Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Terrorist Bombings Growing Around the World, Hearings Continue in Abortion Right Cases, Saddam Hussein Gets Defense Attorney.

Aired March 29, 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.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN HOST, PAULA ZAHN NOW: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn. It's a brand new week here, Monday March 29, 2004.
A growing number of terrorist bombings after 9/11. From Bali to Baghdad. From the Middle East to Madrid. As the death toll rises, is the war on terror losing ground?

Think you keep your politics a secret? Think again. If you have given money to a campaign, it's all on this web site for everyone to see. You and all your neighbors. Who gave how much, and to whom. Whatever happened to privacy?

Tonight the Janet Jackson publicity machine shifts into high gear. Is it to late to reinvent herself?

All of that ahead tonight. But first here are some of the headlines you need to know right now. Starting today, a new round in the battle over abortion right. Three U.S. district courts are hearing challenges to a federal ban on a certain type of late term abortion.

President Bush had signed the ban into law last November. But it has not been enforced because of the court proceedings. Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now live from Washington with more. Good evening, Kelli.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula. Abortion rights advocates argued in court that the partial birth abortion ban act is unconstitutional. They say it lacks an exception that would allow the procedure to protect a woman's health, and they say the language is so vague that it could be applied to a wide range of procedures.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUISE MELLING, ACLU: The ban is broader. The ban is not limited in any way to a single procedure, and it reaches procedures performed at the very beginning of the second trimester, as early as 13 weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: But supporters of the ban say that it applies to a very specific procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. And they say they've seen no proof to show the procedure is ever medically necessary, which is an important point because the Supreme Court struck down a similar law almost four years ago for not having an exception for a woman's health.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Congress specifically looked at the medical necessity issue, and is this procedure medically necessary? After eight years of hearings and fact-finding, the congress made the decision that it was not.

ARENA: As you said, the battle is being fought in three courts in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Regardless of the outcome, both sides expect the cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The stakes are high for both sides. If the ban is upheld, this would be the first federal limit on abortion since Roe versus Wade. Paula.

ZAHN: Kelli Arena thanks so much for the update.

And a small victory for opponents of same-sex marriages. Massachusetts lawmakers have voted in favor of an amendment that would outlaw same-sex weddings but would allow civil unions.

The measure still must be approved by a newly elected legislature next year before voters can have a say then in 2006. The state Supreme Court had ordered the commonwealth to allow same-sex weddings by May, but Governor Mitt Romney says he will ask for a delay.

In focus tonight, U.S. progress on the war in terror and the increasing number of Al-Qaeda attacks, is America really safer now than before 9/11? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has been defending the Administration's anti-terror policy in the wake of last week's 9/11 Commission hearings.

And the accusations made by former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke. Dr. Rice did not testify under oath before the Commission, but last night on national TV, she was asked to explain the rise in terror strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We are being attacked by them because they know that we're at war with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: More people died on 9/11 than all of Al-Qaeda's other attacks combined, but since then, the group has carried out more attacks than ever before.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE CORRESPONDENT: In the 30 months before September 11, the assault on the USS Cole was the only successful Al- Qaeda plot. In the 30 months since 9/11, it is easy to lose track of all the attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda. April 2002, saw the first. More than 20 people were killed when a truck bomb hit a synagogue in Tunisia.

Later that year, bombs at nightclubs in Bali killed more than 200. In Kenya, 13 died at a hotel. And an airliner barely missed being hit by shoulder-fired missiles. In 2003, the pace quickened. Casablanca, May. Riyadh that same month. Jakarta, August. Turkey, November.

The U.S. government says that two-thirds of known Al-Qaeda leadership has been taken out of action. Why hasn't this slowed the network down? Analysts believe one factor is that Al-Qaeda is changing, and more plots are now mounted at a local level.

Perhaps evidence of this, 2004 has already seen 190 killed and more than 1,800 injured in Spain. That raises to more than 500 the number of deaths Al-Qaeda has been implicated in since September 11, 2001.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We should point out, of course, that al-Qaeda was carrying out attacks long before the one on the USS Cole. And the biggest attack before 9/11, 224 people died at the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998.

So just how successful has the U.S. been in the war on terror? Let's debate that now. Joining us from Washington, our regular contributor, Former Pentagon Spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, and Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman, a principal of the Albright Group, an International Advisory firm in Washington. Welcome to you both.

Tory and Wendy, I think you both have to acknowledge that Americans are shocked when they hear this statistic that there have been more attacks by al-Qaeda post-9/11 than there were before. Tory, how can you put a positive spin on this?

VICTORIA CLARKE, FMR. PENTAGON SPOKESWOMAN, WASHINGTON D.C.: It's not about spin; it's about people's lives. If you look at what happened before September 11, there were quite a few al-Qaeda attacks.

There was the World Trade Center bombing. There were the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the attack on the "Cole," the attack on Cobar Towers. There were other attacks and deaths that probably should be attributed to al-Qaeda but we didn't know at the time.

ZAHN: Aren't you troubled the numbers have gone up since September 11?

CLARKE: I'm terribly troubled at every attack and every loss of life. But the facts are that we finally are dealing with a problem that has been around for a long time. Probably 10, 12 years or more, and we're finally dealing with it, and we're addressing it.

ZAHN: Ambassador, the Administration making the argument they have taken out two-thirds of the al-Qaeda leadership. Do you think we are any safer today given these numbers? AMB. WENDY R. SHERMAN, THE ALBRIGHT GROUP, WASHINGTON D.C.: I think we don't know the answer to that question, but I think we have to be concerned about the statistics you just laid out.

We have to be concerned with what the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said just a few days ago; when he said that Iraq has become a goldmine for Jihadists. That we have, in fact, opened up a Pandora's Box in going to war in Iraq.

Everyone would agree it's better that Saddam Hussein is gone. The world is better for Saddam Hussein having been gone. But have we taken our eye off the ball? Has the Administration taken its eye off the ball against the war on terrorism? Now do we have a hydra-headed terrorist organization and organizations that we have to fight around the world?

ZAHN: What about that threat, Tory? You've heard even some Republicans argue that the United States made a tactical error by moving all those troops into Iraq and basically ignoring Afghanistan.

CLARKE: Well, not ignoring it at all. We've actually had a very, very successful effort in Afghanistan. I go back to something Ambassador Sherman said about Iraq now being a Pandora's Box. Think about what it was before we and many, many other countries made the decision to invade Iraq.

It was a country that invaded and threatened its neighbors, firing ballistic missiles into them four times. It was a country that had violated more than a decade of U.N. Resolutions. There was a living, acting, breathing Pandora's Box right in front of us, and we finally dealt with it.

ZAHN: I don't think that Wendy doubts that. I think the point she is making, that by reallocating resources, you have in fact hurt your efforts of completely taking out al-Qaeda, particularly in Afghanistan.

CLARKE: Sure. It would be very nice if we could deal with the global war on terror, of which Afghanistan's a part, of which Iraq was a part, in a linear fashion. But that's not reality. You have to deal with different threats and different opportunities simultaneously. And that's where the smart planning and the thinking takes place.

ZAHN: Wendy, do you believe we are on the path to winning the war on terrorism?

SHERMAN: I hope we are on the path to winning a war against terrorism because it would be horrible for all of us and for all of our children if we were not. But I do think that we have not allocated resources appropriately. I do think we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

So now it's virtually out of control. And the other thing that's happened is the resentment towards the United States has only increased. The pew (ph) global (ph) attitudes (ph) project (ph) found out that the resentment has only grown towards America.

And they have found out that in the Muslim world there is enormous support for suicide bombs against American and Western interests in Iraq. It's a multiple strategy, but it's not the one that we currently have on the boards.

ZAHN: Tory, you get the last word, and a brief one at that. Do you concede we are more hated today as a nation than ever before?

CLARKE: No. I don't. I just don't concede that at all because, if you look at the facts and you look at where people put their actions and their deeds, not their words, you have some 90 nations that are working with us in the global war on terror. You have about five dozen countries that supported us and helped us in the invasion of Iraq. You have over 30 countries that have troops in there now. So I don't concede that.

ZAHN: We have to leave it there, you two. Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Victoria Clarke. Thanks very much.

Meanwhile, high living former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, his trial endures a stubborn juror and calls for a mistrial.

Some 9/11 families embraced Richard Clarke. We're going to tell you why others are up in arms about him now.

And another sign of L.A.'s cash crunch. Manhole covers are still free, but streetlights are optional.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: When former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski walked into court today, he might have had a hope that it would all be over by the end of the day. Kozlowski, of course, is accused of helping loot his company of $600 million living large on the money, as the videotape played in court showed. A typical birthday party there.

Over the weekend, there was a talk of a mistrial after notes from the jury described a hostile deadlock. And then there was the reported OK signal one juror apparently made to the defense.

Today the judge denied a mistrial motion and sent the jury back to work. Joining us now, Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, and Dan Ackman, Senior columnist with Forbes.com who was in court today. Welcome. So the judge refused the mistrial. Why?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Because the judge interviewed the juror and spoke to her about her bizarre gesture that she apparently made.

ZAHN: Apparently?

TOOBIN: Well, apparently. But then also about the experience of being identified in the "New York Post" and I believe on the "Wall Street Journal's" web site. Did that affect her? Did the fact that she's now been identified in public as the juror who's allegedly slowing this trial down; did that affect her ability to be fair?

The judge said no. As far as he could tell, this juror could deliberate fairly. Back to work they went, and they seemed to have a productive day deliberating.

ZAHN: Let's pick up on a couple of themes Jeffrey talked about. For one, the judge meeting with juror number four, and then coming out and explaining in open court what happened in that conversation. Share that to us.

DAN ACKMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, FORBES.COM: The judge said the juror said a lot of things, most of which he wouldn't repeat in court. But the juror also said that all things being equal, she could still deliberate with the other jurors. What she did not say of course is that she would ever change her vote. Now that, of course, has been part of the problem.

ZAHN: And you mentioned this is a juror who has been identified in a couple of newspapers. We're going to put on the screen now this sketch of juror number four, apparently making the OK gesture. Well not in this picture I guess. That is not a sketch. That is a picture. Just imagine what the sketch might look like.

Did she, or did she not make that gesture to the jury?

ACKMAN: A lot of people say they saw it. Most of the people who were in the court when she supposedly made it did not see it. What the sketch shows is something that definitely never happened. The sketch shows her standing up in the jury box and making this elaborate gesture.

That never happened. If she made any gesture, she made it very subtly. This makes her look like some kind of a nut and a renegade. And there is no evidence to believe she is either.

TOOBIN: It's worth mentioning though. Earlier before this gesture did or did not happen, there had been notes from the juror saying that there's one juror who's a big problem. She won't deliberate. And then, that juror, the holdout juror, appears to have sent a note that everybody else seems to think he's guilty, but I'm holding out for innocent. So the gesture came on top of these series of very contentious notes.

ZAHN: All right. And then of course, now that juror number four has gotten so much attention, some media outlets have actually printed her name. How will that impact this trial?

TOOBIN: The judge seems to think it's not going to impact the trial, at least at this stage. Certainly, if the defendants are convicted, it will be grounds for appeal. Frankly, I don't think it will be grounds for a successful appeal because, given the enormity of a six-month trial, that one thing probably won't be the thing that swings the jury to guilt, but it's certainly grounds to raise on appeal.

ZAHN: What are the implications of the media publicly announcing the name of a juror?

ACKMAN: Well, the implication is that she'll be coerced into changing her vote, and the judge told her she should not change her vote if she sincerely believes in it.

ZAHN: Just what, from public pressure that rose out of the publicity.

ACKMAN: And from the other jurors now believing that she's some kind of nut because she's been singled out on the front page of the "New York Post." Although this might not be grounds for a successful appeal, there are many other grounds for possibly a successful appeal in the case, including the playing of this Sardinia tape.

ZAHN: We love that picture. This is a vodka spewing -- you can tell us a little bit more.

TOOBIN: The ice sculpture with the vodka coming out of a very personal part of the sculpture.

ZAHN: Of A male's body.

TOOBIN: Right. It's gotten a lot of -- there it is. We see it again, but not the sculpture.

ZAHN: If this ends up in a hung jury, what will it mean for the prosecution?

TOOBIN: They either have to try the case all over again from scratch -- and this is the six-month anniversary of the beginning of this trial -- or try to reach some sort of plea bargain.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, thanks for the update. Appreciate it. Dan Ackman, Jeffrey Toobin.

Saddam Hussein's trial for war crimes, you may think he's guilty, but his defense is ready to prove otherwise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the trial's going to be here, Saddam Hussein, however horrific the crimes of which he's accused, must have competent, capable legal representation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And you think you've seen all of Janet Jackson, not yet. You're going to be seeing plenty more. A huge PR push begins to put her career -- at least attempt to -- back in gear.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A team of 50 U.S. prosecutors and investigators continues to gather evidence in Iraq, laying the groundwork for putting Saddam Hussein on trial. Today we heard from the defense, the man who will represent the former Iraqi dictator, and CNN Senior Legal Analyst is back, Jeffrey Toobin. You could just hear the chorus of Americans out there saying give me a break.

TOOBIN: What kind of lawyer would represent Saddam Hussein?

ZAHN: I know you would not, would you?

TOOBIN: But a French lawyer would represent Saddam Hussein, and that's who it is.

ZAHN: We saw that one coming didn't we?

TOOBIN: The kind of lawyer who would represent him is a Frenchman named Jacques Verges. As for Saddam's trial, the questions are only beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: One thing is for sure about putting a defeated foreign leader on trial. It's as much about politics as law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our concern is this will seem as if it's a process manipulated and led by the United States. It will lack the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) credibility if that's the case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: But there's no single rulebook for how to achieve that credibility. After World War II the victorious allies put leading Nazis on trial inside their home country at Nuremberg.

But the United Nations has based recent war crimes tribunals in neutral countries, putting Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic on trial in the Netherlands. And the accused genocidal killers in Rwanda in Tanzania.

For Panama's Manuel Noriega, it was an American courtroom. And a conviction for drug trafficking. For Saddam Hussein, U.S. has a different idea. No American courtroom, no international prosecutors, just Iraqis trying their former leader.

DAVID PHILLIPS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Saddam's crimes were committed against the Iraqi people. They have a right to face the perpetrator of those crimes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: But is Iraq's justice system, which is just a shell after years of Saddam's reign, up to the task?

PHILLIPS: There are very well qualified Iraqi judges and jurists who are able to take this forward, even if there isn't an Iraqi government in place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: Saddam's new French lawyer already has his own idea of who the real defendant is in the case.

JACQUES VERGES, (through translator): I don't think a trial is possible without the indictment of the Americans. TOOBIN: One thing that's clear about all these kinds of trials is that it's the victors as much as the defendant who end up being judged. Paula.

ZAHN: I can't even imagine how this plays out.

TOOBIN: You know, it's really not about guilt or innocence. I don't think anyone in the world thinks Saddam Hussein is going to be acquitted and sent on his way. But will he be able to embarrass the United States, or will the United States and will the Iraqi people see how awful Saddam Hussein was and justify the invasion?

ZAHN: I guess we'll be answering that question down the road, won't we? Jeffrey Toobin thanks. Tomorrow Bill Hemmer will have more on the Saddam Hussein defense strategy. You can see his interview with Jacques Verges on AMERICAN MORNING at 7:00 a.m. Eastern.

And the pressure rises on Condoleezza Rice to testify about 9/11. Should the worst terror attack ever on American soil be enough to break precedent?

And bright lights help make cities safer, but one of the biggest cities in the U.S. says, if you want to light up a dangerous street, you're going to have to pay for it yourself.

And tomorrow, it's been more than two years since the deadly anthrax attacks. We're going to hear from one of the victims about how her life has changed. And we'll see if the U.S. is any better- prepared if it happens again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now. An update on a story we've been following. Last week we told you about Pamela Martinez, a San Diego woman who is rebuilding her life after serving some time in prison.

Now, more than two years after her release, she faced a possible return to prison because the state said she had been freed 65 days to early. Today California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped in, and Frank Buckley has that part of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The woman in the prison ID photo had changed after seven years in prison and two-and-a-half years of freedom. Pamela Martinez had a job and the respect of co-workers and friends.

PAMELA MARTINEZ, FORMER PRISONER: I've tried so hard to change my life around, and now they're going to reduce me back to poverty status.

BUCKLEY: That was Pamela last week as she and her supporters asked California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for clemency. It was a long shot, but it worked. Governor Schwarzenegger recommends to the California Supreme Court in this letter that her sentence be commuted to time served.

MARTINEZ: The thought that the Governor would actually consider this is like -- what kind of percentage is that?

BUCKLEY: Pamela is taking it one-step at a time. Monday's step, to get a judge to stay her sentence, to keep her out of prison for now. That smile on her face after the judge's ruling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you and good luck.

MARTINEZ: Thank you, your honor.

BUCKLEY (on-camera): The California Supreme Court will now consider if Pamela Martinez has paid her debt to society. If seven years in prison is long enough for stealing a toolbox. If 65 additional days are necessary.

MARTINEZ: It's step by step every day now. But, hey, I won't be sitting in prison tomorrow.

BUCKLEY: Frank Buckley, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Here's another story we've been following. A Beverly Hills production company has bought the movie and books rights to the story of 6-year-old Delamar (ph) Vera (ph). You might remember that Vera (ph) was kidnapped from her crib when she was 10 days old.

Her mother thought she had died in the house fire until she found Vera (ph) at a birthday party back in January. A TV movie about the story may air as soon as this fall.

ZAHN: There is more pressure on the White House to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It is sheer hypocrisy for the White House to encourage Condoleezza Rice to appear on television, to dispute Mr. Clarke's testimony to the Commission, and then to prevent her from presenting her views to the Commission itself.

Many of us in the senate will propose a resolution tomorrow urging that Dr. Rice be permitted will to testify in public under oath. There will be ample opportunity after that for the President to decide whether he himself is willing to testify in public and under oath as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Now to tackle the politics of all this, in Washington, Senator Jeff Sessions, a member of the armed services and Judiciary committees. Here with me now, regular contributor, and "TIME" columnist Joe Klein, along with John Fund of the "Wall Street Journal." Welcome all.

Senator Sessions, I'm going to start with you this evening. You heard what Senator Kennedy had to say. You had a Republican Commission member saying that Condoleezza Rice's decision, or the Administration's decision not to have her publicly testify was a political blunder. Do you see the White House ultimately allowing for her to do just that?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: I don't think so, but we'll see. The President I believe is standing on good sound constitutional principal. When the -- a congressional committee --inquiry commission -- formed in the congress according to the statute that formed it, subordinates a personal member of the President's staff through subpoenaing and compelling them or compelling them to testify. I believe that does implicate separation of powers.

ZAHN: All right.

SESSIONS: The president can't subpoena a senator to come to his office to testify why he voted one way or the other, and neither should the executive branch be so demeaned.

ZAHN: In spite of what Senator Sessions is saying, we understand that there is a compromise potentially in the works by the White House where Condoleezza Rice would testify, not in public, but before the commission, and then that testimony would be shared with the public.

JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": The transcript. The transcript would be shared.

ZAHN: Will that satisfy anyone?

FUND: I don't think it's going to satisfy most critics here because this is largely about politics because Condi Rice's position has been pretty much on the table here, and she spoke...

ZAHN: Do you think it's a legitimate position?

FUND: Given executive privilege and given that Richard Clarke actually invoked executive privilege to refuse to testify before a Senate committee in 1999 -- the Clinton administration took this same legal position with Richard Clarke.

ZAHN: So you're saying it's OK?

FUND: I think -- I think it's politically disastrous, but it's absolutely, constitutionally appropriate.

ZAHN: Tell us more about the politics of this and what's at stake.

JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: It's politically disastrous, as John just said. I mean I think we're kind of making a mountain out of a hill, if not a molehill. Everybody pretty much knows what Condi Rice would testify to. There would be some uncomfortable moments in fielding questions with -- from members of the commission, but we know the...

ZAHN: But they've already retracted some of the statements she has made publicly...

KLEIN: But -- but the...

ZAHN: ... saying that, in fact, Richard Clarke was at some of the meetings that they haven't acknowledged he wasn't at.

KLEIN: Right, but those were...

ZAHN: The story has changed.

KLEIN: But those are at the periphery. We know the basic elements of the Bush story, and we know that Clarke's version of the Bush administration's actions hold up very well, even if he kind of gilded the lily about the Clinton administration some.

In this case, it really is stupid politically because they're looking like they're hiding something.

ZAHN: Do you think they are?

KLEIN: I don't think so. I don't think that they're hiding anything except for their own embarrassment.

FUND: Although having said that, the "Newsweek" poll, which is out today, asked people: Should she testify in public? Forty-seven percent said yes. Forty-nine percent said either in private or it makes no difference. So I don't know whether this changes many minds. It just looks bad.

ZAHN: And, Senator Sessions, there...

SESSIONS: I would agree.

ZAHN: I want to share with you a poll -- and let you chime in here -- from CNN/"USA Today" basically asking people who they trust more, Richard Clarke's testimony or the president's.

And here are what the numbers look like. The Bush administration, 46 percent. Richard Clarke, 44 percent. A 3 percent sampling margin of error there.

In the end, what do you think the impact of Richard Clarke's testimony will have on the general election?

SESSIONS: I don't believe it will have much impact at all. Everybody knows what happened. Richard Clarke said he wanted to see some toughening of the strategy. President Bush certainly agreed with that.

In September -- before September 11, the policy that the staff persons had signed off on and was being sent to the president agreed with everything Richard Clarke asked for and more, to eliminate al Qaeda. And President Bush's actions since has shown he is a man of courage and decisive leadership, and I don't think there's any dispute about that, and really Clarke has said nothing that undermines the integrity of President Bush.

ZAHN: It's interesting. As these poll numbers...

KLEIN: It's not a question of integrity, I don't think. I think it's a question of the president's judgment. I mean the president has said to Bob Woodward that he didn't -- he didn't understand the urgency of the al Qaeda threat.

Dick Clarke, obnoxious guy, you know, an Old Testament prophet, was trying, just as he had in the Clinton administration, to get the Bush administration interested in this. He didn't succeed. In fact, his role in the government was reduced somewhat, which made him even more angry.

ZAHN: Let's jump ahead...

SESSIONS: Well, but he did...

ZAHN: ... to another statistic here, gentlemen.

SESSIONS: ... get what he wanted in his policy by -- before September 11.

KLEIN: He did. Well, a week before September 11, Senator.

SESSIONS: Yes.

KLEIN: Not -- and it should have been done months and months before that.

SESSIONS: Well, Clinton had eight years to do it, and he never did it...

KLEIN: Absolutely. You're absolutely...

SESSIONS: ... and Clarke was there.

KLEIN: You're absolutely right.

ZAHN: All right. You know what? Before I let all three of you go, I want to get one more Gallup poll sample up here on the screen. It's the very last one we have for you tonight.

When folks were asked if the president misled the public for political reasons, here were the numbers. Yes, 53 percent. No, 44 percent.

How does the president change these numbers, John Fund?

FUND: By winning the war on terrorism and by showing...

ZAHN: With what? The number of attacks post-9/11 higher than pre-9/11...

FUND: Excuse me. Libya...

ZAHN: ... over a 30-month period?

FUND: ... is -- Libya is off the list of terror nations, North Korea is back at the negotiating table, and Iran is now cooperating with international arms inspectors. Those are three countries that were on the terror list that we're now making progress towards.

KLEIN: I think...

ZAHN: Final word, Joe Klein?

KLEIN: I think a lot of this is going -- these numbers are going to depend on what happens in Iraq between now and the election. If things don't go well, people will not trust the president. If they do go well, they'll give him credit for the things that have happened.

ZAHN: Senator Sessions.

SESSIONS: The president is courageous and determined. He's leading as a good leader should. I believe he'll be successful, will continue to be successful.

We've avoided another attack on the homeland since September 11, something I frankly did not think we would have been able to do by now. I'm sure they'll attempt to attack again before the election, hoping to have the same success they had in Spain. I don't believe it will be -- will happen.

I think the American people are going to keep their poise and to elect -- reelect a great leader in the war against terrorism.

ZAHN: We'll be counting those numbers carefully, won't we, in November?

SESSIONS: Right.

ZAHN: Senator Sessions, John Fund, Joe Klein, thanks so much.

Some Los Angeles residents are going to be left in the dark unless they can afford to pay for their own streetlights.

And you can find out how much your neighbors give to a presidential campaign, and they can find out about you. It's all on the web, and it's raising a lot of questions about your privacy.

And a survey asks Americans would you rather have more sex or more money. Think carefully now.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

THE BEATLES: The best things in life are free / But you can keep them for the birds and bees / Now give me money

(END AUDIO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

(20:38)

ZAHN: It may be a while before some Los Angeles neighborhoods see the light. City officials have decided to allow some parts of L.A. to remain without streetlights, unless the people who live there actually pay for them. The cost: $1,600 per home plus maintenance charges.

L.A. is one of the few cities that doesn't automatically provide streetlights, and it faces a $300 million budget deficit. Is this fair to low-income residents, and is this the best way to balance the budget?

We're pitting a community activist versus an L.A. lawmaker. Joining us now from L.A., Oscar Mendoza and L.A. City councilmember Tony Cardenas.

Welcome.

TONY CARDENAS, L.A. CITY COUNCILMEMBER: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: So tell me -- let's talk about the statistics here. You've got one-third of L.A. without decent streetlighting. If you're poor and living in a crime-ridden area, how is it that you're expected to come up with the $1,600?

CARDENAS: Well, the City of Los Angeles does things a little bit backwards. Most big cities across the country don't do it this way. But they assess each property owner, whether it be a business or a residence.

And you're absolutely right. The average resident's home gets assessed about $1,600, so they can put up the lights, et cetera, and then about 55 bucks a year for the ongoing maintenance and the electricity cost to have those lights on every night.

ZAHN: So, Tony, here's what I want to know. So, if you have some of the highest crime rates in the areas where people do not have lighting, how can the city not afford to provide it?

CARDENAS: You're absolutely right. It is an issue of public safety, but it's up to each individual property owner.

In California, we have Proposition 218 which means that we cannot assess these property owners unless they vote for it themselves. So it's about educating the public, getting them to make the true connection between public safety and lighting and bettering their community.

And then it's up to them whether they want to vote for it and have it paid for by their -- through their property taxes. ZAHN: Oscar, you see this quite differently. You see this as a bit of a ruse because you think that the city actually has funds they could tap to pay for these lights.

OSCAR MENDOZA, COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: Absolutely. There is no reason why the constituents in the City of Los Angeles have to pay for these streetlights.

The residents in the City of Los Angeles are being overtaxed, and our elected officials are not disclosing where the funds are being allocated. I think it's only fair that, until they disclose where the funds are allocated, then they approach the constituency on how and what solution we can have to give streetlights to our communities.

ZAHN: So, Tony, basically, would you like to see a situation where they would find out where the wealthier sections of the city are and make those folks foot the bill?

CARDENAS: Well, actually, what we have in California is the lighting has been determined in California that it's a direct benefit. That means somebody across town can't pay for the light in front of your house. They do, in fact, pay for the light in front of their house, if they have one. If they don't have any lights in front of their house, then they're not paying assessment for streetlighting.

ZAHN: And the bottom line, Oscar, you feel that, once again, the poor of the city are getting ripped off here?

MENDOZA: The poor are being ripped off here, Paula. The minute the city officials do not disclose where the funds are being allocated, they're just, you know, spinning the wheels here.

What needs to be done here is be implementing where the funds go and be direct with the constituents so we can have an opportunity and find out where these funds are going.

ZAHN: A controversy that we will be following. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Oscar Mendoza, Tony Cardenas.

CARDENAS: Thank you very much.

MENDOZA: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, a new Web site makes it simple to pry into your neighbor's past campaign donations. You can even find out how much they gave.

And a major effort to jump-start Janet Jackson's career. We're going to look at the plan and its chances for success.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET JACKSON, SINGER: You're like a maze I can't get through / Should I go left / Should I go right...

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Well, thanks to a new Web site, it's pretty easy to find out which candidate your neighbor is giving money to this election year. With the click of a mouse, you can find their name, address, occupation, and the amount they've contributed.

Couple of examples. We've learned a lot about John Kerry's neighbors in Ketchum, Idaho. Fifty-two names are listed as contributors to his campaign, while 22 gave to the president, netting the Bush camp more cash. And we know which of the president's neighbors in Crawford, Texas, gave to his campaign and how much. We also know one preferred Democrat John Edwards. Kerry supporters were harder to find. They were a few towns away.

All this information is listed on Fundrace.org. And if you've ever made a campaign donation, there's a pretty good chance you're there, too. Is this stripping you of your privacy?

Let's ask the Jonah Peretti of Eyebeam, the organization that runs the Fundrace Web site, and Justin Page of eprivex.com, the company that actually tries to keep its clients' names off the Internet.

I'm surprised you two are sitting next to each other.

So what right does anybody have to get that information on their neighbors, who they voted -- not necessarily who they voted for, but who they gave money to and how much.

JONAH PERETTI, R&D DIRECTOR, EYEBEAM: Well, actually, all that information comes from a government Web site, FEC Web site, and it -- as a matter of law, it has to be disclosed to the public because the public has a right to know where money is coming from in politics.

And so we were -- my collaborator, Michael Fruman (ph) -- we both work at an organization called Eyebeam. We were thinking is there a creative way we can use this information to do something to get the public involved in the election?

And so we said, OK, let's compare...

ZAHN: What, get them involved by snooping on each other?

PERETTI: Get them involved by letting -- connecting it to something that they know, like the neighborhood they live in, so they can say, you know, here in Manhattan, people can say, well, is the -- is the Upper East Side or the Upper West Side more liberal?

You know, people can connect to things that they can relate to, the places where they go, the people they know, and so it was a way to get people involved in being able to do their own investigations with this public data.

ZAHN: Do you see it as more dangerous than this? You hear that the government actually has this information, and Jonah makes the argument it's legal to access. So what...

JUSTIN PAGE, EPRIVEX.COM: Well, it's...

ZAHN: What problem do you have with it?

PAGE: It's sort of a combination of both the information which is available, you know, by -- under law and the advent of the Internet. I think -- you know, I'm not a legislator, but I think the original intent of making records -- donation records public was so that we know who's -- you know, who's giving money to who, people we interact with and so forth.

ZAHN: Right, but all Jonah's doing is taking that list that's already public and making it easier for you to access on the Internet. Do you...

PERETTI: That's right.

ZAHN: Do you -- are you personally opposed to that? Are you worried about the privacy of people whose names might wind up on the Web site?

PAGE: I'm worried about the people on the list who are clients of mine, and -- but they -- those -- the same people would also know that, if you don't want to be in the public record in that regard, in the federal election sense of the word, don't make a campaign contribution.

ZAHN: Well, what are these people afraid of? Are they afraid of identity theft? What's the issue here?

PAGE: There's a host of down sides of presenting information. The State of New Jersey just did a wholesale retraction of their state court system because of unintended effects, and that's the sort of thing that sites like Jonah's -- and there are plenty of sites out there, by the way, that are selling far more -- that are selling data -- and it's -- you know, it's far more insidious. This is sort of an example of how information can be used.

ZAHN: Do you acknowledge that there is a risk here for people whose names end up on this Web site?

PERETTI: Well, I think it's really important for people to understand that, if they give to a political campaign, it means that the contribution will be part of the public record, and so...

ZAHN: All right, but you -- then you make the argument that you want people, through the access they get on the Internet, to be involved in the election and know what's going on in their neighborhood. Isn't that contradictory, what you're saying?

PERETTI: Well, there's no...

ZAHN: Aren't you telling them don't give money to a campaign if you don't want to find your name on a Web site?

PERETTI: Well, there's no point in having public information unless ordinary people can access it.

So the idea is if this information is available, we don't want wealthy people who can pay for analysts or just political campaigns or the government to have access to it. We want anyone to have access to it.

And so when this information is provided, we -- we're just creating a way for people to browse it, to look through it, to understand it.

ZAHN: All right. But your critics say you're doing this because you just need attention. You were attached to the highly controversial Web site blackpeopleloveus.com.

PERETTI: Right.

ZAHN: Is this just your 15 minutes of fame you're going after here?

PERETTI: It's not 15 minutes of fame. We do a series of projects. I work for Eyebeam, which is an organization in New York that is focused on using technology creatively and is focused on doing art projects and doing things that make people think.

So we do like to do provocative work, but we do provocative work because it matters and it gets people excited and engaged and makes them think about the world.

ZAHN: And this has made you think, hasn't it, sir?

PAGE: Well, it makes me think, and I think that it's going to start a whole -- a change in the way people think about privacy. You know, we can't protect privacy by saying to Jonah don't do that Web site...

ZAHN: Sure.

PAGE: ... and we sort of have to take a wholesale look at privacy as a commodity for the, you know, digital revolution.

ZAHN: Justin Page, Jonah Peretti, thanks.

PAGE: Thank you.

PERETTI: Thank you.

ZAHN: We will be googling both of you.

PERETTI: All right. You too.

ZAHN: That's, of course, if you gave money to a campaign.

Would you rather spend more time in the bedroom or at the bank? A new survey sheds some light on America's most burning desire. Yes, indeed.

And is Janet Jackson the eve of a career comeback after the Super Bowl fiasco? We'll get the view inside the music biz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

(20:53)

ZAHN: OK. Pick one. More sex or more money? If you're like two-thirds of Americans in a new survey, you picked money. We're giving the survey the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five direct answers, straight and to the point.

It was done by Blum & Wepburn (ph) Associates for Robert Kiasaki, bestselling author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." He joins us now from Phoenix.

Good to see you.

ROBERT KIASAKI, "RICH DAD, POOR DAD" AUTHOR: Thanks for having me on your program.

ZAHN: Oh, our pleasure.

Straight to the chase here. Question number one. Let me get this straight. You're telling me that Americans prefer money over sex?

KIASAKI: Well, my rich dad used to say that the two most lied- about subjects was sex and money. Everybody claimed to have more than they're really getting. So we decided to do a little survey on the subject to find out once and for all.

ZAHN: We're going to take a look at those results now. The numbers showing men, 62 percent of them prefer money over sex. Women, 72 percent. Question number two: Do you think 30 years ago, for example, money would have had this kind of lead over sex?

KIASAKI: No. I think the world has changed tremendously in the last 30 years. You know, for example, there's less job security. Thirty years ago, we had company pensions. Now we have 401(k)s.

And as far as the women go, today, 47 percent of all women over 50 are single. So they don't -- so the divorce rate is so high, many more women have to take care of themselves as they age.

ZAHN: So question number three: How does this compare to other cultures?

KIASAKI: Well, I have the benefit of traveling throughout the world, and, as a culture, I would say not only Americans are very hardworking, but they're more fixated on accumulating money than other cultures around the world, and that's kind of a worry.

ZAHN: So, basically, you're suggesting that because people are such workaholics, they simply lost their appetite for sex, or they're having bad sex? KIASAKI: Well, I think what's happening is both -- you know, before, only the men worked. Now men and women work. so what we have is a culture of two people coming home so tired, they can't have sex.

ZAHN: That's a problem, isn't it?

KIASAKI: Yes. And -- and, you know, it affects the children and our culture. That -- it is a concern.

ZAHN: All right. Question number five then: In the end, does the survey basically tell us we're worrying too much about our future?

KIASAKI: Well, I think there is a big concern about money, given Social Security, 401(k)s, and Medicare. But I think what's more telling or more critical to human beings is not so much money but being deeply in debt and having a nation so deeply in debt. I think that's unhealthy. That's why I propose a little financial education in school and maybe less sex education in school, and we might have a healthier world.

ZAHN: Going to throw in a bonus round here. Are you a money guy or a sex guy, Robert? Come clean.

KIASAKI: Well, when I was younger, sex was all I had on my mind. I didn't have any money. Now that I get older, you know, Viagra costs money, so it does take money.

ZAHN: Oh, problems, problems, problems, wherever you look. They abound.

Robert Kiasaki...

KIASAKI: Thank you.

ZAHN: ... thanks for calling our attention to this survey.

KIASAKI: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: You know that I need you...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, what you were listening to was from the new CD. Janet Jackson hopes to get her career back on track after the picture you're looking at now, her Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. The album hits stores tomorrow, and her publicity blitz has already begun, but will she be able to put that other stuff behind her?

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: I wasn't going to read there. What was that, Toure? Put her what? Her breast behind her? Give me a break.

TOURE, "ROLLING STONE": Is that so hard? ZAHN: Give me a break.

So is she going to revive her career with this album?

TOURE: Yes, yes. We were way too hard on her. People under 35 feel that. We feel a sympathy for her. We're not angry with her. We feel like this post-Janet paranoia that's come up is too much. It's inappropriate. She's been wrongfully overpunished, and we're ready to give her a chance.

And if she gives us good music, which she has -- it's not the best album of her career, but it's a good album. There's some hits. The first single was a bad choice, but...

ZAHN: So who in the end is punishing her? The folks who wouldn't have bought her albums to begin with?

TOURE: Well, her -- I think so. I think that's exactly right. The people who wouldn't have bought a Janet album before are the most mad, and the people who will buy a Janet album are like what was really the big deal there.

ZAHN: All right. Now MTV, though, is getting back at her, right, because if you look...

TOURE: We don't know.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about how she's getting air play. She's getting on VH1. And what else is she getting play on?

TOURE: On BET.

ZAHN: BET. But noticeably absent from MTV.

TOURE: I don't want to be...

ZAHN: There's a reason for that.

TOURE: I don't want to make too much out of this. MTV sometimes is slower to put black artists on the channel. VH1 is more receptive to -- I don't want to call her an older artist.

But she is older than Britney Spears, older than Beyonce. You know, she's not a brand-new artist. So let's not make too much out of MTV being slow to play the video. I don't know -- I don't want to yet say it's punishment.

ZAHN: Racy lyrics on this new album. Janet has always been known to sort of press the envelope. Is this going to help her or hurt her?

TOURE: Well, I mean this is what we expect from her. She's sexual but tasteful most of the time. You know, she knows how to have fun with it and be a little naive and be a little sexual.

And, see, the big problem is for Justin. Justin has lost a lot. Justin was the white guy who could hang out with the black people and be on the cover of "Vibe," and it's cool we accept him. But he has the...

ZAHN: And then he -- I apologize...

TOURE: ... complexion for the protection. He ran away and blamed it all on Janet and abandoned her, and black people are not feeling Justin now. He lost his ghetto pass, and he's going to have long-term problems.

ZAHN: All right. Let's talk a little bit more to the extent to which she's going to be affected by Michael Jackson, her brother's problems?

TOURE: Janet has always been like a separate island from the rest of the Jacksons. So you don't even really think of them as the same. She's the one normal Jackson, always has been. So you don't -- it's not going to impact her.

ZAHN: So you really don't believe the CD buying club associates her brother's controversy with her career in any way?

TOURE: No, no. Janet is seen as the normal one. She's off to the side. Jermaine, Tito, Randy -- they have problems. Joe, Daddy, he has problems. But Janet is separate, normal. She's never even had a controversy before.

ZAHN: And does the CD really have to fly? Is this really make- or-break week for Janet Jackson?

TOURE: I wouldn't say make-or-break week. It's not like a movie where you have to blow the first week or you're dead. But I mean like, you know, we need to see some good videos, some good singles, get some good numbers. But she's far from dead. It's...

ZAHN: So the breast is behind you?

TOURE: I think so. Why can't we forgive her?

ZAHN: That's the worst pun of the evening, Toure. Thanks so much for joining us. That wraps it up for all of us tonight here.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.

END

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


Aired March 29, 2004 - 20:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN HOST, PAULA ZAHN NOW: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paula Zahn. It's a brand new week here, Monday March 29, 2004.
A growing number of terrorist bombings after 9/11. From Bali to Baghdad. From the Middle East to Madrid. As the death toll rises, is the war on terror losing ground?

Think you keep your politics a secret? Think again. If you have given money to a campaign, it's all on this web site for everyone to see. You and all your neighbors. Who gave how much, and to whom. Whatever happened to privacy?

Tonight the Janet Jackson publicity machine shifts into high gear. Is it to late to reinvent herself?

All of that ahead tonight. But first here are some of the headlines you need to know right now. Starting today, a new round in the battle over abortion right. Three U.S. district courts are hearing challenges to a federal ban on a certain type of late term abortion.

President Bush had signed the ban into law last November. But it has not been enforced because of the court proceedings. Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena joins us now live from Washington with more. Good evening, Kelli.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Paula. Abortion rights advocates argued in court that the partial birth abortion ban act is unconstitutional. They say it lacks an exception that would allow the procedure to protect a woman's health, and they say the language is so vague that it could be applied to a wide range of procedures.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUISE MELLING, ACLU: The ban is broader. The ban is not limited in any way to a single procedure, and it reaches procedures performed at the very beginning of the second trimester, as early as 13 weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: But supporters of the ban say that it applies to a very specific procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. And they say they've seen no proof to show the procedure is ever medically necessary, which is an important point because the Supreme Court struck down a similar law almost four years ago for not having an exception for a woman's health.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Congress specifically looked at the medical necessity issue, and is this procedure medically necessary? After eight years of hearings and fact-finding, the congress made the decision that it was not.

ARENA: As you said, the battle is being fought in three courts in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Regardless of the outcome, both sides expect the cases to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The stakes are high for both sides. If the ban is upheld, this would be the first federal limit on abortion since Roe versus Wade. Paula.

ZAHN: Kelli Arena thanks so much for the update.

And a small victory for opponents of same-sex marriages. Massachusetts lawmakers have voted in favor of an amendment that would outlaw same-sex weddings but would allow civil unions.

The measure still must be approved by a newly elected legislature next year before voters can have a say then in 2006. The state Supreme Court had ordered the commonwealth to allow same-sex weddings by May, but Governor Mitt Romney says he will ask for a delay.

In focus tonight, U.S. progress on the war in terror and the increasing number of Al-Qaeda attacks, is America really safer now than before 9/11? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has been defending the Administration's anti-terror policy in the wake of last week's 9/11 Commission hearings.

And the accusations made by former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke. Dr. Rice did not testify under oath before the Commission, but last night on national TV, she was asked to explain the rise in terror strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We are being attacked by them because they know that we're at war with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: More people died on 9/11 than all of Al-Qaeda's other attacks combined, but since then, the group has carried out more attacks than ever before.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE CORRESPONDENT: In the 30 months before September 11, the assault on the USS Cole was the only successful Al- Qaeda plot. In the 30 months since 9/11, it is easy to lose track of all the attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda. April 2002, saw the first. More than 20 people were killed when a truck bomb hit a synagogue in Tunisia.

Later that year, bombs at nightclubs in Bali killed more than 200. In Kenya, 13 died at a hotel. And an airliner barely missed being hit by shoulder-fired missiles. In 2003, the pace quickened. Casablanca, May. Riyadh that same month. Jakarta, August. Turkey, November.

The U.S. government says that two-thirds of known Al-Qaeda leadership has been taken out of action. Why hasn't this slowed the network down? Analysts believe one factor is that Al-Qaeda is changing, and more plots are now mounted at a local level.

Perhaps evidence of this, 2004 has already seen 190 killed and more than 1,800 injured in Spain. That raises to more than 500 the number of deaths Al-Qaeda has been implicated in since September 11, 2001.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: We should point out, of course, that al-Qaeda was carrying out attacks long before the one on the USS Cole. And the biggest attack before 9/11, 224 people died at the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998.

So just how successful has the U.S. been in the war on terror? Let's debate that now. Joining us from Washington, our regular contributor, Former Pentagon Spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, and Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman, a principal of the Albright Group, an International Advisory firm in Washington. Welcome to you both.

Tory and Wendy, I think you both have to acknowledge that Americans are shocked when they hear this statistic that there have been more attacks by al-Qaeda post-9/11 than there were before. Tory, how can you put a positive spin on this?

VICTORIA CLARKE, FMR. PENTAGON SPOKESWOMAN, WASHINGTON D.C.: It's not about spin; it's about people's lives. If you look at what happened before September 11, there were quite a few al-Qaeda attacks.

There was the World Trade Center bombing. There were the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the attack on the "Cole," the attack on Cobar Towers. There were other attacks and deaths that probably should be attributed to al-Qaeda but we didn't know at the time.

ZAHN: Aren't you troubled the numbers have gone up since September 11?

CLARKE: I'm terribly troubled at every attack and every loss of life. But the facts are that we finally are dealing with a problem that has been around for a long time. Probably 10, 12 years or more, and we're finally dealing with it, and we're addressing it.

ZAHN: Ambassador, the Administration making the argument they have taken out two-thirds of the al-Qaeda leadership. Do you think we are any safer today given these numbers? AMB. WENDY R. SHERMAN, THE ALBRIGHT GROUP, WASHINGTON D.C.: I think we don't know the answer to that question, but I think we have to be concerned about the statistics you just laid out.

We have to be concerned with what the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said just a few days ago; when he said that Iraq has become a goldmine for Jihadists. That we have, in fact, opened up a Pandora's Box in going to war in Iraq.

Everyone would agree it's better that Saddam Hussein is gone. The world is better for Saddam Hussein having been gone. But have we taken our eye off the ball? Has the Administration taken its eye off the ball against the war on terrorism? Now do we have a hydra-headed terrorist organization and organizations that we have to fight around the world?

ZAHN: What about that threat, Tory? You've heard even some Republicans argue that the United States made a tactical error by moving all those troops into Iraq and basically ignoring Afghanistan.

CLARKE: Well, not ignoring it at all. We've actually had a very, very successful effort in Afghanistan. I go back to something Ambassador Sherman said about Iraq now being a Pandora's Box. Think about what it was before we and many, many other countries made the decision to invade Iraq.

It was a country that invaded and threatened its neighbors, firing ballistic missiles into them four times. It was a country that had violated more than a decade of U.N. Resolutions. There was a living, acting, breathing Pandora's Box right in front of us, and we finally dealt with it.

ZAHN: I don't think that Wendy doubts that. I think the point she is making, that by reallocating resources, you have in fact hurt your efforts of completely taking out al-Qaeda, particularly in Afghanistan.

CLARKE: Sure. It would be very nice if we could deal with the global war on terror, of which Afghanistan's a part, of which Iraq was a part, in a linear fashion. But that's not reality. You have to deal with different threats and different opportunities simultaneously. And that's where the smart planning and the thinking takes place.

ZAHN: Wendy, do you believe we are on the path to winning the war on terrorism?

SHERMAN: I hope we are on the path to winning a war against terrorism because it would be horrible for all of us and for all of our children if we were not. But I do think that we have not allocated resources appropriately. I do think we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

So now it's virtually out of control. And the other thing that's happened is the resentment towards the United States has only increased. The pew (ph) global (ph) attitudes (ph) project (ph) found out that the resentment has only grown towards America.

And they have found out that in the Muslim world there is enormous support for suicide bombs against American and Western interests in Iraq. It's a multiple strategy, but it's not the one that we currently have on the boards.

ZAHN: Tory, you get the last word, and a brief one at that. Do you concede we are more hated today as a nation than ever before?

CLARKE: No. I don't. I just don't concede that at all because, if you look at the facts and you look at where people put their actions and their deeds, not their words, you have some 90 nations that are working with us in the global war on terror. You have about five dozen countries that supported us and helped us in the invasion of Iraq. You have over 30 countries that have troops in there now. So I don't concede that.

ZAHN: We have to leave it there, you two. Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Victoria Clarke. Thanks very much.

Meanwhile, high living former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, his trial endures a stubborn juror and calls for a mistrial.

Some 9/11 families embraced Richard Clarke. We're going to tell you why others are up in arms about him now.

And another sign of L.A.'s cash crunch. Manhole covers are still free, but streetlights are optional.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: When former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski walked into court today, he might have had a hope that it would all be over by the end of the day. Kozlowski, of course, is accused of helping loot his company of $600 million living large on the money, as the videotape played in court showed. A typical birthday party there.

Over the weekend, there was a talk of a mistrial after notes from the jury described a hostile deadlock. And then there was the reported OK signal one juror apparently made to the defense.

Today the judge denied a mistrial motion and sent the jury back to work. Joining us now, Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, and Dan Ackman, Senior columnist with Forbes.com who was in court today. Welcome. So the judge refused the mistrial. Why?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Because the judge interviewed the juror and spoke to her about her bizarre gesture that she apparently made.

ZAHN: Apparently?

TOOBIN: Well, apparently. But then also about the experience of being identified in the "New York Post" and I believe on the "Wall Street Journal's" web site. Did that affect her? Did the fact that she's now been identified in public as the juror who's allegedly slowing this trial down; did that affect her ability to be fair?

The judge said no. As far as he could tell, this juror could deliberate fairly. Back to work they went, and they seemed to have a productive day deliberating.

ZAHN: Let's pick up on a couple of themes Jeffrey talked about. For one, the judge meeting with juror number four, and then coming out and explaining in open court what happened in that conversation. Share that to us.

DAN ACKMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, FORBES.COM: The judge said the juror said a lot of things, most of which he wouldn't repeat in court. But the juror also said that all things being equal, she could still deliberate with the other jurors. What she did not say of course is that she would ever change her vote. Now that, of course, has been part of the problem.

ZAHN: And you mentioned this is a juror who has been identified in a couple of newspapers. We're going to put on the screen now this sketch of juror number four, apparently making the OK gesture. Well not in this picture I guess. That is not a sketch. That is a picture. Just imagine what the sketch might look like.

Did she, or did she not make that gesture to the jury?

ACKMAN: A lot of people say they saw it. Most of the people who were in the court when she supposedly made it did not see it. What the sketch shows is something that definitely never happened. The sketch shows her standing up in the jury box and making this elaborate gesture.

That never happened. If she made any gesture, she made it very subtly. This makes her look like some kind of a nut and a renegade. And there is no evidence to believe she is either.

TOOBIN: It's worth mentioning though. Earlier before this gesture did or did not happen, there had been notes from the juror saying that there's one juror who's a big problem. She won't deliberate. And then, that juror, the holdout juror, appears to have sent a note that everybody else seems to think he's guilty, but I'm holding out for innocent. So the gesture came on top of these series of very contentious notes.

ZAHN: All right. And then of course, now that juror number four has gotten so much attention, some media outlets have actually printed her name. How will that impact this trial?

TOOBIN: The judge seems to think it's not going to impact the trial, at least at this stage. Certainly, if the defendants are convicted, it will be grounds for appeal. Frankly, I don't think it will be grounds for a successful appeal because, given the enormity of a six-month trial, that one thing probably won't be the thing that swings the jury to guilt, but it's certainly grounds to raise on appeal.

ZAHN: What are the implications of the media publicly announcing the name of a juror?

ACKMAN: Well, the implication is that she'll be coerced into changing her vote, and the judge told her she should not change her vote if she sincerely believes in it.

ZAHN: Just what, from public pressure that rose out of the publicity.

ACKMAN: And from the other jurors now believing that she's some kind of nut because she's been singled out on the front page of the "New York Post." Although this might not be grounds for a successful appeal, there are many other grounds for possibly a successful appeal in the case, including the playing of this Sardinia tape.

ZAHN: We love that picture. This is a vodka spewing -- you can tell us a little bit more.

TOOBIN: The ice sculpture with the vodka coming out of a very personal part of the sculpture.

ZAHN: Of A male's body.

TOOBIN: Right. It's gotten a lot of -- there it is. We see it again, but not the sculpture.

ZAHN: If this ends up in a hung jury, what will it mean for the prosecution?

TOOBIN: They either have to try the case all over again from scratch -- and this is the six-month anniversary of the beginning of this trial -- or try to reach some sort of plea bargain.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, thanks for the update. Appreciate it. Dan Ackman, Jeffrey Toobin.

Saddam Hussein's trial for war crimes, you may think he's guilty, but his defense is ready to prove otherwise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the trial's going to be here, Saddam Hussein, however horrific the crimes of which he's accused, must have competent, capable legal representation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And you think you've seen all of Janet Jackson, not yet. You're going to be seeing plenty more. A huge PR push begins to put her career -- at least attempt to -- back in gear.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: A team of 50 U.S. prosecutors and investigators continues to gather evidence in Iraq, laying the groundwork for putting Saddam Hussein on trial. Today we heard from the defense, the man who will represent the former Iraqi dictator, and CNN Senior Legal Analyst is back, Jeffrey Toobin. You could just hear the chorus of Americans out there saying give me a break.

TOOBIN: What kind of lawyer would represent Saddam Hussein?

ZAHN: I know you would not, would you?

TOOBIN: But a French lawyer would represent Saddam Hussein, and that's who it is.

ZAHN: We saw that one coming didn't we?

TOOBIN: The kind of lawyer who would represent him is a Frenchman named Jacques Verges. As for Saddam's trial, the questions are only beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: One thing is for sure about putting a defeated foreign leader on trial. It's as much about politics as law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our concern is this will seem as if it's a process manipulated and led by the United States. It will lack the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) credibility if that's the case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: But there's no single rulebook for how to achieve that credibility. After World War II the victorious allies put leading Nazis on trial inside their home country at Nuremberg.

But the United Nations has based recent war crimes tribunals in neutral countries, putting Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic on trial in the Netherlands. And the accused genocidal killers in Rwanda in Tanzania.

For Panama's Manuel Noriega, it was an American courtroom. And a conviction for drug trafficking. For Saddam Hussein, U.S. has a different idea. No American courtroom, no international prosecutors, just Iraqis trying their former leader.

DAVID PHILLIPS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Saddam's crimes were committed against the Iraqi people. They have a right to face the perpetrator of those crimes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: But is Iraq's justice system, which is just a shell after years of Saddam's reign, up to the task?

PHILLIPS: There are very well qualified Iraqi judges and jurists who are able to take this forward, even if there isn't an Iraqi government in place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE CORRESPONDENT: Saddam's new French lawyer already has his own idea of who the real defendant is in the case.

JACQUES VERGES, (through translator): I don't think a trial is possible without the indictment of the Americans. TOOBIN: One thing that's clear about all these kinds of trials is that it's the victors as much as the defendant who end up being judged. Paula.

ZAHN: I can't even imagine how this plays out.

TOOBIN: You know, it's really not about guilt or innocence. I don't think anyone in the world thinks Saddam Hussein is going to be acquitted and sent on his way. But will he be able to embarrass the United States, or will the United States and will the Iraqi people see how awful Saddam Hussein was and justify the invasion?

ZAHN: I guess we'll be answering that question down the road, won't we? Jeffrey Toobin thanks. Tomorrow Bill Hemmer will have more on the Saddam Hussein defense strategy. You can see his interview with Jacques Verges on AMERICAN MORNING at 7:00 a.m. Eastern.

And the pressure rises on Condoleezza Rice to testify about 9/11. Should the worst terror attack ever on American soil be enough to break precedent?

And bright lights help make cities safer, but one of the biggest cities in the U.S. says, if you want to light up a dangerous street, you're going to have to pay for it yourself.

And tomorrow, it's been more than two years since the deadly anthrax attacks. We're going to hear from one of the victims about how her life has changed. And we'll see if the U.S. is any better- prepared if it happens again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now. An update on a story we've been following. Last week we told you about Pamela Martinez, a San Diego woman who is rebuilding her life after serving some time in prison.

Now, more than two years after her release, she faced a possible return to prison because the state said she had been freed 65 days to early. Today California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped in, and Frank Buckley has that part of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The woman in the prison ID photo had changed after seven years in prison and two-and-a-half years of freedom. Pamela Martinez had a job and the respect of co-workers and friends.

PAMELA MARTINEZ, FORMER PRISONER: I've tried so hard to change my life around, and now they're going to reduce me back to poverty status.

BUCKLEY: That was Pamela last week as she and her supporters asked California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for clemency. It was a long shot, but it worked. Governor Schwarzenegger recommends to the California Supreme Court in this letter that her sentence be commuted to time served.

MARTINEZ: The thought that the Governor would actually consider this is like -- what kind of percentage is that?

BUCKLEY: Pamela is taking it one-step at a time. Monday's step, to get a judge to stay her sentence, to keep her out of prison for now. That smile on her face after the judge's ruling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you and good luck.

MARTINEZ: Thank you, your honor.

BUCKLEY (on-camera): The California Supreme Court will now consider if Pamela Martinez has paid her debt to society. If seven years in prison is long enough for stealing a toolbox. If 65 additional days are necessary.

MARTINEZ: It's step by step every day now. But, hey, I won't be sitting in prison tomorrow.

BUCKLEY: Frank Buckley, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Here's another story we've been following. A Beverly Hills production company has bought the movie and books rights to the story of 6-year-old Delamar (ph) Vera (ph). You might remember that Vera (ph) was kidnapped from her crib when she was 10 days old.

Her mother thought she had died in the house fire until she found Vera (ph) at a birthday party back in January. A TV movie about the story may air as soon as this fall.

ZAHN: There is more pressure on the White House to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: It is sheer hypocrisy for the White House to encourage Condoleezza Rice to appear on television, to dispute Mr. Clarke's testimony to the Commission, and then to prevent her from presenting her views to the Commission itself.

Many of us in the senate will propose a resolution tomorrow urging that Dr. Rice be permitted will to testify in public under oath. There will be ample opportunity after that for the President to decide whether he himself is willing to testify in public and under oath as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Now to tackle the politics of all this, in Washington, Senator Jeff Sessions, a member of the armed services and Judiciary committees. Here with me now, regular contributor, and "TIME" columnist Joe Klein, along with John Fund of the "Wall Street Journal." Welcome all.

Senator Sessions, I'm going to start with you this evening. You heard what Senator Kennedy had to say. You had a Republican Commission member saying that Condoleezza Rice's decision, or the Administration's decision not to have her publicly testify was a political blunder. Do you see the White House ultimately allowing for her to do just that?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: I don't think so, but we'll see. The President I believe is standing on good sound constitutional principal. When the -- a congressional committee --inquiry commission -- formed in the congress according to the statute that formed it, subordinates a personal member of the President's staff through subpoenaing and compelling them or compelling them to testify. I believe that does implicate separation of powers.

ZAHN: All right.

SESSIONS: The president can't subpoena a senator to come to his office to testify why he voted one way or the other, and neither should the executive branch be so demeaned.

ZAHN: In spite of what Senator Sessions is saying, we understand that there is a compromise potentially in the works by the White House where Condoleezza Rice would testify, not in public, but before the commission, and then that testimony would be shared with the public.

JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": The transcript. The transcript would be shared.

ZAHN: Will that satisfy anyone?

FUND: I don't think it's going to satisfy most critics here because this is largely about politics because Condi Rice's position has been pretty much on the table here, and she spoke...

ZAHN: Do you think it's a legitimate position?

FUND: Given executive privilege and given that Richard Clarke actually invoked executive privilege to refuse to testify before a Senate committee in 1999 -- the Clinton administration took this same legal position with Richard Clarke.

ZAHN: So you're saying it's OK?

FUND: I think -- I think it's politically disastrous, but it's absolutely, constitutionally appropriate.

ZAHN: Tell us more about the politics of this and what's at stake.

JOE KLEIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: It's politically disastrous, as John just said. I mean I think we're kind of making a mountain out of a hill, if not a molehill. Everybody pretty much knows what Condi Rice would testify to. There would be some uncomfortable moments in fielding questions with -- from members of the commission, but we know the...

ZAHN: But they've already retracted some of the statements she has made publicly...

KLEIN: But -- but the...

ZAHN: ... saying that, in fact, Richard Clarke was at some of the meetings that they haven't acknowledged he wasn't at.

KLEIN: Right, but those were...

ZAHN: The story has changed.

KLEIN: But those are at the periphery. We know the basic elements of the Bush story, and we know that Clarke's version of the Bush administration's actions hold up very well, even if he kind of gilded the lily about the Clinton administration some.

In this case, it really is stupid politically because they're looking like they're hiding something.

ZAHN: Do you think they are?

KLEIN: I don't think so. I don't think that they're hiding anything except for their own embarrassment.

FUND: Although having said that, the "Newsweek" poll, which is out today, asked people: Should she testify in public? Forty-seven percent said yes. Forty-nine percent said either in private or it makes no difference. So I don't know whether this changes many minds. It just looks bad.

ZAHN: And, Senator Sessions, there...

SESSIONS: I would agree.

ZAHN: I want to share with you a poll -- and let you chime in here -- from CNN/"USA Today" basically asking people who they trust more, Richard Clarke's testimony or the president's.

And here are what the numbers look like. The Bush administration, 46 percent. Richard Clarke, 44 percent. A 3 percent sampling margin of error there.

In the end, what do you think the impact of Richard Clarke's testimony will have on the general election?

SESSIONS: I don't believe it will have much impact at all. Everybody knows what happened. Richard Clarke said he wanted to see some toughening of the strategy. President Bush certainly agreed with that.

In September -- before September 11, the policy that the staff persons had signed off on and was being sent to the president agreed with everything Richard Clarke asked for and more, to eliminate al Qaeda. And President Bush's actions since has shown he is a man of courage and decisive leadership, and I don't think there's any dispute about that, and really Clarke has said nothing that undermines the integrity of President Bush.

ZAHN: It's interesting. As these poll numbers...

KLEIN: It's not a question of integrity, I don't think. I think it's a question of the president's judgment. I mean the president has said to Bob Woodward that he didn't -- he didn't understand the urgency of the al Qaeda threat.

Dick Clarke, obnoxious guy, you know, an Old Testament prophet, was trying, just as he had in the Clinton administration, to get the Bush administration interested in this. He didn't succeed. In fact, his role in the government was reduced somewhat, which made him even more angry.

ZAHN: Let's jump ahead...

SESSIONS: Well, but he did...

ZAHN: ... to another statistic here, gentlemen.

SESSIONS: ... get what he wanted in his policy by -- before September 11.

KLEIN: He did. Well, a week before September 11, Senator.

SESSIONS: Yes.

KLEIN: Not -- and it should have been done months and months before that.

SESSIONS: Well, Clinton had eight years to do it, and he never did it...

KLEIN: Absolutely. You're absolutely...

SESSIONS: ... and Clarke was there.

KLEIN: You're absolutely right.

ZAHN: All right. You know what? Before I let all three of you go, I want to get one more Gallup poll sample up here on the screen. It's the very last one we have for you tonight.

When folks were asked if the president misled the public for political reasons, here were the numbers. Yes, 53 percent. No, 44 percent.

How does the president change these numbers, John Fund?

FUND: By winning the war on terrorism and by showing...

ZAHN: With what? The number of attacks post-9/11 higher than pre-9/11...

FUND: Excuse me. Libya...

ZAHN: ... over a 30-month period?

FUND: ... is -- Libya is off the list of terror nations, North Korea is back at the negotiating table, and Iran is now cooperating with international arms inspectors. Those are three countries that were on the terror list that we're now making progress towards.

KLEIN: I think...

ZAHN: Final word, Joe Klein?

KLEIN: I think a lot of this is going -- these numbers are going to depend on what happens in Iraq between now and the election. If things don't go well, people will not trust the president. If they do go well, they'll give him credit for the things that have happened.

ZAHN: Senator Sessions.

SESSIONS: The president is courageous and determined. He's leading as a good leader should. I believe he'll be successful, will continue to be successful.

We've avoided another attack on the homeland since September 11, something I frankly did not think we would have been able to do by now. I'm sure they'll attempt to attack again before the election, hoping to have the same success they had in Spain. I don't believe it will be -- will happen.

I think the American people are going to keep their poise and to elect -- reelect a great leader in the war against terrorism.

ZAHN: We'll be counting those numbers carefully, won't we, in November?

SESSIONS: Right.

ZAHN: Senator Sessions, John Fund, Joe Klein, thanks so much.

Some Los Angeles residents are going to be left in the dark unless they can afford to pay for their own streetlights.

And you can find out how much your neighbors give to a presidential campaign, and they can find out about you. It's all on the web, and it's raising a lot of questions about your privacy.

And a survey asks Americans would you rather have more sex or more money. Think carefully now.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

THE BEATLES: The best things in life are free / But you can keep them for the birds and bees / Now give me money

(END AUDIO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

(20:38)

ZAHN: It may be a while before some Los Angeles neighborhoods see the light. City officials have decided to allow some parts of L.A. to remain without streetlights, unless the people who live there actually pay for them. The cost: $1,600 per home plus maintenance charges.

L.A. is one of the few cities that doesn't automatically provide streetlights, and it faces a $300 million budget deficit. Is this fair to low-income residents, and is this the best way to balance the budget?

We're pitting a community activist versus an L.A. lawmaker. Joining us now from L.A., Oscar Mendoza and L.A. City councilmember Tony Cardenas.

Welcome.

TONY CARDENAS, L.A. CITY COUNCILMEMBER: Thank you very much.

ZAHN: So tell me -- let's talk about the statistics here. You've got one-third of L.A. without decent streetlighting. If you're poor and living in a crime-ridden area, how is it that you're expected to come up with the $1,600?

CARDENAS: Well, the City of Los Angeles does things a little bit backwards. Most big cities across the country don't do it this way. But they assess each property owner, whether it be a business or a residence.

And you're absolutely right. The average resident's home gets assessed about $1,600, so they can put up the lights, et cetera, and then about 55 bucks a year for the ongoing maintenance and the electricity cost to have those lights on every night.

ZAHN: So, Tony, here's what I want to know. So, if you have some of the highest crime rates in the areas where people do not have lighting, how can the city not afford to provide it?

CARDENAS: You're absolutely right. It is an issue of public safety, but it's up to each individual property owner.

In California, we have Proposition 218 which means that we cannot assess these property owners unless they vote for it themselves. So it's about educating the public, getting them to make the true connection between public safety and lighting and bettering their community.

And then it's up to them whether they want to vote for it and have it paid for by their -- through their property taxes. ZAHN: Oscar, you see this quite differently. You see this as a bit of a ruse because you think that the city actually has funds they could tap to pay for these lights.

OSCAR MENDOZA, COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: Absolutely. There is no reason why the constituents in the City of Los Angeles have to pay for these streetlights.

The residents in the City of Los Angeles are being overtaxed, and our elected officials are not disclosing where the funds are being allocated. I think it's only fair that, until they disclose where the funds are allocated, then they approach the constituency on how and what solution we can have to give streetlights to our communities.

ZAHN: So, Tony, basically, would you like to see a situation where they would find out where the wealthier sections of the city are and make those folks foot the bill?

CARDENAS: Well, actually, what we have in California is the lighting has been determined in California that it's a direct benefit. That means somebody across town can't pay for the light in front of your house. They do, in fact, pay for the light in front of their house, if they have one. If they don't have any lights in front of their house, then they're not paying assessment for streetlighting.

ZAHN: And the bottom line, Oscar, you feel that, once again, the poor of the city are getting ripped off here?

MENDOZA: The poor are being ripped off here, Paula. The minute the city officials do not disclose where the funds are being allocated, they're just, you know, spinning the wheels here.

What needs to be done here is be implementing where the funds go and be direct with the constituents so we can have an opportunity and find out where these funds are going.

ZAHN: A controversy that we will be following. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Oscar Mendoza, Tony Cardenas.

CARDENAS: Thank you very much.

MENDOZA: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, a new Web site makes it simple to pry into your neighbor's past campaign donations. You can even find out how much they gave.

And a major effort to jump-start Janet Jackson's career. We're going to look at the plan and its chances for success.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET JACKSON, SINGER: You're like a maze I can't get through / Should I go left / Should I go right...

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Well, thanks to a new Web site, it's pretty easy to find out which candidate your neighbor is giving money to this election year. With the click of a mouse, you can find their name, address, occupation, and the amount they've contributed.

Couple of examples. We've learned a lot about John Kerry's neighbors in Ketchum, Idaho. Fifty-two names are listed as contributors to his campaign, while 22 gave to the president, netting the Bush camp more cash. And we know which of the president's neighbors in Crawford, Texas, gave to his campaign and how much. We also know one preferred Democrat John Edwards. Kerry supporters were harder to find. They were a few towns away.

All this information is listed on Fundrace.org. And if you've ever made a campaign donation, there's a pretty good chance you're there, too. Is this stripping you of your privacy?

Let's ask the Jonah Peretti of Eyebeam, the organization that runs the Fundrace Web site, and Justin Page of eprivex.com, the company that actually tries to keep its clients' names off the Internet.

I'm surprised you two are sitting next to each other.

So what right does anybody have to get that information on their neighbors, who they voted -- not necessarily who they voted for, but who they gave money to and how much.

JONAH PERETTI, R&D DIRECTOR, EYEBEAM: Well, actually, all that information comes from a government Web site, FEC Web site, and it -- as a matter of law, it has to be disclosed to the public because the public has a right to know where money is coming from in politics.

And so we were -- my collaborator, Michael Fruman (ph) -- we both work at an organization called Eyebeam. We were thinking is there a creative way we can use this information to do something to get the public involved in the election?

And so we said, OK, let's compare...

ZAHN: What, get them involved by snooping on each other?

PERETTI: Get them involved by letting -- connecting it to something that they know, like the neighborhood they live in, so they can say, you know, here in Manhattan, people can say, well, is the -- is the Upper East Side or the Upper West Side more liberal?

You know, people can connect to things that they can relate to, the places where they go, the people they know, and so it was a way to get people involved in being able to do their own investigations with this public data.

ZAHN: Do you see it as more dangerous than this? You hear that the government actually has this information, and Jonah makes the argument it's legal to access. So what...

JUSTIN PAGE, EPRIVEX.COM: Well, it's...

ZAHN: What problem do you have with it?

PAGE: It's sort of a combination of both the information which is available, you know, by -- under law and the advent of the Internet. I think -- you know, I'm not a legislator, but I think the original intent of making records -- donation records public was so that we know who's -- you know, who's giving money to who, people we interact with and so forth.

ZAHN: Right, but all Jonah's doing is taking that list that's already public and making it easier for you to access on the Internet. Do you...

PERETTI: That's right.

ZAHN: Do you -- are you personally opposed to that? Are you worried about the privacy of people whose names might wind up on the Web site?

PAGE: I'm worried about the people on the list who are clients of mine, and -- but they -- those -- the same people would also know that, if you don't want to be in the public record in that regard, in the federal election sense of the word, don't make a campaign contribution.

ZAHN: Well, what are these people afraid of? Are they afraid of identity theft? What's the issue here?

PAGE: There's a host of down sides of presenting information. The State of New Jersey just did a wholesale retraction of their state court system because of unintended effects, and that's the sort of thing that sites like Jonah's -- and there are plenty of sites out there, by the way, that are selling far more -- that are selling data -- and it's -- you know, it's far more insidious. This is sort of an example of how information can be used.

ZAHN: Do you acknowledge that there is a risk here for people whose names end up on this Web site?

PERETTI: Well, I think it's really important for people to understand that, if they give to a political campaign, it means that the contribution will be part of the public record, and so...

ZAHN: All right, but you -- then you make the argument that you want people, through the access they get on the Internet, to be involved in the election and know what's going on in their neighborhood. Isn't that contradictory, what you're saying?

PERETTI: Well, there's no...

ZAHN: Aren't you telling them don't give money to a campaign if you don't want to find your name on a Web site?

PERETTI: Well, there's no point in having public information unless ordinary people can access it.

So the idea is if this information is available, we don't want wealthy people who can pay for analysts or just political campaigns or the government to have access to it. We want anyone to have access to it.

And so when this information is provided, we -- we're just creating a way for people to browse it, to look through it, to understand it.

ZAHN: All right. But your critics say you're doing this because you just need attention. You were attached to the highly controversial Web site blackpeopleloveus.com.

PERETTI: Right.

ZAHN: Is this just your 15 minutes of fame you're going after here?

PERETTI: It's not 15 minutes of fame. We do a series of projects. I work for Eyebeam, which is an organization in New York that is focused on using technology creatively and is focused on doing art projects and doing things that make people think.

So we do like to do provocative work, but we do provocative work because it matters and it gets people excited and engaged and makes them think about the world.

ZAHN: And this has made you think, hasn't it, sir?

PAGE: Well, it makes me think, and I think that it's going to start a whole -- a change in the way people think about privacy. You know, we can't protect privacy by saying to Jonah don't do that Web site...

ZAHN: Sure.

PAGE: ... and we sort of have to take a wholesale look at privacy as a commodity for the, you know, digital revolution.

ZAHN: Justin Page, Jonah Peretti, thanks.

PAGE: Thank you.

PERETTI: Thank you.

ZAHN: We will be googling both of you.

PERETTI: All right. You too.

ZAHN: That's, of course, if you gave money to a campaign.

Would you rather spend more time in the bedroom or at the bank? A new survey sheds some light on America's most burning desire. Yes, indeed.

And is Janet Jackson the eve of a career comeback after the Super Bowl fiasco? We'll get the view inside the music biz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END

(20:53)

ZAHN: OK. Pick one. More sex or more money? If you're like two-thirds of Americans in a new survey, you picked money. We're giving the survey the high five treatment tonight. Five quick questions, five direct answers, straight and to the point.

It was done by Blum & Wepburn (ph) Associates for Robert Kiasaki, bestselling author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." He joins us now from Phoenix.

Good to see you.

ROBERT KIASAKI, "RICH DAD, POOR DAD" AUTHOR: Thanks for having me on your program.

ZAHN: Oh, our pleasure.

Straight to the chase here. Question number one. Let me get this straight. You're telling me that Americans prefer money over sex?

KIASAKI: Well, my rich dad used to say that the two most lied- about subjects was sex and money. Everybody claimed to have more than they're really getting. So we decided to do a little survey on the subject to find out once and for all.

ZAHN: We're going to take a look at those results now. The numbers showing men, 62 percent of them prefer money over sex. Women, 72 percent. Question number two: Do you think 30 years ago, for example, money would have had this kind of lead over sex?

KIASAKI: No. I think the world has changed tremendously in the last 30 years. You know, for example, there's less job security. Thirty years ago, we had company pensions. Now we have 401(k)s.

And as far as the women go, today, 47 percent of all women over 50 are single. So they don't -- so the divorce rate is so high, many more women have to take care of themselves as they age.

ZAHN: So question number three: How does this compare to other cultures?

KIASAKI: Well, I have the benefit of traveling throughout the world, and, as a culture, I would say not only Americans are very hardworking, but they're more fixated on accumulating money than other cultures around the world, and that's kind of a worry.

ZAHN: So, basically, you're suggesting that because people are such workaholics, they simply lost their appetite for sex, or they're having bad sex? KIASAKI: Well, I think what's happening is both -- you know, before, only the men worked. Now men and women work. so what we have is a culture of two people coming home so tired, they can't have sex.

ZAHN: That's a problem, isn't it?

KIASAKI: Yes. And -- and, you know, it affects the children and our culture. That -- it is a concern.

ZAHN: All right. Question number five then: In the end, does the survey basically tell us we're worrying too much about our future?

KIASAKI: Well, I think there is a big concern about money, given Social Security, 401(k)s, and Medicare. But I think what's more telling or more critical to human beings is not so much money but being deeply in debt and having a nation so deeply in debt. I think that's unhealthy. That's why I propose a little financial education in school and maybe less sex education in school, and we might have a healthier world.

ZAHN: Going to throw in a bonus round here. Are you a money guy or a sex guy, Robert? Come clean.

KIASAKI: Well, when I was younger, sex was all I had on my mind. I didn't have any money. Now that I get older, you know, Viagra costs money, so it does take money.

ZAHN: Oh, problems, problems, problems, wherever you look. They abound.

Robert Kiasaki...

KIASAKI: Thank you.

ZAHN: ... thanks for calling our attention to this survey.

KIASAKI: Thank you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: You know that I need you...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, what you were listening to was from the new CD. Janet Jackson hopes to get her career back on track after the picture you're looking at now, her Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. The album hits stores tomorrow, and her publicity blitz has already begun, but will she be able to put that other stuff behind her?

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: I wasn't going to read there. What was that, Toure? Put her what? Her breast behind her? Give me a break.

TOURE, "ROLLING STONE": Is that so hard? ZAHN: Give me a break.

So is she going to revive her career with this album?

TOURE: Yes, yes. We were way too hard on her. People under 35 feel that. We feel a sympathy for her. We're not angry with her. We feel like this post-Janet paranoia that's come up is too much. It's inappropriate. She's been wrongfully overpunished, and we're ready to give her a chance.

And if she gives us good music, which she has -- it's not the best album of her career, but it's a good album. There's some hits. The first single was a bad choice, but...

ZAHN: So who in the end is punishing her? The folks who wouldn't have bought her albums to begin with?

TOURE: Well, her -- I think so. I think that's exactly right. The people who wouldn't have bought a Janet album before are the most mad, and the people who will buy a Janet album are like what was really the big deal there.

ZAHN: All right. Now MTV, though, is getting back at her, right, because if you look...

TOURE: We don't know.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about how she's getting air play. She's getting on VH1. And what else is she getting play on?

TOURE: On BET.

ZAHN: BET. But noticeably absent from MTV.

TOURE: I don't want to be...

ZAHN: There's a reason for that.

TOURE: I don't want to make too much out of this. MTV sometimes is slower to put black artists on the channel. VH1 is more receptive to -- I don't want to call her an older artist.

But she is older than Britney Spears, older than Beyonce. You know, she's not a brand-new artist. So let's not make too much out of MTV being slow to play the video. I don't know -- I don't want to yet say it's punishment.

ZAHN: Racy lyrics on this new album. Janet has always been known to sort of press the envelope. Is this going to help her or hurt her?

TOURE: Well, I mean this is what we expect from her. She's sexual but tasteful most of the time. You know, she knows how to have fun with it and be a little naive and be a little sexual.

And, see, the big problem is for Justin. Justin has lost a lot. Justin was the white guy who could hang out with the black people and be on the cover of "Vibe," and it's cool we accept him. But he has the...

ZAHN: And then he -- I apologize...

TOURE: ... complexion for the protection. He ran away and blamed it all on Janet and abandoned her, and black people are not feeling Justin now. He lost his ghetto pass, and he's going to have long-term problems.

ZAHN: All right. Let's talk a little bit more to the extent to which she's going to be affected by Michael Jackson, her brother's problems?

TOURE: Janet has always been like a separate island from the rest of the Jacksons. So you don't even really think of them as the same. She's the one normal Jackson, always has been. So you don't -- it's not going to impact her.

ZAHN: So you really don't believe the CD buying club associates her brother's controversy with her career in any way?

TOURE: No, no. Janet is seen as the normal one. She's off to the side. Jermaine, Tito, Randy -- they have problems. Joe, Daddy, he has problems. But Janet is separate, normal. She's never even had a controversy before.

ZAHN: And does the CD really have to fly? Is this really make- or-break week for Janet Jackson?

TOURE: I wouldn't say make-or-break week. It's not like a movie where you have to blow the first week or you're dead. But I mean like, you know, we need to see some good videos, some good singles, get some good numbers. But she's far from dead. It's...

ZAHN: So the breast is behind you?

TOURE: I think so. Why can't we forgive her?

ZAHN: That's the worst pun of the evening, Toure. Thanks so much for joining us. That wraps it up for all of us tonight here.

"LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.

END

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