Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown

Explosions Targeting Israeli Tourists Rock Egypt; Insurgents Fire Rockets Into Baghdad's Sheraton Hotel; Bush, Kerry Get Ready to Debate

Aired October 07, 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, HOST: Good evening again. The program tonight is full of questions and we highlight two of them at the top. Should the president apologize for the prewar intelligence that was flat out wrong on Iraq? That it was wrong is not a debatable point. We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given for the war. Tony Blair apologized for the faulty intelligence. Should the president in the midst of an election campaign do the same?
And here's another question, very different sort of question. Should a woman who accuses a man of rape remain unnamed? Federal judge in Colorado has ruled that the young woman who has filed a civil case against Kobe Bryant doesn't have the same right to remain anonymous as she would in a criminal case. Is that fair and right? Is it ever fair and right to withhold the name? We don't do debates here that often, but two landed in our laps tonight, and we'll get to them after the news of the day which of course begins with the whip and the whip begins with bombings today in an Israeli/Egyptian border town. CNN's Guy Raz is in Jerusalem with the headline, guy.

GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a series of devastating explosions in Egypt this evening, apparently targeting Israeli tourists on the Sinai peninsula killing at least 35 people.

BROWN: Thank you. We'll get back to you shortly. Baghdad next where no place it seems is safe. Brent Sadler with the watch again tonight. So Brent a headline from you.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, insurgents fire rockets into one of Baghdad's best known hotels, the Sheraton, just across the road from here. Western journalists and international contractors escape injury, but it has been a tense night.

BROWN: Brent, thank you.

Finally to politics on the eve of the next presidential debate. What do the numbers tell us going in? Bill Schneider with us again tonight. Bill a headline, if you can figure out a single headline.

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's happened in the weeks since the first presidential debate? A close race has gotten closer.

BROWN: Well, thank you. We'll get back to you. Politics and the rest in the program tonight. Also as we mentioned at the top, a judge tells the accuser in the Kobe Bryant civil case her name will be revealed if it goes to trial. Why this time and not in the criminal case and should accusers ever be allowed to remain anonymous?

Also as the death toll mounts in Haiti a photo journalist returns home to tell the human story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's not get too desensitized by the conditions in Haiti. We should not see them as solely as people who are used to suffering. I see Haiti as a nation that has suffered enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: A personal journey and a powerful experience.

And at the end of the hour, well wouldn't say powerful, but we will do morning papers because we do. All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin tonight with suffering. Suffering is what happens in one corner of the world, it does reverberate in other places too. That was in reference to Haiti, but it could apply to other places as well. In Egypt for one, on the border with Israel where bombs went off today, perhaps as many as 40 people died. This unfolded in a place where Egyptians and Israelis still mingle even though their governments have been tense, to say the least, at times. There were friendly relations on the border. It seemed peaceful until today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): At first the explosion at the Hilton hotel in the resort city of Taba was blamed on a defective gas canister in the kitchen. Not long after the apparently genuine cause became known. Israeli army radio said the blast was caused about a car bomb that went off just outside the perimeter of the hotel. About two hours later there were more explosions. These near two small camping areas not far from Taba. Ambulances and medical teams rushed to the Hilton where hundreds of Israelis were spending the last hours of a Jewish holiday.

The resort itself is in Egyptian territory near the Red Sea. The entire front facing of the hotel collapsed. Dozens were injured. Many more trapped. The explosions came about a month after the Israeli government urged its citizens not to visit Egypt, citing what it called a concrete terror threat to tourists in the area. All in all, about 30,000 Israelis had crossed into Egypt during the holiday period, and tonight, Israeli authorities said they would help evacuate the thousands still there who wish to leave.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Guy Raz in Jerusalem now. He has been updating the story over the evening. Any claims of responsibility?

RAZ: Aaron, so far there haven't been any official claims of responsibility. Palestinian authorities have strenuously denied that any Palestinian groups were involved in this attack. But there have been some Israeli officials who are pointing the finger at al Qaeda for three reasons. This attack has three al Qaeda hallmarks. One, they were coordinated. Two, the targets were specific. And three, it's believed they were truck bombs. But there haven't been any claims of responsibility so far by any groups at all. Aaron?

BROWN: Has there been much al Qaeda activity in that area? Most of the activity in that area, I assume, has been by Palestinian groups and not al Qaeda groups?

RAZ: That's true. That's correct, Aaron. In fact, Palestinian groups have rarely targeted Israelis outside the borders of Israel. Just about two weeks ago a senior militant with Hamas, the hard line Palestinian group, was assassinated in Damascus, Syria. Hamas blamed Israel for that assassination and at the time some senior members of Hamas said they would target Israelis not just inside Israel, but also outside the borders of the country. But in terms of al Qaeda, it's very unusual that al Qaeda would operate so close to the borders of the country, and if, in fact, it was, it would be the first time, Aaron.

BROWN: And finally, any formal response from the Egyptian government?

RAZ: Well, the Egyptian government is clearly embarrassed by this because Israeli tourists provide the bulk of the tourist money inside the Sinai peninsula. It's a heavily controlled area. It's very difficult for Egyptians to get into. There are several checkpoints in the Sinai peninsula and we just briefly spoke to an Israeli official just a few moments ago who told us that Israeli officials and Egyptian officials are closely cooperating on the rescue efforts to try and recover those who were wounded in this attack, Aaron.

BROWN: Guy, good job tonight. Thank you much. Thank you for your work.

To Iraq and another assault aimed at westerners in a part of Baghdad once relatively save for westerners. Bit by bit they have seen these zones of safety shrink as one by one the insurgents have taken aim. Today the insurgents found their mark, cameras were rolling when they did. Reporting for us again tonight from Baghdad, CNN's Brent Sadler.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER (voice-over): The unseen but terrifying face of Iraq's insurgents, striking at one of central Baghdad's best-known hotels, the Sheraton hit by two powerful rockets fired from close range, a lower floor set ablaze. The blasts followed by machine gunfire and near immediate U.S. response.

I saw tracer rounds pierce the night sky. U.S. troops on top of the hotel, pouring fire at a 45-degree angle towards the launch site. Reporters in the hotel say the first rocket exploded two floors up on the outside of the Sheraton, scattering shrapnel and debris. Guests taking cover after the first blast were caught by the second as it slammed into the building detonating higher up. No serious casualties, but shock and confusion and smoke filled areas of the hotel, home to western media organizations and foreign contractors.

They picked their way through piles of broken glass amid hotel warnings that more rockets could be fired. Then, as emergency services circled, the blast site, a third detonation, not a rocket this time, a reported misfire from a launch vehicle. U.S. troops make up part of sector security here, taking a higher profile soon after the attack. The Sheraton and nearby Palestine hotel that wasn't hit are among the heaviest guarded buildings in the capital sitting across the Tigris River from the fortress-like green zone.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER: By Iraq's gruesome yardstick of terror, the impact of those particular rockets should barely register, but the targeting of journalists and private contractors fuels the angst here that the insurgency is far from under control. Aaron.

BROWN: What kind of range do these rockets have?

SADLER: Depends, the length of the rocket, but certainly on this one, I would guess, I saw them go past me a few kilometers.

BROWN: Brent, thank you. Stay safe out there, Brent Sadler in Baghdad.

If attacks in central Baghdad constitute one kind of wake-up call, yesterday's report find no weapons, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would seem to be another. Whatever you think of the war and the conduct of it, the president made WMD the centerpiece of his case for going into Iraq. But listening today you might think otherwise. The president brushing aside the weapons argument as such and said Saddam's desire to have weapons made him dangerous enough.

He also said that Iraq's abuse of the oil for food program was evidence that Iraq could no longer be contained by sanctions alone. Senator Kerry for his part told reporters that in his view, the president and the vice president may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq.

So far at least a combination of news from Iraq and statements about Iraq appear to be eroding somewhat the president's advantage nationally on the issue of Iraq and perhaps terrorism as well. State by state, however, and that's where it counts, of course, the picture is a whole lot more complicated. With that, here's CNN's Bill Schneider.

SCHNEIDER: The real race is for the battle ground states. Look at red states that Bush carried in 2000 like Arizona where Bush is now leading by 10. It doesn't look like a battleground anymore. New Hampshire was narrowly for Bush last time. It's right next door to Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is now a dead heat. Florida was ground zero in 2000 but ultimate went for Bush. Three polls in the last week, three results. Bush ahead by four, Kerry ahead by two and Bush by two. Looks like Florida still can't make up its mind.

Ohio is supposed to be the new Florida. Could be. Kerry is ahead by one. In 2000, Colorado was solid for Bush, now, a tie. Who will get Colorado's nine electoral votes? Maybe nobody. Because on November 2nd, Coloradans could pass a measure that divides the state's electoral votes proportionately. If the presidential vote is close, the winner will get five electoral votes, the loser four.

Now look at four blue states that voted for Al Gore in 2000. New Mexico went for Gore by 366 votes in 2000. Bush now leads by 3 percentage points. Wisconsin also was close last time. Bush leads by three there too. New Jersey was solidly for Gore. Now it's narrowly for Kerry by three points, a new battleground. Bush has been working hard to take Pennsylvania from the Democrats. Kerry still leading there, but not by much, seven points in one poll, two points in another.

Less than a month to go and the race looks closer and more uncertain than ever. Anyone who knows what's going to happen in this election is grossly misinformed. Aaron.

BROWN: Two things. First of all, just an observation, as I looked at that with the exception I think of the one poll in Pennsylvania, every one of those was within the margin of error, so basically what you have is a toss up statistically speaking. Secondly, all of this, it seems sort of obvious, places enormous importance on the next two debates, the first of which is tomorrow.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly right. Those two debates could be absolutely crucial because Americans have decided not to decide yet. That's what those polls say.

BROWN: And has there ever been a time, this really is in your wheelhouse too, when the debates the second and third debates or any debate after the first one, has seemed to have as much importance as these do now?

SCHNEIDER: Well, the closest approximation was the one and only debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980. That took place a week before the election. Americans didn't want to re-elect Carter but they felt very nervous about Ronald Reagan until he used that debate to assure them he was a safe alternative. That's what Kerry needs to do in these last two debates. There's a lot of nervousness about Bush. It's increasing with all these reports about Iraq. But they don't yet feel comfortable, and may never feel comfortable, voting for Kerry. He's got to convince them that he's an acceptable alternative.

BROWN: We'll watch tomorrow and talk with you tomorrow perhaps as well. Thank you, Bill, Bill Schneider in Washington tonight.

The big question before the war, the simple question, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk to the first of the chief weapons inspectors who went in after the war. David Kay went in believing Saddam was hiding the goods. We'll talk to him about the final conclusions of the Iraq survey group.

And while we're on the topic of searches, we'll update the pursuit of America's most wanted man, most wanted man in the world. But we take a break first from New York. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq. Mr. President, the American people deserve more than spin about this war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Candidates today. You can't say the final stretch of the presidential race is short on drama. Today's war of words stemming from the final report of the Iraq survey group that was released yesterday. Its findings are hardly unexpected, but coming at a pivotal moment in the campaign. The former U.S. top weapons inspector David Kay predicted as much in January when he first reported back and resigned, saying he didn't believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and Mr. Kay joins us tonight from Washington. It's always good to see you. Let's just go through some of this. In the next segment we're going to deal with I guess the arguments about it, but I want to try and focus on the facts. Is it clear -- we know he didn't have the weapons. Is it clear that he did not have the means to make the weapons quickly if the sanctions were lifted?

DAVID KAY, FORMER U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Aaron, I think it's clear that he did not have the means to produce militarily significant large amounts of chemical or biological agents quickly if sanctions ended. It's always possible to do a home brew chemistry for small amounts, particularly when we are talking about chemical and biological agents. He had nothing like large military capacity.

BROWN: The -- Jim Wilkerson (ph) is the national security spokesman, said that there is no doubt he, referring to Saddam, had WMD capability. Does the report, in fact, conclude that? I gather it does not?

KAY: No. Actually what it says is the capabilities had been on a steady decline since 1991, one that really accelerated after about 1995 to '98.

BROWN: So when Mr. Wilkerson says that he is misstating the conclusions of the report?

KAY: I believe that's not a fair statement of the conclusions of the report.

BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose, whether there were weapons or not?

KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.

BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given the conditions in Iraq that existed?

KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.

BROWN: I'm curious. Could that not happen now?

KAY: It certainly could happen now and in fact, there have been efforts, Charlie Duelfer reported some of those, of insurgents in Iraq trying to get that technology. There are steps that have been under way really from the time I went in to try to help the scientists, to give them gainful employment opportunities and actually to try to track where they were going. The hardest thing I faced is Iraq had no borders, no passports. People went in and out and you didn't really know where they were.

BROWN: You ever scratch your head and say, how did we get this so wrong?

KAY: Look, I think that is one of the two remaining questions. The important issue is not that we were wrong. The important issue is to understand why we were wrong and start the systemic process of renewal that is necessary. You come to Iran and North Korea. You're going to find few allies and I suspect few Americans are going to believe you when you say they've got nuclear weapons. Yeah, well, you said that about Iraq.

BROWN: That's really the long-term -- that's the long-term problem for the country.

KAY: It's not so long Aaron, in the case of either North Korea or Iran.

BROWN: It certainly is not. David, it's nice to see you again. David Kay in Washington tonight which sets up, I think where we head next. Our discussion about Iraq, how the president, how Senator Kerry are talking about it. Two smart men with decades of experience beg to differ on what the plan should be going forward and I dare say how we got there in the first place. We'll take a break first. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK. Back to where we left off before the break. The final report of the Iraq survey group, which stands in sharp contrast to what the Bush administration said was its principle reason, but not its only reason, to invade Iraq. We promised two debates or discussions tonight and we'll start with this one. We're joined from Washington by Jed Babbin who served as the deputy undersecretary of defense or as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration. I'm never sure which it is and Dan Feldman, who served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration and is an informal adviser to John Kerry, and we're glad to see you both. Jed, let me start with you here. I do think to some extent both sides are spinning a little bit on what the report says. The president today said that Iraq still had -- that Iraq had the means and intent. David Kay just said that's not at all, at least on the subject of means, what the report said.

JED BABBIN, FMR. DEP. UNDERSECRETARY OF DEF: Well, the fact is that a lot of countries have means and intent to do it, but the report does say something very specific that I think supports the president, at least indirectly. Mr. Duelfer's report says very clearly that Saddam had the best minds in Iraq working on WMD because he attributed his possession of WMD to survival in the 1980's war against Iran and also against us in 1991 in desert storm. He's convinced or was convinced that, as Duelfer says, his survival was dependent upon that and he was also convinced that if he had completed his nuclear weapons program, he would still have Kuwait. So the fact of the matter was Saddam desperately wanted them. As we're finding out now he did not have them or we do not believe he did.

BROWN: All right. We'll come back to that point. Dan, doesn't Senator Kerry have a problem here, given that he looked at all this intelligence and he voted to authorize and it makes it harder to argue with all of this as it comes out, doesn't it?

DAN FELDMAN, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ADVISER: No. I don't think it's the same because Senator Kerry actually didn't have the same intelligence. What we've seen from this administration is that there's a pattern and practice of mischaracterizing and manipulating the evidence that they had, and they formed their hypothesis first and then found the facts to fit it. I think you saw the exact same thing happening today with President Bush and Vice President Cheney doing back flips to try to show that the Duelfer report supported their conclusions when, in fact, the bottom line is it said in no uncertain terms Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction and, in fact, he didn't even have plan to start developing those weapons of mass destruction.

BROWN: Should the president do what Tony Blair did and essentially apologize for the intelligence?

FELDMAN: You know, to be honest, I'm a lot less concerned about apologizing for things in the past and a lot more concerned about being straight with the American public as we go forward. We don't stand any chance of bringing this to a conclusion in any sort of effective way if we don't start off being straight with the American public. They showed again today and both John Kerry and John Edwards were right on when they said that Bush and Cheney are going to be the last two people in the world who believe that Saddam Hussein was actually trying to develop them.

BROWN: Jed, go ahead.

BABBIN: If I can interject here. That's just so much balderdash. The fact of the matter is Mr. Kerry did have the same information, and he also agreed to go and give the president the authority to go to war.

Mr. Kerry is not courageous enough to accuse the president of what Dan just accused him of, of spinning up and blocking and mischaracterizing the intelligence. The president did not do that. The 9/11 Commission said he did not do that.

And now we have Mr. Kerry's surrogates, but not Mr. Kerry, saying that, because Mr. Kerry doesn't have the courage, because he knows it's not true. The fact is Mr. Kerry is not leveling with anybody, not even himself, at least up until the day before yesterday -- wait a minute, Dan. I let you talk. Let me just finish my point.

His plan, supposed plan for Iraq is so completely unrealistic, he must understand he has to level with the American people to the fact that he doesn't have a plan. He says...

FELDMAN: He says -- he says...

BROWN: Hold on. Let me just say, Dan -- Dan, let me just say one quick thing. If his plan is -- I think Vice President Cheney described the plan that you just described as unrealistic, as an echo the other night. Now, Dan go ahead.

FELDMAN: If anything, to be honest, I think that it is Bush who is echoing John Kerry's plans. Look, if the administration had done what John Kerry had said to do all along in a very consistent fashion, which was to internationalize this from the very beginning and to focus on things like training security forces, then we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we currently are right now. So -- so finally, the administration has come around to where John Kerry has been saying all along that we should be going. And -- and I think we both realize at this point that we have to do similar things.

The fact is, though, that the administration is simply incapable of doing them. When they've spent $1.2 billion out of $18 billion allocated for reconstruction efforts, they're not capable.

BROWN: Jed -- I'm sorry. Let me -- Jed, let me ask the last question here.

BABBIN: Sure.

BROWN: Do you believe -- it's just slightly different question, do you believe if the country had known that there were no WMD in Iraq that the president could have convinced the country to go to war?

BABBIN: I don't think that he could have, and I don't think that he would have.

Again, the 9/11 Commission and everybody else who has looked at this in a nonpartisan way has said the president did not spin the intelligence. Now we have my good friend Dan and the surrogates coming out and saying what Mr. Kerry does not have the guts to say himself.

If he thinks the president lied, he ought to say that. Mr. Kerry's plan is a lie, and he knows it because it's based on bringing France and Germany into the fight, and they have said very directly that even if he is elected, they're not going to do it. So where's Mr. Kerry's plan? He doesn't have one.

FELDMAN: Look -- Look, I'm not speaking here as a John Kerry surrogate. I'm speaking here as an educated national security expert.

And there are a number of circumstances...

BROWN: Jed.

FELDMAN: ... in which this administration has exaggerated the truth, whether it's Condi Rice going out and saying hat the aluminum tubes were for nuclear capacity, which this report says point blank is not the case, and yet she insists on saying that the intelligence is conflicted on this. That's just not the case.

Whether it's other parts of the Duelfer Report, like -- like the bio labs being used for that type of -- trying to get up to that capacity, whether it's the 16 words that Bush uttered in the "State of the Union," which the Duelfer Report said that there was absolutely no indication of Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from abroad.

I mean, they have continually tried to manipulate the evidence.

BROWN: Gentlemen -- Gentlemen, I'm going to end it there. Good to have you both. BABBIN: Thank you.

FELDMAN: Thank you.

BABBIN: Thanks.

BROWN: The issues are out there. People can sort it out and I suspect will in the debate tomorrow.

Now Afghanistan, where there is still trouble, too, and it's also a bone of contention in the presidential race. It's a dangerous part of the world for sure.

Rocket attacks in Kabul, the capital today, one of them a dud, landed near a compound for reporters, many of whom are covering the election this weekend. If the election comes off and cleanly, major achievement for the Afghan people and the policy.

It will not, however, complete the mission for the Americans. Here's CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fifteen thousand soldiers have joined the new Afghan army so far. They are being trained by Americans, and they are being drafted into America's war on terror.

But three years on, America's most wanted is still at large.

SGT. SCOTT LUCAS, U.S. ARMY TRAINER: The importance of Osama has kind of wore down because the big picture is to -- I don't think he's a big player as he was. I think the -- and he's probably in Pakistan anyway.

AMANPOUR (on camera): For the past three years, the Americans and their Afghan allies have been predicting the imminent capture of Osama bin Laden.

So we decided to ask the current commanders about their latest predictions.

(voice-over) The Afghan general responsible for parts of the country where terrorists are still active.

GEN. AMDULLAH PATIANI, AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY: Osama bin Laden (speaking foreign language)

(through translator) I hope very soon Osama will face the same fate as Saddam Hussein and be captured.

AMANPOUR: Later we asked the commander of the 18,000 U.S. forces hunting bin Laden how long until they smoke him out?

GEN. DAVID BARNO, COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES: Very tough question and he's a very tough and elusive enemy out there. Clearly if we had a good insight into where he was, we'd be there and we'd have him in custody now.

AMANPOUR: They don't know whether he's even in Afghanistan, and it's risky business relying on Afghan warlords for help.

Last May CNN followed these Marines hunting bin Laden and his terrorists in central Afghanistan.

This local commander was helping the Marines, but a few months later, he was killed. The U.S. military said he had, in fact, been a senior Taliban commander.

In this murky reality, U.S. forces are now tasked with protecting the election process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was impressive to me is that, despite any intimidation out there, despite sporadic attacks in different parts of the country, that 10.5 million Afghans came out and registered in the face of that -- that threat to them. And I think we're going to see exactly the same thing here on Saturday.

AMANPOUR: An election that will go ahead with or without the capture of Osama bin Laden.

HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT: We are still looking for him. He is -- he is a fugitive. He's running away from law. We will get him one day, sooner or later, but in the meantime, we have to build life.

AMANPOUR: Christiane Amanpour, CNN, Kabul, Afghanistan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Still to come on the program tonight, most of the reporters have left Haiti, but the devastation of the tropical storm Jeanne remains. One photographer describes the storm through his lens.

And the cameras won't leave Kobe for awhile now that a judge is going to release the name of his accuser. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, what naming the suspect does for the accusers and the accused.

We take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the 15 months since the Kobe Bryant rape case began, the fairness of rape shield laws have been a major part of the story. Criminal cases is over, but now the woman's civil -- suit, rather, against the NBA star is headed for court.

Late yesterday a federal judge in Denver ruled that this time around in the civil case she cannot remain anonymous. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch -- Matsch, I think it is, explained his ruling, in part, by saying, "The parties appear as equals before the court and that fundamental principle must be protected throughout these proceedings." Until now, except for tabloid leaks and the Internet, Mr. Bryant's accuser has not been publicly named. Why are the rules different in a civil case? Should they be? Is that fair?

We're joined from Boston tonight by Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor. In Washington, Geneva Overholser, the former ombudsman or -woman for the "Washington Post," professor of journalism, who has written thoughtfully and a good deal on this subject. And we're pleased to have them both with us.

Geneva, lay out the argument here why in a civil case -- I know you actually believe in the criminal case, too, but in a civil case she's not entitled to this protection?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER, MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Well, I do think it's particularly clear in a civil case, Aaron.

It's interesting that the judge said that it could be misperceived as a prejudgment if she were allowed to file the suit anonymously, and the same goes with the press. We have no ability in the media to determine guilt.

There was a criminal case which, in fact, ended when she decided she didn't want to testify. And she's taken an additional step out into the light to file a civil suit, and it is just inappropriate for the press to decide that one person needs protection and the other doesn't.

BROWN: Wendy?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: You know, I mean this is a really simple issue from where I sit.

First of all, it's a civil case, which means it's a private lawsuit. The public interest in private lawsuits is substantially smaller than it would be in a criminal case. The due process interests are much smaller than they would be when liberty is at stake in a criminal case.

So the argument in favor of disclosure is much weaker from the public's right to know perspective.

And in addition, and perhaps most compellingly, what we have in this case is a victim who was threatened repeatedly with death because she reported a crime.

You know, we shouldn't have that kind of response when a citizen performs their duty of reporting crime and participating in the criminal justice system, but it happened to her.

Plus we had gobs of irrelevant, personal and oftentimes false information published by the media. The media is blameworthy in this. And you know, we should be apologizing to her, not causing her more harm.

OVERHOLSER: I think -- I think, Aaron, that Wendy has made two important points that really support my case, if I might say so.

BROWN: Please.

OVERHOLSER: One I agree. A criminal case, we should be naming as well. It is more important to be fair and just in a criminal case and name both parties.

MURPHY: I didn't say that.

OVERHOLSER: However, a civil suit is even more clear that the public interest in having both of these parties treated equally, as the judge said, is with us.

And your other point that she has been threatened, she has had sordid details about her life all over the press, makes my third point, which is this is not an effective protection.

MURPHY: Well, this isn't about protection as policy. And this is where the mainstream media has it terribly wrong.

We think this is somehow about infantilizing women because we want to insulate them from the shame of being a rape victim. There is stigma in rape cases. Make no mistake about that.

But the real issue is the private nature of the violence. The fact that victims get pregnant, have abortions, develop HIV, get sexually transmitted diseases. That doesn't happen to any other crime victim. It doesn't happen to robbery and larceny victims.

BROWN: Wendy -- Wendy...

MURPHY: So because we can't protect them from the public disclosure of that information, which is per se relevant and fair for a criminal case, in particular, for the public to know...

OVERHOLSER: The real issue is that we don't know who the victim...

MURPHY: ... we do the best we can by not naming them so they can live in peace in the aftermath of violence for which they have no blame.

OVERHOLSER: Wendy -- you may...

BROWN: Wendy stop.

OVERHOLSER: You may have independent knowledge about the guilt or innocence in this case. The media do not. The real issue is we don't know who is a victim. And it's inappropriate of us to determine that.

MURPHY: Let me ask you something. Let me ask you something.

Did the "Washington Post" print the false statement that the victim had sex after the crime and before she went to the hospital? Because that we know now is absolutely false. But the mainstream media had no problem publishing that information.

Now that we know the DNA from the other guy consisted of four dead tailless sperm, one ejaculation contains about a zillion sperm. But there were four dead tailless sperm and no semen. And the mainstream media could have cared less about the truth.

OVERHOLSER: The kind of discussion that you're having...

BROWN: One at a time. Geneva, last word.

OVERHOLSER: The kind of discussion you're having is not good coverage. Good coverage would, however, entail full information about the names of the two people involved.

BROWN: Geneva, Wendy, good to see you both. Thank you.

OVERHOLSER: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you both.

MURPHY: Thanks, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

Ahead on the program -- two debates in one night -- Haiti's struggle in the aftermath of Hurricane Jeanne and a native son's extraordinary photo essay of it all.

And "Morning Papers," too. No debating that.

We'll take a break. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Nearly three weeks ago Hurricane Jeanne swept north of Haiti. Technically speaking it was a tropical storm. It never actually made land, but oh, the catastrophe it caused.

Government officials have put the final death toll from the devastating floods at more than 3,000. Some 200,000 Haitians were left homeless, as well.

Photographer Carl Juste was born in Haiti, has covered his homeland for "The Miami Herald" for more than a decade. He returned for two weeks to document the aftermath of the flood.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARL JUSTE, PHOTOGRAPHER (voice-over): I was born in Haiti. As photographers, we have to be close. We have to be really there. Being Haitian doesn't make it more personal. It just lingers longer than most stories.

The hurricane never really hit the island. It was more the rain showers and the band showers that covered the island. That one I took, it had been a street. The water had nowhere to go, and people to had to continue to live their lives. And for some, they had to leave the city and the only way you can is by foot.

This woman was trying to salvage her belongings in her home, and her foot was severed by a piece of metal. You have to understand, this water they're standing in has bacteria and highly contaminated, so the urgency of getting her medical care was very important.

Even when you speak to someone who has lost four members of a family or even five, there is not this outpour of emotions. They're restrained because they pull from the strength. They're survivors just by very nature. They're very strong people.

On the outskirts of Gonaives there was a small farming village. And as we were crossing this field this woman was adamant about me seeing her home. When we got to her home, her home was completely destroyed. I framed her within the doorway of her neighbor's home, and she was standing where her house once stood. She also lost three of her own children.

This woman was telling me she lost a 21-year-old son. Apparently, she was trying to save the young boy which you see sitting next to her. And as she's trying to save the young boy, her 21-year- old son was in the water and was trying to grab on to a tree, but slipped and the water just took him downstream. She was not able to save him but was able to save the younger child.

Suffering is suffering. What happens in one corner of the world does reverberate somewhere in some other place. And let's not get too desensitized by the conditions in Haiti. We should not see them as solely as people who are used to suffering.

I see Haiti as a nation that has suffered enough.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK. Fastest minute in television. "Morning Papers."

"International Herald-Tribune"" "Bush Goal in Debate is to Polish His Style but Negative News Provides Kerry with Fresh Ammunition." That's how the "International Herald-Tribune" leads.

"The Washington Times," if you -- remember their headline on the weapons thing last night? A little straighter, this one: "Intelligence Wrong on WMDs. Bush Admits Mistake but Defends War in Iraq. Allies Dismiss Report of Saddam Payoffs." That's the Oil-for- Food program or the Food-for-Oil program, however that worked out.

"The Miami Herald" will take a little bit more time. Go down to the bottom here if you can. "Caregiver Says She Believes Rilya is Alive. That is the first time we've heard about Rilya, young Rilya Wilson in a long time. Remember this child just disappeared. I mean, the state lost her and the caregiver, Geralyn -- I use the term "caregiver" loosely here -- said she thought the state had her. The state thought she had her. And nobody carried about her.

Anyway, for whatever reasons, this woman, who's in jail now, believes Rilya is alive, and we hope to God she's right.

"White House Concedes Iraq had no WMDs." And they got -- they managed to get -- that's pretty quick work: "Blast Hits Israeli Tourist Sites" also on the front page. I have no idea why Princess Diana is on the front page.

"The Boston Herald": "Go Yanks. We Want to Kick Your Butts on the Way to the Series." Well, don't know about that, because the Yanks are never going to get past the Minnesota Twins.

Weather tomorrow in Chicago, melancholy, which is how I'll be if I'm wrong about the Yanks and the Minnesota Twins. We'll wrap it up in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The debate tomorrow is 9 p.m. Eastern Time. A lot of stuff going on before that. And Larry at 11 p.m. Eastern Time. We're here at midnight. We hope you join us for that.

Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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


Aired October 7, 2004 - 22:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again. The program tonight is full of questions and we highlight two of them at the top. Should the president apologize for the prewar intelligence that was flat out wrong on Iraq? That it was wrong is not a debatable point. We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given for the war. Tony Blair apologized for the faulty intelligence. Should the president in the midst of an election campaign do the same?
And here's another question, very different sort of question. Should a woman who accuses a man of rape remain unnamed? Federal judge in Colorado has ruled that the young woman who has filed a civil case against Kobe Bryant doesn't have the same right to remain anonymous as she would in a criminal case. Is that fair and right? Is it ever fair and right to withhold the name? We don't do debates here that often, but two landed in our laps tonight, and we'll get to them after the news of the day which of course begins with the whip and the whip begins with bombings today in an Israeli/Egyptian border town. CNN's Guy Raz is in Jerusalem with the headline, guy.

GUY RAZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, a series of devastating explosions in Egypt this evening, apparently targeting Israeli tourists on the Sinai peninsula killing at least 35 people.

BROWN: Thank you. We'll get back to you shortly. Baghdad next where no place it seems is safe. Brent Sadler with the watch again tonight. So Brent a headline from you.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, insurgents fire rockets into one of Baghdad's best known hotels, the Sheraton, just across the road from here. Western journalists and international contractors escape injury, but it has been a tense night.

BROWN: Brent, thank you.

Finally to politics on the eve of the next presidential debate. What do the numbers tell us going in? Bill Schneider with us again tonight. Bill a headline, if you can figure out a single headline.

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's happened in the weeks since the first presidential debate? A close race has gotten closer.

BROWN: Well, thank you. We'll get back to you. Politics and the rest in the program tonight. Also as we mentioned at the top, a judge tells the accuser in the Kobe Bryant civil case her name will be revealed if it goes to trial. Why this time and not in the criminal case and should accusers ever be allowed to remain anonymous?

Also as the death toll mounts in Haiti a photo journalist returns home to tell the human story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's not get too desensitized by the conditions in Haiti. We should not see them as solely as people who are used to suffering. I see Haiti as a nation that has suffered enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: A personal journey and a powerful experience.

And at the end of the hour, well wouldn't say powerful, but we will do morning papers because we do. All that and more in the hour ahead.

We begin tonight with suffering. Suffering is what happens in one corner of the world, it does reverberate in other places too. That was in reference to Haiti, but it could apply to other places as well. In Egypt for one, on the border with Israel where bombs went off today, perhaps as many as 40 people died. This unfolded in a place where Egyptians and Israelis still mingle even though their governments have been tense, to say the least, at times. There were friendly relations on the border. It seemed peaceful until today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN (voice-over): At first the explosion at the Hilton hotel in the resort city of Taba was blamed on a defective gas canister in the kitchen. Not long after the apparently genuine cause became known. Israeli army radio said the blast was caused about a car bomb that went off just outside the perimeter of the hotel. About two hours later there were more explosions. These near two small camping areas not far from Taba. Ambulances and medical teams rushed to the Hilton where hundreds of Israelis were spending the last hours of a Jewish holiday.

The resort itself is in Egyptian territory near the Red Sea. The entire front facing of the hotel collapsed. Dozens were injured. Many more trapped. The explosions came about a month after the Israeli government urged its citizens not to visit Egypt, citing what it called a concrete terror threat to tourists in the area. All in all, about 30,000 Israelis had crossed into Egypt during the holiday period, and tonight, Israeli authorities said they would help evacuate the thousands still there who wish to leave.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Guy Raz in Jerusalem now. He has been updating the story over the evening. Any claims of responsibility?

RAZ: Aaron, so far there haven't been any official claims of responsibility. Palestinian authorities have strenuously denied that any Palestinian groups were involved in this attack. But there have been some Israeli officials who are pointing the finger at al Qaeda for three reasons. This attack has three al Qaeda hallmarks. One, they were coordinated. Two, the targets were specific. And three, it's believed they were truck bombs. But there haven't been any claims of responsibility so far by any groups at all. Aaron?

BROWN: Has there been much al Qaeda activity in that area? Most of the activity in that area, I assume, has been by Palestinian groups and not al Qaeda groups?

RAZ: That's true. That's correct, Aaron. In fact, Palestinian groups have rarely targeted Israelis outside the borders of Israel. Just about two weeks ago a senior militant with Hamas, the hard line Palestinian group, was assassinated in Damascus, Syria. Hamas blamed Israel for that assassination and at the time some senior members of Hamas said they would target Israelis not just inside Israel, but also outside the borders of the country. But in terms of al Qaeda, it's very unusual that al Qaeda would operate so close to the borders of the country, and if, in fact, it was, it would be the first time, Aaron.

BROWN: And finally, any formal response from the Egyptian government?

RAZ: Well, the Egyptian government is clearly embarrassed by this because Israeli tourists provide the bulk of the tourist money inside the Sinai peninsula. It's a heavily controlled area. It's very difficult for Egyptians to get into. There are several checkpoints in the Sinai peninsula and we just briefly spoke to an Israeli official just a few moments ago who told us that Israeli officials and Egyptian officials are closely cooperating on the rescue efforts to try and recover those who were wounded in this attack, Aaron.

BROWN: Guy, good job tonight. Thank you much. Thank you for your work.

To Iraq and another assault aimed at westerners in a part of Baghdad once relatively save for westerners. Bit by bit they have seen these zones of safety shrink as one by one the insurgents have taken aim. Today the insurgents found their mark, cameras were rolling when they did. Reporting for us again tonight from Baghdad, CNN's Brent Sadler.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER (voice-over): The unseen but terrifying face of Iraq's insurgents, striking at one of central Baghdad's best-known hotels, the Sheraton hit by two powerful rockets fired from close range, a lower floor set ablaze. The blasts followed by machine gunfire and near immediate U.S. response.

I saw tracer rounds pierce the night sky. U.S. troops on top of the hotel, pouring fire at a 45-degree angle towards the launch site. Reporters in the hotel say the first rocket exploded two floors up on the outside of the Sheraton, scattering shrapnel and debris. Guests taking cover after the first blast were caught by the second as it slammed into the building detonating higher up. No serious casualties, but shock and confusion and smoke filled areas of the hotel, home to western media organizations and foreign contractors.

They picked their way through piles of broken glass amid hotel warnings that more rockets could be fired. Then, as emergency services circled, the blast site, a third detonation, not a rocket this time, a reported misfire from a launch vehicle. U.S. troops make up part of sector security here, taking a higher profile soon after the attack. The Sheraton and nearby Palestine hotel that wasn't hit are among the heaviest guarded buildings in the capital sitting across the Tigris River from the fortress-like green zone.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SADLER: By Iraq's gruesome yardstick of terror, the impact of those particular rockets should barely register, but the targeting of journalists and private contractors fuels the angst here that the insurgency is far from under control. Aaron.

BROWN: What kind of range do these rockets have?

SADLER: Depends, the length of the rocket, but certainly on this one, I would guess, I saw them go past me a few kilometers.

BROWN: Brent, thank you. Stay safe out there, Brent Sadler in Baghdad.

If attacks in central Baghdad constitute one kind of wake-up call, yesterday's report find no weapons, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would seem to be another. Whatever you think of the war and the conduct of it, the president made WMD the centerpiece of his case for going into Iraq. But listening today you might think otherwise. The president brushing aside the weapons argument as such and said Saddam's desire to have weapons made him dangerous enough.

He also said that Iraq's abuse of the oil for food program was evidence that Iraq could no longer be contained by sanctions alone. Senator Kerry for his part told reporters that in his view, the president and the vice president may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq.

So far at least a combination of news from Iraq and statements about Iraq appear to be eroding somewhat the president's advantage nationally on the issue of Iraq and perhaps terrorism as well. State by state, however, and that's where it counts, of course, the picture is a whole lot more complicated. With that, here's CNN's Bill Schneider.

SCHNEIDER: The real race is for the battle ground states. Look at red states that Bush carried in 2000 like Arizona where Bush is now leading by 10. It doesn't look like a battleground anymore. New Hampshire was narrowly for Bush last time. It's right next door to Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is now a dead heat. Florida was ground zero in 2000 but ultimate went for Bush. Three polls in the last week, three results. Bush ahead by four, Kerry ahead by two and Bush by two. Looks like Florida still can't make up its mind.

Ohio is supposed to be the new Florida. Could be. Kerry is ahead by one. In 2000, Colorado was solid for Bush, now, a tie. Who will get Colorado's nine electoral votes? Maybe nobody. Because on November 2nd, Coloradans could pass a measure that divides the state's electoral votes proportionately. If the presidential vote is close, the winner will get five electoral votes, the loser four.

Now look at four blue states that voted for Al Gore in 2000. New Mexico went for Gore by 366 votes in 2000. Bush now leads by 3 percentage points. Wisconsin also was close last time. Bush leads by three there too. New Jersey was solidly for Gore. Now it's narrowly for Kerry by three points, a new battleground. Bush has been working hard to take Pennsylvania from the Democrats. Kerry still leading there, but not by much, seven points in one poll, two points in another.

Less than a month to go and the race looks closer and more uncertain than ever. Anyone who knows what's going to happen in this election is grossly misinformed. Aaron.

BROWN: Two things. First of all, just an observation, as I looked at that with the exception I think of the one poll in Pennsylvania, every one of those was within the margin of error, so basically what you have is a toss up statistically speaking. Secondly, all of this, it seems sort of obvious, places enormous importance on the next two debates, the first of which is tomorrow.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly right. Those two debates could be absolutely crucial because Americans have decided not to decide yet. That's what those polls say.

BROWN: And has there ever been a time, this really is in your wheelhouse too, when the debates the second and third debates or any debate after the first one, has seemed to have as much importance as these do now?

SCHNEIDER: Well, the closest approximation was the one and only debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980. That took place a week before the election. Americans didn't want to re-elect Carter but they felt very nervous about Ronald Reagan until he used that debate to assure them he was a safe alternative. That's what Kerry needs to do in these last two debates. There's a lot of nervousness about Bush. It's increasing with all these reports about Iraq. But they don't yet feel comfortable, and may never feel comfortable, voting for Kerry. He's got to convince them that he's an acceptable alternative.

BROWN: We'll watch tomorrow and talk with you tomorrow perhaps as well. Thank you, Bill, Bill Schneider in Washington tonight.

The big question before the war, the simple question, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk to the first of the chief weapons inspectors who went in after the war. David Kay went in believing Saddam was hiding the goods. We'll talk to him about the final conclusions of the Iraq survey group.

And while we're on the topic of searches, we'll update the pursuit of America's most wanted man, most wanted man in the world. But we take a break first from New York. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq. Mr. President, the American people deserve more than spin about this war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Candidates today. You can't say the final stretch of the presidential race is short on drama. Today's war of words stemming from the final report of the Iraq survey group that was released yesterday. Its findings are hardly unexpected, but coming at a pivotal moment in the campaign. The former U.S. top weapons inspector David Kay predicted as much in January when he first reported back and resigned, saying he didn't believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and Mr. Kay joins us tonight from Washington. It's always good to see you. Let's just go through some of this. In the next segment we're going to deal with I guess the arguments about it, but I want to try and focus on the facts. Is it clear -- we know he didn't have the weapons. Is it clear that he did not have the means to make the weapons quickly if the sanctions were lifted?

DAVID KAY, FORMER U.S. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Aaron, I think it's clear that he did not have the means to produce militarily significant large amounts of chemical or biological agents quickly if sanctions ended. It's always possible to do a home brew chemistry for small amounts, particularly when we are talking about chemical and biological agents. He had nothing like large military capacity.

BROWN: The -- Jim Wilkerson (ph) is the national security spokesman, said that there is no doubt he, referring to Saddam, had WMD capability. Does the report, in fact, conclude that? I gather it does not?

KAY: No. Actually what it says is the capabilities had been on a steady decline since 1991, one that really accelerated after about 1995 to '98.

BROWN: So when Mr. Wilkerson says that he is misstating the conclusions of the report?

KAY: I believe that's not a fair statement of the conclusions of the report.

BROWN: Let me ask you to just venture a little bit into conjecture, but it's in your area of expertise. Do you believe, sir, that if the inspectors had been given more time before the run up to the war, they or during the run up to the war, they could have determined, considering the conditions they were working under which weren't optimal, I suppose, whether there were weapons or not?

KAY: Aaron, I think under the conditions that Saddam imposed, the inspections would have not had a definitive outcome. Remember, Hans Blix in December of -- right before the war reported Iraq had not made a clear determination to disarm. Iraq still was standing in the way of inspections right up to the time of the war. Inspections could have continued for another six months. I'm afraid we would still lack a definitive conclusion as to what the status of Saddam's weapons program was. We certainly wouldn't understand it as we do today.

BROWN: And the point of that to me just seems to be that while hindsight is terrific and it is, we all enjoy it, even the inspectors themselves or the inspection process itself might not have led us to this conclusion prior to the war. There were, I know in your mind, there were concerns about the scientists and what the scientists might do, given the conditions in Iraq that existed?

KAY: Absolutely. I said in January when I testified, I thought Iraq in some ways was far more dangerous than the intelligence community had assessed. That is, the corruption, the decay of the society itself was leading scientists to be willing to do almost anything to support their family. In a world where you've got a willing seller, you usually find a willing buyer, in this case it would have been terrorism and our intelligence was not good enough to pick up an individual scientist selling to a terrorist network. Look at AQ Khan. For 18 years we missed him selling to Iran and North Korea. It was only when he picked a very bad customer, Libya, that we managed to roll that network up.

BROWN: I'm curious. Could that not happen now?

KAY: It certainly could happen now and in fact, there have been efforts, Charlie Duelfer reported some of those, of insurgents in Iraq trying to get that technology. There are steps that have been under way really from the time I went in to try to help the scientists, to give them gainful employment opportunities and actually to try to track where they were going. The hardest thing I faced is Iraq had no borders, no passports. People went in and out and you didn't really know where they were.

BROWN: You ever scratch your head and say, how did we get this so wrong?

KAY: Look, I think that is one of the two remaining questions. The important issue is not that we were wrong. The important issue is to understand why we were wrong and start the systemic process of renewal that is necessary. You come to Iran and North Korea. You're going to find few allies and I suspect few Americans are going to believe you when you say they've got nuclear weapons. Yeah, well, you said that about Iraq.

BROWN: That's really the long-term -- that's the long-term problem for the country.

KAY: It's not so long Aaron, in the case of either North Korea or Iran.

BROWN: It certainly is not. David, it's nice to see you again. David Kay in Washington tonight which sets up, I think where we head next. Our discussion about Iraq, how the president, how Senator Kerry are talking about it. Two smart men with decades of experience beg to differ on what the plan should be going forward and I dare say how we got there in the first place. We'll take a break first. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK. Back to where we left off before the break. The final report of the Iraq survey group, which stands in sharp contrast to what the Bush administration said was its principle reason, but not its only reason, to invade Iraq. We promised two debates or discussions tonight and we'll start with this one. We're joined from Washington by Jed Babbin who served as the deputy undersecretary of defense or as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration. I'm never sure which it is and Dan Feldman, who served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration and is an informal adviser to John Kerry, and we're glad to see you both. Jed, let me start with you here. I do think to some extent both sides are spinning a little bit on what the report says. The president today said that Iraq still had -- that Iraq had the means and intent. David Kay just said that's not at all, at least on the subject of means, what the report said.

JED BABBIN, FMR. DEP. UNDERSECRETARY OF DEF: Well, the fact is that a lot of countries have means and intent to do it, but the report does say something very specific that I think supports the president, at least indirectly. Mr. Duelfer's report says very clearly that Saddam had the best minds in Iraq working on WMD because he attributed his possession of WMD to survival in the 1980's war against Iran and also against us in 1991 in desert storm. He's convinced or was convinced that, as Duelfer says, his survival was dependent upon that and he was also convinced that if he had completed his nuclear weapons program, he would still have Kuwait. So the fact of the matter was Saddam desperately wanted them. As we're finding out now he did not have them or we do not believe he did.

BROWN: All right. We'll come back to that point. Dan, doesn't Senator Kerry have a problem here, given that he looked at all this intelligence and he voted to authorize and it makes it harder to argue with all of this as it comes out, doesn't it?

DAN FELDMAN, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ADVISER: No. I don't think it's the same because Senator Kerry actually didn't have the same intelligence. What we've seen from this administration is that there's a pattern and practice of mischaracterizing and manipulating the evidence that they had, and they formed their hypothesis first and then found the facts to fit it. I think you saw the exact same thing happening today with President Bush and Vice President Cheney doing back flips to try to show that the Duelfer report supported their conclusions when, in fact, the bottom line is it said in no uncertain terms Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction and, in fact, he didn't even have plan to start developing those weapons of mass destruction.

BROWN: Should the president do what Tony Blair did and essentially apologize for the intelligence?

FELDMAN: You know, to be honest, I'm a lot less concerned about apologizing for things in the past and a lot more concerned about being straight with the American public as we go forward. We don't stand any chance of bringing this to a conclusion in any sort of effective way if we don't start off being straight with the American public. They showed again today and both John Kerry and John Edwards were right on when they said that Bush and Cheney are going to be the last two people in the world who believe that Saddam Hussein was actually trying to develop them.

BROWN: Jed, go ahead.

BABBIN: If I can interject here. That's just so much balderdash. The fact of the matter is Mr. Kerry did have the same information, and he also agreed to go and give the president the authority to go to war.

Mr. Kerry is not courageous enough to accuse the president of what Dan just accused him of, of spinning up and blocking and mischaracterizing the intelligence. The president did not do that. The 9/11 Commission said he did not do that.

And now we have Mr. Kerry's surrogates, but not Mr. Kerry, saying that, because Mr. Kerry doesn't have the courage, because he knows it's not true. The fact is Mr. Kerry is not leveling with anybody, not even himself, at least up until the day before yesterday -- wait a minute, Dan. I let you talk. Let me just finish my point.

His plan, supposed plan for Iraq is so completely unrealistic, he must understand he has to level with the American people to the fact that he doesn't have a plan. He says...

FELDMAN: He says -- he says...

BROWN: Hold on. Let me just say, Dan -- Dan, let me just say one quick thing. If his plan is -- I think Vice President Cheney described the plan that you just described as unrealistic, as an echo the other night. Now, Dan go ahead.

FELDMAN: If anything, to be honest, I think that it is Bush who is echoing John Kerry's plans. Look, if the administration had done what John Kerry had said to do all along in a very consistent fashion, which was to internationalize this from the very beginning and to focus on things like training security forces, then we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we currently are right now. So -- so finally, the administration has come around to where John Kerry has been saying all along that we should be going. And -- and I think we both realize at this point that we have to do similar things.

The fact is, though, that the administration is simply incapable of doing them. When they've spent $1.2 billion out of $18 billion allocated for reconstruction efforts, they're not capable.

BROWN: Jed -- I'm sorry. Let me -- Jed, let me ask the last question here.

BABBIN: Sure.

BROWN: Do you believe -- it's just slightly different question, do you believe if the country had known that there were no WMD in Iraq that the president could have convinced the country to go to war?

BABBIN: I don't think that he could have, and I don't think that he would have.

Again, the 9/11 Commission and everybody else who has looked at this in a nonpartisan way has said the president did not spin the intelligence. Now we have my good friend Dan and the surrogates coming out and saying what Mr. Kerry does not have the guts to say himself.

If he thinks the president lied, he ought to say that. Mr. Kerry's plan is a lie, and he knows it because it's based on bringing France and Germany into the fight, and they have said very directly that even if he is elected, they're not going to do it. So where's Mr. Kerry's plan? He doesn't have one.

FELDMAN: Look -- Look, I'm not speaking here as a John Kerry surrogate. I'm speaking here as an educated national security expert.

And there are a number of circumstances...

BROWN: Jed.

FELDMAN: ... in which this administration has exaggerated the truth, whether it's Condi Rice going out and saying hat the aluminum tubes were for nuclear capacity, which this report says point blank is not the case, and yet she insists on saying that the intelligence is conflicted on this. That's just not the case.

Whether it's other parts of the Duelfer Report, like -- like the bio labs being used for that type of -- trying to get up to that capacity, whether it's the 16 words that Bush uttered in the "State of the Union," which the Duelfer Report said that there was absolutely no indication of Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from abroad.

I mean, they have continually tried to manipulate the evidence.

BROWN: Gentlemen -- Gentlemen, I'm going to end it there. Good to have you both. BABBIN: Thank you.

FELDMAN: Thank you.

BABBIN: Thanks.

BROWN: The issues are out there. People can sort it out and I suspect will in the debate tomorrow.

Now Afghanistan, where there is still trouble, too, and it's also a bone of contention in the presidential race. It's a dangerous part of the world for sure.

Rocket attacks in Kabul, the capital today, one of them a dud, landed near a compound for reporters, many of whom are covering the election this weekend. If the election comes off and cleanly, major achievement for the Afghan people and the policy.

It will not, however, complete the mission for the Americans. Here's CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fifteen thousand soldiers have joined the new Afghan army so far. They are being trained by Americans, and they are being drafted into America's war on terror.

But three years on, America's most wanted is still at large.

SGT. SCOTT LUCAS, U.S. ARMY TRAINER: The importance of Osama has kind of wore down because the big picture is to -- I don't think he's a big player as he was. I think the -- and he's probably in Pakistan anyway.

AMANPOUR (on camera): For the past three years, the Americans and their Afghan allies have been predicting the imminent capture of Osama bin Laden.

So we decided to ask the current commanders about their latest predictions.

(voice-over) The Afghan general responsible for parts of the country where terrorists are still active.

GEN. AMDULLAH PATIANI, AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY: Osama bin Laden (speaking foreign language)

(through translator) I hope very soon Osama will face the same fate as Saddam Hussein and be captured.

AMANPOUR: Later we asked the commander of the 18,000 U.S. forces hunting bin Laden how long until they smoke him out?

GEN. DAVID BARNO, COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES: Very tough question and he's a very tough and elusive enemy out there. Clearly if we had a good insight into where he was, we'd be there and we'd have him in custody now.

AMANPOUR: They don't know whether he's even in Afghanistan, and it's risky business relying on Afghan warlords for help.

Last May CNN followed these Marines hunting bin Laden and his terrorists in central Afghanistan.

This local commander was helping the Marines, but a few months later, he was killed. The U.S. military said he had, in fact, been a senior Taliban commander.

In this murky reality, U.S. forces are now tasked with protecting the election process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was impressive to me is that, despite any intimidation out there, despite sporadic attacks in different parts of the country, that 10.5 million Afghans came out and registered in the face of that -- that threat to them. And I think we're going to see exactly the same thing here on Saturday.

AMANPOUR: An election that will go ahead with or without the capture of Osama bin Laden.

HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT: We are still looking for him. He is -- he is a fugitive. He's running away from law. We will get him one day, sooner or later, but in the meantime, we have to build life.

AMANPOUR: Christiane Amanpour, CNN, Kabul, Afghanistan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Still to come on the program tonight, most of the reporters have left Haiti, but the devastation of the tropical storm Jeanne remains. One photographer describes the storm through his lens.

And the cameras won't leave Kobe for awhile now that a judge is going to release the name of his accuser. Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, what naming the suspect does for the accusers and the accused.

We take a break first. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the 15 months since the Kobe Bryant rape case began, the fairness of rape shield laws have been a major part of the story. Criminal cases is over, but now the woman's civil -- suit, rather, against the NBA star is headed for court.

Late yesterday a federal judge in Denver ruled that this time around in the civil case she cannot remain anonymous. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch -- Matsch, I think it is, explained his ruling, in part, by saying, "The parties appear as equals before the court and that fundamental principle must be protected throughout these proceedings." Until now, except for tabloid leaks and the Internet, Mr. Bryant's accuser has not been publicly named. Why are the rules different in a civil case? Should they be? Is that fair?

We're joined from Boston tonight by Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor. In Washington, Geneva Overholser, the former ombudsman or -woman for the "Washington Post," professor of journalism, who has written thoughtfully and a good deal on this subject. And we're pleased to have them both with us.

Geneva, lay out the argument here why in a civil case -- I know you actually believe in the criminal case, too, but in a civil case she's not entitled to this protection?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER, MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Well, I do think it's particularly clear in a civil case, Aaron.

It's interesting that the judge said that it could be misperceived as a prejudgment if she were allowed to file the suit anonymously, and the same goes with the press. We have no ability in the media to determine guilt.

There was a criminal case which, in fact, ended when she decided she didn't want to testify. And she's taken an additional step out into the light to file a civil suit, and it is just inappropriate for the press to decide that one person needs protection and the other doesn't.

BROWN: Wendy?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: You know, I mean this is a really simple issue from where I sit.

First of all, it's a civil case, which means it's a private lawsuit. The public interest in private lawsuits is substantially smaller than it would be in a criminal case. The due process interests are much smaller than they would be when liberty is at stake in a criminal case.

So the argument in favor of disclosure is much weaker from the public's right to know perspective.

And in addition, and perhaps most compellingly, what we have in this case is a victim who was threatened repeatedly with death because she reported a crime.

You know, we shouldn't have that kind of response when a citizen performs their duty of reporting crime and participating in the criminal justice system, but it happened to her.

Plus we had gobs of irrelevant, personal and oftentimes false information published by the media. The media is blameworthy in this. And you know, we should be apologizing to her, not causing her more harm.

OVERHOLSER: I think -- I think, Aaron, that Wendy has made two important points that really support my case, if I might say so.

BROWN: Please.

OVERHOLSER: One I agree. A criminal case, we should be naming as well. It is more important to be fair and just in a criminal case and name both parties.

MURPHY: I didn't say that.

OVERHOLSER: However, a civil suit is even more clear that the public interest in having both of these parties treated equally, as the judge said, is with us.

And your other point that she has been threatened, she has had sordid details about her life all over the press, makes my third point, which is this is not an effective protection.

MURPHY: Well, this isn't about protection as policy. And this is where the mainstream media has it terribly wrong.

We think this is somehow about infantilizing women because we want to insulate them from the shame of being a rape victim. There is stigma in rape cases. Make no mistake about that.

But the real issue is the private nature of the violence. The fact that victims get pregnant, have abortions, develop HIV, get sexually transmitted diseases. That doesn't happen to any other crime victim. It doesn't happen to robbery and larceny victims.

BROWN: Wendy -- Wendy...

MURPHY: So because we can't protect them from the public disclosure of that information, which is per se relevant and fair for a criminal case, in particular, for the public to know...

OVERHOLSER: The real issue is that we don't know who the victim...

MURPHY: ... we do the best we can by not naming them so they can live in peace in the aftermath of violence for which they have no blame.

OVERHOLSER: Wendy -- you may...

BROWN: Wendy stop.

OVERHOLSER: You may have independent knowledge about the guilt or innocence in this case. The media do not. The real issue is we don't know who is a victim. And it's inappropriate of us to determine that.

MURPHY: Let me ask you something. Let me ask you something.

Did the "Washington Post" print the false statement that the victim had sex after the crime and before she went to the hospital? Because that we know now is absolutely false. But the mainstream media had no problem publishing that information.

Now that we know the DNA from the other guy consisted of four dead tailless sperm, one ejaculation contains about a zillion sperm. But there were four dead tailless sperm and no semen. And the mainstream media could have cared less about the truth.

OVERHOLSER: The kind of discussion that you're having...

BROWN: One at a time. Geneva, last word.

OVERHOLSER: The kind of discussion you're having is not good coverage. Good coverage would, however, entail full information about the names of the two people involved.

BROWN: Geneva, Wendy, good to see you both. Thank you.

OVERHOLSER: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you both.

MURPHY: Thanks, Aaron.

BROWN: Thank you.

Ahead on the program -- two debates in one night -- Haiti's struggle in the aftermath of Hurricane Jeanne and a native son's extraordinary photo essay of it all.

And "Morning Papers," too. No debating that.

We'll take a break. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Nearly three weeks ago Hurricane Jeanne swept north of Haiti. Technically speaking it was a tropical storm. It never actually made land, but oh, the catastrophe it caused.

Government officials have put the final death toll from the devastating floods at more than 3,000. Some 200,000 Haitians were left homeless, as well.

Photographer Carl Juste was born in Haiti, has covered his homeland for "The Miami Herald" for more than a decade. He returned for two weeks to document the aftermath of the flood.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARL JUSTE, PHOTOGRAPHER (voice-over): I was born in Haiti. As photographers, we have to be close. We have to be really there. Being Haitian doesn't make it more personal. It just lingers longer than most stories.

The hurricane never really hit the island. It was more the rain showers and the band showers that covered the island. That one I took, it had been a street. The water had nowhere to go, and people to had to continue to live their lives. And for some, they had to leave the city and the only way you can is by foot.

This woman was trying to salvage her belongings in her home, and her foot was severed by a piece of metal. You have to understand, this water they're standing in has bacteria and highly contaminated, so the urgency of getting her medical care was very important.

Even when you speak to someone who has lost four members of a family or even five, there is not this outpour of emotions. They're restrained because they pull from the strength. They're survivors just by very nature. They're very strong people.

On the outskirts of Gonaives there was a small farming village. And as we were crossing this field this woman was adamant about me seeing her home. When we got to her home, her home was completely destroyed. I framed her within the doorway of her neighbor's home, and she was standing where her house once stood. She also lost three of her own children.

This woman was telling me she lost a 21-year-old son. Apparently, she was trying to save the young boy which you see sitting next to her. And as she's trying to save the young boy, her 21-year- old son was in the water and was trying to grab on to a tree, but slipped and the water just took him downstream. She was not able to save him but was able to save the younger child.

Suffering is suffering. What happens in one corner of the world does reverberate somewhere in some other place. And let's not get too desensitized by the conditions in Haiti. We should not see them as solely as people who are used to suffering.

I see Haiti as a nation that has suffered enough.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK. Fastest minute in television. "Morning Papers."

"International Herald-Tribune"" "Bush Goal in Debate is to Polish His Style but Negative News Provides Kerry with Fresh Ammunition." That's how the "International Herald-Tribune" leads.

"The Washington Times," if you -- remember their headline on the weapons thing last night? A little straighter, this one: "Intelligence Wrong on WMDs. Bush Admits Mistake but Defends War in Iraq. Allies Dismiss Report of Saddam Payoffs." That's the Oil-for- Food program or the Food-for-Oil program, however that worked out.

"The Miami Herald" will take a little bit more time. Go down to the bottom here if you can. "Caregiver Says She Believes Rilya is Alive. That is the first time we've heard about Rilya, young Rilya Wilson in a long time. Remember this child just disappeared. I mean, the state lost her and the caregiver, Geralyn -- I use the term "caregiver" loosely here -- said she thought the state had her. The state thought she had her. And nobody carried about her.

Anyway, for whatever reasons, this woman, who's in jail now, believes Rilya is alive, and we hope to God she's right.

"White House Concedes Iraq had no WMDs." And they got -- they managed to get -- that's pretty quick work: "Blast Hits Israeli Tourist Sites" also on the front page. I have no idea why Princess Diana is on the front page.

"The Boston Herald": "Go Yanks. We Want to Kick Your Butts on the Way to the Series." Well, don't know about that, because the Yanks are never going to get past the Minnesota Twins.

Weather tomorrow in Chicago, melancholy, which is how I'll be if I'm wrong about the Yanks and the Minnesota Twins. We'll wrap it up in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The debate tomorrow is 9 p.m. Eastern Time. A lot of stuff going on before that. And Larry at 11 p.m. Eastern Time. We're here at midnight. We hope you join us for that.

Until then, good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.

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