Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

President Bush Argues the Case Against Iraq

Aired September 12, 2002 - 20:00   ET

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

CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: The president tells the world, "If you won't stop Iraq, America will."

ANNOUNCER: The case against Iraq: President Bush takes on Saddam Hussein at the United Nations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight: how close Saddam is to having the bomb.

A convicted sex offender who actually asked to be put in prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID WAGNER (ph), CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: The problem I have had with the excessive interest and excessive overenthusiasm, being infatuated and enamored with children, goes back to my adolescence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Now parents in a small town want to know why he's still walking the streets.

Too good to be true? TV ads for Botox...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: Wow. It's not magic. It's Botox cosmetics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... come under fire from the FDA. Does the wrinkle- reducing treatment really do what the ads say?

Problems for the pageant: the federal court battle for the crown. Two women, but only one gets to compete for Miss America.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung. CHUNG: Good evening.

Tonight: The president has given the United Nations' 189-member countries an ultimatum. If the U.N. doesn't take care of Iraq, America will. Before President Bush spoke, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan seemed to agree that the U.N. must take a stand if Iraq continues its defiance. But Annan also warned against any one nation taking unilateral action.

As CNN senior White House correspondent John King reports, that didn't stop the president from putting the U.N. on notice.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A defining speech on Iraq, and a direct challenge to the United Nations.

BUSH: Are Security Council resolution to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence. Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

KING: The Iraqi delegation looked on as Mr. Bush labeled Saddam Hussein an outlaw, and accused him of more than a decade of defying his commitments to the United Nations, including a promise to dismantle his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

BUSH: By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

KING: Mr. Bush said he wants to work through the United Nations, and would push for tough new action by the Security Council. But the president also made clear, his patience is limited.

BUSH: The just demands of peace and security will be met or action will be unavoidable and a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

KING: Iraq's U.N. envoy complained that Mr. Bush has no proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, or that it supports terrorism.

MOHAMMAD AL-DOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: He chooses to deceive the world and his own people, by the long series of fabrications, that has ever been told by a leader of a nation.

KING: But the U.N. secretary general warned that Iraq must keep its commitment or face action by the Security Council, a point echoed by France.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): We cannot agree to the status quo. We cannot agree to violations of Security Council resolutions.

KING: Secretary of State Powell will lobby key members of the Security Council, with Russia and China, considered pivotal. (on camera): The Bush team says it is encouraged by the initial response and will push now to have all this play out over the next six to eight weeks: first, a tough new U.N. Security Council resolution, then a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, with the clear understanding that any interference by Baghdad would be considered justification for military strikes.

John King, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: In a new report, the White House concluded that Iraq does not currently have nuclear weapons capability or delivery systems for chemical or biological weapons. So why is Iraq seen as such a threat?

Joining me now with their perspectives on that question are Tim McCarthy, former U.N. weapons inspector, coming to us from San Jose, California; and in Washington, Khidhir Hamza, a former senior official in Iraq's nuclear program.

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.

Mr. Hamza, for a time, you were in charge of developing an Iraqi nuclear bomb. Did you meet and know Saddam Hussein?

KHIDHIR HAMZA, FORMER IRAQI NUCLEAR PROGRAM OFFICIAL: Yes, a couple of times, yes.

CHUNG: And your impressions of him?

HAMZA: He comes hard and heavy on his underlings. He is impatient. It's rare you can finish a sentence with him. But one thing comes in clear. He is very determined to get a nuclear weapon. That's why he was so heavy on us.

CHUNG: More so than chemical or biological?

HAMZA: He know the limitations of these two weapons. He knows that there is no defense against a nuclear weapon. And a real deterrence for him is the nuclear weapon option. The other options are usable if he can protect himself with a nuclear weapon.

CHUNG: Now, you testified before Congress just last month that you believe that Iraq is trying to redevelop a nuclear weapons program. What evidence do you have of that?

HAMZA: Several: the recent evidence released of Iraq trying to purchase high-precision aluminum tubes.

CHUNG: Tubes?

HAMZA: Tubes that could be used in centrifuge enrichment, which will enrich uranium to bomb grade, thousands of them, an unusual amount, the evidence of...

CHUNG: And how do you know that that shipment came to -- or a lot of shipments went to Iraq?

HAMZA: They said -- the president's speech today said attempted. But my impression was that some of the shipments did go through to Iraq. But there was a determined attempt and a determination on Iraq's part to obtain these tubes, which tell us that they want to rejuvenate their centrifuge program.

CHUNG: And, also, do you know for a fact that Iraq is trying to buy nuclear material on the black market? And, if so, is that your greatest concern?

HAMZA: Actually, my greatest -- yes, Iraq, first, is trying to buy nuclear material, according to one defector with a credible story. And it was checked and crosschecked, that. Iraq trying was trying to buy Russian sources -- I mean, Russian radioactive sources through a third country in Africa.

But my concern is not this. This, at best, you can make one nuclear weapon of. And when you test it, you lose it. The problem is when you have a production facility. And Iraq is targeting a production facility in a determined way. The aluminum tubes are just one aspect. There are several other pieces of evidence, like purchase of equipment. An attempt to gain some more information is what indicates Iraq is determined to obtain, actually to get a production facility going for nuclear weapons.

CHUNG: All right. I'm going to ask you about that production facility in just a moment, but I want to switch over, just for a moment, to Mr. McCarthy.

Now, you have been to Iraq 13 times as a weapons inspector. What you hear from Mr. Hamza, do you believe that what you saw would support what he is saying?

TIMOTHY MCCARTHY, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Yes, I do agree with Khidhir.

What we saw in Iraq -- and it's really a reflection of what was mentioned by Khidhir. That is the centrifuge-enrichment technology. Iraq really spent a considerable amount of time and considerable resources trying to buy weapons technology during the time that we were in Iraq. And, frankly, I don't see that the means or the motives have really changed since 1998. And one could reasonably assume that this type of activity is continuing.

CHUNG: And what do you find to be the most disturbing part of Iraq's weapons program?

MCCARTHY: Well, in terms of just the procurement, for example, Connie, well, the disturbing part for me, frankly, is the number of suppliers who are still willing -- even though Iraq is under sanctions, even though it has demonstrated, I think, clearly aggressive tendencies -- there's a number of willing suppliers out there who are quite happy to provide this kind of technology to Iraq.

CHUNG: Dr. Hamza, then, we'll go back to that question of: When do you believe that such a production facility would be up and running?

HAMZA: Well, there are several estimates. My own personal guess will be 2005. But several...

CHUNG: 2005?

HAMZA: Yes.

But that -- by then, it would have been running for a long enough time to get two or three nuclear weapons. And then it would be probably too late or too dangerous to attempt to unseat Saddam. But there's several estimates, will range from 2004 to 2006 or '07.

CHUNG: Mr. McCarthy, that's an extremely disturbing bit of information.

Let's listen to President Bush today at the U.N. He was talking about weapons inspections, such a program. And I want to ask you about that after we listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein regime is a grave and gathering danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Mr. McCarthy, as a former inspector, do you believe that inspections would still work?

MCCARTHY: Well, in general, Connie, the thing to remember is that Iraq is a very difficult target. In other words, they have a very good system of concealing and hiding weapons, equipment and technologies.

Nevertheless, there is a still role, I think, potentially for inspector, depending on how that inspection regime is constructed. Inspectors can monitor facilities very well. But what they have more difficulty with and our experience was trying to chase down these weapons, especially when there was really no enforcement mechanism or robust enforcement mechanism in place, meaning the Security Council really doing something when Iraq violated their own resolutions.

CHUNG: Just in the last, say, 30 seconds that we have, Mr. Hamza is one of those who defected. Are there still scientists, experts there who could carry on this work? I'm sure there are some, but many have defected.

HAMZA: No.

CHUNG: Oh, go ahead. Why don't you go, Mr. McCarthy, first?

MCCARTHY: Yes. I would just say very briefly that the infrastructure of people, that is really the key ingredient in terms of the weapons programs. And Khidhir could perhaps answer better, but there are a number of people still remaining in Iraq, very key people.

CHUNG: All right, Mr. Hamza?

HAMZA: Actually, the top scientists are still there. Almost all the scientists are there. Very few defected. And so the structure, like the president said today, is still intact almost over there and is quite capable.

CHUNG: Gentlemen, thank you so much for your insight, for the information you gave us, although it is a bit disturbing and frightening. Thank you again.

MCCARTHY: You're welcome.

CHUNG: So what does all this mean for the U.S.? Is this really just a matter of when? We'll take up this part of the story when we come back.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: A convicted child molester out on bail, even though he says he ought to be locked up. Neighborhood parents agree. Why, then, is he still on the street?

CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: The United States and United Nations have a long history of not being united. Prior to Kofi Annan, the U.N.'s secretary-general was Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Toward the end of his tenure, Boutros-Ghali's relationship with the U.S., particularly U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, became increasingly strained.

Eventually, in 1996, the U.S. leaked word that it would oppose Boutros-Ghali getting a second five-year term as secretary-general.

BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: We hope that the U.S. would change its position and that they would support me. We still have six months before the elections.

ANNOUNCER: But six months didn't make a difference. In the end, the U.S. was the only nation on the 15-member Security Council to oppose Boutros-Ghali. The U.S. veto made him the first secretary- general not to get a second term. Why did the U.S. ditch him? And what's happened to him since? The answers when we return.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: America itself is not unified on how much of a priority Iraq should be, let alone what to do about Iraq.

So we're going to bring in Florida Democrat Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Republican committee member Senator John Kyl of Arizona.

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us.

SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D), FLORIDA: Thank you.

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Thank you.

CHUNG: Senator Graham, you have said consistently that you believe Iraq would distract the United States in its effort to fight terrorism. After hearing the president speak, have you changed your mind?

GRAHAM: Well, the context in which we're dealing with Iraq is that we have several other important issues in the same region of world. We have the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, the war against terror outside of Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and weapons of mass destruction in countries other than Iraq, such as Iran.

I think we have got to decide what our priorities are, what the consequences of dealing with one of those issues will be on all the rest. My own priority is continuing to pursue the war on terror, to finish what looks like a difficult job in Afghanistan, and then to begin to attack the terrorists in the other countries where they are presently training, preparing, and ready to place operational agents around the world, including in the United States.

CHUNG: Philosophically, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would agree with you, but don't you believe that anti-war sentiment is dwindling on the Hill after hearing today's speech?

GRAHAM: I think the president, over the last several weeks, has increasingly taken the forum and is making the case for war against Iraq. And the way he's doing it, by involving the international communities, such as the speech that he gave today -- which I think was a very strong one -- and coming to the Congress, are important steps in building a base of support.

CHUNG: No question about that.

Senator Kyl, allow me to proceed from a different direction with you.

Isn't it quite a political coincidence that he's bringing up war with Iraq very carefully, as Senator Graham said, before Congress, before the international community, now in September? It could have been done in August. But it just happens to seem to be closer to the election in November.

KYL: That's ridiculous, with all due respect.

Congress was in recess in August. And I don't think anybody was prepared to do this in July. The fact is that the action that needs to be taken against Saddam Hussein cannot wait for very long. And the president is not going to take that action prior to the election. He's already made that commitment to people.

We have a lot of consultation with allies to perform. We need to talk to the people in this country in a very serious way. And there's some preparation for the action that has to occur. That can all occur before the election. So the action isn't going to be taken as some kind of wag-the-dog proposition. I don't think that George Bush has to prove that he's not Bill Clinton.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: All right, I appreciate your wag-the-dog comment.

Senator Kyl, to follow up, I know Senator Graham has requested of the CIA a complete report on Iraq's weapons capabilities. That still has not come to your committee. Don't you think it's incumbent upon the administration to present that information to the Select Committee on Intelligence before proceeding?

KYL: That's actually not quite right.

There was a request made of a very specific particular. And the preparation for that is occurring right now. But we've had regular reports from the intelligence community about the status of Saddam Hussein's activities, including the possession of weapons of mass destruction in the chemical and biological sphere, as well as some means of delivering those weapons, and his attempts to develop nuclear weaponry. That's been an ongoing proposition over the years and over the months. And we're pretty well informed about what he's got.

CHUNG: Senator Graham, are you satisfied with the information that you've been receiving along those lines?

GRAHAM: We had a very good hearing earlier this week. And we'll have another one next week.

We have asked the CIA to do two, what are referred to as national intelligence estimates. One relates to a specific operation in Iraq. The other is more broadly based and it gets into issues of what would be the effect of war in Iraq on the stability of front-line states such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the status of Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.

CHUNG: So, just to follow up on that, are you satisfied, the way Senator Kyl appears to be satisfied?

GRAHAM: I'm satisfied with the information that we've started to get, particularly the briefing this week from the administration. The CIA is working on our two requests. I'm, frankly, disappointed that the first one -- which was -- the request was made the third week of July -- we still have not received.

But I will give the CIA a little more time to respond. But we need to have that information before we're called upon to advise our colleagues as to what is the intelligence basis for the action that we're being called upon to authorize.

CHUNG: And a question to both of you, first Senator Kyl.

Is there any doubt in your mind that we will be going to war against Iraq?

KYL: Well, I don't think anybody can say that, with absolute certainty, it will be war. There's always the very remote possibility that Saddam Hussein would actually agree to the kind of intrusive inspections that will lead to the dismantlement and disarmament that the United Nations resolutions call for.

CHUNG: And do you believe it is a remote possibility?

KYL: I was going to say, it's probably in the when-cows-fly category of probability.

CHUNG: Thank you.

KYL: So there will be some kind of action taken against him. I think that probably is inevitable, because it's very, very doubtful that he would ever comply.

CHUNG: And, Senator Graham, your thoughts, your opinion. Do you think it's a go of invading Iraq?

GRAHAM: Well, I agree what Senator Kyl has just said.

But then the president today seemed to lay out a course of action, first within the United Nations Security Council, that they take whatever action is necessary to indicate their commitment to secure enforcement of all of the previous resolutions that the Security Council has passed affecting Saddam Hussein, particularly in his development of weapons of mass destruction. So the first chapter is going to be written in the Security Council.

Then the second chapter will be: What will be Saddam Hussein's response? I'm afraid that the record of Saddam Hussein certainly justifies the pessimism that Senator Kyl has just expressed.

CHUNG: All right, Senator Graham, Senator Kyl, we thank you both so much for being with us this evening.

KYL: Thank you.

GRAHAM: Thank you, Connie.

CHUNG: Still ahead: an extraordinary appeal from a man who is practically begging to be put in prison. Why? You have to hear this story.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: the latest in the fight against wrinkles. Does Botox deliver on its advertised promise to turn back the clock? CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We will continue.

(NEWS BREAK)

CHUNG: And still ahead: Did a big company smooth over an ugly truth about Botox? That's what the government claims.

Stay with us.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Who will wear the crown as Miss North Carolina?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBEKAH REVELS, MISS NORTH CAROLINA: Well, you have people on either side of that who love Misty, thinks she would be a wonderful representative -- and she has -- and that love me. And I think that North Carolina wants this to be laid to rest, as well as we do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: It went to court. And we'll tell you who the winner is when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: It's not unusual for neighborhoods to demand that child molesters be put behind bars. But in Darien, Connecticut, residents have found an extremely unusual ally in their cause: the very molester they want imprisoned. His name is David Wagner. And last July, he put out a flier revealing himself to be a sex offender and warning parents to keep their children away from him. He even spoke to a local television station about his attraction to young children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAGNER: The problem I have had with the excessive interest and excessive overenthusiasm, being infatuated and enamored with children, goes back to my adolescence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Joining me now are some of his neighbors: Cynthia Strassberg and Carrie Spearman, whose encounters with Wagner you'll hear about in just a moment, as well as Detective Sergeant Anthony Lupinacci, who is helping these women in their efforts to put Wagner behind bars.

Thank you so much for being with us.

This is just extraordinary. I'm sure -- I can't believe it, but I'm sure you can't believe this is happening to you. I just want to read some of the things he said. It's a four-page flier, typewritten. And he says -- he starts right off, "I am a sex offender." And he explains that he has been -- he has pleaded guilty to charges of sexually assaulting children who are 6 years old and even younger, and that he was -- he won't be sentenced until later. But, in the meantime, he's basically been out on bail for a year, almost a year?

And I just want to read a few more of these things. He says: "I write this because I'm tired of deluding myself, as I have all my life. People who care about children need to know about people like me." He explains what it's like and how he grew up Darien, which is a lovely neighborhood, right?

CARRIE SPEARMAN, NEIGHBOR OF DAVID WAGNER: It is. It's a wonderful town.

CYNTHIA STRASSBERG, NEIGHBOR OF DAVID WAGNER: Beautiful.

(CROSSTALK)

CHUNG: And some people probably don't even want to lock their doors during the daytime.

He says: "I'm a white male adult, age 35. I've grown up in what you would call a suburban Gold Coast, Connecticut privileged area, with all the trimmings and chance after chance."

So the extraordinary thing, though, is that he is free. He's gotten out on bail, presumably the parents put up the bail? How -- now you have a child correct?

STRASSBERG: Yes.

SPEARMAN: Yes.

CHUNG: Now, you have child, correct?

STRASSBERG: I have a 3-year-old daughter.

CHUNG: And what did you think when you received this flier? Did you know who David Wagner was?

STRASSBERG: When he was first arrested, I had heard about his arrest in Stamford through neighbor who had read about in one of the local papers.

And we were immediately alarmed. And, in this day and age, you have to take the responsibility of examining cases like this to know the threat to your children.

CHUNG: Yes.

STRASSBERG: And the alarm level was already quite high, because here was a man -- when we started researching the case, we found he had a history of inappropriate interactions with children. It had progressed to the point that he had confessed to these six specific accounts, three of which were felonies. And he had confessed to having molested -- quote, unquote -- "a bunch" of other children in the surrounding towns for years.

CHUNG: And this had been reported to police several times. But the arrests only occurred in this last year, the specific arrests.

STRASSBERG: Right, the two different arrests in Stamford.

And when this flier came out, the alarm level, which was already high, escalated, both among parents and the children, because we got his message loud and clear. And, also, when he went on News 12, he said, "Guard your children from David Wagner."

CHUNG: Isn't that extraordinary? That's amazing.

Tell us, Carrie, how long have you known him?

SPEARMAN: We've been on the street nearly 24 years.

CHUNG: Oh, my goodness.

SPEARMAN: And my first encounter with David was 23 years ago. My 5-year-old was riding her tricycle. We'd been in the house two weeks. This 12-year-old kid walks up to me and says, "Do you know what a cudgel is?"

CHUNG: A cudgel?

SPEARMAN: And I said, "Yes, I do."

And he said, "This is my cudgel." And he had this huge stick. He said, "Watch out for me." And I put my hand on my daughter's back and said, "It's time to go in."

And he said, "Which house are you in?"

And I said, "The blue one."

He said, "What happened to the little girls that used to live there?"

I said, "They moved away."

CHUNG: So, he still lives on that street, is the correct, with his mother?

Detective, you were the one who actually pursued this case. And you actually sat down with him and talked with him. Did he explain? He confessed to you. Did he explain exactly what he did?

SGT. ANTHONY LUPINACCI, STAMFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes, he did, Connie. After we interview -- we had him in to interview him. And he said he had these feelings since he was 13 1/2 years old, that he's been a pedophile and liked little children since he was 13 1/2. In fact... CHUNG: He admitted to it?

LUPINACCI: Oh, yes, yes.

In fact, he told us what he likes to do with young children. And he -- what bothered me the most was, he said he likes children between 4 and 5 years old, because they are easier to put on his lap and they feel soft to him. And, fortunately, we had someone come forward who I believe is the real hero in this case. It was an anonymous call. We later met the person who started us out.

We had to go out and find the children and whatnot, which led us to another case. We canvassed the neighborhood. First we had a boy and girl, a sister and a brother that he molested.

(CROSSTALK)

CHUNG: That was the 6-year-old and the 4-year-old?

LUPINACCI: Yes, that's correct.

And then we came upon another victim, a 6-year-old female, also. And he did tell us there was other children prior to us finding him, but he wouldn't say where or when. We did alert all the areas, all the area towns, because he said he lives in Darien, he likes children in Darien, Stamford and Norfolk. But he was pretty graphic about his urges.

CHUNG: Carrie, when he was growing up there -- and, Cynthia, as you know now -- were people concerned about him?

SPEARMAN: Yes.

CHUNG: They reported him to the police? There were occasions that they did?

Or perhaps you could answer that, Detective.

LUPINACCI: Just to let you know, I'm from Stamford. This occurred in Stamford. Darien is a neighboring town. There has been calls with David Wagner as far as suspicious behavior and whatnot, nothing really crossing a line, though, where he actually could -- police could get him for molesting someone.

CHUNG: I see, not until last year.

LUPINACCI: He was also very careful and very shrewd about the way he would do things.

CHUNG: So now he won't be sentenced until September 19?

LUPINACCI: Well, yes. September 19 or 20, it's going to take place. They're not quite sure yet. But there's also is a revocation- of-bond hearing Tuesday, this coming Tuesday. We're still trying to revoke his bond also.

CHUNG: I see.

I mean, this is a very strange question. But in some ways, do you feel, Cynthia, that at least he's calling out for help?

STRASSBERG: I think he's put us on even higher alert in our neighborhoods. And we know that we have to protect our children. And we've had to counsel them.

And I think -- to focus on the children, because I think they are the real story here -- this has affected our children in a really negative way. Obviously, we have had to take the responsibility to tell them about this specific case. Our children are losing sleep about this. Their right to a carefree childhood has been severely diminished by his remaining in the community and not being incarcerated.

They're losing sleep. They don't want to ride their bicycles. We've seen and heard them huddling together on the elementary school playground, which, by the way -- the elementary school is less than half-a-mile from his home. There are over 300 children within a half- mile radius of this man who are under high school age. There's a middle school within six-tenths of a mile from him.

And the children fear for themselves and for their friends.

CHUNG: All right, Cynthia, I thank you so much for being with us.

Carrie.

SPEARMAN: Thank you.

CHUNG: Wait, did I have that mixed up?

SPEARMAN: No, you're right.

CHUNG: No, I got it right. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

CHUNG: Detective, thank you so much for being with us, and for your diligence as well.

And, once again, we talked to -- we tried to get a response from him and his attorney, but they declined, and the state's attorney as well. They say that the case, of course, is still pending. And the judge in the case did not return calls to us. His parents also did not want to comment.

So, thank you again for being with us. And we'll continue following up on this story with you.

STRASSBERG: Thank you.

SPEARMAN: Thank you.

LUPINACCI: Thank you very much.

CHUNG: Still ahead: It's been north vs. north to the fight for Miss North Carolina. And now one has been chosen to go to the Miss America Pageant. And we'll tell you who that is in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: There's a new wrinkle in the hugely popular trend of Botox use. The Food and Drug Administration is telling the company that makes Botox, Allergan -- is it Allergen or Allergan? Well, we'll find out -- Allergan. We'll find out from Elizabeth Cohen, who is going to help with this.

Now it has to yank its multimillion-dollar ad campaign because it's misleading.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: Wow. Worried about losing your wow? Ask your dermatologist or plastic surgeon about Botox cosmetic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: How is it misleading? The FDA says the ads fail to point out that Botox was only approved to treat deep vertical lines between the eyebrows, right about here.

So, will women have to stop injecting themselves and is it possible that it just might be a good thing?

Here comes Elizabeth Cohen to help us out with this. And she's going to smooth it out all.

Elizabeth, are you there?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm right here.

And it's Allergan. You had it right, Connie.

CHUNG: OK, good. Thank you so much, Elizabeth.

You really have to explain to me what all this Botox is. I've heard about it. But, just for us in layman's terms, what is a Botox injection or whatever it's called?

COHEN: Well, Connie, Botox has a very interesting story behind it. It was originally designed for people who had muscle spasms. What Botox is, is it's the botulism bacteria. But it's purified. And it's used in extremely small amounts.

And what it does is, the brain sends a message to muscles, saying, "Hey, come on, let's move." What Botox does is, it interrupts that message so that the muscles won't move. And that why it helped for people who had spasms. But what they discovered is that it also helps for those little muscles that cause those wrinkles. And that's why, just earlier this year, it was approved to treat wrinkles. CHUNG: All right, now, there's one particular line in these brochures that's especially difficult for the FDA to approve of. And that is, "Reduce your toughest wrinkle within seven days." Why is that misleading?

COHEN: It's misleading, the FDA says, because the FDA approve drugs to do very, very specific things. And they approved Botox only for the wrinkles between the eyebrows.

They did not say anything that the data said that it got rid of your toughest wrinkles. The FDA didn't look at the data and say, "Oh, yes, this is for the toughest wrinkles." So they say it's misleading for them to say that. As a matter of fact, Botox is approved only for people between the ages of 18 and 65. I would venture to guess that the toughest wrinkles are for people older than age 65. So, the FDA says, look, it's not for the toughest wrinkles, necessarily. And that's why they want them to take that out of the ads.

CHUNG: Well, what are the toughest wrinkles? Are there tough wrinkles, specifically on your face, wrinkles that are tougher than others?

COHEN: Well, there are wrinkles that are sort of bigger than others, I guess you would say.

And this is for something very specific. Botox is approved only for these wrinkles that you see here circled on this woman's face in red, the ones that are between your eyebrows. It is not approved for the ones that are around your nose or around your mouth or anywhere else. The data that the company submitted to the FDA only showed safety and efficacy for the ones between the eyebrows.

Another thing that kind of has the FDA ticked off is that, in these ads and in the brochure, the company, Allergan, does not mention that this is just temporary. When you get shots to get rid of the wrinkles between your eyebrows, you have to get them every three to four months to keep it up.

CHUNG: Oh, my gosh.

COHEN: And that's quite a bit of maintenance. And they don't say that. If you watch the ad, you just think everything is fabulous and you get the shots and you're home free forever. But that's not the case.

CHUNG: Every three to four months?

COHEN: Right.

CHUNG: And do they know about any of the long-term effects?

COHEN: You know, Allergan says that they have over 10 years of commercial use for this. However, that is not what many people would consider long term. They don't have 20 years experience. They don't have 30 years experience. This is a relatively new drug. And like all relatively new drugs, you take it at some amount of risk. This isn't like aspirin or some another drug where there's just decades and decades of experience. They don't have it. And so you're always taking some small amount of risk when you do that.

CHUNG: All right, let's take a look at that TV ad just one more time, OK?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

NARRATOR: Wow. Wow. It's not magic. It's Botox cosmetics. Wow. Worried about...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: All they're saying is wow. What's wrong with that?

COHEN: Right, well, they didn't object to the "wow," per se.

What they don't like about the ad is that, mostly, among other things, is that it doesn't mention that it's only for the wrinkles between your eyebrows. You see the women. You see their entire faces. Nowhere does it say, "Oh, by the way, this is only approved for the wrinkles between your eyebrows." Most women who have wrinkles, they don't want to just get rid of those. They want to get rid of everything.

And they also don't mention in there, you've got to repeat this every three to four months. Those are the FDA's big exceptions with the ad. They kind of gloss over that. They don't even deal with it.

CHUNG: All right, and, finally, do you have to be a specialist to prescribe it, to inject it, to treat someone?

COHEN: You know what, Connie? You don't. And that has some people concerned, because there's such money to be made in this business.

You could be an orthopedic surgeon. You could be a heart surgeon and just wake up one morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll do Botox." And that's why it's important that, when someone goes to get to get Botox injections, that they ask, "Have you done this before?" This is not a completely harmless treatment here. There have been rare terrible things that happened to people.

Rarely, some people have died. Rarely, some people have had heart problems. And so you want someone who knows how to do this. And, also, you want to have a conversation with the doctor. You hear about these Botox parties. You don't want to be at a party sort of drinking and having fun and not really thinking. You need to think about the risks that you're taking. You need to say to the doctor, "Gee, how many times have you done this?"

So you want to pay attention. This is often treated as, like, a party drug, when in fact it's a real drug that can have real side effects.

CHUNG: All right, Elizabeth, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

COHEN: Thank you, Connie.

CHUNG: And I know -- you know what? You're never going to have those lines right between your eyebrows, because you're always so positive. You're never frowning.

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Well, thank you, Connie.

CHUNG: Thank you, Elizabeth.

And, finally, CNN did speak to the FDA about the ads. And they did say it was very clear in a letter from the FDA what should be done.

Coming up: the latest wrinkle in the battle by two women to be contestants in this year's Miss America.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Normally, when you think of Miss America, the suits are the swimsuits and the motions are hip swings down the catwalk. Well, this year, it's lawsuits and legal motions.

But today, a judge settled the issue of who will compete as Miss North Carolina, turning aside a request by Rebekah Revels to restore her crown. She had given it up after her ex-boyfriend told pageant officials about topless pictures of her. And, tonight, the Miss America Pageant said her runner-up, Misty Clymer -- yes, that is her real name -- will compete with Miss -- as Miss America.

Miss America 2000, Heather French Henry, joins us now from Louisville, Kentucky, to help us understand how a beauty pageant got so ugly.

Heather, thank you for being with us.

HEATHER FRENCH HENRY, MISS AMERICA 2000: Thank you so much, Connie.

CHUNG: Did the Miss America Pageant people make the right decision? What do you think?

HENRY: Legally, I feel it is the decision they had to make.

Now, I say legally, because she was bound by a contract. And Misty Clymer, of course, was the only one of the two young women who legally had the signed, upholding contract with the organization. Now, emotionally surrounding the organization and its history, should it have made that decision? You know, I'm not so sure that it was an incorrect play to begin with.

I don't think Rebekah Revels should have resigned in the first place.

CHUNG: You mean from Miss North Carolina.

HENRY: Correct. I believe that she was probably strongly advised that it was in the best interest of the organization, that if she had done pictures or had nude pictures of herself, that she should step down.

Now, however, we don't know anything about these pictures because they were never -- we've never seen evidence of these pictures anywhere. They've never been brought to the public. So it makes me a little leery of the fact she was strongly advised. Perhaps she had no legal advice or bad legal advice when she did make that decision. I believe that she should have been returned the title.

CHUNG: Do you think, then, that the Miss North Carolina Pageant folks were particularly at fault and that the Miss America Pageant, the national people, had no choice?

HENRY: I'm not so sure I would say they're at fault. I believe that they had the best interests of the organization. They wanted to take maybe the quiet way out. And maybe they thought they were taking the high road.

But I would have liked to have seen them take the courageous road. Clearly, Rebekah Revels was a victim here. She was in an abusive, a potentially volatile relationship. She was taken advantage of by her ex-fiancee, who clearly today is still taking advantage of her by holding these ghost photos over her head. And I would have liked to have seen the Miss North Carolina Organization take the courageous road and stand behind her and say, "We'll cross one of these bridges at a time."

CHUNG: I'm sure she would be so thrilled to hear about your support.

Now, do you think that she was again victimized, essentially, by this entire pageant situation?

HENRY: Indirectly I believe she was victimized. I don't think that any of the -- the national organization nor the state organization set out to really put a target on her. I know they wanted things to roll along and to move along.

And I believe that Misty Clymer will make a wonderful Miss North Carolina and she'll have a wonderful Miss America experience up in Atlantic City. But for a woman to reach -- she's 24 years of age. She is reaching the end of the road for the Miss America Scholarship Organization, due to the age limit. And she had worked for years to get up to that point. And I think that, looking back on this, they'll learn several lessons on maybe how to deal with this particular circumstance in the future. CHUNG: Yes, exactly. I was just about to ask you about lessons that the pageant can learn from this experience. I mean, in some ways, do you think that the pageant sort of clings to the safe, clings to the old-fashioned, and won't sort of move forward?

HENRY: Well, I think with any nonprofit organization, you want to steer clear of controversy. However, every fall, we seem to find ourselves embroiled in some controversy or another. But I think what this should teach not only the organization, but young women who are involved in the organization is how to stand up and fight for your rights.

We have a lot of young, independent, well-educated young women who are vying for these titles, thousands each year. And so many of us are lobbying Congress. We're getting bills passed. We're speaking our opinion about our platform issues, whatever they may be. But yet, in instances like this, it really doesn't shine the best light when we see a strong contestant not take that stance and not use that independency to her right.

CHUNG: Heather French Henry, I really enjoyed talking to you. I think...

HENRY: Thank you Connie.

CHUNG: ... you're just terrific. You should be a spokesperson all the time for these types of organizations. You represent them well.

HENRY: Thank you so much, Connie. It was a pleasure.

CHUNG: OK.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Tomorrow: "The Sopranos" are back -- bada bing -- a big night for cable on Sunday. And we have got Uncle Junior coming to talk about the fourth season. And we have got -- well, Dominic Chianese, right, to sing for all he's worth.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE": out of office, but still outspoken, former Texas Governor Ann Richards. You go, girl.

Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night and we'll see you tomorrow.

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