Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

President Bush Makes Case Before United Nations; Interview With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

Aired September 23, 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.
We'll spend a good deal of time tonight on what was said at the United Nations. There is a tendency, we think, to look at the two main events, the president of the United States and the president of France, as if it was some sort of sporting event. This guy was on defense. The other guy seemed to score some points, that sort of thing.

So we'd like to point out a line you may have missed today. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his speech today that the United Nations -- quote -- "may be at a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself," when the United Nations was founded. This is no game. It can't simply be a competition between this country or that.For all its faults and excesses -- and there are plenty over at the U.N. -- it remains a great place where great dreams can be realized, and often are.

The president's speech and the reaction begins "The Whip" tonight.

CNN's John King starts us off.

John, a headline.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the president, on the one hand, was conciliatory, saying it was time to move forward, but, on the other hand, he made clear he wants to do so on his terms. He says the United States, not the United Nations, will set the political timetable in Iraq. And he said, in his view, even countries that opposed the war must now ante up and help pay for Iraq's reconstruction -- Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you with the details at the top.

Next, the work of crafting a resolution, no easy task, that. CNN's Richard Roth at the U.N. tonight.

Richard, a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: But first, Aaron, not a sporting event, but France and the U.S. fought the last war, the one in March over Iraq, and also sparred verbally over fixing the results in a star-studded first day of debate inside the General Assembly hall -- Aaron. BROWN: Richard, thank you.

The Pentagon next and what appears to be a widening circle of suspicion concerning at least two servicemen posted at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Jamie, a headline.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a senior Air Force enlisted man has been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy for sending classified information to Syria. His arrest is the second in what appears to be a widening investigation into suspected Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S. military -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jamie, in some respects, this may be the best story of the day.

Finally to California and the recall back on, just two weeks away.

Kelly Wallace working that.

Kelly, a headline.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the decision by the federal court was not unexpected. And with the losing party saying it will not file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, this election will take place two weeks from now. But this question tonight: Will both the major Republican candidates be in this race until the end? -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, a question that's been out there. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up on the program tonight, the knotty problem of getting Muslim help in the war on terrorism and the reconstruction in Iraq. We spoke about both today with Pakistani President Musharraf, who is in New York for the U.N. General Assembly meeting.

We'll look again, as we often do here, at the power of still photography. "LIFE" magazine has assembled 100 shots felt around the world.

Pictures of a kind that are still being made and showcased in morning papers all around the world as well, pictures a certain rooster might crow about. And he and we will bring them to you before the night is over -- all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin at the United Nations, where, a little more than a year ago, the president asked the world to support, if necessary, a war against Saddam Hussein. A year later, with American troops on Iraqi soil and the situation anything from a mixed picture to a perfect mess, Mr. Bush today asked not for support or even approval, just help.

What he got was a somewhat cool reception at the General Assembly and the prospect of more tough bargaining at the Security Council.

We have two reports tonight, beginning with John King, traveling with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): It is, the president says, time to move forward. But it is clear he proposes to do so largely on his terms. He was unapologetic about his decision to go to war.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free.

KING: Adamant that even those who opposed the war should now help pay for Iraq's costly reconstruction.

BUSH: All nations of good will should step forward and provide that support.

KING: And unwavering in saying the United States, not the United Nations, will determine the timetable for Iraq's political transition.

BUSH: The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self- government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process.

KING: French President Jacques Chirac is a leading voice among the many critics, using his General Assembly speech to again criticize the Iraq war as illegitimate and to demand a firm timetable for ending U.S. rule. But when the two leaders met later, Mr. Bush was adamant that a quick political transition is "just not in the cards," and that he would not give billions in U.S. reconstruction aid to an unelected Iraqi Governing Council.

A senior U.S. officials on hand said President Chirac made clear that, despite the disagreement, France will not stand in the way of a new Security Council resolution sought by the United States. Shaping that resolution is now the president's challenge. And White House officials who initially had hoped for a deal while Mr. Bush is in New York now envision weeks of negotiations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: ... sit-down with the president of France, Mr. Chirac, today, perhaps an even more intriguing meeting tomorrow, when President Bush sits down with the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. So outspoken against the war was Chancellor Schroeder that the Bush administration said he had -- quote -- "poisoned" U.S.-German relations. But the Germans are now helping in Afghanistan, say they would like to help in Iraq. Mr. Bush will sit down with the chancellor tomorrow, Aaron, hoping to write a new chapter. BROWN: The White House at all surprised by -- I always worry about adjectives here -- let's just leave them out -- by the reaction today?

KING: No. They knew the reaction would be cool.

We have a strange dynamic taking shape tonight. White House officials believe, especially because President Chirac told Mr. Bush he would not veto a resolution, that they actually might get a resolution within a few weeks of tough negotiating. What they're worried about is, that resolution might not bring what the president had hoped, the commitment for thousands more troops, up to 15,000 more troops, and, more importantly, $15 billion, maybe $20 billion or $30 billion in reconstruction commitments.

They think they might get the resolution, but not the numbers they need, especially the money.

BROWN: A hollow victory, then, that. John, thank you. It's been a long day for you, our senior White House correspondent, John King, who has literally been with us since early this morning.

There's no question the United States and France tonight remain philosophically divided over Iraq. And the truth is, France is not just France here, but a lot of other countries who share her concerns. But practicality has a place, even in the world of diplomacy. And in some respects, that is the battle joined. Will practicality, the necessity to create a new Iraq, win out?

From the U.N. tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): After President Bush defended the U.S. war on Iraq, the president of France took the stage to charge, the war undermined the international system of law.

JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): In an open world, no one can live in isolation. No one can act in the name of everyone. No one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.

ROTH: And Secretary-General Kofi Annan, highly praised by President Bush upon arrival at the U.N., also warned of the ramification of the U.S. ignoring the Security Council by unilaterally going to war.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it will set precedents that resulted in the proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force with or without justification.

ROTH: As for the specifics of Iraq:

CHIRAC (through translator): In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, who must have sole responsibility for their destiny, is essential for stability and reconstruction.

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: I have no difficulty with what President Chirac said today, which, he talked about the need for sovereignty to be transferred to the people of Iraq. We're all agreed about that. But it can't happen tomorrow.

ROTH: Timing is very important for the fledgling U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad. The U.N. hasn't formally approved the new Iraqi government, but a governing council delegation led by Ahmad Chalabi took the seats once held by Saddam Hussein's men.

AHMAD CHALABI, PRESIDENT, IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL: We feel that Iraqis are capable of sovereignty quickly. We want this to be done in an orderly way, orderly process.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Ahmad Chalabi, the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, this month told "The New York Times" this week that he wouldn't mind if the governing council got possession of some of the ministries in Iraq. U.S. officials weren't happy about that, saying the U.S. is not ready to turn over power to the Iraqi Governing Council, an unelected body by anyone so far.

BROWN: An unelected body appointed by the United States. How significant, then, is this rift?

ROTH: Well, you may be seeing the early signs of the Iraqi Governing Council trying to flap its wings a bit. Adnan Pachachi, one of the other No. 2, No. 3s in the council, also hinting that: We would like sovereignty as soon as possible, but, for now, we want it orderly.

I think you're going to see, as Chalabi is seen as testing the Europeans to try to get more support from the U.N., Chalabi, who was the U.S.' biggest ally to get back into Iraq may turn out to be quite a thorn in the weeks and months ahead.

BROWN: Richard, thank you -- Richard Roth from the United Nations tonight.

Today, it became clear just how much the White House plans to spend on rebuilding Iraq and where the money will go. The information comes from an administration document that was distributed on Capitol Hill. The Associated Press got its hands on it. The bottom line, $20.3 billion. You now knew that. Of that, $2.9 billion to put Iraq's power system back together, power lines, transmission towers, at least 11 new power plants; $1 billion to be spent on drinking water.

Right now, only 60 percent of Iraqis living in cities have drinkable water. Those are the biggies. But even the small items are hardly small. Way up on the list, $100 million for the Iraqi equivalent of a federal witness protection program and $9 million for postal reform, including the -- for the first time, zip codes, anticipating a day when speedy postal delivery tops the agenda and not all the rest.

Today, however, began with American troops coming under attack yet again in the Sunni triangle, this time chasing fighters to a farmhouse, where soldiers and helicopters opened fire. Three Iraqis died. Locals say the attack on the American troops never happened. The three, they said, were villagers, not guerrillas.

And, at a funeral today, one said: "If this is your idea of protection, we don't need it." "May God's curse fall on America," said another. The sentiment is not a lonely one.

Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): September 11, 2003, Iraqis celebrate as a U.S. convoy burns. This shaky video, given to "TIME" magazine by the Iraqi resistance fighters who claimed responsibility for the attack in the town of Khaldiya.

MICHAEL WARE, "TIME": They are saying, we are not alone. They're saying, we have the support of these people. We cannot survive without them. And we represent them.

ROBERTSON: Exactly a week later, another convoy attacked in the same town in the so-called Sunni triangle, Ware's resistance contacts also claimed this assault, more jubilation from residents and claims this attack was homegrown. "These attacks are not from outside the country," says Shakir (ph). Ware's resistance connections make the same point.

WARE: They are saying that any foreigners who are coming are not conducting operations with them. They might be coming in, propagandizing, talking at the mosques.

ROBERTSON: On the "TIME" magazine tape, a resistance commander tells his disguised comrades how and what they will attack, this night, an ammunition dump. They hope to kill some U.S. soldiers, jubilation even though no killings take place, and off camera, a message from the commander.

"We do this for Islam," he says, "hand in hand, united for Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

(on camera): In this western part of the Sunni triangle, at least, most Iraqis believe it is them, not foreign fighters, who are waging what Iraqis see as a guerrilla campaign against an occupation force. Increasingly, however, many coalition commanders and their political leaders imply their battles here are against foreign fighters. Privately, some coalition commanders believe that is misleading.

(voice-over): U.S. border troops talk of picking up a few foreign fighters, but commanders seem sensitive about full disclosure.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, 101ST AIRBORNE: It's always very difficult to tell whether someone is a smuggler or is a hard-core transnational terrorist.

ROBERTSON: Despite the 100 or so attacks a week, coalition briefers claim resistance is weaker than Iraqis say.

COL. GEORGE KRIVO, COALITION SPOKESMAN: When you talk about a guerrilla movement, that implies first a sort of ideology which brings all of the forces together against you and then popular support in the countryside. And, at this time, if you look across all of Iraq, we don't see either of those things being true.

ROBERTSON: In Khaldiya desolate cemetery, green ribbons honor the graves of young men townspeople call martyrs, killed, they say, by U.S. troops. "There are more youngsters fighting the Americans every day," says this cousin of one dead man, just bravado, or, in his words, "a warning to the U.S.-led coalition."

Nic Robertson, CNN, Khaldiya, Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We left the story of Army Chaplain James Yee last night on a troubling footnote. Sources say Chaplain Yee, who ministered to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and who is under detention himself and suspected of espionage and treason now, might not be the only one.

Today, we learned it for a fact. A second man is being held. And unlike Chaplain Yee, he's now been formally charged with sending classified material to Syria. At the very least, if true, it is a breach of security at what was billed as one of the most secure places on the planet.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): Among the information allegedly passed to contacts in Syria, some in e-mails, details of the schedule of military flights in and out of the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And, one official says, unauthorized notes of interviews with detainees and laptop computer files were smuggled out of Camp Delta, the prison camp at the base for al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

The suspect is identified as a senior airman, Ahmad al-Halabi, an American of Syrian descent who was an Arabic-language translator at the camp. He was arrested July 23. He faces more than 30 charges, including espionage, aiding the enemy, making false statements, bank fraud, and failing to obey orders, and is being held at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Al-Halabi was taken into custody six weeks before the arrest of Army Captain James Yee, who spent four years studying Islam in Syria before becoming a Muslim Army chaplain. Yee is also suspected of possessing classified information about detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but has not been charged.

Some in Congress are already suggesting the Pentagon blundered by allowing groups with suspected ties to terrorists to help certify clerics to become military chaplains.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: This fact is incredible. That a man who ends up as chaplain to potentially the most dangerous terrorists we have in our custody was trained by groups who might well have a link to terrorism almost defies the imagination. And yet, that is what happened.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: And the hunt for moles in the military is not over. Sources say there could be more arrests. In fact, some Pentagon officials indicate, the next person taken into custody may be a member of the U.S. Navy -- Aaron.

BROWN: Do we know what groups Senator Schumer was talking about there?

MCINTYRE: He's talking about a group that is called the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. It's part of a group called the American Muslim Foundation. And it is -- that group is being investigated for possible financial ties to terrorist groups. But the group denies that it has any connection to terrorism.

BROWN: And just as quickly as you can, is there any evidence that the two people in custody are linked somehow, they knew each other, worked with each other, any of that?

MCINTYRE: Well, they did work at the base at the same time. They apparently did know each other on some level. It's not clear whether there was a connection between them or they simply knew each other because they worked at the same base. Obviously, that's an area of deep suspicion.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you, our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: a status report on the war on terror. We talk with the president of Pakistan, get his perspective on how it is all going. And later in the hour, 100 photos that changed the world, some of the classic images of our life.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: From all over the country.

Listening to President Bush at the U.N. today was a world leader who has been and still is in an especially tricky spot, Pakistani President Musharraf, a man who made life easier for the United States after the attacks of 9/11 when he decided to side with America when the country went to war with Afghanistan.

But, at the same time, that decision made life more difficult for himself at home. We talked to him in Washington about a year ago. And earlier today, we got a chance to talk again here in New York. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: I know that this is a sensitive area. And it should be. There is a perception among many, I think, in the United States, that, if the government of Pakistan really wanted to go get bin Laden, they could go get bin Laden, but that the government of Pakistan, these people believe, is afraid of the consequences of doing that, that the domestic repercussions of that would be catastrophic.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: This is absolutely and totally wrong.

As far as the -- locating Osama or locating targets, locating any al Qaeda person in the hills and mountains is done through an intelligence organization. This is -- CIA is assisting us. Your intelligence organizations are assisting us. And they know exactly what is happening on the ground. Sometimes, you get close to him and then suddenly the man disappears. So all this is happening.

So let me assure you that it is not at all a worry from my side that, if we act, there is a danger to me, my government. There is no such danger at all. This is not the reality.

BROWN: Can you imagine, Mr. President, a circumstance under which Pakistan would send troops into Iraq to aid the Americans?

MUSHARRAF: We can create conditions for it. Under the present circumstances, the conditions are not conducive. And there's a domestic opposition, very strong domestic opposition, to it.

BROWN: What is it that people would object to? Why would they object to sending troops into this effort to make the country a democratic country?

MUSHARRAF: They are not seeing that.

The general perception, the common perception, is that the force there is an occupation force. It's not a reconstruction or welfare force. Personally, if you are asking my own personal opinion, yes, I know the reality. I know they went against a regime which was extremely autocratic and maybe cruel. Saddam Hussein was a cruel man.

BROWN: But that is not necessarily the belief on the streets?

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: And why is that? What is it they're seeing, what is it they're hearing that has led them to believe something entirely different?

MUSHARRAF: I think, because of what has been happening to the Muslim world continuously, that there is suspicion. There is a perception that maybe the Muslims are being targeted and maybe the religion is being targeted. But this is the common perception, that Muslims and Islam is being targeted because of what has happened in the last decade, after the Cold War.

BROWN: You talked about this the other day, I thought, that this -- that this is a central question that the American government and the West needs to come to terms with.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

I think actions ought to speak louder than words. And, in actions, when you talk of actions, I think political disputes, resolution is the action required. These are all -- this is all a fallout of political situations in various countries, the main one being the Palestinian dispute, because every day on every television network, you see stone-throwing Palestinians facing missile-firing helicopters, tanks and guns and all that.

This doesn't create a good perception at all. And this is a Goliath vs. David fight going on there. Since all these years, everyone is seeing that, whether it's on Al-Jazeera or CNN or BBC or -- every day, these are creating perceptions.

BROWN: Do you think the Israelis want a solution that includes a Palestinian state?

MUSHARRAF: They must accept it. If they don't, we won't go anywhere else. We won't move forward. But if they don't, they are not being realistic at all. They must be persuaded to accept it, certainly. Otherwise, the world will never improve.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Pakistani President Musharraf. We talked with him this afternoon.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT: The appeals court says the California recall is on. And the candidates waste no time going negative. We'll take a look at what the court decided and what it all means.

We'll take a break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In California today, 11 members of the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals reversed the ruling of three members a little more than a week ago, the ACLU saying it will not appeal. So the recall election is back on again for the 7th of October. That much is certain. Everything else, as it should be, is anybody's guess.

Here again, CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): Hours after the federal court ruling, GOP front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger could barely contain his joy.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I am extremely excited about the court's decision today. What about the court's decision, huh?

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Less enthusiasm coming from embattled Governor Gray Davis, who political analysts believe might have benefited if the election were delayed.

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: I believe we have the momentum and I believe we'll win the election on October 7.

WALLACE: In a unanimous decision, the 11 judges ruled that delaying the election would disenfranchise the more than 500,000 voters who have already cast their absentee ballots. The American Civil Liberties Union responded, saying it would not file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

DOROTHY EHRLICH, ACLU: We do not believe that we should prolong the uncertainty any longer.

WALLACE: And now some influential Republicans believe it's time for the GOP to unite behind either Schwarzenegger or state Senator Tom McClintock. The man who bankrolled the recall movement said of them one must go.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Both of them can do the math and both of them don't want to go spoilers.

WALLACE: The pressure is on McClintock, who is trailing Schwarzenegger in the polls. For the first time publicly, the actor- turned-candidate seemed to suggest his GOP rival should step aside.

SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that McClintock should think about it seriously. I think that it will be tougher for -- to win this race with having two Republicans in there.

WALLACE: But there is pressure on Schwarzenegger, too. Preparations are under way for Wednesday's debate, the only debate the political newcomer has agreed to attend. State Republican leaders will be watching closely to see if Schwarzenegger is a candidate they can rally around.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And the day after the debate, state Republican county chairs hold a key meeting here in Sacramento, where they could decide to endorse Schwarzenegger and urge McClintock to get out of the race, according to some Republican sources. But McClintock is not budging. His spokesman says the candidate is adamant about being in this race until the end -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you -- Kelly Wallace on the California recall.

Phil Bronstein joins us now, editor of "The San Francisco Chronicle." Always good to see him. Let's talk first about the debate. This is the debate where they get the questions in advance. Is it clear tonight that all of the candidates -- all the major candidates are in fact going to show?

PHIL BRONSTEIN, EDITOR, "THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE": Well, Aaron, I think they're going to show.

But whether they're going to show inside or outside is a little unclear. I think the boycott where you stand outside, because your protesting seems to fizzle. So I suspect they're all going to show. But, as you pointed out, they have gotten the questions in advance. It's not going to be a big challenge for too many of them, I think.

BROWN: Maybe it's because I'm 3,000 miles away here, but...

BRONSTEIN: Thank you for pointing that out, because that's rarely said on the East Coast.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: All right. And I will cop to that. But I don't necessarily have the best feel for this.

But looking at it from here, this campaign, which I thought was going to be kind of juicy and interesting and fun, has just kind of lay flat. Mr. Schwarzenegger has played so safely, it seems to me, that almost nothing has happened out there.

BRONSTEIN: Well, I think he has played it safely. And I think they're probably starting to figure out in his campaign, if they haven't already, that his poll numbers haven't moved.

They're counting on a lot of new voters. And so far, we've had about 600,000 absentee voters. That slowed to almost nothing when the court was wrangling over whether to have this election. Now the floodgates are open. The question is, what about new voters? And that was going to be one of the exciting things for Californians in this race, was that you might have the possibility of a lot of new people entering into the voting process, which I think is always good for democracy.

But we haven't seen a lot of that. There are about 5,000 more people, the last time we checked today, registered in this election, as opposed to the election in November of 2002. So, for us, that was the most exciting part. From what I can tell of the East Coast press, they're still referring to this as a circus. So I don't know where they're getting it. You're not seeing much of that, and neither am I.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

What I am seeing, again, just to talk about Mr. Schwarzenegger for a second, because he seemed, in some respects, to be the catalyst for attention, is that he's done a lot of alternative media, the "Oprah"s and the rest, stayed away from traditional newspaper coverage and political coverage. Are Californians demanding of him more, or are they comfortable with what he's giving them? BRONSTEIN: Well, I think the poll numbers suggest they're not that comfortable with what he's giving them.

We have a story tomorrow in our newspaper that basically says some of his most devoted followers are waiting for this debate, the only debate, tomorrow, in which he's agreed to appear, to see if there is some substance that he's going to provide. We just came out of -- and we're not really out of -- a $38 billion deficit. We have got a major job problem. People's lives are affected by things like the economy, issues of education.

And I think Arnold Schwarzenegger has addressed those in pretty general terms. Remember, Aaron, he is a guy who has expertly and for decades understood how to deal with the entertainment press. And so he's been dealing, essentially, with the entertainment press. And we were wondering, what happens if he wins and he doesn't need us? This is a big concern for us, I guess, on a selfish level. But that's apparently not true for voters. They're not feeling sufficiently fed by him as a candidate based on what he's said so far.

BROWN: Is it -- we hear the governor saying he feels like the momentum is with him. We see the polls show this kind of narrowing. Is it unreasonable to believe that, come the 8th of October, that the governor will have survived all this?

BRONSTEIN: Well, we're all speculating at this point. But I would say it's not unreasonable. Momentum is in that direction.

And I think part of it is perhaps that Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign, as kind of the front-running opposition campaign, has stalled. Although Cruz Bustamante in polls comes out ahead of Schwarzenegger, he has had his own problems lately with some of his campaign contributors and how he's getting his money and how he's using his money. So I don't think anybody who is opposed to Davis, in that sense that they're running as financial alternatives, has lit a fire under any voter, particularly.

So I think that's part of his momentum. But that's really not a momentum that necessarily Gray Davis has been responsible for.

BROWN: And, finally, if Mr. McClintock ends up dropping out, is it then a slam-dunk for Schwarzenegger, in your view?

BRONSTEIN: Well, I think if you add McClintock's numbers in all the polls to Arnold Schwarzenegger's numbers, then he wins. The question is, McClintock is very much to the right of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Are those folks on the Republican right wing going to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger? I don't think that's a slam-dunk.

BROWN: Phil, it's good to see you again.

BRONSTEIN: Nice to see you.

BROWN: We'll show your front page in 20 minutes or so, as we often do.

BRONSTEIN: Great. Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you for your help on that.

BRONSTEIN: Sure.

BROWN: Phil Bronstein of "The San Francisco Chronicle."

Next on NEWSNIGHT: a story about newspapers, the messy divorce between two papers in Seattle, how it could lead to the end of one.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Our next story is a fable, of sorts. Two titans tied together can only overcome their problem by working together. The trouble is that, in order to work together, they have to take their hands from each other's throats. The chances of that happening seem pretty remote. The story takes place in a great American city, Seattle, the two titans, the local newspapers.

Here is Katharine Barrett.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATHARINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two decades ago in Seattle, grunge music was still in its infancy, Microsoft was a small private company, and Seattle's two daily newspapers forged a shotgun marriage of convenience.

"The Seattle Times" and "The Post-Intelligencer" share publishing and printing expenses, but keep separate reporting and editorial staffs. But "The Times" now says it has lost money the past three years, partly due to a 49-day strike in 2000 and a local economy bashed by Boeing layoffs and dot-com bankruptcies. "The Times" argue in court papers, those losses allow it to exit the joint operating agreement.

The "P.I." disagrees. And the two are locked in a court battle over the future of their partnership and the future perhaps of two of Seattle's oldest businesses.

DMITRI IGLITZIN, COMMITTEE FOR A TWO-NEWSPAPER TOWN: It is a disaster for our community to have one of these two papers shut down. "The Seattle Times" endorsed Bush for president. "The Post- Intelligencer" endorsed Gore. "The Seattle Times" has been a big fan of the war against Iraq. "The Post-Intelligencer" has been a vigorous critic.

JASMINE LEBLANC, SEATTLE RESIDENT: It seems like a diversity of places where you can get your news is always better than just going with fewer and fewer places.

ROBERT CHRISTENSEN, SEATTLE RESIDENT: There has to be something to push them. If there is no competition at all, then there is nobody to push them to do at least something a little bit different. BARRETT (on camera): Seattle is a book-loving, literary town. After all, reading helps pass those long rainy winter weeks. That's just one reason the prospect of losing a local paper hurts. Another is, it would be just the latest in a series of blows to Seattle's self-esteem.

(voice-over): The debate over newspaper ownership here echoes the larger issue of national media consolidation. "The Seattle Times" is the big fish in Seattle's media pond, but a mere minnow in compared to "The P.I.'s" parent condition, the Hearst Corporation. "The Times," family-owned for four generations, fears it may be swallowed itself.

KERRY COUGHLIN, "SEATTLE TIMES" SPOKESPERSON: If you look at their pattern in San Francisco, for example, Houston, San Antonio, some of the other cities they've operated in, they have used their weaker paper position to take over the dominate newspaper. It's our feeling that they're trying to keep us in this losing JOA until they bleed to the point that that the family has to sell.

BARRETT: And who is first in line as a potential buyer? Competitor Hearst. The next step in Seattle's newspaper battle, a court ruling on September 25. But the skirmish may then shift to the other Washington. Activists here are asking the Justice Department to help ensure Seattle remains a two-paper town.

Katharine Barrett, for CNN, Seattle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Late word tonight from the Associated Press that a virus has struck a computer system used by the State Department. In a nutshell, the virus has crippled the worldwide system used for checking on people applying for visas.

The system contains more than 12 million records from the FBI, the CIA and other law enforcement agencies. And among the names in the system are those of at least 78,000 suspected terrorists. As a result of the bug, no visas are being issued at the moment. No word yet on where the virus came from or whether this is a case of computer mischief or out-and-out foul play.

A few other stories from around the country tonight, starting with one you might have already seen on Court TV on a JetBlue flight. A lawyer in Utah has filed a class-action suit against the airline, this after it became known that JetBlue gave millions of passenger records to a Pentagon contractor researching homeland security. The plaintiffs allege invasion of privacy, among other things, but, in an odd twist, aren't asking for punitive damages. "It's a good company," JetBlue is, their lawyer says.

All nine members of the NASA safety panel have resigned. They did it to clear the way for changes called for in the wake of the Columbia disaster. The panel, by the way, was formed in response to the fire that claimed the lives of three Apollo astronauts back in 1967. And finally, adding insult to Isabel, more storms hit Virginia and North Carolina, including a tornado today in Richmond. Said one resident, "Isabel was gravy compared to this guy." Tough week there.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: photographs burned in our memories, a special look at 100 images that changed the world.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Those of you who are loyal viewers of this little program know of our affection for still photographs. And, therefore, it won't be surprising to you that when a book called "100 Photographs That Changed the World" came our way shall, it was all but certain that we would stop and take a look with you.

If, as they say -- whoever they actually are -- a picture is worth 1,000 words, here are 100,000 words worth in the next 23 seconds.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT SULLIVAN, EDITOR, "LIFE": Sometimes the power of a photograph is very intentional. At "LIFE," we thought we would put 100 examples out there for how we felt they had inspired or incited or somehow caused action by people that led to a change in the way we thought and, in fact, the history of the world.

The still photography of the Holocaust is probably the best example in the whole book of how a photograph can change the world. General Patton insisted that the local people from the villages around the death camp be brought in to witness what had been happening in their neighborhood by their own people, by the Nazis. U.S. soldiers who were even in the theater, they didn't believe it until they saw the pictures. And they went, oh, my God, it's true.

If you don't think a photograph can change the world, then what about the Cuban Missile Crisis standoff? Until Stevenson said that: "Here are the photographs, here are the aerial photographs. What are these things we are seeing in these pictures, Mr. Ambassador? I'm willing to wait until hell freezes over for an answer" -- without the photographs, what does he have for his evidence?

Some of the photographs in the book are about the use of photography and how the use of photography led to societal or global changes. One of the most beautiful pictures in the book is also one of the most horrific. And that's of the famine victim in Africa, the little child's hand, starving child, in the hand of a white care worker. When it ran worldwide, millions of dollars were sent to Africa and millions of people learned about the famine. People lived, or didn't, who might not have had attention paid to them had that photo not run.

We have certainly more than a few photographs from the 1960s. We have more than a few of the civil rights movement. When those came up north and people saw what was going on down there, it changed people's thinking about it entirely. One of the most powerful, I think, is the lunch counter demonstration in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1963, the sort of stoic and rather strong-willed white kids sitting with them in brotherhood and taking the same humiliation from other whites. The story is told immediately, but graphically.

People do remember events with a certain image in mind, like, we have in our mind's eye what the Beatles looked like in 1964. You can just pop that image. In an ever more frantic age, in an ever faster moving age, I think that you're finding sort of this backlash, where the power of the still photograph is coming back again.

Sometimes, the power of a photograph is rather oblique. And you really don't realize what's going on in the aftermath of the photo running until it's already happened. Did we make our case or not? It was very intentional to put that sort of provocative title out there. And it's basically asking, what do you think?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Our thanks to "LIFE" magazine.

We'll check morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, time to check morning papers from around the country. And, actually, we'll get sort of around the world today.

A lot of what we'll do here is take a look at how newspapers played the president's speech of the day at the United Nations, starting with "The New York Times." "Bush at New" -- "at U.N." -- see, if I had my glasses off, I would have said that right. "Bush at U.N. Defends Policy Over Iraq." Straight, a very straight headline. The analysis piece, "An Audience Unmoved."

And one more story out of there. I love this headline. I'm not sure what the story is about. "At Hotel Near U.N., Some Make History, Others Make Beds." I gather it's a look at the people who work in the hotels. But, anyway, that's the front page of "The New York Times."

"The Guardian," a British paper, big headline: "Iraq: The Reality and the Rhetoric." The reality is, in "The Guardian"'s view, at least, this young child who was injured. And the rhetoric, "Bush Isolated After Speech at U.N. Falls Flat." I guess you have a sense where "The Guardian" is coming from.

"The Boston Herald" does not put the U.N. day on the front page, but has a pretty good front-page story. "Mitt" -- that would be Mitt Romney, the governor -- "Dead Set, Gov Makes Bid For Foolproof Death Penalty." There is no death penalty in Massachusetts. Governor Romney promised one and now he's trying to figure out a way to make it foolproof. Good luck. "Hartford Courant." "U.N. Speech Draws Fire." Hartford, Connecticut. It's the newspaper. "At Home, President's Critics Unswayed." So you get a sense of how they see it.

"The Detroit Free Press," it plays the spy story -- or the allegation of a spy story, as its major story. "Spy Charges Hit Home. Detroiter Held. He is Accused of Aiding Jailed Terror Suspects." So that's a logical front-page story for them. It's a terrific front- page story, in any case.

How are we doing on time? Twenty. Oh, my goodness.

"San Francisco Chronicle." "Image Vs. Reality: Schwarzenegger Preference For Talk Show Over Debates May Hurt Him."

And finally "The Chicago Sun-Times." "Don't Want Flu Shot in Arm, Try Flu Shot Up the Nose." Thank you, no. The weather tomorrow, zesty.

We'll see you at 10:00 Eastern. Good night for all of us.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf>


Aired September 23, 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.
We'll spend a good deal of time tonight on what was said at the United Nations. There is a tendency, we think, to look at the two main events, the president of the United States and the president of France, as if it was some sort of sporting event. This guy was on defense. The other guy seemed to score some points, that sort of thing.

So we'd like to point out a line you may have missed today. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his speech today that the United Nations -- quote -- "may be at a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself," when the United Nations was founded. This is no game. It can't simply be a competition between this country or that.For all its faults and excesses -- and there are plenty over at the U.N. -- it remains a great place where great dreams can be realized, and often are.

The president's speech and the reaction begins "The Whip" tonight.

CNN's John King starts us off.

John, a headline.

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the president, on the one hand, was conciliatory, saying it was time to move forward, but, on the other hand, he made clear he wants to do so on his terms. He says the United States, not the United Nations, will set the political timetable in Iraq. And he said, in his view, even countries that opposed the war must now ante up and help pay for Iraq's reconstruction -- Aaron.

BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you with the details at the top.

Next, the work of crafting a resolution, no easy task, that. CNN's Richard Roth at the U.N. tonight.

Richard, a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT: But first, Aaron, not a sporting event, but France and the U.S. fought the last war, the one in March over Iraq, and also sparred verbally over fixing the results in a star-studded first day of debate inside the General Assembly hall -- Aaron. BROWN: Richard, thank you.

The Pentagon next and what appears to be a widening circle of suspicion concerning at least two servicemen posted at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Jamie, a headline.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a senior Air Force enlisted man has been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy for sending classified information to Syria. His arrest is the second in what appears to be a widening investigation into suspected Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers in the U.S. military -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jamie, in some respects, this may be the best story of the day.

Finally to California and the recall back on, just two weeks away.

Kelly Wallace working that.

Kelly, a headline.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the decision by the federal court was not unexpected. And with the losing party saying it will not file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, this election will take place two weeks from now. But this question tonight: Will both the major Republican candidates be in this race until the end? -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, a question that's been out there. Back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up on the program tonight, the knotty problem of getting Muslim help in the war on terrorism and the reconstruction in Iraq. We spoke about both today with Pakistani President Musharraf, who is in New York for the U.N. General Assembly meeting.

We'll look again, as we often do here, at the power of still photography. "LIFE" magazine has assembled 100 shots felt around the world.

Pictures of a kind that are still being made and showcased in morning papers all around the world as well, pictures a certain rooster might crow about. And he and we will bring them to you before the night is over -- all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin at the United Nations, where, a little more than a year ago, the president asked the world to support, if necessary, a war against Saddam Hussein. A year later, with American troops on Iraqi soil and the situation anything from a mixed picture to a perfect mess, Mr. Bush today asked not for support or even approval, just help.

What he got was a somewhat cool reception at the General Assembly and the prospect of more tough bargaining at the Security Council.

We have two reports tonight, beginning with John King, traveling with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): It is, the president says, time to move forward. But it is clear he proposes to do so largely on his terms. He was unapologetic about his decision to go to war.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free.

KING: Adamant that even those who opposed the war should now help pay for Iraq's costly reconstruction.

BUSH: All nations of good will should step forward and provide that support.

KING: And unwavering in saying the United States, not the United Nations, will determine the timetable for Iraq's political transition.

BUSH: The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self- government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process.

KING: French President Jacques Chirac is a leading voice among the many critics, using his General Assembly speech to again criticize the Iraq war as illegitimate and to demand a firm timetable for ending U.S. rule. But when the two leaders met later, Mr. Bush was adamant that a quick political transition is "just not in the cards," and that he would not give billions in U.S. reconstruction aid to an unelected Iraqi Governing Council.

A senior U.S. officials on hand said President Chirac made clear that, despite the disagreement, France will not stand in the way of a new Security Council resolution sought by the United States. Shaping that resolution is now the president's challenge. And White House officials who initially had hoped for a deal while Mr. Bush is in New York now envision weeks of negotiations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: ... sit-down with the president of France, Mr. Chirac, today, perhaps an even more intriguing meeting tomorrow, when President Bush sits down with the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. So outspoken against the war was Chancellor Schroeder that the Bush administration said he had -- quote -- "poisoned" U.S.-German relations. But the Germans are now helping in Afghanistan, say they would like to help in Iraq. Mr. Bush will sit down with the chancellor tomorrow, Aaron, hoping to write a new chapter. BROWN: The White House at all surprised by -- I always worry about adjectives here -- let's just leave them out -- by the reaction today?

KING: No. They knew the reaction would be cool.

We have a strange dynamic taking shape tonight. White House officials believe, especially because President Chirac told Mr. Bush he would not veto a resolution, that they actually might get a resolution within a few weeks of tough negotiating. What they're worried about is, that resolution might not bring what the president had hoped, the commitment for thousands more troops, up to 15,000 more troops, and, more importantly, $15 billion, maybe $20 billion or $30 billion in reconstruction commitments.

They think they might get the resolution, but not the numbers they need, especially the money.

BROWN: A hollow victory, then, that. John, thank you. It's been a long day for you, our senior White House correspondent, John King, who has literally been with us since early this morning.

There's no question the United States and France tonight remain philosophically divided over Iraq. And the truth is, France is not just France here, but a lot of other countries who share her concerns. But practicality has a place, even in the world of diplomacy. And in some respects, that is the battle joined. Will practicality, the necessity to create a new Iraq, win out?

From the U.N. tonight, CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): After President Bush defended the U.S. war on Iraq, the president of France took the stage to charge, the war undermined the international system of law.

JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): In an open world, no one can live in isolation. No one can act in the name of everyone. No one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.

ROTH: And Secretary-General Kofi Annan, highly praised by President Bush upon arrival at the U.N., also warned of the ramification of the U.S. ignoring the Security Council by unilaterally going to war.

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it will set precedents that resulted in the proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force with or without justification.

ROTH: As for the specifics of Iraq:

CHIRAC (through translator): In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, who must have sole responsibility for their destiny, is essential for stability and reconstruction.

JACK STRAW, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: I have no difficulty with what President Chirac said today, which, he talked about the need for sovereignty to be transferred to the people of Iraq. We're all agreed about that. But it can't happen tomorrow.

ROTH: Timing is very important for the fledgling U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad. The U.N. hasn't formally approved the new Iraqi government, but a governing council delegation led by Ahmad Chalabi took the seats once held by Saddam Hussein's men.

AHMAD CHALABI, PRESIDENT, IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL: We feel that Iraqis are capable of sovereignty quickly. We want this to be done in an orderly way, orderly process.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Ahmad Chalabi, the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, this month told "The New York Times" this week that he wouldn't mind if the governing council got possession of some of the ministries in Iraq. U.S. officials weren't happy about that, saying the U.S. is not ready to turn over power to the Iraqi Governing Council, an unelected body by anyone so far.

BROWN: An unelected body appointed by the United States. How significant, then, is this rift?

ROTH: Well, you may be seeing the early signs of the Iraqi Governing Council trying to flap its wings a bit. Adnan Pachachi, one of the other No. 2, No. 3s in the council, also hinting that: We would like sovereignty as soon as possible, but, for now, we want it orderly.

I think you're going to see, as Chalabi is seen as testing the Europeans to try to get more support from the U.N., Chalabi, who was the U.S.' biggest ally to get back into Iraq may turn out to be quite a thorn in the weeks and months ahead.

BROWN: Richard, thank you -- Richard Roth from the United Nations tonight.

Today, it became clear just how much the White House plans to spend on rebuilding Iraq and where the money will go. The information comes from an administration document that was distributed on Capitol Hill. The Associated Press got its hands on it. The bottom line, $20.3 billion. You now knew that. Of that, $2.9 billion to put Iraq's power system back together, power lines, transmission towers, at least 11 new power plants; $1 billion to be spent on drinking water.

Right now, only 60 percent of Iraqis living in cities have drinkable water. Those are the biggies. But even the small items are hardly small. Way up on the list, $100 million for the Iraqi equivalent of a federal witness protection program and $9 million for postal reform, including the -- for the first time, zip codes, anticipating a day when speedy postal delivery tops the agenda and not all the rest.

Today, however, began with American troops coming under attack yet again in the Sunni triangle, this time chasing fighters to a farmhouse, where soldiers and helicopters opened fire. Three Iraqis died. Locals say the attack on the American troops never happened. The three, they said, were villagers, not guerrillas.

And, at a funeral today, one said: "If this is your idea of protection, we don't need it." "May God's curse fall on America," said another. The sentiment is not a lonely one.

Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): September 11, 2003, Iraqis celebrate as a U.S. convoy burns. This shaky video, given to "TIME" magazine by the Iraqi resistance fighters who claimed responsibility for the attack in the town of Khaldiya.

MICHAEL WARE, "TIME": They are saying, we are not alone. They're saying, we have the support of these people. We cannot survive without them. And we represent them.

ROBERTSON: Exactly a week later, another convoy attacked in the same town in the so-called Sunni triangle, Ware's resistance contacts also claimed this assault, more jubilation from residents and claims this attack was homegrown. "These attacks are not from outside the country," says Shakir (ph). Ware's resistance connections make the same point.

WARE: They are saying that any foreigners who are coming are not conducting operations with them. They might be coming in, propagandizing, talking at the mosques.

ROBERTSON: On the "TIME" magazine tape, a resistance commander tells his disguised comrades how and what they will attack, this night, an ammunition dump. They hope to kill some U.S. soldiers, jubilation even though no killings take place, and off camera, a message from the commander.

"We do this for Islam," he says, "hand in hand, united for Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

(on camera): In this western part of the Sunni triangle, at least, most Iraqis believe it is them, not foreign fighters, who are waging what Iraqis see as a guerrilla campaign against an occupation force. Increasingly, however, many coalition commanders and their political leaders imply their battles here are against foreign fighters. Privately, some coalition commanders believe that is misleading.

(voice-over): U.S. border troops talk of picking up a few foreign fighters, but commanders seem sensitive about full disclosure.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, 101ST AIRBORNE: It's always very difficult to tell whether someone is a smuggler or is a hard-core transnational terrorist.

ROBERTSON: Despite the 100 or so attacks a week, coalition briefers claim resistance is weaker than Iraqis say.

COL. GEORGE KRIVO, COALITION SPOKESMAN: When you talk about a guerrilla movement, that implies first a sort of ideology which brings all of the forces together against you and then popular support in the countryside. And, at this time, if you look across all of Iraq, we don't see either of those things being true.

ROBERTSON: In Khaldiya desolate cemetery, green ribbons honor the graves of young men townspeople call martyrs, killed, they say, by U.S. troops. "There are more youngsters fighting the Americans every day," says this cousin of one dead man, just bravado, or, in his words, "a warning to the U.S.-led coalition."

Nic Robertson, CNN, Khaldiya, Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: We left the story of Army Chaplain James Yee last night on a troubling footnote. Sources say Chaplain Yee, who ministered to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and who is under detention himself and suspected of espionage and treason now, might not be the only one.

Today, we learned it for a fact. A second man is being held. And unlike Chaplain Yee, he's now been formally charged with sending classified material to Syria. At the very least, if true, it is a breach of security at what was billed as one of the most secure places on the planet.

Our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): Among the information allegedly passed to contacts in Syria, some in e-mails, details of the schedule of military flights in and out of the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And, one official says, unauthorized notes of interviews with detainees and laptop computer files were smuggled out of Camp Delta, the prison camp at the base for al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

The suspect is identified as a senior airman, Ahmad al-Halabi, an American of Syrian descent who was an Arabic-language translator at the camp. He was arrested July 23. He faces more than 30 charges, including espionage, aiding the enemy, making false statements, bank fraud, and failing to obey orders, and is being held at the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Al-Halabi was taken into custody six weeks before the arrest of Army Captain James Yee, who spent four years studying Islam in Syria before becoming a Muslim Army chaplain. Yee is also suspected of possessing classified information about detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but has not been charged.

Some in Congress are already suggesting the Pentagon blundered by allowing groups with suspected ties to terrorists to help certify clerics to become military chaplains.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: This fact is incredible. That a man who ends up as chaplain to potentially the most dangerous terrorists we have in our custody was trained by groups who might well have a link to terrorism almost defies the imagination. And yet, that is what happened.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: And the hunt for moles in the military is not over. Sources say there could be more arrests. In fact, some Pentagon officials indicate, the next person taken into custody may be a member of the U.S. Navy -- Aaron.

BROWN: Do we know what groups Senator Schumer was talking about there?

MCINTYRE: He's talking about a group that is called the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. It's part of a group called the American Muslim Foundation. And it is -- that group is being investigated for possible financial ties to terrorist groups. But the group denies that it has any connection to terrorism.

BROWN: And just as quickly as you can, is there any evidence that the two people in custody are linked somehow, they knew each other, worked with each other, any of that?

MCINTYRE: Well, they did work at the base at the same time. They apparently did know each other on some level. It's not clear whether there was a connection between them or they simply knew each other because they worked at the same base. Obviously, that's an area of deep suspicion.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you, our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: a status report on the war on terror. We talk with the president of Pakistan, get his perspective on how it is all going. And later in the hour, 100 photos that changed the world, some of the classic images of our life.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: From all over the country.

Listening to President Bush at the U.N. today was a world leader who has been and still is in an especially tricky spot, Pakistani President Musharraf, a man who made life easier for the United States after the attacks of 9/11 when he decided to side with America when the country went to war with Afghanistan.

But, at the same time, that decision made life more difficult for himself at home. We talked to him in Washington about a year ago. And earlier today, we got a chance to talk again here in New York. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: I know that this is a sensitive area. And it should be. There is a perception among many, I think, in the United States, that, if the government of Pakistan really wanted to go get bin Laden, they could go get bin Laden, but that the government of Pakistan, these people believe, is afraid of the consequences of doing that, that the domestic repercussions of that would be catastrophic.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: This is absolutely and totally wrong.

As far as the -- locating Osama or locating targets, locating any al Qaeda person in the hills and mountains is done through an intelligence organization. This is -- CIA is assisting us. Your intelligence organizations are assisting us. And they know exactly what is happening on the ground. Sometimes, you get close to him and then suddenly the man disappears. So all this is happening.

So let me assure you that it is not at all a worry from my side that, if we act, there is a danger to me, my government. There is no such danger at all. This is not the reality.

BROWN: Can you imagine, Mr. President, a circumstance under which Pakistan would send troops into Iraq to aid the Americans?

MUSHARRAF: We can create conditions for it. Under the present circumstances, the conditions are not conducive. And there's a domestic opposition, very strong domestic opposition, to it.

BROWN: What is it that people would object to? Why would they object to sending troops into this effort to make the country a democratic country?

MUSHARRAF: They are not seeing that.

The general perception, the common perception, is that the force there is an occupation force. It's not a reconstruction or welfare force. Personally, if you are asking my own personal opinion, yes, I know the reality. I know they went against a regime which was extremely autocratic and maybe cruel. Saddam Hussein was a cruel man.

BROWN: But that is not necessarily the belief on the streets?

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: And why is that? What is it they're seeing, what is it they're hearing that has led them to believe something entirely different?

MUSHARRAF: I think, because of what has been happening to the Muslim world continuously, that there is suspicion. There is a perception that maybe the Muslims are being targeted and maybe the religion is being targeted. But this is the common perception, that Muslims and Islam is being targeted because of what has happened in the last decade, after the Cold War.

BROWN: You talked about this the other day, I thought, that this -- that this is a central question that the American government and the West needs to come to terms with.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

I think actions ought to speak louder than words. And, in actions, when you talk of actions, I think political disputes, resolution is the action required. These are all -- this is all a fallout of political situations in various countries, the main one being the Palestinian dispute, because every day on every television network, you see stone-throwing Palestinians facing missile-firing helicopters, tanks and guns and all that.

This doesn't create a good perception at all. And this is a Goliath vs. David fight going on there. Since all these years, everyone is seeing that, whether it's on Al-Jazeera or CNN or BBC or -- every day, these are creating perceptions.

BROWN: Do you think the Israelis want a solution that includes a Palestinian state?

MUSHARRAF: They must accept it. If they don't, we won't go anywhere else. We won't move forward. But if they don't, they are not being realistic at all. They must be persuaded to accept it, certainly. Otherwise, the world will never improve.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Pakistani President Musharraf. We talked with him this afternoon.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT: The appeals court says the California recall is on. And the candidates waste no time going negative. We'll take a look at what the court decided and what it all means.

We'll take a break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In California today, 11 members of the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals reversed the ruling of three members a little more than a week ago, the ACLU saying it will not appeal. So the recall election is back on again for the 7th of October. That much is certain. Everything else, as it should be, is anybody's guess.

Here again, CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE (voice-over): Hours after the federal court ruling, GOP front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger could barely contain his joy.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I am extremely excited about the court's decision today. What about the court's decision, huh?

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Less enthusiasm coming from embattled Governor Gray Davis, who political analysts believe might have benefited if the election were delayed.

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: I believe we have the momentum and I believe we'll win the election on October 7.

WALLACE: In a unanimous decision, the 11 judges ruled that delaying the election would disenfranchise the more than 500,000 voters who have already cast their absentee ballots. The American Civil Liberties Union responded, saying it would not file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

DOROTHY EHRLICH, ACLU: We do not believe that we should prolong the uncertainty any longer.

WALLACE: And now some influential Republicans believe it's time for the GOP to unite behind either Schwarzenegger or state Senator Tom McClintock. The man who bankrolled the recall movement said of them one must go.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Both of them can do the math and both of them don't want to go spoilers.

WALLACE: The pressure is on McClintock, who is trailing Schwarzenegger in the polls. For the first time publicly, the actor- turned-candidate seemed to suggest his GOP rival should step aside.

SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that McClintock should think about it seriously. I think that it will be tougher for -- to win this race with having two Republicans in there.

WALLACE: But there is pressure on Schwarzenegger, too. Preparations are under way for Wednesday's debate, the only debate the political newcomer has agreed to attend. State Republican leaders will be watching closely to see if Schwarzenegger is a candidate they can rally around.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And the day after the debate, state Republican county chairs hold a key meeting here in Sacramento, where they could decide to endorse Schwarzenegger and urge McClintock to get out of the race, according to some Republican sources. But McClintock is not budging. His spokesman says the candidate is adamant about being in this race until the end -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you -- Kelly Wallace on the California recall.

Phil Bronstein joins us now, editor of "The San Francisco Chronicle." Always good to see him. Let's talk first about the debate. This is the debate where they get the questions in advance. Is it clear tonight that all of the candidates -- all the major candidates are in fact going to show?

PHIL BRONSTEIN, EDITOR, "THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE": Well, Aaron, I think they're going to show.

But whether they're going to show inside or outside is a little unclear. I think the boycott where you stand outside, because your protesting seems to fizzle. So I suspect they're all going to show. But, as you pointed out, they have gotten the questions in advance. It's not going to be a big challenge for too many of them, I think.

BROWN: Maybe it's because I'm 3,000 miles away here, but...

BRONSTEIN: Thank you for pointing that out, because that's rarely said on the East Coast.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: All right. And I will cop to that. But I don't necessarily have the best feel for this.

But looking at it from here, this campaign, which I thought was going to be kind of juicy and interesting and fun, has just kind of lay flat. Mr. Schwarzenegger has played so safely, it seems to me, that almost nothing has happened out there.

BRONSTEIN: Well, I think he has played it safely. And I think they're probably starting to figure out in his campaign, if they haven't already, that his poll numbers haven't moved.

They're counting on a lot of new voters. And so far, we've had about 600,000 absentee voters. That slowed to almost nothing when the court was wrangling over whether to have this election. Now the floodgates are open. The question is, what about new voters? And that was going to be one of the exciting things for Californians in this race, was that you might have the possibility of a lot of new people entering into the voting process, which I think is always good for democracy.

But we haven't seen a lot of that. There are about 5,000 more people, the last time we checked today, registered in this election, as opposed to the election in November of 2002. So, for us, that was the most exciting part. From what I can tell of the East Coast press, they're still referring to this as a circus. So I don't know where they're getting it. You're not seeing much of that, and neither am I.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

What I am seeing, again, just to talk about Mr. Schwarzenegger for a second, because he seemed, in some respects, to be the catalyst for attention, is that he's done a lot of alternative media, the "Oprah"s and the rest, stayed away from traditional newspaper coverage and political coverage. Are Californians demanding of him more, or are they comfortable with what he's giving them? BRONSTEIN: Well, I think the poll numbers suggest they're not that comfortable with what he's giving them.

We have a story tomorrow in our newspaper that basically says some of his most devoted followers are waiting for this debate, the only debate, tomorrow, in which he's agreed to appear, to see if there is some substance that he's going to provide. We just came out of -- and we're not really out of -- a $38 billion deficit. We have got a major job problem. People's lives are affected by things like the economy, issues of education.

And I think Arnold Schwarzenegger has addressed those in pretty general terms. Remember, Aaron, he is a guy who has expertly and for decades understood how to deal with the entertainment press. And so he's been dealing, essentially, with the entertainment press. And we were wondering, what happens if he wins and he doesn't need us? This is a big concern for us, I guess, on a selfish level. But that's apparently not true for voters. They're not feeling sufficiently fed by him as a candidate based on what he's said so far.

BROWN: Is it -- we hear the governor saying he feels like the momentum is with him. We see the polls show this kind of narrowing. Is it unreasonable to believe that, come the 8th of October, that the governor will have survived all this?

BRONSTEIN: Well, we're all speculating at this point. But I would say it's not unreasonable. Momentum is in that direction.

And I think part of it is perhaps that Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign, as kind of the front-running opposition campaign, has stalled. Although Cruz Bustamante in polls comes out ahead of Schwarzenegger, he has had his own problems lately with some of his campaign contributors and how he's getting his money and how he's using his money. So I don't think anybody who is opposed to Davis, in that sense that they're running as financial alternatives, has lit a fire under any voter, particularly.

So I think that's part of his momentum. But that's really not a momentum that necessarily Gray Davis has been responsible for.

BROWN: And, finally, if Mr. McClintock ends up dropping out, is it then a slam-dunk for Schwarzenegger, in your view?

BRONSTEIN: Well, I think if you add McClintock's numbers in all the polls to Arnold Schwarzenegger's numbers, then he wins. The question is, McClintock is very much to the right of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Are those folks on the Republican right wing going to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger? I don't think that's a slam-dunk.

BROWN: Phil, it's good to see you again.

BRONSTEIN: Nice to see you.

BROWN: We'll show your front page in 20 minutes or so, as we often do.

BRONSTEIN: Great. Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you for your help on that.

BRONSTEIN: Sure.

BROWN: Phil Bronstein of "The San Francisco Chronicle."

Next on NEWSNIGHT: a story about newspapers, the messy divorce between two papers in Seattle, how it could lead to the end of one.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Our next story is a fable, of sorts. Two titans tied together can only overcome their problem by working together. The trouble is that, in order to work together, they have to take their hands from each other's throats. The chances of that happening seem pretty remote. The story takes place in a great American city, Seattle, the two titans, the local newspapers.

Here is Katharine Barrett.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATHARINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two decades ago in Seattle, grunge music was still in its infancy, Microsoft was a small private company, and Seattle's two daily newspapers forged a shotgun marriage of convenience.

"The Seattle Times" and "The Post-Intelligencer" share publishing and printing expenses, but keep separate reporting and editorial staffs. But "The Times" now says it has lost money the past three years, partly due to a 49-day strike in 2000 and a local economy bashed by Boeing layoffs and dot-com bankruptcies. "The Times" argue in court papers, those losses allow it to exit the joint operating agreement.

The "P.I." disagrees. And the two are locked in a court battle over the future of their partnership and the future perhaps of two of Seattle's oldest businesses.

DMITRI IGLITZIN, COMMITTEE FOR A TWO-NEWSPAPER TOWN: It is a disaster for our community to have one of these two papers shut down. "The Seattle Times" endorsed Bush for president. "The Post- Intelligencer" endorsed Gore. "The Seattle Times" has been a big fan of the war against Iraq. "The Post-Intelligencer" has been a vigorous critic.

JASMINE LEBLANC, SEATTLE RESIDENT: It seems like a diversity of places where you can get your news is always better than just going with fewer and fewer places.

ROBERT CHRISTENSEN, SEATTLE RESIDENT: There has to be something to push them. If there is no competition at all, then there is nobody to push them to do at least something a little bit different. BARRETT (on camera): Seattle is a book-loving, literary town. After all, reading helps pass those long rainy winter weeks. That's just one reason the prospect of losing a local paper hurts. Another is, it would be just the latest in a series of blows to Seattle's self-esteem.

(voice-over): The debate over newspaper ownership here echoes the larger issue of national media consolidation. "The Seattle Times" is the big fish in Seattle's media pond, but a mere minnow in compared to "The P.I.'s" parent condition, the Hearst Corporation. "The Times," family-owned for four generations, fears it may be swallowed itself.

KERRY COUGHLIN, "SEATTLE TIMES" SPOKESPERSON: If you look at their pattern in San Francisco, for example, Houston, San Antonio, some of the other cities they've operated in, they have used their weaker paper position to take over the dominate newspaper. It's our feeling that they're trying to keep us in this losing JOA until they bleed to the point that that the family has to sell.

BARRETT: And who is first in line as a potential buyer? Competitor Hearst. The next step in Seattle's newspaper battle, a court ruling on September 25. But the skirmish may then shift to the other Washington. Activists here are asking the Justice Department to help ensure Seattle remains a two-paper town.

Katharine Barrett, for CNN, Seattle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Late word tonight from the Associated Press that a virus has struck a computer system used by the State Department. In a nutshell, the virus has crippled the worldwide system used for checking on people applying for visas.

The system contains more than 12 million records from the FBI, the CIA and other law enforcement agencies. And among the names in the system are those of at least 78,000 suspected terrorists. As a result of the bug, no visas are being issued at the moment. No word yet on where the virus came from or whether this is a case of computer mischief or out-and-out foul play.

A few other stories from around the country tonight, starting with one you might have already seen on Court TV on a JetBlue flight. A lawyer in Utah has filed a class-action suit against the airline, this after it became known that JetBlue gave millions of passenger records to a Pentagon contractor researching homeland security. The plaintiffs allege invasion of privacy, among other things, but, in an odd twist, aren't asking for punitive damages. "It's a good company," JetBlue is, their lawyer says.

All nine members of the NASA safety panel have resigned. They did it to clear the way for changes called for in the wake of the Columbia disaster. The panel, by the way, was formed in response to the fire that claimed the lives of three Apollo astronauts back in 1967. And finally, adding insult to Isabel, more storms hit Virginia and North Carolina, including a tornado today in Richmond. Said one resident, "Isabel was gravy compared to this guy." Tough week there.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT: photographs burned in our memories, a special look at 100 images that changed the world.

This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Those of you who are loyal viewers of this little program know of our affection for still photographs. And, therefore, it won't be surprising to you that when a book called "100 Photographs That Changed the World" came our way shall, it was all but certain that we would stop and take a look with you.

If, as they say -- whoever they actually are -- a picture is worth 1,000 words, here are 100,000 words worth in the next 23 seconds.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT SULLIVAN, EDITOR, "LIFE": Sometimes the power of a photograph is very intentional. At "LIFE," we thought we would put 100 examples out there for how we felt they had inspired or incited or somehow caused action by people that led to a change in the way we thought and, in fact, the history of the world.

The still photography of the Holocaust is probably the best example in the whole book of how a photograph can change the world. General Patton insisted that the local people from the villages around the death camp be brought in to witness what had been happening in their neighborhood by their own people, by the Nazis. U.S. soldiers who were even in the theater, they didn't believe it until they saw the pictures. And they went, oh, my God, it's true.

If you don't think a photograph can change the world, then what about the Cuban Missile Crisis standoff? Until Stevenson said that: "Here are the photographs, here are the aerial photographs. What are these things we are seeing in these pictures, Mr. Ambassador? I'm willing to wait until hell freezes over for an answer" -- without the photographs, what does he have for his evidence?

Some of the photographs in the book are about the use of photography and how the use of photography led to societal or global changes. One of the most beautiful pictures in the book is also one of the most horrific. And that's of the famine victim in Africa, the little child's hand, starving child, in the hand of a white care worker. When it ran worldwide, millions of dollars were sent to Africa and millions of people learned about the famine. People lived, or didn't, who might not have had attention paid to them had that photo not run.

We have certainly more than a few photographs from the 1960s. We have more than a few of the civil rights movement. When those came up north and people saw what was going on down there, it changed people's thinking about it entirely. One of the most powerful, I think, is the lunch counter demonstration in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1963, the sort of stoic and rather strong-willed white kids sitting with them in brotherhood and taking the same humiliation from other whites. The story is told immediately, but graphically.

People do remember events with a certain image in mind, like, we have in our mind's eye what the Beatles looked like in 1964. You can just pop that image. In an ever more frantic age, in an ever faster moving age, I think that you're finding sort of this backlash, where the power of the still photograph is coming back again.

Sometimes, the power of a photograph is rather oblique. And you really don't realize what's going on in the aftermath of the photo running until it's already happened. Did we make our case or not? It was very intentional to put that sort of provocative title out there. And it's basically asking, what do you think?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Our thanks to "LIFE" magazine.

We'll check morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, time to check morning papers from around the country. And, actually, we'll get sort of around the world today.

A lot of what we'll do here is take a look at how newspapers played the president's speech of the day at the United Nations, starting with "The New York Times." "Bush at New" -- "at U.N." -- see, if I had my glasses off, I would have said that right. "Bush at U.N. Defends Policy Over Iraq." Straight, a very straight headline. The analysis piece, "An Audience Unmoved."

And one more story out of there. I love this headline. I'm not sure what the story is about. "At Hotel Near U.N., Some Make History, Others Make Beds." I gather it's a look at the people who work in the hotels. But, anyway, that's the front page of "The New York Times."

"The Guardian," a British paper, big headline: "Iraq: The Reality and the Rhetoric." The reality is, in "The Guardian"'s view, at least, this young child who was injured. And the rhetoric, "Bush Isolated After Speech at U.N. Falls Flat." I guess you have a sense where "The Guardian" is coming from.

"The Boston Herald" does not put the U.N. day on the front page, but has a pretty good front-page story. "Mitt" -- that would be Mitt Romney, the governor -- "Dead Set, Gov Makes Bid For Foolproof Death Penalty." There is no death penalty in Massachusetts. Governor Romney promised one and now he's trying to figure out a way to make it foolproof. Good luck. "Hartford Courant." "U.N. Speech Draws Fire." Hartford, Connecticut. It's the newspaper. "At Home, President's Critics Unswayed." So you get a sense of how they see it.

"The Detroit Free Press," it plays the spy story -- or the allegation of a spy story, as its major story. "Spy Charges Hit Home. Detroiter Held. He is Accused of Aiding Jailed Terror Suspects." So that's a logical front-page story for them. It's a terrific front- page story, in any case.

How are we doing on time? Twenty. Oh, my goodness.

"San Francisco Chronicle." "Image Vs. Reality: Schwarzenegger Preference For Talk Show Over Debates May Hurt Him."

And finally "The Chicago Sun-Times." "Don't Want Flu Shot in Arm, Try Flu Shot Up the Nose." Thank you, no. The weather tomorrow, zesty.

We'll see you at 10:00 Eastern. Good night for all of us.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





With Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf>