Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Bush Defends War in Iraq; Shuttle Columbia Investigation Board Blames NASA 'Culture'; Interview With Cruz Bustamante

Aired August 26, 2003 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again.
We've said here more than a few times that when people say the situation in Iraq is a quagmire, that it seems to us, at least, a bit premature. Creating democracy from scratch isn't a four-week project. It has turned not just into a complicated one, far more complicated than the administration suggested when it argued its case for war, but clearly a dangerous one as well, and no one should be surprised by that.

Today, another marker was reached. More American soldiers have now died since the president declared an end to major combat back on the 1st of May than died during the war's major combat.

Iraq today isn't simple, neat, or clean. There is progress and peace, mostly, in much of the south. But up to the north, upwards of two dozen attacks on Americans each day.

There are signs that this country is starting to ask questions about the costs and the prospects in Iraq, and the president sought to turn the arguments in his favor today.

We'll spend time on this tonight. It is where we begin the whip. Our senior White House correspondent, John King, is in Waco, Texas. John, a headline from you.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, in a speech to veterans today, the president was quite defiant. He said the United States remains on offense. It will not retreat in the war on terrorism. To the president's supporters, it was the defiant speech they wanted to hear.

Ask his critics, though, they say this president is now quite defensive, Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you. Good to have you with us. And we'll get back to you at the top.

On now to the meeting of six nations in Beijing, with a goal of defusing the dangers posed by North Korea. Mike Chinoy is on the videophone with that tonight. So Mike, a headline from you.

MIKE CHINOY, CNN SR. ASIA CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, after almost a year of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, American and North Korean diplomats and officials from four other countries are sitting down in the building behind me here in Beijing. But both Washington and Pyongyang are starting this meeting showing little signs of flexibility and expectations for this three-day session of talks are low, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

And now the anthrax investigation, and a lawsuit filed against the Justice Department from the so-called person of interest in the case, bioterror expert Dr. Steven Hatfill.

Jeanne Meserve on that. So Jeanne, a headline.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Hatfill is suing not only the Justice Department, but Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI, saying they named him a person of interest in the anthrax case, only to divert attention from their own failed investigation.

He claims his rights have been trampled, his life ruined, Aaron.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT, more on the Iraq mission with a tough critic of the postwar planning, Senator Joseph Biden.

And on the day that the shuttle "Columbia" report is released, we'll talk about the culture at NASA and the future of manned space flight with the last man to walk on the moon. Gene Cernan joins us.

We'll talk with California's lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, about his platform and his chances on October 7. The latest polls now show him running ahead of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And in the courtroom battle of Fox News versus Al Franken, the comedian won hands down. Mr. Franken joins us to talk about the new book that caused all the fuss. And we promise we will try to do this with as little name-calling as possible. This is, after all, NEWSNIGHT.

And when you hear the NEWSNIGHT rooster crow -- and you will -- you'll know it's time for morning papers, our nightly look at what you'll be reading about tomorrow.

All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with Iraq, on a day when the costs in American lives of the occupation surpassed the cost of American lives in fighting the war. A depressing milestone, to be sure. And just as discouraging, today differs little from yesterday, and, barring a miracle, from tomorrow.

With that as a motivator, criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is growing louder. Today the president answered his critics, and we begin with CNN senior White House correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): The president addressed veterans at what he called a testing point in Iraq, and the broader war on terrorism.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.

KING: Mr. Bush's critics say no one is suggesting retreat, just a new strategy. Even Republicans just back from Iraq say more troops are needed. And several of the Democrats running for president say Mr. Bush should have done a better job getting other nations to join the postwar security operation.

With the deaths of two more soldiers Tuesday, the Pentagon says 139 troops have died in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared mission accomplished and major combat over back on May 1. That surpasses the 138 who died up to that point.

Critics say Mr. Bush underestimated the postwar security challenge. He says the attacks of recent weeks are proof of progress, not of bad planning.

BUSH: The more progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become. Freedom is a threat to their way of life.

KING: Mr. Bush also insisted, again, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war. But none have been found, and the president is mindful that too could be a campaign issue.

BUSH: In all the debates over Iraq, we must never forget the brutal nature of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mass gravesites, literally thousands of people buried in mass gravesites, were recently discovered by our troops.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The president Today on Iraq, reported by our senior White House correspondent, John King.

As we've now mentioned a couple of times, more troops have now died keeping the peace, such as it is, than died fighting the war. The latest, a soldier killed during an attack on his convoy. And like the other ambushes and assassinations, it takes a toll beyond just lives.

Reporting now, CNN's Ben Wedeman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You're looking at what the U.S. military calls Operation Jimmy Hoffa, U.S. forces on another raid north of Baghdad. This time, on what they described as a criminal ring involved in murder, gun running, and fatal attacks on American troops.

The raid involved hundreds of soldiers employing tactics that have become fairly standard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the ground!

WEDEMAN: Tactics that have ignited widespread resentment among many Iraqis, who accuse American forces of heavy-handedness.

The soldiers found weapons and arrested suspects, but failed to find the alleged gang leader. Nonetheless, the assessment was upbeat.

CAPT. JOHN NALLS, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) also been very good. We've captured our three-target personnel. We have them currently. We have them detained. And we'll get them processed through the justice system.

WEDEMAN: To the south, a handshake and a handover. Control of the Shi'ite holy city of Karbala will soon pass from American to Bulgarian control, part of Washington's effort to spread the increasingly heavy burden of running Iraq and internationalize the occupation.

LT. COL. PETKO MARINOV, BULGARIAN ARMY (through translator): One of our efforts is to contribute to the establishment of a peaceful environment here in Karbala.

WEDEMAN: There are plenty of unknown groups popping up, threatening to undermine these efforts. In the latest videotape aired on the Arabic satellite news network Al Arabiya, representatives of three groups -- Islamic Jihad, the Iraqi Liberation Organization, and Muslim Youth -- threatened to kill Iraqis who cooperate with coalition forces, before they go on to kill more Americans.

Ben Wedeman, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Earlier tonight, we spoke with Senator Joe Biden, the senior Democratic senator from Delaware. He's got serious differences with the administration's policy on Iraq, many of which his Republican colleagues have begun voicing as well.

Our interview with Senator Biden runs a little bit later in the program tonight.

On now to the space shuttle. In a press release from NASA, here's the money quote, as we say in the newsroom. "NASA has acted to elevate the emphasis of safety and implement organizational changes to strengthen safety programs." The date? January 22, 1988, just short of two years after the space shuttle "Challenger" blew up, 15 years before the space shuttle "Columbia" broke apart.

Tonight, the final report on that disaster is out. Among the conclusions, those changes made 15 years ago in the name of safety didn't stick.

Here's CNN's Miles O'Brien.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The technical answer to the "Columbia" disaster, simple.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In four simple words, the foam did it.

O'BRIEN: For nearly two months, the shattering conclusion has held up. A piece of foam broke off the shuttle's external tank during launch, struck the orbiter's wing, and breached the protective tiles. Sixteen days later, the spacecraft disintegrated during reentry, killing all seven astronauts.

SCOTT HUBBARD, "COLUMBIA" INVESTIGATION BOARD MEMBER: The machine was talking, but why was nobody hearing? How were the signals missed?

O'BRIEN: The alarm sounded in today's final report, a longstanding culture at NASA with the wrong priorities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: NASA had conflicting goals of cost, schedule, and safety, and unfortunately safety lost out...

O'BRIEN: Stinging criticism from the "Columbia" accident investigation board of a gradual relaxation of safety standards at NASA. To ensure mission safety, the report calls for the creation of a new safety team, a so-called technical engineering authority, within NASA, but independent of the shuttle program.

The board did not say the shuttle fleet should be grounded, but it did recommend the development of a temporary vehicle to replace the shuttle, a so-called orbital space plane to be used as a ferry to the International Space Station over the next decade, until the next generation of shuttles is developed.

From the report, quote, "Previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging shuttle represent a failure of national leadership."

ADM. HAL GEHMAN (RET.), CHAIRMAN, "COLUMBIA" INVESTIGATION BOARD: The leadership, not just the administrator, all levels of leadership are going to have to actively drive the bad cultural traits out of the organization. And it's something they're going to have to buy into personally...

O'BRIEN (on camera): That criticism is practically a carbon copy of some of the concerns raised 17 years ago in the wake of the "Challenger" accident. The hope is this time, NASA managers take it to heart, and change the way they do business once and for all.

Miles O'Brien, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We're joined now by Gene Cernan, who served as an astronaut during another moment when one tragedy and another near- disaster forced NASA to reexamine itself. He went on to become the last man to walk on the moon.

And we're always glad to have him on the program, and we're glad to see Captain Cernan tonight.

It is a staggering -- I know you were able to hear the report. It is a staggering piece of sound, when someone says that cost and scheduling and safety, and safety lost out. You're talking about human lives, you're talking about extraordinary costs associated with rebuilding the program after a tragedy. How can safety lose out?

CAPT. GENE CERNAN, APOLLO 17 COMMANDER: Well, somehow it seems to take a back seat occasionally, Aaron. I can go back to the days prior to the Apollo 1 fire, when we, the astronauts -- not that we're the saviors by any means -- but were trying to get some changes in the spacecraft of things that concerned us concerning safety and our ability to accomplish a mission.

And we were always hit with cost and schedules, cost and schedules. We'll never get there from here on time if we don't get on with it.

It bit us then, and it obviously just bit us again.

BROWN: Has -- this, perhaps, slightly off point, but has the role of the astronauts changed over time, in how management, if you will, deals with them, listens to them?

CERNAN: Well, you know, obviously, people have talked about culture changes within NASA. And I've got to believe there have been culture changes within NASA.

You know, I'm not sure we did everything right. We made our mistakes three and four decades ago. But we indeed did find a way to send nine missions to the moon, six of them put human beings on the surface of the moon, a place where we could call our home. And we brought everybody back, including Apollo 13, which -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the time, I'm not sure a lot of us thought that could be done.

And whatever that culture was, somehow it slipped away. At that point in time, we, the crew members, who, you know, put our tails on top of that big Saturn V, were very much involved in safety and changes in the spacecraft. And we knew everything that was going on. We had boards.

We would scream and yell at times when there were things we didn't particularly like or were concerned about it that had to do with safety or changes.

You know, I'm not sure a lot of people in management, even at that point in time, liked it, but we got our point across.

It bothers me immensely, and we have a group of young men and women down here who are so far more qualified as astronauts today than we were 30 years ago. But I hear words, and I hear interviews. And I hear people saying, Well, I didn't know that the foam had hit the wing of the shuttle four flights ago. Now, my golly, that's their job to know. They've got to be integrated into this culture.

And if that's not one of the results of the recommendations, that the astronauts literally become a pain in the tail in some cases, on some of these committees and some of these safety reviews, then we're going to lose out. We're going to miss out somewhere along the way.

BROWN: And finally, and we -- you and I have talked about this before -- do you think that the lack of a grand mission, if you will, the kind of mission that excites not just (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the people, you guys, down in Houston, but all of us, the man to the moon kind of mission, the lack of that, in some respects, contributed to this accident?

CERNAN: Oh, you know, I don't -- The people down at NASA are just as dedicated, quite frankly, as they were 20 and 30 years ago on an individual basis. I think leadership has a lot to do with it. A challenge, a future, something to look forward to, a program that has some meaning.

You know, the culture of NASA has an inertia just like the economy. This didn't start yesterday or last month or last year. This started a decade or two ago.

And yes, I think people are looking forward, and maybe one of the things that might come out of this, and there's always some good that comes out of tragedies, and I hope one of the things is that we now reestablish ourselves as a spacefaring nation, and we look out into the future, we look out a decade or two, or a generation ahead, and establish a goal that we can get our arms around, something we can -- that will inspire our young people, something that those young engineers can work towards.

And we haven't had that for the last 20 years. We had a series of space events. We got a space station, which is the next step to -- where? You know, and I'm not sure. It's been redefined so many times, I really don't know myself.

BROWN: Captain Cernan, it's always good to see you, and it's particularly nice to see you looking well. I wish the news were better today. Thank you, sir, very much.

CERNAN: Aaron, thank you. Pleasure being with you.

BROWN: Thank you. Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon.

A lot of ground still to cover on the program tonight.

We'll talk with Cruz Bustamante. He's trying to become California's next governor, if his boss, Gray Davis, is voted out. He joins us.

The story also tonight of Steven Hatfill suing the government because he was linked to the anthrax investigation. That and much more. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Being Gray Davis can't be much fun these days. Today, the organized labor in the state of California urged its members to vote against the recall, but also endorsed Governor Davis's lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, just in case. The AFL-CIO in California calling it a safety valve, but it could just turn as easily into a 2 million-vote trap door for the governor, depending on how things break come election day.

This is Cruz Bustamante's situation in a nutshell, safety valve or tempting alternative for Democrats, who want to send his boss a- packing.

And so if it's tough being Gray Davis these days, it isn't a whole lot easier being the lieutenant governor.

We're pleased to have him with us tonight, so we can ask him.

Nice to see you, sir.

You want to win this election? Is that the idea?

LT. GOV. CRUZ BUSTAMANTE (D), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, clearly, we're opposed to the no on the recall, because we believe that it's a hijacking of democracy. We really believe that it's going to be bad for the institution. It's going to be bad for politics.

I already know people right now who are trying to figure out how to recall the very next governor. It doesn't make any sense.

And the -- and what we're trying to do is that we're trying to develop a strategy, and my candidacy is about developing a strategy, because the voters know that they're going to have to vote twice. They're going to make a decision about the recall.

And then they're going to vote a second time for those people who care about a woman's right to choose, who care about the coastal legacy, who care about strong public education, those folks are going to want somebody in that spot, a Democrat, a person who has those values, to be a spot as governor to make sure that they're going to uphold those values.

And so I think folks already know that they're going to have to vote twice.

BROWN: Where has Governor Davis's administration failed?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, what I'm trying to do is that I'm trying to provide -- and I mean, I believe that I'm in competition, because the governor's going to have to make his decision. He's going to have to be able to make his comments directly to the voters. And that's going to be a separate issue from what my particular position is. My position is that I'm going to be in competition with Arnold and Peter and Tom. And I'm going to have to make sure that I'm going to present the best ideas that I have, because the voters are going to want every single candidate to be able to very specific. Not a concept, not some position. They're going to want to hear clean, crisp, clear ideas as to how to make sure that we fix things here in California.

BROWN: I'll take that as taking a pass on the idea that -- on where the administration has failed.

Let's talk about some of your ideas, then.

BUSTAMANTE: Sure.

BROWN: You said the other day, sir, that people at the top half -- or people at the top, rather, have to pay their fair share. What is the top of the income, in your view, and what is a fair share?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, in my proposal, I laid out a $12.4 billion fix to California. Now, there's a lot of people who don't realize that the deficit in California is actually larger than the general fund budgets of just about every state in nation, except for New York.

Their general fund budgets could fit inside our deficit. So it is a very large problem.

But the legislature last year cut over $10 billion, and they also were able to borrow a substantial amount of money. We've done all the easy things at this point. And so what we're trying to figure out is how to make sure that we provide the best alternative and still have the priorities that we have in California.

My proposal indicated that, as a result of the Bush economic policies, they gave a huge amount of tax relief to the upper 4 percent of the wealthiest of Californians. And so what we're saying is, if we took just a portion of that and brought it back to California from those wealthiest 4 percent...

BROWN: Are we talking...

BUSTAMANTE: ... then we would be able, we would be able to make sure that we helped provide part of the budget hole for California.

BROWN: So are we talking $100,000, $200,000, $4 million? Where does the top begin?

BUSTAMANTE: I believe it starts around $150,000. But it is the absolute top 4 percent of the wealthiest of Californians.

BROWN: And finally, sir...

BUSTAMANTE: But it's not the only area that we dip into. We also try to close corporate loopholes. We also try to increase tobacco, and -- as well as alcohol, excise taxes. We make sure that we try to close the -- what we believe is a skyscraper loophole in terms of what we're trying to do with this proposal. We also cut back on MediCal fraud and other kinds of areas.

We also include in that plan an additional $2 billion worth of cuts, even on top of those cuts that are already been made.

BROWN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), this is, perhaps, rhetorical. It's not meant to be. But as a practical matter, can a candidate, particularly a Democratic candidate, run on raising taxes?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, you know, we've done all the easy things, Aaron. I don't know what else we can do. I mean, people have these concepts about...

BROWN: Well, Mr. Schwarzenegger says...

BUSTAMANTE: Well, well, well, wait a minute...

BROWN: Mr. Schwarzenegger says taxes...

BUSTAMANTE: ... you asked me a question...

BROWN: ... don't -- I mean -- I'm sorry, fair point.

BUSTAMANTE: Yes. So what you said is, can a Democrat run? I think a Democrat, just like any candidate, can tell the truth. Now, you have other candidates. They're saying, Well, I won't raise taxes. Yet he's never submitted a plan. He says he's against the car tax, but he's never submitted a plan.

Any of the other candidates, none of them have submitted a plan to be able to make sure that they close the deficit, get rid of the car tax, and restore education funding. None of them have done that.

I'd love to be able to compare and contrast my plan with theirs.

BROWN: Do you worry, then, that, as a practical matter, Mr. Schwarzenegger, who seems to be the front-runner on the other side right now, can get by, if you will, on star power and not substantive arguments?

BUSTAMANTE: I don't think he will, and I don't think anybody will. The voters of this state know that this is a serious matter. They're not going to be deciding by some kind of celebrity frenzy, and they're not going to decide because someone decides to just jump in and to have a big checkbook.

There were a couple of millionaires on the other side who have got big checkbooks, and they're going to put a lot of their own money into this campaign.

But the voters of this state know it's a serious issue. They're not going to give anybody a pass. They're going to want to hear specific proposals. And I believe that they're going to be listening very carefully.

And for those people who don't think that that's taking place, they haven't been out in crowds, they haven't been talking to people, because the very specific proposals that I've made, whether you agree with them or not, it's a plan that resolves the budget deficit, restores education funding, and deals with the car tax.

And no one else has been able to do that.

BROWN: Mr. Lieutenant Governor, thanks for your time. There were a lot of issues -- there are a lot of issues we ought to talk about, immigration and others. I hope you'll come back to join us, we'll talk about those.

BUSTAMANTE: I'd love to do that. Thank you for inviting me this time, Aaron. I appreciate it.

BROWN: Thank you. And I apologize interrupting earlier. Thank you, sir.

BUSTAMANTE: That's OK.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

BUSTAMANTE: All rightie.

BROWN: Lieutenant governor of California, Cruz Bustamante.

On we go. In the list of people victimized by the anthrax attacks nearly two years ago, I think it's safe to say that Dr. Steven Hatfill would include himself among them. The bioterror expert didn't lose his life, of course, but he argues he lost the next most important thing, his reputation.

Dr. Hatfill is often named but never charged. He is the person of interest, if you will, in the anthrax case. In the past, he has voiced his anger at the Justice Department through his spokesman. Now he's doing it through his lawyers, a lawsuit.

Here's CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE (voice-over): Dr. Steven Hatfill has never been charged in the anthrax investigation, but his lawyers say he has been subjected to Kafkaesque punishment nonetheless. And now, Hatfill is suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Department of Justice, and the FBI.

THOMAS CONNOLLY, HATFILL'S ATTORNEY: Dr. Hatfill had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. No evidence links him to the crime. Yet the attorney general and a number of his subordinates have sought to make him a scapegoat. In the process, they have trampled Dr. Hatfill's constitutional rights, and they have destroyed his life.

MESERVE: Hatfill is a bioweapons expert who once worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory at Fort Dietrich, Maryland.

Hatfill's attorneys claim the FBI tipped the media to searches of Hatfill's home to deflect attention from what they characterize as a floundering anthrax investigation, and violated Hatfill's privacy with 24-hour surveillance and wiretaps, that a Justice Department e-mail got Hatfill fired from Louisiana State University, and that ongoing anonymous leaks and public comments from the attorney general have made Hatfill unemployable and violated the Justice Department's own prohibition on discussing ongoing investigations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, August 22, 2002)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Hatfill is a person of interest to the Department of Justice. And we continue the investigation. And for me to comment further would be inappropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: The Justice Department's own watchdog concluded in January that Ashcroft "did not violate any law, regulation, or Department of Justice policy or standard." The Justice Department has made no public comment on Hatfill's lawsuit, but some legal experts say it may be a long shot.

PAUL BUTLER, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Judges and juries don't like to hold law enforcement officials civilly responsible, even when they mess up, because they believe that they're just acting to protect public safety.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: Meanwhile, almost two years after the anthrax attacks, neither Hatfill nor anyone else has been arrested or charged. And there is no indication of major progress on the case, Aaron.

BROWN: Has there -- without necessarily naming him, has there ever been any other name, any other specific person identified as either a person of interest, a suspect in any way, shape, or form connected to the possibility that they were responsible?

MESERVE: No. Justice Department sources have said there are about 20 people that they classify as persons of interest. Steven Hatfill is the only one whose name has been made public.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you very much. Jeanne Meserve in Washington.

Still ahead on the program, the meetings have begun over North Korea. They're going on in China. We'll get to that.

Al Franken joins us tonight.

Morning papers later.

Much to do around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: On to the talks beginning in Beijing now between six countries trying to get a handle on North Korea and its nuclear ambitions. It seems clear that no one is expecting a dramatic breakthrough here. One unnamed U.S. official today set the bar about as low as it could be set, saying -- quote -- "If the North Koreans don't walk out, we'll consider it a success."

So what, if anything, can we expect from these talks? We go back to CNN's Mike Chinoy, who is on the videophone from Beijing.

Mike, good morning.

CHINOY: Aaron, good morning.

It's Wednesday morning here in Beijing. I'm outside the Chinese Diaoyutai state guest house, where, for just over an hour, the members of the six delegations have been meeting to discuss North Korea's nuclear program and how to roll it back. We've been waiting outside.

And just to give you a sense of what's at stake here, someone's just brought me a doughnut and a piece of plutonium that the North Koreans could make this size that could be easily exported, could make its way into the hands of terrorists and be used as a dirty bomb. That's the kind of nightmare scenario that has American officials really worried about how to stop the North Korean nuclear program.

Both, as these talks began, both the U.S. and the North Koreans were taking very, very hard-line positions, the American envoys making it clear that they do not intend to reward North Korea in advance for making any concessions, demanding that Pyongyang agree first to abandon its nuclear program altogether before the U.S. will talk about giving North Korea any of the security assurances or economic aid it wants.

For their part, the North Koreans are demanding that the U.S. agree in advance to sign a nonaggression treaty. Otherwise, they won't even discuss nuclear concessions. And there are a lot of analysts and observers who aren't convinced that Kim Jong Il's regime is willing to give up its nuclear capability, whatever the U.S. offers, so expectations here very low, but a huge amount at stake -- Aaron.

BROWN: How long do you expect this to go on? How will we know what, if any -- what progress, if any, is made?

CHINOY: Well, in the sessions today, all of the main delegates are giving their formal set-piece speeches.

The talks are expected to last through Friday. And one of the things that's been widely speculated is that American and North Korean officials will have a private, informal meeting on the sidelines. The North Koreans have always insisted they'd only negotiate with the U.S. And their being here alone is something of a concession.

But the North Korean delegate is a fairly low-ranking official. It's widely thought that he has no power to budge from his pre- prepared remarks. And so, when this session ends on Friday, if the two sides agree to -- with the help of the four major regional powers -- agree to any continuing diplomatic contacts, that will be considered progress. And there is always concern that the North Koreans might drop a bombshell, announce that they are now a nuclear power, and the U.S. and the rest of the world have to deal with it, in which case, the crisis will intensify significantly -- Aaron.

BROWN: Mike, thank you very much -- Mike Chinoy on the videophone from Beijing tonight.

Still to come on the program: President Bush's problems with Iraq. We'll talk with Senator Joseph Biden about what he thinks the president and the country needs to do.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: When talking with Senator Joseph Biden about what's needed right now in Iraq, the word "more" seems to come up a lot. He thinks we need more boots on the ground, more rebuilding, more humanitarian aid, and, above all, more candor from the White House about the costs in blood and treasure, and one more more, more of an explanation on why Americans should accept the continuing sacrifice.

We spoke with the senator earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Senator, you said the other day that the president has been guilty essentially of a lack of candor. What hasn't he been honest or forthcoming about?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Well, it wasn't so him.

I was referring to Mr. Wolfowitz failing to be candid about how much the war is going to cost. As you know, in the next year's budget for 2004, the administration hasn't included one single dime for the cost of conducting operations in Iraq. And I think that's a little bit disingenuous, because I think they don't want to see the budget deficit numbers go up.

And my whole point, Aaron, is that they have to tell the American people why this is so important, how much it's going to cost, at least in broad terms, and how many troops it's going to require. Otherwise, we're going to start to lose the support of the American people, which would be a disaster.

BROWN: I think you can make an argument, based on the "Newsweek" poll that came out this week -- and we don't want to rely too much on polls, but -- that support for the mission is already wavering a bit.

BIDEN: It is.

BROWN: Americans don't want to spend more money, and they don't want to put more boots on the ground. And you would argue that both would be a mistake.

BIDEN: Both are necessary, more money and boots on the ground. But let me explain to you what I mean.

I was looking for the president today at the American Legion to explain to the American Legion and to all those who were listening why the mission was so critical. He said something to the effect, we are there to stay. This is critical for the safety of every American. And he never explained why.

BROWN: Let me go back to something that you and I have talked about actually a couple of times. Was the first mistake, in your view, that the president, the vice president, the administration, did not, before the war, talk about the costs and the need in the postwar period?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

I was on your program. Senator Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I have been like a broken record since a year ago, since July, when we held those hearings. Everybody knew, Aaron, this was going to cost tens of billions of dollars. It was going to require tens of thousands, if not a couple hundred to 200,000 troops. And it was going to be a long haul to put a nation together as a republic that never existed as an independent nation prior to the end of World War II, with great internal natural divisions, Shia, Sunni, Kurds, who are Indo-Europeans.

And we knew it was going to be a gigantic undertaking. And the American people, I think, were at least inadvertently led to believe by the administration this would be like Gulf War I. We'd go in, defeat the bad guy, and Johnny and Jane would come marching home again, when there was never a possibility of that happening. And, therefore, the American people, just like the troops I visited in Baghdad, are angry. They're upset.

They feel like they haven't been told on the square that we're going to be there a long time.

BROWN: Just as briefly as you can, if you could get the president to do one or two things right now, beyond simply explaining the policy as it exists, it would be what?

BIDEN: It would be, one, go to the United Nations and not invite, ask, the United Nations to give its blessing to the U.S. presence there. In turn, that would get 30,000 to 40,000 troops from India, from Turkey, and from Pakistan.

And go to NATO and say, NATO, we'd like you to take over the northern sector here, and get the rest of NATO to sign on to this, to give it an international flavor. Right now, we're paying 95 percent of the bill, 95 percent of the deaths, and 90 percent of all the troops. And we should not be doing that. The rest of the world will help, but we have to ask and we have to give some authority.

I'm prepared to give up all the exclusive contracting rights in the oil fields, where -- for American companies, in return for getting the rest of the world to send their boys and girls in there to risk their lives with us under U.S. command. And I predict they will do that if asked, but we're not asking them.

BROWN: Senator, it's always going to talk to you. Have a good holiday weekend. And thanks for your time today.

BIDEN: Thank you. Thanks, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Senator Joseph Biden. We talked with him late this afternoon.

Quickly, a couple of other stories before we go to break, beginning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The pastor who led a church service supposedly to heal an autistic boy of evil spirits was charged with the physical abuse of a child. The 8-year-old died from suffocation. If convicted, the pastor could receive up to 10 years in prison.

And the Texas legislature adjourned today without passing a plan that would likely add Republican seats to the U.S. Congress. It's a victory for the 11 Democratic state senators, the latest to flee the state to stop the redistricting plan.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: lies. Well, actually, it's Al Franken, but he wrote a book called "Lies" and we're pretty sure he'll talk about that honestly.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There are only about four rules at NEWSNIGHT, and we're probably going to break them all in the next few minutes. For one, we're going to take a shot at Fox News. Actually, we'll take several, but this is the one I'll take.

Their lawsuit against Al Franken may be the single dumbest lawsuit ever filed. Not only was it laughed out of court, but it propelled Mr. Franken's book to the top of the Amazon best-seller list. With enemies like that, who needs friends? Frankly, I'm sort of hoping they'll sue me for this introduction, but I never get that lucky. The book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."

We're pleased to have Mr. Franken with us tonight, fresh from his day job co-hosting CNN's "CROSSFIRE." He's the guy on the left this week.

AL FRANKEN, AUTHOR, "LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM": That's right.

BROWN: Well, someone smiled on you. What do you think they were thinking? Do you think they just wanted to take a pop at you? FRANKEN: It was -- yes. One of their anchors or commentators was having a sort of an adolescent temper tantrum and insisted that they go after me. And it's over. I want to move past it, because they've done -- my book isn't just about Fox. It's about the whole...

BROWN: It certainly isn't.

FRANKEN: Yes. It's about the whole right-wing media and how they are a shill for this administration, which is not the most honest administration.

BROWN: Here's my question about Fox, in a sense. Everybody gets what Fox is.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: I mean, it's not like -- people who watch Fox understand that it's a conservative news organization. And it's no surprise. And to a certain extent, everybody gets who Bill O'Reilly is, for that matter, that he's an entertainer, and nobody takes him that seriously.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: He takes himself seriously.

BROWN: Fair point.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: So what's the big deal?

FRANKEN: I don't know what the big deal is.

I mean, there are so many levels of irony to "fair and balanced" and the suit, because they aren't fair and balanced. They just aren't. And in researching this book, I talked with a lot of conservatives, some of whom I'd be in the middle of an argument about, about something they had said, and I'd say something: Well, this is what I'm doing. I'm doing -- I'm looking at someone like Ann Coulter and they go: OK, off the record, there's something wrong with her.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: And that was like to a man, to a person. And then I'd say, and then I'm looking at Fox. And they would go: OK, it's conservative. It just is.

BROWN: Right.

FRANKEN: And so the idea that they had a trademark on "fair and balanced" is sort of ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: And then, also, the book -- the name of the book is "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" -- which doesn't sound very fair and balanced -- "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." So there's a joke there. And satire is protected, even if Bill O'Reilly doesn't get it. But this book is about a lot more than that.

BROWN: All right, let's talk about some of that.

FRANKEN: Good.

BROWN: You use the word lie a lot in the book, or at least in the first 164 pages.

FRANKEN: That you've read.

BROWN: That I've read.

FRANKEN: Yes. I use it a lot in the next 200 pages.

BROWN: Look, is it fair to say that, every time someone misstates something, says something that turns out to be untrue, that it's a lie?

FRANKEN: No.

BROWN: For example, do you really believe the president lied about weapons of mass destruction?

FRANKEN: I believe that there's questions to be asked about that.

We have to ask, what did the president know? And if not, why didn't he know it? Did the president understand his intelligence briefings? And if not, why didn't he ask someone to explain it to him? And if he didn't understand them, did he know that he didn't understand them? I mean, there is just, it's -- yes, I think that the White House was lying.

BROWN: You do?

FRANKEN: Oh, absolutely.

BROWN: OK.

FRANKEN: The White House knew that Iraq had not asked for uranium from Niger or from anywhere in Africa.

BROWN: Right.

FRANKEN: They knew that, but they put it in the speech. They misled -- listen, there were cases to be made for this war.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: And I think that -- and we're in trouble now. And this is going to be a long, drawn-out affair.

And people are -- would be much more willing to cut the president slack if he had led us into the war truthfully, if he had treated the American people as adults and said, OK, here are the reasons for the war. But one of the reasons for the war was not that they had aluminum tubes that really weren't centrifuges, that they -- the UAVs, the unmanned aerial vehicles...

BROWN: The probes, right.

FRANKEN: ... that were supposed to be able to come to the United States and attack us? Give me a break.

I mean, this is serious stuff. It's one thing to lie about sex in the White House. It's another thing to lie when you're talking about sending men and women into battle.

BROWN: All right, quickly, word association. Tom DeLay.

FRANKEN: Exterminator.

BROWN: Newt Gingrich?

FRANKEN: Large.

BROWN: Ann Coulter.

FRANKEN: Lying. It's one word?

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: Lying, not nice person.

BROWN: Not nice person?

FRANKEN: Not nice person.

BROWN: Are you delighted with how the book's been received?

FRANKEN: Love it. And what I'm really loving is

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: I'm sorry?

BROWN: Do you think it will change anyone's mind about anything?

FRANKEN: Yes. Yes. Yes. Because, in the past, I've seen that happen. I've seen it happen with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot."

And I think that this president's credibility is cracking. And if it -- it won't be put back together again. And in this book, I pretty much go chapter and verse on a lot of the things he's lied about, not everything. But he's lied on taxes. He's lied on budget. He's lied on the trifecta. That was a lie. And he continues to tell it.

BROWN: It's great to see you.

FRANKEN: Good seeing you, Aaron. BROWN: From one Minnesotan to another.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: Always good. Come back.

FRANKEN: Thank you.

BROWN: There's more to talk about. Al Franken.

Take a break. Morning papers, always the truth, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, no jokes. Morning papers, not much time, 90 seconds. Here we go.

"The Times of London." OK, the picture, please. "Mars, as you've never seen it before." Mars is as close or closer to us tonight than it's been in 60,000 years, something like that. Anyway, we can actually show this to you on television. And I'm reasonably sure. Can we show it? There it is. This is how Mars look. I'm reasonably sure that 60,000 years ago, they didn't have cable. They may have had TV, but they didn't have cable. So they couldn't have seen it like that. Thank you very much.

"The Dallas Morning News": "Abrupt End for Bolton." That is the chief of police. But this is the -- I love this headline. Only in Dallas, OK? "Like Cowboys, DPD" -- Dallas Police Department -- "Needs an Impact-Maker." Come on. Anyway, I love the paper. So there you go.

"San Francisco Chronicle." We like this. "Actor's Agenda" -- that would be Mr. Schwarzenegger -- "Short on Specifics." No kidding, OK?

I was surprised by this. "The Korea Herald." You'd think the talks over North Korea -- I'm over here -- the talks over North Korea would be the big story, right, in the Seoul newspaper? Uh-uh. Down at the bottom of the front page, "Talks Start Amid Low Expectations."

"The Chicago Sun-Times." "It's a Hurt You Can't Get Over." The NASA report makes the front page of "The Chicago Sun-Times." Three and a half stars, the weather. And both the Cubs and the White Sox in first place.

How we doing on time?

"The Vanderbilt Hustler." OK, this is the student newspaper at Vanderbilt University. I'll explain this in a second. "Mold Found Cleared From Residence Halls." Man, that is the big story at Vanderbilt. And the newspaper is edited by Meredith Berger, who used to be an intern of ours. And go get 'em, kid. We're really proud of you.

That's really -- 15 seconds? Well, there's no point in going on. You can't do anything interesting in 15 seconds.

That's our report for tonight. We're all back tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. We hope you'll join us as well.

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





Board Blames NASA 'Culture'; Interview With Cruz Bustamante>


Aired August 26, 2003 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again.
We've said here more than a few times that when people say the situation in Iraq is a quagmire, that it seems to us, at least, a bit premature. Creating democracy from scratch isn't a four-week project. It has turned not just into a complicated one, far more complicated than the administration suggested when it argued its case for war, but clearly a dangerous one as well, and no one should be surprised by that.

Today, another marker was reached. More American soldiers have now died since the president declared an end to major combat back on the 1st of May than died during the war's major combat.

Iraq today isn't simple, neat, or clean. There is progress and peace, mostly, in much of the south. But up to the north, upwards of two dozen attacks on Americans each day.

There are signs that this country is starting to ask questions about the costs and the prospects in Iraq, and the president sought to turn the arguments in his favor today.

We'll spend time on this tonight. It is where we begin the whip. Our senior White House correspondent, John King, is in Waco, Texas. John, a headline from you.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, in a speech to veterans today, the president was quite defiant. He said the United States remains on offense. It will not retreat in the war on terrorism. To the president's supporters, it was the defiant speech they wanted to hear.

Ask his critics, though, they say this president is now quite defensive, Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you. Good to have you with us. And we'll get back to you at the top.

On now to the meeting of six nations in Beijing, with a goal of defusing the dangers posed by North Korea. Mike Chinoy is on the videophone with that tonight. So Mike, a headline from you.

MIKE CHINOY, CNN SR. ASIA CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, after almost a year of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, American and North Korean diplomats and officials from four other countries are sitting down in the building behind me here in Beijing. But both Washington and Pyongyang are starting this meeting showing little signs of flexibility and expectations for this three-day session of talks are low, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

And now the anthrax investigation, and a lawsuit filed against the Justice Department from the so-called person of interest in the case, bioterror expert Dr. Steven Hatfill.

Jeanne Meserve on that. So Jeanne, a headline.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Hatfill is suing not only the Justice Department, but Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI, saying they named him a person of interest in the anthrax case, only to divert attention from their own failed investigation.

He claims his rights have been trampled, his life ruined, Aaron.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up tonight on NEWSNIGHT, more on the Iraq mission with a tough critic of the postwar planning, Senator Joseph Biden.

And on the day that the shuttle "Columbia" report is released, we'll talk about the culture at NASA and the future of manned space flight with the last man to walk on the moon. Gene Cernan joins us.

We'll talk with California's lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, about his platform and his chances on October 7. The latest polls now show him running ahead of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And in the courtroom battle of Fox News versus Al Franken, the comedian won hands down. Mr. Franken joins us to talk about the new book that caused all the fuss. And we promise we will try to do this with as little name-calling as possible. This is, after all, NEWSNIGHT.

And when you hear the NEWSNIGHT rooster crow -- and you will -- you'll know it's time for morning papers, our nightly look at what you'll be reading about tomorrow.

All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with Iraq, on a day when the costs in American lives of the occupation surpassed the cost of American lives in fighting the war. A depressing milestone, to be sure. And just as discouraging, today differs little from yesterday, and, barring a miracle, from tomorrow.

With that as a motivator, criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is growing louder. Today the president answered his critics, and we begin with CNN senior White House correspondent John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): The president addressed veterans at what he called a testing point in Iraq, and the broader war on terrorism.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.

KING: Mr. Bush's critics say no one is suggesting retreat, just a new strategy. Even Republicans just back from Iraq say more troops are needed. And several of the Democrats running for president say Mr. Bush should have done a better job getting other nations to join the postwar security operation.

With the deaths of two more soldiers Tuesday, the Pentagon says 139 troops have died in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared mission accomplished and major combat over back on May 1. That surpasses the 138 who died up to that point.

Critics say Mr. Bush underestimated the postwar security challenge. He says the attacks of recent weeks are proof of progress, not of bad planning.

BUSH: The more progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become. Freedom is a threat to their way of life.

KING: Mr. Bush also insisted, again, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the war. But none have been found, and the president is mindful that too could be a campaign issue.

BUSH: In all the debates over Iraq, we must never forget the brutal nature of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mass gravesites, literally thousands of people buried in mass gravesites, were recently discovered by our troops.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The president Today on Iraq, reported by our senior White House correspondent, John King.

As we've now mentioned a couple of times, more troops have now died keeping the peace, such as it is, than died fighting the war. The latest, a soldier killed during an attack on his convoy. And like the other ambushes and assassinations, it takes a toll beyond just lives.

Reporting now, CNN's Ben Wedeman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You're looking at what the U.S. military calls Operation Jimmy Hoffa, U.S. forces on another raid north of Baghdad. This time, on what they described as a criminal ring involved in murder, gun running, and fatal attacks on American troops.

The raid involved hundreds of soldiers employing tactics that have become fairly standard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the ground!

WEDEMAN: Tactics that have ignited widespread resentment among many Iraqis, who accuse American forces of heavy-handedness.

The soldiers found weapons and arrested suspects, but failed to find the alleged gang leader. Nonetheless, the assessment was upbeat.

CAPT. JOHN NALLS, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) also been very good. We've captured our three-target personnel. We have them currently. We have them detained. And we'll get them processed through the justice system.

WEDEMAN: To the south, a handshake and a handover. Control of the Shi'ite holy city of Karbala will soon pass from American to Bulgarian control, part of Washington's effort to spread the increasingly heavy burden of running Iraq and internationalize the occupation.

LT. COL. PETKO MARINOV, BULGARIAN ARMY (through translator): One of our efforts is to contribute to the establishment of a peaceful environment here in Karbala.

WEDEMAN: There are plenty of unknown groups popping up, threatening to undermine these efforts. In the latest videotape aired on the Arabic satellite news network Al Arabiya, representatives of three groups -- Islamic Jihad, the Iraqi Liberation Organization, and Muslim Youth -- threatened to kill Iraqis who cooperate with coalition forces, before they go on to kill more Americans.

Ben Wedeman, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Earlier tonight, we spoke with Senator Joe Biden, the senior Democratic senator from Delaware. He's got serious differences with the administration's policy on Iraq, many of which his Republican colleagues have begun voicing as well.

Our interview with Senator Biden runs a little bit later in the program tonight.

On now to the space shuttle. In a press release from NASA, here's the money quote, as we say in the newsroom. "NASA has acted to elevate the emphasis of safety and implement organizational changes to strengthen safety programs." The date? January 22, 1988, just short of two years after the space shuttle "Challenger" blew up, 15 years before the space shuttle "Columbia" broke apart.

Tonight, the final report on that disaster is out. Among the conclusions, those changes made 15 years ago in the name of safety didn't stick.

Here's CNN's Miles O'Brien.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The technical answer to the "Columbia" disaster, simple.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In four simple words, the foam did it.

O'BRIEN: For nearly two months, the shattering conclusion has held up. A piece of foam broke off the shuttle's external tank during launch, struck the orbiter's wing, and breached the protective tiles. Sixteen days later, the spacecraft disintegrated during reentry, killing all seven astronauts.

SCOTT HUBBARD, "COLUMBIA" INVESTIGATION BOARD MEMBER: The machine was talking, but why was nobody hearing? How were the signals missed?

O'BRIEN: The alarm sounded in today's final report, a longstanding culture at NASA with the wrong priorities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: NASA had conflicting goals of cost, schedule, and safety, and unfortunately safety lost out...

O'BRIEN: Stinging criticism from the "Columbia" accident investigation board of a gradual relaxation of safety standards at NASA. To ensure mission safety, the report calls for the creation of a new safety team, a so-called technical engineering authority, within NASA, but independent of the shuttle program.

The board did not say the shuttle fleet should be grounded, but it did recommend the development of a temporary vehicle to replace the shuttle, a so-called orbital space plane to be used as a ferry to the International Space Station over the next decade, until the next generation of shuttles is developed.

From the report, quote, "Previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging shuttle represent a failure of national leadership."

ADM. HAL GEHMAN (RET.), CHAIRMAN, "COLUMBIA" INVESTIGATION BOARD: The leadership, not just the administrator, all levels of leadership are going to have to actively drive the bad cultural traits out of the organization. And it's something they're going to have to buy into personally...

O'BRIEN (on camera): That criticism is practically a carbon copy of some of the concerns raised 17 years ago in the wake of the "Challenger" accident. The hope is this time, NASA managers take it to heart, and change the way they do business once and for all.

Miles O'Brien, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We're joined now by Gene Cernan, who served as an astronaut during another moment when one tragedy and another near- disaster forced NASA to reexamine itself. He went on to become the last man to walk on the moon.

And we're always glad to have him on the program, and we're glad to see Captain Cernan tonight.

It is a staggering -- I know you were able to hear the report. It is a staggering piece of sound, when someone says that cost and scheduling and safety, and safety lost out. You're talking about human lives, you're talking about extraordinary costs associated with rebuilding the program after a tragedy. How can safety lose out?

CAPT. GENE CERNAN, APOLLO 17 COMMANDER: Well, somehow it seems to take a back seat occasionally, Aaron. I can go back to the days prior to the Apollo 1 fire, when we, the astronauts -- not that we're the saviors by any means -- but were trying to get some changes in the spacecraft of things that concerned us concerning safety and our ability to accomplish a mission.

And we were always hit with cost and schedules, cost and schedules. We'll never get there from here on time if we don't get on with it.

It bit us then, and it obviously just bit us again.

BROWN: Has -- this, perhaps, slightly off point, but has the role of the astronauts changed over time, in how management, if you will, deals with them, listens to them?

CERNAN: Well, you know, obviously, people have talked about culture changes within NASA. And I've got to believe there have been culture changes within NASA.

You know, I'm not sure we did everything right. We made our mistakes three and four decades ago. But we indeed did find a way to send nine missions to the moon, six of them put human beings on the surface of the moon, a place where we could call our home. And we brought everybody back, including Apollo 13, which -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the time, I'm not sure a lot of us thought that could be done.

And whatever that culture was, somehow it slipped away. At that point in time, we, the crew members, who, you know, put our tails on top of that big Saturn V, were very much involved in safety and changes in the spacecraft. And we knew everything that was going on. We had boards.

We would scream and yell at times when there were things we didn't particularly like or were concerned about it that had to do with safety or changes.

You know, I'm not sure a lot of people in management, even at that point in time, liked it, but we got our point across.

It bothers me immensely, and we have a group of young men and women down here who are so far more qualified as astronauts today than we were 30 years ago. But I hear words, and I hear interviews. And I hear people saying, Well, I didn't know that the foam had hit the wing of the shuttle four flights ago. Now, my golly, that's their job to know. They've got to be integrated into this culture.

And if that's not one of the results of the recommendations, that the astronauts literally become a pain in the tail in some cases, on some of these committees and some of these safety reviews, then we're going to lose out. We're going to miss out somewhere along the way.

BROWN: And finally, and we -- you and I have talked about this before -- do you think that the lack of a grand mission, if you will, the kind of mission that excites not just (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the people, you guys, down in Houston, but all of us, the man to the moon kind of mission, the lack of that, in some respects, contributed to this accident?

CERNAN: Oh, you know, I don't -- The people down at NASA are just as dedicated, quite frankly, as they were 20 and 30 years ago on an individual basis. I think leadership has a lot to do with it. A challenge, a future, something to look forward to, a program that has some meaning.

You know, the culture of NASA has an inertia just like the economy. This didn't start yesterday or last month or last year. This started a decade or two ago.

And yes, I think people are looking forward, and maybe one of the things that might come out of this, and there's always some good that comes out of tragedies, and I hope one of the things is that we now reestablish ourselves as a spacefaring nation, and we look out into the future, we look out a decade or two, or a generation ahead, and establish a goal that we can get our arms around, something we can -- that will inspire our young people, something that those young engineers can work towards.

And we haven't had that for the last 20 years. We had a series of space events. We got a space station, which is the next step to -- where? You know, and I'm not sure. It's been redefined so many times, I really don't know myself.

BROWN: Captain Cernan, it's always good to see you, and it's particularly nice to see you looking well. I wish the news were better today. Thank you, sir, very much.

CERNAN: Aaron, thank you. Pleasure being with you.

BROWN: Thank you. Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon.

A lot of ground still to cover on the program tonight.

We'll talk with Cruz Bustamante. He's trying to become California's next governor, if his boss, Gray Davis, is voted out. He joins us.

The story also tonight of Steven Hatfill suing the government because he was linked to the anthrax investigation. That and much more. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Being Gray Davis can't be much fun these days. Today, the organized labor in the state of California urged its members to vote against the recall, but also endorsed Governor Davis's lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, just in case. The AFL-CIO in California calling it a safety valve, but it could just turn as easily into a 2 million-vote trap door for the governor, depending on how things break come election day.

This is Cruz Bustamante's situation in a nutshell, safety valve or tempting alternative for Democrats, who want to send his boss a- packing.

And so if it's tough being Gray Davis these days, it isn't a whole lot easier being the lieutenant governor.

We're pleased to have him with us tonight, so we can ask him.

Nice to see you, sir.

You want to win this election? Is that the idea?

LT. GOV. CRUZ BUSTAMANTE (D), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, clearly, we're opposed to the no on the recall, because we believe that it's a hijacking of democracy. We really believe that it's going to be bad for the institution. It's going to be bad for politics.

I already know people right now who are trying to figure out how to recall the very next governor. It doesn't make any sense.

And the -- and what we're trying to do is that we're trying to develop a strategy, and my candidacy is about developing a strategy, because the voters know that they're going to have to vote twice. They're going to make a decision about the recall.

And then they're going to vote a second time for those people who care about a woman's right to choose, who care about the coastal legacy, who care about strong public education, those folks are going to want somebody in that spot, a Democrat, a person who has those values, to be a spot as governor to make sure that they're going to uphold those values.

And so I think folks already know that they're going to have to vote twice.

BROWN: Where has Governor Davis's administration failed?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, what I'm trying to do is that I'm trying to provide -- and I mean, I believe that I'm in competition, because the governor's going to have to make his decision. He's going to have to be able to make his comments directly to the voters. And that's going to be a separate issue from what my particular position is. My position is that I'm going to be in competition with Arnold and Peter and Tom. And I'm going to have to make sure that I'm going to present the best ideas that I have, because the voters are going to want every single candidate to be able to very specific. Not a concept, not some position. They're going to want to hear clean, crisp, clear ideas as to how to make sure that we fix things here in California.

BROWN: I'll take that as taking a pass on the idea that -- on where the administration has failed.

Let's talk about some of your ideas, then.

BUSTAMANTE: Sure.

BROWN: You said the other day, sir, that people at the top half -- or people at the top, rather, have to pay their fair share. What is the top of the income, in your view, and what is a fair share?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, in my proposal, I laid out a $12.4 billion fix to California. Now, there's a lot of people who don't realize that the deficit in California is actually larger than the general fund budgets of just about every state in nation, except for New York.

Their general fund budgets could fit inside our deficit. So it is a very large problem.

But the legislature last year cut over $10 billion, and they also were able to borrow a substantial amount of money. We've done all the easy things at this point. And so what we're trying to figure out is how to make sure that we provide the best alternative and still have the priorities that we have in California.

My proposal indicated that, as a result of the Bush economic policies, they gave a huge amount of tax relief to the upper 4 percent of the wealthiest of Californians. And so what we're saying is, if we took just a portion of that and brought it back to California from those wealthiest 4 percent...

BROWN: Are we talking...

BUSTAMANTE: ... then we would be able, we would be able to make sure that we helped provide part of the budget hole for California.

BROWN: So are we talking $100,000, $200,000, $4 million? Where does the top begin?

BUSTAMANTE: I believe it starts around $150,000. But it is the absolute top 4 percent of the wealthiest of Californians.

BROWN: And finally, sir...

BUSTAMANTE: But it's not the only area that we dip into. We also try to close corporate loopholes. We also try to increase tobacco, and -- as well as alcohol, excise taxes. We make sure that we try to close the -- what we believe is a skyscraper loophole in terms of what we're trying to do with this proposal. We also cut back on MediCal fraud and other kinds of areas.

We also include in that plan an additional $2 billion worth of cuts, even on top of those cuts that are already been made.

BROWN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), this is, perhaps, rhetorical. It's not meant to be. But as a practical matter, can a candidate, particularly a Democratic candidate, run on raising taxes?

BUSTAMANTE: Well, you know, we've done all the easy things, Aaron. I don't know what else we can do. I mean, people have these concepts about...

BROWN: Well, Mr. Schwarzenegger says...

BUSTAMANTE: Well, well, well, wait a minute...

BROWN: Mr. Schwarzenegger says taxes...

BUSTAMANTE: ... you asked me a question...

BROWN: ... don't -- I mean -- I'm sorry, fair point.

BUSTAMANTE: Yes. So what you said is, can a Democrat run? I think a Democrat, just like any candidate, can tell the truth. Now, you have other candidates. They're saying, Well, I won't raise taxes. Yet he's never submitted a plan. He says he's against the car tax, but he's never submitted a plan.

Any of the other candidates, none of them have submitted a plan to be able to make sure that they close the deficit, get rid of the car tax, and restore education funding. None of them have done that.

I'd love to be able to compare and contrast my plan with theirs.

BROWN: Do you worry, then, that, as a practical matter, Mr. Schwarzenegger, who seems to be the front-runner on the other side right now, can get by, if you will, on star power and not substantive arguments?

BUSTAMANTE: I don't think he will, and I don't think anybody will. The voters of this state know that this is a serious matter. They're not going to be deciding by some kind of celebrity frenzy, and they're not going to decide because someone decides to just jump in and to have a big checkbook.

There were a couple of millionaires on the other side who have got big checkbooks, and they're going to put a lot of their own money into this campaign.

But the voters of this state know it's a serious issue. They're not going to give anybody a pass. They're going to want to hear specific proposals. And I believe that they're going to be listening very carefully.

And for those people who don't think that that's taking place, they haven't been out in crowds, they haven't been talking to people, because the very specific proposals that I've made, whether you agree with them or not, it's a plan that resolves the budget deficit, restores education funding, and deals with the car tax.

And no one else has been able to do that.

BROWN: Mr. Lieutenant Governor, thanks for your time. There were a lot of issues -- there are a lot of issues we ought to talk about, immigration and others. I hope you'll come back to join us, we'll talk about those.

BUSTAMANTE: I'd love to do that. Thank you for inviting me this time, Aaron. I appreciate it.

BROWN: Thank you. And I apologize interrupting earlier. Thank you, sir.

BUSTAMANTE: That's OK.

BROWN: Thank you very much.

BUSTAMANTE: All rightie.

BROWN: Lieutenant governor of California, Cruz Bustamante.

On we go. In the list of people victimized by the anthrax attacks nearly two years ago, I think it's safe to say that Dr. Steven Hatfill would include himself among them. The bioterror expert didn't lose his life, of course, but he argues he lost the next most important thing, his reputation.

Dr. Hatfill is often named but never charged. He is the person of interest, if you will, in the anthrax case. In the past, he has voiced his anger at the Justice Department through his spokesman. Now he's doing it through his lawyers, a lawsuit.

Here's CNN's Jeanne Meserve.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE (voice-over): Dr. Steven Hatfill has never been charged in the anthrax investigation, but his lawyers say he has been subjected to Kafkaesque punishment nonetheless. And now, Hatfill is suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Department of Justice, and the FBI.

THOMAS CONNOLLY, HATFILL'S ATTORNEY: Dr. Hatfill had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. No evidence links him to the crime. Yet the attorney general and a number of his subordinates have sought to make him a scapegoat. In the process, they have trampled Dr. Hatfill's constitutional rights, and they have destroyed his life.

MESERVE: Hatfill is a bioweapons expert who once worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory at Fort Dietrich, Maryland.

Hatfill's attorneys claim the FBI tipped the media to searches of Hatfill's home to deflect attention from what they characterize as a floundering anthrax investigation, and violated Hatfill's privacy with 24-hour surveillance and wiretaps, that a Justice Department e-mail got Hatfill fired from Louisiana State University, and that ongoing anonymous leaks and public comments from the attorney general have made Hatfill unemployable and violated the Justice Department's own prohibition on discussing ongoing investigations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, August 22, 2002)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Hatfill is a person of interest to the Department of Justice. And we continue the investigation. And for me to comment further would be inappropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: The Justice Department's own watchdog concluded in January that Ashcroft "did not violate any law, regulation, or Department of Justice policy or standard." The Justice Department has made no public comment on Hatfill's lawsuit, but some legal experts say it may be a long shot.

PAUL BUTLER, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Judges and juries don't like to hold law enforcement officials civilly responsible, even when they mess up, because they believe that they're just acting to protect public safety.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: Meanwhile, almost two years after the anthrax attacks, neither Hatfill nor anyone else has been arrested or charged. And there is no indication of major progress on the case, Aaron.

BROWN: Has there -- without necessarily naming him, has there ever been any other name, any other specific person identified as either a person of interest, a suspect in any way, shape, or form connected to the possibility that they were responsible?

MESERVE: No. Justice Department sources have said there are about 20 people that they classify as persons of interest. Steven Hatfill is the only one whose name has been made public.

BROWN: Jeanne, thank you very much. Jeanne Meserve in Washington.

Still ahead on the program, the meetings have begun over North Korea. They're going on in China. We'll get to that.

Al Franken joins us tonight.

Morning papers later.

Much to do around the world. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: On to the talks beginning in Beijing now between six countries trying to get a handle on North Korea and its nuclear ambitions. It seems clear that no one is expecting a dramatic breakthrough here. One unnamed U.S. official today set the bar about as low as it could be set, saying -- quote -- "If the North Koreans don't walk out, we'll consider it a success."

So what, if anything, can we expect from these talks? We go back to CNN's Mike Chinoy, who is on the videophone from Beijing.

Mike, good morning.

CHINOY: Aaron, good morning.

It's Wednesday morning here in Beijing. I'm outside the Chinese Diaoyutai state guest house, where, for just over an hour, the members of the six delegations have been meeting to discuss North Korea's nuclear program and how to roll it back. We've been waiting outside.

And just to give you a sense of what's at stake here, someone's just brought me a doughnut and a piece of plutonium that the North Koreans could make this size that could be easily exported, could make its way into the hands of terrorists and be used as a dirty bomb. That's the kind of nightmare scenario that has American officials really worried about how to stop the North Korean nuclear program.

Both, as these talks began, both the U.S. and the North Koreans were taking very, very hard-line positions, the American envoys making it clear that they do not intend to reward North Korea in advance for making any concessions, demanding that Pyongyang agree first to abandon its nuclear program altogether before the U.S. will talk about giving North Korea any of the security assurances or economic aid it wants.

For their part, the North Koreans are demanding that the U.S. agree in advance to sign a nonaggression treaty. Otherwise, they won't even discuss nuclear concessions. And there are a lot of analysts and observers who aren't convinced that Kim Jong Il's regime is willing to give up its nuclear capability, whatever the U.S. offers, so expectations here very low, but a huge amount at stake -- Aaron.

BROWN: How long do you expect this to go on? How will we know what, if any -- what progress, if any, is made?

CHINOY: Well, in the sessions today, all of the main delegates are giving their formal set-piece speeches.

The talks are expected to last through Friday. And one of the things that's been widely speculated is that American and North Korean officials will have a private, informal meeting on the sidelines. The North Koreans have always insisted they'd only negotiate with the U.S. And their being here alone is something of a concession.

But the North Korean delegate is a fairly low-ranking official. It's widely thought that he has no power to budge from his pre- prepared remarks. And so, when this session ends on Friday, if the two sides agree to -- with the help of the four major regional powers -- agree to any continuing diplomatic contacts, that will be considered progress. And there is always concern that the North Koreans might drop a bombshell, announce that they are now a nuclear power, and the U.S. and the rest of the world have to deal with it, in which case, the crisis will intensify significantly -- Aaron.

BROWN: Mike, thank you very much -- Mike Chinoy on the videophone from Beijing tonight.

Still to come on the program: President Bush's problems with Iraq. We'll talk with Senator Joseph Biden about what he thinks the president and the country needs to do.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: When talking with Senator Joseph Biden about what's needed right now in Iraq, the word "more" seems to come up a lot. He thinks we need more boots on the ground, more rebuilding, more humanitarian aid, and, above all, more candor from the White House about the costs in blood and treasure, and one more more, more of an explanation on why Americans should accept the continuing sacrifice.

We spoke with the senator earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Senator, you said the other day that the president has been guilty essentially of a lack of candor. What hasn't he been honest or forthcoming about?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Well, it wasn't so him.

I was referring to Mr. Wolfowitz failing to be candid about how much the war is going to cost. As you know, in the next year's budget for 2004, the administration hasn't included one single dime for the cost of conducting operations in Iraq. And I think that's a little bit disingenuous, because I think they don't want to see the budget deficit numbers go up.

And my whole point, Aaron, is that they have to tell the American people why this is so important, how much it's going to cost, at least in broad terms, and how many troops it's going to require. Otherwise, we're going to start to lose the support of the American people, which would be a disaster.

BROWN: I think you can make an argument, based on the "Newsweek" poll that came out this week -- and we don't want to rely too much on polls, but -- that support for the mission is already wavering a bit.

BIDEN: It is.

BROWN: Americans don't want to spend more money, and they don't want to put more boots on the ground. And you would argue that both would be a mistake.

BIDEN: Both are necessary, more money and boots on the ground. But let me explain to you what I mean.

I was looking for the president today at the American Legion to explain to the American Legion and to all those who were listening why the mission was so critical. He said something to the effect, we are there to stay. This is critical for the safety of every American. And he never explained why.

BROWN: Let me go back to something that you and I have talked about actually a couple of times. Was the first mistake, in your view, that the president, the vice president, the administration, did not, before the war, talk about the costs and the need in the postwar period?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely.

I was on your program. Senator Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I have been like a broken record since a year ago, since July, when we held those hearings. Everybody knew, Aaron, this was going to cost tens of billions of dollars. It was going to require tens of thousands, if not a couple hundred to 200,000 troops. And it was going to be a long haul to put a nation together as a republic that never existed as an independent nation prior to the end of World War II, with great internal natural divisions, Shia, Sunni, Kurds, who are Indo-Europeans.

And we knew it was going to be a gigantic undertaking. And the American people, I think, were at least inadvertently led to believe by the administration this would be like Gulf War I. We'd go in, defeat the bad guy, and Johnny and Jane would come marching home again, when there was never a possibility of that happening. And, therefore, the American people, just like the troops I visited in Baghdad, are angry. They're upset.

They feel like they haven't been told on the square that we're going to be there a long time.

BROWN: Just as briefly as you can, if you could get the president to do one or two things right now, beyond simply explaining the policy as it exists, it would be what?

BIDEN: It would be, one, go to the United Nations and not invite, ask, the United Nations to give its blessing to the U.S. presence there. In turn, that would get 30,000 to 40,000 troops from India, from Turkey, and from Pakistan.

And go to NATO and say, NATO, we'd like you to take over the northern sector here, and get the rest of NATO to sign on to this, to give it an international flavor. Right now, we're paying 95 percent of the bill, 95 percent of the deaths, and 90 percent of all the troops. And we should not be doing that. The rest of the world will help, but we have to ask and we have to give some authority.

I'm prepared to give up all the exclusive contracting rights in the oil fields, where -- for American companies, in return for getting the rest of the world to send their boys and girls in there to risk their lives with us under U.S. command. And I predict they will do that if asked, but we're not asking them.

BROWN: Senator, it's always going to talk to you. Have a good holiday weekend. And thanks for your time today.

BIDEN: Thank you. Thanks, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Senator Joseph Biden. We talked with him late this afternoon.

Quickly, a couple of other stories before we go to break, beginning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The pastor who led a church service supposedly to heal an autistic boy of evil spirits was charged with the physical abuse of a child. The 8-year-old died from suffocation. If convicted, the pastor could receive up to 10 years in prison.

And the Texas legislature adjourned today without passing a plan that would likely add Republican seats to the U.S. Congress. It's a victory for the 11 Democratic state senators, the latest to flee the state to stop the redistricting plan.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: lies. Well, actually, it's Al Franken, but he wrote a book called "Lies" and we're pretty sure he'll talk about that honestly.

A break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: There are only about four rules at NEWSNIGHT, and we're probably going to break them all in the next few minutes. For one, we're going to take a shot at Fox News. Actually, we'll take several, but this is the one I'll take.

Their lawsuit against Al Franken may be the single dumbest lawsuit ever filed. Not only was it laughed out of court, but it propelled Mr. Franken's book to the top of the Amazon best-seller list. With enemies like that, who needs friends? Frankly, I'm sort of hoping they'll sue me for this introduction, but I never get that lucky. The book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."

We're pleased to have Mr. Franken with us tonight, fresh from his day job co-hosting CNN's "CROSSFIRE." He's the guy on the left this week.

AL FRANKEN, AUTHOR, "LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM": That's right.

BROWN: Well, someone smiled on you. What do you think they were thinking? Do you think they just wanted to take a pop at you? FRANKEN: It was -- yes. One of their anchors or commentators was having a sort of an adolescent temper tantrum and insisted that they go after me. And it's over. I want to move past it, because they've done -- my book isn't just about Fox. It's about the whole...

BROWN: It certainly isn't.

FRANKEN: Yes. It's about the whole right-wing media and how they are a shill for this administration, which is not the most honest administration.

BROWN: Here's my question about Fox, in a sense. Everybody gets what Fox is.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: I mean, it's not like -- people who watch Fox understand that it's a conservative news organization. And it's no surprise. And to a certain extent, everybody gets who Bill O'Reilly is, for that matter, that he's an entertainer, and nobody takes him that seriously.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: He takes himself seriously.

BROWN: Fair point.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: So what's the big deal?

FRANKEN: I don't know what the big deal is.

I mean, there are so many levels of irony to "fair and balanced" and the suit, because they aren't fair and balanced. They just aren't. And in researching this book, I talked with a lot of conservatives, some of whom I'd be in the middle of an argument about, about something they had said, and I'd say something: Well, this is what I'm doing. I'm doing -- I'm looking at someone like Ann Coulter and they go: OK, off the record, there's something wrong with her.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: And that was like to a man, to a person. And then I'd say, and then I'm looking at Fox. And they would go: OK, it's conservative. It just is.

BROWN: Right.

FRANKEN: And so the idea that they had a trademark on "fair and balanced" is sort of ridiculous.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: And then, also, the book -- the name of the book is "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" -- which doesn't sound very fair and balanced -- "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." So there's a joke there. And satire is protected, even if Bill O'Reilly doesn't get it. But this book is about a lot more than that.

BROWN: All right, let's talk about some of that.

FRANKEN: Good.

BROWN: You use the word lie a lot in the book, or at least in the first 164 pages.

FRANKEN: That you've read.

BROWN: That I've read.

FRANKEN: Yes. I use it a lot in the next 200 pages.

BROWN: Look, is it fair to say that, every time someone misstates something, says something that turns out to be untrue, that it's a lie?

FRANKEN: No.

BROWN: For example, do you really believe the president lied about weapons of mass destruction?

FRANKEN: I believe that there's questions to be asked about that.

We have to ask, what did the president know? And if not, why didn't he know it? Did the president understand his intelligence briefings? And if not, why didn't he ask someone to explain it to him? And if he didn't understand them, did he know that he didn't understand them? I mean, there is just, it's -- yes, I think that the White House was lying.

BROWN: You do?

FRANKEN: Oh, absolutely.

BROWN: OK.

FRANKEN: The White House knew that Iraq had not asked for uranium from Niger or from anywhere in Africa.

BROWN: Right.

FRANKEN: They knew that, but they put it in the speech. They misled -- listen, there were cases to be made for this war.

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: And I think that -- and we're in trouble now. And this is going to be a long, drawn-out affair.

And people are -- would be much more willing to cut the president slack if he had led us into the war truthfully, if he had treated the American people as adults and said, OK, here are the reasons for the war. But one of the reasons for the war was not that they had aluminum tubes that really weren't centrifuges, that they -- the UAVs, the unmanned aerial vehicles...

BROWN: The probes, right.

FRANKEN: ... that were supposed to be able to come to the United States and attack us? Give me a break.

I mean, this is serious stuff. It's one thing to lie about sex in the White House. It's another thing to lie when you're talking about sending men and women into battle.

BROWN: All right, quickly, word association. Tom DeLay.

FRANKEN: Exterminator.

BROWN: Newt Gingrich?

FRANKEN: Large.

BROWN: Ann Coulter.

FRANKEN: Lying. It's one word?

(LAUGHTER)

FRANKEN: Lying, not nice person.

BROWN: Not nice person?

FRANKEN: Not nice person.

BROWN: Are you delighted with how the book's been received?

FRANKEN: Love it. And what I'm really loving is

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: I'm sorry?

BROWN: Do you think it will change anyone's mind about anything?

FRANKEN: Yes. Yes. Yes. Because, in the past, I've seen that happen. I've seen it happen with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot."

And I think that this president's credibility is cracking. And if it -- it won't be put back together again. And in this book, I pretty much go chapter and verse on a lot of the things he's lied about, not everything. But he's lied on taxes. He's lied on budget. He's lied on the trifecta. That was a lie. And he continues to tell it.

BROWN: It's great to see you.

FRANKEN: Good seeing you, Aaron. BROWN: From one Minnesotan to another.

FRANKEN: Yes.

BROWN: Always good. Come back.

FRANKEN: Thank you.

BROWN: There's more to talk about. Al Franken.

Take a break. Morning papers, always the truth, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, no jokes. Morning papers, not much time, 90 seconds. Here we go.

"The Times of London." OK, the picture, please. "Mars, as you've never seen it before." Mars is as close or closer to us tonight than it's been in 60,000 years, something like that. Anyway, we can actually show this to you on television. And I'm reasonably sure. Can we show it? There it is. This is how Mars look. I'm reasonably sure that 60,000 years ago, they didn't have cable. They may have had TV, but they didn't have cable. So they couldn't have seen it like that. Thank you very much.

"The Dallas Morning News": "Abrupt End for Bolton." That is the chief of police. But this is the -- I love this headline. Only in Dallas, OK? "Like Cowboys, DPD" -- Dallas Police Department -- "Needs an Impact-Maker." Come on. Anyway, I love the paper. So there you go.

"San Francisco Chronicle." We like this. "Actor's Agenda" -- that would be Mr. Schwarzenegger -- "Short on Specifics." No kidding, OK?

I was surprised by this. "The Korea Herald." You'd think the talks over North Korea -- I'm over here -- the talks over North Korea would be the big story, right, in the Seoul newspaper? Uh-uh. Down at the bottom of the front page, "Talks Start Amid Low Expectations."

"The Chicago Sun-Times." "It's a Hurt You Can't Get Over." The NASA report makes the front page of "The Chicago Sun-Times." Three and a half stars, the weather. And both the Cubs and the White Sox in first place.

How we doing on time?

"The Vanderbilt Hustler." OK, this is the student newspaper at Vanderbilt University. I'll explain this in a second. "Mold Found Cleared From Residence Halls." Man, that is the big story at Vanderbilt. And the newspaper is edited by Meredith Berger, who used to be an intern of ours. And go get 'em, kid. We're really proud of you.

That's really -- 15 seconds? Well, there's no point in going on. You can't do anything interesting in 15 seconds.

That's our report for tonight. We're all back tomorrow, 10:00 Eastern time. We hope you'll join us as well.

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





Board Blames NASA 'Culture'; Interview With Cruz Bustamante>