Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Iraqi president named, New documents released on Jose Padilla, Partial Birth Abortion Act ruled unconstitutional in California court

Aired June 01, 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 don't make a big fuss out of new sets or even old sets in new places but still it is very nice to be back on the old NEWSNIGHT set, same sculpture, more books this time.

As for the news, same thing, new characters, old story. A new Iraqi government was picked today. The who and how we'll leave for later. The early reaction on the streets of Baghdad was more good than bad, encouraging. It may or may not stay that way but that's the start.

Second, those chosen seem to get that first and foremost somehow there must be security in the country. Absent security there really isn't much to talk about. For that to happen, Iraqis themselves must make it happen. They must be willing to fight for their own future.

They haven't distinguished themselves much so far in that respect and they haven't received all the help they need. But, if Iraq is to succeed and, if we are ever going to get out people out, Iraqis themselves must decide that a new country is worth fighting for.

The whip begins tonight in Baghdad with the announcement and all that came with it, intrigue included. CNN's Harris Whitbeck was there for us, Harris a headline.

HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Aaron. A new government quickly takes place in Iraq saying it will quickly take political control here sparking hope not seen in a very long time.

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

On to the White House and how the day played out there. Suzanne Malveaux on the North Lawn tonight, Suzanne a headline.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Bush called and congratulated the new president and the prime minister of the Iraqi interim government. He said that he is looking forward to working with both of them. The selection came after much negotiations and talks and the truth is that the relationships are very much untested.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

Next to what this means for the military and perhaps more importantly when. Jamie McIntyre with the watch, Jamie a headline. JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq is not exactly going to plan but the Pentagon insists that might be a good thing. It might be an opportunity to put the transition on a faster track -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you.

And finally a story that's been in and out of the courts for as long as we've been doing this work, abortion, in this case a rare and controversial form of it. CNN's Miguel Marquez with the story out of Los Angeles tonight, Miguel a headline.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A federal judge today ruled unconstitutional a law banning what has become known as partial birth abortion. Proponents say the law -- all they need is one more anti- abortion justice on the Supreme Court to overturn today's ruling, all this in an election year -- Aaron.

BROWN: Miguel, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up on the program tonight are stem cells crucial to medical research or an immoral use of human tissue? The U.N. is taking a look and so shall we tonight.

And remember the John Kerry intern story? Well, it was completely bogus. Jeff Greenfield looks at the anatomy of a smear.

And the rooster is back from a well deserved day off. I don't know about that part but he's back and we'll have morning papers too, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin tonight at the beginning. Iraq has a new government, 29 men (AUDIO GAP) chosen after a month of shuttle diplomacy, arm twisting and more than a bit of intrigue. In the end, the United States got some of what it wanted but not all, which may turn out to be a good thing in the long run. What it got more than anything was an Iraqi face to put on Iraqi problems and with any luck the beginnings of a graceful way out.

We have several reports tonight beginning with CNN's Harris Whitbeck who reports tonight from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I present to you all the first president of the Republic of Iraq.

WHITBECK (voice-over): Words many Iraqis have been waiting to hear for decades, a new Iraqi government different from Saddam Hussein and more recently planning to be different from the U.S.-led occupation authorities.

U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi spent weeks helping to cobble together the interim government, a presidential council of four plus 31 cabinet ministers. LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, U.N. SPECIAL ENVOY: I think the people of Iraq will be praying all over the country for the success of their mission which aims at starting the rebuilding of the new Iraq.

WHITBECK: Interim President Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar was firm in expressing what he will work towards.

SHEIKH GHAZI AL-YAWAR, IRAQI INTERIM PRES. DESIGNEE: We, the Iraqis, also look forward for being granted full sovereignty.

WHITBECK: And that promise of sovereignty seemed to spark hope among many Iraqis we talked to, hope that had not been heard in a long time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Ghazi is a true Iraqi and hopefully he will change this country into a better and safer place for the Iraqis.

WHITBECK: Safety and security, the country's biggest concern. The lack of it was driven home again on the streets of Baghdad hours before the presentation ceremony. A car bomb near the Green Zone and near the offices of a Kurdish political party left three dead and 20 injured. And earlier Tuesday, near Baji north of Baghdad, a car bomb outside a military base killed 11 Iraqis and wounded 26.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITBECK: Security is just one of the many challenges the interim government will have to face when it takes political control on June 30th. Working with the U.S.-led coalition on a smooth transition of power is another challenge and assuring the Iraqi people that the transition will be to full sovereignty is perhaps the biggest challenge of all -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just briefly, we won't ask you to go through all the names, but we presume they represent all three major groups in the country in somewhat equal proportions. Are they by and large exiles or are they people who have been living in the country or lived in the country during the Saddam era?

WHITBECK: Most of the names on the list are of people who have been involved in opposition, had been involved in opposition to Saddam Hussein and because of that did have to spend at least some amount of time outside of the country.

But, as U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said, what he was trying to do was make sure that he had a full and equitable distribution of power among the different ethnic groups in Iraq and he certainly seemed judging from his comments yesterday and from comments of other people who observed the ceremony yesterday he seemed to have been able to do that.

Again, the challenge now is especially for those people who were outside of Iraq for a long time is going to be in convincing the people who stayed here that they are sincere about working towards full sovereignty. BROWN: Harris, thank you, long day for you, Harris Whitbeck in Baghdad on what is now Wednesday morning there.

The sun was out in the Rose Garden this morning. The president was beaming. Such a beautiful day, he said, not we imagine a mission accomplished moment but for an administration already loosening its day-to-day grip on Iraq perhaps a chance to declare victory where it can.

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): After intense negotiations between the U.S., U.N. and Iraqi officials, President Bush said Iraq's new interim government was one he could work with.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The naming of the new interim government brings us one step closer to realizing the dream of millions of Iraqis, a fully sovereign nation with a representative government that protects their rights and serves their needs.

MALVEAUX: The government's makeup, mostly of Iraqi exiles with close ties to Washington, has raised questions whether Iraqis will consider this new authority to be legitimate. The Bush administration denied handpicking Iraq's new leadership.

BUSH: I had no role in picking, zero.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: These are not America's puppets. These are independent-minded Iraqis who are determined to take their country to security and democracy.

MALVEAUX: But there's still a question as to what that will mean for U.S. troops. The president acknowledged that the situation on the ground could get worse as the deadline to full Iraqi sovereignty draws near.

BUSH: I believe there will be more violence because there are still violent people who want to stop progress.

MALVEAUX: Earlier in the day, Mr. Bush spoke with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and offered public praise to the international body. Mr. Bush hopes the formation of Iraq's new interim government will help ease the way for a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would endorse Iraqi sovereignty and establish a multinational force to help provide security but neither the president nor his advisers said they expected significant military assistance.

RICE: There could be other states that might be willing to send a few troops here, a few troops there but no one really believes that we are about to have a massive infusion of foreign forces into Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE) MALVEAUX: Now, there are some U.S. officials who believe the next couple of days are actually more important than the June 30th deadline for Iraqi sovereignty. Now, the White House's three biggest concerns at this point that the Iraqi leaders do not prove legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people, that these leaders are targeted for assassination and that the U.S. does not win a U.N. Security Council resolution. For those reasons, Aaron, the next ten days are critical.

BROWN: Let's talk about I think it was the first of them. How will the administration gauge the perception of legitimacy of this group among Iraqis?

MALVEAUX: Well that certainly is going to play out in the next couple of weeks just how they are going to react -- how people are going to respond to those leaders, how they're going to win the type of support and whether or not quite frankly, and U.S. officials know that these leaders have been targeted for assassination, just what kind of support they get from everyday Iraqi people, how it plays out in the media, all of these things are going to be very important, what types of announcements they make.

We do expect these leaders will be coming out. They'll be having press conferences. It is also expected that they could even be here as early as next week meeting beside President Bush at the G8 Summit to make their views known. Aaron, this is all very dicey but they certainly hope that these are the leaders the Iraqi people will accept.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you, Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.

More now on the resolution before the Security Council. It features plenty of wiggle room and a date uncertain, if you will. For more on what's in it, who likes it, who doesn't and why, we're joined by our Chief U.N. Correspondent Richard Roth. Richard, good evening to you.

A new paper went to the Security Council today significantly different than the resolution they had been looking at?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: It feels like it's before the war, Aaron.

Yes, a little bit different, the U.S. trying to flush out the concerns of nations such as China, France and Germany. The U.S. believes this additional language should get people onboard but we're hearing from the usual suspects in Europe and elsewhere they want to consult with their governments.

The biggest change is that the wording leaves more room for the transitional Iraqi government after January, 2005 to say they don't want the troops from the multinational forces there should they decide and there would have to be a Security Council vote.

It says also rather plainly when the entire political process is over the forces can leave. That still is post 2005, at the end of that maybe 2006. Countries such as Algeria say they still want to see more of a specific time table.

And it really, Aaron, may come down to just how much of a hard bargain do these countries want to drive now knowing they have the U.S. sort of on the ropes with President Bush saying over and over full sovereignty, full sovereignty to the Iraqis. They're going to get more to monitor their own oil and gas revenues but on the troops issue that's still the big question.

BROWN: All right. One small question, then one larger question. When you talk about the whole process you're not simply talking about the elections scheduled for roughly six months from now but a much more complicated political process that has to play out, correct?

ROTH: Right, more formal elections for a new permanent government and the writing of a constitution.

BROWN: And that could take another 18 months?

ROTH: Yes, they hope by the end of 2005 but, of course, as Suzanne just said, everything is still dicey there.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. It will be interesting days over there. Thank you Richard Roth.

Now onto the military mission and a fairly striking notion making the rounds at the Pentagon today. Things may happen very quickly from here on out and may provide American forces with a political opening to back away from battles that haven't gotten them anywhere anyway. That's the notion at least. The reality of course is about 135,000 American troops remain on the ground in Iraq and they are not going anywhere not yet.

Here's CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): While Iraq's new leaders bristle at the U.S. occupation, for now they still need American troops.

IYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER DESIGNEE (through translator): We will need the partnership of the (unintelligible) to defeat the enemies of Iraq.

MCINTYRE: The old U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council unexpectedly stepped aside as soon as the new government was announced, which the general in charge of training Iraq's new security forces says is a good thing.

LT. GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY: It indicates clearly an eagerness of the new government to get on with its task and I look forward to getting back over to Baghdad later this week and to working with the new ministers of defense and interior as they take up their new roles and responsibilities.

MCINTYRE: Pentagon officials say it may also put the transition on a faster track, allowing the U.S. military to shift its emphasis away from the anti-insurgent offensives toward protecting Iraq's leaders and economic infrastructure and possibly accelerating the day when Iraqi forces can take the lead.

BUSH: There may be times when the Iraqis say we can handle this ourselves. Get out of the way. We're plenty capable of moving into secure a town or to secure a situation.

MCINTYRE: For the U.S. military, protecting the new government will be a top priority, especially considering the head of the old governing council was assassinated just two weeks ago.

ROBERT MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: We're going to be a quick reaction force as necessary. We're going to try to kind of turn offensive operations away and turn and try to protect the infrastructure, the oil, the electricity, and of course the 33 bodies that are now the so-called interim government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: While the Pentagon says that the official formal transfer of sovereignty will still take place as scheduled at midnight June 30th, there's a feeling here that the actual transfer is going on now and that the sooner the Iraqi people believe that the sooner U.S. troops may begin to move out of the crossfire -- Aaron.

BROWN: Well, the key here, at least a key here is whether the Iraqis will actually fight and on that score the report card is decidedly mixed.

MCINTYRE: Well, the Pentagon acknowledges that there have been problems training Iraqi troops and having them stand up and fight but they also believe that once they're fighting for an Iraqi government in which they believe Iraqis are really in charge that that might change along with some better training as well.

And they also point to the case of Muqtada al-Sadr. A Pentagon official told me today that they now believe it would be better to just wait, let the Iraqis bring him to justice and that will have a lot more legitimacy and people will be much more willing to do that once they believe the Iraqis are in charge. That's why they see this quick turnover to another government as really a critical point in possibly turning things around in Iraq.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

We've spoken tonight of declaring victory and accelerating withdrawal and the welcome reception the new government is getting on the streets of Baghdad, safe to say those aren't the only facts on the ground and, taken as a whole, the facts support a range of interpretations or, as an Irish poet once wrote, things fall apart the center cannot hold.

George Packer has been to Iraq twice in the last year, staff reporter for "New Yorker" magazine, pleased to see him with us tonight. Whose government is this? Is this our, United States government? Is this the U.N.'s government? Is this the Iraqi people's government? Whose government is it?

GEORGE PACKER, "NEW YORKER" MAGAZINE STAFF REPORTER: It's up for grabs. I think we're going to find out in the next weeks and months but one thing that's interesting about the way this played out is that the U.N., which seemed to be in charge of the transition has really been marginalized.

And Lakhdar Brahimi who had a plan for an interim government made up, as he put it to the Security Council, of technocrats not politicians. He wanted the politicians to prepare for elections while a fairly weak interim government of professionals would run the day- to-day affairs of the country. That hasn't happened.

The politicians have had their revenge and they now have the key positions in the new government. Lakhdar Brahimi has had to go along with it and I think he's been -- his plan has been shelved.

BROWN: A month ago you would have said, I would have said that the interim governing council was essentially dead meat and yet they came back from the dead.

PACKER: They did. They did. You know in a way they have never shown more unity and more purpose than in their final hours when they gathered together with enough sort of common vision to push out Brahimi's choice for prime minister, Hussain Shahristani, and to push out one of their own who seemed to be the choice of Brahimi and Bremer for president, Adnan Pachachi, and instead proposed another of their own, Ghazi al-Yawar.

These seem like, you know, very obscure palace intrigue moves but I think what's interesting is perhaps sensing their own imminent demise the members of the governing council finally started acting like power politicians and have had their way.

BROWN: As we sit here tonight is it possible to say what happened today was a good thing or not a good thing, that it will be seen as legitimate in Iraq or is it -- do we just have to kind of let these pages get written?

PACKER: I think any change is good. That's how bad things have gotten by April and May. And my guess is in Baghdad there is a sense of a fresh start being possible now. They could not have continued much longer with the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority in charge.

Whether these new politicians will be able to hold the country together, to shelve their own personal ambitions enough to manage a transition to elections in the middle of a war that really remains to be seen. They did not cover themselves with glory during the nine or ten months that they had as the governing council. We'll see whether as a sovereign Iraqi government they can do better.

BROWN: Are you heading back there?

PACKER: I'm going back in a couple of weeks, yes.

BROWN: Stay safe. We'll talk to you when you get back there.

PACKER: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you for coming in.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, the case against accused terrorist Jose Padilla.

And the debate over stem cell research, is any cure worth the cost, a break first.

From New York this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: What limits, if any, should apply to the war on terror will be decided in part by a Supreme Court ruling expected sometime this month. At issue is whether the president overstepped his power when he designated Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant.

Mr. Padilla has been held as an enemy combatant for nearly two years, most of that time without access to a lawyer. Today the government released new information, on its face disturbing information, about Mr. Padilla at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here's CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): He was dubbed the dirty bomber. The government said he planned to set off a radiological device in the United States. Now, newly-declassified documents allege Jose Padilla also planned to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas.

JAMES COMEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Once in the country they locate high rise apartment buildings that had natural gas supplied to all floors, that they rent two apartments in each building, seal those apartments, turn on the gas and set timers to detonate and destroy the buildings simultaneously at a later time.

ARENA: The new documents outlined Padilla's alleged relationship with al Qaeda leaders, including now deceased al Qaeda military head Mohammed Atef and September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The government also sheds new light on his terror training with an emphasis on explosives.

COMEY: On May 8, 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare, a highly-trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.

ARENA: The Justice Department cites interrogations with Padilla but his lawyer says it's a one-sided expose of the government's version of events. DONNA NEWMAN, PADILLA'S ATTORNEY: The government is simply saying, look, you're going to have to trust us. This is what he said. I don't know that that's what he said but more important there was nothing in that report that suggested any imminent danger.

ARENA: The deputy attorney general denies the timing of the release has anything to do with Padilla's pending Supreme Court case.

(on camera): The high court will soon rule on whether the government has the authority to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants.

Kelli Arena, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Another legal note. In California, a courthouse packed with media and the public. The double murder trial of Scott Peterson began today. Mr. Peterson is charged with killing his pregnant wife and their unborn son.

In the opening statement, the prosecution described a chain of events that allegedly led to the disappearance of Laci Peterson in December of 2002. Her body and that of her fetus were discovered the following spring in San Francisco Bay. The trial is expected to last well into the fall.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT tonight a landmark abortion decision sets the stage for yet another Supreme Court battle over abortion.

And, Jeff Greenfield investigates how the investigative news can go terribly wrong.

From around the world this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For those opposed to abortion, politics has always been a better venue than the courts and so it was again today. In the first test of the so-called partial birth abortion ban, a federal court in California said it was unconstitutional. The law's very name has created controversy from the start.

Physicians call the procedure intact dilation and extraction. Most medical organizations oppose the law because they believe sometimes it is the safest way to perform an abortion.

Well, the law itself says it is never, ever required. Other courts will have their say but today's decision, written as it was, was a significant, if not unexpected victory for the abortion rights side.

From California tonight, here's CNN's Miguel Marquez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MARQUEZ (voice-over): President Bush signed the act last November. Now a federal judge calls it unconstitutional. Groups opposed to abortion are already looking to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

PATRICIA CALL, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE: We certainly hope that by the time that the bill reaches the Supreme Court there will be a one vote shift away from this very extreme position.

MARQUEZ: A federal district court judge in San Francisco ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Act unconstitutional for three reasons, saying it places an undue burden on the right of a woman seeking an abortion, the act contained too many constitutionally vague terms and the act, not including an exception for the health of the mother. Planned Parenthood brought the suit.

GLORIA FELDT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA: It's so broad that a doctor hardly knows when he or she is committing a criminal act and that's why the judge's ruling is so very, very important.

MARQUEZ: In the 117-page ruling, the judge concluded that the term partial-birth abortion was synonymous with what doctors called intact dilation and extraction, a procedure in which a fetus is partially brought out of the womb and a suction device is inserted in the back of its head, crushing its skull.

CALL: Partial-birth abortion is a perfectly clear definition of what we're talking about here.

MARQUEZ: The judge disagreed, saying that similar procedures to partial-birth abortion, procedures like dilation and extraction, disarticulation, where the fetus is taken apart in the womb, appear to be legal under the act, and it's that vagueness that creates confusion for practitioners.

FELDT: The abortion ban law outlaws a wide range of techniques that doctors use even very early in the second trimester of pregnancy, 12, 13 weeks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUEZ: Now, a spokesman for the Justice Department says -- quote -- "It will continue to devote all resources necessary to defend this act of Congress."

Today's ruling affects only the Northern District of California and all Planned Parenthood operations nationwide. There are two similar suits, one in Nebraska, one in New York, where federal judges are expected to rule as well. A constitutional law expert I talked to today says the Supreme Court could get this case by October 2005. That would mean they would rule in 2006 -- Aaron.

BROWN: Miguel, thank you. A long road ahead. Thank you very much. Still to come on the program, we'll discuss stem cell research, its promise and its perils. And the controversy there is not unlike the controversy over abortion.

And, of course, tomorrow's news from the morning papers, only here on NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Tomorrow, at the United Nations, leading scientists from around the world will explain why they believe banning certain types of stem cell research would be a grave mistake.

It will be the latest round in an international debate over microscopic building blocks of life. Stem cells are biological chameleons with the potential to develop into any type of body tissue, which makes the potentially invaluable. Some of the people who may one day benefit from them will be at the U.N. tomorrow.

Reporting tonight, CNN's Elizabeth Cohen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stem cell research has pitted Calista Flockhart and Harrison Ford against the pope, a Republican president against Nancy Reagan, and scientists from around the world against countries proposing a United Nations ban on certain types of stem cell research.

DR. GERALD FISCHBACH, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I think a moratorium or a ban would cast a pall over stem cell research. But even more than, it would cast a pall over all of science.

COHEN: The debate inside and outside the U.N. has become more highly personal. Daniel Heumann was paralyzed in a car accident. He'll tell U.N. delegates why allowing this type of stem cell research to continue is so important to him.

DANIEL HEUMANN, STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVOCATE: Some day, that will help my dream come true to be back on my feet and be with my wife and my child as an able-bodied husband and father.

COHEN: Mrs. Reagan's husband suffers from Alzheimer's. She's lobbying President Bush to undo his decision to sharply limit federal funding for stem cell research.

NANCY REAGAN, FORMER FIRST LADY: There are so many diseases that can be cured or at least helped. We have lost so much time already and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

COHEN: But Bush and representatives of many predominantly Catholic countries point out that to do some kinds of stem cell research requires destroying an embryo.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Embryonic stem cell researches offer both great promise and great peril. COHEN: They're microscopic and sitting unused by the thousands in fertility clinics, but for Bush and for the pope, the embryos are more than just a mass of frozen cells.

BUSH: He has sent a consistent word throughout the church and throughout society that we ought to take into account the preciousness of life.

COHEN: And there is another ethical debate. Scientists believe that the very best medical treatments would come from making an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient. But, technically, that involves cloning, the exact type of stem cell research the U.N. proposal would ban. Such a ban would have no legal weight, but it will have a heavy symbolic meaning for those who believe stem cell research could save lives and for those who believe it destroys life.

Elizabeth Cohen, CNN, reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On a certain level, the argument pits the end of the rainbow against the bottom of the slippery slope. It is safe to say we're nowhere close to either destination, not yet. So where in fact are we in the science and the ethics?

Susan Dentzer is the health correspondent for "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," her work done in partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. And she joins us from Washington.

It's nice to see you.

Sometimes, when we talk about this, we have a feeling that if we stop today, tomorrow, something is not going to happen. It is not nearly that way, is it?

SUSAN DENTZER, "THE NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER": No, that's exactly right, Aaron.

In fact, as promising as the science is in the laboratory right now around stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, it is at least a decade if not more away from treatments and cures for patients. And that's if everything goes swimmingly well, which, of course, it being science, it may not.

BROWN: Why is it so far away?

DENTZER: Well, let's take an example of what is going on at present.

For example, one of the recent accomplishments in the last several years has been that at various academic centers, they have managed to take mouse embryonic stem cells and turn them into cells that produce insulin, which would be of extraordinary benefit in the treatment of people -- for people with diabetes. However, what we have done is accomplished this in mice. We have converted one type of cell to an insulin-producing cell and we haven't cured any mice yet of diabetes.

First, you have to make sure you can cure the mice with diabetes and that you don't kill the mice in the process or create other side effects. Then you have to test that on human beings, for safety. Then you to test it over time for efficacy. All of that takes a long time. And, again, even if everyone goes very well, it could be a decade.

BROWN: A decade. I guess there's two ways to look at this. In one respect, if you've got the diabetes, the Alzheimer's, the paralysis, the whatever, a decade is forever. On the other hand, when you think of sort of all the decades that are out there still to come, it is the blink of an eye. Are we certain at all that any of this will pan out?

DENTZER: No, we're not at all certain. But we're very hopeful.

And in fact progress over time is made. But it is important to keep it in perspective. In 1981, mouse embryonic stem cells were derived. The first embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998. So many, many years went by. And it is likely that that will be the case again.

It is not an argument against pursuing scientific research to say that it will take a long time. It is an argument simply about being realistic about how long it could take many of these very, very promising developments in the laboratory to pan out.

BROWN: Again, we're about to wander into this complicated area of the number of lines available. And I'm hoping that you can sort of quickly explain what it means. But there aren't, many people argue, enough lines for scientists to work on. Is there any consensus there?

DENTZER: No, there is not.

If you had 10 scientists in the room, they would fight over this for a long time. I guess the best way to state it is, there is consensus that everybody in the field today probably can get the stem cell lines that are, in effect, if you will, government-certified. That was what -- when President Bush said in August 2001 that you could have federal funding to do research on stem cell lines that had been created as of August 9, 2001, there are about, roughly speaking, 11 of those lines available.

And anybody in the field today probably can get access, with not an insurmountable amount of hassle, to those lines. The argument really is more about the prospective ability to carry out research. If you only have 11 lines that have in effect government approval, what happens if you need a lot of genetic diversity in your lines? You are going to need many more.

And that's where the argument comes in about allowing new lines to be created that are -- that researchers can use and receive federal funding in conjunction with. That's really been the limiting factor that some people think has created an overall cloud over this research and probably made it not move quite forward as quickly as it might have otherwise.

BROWN: And just as briefly as you can, one of the things that was argued back in August of '01 is that, if the government limits the number of lines, there will be a brain drain abroad. Is there evidence there has in fact been a brain drain, that scientists have taken this work elsewhere?

DENTZER: I think it is clear that a few brains have drained off. But more important is probably the observation many people make that fewer young scientists have gone into this field than might have been the case if there had been less of a cloud over it all. And that's really the concern.

It's, is there enough -- are there going to be enough lines available? Is there enough -- is there lack of a cloud over this field, such that people will recognize that it really could be a vibrant area for research going forward?

BROWN: Good to see you again. Thank you.

DENTZER: Good to see you.

BROWN: Come back soon. Thank you very much.

Quick bit of business before we go to break, starting with oil. The massacre over the weekend in Saudi Arabia sent the price of oil soaring today. It was up $2.50 since Friday. That is now a record high. Exploding demand in China is also playing a part in that. It takes up any excess capacity that the Saudi kingdom can provide. But beyond that, traders no longer seem to be buying the line that Saudi Arabia will forever be a stable source of oil, not after the weekend.

Markets, meantime, had a soggy day that only started firming up in the final hour of trading. The major indexes close up a bit, not a lot, but it sure beats losing, though, doesn't it?

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a politician and the intern, a story that everyone simply knew was true, except it wasn't. And we'll mark the passing of two who made history and one who wrote it.

A ways to go yet. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: How rough this campaign year is going to be was apparent back last winter when the first smear of the season made its way across the Internet.

Not every smear starts on the Internet, of course, and not everything on the Internet is a smear, but the Net is the perfect vehicle for a smear, as this dandy proved. It had it all, a presidential hopeful, a young intern, allegations of sex and enough media out there these days to just about guarantee that anything, no matter how absent facts, will find a home. Now the young woman at the center of it has written about it and more.

Jeff Greenfield tonight on the anatomy of nonstory.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): In mid-February, Senator John Kerry, the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, came under incoming fire from a familiar source.

On February 12, the Drudge Report, the online site that had first unveiled the Clinton-Lewinsky story, screamed out a world-exclusive bulletin: A raft of news organizations were trying to find out whether Kerry had an intern problem. In plain English, had the married Kerry been involved with another woman?

The next day, "The Sun," a British tabloid, screamed out a headline that the woman's father had called Kerry a sleazeball. And the inevitable follow-up, reporters besieging the home of the woman's parents, offers of cash, lots of it, for pictures of woman. Within 48 hours, Kerry was uncomfortably denying the story on Don Imus' radio show.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, there is nothing to report. So there is nothing to talk about. And I'm not worried about it, no. The answer is no.

GREENFIELD: Well, in fact, there was nothing to it. And now the woman, Alexandra Polier, has told the story in "New York" magazine.

(on camera): But she's done more. She's gone back to the sources to find out how this story started in the first place. And in so doing, she's provided an invaluable lesson to the press and to the public in how and why such stories spread in this age of instant media.

(voice-over): For one thing, some of the breathless accounts were simply flatly false. Had Ms. Polier fled the country? No, she writes. She had gone to Nairobi to be with her fiancee. Had her father called Kerry a sleazeball? Not in the context of any misbehavior. He's a Republican who was talking about Kerry's politics. In fact, her father later issued a statement saying he supported Kerry for president.

But the gold in this Polier story is what the folks who spread the story now say. David Frum wrote on the Web site of the conservative magazine "National Review," he told Mrs. Polier that he was spreading gossip the way he would at dinner and now regrets what he wrote. Mrs. Polier writes that political operative Chris Lehane, who quit the Kerry campaign to work for Wes Clark, was widely said to be spreading the rumor.

Lehane flatly denied that and also vigorously disputes her suggestion that he was ducking her inquiries. And, write Mrs. Polier, the close friend of hers that Drudge mentioned who works for a Republican lobbyist acknowledged she had talked about her now ex- friend in Kerry, but denied spreading stories about any affair. The article also says that the reporter for "The Sun" boasted of his fantastic source, then complained of being ambushed when he found out the target of the story wanted to challenge him on his inaccurate reporting.

(on camera): So what produced this baseless story, careless or malicious gossip, sloppy or dishonest journalism, political intrigue? Well, maybe all of the above, but maybe most of all the almost universally held belief that where there is smoke, there is fire. But this story shows that, sometimes, that's just wrong. Sometimes, there is just somebody trying to blow smoke up your nose.

Even the most prestigious of newspapers and networks could learn from this tale. But don't bet on it.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Nothing irresponsible coming up, just morning papers, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world.

And this will be a sort of interesting challenge today, because we had just a wee bit of a computer glitch that limited the number of fine papers that we would have had. So I'm going to read to you now the entire "International Herald Tribune."

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: No, I'm not.

We'll begin with the "International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" in Paris. They lead, as most papers do, with, "New Government is Named For Iraq. Sunni to Lead After U.S. Favored Balks. Governing Council Then Disbands." Some day, we will know all of the intrigue that went on over the last weekend or so in Baghdad to come up with the names that were announced today. Also on -- but we don't know now. We just have kind of some interesting clues.

Also on the front page -- I would put this on the front page of my paper, international or otherwise. Both Williams sisters, Serena and Venus, lost in Paris today at the French Open. So that won't be happening. And those poor people who have televised that event, I guess it's NBC here in the states, will be trying to figure out what they're going to do.

"The Christian Science Monitor." "New Leaders Face a Skeptical Iraq." That's their take on it, less than a neutral headline. "Governing Council Dissolved Yesterday As New Iraqi Government With Mandate Through January Was Unveiled." Two other stories on the front page I like. I have read about this somewhere else, actually, probably some silly golf magazine I subscribe to. "If Golf's Greens Are Black, This Must Be Kabul." A golf course opened in Air Force .

And in cellular future, "Will Privacy Ebb?" The answer to that by the way is yes, without reading the entire article, which I'm sure gives you a lot of really good reasons. I'm sue of that.

How we doing on time?

I would lead this way, too. I would put this on the front page. "Ban of Type of Abortion Vacated, Partial-Birth Method Protected By the Right to Choose." This is "The Richmond Times-Dispatch." Also puts the new government on the front page, has an Abu Ghraib story, "Prison Violations Noted in the Fall." But their food story is my favorite, because I love the food section of the newspaper. "Firefighters Battle Mealtime Blahs With Tasty Personal Dishes." There you go. Here in Richmond tomorrow, they'll be eating lots of spaghetti and stuff. I didn't know this, a new "Harry Potter" movie coming out.

Speaking of tennis -- and we were just a bit ago -- "The Guardian," a British paper, leads with a British tennis player. Well, they don't lead, but it's on the front page. "Henman" -- as in Tim Henman -- "Feet On Clay As He Cruises to French Open Semifinal." That's played on clay.

Here is one I just don't get. "British Airlines Doomed" -- "Budget Airlines Doomed," rather. Are you kidding me? They seem to be the only ones who are making money. And finally, we'll end this with "The Detroit News." "Medicare Cards Leaves Seniors Baffled." I had this conversation with my mother over the weekend, not that I should be talking about my mother. But neither of us understand them. "Judge Rules Abortion Ban Illegal." It's also a big issue in Michigan, where it may end up on the ballot. That's "The Detroit News."

That's morning papers. We'll wrap up the day after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Before we leave you for the night, some passings to take note of.

First, over the long home day weekend, two key figures in the Watergate era, attorney Sam Dash, who was the lead counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, and Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor whom Richard Nixon wanted fire -- two Justice Department officials refused, and quit over it. A third finally did, as the president demanded.

And in Middletown, Connecticut, today, historian and former journalist William Manchester died. His book "The death of a President" was the seminal book of its time on the assassination of JFK. In all, he wrote 18 books, including a multivolume biography of Winston Churchill, the final installment of which will now be finished by another writer. He was emeritus professor at Wesleyan University. Mr. Manchester was 82.

For those of you who do not sleep well unless you know the weather in Chicago, it is "expected."

(CHIMES)

BROWN: Thank you.

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

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


Aired June 1, 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 don't make a big fuss out of new sets or even old sets in new places but still it is very nice to be back on the old NEWSNIGHT set, same sculpture, more books this time.

As for the news, same thing, new characters, old story. A new Iraqi government was picked today. The who and how we'll leave for later. The early reaction on the streets of Baghdad was more good than bad, encouraging. It may or may not stay that way but that's the start.

Second, those chosen seem to get that first and foremost somehow there must be security in the country. Absent security there really isn't much to talk about. For that to happen, Iraqis themselves must make it happen. They must be willing to fight for their own future.

They haven't distinguished themselves much so far in that respect and they haven't received all the help they need. But, if Iraq is to succeed and, if we are ever going to get out people out, Iraqis themselves must decide that a new country is worth fighting for.

The whip begins tonight in Baghdad with the announcement and all that came with it, intrigue included. CNN's Harris Whitbeck was there for us, Harris a headline.

HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Aaron. A new government quickly takes place in Iraq saying it will quickly take political control here sparking hope not seen in a very long time.

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

On to the White House and how the day played out there. Suzanne Malveaux on the North Lawn tonight, Suzanne a headline.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Bush called and congratulated the new president and the prime minister of the Iraqi interim government. He said that he is looking forward to working with both of them. The selection came after much negotiations and talks and the truth is that the relationships are very much untested.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you.

Next to what this means for the military and perhaps more importantly when. Jamie McIntyre with the watch, Jamie a headline. JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq is not exactly going to plan but the Pentagon insists that might be a good thing. It might be an opportunity to put the transition on a faster track -- Aaron.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you.

And finally a story that's been in and out of the courts for as long as we've been doing this work, abortion, in this case a rare and controversial form of it. CNN's Miguel Marquez with the story out of Los Angeles tonight, Miguel a headline.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A federal judge today ruled unconstitutional a law banning what has become known as partial birth abortion. Proponents say the law -- all they need is one more anti- abortion justice on the Supreme Court to overturn today's ruling, all this in an election year -- Aaron.

BROWN: Miguel, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.

Also coming up on the program tonight are stem cells crucial to medical research or an immoral use of human tissue? The U.N. is taking a look and so shall we tonight.

And remember the John Kerry intern story? Well, it was completely bogus. Jeff Greenfield looks at the anatomy of a smear.

And the rooster is back from a well deserved day off. I don't know about that part but he's back and we'll have morning papers too, all that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin tonight at the beginning. Iraq has a new government, 29 men (AUDIO GAP) chosen after a month of shuttle diplomacy, arm twisting and more than a bit of intrigue. In the end, the United States got some of what it wanted but not all, which may turn out to be a good thing in the long run. What it got more than anything was an Iraqi face to put on Iraqi problems and with any luck the beginnings of a graceful way out.

We have several reports tonight beginning with CNN's Harris Whitbeck who reports tonight from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I present to you all the first president of the Republic of Iraq.

WHITBECK (voice-over): Words many Iraqis have been waiting to hear for decades, a new Iraqi government different from Saddam Hussein and more recently planning to be different from the U.S.-led occupation authorities.

U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi spent weeks helping to cobble together the interim government, a presidential council of four plus 31 cabinet ministers. LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, U.N. SPECIAL ENVOY: I think the people of Iraq will be praying all over the country for the success of their mission which aims at starting the rebuilding of the new Iraq.

WHITBECK: Interim President Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar was firm in expressing what he will work towards.

SHEIKH GHAZI AL-YAWAR, IRAQI INTERIM PRES. DESIGNEE: We, the Iraqis, also look forward for being granted full sovereignty.

WHITBECK: And that promise of sovereignty seemed to spark hope among many Iraqis we talked to, hope that had not been heard in a long time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Ghazi is a true Iraqi and hopefully he will change this country into a better and safer place for the Iraqis.

WHITBECK: Safety and security, the country's biggest concern. The lack of it was driven home again on the streets of Baghdad hours before the presentation ceremony. A car bomb near the Green Zone and near the offices of a Kurdish political party left three dead and 20 injured. And earlier Tuesday, near Baji north of Baghdad, a car bomb outside a military base killed 11 Iraqis and wounded 26.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITBECK: Security is just one of the many challenges the interim government will have to face when it takes political control on June 30th. Working with the U.S.-led coalition on a smooth transition of power is another challenge and assuring the Iraqi people that the transition will be to full sovereignty is perhaps the biggest challenge of all -- Aaron.

BROWN: Just briefly, we won't ask you to go through all the names, but we presume they represent all three major groups in the country in somewhat equal proportions. Are they by and large exiles or are they people who have been living in the country or lived in the country during the Saddam era?

WHITBECK: Most of the names on the list are of people who have been involved in opposition, had been involved in opposition to Saddam Hussein and because of that did have to spend at least some amount of time outside of the country.

But, as U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said, what he was trying to do was make sure that he had a full and equitable distribution of power among the different ethnic groups in Iraq and he certainly seemed judging from his comments yesterday and from comments of other people who observed the ceremony yesterday he seemed to have been able to do that.

Again, the challenge now is especially for those people who were outside of Iraq for a long time is going to be in convincing the people who stayed here that they are sincere about working towards full sovereignty. BROWN: Harris, thank you, long day for you, Harris Whitbeck in Baghdad on what is now Wednesday morning there.

The sun was out in the Rose Garden this morning. The president was beaming. Such a beautiful day, he said, not we imagine a mission accomplished moment but for an administration already loosening its day-to-day grip on Iraq perhaps a chance to declare victory where it can.

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): After intense negotiations between the U.S., U.N. and Iraqi officials, President Bush said Iraq's new interim government was one he could work with.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The naming of the new interim government brings us one step closer to realizing the dream of millions of Iraqis, a fully sovereign nation with a representative government that protects their rights and serves their needs.

MALVEAUX: The government's makeup, mostly of Iraqi exiles with close ties to Washington, has raised questions whether Iraqis will consider this new authority to be legitimate. The Bush administration denied handpicking Iraq's new leadership.

BUSH: I had no role in picking, zero.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: These are not America's puppets. These are independent-minded Iraqis who are determined to take their country to security and democracy.

MALVEAUX: But there's still a question as to what that will mean for U.S. troops. The president acknowledged that the situation on the ground could get worse as the deadline to full Iraqi sovereignty draws near.

BUSH: I believe there will be more violence because there are still violent people who want to stop progress.

MALVEAUX: Earlier in the day, Mr. Bush spoke with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and offered public praise to the international body. Mr. Bush hopes the formation of Iraq's new interim government will help ease the way for a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would endorse Iraqi sovereignty and establish a multinational force to help provide security but neither the president nor his advisers said they expected significant military assistance.

RICE: There could be other states that might be willing to send a few troops here, a few troops there but no one really believes that we are about to have a massive infusion of foreign forces into Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE) MALVEAUX: Now, there are some U.S. officials who believe the next couple of days are actually more important than the June 30th deadline for Iraqi sovereignty. Now, the White House's three biggest concerns at this point that the Iraqi leaders do not prove legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people, that these leaders are targeted for assassination and that the U.S. does not win a U.N. Security Council resolution. For those reasons, Aaron, the next ten days are critical.

BROWN: Let's talk about I think it was the first of them. How will the administration gauge the perception of legitimacy of this group among Iraqis?

MALVEAUX: Well that certainly is going to play out in the next couple of weeks just how they are going to react -- how people are going to respond to those leaders, how they're going to win the type of support and whether or not quite frankly, and U.S. officials know that these leaders have been targeted for assassination, just what kind of support they get from everyday Iraqi people, how it plays out in the media, all of these things are going to be very important, what types of announcements they make.

We do expect these leaders will be coming out. They'll be having press conferences. It is also expected that they could even be here as early as next week meeting beside President Bush at the G8 Summit to make their views known. Aaron, this is all very dicey but they certainly hope that these are the leaders the Iraqi people will accept.

BROWN: Suzanne, thank you, Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight.

More now on the resolution before the Security Council. It features plenty of wiggle room and a date uncertain, if you will. For more on what's in it, who likes it, who doesn't and why, we're joined by our Chief U.N. Correspondent Richard Roth. Richard, good evening to you.

A new paper went to the Security Council today significantly different than the resolution they had been looking at?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: It feels like it's before the war, Aaron.

Yes, a little bit different, the U.S. trying to flush out the concerns of nations such as China, France and Germany. The U.S. believes this additional language should get people onboard but we're hearing from the usual suspects in Europe and elsewhere they want to consult with their governments.

The biggest change is that the wording leaves more room for the transitional Iraqi government after January, 2005 to say they don't want the troops from the multinational forces there should they decide and there would have to be a Security Council vote.

It says also rather plainly when the entire political process is over the forces can leave. That still is post 2005, at the end of that maybe 2006. Countries such as Algeria say they still want to see more of a specific time table.

And it really, Aaron, may come down to just how much of a hard bargain do these countries want to drive now knowing they have the U.S. sort of on the ropes with President Bush saying over and over full sovereignty, full sovereignty to the Iraqis. They're going to get more to monitor their own oil and gas revenues but on the troops issue that's still the big question.

BROWN: All right. One small question, then one larger question. When you talk about the whole process you're not simply talking about the elections scheduled for roughly six months from now but a much more complicated political process that has to play out, correct?

ROTH: Right, more formal elections for a new permanent government and the writing of a constitution.

BROWN: And that could take another 18 months?

ROTH: Yes, they hope by the end of 2005 but, of course, as Suzanne just said, everything is still dicey there.

BROWN: Richard, thank you. It will be interesting days over there. Thank you Richard Roth.

Now onto the military mission and a fairly striking notion making the rounds at the Pentagon today. Things may happen very quickly from here on out and may provide American forces with a political opening to back away from battles that haven't gotten them anywhere anyway. That's the notion at least. The reality of course is about 135,000 American troops remain on the ground in Iraq and they are not going anywhere not yet.

Here's CNN's Jamie McIntyre.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE (voice-over): While Iraq's new leaders bristle at the U.S. occupation, for now they still need American troops.

IYAD ALLAWI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER DESIGNEE (through translator): We will need the partnership of the (unintelligible) to defeat the enemies of Iraq.

MCINTYRE: The old U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council unexpectedly stepped aside as soon as the new government was announced, which the general in charge of training Iraq's new security forces says is a good thing.

LT. GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY: It indicates clearly an eagerness of the new government to get on with its task and I look forward to getting back over to Baghdad later this week and to working with the new ministers of defense and interior as they take up their new roles and responsibilities.

MCINTYRE: Pentagon officials say it may also put the transition on a faster track, allowing the U.S. military to shift its emphasis away from the anti-insurgent offensives toward protecting Iraq's leaders and economic infrastructure and possibly accelerating the day when Iraqi forces can take the lead.

BUSH: There may be times when the Iraqis say we can handle this ourselves. Get out of the way. We're plenty capable of moving into secure a town or to secure a situation.

MCINTYRE: For the U.S. military, protecting the new government will be a top priority, especially considering the head of the old governing council was assassinated just two weeks ago.

ROBERT MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: We're going to be a quick reaction force as necessary. We're going to try to kind of turn offensive operations away and turn and try to protect the infrastructure, the oil, the electricity, and of course the 33 bodies that are now the so-called interim government.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: While the Pentagon says that the official formal transfer of sovereignty will still take place as scheduled at midnight June 30th, there's a feeling here that the actual transfer is going on now and that the sooner the Iraqi people believe that the sooner U.S. troops may begin to move out of the crossfire -- Aaron.

BROWN: Well, the key here, at least a key here is whether the Iraqis will actually fight and on that score the report card is decidedly mixed.

MCINTYRE: Well, the Pentagon acknowledges that there have been problems training Iraqi troops and having them stand up and fight but they also believe that once they're fighting for an Iraqi government in which they believe Iraqis are really in charge that that might change along with some better training as well.

And they also point to the case of Muqtada al-Sadr. A Pentagon official told me today that they now believe it would be better to just wait, let the Iraqis bring him to justice and that will have a lot more legitimacy and people will be much more willing to do that once they believe the Iraqis are in charge. That's why they see this quick turnover to another government as really a critical point in possibly turning things around in Iraq.

BROWN: Jamie, thank you, Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon.

We've spoken tonight of declaring victory and accelerating withdrawal and the welcome reception the new government is getting on the streets of Baghdad, safe to say those aren't the only facts on the ground and, taken as a whole, the facts support a range of interpretations or, as an Irish poet once wrote, things fall apart the center cannot hold.

George Packer has been to Iraq twice in the last year, staff reporter for "New Yorker" magazine, pleased to see him with us tonight. Whose government is this? Is this our, United States government? Is this the U.N.'s government? Is this the Iraqi people's government? Whose government is it?

GEORGE PACKER, "NEW YORKER" MAGAZINE STAFF REPORTER: It's up for grabs. I think we're going to find out in the next weeks and months but one thing that's interesting about the way this played out is that the U.N., which seemed to be in charge of the transition has really been marginalized.

And Lakhdar Brahimi who had a plan for an interim government made up, as he put it to the Security Council, of technocrats not politicians. He wanted the politicians to prepare for elections while a fairly weak interim government of professionals would run the day- to-day affairs of the country. That hasn't happened.

The politicians have had their revenge and they now have the key positions in the new government. Lakhdar Brahimi has had to go along with it and I think he's been -- his plan has been shelved.

BROWN: A month ago you would have said, I would have said that the interim governing council was essentially dead meat and yet they came back from the dead.

PACKER: They did. They did. You know in a way they have never shown more unity and more purpose than in their final hours when they gathered together with enough sort of common vision to push out Brahimi's choice for prime minister, Hussain Shahristani, and to push out one of their own who seemed to be the choice of Brahimi and Bremer for president, Adnan Pachachi, and instead proposed another of their own, Ghazi al-Yawar.

These seem like, you know, very obscure palace intrigue moves but I think what's interesting is perhaps sensing their own imminent demise the members of the governing council finally started acting like power politicians and have had their way.

BROWN: As we sit here tonight is it possible to say what happened today was a good thing or not a good thing, that it will be seen as legitimate in Iraq or is it -- do we just have to kind of let these pages get written?

PACKER: I think any change is good. That's how bad things have gotten by April and May. And my guess is in Baghdad there is a sense of a fresh start being possible now. They could not have continued much longer with the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority in charge.

Whether these new politicians will be able to hold the country together, to shelve their own personal ambitions enough to manage a transition to elections in the middle of a war that really remains to be seen. They did not cover themselves with glory during the nine or ten months that they had as the governing council. We'll see whether as a sovereign Iraqi government they can do better.

BROWN: Are you heading back there?

PACKER: I'm going back in a couple of weeks, yes.

BROWN: Stay safe. We'll talk to you when you get back there.

PACKER: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you for coming in.

Ahead on NEWSNIGHT tonight, the case against accused terrorist Jose Padilla.

And the debate over stem cell research, is any cure worth the cost, a break first.

From New York this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: What limits, if any, should apply to the war on terror will be decided in part by a Supreme Court ruling expected sometime this month. At issue is whether the president overstepped his power when he designated Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant.

Mr. Padilla has been held as an enemy combatant for nearly two years, most of that time without access to a lawyer. Today the government released new information, on its face disturbing information, about Mr. Padilla at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here's CNN's Kelli Arena.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARENA (voice-over): He was dubbed the dirty bomber. The government said he planned to set off a radiological device in the United States. Now, newly-declassified documents allege Jose Padilla also planned to blow up apartment buildings using natural gas.

JAMES COMEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Once in the country they locate high rise apartment buildings that had natural gas supplied to all floors, that they rent two apartments in each building, seal those apartments, turn on the gas and set timers to detonate and destroy the buildings simultaneously at a later time.

ARENA: The new documents outlined Padilla's alleged relationship with al Qaeda leaders, including now deceased al Qaeda military head Mohammed Atef and September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The government also sheds new light on his terror training with an emphasis on explosives.

COMEY: On May 8, 2002, a soldier of our enemy, a trained, funded and equipped terrorist stepped off that plane at Chicago's O'Hare, a highly-trained al Qaeda soldier who had accepted an assignment to kill hundreds of innocent men, women, and children.

ARENA: The Justice Department cites interrogations with Padilla but his lawyer says it's a one-sided expose of the government's version of events. DONNA NEWMAN, PADILLA'S ATTORNEY: The government is simply saying, look, you're going to have to trust us. This is what he said. I don't know that that's what he said but more important there was nothing in that report that suggested any imminent danger.

ARENA: The deputy attorney general denies the timing of the release has anything to do with Padilla's pending Supreme Court case.

(on camera): The high court will soon rule on whether the government has the authority to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants.

Kelli Arena, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Another legal note. In California, a courthouse packed with media and the public. The double murder trial of Scott Peterson began today. Mr. Peterson is charged with killing his pregnant wife and their unborn son.

In the opening statement, the prosecution described a chain of events that allegedly led to the disappearance of Laci Peterson in December of 2002. Her body and that of her fetus were discovered the following spring in San Francisco Bay. The trial is expected to last well into the fall.

Coming up on NEWSNIGHT tonight a landmark abortion decision sets the stage for yet another Supreme Court battle over abortion.

And, Jeff Greenfield investigates how the investigative news can go terribly wrong.

From around the world this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: For those opposed to abortion, politics has always been a better venue than the courts and so it was again today. In the first test of the so-called partial birth abortion ban, a federal court in California said it was unconstitutional. The law's very name has created controversy from the start.

Physicians call the procedure intact dilation and extraction. Most medical organizations oppose the law because they believe sometimes it is the safest way to perform an abortion.

Well, the law itself says it is never, ever required. Other courts will have their say but today's decision, written as it was, was a significant, if not unexpected victory for the abortion rights side.

From California tonight, here's CNN's Miguel Marquez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MARQUEZ (voice-over): President Bush signed the act last November. Now a federal judge calls it unconstitutional. Groups opposed to abortion are already looking to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

PATRICIA CALL, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE: We certainly hope that by the time that the bill reaches the Supreme Court there will be a one vote shift away from this very extreme position.

MARQUEZ: A federal district court judge in San Francisco ruled the Partial Birth Abortion Act unconstitutional for three reasons, saying it places an undue burden on the right of a woman seeking an abortion, the act contained too many constitutionally vague terms and the act, not including an exception for the health of the mother. Planned Parenthood brought the suit.

GLORIA FELDT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA: It's so broad that a doctor hardly knows when he or she is committing a criminal act and that's why the judge's ruling is so very, very important.

MARQUEZ: In the 117-page ruling, the judge concluded that the term partial-birth abortion was synonymous with what doctors called intact dilation and extraction, a procedure in which a fetus is partially brought out of the womb and a suction device is inserted in the back of its head, crushing its skull.

CALL: Partial-birth abortion is a perfectly clear definition of what we're talking about here.

MARQUEZ: The judge disagreed, saying that similar procedures to partial-birth abortion, procedures like dilation and extraction, disarticulation, where the fetus is taken apart in the womb, appear to be legal under the act, and it's that vagueness that creates confusion for practitioners.

FELDT: The abortion ban law outlaws a wide range of techniques that doctors use even very early in the second trimester of pregnancy, 12, 13 weeks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUEZ: Now, a spokesman for the Justice Department says -- quote -- "It will continue to devote all resources necessary to defend this act of Congress."

Today's ruling affects only the Northern District of California and all Planned Parenthood operations nationwide. There are two similar suits, one in Nebraska, one in New York, where federal judges are expected to rule as well. A constitutional law expert I talked to today says the Supreme Court could get this case by October 2005. That would mean they would rule in 2006 -- Aaron.

BROWN: Miguel, thank you. A long road ahead. Thank you very much. Still to come on the program, we'll discuss stem cell research, its promise and its perils. And the controversy there is not unlike the controversy over abortion.

And, of course, tomorrow's news from the morning papers, only here on NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Tomorrow, at the United Nations, leading scientists from around the world will explain why they believe banning certain types of stem cell research would be a grave mistake.

It will be the latest round in an international debate over microscopic building blocks of life. Stem cells are biological chameleons with the potential to develop into any type of body tissue, which makes the potentially invaluable. Some of the people who may one day benefit from them will be at the U.N. tomorrow.

Reporting tonight, CNN's Elizabeth Cohen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stem cell research has pitted Calista Flockhart and Harrison Ford against the pope, a Republican president against Nancy Reagan, and scientists from around the world against countries proposing a United Nations ban on certain types of stem cell research.

DR. GERALD FISCHBACH, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I think a moratorium or a ban would cast a pall over stem cell research. But even more than, it would cast a pall over all of science.

COHEN: The debate inside and outside the U.N. has become more highly personal. Daniel Heumann was paralyzed in a car accident. He'll tell U.N. delegates why allowing this type of stem cell research to continue is so important to him.

DANIEL HEUMANN, STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVOCATE: Some day, that will help my dream come true to be back on my feet and be with my wife and my child as an able-bodied husband and father.

COHEN: Mrs. Reagan's husband suffers from Alzheimer's. She's lobbying President Bush to undo his decision to sharply limit federal funding for stem cell research.

NANCY REAGAN, FORMER FIRST LADY: There are so many diseases that can be cured or at least helped. We have lost so much time already and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

COHEN: But Bush and representatives of many predominantly Catholic countries point out that to do some kinds of stem cell research requires destroying an embryo.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Embryonic stem cell researches offer both great promise and great peril. COHEN: They're microscopic and sitting unused by the thousands in fertility clinics, but for Bush and for the pope, the embryos are more than just a mass of frozen cells.

BUSH: He has sent a consistent word throughout the church and throughout society that we ought to take into account the preciousness of life.

COHEN: And there is another ethical debate. Scientists believe that the very best medical treatments would come from making an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient. But, technically, that involves cloning, the exact type of stem cell research the U.N. proposal would ban. Such a ban would have no legal weight, but it will have a heavy symbolic meaning for those who believe stem cell research could save lives and for those who believe it destroys life.

Elizabeth Cohen, CNN, reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: On a certain level, the argument pits the end of the rainbow against the bottom of the slippery slope. It is safe to say we're nowhere close to either destination, not yet. So where in fact are we in the science and the ethics?

Susan Dentzer is the health correspondent for "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," her work done in partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. And she joins us from Washington.

It's nice to see you.

Sometimes, when we talk about this, we have a feeling that if we stop today, tomorrow, something is not going to happen. It is not nearly that way, is it?

SUSAN DENTZER, "THE NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER": No, that's exactly right, Aaron.

In fact, as promising as the science is in the laboratory right now around stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, it is at least a decade if not more away from treatments and cures for patients. And that's if everything goes swimmingly well, which, of course, it being science, it may not.

BROWN: Why is it so far away?

DENTZER: Well, let's take an example of what is going on at present.

For example, one of the recent accomplishments in the last several years has been that at various academic centers, they have managed to take mouse embryonic stem cells and turn them into cells that produce insulin, which would be of extraordinary benefit in the treatment of people -- for people with diabetes. However, what we have done is accomplished this in mice. We have converted one type of cell to an insulin-producing cell and we haven't cured any mice yet of diabetes.

First, you have to make sure you can cure the mice with diabetes and that you don't kill the mice in the process or create other side effects. Then you have to test that on human beings, for safety. Then you to test it over time for efficacy. All of that takes a long time. And, again, even if everyone goes very well, it could be a decade.

BROWN: A decade. I guess there's two ways to look at this. In one respect, if you've got the diabetes, the Alzheimer's, the paralysis, the whatever, a decade is forever. On the other hand, when you think of sort of all the decades that are out there still to come, it is the blink of an eye. Are we certain at all that any of this will pan out?

DENTZER: No, we're not at all certain. But we're very hopeful.

And in fact progress over time is made. But it is important to keep it in perspective. In 1981, mouse embryonic stem cells were derived. The first embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998. So many, many years went by. And it is likely that that will be the case again.

It is not an argument against pursuing scientific research to say that it will take a long time. It is an argument simply about being realistic about how long it could take many of these very, very promising developments in the laboratory to pan out.

BROWN: Again, we're about to wander into this complicated area of the number of lines available. And I'm hoping that you can sort of quickly explain what it means. But there aren't, many people argue, enough lines for scientists to work on. Is there any consensus there?

DENTZER: No, there is not.

If you had 10 scientists in the room, they would fight over this for a long time. I guess the best way to state it is, there is consensus that everybody in the field today probably can get the stem cell lines that are, in effect, if you will, government-certified. That was what -- when President Bush said in August 2001 that you could have federal funding to do research on stem cell lines that had been created as of August 9, 2001, there are about, roughly speaking, 11 of those lines available.

And anybody in the field today probably can get access, with not an insurmountable amount of hassle, to those lines. The argument really is more about the prospective ability to carry out research. If you only have 11 lines that have in effect government approval, what happens if you need a lot of genetic diversity in your lines? You are going to need many more.

And that's where the argument comes in about allowing new lines to be created that are -- that researchers can use and receive federal funding in conjunction with. That's really been the limiting factor that some people think has created an overall cloud over this research and probably made it not move quite forward as quickly as it might have otherwise.

BROWN: And just as briefly as you can, one of the things that was argued back in August of '01 is that, if the government limits the number of lines, there will be a brain drain abroad. Is there evidence there has in fact been a brain drain, that scientists have taken this work elsewhere?

DENTZER: I think it is clear that a few brains have drained off. But more important is probably the observation many people make that fewer young scientists have gone into this field than might have been the case if there had been less of a cloud over it all. And that's really the concern.

It's, is there enough -- are there going to be enough lines available? Is there enough -- is there lack of a cloud over this field, such that people will recognize that it really could be a vibrant area for research going forward?

BROWN: Good to see you again. Thank you.

DENTZER: Good to see you.

BROWN: Come back soon. Thank you very much.

Quick bit of business before we go to break, starting with oil. The massacre over the weekend in Saudi Arabia sent the price of oil soaring today. It was up $2.50 since Friday. That is now a record high. Exploding demand in China is also playing a part in that. It takes up any excess capacity that the Saudi kingdom can provide. But beyond that, traders no longer seem to be buying the line that Saudi Arabia will forever be a stable source of oil, not after the weekend.

Markets, meantime, had a soggy day that only started firming up in the final hour of trading. The major indexes close up a bit, not a lot, but it sure beats losing, though, doesn't it?

Still ahead on NEWSNIGHT, a politician and the intern, a story that everyone simply knew was true, except it wasn't. And we'll mark the passing of two who made history and one who wrote it.

A ways to go yet. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: How rough this campaign year is going to be was apparent back last winter when the first smear of the season made its way across the Internet.

Not every smear starts on the Internet, of course, and not everything on the Internet is a smear, but the Net is the perfect vehicle for a smear, as this dandy proved. It had it all, a presidential hopeful, a young intern, allegations of sex and enough media out there these days to just about guarantee that anything, no matter how absent facts, will find a home. Now the young woman at the center of it has written about it and more.

Jeff Greenfield tonight on the anatomy of nonstory.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): In mid-February, Senator John Kerry, the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, came under incoming fire from a familiar source.

On February 12, the Drudge Report, the online site that had first unveiled the Clinton-Lewinsky story, screamed out a world-exclusive bulletin: A raft of news organizations were trying to find out whether Kerry had an intern problem. In plain English, had the married Kerry been involved with another woman?

The next day, "The Sun," a British tabloid, screamed out a headline that the woman's father had called Kerry a sleazeball. And the inevitable follow-up, reporters besieging the home of the woman's parents, offers of cash, lots of it, for pictures of woman. Within 48 hours, Kerry was uncomfortably denying the story on Don Imus' radio show.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, there is nothing to report. So there is nothing to talk about. And I'm not worried about it, no. The answer is no.

GREENFIELD: Well, in fact, there was nothing to it. And now the woman, Alexandra Polier, has told the story in "New York" magazine.

(on camera): But she's done more. She's gone back to the sources to find out how this story started in the first place. And in so doing, she's provided an invaluable lesson to the press and to the public in how and why such stories spread in this age of instant media.

(voice-over): For one thing, some of the breathless accounts were simply flatly false. Had Ms. Polier fled the country? No, she writes. She had gone to Nairobi to be with her fiancee. Had her father called Kerry a sleazeball? Not in the context of any misbehavior. He's a Republican who was talking about Kerry's politics. In fact, her father later issued a statement saying he supported Kerry for president.

But the gold in this Polier story is what the folks who spread the story now say. David Frum wrote on the Web site of the conservative magazine "National Review," he told Mrs. Polier that he was spreading gossip the way he would at dinner and now regrets what he wrote. Mrs. Polier writes that political operative Chris Lehane, who quit the Kerry campaign to work for Wes Clark, was widely said to be spreading the rumor.

Lehane flatly denied that and also vigorously disputes her suggestion that he was ducking her inquiries. And, write Mrs. Polier, the close friend of hers that Drudge mentioned who works for a Republican lobbyist acknowledged she had talked about her now ex- friend in Kerry, but denied spreading stories about any affair. The article also says that the reporter for "The Sun" boasted of his fantastic source, then complained of being ambushed when he found out the target of the story wanted to challenge him on his inaccurate reporting.

(on camera): So what produced this baseless story, careless or malicious gossip, sloppy or dishonest journalism, political intrigue? Well, maybe all of the above, but maybe most of all the almost universally held belief that where there is smoke, there is fire. But this story shows that, sometimes, that's just wrong. Sometimes, there is just somebody trying to blow smoke up your nose.

Even the most prestigious of newspapers and networks could learn from this tale. But don't bet on it.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Nothing irresponsible coming up, just morning papers, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROOSTER CROWING)

BROWN: Okeydoke, time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world.

And this will be a sort of interesting challenge today, because we had just a wee bit of a computer glitch that limited the number of fine papers that we would have had. So I'm going to read to you now the entire "International Herald Tribune."

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: No, I'm not.

We'll begin with the "International Herald Tribune," published by "The New York Times" in Paris. They lead, as most papers do, with, "New Government is Named For Iraq. Sunni to Lead After U.S. Favored Balks. Governing Council Then Disbands." Some day, we will know all of the intrigue that went on over the last weekend or so in Baghdad to come up with the names that were announced today. Also on -- but we don't know now. We just have kind of some interesting clues.

Also on the front page -- I would put this on the front page of my paper, international or otherwise. Both Williams sisters, Serena and Venus, lost in Paris today at the French Open. So that won't be happening. And those poor people who have televised that event, I guess it's NBC here in the states, will be trying to figure out what they're going to do.

"The Christian Science Monitor." "New Leaders Face a Skeptical Iraq." That's their take on it, less than a neutral headline. "Governing Council Dissolved Yesterday As New Iraqi Government With Mandate Through January Was Unveiled." Two other stories on the front page I like. I have read about this somewhere else, actually, probably some silly golf magazine I subscribe to. "If Golf's Greens Are Black, This Must Be Kabul." A golf course opened in Air Force .

And in cellular future, "Will Privacy Ebb?" The answer to that by the way is yes, without reading the entire article, which I'm sure gives you a lot of really good reasons. I'm sue of that.

How we doing on time?

I would lead this way, too. I would put this on the front page. "Ban of Type of Abortion Vacated, Partial-Birth Method Protected By the Right to Choose." This is "The Richmond Times-Dispatch." Also puts the new government on the front page, has an Abu Ghraib story, "Prison Violations Noted in the Fall." But their food story is my favorite, because I love the food section of the newspaper. "Firefighters Battle Mealtime Blahs With Tasty Personal Dishes." There you go. Here in Richmond tomorrow, they'll be eating lots of spaghetti and stuff. I didn't know this, a new "Harry Potter" movie coming out.

Speaking of tennis -- and we were just a bit ago -- "The Guardian," a British paper, leads with a British tennis player. Well, they don't lead, but it's on the front page. "Henman" -- as in Tim Henman -- "Feet On Clay As He Cruises to French Open Semifinal." That's played on clay.

Here is one I just don't get. "British Airlines Doomed" -- "Budget Airlines Doomed," rather. Are you kidding me? They seem to be the only ones who are making money. And finally, we'll end this with "The Detroit News." "Medicare Cards Leaves Seniors Baffled." I had this conversation with my mother over the weekend, not that I should be talking about my mother. But neither of us understand them. "Judge Rules Abortion Ban Illegal." It's also a big issue in Michigan, where it may end up on the ballot. That's "The Detroit News."

That's morning papers. We'll wrap up the day after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Before we leave you for the night, some passings to take note of.

First, over the long home day weekend, two key figures in the Watergate era, attorney Sam Dash, who was the lead counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, and Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor whom Richard Nixon wanted fire -- two Justice Department officials refused, and quit over it. A third finally did, as the president demanded.

And in Middletown, Connecticut, today, historian and former journalist William Manchester died. His book "The death of a President" was the seminal book of its time on the assassination of JFK. In all, he wrote 18 books, including a multivolume biography of Winston Churchill, the final installment of which will now be finished by another writer. He was emeritus professor at Wesleyan University. Mr. Manchester was 82.

For those of you who do not sleep well unless you know the weather in Chicago, it is "expected."

(CHIMES)

BROWN: Thank you.

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

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