Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Sharon, Abbas Shake Hands; Martha Stewart Indicted

Aired June 04, 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, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.
It seems the program tonight is dominated more than usual by questions of right and wrong, from Martha Stewart and her stock dealings to Sammy Sosa and his cork bat.

There are other questions too. Did the Pentagon do right in its description of the Jessica Lynch rescue?

Did the administration cross some ethical line in persuading the country that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

And then there is the Middle East where each side often seems incapable of acknowledging the other side might sometimes at least be right and that they might sometimes be wrong.

And, it's the Middle East where the whip begins, the summit in Jordan, our chief foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour starts us off, Christiane, a headline.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the headline really is the fact that they met. They spoke. They shook hands. It was all in public and they have kick started the peace process after two and a half years of violence. Also, the king of Jordan telling us that he believes now the president of the United States is committing to resolving this issue -- Aaron.

BROWN: Christiane, we'll get back to you early tonight.

Next, the reaction to that handshake and the promises made by both sides, CNN's Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem tonight, Kelly a headline.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the angry reaction almost immediately after that handshake shows that despite some optimism in Jordan, these two leaders still face tremendous opposition here at home -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you.

And the Martha Stewart saga which played out today in a federal courtroom where the carpets don't always match the paint, CNN's Allan Chernoff with that, Allan a headline.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The indictment finally comes, Martha Stewart charged with obstruction of justice, lying to prosecutors, and securities fraud. She pleads not guilty and steps down as chief of her own company.

BROWN: Allan, thank you, back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight, James Rubin joins us with his take on the summit in Jordan today.

And when it comes to making progress do words count for much? CNN's Jeff Greenfield tonight looks at that and discovers at least a glimmer of hope.

Also tonight, is the media making too much of Hillary and Bill and Hillary's new book about Bill? Well, it's more than about Bill but we'll deal with that again tonight. The book is creating a sensation and it's not out until Monday.

And that's not all. We've got another sad chapter in baseball. You can't say it ain't Sosa because it is. We hope that's the last word play tonight, all of that to come tonight on NEWSNIGHT.

We begin with the president. He's in Qatar now where shortly he'll be inspecting the troops, meeting with his civilian administrator for Iraq. He flew in tonight from Jordan and today's summit. The reviews are still being written.

But perhaps the best early word comes the way of the protesters out in the street, angry that progress is in fact being made, a cockeyed reason to be optimistic perhaps, and surely a sign there's much to be done, but it's been a while since we've seen any optimism at all in the region even the cockeyed variety.

We begin with our Senior White House Correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dramatic first steps toward reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the president voiced hope this time it will reach the end of the road.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All here today now share a goal. The Holy Land must be shared between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel.

KING: Both the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers embraced the president's so-called roadmap for peace and pledged at this summit to meet its immediate tests.

Prime Minister Sharon's promises include quickly dismantling settlements built since March, 2001, and support for a provisional Palestinian state, which would require a significant Israeli military pullback but he also made clear his skepticism.

ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: There can be no peace, however, without the abandonment and elimination of terrorism, violence, and incitement. KING: Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas promised aggressive efforts to end violence against Israelis and urged militants to lay down their arms and renounce violence.

MAHMOUD ABBAS, PALESTINIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We will exert all of our efforts using all our resources to end the militarization of the intafada and we will succeed.

KING: Summits are carefully scripted though not every handshake is picture perfect. Mr. Bush hopes the summitry lifts Mr. Abbas' standing back home and the White House wants help from Jordan's King Abdullah and other Arab leaders in making the case, Mr. Abbas, not Yasser Arafat, is the man who can deliver a Palestinian state.

All on hand in Jordan know the more difficult roadmap challenges come later, an Israeli pullback to September, 2000 lines, more Palestinian political and security reforms, and an independent Palestine by 2005.

Mr. Bush will send a new Mid East envoy immediately and says National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be his personal representative in the peace process.

BUSH: And we expect both parties to keep their promises.

KING: Keeping those promises will require a trust not evident when the summit began, when the two prime ministers refused a request to shake hands.

But there was a quick handshake later and it had been two and a half years since the United States was in the middle of Middle East peacemaking, so the president left convinced peace is a possibility.

(on camera): Upbeat after the summit talks, the president told reporters he believes there's an opening for peace now because both sides are "sick and tired of death." But the president also said it is critical that the Israelis and Palestinians deliver on their summit promises within days, or as Mr. Bush put it, "The trust is going to come from performance."

John King, CNN, Aqaba, Jordan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Another key player in all of this, Jordan's young king, King Abdullah. His kingdom stands between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, literally and otherwise both as a buffer and as a bridge. It's an interesting place and the king's role in the peace process is potentially a fascinating one.

For that side of the story we turn again to CNN's Christiane Amanpour who spoke with King Abdullah today, Christiane good evening.

AMANPOUR: Good evening again, Aaron. The king here one of the people in the Arab world who did back George Bush in his war with Iraq is in a very tricky position. It is truly an article of faith in this region that unless there is peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, unless there is perceived to be some justice and balance for the Palestinians, then the insecurity and the instability and the anti-Americanism which exists now will rise.

And so, this is a big, big issue for the king who supports the United States and he is basically saying that despite the skepticism, and there has been deep skepticism about the commitment of the United States, about the commitment of the Israeli prime minister, he now after this summit believes that they have put their best foot forward and shown the fact that they are committed.

And, as for the Palestinians, assuming his responsibility as an Arab leader he's saying that they insist that the Palestinians renounce violence, that the Arab leaders are ready to help the Palestinians and though he knows that there will be obstacles and troubles ahead hopes that the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen, who himself has always been against terrorist suicide attacks over the last two years, is giving a chance to make this thing work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING ABDULLAH II, JORDAN: We have to understand that there are going to be some problems ahead of us and one of the main issues that has been discussed by all parties over the past couple of days, and again today, is the issue of security.

Now, Prime Minister Abbas made a very strong commitment to renounce violence, to find a peaceful solution to move the Palestinian society forward in the way that we want but we have to understand that we need to support Abu Mazen on the ground to be able to be effective so that the violence is lessened.

So, if something happens over the next couple of weeks we can't hold him directly responsible. He has committed to doing that but he needs to be empowered, given the tools, given the capability on the ground to be able to enforce it. So, I see this as one of the major problems that we have to understand the reasons behind and work through.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: One of the main issues, an immediate issue is what happens to the violence and what do the militant groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad for instance, do?

The Israelis have obviously preferred that the Palestinians arrest and confiscate weapons, arrest people and confiscate weapons. The Palestinian prime minister prefers to try to get them to enact a truce.

And the Israelis have told us that they would accept that truce and if there's a period of quiet and a period of goodwill, so to speak, then reciprocal steps will be taken in terms of dismantling the illegal outposts and the other things that need to be done on the Israeli side as well -- Aaron.

BROWN: There are, I suppose, concrete moments and there are symbolic moments. Why has Jordan not yet sent its ambassador back to Israel?

AMANPOUR: Well, we asked that. Jordan, of course, the second country after Egypt to have made peace with Israel, the only two Arab nations to be at peace with Israel, and we asked why haven't you sent your ambassadors back?

And, basically the foreign minister told us that he, along with his counterparts in Egypt, believe that it is time to start talking about that, start to try to talk about sending them back.

But what they want is to see first actions on the ground in terms of what the Israelis are meant to be doing under their obligations because that is what they hope will give them the cover to be able to send their ambassadors back, very tricky situation for all in this region as you know -- Aaron.

BROWN: It always is. Christiane thank you very much, Christiane Amanpour who is in Jordan.

Next to the street, Palestinian and Israeli, in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is having its say. And, in Israeli Ariel Sharon is getting a measure of grief from people who until last week might have been considered among his staunchest supporters, the settlers.

Last week, Prime Minister Sharon for the first time used the word "occupation." That and his promise to dismantle a number of settlements got the peace process moving and fueled the backlash today, reporting for us tonight CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): Tens of thousands of Jewish settlers and their supporters gathered in a downtown Jerusalem square angry and stunned, charging the Mid East roadmap is nothing more than a reward for Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're worried that they're going to give them a state to these people who are terrorists.

WALLACE: He's been a settler for 15 years. Many here express disbelief that Ariel Sharon, who only years ago rejected the creation of a Palestinian state, now is backing one, especially after the violence which followed the last major Mid East summit, the Camp David talks in 2000.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fifty years of terror. We know who our neighbors are. Barak almost gave them everything and they said no and they don't want real peace.

WALLACE: Some settlers say they are shocked that the man nicknamed "the bulldozer" for his support of settlement building is now calling for the dismantling of some settlement outposts and worried this could pave the way to attempts to remove the longstanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

ELIAKIM HAETZNI, SETTLEMENT LEADER: If it comes to that, then this is a reward.

WALLACE: Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, widely known as Abu Mazen, faces a challenge of his own. At the Acaba Summit, he called for an end to the armed intafada against Israeli. It was immediately rejected by radical Palestinian groups like Hamas.

"There is also a demand from Abu Mazen to stop the armed resistance. This is a roadmap, a way to stop the resistance," Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said.

But in interviews earlier this week, Hamas leaders did acknowledge they are considering a ceasefire, a halt in suicide bombings against Israelis, a response it appears to pressure from moderate Arab leaders and from many Palestinians who are urging the radical Palestinian groups to give Mr. Abbas a chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Right now both sides face heavy pressure from the White House to take immediate steps and this means overcoming strong political opposition here at home. One long-time player here in the region summed up the challenges ahead this way. He said: "No one said this was going to be easy" -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you, Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem tonight.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday more on the prospects for peace in the Middle East, first Jeff Greenfield looks at what makes this summit different from those that have happened in the past, if anything.

And, we'll talk with former Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin to get his perspective on the day's events.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There's a tendency to downplay the importance of mere words in life. He talks the talk, we say, but can he walk the walk?

But in the Middle East where calling Israel, Israel, and not the Zionist entity counts as significant progress. Mere words do matter and talking the talk is a good first step, more on that from CNN's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): After all those hopeful images from years past, after all those captured moments that seem to say that something new and promising was taking shape, after all those words and gestures that seemed to offer so much, and after all of those moments turned into more blood and more slaughter and another chapter in a conflict whose end recedes further and further.

We may be forgiven for asking why is this gathering different from all those other gatherings? From Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian prime minister, there was this.

ABBAS (through translator): We will also act vigorously against incitement and violence and hatred whatever the form or forum may be. We will take measure to ensure that there is no incitement (unintelligible) from Palestinian institutions.

GREENFIELD: Note that word "incitement." Abbas seems to be talking not just about acts but about incendiary words from political and clerical voices, the kind of words that celebrate bombers as martyrs.

Now from Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

SHARON: We understand the importance of territorial contiguity in the West Bank for a viable Palestinian state.

GREENFIELD: For this most hawkish of Israeli leaders, that flat declaration represents an end to any ambiguity about the right of Palestinians and their right to a governable piece of land.

And, there was this:

SHARON: We will immediately begin to remove unauthorized outposts.

GREENFIELD: Though small in number those outposts represent the most radical notion of a greater Israel. It is symbolically a message that Israel will not be held hostage to its most militant citizens.

And, from Jordan's King Abdullah, this from his interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

ABDULLAH: It's a clear message to those countries that have maybe relaxed attitudes to the way funding goes through NGOs that they have to be much more careful on where the money goes.

GREENFIELD: Translation, governments like Saudi Arabia have let a whole lot of money find their way to non-government organizations, NGOs, that are in fact funding violent deeds. It is time, the king is saying, for my fellow Arab nations to stop this once and for all.

(on camera): Of course there is so much we did not hear. We did not hear Mahmoud Abbas embrace the idea of Israel as a Jewish state or abandon the idea of a right of return.

We did not hear Sharon say what he would do about 200,000 Israelis living within the borders of what would be Palestine.

But, if the question is could this be the beginning of something genuinely consequential, maybe, perhaps, just possibly, yes.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York. (END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: James Rubin experienced his share of hope and frustration and words, lots of words, when he served as assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration. We're always pleased to have him on the program and we are tonight.

So, is this moment different? Is it different from -- it's certainly different from the last couple of years. Is it different in a way that leads, that should lead us to believe maybe this time?

JAMES RUBIN, FMR. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: I think we're a long, long way from a permanent peace, from the kind of grand agreement that President Clinton was negotiating with Arafat and Barak at Camp David and after that.

What we may have a beginning is the end of this second intafada, this second mini war between Israel and the Palestinians, and I think a lot of the optimism is a reflection of the fact that the new Palestinian prime minister has never been one of those ambiguous figures the way Arafat was, one day supporting violence, the next day having peace negotiations.

Abu Mazen, the new prime minister, has always said that violence and struggle -- violent struggle is not the way for the Palestinians to get what they want, so I think that's the reason why people are optimistic. The problem is we don't know if he has any power.

BROWN: Yes.

RUBIN: After two years of the Israelis pounding the Palestinian Authority because of their support for terrorism, we don't know if the institutions that he stands on top of really have the power to crack down on Hamas and the other Islamic Jihad and the other terrorist groups.

BROWN: Has the landscape in the region because of 9/11, because of the war in Iraq, has the landscape changed so dramatically to change the possibility that peace will come because there's always this external force that was pressure on the Palestinians or a lack of pressure on the Palestinians in some case to make a deal?

RUBIN: Well, the really new element is the war in Iraq and I think we've always been waiting for some external element to shake up the dice, to change the equation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The problem is that people have different reasons to want the president of the United States, having won the war in Iraq, to be involved.

The Israelis want him involved because they believe that having won the war the Palestinians are in a weaker position, that their sponsors in Iraq, people who funded the Palestinian communities are now discredited, that the United States is stronger, and that terrorism has been discredited, and thus the Palestinians will be forced to accept perhaps less than they might have accepted earlier. Meanwhile, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Europeans, frankly, want President Bush involved because they imagine that having won the war in Iraq he's now in a better position to put pressure on Sharon. The only way -- and thus make the Israelis give up these settlements and do some of the other things people have in mind.

The only way this is going to work is if both sides are right, if the Palestinians feel the need to compromise in a way they haven't, but President Bush realizes that the Israelis are going to have to give and a lot more than the outposts.

Remember, all Sharon is talking about is things that have been built since the intafada started, not the reasons for the intafada which relate to settlements, relate to the occupation, and the problems the Israelis and Palestinians have had for years.

BROWN: To what extent has Sharon tipped his hand in how far he will go or not go?

RUBIN: Well, we've seen a lot of different leaks out of the Israeli press and it's very hard to read him. You know, his people are now saying that he's the man of peace. It's Nixon goes to China. He's the only one who can deliver on a peace agreement.

The problem is when he's talked about what his vision for the future is, it's not one that even comes close to what was on offer at Camp David when Arafat turned it down, namely he's envisioning a much, much smaller Palestinian state, perhaps contiguous, that is connected to each other, but in a much, much smaller area than the larger state that Arafat turned down when Barak offered it to him.

BROWN: Is it conceivable to you that the Palestinians would accept that, forget the sort of vulcanized if you would of the West Bank particularly, but that smaller view of the West Bank?

RUBIN: In my judgment, and I hope I'm wrong in a sense, is that the Palestinians will never accept anything less than Barak offered them at Camp David and subsequently, that is a return of 100 percent of the quantity, if not the exact territory from 1967, a sharing of Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state. And, Sharon and his government aren't even miles from that kind of proposal. That's why we need to be cautious.

BROWN: Really quickly, what do you think the next important moment is?

RUBIN: The next important moment is when there's another terrorist incident. Does Sharon accept that 100 percent effort by the prime minister is sufficient or does he demand, as he's demanded in the past, 100 percent results? There will be more terrorism and we'll have to see how people respond to it.

BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's good to see you.

RUBIN: Nice to see you. BROWN: Thank you.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, Martha Stewart knows how to make hot water. Does she know how to get out of hot water? The Martha mess and more as we continue from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For nearly a quarter of a century, Martha Stewart has done a lot more than just write the book on living the good life. Her own life has been a lesson, chapter and verse on getting there and she certainly has, so much so a lot of people are surprised she wasn't to the manner born but she wasn't.

She became a billionaire, media tycoon, the old-fashioned way, through lots of hard work. Tonight, a large part of her work is over. She stepped down as chairman and CEO of her company a short time ago. She called it the right thing to do. Her announcement capped a day that began in court, reporting for us tonight CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Martha Stewart arrived in court to face charges she and her stockbroker engaged in a cover-up to hide the truth about her sale of ImClone stock.

JAMES COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: This criminal case is about lying, lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC, and lying to investors. That is conduct that will not be tolerated by anyone. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is but because of what she did.

CHERNOFF: The criminal charges include obstruction of justice, false statements, and securities fraud. In court, Stewart and broker Peter Bacanovic pled not guilty. Their lawyers are pledging to win at trial.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate civil charge of securities fraud, alleging illegal insider trading.

WAYNE CARLIN, SEC: This was information that would be reported to any investor. Martha Stewart had the information and Martha Stewart had no right to have the information or to trade on it.

CHERNOFF: In a written statement, Stewart's attorneys said: "Martha Stewart has done nothing wrong. The government is making her the subject of a criminal test case." Stewart was released without bail and left the court to squeeze through a mob of photographers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: By unloading her ImClone stock the day before the Food and Drug Administration gave a thumbs-down to the company's cancer drug, Stewart avoided losses of about $45,000. The charges now facing Stewart carry a maximum penalty of $2 million and 30 years in prison, although if actually convicted any jail time would be a fraction of that amount -- Aaron.

BROWN: And just quickly, for people who own shares in the company, how significant is the fact that she stepped down?

CHERNOFF: Well, this had clearly been anticipated for quite some time but nonetheless the fact that she had stepped down from head of the company clearly is a blow. Sharon Patrick (ph), the president who is now taking on chief executive officer role, she is a very strong manager, considered to be a strong manager and, in fact, has been running the company day-to-day for a very long time -- Aaron.

BROWN: Allan, thank you very much.

We've watched this story unfold on TV and in the page of "The Wall Street Journal," mostly under the byline of Charles Gasparino and we're glad to have him with us tonight. It's nice to see you Charlie.

Did this go about as you thought it would go when you first started writing about this a year ago?

CHARLES GASPARINO, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTER: Absolutely. Jerry Marcon (ph), he now works at the "Washington Post," was my partner and we kind of knew this was going to happen. We saw it unfold. We saw how they were making their case. They basically were making an obstruction case.

BROWN: So you didn't think that she'd ultimately get charged with insider trading because she wasn't?

GASPARINO: Well, we thought it would be a civil case. I mean that's an interesting thing. We kind of nailed this thing from the beginning, insider trading in a civil case because insider trading is notoriously to prove criminally. Obstruction because if you look at her story, it just doesn't seem to hold water.

BROWN: Come back to the obstruction question.

On the insider trading, is it clear to you that she knew that the -- of the FDA decision on the drug as opposed to knowing that the Waksal family was selling?

GASPARINO: No.

But listen -- I mean, the Waksal family selling is very important information. No one would know that. My mother-in-law in Queens , Angela Juliana (ph), would have not known that information. Her broker would never have never given her that information. It was a small group of people that got this information and that's why she came up in this.

BROWN: But is knowing that -- is that a crime?

GASPARINO: It could be, because no one else knew that but a small group of people. I mean, that's not advertised. I mean you can't -- if a CEO of a company sells its stock that's big news. You usually find out about this much later, after they filed the appropriate forms.

By the way, he didn't sell. He tried to sell.

BROWN: He tried to sell. But...

GASPARINO: Merrill Lynch stopped him from selling.

BROWN: But his family members...

GASPARINO: Oh yeah.

BROWN: ....did sell, didn't they?

GASPARINO: Right. Absolutely.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Absolutely, and what's interesting that all of the people that sold seem to be, you know, this whole politically connected set of people, including Martha Stewart.

BROWN: The charges against her are basically that she lied -- basically what it comes down to, right?

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

BROWN: Lied to who?

GASPARINO: Lied to the government. Lied to the SEC. Lied to the Justice Department.

BROWN: She wasn't under oath. Does it matter?

GASPARINO: No. I don't -- you have -- when you are being -- when you're take testimony, when they are essentially taking information from you, you have to tell them the truth. They're conducting a formal investigation and they can nail you are for doing that. It's not just lying. It's also putting out false statements. I mean, I think that's part of the obstruction side.

BROWN: Part of the -- one of the charges is that she essentially damaged the investors in her company.

GASPARINO: Right.

BROWN: Can you explain that?

GASPARINO: Well, she put out a statement along the way, which the government believes was specifically design designed to prop up the stock of Martha Stewart Living. It was a false statement and that's why -- that's a very unusual charge. It's, again, pushing the boundaries.

I mean, this is going to be a difficult insider trading case. I think it's a pretty easy obstruction case. But again, they're pushing the boundaries with that one. BROWN: Well, but insider trading case is a civil case.

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

BROWN: All right. So that could cost her some dough but...

GASPARINO: Cost her dough and, you know, she may be out of that company forever.

BROWN: But the rest is the kind of stuff that can land you in jail?

GASPARINO: Right.

BROWN: Is she going to jail, do you think?

GASPARINO: Good chance of that.

BROWN: You think so?

GASPARINO: I think so.

BROWN: They're going to send Martha Stewart to jail?

GASPARINO: I think there's a good chance. Under the federal sentence guidelines, I think they have too.

BROWN: Give me a time line. Where -- where -- well, first all, tell me if you think ultimately she'll cop a plea.

GASPARINO: You know, I don't know. I mean, she's stubborn. She may not. But if she doesn't, they're going to really go after her and I believe she will do some jail time.

BROWN: I asked this question yesterday. Do you think there is anything to the fact, as some people do, of the fact that she's a prominent Democrat had anything to do with the fact that she's dealing with this?

GASPARINO: No. That's the biggest laughable thing out of this whole thing.

Think about how they caught her. They looked at all of people who traded around the time Sam Waksal traded and they came up with her. They didn't say, Let's get all the Democrats that traded during that time. They went after everybody.

BROWN: Nice work on this.

GASPARINO: Thank you.

BROWN: It was great seeing you.

GASPARINO: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you. Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll check some of the day's other top stories.

Later, more on the revelations from Hillary Clinton's new book.

Long way to go yet tonight. Stay with us. This is NEWSNIGHT around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT, new video of a test that shows just how much damage a piece of foam can do to the space shuttle.

We take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: An update now on a story we first reported last week here. New testing that might explain what caused the space shuttle Columbia's demise. Today, NASA videotape of the test, which involved firing a chunk of foam at a simulated wing of the shuttle. This is important because investigators believe the foam came off of the shuttle's tank after liftoff. The tape shows the kind of damage it might have done to the tiles covering Columbia's wing.

Another update, this one from San Francisco, a real poke in the eye for the Justice Department. A federal judge today sentenced Ed Rosenthal to three days in prison, one for each count on pot growing charges. He could have gotten 60 years. The federal government wanted six-and-a-half. You will recall Mr. Rosenthal was convicted despite the fact he grew pot as an agent for Oakland, California's medical marijuana program, medical marijuana being legal under California state law.

And to Washington, D.C. now, the House tonight passing the bill banning the controversial procedure that abortion opponents call partial-birth abortion. The Senate has already passed its version of the bill. The president says he'll sign the finished bill. Abortion activists say the bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision 30 years ago and promise a stiff legal challenge on this one as soon as the bill is signed.

And finally the reason why it's awfully quiet around the NEWSNIGHT office. Most of the staffers, many as could get away, spent the evening rubbing soldiers with the vice president, senators and Congressman and the rest of the media. But given the choice of donning a tux and eating chicken or hanging out with you, the program's anchor, though not his producer nor his assistant, chose you.

Couple of other items from around the world before we go to break -- that is to say, before we go to break.

First one comes to us from Baghdad. Soldiers armed with backhoes began searching for human remains in a crater where bombers struck late in the war. The bombers were trying to hit Saddam Hussein. Searchers are looking for evidence they succeeded. So far, no sign of his remains. The rubble was taken elsewhere for closer examination.

Central Spain, a pair of trains collided head on. One carried freight, the other passengers. At least 19 people died. Spanish officials say the crash may have been caused by a worker giving the wrong signal, allowing both trains to continue down the same track.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the tell-all from the former first lady and hear what she has to say about what she said. Next.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It was a year ago tonight this a teenager named Elizabeth Smart was kidnaped from her suburban home just outside Salt Lake City. She was held for nine month. And when she was finally recognized and returned to her parents earlier this year, the relief was profound. But, apparent reason behind her kidnapping is reminding nearly everyone in the state of something most would rather forget, polygamy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): For the past 7 years, Scott Cosgrove has spent most of his time investigating polygamy. And when he saw that photograph of Elizabeth Smart after she was found, it was an image he instantly recognized.

SCOTT COSGROVE, DETECTIVE BOX ELDER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: When I first saw that photo, that's the first thing that came to my mind. This girl is dressed like a polygamist girl here in the state. It's one that we see all the time up on a ranch or a farm owned by a polygamist family.

BROWN: The long single braid in her hair, the extra rosy tint to her cheeks.

COSGROVE: It's going to be a tough time for the family and especially Elizabeth.

BROWN: Tough because Brian David Mitchell has told police he believes in polygamy, and because his wife Wanda Barzee has told a longtime friend that that was precisely and why he took Elizabeth Smart from her home.

VICKI COTTRELL, FRIEND OF WANDA BARZEE: She said, we received revelation on Thanksgiving 2000 that Brian was to take seven wives. She said there is an age range, because when you get older, you're too set in your ways.

BROWN: Polygamy has been part of the state of Utah since its very founding. Brigham Young, the Mormon church leader, who led his followers here in the mid 19th century had dozens of wives. In order to gain admission as a state, Mormon leaders has to disavow polygamy as church policy, but it has persisted ever since. And with all of the attention generated by the Smart case, it is now uncomfortably for most here, back in the spotlight. DEAN HAYS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: People who practice polygamy in Utah today, see themselves as continuing a practice that was urged upon Latter Day Saints by their earlier prophets. And see them as continuing the practice as taught by earlier Latter Day Saint prophets. So the power of history. The power of faith.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) polygamy for 34 years. I was a second wife of two.

BROWN: Rowenna Erickson was married to her sister's husband. And ultimately left because of what she says was abuse and decades of control.

ROWENNA ERICKSON, FORMER POLYGAMIST WIFE: They make sure you have lots of children. Which will keep you tied down and obligated to that.

BROWN: There's no precise number of how many polygamists there here in Utah. Officials estimate somewhere around 30,000. But the unofficial estimates ranges as high as 50,000 perhaps more. It remains illegal. But authorities rarely prosecute.

DON WHITE, ATTORNEY: For a number of years, and I'm going 50, 60, 70 years, I think prosecutors had an attitude. They really -- and I used to be a prosecutor. It'll go away in time. We don't want to get involved. It's sex. It's kids. It's multiple wives. It's nasty. It's ugly. We got better things to do.

BROWN: But the lawyers who represent polygamist say that is nonsense.

ROD PARKER, ATTORNEY: The people in law enforcement who actually know my clients, the people who are closest to them, the county attorneys and the more of the local people, understand what I'm saying. Which is, that these extreme examples are not representative of what's really going on in those societies. And that by in large these are just decent people trying to raise their families.

BROWN: The trial of Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart is still months in the future. But defense attorneys say no matter what happens in court, a subject that most here wish would simply go away, polygamy, is sure to play a principle part in the proceedings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We'll take a break and be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We admit that whether Sammy Sosa, the Chicago Cubs is a serial cheater is not exactly the most pressing issue facing the world today. But we bet they talk more about Sosa's cork bat Chicago today than they did about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Sosa says it's all an innocent mistake. That he didn't mean to make that cork bat. That he didn't mean to cheat. And maybe, just maybe he's telling the truth.

Here's CNN's Gary Tuchman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sammy Sosa received a standing ovation from most of crowd at Wrigley Field and went to bat in the first inning Wednesday night, exactly 24 hours after he hit a ground ball that led to a broken bat and some broken hearts.

Inside Sosa's bat, cork, illegal in America's national pastime, something that could make it easier to hit home runs. The league took 76 of his other bats at Wrigley Field for inspection. X-rays showed none of them had cork but the investigation continues and a suspension will likely be coming, its length to be announced as early as Thursday.

SAMMY SOSA, MLB PLAYER, CHICAGO CUBS: It's a mistake. We're all human and we all made a mistake. Nobody perfect in this world.

TUCHMAN: But Slamming Sammy is a hero in Chicago where the Cubs haven't won a world series in 95 years. So that's why this especially hurt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... big Cub fan, very disappointed, you know, that moronic move.

TUCHMAN: Many fans calling Chicago's the Score Sports Radio Station expressed similar disappointed disappointment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, guys, I'm a baseball fan and I think this is a big black eye for baseball.

TUCHMAN: The headlines in the Chicago newspapers were tough and so were some of those newspaper's columnists.

PAUL SULLIVAN, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Basically his whole home run hitting career is in doubt because people are always going to wonder did he use an illegal bat to hit 500 home runs.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Sosa is the only baseball player to ever hit 60 or more home runs in three different seasons. And his personality is exuberant, which leads many Cub fans to say cut him a break.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean he's not cocky and arrogant like a lot of these athletes. And Chicago should respect that and they should respect him and believe him when he says that it was just a mistake.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Sosa says the cork bat was only supposed to be used in batting practice to put on a show for the fans and using it in the game was an accident. So how many times has he used it?

SOSA: I've used (UNINTELLIGIBLE) batting practice about three, four times. TUCHMAN: Ultimately Major League Baseball's investigation will likely determine how many fans continue to go to bat for Sammy Sosa.

Gary Tuchman, CNN, Chicago.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Stepping up to the plate watching -- I said we weren't going to do anymore word plays and there I did one -- in Washington tonight is National Public Radio anchor and reporter Scott Simon who's also written a couple of books about baseball, "Jackie Robinson" and "Home and Away" which deals with his growing up as a fan.

Good to see you. Having you on the program. Well just when you thought it was safe to be a Cubs fan...

Yes. This happened.

SCOTT SIMON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: You know, it's looking a lot better tonight, if I might say. As I believe your piece noted, I couldn't quite hear all of it, they've tested the 76 bats they have found in the locker room and they all tested negative. I believe I read on the wire, they could test the five bats he has in the Hall of Fame. He says they'll turn out negative.

I don't think, contrary to what Paul Sullivan of "The Tribune" said, his entire career as a home run hitter is going to be thrown into question, which is not to say that this isn't terrific embarrassment for the diaspora of Cub fans that are spread out all over the world, myself included.

BROWN: Do you think that -- I think you're probably right, that his entire career will not be tarnished by this. But do you think that is in large part because he is Sammy Sosa and not Albert Belle, if you will?

SIMON: Well, I think that's a fact of life. He has a very sunny personality and disposition. I think for a lot of us, even people who are not Cub fans, Sammy Sosa is the best part of baseball. He's somebody who has always acted as if his talent isn't some kind of burden but it's a gift that he enjoys sharing with the world.

You know I believe more or less his explanation that that was a bat he used in batting practice. I've seen him take it at batting practice any number of times. He does love to give the fans a show, it's expected of him. He often won't go back into the locker room until he's hit one last towering home run.

Doesn't quite explain why he didn't notice the difference when he picked it up to use it in an actual game because I would -- you know, a professional ballplayer, I think should sense the difference.

But that being said, I think it's just a fact of life that his personality is going to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I think there's something to be said for that. He's uplifted the game a great deal. And I think that the way he faced up to the situation last night, the way he faced the press immediately, did interview after interview, this man is a mench, use an old baseball term...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: ... very old baseball term. Goes back to the Yiddish leagues.

SIMON: I believe so.

BROWN: Let me offer a slightly more cynical view, OK? He was struggling, he's coming back from injury, really hadn't hit much since he came back. And he's sitting there thinking, you know what? I need to do some business out here and maybe this bat will help.

SIMON: Oh, I think that's entirely plausible. I mean I recognize we're talking about stuff that's plausible and may not necessarily be likely. Yes, I can believe that.

I don't think this suggests that he's hit all of his home runs elicitly. I think it suggests he's human enough to crowd and to field in a pinch as any great hitter would in a slump and he will do anything to get out of this slump. I mean, that's his profession. That's what he does for a living. His whole definition in life. And you know the fact is, we're frail. That kind of thing can happen.

BROWN: Scott, you said something today, earlier today, you said you thought of this as a benign form of cheating. Not as bad as Mark McGwire using supplements. May I point out that Mr. McGwire was not doing anything illegal.

SIMON: Aaron, really, you shouldn't believe what your producers tell you.

BROWN: You didn't say that?

SIMON: I can't imagine what would have said something like that.

I do think there are a lot of things they're going to call -- that are going to call records into question from nutrition supplements, vitamin supplements to, in fact, the ocular surgery they're doing nowadays that Tiger Woods just got that gives him much better 20/20 eyes. So I think it's possible for hitters who are coming up now to have eyes that are much better than Ted Williams.

Yes, this was illegal. He shouldn't have done it. That being said, spitters are illegal and there are great spit ball pitchers in the Hall of Fame who write best sellers after their in the Hall of Fame to talk about their careers as a pitcher of spitters.

So, look, I'm inclined to cut Sammy Sosa a lot of slack.

BROWN: You are indeed.

What is it though, there is something about baseball, more so I think than other sports, where these benign forms of cheating that someone might have said earlier today, but not necessarily said, these benign forms of cheating are almost celebrated, almost. SIMON: Well, I'm afraid they're considered part of the game. Stealing signs from another team is considered part of the game. There's a part at which you go overboard obviously.

And I think if Sammy Sosa had been using the cork bat for many years, which among other things I don't believe because I don't think he could have had the home runs stats he did over the past six years with a cork bat and not have it been discovered. If one hadn't broken on the field, and a great home run hitter will routinely break eight to a dozen bats a year, somebody would have dropped a dime on him, somebody who's traded to another club, someone in a position to know that.

But it's part of the charm of baseball. I hate to put it that way, but part of what we follow that people can just skate fine edge. It happens in the stock car racing, too, where people read the rules and figure out ways to evade them or enrich them and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And yet at the same time, get a certain amount of respect for the ingenuity with which they do it. This doesn't sound, by the way, like it was done very ingeniously.

BROWN: Not terribly.

It's good to have you with us tonight. Thank you, I hope you come back.

SIMON: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you, Scott Simon, National Public Radio.

And NEWSNIGHT continues in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the ongoing discussion of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or lack thereof, it is good to at least remember this. Even those countries opposed to the war by and large believe the Iraqis had such a program.

That is not to say the intelligence, in some way, wasn't cooked. Perhaps it was. Perhaps the supporters of the war gave more weight to the evidence supporting their argument than the evidence which raised doubts.

That might have happened.

But the truth is, we don't yet know that, and maybe we never will. But it won't be for lack of trying.

Here's CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The simple fact that eight weeks into the occupation of Iraq U.S. forces still have not found any of the weapons of mass destruction that American intelligence predicted were there is raising the political pressure on the administration almost daily.

REP. JOSEPH HOEFFEL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Like millions of Americans, I'm wondering where the (expletive deleted) the weapons of mass destruction are.

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: I'm deeply concerned about reports that the administration twisted the arms of our intelligence analysts to produce analysis which agreed with the policies that you wanted to pursue.

JOHN BOLTON, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE: I personally never asked anybody in the intelligence community to change a single thing that they presented. And I am not aware of any other official in this administration who did that.

ENSOR: Undersecretary of State John Bolton said finding weapons of mass destruction may take time.

BOLTON: The finding of the weapons, the production means, will occur in due course. If this stuff had just been lying around on the ground, UNMOVIC would have found it.

ENSOR: But critics suspect a conspiracy to justify the war. Some dissident former CIA officers say Pentagon hawks took hearsay from Iraqi defectors around exiled leader Ahmed Chalabi and presented it to the president as fact.

RAY MCGOVERN, FORMER CIA OFFICER: When Rumsfeld couldn't get the answers that he wanted from the Central Intelligence Agency, he created his own mini-CIA in the bowels of the Pentagon.

ENSOR: At the Pentagon, officials held a special briefing Wednesday to respond to that charge, saying a small special plans office did analyze but never collected intelligence and never twisted arms.

DOUGLAS FEITH, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: See, this suggestion that we said to them, This is what we're looking for, go find it, is precisely the inaccuracy that we are here to rebut.

ENSOR: At the CIA, officials say an internal review is looking at whether an October classified report saying Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program was based on solid intelligence.

(on camera): But the real answer to that question will await the work of the 1,400-plus-member Iraqi Survey Group now assembling in Baghdad, and including Australians and Britons as well as Americans.

U.S. intelligence officials say they still believe that that group will find, at a minimum, Iraqi chemical weapons unaccounted for since the end of the first Gulf War.

David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BROWN: So the administration is having to deal with the suggestion that at the very least, it made too much of the threat posed by Iraq. It is also having to deal with questions about hyping the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch.

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is raising these questions and others, also running for the Democratic nomination for president.

And the congressman joins us from Washington tonight.

It's always nice to see you, sir. Thank you.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good evening.

BROWN: Let's see how direct we can be here. Do you believe that the -- that people in the administration essentially cooked the books on weapons of mass destruction, that they either phonied up intelligence or ignored any intelligence that did not agree with their predisposed notion of what Iraq was?

KUCINICH: Well, there's certainly questions that have to be raised when all of us are familiar with the fact that top administration officials asserted over and over that there were weapons of mass destruction, which constituted an imminent threat, and that we had to go in immediately to do something about it.

I mean, if the cause of war involved weapons of mass destruction, and that's what we were led to believe, and they cannot find those weapons of mass destruction, then the American people have a right to conclude that perhaps those weapons of mass destruction never existed, and the cause of war, in fact, was fraudulent.

BROWN: Well, but there -- congressman, there are two -- at least two ways to look at that. One is that the intelligence itself was wrong, but that it was gathered in good faith, that it was analyzed in good faith, but it was wrong.

The other way to look at it, and it's a less benign explanation, is that the administration ignored any intelligence that did not support what it wanted to do for a variety of other reasons, which was wage war with Iraq.

KUCINICH: Well, that's one of the reasons why I'm introducing a resolution of inquiry tomorrow, which will be co-sponsored by about two dozen members of Congress, so that we will get from the White House the information concerning what would back up all the statements that they made concerning the weapons of mass destruction.

I mean, this is the reason why people have a loss of confidence in government, because if government says, This is why we have to go to war, and then it turns out not to have been the truth, then this credibility gap develops, and the trust that's needed in order to keep a democratic institution together begins to erode.

I mean, really, let's face it, this is about the integrity of the information process, and it's also about whether or not a nation can be led to war based on misinformation.

BROWN: One of the arguments that supporters of the war have been putting forward since the end of the war, or since it became clear that finding these weapons of mass destruction, if they existed at all, has not gone exactly great, is that in the end, it's a just war because we know so much more about Saddam Hussein now. We know so much more about how brutal he was, how many people died in that regime, that, as someone said on the program the other night, he was the weapon of mass destruction.

Do you believe that absent weapons of mass destruction, it was a just war?

KUCINICH: Well, if he was the weapon of mass destruction, we have another problem, because we haven't found him either.

So I think that we have to consider that this nation was sent to war to find weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly constituted an imminent threat. It was not go -- if it went to war for regime change, then they should have told the American people that. That's not what they told the American people.

Look, the decision to commit a nation to war is the most grave decision that any government can make and any president can make and any member of Congress can vote on. And if this information, if they cooked the books on the intelligence, that's -- nothing is more grave.

This could end up being one of the most serious matters in American history.

And that's why, in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Subcommittee with jurisdiction over national defense, I'm proceeding with this resolution of inquiry and asking the questions of the Department of Defense and of the White House, whether or not, in fact, they have the information to back up their repeated assertions that they knew there were weapons of mass destruction, that they knew they were nuclear weapons, in fact, that they knew exactly where they were, that there was an immediate threat to this country, and that they had to send the troops, at great cost to life and limb, and at great cost to the taxpayers of the United States, and, I might add, at great cost to the reputation of the United States.

This is a matter of whether or not honesty in government means anything, and it must mean something in a democracy.

BROWN: Just to pick one small point in all that, and maybe you'll disagree here, but I don't believe the administration ever said that they -- the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. I think what the administration was that the Iraqi government was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

KUCINICH: Well, that's right, and what Seymour Hersh did in "The New Yorker" was kind of knock that into a hat by pointing out that the intelligence story that came out of Niger was fabricated.

BROWN: Correct. All right. Now, on to the Jessica Lynch case. Basically what you're saying here is that you have a strong suspicion that the Pentagon hyped this for reasons of its own. Fair enough?

KUCINICH: Well, wait a minute, Aaron. What I'm saying is that there's a discrepancy in the stories. I mean, we have a number of reputable news agencies who are suggesting that the Pentagon embellished the story in order to create a circumstance where they would attract more attention to support for the war by raising up this unfortunate prisoner of war, who we revere for her service to our country, Jessica Lynch, it's -- it -- is to be congratulated for being a good American, for serving her country.

But wouldn't it be sad if we find out that she was exploited for propaganda purposes? I mean, and that's the suggestion that's been made in these other news reports. And what I'm trying to do is to get it sorted out.

It's a very simple way to do it. Let's get the outtakes, let's get the videotape that was taken, and then we'll answer the question. And if it didn't happen, fine, and if it did happen, then the Pentagon ought to compensate Jessica Lynch and her family for all the turmoil that she's been put through from the beginning of this episode to the present date.

BROWN: Basically, what we have here is some reporting, a fair amount of reporting at this point, I think it's fair to say, that there were no troops in the hospital, that there was no need to go in there guns blazing. I think someone -- I think it might have been the BBC -- but someone even suggested that the Americans who went in there were firing blanks.

By the way, do you believe that?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I wasn't there. But I know one thing, there's a camera that was there, and there's a tape. And it would be helpful to see the entire tape. And let's set the questions aside then. You know, the -- in a democracy, you need information in order to keep a country together. In order to keep the world together, you need honesty.

And I think that you have to have full information to make informed decisions. And if there's any way in which this was embellished, then we've got to ask why, and then we have to see if it was any way related to try to shore up support for this war.

And, you see, there's symmetry here in your earlier news report and this one, and that is, do we have a case here where information was managed in such a way so as to create a -- and -- or endorse a preconceived conclusion in order to support a cause for war that otherwise would not have been supported?

BROWN: I agree, the tape would tell us a lot, so hopefully we'll get our hands on that.

KUCINICH: We'll find out. BROWN: We will find out. Congressman, it's always nice to have you on the program. Thank you very much.

KUCINICH: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you, sir.

One more item on all of this. If those unfound weapons of mass destruction are a problem of some dimensions, some size, for the president of the United States, and they seem to be that, they are a far greater problem for the man who went so staunchly shoulder to shoulder to war alongside him, Britain's Tony Blair.

Here's CNN's Robin Oakley reporting from London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Tony Blair, it had been quite some week, hobnobbing with British troops in Iraq, on the diplomatic tour through Poland and St. Petersburg, with the G-8 leaders in Evian.

But it's been no victory tour. Every step, he's been dogged by newspaper headlines at home suggesting his government had doctored intelligence reports to bolster its case for war.

When the leader of the House of Commons, his chief cabinet trouble-shooter, began talking of rogue elements in the security service seeking to undermine the government, it looked as though they were rattled. And when Blair faced MPs for questions, the opposition saw their chance.

IAN DUNCAN SMITH, CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER: The truth is, nobody -- nobody -- believes a word now that the prime minister is saying.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

SMITH: That's the truth. And now we have -- we have the unedifying sight of the leader of the House being sent out to do his bidding and attack elements of the security services.

OAKLEY: But Mr. Blair insisted the allegations were false, especially one that he'd insisted Saddam Hussein could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes despite intelligence service objections.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: There was no attempt at any time by any official or minister or member of Number 10 Downing Street staff to override the intelligence judgments of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and their judgments, including the judgment about the so- called 45 minutes, was a judgment made by the Joint Intelligence Committee and by them alone.

OAKLEY: Britain's prime minister partially defused the attacks by promising to cooperate with an inquiry by parliament's Security Committee and to publish the result.

And by the end, he was cheered by his own MPs for a note of defiance. Predictions that it would be his Vietnam, he said, had been overdone.

BLAIR: The truth is, some people resent the fact it was right to go to conflict. We won the conflict thanks to the magnificent contribution of the British troops, and Iraq is now free, and we should be proud of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

OAKLEY (on camera): The prime minister's troubles haven't gone away. He still needs somebody to find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Some in his own party still feel they were conned into supporting the war. But there were no indications today that Mr. Blair had been badly damaged.

Robin Oakley, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: As NEWSNIGHT continues, time to talk about that book. You know, the one by Senator Hillary Clinton.

But a break first around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Barry Manilow broke his nose. What can I tell you?

We were chided today, believe it or not, by a viewer who wrote that we seemed to have an obsession with former President Clinton's sex life. The writer reached this conclusion based on quotes we ran last night from Senator Hillary Clinton's book, which comes out Monday, quotes dealing with the Lewinsky scandal.

We assured the viewer that this was not true, that we are interested in the other hundreds of pages in the book, just as we are interested in all the articles in "Playboy."

But certain curiosities do need to be satisfied.

Here's CNN's Jonathan Karl.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After five years of silence on the Lewinsky scandal, Hillary Clinton is ready to tell her side of the story.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), AUTHOR, "LIVING HISTORY": I am a private person, and it was difficult to write the book. But I wanted to give a complete accounting of my eight years in the White House with my husband. And it was an extraordinary privilege to have that opportunity.

KARL: At the time, her body language seemed to tell the story. As the Clintons left for vacation in Martha's Vineyard in August 1998, after President Clinton admitted betraying his wife, their dog, Buddy, was the only member of the family willing to keep the president company.

If the excerpts obtained by the Associated Press are any indication, she vividly recounts how, during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the president woke her up one morning in the White House to tell her the truth about his affair, only 48 hours before testifying about it and telling the rest of the world.

"I could hardly breathe," she writes. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him. 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?' I was furious and getting more so by the second. He just stood there saying over and over again, 'I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I was trying to protect you and Chelsea.'"

On vacation in Martha's Vineyard, she said she felt profound sadness and unresolved anger. "I could barely speak to Bill, and when I did, it was a tirade. I read, I walked on the beach. He slept downstairs, I slept upstairs."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Months earlier, when he made his famous public denial, he was also lying to his wife in private. Mrs. Clinton believed him and famously went on national television, unwittingly repeating his lies and denouncing the reports about Lewinsky as the product of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

After learning the truth, she said she confronted one of the most difficult decisions of her life, whether to stay married to Bill Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON: I had to, I thought, write about the very many high points and good times, as well as the more difficult ones.

KARL (on camera): Mrs. Clinton says why her husband felt he needed to deceive her is, quote, "his own story, and he needs to tell it in his own way." Bill Clinton will get a chance to do just that in his own memoirs, which are expected out next year.

Jonathan Karl, CNN, Capitol Hill. (END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: As it turned out, today was a case of dueling headlines in the morning tabloids, Hillary and Martha. Martha Stewart, as you know, was in court today pleading not guilty to charges of securities fraud -- excuse me -- conspiracy, obstruction of justice -- in a word, lying to federal investigators looking into her insider trading.

Here we go again.

If convicted, Ms. Stewart could face fines of up to $2 million, 30 years in prison. But she's not going to jail for 30 years.

In any case, shortly after leaving court, she stepped down as chairman of her company. We told you that, those are the nuts and bolts.

But there is also this. Martha Stewart is a vastly polarizing figure. People love her or they don't. And so today was a big day for both.

Here's CNN's Charles Feldman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTHA STEWART: It's a Good Thing.

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the subject of Martha Stewart, the world seems divided. Hearing her signature slogan, "It's a Good Thing," either makes you want to embrace her or slap her silly.

Those who look up to her see a powerful female role model who created her famous persona of perfection. But others see a darker side, a mean spirited side that conjures up images of Leona Helmsley, another high-powered woman the media crowned the Queen of Mean.

Some suggest that if Martha Stewart was a man, her ambitions would be praised and rewarded, and sexism surely plays some role in the way some respond to Stewart.

But as this "Tonight" show sketch shows, some people love to hate Martha because she's an easy target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TONIGHT WITH JAY LENO," NBC)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a Good Thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miss Stewart, we're with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody move, or the gingerbread man gets it, I swear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, take it easy...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not (expletive deleted) around.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FELDMAN: Questions are already being raised about whether the feds are being too hard on Stewart. By the scales of modern-day Wall Street scandals, hers doesn't exactly rank among the worst.

Some suggest that the feds want to make an example of the priestess of home decorating, while others argue she's already paid a steep price for a relatively minor transgression.

While the alleged insider-inspired sale of her ImClone stock netted her about a quarter of a million dollars, since the scandal erupted, shareholders of Martha Stewart's company, including her, have lost about $450 million in stock value.

Now, that's hardly a Good Thing.

Charles Feldman, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: OK, we'll take a break and see if my voice holds out for morning papers, tomorrow's news tonight. But a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK, time to do morning papers, newspapers from around the country, around the world.

There's a really interesting thing in the papers today dealing with the House vote on the procedure that abortion opponents call partial birth abortion, and how newspapers handled this. I'm going to see if I can do this without getting in trouble, and I'm sure I can't.

Here we go. "The New York Times," up here, OK, "Measure Banning Abortion Method Wins House Vote," and "The Times," in its lead, refers to it as "the procedure that abortion opponents call partial birth abortion," which is correct, it's not a medical term, it's a political term.

"Cincinnati Enquirer," hardly a flaming liberal paper, by the way, handles it much the same way, "Abortion Procedure Ban Poised to Become Law," and they note that an Ohio congressman helped pass the bill.

"The Miami Herald," OK, same way, "Method to End Pregnancy Is Dealt Setback," that's how "The Miami Herald" headlined the story, and they too describe it as something that opponents call partial birth abortion.

Now, here's where I'm going to get in trouble. "The Washington Times," which is a more conservative paper, on its editorial page and now, I will submit, on its news page too. I don't want to get in a fight with these people, they're -- I'm sure they're fine people. "House OKs Ban on Partial Birth Abortion."

They simply adopt the language, the political language, and even in their lead, "A ban on partial birth abortion," which, by the way, is not easy to say, "is well on its way to becoming law," without any qualifier that this is the language of those people who are opposed to abortion.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting. That's one of the reasons we do morning papers. And how we doing on time? Thirty, OK.

Quickly, "Chicago Sun Times," "Sosa's 76 Bats Clean," that's their big lead story. Weather tomorrow in Chicago, by the way, is "Getting There."

And my favorite story of the day comes from "The Detroit Free Press." I'd have put this on the front page, "Yo Quiero $30.2 Million." Taco Bell lost $32 million today because they -- a judge or a jury found that they stole the chihuahua idea from a couple of guys, who are now going to get paid.

We'll see you tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then, 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







Aired June 4, 2003 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone.
It seems the program tonight is dominated more than usual by questions of right and wrong, from Martha Stewart and her stock dealings to Sammy Sosa and his cork bat.

There are other questions too. Did the Pentagon do right in its description of the Jessica Lynch rescue?

Did the administration cross some ethical line in persuading the country that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

And then there is the Middle East where each side often seems incapable of acknowledging the other side might sometimes at least be right and that they might sometimes be wrong.

And, it's the Middle East where the whip begins, the summit in Jordan, our chief foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour starts us off, Christiane, a headline.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the headline really is the fact that they met. They spoke. They shook hands. It was all in public and they have kick started the peace process after two and a half years of violence. Also, the king of Jordan telling us that he believes now the president of the United States is committing to resolving this issue -- Aaron.

BROWN: Christiane, we'll get back to you early tonight.

Next, the reaction to that handshake and the promises made by both sides, CNN's Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem tonight, Kelly a headline.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the angry reaction almost immediately after that handshake shows that despite some optimism in Jordan, these two leaders still face tremendous opposition here at home -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you.

And the Martha Stewart saga which played out today in a federal courtroom where the carpets don't always match the paint, CNN's Allan Chernoff with that, Allan a headline.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The indictment finally comes, Martha Stewart charged with obstruction of justice, lying to prosecutors, and securities fraud. She pleads not guilty and steps down as chief of her own company.

BROWN: Allan, thank you, back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight, James Rubin joins us with his take on the summit in Jordan today.

And when it comes to making progress do words count for much? CNN's Jeff Greenfield tonight looks at that and discovers at least a glimmer of hope.

Also tonight, is the media making too much of Hillary and Bill and Hillary's new book about Bill? Well, it's more than about Bill but we'll deal with that again tonight. The book is creating a sensation and it's not out until Monday.

And that's not all. We've got another sad chapter in baseball. You can't say it ain't Sosa because it is. We hope that's the last word play tonight, all of that to come tonight on NEWSNIGHT.

We begin with the president. He's in Qatar now where shortly he'll be inspecting the troops, meeting with his civilian administrator for Iraq. He flew in tonight from Jordan and today's summit. The reviews are still being written.

But perhaps the best early word comes the way of the protesters out in the street, angry that progress is in fact being made, a cockeyed reason to be optimistic perhaps, and surely a sign there's much to be done, but it's been a while since we've seen any optimism at all in the region even the cockeyed variety.

We begin with our Senior White House Correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dramatic first steps toward reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the president voiced hope this time it will reach the end of the road.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All here today now share a goal. The Holy Land must be shared between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel.

KING: Both the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers embraced the president's so-called roadmap for peace and pledged at this summit to meet its immediate tests.

Prime Minister Sharon's promises include quickly dismantling settlements built since March, 2001, and support for a provisional Palestinian state, which would require a significant Israeli military pullback but he also made clear his skepticism.

ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: There can be no peace, however, without the abandonment and elimination of terrorism, violence, and incitement. KING: Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas promised aggressive efforts to end violence against Israelis and urged militants to lay down their arms and renounce violence.

MAHMOUD ABBAS, PALESTINIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We will exert all of our efforts using all our resources to end the militarization of the intafada and we will succeed.

KING: Summits are carefully scripted though not every handshake is picture perfect. Mr. Bush hopes the summitry lifts Mr. Abbas' standing back home and the White House wants help from Jordan's King Abdullah and other Arab leaders in making the case, Mr. Abbas, not Yasser Arafat, is the man who can deliver a Palestinian state.

All on hand in Jordan know the more difficult roadmap challenges come later, an Israeli pullback to September, 2000 lines, more Palestinian political and security reforms, and an independent Palestine by 2005.

Mr. Bush will send a new Mid East envoy immediately and says National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be his personal representative in the peace process.

BUSH: And we expect both parties to keep their promises.

KING: Keeping those promises will require a trust not evident when the summit began, when the two prime ministers refused a request to shake hands.

But there was a quick handshake later and it had been two and a half years since the United States was in the middle of Middle East peacemaking, so the president left convinced peace is a possibility.

(on camera): Upbeat after the summit talks, the president told reporters he believes there's an opening for peace now because both sides are "sick and tired of death." But the president also said it is critical that the Israelis and Palestinians deliver on their summit promises within days, or as Mr. Bush put it, "The trust is going to come from performance."

John King, CNN, Aqaba, Jordan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Another key player in all of this, Jordan's young king, King Abdullah. His kingdom stands between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, literally and otherwise both as a buffer and as a bridge. It's an interesting place and the king's role in the peace process is potentially a fascinating one.

For that side of the story we turn again to CNN's Christiane Amanpour who spoke with King Abdullah today, Christiane good evening.

AMANPOUR: Good evening again, Aaron. The king here one of the people in the Arab world who did back George Bush in his war with Iraq is in a very tricky position. It is truly an article of faith in this region that unless there is peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, unless there is perceived to be some justice and balance for the Palestinians, then the insecurity and the instability and the anti-Americanism which exists now will rise.

And so, this is a big, big issue for the king who supports the United States and he is basically saying that despite the skepticism, and there has been deep skepticism about the commitment of the United States, about the commitment of the Israeli prime minister, he now after this summit believes that they have put their best foot forward and shown the fact that they are committed.

And, as for the Palestinians, assuming his responsibility as an Arab leader he's saying that they insist that the Palestinians renounce violence, that the Arab leaders are ready to help the Palestinians and though he knows that there will be obstacles and troubles ahead hopes that the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen, who himself has always been against terrorist suicide attacks over the last two years, is giving a chance to make this thing work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING ABDULLAH II, JORDAN: We have to understand that there are going to be some problems ahead of us and one of the main issues that has been discussed by all parties over the past couple of days, and again today, is the issue of security.

Now, Prime Minister Abbas made a very strong commitment to renounce violence, to find a peaceful solution to move the Palestinian society forward in the way that we want but we have to understand that we need to support Abu Mazen on the ground to be able to be effective so that the violence is lessened.

So, if something happens over the next couple of weeks we can't hold him directly responsible. He has committed to doing that but he needs to be empowered, given the tools, given the capability on the ground to be able to enforce it. So, I see this as one of the major problems that we have to understand the reasons behind and work through.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: One of the main issues, an immediate issue is what happens to the violence and what do the militant groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad for instance, do?

The Israelis have obviously preferred that the Palestinians arrest and confiscate weapons, arrest people and confiscate weapons. The Palestinian prime minister prefers to try to get them to enact a truce.

And the Israelis have told us that they would accept that truce and if there's a period of quiet and a period of goodwill, so to speak, then reciprocal steps will be taken in terms of dismantling the illegal outposts and the other things that need to be done on the Israeli side as well -- Aaron.

BROWN: There are, I suppose, concrete moments and there are symbolic moments. Why has Jordan not yet sent its ambassador back to Israel?

AMANPOUR: Well, we asked that. Jordan, of course, the second country after Egypt to have made peace with Israel, the only two Arab nations to be at peace with Israel, and we asked why haven't you sent your ambassadors back?

And, basically the foreign minister told us that he, along with his counterparts in Egypt, believe that it is time to start talking about that, start to try to talk about sending them back.

But what they want is to see first actions on the ground in terms of what the Israelis are meant to be doing under their obligations because that is what they hope will give them the cover to be able to send their ambassadors back, very tricky situation for all in this region as you know -- Aaron.

BROWN: It always is. Christiane thank you very much, Christiane Amanpour who is in Jordan.

Next to the street, Palestinian and Israeli, in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is having its say. And, in Israeli Ariel Sharon is getting a measure of grief from people who until last week might have been considered among his staunchest supporters, the settlers.

Last week, Prime Minister Sharon for the first time used the word "occupation." That and his promise to dismantle a number of settlements got the peace process moving and fueled the backlash today, reporting for us tonight CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): Tens of thousands of Jewish settlers and their supporters gathered in a downtown Jerusalem square angry and stunned, charging the Mid East roadmap is nothing more than a reward for Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're worried that they're going to give them a state to these people who are terrorists.

WALLACE: He's been a settler for 15 years. Many here express disbelief that Ariel Sharon, who only years ago rejected the creation of a Palestinian state, now is backing one, especially after the violence which followed the last major Mid East summit, the Camp David talks in 2000.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fifty years of terror. We know who our neighbors are. Barak almost gave them everything and they said no and they don't want real peace.

WALLACE: Some settlers say they are shocked that the man nicknamed "the bulldozer" for his support of settlement building is now calling for the dismantling of some settlement outposts and worried this could pave the way to attempts to remove the longstanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

ELIAKIM HAETZNI, SETTLEMENT LEADER: If it comes to that, then this is a reward.

WALLACE: Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, widely known as Abu Mazen, faces a challenge of his own. At the Acaba Summit, he called for an end to the armed intafada against Israeli. It was immediately rejected by radical Palestinian groups like Hamas.

"There is also a demand from Abu Mazen to stop the armed resistance. This is a roadmap, a way to stop the resistance," Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said.

But in interviews earlier this week, Hamas leaders did acknowledge they are considering a ceasefire, a halt in suicide bombings against Israelis, a response it appears to pressure from moderate Arab leaders and from many Palestinians who are urging the radical Palestinian groups to give Mr. Abbas a chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Right now both sides face heavy pressure from the White House to take immediate steps and this means overcoming strong political opposition here at home. One long-time player here in the region summed up the challenges ahead this way. He said: "No one said this was going to be easy" -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you, Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem tonight.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT on this Wednesday more on the prospects for peace in the Middle East, first Jeff Greenfield looks at what makes this summit different from those that have happened in the past, if anything.

And, we'll talk with former Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin to get his perspective on the day's events.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There's a tendency to downplay the importance of mere words in life. He talks the talk, we say, but can he walk the walk?

But in the Middle East where calling Israel, Israel, and not the Zionist entity counts as significant progress. Mere words do matter and talking the talk is a good first step, more on that from CNN's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): After all those hopeful images from years past, after all those captured moments that seem to say that something new and promising was taking shape, after all those words and gestures that seemed to offer so much, and after all of those moments turned into more blood and more slaughter and another chapter in a conflict whose end recedes further and further.

We may be forgiven for asking why is this gathering different from all those other gatherings? From Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian prime minister, there was this.

ABBAS (through translator): We will also act vigorously against incitement and violence and hatred whatever the form or forum may be. We will take measure to ensure that there is no incitement (unintelligible) from Palestinian institutions.

GREENFIELD: Note that word "incitement." Abbas seems to be talking not just about acts but about incendiary words from political and clerical voices, the kind of words that celebrate bombers as martyrs.

Now from Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

SHARON: We understand the importance of territorial contiguity in the West Bank for a viable Palestinian state.

GREENFIELD: For this most hawkish of Israeli leaders, that flat declaration represents an end to any ambiguity about the right of Palestinians and their right to a governable piece of land.

And, there was this:

SHARON: We will immediately begin to remove unauthorized outposts.

GREENFIELD: Though small in number those outposts represent the most radical notion of a greater Israel. It is symbolically a message that Israel will not be held hostage to its most militant citizens.

And, from Jordan's King Abdullah, this from his interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

ABDULLAH: It's a clear message to those countries that have maybe relaxed attitudes to the way funding goes through NGOs that they have to be much more careful on where the money goes.

GREENFIELD: Translation, governments like Saudi Arabia have let a whole lot of money find their way to non-government organizations, NGOs, that are in fact funding violent deeds. It is time, the king is saying, for my fellow Arab nations to stop this once and for all.

(on camera): Of course there is so much we did not hear. We did not hear Mahmoud Abbas embrace the idea of Israel as a Jewish state or abandon the idea of a right of return.

We did not hear Sharon say what he would do about 200,000 Israelis living within the borders of what would be Palestine.

But, if the question is could this be the beginning of something genuinely consequential, maybe, perhaps, just possibly, yes.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York. (END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: James Rubin experienced his share of hope and frustration and words, lots of words, when he served as assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration. We're always pleased to have him on the program and we are tonight.

So, is this moment different? Is it different from -- it's certainly different from the last couple of years. Is it different in a way that leads, that should lead us to believe maybe this time?

JAMES RUBIN, FMR. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: I think we're a long, long way from a permanent peace, from the kind of grand agreement that President Clinton was negotiating with Arafat and Barak at Camp David and after that.

What we may have a beginning is the end of this second intafada, this second mini war between Israel and the Palestinians, and I think a lot of the optimism is a reflection of the fact that the new Palestinian prime minister has never been one of those ambiguous figures the way Arafat was, one day supporting violence, the next day having peace negotiations.

Abu Mazen, the new prime minister, has always said that violence and struggle -- violent struggle is not the way for the Palestinians to get what they want, so I think that's the reason why people are optimistic. The problem is we don't know if he has any power.

BROWN: Yes.

RUBIN: After two years of the Israelis pounding the Palestinian Authority because of their support for terrorism, we don't know if the institutions that he stands on top of really have the power to crack down on Hamas and the other Islamic Jihad and the other terrorist groups.

BROWN: Has the landscape in the region because of 9/11, because of the war in Iraq, has the landscape changed so dramatically to change the possibility that peace will come because there's always this external force that was pressure on the Palestinians or a lack of pressure on the Palestinians in some case to make a deal?

RUBIN: Well, the really new element is the war in Iraq and I think we've always been waiting for some external element to shake up the dice, to change the equation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The problem is that people have different reasons to want the president of the United States, having won the war in Iraq, to be involved.

The Israelis want him involved because they believe that having won the war the Palestinians are in a weaker position, that their sponsors in Iraq, people who funded the Palestinian communities are now discredited, that the United States is stronger, and that terrorism has been discredited, and thus the Palestinians will be forced to accept perhaps less than they might have accepted earlier. Meanwhile, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the Europeans, frankly, want President Bush involved because they imagine that having won the war in Iraq he's now in a better position to put pressure on Sharon. The only way -- and thus make the Israelis give up these settlements and do some of the other things people have in mind.

The only way this is going to work is if both sides are right, if the Palestinians feel the need to compromise in a way they haven't, but President Bush realizes that the Israelis are going to have to give and a lot more than the outposts.

Remember, all Sharon is talking about is things that have been built since the intafada started, not the reasons for the intafada which relate to settlements, relate to the occupation, and the problems the Israelis and Palestinians have had for years.

BROWN: To what extent has Sharon tipped his hand in how far he will go or not go?

RUBIN: Well, we've seen a lot of different leaks out of the Israeli press and it's very hard to read him. You know, his people are now saying that he's the man of peace. It's Nixon goes to China. He's the only one who can deliver on a peace agreement.

The problem is when he's talked about what his vision for the future is, it's not one that even comes close to what was on offer at Camp David when Arafat turned it down, namely he's envisioning a much, much smaller Palestinian state, perhaps contiguous, that is connected to each other, but in a much, much smaller area than the larger state that Arafat turned down when Barak offered it to him.

BROWN: Is it conceivable to you that the Palestinians would accept that, forget the sort of vulcanized if you would of the West Bank particularly, but that smaller view of the West Bank?

RUBIN: In my judgment, and I hope I'm wrong in a sense, is that the Palestinians will never accept anything less than Barak offered them at Camp David and subsequently, that is a return of 100 percent of the quantity, if not the exact territory from 1967, a sharing of Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state. And, Sharon and his government aren't even miles from that kind of proposal. That's why we need to be cautious.

BROWN: Really quickly, what do you think the next important moment is?

RUBIN: The next important moment is when there's another terrorist incident. Does Sharon accept that 100 percent effort by the prime minister is sufficient or does he demand, as he's demanded in the past, 100 percent results? There will be more terrorism and we'll have to see how people respond to it.

BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It's good to see you.

RUBIN: Nice to see you. BROWN: Thank you.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, Martha Stewart knows how to make hot water. Does she know how to get out of hot water? The Martha mess and more as we continue from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For nearly a quarter of a century, Martha Stewart has done a lot more than just write the book on living the good life. Her own life has been a lesson, chapter and verse on getting there and she certainly has, so much so a lot of people are surprised she wasn't to the manner born but she wasn't.

She became a billionaire, media tycoon, the old-fashioned way, through lots of hard work. Tonight, a large part of her work is over. She stepped down as chairman and CEO of her company a short time ago. She called it the right thing to do. Her announcement capped a day that began in court, reporting for us tonight CNN's Allan Chernoff.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF (voice-over): Martha Stewart arrived in court to face charges she and her stockbroker engaged in a cover-up to hide the truth about her sale of ImClone stock.

JAMES COMEY, U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: This criminal case is about lying, lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC, and lying to investors. That is conduct that will not be tolerated by anyone. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is but because of what she did.

CHERNOFF: The criminal charges include obstruction of justice, false statements, and securities fraud. In court, Stewart and broker Peter Bacanovic pled not guilty. Their lawyers are pledging to win at trial.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate civil charge of securities fraud, alleging illegal insider trading.

WAYNE CARLIN, SEC: This was information that would be reported to any investor. Martha Stewart had the information and Martha Stewart had no right to have the information or to trade on it.

CHERNOFF: In a written statement, Stewart's attorneys said: "Martha Stewart has done nothing wrong. The government is making her the subject of a criminal test case." Stewart was released without bail and left the court to squeeze through a mob of photographers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHERNOFF: By unloading her ImClone stock the day before the Food and Drug Administration gave a thumbs-down to the company's cancer drug, Stewart avoided losses of about $45,000. The charges now facing Stewart carry a maximum penalty of $2 million and 30 years in prison, although if actually convicted any jail time would be a fraction of that amount -- Aaron.

BROWN: And just quickly, for people who own shares in the company, how significant is the fact that she stepped down?

CHERNOFF: Well, this had clearly been anticipated for quite some time but nonetheless the fact that she had stepped down from head of the company clearly is a blow. Sharon Patrick (ph), the president who is now taking on chief executive officer role, she is a very strong manager, considered to be a strong manager and, in fact, has been running the company day-to-day for a very long time -- Aaron.

BROWN: Allan, thank you very much.

We've watched this story unfold on TV and in the page of "The Wall Street Journal," mostly under the byline of Charles Gasparino and we're glad to have him with us tonight. It's nice to see you Charlie.

Did this go about as you thought it would go when you first started writing about this a year ago?

CHARLES GASPARINO, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTER: Absolutely. Jerry Marcon (ph), he now works at the "Washington Post," was my partner and we kind of knew this was going to happen. We saw it unfold. We saw how they were making their case. They basically were making an obstruction case.

BROWN: So you didn't think that she'd ultimately get charged with insider trading because she wasn't?

GASPARINO: Well, we thought it would be a civil case. I mean that's an interesting thing. We kind of nailed this thing from the beginning, insider trading in a civil case because insider trading is notoriously to prove criminally. Obstruction because if you look at her story, it just doesn't seem to hold water.

BROWN: Come back to the obstruction question.

On the insider trading, is it clear to you that she knew that the -- of the FDA decision on the drug as opposed to knowing that the Waksal family was selling?

GASPARINO: No.

But listen -- I mean, the Waksal family selling is very important information. No one would know that. My mother-in-law in Queens , Angela Juliana (ph), would have not known that information. Her broker would never have never given her that information. It was a small group of people that got this information and that's why she came up in this.

BROWN: But is knowing that -- is that a crime?

GASPARINO: It could be, because no one else knew that but a small group of people. I mean, that's not advertised. I mean you can't -- if a CEO of a company sells its stock that's big news. You usually find out about this much later, after they filed the appropriate forms.

By the way, he didn't sell. He tried to sell.

BROWN: He tried to sell. But...

GASPARINO: Merrill Lynch stopped him from selling.

BROWN: But his family members...

GASPARINO: Oh yeah.

BROWN: ....did sell, didn't they?

GASPARINO: Right. Absolutely.

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Absolutely, and what's interesting that all of the people that sold seem to be, you know, this whole politically connected set of people, including Martha Stewart.

BROWN: The charges against her are basically that she lied -- basically what it comes down to, right?

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

BROWN: Lied to who?

GASPARINO: Lied to the government. Lied to the SEC. Lied to the Justice Department.

BROWN: She wasn't under oath. Does it matter?

GASPARINO: No. I don't -- you have -- when you are being -- when you're take testimony, when they are essentially taking information from you, you have to tell them the truth. They're conducting a formal investigation and they can nail you are for doing that. It's not just lying. It's also putting out false statements. I mean, I think that's part of the obstruction side.

BROWN: Part of the -- one of the charges is that she essentially damaged the investors in her company.

GASPARINO: Right.

BROWN: Can you explain that?

GASPARINO: Well, she put out a statement along the way, which the government believes was specifically design designed to prop up the stock of Martha Stewart Living. It was a false statement and that's why -- that's a very unusual charge. It's, again, pushing the boundaries.

I mean, this is going to be a difficult insider trading case. I think it's a pretty easy obstruction case. But again, they're pushing the boundaries with that one. BROWN: Well, but insider trading case is a civil case.

GASPARINO: Absolutely.

BROWN: All right. So that could cost her some dough but...

GASPARINO: Cost her dough and, you know, she may be out of that company forever.

BROWN: But the rest is the kind of stuff that can land you in jail?

GASPARINO: Right.

BROWN: Is she going to jail, do you think?

GASPARINO: Good chance of that.

BROWN: You think so?

GASPARINO: I think so.

BROWN: They're going to send Martha Stewart to jail?

GASPARINO: I think there's a good chance. Under the federal sentence guidelines, I think they have too.

BROWN: Give me a time line. Where -- where -- well, first all, tell me if you think ultimately she'll cop a plea.

GASPARINO: You know, I don't know. I mean, she's stubborn. She may not. But if she doesn't, they're going to really go after her and I believe she will do some jail time.

BROWN: I asked this question yesterday. Do you think there is anything to the fact, as some people do, of the fact that she's a prominent Democrat had anything to do with the fact that she's dealing with this?

GASPARINO: No. That's the biggest laughable thing out of this whole thing.

Think about how they caught her. They looked at all of people who traded around the time Sam Waksal traded and they came up with her. They didn't say, Let's get all the Democrats that traded during that time. They went after everybody.

BROWN: Nice work on this.

GASPARINO: Thank you.

BROWN: It was great seeing you.

GASPARINO: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you. Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll check some of the day's other top stories.

Later, more on the revelations from Hillary Clinton's new book.

Long way to go yet tonight. Stay with us. This is NEWSNIGHT around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: And next on NEWSNIGHT, new video of a test that shows just how much damage a piece of foam can do to the space shuttle.

We take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: An update now on a story we first reported last week here. New testing that might explain what caused the space shuttle Columbia's demise. Today, NASA videotape of the test, which involved firing a chunk of foam at a simulated wing of the shuttle. This is important because investigators believe the foam came off of the shuttle's tank after liftoff. The tape shows the kind of damage it might have done to the tiles covering Columbia's wing.

Another update, this one from San Francisco, a real poke in the eye for the Justice Department. A federal judge today sentenced Ed Rosenthal to three days in prison, one for each count on pot growing charges. He could have gotten 60 years. The federal government wanted six-and-a-half. You will recall Mr. Rosenthal was convicted despite the fact he grew pot as an agent for Oakland, California's medical marijuana program, medical marijuana being legal under California state law.

And to Washington, D.C. now, the House tonight passing the bill banning the controversial procedure that abortion opponents call partial-birth abortion. The Senate has already passed its version of the bill. The president says he'll sign the finished bill. Abortion activists say the bill flies in the face of the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision 30 years ago and promise a stiff legal challenge on this one as soon as the bill is signed.

And finally the reason why it's awfully quiet around the NEWSNIGHT office. Most of the staffers, many as could get away, spent the evening rubbing soldiers with the vice president, senators and Congressman and the rest of the media. But given the choice of donning a tux and eating chicken or hanging out with you, the program's anchor, though not his producer nor his assistant, chose you.

Couple of other items from around the world before we go to break -- that is to say, before we go to break.

First one comes to us from Baghdad. Soldiers armed with backhoes began searching for human remains in a crater where bombers struck late in the war. The bombers were trying to hit Saddam Hussein. Searchers are looking for evidence they succeeded. So far, no sign of his remains. The rubble was taken elsewhere for closer examination.

Central Spain, a pair of trains collided head on. One carried freight, the other passengers. At least 19 people died. Spanish officials say the crash may have been caused by a worker giving the wrong signal, allowing both trains to continue down the same track.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the tell-all from the former first lady and hear what she has to say about what she said. Next.

This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It was a year ago tonight this a teenager named Elizabeth Smart was kidnaped from her suburban home just outside Salt Lake City. She was held for nine month. And when she was finally recognized and returned to her parents earlier this year, the relief was profound. But, apparent reason behind her kidnapping is reminding nearly everyone in the state of something most would rather forget, polygamy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): For the past 7 years, Scott Cosgrove has spent most of his time investigating polygamy. And when he saw that photograph of Elizabeth Smart after she was found, it was an image he instantly recognized.

SCOTT COSGROVE, DETECTIVE BOX ELDER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: When I first saw that photo, that's the first thing that came to my mind. This girl is dressed like a polygamist girl here in the state. It's one that we see all the time up on a ranch or a farm owned by a polygamist family.

BROWN: The long single braid in her hair, the extra rosy tint to her cheeks.

COSGROVE: It's going to be a tough time for the family and especially Elizabeth.

BROWN: Tough because Brian David Mitchell has told police he believes in polygamy, and because his wife Wanda Barzee has told a longtime friend that that was precisely and why he took Elizabeth Smart from her home.

VICKI COTTRELL, FRIEND OF WANDA BARZEE: She said, we received revelation on Thanksgiving 2000 that Brian was to take seven wives. She said there is an age range, because when you get older, you're too set in your ways.

BROWN: Polygamy has been part of the state of Utah since its very founding. Brigham Young, the Mormon church leader, who led his followers here in the mid 19th century had dozens of wives. In order to gain admission as a state, Mormon leaders has to disavow polygamy as church policy, but it has persisted ever since. And with all of the attention generated by the Smart case, it is now uncomfortably for most here, back in the spotlight. DEAN HAYS, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: People who practice polygamy in Utah today, see themselves as continuing a practice that was urged upon Latter Day Saints by their earlier prophets. And see them as continuing the practice as taught by earlier Latter Day Saint prophets. So the power of history. The power of faith.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) polygamy for 34 years. I was a second wife of two.

BROWN: Rowenna Erickson was married to her sister's husband. And ultimately left because of what she says was abuse and decades of control.

ROWENNA ERICKSON, FORMER POLYGAMIST WIFE: They make sure you have lots of children. Which will keep you tied down and obligated to that.

BROWN: There's no precise number of how many polygamists there here in Utah. Officials estimate somewhere around 30,000. But the unofficial estimates ranges as high as 50,000 perhaps more. It remains illegal. But authorities rarely prosecute.

DON WHITE, ATTORNEY: For a number of years, and I'm going 50, 60, 70 years, I think prosecutors had an attitude. They really -- and I used to be a prosecutor. It'll go away in time. We don't want to get involved. It's sex. It's kids. It's multiple wives. It's nasty. It's ugly. We got better things to do.

BROWN: But the lawyers who represent polygamist say that is nonsense.

ROD PARKER, ATTORNEY: The people in law enforcement who actually know my clients, the people who are closest to them, the county attorneys and the more of the local people, understand what I'm saying. Which is, that these extreme examples are not representative of what's really going on in those societies. And that by in large these are just decent people trying to raise their families.

BROWN: The trial of Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart is still months in the future. But defense attorneys say no matter what happens in court, a subject that most here wish would simply go away, polygamy, is sure to play a principle part in the proceedings.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We'll take a break and be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We admit that whether Sammy Sosa, the Chicago Cubs is a serial cheater is not exactly the most pressing issue facing the world today. But we bet they talk more about Sosa's cork bat Chicago today than they did about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Sosa says it's all an innocent mistake. That he didn't mean to make that cork bat. That he didn't mean to cheat. And maybe, just maybe he's telling the truth.

Here's CNN's Gary Tuchman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sammy Sosa received a standing ovation from most of crowd at Wrigley Field and went to bat in the first inning Wednesday night, exactly 24 hours after he hit a ground ball that led to a broken bat and some broken hearts.

Inside Sosa's bat, cork, illegal in America's national pastime, something that could make it easier to hit home runs. The league took 76 of his other bats at Wrigley Field for inspection. X-rays showed none of them had cork but the investigation continues and a suspension will likely be coming, its length to be announced as early as Thursday.

SAMMY SOSA, MLB PLAYER, CHICAGO CUBS: It's a mistake. We're all human and we all made a mistake. Nobody perfect in this world.

TUCHMAN: But Slamming Sammy is a hero in Chicago where the Cubs haven't won a world series in 95 years. So that's why this especially hurt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... big Cub fan, very disappointed, you know, that moronic move.

TUCHMAN: Many fans calling Chicago's the Score Sports Radio Station expressed similar disappointed disappointment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, guys, I'm a baseball fan and I think this is a big black eye for baseball.

TUCHMAN: The headlines in the Chicago newspapers were tough and so were some of those newspaper's columnists.

PAUL SULLIVAN, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Basically his whole home run hitting career is in doubt because people are always going to wonder did he use an illegal bat to hit 500 home runs.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Sosa is the only baseball player to ever hit 60 or more home runs in three different seasons. And his personality is exuberant, which leads many Cub fans to say cut him a break.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean he's not cocky and arrogant like a lot of these athletes. And Chicago should respect that and they should respect him and believe him when he says that it was just a mistake.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Sosa says the cork bat was only supposed to be used in batting practice to put on a show for the fans and using it in the game was an accident. So how many times has he used it?

SOSA: I've used (UNINTELLIGIBLE) batting practice about three, four times. TUCHMAN: Ultimately Major League Baseball's investigation will likely determine how many fans continue to go to bat for Sammy Sosa.

Gary Tuchman, CNN, Chicago.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Stepping up to the plate watching -- I said we weren't going to do anymore word plays and there I did one -- in Washington tonight is National Public Radio anchor and reporter Scott Simon who's also written a couple of books about baseball, "Jackie Robinson" and "Home and Away" which deals with his growing up as a fan.

Good to see you. Having you on the program. Well just when you thought it was safe to be a Cubs fan...

Yes. This happened.

SCOTT SIMON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: You know, it's looking a lot better tonight, if I might say. As I believe your piece noted, I couldn't quite hear all of it, they've tested the 76 bats they have found in the locker room and they all tested negative. I believe I read on the wire, they could test the five bats he has in the Hall of Fame. He says they'll turn out negative.

I don't think, contrary to what Paul Sullivan of "The Tribune" said, his entire career as a home run hitter is going to be thrown into question, which is not to say that this isn't terrific embarrassment for the diaspora of Cub fans that are spread out all over the world, myself included.

BROWN: Do you think that -- I think you're probably right, that his entire career will not be tarnished by this. But do you think that is in large part because he is Sammy Sosa and not Albert Belle, if you will?

SIMON: Well, I think that's a fact of life. He has a very sunny personality and disposition. I think for a lot of us, even people who are not Cub fans, Sammy Sosa is the best part of baseball. He's somebody who has always acted as if his talent isn't some kind of burden but it's a gift that he enjoys sharing with the world.

You know I believe more or less his explanation that that was a bat he used in batting practice. I've seen him take it at batting practice any number of times. He does love to give the fans a show, it's expected of him. He often won't go back into the locker room until he's hit one last towering home run.

Doesn't quite explain why he didn't notice the difference when he picked it up to use it in an actual game because I would -- you know, a professional ballplayer, I think should sense the difference.

But that being said, I think it's just a fact of life that his personality is going to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I think there's something to be said for that. He's uplifted the game a great deal. And I think that the way he faced up to the situation last night, the way he faced the press immediately, did interview after interview, this man is a mench, use an old baseball term...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: ... very old baseball term. Goes back to the Yiddish leagues.

SIMON: I believe so.

BROWN: Let me offer a slightly more cynical view, OK? He was struggling, he's coming back from injury, really hadn't hit much since he came back. And he's sitting there thinking, you know what? I need to do some business out here and maybe this bat will help.

SIMON: Oh, I think that's entirely plausible. I mean I recognize we're talking about stuff that's plausible and may not necessarily be likely. Yes, I can believe that.

I don't think this suggests that he's hit all of his home runs elicitly. I think it suggests he's human enough to crowd and to field in a pinch as any great hitter would in a slump and he will do anything to get out of this slump. I mean, that's his profession. That's what he does for a living. His whole definition in life. And you know the fact is, we're frail. That kind of thing can happen.

BROWN: Scott, you said something today, earlier today, you said you thought of this as a benign form of cheating. Not as bad as Mark McGwire using supplements. May I point out that Mr. McGwire was not doing anything illegal.

SIMON: Aaron, really, you shouldn't believe what your producers tell you.

BROWN: You didn't say that?

SIMON: I can't imagine what would have said something like that.

I do think there are a lot of things they're going to call -- that are going to call records into question from nutrition supplements, vitamin supplements to, in fact, the ocular surgery they're doing nowadays that Tiger Woods just got that gives him much better 20/20 eyes. So I think it's possible for hitters who are coming up now to have eyes that are much better than Ted Williams.

Yes, this was illegal. He shouldn't have done it. That being said, spitters are illegal and there are great spit ball pitchers in the Hall of Fame who write best sellers after their in the Hall of Fame to talk about their careers as a pitcher of spitters.

So, look, I'm inclined to cut Sammy Sosa a lot of slack.

BROWN: You are indeed.

What is it though, there is something about baseball, more so I think than other sports, where these benign forms of cheating that someone might have said earlier today, but not necessarily said, these benign forms of cheating are almost celebrated, almost. SIMON: Well, I'm afraid they're considered part of the game. Stealing signs from another team is considered part of the game. There's a part at which you go overboard obviously.

And I think if Sammy Sosa had been using the cork bat for many years, which among other things I don't believe because I don't think he could have had the home runs stats he did over the past six years with a cork bat and not have it been discovered. If one hadn't broken on the field, and a great home run hitter will routinely break eight to a dozen bats a year, somebody would have dropped a dime on him, somebody who's traded to another club, someone in a position to know that.

But it's part of the charm of baseball. I hate to put it that way, but part of what we follow that people can just skate fine edge. It happens in the stock car racing, too, where people read the rules and figure out ways to evade them or enrich them and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And yet at the same time, get a certain amount of respect for the ingenuity with which they do it. This doesn't sound, by the way, like it was done very ingeniously.

BROWN: Not terribly.

It's good to have you with us tonight. Thank you, I hope you come back.

SIMON: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you, Scott Simon, National Public Radio.

And NEWSNIGHT continues in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the ongoing discussion of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or lack thereof, it is good to at least remember this. Even those countries opposed to the war by and large believe the Iraqis had such a program.

That is not to say the intelligence, in some way, wasn't cooked. Perhaps it was. Perhaps the supporters of the war gave more weight to the evidence supporting their argument than the evidence which raised doubts.

That might have happened.

But the truth is, we don't yet know that, and maybe we never will. But it won't be for lack of trying.

Here's CNN's David Ensor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The simple fact that eight weeks into the occupation of Iraq U.S. forces still have not found any of the weapons of mass destruction that American intelligence predicted were there is raising the political pressure on the administration almost daily.

REP. JOSEPH HOEFFEL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Like millions of Americans, I'm wondering where the (expletive deleted) the weapons of mass destruction are.

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: I'm deeply concerned about reports that the administration twisted the arms of our intelligence analysts to produce analysis which agreed with the policies that you wanted to pursue.

JOHN BOLTON, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE: I personally never asked anybody in the intelligence community to change a single thing that they presented. And I am not aware of any other official in this administration who did that.

ENSOR: Undersecretary of State John Bolton said finding weapons of mass destruction may take time.

BOLTON: The finding of the weapons, the production means, will occur in due course. If this stuff had just been lying around on the ground, UNMOVIC would have found it.

ENSOR: But critics suspect a conspiracy to justify the war. Some dissident former CIA officers say Pentagon hawks took hearsay from Iraqi defectors around exiled leader Ahmed Chalabi and presented it to the president as fact.

RAY MCGOVERN, FORMER CIA OFFICER: When Rumsfeld couldn't get the answers that he wanted from the Central Intelligence Agency, he created his own mini-CIA in the bowels of the Pentagon.

ENSOR: At the Pentagon, officials held a special briefing Wednesday to respond to that charge, saying a small special plans office did analyze but never collected intelligence and never twisted arms.

DOUGLAS FEITH, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: See, this suggestion that we said to them, This is what we're looking for, go find it, is precisely the inaccuracy that we are here to rebut.

ENSOR: At the CIA, officials say an internal review is looking at whether an October classified report saying Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program was based on solid intelligence.

(on camera): But the real answer to that question will await the work of the 1,400-plus-member Iraqi Survey Group now assembling in Baghdad, and including Australians and Britons as well as Americans.

U.S. intelligence officials say they still believe that that group will find, at a minimum, Iraqi chemical weapons unaccounted for since the end of the first Gulf War.

David Ensor, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BROWN: So the administration is having to deal with the suggestion that at the very least, it made too much of the threat posed by Iraq. It is also having to deal with questions about hyping the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch.

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is raising these questions and others, also running for the Democratic nomination for president.

And the congressman joins us from Washington tonight.

It's always nice to see you, sir. Thank you.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good evening.

BROWN: Let's see how direct we can be here. Do you believe that the -- that people in the administration essentially cooked the books on weapons of mass destruction, that they either phonied up intelligence or ignored any intelligence that did not agree with their predisposed notion of what Iraq was?

KUCINICH: Well, there's certainly questions that have to be raised when all of us are familiar with the fact that top administration officials asserted over and over that there were weapons of mass destruction, which constituted an imminent threat, and that we had to go in immediately to do something about it.

I mean, if the cause of war involved weapons of mass destruction, and that's what we were led to believe, and they cannot find those weapons of mass destruction, then the American people have a right to conclude that perhaps those weapons of mass destruction never existed, and the cause of war, in fact, was fraudulent.

BROWN: Well, but there -- congressman, there are two -- at least two ways to look at that. One is that the intelligence itself was wrong, but that it was gathered in good faith, that it was analyzed in good faith, but it was wrong.

The other way to look at it, and it's a less benign explanation, is that the administration ignored any intelligence that did not support what it wanted to do for a variety of other reasons, which was wage war with Iraq.

KUCINICH: Well, that's one of the reasons why I'm introducing a resolution of inquiry tomorrow, which will be co-sponsored by about two dozen members of Congress, so that we will get from the White House the information concerning what would back up all the statements that they made concerning the weapons of mass destruction.

I mean, this is the reason why people have a loss of confidence in government, because if government says, This is why we have to go to war, and then it turns out not to have been the truth, then this credibility gap develops, and the trust that's needed in order to keep a democratic institution together begins to erode.

I mean, really, let's face it, this is about the integrity of the information process, and it's also about whether or not a nation can be led to war based on misinformation.

BROWN: One of the arguments that supporters of the war have been putting forward since the end of the war, or since it became clear that finding these weapons of mass destruction, if they existed at all, has not gone exactly great, is that in the end, it's a just war because we know so much more about Saddam Hussein now. We know so much more about how brutal he was, how many people died in that regime, that, as someone said on the program the other night, he was the weapon of mass destruction.

Do you believe that absent weapons of mass destruction, it was a just war?

KUCINICH: Well, if he was the weapon of mass destruction, we have another problem, because we haven't found him either.

So I think that we have to consider that this nation was sent to war to find weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly constituted an imminent threat. It was not go -- if it went to war for regime change, then they should have told the American people that. That's not what they told the American people.

Look, the decision to commit a nation to war is the most grave decision that any government can make and any president can make and any member of Congress can vote on. And if this information, if they cooked the books on the intelligence, that's -- nothing is more grave.

This could end up being one of the most serious matters in American history.

And that's why, in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Subcommittee with jurisdiction over national defense, I'm proceeding with this resolution of inquiry and asking the questions of the Department of Defense and of the White House, whether or not, in fact, they have the information to back up their repeated assertions that they knew there were weapons of mass destruction, that they knew they were nuclear weapons, in fact, that they knew exactly where they were, that there was an immediate threat to this country, and that they had to send the troops, at great cost to life and limb, and at great cost to the taxpayers of the United States, and, I might add, at great cost to the reputation of the United States.

This is a matter of whether or not honesty in government means anything, and it must mean something in a democracy.

BROWN: Just to pick one small point in all that, and maybe you'll disagree here, but I don't believe the administration ever said that they -- the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. I think what the administration was that the Iraqi government was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

KUCINICH: Well, that's right, and what Seymour Hersh did in "The New Yorker" was kind of knock that into a hat by pointing out that the intelligence story that came out of Niger was fabricated.

BROWN: Correct. All right. Now, on to the Jessica Lynch case. Basically what you're saying here is that you have a strong suspicion that the Pentagon hyped this for reasons of its own. Fair enough?

KUCINICH: Well, wait a minute, Aaron. What I'm saying is that there's a discrepancy in the stories. I mean, we have a number of reputable news agencies who are suggesting that the Pentagon embellished the story in order to create a circumstance where they would attract more attention to support for the war by raising up this unfortunate prisoner of war, who we revere for her service to our country, Jessica Lynch, it's -- it -- is to be congratulated for being a good American, for serving her country.

But wouldn't it be sad if we find out that she was exploited for propaganda purposes? I mean, and that's the suggestion that's been made in these other news reports. And what I'm trying to do is to get it sorted out.

It's a very simple way to do it. Let's get the outtakes, let's get the videotape that was taken, and then we'll answer the question. And if it didn't happen, fine, and if it did happen, then the Pentagon ought to compensate Jessica Lynch and her family for all the turmoil that she's been put through from the beginning of this episode to the present date.

BROWN: Basically, what we have here is some reporting, a fair amount of reporting at this point, I think it's fair to say, that there were no troops in the hospital, that there was no need to go in there guns blazing. I think someone -- I think it might have been the BBC -- but someone even suggested that the Americans who went in there were firing blanks.

By the way, do you believe that?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, I wasn't there. But I know one thing, there's a camera that was there, and there's a tape. And it would be helpful to see the entire tape. And let's set the questions aside then. You know, the -- in a democracy, you need information in order to keep a country together. In order to keep the world together, you need honesty.

And I think that you have to have full information to make informed decisions. And if there's any way in which this was embellished, then we've got to ask why, and then we have to see if it was any way related to try to shore up support for this war.

And, you see, there's symmetry here in your earlier news report and this one, and that is, do we have a case here where information was managed in such a way so as to create a -- and -- or endorse a preconceived conclusion in order to support a cause for war that otherwise would not have been supported?

BROWN: I agree, the tape would tell us a lot, so hopefully we'll get our hands on that.

KUCINICH: We'll find out. BROWN: We will find out. Congressman, it's always nice to have you on the program. Thank you very much.

KUCINICH: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you, sir.

One more item on all of this. If those unfound weapons of mass destruction are a problem of some dimensions, some size, for the president of the United States, and they seem to be that, they are a far greater problem for the man who went so staunchly shoulder to shoulder to war alongside him, Britain's Tony Blair.

Here's CNN's Robin Oakley reporting from London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Tony Blair, it had been quite some week, hobnobbing with British troops in Iraq, on the diplomatic tour through Poland and St. Petersburg, with the G-8 leaders in Evian.

But it's been no victory tour. Every step, he's been dogged by newspaper headlines at home suggesting his government had doctored intelligence reports to bolster its case for war.

When the leader of the House of Commons, his chief cabinet trouble-shooter, began talking of rogue elements in the security service seeking to undermine the government, it looked as though they were rattled. And when Blair faced MPs for questions, the opposition saw their chance.

IAN DUNCAN SMITH, CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER: The truth is, nobody -- nobody -- believes a word now that the prime minister is saying.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

SMITH: That's the truth. And now we have -- we have the unedifying sight of the leader of the House being sent out to do his bidding and attack elements of the security services.

OAKLEY: But Mr. Blair insisted the allegations were false, especially one that he'd insisted Saddam Hussein could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes despite intelligence service objections.

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: There was no attempt at any time by any official or minister or member of Number 10 Downing Street staff to override the intelligence judgments of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and their judgments, including the judgment about the so- called 45 minutes, was a judgment made by the Joint Intelligence Committee and by them alone.

OAKLEY: Britain's prime minister partially defused the attacks by promising to cooperate with an inquiry by parliament's Security Committee and to publish the result.

And by the end, he was cheered by his own MPs for a note of defiance. Predictions that it would be his Vietnam, he said, had been overdone.

BLAIR: The truth is, some people resent the fact it was right to go to conflict. We won the conflict thanks to the magnificent contribution of the British troops, and Iraq is now free, and we should be proud of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hear, hear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear, hear!

OAKLEY (on camera): The prime minister's troubles haven't gone away. He still needs somebody to find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Some in his own party still feel they were conned into supporting the war. But there were no indications today that Mr. Blair had been badly damaged.

Robin Oakley, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: As NEWSNIGHT continues, time to talk about that book. You know, the one by Senator Hillary Clinton.

But a break first around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Barry Manilow broke his nose. What can I tell you?

We were chided today, believe it or not, by a viewer who wrote that we seemed to have an obsession with former President Clinton's sex life. The writer reached this conclusion based on quotes we ran last night from Senator Hillary Clinton's book, which comes out Monday, quotes dealing with the Lewinsky scandal.

We assured the viewer that this was not true, that we are interested in the other hundreds of pages in the book, just as we are interested in all the articles in "Playboy."

But certain curiosities do need to be satisfied.

Here's CNN's Jonathan Karl.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After five years of silence on the Lewinsky scandal, Hillary Clinton is ready to tell her side of the story.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), AUTHOR, "LIVING HISTORY": I am a private person, and it was difficult to write the book. But I wanted to give a complete accounting of my eight years in the White House with my husband. And it was an extraordinary privilege to have that opportunity.

KARL: At the time, her body language seemed to tell the story. As the Clintons left for vacation in Martha's Vineyard in August 1998, after President Clinton admitted betraying his wife, their dog, Buddy, was the only member of the family willing to keep the president company.

If the excerpts obtained by the Associated Press are any indication, she vividly recounts how, during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the president woke her up one morning in the White House to tell her the truth about his affair, only 48 hours before testifying about it and telling the rest of the world.

"I could hardly breathe," she writes. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him. 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?' I was furious and getting more so by the second. He just stood there saying over and over again, 'I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I was trying to protect you and Chelsea.'"

On vacation in Martha's Vineyard, she said she felt profound sadness and unresolved anger. "I could barely speak to Bill, and when I did, it was a tirade. I read, I walked on the beach. He slept downstairs, I slept upstairs."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Months earlier, when he made his famous public denial, he was also lying to his wife in private. Mrs. Clinton believed him and famously went on national television, unwittingly repeating his lies and denouncing the reports about Lewinsky as the product of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

After learning the truth, she said she confronted one of the most difficult decisions of her life, whether to stay married to Bill Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON: I had to, I thought, write about the very many high points and good times, as well as the more difficult ones.

KARL (on camera): Mrs. Clinton says why her husband felt he needed to deceive her is, quote, "his own story, and he needs to tell it in his own way." Bill Clinton will get a chance to do just that in his own memoirs, which are expected out next year.

Jonathan Karl, CNN, Capitol Hill. (END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: As it turned out, today was a case of dueling headlines in the morning tabloids, Hillary and Martha. Martha Stewart, as you know, was in court today pleading not guilty to charges of securities fraud -- excuse me -- conspiracy, obstruction of justice -- in a word, lying to federal investigators looking into her insider trading.

Here we go again.

If convicted, Ms. Stewart could face fines of up to $2 million, 30 years in prison. But she's not going to jail for 30 years.

In any case, shortly after leaving court, she stepped down as chairman of her company. We told you that, those are the nuts and bolts.

But there is also this. Martha Stewart is a vastly polarizing figure. People love her or they don't. And so today was a big day for both.

Here's CNN's Charles Feldman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTHA STEWART: It's a Good Thing.

CHARLES FELDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the subject of Martha Stewart, the world seems divided. Hearing her signature slogan, "It's a Good Thing," either makes you want to embrace her or slap her silly.

Those who look up to her see a powerful female role model who created her famous persona of perfection. But others see a darker side, a mean spirited side that conjures up images of Leona Helmsley, another high-powered woman the media crowned the Queen of Mean.

Some suggest that if Martha Stewart was a man, her ambitions would be praised and rewarded, and sexism surely plays some role in the way some respond to Stewart.

But as this "Tonight" show sketch shows, some people love to hate Martha because she's an easy target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "TONIGHT WITH JAY LENO," NBC)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a Good Thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miss Stewart, we're with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody move, or the gingerbread man gets it, I swear!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, take it easy...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not (expletive deleted) around.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FELDMAN: Questions are already being raised about whether the feds are being too hard on Stewart. By the scales of modern-day Wall Street scandals, hers doesn't exactly rank among the worst.

Some suggest that the feds want to make an example of the priestess of home decorating, while others argue she's already paid a steep price for a relatively minor transgression.

While the alleged insider-inspired sale of her ImClone stock netted her about a quarter of a million dollars, since the scandal erupted, shareholders of Martha Stewart's company, including her, have lost about $450 million in stock value.

Now, that's hardly a Good Thing.

Charles Feldman, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: OK, we'll take a break and see if my voice holds out for morning papers, tomorrow's news tonight. But a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK, time to do morning papers, newspapers from around the country, around the world.

There's a really interesting thing in the papers today dealing with the House vote on the procedure that abortion opponents call partial birth abortion, and how newspapers handled this. I'm going to see if I can do this without getting in trouble, and I'm sure I can't.

Here we go. "The New York Times," up here, OK, "Measure Banning Abortion Method Wins House Vote," and "The Times," in its lead, refers to it as "the procedure that abortion opponents call partial birth abortion," which is correct, it's not a medical term, it's a political term.

"Cincinnati Enquirer," hardly a flaming liberal paper, by the way, handles it much the same way, "Abortion Procedure Ban Poised to Become Law," and they note that an Ohio congressman helped pass the bill.

"The Miami Herald," OK, same way, "Method to End Pregnancy Is Dealt Setback," that's how "The Miami Herald" headlined the story, and they too describe it as something that opponents call partial birth abortion.

Now, here's where I'm going to get in trouble. "The Washington Times," which is a more conservative paper, on its editorial page and now, I will submit, on its news page too. I don't want to get in a fight with these people, they're -- I'm sure they're fine people. "House OKs Ban on Partial Birth Abortion."

They simply adopt the language, the political language, and even in their lead, "A ban on partial birth abortion," which, by the way, is not easy to say, "is well on its way to becoming law," without any qualifier that this is the language of those people who are opposed to abortion.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting. That's one of the reasons we do morning papers. And how we doing on time? Thirty, OK.

Quickly, "Chicago Sun Times," "Sosa's 76 Bats Clean," that's their big lead story. Weather tomorrow in Chicago, by the way, is "Getting There."

And my favorite story of the day comes from "The Detroit Free Press." I'd have put this on the front page, "Yo Quiero $30.2 Million." Taco Bell lost $32 million today because they -- a judge or a jury found that they stole the chihuahua idea from a couple of guys, who are now going to get paid.

We'll see you tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. Until then, 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