Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Bill Clinton; What Role With Bill Clinton Play In 2004 Presidential Election Campaign; Analysis Of Scott Peterson Case

Aired July 10, 2004 - 14:00   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.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: It's 2:00 p.m. on the East Coast, 11:00 a.m. out West. I'm Fredricka Whitfield at CNN's Global headquarters.
Ahead this hour on a special edition of CNN LIVE SATURDAY, Christiane Amanpour's interview with Bill Clinton, hear what he has to say about Iraq, the war on terror and solutions for peace in the Middle East. Then a look at how Clinton may impact the upcoming presidential race.

And this week's legal dramas. Who's in court, who's in trouble and who's in handcuffs?

But first a look at the top stories.

Now in the news, a Philippines diplomat in Iraq, says a Filipino truck driver threatened with beheading remains a hostage in Iraq. And a diplomat says there is no concrete information that Angelo da la Cruz is about to be released. Arabic satellite television Al Jazeera says militants holding the Filipino denied he had been released.

Maria Ressa as a live report in a few moments.

Bulgarians officials think two hostages are still alive. Although a reported deadline set by kidnappers has past. The two men are truck drivers.

Four people are killed in a car explosion in Gaza today. Palestinian security sources say three of those killed were militants. Keeping you informed, CNN, the most trusted name in news.

A hostage in harm's way in Iraq. There have been reports about a Filipino captive. Early reports indicated he was en route to a Baghdad hotel. Let's sort out some of the details are Maria Ressa who live now in Manila.

MARIA RESSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Despite the conflicting reports, the family of 46-year-old Angelo de la Cruz believe he is now safe and has been related. All of this stems from a phone conversation between Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroryo and his wife Vennie (ph) de la Cruz, both of them on the part of the Philippines government, their labor secretary announced on national TV that the President Arroyo had told Vennie (ph) de la Cruz that he was safe and he had been released. On the other side, the wife herself, Vennie (ph) has gone on nationwide television and recounted the conversation they had. Based on that, not just their family, but the whole town Pampanga, the Province of Pampanga is celebrating. There have been scenes of jubilation and joy based on this conversation.

WHITFIELD: All right, Maria Ressa, thank you very much for that report in Manila.

Well, this from an Al Jazeera television. It says the Islamic militants holding the truck driver denies he has been released.

A short while ago, Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf spoke with the Philippines diplomat in Iraq about the conflicting reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: The bottom line is he is not in the hands of the Philippines Embassy. They say he has not been released to them. They are desperately hoping that he will be, but so far he has not, despite the celebration, despite the reports that he has been freed, he is not yet with Philippines diplomats who say they have no concrete information about when he might be released.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The diplomat told Jane the embassy is still hopeful of a positive outcome. CNN will update you on any developments an as we get them.

Former President Bill Clinton is weighing in on the war in Iraq. He says he believes the United States should have moved more quickly to internationalize the war. The former president is discussing Iraq and other pressing international policy issues. He sat down recently with CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour in Washington. CNN LIVE SATURDAY will bring you parts of that interview this hour. We begin right now with a portion of Clinton talking about Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: First of all, thank you very much for joining us on CNN.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Glad to do it.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you first about Iraq. If one of your farewell interviews as president, you told an interviewer that one of your most difficult and challenging issues as president was Iraq. A quote I think was, "The most difficult thing, the hardest decision was deciding when to bomb and when not to bomb in Iraq." In retrospect, do you wish you had mustered a large invasion force like President Bush, and if not, do you think that the threat that you faced from Iraq is any different than the threat that President Bush faced from Iraq? CLINTON: The answer to the first question is, no. I basically believe that the policy that I inherited, which was to keep Saddam Hussein in a box and under sanctions, unless and until he fully complied with all the U.N. resolutions was the right policy. It wasn't so great for the Iraqis, but he didn't present a substantial threat to anyone else, that's my belief based on the intelligence that I saw. I have no way of knowing how much of his weapons of mass destruction capacity was destroyed when the U.K. and the U.S. bombed him for four days in '98. But I think, I'm satisfied that we did the right thing. I think after the first Gulf War it was a mistake to leave the Marsherifs (ph) the Shiites in the southeast of Iraq unprotected. And I think the international coalition made a mistake to do that. But I don't believe that I made a mistake not to invade him. I think that we had more pressing security priorities. And we didn't have at the time an effective opposition. And there was certainly no international support for doing that.

AMANPOUR: Do you think the threat currently or in the last two years was any different than the threat you faced?

CLINTON: I have no information that would support that it is, but I don't -- you know, I haven't seen any intelligence in the last three years. So I don't know about that. I know that it seems to be hotly disputed what Vice President Cheney alleges and what others allege. I can only tell you that when 9/11 occurred and the president went back to the United Nations to ask for a resolution which essentially said Iraq has got to open up to weapons inspections again, I strongly supported that because there was a substantial amount of botulinum, Alpha Toxin (ph) DX and Ricin unaccounted for.

I want to be very careful about the language, we didn't know they had it or not had it. We just knew at the time the inspectors were kicked out in 98, it was unaccounted for. So I thought the inspections should start again, so did apparently everyone in the world. Everybody voted for that.

Then I thought the Congress was on solid grounds in giving the president the authority to use force because it was represented that the force would be used if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. Then we launched the attack before the U.N. inspections were through. That I thought was an error.

But they had other reasons for wanting to overthrow Saddam. They thought he was an inherent threat to the region, they thought if we could have a representative pluralistic government in Iraq, it would be stabilized and force change in other autocrat tick regimes in the middle east and it might help us make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That's what the Bush people thought. And so now it seems to me we all have a stake in the success of the enterprise.

AMANPOUR: And do you believe, given where it is right now, that peace in the Middle East, as you just mentioned, leads through Baghdad?

CLINTON: No. I think peace in the Middle East leads through resolving the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis and giving the Israelis a lock solid guarantee of security and normal relations with its neighbors and giving the Palestinians their own country on the West Bank and Gaza with their capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem as we provided before in the peace proposal that I made. And giving an economic future to the Palestinians who are so poor there and who have been oppressed for so long.

I think that that will do more than anything else to reduce the impulse of terror around the world and especially in the region and give the Middle East a peaceful future.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to come back to the Middle East, but I want to ask you another question on Iraq. You intervened, eventually in Bosnia and early in Kosovo to stop a genocide. And the war was also coupled with a very robust post-war plan with very heavy armored U.S.- led military forces and a political plan.

Given the instability in Iraq post the formal war there, what do you think could and should have been done differently to stabilize Iraq in much the same way as either Bosnia or Kosovo were after the war?

CLINTON: First, we had a very different situation, because NATO wasn't with us in Iraq. And the Russians didn't come into Iraq.

Keep in mind, the Russians nominally opposed what we and NATO did in both Bosnia and Kosovo, but they knew we were right and they came in and helped us with the post-war planning.

So we lost a lot of soldiers there after the mission was declared accomplished in Iraq, hundreds of them. And it made General Shinseki, who's military career was cut short because he committed candor in testifying that we needed more troops before the Congress, it made General Shinseki look like a seer like he knew what he was predicting.

So you can say we needed more troops there, but it was a constant two and fro, because we had troops in other places in the rest of the world. We already were down to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is clearly not enough for us. But with any confidence to look like we're going to help stabilize the whole country or find bin Laden or his top lieutenants so we've got 50,000 there, 140,000 or more in Iraq already.

I think the main thing is we should have moved more quickly to internationalize it. And that would have required us early on, letting the United Nations have a say in the political decisions, opening the contracts up to people other than Americans and their allies. And just basically trying to say OK, Saddam's gone. Now we need everybody's help to make it right.

That is what's going on now. So I say again, whether I agree with everything's been done or not, all Americans, and just about everybody in the world has a stake now in the success of this Iraqi enterprise. And President Bush has gone back to the U.N. now. We do have a U.N. resolution. And I hope that once we show good faith in the United States, if we show good faith in observing sovereignty, giving up the monopoly on contracts, working with the U.N., I think in due time, and perhaps not before very long, we could get more help from our NATO allies.

AMANPOUR; And you think that will happen? Because there's nothing been forth coming.

CLINTON: I think it will happen if they see we're serious, that, you know, it's a sharing thing. I mean, if you look at Bosnia and Kosovo, where we carried the lion's share of the military load during the conflict, because we had the capability to do it, but they were with us. Then when we moved into the peacekeeping phase of Bosnia and Kosovo, we assumed a minority role because they had the ability to do that, our allies.

So I think that we can use this to reestablish the vitality of NATO. We've trained a lot of those nato forces for these kinds of missions now. I think we can get it back once we show good faith.

I just think right now that the politics between the United States and some of these European countries is so bad, not just -- not so much in the leaders, just with people in the street. You know it better than I do, you cover it all the time.

We just need to let some time pass, let the European public, as well as the leaders see that the United States has moved away from unilateralism in Iraq and it's a legitimate pluralistic government and we need their help and want their help. I think that we'll get it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, coming up next, the former president on why the U.S. is unpopular in many places around the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Americans need to understand that it's not just about Iraq, it's about an attitude. They think now, the rest of the world thinks that we're going to act and do whatever we want whenever we can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Plus his version on how close the U.S. came to catching Osama bin Laden when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: More of CNN's interview with former president Bill Clinton. In the wake of the war in Iraq, antiAmerican sentiment has grown, even among allies. The former president spoke with CNN's Christiane Amanpour about how the U.S. can change perceptions and about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Well, you brought it up -- I was going to ask you later, America has become very much feared and loathed in many parts of the world, not among the usual suspects, but among people who are usually America's friends and who want to like America. What needs to be done to stop that very dangerous state of affairs?

CLINTON: Well, in our country, the popular assumption is it's all about Iraq, and it's not all about Iraq. I think most everybody in the world understands that most Americans were more hawkish on Iraq than they were, including me. I mean, we bombed them two or three times and we always worried more about Saddam Hussein than they did.

But what made the Iraq thing so bitterly controversial was that it occurred in the aftermath of 9/11 when the whole world wanted to be with us. And they wanted America to lead a more united world and a united front against terror and a united front to make a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. It was a phenomenal opportunity.

And instead, we chose the path of unilateralism, not just in Iraq. We got out of the international criminal court, the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty before we knew our missile defenses would work, we got out of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Regime which every Republican president since Eisenhower was for, every president in both parties.

Something almost no Americans know, we changed the nuclear doctrine of the United States. Ever since World War II, we had never said we might use nuclear weapons first. Now the new nuclear doctrine is, we're trying to develop two small nuclear weapons one for battle and one to break underground bunkers, and we might use them first, even though it's already ben conceded that if we might have dropped such a bunkerbuster on Baghdad, it might have taken out half the city.

So, Americans need to understand that it's not just about Iraq, it's about an attitude. They think now, the rest of the world thinks that we're going to do act and do whatever we want and cooperate only when we have to, when we've tried every other alternative. And that's what's got us in trouble. We would have had -- been treated, I think, much more differently on Iraq if it hasn't been for all the rest of the unilateralism. It's the cumulative impact that's alienated the rest of the world.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about Osama bin Laden. You say in your book that you made several efforts to kill him. In retrospect, do you believe, though, that you should have mustered some kind of special mission, some kind of special forces mission even though many of your senior military advisers opposed that at the time? Do you think you should have done it.

CLINTON: Well, what I wish now is that I had had a more vigorous military debate. One of the discussions that I had with the 9/11 commission involved the question of whether the reorganization of the military in the 1980s under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which has done a lot of good, it's helped us to rationalize military, it's helped us to downsize the military and spend more in the areas where we need it, it's done a lot of good. But essentially it made the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff much more powerful and centralized authority there.

So, when people began to second-guess the fact that I didn't send the special forces into Afghanistan, even though, concededly, nobody knew where bin Laden was, nobody knew where Dr. al-Zarqawi was, nobody know, but we had a general idea of where they were operating -- after 9/11 when people began to second-guess that, I wish I had had a military debate.

Because basically the Pentagon and General Shelton were strongly opposed to it. They thought that the chances of those guys getting killed were high and that's what they signed on to do to risk their lives, but they didn't want to get killed with no reasonable prospect of accomplishing the mission. So, their view was we don't know where these people are. We have no reasonable intelligence. We know we can't trust people on the ground, because they told us bin Laden was going to be at this training camp we hit. We contracted with all these Afghan tribals and it's borne no result for us.

So we think that it's very high risk for a very, very low chance of return, and we recommend against it. But you know, so -- but I'm the commander in chief or I was then and they would have gone if i'd ordered them, too. I wish I had debated it a little more thoroughly.

Because, if you look at it, the record will reflect that I took every other alternative that I had based on the available intelligence. We did, it is true, consider bombing three other sites, three other times. But in each case, the CIA before the mission could be completed said, we just don't have that much confidence in our intelligence.

So you know, when something like 9/11 happens, you think, well, gosh I wish I had done everything.

Now, the other issue that i've been asked about is slightly different which is after the USS Cole in October, do I wish I had ordered the special forces. And the answer to that is, I would have done it in a heart beat, the special forces and more with or without international support once I got the CIA and the FBI to agree and make an official finding that bin Laden was responsible.

I just assumed he was from the day it happened and everyone else did, but it was not until after I left office that the FBI and CIA made a finding. If they had given a finding beforehand, I would have gone after him, without regard to the politics, the timing, the election, the court cases, anything going on in America, I would have done it. But I didn't get the confirmation. And America didn't get it till after I left office.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned what you could have or might have been able to do. Sometime in 1996 or -- you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole controversial issue of Sudan. Was Sudan asked to extradite him.

CLINTON: That was in 2001.

AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite him, did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited?

CLINTON: What I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I did all this research for my book. And I said that we were told we couldn't hold them, implying that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate.

Here's what is factually accurate: In 1996, and before then, when we found out about bin Laden, we at first thought he was a financier of terrorism, but not a ringleader in the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him on the question of had he committed or do we have evidence that he committed an offense against the United States, but that was never part of the question about whether we could get him.

When he left, the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea they told us when he was leaving and he was landing in the Gulf and we could get him at another airport is absurd. And idea that they tried to give him to us instead of giving him to Afghanistan is just not true. I've now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents and that's just not true.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Often praised, and other times strongly criticized, President Clinton reflexes on his administration's efforts toward a Middle East peace deal coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Former President Clinton on the importance of resuming the Middle East peace process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Here's the question: How many more kids are going to die before we make this deal?

WHITFIELD: What the U.S. and the world need to do coming up next.

And later, a look at what the future might have in store for the former president on this special edition of CNN LIVE SATURDAY.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Here are the latest developments now in the news. The fate of a Filipino man held in Iraq remains unclear. Islamic militants who kidnapped the driver deny freeing their captive. They still threaten to kill him and their giving the Philippines government 24 hours to show it is serious about withdrawing its troops from Iraq by July 20.

Earlier today, the Philippine president Gloria Arroyo reportedly told the man's family he had been freed.

We're still awaiting details of U.S. Marine Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun being debriefed at the U.S. Military based in Rammstein Air -- Germany. Officials want to know where Hassoun was and who he was with after disappearing near Fallajuh on June 19. He resurfaced in Lebanon earlier this week. Hassoun has been granted immunity and military officials say he won't be prosecuted for anything he says.

And an investigation is underway at the nation's top nuclear laboratory in Las Alamos, New Mexico. Two data classified storage devices are reported missing. The laboratory director says he's prepared to fire anyone responsible. Keeping you informed CNN the most trusted name in news.

CNN LIVE SATURDAY now brings you the conclusion of that interview with Former President Bill Clinton. During his administration, the former president spent a lot of effort trying to broker a Middle East peace process. In the new memoir "My Life," Bill Clinton believed himself a failed president for not achieving the peace. CNN's Christiane Amanpour spoke with President Clinton about the Middle East crisis and his legacy there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the Middle East peace process, something that you spent a lot of time and capital on. You know, there's been a sort of a debate in some circles after your presidency that perhaps you did too much, perhaps you focused too much attention on it and the reality is that not as much has been done since you left office.

This administration has felt that it is better to preserve its capital and work in a different way. If you were appointed a special envoy, let's say sometime in the future to the Middle East, what specifically would you do to get this peace process back on track?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I can understand why President Bush and any other leader would be reluctant to invest a lot of time and effort after all the time and effort I invested. And after had been promised that we would have a deal and then we didn't. So I can understand that.

On the other hand, there is one rule we know. I don't think when you're dealing with the Middle East or any thorny long simmering problem; you can hold yourself to a standard that says the only success is a complete agreement. Because if that's your standard, then your success or failure totally depends upon what other people decide to do and how they read their own interests. That is, you know the old adage you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

What I know is whenever America is involved, fewer people die. Now, so to me, my great dream was to have a comprehensive peace. I wanted to do it because I thought it would help secure Israel. I thought it would give the Palestinians finally the decent life they deserved.

I wanted to do it because I thought it would undermine terror, I wanted to do it because I thought it would help reconcile the west to Islam. I wanted to do it because I thought it would help the Arab states to lay down the burden of blaming politics and pick up the responsibility for their future.

I think there's ten great things that would happen if we work this deal out. But I also wanted fewer people to die. So -- and I think if you go back to when President Bush and Colin Powell came up with this road map, acknowledged there ought to be a Palestinian state. And one good thing they did that you know, I approve of is that the power ought to be broadened in the PLO and PLO. The Palestinians ought to have a prime minister as well as Arafat as president and first going to Abu Mazen, then to Abu Allah.

I thought all that was good. They waited two years to do it for the reasons you said, but I thought that was good. So what would I do now? Now I would say, look, guys, in private, we all know within two or three degrees of difference what the final peace agreement's going to look like if there's ever going to be one.

AMANPOUR: Is that the Clinton parameters?

CLINTON: In my parameters, the Geneva Agreement, all of these things. You know, Israel is never going to agree to an unlimited right of return because then you'll have two majority Arab Muslim states in the holy land in 30 years.

And the Palestinians are never going to agree to take a state that doesn't include Eastern Jerusalem and more or less 97 percent of the West Bank, enough to give the Israelis the settlements and take 80 percent of the settlers and then some sort of land swap.

And we now know longer -- it's an easier problem on the station of the Israeli defense forces along the Jordan River for a period of time, because Saddam Hussein is gone. That is the one thing that can help settle the thing.

So we all know this. Now here's the question. How many more kids are going to die before we make this deal? And if it's not politically possible to make a deal more or less like whatever everybody knows it has to be, then what can we do to keep people alive and what can we do to keep the forces of peace viable in both Israel and the Palestinian authority until we get around to the point where we can make this deal.

So if Ariel Sharon says, for example, I want to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally and Shamon Perez says if I think it's the beginning of a serious peace process, maybe we will have a national unity government, I think the United States of America ought to support that. And I think we ought to say, do it, but don't humiliate the Palestinians when you do it. There's all kinds of ways to withdraw from Gaza. And then say if you'll help us with the terror, it's the beginning of a peace process.

But the main thing is everybody knows now, the one good thing by putting that plan out and having Barak say yes, and then a year later after I was gone having Arafat say yes, the one good thing is we all know now, we know more or less what a final deal is.

So the question is, how long are we going to take, how many young people are going to die on both sides and how do we keep as many people alive as possible and work toward it without wrecking the political careers of the Palestinians and the Israelis who are committed to peace? That's the issue.

AMANPOUR: And one final question. How long do you think it will take to get back to a place where they can even be some kind of process again, back to 2000 for instance?

CLINTON: In December, early December right before I left office as I recount in my book, I looked at Arafat and I said, now if you're not going to do this, I want to go to North Korea and end their missile program. You owe it to me to let me go if you're not going to do it. Don't you agree with that?

He said sure, you said you care more about my people more than anybody ever has, I do. And I said OK. Shall I go to Korea if you are not going to do it? And he got big old tears in his eyes and he said you can't go. He said if we don't do this now, it will be five years. I've been telling you for months it will be five years.

So it's going to be about five years. I mean, and for whatever reason he decided not to take the parameters and then when he took them, he had an Israeli government that wouldn't give them to him and an Israeli public that didn't trust him. So we got an inch back to that. But I think you know there are a lot of people who want peace, a decent honorable just fair and reasonable one with reasonable compromises.

A lot of the Palestinians want it. A lot of the Israelis want it. And the real question is to get the trust and the politics lined up. That's what America ought to do. We can't impose a peace. We shouldn't impose a peace. It won't work if we do, but we can help get the politics right. And if they want a security guarantee, we ought to give it to them.

AMANPOUR: Mr. President, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

CLINTON: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well now that we've heard from President Clinton, we'll talk about what position he'll play in American politics from here on out.

He's back in the spotlight right now. Is he going to stay there? Plus, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Kenneth Lay all in the hot seat this week. We'll run through the highlights in our legal roundtable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Well we've been listening to President Clinton talk about his past administration in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour during the past hour. What role might Clinton play in the upcoming presidential races now? We'll ask our guests, Tara Wall is with the Republican National Committee; Ann Lewis is with the Democratic National Committee. Good to see both of you ladies.

TARA WALL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Glad to be here.

ANN LEWIS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Thanks for having me.

WHITFIELD: All right Tara, let me begin with you. If it's Bush back in the White House, given President Clinton's commitment and established relations in the Middle East as we just heard in that last segment of that interview, do you see him being invited or perhaps even volunteering in the administration involved in Middle East policies upcoming?

WALL: Well I can't speak for President Bush in that regard and I'm not privy to those conversations. So quite frankly, I couldn't tell you if he will or will not play a role in the Bush administration.

WHITFIELD: Do you think that kind of discussion would be appropriate within the Republican Party?

WALL: Well you know I can say there are obviously several similarities and some things that Clinton touched upon in regard to President Bush and the road map for peace that has been laid out and this being the first president if you will to acknowledge the fact that there is -- that there needs to be a separate Palestinian state. Obviously, there are some similarities there, but once again like I said, I can't speak for President Bush and as far as those discussions go, I'm not privy to that.

WHITFIELD: Well Ann, in the Democratic party, do you see that if it's Kerry in the White House, are there already discussions about how to involve Clinton when it comes to foreign policies?

LEWIS: Well, the discussions I'm aware of are how important it is to have President Clinton out there speaking about what's at stake. And I must say listening to this interview, I was reminded again what a difference elections make and what it was like when we had a president who could speak thoughtfully, engagingly, talk to the American people about what was at stake in foreign policy and who had the record Bill Clinton did of building alliances, building coalitions enlarging our friendship around the world so that America could be more effective. And that I think the example he's going to set from now through Election Day.

WHITFIELD: And Tara, it is parent and most agree that obviously as we've seen President Bush, particularly pushing his book most recently, that he is still remarkably popular. So how might the Republicans either use this to their advantage?

WALL: Well, I mean, certainly, I think most Americans know and agree that President Clinton has this charismatic appeal, if you will. I don't know how much of the Democrats are going to utilize him. Once again he is on a book tour, but the other distinguishing factor that needs to be pointed out too, it may be pretty hard for John Kerry to use President Clinton given the fact that right now in regards to the economy, you know Democrats are the ones that called President Clinton's economy exceptional in 1996.

And the records show and facts show right now that under President Bush, he is outperforming President Clinton's economic policies. So we've got lower inflation, lower unemployment. More wages. The highest homeowner rates specifically among minorities under President Bush right now and consumer confidence at a two-year high.

So it's going to be kind of hard for the Democrats to have Clinton out there stumping for them when he had the same approval rating that President Bush has right now in 1996.

WHITFIELD: So is there any risk at trying to ground Clinton in his momentum without that plan backfiring given his popularity?

WALL: When you have a message of pessimism and negativity it's going to be hard for them to do it. How are they going to make those two comparisons and contrasts on one end they want to be pessimistic and down play the economic gains that we have had but on the other hand, say that under President Clinton we had an exceptional economy. And once again President Bush's economy has outperformed President Clintons.

LEWIS: Maybe I could just do fact check for a minute and just point out that in his first four years, that President Clinton's leadership America produced 8 million more jobs. Under George Bush in his first four years, we have lost what is now almost 2 million jobs. Under President Clinton in his first four years, household income went up, under George Bush household incomes went down.

So people are actually working harder and having a harder time to pay their bills, but look, Bill Clinton's message and John Kerry's message are basically optimistic ones. Because what they have said is as Americans, when we work together we can meet any challenge. That is what the Democratic Party is going to be talking about and that's what John Kerry and John Edwards are going to talk about.

WHITFIELD: Well Ann lets talk about the convention. In what way will the Democratic convention try to use the Clintons, whether it be Hillary or whether it be Bill or maybe even Chelsea since we're starting to see both of the candidate teams right now putting out the young people, you know, their children as a way to appeal to younger voters? How are we going to see the Clinton's role?

LEWIS: I think we can expect President Clinton to address the convention. Senator Clinton, of course, is now one of our Democratic women senators. We are very proud of all our senators and I think we would expect that women senators also to be on stage at some point. We've got a lot of elected officials to be proud of and those Democratic women including Hillary Clinton are among them. They will be definitely being evident and present at the convention.

WHITFIELD: Do you see Chelsea playing a role?

LEWIS: I know a lot of people who are looking forward to it. I do not know about Chelsea's plans. She was very much a private person. That will be her decision.

WHITFIELD: All right, Well Tara, let's talk about the children. I mean the Clintons certainly did show some protective parenting when it came down to Chelsea. Now for the first time, we're seeing President Bush and Jenna, who is apparently now joining the campaign trail. We hadn't been seeing that image before and this coming just a couple days after the Kerry-Edwards campaign using their children in very Kennedy esque (ph) type of parading at that Pittsburgh residence.

WALL: Well, I think you'll see our convention being -- getting young people inspired across the board. I think it's exciting to see young people get involved in the political process. I think that it's important for young people to be involved and getting involved and you know, we're doing some things at our convention along with getting out the vote as it relates to the young population and it's exciting. I mean, that's a legitimate use, if you will, of young people.

WHITFIELD: All right Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee, thanks to both of you ladies for joining us today.

LEWIS: Thank you.

WALL: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Charges of outrageous misconduct in the Michael Jackson case and they've got nothing to do with the pop singer. We'll have that and more in this week's courtroom dramas in our "Legal Roundtable."

And later on, singing the jailhouse blues, a rare Glenn Campbell performance

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Well, time now for a little trail mix. Where we update you on what's happening to the candidates and their campaigns. President Bush used the airwaves today in his radio address to promote a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Critics say Bush is promoting the issue as a way to energize his religious conservative base.

Mean while Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards campaigned in New Mexico yesterday before heading to North Carolina today. That while senior Democratic leaders gathered in Hollywood, Florida, to work on the party's platform.

And in a new poll just released by "Newsweek" magazine, a majority of Americans, 51 percent now say they support the Democratic ticket over the Republicans. The president's job approval rating has climbed a bit to 48 percent, but a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going.

Here's a look now at stories we're following across America. A Florida building full of anthrax spores will be fumigated beginning tomorrow nearly three years after the deadly anthrax attack, the building is the former headquarters of the Supermarket tabloid. The fumigation company plans to occupy the premises once the space is clean.

In New Jersey hundreds of people registered in there same sex partnerships with the states. It is the first day allowed under the states new domestic partnership law.

Courtney Love missed a court date on Friday in California. A judge declared her a fugitive. Hours later, she was admitted to a New York hospital on her 40th birthday with an undisclosed medical condition. Her lawyer in California told the judge she missed the hearing because she was "confused."

Time now for our "Legal Roundtable" and it was a busy week in the nation's courtrooms. Michael Jackson's fighting back against the DA in his case. The prosecution puts on grizzly evidence in Scott Peterson's murder trial and a famous corporate bigwig finally takes a perp walk. Joining me now from New York is Criminal Defense Attorney Richard Herman.

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hello Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And in Washington is Former Federal Prosecutor Pamela Bethal. Good to see both of you.

PAMELA BETHAL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good to be here.

HERMAN: Good afternoon.

WHITFIELD: All right, well let's begin with Michael Jackson. The district attorney Tom Sneddon is to be subpoenaed apparently for removing or at least some of his deputies removing some evidence from a private investigator that was employed by the defense team, the Michael Jackson defense team and now the defense is saying wait a minute we've got a conflict of interest here. Those records were protected by confidentiality between a client and an attorney privilege.

So Richard, where is this going?

HERMAN: Well you know, this Tom Sneddon has taken this case so personal from the very beginning with his news conferences and carrying on, I think he's lost entire focus here. And he's going to blow this case. You know, when a prosecutor disrupts the evidence, I mean, why is that not obstruction of justice? If a defendant does it, you're guaranteed its obstruction.

WHITFIELD: Pamela.

BETHAL: Yes, this I have to say as a former prosecutor that never would be allowed. There are very strict procedures that prosecutors need to follow and you know we're in a new day where prosecutors get as much airtime as criminal defense lawyers, and I think some of the abuses that used to only be done by criminal defense lawyers are not being done by prosecutors.

WHITFIELD: Why would a prosecutor even take this chance though?

BETHAL: Because, you know, because they want to win so badly. I mean that's the only thing that you can say. I don't believe that he's an incompetent lawyer. So the only other answer would be he wants to win so badly but he's got to win under terms that are prescribed under the rules and that are fair.

WHITFIELD: The hearing on this motion will resume July, 27th in the mean time Sneddon is expected to actually testify August 16th might this be unprecedented, Richard?

HERMAN: I think it is unprecedented, and if his testimony is adverse, I think he should be charged with obstruction of justice. They should bring charges against him. Let him feel it. He's out of control with this case, he is taking it personal, he is not acting professional, and if he truly acted in this manner, he's going to have to pay the price for it.

WHITFIELD: The Scott Peterson case is looking very messy, particularly after this week when apparently Mark Geragos the attorney is now complaining about the fact that pictures of a pregnant woman the same size as Laci Peterson were apparently laying on the floor of a boat and his accusation is this is fabricated evidence and this is off the charts. Pamela.

BETHAL: Well, the word fabricated I would not use. Basically, what the prosecutors are saying is that it's illustrative evidence. I mean they want to show what this looks like, how she could have been in the boat. But that was a close call for the judge to have made. Many judges would not have permitted that because it is not exactly -- they don't have the pictures of Laci. So why should the jurors see. It is done in fact to prejudice the jury and to make the jurors think about the discomfort that Laci may have been in.

HERMAN: You know what Fredricka on cross-examination Geragos will handle that. But this entire Peterson prosecution is in shambles. When the strongest part of your case is to show gruesome pictures, that's just not going to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson did it. The roaches deserve better. This Al Brocchini, he also should be prosecuted and charges should be levied against him for obstruction of justice.

WHITFIELD: All right.

HERMAN: When he makes up evidence or with holds evidence, it is outrageous.

WHITFIELD: OK, Richard we only got a little bit of time and I want to get one more case in. Pamela let's talk about the corporate crimes, actually the series of cases that we have been looking at this past week and now going into next week, John Rigas, Adelphia. He got a guilty verdict and Ken Lay stepping forward and his indictment. Might these cases set the tone of what we're likely to see next week with Martha Stewart and her scheduled sentencing for Friday? Pamela.

BETHAL: Well, what's going on with Martha's case is at the final stages. Because of the federal sentencing guidelines, it is very, very, very unlikely that Martha, that the judge will do anything more than schedule her within the range which would be I think will be somewhere between ten and 16 months. I think this whole, all of these cases put together though should tell Corporate America that you can run, but you can't hide.

WHITFIELD: And interesting enough Richard, Ken Lay, I mean a good friend of President Bush, President Bush called him Kenny boy and now possibly Ken Lay is going to be the poster child for corporate criminals. You know, what a very strange message and sequence of events that have happened here.

HERMAN: Well the investigation was on going for some two and a half years and if you recall, Fastow recently made his deal and obviously, Fastow is the one that gave them Ken Lay in spades. You can't use these corporations as your personal piggy banks. Gordon Greco, greed is good, greed is not good and you are going to pay for it.

And with respect to Martha Stewart, you know Fredricka I know it's before your time, but the great Jim Morrison said this is the end. And this is the end for Martha Stewart.

WHITFIELD: Aren't you sweet.

BETHAL: Now I disagree. I think Martha is going rise, I disagree. I think she'll be sentenced. I don't know what's going to happen. But I think we'll see Martha yet again in a very public forum.

HERMAN: We will she her again but she's going to prison.

BETHAL: Yes I mean. Well, we'll see. I'm not sure about the appeal. I think that the judge's decision not to grant a new trial, that may get revoked.

WHITFIELD: OK, well it ain't over yet. We'll be watching all week. Pamela Bethal and Richard Herman thanks very much for joining us this Saturday.

HERMAN: Happy to be here.

BETHAL: Bye-bye.

WHITFIELD: Glenn Campbell's latest concert. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was fun. They sang along, they clapped hands and they're natural captive audience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The sights and sounds of his jailhouse jam fest coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 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 July 10, 2004 - 14:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: It's 2:00 p.m. on the East Coast, 11:00 a.m. out West. I'm Fredricka Whitfield at CNN's Global headquarters.
Ahead this hour on a special edition of CNN LIVE SATURDAY, Christiane Amanpour's interview with Bill Clinton, hear what he has to say about Iraq, the war on terror and solutions for peace in the Middle East. Then a look at how Clinton may impact the upcoming presidential race.

And this week's legal dramas. Who's in court, who's in trouble and who's in handcuffs?

But first a look at the top stories.

Now in the news, a Philippines diplomat in Iraq, says a Filipino truck driver threatened with beheading remains a hostage in Iraq. And a diplomat says there is no concrete information that Angelo da la Cruz is about to be released. Arabic satellite television Al Jazeera says militants holding the Filipino denied he had been released.

Maria Ressa as a live report in a few moments.

Bulgarians officials think two hostages are still alive. Although a reported deadline set by kidnappers has past. The two men are truck drivers.

Four people are killed in a car explosion in Gaza today. Palestinian security sources say three of those killed were militants. Keeping you informed, CNN, the most trusted name in news.

A hostage in harm's way in Iraq. There have been reports about a Filipino captive. Early reports indicated he was en route to a Baghdad hotel. Let's sort out some of the details are Maria Ressa who live now in Manila.

MARIA RESSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Despite the conflicting reports, the family of 46-year-old Angelo de la Cruz believe he is now safe and has been related. All of this stems from a phone conversation between Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroryo and his wife Vennie (ph) de la Cruz, both of them on the part of the Philippines government, their labor secretary announced on national TV that the President Arroyo had told Vennie (ph) de la Cruz that he was safe and he had been released. On the other side, the wife herself, Vennie (ph) has gone on nationwide television and recounted the conversation they had. Based on that, not just their family, but the whole town Pampanga, the Province of Pampanga is celebrating. There have been scenes of jubilation and joy based on this conversation.

WHITFIELD: All right, Maria Ressa, thank you very much for that report in Manila.

Well, this from an Al Jazeera television. It says the Islamic militants holding the truck driver denies he has been released.

A short while ago, Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf spoke with the Philippines diplomat in Iraq about the conflicting reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: The bottom line is he is not in the hands of the Philippines Embassy. They say he has not been released to them. They are desperately hoping that he will be, but so far he has not, despite the celebration, despite the reports that he has been freed, he is not yet with Philippines diplomats who say they have no concrete information about when he might be released.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The diplomat told Jane the embassy is still hopeful of a positive outcome. CNN will update you on any developments an as we get them.

Former President Bill Clinton is weighing in on the war in Iraq. He says he believes the United States should have moved more quickly to internationalize the war. The former president is discussing Iraq and other pressing international policy issues. He sat down recently with CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour in Washington. CNN LIVE SATURDAY will bring you parts of that interview this hour. We begin right now with a portion of Clinton talking about Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: First of all, thank you very much for joining us on CNN.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Glad to do it.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you first about Iraq. If one of your farewell interviews as president, you told an interviewer that one of your most difficult and challenging issues as president was Iraq. A quote I think was, "The most difficult thing, the hardest decision was deciding when to bomb and when not to bomb in Iraq." In retrospect, do you wish you had mustered a large invasion force like President Bush, and if not, do you think that the threat that you faced from Iraq is any different than the threat that President Bush faced from Iraq? CLINTON: The answer to the first question is, no. I basically believe that the policy that I inherited, which was to keep Saddam Hussein in a box and under sanctions, unless and until he fully complied with all the U.N. resolutions was the right policy. It wasn't so great for the Iraqis, but he didn't present a substantial threat to anyone else, that's my belief based on the intelligence that I saw. I have no way of knowing how much of his weapons of mass destruction capacity was destroyed when the U.K. and the U.S. bombed him for four days in '98. But I think, I'm satisfied that we did the right thing. I think after the first Gulf War it was a mistake to leave the Marsherifs (ph) the Shiites in the southeast of Iraq unprotected. And I think the international coalition made a mistake to do that. But I don't believe that I made a mistake not to invade him. I think that we had more pressing security priorities. And we didn't have at the time an effective opposition. And there was certainly no international support for doing that.

AMANPOUR: Do you think the threat currently or in the last two years was any different than the threat you faced?

CLINTON: I have no information that would support that it is, but I don't -- you know, I haven't seen any intelligence in the last three years. So I don't know about that. I know that it seems to be hotly disputed what Vice President Cheney alleges and what others allege. I can only tell you that when 9/11 occurred and the president went back to the United Nations to ask for a resolution which essentially said Iraq has got to open up to weapons inspections again, I strongly supported that because there was a substantial amount of botulinum, Alpha Toxin (ph) DX and Ricin unaccounted for.

I want to be very careful about the language, we didn't know they had it or not had it. We just knew at the time the inspectors were kicked out in 98, it was unaccounted for. So I thought the inspections should start again, so did apparently everyone in the world. Everybody voted for that.

Then I thought the Congress was on solid grounds in giving the president the authority to use force because it was represented that the force would be used if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. Then we launched the attack before the U.N. inspections were through. That I thought was an error.

But they had other reasons for wanting to overthrow Saddam. They thought he was an inherent threat to the region, they thought if we could have a representative pluralistic government in Iraq, it would be stabilized and force change in other autocrat tick regimes in the middle east and it might help us make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. That's what the Bush people thought. And so now it seems to me we all have a stake in the success of the enterprise.

AMANPOUR: And do you believe, given where it is right now, that peace in the Middle East, as you just mentioned, leads through Baghdad?

CLINTON: No. I think peace in the Middle East leads through resolving the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis and giving the Israelis a lock solid guarantee of security and normal relations with its neighbors and giving the Palestinians their own country on the West Bank and Gaza with their capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem as we provided before in the peace proposal that I made. And giving an economic future to the Palestinians who are so poor there and who have been oppressed for so long.

I think that that will do more than anything else to reduce the impulse of terror around the world and especially in the region and give the Middle East a peaceful future.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to come back to the Middle East, but I want to ask you another question on Iraq. You intervened, eventually in Bosnia and early in Kosovo to stop a genocide. And the war was also coupled with a very robust post-war plan with very heavy armored U.S.- led military forces and a political plan.

Given the instability in Iraq post the formal war there, what do you think could and should have been done differently to stabilize Iraq in much the same way as either Bosnia or Kosovo were after the war?

CLINTON: First, we had a very different situation, because NATO wasn't with us in Iraq. And the Russians didn't come into Iraq.

Keep in mind, the Russians nominally opposed what we and NATO did in both Bosnia and Kosovo, but they knew we were right and they came in and helped us with the post-war planning.

So we lost a lot of soldiers there after the mission was declared accomplished in Iraq, hundreds of them. And it made General Shinseki, who's military career was cut short because he committed candor in testifying that we needed more troops before the Congress, it made General Shinseki look like a seer like he knew what he was predicting.

So you can say we needed more troops there, but it was a constant two and fro, because we had troops in other places in the rest of the world. We already were down to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is clearly not enough for us. But with any confidence to look like we're going to help stabilize the whole country or find bin Laden or his top lieutenants so we've got 50,000 there, 140,000 or more in Iraq already.

I think the main thing is we should have moved more quickly to internationalize it. And that would have required us early on, letting the United Nations have a say in the political decisions, opening the contracts up to people other than Americans and their allies. And just basically trying to say OK, Saddam's gone. Now we need everybody's help to make it right.

That is what's going on now. So I say again, whether I agree with everything's been done or not, all Americans, and just about everybody in the world has a stake now in the success of this Iraqi enterprise. And President Bush has gone back to the U.N. now. We do have a U.N. resolution. And I hope that once we show good faith in the United States, if we show good faith in observing sovereignty, giving up the monopoly on contracts, working with the U.N., I think in due time, and perhaps not before very long, we could get more help from our NATO allies.

AMANPOUR; And you think that will happen? Because there's nothing been forth coming.

CLINTON: I think it will happen if they see we're serious, that, you know, it's a sharing thing. I mean, if you look at Bosnia and Kosovo, where we carried the lion's share of the military load during the conflict, because we had the capability to do it, but they were with us. Then when we moved into the peacekeeping phase of Bosnia and Kosovo, we assumed a minority role because they had the ability to do that, our allies.

So I think that we can use this to reestablish the vitality of NATO. We've trained a lot of those nato forces for these kinds of missions now. I think we can get it back once we show good faith.

I just think right now that the politics between the United States and some of these European countries is so bad, not just -- not so much in the leaders, just with people in the street. You know it better than I do, you cover it all the time.

We just need to let some time pass, let the European public, as well as the leaders see that the United States has moved away from unilateralism in Iraq and it's a legitimate pluralistic government and we need their help and want their help. I think that we'll get it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well, coming up next, the former president on why the U.S. is unpopular in many places around the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Americans need to understand that it's not just about Iraq, it's about an attitude. They think now, the rest of the world thinks that we're going to act and do whatever we want whenever we can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Plus his version on how close the U.S. came to catching Osama bin Laden when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: More of CNN's interview with former president Bill Clinton. In the wake of the war in Iraq, antiAmerican sentiment has grown, even among allies. The former president spoke with CNN's Christiane Amanpour about how the U.S. can change perceptions and about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Well, you brought it up -- I was going to ask you later, America has become very much feared and loathed in many parts of the world, not among the usual suspects, but among people who are usually America's friends and who want to like America. What needs to be done to stop that very dangerous state of affairs?

CLINTON: Well, in our country, the popular assumption is it's all about Iraq, and it's not all about Iraq. I think most everybody in the world understands that most Americans were more hawkish on Iraq than they were, including me. I mean, we bombed them two or three times and we always worried more about Saddam Hussein than they did.

But what made the Iraq thing so bitterly controversial was that it occurred in the aftermath of 9/11 when the whole world wanted to be with us. And they wanted America to lead a more united world and a united front against terror and a united front to make a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. It was a phenomenal opportunity.

And instead, we chose the path of unilateralism, not just in Iraq. We got out of the international criminal court, the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty before we knew our missile defenses would work, we got out of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Regime which every Republican president since Eisenhower was for, every president in both parties.

Something almost no Americans know, we changed the nuclear doctrine of the United States. Ever since World War II, we had never said we might use nuclear weapons first. Now the new nuclear doctrine is, we're trying to develop two small nuclear weapons one for battle and one to break underground bunkers, and we might use them first, even though it's already ben conceded that if we might have dropped such a bunkerbuster on Baghdad, it might have taken out half the city.

So, Americans need to understand that it's not just about Iraq, it's about an attitude. They think now, the rest of the world thinks that we're going to do act and do whatever we want and cooperate only when we have to, when we've tried every other alternative. And that's what's got us in trouble. We would have had -- been treated, I think, much more differently on Iraq if it hasn't been for all the rest of the unilateralism. It's the cumulative impact that's alienated the rest of the world.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about Osama bin Laden. You say in your book that you made several efforts to kill him. In retrospect, do you believe, though, that you should have mustered some kind of special mission, some kind of special forces mission even though many of your senior military advisers opposed that at the time? Do you think you should have done it.

CLINTON: Well, what I wish now is that I had had a more vigorous military debate. One of the discussions that I had with the 9/11 commission involved the question of whether the reorganization of the military in the 1980s under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which has done a lot of good, it's helped us to rationalize military, it's helped us to downsize the military and spend more in the areas where we need it, it's done a lot of good. But essentially it made the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff much more powerful and centralized authority there.

So, when people began to second-guess the fact that I didn't send the special forces into Afghanistan, even though, concededly, nobody knew where bin Laden was, nobody knew where Dr. al-Zarqawi was, nobody know, but we had a general idea of where they were operating -- after 9/11 when people began to second-guess that, I wish I had had a military debate.

Because basically the Pentagon and General Shelton were strongly opposed to it. They thought that the chances of those guys getting killed were high and that's what they signed on to do to risk their lives, but they didn't want to get killed with no reasonable prospect of accomplishing the mission. So, their view was we don't know where these people are. We have no reasonable intelligence. We know we can't trust people on the ground, because they told us bin Laden was going to be at this training camp we hit. We contracted with all these Afghan tribals and it's borne no result for us.

So we think that it's very high risk for a very, very low chance of return, and we recommend against it. But you know, so -- but I'm the commander in chief or I was then and they would have gone if i'd ordered them, too. I wish I had debated it a little more thoroughly.

Because, if you look at it, the record will reflect that I took every other alternative that I had based on the available intelligence. We did, it is true, consider bombing three other sites, three other times. But in each case, the CIA before the mission could be completed said, we just don't have that much confidence in our intelligence.

So you know, when something like 9/11 happens, you think, well, gosh I wish I had done everything.

Now, the other issue that i've been asked about is slightly different which is after the USS Cole in October, do I wish I had ordered the special forces. And the answer to that is, I would have done it in a heart beat, the special forces and more with or without international support once I got the CIA and the FBI to agree and make an official finding that bin Laden was responsible.

I just assumed he was from the day it happened and everyone else did, but it was not until after I left office that the FBI and CIA made a finding. If they had given a finding beforehand, I would have gone after him, without regard to the politics, the timing, the election, the court cases, anything going on in America, I would have done it. But I didn't get the confirmation. And America didn't get it till after I left office.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned what you could have or might have been able to do. Sometime in 1996 or -- you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole controversial issue of Sudan. Was Sudan asked to extradite him.

CLINTON: That was in 2001.

AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite him, did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited?

CLINTON: What I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I did all this research for my book. And I said that we were told we couldn't hold them, implying that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate.

Here's what is factually accurate: In 1996, and before then, when we found out about bin Laden, we at first thought he was a financier of terrorism, but not a ringleader in the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him on the question of had he committed or do we have evidence that he committed an offense against the United States, but that was never part of the question about whether we could get him.

When he left, the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea they told us when he was leaving and he was landing in the Gulf and we could get him at another airport is absurd. And idea that they tried to give him to us instead of giving him to Afghanistan is just not true. I've now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents and that's just not true.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Often praised, and other times strongly criticized, President Clinton reflexes on his administration's efforts toward a Middle East peace deal coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Former President Clinton on the importance of resuming the Middle East peace process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Here's the question: How many more kids are going to die before we make this deal?

WHITFIELD: What the U.S. and the world need to do coming up next.

And later, a look at what the future might have in store for the former president on this special edition of CNN LIVE SATURDAY.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Here are the latest developments now in the news. The fate of a Filipino man held in Iraq remains unclear. Islamic militants who kidnapped the driver deny freeing their captive. They still threaten to kill him and their giving the Philippines government 24 hours to show it is serious about withdrawing its troops from Iraq by July 20.

Earlier today, the Philippine president Gloria Arroyo reportedly told the man's family he had been freed.

We're still awaiting details of U.S. Marine Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun being debriefed at the U.S. Military based in Rammstein Air -- Germany. Officials want to know where Hassoun was and who he was with after disappearing near Fallajuh on June 19. He resurfaced in Lebanon earlier this week. Hassoun has been granted immunity and military officials say he won't be prosecuted for anything he says.

And an investigation is underway at the nation's top nuclear laboratory in Las Alamos, New Mexico. Two data classified storage devices are reported missing. The laboratory director says he's prepared to fire anyone responsible. Keeping you informed CNN the most trusted name in news.

CNN LIVE SATURDAY now brings you the conclusion of that interview with Former President Bill Clinton. During his administration, the former president spent a lot of effort trying to broker a Middle East peace process. In the new memoir "My Life," Bill Clinton believed himself a failed president for not achieving the peace. CNN's Christiane Amanpour spoke with President Clinton about the Middle East crisis and his legacy there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the Middle East peace process, something that you spent a lot of time and capital on. You know, there's been a sort of a debate in some circles after your presidency that perhaps you did too much, perhaps you focused too much attention on it and the reality is that not as much has been done since you left office.

This administration has felt that it is better to preserve its capital and work in a different way. If you were appointed a special envoy, let's say sometime in the future to the Middle East, what specifically would you do to get this peace process back on track?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I can understand why President Bush and any other leader would be reluctant to invest a lot of time and effort after all the time and effort I invested. And after had been promised that we would have a deal and then we didn't. So I can understand that.

On the other hand, there is one rule we know. I don't think when you're dealing with the Middle East or any thorny long simmering problem; you can hold yourself to a standard that says the only success is a complete agreement. Because if that's your standard, then your success or failure totally depends upon what other people decide to do and how they read their own interests. That is, you know the old adage you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

What I know is whenever America is involved, fewer people die. Now, so to me, my great dream was to have a comprehensive peace. I wanted to do it because I thought it would help secure Israel. I thought it would give the Palestinians finally the decent life they deserved.

I wanted to do it because I thought it would undermine terror, I wanted to do it because I thought it would help reconcile the west to Islam. I wanted to do it because I thought it would help the Arab states to lay down the burden of blaming politics and pick up the responsibility for their future.

I think there's ten great things that would happen if we work this deal out. But I also wanted fewer people to die. So -- and I think if you go back to when President Bush and Colin Powell came up with this road map, acknowledged there ought to be a Palestinian state. And one good thing they did that you know, I approve of is that the power ought to be broadened in the PLO and PLO. The Palestinians ought to have a prime minister as well as Arafat as president and first going to Abu Mazen, then to Abu Allah.

I thought all that was good. They waited two years to do it for the reasons you said, but I thought that was good. So what would I do now? Now I would say, look, guys, in private, we all know within two or three degrees of difference what the final peace agreement's going to look like if there's ever going to be one.

AMANPOUR: Is that the Clinton parameters?

CLINTON: In my parameters, the Geneva Agreement, all of these things. You know, Israel is never going to agree to an unlimited right of return because then you'll have two majority Arab Muslim states in the holy land in 30 years.

And the Palestinians are never going to agree to take a state that doesn't include Eastern Jerusalem and more or less 97 percent of the West Bank, enough to give the Israelis the settlements and take 80 percent of the settlers and then some sort of land swap.

And we now know longer -- it's an easier problem on the station of the Israeli defense forces along the Jordan River for a period of time, because Saddam Hussein is gone. That is the one thing that can help settle the thing.

So we all know this. Now here's the question. How many more kids are going to die before we make this deal? And if it's not politically possible to make a deal more or less like whatever everybody knows it has to be, then what can we do to keep people alive and what can we do to keep the forces of peace viable in both Israel and the Palestinian authority until we get around to the point where we can make this deal.

So if Ariel Sharon says, for example, I want to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally and Shamon Perez says if I think it's the beginning of a serious peace process, maybe we will have a national unity government, I think the United States of America ought to support that. And I think we ought to say, do it, but don't humiliate the Palestinians when you do it. There's all kinds of ways to withdraw from Gaza. And then say if you'll help us with the terror, it's the beginning of a peace process.

But the main thing is everybody knows now, the one good thing by putting that plan out and having Barak say yes, and then a year later after I was gone having Arafat say yes, the one good thing is we all know now, we know more or less what a final deal is.

So the question is, how long are we going to take, how many young people are going to die on both sides and how do we keep as many people alive as possible and work toward it without wrecking the political careers of the Palestinians and the Israelis who are committed to peace? That's the issue.

AMANPOUR: And one final question. How long do you think it will take to get back to a place where they can even be some kind of process again, back to 2000 for instance?

CLINTON: In December, early December right before I left office as I recount in my book, I looked at Arafat and I said, now if you're not going to do this, I want to go to North Korea and end their missile program. You owe it to me to let me go if you're not going to do it. Don't you agree with that?

He said sure, you said you care more about my people more than anybody ever has, I do. And I said OK. Shall I go to Korea if you are not going to do it? And he got big old tears in his eyes and he said you can't go. He said if we don't do this now, it will be five years. I've been telling you for months it will be five years.

So it's going to be about five years. I mean, and for whatever reason he decided not to take the parameters and then when he took them, he had an Israeli government that wouldn't give them to him and an Israeli public that didn't trust him. So we got an inch back to that. But I think you know there are a lot of people who want peace, a decent honorable just fair and reasonable one with reasonable compromises.

A lot of the Palestinians want it. A lot of the Israelis want it. And the real question is to get the trust and the politics lined up. That's what America ought to do. We can't impose a peace. We shouldn't impose a peace. It won't work if we do, but we can help get the politics right. And if they want a security guarantee, we ought to give it to them.

AMANPOUR: Mr. President, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

CLINTON: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Well now that we've heard from President Clinton, we'll talk about what position he'll play in American politics from here on out.

He's back in the spotlight right now. Is he going to stay there? Plus, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Kenneth Lay all in the hot seat this week. We'll run through the highlights in our legal roundtable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Well we've been listening to President Clinton talk about his past administration in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour during the past hour. What role might Clinton play in the upcoming presidential races now? We'll ask our guests, Tara Wall is with the Republican National Committee; Ann Lewis is with the Democratic National Committee. Good to see both of you ladies.

TARA WALL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Glad to be here.

ANN LEWIS, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Thanks for having me.

WHITFIELD: All right Tara, let me begin with you. If it's Bush back in the White House, given President Clinton's commitment and established relations in the Middle East as we just heard in that last segment of that interview, do you see him being invited or perhaps even volunteering in the administration involved in Middle East policies upcoming?

WALL: Well I can't speak for President Bush in that regard and I'm not privy to those conversations. So quite frankly, I couldn't tell you if he will or will not play a role in the Bush administration.

WHITFIELD: Do you think that kind of discussion would be appropriate within the Republican Party?

WALL: Well you know I can say there are obviously several similarities and some things that Clinton touched upon in regard to President Bush and the road map for peace that has been laid out and this being the first president if you will to acknowledge the fact that there is -- that there needs to be a separate Palestinian state. Obviously, there are some similarities there, but once again like I said, I can't speak for President Bush and as far as those discussions go, I'm not privy to that.

WHITFIELD: Well Ann, in the Democratic party, do you see that if it's Kerry in the White House, are there already discussions about how to involve Clinton when it comes to foreign policies?

LEWIS: Well, the discussions I'm aware of are how important it is to have President Clinton out there speaking about what's at stake. And I must say listening to this interview, I was reminded again what a difference elections make and what it was like when we had a president who could speak thoughtfully, engagingly, talk to the American people about what was at stake in foreign policy and who had the record Bill Clinton did of building alliances, building coalitions enlarging our friendship around the world so that America could be more effective. And that I think the example he's going to set from now through Election Day.

WHITFIELD: And Tara, it is parent and most agree that obviously as we've seen President Bush, particularly pushing his book most recently, that he is still remarkably popular. So how might the Republicans either use this to their advantage?

WALL: Well, I mean, certainly, I think most Americans know and agree that President Clinton has this charismatic appeal, if you will. I don't know how much of the Democrats are going to utilize him. Once again he is on a book tour, but the other distinguishing factor that needs to be pointed out too, it may be pretty hard for John Kerry to use President Clinton given the fact that right now in regards to the economy, you know Democrats are the ones that called President Clinton's economy exceptional in 1996.

And the records show and facts show right now that under President Bush, he is outperforming President Clinton's economic policies. So we've got lower inflation, lower unemployment. More wages. The highest homeowner rates specifically among minorities under President Bush right now and consumer confidence at a two-year high.

So it's going to be kind of hard for the Democrats to have Clinton out there stumping for them when he had the same approval rating that President Bush has right now in 1996.

WHITFIELD: So is there any risk at trying to ground Clinton in his momentum without that plan backfiring given his popularity?

WALL: When you have a message of pessimism and negativity it's going to be hard for them to do it. How are they going to make those two comparisons and contrasts on one end they want to be pessimistic and down play the economic gains that we have had but on the other hand, say that under President Clinton we had an exceptional economy. And once again President Bush's economy has outperformed President Clintons.

LEWIS: Maybe I could just do fact check for a minute and just point out that in his first four years, that President Clinton's leadership America produced 8 million more jobs. Under George Bush in his first four years, we have lost what is now almost 2 million jobs. Under President Clinton in his first four years, household income went up, under George Bush household incomes went down.

So people are actually working harder and having a harder time to pay their bills, but look, Bill Clinton's message and John Kerry's message are basically optimistic ones. Because what they have said is as Americans, when we work together we can meet any challenge. That is what the Democratic Party is going to be talking about and that's what John Kerry and John Edwards are going to talk about.

WHITFIELD: Well Ann lets talk about the convention. In what way will the Democratic convention try to use the Clintons, whether it be Hillary or whether it be Bill or maybe even Chelsea since we're starting to see both of the candidate teams right now putting out the young people, you know, their children as a way to appeal to younger voters? How are we going to see the Clinton's role?

LEWIS: I think we can expect President Clinton to address the convention. Senator Clinton, of course, is now one of our Democratic women senators. We are very proud of all our senators and I think we would expect that women senators also to be on stage at some point. We've got a lot of elected officials to be proud of and those Democratic women including Hillary Clinton are among them. They will be definitely being evident and present at the convention.

WHITFIELD: Do you see Chelsea playing a role?

LEWIS: I know a lot of people who are looking forward to it. I do not know about Chelsea's plans. She was very much a private person. That will be her decision.

WHITFIELD: All right, Well Tara, let's talk about the children. I mean the Clintons certainly did show some protective parenting when it came down to Chelsea. Now for the first time, we're seeing President Bush and Jenna, who is apparently now joining the campaign trail. We hadn't been seeing that image before and this coming just a couple days after the Kerry-Edwards campaign using their children in very Kennedy esque (ph) type of parading at that Pittsburgh residence.

WALL: Well, I think you'll see our convention being -- getting young people inspired across the board. I think it's exciting to see young people get involved in the political process. I think that it's important for young people to be involved and getting involved and you know, we're doing some things at our convention along with getting out the vote as it relates to the young population and it's exciting. I mean, that's a legitimate use, if you will, of young people.

WHITFIELD: All right Tara Wall of the Republican National Committee and Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee, thanks to both of you ladies for joining us today.

LEWIS: Thank you.

WALL: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Charges of outrageous misconduct in the Michael Jackson case and they've got nothing to do with the pop singer. We'll have that and more in this week's courtroom dramas in our "Legal Roundtable."

And later on, singing the jailhouse blues, a rare Glenn Campbell performance

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Well, time now for a little trail mix. Where we update you on what's happening to the candidates and their campaigns. President Bush used the airwaves today in his radio address to promote a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Critics say Bush is promoting the issue as a way to energize his religious conservative base.

Mean while Democratic candidates John Kerry and John Edwards campaigned in New Mexico yesterday before heading to North Carolina today. That while senior Democratic leaders gathered in Hollywood, Florida, to work on the party's platform.

And in a new poll just released by "Newsweek" magazine, a majority of Americans, 51 percent now say they support the Democratic ticket over the Republicans. The president's job approval rating has climbed a bit to 48 percent, but a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going.

Here's a look now at stories we're following across America. A Florida building full of anthrax spores will be fumigated beginning tomorrow nearly three years after the deadly anthrax attack, the building is the former headquarters of the Supermarket tabloid. The fumigation company plans to occupy the premises once the space is clean.

In New Jersey hundreds of people registered in there same sex partnerships with the states. It is the first day allowed under the states new domestic partnership law.

Courtney Love missed a court date on Friday in California. A judge declared her a fugitive. Hours later, she was admitted to a New York hospital on her 40th birthday with an undisclosed medical condition. Her lawyer in California told the judge she missed the hearing because she was "confused."

Time now for our "Legal Roundtable" and it was a busy week in the nation's courtrooms. Michael Jackson's fighting back against the DA in his case. The prosecution puts on grizzly evidence in Scott Peterson's murder trial and a famous corporate bigwig finally takes a perp walk. Joining me now from New York is Criminal Defense Attorney Richard Herman.

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hello Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And in Washington is Former Federal Prosecutor Pamela Bethal. Good to see both of you.

PAMELA BETHAL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good to be here.

HERMAN: Good afternoon.

WHITFIELD: All right, well let's begin with Michael Jackson. The district attorney Tom Sneddon is to be subpoenaed apparently for removing or at least some of his deputies removing some evidence from a private investigator that was employed by the defense team, the Michael Jackson defense team and now the defense is saying wait a minute we've got a conflict of interest here. Those records were protected by confidentiality between a client and an attorney privilege.

So Richard, where is this going?

HERMAN: Well you know, this Tom Sneddon has taken this case so personal from the very beginning with his news conferences and carrying on, I think he's lost entire focus here. And he's going to blow this case. You know, when a prosecutor disrupts the evidence, I mean, why is that not obstruction of justice? If a defendant does it, you're guaranteed its obstruction.

WHITFIELD: Pamela.

BETHAL: Yes, this I have to say as a former prosecutor that never would be allowed. There are very strict procedures that prosecutors need to follow and you know we're in a new day where prosecutors get as much airtime as criminal defense lawyers, and I think some of the abuses that used to only be done by criminal defense lawyers are not being done by prosecutors.

WHITFIELD: Why would a prosecutor even take this chance though?

BETHAL: Because, you know, because they want to win so badly. I mean that's the only thing that you can say. I don't believe that he's an incompetent lawyer. So the only other answer would be he wants to win so badly but he's got to win under terms that are prescribed under the rules and that are fair.

WHITFIELD: The hearing on this motion will resume July, 27th in the mean time Sneddon is expected to actually testify August 16th might this be unprecedented, Richard?

HERMAN: I think it is unprecedented, and if his testimony is adverse, I think he should be charged with obstruction of justice. They should bring charges against him. Let him feel it. He's out of control with this case, he is taking it personal, he is not acting professional, and if he truly acted in this manner, he's going to have to pay the price for it.

WHITFIELD: The Scott Peterson case is looking very messy, particularly after this week when apparently Mark Geragos the attorney is now complaining about the fact that pictures of a pregnant woman the same size as Laci Peterson were apparently laying on the floor of a boat and his accusation is this is fabricated evidence and this is off the charts. Pamela.

BETHAL: Well, the word fabricated I would not use. Basically, what the prosecutors are saying is that it's illustrative evidence. I mean they want to show what this looks like, how she could have been in the boat. But that was a close call for the judge to have made. Many judges would not have permitted that because it is not exactly -- they don't have the pictures of Laci. So why should the jurors see. It is done in fact to prejudice the jury and to make the jurors think about the discomfort that Laci may have been in.

HERMAN: You know what Fredricka on cross-examination Geragos will handle that. But this entire Peterson prosecution is in shambles. When the strongest part of your case is to show gruesome pictures, that's just not going to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson did it. The roaches deserve better. This Al Brocchini, he also should be prosecuted and charges should be levied against him for obstruction of justice.

WHITFIELD: All right.

HERMAN: When he makes up evidence or with holds evidence, it is outrageous.

WHITFIELD: OK, Richard we only got a little bit of time and I want to get one more case in. Pamela let's talk about the corporate crimes, actually the series of cases that we have been looking at this past week and now going into next week, John Rigas, Adelphia. He got a guilty verdict and Ken Lay stepping forward and his indictment. Might these cases set the tone of what we're likely to see next week with Martha Stewart and her scheduled sentencing for Friday? Pamela.

BETHAL: Well, what's going on with Martha's case is at the final stages. Because of the federal sentencing guidelines, it is very, very, very unlikely that Martha, that the judge will do anything more than schedule her within the range which would be I think will be somewhere between ten and 16 months. I think this whole, all of these cases put together though should tell Corporate America that you can run, but you can't hide.

WHITFIELD: And interesting enough Richard, Ken Lay, I mean a good friend of President Bush, President Bush called him Kenny boy and now possibly Ken Lay is going to be the poster child for corporate criminals. You know, what a very strange message and sequence of events that have happened here.

HERMAN: Well the investigation was on going for some two and a half years and if you recall, Fastow recently made his deal and obviously, Fastow is the one that gave them Ken Lay in spades. You can't use these corporations as your personal piggy banks. Gordon Greco, greed is good, greed is not good and you are going to pay for it.

And with respect to Martha Stewart, you know Fredricka I know it's before your time, but the great Jim Morrison said this is the end. And this is the end for Martha Stewart.

WHITFIELD: Aren't you sweet.

BETHAL: Now I disagree. I think Martha is going rise, I disagree. I think she'll be sentenced. I don't know what's going to happen. But I think we'll see Martha yet again in a very public forum.

HERMAN: We will she her again but she's going to prison.

BETHAL: Yes I mean. Well, we'll see. I'm not sure about the appeal. I think that the judge's decision not to grant a new trial, that may get revoked.

WHITFIELD: OK, well it ain't over yet. We'll be watching all week. Pamela Bethal and Richard Herman thanks very much for joining us this Saturday.

HERMAN: Happy to be here.

BETHAL: Bye-bye.

WHITFIELD: Glenn Campbell's latest concert. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was fun. They sang along, they clapped hands and they're natural captive audience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The sights and sounds of his jailhouse jam fest coming up.

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