secretary in his cabinet, has accused him of being deeply reckless with the authority of the U.N., with his government and with his own future. If he helps to invade Iraq without securing a second U.N. Security Council resolution, she told BBC Radio, she'll quit the Blair cabinet.

CLARE SHORT, BRITISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY: If there is not U.N. authority for military action or if there is not U.N. authority for the reconstruction of the country, I will not uphold the breach of international law or this undermining of the U.N. and I will resign from the government.

OAKLEY: Blair has already faced a huge rebellion, with 122 of his 400 Labour Party MPs voting against him on Iraq. Clare Short's words can only make things worse.

DOUG HENDERSON, FORMER LABOR MINISTER: I think that will encourage a lot of other people in the party who have kept their head down, especially members of parliament. So I would expect there -- or anticipate there to be a larger vote next time. Hard to put a figure on it, perhaps over 150.

OAKLEY: The outspoken minister was swiftly rebuked by loyalist ministers.

ALAN MILBURN, BRITISH HEALTH MINISTER: I have to say I was somewhat surprised by what Clare had to say and her manner of saying it. Not least because I would have thought she would have wanted to raise those issues face to face with the prime minister in the first instance, rather than through the media.

OAKLEY: But why did Blair, after speaking to her twice, keep Clare Short in his cabinet, when in the past such disloyalty would have brought instant dismissal? With polls finding only 15 percent of the public ready to back a war not sanctioned by the U.N., the rebels believe they know why.

GRAHAM ALLEN, FORMER LABOR MINISTER: Clare is only saying what most people in the parliamentary Labour Party and, indeed, most people in the country are saying that we shouldn't rush headlong into war on George W. Bush's timetable.

OAKLEY (on camera): Clare Short clearly isn't long for the Blair cabinet. If it goes to war without U.N. backing, she'll quit. But if he does secure that crucial second U.N. Security Council resolution and succeeds in a swift action, her desertion at a key moment won't be quickly forgotten.

The key question is, how many others will follow her threatened example? Robin Oakley, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Mr. Blair's predicament is not his and his alone. "Newsweek" diplomatic correspondent Richard Wolffe writes about the price of friendship, what the United States has to do and say to help support his loyal friends. Mr. Wolffe joins us from Washington tonight. Good to have you on the program.

RICHARD WOLFFE, DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, NEWSWEEK: Good to be with you.

BROWN: How much of what we see playing out here in New York at the United Nations and on the phone at the White House and the State Department is to try and help Prime Minister Blair?

WOLFFE: Almost entirely, I'd have to say. You know, my conversations with administration officials have made it completely clear that there is no real need for the U.S. to get the second resolution, that this really is something that Blair has pushed very hard for. And to be honest, it goes right back to September when the president went to the United Nations in the first place. British officials worked very closely with Secretary of State Colin Powell to get the White House to go to the U.N. in the first place. They really need that right now with that second resolution. It's hard to overstate just how important this is for Tony Blair.

BROWN: Does the administration, when you talk to administration sources, do they at all regret the path they've chosen? Do they feel they have been outfoxed along the way, in an effort to help Mr. Blair?

WOLFFE: You don't hear that right now. That's partly because they're playing it very tough. Tough with the Brits as well, who are often complaining behind the scenes, of course, that they don't have more time, but they've had to really kind of screw out this extra time from the White House. The administration hasn't been so undiplomatic as to say, look, this is all a big mess that the Brits have got us into.

However, there is still sniping at Colin Powell. There are people out there who said, you know, this guy has been reluctant about war from the beginning. He doesn't believe in this whole process. At the moment, though, they're holding the fire just a little down on Tony Blair, because they can see, quite honestly, what kind of risks he's taking.

BROWN: How much -- well, in Britain and I guess elsewhere, too, how much of the resistance to the American argument is, in a sense, personal? It is that they do not like the president?

WOLFFE: That's a huge factor. In some ways, President Bush has come to embody many aspects of America that people don't like. The kind of rhetoric he uses, sense of perhaps arrogance. They also confer on American presidents the characteristics or the prejudices they have about America. For instance, they question his intellect or they say that he's acting for cynical reasons. So it's quite a complex personal relationship. And maybe a uniquely personal relationship that Bush has -- that American presidents have generally with the rest of the world.

BROWN: But they see a contrast between the candidate George Bush who talked about a strong but humble foreign policy and the execution of the foreign policy, which around the world is not seen as especially humble?

WOLFFE: People made a view of him in the campaign, where I followed him very closely. And they haven't really changed it. They haven't really seen the development, the transition of George W. Bush through September 11, how he gained in stature in America. They really haven't kind of bought that idea that he's got this kind of a mission, that he really feels seriously the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

BROWN: About a minute left. Let's try and do two things. Do you think that it is reasonable at this point to assume that the British and the Americans will find the nine votes they need at the Security Council?

WOLFFE: I don't think it's reasonable at all. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't put money on it. And administration officials have always said the votes will come around. They haven't so far. I think we'd see more wavering on the side of America if that was going to happen.

BROWN: And is there -- in your talking to people, do you have a sense that there is any -- any compromise the American side and the British side would accept that could close the deal with those countries that are wavering?

WOLFFE: Well, there are compromises that the British would accept. The dirty secret of all of this is that the British are a bit closer, in fact, far closer to the French than appearances would allow you to believe. But I don't think those compromises are going to come from the White House. And the March 17 date, for instance, the Brits wanted to push that out. The White House said no.

BROWN: Richard, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you.

WOLFFE: Thank you.

BROWN: Richard Wolffe, the chief diplomatic correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, more on the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the al Qaeda operative. New information released by the Pakistanis on when and how he was captured. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Sometimes a story can make you shake with frustration for what might have been or, in this case, for what might have been prevented.

A report in "The New York Times" that the FBI was close to catching Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, considered a key planner of 9/11, years before the attack. He got away when officials in Qatar reportedly tipped him off, something even harder to take when we saw that "The Times" continue to run, even now, almost now a year and a half later, obituaries of those who were killed on 9/11.

Well, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's luck did run out in Pakistan earlier this month.

And we go back to Tom Mintier, who got a glimpse, literally, of how the capture went down -- Tom.

MINTIER: Aaron, it was an incredible day.

We were invited by the ISI, Pakistan's super-secret intelligence agency, to their headquarters for a briefing and a viewing of a videotape. The videotape lasted about seven or eight minutes. And it showed police officers going in and making the arrest. Now, this was almost like a police-based reality show. It was an edited videotape. It wasn't the raw tape. It was edited quite well.

They had several angles of the officers going in and making the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Now, we did not see his face in the video, but they said that the portions that were edited out indeed showed his face. We did see the officers going in, confiscating items inside his room, placing handcuffs on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and taking him away.

So, it was incredible that this video existed. It was incredible that the ISI showed it to us. We asked for a copy. And so far, they have said: No, not yet. We'll think about it.

BROWN: Well, that part is not incredible. Why did they show it, any idea?

MINTIER: I think they showed it because the news of the arrest came from somewhere else. And they were extremely keen to show reporters what they were doing in their counterterrorism efforts, those they had arrested, those they turned over to the U.S. and other nations for investigation.

They went out of their way to show us what they considered to be the hierarchy of al Qaeda. They also told us that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had nothing to say for the first couple of days of interrogation, except to nod his head that he was who they said he would be. After two days, they say, he started talking and revealed to them that he says he had a meeting with Osama bin Laden somewhere in the month of December, but he would not provide any details of that meeting, who else was there, what was on the agenda, where it was held.

So the interrogation continues. But the information that they're getting from what he left behind apparently is quite good for investigators. They say, at one point, that they were months behind Osama bin Laden, then days behind, and now maybe even hours behind, but no update on when they might arrest him, when they might take into custody, or where he might exactly be.

BROWN: Did you see any Americans in the video, anyone you could identify as an American?

MINTIER: No. It's difficult to say, because this video was edited. All we saw were Pakistanis.

But it's interesting that the briefing at the very top of the video was conducted in English for the officers. You see a roomful of Pakistanis coordinated on this raid in English. And then you see the head of the ISI checking out their bulletproof vests before they load up in a truck and go conduct the raid. So, obviously, this videotape was distributed with the intent to show that it was only Pakistanis who were involved. They said there were no foreign what they termed foreign nationals on the ground conducting the raid, but they did receive assistance from the U.S. in electronic intelligence.

BROWN: Tom Mintier, thank you -- Tom Mintier in Pakistan, who saw the tape.

Other stories to get in before we break here: The man who would run a war in the Gulf starts off our look at stories making news around the country. General Tommy Franks heads back to Qatar tonight. The Pentagon says not to read anything special into that. Also, today, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says he has decided to take no official action on allegations the general jeopardized classified information during official trips in which his wife accompanied him. He promised to be more careful of security secrets in the future.

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware left a hospital in Florida today without his gallbladder. He was vacationing with his family in Fort Myers. On Saturday, the senator was suffering stomach pains, so he went to the hospital. And yesterday, he had the surgery. He's expected to be just fine.

And another funeral today in Arlington National Cemetery -- this would have been astronaut Laurel Clark's 42nd birthday. She was laid to rest beside two crew mates from Columbia, not far from the memorial to the Challenger astronauts. She leaves behind a husband and an 8- year-old son.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT: another major anti-war push outside the United Nations. We'll talk to two of those involved: actress Jessica Lange, former Congressman Tom Andrews.

And later, in segment seven: the new hot drink preferred by American soldiers.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT: on the front lines against the war. We'll talk with actress Jessica Lange and former Congressman Tom Andrews.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We heard about someone who had this to say about the war in Iraq: "I'll support anything my president does." The strange thing is, she was talking about Martin Sheen, who, of course, isn't a real president. He just plays one on TV.

There's quite a debate going on about celebrities and public opinion. Should media give them a platform? There is no settling that here, so we'll just say this. If someone is active on either side, celebrity or not, they deserve the opportunity to be heard. So tonight, someone you've probably heard of and someone you probably haven't: actress Jessica Lange and former Congressman Tom Andrews. They join us tonight.

They joined earlier today in delivering a petition to the United Nations, signed, they say, by more than one million people all opposed to a war with Iraq.

Good to have you both with us.

JESSICA LANGE, ACTRESS: Thanks.

TOM ANDREWS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, WIN WITHOUT WAR: Thank you.

BROWN: Let me -- I got a note today, an e-mail today. It was actually very calm and thoughtful. And one of the things the writer asked was: "What do you think that these 250,000 American troops overseas think when they see these anti-war demonstrations going on?"

LANGE: Well, that hearkens back to another time. I'm sure that we all remember, with Vietnam, the opposition to that particular war and the effect that that had on the servicemen there.

I think there's a difference, however, in that we have not gone to war yet. And I think what the demonstrators around the world are saying is, it is not inevitable. It does not have to be inevitable. There is still time for us to try to negotiate this peacefully. And what I feel very strongly about is that I don't think anybody who is demonstrating against this war is demonstrating against the men and women who are serving in the armed services, obviously not.

I mean, I have full -- I am in full support of these men and women who are there. I would love to see them come home.

BROWN: Sure.

LANGE: I would love to see them not be put in harm's way. And I would love to see them not have to be responsible for the death and destruction that is looming ahead. So, I feel very strongly that these protests are not against these people. They are not against the men and women that are serving.

BROWN: Sure.

But just -- I don't want to spend all our time on this, but I thought it was an interesting note and it was thoughtfully written. And it's fair to bring it up. Do you worry that these 19-, 18-year- olds over there, 22-year-olds, see this and wonder what the folks back home are thinking?

ANDREWS: Well, Aaron, I hope that they're seeing democracy in action, democracy at its finest.

And, of course, as Jessica is saying, we want to have Americans come home and have them all come home and have them all be safe. And we do not want to see us involved in a war, in an invasion, and a multi-year occupation. We're talking about up to 10 years of a military occupation, taking a sovereign Arab country in the most volatile region in the world and having a military occupation of that country, all when we can control and disarm Saddam Hussein without killing innocent Iraqis.

BROWN: But we haven't.

ANDREWS: We have.

BROWN: Well, no, we haven't for 12 years. This is the argument the president makes, certainly, and supporters make, is that, for 12 years, there have been these resolutions. And nobody -- I don't think anybody on either side of this conversation believes that the guy has disarmed.

ANDREWS: Well, here's the untold story, Aaron, of this.

We took out 95 percent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction with those weapons inspectors. Now, that's more weapons of mass destruction than our entire military took out during the Gulf War. Right now, we have Al Samoud 2 missiles being destroyed as we speak, mustard gas being destroyed as we speak. We're going in to find those V.X. and anthrax supplies that were supposedly destroyed in a disposal until that we're now investigating with advanced technology.

This process is working. And the inspectors have said to us: Look, this is significant progress. It's heartening to see this being done and made. Give us the time to complete the job. And we're saying, we think that that's very reasonable. If we can disarm him without killing innocent Iraqis or putting our men and women at risk, why not? Why not?

BROWN: Do you think the president is being honest?

LANGE: I think he's -- I don't think he has been honest with the American people. No, I don't. I think it's a lot of political rhetoric. I think...

BROWN: What do you think he's dishonest about or not honest about?

LANGE: Well, first of all, they keep presenting all the reasons that we have to resort to force there -- and, I mean, as we have discussed many times in these debates, that none of those have been supported to justify these kind of ends.

I personally object to the kind of moral platform that he uses now, this kind of religious hubris, that it is grounds of -- that, in his words, in the great moral tradition of our country. I find that inexcusable, to use that kind of rhetoric on the American people. ANDREWS: And, of course, Aaron, he hasn't leveled with the American people.

BROWN: On?

ANDREWS: He hasn't told us how much this could cost. He says that, well, we'll get to that later.

BROWN: Well, I'll give you a number, $90 billion.

ANDREWS: OK.

BROWN: Does that change the argument?

ANDREWS: No.

I'll tell you, if he would look at the American people and say, look, it's going to cost us $90. Most say hundreds of billions of dollars. A Yale economist just told us $1.3 trillion. That will drive this economy into the worst recession it's seen in some time. And when Americans -- here's the thing.

If you look at the polls, Aaron, you'll find out that the more Americans know about this, the more they're opposed to it. And I think the reason that we're not getting the straight answers from the administration and perhaps why the Congress, frankly, are not insisting upon straight answers is because the more you know, the more you don't like it. A five-year occupation, a 10-year occupation in one of the most dangerous parts of the world? Come on.

BROWN: Thank you both for coming in.

LANGE: Thanks.

BROWN: Nice to meet you both.

ANDREWS: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you. Good luck.

We'll check morning papers from around the country, around the world -- that would be tomorrow morning's papers -- in a moment.

And later: the new drink of American soldiers. And, believe me, this is not your father's Coca-Cola.

But this is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And coming up next on NEWSNIGHT: morning papers, tomorrow morning's papers, from around the country and the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Time to check tomorrow morning's papers. You've got this now. I don't have to keep emphasizing that it's tomorrow morning's papers, tomorrow morning's papers from around the country and around the world, with and without glasses.

"Times of London": We talked about Tony Blair -- I'm over here -- Tony Blair and his problems. First of all, it's a picture of the prime minister. "Voters Reject Blair's Call to Arms." And then it has a poll. It's really ugly for Prime Minister Blair. That's the gist of it.

But the story I like, down at the bottom here: "Thomas Gets TV Psychologists All Steamed Up." This is Thomas the Tank Engine, OK? This psychologist says that watching kids -- or kids watching Thomas makes them violent. I always wondered why my daughter wants to crash a train every time she sees one.

"The Australian": "U.S. Searches for Smoking Gun," kind of a -- that's the tone of headlines in the international press, basically, today.

"Detroit Free Press": very good front-page story, I must say -- and did -- "War on Terror Faces First Trial." These are four young men who were arrested in the Detroit area. They go on trial. Will it be a boom or bust in the war on terrorism? Very nice take by the "Detroit Free Press" on that.

How we doing on time? OK.

"The Boston Herald," the president on the front page. "Talk to Me" is the headline.

And I'm going to do one more. We'll see.

Up at the top, "Chicago Sun-Times": "Norah Jones Forced to Move Out of Her House." "The New York Post" put a picture of this poor woman's house in the paper. And now she has to leave.

Segment seven in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We've been looking for a reason to run this story. And, today, one fell right into our lap.

It's about a new drink that some of the troops in Kuwait are said to be requesting, perfect for those long, dry nights they're facing, a drink that's jampacked with caffeine. We profiled the entrepreneur a while back who was making quite a splash with another group of young people, people who also need to stay wide awake, but for admittedly less weighty reasons, a business that's "On the Rise."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOBY BUPPERT, CEO, BAWLS GUARANA: Hi, I'm Hoby Buppert. And these are the headquarters for BAWLS Guarana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guarana. May I help you? BUPPERT: The product is basically a high-caffeine soft drink. There are no vitamins, no minerals. It won't make you healthy. It will just keep you up, up, up, up. The name BAWLS stands for Brazilian American Wild Life Society. Guarana, it only grows on vines. So, because they're in the rain forest, you can get guarana.

The guarana berry is very similar to the coffee bean. It contains a lot of caffeine. That's what we make the soft drink with. It contains about triple the caffeine of Coca-Cola.

And this is my office here. When I started this company, I was 23 years old. I did the concept as independent study my senior year at Cornell University. And after that, I had to get a job. So I put the business plan into action.

The most challenging part of really the whole thing, of course, was getting the financing. I went to the banks just about getting a loan.

So maybe he is selling more BAWLS and he is making more money off BAWLS than he is off the actual candy.

We've actually -- we've been pretty lucky. We've either doubled sales or more every year since we have started. Luckily, we have found a very strong niche within the computer gaming industry. You're talking about a market that's generated more sales than movies last year. So, it's really a great market to be a part of.

We're in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) zone in Manhattan. And what we have here tonight is a LAN party.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In order to play the games for so long, they need to stay up. They need to stay awake. BAWLS allows them to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jason, how many is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four BAWLS I had tonight. That doesn't sound right, but that's a lot of caffeine.

BUPPERT: We're now distributed in 31 states. Bottling facilities are in Newark, New Jersey, St. Louis, Missouri, and Los Angeles, California.

We're here at our bottling facility here in Hillside, New Jersey, where we bottle our BAWLS Guarana.

We produced just over a half-million cases this year. The bottles are coming from Germany. The caps come from Ecuador. And the guarana comes from Brazil.

Don't expect to get any shut-eye. In fact, don't even expect to blink. Special nonslip bottle for when your hands start shaking.

I can't tell you the number of people who said, this will never work, that, you're wasting your time. So, I think that it's really just something you really have to believe in yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love BAWLS. I really do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Now you can go to sleep, if you can go to sleep.

We're back here tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern time. Hope you are, too. Good night for 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





White House Frustrated With France, Blix; ISI Briefs Reporters on Mohammed's Capture>