Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Chalabi Future in Iraq Looks Bleak; Terry Nichols Convicted on 161 Counts of First Degree Murder; Kerry Campaign to Focus on Foreign Policy

Aired May 26, 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.
Stay with us long enough tonight and you will land in the middle of the single question that keeps lots of us awake at night these days. Was our reporting in the build up to the war rigorous enough?

"The New York Times" today answered that question for itself and to its readers by saying no. "The Times'" apology, one of our guests tonight calls it a mia culpa, took some courage and the competence a great organization should have but more important than the apology was the examination of its reporting itself.

Being wrong happens in the daily news business sometimes. That is not the sin. The sin is in walking away from the mistakes without knowing why they happened. "The Times," to its credit, didn't do that and all the rest of us can learn from that as well. We'll get to that later.

But first the whip and the terror alert day two, CNN's Kelli Arena starts us off, Kelli a headline.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the attorney general says that he has seen the intelligence and it indicates al Qaeda wants to hit the U.S. hard within the next few months.

BROWN: Kelli thank you. We'll get to you at the top tonight.

Next to the question of who will run the new Iraqi government, a very good question tonight, CNN's Richard Roth over at the U.N. here in New York, Richard a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, what a difference 24 hours makes. An Iraqi chemist finds things get a little too hot in the international political arena -- Aaron.

BROWN: Richard, thank you.

Finally the presidential campaign and a big issue in it, fighting the war on terror, who's got the better plan, CNN's Kelly Wallace traveling with Senator Kerry, so Kelly a headline from you.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a double headline tonight. The Senator trying to convince Americans he can wage a more effective war on terror and also trying to put to rest a campaign controversy, announcing tonight exactly when he will accept his party's nomination -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you. It must be nice to be in the Peugeot Sound. I'm envious, back to you and the rest shortly.

Also on the program tonight, guilty again, Terry Nichols convicted on 161 counts of murder now facing a possible death sentence.

And signs of the economic times when the person driving your cab has a better education than you do or at least than I do.

And, at the end of it all, the rooster stops by with your morning papers, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with the grim and frustrating staple of the new normal, another terror threat that is short of specifics but which the country's top two law enforcement officials call credible nevertheless.

At a news conference today, both the attorney general and the FBI director said they fear al Qaeda is planning another major attack inside the United States soon, even so the national terror threat level remains unchanged at yellow tonight causing a bit of confusion to say the least.

To help sort it out CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): A series of high profile public events, including the dedication of the World War II memorial, the Economic Summit on Sea Island, Georgia, and of course the political conventions adding to the concern about possible terror attacks on U.S. soil.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months. This disturbing intelligence indicates al Qaeda's specific intention to hit the United States hard.

ARENA: The attorney general cited public statements saying al Qaeda is 90 percent ready for an attack, which experts trace back to a shadowy group the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade. Some question the group's credibility.

Still the attorney general says intelligence suggests the impact the Madrid train bombings had on the Spanish elections could lead to similar action here but he said the government has no specifics.

So what are officials doing about it? There is a special task force. Agents are checking in with sources and informants and the FBI will conduct nationwide interviews seeking intelligence information.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Information about persons that may have moved into the community recently, persons who seem to be in a community without any roots. ARENA: The FBI also issuing a new be-on-the-lookout for this man, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a U.S. citizen wanted for questioning regarding possible threats against the United States. The bureau also reissued alerts for six others.

As Mueller and Ashcroft were issuing dire warnings, a strikingly different tone from the Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: There's a consistent reporting stream. They're here. They're not here. They're on their way. The possibility of attack might be at this point in time, might be a couple months down the road.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: Ridge says that he's not as concerned now as he was over the Christmas holiday, for example, when the threat level was raised to orange and he says there are no plans to raise it this time -- Aaron.

BROWN: One of the things I know about Secretary Ridge is that he always is concerned that the government speaks with one clear voice, one clear message. Did the government speak with one clear voice and one clear message today?

ARENA: It didn't seem that way, Aaron. When asked why Ridge was not at the press conference, we were told don't read anything into that. Everyone's on the same page that there is information sharing and that everyone realizes that there's a threat.

But, as you saw for yourself, I mean the tone that each of those men took was decidedly different and Secretary Ridge saying that he didn't see anything as a matter of fact that pointed to any time frame even and you have the attorney general saying something possibly within the next few months, so a little bit of a contradiction which causes even more confusion.

BROWN: It does indeed, Kelli thank you, Kelli Arena in Washington tonight.

Regarding Iraq tonight a mixed bag to report, Muqtada al-Sadr has offered to pull his fighters out of Najaf, this after his militia took yet another pounding from American forces and a top aide of Sadr's was captured.

That's the good news, the positive news. Less good tonight is words that the man expected to be named to lead the interim government has said thanks but no thanks, again from the U.N., CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): He was Iraq's prime minister for a day or at least appointed by the media. The name of Hussain al-Shahristani was leaked by several sources in Iraq and Washington as a potential prime minister in the new interim Iraqi government. ROBIN WRIGHT, "WASHINGTON POST": At the moment, the leading candidate is a very unusual choice, a man named Hussain Shahristani who's a nuclear scientist, a Shiite Muslim.

ROTH: But as the spotlight brightened, Shahristani got cold feet. The U.N. troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi, who was interviewing candidates and getting advice from Iraqis, issued a statement through a spokesman announcing the withdrawal of the former Iraqi prisoner under Saddam Hussein from the post of prime minister. Brahimi said nobody has been chosen for the new Iraqi government.

"Mr. Shahristani, however, has himself clarified that he would prefer to serve his country in other ways."

Brahimi warned that debating potential candidates risks undermining the selection process and puts people in compromising positions.

FRED ECKHARD, U.N. SPOKESMAN: He's trying to get names that the Iraqis themselves can agree on. He's not imposing names.

ROTH: The name game is at least something the U.S. and France can agree on.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: The only thing I would say now is our understanding is that there is nothing nailed down that nobody has been chosen.

JEAN MARC DE LA SABLIERE, FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We are not, you know, to make any comment on (unintelligible). What is important is for the council to be sure that the government which will be presented by Mr. Brahimi will be accepted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: There are no reasons known tonight why he has bowed out. Just because the man doesn't want to be prime minister doesn't preclude him, Aaron, from accepting a post in the new Iraqi government in another position.

BROWN: Do you get the feeling over there, Richard, that they are less confident that they will make the May 31 deadline?

ROTH: They're going to make -- Brahimi will come in in a few days with his names. Nobody is worried about that and they're not worried about June 30. They're putting everything in Brahimi. They don't even want to hear the names. It's almost hear no evil, see no evil.

They're just saying we'll take whatever Brahimi gives us whatever the names. We don't want to know. We don't want to know why anyone turned it down. Just give us the names and come back and tell us what the plan is.

BROWN: We'll see what happens on Monday then. Thank you, Richard, Richard Roth at the U.N. tonight. Naming the officials who will make up Iraq's new government is one piece of business facing the Bush administration with the June 30th handover looming now. The largest problem though remains security.

In his speech on Monday, the president set a goal of training a force of 260,000 Iraqis to take over the job of providing security when U.S. troops eventually leave. Whether that goal is realistic is the point of much debate and whether they will actually fight is debatable as well.

Here's CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When U.S. Marines had to call off their offensive in Fallujah last month because of the objections of Iraq's Governing Council, to many it seemed like a defeat.

But now the Pentagon says allowing former members of Saddam's army to patrol the town is a model for the flexibility that will be required after the transfer of sovereignty. Marine Corps Commandant General Michael Hagee.

GEN. MICHAEL HAGEE, MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT: If that's a defeat, we need more defeats like that.

MCINTYRE: In his Monday speech, President Bush said the U.S. would accelerate the training of 260,000 Iraqis to form the lynchpin of a homegrown security force but critics in Congress, such as Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, charge the number and effectiveness of those U.S.-trained forces is consistently overstated.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: I mean this malarkey you guys came up with, you got 200,000 trained Iraqis, I mean every single solitary expert, including your guys that we met with in Iraq, said it's going to take three years to train 40,000 Iraqi military.

MCINTYRE: Not to mention that when U.S. commanders ordered some of those Iraqis into battle many refused to fight. The administration hopes that after June 30th with Iraqis in charge their resolve will stiffen.

RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: These Iraqi forces who have fought in many cases valiantly will no longer be fighting for the occupiers. They're going to be fighting for Iraq.

MCINTYRE: Army Colonel Paul Hughes, a professor at the National Defense University, believes imposing order is job one, especially with Iraq's elections coming up.

COL. PAUL HUGHES, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY: If we fail in providing security at those particular junctures I think that we're going to have a significant setback in seeing a viable Iraqi government established.

MCINTYRE: Hughes and many others in the military believe ultimately that will require significantly more U.S. troops than the 138,000 currently in Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If they need more troops I will send them.

MCINTYRE: And those troops, the U.S. insists, will not be subject to a veto from the Iraqi government if the U.S. believes it needs to take action, say for instance to capture Abu Musah al- Zarqawi, currently the most wanted man in Iraq.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: In the short term, there will not be sufficient forces of Iraqis to maintain security and stability. That is the reason why the United States is going to remain there for some time to come.

MCINTYRE (on camera): The Pentagon is making plans to keep a large force in Iraq well beyond 2006 but there is one way the troops could come home much earlier. That is if the interim government asks them to leave.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: More now on the transition ahead, the truce tonight if that's what it turns out to be and everything else we can get in the next four or four and a half minutes or so.

Brian Bennett is "Time" magazine's Baghdad Bureau Chief. He is at home in Washington tonight. Brian, it's good to see you.

BRIAN BENNETT, "TIME" MAGAZINE BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Good to be on the show.

BROWN: Just let's hopscotch around a number of things. Are you hearing anything on names for the interim government?

BENNETT: There are some names coming out right now for the interim government. We've heard the name of Mr. Shahristani who's the sort of unknown scientist who's being named as a possible prime minister who has some connections to the Ayatollah Sistani.

And also a name that's being thrown around for the role of president is Adnan Pachachi, the elder statesman who spent a long time inside Iraq working in Saddam's government before leaving in the early '90s.

And also another name that I've heard going around is to appoint a Kurd as vice president but this could cause some problems as some of the Kurdish leaders don't want to be in a subordinate role particularly to someone like Adnan Pachachi or to a Sunni leader.

BROWN: Is it fair to say that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has essentially veto power over the whole selection process?

BENNETT: Well, it certainly seems that Sistani has a lot of influence as to which figures are put in to which positions. It seems like his input is going to be incredibly important because of the sway that he holds over the majority population in the country.

BROWN: Let's talk about Mr. Chalabi. Your competition "Newsweek" headlines this week, "Our Con Man in Iraq." Within the U.S. government is there still division over whether Mr. Chalabi is a good guy or a bad guy?

BENNETT: A lot of people in the administration are backing off Chalabi, even people who supported him going into this war and over the last few months. I think on the ground itself there has been some division.

I've talked to some U.S. military officers who have told me that Chalabi's operation on the ground, the information collection program of which the funding was cut this month was getting them useful information that, as General Myers said here in Washington just last week, was saving American lives.

So there is some conflict over why Chalabi has been cut loose and why the funding to his program, which General Myers and other officers on the ground say was providing them with actionable intelligence has been cut off.

BROWN: Perhaps a bit unfair but does he have in the country do you think a political future?

BENNETT: It seems right now his political future is entirely bleak inside of Iraq but Ahmed Chalabi has proven one thing over the last 12 or 13 years and that's that he is a survivor and he's had a lot of dire times in the past and miraculously has seemed to pull through them.

BROWN: Brian, good to see you, thank you, Brian Bennett, "Time" Magazine's Bureau Chief in Baghdad with us tonight.

Next on the program a new verdict for the other Oklahoma City bomber, if you will, what's next for Terry Nichols.

And yesterday we told you how he'd handle the war in Iraq. Today we'll see how John Kerry plans to keep the homeland safe on the campaign tonight.

This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Seven years ago a jury spared the life of Terry Nichols for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. That was the federal case that involves the death of just the eight federal officers killed in the attack.

Seven years later a state jury has convicted Nichols of the murders of 161 other victims of the bombing and now that jury must decide if he should die for the crime, reporting for us tonight CNN's Ed Lavandera.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN DALLAS BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): Terry Nichols had no reaction as the guilty verdict was read in the courtroom. One female juror cried as Nichols learned he was convicted on 161 counts of first degree murder, conspiracy and arson.

DIANE LEONARD, LOST HUSBAND IN BOMBING: I am -- I am so thrilled for these 160 families who have had loved ones who no one had been tried for their murder until this trial.

DORIS DELMAN, LOST DAUGHTER IN BOMBING: He's responsible for everything he's ever done and God will take care of him one way or another.

LAVANDERA: The question before the jurors was whether Nichols was the mastermind behind the bombing or a pawn in the conspiracy. Deliberations began Wednesday morning in McAllister, Oklahoma after two months of testimony from some 250 witnesses.

Defense attorneys argued Timothy McVeigh who was executed in 2001 orchestrated the bombing plot with co-conspirators who set up Nichols as the fall guy. They claim the government failed to follow up on leads which would have provided evidence of that.

But the prosecution argued Nichols was the one who gathered the ingredients to make the bomb, the ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the detonation cord and blasting caps.

They said his motive was the same as McVeigh's to avenge the deadly government siege in Waco, Texas two years prior to the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City. The attack on the Murrah Federal Building left 168 people dead.

(on camera): There is still a gag order in place and that's why we haven't heard from defense attorneys or prosecutors. Now the same jury that convicted Terry Nichols must decide if he should be sentenced to death. Punishment phase testimony begins next Tuesday.

Ed Lavandera CNN, McAllister, Oklahoma.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On now to terrorism as a campaign issue. In another presidential campaign 45 years ago during the Cold War, the notion of a missile gap helped decide the race between then Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy.

The missile gap didn't exist but Mr. Nixon couldn't prove it and Mr. Kennedy may not have even known it. The voters certainly did not. They had imperfect information. Everyone did then and perhaps now, a lot of assertion on both sides, very few hard facts. Sound familiar?

With the Kerry campaign here's CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At an outdoor rally in Seattle, John Kerry uses the new terror warnings to slam President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism.

JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We deserve a president of the United States who doesn't make homeland security a photo opportunity and the rhetoric of a campaign. We deserve a president who makes American safer.

WALLACE: Politics 101 in the post September 11th world, the presumptive Democratic nominee accusing the president of not spending enough and doing enough to prevent another attack.

KERRY: And, if it's a question of when then my question and the question of most Americans is why are we cutting cops programs in the United States of America?

WALLACE: A Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman accused Kerry of playing politics saying funding for homeland security is at record levels. What would the Senator do differently? Aides say he would increase funding for port security, require more inspections of chemical plants and hire 100,000 additional firefighters but here's the problem for Kerry.

Americans consistently give President Bush higher marks when asked who would do a better job handling terrorism. There are signs, however, the president could be vulnerable. When Americans are asked specifically about Mr. Bush they are evenly split over whether he is doing a good job in the fight against terror.

Hoping to capitalize on those numbers, on Thursday Kerry will deliver what his aides are calling a major speech on national security and the start of an 11-day focus on ways to keep America safe.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And in an effort to prevent a campaign controversy from stepping on his national security message, late today the Senator announced that he would in fact accept his party's nomination at the convention this summer, this after the campaign floated the possibility he would delay acceptance to reduce the financial advantage President Bush has with his convention five weeks later and, Aaron, of course both men facing a $75 million spending limit during the General Election.

BROWN: So, just add one more sentence to that. The clock starts running at the moment you accept the nomination is that the deal?

WALLACE: Exactly, the moment you accept the nomination you have $75 million until November 2nd. John Kerry accepts in late July. He's got to use that money for an extra five weeks longer than President Bush. So right now they're still looking for other options, including having contributors give more money to the state and local parties and they can use the money during those five weeks when Kerry will have $75 million to use through the election.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you, Kelly Wallace out in Seattle tonight. Seventy-five million just doesn't go as far as it used to does it?

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT why many local police department aren't getting too excited about the new terror alert.

We'll explain that and much more as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Not to get too philosophical here but life is an exercise in making decisions based on incomplete information. We can't know everything about anything. Ideally we make the best choices possible despite the unknowns, easy to say but frustrating when the information that is missing concerns a terror threat and you are a police officer on the front lines.

Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In New York, an emergency drill went on as normal. Police there and in Los Angeles and Chicago say the new terror alert won't change the way they already operate.

RAY KELLY, NEW YORK POLICE COMMISSIONER: It lacks specificity so again raising the level is not going to be particularly effective unless you can I think focus to a greater degree on the nature of the threat.

FEYERICK: Here's what top officials know about the suspected attack.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: An al Qaeda spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.

FEYERICK: Here's what they don't know.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Unfortunately we currently do not know what forms the threat may take.

FEYERICK: It's that kind of intelligence, apparently critical but incomplete, that frustrates police and city officials across the country.

MAYOR RICHARD DALEY, CHICAGO: They have a responsibility. We cannot live in a 24-hour alert, seven days a week for the rest of the year. That is impossible. FEYERICK: Federal and local law enforcement sources shrugged off the new threat warnings, one calling it "all old stuff," another "hyperbole," and a third saying they're just going to reissue the "same old pictures." The top justice officials are hoping those old pictures help them develop new leads or, better yet, stop an attack.

MUELLER: We will not take any chances.

FEYERICK: One counterterrorism expert described the alerts as good politics, saying it reminds people the government's doing something. Others defended the announcement.

BILL DALY, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: This is not just something that's popped up just because it's politics season because it's election season but it's driven by intelligence.

FEYERICK (on camera): The press conference by the attorney general and head of the FBI had been in the works since last week.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A few more items now from around the country starting with a key ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out west, the ruling concerning Oregon's assisted suicide law, the only one in the country that allows doctors to help patients end their lives.

By a two-to-one vote, a three judge panel on the court said Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot prosecute doctors for prescribing lethal overdoses under Oregon's Death With Dignity law which state voters approved in '94 and reaffirmed three years later.

Onto same-sex marriage, Provincetown, Massachusetts has suspended its policy of issuing marriage licenses to out of state same-sex couples who don't intend to move to the state. Provincetown was one of four municipalities that openly defied the residency requirement. The town has a large gay population known for being open to people of all stripes.

And in Vermont, David Dellinger has died. David Dellinger was one of the Chicago Seven who were tried and convicted for their part in the demonstrations that turned violent outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. A federal court later overturned those convictions. Mr. Dellinger never lost his convictions. He was, said a friend, a pacifist who meant business. He was 88 when he died in Vermont.

Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, knowing just when to say you're sorry, not an easy thing for any of us to do, especially difficult in the press, it seems.

A break first. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BROWN: Journalists are supposed to be the nation's watchdog. We're supposed defend the public's interest, speak truth to power, hold the powerful accountable -- supposed to.

The war in Iraq, the buildup to it, and what has happened since are among the most important stories any of us will ever write. The premise used to justify the war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has not panned out. That much became clear months ago. Today, in an editor's note in "The New York Times," the paper took itself to task for its role in dropping the ball.

Here is our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases deliberately misleading. And for that, I am -- I am disappointed and I regret it.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): It was the clearest statement yet by an administration official, the proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, proof contained in Powell's own presentation to the United Nations was not really proof at all. It was exactly the kind of acknowledgement many reporters had demanded of the president at his last press conference.

Today, it was the press' turn to say, we were wrong, specifically the most influential publication of all, "The New York Times." In a lengthy editor's note, "The Times" said much of its coverage -- quote -- "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged" -- unquote.

And while it mentioned no names, "The Times" cited several articles written or co-written by veteran correspondent Judith Miller, in which she relied on Iraqi defectors to make the case about an aggressive Iraqi program to develop chemicals, biological, even nuclear weapons. "The Times"' statement is the latest in a string of regrets from the press.

Last March, Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" said that many of the stories, stories based on information supplied by longtime exile Ahmad Chalabi, had been wrong.

(on camera): These regrets from the press mirror a lot of what officials have been saying: We acted in good faith. We trusted the experts. We relied on defectors, who it turns out may have had an agenda. But this raises a different question. Where was the traditional press skepticism when it mattered?

(voice-over): More than three months ago, "The New York Review of Books" published Michael Massing's lengthy dissection of press coverage leading up to the war.

Among his findings, there were press reports about dissent within the administration, but they were not widely seen. A Knight Ridder story, for example, went unseen in New York or Washington because there are no Knight Ridder papers in those key cities. When major papers like "The Washington Post" or "New York Times" did publish skeptical accounts, they tended to be pushed deep inside the papers.

The more dramatic and ultimately highly questionable accounts of Iraqi weapons plans often made page one. Moreover, the press was working in a universe where major figures across the political spectrum thought Saddam had been pursuing such weapons. Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, among others, all thought so. Skepticism was a hard sell back then.

Finally, the discovery of sarin gas in a roadside bomb has led some media voices, the conservative "Weekly Standard," "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page, to suggest that it is too soon to conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

(on camera): There is something depressingly familiar about these latest media mea culpas. They sound very much like other after- action reports the press issues about itself when it comes to sloppy campaign coverage or health scares or earlier foreign adventures gone bad.

What they all seem to point to is this. For all of our claims to hold the powerful to account, the press finds it very difficult, at times almost impossible, to break free from the conventional wisdom of the day.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: With us now, two skeptics temperament and critics by professor. Howard Kurtz writes about the media for "The Washington Post" and is the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES." Jack Shafer is editor at large for Slate.com, where he writes "The Press Box" column.

Good to see you both.

Jack, you have beating this one up for a while. Are you satisfied with the way "The Times" finally handled it, or handled it?

JACK SHAFER, EDITOR AT LARGE, SLATE.COM: I'm very happy to see Bill Keller move "The Times" in a very positive direction to say, the paper made mistakes and now is going to dig harder to find the truth. The note might not have been the one I that had written. It might be a little late.

But the important thing is that Bill Keller and "The New York Times" say, we didn't get to the truth. Now we're going to work very, very, very, very hard to get to the truth.

BROWN: Howard, why is that important?

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Because news organizations have a basic bond of trust with readers, that when we screw up, we ought to tell you. And the problem with this editor's note -- and I give "The Times" a lot of credit for doing -- going through what must have been a painful process -- is, it is about a year too late, as the editors acknowledge, that they should have done this earlier. And they dragged their feet until the buzz of criticism here in Washington became as loud as the cicadas.

I think they felt obliged to put something in the paper. Also, one of the chief sources for some of "The Times" reporting and for other news organizations as well was Ahmad Chalabi, who now has been somewhat disowned if not discredited by the Bush administration.

BROWN: Was it appropriate for the editors essentially to take the fall and leave the reporting of Judy Miller, which is at the core of a lot of this, out of the heat?

KURTZ: I think I find it hard to understand. Certainly, no newspaper would write an article about any business or government agency that didn't name one of the central players here.

Judith Miller, Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote most of these stories. She should have been named. But she's not the only person to blame, because there are layers of bosses above her who decide what gets in the paper. The best sentence, the most refreshing sentence, in my view of this editor's note is the one that says, editors who should have been should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. There's a lot of blame to go around here.

BROWN: And, Jack, in every one of our news rooms everywhere, there is nothing like a scoop. And the idea of getting the big scoop in the, paper on the Web, on television is sometimes overwhelming.

SHAFER: Absolutely.

CNN experienced this in 1998, when it went with the Operation Tailwind story and a month later had to retract the story completely.

BROWN: Just since you brought up Tailwind, there ought to be an addendum to that, which is also what the organization went through in trying to figure out what happened in its reporting on Tailwind.

SHAFER: No, I give CNN very high marks for after having published -- or broadcasting an abomination of a story, it got to correcting the record inside of a month, which is laudable.

But it happens at every publication. I don't care what publication you're talking about. Journalists -- there is a game inside the newsroom -- and I think Howard can confirm this -- that reporters push hard and harder and harder to get more of what they think is the truth into the newspaper.

And traditionally, editors are standing there as cops saying, you've got to show me more in order for us to get this into the newspaper. I think what happened at "The New York Times" is that some of its reporters were more -- were probably very, very aggressive and the editors failed to keep those flawed stories from being published.

BROWN: Howard, do you agree with that?

KURTZ: I do. Howell Raines was in charge of the paper at that time. And he was famous for being aggressive, for pushing things into the paper, partially led -- I don't to put all the blame at his feet -- to the Jayson Blair embarrassment.

But I think there is a larger point here. And that is, it wasn't only "The New York Times."

BROWN: No, it was not.

KURTZ: As Jeff Greenfield just pointed out.

Lots of news organizations were not skeptical enough about the administration's claims, about claims by Iraqi defectors. There were a lot of stories that we could read now, things that were said on CNN, that would seem awfully embarrassing today, in light of what we now know, what we now think we know about the situation in Iraq.

But "The New York Times" and Judith Miller had a certain prominence and were kind of driving the debate at a certain point. And I think it is a good thing that they decided to try to come clean with their readers after a long delay.

BROWN: And how about in your newsroom? Is there an examination going on in your newsroom of the reporting that led up to the war?

KURTZ: Well, certainly, there were stories in "The Washington Post" that also would probably be embarrassing today. And the classic one is the front-page scoop about Jessica Lynch, which turned out to have several incorrect details about the way in which she was captured. The paper was slow to correct that, at least in a front- page fashion.

But there were also a lot of skeptical stories that were written by a handful of very good reporters doing very difficult work, trying to -- this murky intelligence business, where you don't even know what the sources know and the sources are not sure what is going on inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That's a tough nut to crack.

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Unfortunately, some of those stories, instead of running on the front page, ran inside the paper.

BROWN: Jack, let me give you the last word on this.

Do you think at all that -- I think all of us who have been involved in reporting the buildup to the war have looked with some concern about how it all played out. Do you think there is any overcompensating for it now that -- that we are being inappropriately cynical now?

SHAFER: No, I don't think so. I would recommend a reform at a lot of newspapers. There should be a running feature called previously thought to be true, where journalists -- and I'm serious -- journalists go back, reinvestigate stories that they realize were flawed, didn't tell the story in its completeness and its entire complexity. I think that the -- the current round of reexamination that we have going on now is excellent for journalism.

BROWN: Jack, good work on this. Howard, nice to see you. Nice amount of time on this tonight. Thank you both.

in reporting the buildup to the war have looked with some concern about how it all played out. Do you think there is any overcompensating for it now that -- that would be inappropriately cynical now?

I don't think so. I would recommend a reform that a lot of newspapers should be a running feature called previously thought to be true where journalists go back, reinvestigate stories that they realize were flawed, didn't tell the story in its completeness and its entire complexity. I think that the -- the current round of re- examination that we have going on now is excellent for journalism.

Jack, good work on this. Howard, nice to see you. Nice amount of time on this tonight. Thank you, both.

SHAFER: Thank you.

KURTZ: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Good discussion.

Ahead on the program, what does it take to get a job in this economy? Apparently, for some, much more than a diploma.

A break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Diplomas in hand, college graduates this spring are stepping into what economists politely call a soft economy, which means for many the school of hard knocks is about to begin.

Any economist will tell you that, in a soft economy, people tend to take whatever jobs they can get, no matter what their diploma says. Tonight, we meet three corporate refugees. Between them, they have three college degrees, an MBA and a half and a third of a Ph.D. They thought their degrees would guarantee them good jobs. And they were right, if you believe a good job is driving a cab.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOBBY SCHRIJVER, CAB DRIVER: I have a bachelor's from Wesleyan. I have an MBA from Columbia. I used to be an advertising executive and a marketing executive. And now I'm driving a taxicab in New York City.

DWAYNE KERNAHAN, CAB DRIVER: I was in financial services, got laid off, and it was just awfully difficult to find a job afterwards.

JALAL SHERIFF, STUDENT: I was working in the corporate world and because of downsizing I was let go.

SYLVIA ALLEGRETTO, ECONOMIST: The employment rate for a college grad is About 75 percent, which is a 25-year low. While we do see that in economic downturns that white-collar works will take blue- collar jobs and everybody at every level really tries to vie for the jobs that are out there.

SCHRIJVER: I guess the choice is that I could sell suits at Bergdorf, I could get a job at Barney's I think I would lose my mind in a day. And for everything else, I'm overqualified.

RON SHERMAN, BUSINESS OWNER: When a cab driver picks you up, you never know if it is an ex-lawyer, a doctor. We have had priests drive for us, rabbis. As the economy changes and people need money, people do what they have to do to earn a living.

KERNAHAN: I got out of the military because the economy was booming and the stock market was definitely booming. And I figured, why settle for being in the military when I could get out and become a millionaire as a stockbroker. Here I am now.

SHERIFF: I have children, I have a wife. So they're very important to me. And if I want to come home, I better do something, you know. I'm only kidding.

ANDREW VOLLO, COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Roosevelt Island is in New York County, Manhattan.

When the economy is bad, what happens is, we have a lot of people who have to pay the bills. They have families. They have responsibilities. They have mortgages. And they need to supplement their income.

SCHRIJVER: This is the millennium. This is 2004. You can't plan what you're going to do. Everybody does what is available at the time that they can do it.

I am continuing to look for jobs in my field. And we'll see what turns up.

KERNAHAN: Time to wash up and get ready for this job fare.

If and when the economy picks up, I don't see me driving a cab that much longer. I plan on putting the same 15-, 16-hour days at a desk being gainfully employed doing what I love.

We're at Pace Gymnasium. And this is where they're holding a job fair.

My name is Dwayne. I'm Dwayne Kernahan. I'm applying.

Would it be even worthwhile to submit my resume here?

I should be graduating with my MBA by next fall. When I graduate, hopefully, I could scale back from driving a cab and hopefully somebody will notice that there is somebody willing to put in 18-hour days.

Please hire me.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And that is the work of NEWSNIGHT producer Catherine Mitchell (ph), who does have a job.

Morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. I think we have one clarification to make as well tonight, kind of getting in the spirit of that "New York Times" clarification or apology or whatever.

"International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" in Paris. I like the story on the front page. Well, it's the only page I have, so I hope I like it on the front page. "Aftermath in Karbala: We Blame Them Both." Both -- the residents of Karbala blaming both the Americans and the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr for the mess that they've lived with for a month or more now. Also, "Putin Takes Aim At Outside Forces. Speech Shakes Human Rights Groups," who find him a bit autocratic. He said, if they keep talking, he'll throw them all in jail. No, he didn't. I made that up.

"Christian Science Monitor" leads, "Terror: Cities Brace For Possible Terror Strike." That is front-page news in lots of places. But this is the story that I like best. "Not Yet Forgotten, The Greatest Generation Finally Set in Stone." The World War II Memorial formally opens this weekend in Washington. I was talking to John King, our White House correspondent. And he drives by it every night, and he says it is fabulous. And I'm looking forward to seeing it.

"Cincinnati Enquirer" leads with the terror attack. "Al Qaeda Attack Imminent, Feds Warns. But maybe it is my age that I paid more attention to this story. "Test Misses Prostate Cancer." Doctors might need to lower the normal score. That's the big medical story of the day. And it's in the "Cincinnati Enquirer" front page.

The most interesting story of the day to me, just because I find this a really interesting issue, comes from "The Oregonian" and comes from Oregon. "Court Bars Ashcroft Role in Suicide Law. The Panel Rejects Punishment of Oregon Doctors." We told you about this earlier. Among the things that I find really interesting about the Oregon assisted-suicide law is how few people actually do it. Lots of people get the medicine, but very few take it. But it is the control they want. And, anyway, for now the law stands.

Last night, we showed you this young woman's belly, but we didn't know who it was. And now we want to clarify that. This is "The Boston Herald." And the belly did not belong to Madonna, as I speculated. That's the danger, ladies and gentlemen, of speculating in the news. It belonged to Britney Spears. Now, aren't you glad I cleaned that up?

And speaking of "The Boston Herald," kind of tell where they're coming down in this campaign, huh? "Senator Flip-Flop Does It Again. Now Kerry Will Accept Nomination in Hub." Hub is Boston to the rest of us. That's "The Boston Herald."

I'm sure there is weather in Chicago, but I can't say it until I hear the magic tone.

(CHIMES)

BROWN: Thank you. The weather tomorrow is, "flush."

We'll wrap it up for the night in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Before we leave you, a quick look ahead to tomorrow morning and "AMERICAN MORNING." Here is Soledad O'Brien.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

Tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING," an amazing tale of fate and family, a brother and sister brought together in a remarkable way, Kathleen Spence dedicating her life to helping others, discovering her half-brother right out of the blue and right under her nose. We'll talk to them both. That's CNN tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. Eastern -- Aaron, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Soledad, thank you.

Finally tonight, with a name like Fantasia, how could she not win? She won. Fantasia Barrino is the new "American Idol," or, as I like to think of it, a remake of "Ted Mack's Amateur Hour." We now return you to your regularly scheduled lives.

We'll see you tomorrow. Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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


Aired May 26, 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.
Stay with us long enough tonight and you will land in the middle of the single question that keeps lots of us awake at night these days. Was our reporting in the build up to the war rigorous enough?

"The New York Times" today answered that question for itself and to its readers by saying no. "The Times'" apology, one of our guests tonight calls it a mia culpa, took some courage and the competence a great organization should have but more important than the apology was the examination of its reporting itself.

Being wrong happens in the daily news business sometimes. That is not the sin. The sin is in walking away from the mistakes without knowing why they happened. "The Times," to its credit, didn't do that and all the rest of us can learn from that as well. We'll get to that later.

But first the whip and the terror alert day two, CNN's Kelli Arena starts us off, Kelli a headline.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, the attorney general says that he has seen the intelligence and it indicates al Qaeda wants to hit the U.S. hard within the next few months.

BROWN: Kelli thank you. We'll get to you at the top tonight.

Next to the question of who will run the new Iraqi government, a very good question tonight, CNN's Richard Roth over at the U.N. here in New York, Richard a headline.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, what a difference 24 hours makes. An Iraqi chemist finds things get a little too hot in the international political arena -- Aaron.

BROWN: Richard, thank you.

Finally the presidential campaign and a big issue in it, fighting the war on terror, who's got the better plan, CNN's Kelly Wallace traveling with Senator Kerry, so Kelly a headline from you.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a double headline tonight. The Senator trying to convince Americans he can wage a more effective war on terror and also trying to put to rest a campaign controversy, announcing tonight exactly when he will accept his party's nomination -- Aaron.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you. It must be nice to be in the Peugeot Sound. I'm envious, back to you and the rest shortly.

Also on the program tonight, guilty again, Terry Nichols convicted on 161 counts of murder now facing a possible death sentence.

And signs of the economic times when the person driving your cab has a better education than you do or at least than I do.

And, at the end of it all, the rooster stops by with your morning papers, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin with the grim and frustrating staple of the new normal, another terror threat that is short of specifics but which the country's top two law enforcement officials call credible nevertheless.

At a news conference today, both the attorney general and the FBI director said they fear al Qaeda is planning another major attack inside the United States soon, even so the national terror threat level remains unchanged at yellow tonight causing a bit of confusion to say the least.

To help sort it out CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): A series of high profile public events, including the dedication of the World War II memorial, the Economic Summit on Sea Island, Georgia, and of course the political conventions adding to the concern about possible terror attacks on U.S. soil.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months. This disturbing intelligence indicates al Qaeda's specific intention to hit the United States hard.

ARENA: The attorney general cited public statements saying al Qaeda is 90 percent ready for an attack, which experts trace back to a shadowy group the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade. Some question the group's credibility.

Still the attorney general says intelligence suggests the impact the Madrid train bombings had on the Spanish elections could lead to similar action here but he said the government has no specifics.

So what are officials doing about it? There is a special task force. Agents are checking in with sources and informants and the FBI will conduct nationwide interviews seeking intelligence information.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Information about persons that may have moved into the community recently, persons who seem to be in a community without any roots. ARENA: The FBI also issuing a new be-on-the-lookout for this man, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a U.S. citizen wanted for questioning regarding possible threats against the United States. The bureau also reissued alerts for six others.

As Mueller and Ashcroft were issuing dire warnings, a strikingly different tone from the Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: There's a consistent reporting stream. They're here. They're not here. They're on their way. The possibility of attack might be at this point in time, might be a couple months down the road.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA: Ridge says that he's not as concerned now as he was over the Christmas holiday, for example, when the threat level was raised to orange and he says there are no plans to raise it this time -- Aaron.

BROWN: One of the things I know about Secretary Ridge is that he always is concerned that the government speaks with one clear voice, one clear message. Did the government speak with one clear voice and one clear message today?

ARENA: It didn't seem that way, Aaron. When asked why Ridge was not at the press conference, we were told don't read anything into that. Everyone's on the same page that there is information sharing and that everyone realizes that there's a threat.

But, as you saw for yourself, I mean the tone that each of those men took was decidedly different and Secretary Ridge saying that he didn't see anything as a matter of fact that pointed to any time frame even and you have the attorney general saying something possibly within the next few months, so a little bit of a contradiction which causes even more confusion.

BROWN: It does indeed, Kelli thank you, Kelli Arena in Washington tonight.

Regarding Iraq tonight a mixed bag to report, Muqtada al-Sadr has offered to pull his fighters out of Najaf, this after his militia took yet another pounding from American forces and a top aide of Sadr's was captured.

That's the good news, the positive news. Less good tonight is words that the man expected to be named to lead the interim government has said thanks but no thanks, again from the U.N., CNN's Richard Roth.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH (voice-over): He was Iraq's prime minister for a day or at least appointed by the media. The name of Hussain al-Shahristani was leaked by several sources in Iraq and Washington as a potential prime minister in the new interim Iraqi government. ROBIN WRIGHT, "WASHINGTON POST": At the moment, the leading candidate is a very unusual choice, a man named Hussain Shahristani who's a nuclear scientist, a Shiite Muslim.

ROTH: But as the spotlight brightened, Shahristani got cold feet. The U.N. troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi, who was interviewing candidates and getting advice from Iraqis, issued a statement through a spokesman announcing the withdrawal of the former Iraqi prisoner under Saddam Hussein from the post of prime minister. Brahimi said nobody has been chosen for the new Iraqi government.

"Mr. Shahristani, however, has himself clarified that he would prefer to serve his country in other ways."

Brahimi warned that debating potential candidates risks undermining the selection process and puts people in compromising positions.

FRED ECKHARD, U.N. SPOKESMAN: He's trying to get names that the Iraqis themselves can agree on. He's not imposing names.

ROTH: The name game is at least something the U.S. and France can agree on.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: The only thing I would say now is our understanding is that there is nothing nailed down that nobody has been chosen.

JEAN MARC DE LA SABLIERE, FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We are not, you know, to make any comment on (unintelligible). What is important is for the council to be sure that the government which will be presented by Mr. Brahimi will be accepted.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: There are no reasons known tonight why he has bowed out. Just because the man doesn't want to be prime minister doesn't preclude him, Aaron, from accepting a post in the new Iraqi government in another position.

BROWN: Do you get the feeling over there, Richard, that they are less confident that they will make the May 31 deadline?

ROTH: They're going to make -- Brahimi will come in in a few days with his names. Nobody is worried about that and they're not worried about June 30. They're putting everything in Brahimi. They don't even want to hear the names. It's almost hear no evil, see no evil.

They're just saying we'll take whatever Brahimi gives us whatever the names. We don't want to know. We don't want to know why anyone turned it down. Just give us the names and come back and tell us what the plan is.

BROWN: We'll see what happens on Monday then. Thank you, Richard, Richard Roth at the U.N. tonight. Naming the officials who will make up Iraq's new government is one piece of business facing the Bush administration with the June 30th handover looming now. The largest problem though remains security.

In his speech on Monday, the president set a goal of training a force of 260,000 Iraqis to take over the job of providing security when U.S. troops eventually leave. Whether that goal is realistic is the point of much debate and whether they will actually fight is debatable as well.

Here's CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When U.S. Marines had to call off their offensive in Fallujah last month because of the objections of Iraq's Governing Council, to many it seemed like a defeat.

But now the Pentagon says allowing former members of Saddam's army to patrol the town is a model for the flexibility that will be required after the transfer of sovereignty. Marine Corps Commandant General Michael Hagee.

GEN. MICHAEL HAGEE, MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT: If that's a defeat, we need more defeats like that.

MCINTYRE: In his Monday speech, President Bush said the U.S. would accelerate the training of 260,000 Iraqis to form the lynchpin of a homegrown security force but critics in Congress, such as Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, charge the number and effectiveness of those U.S.-trained forces is consistently overstated.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: I mean this malarkey you guys came up with, you got 200,000 trained Iraqis, I mean every single solitary expert, including your guys that we met with in Iraq, said it's going to take three years to train 40,000 Iraqi military.

MCINTYRE: Not to mention that when U.S. commanders ordered some of those Iraqis into battle many refused to fight. The administration hopes that after June 30th with Iraqis in charge their resolve will stiffen.

RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: These Iraqi forces who have fought in many cases valiantly will no longer be fighting for the occupiers. They're going to be fighting for Iraq.

MCINTYRE: Army Colonel Paul Hughes, a professor at the National Defense University, believes imposing order is job one, especially with Iraq's elections coming up.

COL. PAUL HUGHES, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY: If we fail in providing security at those particular junctures I think that we're going to have a significant setback in seeing a viable Iraqi government established.

MCINTYRE: Hughes and many others in the military believe ultimately that will require significantly more U.S. troops than the 138,000 currently in Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If they need more troops I will send them.

MCINTYRE: And those troops, the U.S. insists, will not be subject to a veto from the Iraqi government if the U.S. believes it needs to take action, say for instance to capture Abu Musah al- Zarqawi, currently the most wanted man in Iraq.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: In the short term, there will not be sufficient forces of Iraqis to maintain security and stability. That is the reason why the United States is going to remain there for some time to come.

MCINTYRE (on camera): The Pentagon is making plans to keep a large force in Iraq well beyond 2006 but there is one way the troops could come home much earlier. That is if the interim government asks them to leave.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: More now on the transition ahead, the truce tonight if that's what it turns out to be and everything else we can get in the next four or four and a half minutes or so.

Brian Bennett is "Time" magazine's Baghdad Bureau Chief. He is at home in Washington tonight. Brian, it's good to see you.

BRIAN BENNETT, "TIME" MAGAZINE BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Good to be on the show.

BROWN: Just let's hopscotch around a number of things. Are you hearing anything on names for the interim government?

BENNETT: There are some names coming out right now for the interim government. We've heard the name of Mr. Shahristani who's the sort of unknown scientist who's being named as a possible prime minister who has some connections to the Ayatollah Sistani.

And also a name that's being thrown around for the role of president is Adnan Pachachi, the elder statesman who spent a long time inside Iraq working in Saddam's government before leaving in the early '90s.

And also another name that I've heard going around is to appoint a Kurd as vice president but this could cause some problems as some of the Kurdish leaders don't want to be in a subordinate role particularly to someone like Adnan Pachachi or to a Sunni leader.

BROWN: Is it fair to say that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has essentially veto power over the whole selection process?

BENNETT: Well, it certainly seems that Sistani has a lot of influence as to which figures are put in to which positions. It seems like his input is going to be incredibly important because of the sway that he holds over the majority population in the country.

BROWN: Let's talk about Mr. Chalabi. Your competition "Newsweek" headlines this week, "Our Con Man in Iraq." Within the U.S. government is there still division over whether Mr. Chalabi is a good guy or a bad guy?

BENNETT: A lot of people in the administration are backing off Chalabi, even people who supported him going into this war and over the last few months. I think on the ground itself there has been some division.

I've talked to some U.S. military officers who have told me that Chalabi's operation on the ground, the information collection program of which the funding was cut this month was getting them useful information that, as General Myers said here in Washington just last week, was saving American lives.

So there is some conflict over why Chalabi has been cut loose and why the funding to his program, which General Myers and other officers on the ground say was providing them with actionable intelligence has been cut off.

BROWN: Perhaps a bit unfair but does he have in the country do you think a political future?

BENNETT: It seems right now his political future is entirely bleak inside of Iraq but Ahmed Chalabi has proven one thing over the last 12 or 13 years and that's that he is a survivor and he's had a lot of dire times in the past and miraculously has seemed to pull through them.

BROWN: Brian, good to see you, thank you, Brian Bennett, "Time" Magazine's Bureau Chief in Baghdad with us tonight.

Next on the program a new verdict for the other Oklahoma City bomber, if you will, what's next for Terry Nichols.

And yesterday we told you how he'd handle the war in Iraq. Today we'll see how John Kerry plans to keep the homeland safe on the campaign tonight.

This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Seven years ago a jury spared the life of Terry Nichols for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. That was the federal case that involves the death of just the eight federal officers killed in the attack.

Seven years later a state jury has convicted Nichols of the murders of 161 other victims of the bombing and now that jury must decide if he should die for the crime, reporting for us tonight CNN's Ed Lavandera.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN DALLAS BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): Terry Nichols had no reaction as the guilty verdict was read in the courtroom. One female juror cried as Nichols learned he was convicted on 161 counts of first degree murder, conspiracy and arson.

DIANE LEONARD, LOST HUSBAND IN BOMBING: I am -- I am so thrilled for these 160 families who have had loved ones who no one had been tried for their murder until this trial.

DORIS DELMAN, LOST DAUGHTER IN BOMBING: He's responsible for everything he's ever done and God will take care of him one way or another.

LAVANDERA: The question before the jurors was whether Nichols was the mastermind behind the bombing or a pawn in the conspiracy. Deliberations began Wednesday morning in McAllister, Oklahoma after two months of testimony from some 250 witnesses.

Defense attorneys argued Timothy McVeigh who was executed in 2001 orchestrated the bombing plot with co-conspirators who set up Nichols as the fall guy. They claim the government failed to follow up on leads which would have provided evidence of that.

But the prosecution argued Nichols was the one who gathered the ingredients to make the bomb, the ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the detonation cord and blasting caps.

They said his motive was the same as McVeigh's to avenge the deadly government siege in Waco, Texas two years prior to the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City. The attack on the Murrah Federal Building left 168 people dead.

(on camera): There is still a gag order in place and that's why we haven't heard from defense attorneys or prosecutors. Now the same jury that convicted Terry Nichols must decide if he should be sentenced to death. Punishment phase testimony begins next Tuesday.

Ed Lavandera CNN, McAllister, Oklahoma.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On now to terrorism as a campaign issue. In another presidential campaign 45 years ago during the Cold War, the notion of a missile gap helped decide the race between then Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy.

The missile gap didn't exist but Mr. Nixon couldn't prove it and Mr. Kennedy may not have even known it. The voters certainly did not. They had imperfect information. Everyone did then and perhaps now, a lot of assertion on both sides, very few hard facts. Sound familiar?

With the Kerry campaign here's CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At an outdoor rally in Seattle, John Kerry uses the new terror warnings to slam President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism.

JOHN KERRY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We deserve a president of the United States who doesn't make homeland security a photo opportunity and the rhetoric of a campaign. We deserve a president who makes American safer.

WALLACE: Politics 101 in the post September 11th world, the presumptive Democratic nominee accusing the president of not spending enough and doing enough to prevent another attack.

KERRY: And, if it's a question of when then my question and the question of most Americans is why are we cutting cops programs in the United States of America?

WALLACE: A Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman accused Kerry of playing politics saying funding for homeland security is at record levels. What would the Senator do differently? Aides say he would increase funding for port security, require more inspections of chemical plants and hire 100,000 additional firefighters but here's the problem for Kerry.

Americans consistently give President Bush higher marks when asked who would do a better job handling terrorism. There are signs, however, the president could be vulnerable. When Americans are asked specifically about Mr. Bush they are evenly split over whether he is doing a good job in the fight against terror.

Hoping to capitalize on those numbers, on Thursday Kerry will deliver what his aides are calling a major speech on national security and the start of an 11-day focus on ways to keep America safe.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And in an effort to prevent a campaign controversy from stepping on his national security message, late today the Senator announced that he would in fact accept his party's nomination at the convention this summer, this after the campaign floated the possibility he would delay acceptance to reduce the financial advantage President Bush has with his convention five weeks later and, Aaron, of course both men facing a $75 million spending limit during the General Election.

BROWN: So, just add one more sentence to that. The clock starts running at the moment you accept the nomination is that the deal?

WALLACE: Exactly, the moment you accept the nomination you have $75 million until November 2nd. John Kerry accepts in late July. He's got to use that money for an extra five weeks longer than President Bush. So right now they're still looking for other options, including having contributors give more money to the state and local parties and they can use the money during those five weeks when Kerry will have $75 million to use through the election.

BROWN: Kelly, thank you, Kelly Wallace out in Seattle tonight. Seventy-five million just doesn't go as far as it used to does it?

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT why many local police department aren't getting too excited about the new terror alert.

We'll explain that and much more as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Not to get too philosophical here but life is an exercise in making decisions based on incomplete information. We can't know everything about anything. Ideally we make the best choices possible despite the unknowns, easy to say but frustrating when the information that is missing concerns a terror threat and you are a police officer on the front lines.

Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In New York, an emergency drill went on as normal. Police there and in Los Angeles and Chicago say the new terror alert won't change the way they already operate.

RAY KELLY, NEW YORK POLICE COMMISSIONER: It lacks specificity so again raising the level is not going to be particularly effective unless you can I think focus to a greater degree on the nature of the threat.

FEYERICK: Here's what top officials know about the suspected attack.

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: An al Qaeda spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.

FEYERICK: Here's what they don't know.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Unfortunately we currently do not know what forms the threat may take.

FEYERICK: It's that kind of intelligence, apparently critical but incomplete, that frustrates police and city officials across the country.

MAYOR RICHARD DALEY, CHICAGO: They have a responsibility. We cannot live in a 24-hour alert, seven days a week for the rest of the year. That is impossible. FEYERICK: Federal and local law enforcement sources shrugged off the new threat warnings, one calling it "all old stuff," another "hyperbole," and a third saying they're just going to reissue the "same old pictures." The top justice officials are hoping those old pictures help them develop new leads or, better yet, stop an attack.

MUELLER: We will not take any chances.

FEYERICK: One counterterrorism expert described the alerts as good politics, saying it reminds people the government's doing something. Others defended the announcement.

BILL DALY, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: This is not just something that's popped up just because it's politics season because it's election season but it's driven by intelligence.

FEYERICK (on camera): The press conference by the attorney general and head of the FBI had been in the works since last week.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A few more items now from around the country starting with a key ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out west, the ruling concerning Oregon's assisted suicide law, the only one in the country that allows doctors to help patients end their lives.

By a two-to-one vote, a three judge panel on the court said Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot prosecute doctors for prescribing lethal overdoses under Oregon's Death With Dignity law which state voters approved in '94 and reaffirmed three years later.

Onto same-sex marriage, Provincetown, Massachusetts has suspended its policy of issuing marriage licenses to out of state same-sex couples who don't intend to move to the state. Provincetown was one of four municipalities that openly defied the residency requirement. The town has a large gay population known for being open to people of all stripes.

And in Vermont, David Dellinger has died. David Dellinger was one of the Chicago Seven who were tried and convicted for their part in the demonstrations that turned violent outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. A federal court later overturned those convictions. Mr. Dellinger never lost his convictions. He was, said a friend, a pacifist who meant business. He was 88 when he died in Vermont.

Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, knowing just when to say you're sorry, not an easy thing for any of us to do, especially difficult in the press, it seems.

A break first. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BROWN: Journalists are supposed to be the nation's watchdog. We're supposed defend the public's interest, speak truth to power, hold the powerful accountable -- supposed to.

The war in Iraq, the buildup to it, and what has happened since are among the most important stories any of us will ever write. The premise used to justify the war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has not panned out. That much became clear months ago. Today, in an editor's note in "The New York Times," the paper took itself to task for its role in dropping the ball.

Here is our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases deliberately misleading. And for that, I am -- I am disappointed and I regret it.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): It was the clearest statement yet by an administration official, the proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, proof contained in Powell's own presentation to the United Nations was not really proof at all. It was exactly the kind of acknowledgement many reporters had demanded of the president at his last press conference.

Today, it was the press' turn to say, we were wrong, specifically the most influential publication of all, "The New York Times." In a lengthy editor's note, "The Times" said much of its coverage -- quote -- "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged" -- unquote.

And while it mentioned no names, "The Times" cited several articles written or co-written by veteran correspondent Judith Miller, in which she relied on Iraqi defectors to make the case about an aggressive Iraqi program to develop chemicals, biological, even nuclear weapons. "The Times"' statement is the latest in a string of regrets from the press.

Last March, Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" said that many of the stories, stories based on information supplied by longtime exile Ahmad Chalabi, had been wrong.

(on camera): These regrets from the press mirror a lot of what officials have been saying: We acted in good faith. We trusted the experts. We relied on defectors, who it turns out may have had an agenda. But this raises a different question. Where was the traditional press skepticism when it mattered?

(voice-over): More than three months ago, "The New York Review of Books" published Michael Massing's lengthy dissection of press coverage leading up to the war.

Among his findings, there were press reports about dissent within the administration, but they were not widely seen. A Knight Ridder story, for example, went unseen in New York or Washington because there are no Knight Ridder papers in those key cities. When major papers like "The Washington Post" or "New York Times" did publish skeptical accounts, they tended to be pushed deep inside the papers.

The more dramatic and ultimately highly questionable accounts of Iraqi weapons plans often made page one. Moreover, the press was working in a universe where major figures across the political spectrum thought Saddam had been pursuing such weapons. Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, among others, all thought so. Skepticism was a hard sell back then.

Finally, the discovery of sarin gas in a roadside bomb has led some media voices, the conservative "Weekly Standard," "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page, to suggest that it is too soon to conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

(on camera): There is something depressingly familiar about these latest media mea culpas. They sound very much like other after- action reports the press issues about itself when it comes to sloppy campaign coverage or health scares or earlier foreign adventures gone bad.

What they all seem to point to is this. For all of our claims to hold the powerful to account, the press finds it very difficult, at times almost impossible, to break free from the conventional wisdom of the day.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: With us now, two skeptics temperament and critics by professor. Howard Kurtz writes about the media for "The Washington Post" and is the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES." Jack Shafer is editor at large for Slate.com, where he writes "The Press Box" column.

Good to see you both.

Jack, you have beating this one up for a while. Are you satisfied with the way "The Times" finally handled it, or handled it?

JACK SHAFER, EDITOR AT LARGE, SLATE.COM: I'm very happy to see Bill Keller move "The Times" in a very positive direction to say, the paper made mistakes and now is going to dig harder to find the truth. The note might not have been the one I that had written. It might be a little late.

But the important thing is that Bill Keller and "The New York Times" say, we didn't get to the truth. Now we're going to work very, very, very, very hard to get to the truth.

BROWN: Howard, why is that important?

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Because news organizations have a basic bond of trust with readers, that when we screw up, we ought to tell you. And the problem with this editor's note -- and I give "The Times" a lot of credit for doing -- going through what must have been a painful process -- is, it is about a year too late, as the editors acknowledge, that they should have done this earlier. And they dragged their feet until the buzz of criticism here in Washington became as loud as the cicadas.

I think they felt obliged to put something in the paper. Also, one of the chief sources for some of "The Times" reporting and for other news organizations as well was Ahmad Chalabi, who now has been somewhat disowned if not discredited by the Bush administration.

BROWN: Was it appropriate for the editors essentially to take the fall and leave the reporting of Judy Miller, which is at the core of a lot of this, out of the heat?

KURTZ: I think I find it hard to understand. Certainly, no newspaper would write an article about any business or government agency that didn't name one of the central players here.

Judith Miller, Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote most of these stories. She should have been named. But she's not the only person to blame, because there are layers of bosses above her who decide what gets in the paper. The best sentence, the most refreshing sentence, in my view of this editor's note is the one that says, editors who should have been should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. There's a lot of blame to go around here.

BROWN: And, Jack, in every one of our news rooms everywhere, there is nothing like a scoop. And the idea of getting the big scoop in the, paper on the Web, on television is sometimes overwhelming.

SHAFER: Absolutely.

CNN experienced this in 1998, when it went with the Operation Tailwind story and a month later had to retract the story completely.

BROWN: Just since you brought up Tailwind, there ought to be an addendum to that, which is also what the organization went through in trying to figure out what happened in its reporting on Tailwind.

SHAFER: No, I give CNN very high marks for after having published -- or broadcasting an abomination of a story, it got to correcting the record inside of a month, which is laudable.

But it happens at every publication. I don't care what publication you're talking about. Journalists -- there is a game inside the newsroom -- and I think Howard can confirm this -- that reporters push hard and harder and harder to get more of what they think is the truth into the newspaper.

And traditionally, editors are standing there as cops saying, you've got to show me more in order for us to get this into the newspaper. I think what happened at "The New York Times" is that some of its reporters were more -- were probably very, very aggressive and the editors failed to keep those flawed stories from being published.

BROWN: Howard, do you agree with that?

KURTZ: I do. Howell Raines was in charge of the paper at that time. And he was famous for being aggressive, for pushing things into the paper, partially led -- I don't to put all the blame at his feet -- to the Jayson Blair embarrassment.

But I think there is a larger point here. And that is, it wasn't only "The New York Times."

BROWN: No, it was not.

KURTZ: As Jeff Greenfield just pointed out.

Lots of news organizations were not skeptical enough about the administration's claims, about claims by Iraqi defectors. There were a lot of stories that we could read now, things that were said on CNN, that would seem awfully embarrassing today, in light of what we now know, what we now think we know about the situation in Iraq.

But "The New York Times" and Judith Miller had a certain prominence and were kind of driving the debate at a certain point. And I think it is a good thing that they decided to try to come clean with their readers after a long delay.

BROWN: And how about in your newsroom? Is there an examination going on in your newsroom of the reporting that led up to the war?

KURTZ: Well, certainly, there were stories in "The Washington Post" that also would probably be embarrassing today. And the classic one is the front-page scoop about Jessica Lynch, which turned out to have several incorrect details about the way in which she was captured. The paper was slow to correct that, at least in a front- page fashion.

But there were also a lot of skeptical stories that were written by a handful of very good reporters doing very difficult work, trying to -- this murky intelligence business, where you don't even know what the sources know and the sources are not sure what is going on inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That's a tough nut to crack.

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Unfortunately, some of those stories, instead of running on the front page, ran inside the paper.

BROWN: Jack, let me give you the last word on this.

Do you think at all that -- I think all of us who have been involved in reporting the buildup to the war have looked with some concern about how it all played out. Do you think there is any overcompensating for it now that -- that we are being inappropriately cynical now?

SHAFER: No, I don't think so. I would recommend a reform at a lot of newspapers. There should be a running feature called previously thought to be true, where journalists -- and I'm serious -- journalists go back, reinvestigate stories that they realize were flawed, didn't tell the story in its completeness and its entire complexity. I think that the -- the current round of reexamination that we have going on now is excellent for journalism.

BROWN: Jack, good work on this. Howard, nice to see you. Nice amount of time on this tonight. Thank you both.

in reporting the buildup to the war have looked with some concern about how it all played out. Do you think there is any overcompensating for it now that -- that would be inappropriately cynical now?

I don't think so. I would recommend a reform that a lot of newspapers should be a running feature called previously thought to be true where journalists go back, reinvestigate stories that they realize were flawed, didn't tell the story in its completeness and its entire complexity. I think that the -- the current round of re- examination that we have going on now is excellent for journalism.

Jack, good work on this. Howard, nice to see you. Nice amount of time on this tonight. Thank you, both.

SHAFER: Thank you.

KURTZ: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Good discussion.

Ahead on the program, what does it take to get a job in this economy? Apparently, for some, much more than a diploma.

A break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Diplomas in hand, college graduates this spring are stepping into what economists politely call a soft economy, which means for many the school of hard knocks is about to begin.

Any economist will tell you that, in a soft economy, people tend to take whatever jobs they can get, no matter what their diploma says. Tonight, we meet three corporate refugees. Between them, they have three college degrees, an MBA and a half and a third of a Ph.D. They thought their degrees would guarantee them good jobs. And they were right, if you believe a good job is driving a cab.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BOBBY SCHRIJVER, CAB DRIVER: I have a bachelor's from Wesleyan. I have an MBA from Columbia. I used to be an advertising executive and a marketing executive. And now I'm driving a taxicab in New York City.

DWAYNE KERNAHAN, CAB DRIVER: I was in financial services, got laid off, and it was just awfully difficult to find a job afterwards.

JALAL SHERIFF, STUDENT: I was working in the corporate world and because of downsizing I was let go.

SYLVIA ALLEGRETTO, ECONOMIST: The employment rate for a college grad is About 75 percent, which is a 25-year low. While we do see that in economic downturns that white-collar works will take blue- collar jobs and everybody at every level really tries to vie for the jobs that are out there.

SCHRIJVER: I guess the choice is that I could sell suits at Bergdorf, I could get a job at Barney's I think I would lose my mind in a day. And for everything else, I'm overqualified.

RON SHERMAN, BUSINESS OWNER: When a cab driver picks you up, you never know if it is an ex-lawyer, a doctor. We have had priests drive for us, rabbis. As the economy changes and people need money, people do what they have to do to earn a living.

KERNAHAN: I got out of the military because the economy was booming and the stock market was definitely booming. And I figured, why settle for being in the military when I could get out and become a millionaire as a stockbroker. Here I am now.

SHERIFF: I have children, I have a wife. So they're very important to me. And if I want to come home, I better do something, you know. I'm only kidding.

ANDREW VOLLO, COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Roosevelt Island is in New York County, Manhattan.

When the economy is bad, what happens is, we have a lot of people who have to pay the bills. They have families. They have responsibilities. They have mortgages. And they need to supplement their income.

SCHRIJVER: This is the millennium. This is 2004. You can't plan what you're going to do. Everybody does what is available at the time that they can do it.

I am continuing to look for jobs in my field. And we'll see what turns up.

KERNAHAN: Time to wash up and get ready for this job fare.

If and when the economy picks up, I don't see me driving a cab that much longer. I plan on putting the same 15-, 16-hour days at a desk being gainfully employed doing what I love.

We're at Pace Gymnasium. And this is where they're holding a job fair.

My name is Dwayne. I'm Dwayne Kernahan. I'm applying.

Would it be even worthwhile to submit my resume here?

I should be graduating with my MBA by next fall. When I graduate, hopefully, I could scale back from driving a cab and hopefully somebody will notice that there is somebody willing to put in 18-hour days.

Please hire me.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And that is the work of NEWSNIGHT producer Catherine Mitchell (ph), who does have a job.

Morning papers after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. I think we have one clarification to make as well tonight, kind of getting in the spirit of that "New York Times" clarification or apology or whatever.

"International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" in Paris. I like the story on the front page. Well, it's the only page I have, so I hope I like it on the front page. "Aftermath in Karbala: We Blame Them Both." Both -- the residents of Karbala blaming both the Americans and the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr for the mess that they've lived with for a month or more now. Also, "Putin Takes Aim At Outside Forces. Speech Shakes Human Rights Groups," who find him a bit autocratic. He said, if they keep talking, he'll throw them all in jail. No, he didn't. I made that up.

"Christian Science Monitor" leads, "Terror: Cities Brace For Possible Terror Strike." That is front-page news in lots of places. But this is the story that I like best. "Not Yet Forgotten, The Greatest Generation Finally Set in Stone." The World War II Memorial formally opens this weekend in Washington. I was talking to John King, our White House correspondent. And he drives by it every night, and he says it is fabulous. And I'm looking forward to seeing it.

"Cincinnati Enquirer" leads with the terror attack. "Al Qaeda Attack Imminent, Feds Warns. But maybe it is my age that I paid more attention to this story. "Test Misses Prostate Cancer." Doctors might need to lower the normal score. That's the big medical story of the day. And it's in the "Cincinnati Enquirer" front page.

The most interesting story of the day to me, just because I find this a really interesting issue, comes from "The Oregonian" and comes from Oregon. "Court Bars Ashcroft Role in Suicide Law. The Panel Rejects Punishment of Oregon Doctors." We told you about this earlier. Among the things that I find really interesting about the Oregon assisted-suicide law is how few people actually do it. Lots of people get the medicine, but very few take it. But it is the control they want. And, anyway, for now the law stands.

Last night, we showed you this young woman's belly, but we didn't know who it was. And now we want to clarify that. This is "The Boston Herald." And the belly did not belong to Madonna, as I speculated. That's the danger, ladies and gentlemen, of speculating in the news. It belonged to Britney Spears. Now, aren't you glad I cleaned that up?

And speaking of "The Boston Herald," kind of tell where they're coming down in this campaign, huh? "Senator Flip-Flop Does It Again. Now Kerry Will Accept Nomination in Hub." Hub is Boston to the rest of us. That's "The Boston Herald."

I'm sure there is weather in Chicago, but I can't say it until I hear the magic tone.

(CHIMES)

BROWN: Thank you. The weather tomorrow is, "flush."

We'll wrap it up for the night in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Before we leave you, a quick look ahead to tomorrow morning and "AMERICAN MORNING." Here is Soledad O'Brien.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

Tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING," an amazing tale of fate and family, a brother and sister brought together in a remarkable way, Kathleen Spence dedicating her life to helping others, discovering her half-brother right out of the blue and right under her nose. We'll talk to them both. That's CNN tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. Eastern -- Aaron, back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Soledad, thank you.

Finally tonight, with a name like Fantasia, how could she not win? She won. Fantasia Barrino is the new "American Idol," or, as I like to think of it, a remake of "Ted Mack's Amateur Hour." We now return you to your regularly scheduled lives.

We'll see you tomorrow. 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