Return to Transcripts main page

News from CNN

Spain: Politics and Terror; Changes and Challenges in Baghdad; The Hunt for Osama bin Laden; The Return of Aristide

Aired March 15, 2004 - 12:00   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.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.
Ahead this hour: the people of Spain have spoken. And what they've said could be bad news for the Bush administration and the coalition, and the efforts to stabilize Iraq.

How are those efforts going after almost 12 months? We'll talk with two people who have studied them closely. And we'll be taking your e-mail on U.S. involvement in Iraq. That involvement began nearly one year ago. How did the news media do then and how have we been doing since?

We'll get to all of that. First, some headlines.

A U.S. Marine is shot and wounded in Haiti. It's the first reported casualty of the U.S. peacekeeping mission that began with the departure of the former Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. A military spokesman says the shooting occurred in a neighborhood that still supports Aristide.

In Pakistan, police defuse a massive bomb outside a United States consulate. Authorities say a tank concealed in a minivan contained nearly 200 pounds of liquid explosives. The compound there in Karachi has been the target of at least two previous attacks.

Iran agrees to let the United Nations resume its inspections of the country's nuclear programs. Iran had frozen the inspections on Friday amid escalating tensions over secret Iranian research and to equipment that can help produce nuclear weapons.

And within the past 20 minutes or so, we learned that Martha Stewart has formally resigned as a director and the chief creative officer of the company she founded, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. This follows her conviction more than a week ago in connection with her sale of ImClone stock. More on this coming up.

Also, we're following the political bombshell in Spain. That's a huge story that's been developing since the terrorist attack Thursday morning.

Spanish voters have now gone forward and they've decided to have a different leadership in Spain. It's a political bombshell in that country. The unexpected turn of events follows Spain's support of Washington in the course of the war in Iraq.

Let's get an update on what's happening in Madrid right now. CNN's Diana Muriel is joining us from there.

Diana, big news in Spain.

DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed. A shock result from Sunday's general election. The incoming prime minister, the Prime Minister-Elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, wasted no time at a press conference that he gave here in Madrid earlier Monday in reinforcing some of his election pledges. And chief amongst those his promise to pull out the Spanish troops that are in Iraq.

There are 1,300-odd Spanish troops in that country. And it was a key part of his election platform, this commitment to withdraw them. This is what he had to say earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ ZAPATERO (through translator): I think as everyone knows, I think that Spain's participation in the war has been a total error. There was not a way to intervene in a war. And I think it's an error. But I have said that the last day of the Spanish troops in Iraq is going to be on June 30th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURIEL: Indeed, many of the people who are coming here to Atocha station in downtown Madrid, which is where some of those bombs went off last Thursday, have only just reopened today. Many of the people coming here to leave flowers and light candles are also leaving messages. And not just messages of condolences, Wolf.

Some of these are very political in nature. And they blame the outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Assn., for the bombs and his policies with regards to Iraq in particular --Wolf.

BLITZER: Diana, what about the condition that he left open, the incoming prime minister, that if there's a New U.N. Security Council resolution, he'll reconsider that pullout of the approximately 1,300 Spanish forces in Iraq? There is that possibility that is being held out there. How realistic is it seen from the Spanish perspective?

MURIEL: Well, it's interesting. Politicians who are in opposition are able to make all sorts of bold statements. It was interesting that he chose to try to reinforce that at the press conference. But as you say, as you point out, he did leave a door open incase there is another U.N. resolution.

He's having to deal now with the political realities, or he will very soon, of being the head of state here, the prime minister here in Spain. And it may well be that he will have to change his political position.

However, there's strong support, it appears, among the Spanish people that Spain should no longer be part of that coalition. Many people drawing a direct connection between the bombs that dropped in Baghdad and the bombs that went off here in Madrid last week -- Wolf.

BLITZER: CNN's Diana Muriel in Madrid. Thank you, Diana, very much.

The election result in Spain is hardly welcome news for the Bush administration and its effort to bring stability to Iraq. For that part of the story, let's bring in our Kathleen Koch. She's over at the White House.

What is the reaction to the Spanish election at the White House, Kathleen?

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, they are really downplaying here the impact of the Spanish election on both U.S. policy in Europe and on the coalition in its entirety. The president this morning made a series of phone calls, the first one to the outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar. The president thanked him for his support, for his friendship, for his strong leadership, and wished him well as he leaves office.

Again, it's important to point out that the two men were very close, that Aznar had visited President Bush both here and also at Camp David. And Aznar had, again, backed the U.S.-led action in Iraq, despite the opposition of some 90 percent of the Spanish population.

Also this morning, the president called the incoming socialist leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The two men spoke, we're told, for about five or 10 minutes. The president congratulating him on his victory.

And the two men reiterating their commitment -- their shared commitment to work together to combat terrorism. Though according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the two men did not discuss the central issues, Zapatero's promise to voters that was made before the election to pull out these 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq.

McClellan would not discuss whether or not that would hurt U.S. efforts in Iraq. McClellan insisting that the coalition is very strong. And McClellan also pointing out, as we've just heard, that in some ways Zapatero has left the door open, perhaps keeping those troops in place. That obviously a very difficult and touchy political decision.

And speaking of politics, that did enter the discussion this morning with the White House spokesman. McClellan saying that he hit back very hard, actually, on John Kerry's assertion that foreign leaders that he had talked to recently would prefer to see him as president.

And McClellan reiterated a call that was heard this weekend from the secretary of state, Colin Powell, that Kerry needed to come forward and name the names of those he was talking about. Otherwise, McClellan said the only conclusion is that "Kerry is making it up to attack the president." McClellan saying, "It is not the first time that Kerry has refused to back up his assertions" -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Kathleen Koch reporting for us at the White House. A busy day over there as usual. Thank you, Kathleen, very much. A New poll released today reveals a 10-point drop since the start of the year in the president's job approval rating. Among those questioned for the Gallup poll, 50 percent said they approve of the president's job, the job he's doing, 47 percent registered disapproval.

But look at this. This may be more significant. Thirty-nine percent say they support the direction the country is headed. Sixty percent say they're dissatisfied. This is a number politicians look at very, very closely.

Here in Washington, the president is under fire from Senator Kerry on the topic of homeland security. In a speech this morning to firefighters, Kerry called the president, and I'm quoting now, "big on bluster and short on action." In particular, Kerry took issue with the administration's funding of emergency responders.

Bombs raining down on Baghdad. We saw it, heard it, and expected it a year ago this Friday. A U.S.-led coalition invaded, determined to oust Saddam Hussein and destroy what the White House said were his weapons of mass destruction.

Part of that mission has been accomplished, allowing CNN's Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, to get back to her post. She's joining us now with some thoughts on the changes she's seen in Baghdad over this past year.

I don't think we can exaggerate how dramatic these changes have been, Jane. You were there for years before. You've been there on and off since. What's the biggest change?

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Wolf, it's been likened to an earthquake essentially. And the biggest change are things that may not seem very big but altogether they add up to a total reversal, almost, a completely different place.

Now, just to tell you what it is like to walk down the street, if you turned out of this hotel and walked down one of these major streets, you'd see tons of things for sale in the markets. Now, these are all flooding through the borders, the same borders in which they're worried that foreign fighters are flooding through.

You'd see satellite dishes. People were never allowed to have them before. You'd see fewer liquor stores because there's an increase in Islamic fundamentalism, one of the things that Saddam Hussein had repressed as a threat to his power.

You would see people who have perhaps an optimism for what this country is going to be like in the long term because this is a rich country. But a lot of fear and uncertainty about what's going to happen in the short term.

There are still attacks; there are attacks on American soldiers. There are increasingly, it seems, attacks on Iraqis. Those big suicide bombs, the targeted assassinations. Everywhere a feeling of uncertainty. And on the economic front, Wolf, people are still waiting for those promised jobs. They're waiting for that promised oil revenue. They're waiting for a lot of things. Some of them are willing to hold out a little longer, but a lot of them are really afraid of what's going to happen in this New Iraq that has changed so very much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: But I would say another huge change, Jane, is this Saddam Hussein simply being gone, the Ba'ath Party totalitarian regime, a dictatorship removed. There is freedom of speech now. People can say whatever they want. There are newspapers that are flourishing, the news media.

Is that something that's appreciated by the rank and file Iraqi?

ARRAF: It's really interesting because you think it would be appreciated. Now, I was kicked out of Iraq because I covered an unauthorized demonstration. You are not allowed to congregate, to gather, to demonstrate against anything, even show support for anything unless it was Saddam Hussein.

Now, on every corner, practically, every day, there are demonstrations large and small. And very effective ones in some cases. They are learning American techniques.

There was one where they chain themselves to a gate and refused to get up. But it's -- the interesting thing about this, Wolf, is people seem to be taking it for granted, which is phenomenal. It is really extraordinary that people are allowed to say what they want, to complain. But there still is that level of fear.

People aren't really comfortable in saying exactly what they think because they're still worried in many places what their neighbors might think. They're worried about being seen with American soldiers. They're really worried that this could go the wrong way.

In many people's minds, the jury is still out. And while they appreciate those freedoms, the newspapers, particularly the satellite TV, they're not quite sure where that's all leading them -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And that's understandable. It has only been a year following three decades of a horrible police state in Iraq.

Thanks, Jane, very much for that report. We'll be checking back with you throughout the day, indeed throughout the week, on this first anniversary of the war.

Back here in the United States, calls for an end to military action in Iraq. Here in Washington, relatives of some of the 564 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq over the past year are marching right now toward the White House. More than 100 plan to rally in nearby Lafayette Park. They want the president to bring the remaining troops home without further bloodshed.

In the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan, meanwhile, U.S. forces have stepped up the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Over the weekend, U.S. troops killed three enemy fighters and captured 13 others.

Our Ryan Chilcote is in Kabul right now. He's joining us live via videophone with more.

Do you get the impression, Ryan -- you've been to Afghanistan several times -- that there's progress being made in the hunt for Osama bin Laden?

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the U.S. military says its intensifying its hunt. And it has also changed its tactics quite clearly in Afghanistan from what I've seen in the past.

Before, there were really two military bases out of which the U.S. ran its military offensive. Now there are a series of fire bases, really, all over eastern Afghanistan. And there is a concentrated effort right now on the U.S. military to patrol the eastern part of Afghanistan on the Afghan-Pakistan border. That appears to be somewhat effective.

You mentioned those reports. The U.S. military saying today that it killed three Taliban fighters and detained 13 in southern Afghanistan. Part of this, perhaps, Wolf, coming because Pakistan is exerting such a serious -- such pressure right now on western Pakistan on those remote lawless areas, really pressuring the tribes in those areas to give up Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

And some of those tribespeople have been agreeing. We saw some very amazing video of some today coming out of Pakistan of some of these tribes dancing around with their weapons, saying that they are ready volunteers to go after militants in their part of the country in western Pakistan -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Is there a sense that there's enough troops on the ground, U.S. troops, friendly troops, backed by Pakistani and friendly Afghan forces to get the job done? Or are you hearing grumbling from U.S. military commanders?

CHILCOTE: Well, the U.S. military is very, I guess, careful to say that it has enough troops. I think a lot of the military commanders here, Wolf, understand that they're not going to get any more troops even if they want even a very significant increase because of what they call the end strength problem in the U.S. military. There simply aren't enough troops to go around, particularly with the heavy emphasis on Iraq right now.

What they do say is they'll need a U.S. military presence for at least a couple of years in this country. And there were some senators here over the weekend, Wolf. And one of those senators from the Armed Service Committee was saying that he would like to see the number of U.S. troops in this country actually decline, go down by half over the next year. Well, U.S. military commanders that I've talked to here, they don't see how that's possible at this point.

One of the things they want to do, Wolf, is they want to build this Afghan national army. The idea being that if Afghanistan has a federal army, then it will be able to support its own defense and the U.S. military won't be so necessary as it is right now -- Wolf.

BLITZER: A rough, dangerous situation in Afghanistan. And our Ryan Chilcote is there for us as usual. Ryan, thank you very much. Please be careful there in Kabul.

All week long, CNN will continue its special coverage of a year in Iraq. Coming up next, I'll take a look at how we -- that would be the news media -- covered the war, how we would have done it differently, perhaps, and how we're doing right now.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): The city of Baghdad very quiet, indeed. Barely any traffic on the roads here. The city very still. The lights, however, of the city on very bright.

What we were hearing a few hours ago was some heavy detonations, perhaps 12 to 20 destinations towards the edge of the city. A little anti-aircraft gunfire at that time.

ARRAF: This checkpoint just before Iraqi government-controlled territory is packed with people. Most of them families coming from Baghdad.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CAIRO BUREAU CHIEF: Six minutes ago, the Iraqi- controlled city of Mosul did come under bombardment. And by the sounds of this jet overhead, it may come under bombing once again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: As all of us remember, television viewers got unprecedented coverage of the war in Iraq through the eyes of journalists embedded with coalition forces. But did greater access actually translate into better coverage?

Here to talk about that one year later, Howard Kurtz, the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," and the media reporter for The Washington Post.

Howie, what do you think? Bottom line, did the embedding program translate itself into better information for the consumers, the viewers, the readers, listeners?

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN "RELIABLE SOURCES": Oh, absolutely. This was a technological revolution, Wolf. We got real-time reports from some very brave reporters, a few of who lost their lives.

We got to see what it was like. A kind of a grunt's eye view of the battlefield. And that was not a comprehensive view.

Some people have called it a soda straw view, so that if your unit was having problems or was taking fire, or enduring casualties, your reports tended to be more downbeat than perhaps the wider war would have suggested. But I think even the Pentagon would say that the American journalists, who didn't always deliver good news, reported pretty well.

BLITZER: Right. I was skeptical going in. As a former Pentagon reporter, skeptical that the military would actually let us have the access that we wanted. I always hear that things got bad, they would cut it off right away.

I was also skeptical that the equipment, the New generation of mini cams and satellite phones would work in a desert kind of environment. And the third concern, Bernard Shaw had raised it before the war, is that journalists might get overly close to the sources that they're covering and might not provide the kind of responsible, critical coverage that the American public and the military deserves. But I think I was wrong on all those points.

KURTZ: Well, some journalists told me that they did feel that they were living and sleeping with their units. And it was hard to be as critical as they may have otherwise have been. There is some truth to that charge.

On the other hand, there were people who wrote and broadcast some very unflattering things about the conduct of those troops. So I think -- and the Pentagon kept a hands-off policy. They did not censor anybody. So, by and large, it was a pretty good performance, but I would have to say the coverage of the war since then, the performance has not been as good.

BLITZER: Well, I'm going to get to that in a moment. But if you compare the way we covered this war with the first Gulf War, where we, the news media -- and I was there, I covered it -- were basically limited to briefings at the Pentagon. I sat through numerous of those almost every single day. Or in Riyadh, at Central Command headquarters. They didn't let us get anywhere near the action.

I don't think there will be any turning back the clock. We won't be able to go back to those bad old days, because the American public won't stand for it. Do you agree?

KURTZ: I would like to agree with you on that. And I think there will be a lot of pressure for future wars to have this embedded quality. But I remember the war in Afghanistan just a couple of years earlier, where there was very, very limited access for American journalists.

Basically, the Pentagon controls the access, they control battlefield. They decided it was in their interest, and rightly so, to let American reporters see up close what the fighting men and women were doing. That created not totally gushing news, but pretty positive portrayal. But if in another war, perhaps a more stealth war, I'm not totally confident we'll see the same set of circumstances.

BLITZER: The same kind of embedding that we did see then. Well, let's talk about the other issue that you raised. Were we critical enough? I got hammered all the time in the e-mail that I get from viewers who say, we were in there, we were almost gung-ho, we were cheerleaders. We didn't provide the kind of skepticism on weapon of mass destruction going in that certainly with hindsight we should have done. We were relying on the same kind of sources, presumably, that others were relying on in the government.

KURTZ: I think that's a fair complaint. When you look at it with the benefit of hindsight, those who raised questions about the administration's WMD claims, those who were skeptical, those who said that the intelligence wasn't really as rock solid as Colin Powell and Don Rumsfeld and the president were making it out to be, those voices tended to get in the back pages of the paper. They didn't get a lot of broadcast time.

People, by the same nature, who warned that it would be an easy military victory but it would be very difficult after the war -- in other words, winning the war would be a lot easier than winning the peace -- those voices did not get enough (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And I think we're all paying the price for that now.

So there I think, although it is very hard, Wolf, just as the U.S. weapons inspectors couldn't find weapons, it is very hard for journalists who don't have access to Iraq to prove or disprove in a dictatorship. I think we were not aggressive enough and we're not skeptical enough.

BLITZER: And there's no shortage of viewers out there who have this unrealistic notion that we in the news media, we have incredible access, we can find out anything, we should know what's really going on. And that, unfortunately, doesn't always exist.

Let's get to a few e-mails.

This is from Francis: "For the most part, Americans believe the Iraq invasion was justified. But we didn't deploy near enough resources to maintain robust security during transition. Why hasn't the media pressed the administration on this impotent plan for security?"

KURTZ: I think in the early months after the statue fell, there were a lot of stories and a lot of journalists raising questions about why weren't you better prepared to restore order in the country? You remember the riots, you remember the looting and all of that.

I think since then the problem has been that with the exception of a few news organizations, and I include CNN in that category, the coverage has been episodic, it's been spotty. We've almost reached a point where it's sort of like every day there's two or three Americans killed. That becomes kind of the background noise, because we've moved on to Martha Stewart, and to Michael Jackson, and to Janet Jackson.

You know, the media have a short attention span, Wolf. BLITZER: That's true. Here is one more e-mail from Michael: "I find it terrible that the Bush administration banned the media from showing images of soldiers' remains returning from Iraq, yet they do not think twice about exploiting 9/11 and showing the remains of U.S. civilians killed in the tower collapse. This is an outrage."

You've heard this criticism.

KURTZ: Sure. Well, it is also true that we journalists were not allowed to show the returning bodies at Dover under the Clinton administration. So the Bush administration didn't invent this policy.

It is a political question about whether or not it is or not appropriate for the president to show some 9/11 footage in his ads. There's a New poll saying about half the people don't think that should be the case. On the other hand, it is the biggest, singlemost important event of his presidency. I don't see how he can expect it could be completely avoided.

BLITZER: Howard Kurtz writes for The Washington Post. He's the host of "RELIABLE SOURCES," seen every Sunday morning 11:30 a.m.

Now, next Sunday you're going to have that special interview we didn't see yesterday with Jayson Blair because of breaking news. This is an important interview.

KURTZ: I think people will find it an interesting look at a guy who created all kinds of havoc at The New York Times. Why wasn't he caught? Why did he do it? How do his excuses hold up? Is he just selling a book?

I think it will be pretty interesting viewing for folks.

BLITZER: That will be Sunday, 11:30 a.m. Eastern on "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Thanks, Howie, very much.

KURTZ: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: On patrol in Haiti's mean streets, a U.S. Marine wounded. Still to come, a live report from Port-au-Prince as the former Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, heads to Jamaica.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Just hours from now, Haiti's former president, Jean- Bertrand Aristide, is expected back in the Caribbean. Could his presence in the region galvanize his die-hard supporters?

CNN's Harris Whitbeck is joining us now live from Port-au-Prince.

Tensions remaining pretty high right now, Harris. Set the stage for us. Tell us what's happening.

HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I can tell you that Haiti is very displeased with Jamaica for allowing Mr. Aristide to base himself there for about 10 weeks. In fact, Haiti has recalled its ambassador to Jamaica for talks here. The new prime minister, Gerard Latortue, called the Jamaican invitation to Mr. Aristide as an unfriendly act. And that just underscores how concerned people here are about the effect that Aristide's return to the region might have on his supporters.

Tensions on the street remain high. There was one incident last night in which a U.S. Marine was wounded. He was on a foot patrol near the presidential palace when he apparently came under fire. That Marine has been sent to a hospital in the United States, and he is expected to fully recover.

Now, the Marines and soldiers from France, Chile and Canada all came under the command of the United States today, and they will all work together in helping the Haitian police to bring some stability to the streets. Stability that's so far isn't really pervasive, particularly in the Haitian capital -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What is their fear? That if he's in Jamaica that he'll be able to rally his supporters to try to foment unrest in Haiti? Is that their big concern, the new government of Haiti, with Aristide eventually going to wind up, at least as you say, for 10 weeks in nearby Jamaica?

WHITBECK: Well, that's exactly the fear. The fear is that Aristide supporters will be galvanized by the idea that Aristide is close by. Jamaica is only about 100 miles from Haiti. And the fear is, if he's in the legion, his supporters might get the idea that he will eventually come back. So they're very concerned about these very, very passionate displays of politics that have been -- as you know, have been the cause of much bloodshed in the Haitian capital over the last several weeks.

BLITZER: All right. We'll be watching it closely with Harris Whitbeck.

Harris, thanks very much for that report.

Did the Bush administration oversell weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did it underestimate security measures? What did U.S. officials know then, and what do they know now? Still to come, some lessons learned one year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The U.S.-led coalition insists Iraq will be ready for some measure of self-government by the end of June. But given the continuing violence and ongoing struggle for power, is it likely U.S. forces will be in Iraq for some time to come?

Here to talk all about that and more, Ken Pollock. He's a CNN analyst. He's the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution here in Washington. And Robin Wright is the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

Robin, I'll begin with you. This June 30 transition, is it set in concrete? Is it definitely going to happen? Or is there some wiggle room for a delay?

ROBIN WRIGHT, WASHINGTON POST: I don't think there's any wiggle room. There's an agreement -- one of the few things that everyone agrees on, the Iraqis, the Americans, all members of the coalition, that the occupation should end on June 30th.

The real crisis -- and is it a crisis now -- is the fact that the United States has been unable to come up with a formula to hand over power to the Iraqis. Two formulas have already failed. And the United States is now having a problem even getting some members of the Iraqi Governing Council all hand picked by the United States to agree to issue that formal invitation to get the United Nations back. And getting the United Nations to play a major role in this transition.

First, with coming up with an alternative formula. And second, then organizing the elections eventually to be held in Iraq is really critical. And so the next few days really will be very pivotal in seeing how effective they're going to be in coming up with a means of meeting that deadline.

BLITZER: Well, that, Robin, raises a great point. An important point, Ken. Three-and-a-half months from now, June 30th, who will take over responsibility for everything in Iraq once Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator, he leaves? He says he's leaving June 30th.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Look, I mean, the honest answer, Wolf, is I wish I knew. That said, I think you can give a somewhat better answer than that kind of glib one, which is that ultimately I think the United States will be much more responsible than I think most people expect.

In truth, most of the people out in Baghdad who work in the Coalition Provisional Authority have known all along that this transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30th would undoubtedly and should include also some transfer of authority. But not all authority.

And point of fact, the United States needs to remain there in force both in terms of its military presence and also its political presence. The U.S. is talking about having an enormous embassy. I actually think that's not a great way to do things. But nevertheless, it does get to the point that you're still going to need lots and lots of Americans in Iraq still making day-to-day decisions. It is just unclear at this point in time how much of the day-to-day decision- making will be transferred to the Iraqis, and to whom, and how much of it we'll retain with the United States.

BLITZER: But Robin, doesn't the raise the possibility that this very strong continued U.S. presence there, behind-the-scenes role, could undermine any type of Iraqi government that would emerge because it would simply seem to be a puppet of Washington? WRIGHT: Exactly, Wolf. The real challenge for the United States is striking the balance, providing the kind of security that will help with the environment, which has been unstable ever since major conflict ended on May 1st. And not being seen to dominate every single decision by the new sovereign Iraqi entity.

That's likely to be complicated, because the only real formula on the table that seems viable with time so rapidly running out is to take the current Iraqi Governing Council and enlarge it in some way by adding new members. But even that's becoming a little bit difficult. So the United States may end up playing more of a role than it had originally anticipated.

BLITZER: And we'll talk about the United Nations' role. Will there be a new U.N. resolution that might allow those 1,300 Spaniards, those 1,300 Spanish troops, to remain in Iraq beyond June 30th?

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

The U.S.-led war in Iraq began one year ago this week. We've been talking about the difficult road ahead with our guest, Ken Pollack, a CNN analyst, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. And Robin Wright, she's the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

Ken, you think there will be a new U.N. Security Council resolution between now and June 30th that would allow the Spanish troops to stay and perhaps bring in other foreign forces as well?

POLLACK: At this point, Wolf, I just can't make a decision on that one. I can't make a judgement.

The U.S. is showing a much bigger willingness to involve the United Nations in the decision-making process in Iraq. I mean, in fact, ironically, the U.S. is relying much more heavily on the U.N. than it wanted to six months ago. And, of course, that was the problem.

Six months ago, the U.S. was trying to keep the U.N. out of the decision-making process. That was frightening a lot of potential coalition members away.

The greater willingness of the U.S. to include the U.N. in this process makes it a possibility. But by the same token, there are still a lot countries out there that really don't want to have anything to do with Iraq. Unfortunately, they see the security situation they believe deteriorating, and they don't want to put their own people in harm's way.

BLITZER: Robin, I'm hearing suggestions that NATO might be increasingly playing a significant military role in Iraq just as NATO has been playing in Afghanistan. What do you hear on that? WRIGHT: Well, I think the United States would like to see NATO play a more prominent role. The issue is, does NATO have the wherewithal to play such a role in light of the fact that it's in the Balkans and Afghanistan.? There's some talk of them taking over the leadership to give cover to the Polish contingent in Iraq.

It's possible that NATO will get in, but I suspect in a small role. Not to take over, for example, the command of all the coalition troops that will be left behind after June 30th.

BLITZER: Ken, I know you have done a lot of your own investigation into the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction, where are they, why haven't they been found, the chemical, the biological stockpiles that so many people, almost everyone, assumed would be found in Iraq. What's your bottom line right now? Did Saddam Hussein effectively destroy all those weapons of mass destruction, but actually didn't want to acknowledge it for his own domestic or regional political purposes?

POLLACK: Yes, that's right, Wolf. That's my sense of what's going on.

Talking with David Kay, with other people who have been out there searching for the weapons of mass destruction, reading their reports very carefully, and also going back over historical evidence over the last 12 years, my own sense is that in about 1996, Saddam Hussein made a very important strategic decision. Before then, he'd been trying to hang on to as much as his weapons of mass destruction as he possibly could. The problem was that the U.N. kept finding pieces of that program. And, of course, Hussein Kamul (ph), his son-in-law, head of the program, defected and revealed that the Iraqis were trying to keep big chunks.

In '96, he seems to have made the decision to minimize what he had. He didn't give up everything; he didn't get rid of everything. But he only kept a small portion, what would allow him to reconstitute after the fact. The problem is that everyone missed that in large part because, while Saddam made this critical strategic change, he didn't change his behavior at all, and led people to think that he was still concealing what he'd been concealing before '96.

BLITZER: What's your sense, Robin?

WRIGHT: Well, you know, I have no idea. I'm not in Iraq. But I do think that the real tragedy is history will not look well on the United States for its intervention in Iraq because there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no imminent threat.

But that does not -- you know, the tragedy is that Saddam Hussein did use them. And it almost diminishes -- the fact we weren't able to find them now, diminishes the fact that he used them so extensively against his own people and against Iranians.

I saw the Kurdish victims in northern Iraq and the Iranian victims during the Iran-Iraq war. And it was horrific what happened. But the fact that we can't find them now seems to diminish the threat he represented.

BLITZER: And both of those incidents you're referring to, of course, happened in the '80s, before the first Gulf War.

All right. Stand by. We have much more to talk about, the future of Iraq. We'll take another quick break.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

We're back with our guests, Ken Pollack, CNN analyst, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and Robin Wright, the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

We have an e-mail from Dave. Let me read it. "What did the capture of Saddam Hussein prove? There is still much terrorism, and the loss of life Spain suffered is devastating. The efforts in Afghanistan should have been our main goal instead of bombing, occupying and rebuilding Iraq, when the questions surrounding terror have not been answered by the Iraq turmoil."

Robin, let's talk about Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said he's really not cooperating, but he's anxious. Rumsfeld is anxious for a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later. What are you hearing?

WRIGHT: Well, the United States is handing over responsibility for Saddam's trial to Iraqis. This is something that the Iraqis need to be seen to be doing themselves, and probably after the United States occupation ends.

This is a critical moment for Iraq. But the interesting thing about Saddam Hussein's capture is it symbolized the end of an era, but we haven't really moved beyond the period. There is no mechanism in place to create the new Iraq. And that's why Saddam Hussein's capture doesn't seem quite as much of a triumph in hindsight as it did going into the war.

BLITZER: You know, Ken, this is going to be a spectacular trial, Saddam Hussein on the witness stand, all these people coming forward testifying against him. And that could be pretty soon, relatively soon. We know the Justice Department sent over about 50 investigators, prosecutors, researchers to help the Iraqis.

What do you anticipate? Will this be one of these spectacular war crimes tribunals? Or are we overexaggerating the significance of what will happen?

POLLACK: Well, my guess is that it will be rather spectacular if only because, as Robin has pointed out, what looks like the most likely scenario now is that the current Governing Council is likely to remain in power in Iraq for some time to come. That's problematic; they're not terribly legitimate. The Iraqis don't care for them, don't see them as representative.

That group of people is going to want to make Saddam's trial into a tremendous spectacle as a way of demonstrating that they are in charge and they represent that new Iraq, which, I agree with Robin, has not yet taken form. So I think that we will see a lot of fanfare around it.

The big question is, will it be any -- will it be somehow dramatic in terms of what happens? For the Iraqi people, this may be the cathartic experience they need, where they finally get the chance to vent against the source of their oppression for the last 25 to 30 years.

If Saddam doesn't cooperate, though, it is just unclear how dramatic it will get to be. If he stands mute the entire time, it will be interesting to see how other Arabs interpret his reaction.

BLITZER: You know, Robin, when I speak with top Bush administration officials, national security officials, foreign affairs officials, they make the point that weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction, you can't dispute the bottom line that what the U.S. did in Iraq sends a powerful message to bad guys out there around the world, and they're now becoming more cooperative. Specifically Libya, for example, Iran, or Syria, even North Korea. They got the message.

Is that a factual statement that they make?

WRIGHT: Well, it's -- excuse me -- it's factual to a certain extent. Libya was...

BLITZER: Hold on, Robin. Drink some water. I'm going to let Ken pick that up so you can clear your throat.

Ken, why don't you pick that up and let Robin drink some water? And then we'll get back to her.

POLLACK: Sure. And Robin, I suspect, will have a similar take on it. But I hope I'm not stepping on your shoes too much.

I think that there is some elements of truth in it. Certainly, I think the Libyans initially were making a whole bunch of very silly -- taking on a whole bunch of silly actions. I think they finally got the message that maybe it is not so good to mess around with this government; it is actually willing to use force.

In the case of Libya and Iran, I think it's a much harder case to make. In the case of Libya, the Libyans have been trying to surrender to us for at least the last five years, and conceivably the last six. And to the extent that there was any help from the war in Iraq, that may have just been the final straw that broke the camel's back.

But in truth, the Libyans have made this offer beforehand. They've wanted to be reintegrated with the international community.

On the Iranian side, I think it is clear that early on the Iranians were concerned. But you now see what they're doing with the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the IAEA, delaying, bluffing, making statements that they won't stick to their agreement to suspend Iranian enrichment. All of this suggests that whatever impact this may have made on Iran was certainly short lived.

BLITZER: Ken, before I go back to Robin, is it your assessment that what happened in Spain, specifically the terror incident on Thursday, followed by the surprising election of the socialist party on Sunday, the removal from power of government strongly supportive of the Bush administration, is, in effect, a win for the terrorists in that they got rid of a group that supported the United States, in effect?

POLLACK: Well, certainly I think that this is an unfortunate development in terms that I think it will send the message to many people that the terrorists did have a big impact on a domestic election and a key U.S. ally. That said, I don't think we know yet the full impact of the election.

Certainly, this isn't good for the Bush administration. They were looking to expand the number of countries participating and expand the number of troops that were in Iraq. Obviously, this isn't going to help that. It is just unclear, though, whether this will start a trend, causing other countries to pull out.

BLITZER: All right. Robin is still suffering a little bit from her voice, but we'll have her back on another occasion. Robin Wright, as usual, thanks very much for joining us. She's OK, she's fine, she's smiling. But her voice is -- can you speak, Robin?

WRIGHT: Barely.

BLITZER: All right. We'll continue this on another occasion. I think you had a good advocate on your position, Ken Pollack, explaining his thoughts. Thanks very much, Robin, for that.

Ken Pollack, as usual, thanks to you as well.

We'll have more coverage throughout the day marking the one-year anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Coming up in the next hour, by the way, two men with special insight into military operations. Our military analysts, retired Brigadier General David Grange and retired Major General Don Sheppard.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every weekday, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Among my guests later today, the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham. We'll talk about Libya's weapons of mass destruction that are now on display here in the United States.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)





Baghdad; The Hunt for Osama bin Laden; The Return of Aristide>


Aired March 15, 2004 - 12:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.
Ahead this hour: the people of Spain have spoken. And what they've said could be bad news for the Bush administration and the coalition, and the efforts to stabilize Iraq.

How are those efforts going after almost 12 months? We'll talk with two people who have studied them closely. And we'll be taking your e-mail on U.S. involvement in Iraq. That involvement began nearly one year ago. How did the news media do then and how have we been doing since?

We'll get to all of that. First, some headlines.

A U.S. Marine is shot and wounded in Haiti. It's the first reported casualty of the U.S. peacekeeping mission that began with the departure of the former Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. A military spokesman says the shooting occurred in a neighborhood that still supports Aristide.

In Pakistan, police defuse a massive bomb outside a United States consulate. Authorities say a tank concealed in a minivan contained nearly 200 pounds of liquid explosives. The compound there in Karachi has been the target of at least two previous attacks.

Iran agrees to let the United Nations resume its inspections of the country's nuclear programs. Iran had frozen the inspections on Friday amid escalating tensions over secret Iranian research and to equipment that can help produce nuclear weapons.

And within the past 20 minutes or so, we learned that Martha Stewart has formally resigned as a director and the chief creative officer of the company she founded, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. This follows her conviction more than a week ago in connection with her sale of ImClone stock. More on this coming up.

Also, we're following the political bombshell in Spain. That's a huge story that's been developing since the terrorist attack Thursday morning.

Spanish voters have now gone forward and they've decided to have a different leadership in Spain. It's a political bombshell in that country. The unexpected turn of events follows Spain's support of Washington in the course of the war in Iraq.

Let's get an update on what's happening in Madrid right now. CNN's Diana Muriel is joining us from there.

Diana, big news in Spain.

DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed. A shock result from Sunday's general election. The incoming prime minister, the Prime Minister-Elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, wasted no time at a press conference that he gave here in Madrid earlier Monday in reinforcing some of his election pledges. And chief amongst those his promise to pull out the Spanish troops that are in Iraq.

There are 1,300-odd Spanish troops in that country. And it was a key part of his election platform, this commitment to withdraw them. This is what he had to say earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ ZAPATERO (through translator): I think as everyone knows, I think that Spain's participation in the war has been a total error. There was not a way to intervene in a war. And I think it's an error. But I have said that the last day of the Spanish troops in Iraq is going to be on June 30th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURIEL: Indeed, many of the people who are coming here to Atocha station in downtown Madrid, which is where some of those bombs went off last Thursday, have only just reopened today. Many of the people coming here to leave flowers and light candles are also leaving messages. And not just messages of condolences, Wolf.

Some of these are very political in nature. And they blame the outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Assn., for the bombs and his policies with regards to Iraq in particular --Wolf.

BLITZER: Diana, what about the condition that he left open, the incoming prime minister, that if there's a New U.N. Security Council resolution, he'll reconsider that pullout of the approximately 1,300 Spanish forces in Iraq? There is that possibility that is being held out there. How realistic is it seen from the Spanish perspective?

MURIEL: Well, it's interesting. Politicians who are in opposition are able to make all sorts of bold statements. It was interesting that he chose to try to reinforce that at the press conference. But as you say, as you point out, he did leave a door open incase there is another U.N. resolution.

He's having to deal now with the political realities, or he will very soon, of being the head of state here, the prime minister here in Spain. And it may well be that he will have to change his political position.

However, there's strong support, it appears, among the Spanish people that Spain should no longer be part of that coalition. Many people drawing a direct connection between the bombs that dropped in Baghdad and the bombs that went off here in Madrid last week -- Wolf.

BLITZER: CNN's Diana Muriel in Madrid. Thank you, Diana, very much.

The election result in Spain is hardly welcome news for the Bush administration and its effort to bring stability to Iraq. For that part of the story, let's bring in our Kathleen Koch. She's over at the White House.

What is the reaction to the Spanish election at the White House, Kathleen?

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, they are really downplaying here the impact of the Spanish election on both U.S. policy in Europe and on the coalition in its entirety. The president this morning made a series of phone calls, the first one to the outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar. The president thanked him for his support, for his friendship, for his strong leadership, and wished him well as he leaves office.

Again, it's important to point out that the two men were very close, that Aznar had visited President Bush both here and also at Camp David. And Aznar had, again, backed the U.S.-led action in Iraq, despite the opposition of some 90 percent of the Spanish population.

Also this morning, the president called the incoming socialist leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The two men spoke, we're told, for about five or 10 minutes. The president congratulating him on his victory.

And the two men reiterating their commitment -- their shared commitment to work together to combat terrorism. Though according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the two men did not discuss the central issues, Zapatero's promise to voters that was made before the election to pull out these 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq.

McClellan would not discuss whether or not that would hurt U.S. efforts in Iraq. McClellan insisting that the coalition is very strong. And McClellan also pointing out, as we've just heard, that in some ways Zapatero has left the door open, perhaps keeping those troops in place. That obviously a very difficult and touchy political decision.

And speaking of politics, that did enter the discussion this morning with the White House spokesman. McClellan saying that he hit back very hard, actually, on John Kerry's assertion that foreign leaders that he had talked to recently would prefer to see him as president.

And McClellan reiterated a call that was heard this weekend from the secretary of state, Colin Powell, that Kerry needed to come forward and name the names of those he was talking about. Otherwise, McClellan said the only conclusion is that "Kerry is making it up to attack the president." McClellan saying, "It is not the first time that Kerry has refused to back up his assertions" -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Kathleen Koch reporting for us at the White House. A busy day over there as usual. Thank you, Kathleen, very much. A New poll released today reveals a 10-point drop since the start of the year in the president's job approval rating. Among those questioned for the Gallup poll, 50 percent said they approve of the president's job, the job he's doing, 47 percent registered disapproval.

But look at this. This may be more significant. Thirty-nine percent say they support the direction the country is headed. Sixty percent say they're dissatisfied. This is a number politicians look at very, very closely.

Here in Washington, the president is under fire from Senator Kerry on the topic of homeland security. In a speech this morning to firefighters, Kerry called the president, and I'm quoting now, "big on bluster and short on action." In particular, Kerry took issue with the administration's funding of emergency responders.

Bombs raining down on Baghdad. We saw it, heard it, and expected it a year ago this Friday. A U.S.-led coalition invaded, determined to oust Saddam Hussein and destroy what the White House said were his weapons of mass destruction.

Part of that mission has been accomplished, allowing CNN's Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, to get back to her post. She's joining us now with some thoughts on the changes she's seen in Baghdad over this past year.

I don't think we can exaggerate how dramatic these changes have been, Jane. You were there for years before. You've been there on and off since. What's the biggest change?

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Wolf, it's been likened to an earthquake essentially. And the biggest change are things that may not seem very big but altogether they add up to a total reversal, almost, a completely different place.

Now, just to tell you what it is like to walk down the street, if you turned out of this hotel and walked down one of these major streets, you'd see tons of things for sale in the markets. Now, these are all flooding through the borders, the same borders in which they're worried that foreign fighters are flooding through.

You'd see satellite dishes. People were never allowed to have them before. You'd see fewer liquor stores because there's an increase in Islamic fundamentalism, one of the things that Saddam Hussein had repressed as a threat to his power.

You would see people who have perhaps an optimism for what this country is going to be like in the long term because this is a rich country. But a lot of fear and uncertainty about what's going to happen in the short term.

There are still attacks; there are attacks on American soldiers. There are increasingly, it seems, attacks on Iraqis. Those big suicide bombs, the targeted assassinations. Everywhere a feeling of uncertainty. And on the economic front, Wolf, people are still waiting for those promised jobs. They're waiting for that promised oil revenue. They're waiting for a lot of things. Some of them are willing to hold out a little longer, but a lot of them are really afraid of what's going to happen in this New Iraq that has changed so very much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: But I would say another huge change, Jane, is this Saddam Hussein simply being gone, the Ba'ath Party totalitarian regime, a dictatorship removed. There is freedom of speech now. People can say whatever they want. There are newspapers that are flourishing, the news media.

Is that something that's appreciated by the rank and file Iraqi?

ARRAF: It's really interesting because you think it would be appreciated. Now, I was kicked out of Iraq because I covered an unauthorized demonstration. You are not allowed to congregate, to gather, to demonstrate against anything, even show support for anything unless it was Saddam Hussein.

Now, on every corner, practically, every day, there are demonstrations large and small. And very effective ones in some cases. They are learning American techniques.

There was one where they chain themselves to a gate and refused to get up. But it's -- the interesting thing about this, Wolf, is people seem to be taking it for granted, which is phenomenal. It is really extraordinary that people are allowed to say what they want, to complain. But there still is that level of fear.

People aren't really comfortable in saying exactly what they think because they're still worried in many places what their neighbors might think. They're worried about being seen with American soldiers. They're really worried that this could go the wrong way.

In many people's minds, the jury is still out. And while they appreciate those freedoms, the newspapers, particularly the satellite TV, they're not quite sure where that's all leading them -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And that's understandable. It has only been a year following three decades of a horrible police state in Iraq.

Thanks, Jane, very much for that report. We'll be checking back with you throughout the day, indeed throughout the week, on this first anniversary of the war.

Back here in the United States, calls for an end to military action in Iraq. Here in Washington, relatives of some of the 564 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq over the past year are marching right now toward the White House. More than 100 plan to rally in nearby Lafayette Park. They want the president to bring the remaining troops home without further bloodshed.

In the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan, meanwhile, U.S. forces have stepped up the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Over the weekend, U.S. troops killed three enemy fighters and captured 13 others.

Our Ryan Chilcote is in Kabul right now. He's joining us live via videophone with more.

Do you get the impression, Ryan -- you've been to Afghanistan several times -- that there's progress being made in the hunt for Osama bin Laden?

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the U.S. military says its intensifying its hunt. And it has also changed its tactics quite clearly in Afghanistan from what I've seen in the past.

Before, there were really two military bases out of which the U.S. ran its military offensive. Now there are a series of fire bases, really, all over eastern Afghanistan. And there is a concentrated effort right now on the U.S. military to patrol the eastern part of Afghanistan on the Afghan-Pakistan border. That appears to be somewhat effective.

You mentioned those reports. The U.S. military saying today that it killed three Taliban fighters and detained 13 in southern Afghanistan. Part of this, perhaps, Wolf, coming because Pakistan is exerting such a serious -- such pressure right now on western Pakistan on those remote lawless areas, really pressuring the tribes in those areas to give up Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

And some of those tribespeople have been agreeing. We saw some very amazing video of some today coming out of Pakistan of some of these tribes dancing around with their weapons, saying that they are ready volunteers to go after militants in their part of the country in western Pakistan -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Is there a sense that there's enough troops on the ground, U.S. troops, friendly troops, backed by Pakistani and friendly Afghan forces to get the job done? Or are you hearing grumbling from U.S. military commanders?

CHILCOTE: Well, the U.S. military is very, I guess, careful to say that it has enough troops. I think a lot of the military commanders here, Wolf, understand that they're not going to get any more troops even if they want even a very significant increase because of what they call the end strength problem in the U.S. military. There simply aren't enough troops to go around, particularly with the heavy emphasis on Iraq right now.

What they do say is they'll need a U.S. military presence for at least a couple of years in this country. And there were some senators here over the weekend, Wolf. And one of those senators from the Armed Service Committee was saying that he would like to see the number of U.S. troops in this country actually decline, go down by half over the next year. Well, U.S. military commanders that I've talked to here, they don't see how that's possible at this point.

One of the things they want to do, Wolf, is they want to build this Afghan national army. The idea being that if Afghanistan has a federal army, then it will be able to support its own defense and the U.S. military won't be so necessary as it is right now -- Wolf.

BLITZER: A rough, dangerous situation in Afghanistan. And our Ryan Chilcote is there for us as usual. Ryan, thank you very much. Please be careful there in Kabul.

All week long, CNN will continue its special coverage of a year in Iraq. Coming up next, I'll take a look at how we -- that would be the news media -- covered the war, how we would have done it differently, perhaps, and how we're doing right now.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): The city of Baghdad very quiet, indeed. Barely any traffic on the roads here. The city very still. The lights, however, of the city on very bright.

What we were hearing a few hours ago was some heavy detonations, perhaps 12 to 20 destinations towards the edge of the city. A little anti-aircraft gunfire at that time.

ARRAF: This checkpoint just before Iraqi government-controlled territory is packed with people. Most of them families coming from Baghdad.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CAIRO BUREAU CHIEF: Six minutes ago, the Iraqi- controlled city of Mosul did come under bombardment. And by the sounds of this jet overhead, it may come under bombing once again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: As all of us remember, television viewers got unprecedented coverage of the war in Iraq through the eyes of journalists embedded with coalition forces. But did greater access actually translate into better coverage?

Here to talk about that one year later, Howard Kurtz, the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," and the media reporter for The Washington Post.

Howie, what do you think? Bottom line, did the embedding program translate itself into better information for the consumers, the viewers, the readers, listeners?

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN "RELIABLE SOURCES": Oh, absolutely. This was a technological revolution, Wolf. We got real-time reports from some very brave reporters, a few of who lost their lives.

We got to see what it was like. A kind of a grunt's eye view of the battlefield. And that was not a comprehensive view.

Some people have called it a soda straw view, so that if your unit was having problems or was taking fire, or enduring casualties, your reports tended to be more downbeat than perhaps the wider war would have suggested. But I think even the Pentagon would say that the American journalists, who didn't always deliver good news, reported pretty well.

BLITZER: Right. I was skeptical going in. As a former Pentagon reporter, skeptical that the military would actually let us have the access that we wanted. I always hear that things got bad, they would cut it off right away.

I was also skeptical that the equipment, the New generation of mini cams and satellite phones would work in a desert kind of environment. And the third concern, Bernard Shaw had raised it before the war, is that journalists might get overly close to the sources that they're covering and might not provide the kind of responsible, critical coverage that the American public and the military deserves. But I think I was wrong on all those points.

KURTZ: Well, some journalists told me that they did feel that they were living and sleeping with their units. And it was hard to be as critical as they may have otherwise have been. There is some truth to that charge.

On the other hand, there were people who wrote and broadcast some very unflattering things about the conduct of those troops. So I think -- and the Pentagon kept a hands-off policy. They did not censor anybody. So, by and large, it was a pretty good performance, but I would have to say the coverage of the war since then, the performance has not been as good.

BLITZER: Well, I'm going to get to that in a moment. But if you compare the way we covered this war with the first Gulf War, where we, the news media -- and I was there, I covered it -- were basically limited to briefings at the Pentagon. I sat through numerous of those almost every single day. Or in Riyadh, at Central Command headquarters. They didn't let us get anywhere near the action.

I don't think there will be any turning back the clock. We won't be able to go back to those bad old days, because the American public won't stand for it. Do you agree?

KURTZ: I would like to agree with you on that. And I think there will be a lot of pressure for future wars to have this embedded quality. But I remember the war in Afghanistan just a couple of years earlier, where there was very, very limited access for American journalists.

Basically, the Pentagon controls the access, they control battlefield. They decided it was in their interest, and rightly so, to let American reporters see up close what the fighting men and women were doing. That created not totally gushing news, but pretty positive portrayal. But if in another war, perhaps a more stealth war, I'm not totally confident we'll see the same set of circumstances.

BLITZER: The same kind of embedding that we did see then. Well, let's talk about the other issue that you raised. Were we critical enough? I got hammered all the time in the e-mail that I get from viewers who say, we were in there, we were almost gung-ho, we were cheerleaders. We didn't provide the kind of skepticism on weapon of mass destruction going in that certainly with hindsight we should have done. We were relying on the same kind of sources, presumably, that others were relying on in the government.

KURTZ: I think that's a fair complaint. When you look at it with the benefit of hindsight, those who raised questions about the administration's WMD claims, those who were skeptical, those who said that the intelligence wasn't really as rock solid as Colin Powell and Don Rumsfeld and the president were making it out to be, those voices tended to get in the back pages of the paper. They didn't get a lot of broadcast time.

People, by the same nature, who warned that it would be an easy military victory but it would be very difficult after the war -- in other words, winning the war would be a lot easier than winning the peace -- those voices did not get enough (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And I think we're all paying the price for that now.

So there I think, although it is very hard, Wolf, just as the U.S. weapons inspectors couldn't find weapons, it is very hard for journalists who don't have access to Iraq to prove or disprove in a dictatorship. I think we were not aggressive enough and we're not skeptical enough.

BLITZER: And there's no shortage of viewers out there who have this unrealistic notion that we in the news media, we have incredible access, we can find out anything, we should know what's really going on. And that, unfortunately, doesn't always exist.

Let's get to a few e-mails.

This is from Francis: "For the most part, Americans believe the Iraq invasion was justified. But we didn't deploy near enough resources to maintain robust security during transition. Why hasn't the media pressed the administration on this impotent plan for security?"

KURTZ: I think in the early months after the statue fell, there were a lot of stories and a lot of journalists raising questions about why weren't you better prepared to restore order in the country? You remember the riots, you remember the looting and all of that.

I think since then the problem has been that with the exception of a few news organizations, and I include CNN in that category, the coverage has been episodic, it's been spotty. We've almost reached a point where it's sort of like every day there's two or three Americans killed. That becomes kind of the background noise, because we've moved on to Martha Stewart, and to Michael Jackson, and to Janet Jackson.

You know, the media have a short attention span, Wolf. BLITZER: That's true. Here is one more e-mail from Michael: "I find it terrible that the Bush administration banned the media from showing images of soldiers' remains returning from Iraq, yet they do not think twice about exploiting 9/11 and showing the remains of U.S. civilians killed in the tower collapse. This is an outrage."

You've heard this criticism.

KURTZ: Sure. Well, it is also true that we journalists were not allowed to show the returning bodies at Dover under the Clinton administration. So the Bush administration didn't invent this policy.

It is a political question about whether or not it is or not appropriate for the president to show some 9/11 footage in his ads. There's a New poll saying about half the people don't think that should be the case. On the other hand, it is the biggest, singlemost important event of his presidency. I don't see how he can expect it could be completely avoided.

BLITZER: Howard Kurtz writes for The Washington Post. He's the host of "RELIABLE SOURCES," seen every Sunday morning 11:30 a.m.

Now, next Sunday you're going to have that special interview we didn't see yesterday with Jayson Blair because of breaking news. This is an important interview.

KURTZ: I think people will find it an interesting look at a guy who created all kinds of havoc at The New York Times. Why wasn't he caught? Why did he do it? How do his excuses hold up? Is he just selling a book?

I think it will be pretty interesting viewing for folks.

BLITZER: That will be Sunday, 11:30 a.m. Eastern on "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Thanks, Howie, very much.

KURTZ: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: On patrol in Haiti's mean streets, a U.S. Marine wounded. Still to come, a live report from Port-au-Prince as the former Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, heads to Jamaica.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Just hours from now, Haiti's former president, Jean- Bertrand Aristide, is expected back in the Caribbean. Could his presence in the region galvanize his die-hard supporters?

CNN's Harris Whitbeck is joining us now live from Port-au-Prince.

Tensions remaining pretty high right now, Harris. Set the stage for us. Tell us what's happening.

HARRIS WHITBECK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I can tell you that Haiti is very displeased with Jamaica for allowing Mr. Aristide to base himself there for about 10 weeks. In fact, Haiti has recalled its ambassador to Jamaica for talks here. The new prime minister, Gerard Latortue, called the Jamaican invitation to Mr. Aristide as an unfriendly act. And that just underscores how concerned people here are about the effect that Aristide's return to the region might have on his supporters.

Tensions on the street remain high. There was one incident last night in which a U.S. Marine was wounded. He was on a foot patrol near the presidential palace when he apparently came under fire. That Marine has been sent to a hospital in the United States, and he is expected to fully recover.

Now, the Marines and soldiers from France, Chile and Canada all came under the command of the United States today, and they will all work together in helping the Haitian police to bring some stability to the streets. Stability that's so far isn't really pervasive, particularly in the Haitian capital -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What is their fear? That if he's in Jamaica that he'll be able to rally his supporters to try to foment unrest in Haiti? Is that their big concern, the new government of Haiti, with Aristide eventually going to wind up, at least as you say, for 10 weeks in nearby Jamaica?

WHITBECK: Well, that's exactly the fear. The fear is that Aristide supporters will be galvanized by the idea that Aristide is close by. Jamaica is only about 100 miles from Haiti. And the fear is, if he's in the legion, his supporters might get the idea that he will eventually come back. So they're very concerned about these very, very passionate displays of politics that have been -- as you know, have been the cause of much bloodshed in the Haitian capital over the last several weeks.

BLITZER: All right. We'll be watching it closely with Harris Whitbeck.

Harris, thanks very much for that report.

Did the Bush administration oversell weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did it underestimate security measures? What did U.S. officials know then, and what do they know now? Still to come, some lessons learned one year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The U.S.-led coalition insists Iraq will be ready for some measure of self-government by the end of June. But given the continuing violence and ongoing struggle for power, is it likely U.S. forces will be in Iraq for some time to come?

Here to talk all about that and more, Ken Pollock. He's a CNN analyst. He's the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution here in Washington. And Robin Wright is the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

Robin, I'll begin with you. This June 30 transition, is it set in concrete? Is it definitely going to happen? Or is there some wiggle room for a delay?

ROBIN WRIGHT, WASHINGTON POST: I don't think there's any wiggle room. There's an agreement -- one of the few things that everyone agrees on, the Iraqis, the Americans, all members of the coalition, that the occupation should end on June 30th.

The real crisis -- and is it a crisis now -- is the fact that the United States has been unable to come up with a formula to hand over power to the Iraqis. Two formulas have already failed. And the United States is now having a problem even getting some members of the Iraqi Governing Council all hand picked by the United States to agree to issue that formal invitation to get the United Nations back. And getting the United Nations to play a major role in this transition.

First, with coming up with an alternative formula. And second, then organizing the elections eventually to be held in Iraq is really critical. And so the next few days really will be very pivotal in seeing how effective they're going to be in coming up with a means of meeting that deadline.

BLITZER: Well, that, Robin, raises a great point. An important point, Ken. Three-and-a-half months from now, June 30th, who will take over responsibility for everything in Iraq once Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator, he leaves? He says he's leaving June 30th.

KEN POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Look, I mean, the honest answer, Wolf, is I wish I knew. That said, I think you can give a somewhat better answer than that kind of glib one, which is that ultimately I think the United States will be much more responsible than I think most people expect.

In truth, most of the people out in Baghdad who work in the Coalition Provisional Authority have known all along that this transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30th would undoubtedly and should include also some transfer of authority. But not all authority.

And point of fact, the United States needs to remain there in force both in terms of its military presence and also its political presence. The U.S. is talking about having an enormous embassy. I actually think that's not a great way to do things. But nevertheless, it does get to the point that you're still going to need lots and lots of Americans in Iraq still making day-to-day decisions. It is just unclear at this point in time how much of the day-to-day decision- making will be transferred to the Iraqis, and to whom, and how much of it we'll retain with the United States.

BLITZER: But Robin, doesn't the raise the possibility that this very strong continued U.S. presence there, behind-the-scenes role, could undermine any type of Iraqi government that would emerge because it would simply seem to be a puppet of Washington? WRIGHT: Exactly, Wolf. The real challenge for the United States is striking the balance, providing the kind of security that will help with the environment, which has been unstable ever since major conflict ended on May 1st. And not being seen to dominate every single decision by the new sovereign Iraqi entity.

That's likely to be complicated, because the only real formula on the table that seems viable with time so rapidly running out is to take the current Iraqi Governing Council and enlarge it in some way by adding new members. But even that's becoming a little bit difficult. So the United States may end up playing more of a role than it had originally anticipated.

BLITZER: And we'll talk about the United Nations' role. Will there be a new U.N. resolution that might allow those 1,300 Spaniards, those 1,300 Spanish troops, to remain in Iraq beyond June 30th?

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

The U.S.-led war in Iraq began one year ago this week. We've been talking about the difficult road ahead with our guest, Ken Pollack, a CNN analyst, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. And Robin Wright, she's the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

Ken, you think there will be a new U.N. Security Council resolution between now and June 30th that would allow the Spanish troops to stay and perhaps bring in other foreign forces as well?

POLLACK: At this point, Wolf, I just can't make a decision on that one. I can't make a judgement.

The U.S. is showing a much bigger willingness to involve the United Nations in the decision-making process in Iraq. I mean, in fact, ironically, the U.S. is relying much more heavily on the U.N. than it wanted to six months ago. And, of course, that was the problem.

Six months ago, the U.S. was trying to keep the U.N. out of the decision-making process. That was frightening a lot of potential coalition members away.

The greater willingness of the U.S. to include the U.N. in this process makes it a possibility. But by the same token, there are still a lot countries out there that really don't want to have anything to do with Iraq. Unfortunately, they see the security situation they believe deteriorating, and they don't want to put their own people in harm's way.

BLITZER: Robin, I'm hearing suggestions that NATO might be increasingly playing a significant military role in Iraq just as NATO has been playing in Afghanistan. What do you hear on that? WRIGHT: Well, I think the United States would like to see NATO play a more prominent role. The issue is, does NATO have the wherewithal to play such a role in light of the fact that it's in the Balkans and Afghanistan.? There's some talk of them taking over the leadership to give cover to the Polish contingent in Iraq.

It's possible that NATO will get in, but I suspect in a small role. Not to take over, for example, the command of all the coalition troops that will be left behind after June 30th.

BLITZER: Ken, I know you have done a lot of your own investigation into the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction, where are they, why haven't they been found, the chemical, the biological stockpiles that so many people, almost everyone, assumed would be found in Iraq. What's your bottom line right now? Did Saddam Hussein effectively destroy all those weapons of mass destruction, but actually didn't want to acknowledge it for his own domestic or regional political purposes?

POLLACK: Yes, that's right, Wolf. That's my sense of what's going on.

Talking with David Kay, with other people who have been out there searching for the weapons of mass destruction, reading their reports very carefully, and also going back over historical evidence over the last 12 years, my own sense is that in about 1996, Saddam Hussein made a very important strategic decision. Before then, he'd been trying to hang on to as much as his weapons of mass destruction as he possibly could. The problem was that the U.N. kept finding pieces of that program. And, of course, Hussein Kamul (ph), his son-in-law, head of the program, defected and revealed that the Iraqis were trying to keep big chunks.

In '96, he seems to have made the decision to minimize what he had. He didn't give up everything; he didn't get rid of everything. But he only kept a small portion, what would allow him to reconstitute after the fact. The problem is that everyone missed that in large part because, while Saddam made this critical strategic change, he didn't change his behavior at all, and led people to think that he was still concealing what he'd been concealing before '96.

BLITZER: What's your sense, Robin?

WRIGHT: Well, you know, I have no idea. I'm not in Iraq. But I do think that the real tragedy is history will not look well on the United States for its intervention in Iraq because there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no imminent threat.

But that does not -- you know, the tragedy is that Saddam Hussein did use them. And it almost diminishes -- the fact we weren't able to find them now, diminishes the fact that he used them so extensively against his own people and against Iranians.

I saw the Kurdish victims in northern Iraq and the Iranian victims during the Iran-Iraq war. And it was horrific what happened. But the fact that we can't find them now seems to diminish the threat he represented.

BLITZER: And both of those incidents you're referring to, of course, happened in the '80s, before the first Gulf War.

All right. Stand by. We have much more to talk about, the future of Iraq. We'll take another quick break.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

We're back with our guests, Ken Pollack, CNN analyst, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and Robin Wright, the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

We have an e-mail from Dave. Let me read it. "What did the capture of Saddam Hussein prove? There is still much terrorism, and the loss of life Spain suffered is devastating. The efforts in Afghanistan should have been our main goal instead of bombing, occupying and rebuilding Iraq, when the questions surrounding terror have not been answered by the Iraq turmoil."

Robin, let's talk about Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said he's really not cooperating, but he's anxious. Rumsfeld is anxious for a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later. What are you hearing?

WRIGHT: Well, the United States is handing over responsibility for Saddam's trial to Iraqis. This is something that the Iraqis need to be seen to be doing themselves, and probably after the United States occupation ends.

This is a critical moment for Iraq. But the interesting thing about Saddam Hussein's capture is it symbolized the end of an era, but we haven't really moved beyond the period. There is no mechanism in place to create the new Iraq. And that's why Saddam Hussein's capture doesn't seem quite as much of a triumph in hindsight as it did going into the war.

BLITZER: You know, Ken, this is going to be a spectacular trial, Saddam Hussein on the witness stand, all these people coming forward testifying against him. And that could be pretty soon, relatively soon. We know the Justice Department sent over about 50 investigators, prosecutors, researchers to help the Iraqis.

What do you anticipate? Will this be one of these spectacular war crimes tribunals? Or are we overexaggerating the significance of what will happen?

POLLACK: Well, my guess is that it will be rather spectacular if only because, as Robin has pointed out, what looks like the most likely scenario now is that the current Governing Council is likely to remain in power in Iraq for some time to come. That's problematic; they're not terribly legitimate. The Iraqis don't care for them, don't see them as representative.

That group of people is going to want to make Saddam's trial into a tremendous spectacle as a way of demonstrating that they are in charge and they represent that new Iraq, which, I agree with Robin, has not yet taken form. So I think that we will see a lot of fanfare around it.

The big question is, will it be any -- will it be somehow dramatic in terms of what happens? For the Iraqi people, this may be the cathartic experience they need, where they finally get the chance to vent against the source of their oppression for the last 25 to 30 years.

If Saddam doesn't cooperate, though, it is just unclear how dramatic it will get to be. If he stands mute the entire time, it will be interesting to see how other Arabs interpret his reaction.

BLITZER: You know, Robin, when I speak with top Bush administration officials, national security officials, foreign affairs officials, they make the point that weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction, you can't dispute the bottom line that what the U.S. did in Iraq sends a powerful message to bad guys out there around the world, and they're now becoming more cooperative. Specifically Libya, for example, Iran, or Syria, even North Korea. They got the message.

Is that a factual statement that they make?

WRIGHT: Well, it's -- excuse me -- it's factual to a certain extent. Libya was...

BLITZER: Hold on, Robin. Drink some water. I'm going to let Ken pick that up so you can clear your throat.

Ken, why don't you pick that up and let Robin drink some water? And then we'll get back to her.

POLLACK: Sure. And Robin, I suspect, will have a similar take on it. But I hope I'm not stepping on your shoes too much.

I think that there is some elements of truth in it. Certainly, I think the Libyans initially were making a whole bunch of very silly -- taking on a whole bunch of silly actions. I think they finally got the message that maybe it is not so good to mess around with this government; it is actually willing to use force.

In the case of Libya and Iran, I think it's a much harder case to make. In the case of Libya, the Libyans have been trying to surrender to us for at least the last five years, and conceivably the last six. And to the extent that there was any help from the war in Iraq, that may have just been the final straw that broke the camel's back.

But in truth, the Libyans have made this offer beforehand. They've wanted to be reintegrated with the international community.

On the Iranian side, I think it is clear that early on the Iranians were concerned. But you now see what they're doing with the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the IAEA, delaying, bluffing, making statements that they won't stick to their agreement to suspend Iranian enrichment. All of this suggests that whatever impact this may have made on Iran was certainly short lived.

BLITZER: Ken, before I go back to Robin, is it your assessment that what happened in Spain, specifically the terror incident on Thursday, followed by the surprising election of the socialist party on Sunday, the removal from power of government strongly supportive of the Bush administration, is, in effect, a win for the terrorists in that they got rid of a group that supported the United States, in effect?

POLLACK: Well, certainly I think that this is an unfortunate development in terms that I think it will send the message to many people that the terrorists did have a big impact on a domestic election and a key U.S. ally. That said, I don't think we know yet the full impact of the election.

Certainly, this isn't good for the Bush administration. They were looking to expand the number of countries participating and expand the number of troops that were in Iraq. Obviously, this isn't going to help that. It is just unclear, though, whether this will start a trend, causing other countries to pull out.

BLITZER: All right. Robin is still suffering a little bit from her voice, but we'll have her back on another occasion. Robin Wright, as usual, thanks very much for joining us. She's OK, she's fine, she's smiling. But her voice is -- can you speak, Robin?

WRIGHT: Barely.

BLITZER: All right. We'll continue this on another occasion. I think you had a good advocate on your position, Ken Pollack, explaining his thoughts. Thanks very much, Robin, for that.

Ken Pollack, as usual, thanks to you as well.

We'll have more coverage throughout the day marking the one-year anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Coming up in the next hour, by the way, two men with special insight into military operations. Our military analysts, retired Brigadier General David Grange and retired Major General Don Sheppard.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every weekday, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Among my guests later today, the energy secretary, Spencer Abraham. We'll talk about Libya's weapons of mass destruction that are now on display here in the United States.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)





Baghdad; The Hunt for Osama bin Laden; The Return of Aristide>