Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Pakistan Surrounds Al Qaeda Compound; Interview With General Richard Myers

Aired March 18, 2004 - 20:00   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.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. I'm Heidi Collins, in for Paula Zahn tonight.
It is Thursday, March 18, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight, forces in Pakistan may be surrounding al Qaeda's No. 2 man. We'll have an exclusive interview with the chairman of the joint chiefs. What would the capture of Ayman al-Zawahri mean for the war on terror?

And a children's book with a modern twist. The dashing prince finds the man of his dreams. Some parents are outraged. Should first-graders be reading boy-meets-boy stories?

Also, the Donald.

DONALD TRUMP, DEVELOPER/BUSINESSMAN: You're fired.

COLLINS: He's got it and he flaunts it. His "Apprentice" TV show is a huge hit. Now he's looking for a bright new crop of fresh faces to fire. We have your ticket to the auditions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: All that ahead tonight.

But, first, here's what you need to know right now.

The sun is now rising in Pakistan. You see it there. And that means a significant airstrike could happen at any time. At stake, perhaps the capture of one of the world's most wanted terrorists. Pakistani troops near the border with Afghanistan believe they have surrounded al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri. He's believed to be Osama bin Laden's closest confidante. The troops have been battling more than 200 well trained and well equipped al Qaeda fighters who are apparently trying to prevent his capture.

"NEWSNIGHT"'s Aaron Brown has been covering today's developments and he has also spoken exclusively with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He joins us now live from Islamabad.

Aaron, good evening. AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, good evening or good morning, depending on where you are in the world.

The sun is just starting to come up. And if all is going to plan, and we can't confirm it is, but we can talk about what the plan was, at about this moment, there is an attack going on in a most inhospitable region on the Pakistan-Afghani border, where these 200 well trained and relatively speaking well armed al Qaeda fighters are entrenched. Or at least they were entrenched. There is always some concern on the Pakistani side and certainly I suspect over at the Pentagon, too, that overnight they tried to manage an escape, not into Afghanistan, which would be certain death for them, because the Americans are waiting, but trying to melt back into other parts of Pakistan.

All of this began about 12 hours or so ago when we sat down to interview the president of Pakistan. We expected, to be honest, that he would make some news. We did not expect, necessarily, he would make the kind of news that would dominate an entire's day reporting and perhaps change in a significant way the war on terror.

But when he uttered the sentences you are about to hear, news and the war on terror moved to the front page.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: And the Army has surrounded -- they surrounded the whole area. This is a perimeter of about 25, 30 kilometers. They've taken on the hill feature. Then, they have surrounded the whole area.

And now, including this day, this was completed by early morning, today. And they asked the locals, women and children, to move out, which many did. And then they started pounding the area with artillery and helicopters also.

BROWN: This is not some small firefight. This is heavy weaponry that is being brought to bear.

MUSHARRAF: Yes, yes.

But the resistance that is being offered by the people there, we feel that there may be a high value target. I can't say who. But they are giving pitched battle at the moment. They are not coming out in spite of the fact that we have pounded them with artillery.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Now, that high-value target may be al-Zawahri. It may not be. It may be someone lower than that or it may turn out to be it's no one at all. None of that we can know for sure.

What we know for sure is this sense that a major moment is under way. It may take days to play out. It may take hours. But it is under way as we talk to you from Pakistan -- Heidi. COLLINS: Aaron, let me just ask you, Musharraf, I'm sure, wants to be seen as cooperating in the war on terrorism. Isn't it in his best interest to play this up a little bit?

BROWN: Well, it's a more complicated question than you could imagine. Yes, he absolutely not only wants to be seen as cooperative in the war on terror. In many respects, he has been cooperative in the war on terror, at some political risk to himself.

There have been two attempts on his life since December. We drove on our way out to talk to him today past those spots where the suicide bombers tried to kill him. That's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is, is it in his interest to play it up? I think it is in his interest to be cooperative. There are a lot of reasons to be cooperative, and, you know, it is, from his perspective, his political perspective, one thing for al- Zawahri to be captured or killed.

That probably won't create for him any political problems at home. Now, if it were bin Laden, that's a different story. Bin Laden enjoys some support here. And that would be a very different matter. But if you're asking me in short do I think he's hyping the deal, my instinct says he's not hyping the deal. But that's my instinct.

COLLINS: All right, Aaron Brown, thanks so much, live from Islamabad tonight. We sure do appreciate it.

Stay with CNN for the latest on the hunt for Ayman al-Zawahri. And you can catch the full interview with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on "NEWSNIGHT WITH AARON BROWN" at 10:00 Eastern time.

Ayman al-Zawahri may be best known for his role in the September 11 attacks. But, as Jonathan Mann reports, he has a long history with terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN MANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ayman al-Zawahri made his public debut as a Muslim militant more than 20 years ago.

AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI: We want to speak to the whole world.

MANN: Back then, al-Zawahri, a young doctor, was in prison for his involvement with the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. After his release, al-Zawahri made his way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he worked as a doctor, treating Islamic fighters who were trying to overthrow the Soviet region in Afghanistan.

This is when he met Osama bin Laden and found a common cause. Years later, the two men would shift their holy war from the Soviets to the Americans and go public with their terror alliance. The attacks against America began weeks later, with suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies. Then there was the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and the 9/11 attacks. Al-Zawahri often appeared by bin Laden's side, a clear indication of his status as bin Laden's No. 2 and closest adviser. And after 9/11, al-Zawahri started making his own audiotapes warning of more attacks on America and its allies. Ayman al-Zawahri has been plotting revolution and terror since the age of 16. Now, at the age of 52, his time may have run out.

Jonathan Mann, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: "In Focus" tonight, the possible neutralizing of al Qaeda's No. 2 figure on the anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Tonight, we have an exclusive interview with the president's principal military adviser. General Richard Myers is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We, of course, welcome him tonight, coming to us from Washington.

General, good evening and thanks so much for being here.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Heidi.

COLLINS: Want to ask you, does the United States have any independent confirmation that al-Zawahri is in fact surrounded by Pakistani forces at this time?

MYERS: No, the fact is, we're still trying to understand that situation.

It does point out, though, that, as I think your previous part of the show pointed out, is that Pakistan is being very cooperative on this war on terrorism. They were very helpful in the urban areas. Now they're in areas that -- where the terrorists have had the ability to go without much scrutiny. And they've had several attacks in that area in recent months. And this is another one of those, apparently.

COLLINS: General, elaborate that a little bit -- on that for us just a little bit about the cooperation from the Pakistanis. Has this relationship between the United States and the Pakistani government, has it evolved? Has it come to a new level?

MYERS: I think it's evolved. I think as we started to prosecute the Taliban inside Afghanistan as we were looking at the al Qaeda inside Afghanistan, Pakistan made a fundamental choice, a choice to be a part of this effort against global terrorism. We know what kind of folks the al Qaeda are. And we know what al-Zawahri is like.

And they made that choice. They have picked up on their own and sometimes with our assistance numerous, hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in their urban areas. And now they're in areas that they have not, as a government, been in before, particularly with their armed forces. And it's been over the last several months that they've taken steps in those tribal areas, as they call them, to work this threat.

COLLINS: General, is there any intelligence that you can share with us tonight about the possibility of Osama bin Laden and al- Zawahri traveling together?

MYERS: No, I can't add anything to that. Well, the fact is, we don't know.

COLLINS: OK. Fair enough.

I want to ask you, though, a little more about al Qaeda here. There are a lot of people who say that al Qaeda is no longer really an organization. It has broken off into more of a movement, if you will. How much impact, then, would this possible capture of the No. 2 man really have?

MYERS: I think many of us have always said that the capture of an individual like Saddam Hussein, for instance, was an important step in many steps to deal with this threat. I think the same thing is true of Osama bin Laden. The same thing is true of al-Zawahri.

And the character of al Qaeda has changed over time, from a very hierarchical structure to one that is more distributed into cells. We've seen that. We've followed that, and we're dealing with it differently than before. But these are two of the -- UBL and al- Zawahri are two of the biggest leaders in al Qaeda. It would be an important step. But it would not end the terror. It's not going to end with their capture. But it's important, nevertheless.

COLLINS: All right, so I would like to move on, if we could, to Iraq now.

And after yesterday's bombing, a lot of Iraqis, again, are wondering why after all this time the United States is still unable to keep them safe. But is there really any way to stop someone who is willing to give up their life for their cause, i.e., suicide bombers?

MYERS: Well, you know, we've talked about that Heidi, a lot, I think. And clearly anybody that's determined, any individual that's determined, willing to sacrifice their own life, can create the kind of tragedy that we saw yesterday in Baghdad and the tragedies in Madrid before that and other places. I guess Madrid is not necessarily the suicide part of that.

But, sure, they can do that. On the other hand, we've got to take steps to find the bombmakers and to put as much pressure on these organizations as we possibly can. I think what we're seeing in Iraq, as has been explained I think several times by General Abizaid and by the secretary of defense and others, is a change in that threat, too, from more former regime elements that were very loyal to Saddam to the foreign jihad jihadists, which bring that element of suicide to it that the former regime elements did not.

And that's significant. It is very hard to stop. Defense alone won't stop this kind of -- these kind of attacks. That's why we are going to have to be on the offense. We are going to have to have good intelligence. And we need to continue to improve to deal with that kind of threat. It's important that we continue to improve in this area. COLLINS: That being said, take us back to one year ago, if you would. You were in the final planning stages of the war. Talk to us a little bit tonight about how you felt about the planning for peace. Was there too little planning for peace?

MYERS: Well, I think one of the things that would characterize our plan was that we had the flexibility built in to deal with the situation as we found it.

In fact, as we went across -- and, of course, almost a year to the day, it will be -- tomorrow will be that day -- when we went across the line there in Kuwait into Iraq, and we were taking humanitarian supplies with us as we went forward, so we could take care of the population as we went through, in case they needed food or water or some minimal medical sort of help.

So from that kind of detailed planning to what happened after Baghdad fell, after the Saddam Hussein regime was ousted from power, I think our planning was very extensive. We had plan after plan on the various sectors, I think. But you have to deal with reality as you find it.

COLLINS: Right.

MYERS: And what we had to deal with was the fact that the infrastructure was in much worse shape. I visited a hospital that was built in the '50s, right after the war ended, built in the '50s, and never had one upgrade to it. I mean, the structure is 50 years old, never had one upgrade. They were doing kidney dialysis. They had an ICU equivalent, it was back up and running.

COLLINS: Right.

MYERS: But that's -- so you have to -- those sorts of things, you may or may not know. In some sectors, we knew more than we did in other sectors.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: Certainly. But, General, before we let you go tonight, I just want to get one last question in. Are you disappointed, though, in all these things you're telling us, are you disappointed at what the peace looks like now?

MYERS: No, I'm not. And I'll tell you why.

And one other comment, by the way. I think the people that make it -- make all these trends, in my view, moving upwards, whether it's in the political sector, the economic sector, the infrastructure or even in the security sector, are the wonderful young men and women that we have, and maybe not so young men and women we have in the armed forces that are supporting this effort and our DOD civilians and the Department of State civilians and many other folks that have volunteered to go over there and try to give Iraq hope.

And that includes a lot of Iraqis, because, as I said earlier, the attacks are now focusing on the Iraqis. No, I think we have a success story going here. There are going to be more challenges. There will be more car bombs. But, in the end, we're going to have 25 million-plus people that are going to have a real chance for peace and freedom and security like they've never had it before. And it's not going to be easy. We didn't think it was going to be easy. But we're just a year into this. And I think the successes in this past year are commendable.

COLLINS: All right, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, sir, we thank you so very much tonight.

MYERS: Thank you, Heidi.

COLLINS: The capture of bin Laden and his right-hand man, if it happens, would it clinch the election for President Bush?

And if a kid book has a happy ending, a gay prince finds his true love, should first-graders be checking it out of the school library?

And giving up your workaday job for a chance to be a Donald Trump apprentice, the long line for a shot at fame or humiliation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: The capture of a top terrorist like Ayman al-Zawahri or even Osama bin Laden would certainly play a role in the presidential election. But would it change the face of the campaign?

Well, joining us now to discuss the matter is Joe Conason, author of "Big Lies; The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth."

Joe, hello to you.

And regular contributor Victoria Clarke, former Pentagon spokeswoman.

Victoria, hello to you as well.

VICTORIA CLARKE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Heidi.

COLLINS: Tonight, I'd like to start, Joe, with you.

Wondering if you think the potential capture of Osama bin Laden's No. 2 man would be enough to help ensure victory for George W. Bush?

JOE CONASON, AUTHOR, "BIG LIES": I don't think so, although it's a end valley to be wished. I think every American wants Ayman al- Zawahri to be captured, just like bin Laden.

I don't -- I think it would be a little too early to celebrate the president's victory at that point. If you remember, not so long ago, Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq and there was much comment at that time that this would settle the election. And I think it made no difference really in the end. And I think people will decide this election on issues eight months from now. And we can't even be sure what they'll be.

COLLINS: Torie, what do you think on that one?

CLARKE: I've got to tell you, I was laughing before we came on this evening, thinking that only in a couple of towns like New York and Washington could we be talking about what the political implications might be of something that might or might not happen.

I agree with Joe on this. I think it is a long way between now and November. But as hard as it is to set aside the political aspects of this, we should try to do it. You know, whatever happened to politics stops at the water's edge? If this capture comes through, it would be a very good thing. As General Myers just said, it would be one piece of a long, long effort in which we've had lots of successes.

And at the end of the day, I do think good policies are good politics. And at the end of the day when people are making that tough decision in November, who do I want running this country in this very, very challenging, extremely complex time, I think they're going to go with the guy who's been making the good, sound decisions. And that's President Bush.

COLLINS: All right, well, then, let me ask you this, Torie. What do you say to the cynics who say, hey, this is pretty well timed, all of the added resources and troops in Afghanistan, politically well timed, that is? And people wonder why not on September 12?

CLARKE: You know what? For those people that are saying it, they're either uninformed and they haven't taken the time to inform themselves, or they're stupid, or they're just trying to exploit it for political purposes, because if you know anything about the global war on terror, it is global. And it has different parts and different pieces. And you prosecute it differently depending on the circumstances.

And how you prosecute the war in Afghanistan is very different than how you prosecute it in Iraq or some other place.

COLLINS: All right, Joe, are you more cynical on this?

CONASON: Well, we started out stopping the politics at the water's edge and then ended with the endorsement of President Bush. So that was a very neat segue there.

Look, people don't agree about how the war on terror should be prosecuted. Many people think that the president made a mistake in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan and failed to put enough troops in there to catch these people then, and for the last two years have been distracted by a war in Iraq that turned out not to have been necessary. So I don't know what people's judgment will be in the end.

But they're going to look at all the evidence at how the president has run the war on terror. And if he captures Ayman al- Zawahri or if the Pakistanis do for him, then I think that will be one thing that people will consider, and rightly so. COLLINS: All right, there are some numbers out there. There's a recent poll that was done, CNN/Gallup poll. People were asked, who would do a better job on terrorism? President Bush had it resoundingly, 60 percent, Senator Kerry 33 percent. So with this potential capture that we've been talking about all day long, is Bush's terrorism record tough enough to beat Kerry?

CONASON: It may be or it may not be. We'll see how people judge this by November. As I said, I'm not sure that by the time we reach then, if we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if things are not going well in Iraq, there are a whole host of factors that could change people's judgments.

And you had an on-air poll today which was 80/20 against the president's terrorism policies.

COLLINS: OK, want to get to Torie, so we have equal time here.

Torie, let me just ask you, you already mentioned the end of the day. On Election Day, is this going to be about jobs and the economy or who's defending the borders of Afghanistan?

CLARKE: You know what? For some people it will be either/or. For a lot of people -- I give the American people and the voters a lot more credit than most of the pundits do -- for a lot of people it's going to be about both. You don't have economic security without national security. They're inextricably intertwined. And I think most people understand that. And they'll weigh the evidence and they'll weigh the long-term picture.

COLLINS: All right, to the both of you tonight, Joe Conason and Victoria Clarke, thanks so much, guys.

CLARKE: Thanks, Heidi.

CONASON: Thank you.

COLLINS: George W. Bush calls himself a war president. And it seems some historians agree. One year after the Iraq invasion, we'll look at Mr. Bush's war record.

And when it comes to the world of business, are men more likely to commit white-collar fraud than women?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tomorrow, President Bush will deliver a speech from the White House on the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Administration officials say he'll praise the coalition's accomplishments and review progress in the war on terror.

But one year later, how much success can the president claim in Iraq?

We're sending in the "Truth Squad" on this one. Here's senior White House correspondent John King. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He labels himself a war president and, one year later, vigorously defends his decision to target Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever.

KING: The United States is four months away from handing sovereignty back to the Iraqis, Mr. Bush, just shy of eight months from an election that is in large part a referendum on his conduct as commander in chief.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: The Spanish-American War was Mr. McKinley's war, World War I, Mr. Wilson's war. Clearly, the war in Iraq is Mr. Bush's war.

KING: This groundbreaking for a 9/11 memorial last week was a reminder that Mr. Bush wants people to remember now and when they vote in November just how he became a war president in the first place.

MATTHEW DOWD, BUSH CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: I think the threshold question is, who is up to that job, who has the policies to deal with that on a global scale.

KING: The Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq, decisive military successes, but still lingering questions for the commander in chief, no chemical or biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq, at least not yet, contrary to Mr. Bush's prewar certainty.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We were misled about weapons of mass destruction.

KING: No definitive word on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

SAMUEL BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We're going to be fighting terrorists for as long as the eye can see. We've busted the beehive, but we have not killed the bees.

KING: And no consensus now on Mr. Bush's characterization a year ago that war in Iraq was the critical next step in the global war on terror.

BRINKLEY: We did not have to go to war. It was something we chose to do for our security. And I think that's going to be interesting to see how -- the toll that Iraq will take on this president.

KING: Rallying public support is a challenge for any war president and a constant focus for this one. By Mr. Bush's definition, America has been at war for 30 of the 38 months he has been president.

John King, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: College sports on TV, a money machine for everyone except the athletes. Is it time the players cashed in on their sweat and skill?

A book about gay love brought home by a 7-year-old. Her parents say it ought to be banned from grade school. Is that intolerant or intelligent?

And tomorrow, the Tennessee county that once tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution makes news again. It's trying to ban homosexuality.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Here are some of the headlines you need to know right now. It is morning in Pakistan. And the country's forces are launching a significant air strike near the border with Afghanistan. Ayman al-Zawahiri the No. 2 leader is believed to be surrounded there. More than 200 well trained, well equipped al Qaeda fighters have been battling Pakistani ground and air forces in the region. We will update you on this story as it develops.

More violence today in Iraq. The U.S. military says a rocket- propelled grenade was fired at a hotel in the same Baghdad neighborhood where a suicide bombing yesterday destroyed a hotel.

Farther south in Basra, a car bombing has killed at least four people.

For more on this situation in Iraq, we go to CNN's senior international correspondent Walter Rodgers in Baghdad. Walter, good morning to you there.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SENIOR INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Heidi. Baghdad is braced for more violence. This as Americans celebrate the one-year anniversary of the army's lightning military strike into Iraq a year ago. Still, it's turning into an extraordinarily bloody week here. And there are predictions that the United States is now involved in a very long guerrilla war. In Basra yesterday there was a car bomb that went off. Basra's the southeastern port city. It was a British military convoy which was passing by. The car bomb went off. None of the British soldiers was injured. But in fact, there were four -- at least four Iraqis killed.

In Fallujah, in the so-called Sunni Triangle, a volatile area, a U.S. military task force was going to the mayor's office. Suddenly it came under a full military attack from Iraqi insurgents firing rocket- propelled grenades and small arms. The Americans returned fire in the crossfire. In Fallujah, more Iraqi citizens killed -- Heidi.

COLLINS: Walter, let me ask you, with these types of violent attacks escalating, are the Iraqi people blaming the bombers, or U.S. forces in the coalition? RODGERS: Generally U.S. forces, Heidi. When the Americans arrived in Baghdad a year ago, they were perceived as occupiers, but they were given a tentatively cool welcome. Since the violence has escalated here, the Americans are constantly being blamed for it under the best of circumstances, Iraqis say, the Americans under international law have to protect us and they aren't.

Under the worst of circumstances many Iraqis are also saying the Americans are perpetrating these attacks in the guise of Islamist militancy, because they say the Americans want to stay here to plunder Iraqi oil. One Iraqi told us yesterday, if the Americans have the strongest army in the world, why aren't they protecting us, why are they protecting only themselves -- Heidi.

COLLINS: Walter Rodgers live from Baghdad tonight. Walter, thanks so much.

On to domestic matters now. As the U.S. debates whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, some parents in North Carolina are outraged over a children's book their 7-year-old daughter brought home from school. You sear it here. In "King and King," a handsome young prince marries the man of his dreams. Should first-graders be reading boy meets boy stories?

To debate that question tonight, we picked gay rights advocate versus family value supporter. Joining us now, Michael Adams on the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund and in Washington Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Welcome to the both of you tonight.

Janice, I would like to begin with you. The parents of this girl are saying that they want to have the book removed from the school library. Do they have the right to impose their views on the rest of the school, or that community in this matter?

JANICE CROUSE, BEVERLY LAHAYE INSTITUTE: Well, of course they do. The people in America are united on this. The majority of Americans recognize that for centuries we have come around our children, we have protected them. We have said that our school grounds are an area where we really say our children are innocent and we as adults are going to protect them and guarantee that when they are at school, they will learn, they will have an academic curriculum, they will get the fundamentals and they will not be indoctrinated. What we have here are people from the fringe who are bringing a special interest agenda into the schools and saying, our special interest is going to be foisted off on our children. Where are the adults, Heidi, where are the people who really care about our children?

COLLINS: All right, let's ask Michael Adams that very question. You know, the publisher of "King and King" says, this book is appropriate for children who are 6 years old and up. What about the people who say, hey, that is way too young to introduce these types of themes.

MICHAEL ADAMS, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND: Well, we agree with the principal of the school here, this is a school library. As the principal has said, some things that are acceptable to some parents are not acceptable to other parents. We don't take one parent's viewpoint over the world and impose that on every family, on every child in the school. We believe what the school principal made a good choice, which was to make a wide variety of books available here. As the principal said, there's nothing to protect these kids from. This is a children's story about two people falling in love. This is not some threatening terrible thing. We think the principal was entirely right in making the choice the principal made.

COLLINS: Janice, we have a little quote from the principal who says what Michael is saying to that effect what might be inappropriate for one family and another family is a totally acceptable thing. But shouldn't any censorship of a child's reading be done in the hands of the parents?

CROUSE: This is the majority of Americans saying, I am outraged. We are hearing from parents saying, look, I can't even allow my children to watch the Super Bowl. Now I have to supervise what my child is bringing home in first grade. Come on, Heidi, the majority of Americans want their children to be able to read books that enrich their lives and bring home some message that is important to their lives. And bring a broad...

COLLINS: Let me just ask you this. If I'm going to read a book to my child at home, I'm going to make darn sure that I open it up and look at the pages before I do that. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the parents?

CROUSE: Well, of course. But parents have right now -- have to look at everything that comes into their homes, including television programs. And to be able to have to supervise what a first grader brings home is ridiculous. Where are the adults in our schools today, Heidi. This is outrageous that we're having a special agenda foisted off on first graders. I'll debate anybody's special interest in any adult forum. But let's protect our children from these kind of special interests. It's not appropriate.

COLLINS: Michael, what about this gay agenda that Janice is talking about? What do you say about that argument that that's what it's about, a gay agenda?

ADAMS: This is not about a special agenda. It wasn't advocates or gay rights activists who put this book in the school library. It was the school principal, and the school librarian who put it in the school library. It has nothing to do with the special agenda. A library is full of books. A library for children is full of books. The books reflect all kinds of different stories about the world. All kinds of different perspectives. This book simply provides a perspective.

Of course, any parent can choose that their child will not read it. But there are parents who don't believe that their children should learn about evolution. Does it mean we shouldn't have any books in the library about evolution? There are parents who believe that Halloween is wrong because it supports witchcraft. We simply can't allow one parent or two parents to veto for every other parent and child what can be read.

COLLINS: OK, Michael Adams...

CROUSE: Nor can we allow one parent and one group of people to say for the vast majority of Americans that this kind of special agenda's going to be foisted off on all children.

COLLINS: All right, guys, that is the end of the discussion tonight. Out of time. Sorry about that. Janice Crouse, Michael Adams, thanks much for joining us.

ADAMS: Thank you.

COLLINS: The pursuit of crime in the corporate suites. Martha Stewart aside, who's more ethical, men or women.

And Trump says, jump, and hundreds ask how high. A shot a fame, fortune or mostlikely...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, HOST "THE APPRENTICE": Your fired.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: It's casting call for a new season of "The Apprentice."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Criminal cases brought against powerful executives like Martha Stewart and Enron's Lea Fastow raise a provocative question, as more women gain power in the business world are they as likely to become white collar criminals as their male colleagues?

Lets give that question the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five answers, direct and to the point.

Join us now, Charles Gasparino, a senior writer who specializes in covering corporate crime for the "Wall Street Journal."

Question no. 1, for you.

Tell me, who is more likely to commit white collar crime, men or women?

CHARLES GASPARINO, SENIOR SPECIAL WRITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": I think mean, I'm going to be politically correct here. Aggression fueled by testosterone and there you have it. They have a tendency to step over the line more.

COLLINS: OK, what is the main quality that drives men, or some of these men to corporate crimes?

GASPARINO: It's not a quality. It's aggression. Men are generally, you know, I see it on Wall Street all the time, they're generally more aggressive. And that's where you get the guys that buy the $6,000 shower curtain, for example, as we're hearing in the Kozlowski (ph) trial.

COLLINS: OK, question no. 3, what makes women more likely to play by the rules?

GASPARINO: Women I see -- some of them don't play by the rules. They basically, in general, take a step back. They think about what they're doing more, and that's what men should do.

COLLINS: Question four, but, aren't some women as aggressive as men?

I can think of one maybe.

GASPARINO: Who is that person?

Martha Stewart obviously is even more aggressive than most men. I think that was the problem with her. Yes, you know, this isn't scientific, but Martha Stewart is a key example on how you're to aggressive you go over the line.

COLLINS: But Charlie isn't -- for question number five, isn't this all access to power, male or female?

GASPARINO: That's why my scientific sampling isn't very scientific. More men in positions of power, they're going to be in trouble more.

COLLINS: All right, Charles Gasparino, thank so very much. Five quick answers tonight. Appreciate it.

College sports make millions for the sponsors and the schools. But the athletes don't make a dime.

Is it time to give them a cut of the action?

What kind of a line would impress Donald Trump?

This one -- hundreds line up to audition for the second season of his reality show. We'll save a place for you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: As March madness revs up, we are going to look at whether college athletes should be paid to play. Attorney and sports analyst Rob Becker says the NCAA is big business, and the players ought to get their fair share. He's joining us here now.

And on the other side of the debate, Wally Renfro with us from Indianapolis tonight. He's senior adviser to the president of the NCAA. Both of you, thanks so much for being here. Ron, I -- Rob, pardon me, I want to begin with you.

Why should college athletes be paid?

ROB BECKER, ATTORNEY, SPORTS ANALYST: Because they're earning a ton of money for their schools and they're not getting their fair share in return. In any other industry, you get paid what you would get on the free market. Here, all the schools have gotten together and decided, you know what, we're just going to pay these athletes a scholarship and no more. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the division one schools are turning a profit of over $2 million. These guys end up with almost nothing. And a lot of them don't graduate. A majority of these players don't graduate, and only 1 out of 77 make it to the NBA.

COLLINS: Wally, what do you think about this?

WALLY RENFRO, SENIOR ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NCAA: As you might guess, Heidi, I reject that concept. It falls into the same trap that all others fall into, they equate the success, the audience base and the revenue base of very successful programs with professional sports. And they equate a grant and aid with salary. Neither one of those is true. A grant and aid is -- pays for tuition, and fees for room and board, books and supplies. And the same way for a student athlete that a grant and aid does for exceptional music student...

BECKER: You're assuming the very thing in dispute, Wally. You have set that system up so nobody gets any more money. If they were free to get money, they would get a lot more. You just limited it so low that everyone looks at it and doesn't even notice what's going on. You simply redefine it as a grant and aid. You know that those players...

COLLINS: Rob, we're going to let Wally get in. Go ahead, Wally.

RENFRO: The whole intention of intercollegiate athletics is that these are student athletes. They are students first. They're enrolled in school. They go to class. They take tests. They go to the library, they write papers...

BECKER: Yes, and they live in dormitories by themselves.

RENFRO: The motivation for a professional is that they're a labor force, Rob.

BECKER: They are a labor force. They earn money for your schools. You can't get around this by simply redefining what everyone is.

RENFRO: Student athletes are not a labor force. And college sports is not professional.

COLLINS: Just a minute. Wally, is there some sort of cover-up, if you will, to pretend that the players are there for any other reason other than basketball?

RENFRO: Well, no, there's no cover-up. They are there for other reasons than for playing basketball. As I said, they are students. They go to class. They do the other things that students do.

COLLINS: Why do so few of them graduated, Wally?

RENFRO: When the tournament is over, they'll be going back to class. You know, the role of higher education is to provide an opportunity for those students to get an education. Unfortunately not everyone takes full advantage of that opportunity. That's true of the student body, it is true of some student athletes.

BECKER: No, it's true in a much more greater percentage for athletes, as you know.

RENFRO: On the average, the student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the rest of the student body. In Division I, at a rate of 62 percent. No, it is wrong.

BECKER: No, you are wrong. My statistics come from your organization...

COLLINS: OK. You guys, let me finish up with one final...

RENFRO: Student athletes in Division I graduate at 62 percent.

COLLINS: Graduate at 62 percent. Wally, let me finish up. I'll give you both an opportunity to answer this quickly very tonight. What is the solution so that both sides can play by the rules? Wally, go ahead, quickly.

RENFRO: I'm not even sure I understand the question fully, Heidi. I think the solution is that we need to make sure that we're doing a good job of educating student athletes. But at the end of the day, the role of intercollegiate athletics is to provide an athletic opportunity for students enrolled at a campus. And that's what's taking place. You can't equate success and visibility with professionalism. They're two different things.

COLLINS: Rob, how does the NCAA play with the students?

RENFRO: They're going to have to have the students bowl them over. The students are going to have to band them together and sue them in an antitrust suit and say what you've done is operate a cartel that limits what we should be getting on a free market. They don't get what's commensurate with what they contribute and when you get the right attorney and the right plaintiff, this nonsense will end.

COLLINS: All right. Very good. Thanks so much to the both of you tonight. Wally Renfro, Rob Becker thanks again.

They all want the chance to be humiliated in front of millions. They'll have to pass the auditions first. We'll go behind the scenes in the search for Donald Trump's new apprentices.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Oh, for a shot at being fired by Donald Trump. People were lined up for blocks today. Look at that. In Manhattan to try out for the next season of trump's wildly popular reality show, "The Apprentice." Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas here to tell us what it was like. Hi, Sibila. What did you see out there? Obviously a lot of people. SIBILA VARGAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: A lot of people. It was madness. According to NBC, there were thousands of people. And from what I saw, that's how many there were there. It was three blocks of droves, a sea of people. It was amazing. I'd never seen anything like it.

COLLINS: Wow. You got a chance, though, to actually pick the brains of some of these people waiting in line there. Let's look at what they had to say.

VARGAS: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VARGAS: Did you...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've never done anything like this before, by the way. I figured, why not, give it a shot.

VARGAS: What makes a person like you do something like this? I mean, how many hours have you been on this lot?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've been out about five hours now. Just the opportunity to work with Donald Trump, to use this as a springboard to something maybe bigger and better, I would wait forever.

VARGAS: So you share this insanity. What are you guys doing here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're crazy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we're freezing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Freezing our toes off.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've been here since 6:00 a.m., you figure, why not continue to wait.

VARGAS: Sheer dedication.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, exactly.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Sheer dedication, right?

VARGAS: Sheer dedication. Six hours on the line, by the way.

COLLINS: Wow!

VARGAS: Yes. And it was freezing today.

COLLINS: It was a little chilly. I'm from Minnesota, so maybe not so much. They certainly have hit a nerve with "The Apprentice," with this show. Is this the start of a big Hollywood career for Donald Trump? I see him everywhere.

VARGAS: Oh, absolutely. He has always been popular. But this is -- I mean, he's gone to the next level at this point. There are T- shirts that are being made with his slogan, you're fired. People love him. They can't get enough of him. He's actually hosting NBC's "Saturday Night Live" April 3. Which is unheard of because he's never been on TV. He doesn't do this. He's not an actor. So it's just incredible. NBC is in love with him right now. And who wouldn't be.

COLLINS: As you know, there has been quite a bit of talk about reality shows kind of being on the way out. What is so different about "The Apprentice"? Clearly this is not a show that's on the way out.

VARGAS: No. I think, you know, you've got Mark Burnett, who is an incredible producer. Arguably one of the best. "Survivor" continues to do wonderful for CBS. And now NBC, of course, is having "The Apprentice" with Mark Burnett coupled with Donald Trump. Two masters. I think that's the key.

COLLINS: Very good. Sibila Vargas, thanks so much. Glad you're back inside and not cold anymore waiting in line. Appreciate it.

VARGAS: Thanks.

COLLINS: And thanks so much to all of you for being with us tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" coming up next. Good night everybody.

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






General Richard Myers>


Aired March 18, 2004 - 20:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. I'm Heidi Collins, in for Paula Zahn tonight.
It is Thursday, March 18, 2004.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS (voice-over): "In Focus" tonight, forces in Pakistan may be surrounding al Qaeda's No. 2 man. We'll have an exclusive interview with the chairman of the joint chiefs. What would the capture of Ayman al-Zawahri mean for the war on terror?

And a children's book with a modern twist. The dashing prince finds the man of his dreams. Some parents are outraged. Should first-graders be reading boy-meets-boy stories?

Also, the Donald.

DONALD TRUMP, DEVELOPER/BUSINESSMAN: You're fired.

COLLINS: He's got it and he flaunts it. His "Apprentice" TV show is a huge hit. Now he's looking for a bright new crop of fresh faces to fire. We have your ticket to the auditions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: All that ahead tonight.

But, first, here's what you need to know right now.

The sun is now rising in Pakistan. You see it there. And that means a significant airstrike could happen at any time. At stake, perhaps the capture of one of the world's most wanted terrorists. Pakistani troops near the border with Afghanistan believe they have surrounded al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri. He's believed to be Osama bin Laden's closest confidante. The troops have been battling more than 200 well trained and well equipped al Qaeda fighters who are apparently trying to prevent his capture.

"NEWSNIGHT"'s Aaron Brown has been covering today's developments and he has also spoken exclusively with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He joins us now live from Islamabad.

Aaron, good evening. AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, good evening or good morning, depending on where you are in the world.

The sun is just starting to come up. And if all is going to plan, and we can't confirm it is, but we can talk about what the plan was, at about this moment, there is an attack going on in a most inhospitable region on the Pakistan-Afghani border, where these 200 well trained and relatively speaking well armed al Qaeda fighters are entrenched. Or at least they were entrenched. There is always some concern on the Pakistani side and certainly I suspect over at the Pentagon, too, that overnight they tried to manage an escape, not into Afghanistan, which would be certain death for them, because the Americans are waiting, but trying to melt back into other parts of Pakistan.

All of this began about 12 hours or so ago when we sat down to interview the president of Pakistan. We expected, to be honest, that he would make some news. We did not expect, necessarily, he would make the kind of news that would dominate an entire's day reporting and perhaps change in a significant way the war on terror.

But when he uttered the sentences you are about to hear, news and the war on terror moved to the front page.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: And the Army has surrounded -- they surrounded the whole area. This is a perimeter of about 25, 30 kilometers. They've taken on the hill feature. Then, they have surrounded the whole area.

And now, including this day, this was completed by early morning, today. And they asked the locals, women and children, to move out, which many did. And then they started pounding the area with artillery and helicopters also.

BROWN: This is not some small firefight. This is heavy weaponry that is being brought to bear.

MUSHARRAF: Yes, yes.

But the resistance that is being offered by the people there, we feel that there may be a high value target. I can't say who. But they are giving pitched battle at the moment. They are not coming out in spite of the fact that we have pounded them with artillery.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Now, that high-value target may be al-Zawahri. It may not be. It may be someone lower than that or it may turn out to be it's no one at all. None of that we can know for sure.

What we know for sure is this sense that a major moment is under way. It may take days to play out. It may take hours. But it is under way as we talk to you from Pakistan -- Heidi. COLLINS: Aaron, let me just ask you, Musharraf, I'm sure, wants to be seen as cooperating in the war on terrorism. Isn't it in his best interest to play this up a little bit?

BROWN: Well, it's a more complicated question than you could imagine. Yes, he absolutely not only wants to be seen as cooperative in the war on terror. In many respects, he has been cooperative in the war on terror, at some political risk to himself.

There have been two attempts on his life since December. We drove on our way out to talk to him today past those spots where the suicide bombers tried to kill him. That's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is, is it in his interest to play it up? I think it is in his interest to be cooperative. There are a lot of reasons to be cooperative, and, you know, it is, from his perspective, his political perspective, one thing for al- Zawahri to be captured or killed.

That probably won't create for him any political problems at home. Now, if it were bin Laden, that's a different story. Bin Laden enjoys some support here. And that would be a very different matter. But if you're asking me in short do I think he's hyping the deal, my instinct says he's not hyping the deal. But that's my instinct.

COLLINS: All right, Aaron Brown, thanks so much, live from Islamabad tonight. We sure do appreciate it.

Stay with CNN for the latest on the hunt for Ayman al-Zawahri. And you can catch the full interview with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on "NEWSNIGHT WITH AARON BROWN" at 10:00 Eastern time.

Ayman al-Zawahri may be best known for his role in the September 11 attacks. But, as Jonathan Mann reports, he has a long history with terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN MANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ayman al-Zawahri made his public debut as a Muslim militant more than 20 years ago.

AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI: We want to speak to the whole world.

MANN: Back then, al-Zawahri, a young doctor, was in prison for his involvement with the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. After his release, al-Zawahri made his way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he worked as a doctor, treating Islamic fighters who were trying to overthrow the Soviet region in Afghanistan.

This is when he met Osama bin Laden and found a common cause. Years later, the two men would shift their holy war from the Soviets to the Americans and go public with their terror alliance. The attacks against America began weeks later, with suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies. Then there was the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and the 9/11 attacks. Al-Zawahri often appeared by bin Laden's side, a clear indication of his status as bin Laden's No. 2 and closest adviser. And after 9/11, al-Zawahri started making his own audiotapes warning of more attacks on America and its allies. Ayman al-Zawahri has been plotting revolution and terror since the age of 16. Now, at the age of 52, his time may have run out.

Jonathan Mann, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: "In Focus" tonight, the possible neutralizing of al Qaeda's No. 2 figure on the anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Tonight, we have an exclusive interview with the president's principal military adviser. General Richard Myers is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We, of course, welcome him tonight, coming to us from Washington.

General, good evening and thanks so much for being here.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Heidi.

COLLINS: Want to ask you, does the United States have any independent confirmation that al-Zawahri is in fact surrounded by Pakistani forces at this time?

MYERS: No, the fact is, we're still trying to understand that situation.

It does point out, though, that, as I think your previous part of the show pointed out, is that Pakistan is being very cooperative on this war on terrorism. They were very helpful in the urban areas. Now they're in areas that -- where the terrorists have had the ability to go without much scrutiny. And they've had several attacks in that area in recent months. And this is another one of those, apparently.

COLLINS: General, elaborate that a little bit -- on that for us just a little bit about the cooperation from the Pakistanis. Has this relationship between the United States and the Pakistani government, has it evolved? Has it come to a new level?

MYERS: I think it's evolved. I think as we started to prosecute the Taliban inside Afghanistan as we were looking at the al Qaeda inside Afghanistan, Pakistan made a fundamental choice, a choice to be a part of this effort against global terrorism. We know what kind of folks the al Qaeda are. And we know what al-Zawahri is like.

And they made that choice. They have picked up on their own and sometimes with our assistance numerous, hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in their urban areas. And now they're in areas that they have not, as a government, been in before, particularly with their armed forces. And it's been over the last several months that they've taken steps in those tribal areas, as they call them, to work this threat.

COLLINS: General, is there any intelligence that you can share with us tonight about the possibility of Osama bin Laden and al- Zawahri traveling together?

MYERS: No, I can't add anything to that. Well, the fact is, we don't know.

COLLINS: OK. Fair enough.

I want to ask you, though, a little more about al Qaeda here. There are a lot of people who say that al Qaeda is no longer really an organization. It has broken off into more of a movement, if you will. How much impact, then, would this possible capture of the No. 2 man really have?

MYERS: I think many of us have always said that the capture of an individual like Saddam Hussein, for instance, was an important step in many steps to deal with this threat. I think the same thing is true of Osama bin Laden. The same thing is true of al-Zawahri.

And the character of al Qaeda has changed over time, from a very hierarchical structure to one that is more distributed into cells. We've seen that. We've followed that, and we're dealing with it differently than before. But these are two of the -- UBL and al- Zawahri are two of the biggest leaders in al Qaeda. It would be an important step. But it would not end the terror. It's not going to end with their capture. But it's important, nevertheless.

COLLINS: All right, so I would like to move on, if we could, to Iraq now.

And after yesterday's bombing, a lot of Iraqis, again, are wondering why after all this time the United States is still unable to keep them safe. But is there really any way to stop someone who is willing to give up their life for their cause, i.e., suicide bombers?

MYERS: Well, you know, we've talked about that Heidi, a lot, I think. And clearly anybody that's determined, any individual that's determined, willing to sacrifice their own life, can create the kind of tragedy that we saw yesterday in Baghdad and the tragedies in Madrid before that and other places. I guess Madrid is not necessarily the suicide part of that.

But, sure, they can do that. On the other hand, we've got to take steps to find the bombmakers and to put as much pressure on these organizations as we possibly can. I think what we're seeing in Iraq, as has been explained I think several times by General Abizaid and by the secretary of defense and others, is a change in that threat, too, from more former regime elements that were very loyal to Saddam to the foreign jihad jihadists, which bring that element of suicide to it that the former regime elements did not.

And that's significant. It is very hard to stop. Defense alone won't stop this kind of -- these kind of attacks. That's why we are going to have to be on the offense. We are going to have to have good intelligence. And we need to continue to improve to deal with that kind of threat. It's important that we continue to improve in this area. COLLINS: That being said, take us back to one year ago, if you would. You were in the final planning stages of the war. Talk to us a little bit tonight about how you felt about the planning for peace. Was there too little planning for peace?

MYERS: Well, I think one of the things that would characterize our plan was that we had the flexibility built in to deal with the situation as we found it.

In fact, as we went across -- and, of course, almost a year to the day, it will be -- tomorrow will be that day -- when we went across the line there in Kuwait into Iraq, and we were taking humanitarian supplies with us as we went forward, so we could take care of the population as we went through, in case they needed food or water or some minimal medical sort of help.

So from that kind of detailed planning to what happened after Baghdad fell, after the Saddam Hussein regime was ousted from power, I think our planning was very extensive. We had plan after plan on the various sectors, I think. But you have to deal with reality as you find it.

COLLINS: Right.

MYERS: And what we had to deal with was the fact that the infrastructure was in much worse shape. I visited a hospital that was built in the '50s, right after the war ended, built in the '50s, and never had one upgrade to it. I mean, the structure is 50 years old, never had one upgrade. They were doing kidney dialysis. They had an ICU equivalent, it was back up and running.

COLLINS: Right.

MYERS: But that's -- so you have to -- those sorts of things, you may or may not know. In some sectors, we knew more than we did in other sectors.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: Certainly. But, General, before we let you go tonight, I just want to get one last question in. Are you disappointed, though, in all these things you're telling us, are you disappointed at what the peace looks like now?

MYERS: No, I'm not. And I'll tell you why.

And one other comment, by the way. I think the people that make it -- make all these trends, in my view, moving upwards, whether it's in the political sector, the economic sector, the infrastructure or even in the security sector, are the wonderful young men and women that we have, and maybe not so young men and women we have in the armed forces that are supporting this effort and our DOD civilians and the Department of State civilians and many other folks that have volunteered to go over there and try to give Iraq hope.

And that includes a lot of Iraqis, because, as I said earlier, the attacks are now focusing on the Iraqis. No, I think we have a success story going here. There are going to be more challenges. There will be more car bombs. But, in the end, we're going to have 25 million-plus people that are going to have a real chance for peace and freedom and security like they've never had it before. And it's not going to be easy. We didn't think it was going to be easy. But we're just a year into this. And I think the successes in this past year are commendable.

COLLINS: All right, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, sir, we thank you so very much tonight.

MYERS: Thank you, Heidi.

COLLINS: The capture of bin Laden and his right-hand man, if it happens, would it clinch the election for President Bush?

And if a kid book has a happy ending, a gay prince finds his true love, should first-graders be checking it out of the school library?

And giving up your workaday job for a chance to be a Donald Trump apprentice, the long line for a shot at fame or humiliation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: The capture of a top terrorist like Ayman al-Zawahri or even Osama bin Laden would certainly play a role in the presidential election. But would it change the face of the campaign?

Well, joining us now to discuss the matter is Joe Conason, author of "Big Lies; The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth."

Joe, hello to you.

And regular contributor Victoria Clarke, former Pentagon spokeswoman.

Victoria, hello to you as well.

VICTORIA CLARKE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hi, Heidi.

COLLINS: Tonight, I'd like to start, Joe, with you.

Wondering if you think the potential capture of Osama bin Laden's No. 2 man would be enough to help ensure victory for George W. Bush?

JOE CONASON, AUTHOR, "BIG LIES": I don't think so, although it's a end valley to be wished. I think every American wants Ayman al- Zawahri to be captured, just like bin Laden.

I don't -- I think it would be a little too early to celebrate the president's victory at that point. If you remember, not so long ago, Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq and there was much comment at that time that this would settle the election. And I think it made no difference really in the end. And I think people will decide this election on issues eight months from now. And we can't even be sure what they'll be.

COLLINS: Torie, what do you think on that one?

CLARKE: I've got to tell you, I was laughing before we came on this evening, thinking that only in a couple of towns like New York and Washington could we be talking about what the political implications might be of something that might or might not happen.

I agree with Joe on this. I think it is a long way between now and November. But as hard as it is to set aside the political aspects of this, we should try to do it. You know, whatever happened to politics stops at the water's edge? If this capture comes through, it would be a very good thing. As General Myers just said, it would be one piece of a long, long effort in which we've had lots of successes.

And at the end of the day, I do think good policies are good politics. And at the end of the day when people are making that tough decision in November, who do I want running this country in this very, very challenging, extremely complex time, I think they're going to go with the guy who's been making the good, sound decisions. And that's President Bush.

COLLINS: All right, well, then, let me ask you this, Torie. What do you say to the cynics who say, hey, this is pretty well timed, all of the added resources and troops in Afghanistan, politically well timed, that is? And people wonder why not on September 12?

CLARKE: You know what? For those people that are saying it, they're either uninformed and they haven't taken the time to inform themselves, or they're stupid, or they're just trying to exploit it for political purposes, because if you know anything about the global war on terror, it is global. And it has different parts and different pieces. And you prosecute it differently depending on the circumstances.

And how you prosecute the war in Afghanistan is very different than how you prosecute it in Iraq or some other place.

COLLINS: All right, Joe, are you more cynical on this?

CONASON: Well, we started out stopping the politics at the water's edge and then ended with the endorsement of President Bush. So that was a very neat segue there.

Look, people don't agree about how the war on terror should be prosecuted. Many people think that the president made a mistake in 2001 when we went into Afghanistan and failed to put enough troops in there to catch these people then, and for the last two years have been distracted by a war in Iraq that turned out not to have been necessary. So I don't know what people's judgment will be in the end.

But they're going to look at all the evidence at how the president has run the war on terror. And if he captures Ayman al- Zawahri or if the Pakistanis do for him, then I think that will be one thing that people will consider, and rightly so. COLLINS: All right, there are some numbers out there. There's a recent poll that was done, CNN/Gallup poll. People were asked, who would do a better job on terrorism? President Bush had it resoundingly, 60 percent, Senator Kerry 33 percent. So with this potential capture that we've been talking about all day long, is Bush's terrorism record tough enough to beat Kerry?

CONASON: It may be or it may not be. We'll see how people judge this by November. As I said, I'm not sure that by the time we reach then, if we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if things are not going well in Iraq, there are a whole host of factors that could change people's judgments.

And you had an on-air poll today which was 80/20 against the president's terrorism policies.

COLLINS: OK, want to get to Torie, so we have equal time here.

Torie, let me just ask you, you already mentioned the end of the day. On Election Day, is this going to be about jobs and the economy or who's defending the borders of Afghanistan?

CLARKE: You know what? For some people it will be either/or. For a lot of people -- I give the American people and the voters a lot more credit than most of the pundits do -- for a lot of people it's going to be about both. You don't have economic security without national security. They're inextricably intertwined. And I think most people understand that. And they'll weigh the evidence and they'll weigh the long-term picture.

COLLINS: All right, to the both of you tonight, Joe Conason and Victoria Clarke, thanks so much, guys.

CLARKE: Thanks, Heidi.

CONASON: Thank you.

COLLINS: George W. Bush calls himself a war president. And it seems some historians agree. One year after the Iraq invasion, we'll look at Mr. Bush's war record.

And when it comes to the world of business, are men more likely to commit white-collar fraud than women?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tomorrow, President Bush will deliver a speech from the White House on the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Administration officials say he'll praise the coalition's accomplishments and review progress in the war on terror.

But one year later, how much success can the president claim in Iraq?

We're sending in the "Truth Squad" on this one. Here's senior White House correspondent John King. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He labels himself a war president and, one year later, vigorously defends his decision to target Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever.

KING: The United States is four months away from handing sovereignty back to the Iraqis, Mr. Bush, just shy of eight months from an election that is in large part a referendum on his conduct as commander in chief.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: The Spanish-American War was Mr. McKinley's war, World War I, Mr. Wilson's war. Clearly, the war in Iraq is Mr. Bush's war.

KING: This groundbreaking for a 9/11 memorial last week was a reminder that Mr. Bush wants people to remember now and when they vote in November just how he became a war president in the first place.

MATTHEW DOWD, BUSH CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: I think the threshold question is, who is up to that job, who has the policies to deal with that on a global scale.

KING: The Taliban is gone from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq, decisive military successes, but still lingering questions for the commander in chief, no chemical or biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq, at least not yet, contrary to Mr. Bush's prewar certainty.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We were misled about weapons of mass destruction.

KING: No definitive word on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

SAMUEL BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We're going to be fighting terrorists for as long as the eye can see. We've busted the beehive, but we have not killed the bees.

KING: And no consensus now on Mr. Bush's characterization a year ago that war in Iraq was the critical next step in the global war on terror.

BRINKLEY: We did not have to go to war. It was something we chose to do for our security. And I think that's going to be interesting to see how -- the toll that Iraq will take on this president.

KING: Rallying public support is a challenge for any war president and a constant focus for this one. By Mr. Bush's definition, America has been at war for 30 of the 38 months he has been president.

John King, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: College sports on TV, a money machine for everyone except the athletes. Is it time the players cashed in on their sweat and skill?

A book about gay love brought home by a 7-year-old. Her parents say it ought to be banned from grade school. Is that intolerant or intelligent?

And tomorrow, the Tennessee county that once tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution makes news again. It's trying to ban homosexuality.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Here are some of the headlines you need to know right now. It is morning in Pakistan. And the country's forces are launching a significant air strike near the border with Afghanistan. Ayman al-Zawahiri the No. 2 leader is believed to be surrounded there. More than 200 well trained, well equipped al Qaeda fighters have been battling Pakistani ground and air forces in the region. We will update you on this story as it develops.

More violence today in Iraq. The U.S. military says a rocket- propelled grenade was fired at a hotel in the same Baghdad neighborhood where a suicide bombing yesterday destroyed a hotel.

Farther south in Basra, a car bombing has killed at least four people.

For more on this situation in Iraq, we go to CNN's senior international correspondent Walter Rodgers in Baghdad. Walter, good morning to you there.

WALTER RODGERS, CNN SENIOR INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Heidi. Baghdad is braced for more violence. This as Americans celebrate the one-year anniversary of the army's lightning military strike into Iraq a year ago. Still, it's turning into an extraordinarily bloody week here. And there are predictions that the United States is now involved in a very long guerrilla war. In Basra yesterday there was a car bomb that went off. Basra's the southeastern port city. It was a British military convoy which was passing by. The car bomb went off. None of the British soldiers was injured. But in fact, there were four -- at least four Iraqis killed.

In Fallujah, in the so-called Sunni Triangle, a volatile area, a U.S. military task force was going to the mayor's office. Suddenly it came under a full military attack from Iraqi insurgents firing rocket- propelled grenades and small arms. The Americans returned fire in the crossfire. In Fallujah, more Iraqi citizens killed -- Heidi.

COLLINS: Walter, let me ask you, with these types of violent attacks escalating, are the Iraqi people blaming the bombers, or U.S. forces in the coalition? RODGERS: Generally U.S. forces, Heidi. When the Americans arrived in Baghdad a year ago, they were perceived as occupiers, but they were given a tentatively cool welcome. Since the violence has escalated here, the Americans are constantly being blamed for it under the best of circumstances, Iraqis say, the Americans under international law have to protect us and they aren't.

Under the worst of circumstances many Iraqis are also saying the Americans are perpetrating these attacks in the guise of Islamist militancy, because they say the Americans want to stay here to plunder Iraqi oil. One Iraqi told us yesterday, if the Americans have the strongest army in the world, why aren't they protecting us, why are they protecting only themselves -- Heidi.

COLLINS: Walter Rodgers live from Baghdad tonight. Walter, thanks so much.

On to domestic matters now. As the U.S. debates whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, some parents in North Carolina are outraged over a children's book their 7-year-old daughter brought home from school. You sear it here. In "King and King," a handsome young prince marries the man of his dreams. Should first-graders be reading boy meets boy stories?

To debate that question tonight, we picked gay rights advocate versus family value supporter. Joining us now, Michael Adams on the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund and in Washington Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Welcome to the both of you tonight.

Janice, I would like to begin with you. The parents of this girl are saying that they want to have the book removed from the school library. Do they have the right to impose their views on the rest of the school, or that community in this matter?

JANICE CROUSE, BEVERLY LAHAYE INSTITUTE: Well, of course they do. The people in America are united on this. The majority of Americans recognize that for centuries we have come around our children, we have protected them. We have said that our school grounds are an area where we really say our children are innocent and we as adults are going to protect them and guarantee that when they are at school, they will learn, they will have an academic curriculum, they will get the fundamentals and they will not be indoctrinated. What we have here are people from the fringe who are bringing a special interest agenda into the schools and saying, our special interest is going to be foisted off on our children. Where are the adults, Heidi, where are the people who really care about our children?

COLLINS: All right, let's ask Michael Adams that very question. You know, the publisher of "King and King" says, this book is appropriate for children who are 6 years old and up. What about the people who say, hey, that is way too young to introduce these types of themes.

MICHAEL ADAMS, LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND: Well, we agree with the principal of the school here, this is a school library. As the principal has said, some things that are acceptable to some parents are not acceptable to other parents. We don't take one parent's viewpoint over the world and impose that on every family, on every child in the school. We believe what the school principal made a good choice, which was to make a wide variety of books available here. As the principal said, there's nothing to protect these kids from. This is a children's story about two people falling in love. This is not some threatening terrible thing. We think the principal was entirely right in making the choice the principal made.

COLLINS: Janice, we have a little quote from the principal who says what Michael is saying to that effect what might be inappropriate for one family and another family is a totally acceptable thing. But shouldn't any censorship of a child's reading be done in the hands of the parents?

CROUSE: This is the majority of Americans saying, I am outraged. We are hearing from parents saying, look, I can't even allow my children to watch the Super Bowl. Now I have to supervise what my child is bringing home in first grade. Come on, Heidi, the majority of Americans want their children to be able to read books that enrich their lives and bring home some message that is important to their lives. And bring a broad...

COLLINS: Let me just ask you this. If I'm going to read a book to my child at home, I'm going to make darn sure that I open it up and look at the pages before I do that. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the parents?

CROUSE: Well, of course. But parents have right now -- have to look at everything that comes into their homes, including television programs. And to be able to have to supervise what a first grader brings home is ridiculous. Where are the adults in our schools today, Heidi. This is outrageous that we're having a special agenda foisted off on first graders. I'll debate anybody's special interest in any adult forum. But let's protect our children from these kind of special interests. It's not appropriate.

COLLINS: Michael, what about this gay agenda that Janice is talking about? What do you say about that argument that that's what it's about, a gay agenda?

ADAMS: This is not about a special agenda. It wasn't advocates or gay rights activists who put this book in the school library. It was the school principal, and the school librarian who put it in the school library. It has nothing to do with the special agenda. A library is full of books. A library for children is full of books. The books reflect all kinds of different stories about the world. All kinds of different perspectives. This book simply provides a perspective.

Of course, any parent can choose that their child will not read it. But there are parents who don't believe that their children should learn about evolution. Does it mean we shouldn't have any books in the library about evolution? There are parents who believe that Halloween is wrong because it supports witchcraft. We simply can't allow one parent or two parents to veto for every other parent and child what can be read.

COLLINS: OK, Michael Adams...

CROUSE: Nor can we allow one parent and one group of people to say for the vast majority of Americans that this kind of special agenda's going to be foisted off on all children.

COLLINS: All right, guys, that is the end of the discussion tonight. Out of time. Sorry about that. Janice Crouse, Michael Adams, thanks much for joining us.

ADAMS: Thank you.

COLLINS: The pursuit of crime in the corporate suites. Martha Stewart aside, who's more ethical, men or women.

And Trump says, jump, and hundreds ask how high. A shot a fame, fortune or mostlikely...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, HOST "THE APPRENTICE": Your fired.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: It's casting call for a new season of "The Apprentice."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Criminal cases brought against powerful executives like Martha Stewart and Enron's Lea Fastow raise a provocative question, as more women gain power in the business world are they as likely to become white collar criminals as their male colleagues?

Lets give that question the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five answers, direct and to the point.

Join us now, Charles Gasparino, a senior writer who specializes in covering corporate crime for the "Wall Street Journal."

Question no. 1, for you.

Tell me, who is more likely to commit white collar crime, men or women?

CHARLES GASPARINO, SENIOR SPECIAL WRITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": I think mean, I'm going to be politically correct here. Aggression fueled by testosterone and there you have it. They have a tendency to step over the line more.

COLLINS: OK, what is the main quality that drives men, or some of these men to corporate crimes?

GASPARINO: It's not a quality. It's aggression. Men are generally, you know, I see it on Wall Street all the time, they're generally more aggressive. And that's where you get the guys that buy the $6,000 shower curtain, for example, as we're hearing in the Kozlowski (ph) trial.

COLLINS: OK, question no. 3, what makes women more likely to play by the rules?

GASPARINO: Women I see -- some of them don't play by the rules. They basically, in general, take a step back. They think about what they're doing more, and that's what men should do.

COLLINS: Question four, but, aren't some women as aggressive as men?

I can think of one maybe.

GASPARINO: Who is that person?

Martha Stewart obviously is even more aggressive than most men. I think that was the problem with her. Yes, you know, this isn't scientific, but Martha Stewart is a key example on how you're to aggressive you go over the line.

COLLINS: But Charlie isn't -- for question number five, isn't this all access to power, male or female?

GASPARINO: That's why my scientific sampling isn't very scientific. More men in positions of power, they're going to be in trouble more.

COLLINS: All right, Charles Gasparino, thank so very much. Five quick answers tonight. Appreciate it.

College sports make millions for the sponsors and the schools. But the athletes don't make a dime.

Is it time to give them a cut of the action?

What kind of a line would impress Donald Trump?

This one -- hundreds line up to audition for the second season of his reality show. We'll save a place for you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: As March madness revs up, we are going to look at whether college athletes should be paid to play. Attorney and sports analyst Rob Becker says the NCAA is big business, and the players ought to get their fair share. He's joining us here now.

And on the other side of the debate, Wally Renfro with us from Indianapolis tonight. He's senior adviser to the president of the NCAA. Both of you, thanks so much for being here. Ron, I -- Rob, pardon me, I want to begin with you.

Why should college athletes be paid?

ROB BECKER, ATTORNEY, SPORTS ANALYST: Because they're earning a ton of money for their schools and they're not getting their fair share in return. In any other industry, you get paid what you would get on the free market. Here, all the schools have gotten together and decided, you know what, we're just going to pay these athletes a scholarship and no more. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the division one schools are turning a profit of over $2 million. These guys end up with almost nothing. And a lot of them don't graduate. A majority of these players don't graduate, and only 1 out of 77 make it to the NBA.

COLLINS: Wally, what do you think about this?

WALLY RENFRO, SENIOR ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NCAA: As you might guess, Heidi, I reject that concept. It falls into the same trap that all others fall into, they equate the success, the audience base and the revenue base of very successful programs with professional sports. And they equate a grant and aid with salary. Neither one of those is true. A grant and aid is -- pays for tuition, and fees for room and board, books and supplies. And the same way for a student athlete that a grant and aid does for exceptional music student...

BECKER: You're assuming the very thing in dispute, Wally. You have set that system up so nobody gets any more money. If they were free to get money, they would get a lot more. You just limited it so low that everyone looks at it and doesn't even notice what's going on. You simply redefine it as a grant and aid. You know that those players...

COLLINS: Rob, we're going to let Wally get in. Go ahead, Wally.

RENFRO: The whole intention of intercollegiate athletics is that these are student athletes. They are students first. They're enrolled in school. They go to class. They take tests. They go to the library, they write papers...

BECKER: Yes, and they live in dormitories by themselves.

RENFRO: The motivation for a professional is that they're a labor force, Rob.

BECKER: They are a labor force. They earn money for your schools. You can't get around this by simply redefining what everyone is.

RENFRO: Student athletes are not a labor force. And college sports is not professional.

COLLINS: Just a minute. Wally, is there some sort of cover-up, if you will, to pretend that the players are there for any other reason other than basketball?

RENFRO: Well, no, there's no cover-up. They are there for other reasons than for playing basketball. As I said, they are students. They go to class. They do the other things that students do.

COLLINS: Why do so few of them graduated, Wally?

RENFRO: When the tournament is over, they'll be going back to class. You know, the role of higher education is to provide an opportunity for those students to get an education. Unfortunately not everyone takes full advantage of that opportunity. That's true of the student body, it is true of some student athletes.

BECKER: No, it's true in a much more greater percentage for athletes, as you know.

RENFRO: On the average, the student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the rest of the student body. In Division I, at a rate of 62 percent. No, it is wrong.

BECKER: No, you are wrong. My statistics come from your organization...

COLLINS: OK. You guys, let me finish up with one final...

RENFRO: Student athletes in Division I graduate at 62 percent.

COLLINS: Graduate at 62 percent. Wally, let me finish up. I'll give you both an opportunity to answer this quickly very tonight. What is the solution so that both sides can play by the rules? Wally, go ahead, quickly.

RENFRO: I'm not even sure I understand the question fully, Heidi. I think the solution is that we need to make sure that we're doing a good job of educating student athletes. But at the end of the day, the role of intercollegiate athletics is to provide an athletic opportunity for students enrolled at a campus. And that's what's taking place. You can't equate success and visibility with professionalism. They're two different things.

COLLINS: Rob, how does the NCAA play with the students?

RENFRO: They're going to have to have the students bowl them over. The students are going to have to band them together and sue them in an antitrust suit and say what you've done is operate a cartel that limits what we should be getting on a free market. They don't get what's commensurate with what they contribute and when you get the right attorney and the right plaintiff, this nonsense will end.

COLLINS: All right. Very good. Thanks so much to the both of you tonight. Wally Renfro, Rob Becker thanks again.

They all want the chance to be humiliated in front of millions. They'll have to pass the auditions first. We'll go behind the scenes in the search for Donald Trump's new apprentices.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Oh, for a shot at being fired by Donald Trump. People were lined up for blocks today. Look at that. In Manhattan to try out for the next season of trump's wildly popular reality show, "The Apprentice." Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas here to tell us what it was like. Hi, Sibila. What did you see out there? Obviously a lot of people. SIBILA VARGAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: A lot of people. It was madness. According to NBC, there were thousands of people. And from what I saw, that's how many there were there. It was three blocks of droves, a sea of people. It was amazing. I'd never seen anything like it.

COLLINS: Wow. You got a chance, though, to actually pick the brains of some of these people waiting in line there. Let's look at what they had to say.

VARGAS: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VARGAS: Did you...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've never done anything like this before, by the way. I figured, why not, give it a shot.

VARGAS: What makes a person like you do something like this? I mean, how many hours have you been on this lot?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've been out about five hours now. Just the opportunity to work with Donald Trump, to use this as a springboard to something maybe bigger and better, I would wait forever.

VARGAS: So you share this insanity. What are you guys doing here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're crazy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we're freezing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Freezing our toes off.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've been here since 6:00 a.m., you figure, why not continue to wait.

VARGAS: Sheer dedication.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, exactly.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Sheer dedication, right?

VARGAS: Sheer dedication. Six hours on the line, by the way.

COLLINS: Wow!

VARGAS: Yes. And it was freezing today.

COLLINS: It was a little chilly. I'm from Minnesota, so maybe not so much. They certainly have hit a nerve with "The Apprentice," with this show. Is this the start of a big Hollywood career for Donald Trump? I see him everywhere.

VARGAS: Oh, absolutely. He has always been popular. But this is -- I mean, he's gone to the next level at this point. There are T- shirts that are being made with his slogan, you're fired. People love him. They can't get enough of him. He's actually hosting NBC's "Saturday Night Live" April 3. Which is unheard of because he's never been on TV. He doesn't do this. He's not an actor. So it's just incredible. NBC is in love with him right now. And who wouldn't be.

COLLINS: As you know, there has been quite a bit of talk about reality shows kind of being on the way out. What is so different about "The Apprentice"? Clearly this is not a show that's on the way out.

VARGAS: No. I think, you know, you've got Mark Burnett, who is an incredible producer. Arguably one of the best. "Survivor" continues to do wonderful for CBS. And now NBC, of course, is having "The Apprentice" with Mark Burnett coupled with Donald Trump. Two masters. I think that's the key.

COLLINS: Very good. Sibila Vargas, thanks so much. Glad you're back inside and not cold anymore waiting in line. Appreciate it.

VARGAS: Thanks.

COLLINS: And thanks so much to all of you for being with us tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" coming up next. Good night everybody.

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






General Richard Myers>