Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Overseas Flights Watched for Terror Attacks; Medicare Reform Bill To Cost More Than Stated; Dean Trying to Regain Political Footing

Aired January 30, 2004 - 22:00   ET

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

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


AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone.
We have found ourselves fascinated this week by the battle over intelligence and WMDs. When David Kay came out the other day to say flatly we all got it wrong, the central underpinnings of the administration's rationale for war looked quite different.

It was not the only reason for war and, as James Woolsey, the former CIA director opined on this program the other night, maybe not even the best reason for war but clearly it was the central selling point and that is costing lives this war still most every day.

Mr. Woolsey the other night here made his case that while imperfect it is better to overestimate the enemy than underestimate him. You will hear a far different argument tonight, the words later in the program of Greg Thielmann while softly spoken are perhaps the harshest words we've ever aired on the program, the interview a little bit later.

The whip and the news of the day comes first and the whip begins in Washington and new concern, again, about possible terror attacks, Kelli Arena, again, having the duty, Kelli a headline.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, new intelligence coming in over the last 48 hours that sources tell me is both specific and credible indicate that al Qaeda may once again be targeting international flights into the United States for acts of terror.

BROWN: Kelli, thank you.

On to Baghdad and the story of terror connections established after the war began, Michael Holmes there on a Saturday morning, Michael a headline from you.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, just how may al Qaeda are in Iraq, what are they doing if they are here? We'll have the full story -- Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you, Michael, good to see you.

Over at the White House the issue is how much more the Medicaid drug benefit plan is going to cost than everyone thought, including the White House, Suzanne Malveaux with the watch tonight, Suzanne a headline. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the White House made its case to go to war based in part on faulty intelligence. Now the administration sold its Medicare reform bill which used a figure that may have grossly underestimated the cost. While nobody knows just how much it's going to be critics charge that the White House has a credibility problem.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

And we'll have presidential politics tonight, the last days before seven state primaries on Tuesday. In the corner of the screen you can see an event in Albuquerque. That's a Dean event. Candy Crowley is there. Candy joins us later in the program as well, all that and more coming up.

Right, how did I get to all that and more already? We'll spend time on the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Is it Friday? Yes, it is. Was the intelligence bad, exaggerated? If it was by whom, again, Greg Thielmann on a blistering assessment of the administration.

Later, the only man who connects presidential politics and the Super Bowl. Oh, it's a fabulous connection and Jeff Greenfield has that.

And, it being Friday morning papers includes the week's tabloids, a fabulous tabloid selection too. The rooster is excited. So are we, all that and more in the hour ahead. I knew I'd say it.

We begin with a story we've led with before and probably will again, this being the new normal, new intelligence in just the last two days suggest that bad guys again are planning attacks against the United States, again planning to use aircraft, this time as with past terror threats not a lot of details here.

We begin with CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): U.S. officials tell CNN al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights into the United States. Sources say the new intelligence, electronic intercepts, is both credible and specific. The possible use of aircraft by terrorists has been a continuing concern.

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: One of the most persistent and consistent reports that we have from multiple sources continued interest by al Qaeda to use commercial -- to use aircraft but particularly commercial aircraft.

ARENA: According to officials the new intelligence mentions two airlines, British Airways and Air France. At least one flight path was identified from London to the Washington, D.C. area and at least one flight number came up, British Airways Flight 223.

That is the same flight that was canceled several times around the Christmas holidays. Multiple dates were mentioned. Officials say they fall within the next couple of weeks but would not elaborate. What was not mentioned was how the planes would be used in any possible attack.

Homeland security officials say they shared this information with overseas partners and the airline industry. Passenger lists are being scoured and air marshals put on flights.

It makes me nervous to think that they do have the warnings but it also makes me feel a little secure that they're paying a lot of attention to security of flights.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: While the new information is similar to intelligence gathered around Christmas, officials say that the threat does not appear to be as imminent and there are no plans at this time to raise the national threat level -- Aaron.

BROWN: Obviously a huge American event this weekend, the Super Bowl. Is any of this tied to that?

ARENA: No, it's not but the Super Bowl and the festivities that surround it do add to the general level of concern, Aaron, and there are extra security precautions as you know in place for that event.

BROWN: Kelli, thank you. Have a good weekend, Kelli Arena.

On to politics and health care, President Bush presents his budget for 2005 to Congress on Monday and at least one number in that budget will be a lot larger than estimated last fall, about $135 billion larger. That would be the cost of the president's Medicare overhaul, including the prescription drug benefit.

Yesterday, the White House said that the actuaries' estimates turned out to be too low. Call it a miscalculation or sticker shock. Many in Congress are not happy.

From the White House tonight, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush insisted he can still cut the deficit in half over five years despite news his Medicare overhaul has a much higher price tag than initially forecast but it's up to Congress to help.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Congress is now going to have to work with us to make sure that we set priorities and are fiscally wise with the taxpayers' money. I'm confident they can do that if they're willing to make tough choices.

MALVEAUX: But the Medicare Reform Bill passed the House by just five votes last November and only after the White House convinced reluctant fiscally conservative Republicans that the ten year plan would cost close to the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Now the White House's Office of Management and Budget estimates it will cost nearly 30 percent more, as much as $540 billion and conservatives aren't happy.

REP. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Had everyone known it would be $534 billion it may have caused a few other members of Congress to not get onboard and that would have been helpful frankly to those of us who didn't want to see it pass.

MALVEAUX: Press Secretary Scott McClellan insists the president did not mislead Congress.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There are hundreds of assumptions that you make when you make those estimates and obviously changes in one or two of those assumptions can significantly impact those estimates.

MALVEAUX: But Democrats questioned the size of the change.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: The problem is that they are off by over 35 percent in the first year. That's phenomenal. Even government doesn't make a mistake that big most of the time, so this is an embarrassment to the administration.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Well, Monday President Bush is going to be presenting his budget to Congress. It's not likely, Aaron that he's going to please either Democrats or Republicans. Republicans believe that the war in Iraq essentially is robbing domestic programs of much needed resources. Republicans are not pleased at all with that record breaking federal deficit estimated to be $520 billion -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, again the president said again today he still believes he can cut the deficit in half in five years and there's a lot of I guess skeptics on that score as well.

MALVEAUX: Well, you're absolutely right. One of the things that the administration says is that they're going to be limited discretionary spending to one percent. They are hoping to satisfy some of the fiscally conservative Republicans on that front but, of course, it brings up a very good question just whether or not they're going to be able to pull this off in five years.

BROWN: And just before we let you get away the White House, at least behind the scenes, seemed to soften a bit today on the question of an independent inquiry into the pre-war intelligence.

MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. Well, we have understood and what administration and congressional sources have told us is that essentially Vice President Dick Cheney was making calls to prominent lawmakers essentially indicating that the White House is open to a number of possibilities, including an independent probe of some sort into pre-war intelligence on these weapons of mass destruction, not necessarily an independent commission which is more formal but something that would all the administration to show that it's open to trying to get to the bottom of this. At the same time they realize, and this is the political calculus here, they realize that this question would go on and on this year during this election cycle of why won't this administration cooperate? That is something that the White House is definitely trying to address.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you very much and we'll have more on that question a little bit later in the program as well.

In the last two weeks the battle for the Democratic nomination for the presidency has changed remarkably. Howard Dean has gone from frontrunner to conserving cash. John Kerry has gone from flawed candidate to frontrunner. Tuesday, seven more states weigh in and could, not will but could, make the end of the story clear.

We begin our political coverage tonight with CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In South Carolina, John Kerry sticks to his Iowa/New Hampshire playbook trying to court the state's more than 400,000 military men and women. But here the decorated Vietnam veteran has to do something else, answer lingering questions after recently saying a Democrat could become president without winning the south.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I win the nomination we will be actively campaigning in the south and there are states that I am convinced we can win.

WALLACE: One of Kerry's opponents from the south, the other veteran in the race, tried Friday to stop the Massachusetts Senator's momentum. Wesley Clark accused Kerry of not acknowledging in Thursday night's debate that he called affirmative action divisive back in 1992.

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because we're not going to beat George Bush with old style fudge it up politics.

WALLACE: Kerry shot back saying he has always supported affirmative action, accusing Clark of twisting his "mend it don't end it" position.

KERRY: I did what Jim Clyburn and what Bill Clinton did, which is amend it, and Jim Clyburn wouldn't be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let's not have any politics here. Let's keep the truth.

WALLACE: No politics says the frontrunner, although every move right now is political, Kerry touting the endorsement from South Carolina's most popular African American lawmaker, Clark hitting Kerry on affirmative action all in a state where African Americans could make up to 50 percent of primary voters. Kerry arrived in Delaware Friday night, his third stop of a seven state swing before Tuesday's contests. (on camera): Asked earlier about Howard Dean's comments that he could stay in this race until the Democratic convention this summer even if he is not winning a large number of states, Kerry said he was not concerned saying "let's just see how this unfolds."

Kelly Wallace CNN, New Castle, Delaware.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: If John Kerry these days is feeling the wind at his back, Howard Dean must feel like he's walking headlong into a hurricane. Parts of his message have been lifted by opponents. His money is getting tight. His campaign staff was shaken up and may be just shaken. In politics, like boxing, once you've been knocked down it's hard to get back up and win but that is now what Dr. Dean must do.

Here's CNN's Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Somewhere between asterisk and frontrunner Howard Dean struggles to find his footing.

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are running a 50 state campaign. Of course we're going to make priority decisions about where to put our advertising dollars.

CROWLEY: Having raised an estimated $42 million, Dean has spent it down to the single digit millions, somewhere between $2 million and $5 million though you can't find out by asking him.

DEAN: I have no idea, sorry. Roy Neel is presumably working on that right now.

CROWLEY: While his new campaign chief works the books, Dean's job is to work on John Kerry, first in South Carolina.

DEAN: I think Senator Kerry is a fine person but he hasn't accomplished much in the Senate.

CROWLEY: And again in Missouri.

DEAN: You're not going to change America by nominating somebody who is a Washington insider whose biggest long suit is talk.

CROWLEY: Dean's schedule now is largely a series of drop bys to some of the Tuesday states but not a single ad is on the air in any of the seven. Strategists cannot name a single one they are certain he can win.

The blow out he expected in Iowa and New Hampshire didn't happen. Now he looks further down the calendar for friendly states with big delegate counts. It is what's left.

DEAN: You work and you work and you work. That's all I can tell you. You know the only one I really care about winning is the convention on July 25th.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: The Dean campaign touched down here in Albuquerque, the second stop on a three state day which will take him to three of the seven Tuesday states but this campaign, Aaron, is looking far beyond Tuesday.

In a note to the log on the campaign for Dean Web site, Roy Neel who is the campaign manager said this campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom has been wrong throughout this campaign and it's wrong now.

He laid out the goal very specifically. The goal of the Dean campaign is to move to the next two and a half weeks and try to become the only person standing against John Kerry -- Aaron.

BROWN: I'm curious about it. You've been with the campaign a while now. Are the audiences that he attracts different in any way? Are they smaller, less boisterous, anything there?

CROWLEY: No. I mean when they are flat or less boisterous it's generally the campaign. Now we have, for instance, in South Carolina this morning this very quiet five person roundtable where Dean listened quietly. It was almost like the pre Howard who days when he was just sitting around with people telling them what he thought.

And then you can come to something like this and they are wild about him and he gives, you know, one of those rip-roaring speeches, so it can be kind of a mix that sometimes where the asterisk days and sometimes it's the frontrunner days and, as I say, he's trying to find where that is and where he can go to get back up to where he was.

BROWN: In the week after Iowa and the I-have-a-scream speech and whether that was played fairly or not fairly by us and others aside the candidate seemed to have trouble finding out what his voice was and try to find a new voice. Does he seem to have one voice now?

CROWLEY: Sometimes. I think it's still hard for him. He'll come in front of a crowd like this and they'll scream for him. I mean they're very aware of what happened in Iowa and he'll look and say, oh, don't tempt me. Don't tempt me.

So, he still has fun with them but it's obviously in the back of his mind so he's trying to be both a candidate and a presidential figure and that's not always, you know, something that comes to a crossroads.

So, you can tell that he's a little bit different. We haven't seen that, you know, completely revved up like you saw in Iowa but he still can get them going and it's always in the back of his mind but it's in the crowd's mind as well.

BROWN: Candy, thank you very much, Candy Crowley on the campaign now. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, terror ties in Iraq as the U.S. presence there continuing to draw al Qaeda members to the country and are they behind the attacks on the Americans and others?

And later, super Sunday and its connection to presidential politics, mostly we haven't figured this out yet but Jeff Greenfield has.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's no great secret that the Taliban fundamentalists who once ruled Afghanistan gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden but today some newly declassified documents from the State Department show that between 1996 and just before September 11, 2001, both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried more than 30 times to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan. They were turned aside obviously every time.

Most of those attempts, 27 of them, were during the Clinton years. There were three conversations or meetings about this during the Bush administration, all prior to 9/11.

In Baghdad today, a rocket-propelled grenade struck the Dutch Embassy. There was a fire but no one was hurt. The mission was closed for the day when the rocket hit.

It is the kind of attack that has become sadly familiar of course in Iraq and today there are some hints that at least some of these attacks have links to al Qaeda or at least one particular al Qaeda terrorist.

Here's CNN's Michael Holmes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES (voice-over): U.S. officials say large scale attacks like the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Iraq last year, the attack on Italian soldiers and the bombing of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf all bear the fingerprints of this man, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a man they say is linked to al Qaeda.

The officials say they believe Zarqawi moved into Iraq to plan the attacks. That and the recent capture of Hasan Guhl, a key al Qaeda member as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran, adds to what those officials and military chiefs believe is evidence of a mounting threat from al Qaeda and foreign fighters in general inside Iraq.

GEN. RICARDO SANCHEZ, COALITION FORCES COMMANDER: Of course the capture of Guhl is pretty strong proof that al Qaeda is trying to gain a foothold here to continue their murderous campaigns. Guhl's capture is great news for both Iraqis, for the coalition and for the international community's war against terror.

HOLMES: Part of the rationale for believing there is a growing influence of al Qaeda in Iraq is the way the U.S. military says insurgents are changing, refining their tactics.

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, COALITION SPOKESMAN: Anytime you have a car bombing, a suicide bombing, you don't typically associate that with what's happening inside of Iraq or homegrown. That gives us an indicator that that's probably somebody from abroad or somebody who has had some training from abroad. That kind of extremism we don't typically see here in country.

HOLMES: The arrest of one al Qaeda member is hardly compelling proof of a large scale offensive by the group but analysts say proof of any presence of al Qaeda in Iraq will be of great concern to the U.S.

DR. DAVID CLARIDGE, AEGIS DEFENSE: My view is that al Qaeda has in its rhetoric has talked about going to Iraq and fighting the Americans. I think that al Qaeda sees Iraq as a potential crucible for confrontation with American forces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Aaron, one problem that continues to face coalition and Iraqi security forces is the porous borders of Iraq. There is evidence that foreign fighters have crossed over into this country from neighbors like Syria, Turkey and Iran. They're having some successes in stopping some of them but it is very difficult to stop them all -- Aaron.

BROWN: That's how they got Mr. Guhl. Do they have any feel for how many?

HOLMES: No. In fact, what they will admit is that the numbers so far have been very small and there's really two or three different groups they're worried about, homegrown insurgents of course but also foreign fighters who are coming here to generally carry out jihad using Iraq as a battleground, a convenient place if you like to take on the west.

And then those who are either linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda trained or have at least been in touch with them and share the ideals so there's different groups. As for numbers they're said to be fairly small. The U.S. is not giving us complete and accurate numbers about the number of foreign fighters they've caught but it's not a big number yet.

BROWN: Michael, do they think that these various groups are working together or that they're operating separately?

HOLMES: One of the concerns is that those who are coming in are linking up with either organized insurgents on a local level or linking up with disaffected Iraqis, essentially paying people who don't have jobs but do have some military experience, as in the former Iraqi Army, giving them $200 to carry out plans that have been hatched by those who are non-Iraqi and that is a concern given the economic situation here -- Aaron.

BROWN: Michael thanks a lot, Michael Holmes back on duty tonight.

A look now at some of the other stories that made news around the world beginning in London where the BBC reporter who first reported on the allegations of the "sexed up report" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has now resigned.

Andrew Gilligan's departure comes two days after a British investigation criticized the reporting as unfounded. The chairman of the BBC and another ranking executive have already left the company as well.

To Bethlehem where Israeli troops rolled through the streets and demolished seven buildings, including the home of a bomber, the bomber in yesterday's suicide attack in Jerusalem. The Israelis said the other buildings housed Hamas operatives. Palestinian officials say 50 people are now homeless.

Still to come tonight on NEWSNIGHT, back to the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we'll talk with the former top State Department official who quit because he believed the intelligence was being cooked to find a cause for going to war, a break first.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Back now to one of the big stories of the week, perhaps the biggest story of the week, the assertion by Dr. David Kay, the administration's chief weapons inspector, that this country's pre-war intelligence on Iraq was pretty much all wrong.

We heard the opinion a couple of nights back here from former CIA Director James Woolsey who said that the White House may have made "presentational errors" in the area of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That was his phrase "presentational error" but that was about all the criticism he offered on the intelligence.

We talked earlier today with Greg Thielmann who is the director of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs at the State Department's Intelligence Bureau, a very high level intelligence analyst in other words. And, to say the least, Mr. Thielmann thinks what was going on was a whole lot more than a presentational error.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Sir, David Kay said the other day that it was the intelligence community that badly served the president and by extension I guess the country. You're not nearly ready to give the president or the administration a pass.

No, I'm not. I think there's plenty of blame to go around and the American people misunderstanding the nature of the Iraqi threat but one has to at least acknowledge that on certain issues on the short range ballistic missiles that Iraq was testing, for example, the intelligence community got it exactly right. On the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden the intelligence community also got it right and the administration in the way that they used the intelligence community product made the mistakes of the intelligence community much worse and did not report faithfully on some of the areas that the intelligence community did a good job on.

BROWN: Let's talk a bit more about that and then we'll work that area if you don't mind. Is it your view that the intelligence community in a sense knew exactly what the administration wanted to hear, what the vice president and the president wanted to hear and essentially served that master?

THIELMANN: I have the impression that at the top levels of the intelligence community, and I'm talking principally now of the CIA and George Tenet as director of Central Intelligence, that they knew what the president wanted to hear and they knew what the president wanted to hear and they knew, also, that the White House was essentially deaf to any dissenting opinion.

What the administration, what the White House wanted to hear was what kind of intelligence arguments could they use to convince the nation to go to war.

BROWN: Was Secretary Powell a part of this?

THIELMANN: I have said, from my point of view, as the director of the office that was responsible for monitoring all of the intelligence for the secretary of state and interpreting it, that we certainly had the impression at the time that the secretary of state wanted our best information and our honest explanation of what was going on.

So, our assumption at the time was that, at least in the case of Secretary Powell, there was someone in the inner circle of the administration that did represent the truth as we understood it. I have since revised my opinion a little bit, partly because of what Secretary Powell was willing to say to the world community during his February 5, 2003, address to the United Nations.

BROWN: And when you watched that, that talk to the U.N. that day, did you say to yourself and to others, that's not true?

THIELMANN: Well, what I said to myself was -- and I was already retired at that point -- that Secretary Powell was saying things to the world community and to the American nation that we certainly had not agreed with. And, in some cases, he was saying things that were exactly the opposite of some of the facts that I think that he was well aware of.

BROWN: These are enormously, I think, serious accusations to make. Beyond -- I guess what I'm wanting from you is to know that this is something more than a hunch. How do you know this?

THIELMANN: I was responsible professionally for following the intelligence for two years prior to the October national intelligence estimate.

And I know what my office wrote in analyzing these issues for the secretary of state. And I also have a pretty good idea of what others in the intelligence community were saying, because we would participate in interagency discussions about the evidence. And I know, on things like the uranium from Niger, on things like the aluminum tubes issue, that what was being said to the public did not represent accurately what the intelligence community was saying.

There should have at least been an acknowledgement on issues like the aluminum tubes allegedly going into the nuclear weapons program that there was an enormous disagreement within the intelligence community on this issue and that some of the most logical and distinguished experts on this issue had the opposite opinions.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I'm sorry.

THIELMANN: There was no clue given by the White House that there was any dissent on this issue, when the president essentially declassified top-secret information and announced to the United Nations in September of 2002 that Iraq was obtaining aluminum tubes for the nuclear weapons program.

BROWN: Right.

Just finally, the president said -- and this is pretty close to a quote, what difference does it make whether it was exactly right or not, because Saddam was a bad guy? He killed lots of people. He was a danger in the region. The world is better off without him. Iraqis are better off without him. Americans are better off without him. What difference does it make?

What difference does it make?

THIELMANN: The implications of that statement astound me.

For the president of the United States to say that the reason that he gave for the nation going to war, a war which has cost us 500 dead already, thousands of Americans maimed, and has so tarnished America's credibility and reputation in the world, that he would say, essentially, that it does not matter if the reasons that we convinced the American people to go to war for are no longer applicable or were not true or were exaggerated or misstated, that is an astounding statement.

BROWN: Mr. Thielmann, we appreciate very much your time today. Thank you for joining us. Have a good weekend, sir.

THIELMANN: You're welcome.

BROWN: Thank you, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Greg Thielmann.

A range of opinions on the program this week, from his to James Woolsey earlier.

So what does the administration do now? After the break, David Sanger of "The New York Times" joins us to talk about that.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In a perfect world, problems would have just two possible solutions, one good, the other bad. It wouldn't be terrible, I suppose, if the choices were one good and the other better. We could deal with that.

But when the possible choices are bad, bad, and bad, now, that's tough. And maybe that's where the president is tonight in dealing with what appear to be intelligence failures and the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

David Sanger laid out these unpleasant options in an analysis piece in today's "New York Times." We are always pleased to have him on the program. We are tonight.

David, nice to see you.

DAVID SANGER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Good to see you, Aaron.

BROWN: We talked earlier that the vice president was making some calls today to try and figure out what sort of independent inquiry. That is one of the options, but it's not a perfect option for the administration.

SANGER: It certainly isn't.

Here's the fundamental problem. We're in an election year. Any inquiry that you start now could easily spin out of control. And they are in the middle right now still of dealing with the 9/11 inquiry. And, as you have reported before, there's a lot of tension between the 9/11 Commission and the White House about what they can learn and so forth.

You could see that possibility in this case very easily, where there's a big dispute over who got what intelligence when and who interpreted it and whether or not it was manipulated.

BROWN: Just one question on that. Are they, do you believe, particularly concerned that the vice president has some vulnerability here?

SANGER: I think they are some.

And if you go across the range of administration officials, the president certainly had a series of statements that he made, starting in October of 2002 in a speech in Cincinnati, where he first laid out the nature of the threat. If you add up all the vice president's comments, I think that you'll find that he pushed it in -- with a bit more urgency, that he took away a number of the qualifiers, every once in a while, had to back up and reinsert them.

And then Secretary Powell was more cautious. But based on what we now know from -- or think we know -- from Dr. Kay's testimony this week, even the Powell presentation, cautious as it was, seemed to go beyond the facts they found on the ground.

BROWN: Clearly, I'm a reporter and not a political analyst in this, but it does seem to me that the advantage of agreeing to the inquiry is, to some extent, it takes it off the table. You know, in a campaign year, you could say, well, we need to wait for the independent commission to finish its work.

SANGER: It does, but there are other complications.

We're in a situation right now where the Democrats, and particularly the Democratic candidates, would like to pin this on President Bush or Vice President Cheney and say that they manipulated the data. You have already heard John Kerry, Howard Dean, some of the other candidates make that argument, that they were misled and that the nation was misled.

On the other hand, you have a number of Republicans who have never been thrilled by George Tenet, who, of course, was appointed by President Clinton. And so what they would like to do, many of them, not all of them, is put the blame at the CIA and say, look, you sent bad information along and it got the president in trouble.

And some of them, of course, were calling for Mr. Tenet's head back in the summer. You will remember that the White House and Tenet got cross-wired. And that didn't work out well for anybody involved. So there's a significant risk in starting that up.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: The president, to my ear, went out of his way the other day to give support to the intelligence community, to say -- I think he said, these are very hardworking and dedicated people. He seemed to make a point of trying to pat them on the back.

SANGER: He did. And that was precisely because they have gotten into -- or we believe it's because they had gotten into this very public disagreement with the agency in the summer over the question of the president's statements on uranium in Niger and who put that or didn't put it into the State of the Union.

BROWN: What's the risk of doing nothing?

SANGER: Well, I think the risk of doing nothing, Aaron, is that you keep it alive as a political issue.

Now, some in the president's circle may well decide that that works, that many Americans will accept the argument that you described before with your previous guest, Mr. Thielmann, and that in fact people will think getting Saddam out was a good idea, and the president had offered WMD as one rationale, but certainly not the only reason that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand, you have continuing erosion of our credibility. And, remember, we have other cases coming along that are going to have to be dealt with. There's Iran. There's North Korea. There's the recent case with Libya. There's the continuing issue of Pakistan and how much Pakistani -- the Pakistani government knew about what its scientists were selling.

In each of these cases, you don't want to be in a position where other governments can say, why should we believe your intelligence now? You were wrong on Iraq.

BROWN: David, we know you were fighting a deadline most of the day today. We appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

SANGER: Thank you, Aaron. Good to see you.

BROWN: Good to see you, David Sanger of "The New York Times."

A few other stories that made news around the country today.

Flags flying at half-staff at all U.S. space agencies to commemorate the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its seven astronauts a year ago Sunday. NASA has named the landing site of its Mars rover Spirit in honor of the crew of the Columbia.

In Georgia today, former President Jimmy Carter said he was embarrassed -- his word -- by a proposal to eliminate the word evolution from the state's science curriculum for middle and high school students. Georgia's school superintendent prefers the term biological changes over time. She says evolution is a buzzword that causes lots of negative reaction.

And, in the better-you-than-us category, parts of Upstate New York, along Lake Ontario's Eastern shore, are buried tonight -- my goodness, they are, aren't they? -- under snow. Nearly six feet of snow fell on the town of Parish in the last two days. Other towns have slightly less, but still a lot. One resident said, it's not a good place to be if you are claustrophobic. Yes.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the big event this Sunday, the Super Bowl, and its so obvious connection to presidential politics.

Jeff Greenfield in "Greenfield at Large," as NEWSNIGHT continues on a Friday from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The biggest football game of the year is two days away. And here at NEWSNIGHT, we have prepared a terrific pregame report on the strength and weakness of both the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers. OK, we haven't. Not even close.

In fact, we're so uncool here, we don't even have an office pool, as far as I know. No, this is NEWSNIGHT, a sometimes pretentious little newscast that looked at the Super Bowl and saw -- we'll let Jeff Greenfield tell you what we saw.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): As the conflict nears, armies of supporters and reporters are in a near frenzy. The question, will New England or Carolina prevail?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you going to win in South Carolina?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes.

GREENFIELD: As the conflict nears, armies of supporters and reporters are in a near frenzy. The question, will New England or Carolina prevail?

Yes, in a startling, incredible coincidence, the teams that will meet in Super Bowl XXXVIII come from the same homes as two of the leading candidates who will face off in South Carolina and six other states. Why, that hasn't happened since -- since -- well, in fact it hasn't happened since the last presidential campaign, when the Saint Louis Rams met the Tennessee Titans in Super Bowl XXXIV, just two days before Tennessean Al Gore and Missouri native Bill Bradley met in the New Hampshire primary.

(on camera): Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, who cares? Not so fast. Those of us in the business of covering campaigns are constantly looking for any link we can find between the world of politics and the far more exciting ratings-rich of sports. And, in fact, those connections are there, just maybe just not the way we'd like to think they are.

(voice-over): Now, as far as supporting events predicting the political future goes, the record isn't so hot. Back in 2000, Tennessee fell, literally, a yard or so short of winning the Super Bowl. But, two days later, Tennessee's Al Gore narrowly beat Missouri's hometown boy Bill Bradley in the New Hampshire primary.

There was a time when the World Series provided a clue. From 1952 to 1976, every time the American League won the World Series, a Republican won the White House. Every election year the National League won the series, a Democrat won the White House. But then, in 1980, when the National League Philadelphia Phillies, Ronald Reagan was elected. And every since then, the whole idea has gone 'blooey.

OK, so maybe sports can't predict politics, but politicians sure think it's neat to hang around sports. In 1969, beleaguered New York Mayor John Lindsay rode the New York Mets' miracle run right into city hall for a second term. President Nixon not only liked to call the winning Super Bowl team in the locker room. In 1972, he actually called a play into the Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula before Super Bowl VI. The first President Bush captained the Yale football team.

And this President Bush made his fortune and reputation as owner of the Texas Rangers, giving him a neat answer when he was asked about his worst mistake ever.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: He's the guy who traded Sammy Sosa.

And just to show you how deadly seriously politicians take this stuff, the Capitol Hill newspaper "Roll Call" reports that the Edwards and Kerry camps cut a deal, no Super Bowl bet this year, protecting Carolina's Edwards and New England's Kerry from the wrath of fans in each other's home turf.

(on camera): So, as you are in the middle of Sunday's semi- official national holiday, keep in mind that we political types will be watching a very different event. To you, it's a football game. To me, it's an exit poll.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Morning papers, which include the tabloids, because it's Friday, like it or not.

A break first. Right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, time to check the morning papers from around the country and around the world. We'll throw in the tabloids, it being Friday.

"The International Herald Tribune," published in France, leads with the Middle East. "Bus Bombing Deepens Misery on Both Sides." The story that caught my eye, though, I like this story a lot. "Jesus On Film Stirring Discord Again. Sides have Changed in the Culture War." It's the take, a take, on the Mel Gibson film, which opens next month and has caused lots of chatter, lots of talk.

"The Guardian," a British paper. Down at the bottom, if you don't mind. "Cannabis Online. Click Now and It's With You in 24 Hours." They changed the drug laws in Britain over the last couple of days.

And, apparently, it's having an immediate effect, because "The Times" also leads that way. "Police in Daze Over Public Dope Smoking." Yikes.

"The San Antonio Express." "Booming Economy? More Like Loud Pop: 4 Percent Growth in the Final Quarter Fails to Live Up to Expectations."

How much time, Jerry? One-zero-eight.

"The Boston Herald" leads with the Super Bowl. I think you could say that, because the New England Patriots are there. And I have no idea if they will win, but they might, I guess is the answer.

Let's do the tabloids. What do you say? "The Globe" leads with politics.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: "Clinton Tells All in New Bombshell Book, His Favorite Lesbian Fantasy." My goodness. Comes on. "Guess Who With?" And "His Hundred Affairs," according to "The Globe." I'm willing to bet that's not in that book. That's my feel.

But my favorite of the tabloids is "The Weekly World News," because they come up with some fabulous stories, like this one. "Titanic Survivors Alive: Frozen in Iceberg, Found Floating in the Atlantic." They're alive. And up here -- wait, let me do it this way.

How we doing on time? Fifteen.

Here's news you can use. "Five Telltale Signs Your Kids Are Trying to Kill You." And if I -- just, I'll get this one in. "Tiny Terrorist" -- I'm sorry, guys -- "Disguised as Garden Gnomes."

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: OK? Look at them. That's al Qaeda, folks.

The weather tomorrow in Chicago is "humbling."

We'll be right back to wrap up the day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A quick recap of our top story before we say goodbye.

Government officials say al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights to the United States. New intelligence picked up in the last 48 hours mentions British Airways and Air France. At least one flight path identified, London to Washington, D.C., and at least one flight number, British Air Flight 223, the same flight that was canceled several times around the holiday. This time, officials say the threat does not appear to be as imminent. There are no plans to raise the national threat level.

On Monday on this program -- this is a great story, you guys -- Jay Williams had the world at his feet, the former college star at Duke, a starter for the Chicago Bulls, then a motorcycle accident that may have ended his career. You'll hear from him for the first time on his long road back. He's a terrific kid. And you will like him a lot. That's Monday on NEWSNIGHT.

Here's Soledad with a look at what's coming up Monday morning on "AMERICAN MORNING."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Aaron.

Monday on "AMERICAN MORNING," Democrats try to prove their strength in the crucial South Carolina primary. But is Southern symbolism more important than the delegate-rich state of Missouri? Also Monday, those 30-second show-stoppers that everybody is talking about, a look at the best commercials of the Super Bowl, 7:00 a.m. Eastern Monday on CNN's "AMERICAN MORNING" -- Aaron, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Thank you.

And back to you all, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" for most of you.

Have a wonderful weekend. We'll see you back here on Monday. 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





Reform Bill To Cost More Than Stated; Dean Trying to Regain Political Footing>


Aired January 30, 2004 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone.
We have found ourselves fascinated this week by the battle over intelligence and WMDs. When David Kay came out the other day to say flatly we all got it wrong, the central underpinnings of the administration's rationale for war looked quite different.

It was not the only reason for war and, as James Woolsey, the former CIA director opined on this program the other night, maybe not even the best reason for war but clearly it was the central selling point and that is costing lives this war still most every day.

Mr. Woolsey the other night here made his case that while imperfect it is better to overestimate the enemy than underestimate him. You will hear a far different argument tonight, the words later in the program of Greg Thielmann while softly spoken are perhaps the harshest words we've ever aired on the program, the interview a little bit later.

The whip and the news of the day comes first and the whip begins in Washington and new concern, again, about possible terror attacks, Kelli Arena, again, having the duty, Kelli a headline.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, new intelligence coming in over the last 48 hours that sources tell me is both specific and credible indicate that al Qaeda may once again be targeting international flights into the United States for acts of terror.

BROWN: Kelli, thank you.

On to Baghdad and the story of terror connections established after the war began, Michael Holmes there on a Saturday morning, Michael a headline from you.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, just how may al Qaeda are in Iraq, what are they doing if they are here? We'll have the full story -- Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you, Michael, good to see you.

Over at the White House the issue is how much more the Medicaid drug benefit plan is going to cost than everyone thought, including the White House, Suzanne Malveaux with the watch tonight, Suzanne a headline. SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Aaron, the White House made its case to go to war based in part on faulty intelligence. Now the administration sold its Medicare reform bill which used a figure that may have grossly underestimated the cost. While nobody knows just how much it's going to be critics charge that the White House has a credibility problem.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

And we'll have presidential politics tonight, the last days before seven state primaries on Tuesday. In the corner of the screen you can see an event in Albuquerque. That's a Dean event. Candy Crowley is there. Candy joins us later in the program as well, all that and more coming up.

Right, how did I get to all that and more already? We'll spend time on the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Is it Friday? Yes, it is. Was the intelligence bad, exaggerated? If it was by whom, again, Greg Thielmann on a blistering assessment of the administration.

Later, the only man who connects presidential politics and the Super Bowl. Oh, it's a fabulous connection and Jeff Greenfield has that.

And, it being Friday morning papers includes the week's tabloids, a fabulous tabloid selection too. The rooster is excited. So are we, all that and more in the hour ahead. I knew I'd say it.

We begin with a story we've led with before and probably will again, this being the new normal, new intelligence in just the last two days suggest that bad guys again are planning attacks against the United States, again planning to use aircraft, this time as with past terror threats not a lot of details here.

We begin with CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): U.S. officials tell CNN al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights into the United States. Sources say the new intelligence, electronic intercepts, is both credible and specific. The possible use of aircraft by terrorists has been a continuing concern.

TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: One of the most persistent and consistent reports that we have from multiple sources continued interest by al Qaeda to use commercial -- to use aircraft but particularly commercial aircraft.

ARENA: According to officials the new intelligence mentions two airlines, British Airways and Air France. At least one flight path was identified from London to the Washington, D.C. area and at least one flight number came up, British Airways Flight 223.

That is the same flight that was canceled several times around the Christmas holidays. Multiple dates were mentioned. Officials say they fall within the next couple of weeks but would not elaborate. What was not mentioned was how the planes would be used in any possible attack.

Homeland security officials say they shared this information with overseas partners and the airline industry. Passenger lists are being scoured and air marshals put on flights.

It makes me nervous to think that they do have the warnings but it also makes me feel a little secure that they're paying a lot of attention to security of flights.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: While the new information is similar to intelligence gathered around Christmas, officials say that the threat does not appear to be as imminent and there are no plans at this time to raise the national threat level -- Aaron.

BROWN: Obviously a huge American event this weekend, the Super Bowl. Is any of this tied to that?

ARENA: No, it's not but the Super Bowl and the festivities that surround it do add to the general level of concern, Aaron, and there are extra security precautions as you know in place for that event.

BROWN: Kelli, thank you. Have a good weekend, Kelli Arena.

On to politics and health care, President Bush presents his budget for 2005 to Congress on Monday and at least one number in that budget will be a lot larger than estimated last fall, about $135 billion larger. That would be the cost of the president's Medicare overhaul, including the prescription drug benefit.

Yesterday, the White House said that the actuaries' estimates turned out to be too low. Call it a miscalculation or sticker shock. Many in Congress are not happy.

From the White House tonight, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): President Bush insisted he can still cut the deficit in half over five years despite news his Medicare overhaul has a much higher price tag than initially forecast but it's up to Congress to help.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Congress is now going to have to work with us to make sure that we set priorities and are fiscally wise with the taxpayers' money. I'm confident they can do that if they're willing to make tough choices.

MALVEAUX: But the Medicare Reform Bill passed the House by just five votes last November and only after the White House convinced reluctant fiscally conservative Republicans that the ten year plan would cost close to the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Now the White House's Office of Management and Budget estimates it will cost nearly 30 percent more, as much as $540 billion and conservatives aren't happy.

REP. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Had everyone known it would be $534 billion it may have caused a few other members of Congress to not get onboard and that would have been helpful frankly to those of us who didn't want to see it pass.

MALVEAUX: Press Secretary Scott McClellan insists the president did not mislead Congress.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There are hundreds of assumptions that you make when you make those estimates and obviously changes in one or two of those assumptions can significantly impact those estimates.

MALVEAUX: But Democrats questioned the size of the change.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: The problem is that they are off by over 35 percent in the first year. That's phenomenal. Even government doesn't make a mistake that big most of the time, so this is an embarrassment to the administration.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Well, Monday President Bush is going to be presenting his budget to Congress. It's not likely, Aaron that he's going to please either Democrats or Republicans. Republicans believe that the war in Iraq essentially is robbing domestic programs of much needed resources. Republicans are not pleased at all with that record breaking federal deficit estimated to be $520 billion -- Aaron.

BROWN: And, again the president said again today he still believes he can cut the deficit in half in five years and there's a lot of I guess skeptics on that score as well.

MALVEAUX: Well, you're absolutely right. One of the things that the administration says is that they're going to be limited discretionary spending to one percent. They are hoping to satisfy some of the fiscally conservative Republicans on that front but, of course, it brings up a very good question just whether or not they're going to be able to pull this off in five years.

BROWN: And just before we let you get away the White House, at least behind the scenes, seemed to soften a bit today on the question of an independent inquiry into the pre-war intelligence.

MALVEAUX: Well, that's right. Well, we have understood and what administration and congressional sources have told us is that essentially Vice President Dick Cheney was making calls to prominent lawmakers essentially indicating that the White House is open to a number of possibilities, including an independent probe of some sort into pre-war intelligence on these weapons of mass destruction, not necessarily an independent commission which is more formal but something that would all the administration to show that it's open to trying to get to the bottom of this. At the same time they realize, and this is the political calculus here, they realize that this question would go on and on this year during this election cycle of why won't this administration cooperate? That is something that the White House is definitely trying to address.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you very much and we'll have more on that question a little bit later in the program as well.

In the last two weeks the battle for the Democratic nomination for the presidency has changed remarkably. Howard Dean has gone from frontrunner to conserving cash. John Kerry has gone from flawed candidate to frontrunner. Tuesday, seven more states weigh in and could, not will but could, make the end of the story clear.

We begin our political coverage tonight with CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In South Carolina, John Kerry sticks to his Iowa/New Hampshire playbook trying to court the state's more than 400,000 military men and women. But here the decorated Vietnam veteran has to do something else, answer lingering questions after recently saying a Democrat could become president without winning the south.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I win the nomination we will be actively campaigning in the south and there are states that I am convinced we can win.

WALLACE: One of Kerry's opponents from the south, the other veteran in the race, tried Friday to stop the Massachusetts Senator's momentum. Wesley Clark accused Kerry of not acknowledging in Thursday night's debate that he called affirmative action divisive back in 1992.

WESLEY CLARK (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because we're not going to beat George Bush with old style fudge it up politics.

WALLACE: Kerry shot back saying he has always supported affirmative action, accusing Clark of twisting his "mend it don't end it" position.

KERRY: I did what Jim Clyburn and what Bill Clinton did, which is amend it, and Jim Clyburn wouldn't be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let's not have any politics here. Let's keep the truth.

WALLACE: No politics says the frontrunner, although every move right now is political, Kerry touting the endorsement from South Carolina's most popular African American lawmaker, Clark hitting Kerry on affirmative action all in a state where African Americans could make up to 50 percent of primary voters. Kerry arrived in Delaware Friday night, his third stop of a seven state swing before Tuesday's contests. (on camera): Asked earlier about Howard Dean's comments that he could stay in this race until the Democratic convention this summer even if he is not winning a large number of states, Kerry said he was not concerned saying "let's just see how this unfolds."

Kelly Wallace CNN, New Castle, Delaware.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: If John Kerry these days is feeling the wind at his back, Howard Dean must feel like he's walking headlong into a hurricane. Parts of his message have been lifted by opponents. His money is getting tight. His campaign staff was shaken up and may be just shaken. In politics, like boxing, once you've been knocked down it's hard to get back up and win but that is now what Dr. Dean must do.

Here's CNN's Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Somewhere between asterisk and frontrunner Howard Dean struggles to find his footing.

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are running a 50 state campaign. Of course we're going to make priority decisions about where to put our advertising dollars.

CROWLEY: Having raised an estimated $42 million, Dean has spent it down to the single digit millions, somewhere between $2 million and $5 million though you can't find out by asking him.

DEAN: I have no idea, sorry. Roy Neel is presumably working on that right now.

CROWLEY: While his new campaign chief works the books, Dean's job is to work on John Kerry, first in South Carolina.

DEAN: I think Senator Kerry is a fine person but he hasn't accomplished much in the Senate.

CROWLEY: And again in Missouri.

DEAN: You're not going to change America by nominating somebody who is a Washington insider whose biggest long suit is talk.

CROWLEY: Dean's schedule now is largely a series of drop bys to some of the Tuesday states but not a single ad is on the air in any of the seven. Strategists cannot name a single one they are certain he can win.

The blow out he expected in Iowa and New Hampshire didn't happen. Now he looks further down the calendar for friendly states with big delegate counts. It is what's left.

DEAN: You work and you work and you work. That's all I can tell you. You know the only one I really care about winning is the convention on July 25th.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: The Dean campaign touched down here in Albuquerque, the second stop on a three state day which will take him to three of the seven Tuesday states but this campaign, Aaron, is looking far beyond Tuesday.

In a note to the log on the campaign for Dean Web site, Roy Neel who is the campaign manager said this campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom has been wrong throughout this campaign and it's wrong now.

He laid out the goal very specifically. The goal of the Dean campaign is to move to the next two and a half weeks and try to become the only person standing against John Kerry -- Aaron.

BROWN: I'm curious about it. You've been with the campaign a while now. Are the audiences that he attracts different in any way? Are they smaller, less boisterous, anything there?

CROWLEY: No. I mean when they are flat or less boisterous it's generally the campaign. Now we have, for instance, in South Carolina this morning this very quiet five person roundtable where Dean listened quietly. It was almost like the pre Howard who days when he was just sitting around with people telling them what he thought.

And then you can come to something like this and they are wild about him and he gives, you know, one of those rip-roaring speeches, so it can be kind of a mix that sometimes where the asterisk days and sometimes it's the frontrunner days and, as I say, he's trying to find where that is and where he can go to get back up to where he was.

BROWN: In the week after Iowa and the I-have-a-scream speech and whether that was played fairly or not fairly by us and others aside the candidate seemed to have trouble finding out what his voice was and try to find a new voice. Does he seem to have one voice now?

CROWLEY: Sometimes. I think it's still hard for him. He'll come in front of a crowd like this and they'll scream for him. I mean they're very aware of what happened in Iowa and he'll look and say, oh, don't tempt me. Don't tempt me.

So, he still has fun with them but it's obviously in the back of his mind so he's trying to be both a candidate and a presidential figure and that's not always, you know, something that comes to a crossroads.

So, you can tell that he's a little bit different. We haven't seen that, you know, completely revved up like you saw in Iowa but he still can get them going and it's always in the back of his mind but it's in the crowd's mind as well.

BROWN: Candy, thank you very much, Candy Crowley on the campaign now. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, terror ties in Iraq as the U.S. presence there continuing to draw al Qaeda members to the country and are they behind the attacks on the Americans and others?

And later, super Sunday and its connection to presidential politics, mostly we haven't figured this out yet but Jeff Greenfield has.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It's no great secret that the Taliban fundamentalists who once ruled Afghanistan gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden but today some newly declassified documents from the State Department show that between 1996 and just before September 11, 2001, both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried more than 30 times to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan. They were turned aside obviously every time.

Most of those attempts, 27 of them, were during the Clinton years. There were three conversations or meetings about this during the Bush administration, all prior to 9/11.

In Baghdad today, a rocket-propelled grenade struck the Dutch Embassy. There was a fire but no one was hurt. The mission was closed for the day when the rocket hit.

It is the kind of attack that has become sadly familiar of course in Iraq and today there are some hints that at least some of these attacks have links to al Qaeda or at least one particular al Qaeda terrorist.

Here's CNN's Michael Holmes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES (voice-over): U.S. officials say large scale attacks like the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Iraq last year, the attack on Italian soldiers and the bombing of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf all bear the fingerprints of this man, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a man they say is linked to al Qaeda.

The officials say they believe Zarqawi moved into Iraq to plan the attacks. That and the recent capture of Hasan Guhl, a key al Qaeda member as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran, adds to what those officials and military chiefs believe is evidence of a mounting threat from al Qaeda and foreign fighters in general inside Iraq.

GEN. RICARDO SANCHEZ, COALITION FORCES COMMANDER: Of course the capture of Guhl is pretty strong proof that al Qaeda is trying to gain a foothold here to continue their murderous campaigns. Guhl's capture is great news for both Iraqis, for the coalition and for the international community's war against terror.

HOLMES: Part of the rationale for believing there is a growing influence of al Qaeda in Iraq is the way the U.S. military says insurgents are changing, refining their tactics.

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, COALITION SPOKESMAN: Anytime you have a car bombing, a suicide bombing, you don't typically associate that with what's happening inside of Iraq or homegrown. That gives us an indicator that that's probably somebody from abroad or somebody who has had some training from abroad. That kind of extremism we don't typically see here in country.

HOLMES: The arrest of one al Qaeda member is hardly compelling proof of a large scale offensive by the group but analysts say proof of any presence of al Qaeda in Iraq will be of great concern to the U.S.

DR. DAVID CLARIDGE, AEGIS DEFENSE: My view is that al Qaeda has in its rhetoric has talked about going to Iraq and fighting the Americans. I think that al Qaeda sees Iraq as a potential crucible for confrontation with American forces.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Aaron, one problem that continues to face coalition and Iraqi security forces is the porous borders of Iraq. There is evidence that foreign fighters have crossed over into this country from neighbors like Syria, Turkey and Iran. They're having some successes in stopping some of them but it is very difficult to stop them all -- Aaron.

BROWN: That's how they got Mr. Guhl. Do they have any feel for how many?

HOLMES: No. In fact, what they will admit is that the numbers so far have been very small and there's really two or three different groups they're worried about, homegrown insurgents of course but also foreign fighters who are coming here to generally carry out jihad using Iraq as a battleground, a convenient place if you like to take on the west.

And then those who are either linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda trained or have at least been in touch with them and share the ideals so there's different groups. As for numbers they're said to be fairly small. The U.S. is not giving us complete and accurate numbers about the number of foreign fighters they've caught but it's not a big number yet.

BROWN: Michael, do they think that these various groups are working together or that they're operating separately?

HOLMES: One of the concerns is that those who are coming in are linking up with either organized insurgents on a local level or linking up with disaffected Iraqis, essentially paying people who don't have jobs but do have some military experience, as in the former Iraqi Army, giving them $200 to carry out plans that have been hatched by those who are non-Iraqi and that is a concern given the economic situation here -- Aaron.

BROWN: Michael thanks a lot, Michael Holmes back on duty tonight.

A look now at some of the other stories that made news around the world beginning in London where the BBC reporter who first reported on the allegations of the "sexed up report" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has now resigned.

Andrew Gilligan's departure comes two days after a British investigation criticized the reporting as unfounded. The chairman of the BBC and another ranking executive have already left the company as well.

To Bethlehem where Israeli troops rolled through the streets and demolished seven buildings, including the home of a bomber, the bomber in yesterday's suicide attack in Jerusalem. The Israelis said the other buildings housed Hamas operatives. Palestinian officials say 50 people are now homeless.

Still to come tonight on NEWSNIGHT, back to the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we'll talk with the former top State Department official who quit because he believed the intelligence was being cooked to find a cause for going to war, a break first.

From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Back now to one of the big stories of the week, perhaps the biggest story of the week, the assertion by Dr. David Kay, the administration's chief weapons inspector, that this country's pre-war intelligence on Iraq was pretty much all wrong.

We heard the opinion a couple of nights back here from former CIA Director James Woolsey who said that the White House may have made "presentational errors" in the area of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That was his phrase "presentational error" but that was about all the criticism he offered on the intelligence.

We talked earlier today with Greg Thielmann who is the director of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs at the State Department's Intelligence Bureau, a very high level intelligence analyst in other words. And, to say the least, Mr. Thielmann thinks what was going on was a whole lot more than a presentational error.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Sir, David Kay said the other day that it was the intelligence community that badly served the president and by extension I guess the country. You're not nearly ready to give the president or the administration a pass.

No, I'm not. I think there's plenty of blame to go around and the American people misunderstanding the nature of the Iraqi threat but one has to at least acknowledge that on certain issues on the short range ballistic missiles that Iraq was testing, for example, the intelligence community got it exactly right. On the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden the intelligence community also got it right and the administration in the way that they used the intelligence community product made the mistakes of the intelligence community much worse and did not report faithfully on some of the areas that the intelligence community did a good job on.

BROWN: Let's talk a bit more about that and then we'll work that area if you don't mind. Is it your view that the intelligence community in a sense knew exactly what the administration wanted to hear, what the vice president and the president wanted to hear and essentially served that master?

THIELMANN: I have the impression that at the top levels of the intelligence community, and I'm talking principally now of the CIA and George Tenet as director of Central Intelligence, that they knew what the president wanted to hear and they knew what the president wanted to hear and they knew, also, that the White House was essentially deaf to any dissenting opinion.

What the administration, what the White House wanted to hear was what kind of intelligence arguments could they use to convince the nation to go to war.

BROWN: Was Secretary Powell a part of this?

THIELMANN: I have said, from my point of view, as the director of the office that was responsible for monitoring all of the intelligence for the secretary of state and interpreting it, that we certainly had the impression at the time that the secretary of state wanted our best information and our honest explanation of what was going on.

So, our assumption at the time was that, at least in the case of Secretary Powell, there was someone in the inner circle of the administration that did represent the truth as we understood it. I have since revised my opinion a little bit, partly because of what Secretary Powell was willing to say to the world community during his February 5, 2003, address to the United Nations.

BROWN: And when you watched that, that talk to the U.N. that day, did you say to yourself and to others, that's not true?

THIELMANN: Well, what I said to myself was -- and I was already retired at that point -- that Secretary Powell was saying things to the world community and to the American nation that we certainly had not agreed with. And, in some cases, he was saying things that were exactly the opposite of some of the facts that I think that he was well aware of.

BROWN: These are enormously, I think, serious accusations to make. Beyond -- I guess what I'm wanting from you is to know that this is something more than a hunch. How do you know this?

THIELMANN: I was responsible professionally for following the intelligence for two years prior to the October national intelligence estimate.

And I know what my office wrote in analyzing these issues for the secretary of state. And I also have a pretty good idea of what others in the intelligence community were saying, because we would participate in interagency discussions about the evidence. And I know, on things like the uranium from Niger, on things like the aluminum tubes issue, that what was being said to the public did not represent accurately what the intelligence community was saying.

There should have at least been an acknowledgement on issues like the aluminum tubes allegedly going into the nuclear weapons program that there was an enormous disagreement within the intelligence community on this issue and that some of the most logical and distinguished experts on this issue had the opposite opinions.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: I'm sorry.

THIELMANN: There was no clue given by the White House that there was any dissent on this issue, when the president essentially declassified top-secret information and announced to the United Nations in September of 2002 that Iraq was obtaining aluminum tubes for the nuclear weapons program.

BROWN: Right.

Just finally, the president said -- and this is pretty close to a quote, what difference does it make whether it was exactly right or not, because Saddam was a bad guy? He killed lots of people. He was a danger in the region. The world is better off without him. Iraqis are better off without him. Americans are better off without him. What difference does it make?

What difference does it make?

THIELMANN: The implications of that statement astound me.

For the president of the United States to say that the reason that he gave for the nation going to war, a war which has cost us 500 dead already, thousands of Americans maimed, and has so tarnished America's credibility and reputation in the world, that he would say, essentially, that it does not matter if the reasons that we convinced the American people to go to war for are no longer applicable or were not true or were exaggerated or misstated, that is an astounding statement.

BROWN: Mr. Thielmann, we appreciate very much your time today. Thank you for joining us. Have a good weekend, sir.

THIELMANN: You're welcome.

BROWN: Thank you, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Greg Thielmann.

A range of opinions on the program this week, from his to James Woolsey earlier.

So what does the administration do now? After the break, David Sanger of "The New York Times" joins us to talk about that.

Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In a perfect world, problems would have just two possible solutions, one good, the other bad. It wouldn't be terrible, I suppose, if the choices were one good and the other better. We could deal with that.

But when the possible choices are bad, bad, and bad, now, that's tough. And maybe that's where the president is tonight in dealing with what appear to be intelligence failures and the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

David Sanger laid out these unpleasant options in an analysis piece in today's "New York Times." We are always pleased to have him on the program. We are tonight.

David, nice to see you.

DAVID SANGER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Good to see you, Aaron.

BROWN: We talked earlier that the vice president was making some calls today to try and figure out what sort of independent inquiry. That is one of the options, but it's not a perfect option for the administration.

SANGER: It certainly isn't.

Here's the fundamental problem. We're in an election year. Any inquiry that you start now could easily spin out of control. And they are in the middle right now still of dealing with the 9/11 inquiry. And, as you have reported before, there's a lot of tension between the 9/11 Commission and the White House about what they can learn and so forth.

You could see that possibility in this case very easily, where there's a big dispute over who got what intelligence when and who interpreted it and whether or not it was manipulated.

BROWN: Just one question on that. Are they, do you believe, particularly concerned that the vice president has some vulnerability here?

SANGER: I think they are some.

And if you go across the range of administration officials, the president certainly had a series of statements that he made, starting in October of 2002 in a speech in Cincinnati, where he first laid out the nature of the threat. If you add up all the vice president's comments, I think that you'll find that he pushed it in -- with a bit more urgency, that he took away a number of the qualifiers, every once in a while, had to back up and reinsert them.

And then Secretary Powell was more cautious. But based on what we now know from -- or think we know -- from Dr. Kay's testimony this week, even the Powell presentation, cautious as it was, seemed to go beyond the facts they found on the ground.

BROWN: Clearly, I'm a reporter and not a political analyst in this, but it does seem to me that the advantage of agreeing to the inquiry is, to some extent, it takes it off the table. You know, in a campaign year, you could say, well, we need to wait for the independent commission to finish its work.

SANGER: It does, but there are other complications.

We're in a situation right now where the Democrats, and particularly the Democratic candidates, would like to pin this on President Bush or Vice President Cheney and say that they manipulated the data. You have already heard John Kerry, Howard Dean, some of the other candidates make that argument, that they were misled and that the nation was misled.

On the other hand, you have a number of Republicans who have never been thrilled by George Tenet, who, of course, was appointed by President Clinton. And so what they would like to do, many of them, not all of them, is put the blame at the CIA and say, look, you sent bad information along and it got the president in trouble.

And some of them, of course, were calling for Mr. Tenet's head back in the summer. You will remember that the White House and Tenet got cross-wired. And that didn't work out well for anybody involved. So there's a significant risk in starting that up.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: The president, to my ear, went out of his way the other day to give support to the intelligence community, to say -- I think he said, these are very hardworking and dedicated people. He seemed to make a point of trying to pat them on the back.

SANGER: He did. And that was precisely because they have gotten into -- or we believe it's because they had gotten into this very public disagreement with the agency in the summer over the question of the president's statements on uranium in Niger and who put that or didn't put it into the State of the Union.

BROWN: What's the risk of doing nothing?

SANGER: Well, I think the risk of doing nothing, Aaron, is that you keep it alive as a political issue.

Now, some in the president's circle may well decide that that works, that many Americans will accept the argument that you described before with your previous guest, Mr. Thielmann, and that in fact people will think getting Saddam out was a good idea, and the president had offered WMD as one rationale, but certainly not the only reason that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand, you have continuing erosion of our credibility. And, remember, we have other cases coming along that are going to have to be dealt with. There's Iran. There's North Korea. There's the recent case with Libya. There's the continuing issue of Pakistan and how much Pakistani -- the Pakistani government knew about what its scientists were selling.

In each of these cases, you don't want to be in a position where other governments can say, why should we believe your intelligence now? You were wrong on Iraq.

BROWN: David, we know you were fighting a deadline most of the day today. We appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

SANGER: Thank you, Aaron. Good to see you.

BROWN: Good to see you, David Sanger of "The New York Times."

A few other stories that made news around the country today.

Flags flying at half-staff at all U.S. space agencies to commemorate the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its seven astronauts a year ago Sunday. NASA has named the landing site of its Mars rover Spirit in honor of the crew of the Columbia.

In Georgia today, former President Jimmy Carter said he was embarrassed -- his word -- by a proposal to eliminate the word evolution from the state's science curriculum for middle and high school students. Georgia's school superintendent prefers the term biological changes over time. She says evolution is a buzzword that causes lots of negative reaction.

And, in the better-you-than-us category, parts of Upstate New York, along Lake Ontario's Eastern shore, are buried tonight -- my goodness, they are, aren't they? -- under snow. Nearly six feet of snow fell on the town of Parish in the last two days. Other towns have slightly less, but still a lot. One resident said, it's not a good place to be if you are claustrophobic. Yes.

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the big event this Sunday, the Super Bowl, and its so obvious connection to presidential politics.

Jeff Greenfield in "Greenfield at Large," as NEWSNIGHT continues on a Friday from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The biggest football game of the year is two days away. And here at NEWSNIGHT, we have prepared a terrific pregame report on the strength and weakness of both the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers. OK, we haven't. Not even close.

In fact, we're so uncool here, we don't even have an office pool, as far as I know. No, this is NEWSNIGHT, a sometimes pretentious little newscast that looked at the Super Bowl and saw -- we'll let Jeff Greenfield tell you what we saw.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): As the conflict nears, armies of supporters and reporters are in a near frenzy. The question, will New England or Carolina prevail?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you going to win in South Carolina?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes.

GREENFIELD: As the conflict nears, armies of supporters and reporters are in a near frenzy. The question, will New England or Carolina prevail?

Yes, in a startling, incredible coincidence, the teams that will meet in Super Bowl XXXVIII come from the same homes as two of the leading candidates who will face off in South Carolina and six other states. Why, that hasn't happened since -- since -- well, in fact it hasn't happened since the last presidential campaign, when the Saint Louis Rams met the Tennessee Titans in Super Bowl XXXIV, just two days before Tennessean Al Gore and Missouri native Bill Bradley met in the New Hampshire primary.

(on camera): Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, who cares? Not so fast. Those of us in the business of covering campaigns are constantly looking for any link we can find between the world of politics and the far more exciting ratings-rich of sports. And, in fact, those connections are there, just maybe just not the way we'd like to think they are.

(voice-over): Now, as far as supporting events predicting the political future goes, the record isn't so hot. Back in 2000, Tennessee fell, literally, a yard or so short of winning the Super Bowl. But, two days later, Tennessee's Al Gore narrowly beat Missouri's hometown boy Bill Bradley in the New Hampshire primary.

There was a time when the World Series provided a clue. From 1952 to 1976, every time the American League won the World Series, a Republican won the White House. Every election year the National League won the series, a Democrat won the White House. But then, in 1980, when the National League Philadelphia Phillies, Ronald Reagan was elected. And every since then, the whole idea has gone 'blooey.

OK, so maybe sports can't predict politics, but politicians sure think it's neat to hang around sports. In 1969, beleaguered New York Mayor John Lindsay rode the New York Mets' miracle run right into city hall for a second term. President Nixon not only liked to call the winning Super Bowl team in the locker room. In 1972, he actually called a play into the Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula before Super Bowl VI. The first President Bush captained the Yale football team.

And this President Bush made his fortune and reputation as owner of the Texas Rangers, giving him a neat answer when he was asked about his worst mistake ever.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: He's the guy who traded Sammy Sosa.

And just to show you how deadly seriously politicians take this stuff, the Capitol Hill newspaper "Roll Call" reports that the Edwards and Kerry camps cut a deal, no Super Bowl bet this year, protecting Carolina's Edwards and New England's Kerry from the wrath of fans in each other's home turf.

(on camera): So, as you are in the middle of Sunday's semi- official national holiday, keep in mind that we political types will be watching a very different event. To you, it's a football game. To me, it's an exit poll.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Morning papers, which include the tabloids, because it's Friday, like it or not.

A break first. Right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: OK, time to check the morning papers from around the country and around the world. We'll throw in the tabloids, it being Friday.

"The International Herald Tribune," published in France, leads with the Middle East. "Bus Bombing Deepens Misery on Both Sides." The story that caught my eye, though, I like this story a lot. "Jesus On Film Stirring Discord Again. Sides have Changed in the Culture War." It's the take, a take, on the Mel Gibson film, which opens next month and has caused lots of chatter, lots of talk.

"The Guardian," a British paper. Down at the bottom, if you don't mind. "Cannabis Online. Click Now and It's With You in 24 Hours." They changed the drug laws in Britain over the last couple of days.

And, apparently, it's having an immediate effect, because "The Times" also leads that way. "Police in Daze Over Public Dope Smoking." Yikes.

"The San Antonio Express." "Booming Economy? More Like Loud Pop: 4 Percent Growth in the Final Quarter Fails to Live Up to Expectations."

How much time, Jerry? One-zero-eight.

"The Boston Herald" leads with the Super Bowl. I think you could say that, because the New England Patriots are there. And I have no idea if they will win, but they might, I guess is the answer.

Let's do the tabloids. What do you say? "The Globe" leads with politics.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: "Clinton Tells All in New Bombshell Book, His Favorite Lesbian Fantasy." My goodness. Comes on. "Guess Who With?" And "His Hundred Affairs," according to "The Globe." I'm willing to bet that's not in that book. That's my feel.

But my favorite of the tabloids is "The Weekly World News," because they come up with some fabulous stories, like this one. "Titanic Survivors Alive: Frozen in Iceberg, Found Floating in the Atlantic." They're alive. And up here -- wait, let me do it this way.

How we doing on time? Fifteen.

Here's news you can use. "Five Telltale Signs Your Kids Are Trying to Kill You." And if I -- just, I'll get this one in. "Tiny Terrorist" -- I'm sorry, guys -- "Disguised as Garden Gnomes."

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: OK? Look at them. That's al Qaeda, folks.

The weather tomorrow in Chicago is "humbling."

We'll be right back to wrap up the day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A quick recap of our top story before we say goodbye.

Government officials say al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights to the United States. New intelligence picked up in the last 48 hours mentions British Airways and Air France. At least one flight path identified, London to Washington, D.C., and at least one flight number, British Air Flight 223, the same flight that was canceled several times around the holiday. This time, officials say the threat does not appear to be as imminent. There are no plans to raise the national threat level.

On Monday on this program -- this is a great story, you guys -- Jay Williams had the world at his feet, the former college star at Duke, a starter for the Chicago Bulls, then a motorcycle accident that may have ended his career. You'll hear from him for the first time on his long road back. He's a terrific kid. And you will like him a lot. That's Monday on NEWSNIGHT.

Here's Soledad with a look at what's coming up Monday morning on "AMERICAN MORNING."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Aaron.

Monday on "AMERICAN MORNING," Democrats try to prove their strength in the crucial South Carolina primary. But is Southern symbolism more important than the delegate-rich state of Missouri? Also Monday, those 30-second show-stoppers that everybody is talking about, a look at the best commercials of the Super Bowl, 7:00 a.m. Eastern Monday on CNN's "AMERICAN MORNING" -- Aaron, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Thank you.

And back to you all, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" for most of you.

Have a wonderful weekend. We'll see you back here on Monday. 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





Reform Bill To Cost More Than Stated; Dean Trying to Regain Political Footing>