Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

U.S. Military Moves on Fallujah; Battle Fatigue

Aired April 27, 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 ANCHOR: And good evening and welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.
Tonight, we begin in Iraq, some important developments there, where U.S. troops make a decisive move in Fallujah against Sunni Muslim resistance to the occupation of Iraq. AC-130 gunships began pounding two suspected insurgent positions in the city several hours ago. No word yet on what damage or casualties the strikes may have caused.

U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul with the very latest now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're talking to you from the northwest edge of Fallujah. We're talking to you through a night- vision scope. We're at a U.S. Marine position. And they have imposed a strict nighttime blackout here.

This northwest edge of Fallujah is a front-line combat position. About 200 yards from where we are standing lie some insurgent positions. Four hours ago, the position here was very, very different. A U.S. and coalition AC-130 Spectre gunship was in operation. In fact, Pentagon sources tell us two of those highly sophisticated aircraft were in operation.

They flew over our small Marine base here and then proceeded to pound two suspected insurgent positions about three quarters of a mile south of us. Initially, what we heard was the thump of .105- millimeter cannons being fired from that aircraft and then we saw showers of sparks as those cannon rounds hit the grounds, flames leaping up into the night sky, and then plumes of black, black smoke drifting over the night sky.

Now, Pentagon sources tell us that the targets there were two separate targets, both suspected insurgent positions. They haven't given us any further details of those. What they do say, though, was that that airstrike was in response to a specific threat from those positions. They say it wasn't the start of an all-out offensive to seize back the city of Fallujah from the control of insurgents.

More or less, at the time that those attacks were going on, we heard chants and songs coming up from some of the many mosques here in Fallujah. We understand that those were probably the religious leaders reciting verses from the holy Koran. But I do also understand that some of the Marines will be analyzing those sounds to see if possibly they were a call to arms to some of the insurgent fighters. Now, as I say, there has been, in the course of the last hour or so, sporadic gunfire. We have heard the Marines setting up and firing off heavy machine guns towards those insurgent positions. But certainly now, the AC-130 gunships do seem to be calm. And it only remains to wait until daybreak to see what kind of damage those aircraft have done.

This is Karl Penhaul, reporting with the camera of John Templeton (ph) for the U.S. networks pool in the northwest edge of Fallujah, Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Meanwhile, the Pentagon says tonight that the Marine attack in Fallujah, the one you've just witnessed on camera, was provoked by a specific threat, and the cease-fire is officially still in play.

For a closer look at U.S. military objectives and strategy, let's call in one of our military analysts, Brigadier General David Grange. He joins us tonight from Oak Brook, Illinois. And counterterrorism expert Aaron Cohen, who is in Los Angeles tonight.

Welcome, gentlemen.

General Grange, I am going to start with you this evening.

The Pentagon saying that these aerial strikes are not part of a new offensive. How effective do you think they might be?

RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, an AC-130 gunship is very precise, very effective. It's not a new offensive. It's using that fire support platform to support the positions that are engaged in this particular area of Fallujah.

It's very precise. They can pick out a specific vehicle and hit that vehicle on the road. They can designate between several buildings and get the building designated by the ground commander. Many forces in the past would have loved to have this platform in a fight.

ZAHN: And, General, even though you say that, in general, these kinds of attacks seem to be quite precise, there obviously has to obviously be a great deal of concern against hitting civilians. How you do guard against that?

GRANGE: well, there's always going to be civilian casualties. But this is one of the platforms that actually keeps down the number of civilian casualties, if you determine you have the right information and that's the building you want to hit.

But it can keep from, let's say, a barrage of artillery fire or other area fire weapons that produce more civilian casualties. This eliminates many of those. But, again, it's only as good as the information you have on the ground.

ZAHN: Sure.

And, Aaron, with the negotiations ongoing, the cease-fire we're told apparently still in place, Marines on the ground saying they are fired upon only when they are hit by insurgents, how risky is this mission?

AARON COHEN, FORMER ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES COUNTERTERRORISM COMMANDO: It's very risky. And the reason why is because it's very hard to define who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.

In this particular case, I agree with the general. I think it's very important to be able to focus and concentrate to reduce the amount of risk. But, ultimately, at the end of the day, because it's so risky, regardless of the risk, you are still eventually going to have to go in there and do the work.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about the risk the U.S. troops are up against in Fallujah. You've got bobby traps. You've got snipers. You even have guerrillas now move going through secret underground tunnels. How do U.S. troops fight in these conditions?

COHEN: Well, in this situation, not unlike Israel, in this case, it's almost a little more different, the reason why is because Iraq is surrounded by the possibility of having insurgents joining their ranks from every different direction.

So, for every moment we're not fighting them, they're getting stronger. What needs to happen in order to successfully control the situation is we need to go in there and we need to use the most amount of human intelligence to be able to define exactly where these people are.

With counterterror, the ability is to be able to see the terrorists and then either capture or neutralize the terrorists. You can't see that from the sky. You can't see that from anywhere except your own eyes. You need to go in. It's very dangerous, but you need to focus on looking, on making sure that where you're going to be firing is accurate. And it has to be done very, very aggressively.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about just how aggressively.

General Grange, under the cease-fire terms, the insurgents were supposed to give up their weapons today. That didn't happen. How worrisome is that?

GRANGE: Well, the coalition forces, in coordination with Iraqi leaders, tried it and tried this as a solution. And so good for them. I think it's worth a try, but I also think it's not going to work. You have some bad people in there, maybe up to 2,000 insurgents that are not going to give up their good weapons. They are going to fight to the death.

The good news is that the city is isolated. The enemy will fight under the ground, on the ground itself, and then, of course, on rooftops. It's a three-dimensional fight. And it's going to be tough for the Marines and those working with the Marines like the Army armored units. But I don't think you're going to see a siege of the city, but you are going to see some very tough fighting in specific areas, where the intelligence that was stated, the human intelligence, comes forth that can give you good information on targeting.

ZAHN: Aaron, a final thought from you. As the general just said, if these insurgents fight to the death, what can be expected?

COHEN: Paula, let me tell you what the deal is with terrorists, from my experience.

Terrorists are guerrillas. These are people who willing to kidnap people, murder, assassinate in order to further their cause. They're not unlike termites? How do we take down termites or how do we exterminate termites? You have to focus not on covering the entire city, but on focusing on covering each specific house. What does that mean? It means putting troops physically in there, surrounding the house to secure it, and then going in.

It's the only way to physically execute the missions and know that the people that you're going after are the people that need to be arrested or need to be neutralized. It's not unlike exterminating rodents. It's the same thing. And it's not a great analogy, but it's the best way to put into context what exactly they're looking at there. Every individual house needs to be dealt with by neighborhood and by house. You don't collapse on the city. You collapse on the houses and your work. The point isn't to not get hit. The point is to work while reducing risks.

BLITZER: All right, gentlemen, we've got to leave it there. Aaron Cohen, David Grange, the prospect of this kind of fighting you're talking about frightening, I think, to anybody listening to it tonight. Thanks.

"Christian Science Monitor" correspondent Scott Peterson has been embedded with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit for the past week at Camp Fallujah.

And in a phone interview, I asked him why the military chose to stand back over the past few weeks and why the strength of the insurgency make have taken them by surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCOTT PETERSON, "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR": Well, I think that they felt that, if they were able to continue pursuing pinpoint attacks, then they eventually would prevail without having to actually roll into the entire city.

ZAHN: You have covered other war zones before. Describe to us the danger you have witnessed in the last couple of days and how it compared to other violence you have witnessed.

PETERSON: Well, I think that this conflict is one that is incredibly dangerous, not only for the Marines themselves, because this is a -- because this is an urban environment, but also I think for the journalists who are covering it. In many cases, we are embedded with Marines who are right there on the front line along with troops who are on the front line. It serves two purposes. Of course, we get to see what's going on. But it also means that we are right there with them. We have, you know, a feeling for the kind of stresses and the kind of dangers that that front line brings with it.

Also the type of insurgency, the kind of risks that there are in Iraq generally, in terms of hostage taking, which has now become a tactic of various groups of anti-American groups, whether they be Shia, whether they be Sunni, like we're seeing in Fallujah, there are those kind of things. And compared, for example, to Somalia, which was a story that I covered a lot in 1992 and 1993, Somalia was a place where always there would be shooting every single night, practically 24 hours a day.

Everybody had a gun. And whenever the shooting calmed down, you thought, wait a minute, maybe something's going to happen. In Iraq, there's almost no kind of peripheral shooting that you ever hear. And you never know what's going to go on or what is going to happen or where you are until you get blown off the road. And I think that's what the Marines are facing, too, on a daily basis, especially with these explosive devices, roadside bombs, things like that, that the insurgents are just very, very clever about installing and delivering casualties.

ZAHN: So, given the unpredictability of the attackers, realistically, what kind of precautions could you as journalists take or even Marines take to stay alive?

PETERSON: Well, the Marines, of course, are getting better and better at eyeballing these improvised explosive devices, as they call them, IEDs. But they are very clever, too, the Iraqis, in terms of how they create them.

Sometimes, you see a curb along a road that it looks like it's a piece of concrete. In fact, it has got a .155-millimeter Howitzer round in it, which can cause a huge amount of damage. There have been so many explosions and casualties and injuries caused to Americans by these types of weapons that, in some cases, U.S. forces here, especially the Marines, have actually begun to modify their armor.

They're now using the -- they're now using Kevlar shoulder patches and shoulder guards to cover the parts of the extremities that are particularly prone to getting injured when some these IEDs and roadside bombs explode. They're using now new ballistic glasses which have become standard issue. And they have made orders for thousands of these in the last couple of months to make sure -- because they were seeing so many eye injuries from these things.

So they have had to modify also in a very quick manner the type of warfare that they're seeing here, which, in this kind of environment, I don't think they've seen in -- at least in kind of recent institutional memory.

ZAHN: Scott, according to "The Los Angeles Times," there have been so many Marines wounded in Fallujah that there is actually a backlog of Purple Hearts. What does that do to the morale of troops?

PETERSON: Well, it's surprising, to be honest.

The Marines that I have come in contact with -- and I have spoken to a lot who have been engaged in some of these firefights. In fact, I was in one of the combat surgical rooms where they were working on a couple of these guys.

Two of them had been ambushed, not where the main fight is going on tonight, but their unit had been ambushed east of Fallujah. And seven people rolled in. There were two that had gunshot wounds. And they pulled a huge slug, a bullet, out of the leg of one of the Marines. And another one had a bullet wound right through the back.

And, amazingly, they were trying to convince their commanders that they were ready to go and go back out. I have been really surprised at the level of -- kind of the high degree of morale that these Marines have shown. Remember, they have only been here for a month and a half. Many of these units that are here now engaged in the initial invasion last year and were in Iraq for several months.

Now they're back. But they seem to be engaged. They're taking casualties. But it's really surprising. You don't see much head- dragging or anything like that. I mean, you know, what you see is kind of more encouragement for these guys.

And, for example, the one who had the gravest -- the bullet in and out through his back was trying to convince his commander that he'd be back. And his commander actually promised him that his spot was still going to be there. Another soldier who was injured in that huge firefight yesterday who I spoke to earlier this morning, he wanted to get back out there. But the only problem was, was that half his shoulder was missing around his firing arm.

But he was convinced he would be able to sit there on a roof and not have to run anywhere and he could contribute that way. So it's been surprising. But they are -- the Marines that are here certainly appear to be geared up for whatever the future holds.

ZAHN: Scott Peterson, we appreciate your fine reporting tonight. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And as we move along, we'll talk more about healing some of the emotional scars of war, how the Army's combat stress units help thousands of troops grapple with everything from battle fatigue to troubles at home.

U.S. forces hustle to help the Pentagon meet a June 30 deadline for Iraqi control. Is that possible? Who might control the new Iraq?

And Vice President Cheney fires away at John Kerry. "CROSSFIRE"'s Carville and Carlson gives us their take on the candidates' war over military service.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: The people of Iraq can overcome the trauma of Saddam Hussein's brutality and the intimidation of violent extremists seeking to derail the progress they have made so far. But for these policies to succeed, we will need to proceed with resolve, constancy and unity of purpose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte, the president's choice to the first U.S. ambassador to postwar Iraq, his confirmation hearing began today in the Senate, just 10 weeks before the June 30 transfer of power.

Now, the latest violence raises some serious questions about the future of Iraq and the role the U.S. officials will play after the handover.

Bathsheba Crocker is co-director the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Last year, she led a team that went to Iraq to assess the challenges of rebuilding that nation.

Good to see you. Welcome, Bathsheba.

BATHSHEBA CROCKER, CO-DIRECTOR, POST-CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: Thank you.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about the tentative plan that is on the table right now for the turnover. What does it look like?

CROCKER: It involves a lot of different components. And I think, in some ways, it's changing before our eyes.

It essentially involves the creation of some form of an Iraqi interim government to take over from the Coalition Provisional Authority, to take over civilian power on June 30, but largely or in fact wholly the same state of affairs with respect to the U.S. military and its role in Iraq. So we won't see any change in terms of the number or the responsibilities or role of the U.S. military on the ground after June 30.

ZAHN: Powerful editorial in "The Wall Street Journal" today, Saudi Arabia's Prince Saud al-Faisal suggesting that the sovereignty of Iraq will be compromised because of that very reason. And he feels that unless Iraq's new rulers are given an army that has complete control over Iraq, that you're basically making a big mistake here. Is he right?

CROCKER: Well, I think the question is a very complicated one. And, unfortunately, where we find ourselves right now is with an Iraqi security force that is not yet ready to take over power from the U.S. military because the security problems just remain too large and too serious in that country. And so I think, for some continuing period of time, we will need to see the U.S. military overseeing that. But I think he raises an important point in that it does really complicate things from the perspective of the Iraqis and of course calls into question what the turnover of sovereignty really means, because any Iraqi governing body that comes into power on June 30, at least at this point, is not going to have a say over the security situation or what happens with the U.S. troops in the country or with the Iraqi troops in the country.

The Iraqi troops will themselves be reporting to a U.S. military that will remain in ultimate command of all the forces in Iraq.

ZAHN: So how skeptical will the Iraqi people be about this plan?

CROCKER: Well, I think at the moment the Iraqi people are fairly skeptical about it and will remain so unless we start do a better job of describing to them what this plan really entails. I think that's been a failure so far in our efforts in Iraq.

We haven't done a very good job of describing to the Iraqi people what their future holds. And I think, at this point, they remain skeptical and also somewhat confused. So I think a very important step going forward is going to be for us to start explaining that more explicitly to them.

But I think, of course, any of this is complicated again by the fact the U.S. military will remain on the ground in large numbers spread throughout Iraq and maintaining essentially the same posture that they maintain now. So, from the perspective of the average Iraqi, somewhere, anywhere in the country, his daily life is probably not going to change all that much. And what he sees in terms of the face of the U.S. in Iraq is probably not going to change all that much either.

ZAHN: Let's wrap up this conversation for a moment talking about the increased violence in Fallujah. We showed some pretty staggering pictures of that earlier this evening and the escalating violence in Najaf. What do you attribute that to?

CROCKER: Well, a number of different things. I think what we're seeing in Fallujah is an escalation of the problems that we have seen in that city and in that area all along.

And, essentially, it has to do with a number of different things, including the fact that we have not yet been successful in bringing the Sunni population into the fold. And they have felt largely disenfranchised so far by our efforts so far in Iraq. They don't yet see a room for themselves in the political future of the country.

I think what's going on the in the central and southern parts of the country with al-Sadr and others in the Shia community is somewhat different, but essentially also related to the fact that as of yet they don't really understand or see a place for themselves politically. We have essentially sort of created a vacuum there. And a vacuum can easily be filled by an extremist like Sadr. and I think that's what we're seeing right now. ZAHN: Bathsheba Crocker, thank you for all your information tonight. Appreciate it.

CROCKER: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, U.S. troops continue to face life-and-death decisions in Iraq. You are going to see how they deal with the physical and mental challenges of warfare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR ERNEST PROUD, PSYCHOLOGIST: Some 14-year-old kid ran over and picked up an AK-47 and pointed it at him and he had to kill him. Well, he came to me and he said, listen, I'm having nightmares. I had to kill him. He was the age of my kids and I feel so badly about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And just like the last election, the White House could rest on a single state. They're calling it this year's Florida. We'll take you there a little bit later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: For some soldiers, fighting the war on the battlefield is only part of their sacrifice. They also have to fight emotional and psychological battles. But in this California in Iraq, the Army has brought together a special unit to help win that fight well.

Thelma Gutierrez has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take cover!

CAPT. BILL BOWERS, PSYCHIATRIST NURSE: Seeing your buddy get blown up, that's a pretty big pill to swallow if you're 19 years old.

LT. COL. DAN LONNQUIST, PSYCHOLOGIST: Being under the constant stress of not knowing what's going to happen.

PROUD: It was quite traumatic, what they had to see.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're psychologists, counselors, and psychiatric nurses, reservists with the 113th Stress Combat Unit, who took their civilian expertise right to the battlefield in Iraq.

(voice-over): It was the first time a mental health team like this, made up of some 70 professionals, had been mobilized for combat. They returned after 14 long months away from home, after counseling some 20,000 soldiers.

Captain Bill Bowers is an analyst and psychiatric nurse in Los Angeles. In Iraq, his three-member team counseled 80 soldiers a week. BOWERS: It is a lot of work. If somebody is not mission-capable and they're losing their marbles, you don't want them out with the other soldiers, basically, because it's not good for the unit.

GUTIERREZ: Or the soldier. The mission of the 113th was to provide immediate counseling to those in combat to try to prevent post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Lieutenant Colonel Ernest Proud is a school psychologist, back in the gym after a year in Iraq. Of the hundreds of stories he heard, there's one soldier he says he'll never forget.

PROUD: Some 14-year-old kid ran over and picked up an AK-47 and pointed it at him and he had to kill him. Well, he came to me and he said, listen, I'm having nightmares. I had to kill him. He was the age of my kids and I feel so badly about it.

GUTIERREZ: It's this kind of deep wound that Major Proud hopes he was able to heal.

Lieutenant Colonel Dan Lonnquist, a psychologist, says the 113th also helped soldiers cope with hardships on the homefront, like money problems and a love one's infidelity. But it's not knowing when they will go home that is the biggest moral buster.

LONNQUIST: In Iraq, we were there for six months or longer before we had an idea that it would be a year before we would be coming back.

GUTIERREZ: Captain Bowers says the war took a year of his life, but he knows he made a difference.

BOWERS: For me to be able to go through that with someone, that process, that is -- it's big stuff.

GUTIERREZ: Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: No one found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and hardly anyone in Congress read a CIA report on them. Would that have made a difference in the vote to launch a war?

Vietnam and John Kerry's race for the White House. Do you have to have served in Vietnam to talk about it? Our "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts weigh in on that issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": There's one person running for president who served with valor and honor. That person is John Kerry.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. That's why he joined the National Guard. End of story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now at the bottom of the hour. Fire from U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunships lighted up the sky over the Iraqi city of Fallujah tonight. The air strikes set off secondary explosions that sent plumes of smoke over the whole city, where Marines have been in a standoff with insurgents for about two weeks now. Further south near Najaf, the U.S. military says overnight attacks killed 64 Iraqi fighters. American forces are trying to capture or kill Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al Sadr, who sparked the uprising in Najaf three weeks ago.

On Wednesday, Saddam Hussein turned 67. Today a U.S. general in Baghdad said the former dictator got a visit from the International Red Cross. He has been in custody since December 13.

In Syria tonight, six loud explosions were followed by an hour- long gun battle in the middle of Damascus. At least four people were killed in what Syrian officials say was a battle between police and a group of terrorists. The fighting left the former United Nations building in flames.

And two U.S. soldiers whose sister died in combat in Iraq two weeks ago will not return go back to the front. Rochelle (ph) and Charity Witmer (ph) returned home to Wisconsin for the funeral of their sister, Sergeant Michelle Witmer (ph). The family says they will ask the Army to transfer them to non-combat positions.

The fighting in Fallujah reminds us of the serious consequences of this war, but apparently, few members of Congress bothered even to read a key report about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before they gave their go ahead for the war. "The Washington Post" says only six senators and a handful of representatives ventured into a secure guarded area of the Capitol to look at the 92-page CIA report. Does this mean our representatives are lazy or negligent? And would reading it have changed any votes?

Let's talk with two representatives who did go out of their way to look at the report. First, Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman of California, who is the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Welcome. Always good to see you.

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Nice to be on your show, Paula.

ZAHN: Thank you. So can you explain tonight why so few of your colleagues bothered to read this document?

HARMAN: Well, I think that article created the wrong impression. The document was a classified report of the National Intelligence Council about WMD in Iraq, but a declassified version of that report, a 25-page report, was released prior to the vote in Congress, and I'm fairly sure that most people read that. ZAHN: Are you telling us tonight, then, there was no incentive, then, on your colleagues' part to read further into this document, like you did?

HARMAN: Well, there's always an incentive to learn as much as we can, but I am the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, so it was logical that I read a classified document like that. In order to read it, if you're not on the committee, you have to come up to the dome of the Capitol to our secured rooms, sign an oath that you won't divulge the material and then read it yourself. Staffers cannot be present, except for the intelligence committee staff. And that is a heavy lift for most members.

ZAHN: I understand what you're saying, but when you received this report just days before a critical vote is made giving the president authorization to go to war, how can that be considered heavy lifting on anybody's part? Isn't this critical information for your colleagues to be armed with?

HARMAN: Well, they had the benefit of 25 pages of summary of this document in declassified, non-classified, form that's easier -- not only easier to read, but obviously, they're able to talk about it. So I don't fault them for not reading the more technical document. But what I'm trying to add for your listeners is the fact that both documents contained information that has turned out to be substantially wrong.

ZAHN: So Representative Harman, is it fair for people to accuse members of Congress of either being lazy or negligent for not reading this document?

HARMAN: No, I think that's not fair. But I think it is fair to call on Congress to do a better job of oversight and to make absolutely certain that the failures that are well documented now, both pre-9/11 and in the intelligence reporting on -- leading up to the war in Iraq, be corrected. And the way we should do that is, one, to end the needless partisanship up here. We should stop pointing fingers and start solving problems, which is something many of us are capable of doing.

But the second thing is this administration has made a specialty of funding terrorism from supplemental requests that come up out of the budget cycle, and that's not a good way to proceed. Our committees can't exercise oversight that way. And that needs to change. It is totally irresponsible, and it will not help us steer our intelligence community in the right direction.

ZAHN: Representative Jane Harman, thank you for your thoughts tonight.

Now, from the other side of the aisle, another of the few representatives to have read the CIA report, Republican congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. He is also on the intelligence committee.

Good to see you. Welcome, sir.

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI), SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Hey, thank you. Good to be with you.

ZAHN: Thank you. So do you believe members of Congress could have made an informed judgment on whether to send this nation to war without reading the 92-page document?

HOEKSTRA: Oh, I think they absolutely could. They had a smaller version of the report that was available to them that was declassified. And obviously, they spent a significant amount of time talking to members on the intelligence committee who not only had the more extensive 92-page executive summary, but also had access to thousands of pages of additional documentation and also had the insights through the various hearings and meetings that we had with the executive branch. And I think most members took advantage of all of those avenues as a way of getting the information that they needed to make an informed decision.

ZAHN: But representative Harman suggested in some way that it was heavy lifting to expect a member of Congress to read as deeply as you and she did. Is that too much for taxpayers to expect that members of Congress read a full document, particularly in a run-up to war?

HOEKSTRA: Oh, I don't think it's too much to expect. But again, I think members -- most members took this vote very, very seriously. You know, I personally talked with a lot of members and, you know, they wanted to know about the other stuff that we had been briefed on from the CIA, from the FBI and all of those types of things. So sure, it's heavy lifting, but sending and making the decision to go or allow the president to go to war is probably the most significant decision that a member of Congress can make...

ZAHN: Sure.

HOEKSTRA: ... and I think members took that decision very, very seriously.

ZAHN: So what you're basically telling me tonight, because I know you can't really characterize the full report for us, that you don't believe any votes would have been changed by reading the entirety of the 92-page document.

HOEKSTRA: No. I think that, you know, the 25 pages were a good summary of what was in the 92 pages. And the 92 pages were a good summary of what members on the intelligence committee spent hours and weeks discussing.

ZAHN: Final question to you about the budget process. Representative Harman saying she -- even more disturbing than the fact that it was very difficult for members of Congress to wade through these documents is the point that she believes, on your committee, you've lost oversight.

HOEKSTRA: Well, I think you'll see is that much of what Congress does is -- you know, is funded on a one-year basis, not funded or looked at on a strategic basis. And if you're going to do intelligence work, if you're going to do much of what the federal government does, we need to look at this at a more strategic standpoint. What are our goals and objectives not only for the next 12 months but for the next five years and the next ten years? National security is too important to do on a one-year basis and it's too important to do on a supplemental basis. And so I agree with Jane. We need to look at this in a much more strategic way.

ZAHN: Representative Peter Hoekstra, thanks so much for your insights tonight.

HOEKSTRA: Great. Thank you.

ZAHN: The White House says the vice president is not leading a smear campaign against John Kerry, but are questions about military service during Vietnam fair game? And the strategy behind John Kerry's run for the White House. It all comes down to the farms, factories and suburbs of one Midwest state. We'll take you there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: On to the presidential race. Now the war over war service rages on today, the Republicans accusing John Kerry of telling too many different stories on what he did with his war medals, and in turn, Democrat John Kerry pointing fingers at President Bush for his National Guard service and at Vice President Cheney, who did not serve during Vietnam. Well, meanwhile, the White House is trying to brush this all off as just another political attack, but it raises the question, Do you have to have served in the military to have any credibility talking about it?

That's our cue to turn to "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts Tucker Carlson and James Carville.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I think this is a brouhaha that's going to flare up here, probably going to move on from it. I doubt, come September, October, this thing'll get flushed out. But this happens in campaigns. It certainly happened us to when I was doing President Clinton's campaign in 1992. I suspect that with things going on Iraq today and other places, we'll be pretty much beyond this. I think that, you know, it's also pretty much related, I think, to the White House trying to create a little storm here because they know this May 1 anniversary is coming up, and that's not going to be a very pretty day for them when it hits.

ZAHN: But let's talk about what traction, if any, this ultimately has with voters. Come back to that question, Tucker.

CARVILLE: I think both of us agree. Tucker said he didn't think very much, and my sense is, I tend to...

(CROSSTALK)

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Well, I mean, here -- here's the problem, and you saw it during the Clinton years. When political partisans on one or both sides get so intense that they actually kind of lose contact with reality, it turns off voters. You saw today a group run by John Kerry's former campaign manager, Jim Jordan, accuse -- or imply, anyway, but really accuse -- Dick Cheney and his wife of having children in order to get Dick Cheney out of the draft. They said, you know, Well, you'll notice that his first child was born nine months after deferments were given for fathers during the Vietnam war. That's insane! I mean, that's crazy. To even say something like that out loud, I think, hurts the people who say it. And I think the Kerry campaign's got to truly worry about some of its own supporters...

ZAHN: Oh, you got James laughing now!

CARLSON: ... undermining...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: So James, you don't think it was such a big deal, such a big mistake...

CARVILLE: No. Of course not.

ZAHN: ... on the Kerry campaign's part.

CARVILLE: I mean -- no. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a mistake -- what did John Kerry -- I mean, what -- why are you asking me if it's a mistake for the Kerry campaign? John Kerry served his country honorably. George Bush didn't show up for National Guard duty.

ZAHN: No, but what I'm saying is...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Tucker's talking about the strategy of...

CARVILLE: Of what?

ZAHN: ... of the Democrats...

CARVILLE: It's Cheney attacking...

ZAHN: ... attacking Cheney for getting...

CARVILLE: Come on!

ZAHN: ... out of service...

CARVILLE: Paula, Paula...

ZAHN: ... by having kids.

CARVILLE: Paula, Paula...

ZAHN: Is that a stupid way to go?

CARVILLE: It was one group. I don't know if it's stupid way to go. It's one group in the Democratic Party. It's hardly the Democrats. I mean, come on. Get real here.

CARLSON: But actually...

CARVILLE: John -- actually John Kerry fired Jim Jordan (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I have no idea of the timing of this. I do know this, that there's one person running for president who served with valor and honor. That person is John Kerry. That is a fact. There's one person running for president of the United States that didn't show up for National Guards meetings, which was his obligation. That person is President Bush. You can take that information, you can do what you want with it. But those are the facts. So why are you asking me about John Kerry?

CARLSON: I'll tell you...

CARVILLE: Why don't you ask him about George Bush not showing up for...

ZAHN: Well, let me ask...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... give me the opportunity to do just that.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Tucker, what about that issue of the president's vulnerability, particularly when it comes to all of the questions raised about...

CARLSON: Well, Bush...

ZAHN: ... the service or lack of service...

CARLSON: I mean -- I don't...

ZAHN: ... in the National Guard?

CARLSON: I don't understand it. Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. That's why he joined the National Guard. End of story. He didn't want to go to Vietnam. He joined the National Guard, as a lot of other people did. The question here is, though, do you have credibility, do you have a moral right to speak out on war if you didn't fight in a war? And the answer is, of course you do. Look, up until five years ago, no women fought in wars. None. And does that mean that women are not allowed to weigh in on what they think about Iraq? It's a crazy argument!

CARVILLE: That's not the criticism of it. The criticism of it is, is that he got in the National Guard through political influence. The least he could have done was show up for the meetings. That's not -- that's the entire criticism.

CARLSON: This is such a...

CARVILLE: If you get in there... CARLSON: ... stupid argument.

CARVILLE: ... and everybody else does, why didn't he show up for the meetings? And you're asking me about John Kerry, who's gotten medals hanging all over the place. It's a -- of course it's a ridiculous...

ZAHN: Why is that a stupid...

CARVILLE: ... argument.

ZAHN: ... argument, Tucker?

CARLSON: I'll tell you exactly...

ZAHN: Why isn't it fair to raise...

CARLSON: ... why. I'll tell you -- I...

ZAHN: ... the question...

CARLSON: I'll tell you...

ZAHN: ... if you get into the National Guard, why you don't show up for meetings?

CARLSON: Oh, I'm not saying that narrow question itself is illegitimate. OK, he showed up for the meetings, he didn't show up for the meetings. I mean, I personally could care less, just as I could care less about whose medals John Kerry did throw, in the end. I just think the core argument they're making -- again, for the third time -- is if you didn't serve, you don't have a right to criticize or -- the people who did serve. Moreover, there's a war going on. If you don't like Bush's policy on the war, attack his policy on the war. Instead, you attack his beer drinking 30 years ago, some meeting he did or did not go to, and his running mate's wife's choice to have a baby. It's, like, insane! And I don't think you can get elected president making those arguments.

CARVILLE: We can come back to all of the ancillary issues. The two principals involved in this are Senator Kerry and President Bush. Senator Kerry served, by every account, with valor and distinction. President Bush got into the National Guard via political influence and didn't show up for the meetings. I don't know what that means. That's a fact.

CARLSON: Oh, God!

CARVILLE: You can take that fact and do anything that you want with it.

CARLSON: Oh! Good luck.

CARVILLE: I find it completely ironic...

CARLSON: Good luck. CARVILLE: Cheney said he didn't serve because he had other priorities...

CARLSON: Good luck.

CARVILLE: ... during Vietnam.

CARLSON: I hope you can win on that. I really do. I mean...

CARVILLE: Don't know if he'll win, but it's fact.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen. We're going to close on that thought. Tucker Carlson, James Carville, thank you.

CARLSON: On a high note. Thanks, Paula.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, the state has a lot of voting power. It is split down the middle and is politically very hot, hot, hot. Find out what makes it a must-win in this year's election and maybe even the new Florida.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: After all the words, the attacks and the counterattacks, the presidential race will come down to numbers, of course, and Democratic strategists figure it this way. John Kerry will win if he holds onto all the states Gore won in 2000 and picks up one George Bush state. Well, what state would you pick? Here's senior political correspondent Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Say close election, and you think, well, Florida. That is so 2000. Think 2004. Think Ohio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is this year's Florida. I -- you know, I've heard many people say that maybe we should just run the race in Ohio and that'll decide it for everyone.

CROWLEY: While the nation riveted on Florida four years ago, George Bush won comfortably in Ohio. But that was before steelworker Fred Hannon was worried about his job.

FRED HANNON, JR., OHIO WORKER: Been there for going on -- be 25 years in September, and I don't know if I'll have a job tomorrow, you know, so -- Everything's moving out of state, out of the United States and going somewhere else. You know, it's an ugly situation.

CROWLEY: Ohio had the fifth largest increase in unemployment last year. A lot of industrial jobs may be gone for good. Not even Republicans can pretty that up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're in a very transitional recession right now and a transitional economy. And basically, in this area, we have seen industry flee, and we've also seen some downsizing.

CROWLEY: Florida is different, too. It's created more jobs than any other state. Democrats don't dare spin that around.

MAYOR BUDDY DYER (D), ORLANDO, FLORIDA: Well, we're -- I can't go on record saying I hope the economy slumps just to help the presidential election because I think that this campaign can be waged on ideas.

CROWLEY: The I-4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando to Daytona is home to most of the states's persuadable voters. It's where Florida elections are decided. In 2002, the I-4 reelected this governor.

PROF. AUBREY JEWETT, UNIV. OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: One thing is particular is the Hispanic voter, non-Cuban Hispanic voter. Jeb Bush had yeoman outreach into that community, particularly in central Florida, along the I-4 corridor, with the emerging Puerto Rican population.

CROWLEY: It worked. Bush and Republican state rep John Quinones both won a heavily Democratic, heavily Puerto Rican I-4 district. Quinones expects the president can tout his family values, his high- profile Hispanic appointments to piggyback off what he thinks Jeb did right and Democrats do wrong.

JOHN QUINONES (R), FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATURE: It translates to taking the Latino or the minority vote for granted and saying, Oh, we care about you. We care about you. But you know, just vote for us, but we'll keep you down on the shelf. We'll keep you down at the bottom. And that's what this president has not done. He has talked the talk and walked the walk.

CROWLEY: Redistributing also tipped the scales toward Republicans, but there are still more Democrats in the state, so don't rule out a close one. But a popular brother and a booming economy gives the president an edge and John Kerry a hill to climb. Whereas in Ohio, where over five-and-a-half million voters are not registered by party and the economy struggles, the playing field seems level. Welcome to Ohio, the new Florida.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I intend to campaign very hard in Ohio. Ohio matters. We want Ohio to know there really is a better choice of how we put people back to work, of how we keep faith with the middle class.

CROWLEY: George Bush will make his third trip of the year to Ohio next week. He'll be talking about jobs. Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here tonight. Thanks so much for being with us. Tomorrow night: Some of the biggest celebrity CEOs of the '90s were praised for their visionary ideas. We'll look at what's become of some of them. Some of them have fallen very hard, indeed.

And we will hear from the families of 9/11 victims about what they want to hear from the president and vice president, who will be interviewed on Thursday by the 9/11 commission. We'll also explore the question of why they are testifying together, in the first place.

Again, that wraps it up for all of us here. Thanks so much for being with us tonight. We'll be back same time, same place tomorrow night. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.

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 April 27, 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 ANCHOR: And good evening and welcome. Glad to have you with us tonight.
Tonight, we begin in Iraq, some important developments there, where U.S. troops make a decisive move in Fallujah against Sunni Muslim resistance to the occupation of Iraq. AC-130 gunships began pounding two suspected insurgent positions in the city several hours ago. No word yet on what damage or casualties the strikes may have caused.

U.S. pool reporter Karl Penhaul with the very latest now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're talking to you from the northwest edge of Fallujah. We're talking to you through a night- vision scope. We're at a U.S. Marine position. And they have imposed a strict nighttime blackout here.

This northwest edge of Fallujah is a front-line combat position. About 200 yards from where we are standing lie some insurgent positions. Four hours ago, the position here was very, very different. A U.S. and coalition AC-130 Spectre gunship was in operation. In fact, Pentagon sources tell us two of those highly sophisticated aircraft were in operation.

They flew over our small Marine base here and then proceeded to pound two suspected insurgent positions about three quarters of a mile south of us. Initially, what we heard was the thump of .105- millimeter cannons being fired from that aircraft and then we saw showers of sparks as those cannon rounds hit the grounds, flames leaping up into the night sky, and then plumes of black, black smoke drifting over the night sky.

Now, Pentagon sources tell us that the targets there were two separate targets, both suspected insurgent positions. They haven't given us any further details of those. What they do say, though, was that that airstrike was in response to a specific threat from those positions. They say it wasn't the start of an all-out offensive to seize back the city of Fallujah from the control of insurgents.

More or less, at the time that those attacks were going on, we heard chants and songs coming up from some of the many mosques here in Fallujah. We understand that those were probably the religious leaders reciting verses from the holy Koran. But I do also understand that some of the Marines will be analyzing those sounds to see if possibly they were a call to arms to some of the insurgent fighters. Now, as I say, there has been, in the course of the last hour or so, sporadic gunfire. We have heard the Marines setting up and firing off heavy machine guns towards those insurgent positions. But certainly now, the AC-130 gunships do seem to be calm. And it only remains to wait until daybreak to see what kind of damage those aircraft have done.

This is Karl Penhaul, reporting with the camera of John Templeton (ph) for the U.S. networks pool in the northwest edge of Fallujah, Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Meanwhile, the Pentagon says tonight that the Marine attack in Fallujah, the one you've just witnessed on camera, was provoked by a specific threat, and the cease-fire is officially still in play.

For a closer look at U.S. military objectives and strategy, let's call in one of our military analysts, Brigadier General David Grange. He joins us tonight from Oak Brook, Illinois. And counterterrorism expert Aaron Cohen, who is in Los Angeles tonight.

Welcome, gentlemen.

General Grange, I am going to start with you this evening.

The Pentagon saying that these aerial strikes are not part of a new offensive. How effective do you think they might be?

RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, an AC-130 gunship is very precise, very effective. It's not a new offensive. It's using that fire support platform to support the positions that are engaged in this particular area of Fallujah.

It's very precise. They can pick out a specific vehicle and hit that vehicle on the road. They can designate between several buildings and get the building designated by the ground commander. Many forces in the past would have loved to have this platform in a fight.

ZAHN: And, General, even though you say that, in general, these kinds of attacks seem to be quite precise, there obviously has to obviously be a great deal of concern against hitting civilians. How you do guard against that?

GRANGE: well, there's always going to be civilian casualties. But this is one of the platforms that actually keeps down the number of civilian casualties, if you determine you have the right information and that's the building you want to hit.

But it can keep from, let's say, a barrage of artillery fire or other area fire weapons that produce more civilian casualties. This eliminates many of those. But, again, it's only as good as the information you have on the ground.

ZAHN: Sure.

And, Aaron, with the negotiations ongoing, the cease-fire we're told apparently still in place, Marines on the ground saying they are fired upon only when they are hit by insurgents, how risky is this mission?

AARON COHEN, FORMER ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES COUNTERTERRORISM COMMANDO: It's very risky. And the reason why is because it's very hard to define who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.

In this particular case, I agree with the general. I think it's very important to be able to focus and concentrate to reduce the amount of risk. But, ultimately, at the end of the day, because it's so risky, regardless of the risk, you are still eventually going to have to go in there and do the work.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about the risk the U.S. troops are up against in Fallujah. You've got bobby traps. You've got snipers. You even have guerrillas now move going through secret underground tunnels. How do U.S. troops fight in these conditions?

COHEN: Well, in this situation, not unlike Israel, in this case, it's almost a little more different, the reason why is because Iraq is surrounded by the possibility of having insurgents joining their ranks from every different direction.

So, for every moment we're not fighting them, they're getting stronger. What needs to happen in order to successfully control the situation is we need to go in there and we need to use the most amount of human intelligence to be able to define exactly where these people are.

With counterterror, the ability is to be able to see the terrorists and then either capture or neutralize the terrorists. You can't see that from the sky. You can't see that from anywhere except your own eyes. You need to go in. It's very dangerous, but you need to focus on looking, on making sure that where you're going to be firing is accurate. And it has to be done very, very aggressively.

ZAHN: Well, let's talk about just how aggressively.

General Grange, under the cease-fire terms, the insurgents were supposed to give up their weapons today. That didn't happen. How worrisome is that?

GRANGE: Well, the coalition forces, in coordination with Iraqi leaders, tried it and tried this as a solution. And so good for them. I think it's worth a try, but I also think it's not going to work. You have some bad people in there, maybe up to 2,000 insurgents that are not going to give up their good weapons. They are going to fight to the death.

The good news is that the city is isolated. The enemy will fight under the ground, on the ground itself, and then, of course, on rooftops. It's a three-dimensional fight. And it's going to be tough for the Marines and those working with the Marines like the Army armored units. But I don't think you're going to see a siege of the city, but you are going to see some very tough fighting in specific areas, where the intelligence that was stated, the human intelligence, comes forth that can give you good information on targeting.

ZAHN: Aaron, a final thought from you. As the general just said, if these insurgents fight to the death, what can be expected?

COHEN: Paula, let me tell you what the deal is with terrorists, from my experience.

Terrorists are guerrillas. These are people who willing to kidnap people, murder, assassinate in order to further their cause. They're not unlike termites? How do we take down termites or how do we exterminate termites? You have to focus not on covering the entire city, but on focusing on covering each specific house. What does that mean? It means putting troops physically in there, surrounding the house to secure it, and then going in.

It's the only way to physically execute the missions and know that the people that you're going after are the people that need to be arrested or need to be neutralized. It's not unlike exterminating rodents. It's the same thing. And it's not a great analogy, but it's the best way to put into context what exactly they're looking at there. Every individual house needs to be dealt with by neighborhood and by house. You don't collapse on the city. You collapse on the houses and your work. The point isn't to not get hit. The point is to work while reducing risks.

BLITZER: All right, gentlemen, we've got to leave it there. Aaron Cohen, David Grange, the prospect of this kind of fighting you're talking about frightening, I think, to anybody listening to it tonight. Thanks.

"Christian Science Monitor" correspondent Scott Peterson has been embedded with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit for the past week at Camp Fallujah.

And in a phone interview, I asked him why the military chose to stand back over the past few weeks and why the strength of the insurgency make have taken them by surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCOTT PETERSON, "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR": Well, I think that they felt that, if they were able to continue pursuing pinpoint attacks, then they eventually would prevail without having to actually roll into the entire city.

ZAHN: You have covered other war zones before. Describe to us the danger you have witnessed in the last couple of days and how it compared to other violence you have witnessed.

PETERSON: Well, I think that this conflict is one that is incredibly dangerous, not only for the Marines themselves, because this is a -- because this is an urban environment, but also I think for the journalists who are covering it. In many cases, we are embedded with Marines who are right there on the front line along with troops who are on the front line. It serves two purposes. Of course, we get to see what's going on. But it also means that we are right there with them. We have, you know, a feeling for the kind of stresses and the kind of dangers that that front line brings with it.

Also the type of insurgency, the kind of risks that there are in Iraq generally, in terms of hostage taking, which has now become a tactic of various groups of anti-American groups, whether they be Shia, whether they be Sunni, like we're seeing in Fallujah, there are those kind of things. And compared, for example, to Somalia, which was a story that I covered a lot in 1992 and 1993, Somalia was a place where always there would be shooting every single night, practically 24 hours a day.

Everybody had a gun. And whenever the shooting calmed down, you thought, wait a minute, maybe something's going to happen. In Iraq, there's almost no kind of peripheral shooting that you ever hear. And you never know what's going to go on or what is going to happen or where you are until you get blown off the road. And I think that's what the Marines are facing, too, on a daily basis, especially with these explosive devices, roadside bombs, things like that, that the insurgents are just very, very clever about installing and delivering casualties.

ZAHN: So, given the unpredictability of the attackers, realistically, what kind of precautions could you as journalists take or even Marines take to stay alive?

PETERSON: Well, the Marines, of course, are getting better and better at eyeballing these improvised explosive devices, as they call them, IEDs. But they are very clever, too, the Iraqis, in terms of how they create them.

Sometimes, you see a curb along a road that it looks like it's a piece of concrete. In fact, it has got a .155-millimeter Howitzer round in it, which can cause a huge amount of damage. There have been so many explosions and casualties and injuries caused to Americans by these types of weapons that, in some cases, U.S. forces here, especially the Marines, have actually begun to modify their armor.

They're now using the -- they're now using Kevlar shoulder patches and shoulder guards to cover the parts of the extremities that are particularly prone to getting injured when some these IEDs and roadside bombs explode. They're using now new ballistic glasses which have become standard issue. And they have made orders for thousands of these in the last couple of months to make sure -- because they were seeing so many eye injuries from these things.

So they have had to modify also in a very quick manner the type of warfare that they're seeing here, which, in this kind of environment, I don't think they've seen in -- at least in kind of recent institutional memory.

ZAHN: Scott, according to "The Los Angeles Times," there have been so many Marines wounded in Fallujah that there is actually a backlog of Purple Hearts. What does that do to the morale of troops?

PETERSON: Well, it's surprising, to be honest.

The Marines that I have come in contact with -- and I have spoken to a lot who have been engaged in some of these firefights. In fact, I was in one of the combat surgical rooms where they were working on a couple of these guys.

Two of them had been ambushed, not where the main fight is going on tonight, but their unit had been ambushed east of Fallujah. And seven people rolled in. There were two that had gunshot wounds. And they pulled a huge slug, a bullet, out of the leg of one of the Marines. And another one had a bullet wound right through the back.

And, amazingly, they were trying to convince their commanders that they were ready to go and go back out. I have been really surprised at the level of -- kind of the high degree of morale that these Marines have shown. Remember, they have only been here for a month and a half. Many of these units that are here now engaged in the initial invasion last year and were in Iraq for several months.

Now they're back. But they seem to be engaged. They're taking casualties. But it's really surprising. You don't see much head- dragging or anything like that. I mean, you know, what you see is kind of more encouragement for these guys.

And, for example, the one who had the gravest -- the bullet in and out through his back was trying to convince his commander that he'd be back. And his commander actually promised him that his spot was still going to be there. Another soldier who was injured in that huge firefight yesterday who I spoke to earlier this morning, he wanted to get back out there. But the only problem was, was that half his shoulder was missing around his firing arm.

But he was convinced he would be able to sit there on a roof and not have to run anywhere and he could contribute that way. So it's been surprising. But they are -- the Marines that are here certainly appear to be geared up for whatever the future holds.

ZAHN: Scott Peterson, we appreciate your fine reporting tonight. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And as we move along, we'll talk more about healing some of the emotional scars of war, how the Army's combat stress units help thousands of troops grapple with everything from battle fatigue to troubles at home.

U.S. forces hustle to help the Pentagon meet a June 30 deadline for Iraqi control. Is that possible? Who might control the new Iraq?

And Vice President Cheney fires away at John Kerry. "CROSSFIRE"'s Carville and Carlson gives us their take on the candidates' war over military service.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: The people of Iraq can overcome the trauma of Saddam Hussein's brutality and the intimidation of violent extremists seeking to derail the progress they have made so far. But for these policies to succeed, we will need to proceed with resolve, constancy and unity of purpose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte, the president's choice to the first U.S. ambassador to postwar Iraq, his confirmation hearing began today in the Senate, just 10 weeks before the June 30 transfer of power.

Now, the latest violence raises some serious questions about the future of Iraq and the role the U.S. officials will play after the handover.

Bathsheba Crocker is co-director the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Last year, she led a team that went to Iraq to assess the challenges of rebuilding that nation.

Good to see you. Welcome, Bathsheba.

BATHSHEBA CROCKER, CO-DIRECTOR, POST-CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: Thank you.

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about the tentative plan that is on the table right now for the turnover. What does it look like?

CROCKER: It involves a lot of different components. And I think, in some ways, it's changing before our eyes.

It essentially involves the creation of some form of an Iraqi interim government to take over from the Coalition Provisional Authority, to take over civilian power on June 30, but largely or in fact wholly the same state of affairs with respect to the U.S. military and its role in Iraq. So we won't see any change in terms of the number or the responsibilities or role of the U.S. military on the ground after June 30.

ZAHN: Powerful editorial in "The Wall Street Journal" today, Saudi Arabia's Prince Saud al-Faisal suggesting that the sovereignty of Iraq will be compromised because of that very reason. And he feels that unless Iraq's new rulers are given an army that has complete control over Iraq, that you're basically making a big mistake here. Is he right?

CROCKER: Well, I think the question is a very complicated one. And, unfortunately, where we find ourselves right now is with an Iraqi security force that is not yet ready to take over power from the U.S. military because the security problems just remain too large and too serious in that country. And so I think, for some continuing period of time, we will need to see the U.S. military overseeing that. But I think he raises an important point in that it does really complicate things from the perspective of the Iraqis and of course calls into question what the turnover of sovereignty really means, because any Iraqi governing body that comes into power on June 30, at least at this point, is not going to have a say over the security situation or what happens with the U.S. troops in the country or with the Iraqi troops in the country.

The Iraqi troops will themselves be reporting to a U.S. military that will remain in ultimate command of all the forces in Iraq.

ZAHN: So how skeptical will the Iraqi people be about this plan?

CROCKER: Well, I think at the moment the Iraqi people are fairly skeptical about it and will remain so unless we start do a better job of describing to them what this plan really entails. I think that's been a failure so far in our efforts in Iraq.

We haven't done a very good job of describing to the Iraqi people what their future holds. And I think, at this point, they remain skeptical and also somewhat confused. So I think a very important step going forward is going to be for us to start explaining that more explicitly to them.

But I think, of course, any of this is complicated again by the fact the U.S. military will remain on the ground in large numbers spread throughout Iraq and maintaining essentially the same posture that they maintain now. So, from the perspective of the average Iraqi, somewhere, anywhere in the country, his daily life is probably not going to change all that much. And what he sees in terms of the face of the U.S. in Iraq is probably not going to change all that much either.

ZAHN: Let's wrap up this conversation for a moment talking about the increased violence in Fallujah. We showed some pretty staggering pictures of that earlier this evening and the escalating violence in Najaf. What do you attribute that to?

CROCKER: Well, a number of different things. I think what we're seeing in Fallujah is an escalation of the problems that we have seen in that city and in that area all along.

And, essentially, it has to do with a number of different things, including the fact that we have not yet been successful in bringing the Sunni population into the fold. And they have felt largely disenfranchised so far by our efforts so far in Iraq. They don't yet see a room for themselves in the political future of the country.

I think what's going on the in the central and southern parts of the country with al-Sadr and others in the Shia community is somewhat different, but essentially also related to the fact that as of yet they don't really understand or see a place for themselves politically. We have essentially sort of created a vacuum there. And a vacuum can easily be filled by an extremist like Sadr. and I think that's what we're seeing right now. ZAHN: Bathsheba Crocker, thank you for all your information tonight. Appreciate it.

CROCKER: Thank you.

ZAHN: Coming up, U.S. troops continue to face life-and-death decisions in Iraq. You are going to see how they deal with the physical and mental challenges of warfare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR ERNEST PROUD, PSYCHOLOGIST: Some 14-year-old kid ran over and picked up an AK-47 and pointed it at him and he had to kill him. Well, he came to me and he said, listen, I'm having nightmares. I had to kill him. He was the age of my kids and I feel so badly about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And just like the last election, the White House could rest on a single state. They're calling it this year's Florida. We'll take you there a little bit later on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: For some soldiers, fighting the war on the battlefield is only part of their sacrifice. They also have to fight emotional and psychological battles. But in this California in Iraq, the Army has brought together a special unit to help win that fight well.

Thelma Gutierrez has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take cover!

CAPT. BILL BOWERS, PSYCHIATRIST NURSE: Seeing your buddy get blown up, that's a pretty big pill to swallow if you're 19 years old.

LT. COL. DAN LONNQUIST, PSYCHOLOGIST: Being under the constant stress of not knowing what's going to happen.

PROUD: It was quite traumatic, what they had to see.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're psychologists, counselors, and psychiatric nurses, reservists with the 113th Stress Combat Unit, who took their civilian expertise right to the battlefield in Iraq.

(voice-over): It was the first time a mental health team like this, made up of some 70 professionals, had been mobilized for combat. They returned after 14 long months away from home, after counseling some 20,000 soldiers.

Captain Bill Bowers is an analyst and psychiatric nurse in Los Angeles. In Iraq, his three-member team counseled 80 soldiers a week. BOWERS: It is a lot of work. If somebody is not mission-capable and they're losing their marbles, you don't want them out with the other soldiers, basically, because it's not good for the unit.

GUTIERREZ: Or the soldier. The mission of the 113th was to provide immediate counseling to those in combat to try to prevent post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Lieutenant Colonel Ernest Proud is a school psychologist, back in the gym after a year in Iraq. Of the hundreds of stories he heard, there's one soldier he says he'll never forget.

PROUD: Some 14-year-old kid ran over and picked up an AK-47 and pointed it at him and he had to kill him. Well, he came to me and he said, listen, I'm having nightmares. I had to kill him. He was the age of my kids and I feel so badly about it.

GUTIERREZ: It's this kind of deep wound that Major Proud hopes he was able to heal.

Lieutenant Colonel Dan Lonnquist, a psychologist, says the 113th also helped soldiers cope with hardships on the homefront, like money problems and a love one's infidelity. But it's not knowing when they will go home that is the biggest moral buster.

LONNQUIST: In Iraq, we were there for six months or longer before we had an idea that it would be a year before we would be coming back.

GUTIERREZ: Captain Bowers says the war took a year of his life, but he knows he made a difference.

BOWERS: For me to be able to go through that with someone, that process, that is -- it's big stuff.

GUTIERREZ: Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: No one found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and hardly anyone in Congress read a CIA report on them. Would that have made a difference in the vote to launch a war?

Vietnam and John Kerry's race for the White House. Do you have to have served in Vietnam to talk about it? Our "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts weigh in on that issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": There's one person running for president who served with valor and honor. That person is John Kerry.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. That's why he joined the National Guard. End of story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. Here's what you need to know right now at the bottom of the hour. Fire from U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunships lighted up the sky over the Iraqi city of Fallujah tonight. The air strikes set off secondary explosions that sent plumes of smoke over the whole city, where Marines have been in a standoff with insurgents for about two weeks now. Further south near Najaf, the U.S. military says overnight attacks killed 64 Iraqi fighters. American forces are trying to capture or kill Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al Sadr, who sparked the uprising in Najaf three weeks ago.

On Wednesday, Saddam Hussein turned 67. Today a U.S. general in Baghdad said the former dictator got a visit from the International Red Cross. He has been in custody since December 13.

In Syria tonight, six loud explosions were followed by an hour- long gun battle in the middle of Damascus. At least four people were killed in what Syrian officials say was a battle between police and a group of terrorists. The fighting left the former United Nations building in flames.

And two U.S. soldiers whose sister died in combat in Iraq two weeks ago will not return go back to the front. Rochelle (ph) and Charity Witmer (ph) returned home to Wisconsin for the funeral of their sister, Sergeant Michelle Witmer (ph). The family says they will ask the Army to transfer them to non-combat positions.

The fighting in Fallujah reminds us of the serious consequences of this war, but apparently, few members of Congress bothered even to read a key report about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before they gave their go ahead for the war. "The Washington Post" says only six senators and a handful of representatives ventured into a secure guarded area of the Capitol to look at the 92-page CIA report. Does this mean our representatives are lazy or negligent? And would reading it have changed any votes?

Let's talk with two representatives who did go out of their way to look at the report. First, Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman of California, who is the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Welcome. Always good to see you.

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Nice to be on your show, Paula.

ZAHN: Thank you. So can you explain tonight why so few of your colleagues bothered to read this document?

HARMAN: Well, I think that article created the wrong impression. The document was a classified report of the National Intelligence Council about WMD in Iraq, but a declassified version of that report, a 25-page report, was released prior to the vote in Congress, and I'm fairly sure that most people read that. ZAHN: Are you telling us tonight, then, there was no incentive, then, on your colleagues' part to read further into this document, like you did?

HARMAN: Well, there's always an incentive to learn as much as we can, but I am the ranking member on the House intelligence committee, so it was logical that I read a classified document like that. In order to read it, if you're not on the committee, you have to come up to the dome of the Capitol to our secured rooms, sign an oath that you won't divulge the material and then read it yourself. Staffers cannot be present, except for the intelligence committee staff. And that is a heavy lift for most members.

ZAHN: I understand what you're saying, but when you received this report just days before a critical vote is made giving the president authorization to go to war, how can that be considered heavy lifting on anybody's part? Isn't this critical information for your colleagues to be armed with?

HARMAN: Well, they had the benefit of 25 pages of summary of this document in declassified, non-classified, form that's easier -- not only easier to read, but obviously, they're able to talk about it. So I don't fault them for not reading the more technical document. But what I'm trying to add for your listeners is the fact that both documents contained information that has turned out to be substantially wrong.

ZAHN: So Representative Harman, is it fair for people to accuse members of Congress of either being lazy or negligent for not reading this document?

HARMAN: No, I think that's not fair. But I think it is fair to call on Congress to do a better job of oversight and to make absolutely certain that the failures that are well documented now, both pre-9/11 and in the intelligence reporting on -- leading up to the war in Iraq, be corrected. And the way we should do that is, one, to end the needless partisanship up here. We should stop pointing fingers and start solving problems, which is something many of us are capable of doing.

But the second thing is this administration has made a specialty of funding terrorism from supplemental requests that come up out of the budget cycle, and that's not a good way to proceed. Our committees can't exercise oversight that way. And that needs to change. It is totally irresponsible, and it will not help us steer our intelligence community in the right direction.

ZAHN: Representative Jane Harman, thank you for your thoughts tonight.

Now, from the other side of the aisle, another of the few representatives to have read the CIA report, Republican congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. He is also on the intelligence committee.

Good to see you. Welcome, sir.

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI), SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Hey, thank you. Good to be with you.

ZAHN: Thank you. So do you believe members of Congress could have made an informed judgment on whether to send this nation to war without reading the 92-page document?

HOEKSTRA: Oh, I think they absolutely could. They had a smaller version of the report that was available to them that was declassified. And obviously, they spent a significant amount of time talking to members on the intelligence committee who not only had the more extensive 92-page executive summary, but also had access to thousands of pages of additional documentation and also had the insights through the various hearings and meetings that we had with the executive branch. And I think most members took advantage of all of those avenues as a way of getting the information that they needed to make an informed decision.

ZAHN: But representative Harman suggested in some way that it was heavy lifting to expect a member of Congress to read as deeply as you and she did. Is that too much for taxpayers to expect that members of Congress read a full document, particularly in a run-up to war?

HOEKSTRA: Oh, I don't think it's too much to expect. But again, I think members -- most members took this vote very, very seriously. You know, I personally talked with a lot of members and, you know, they wanted to know about the other stuff that we had been briefed on from the CIA, from the FBI and all of those types of things. So sure, it's heavy lifting, but sending and making the decision to go or allow the president to go to war is probably the most significant decision that a member of Congress can make...

ZAHN: Sure.

HOEKSTRA: ... and I think members took that decision very, very seriously.

ZAHN: So what you're basically telling me tonight, because I know you can't really characterize the full report for us, that you don't believe any votes would have been changed by reading the entirety of the 92-page document.

HOEKSTRA: No. I think that, you know, the 25 pages were a good summary of what was in the 92 pages. And the 92 pages were a good summary of what members on the intelligence committee spent hours and weeks discussing.

ZAHN: Final question to you about the budget process. Representative Harman saying she -- even more disturbing than the fact that it was very difficult for members of Congress to wade through these documents is the point that she believes, on your committee, you've lost oversight.

HOEKSTRA: Well, I think you'll see is that much of what Congress does is -- you know, is funded on a one-year basis, not funded or looked at on a strategic basis. And if you're going to do intelligence work, if you're going to do much of what the federal government does, we need to look at this at a more strategic standpoint. What are our goals and objectives not only for the next 12 months but for the next five years and the next ten years? National security is too important to do on a one-year basis and it's too important to do on a supplemental basis. And so I agree with Jane. We need to look at this in a much more strategic way.

ZAHN: Representative Peter Hoekstra, thanks so much for your insights tonight.

HOEKSTRA: Great. Thank you.

ZAHN: The White House says the vice president is not leading a smear campaign against John Kerry, but are questions about military service during Vietnam fair game? And the strategy behind John Kerry's run for the White House. It all comes down to the farms, factories and suburbs of one Midwest state. We'll take you there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: On to the presidential race. Now the war over war service rages on today, the Republicans accusing John Kerry of telling too many different stories on what he did with his war medals, and in turn, Democrat John Kerry pointing fingers at President Bush for his National Guard service and at Vice President Cheney, who did not serve during Vietnam. Well, meanwhile, the White House is trying to brush this all off as just another political attack, but it raises the question, Do you have to have served in the military to have any credibility talking about it?

That's our cue to turn to "CROSSFIRE" co-hosts Tucker Carlson and James Carville.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I think this is a brouhaha that's going to flare up here, probably going to move on from it. I doubt, come September, October, this thing'll get flushed out. But this happens in campaigns. It certainly happened us to when I was doing President Clinton's campaign in 1992. I suspect that with things going on Iraq today and other places, we'll be pretty much beyond this. I think that, you know, it's also pretty much related, I think, to the White House trying to create a little storm here because they know this May 1 anniversary is coming up, and that's not going to be a very pretty day for them when it hits.

ZAHN: But let's talk about what traction, if any, this ultimately has with voters. Come back to that question, Tucker.

CARVILLE: I think both of us agree. Tucker said he didn't think very much, and my sense is, I tend to...

(CROSSTALK)

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Well, I mean, here -- here's the problem, and you saw it during the Clinton years. When political partisans on one or both sides get so intense that they actually kind of lose contact with reality, it turns off voters. You saw today a group run by John Kerry's former campaign manager, Jim Jordan, accuse -- or imply, anyway, but really accuse -- Dick Cheney and his wife of having children in order to get Dick Cheney out of the draft. They said, you know, Well, you'll notice that his first child was born nine months after deferments were given for fathers during the Vietnam war. That's insane! I mean, that's crazy. To even say something like that out loud, I think, hurts the people who say it. And I think the Kerry campaign's got to truly worry about some of its own supporters...

ZAHN: Oh, you got James laughing now!

CARLSON: ... undermining...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: So James, you don't think it was such a big deal, such a big mistake...

CARVILLE: No. Of course not.

ZAHN: ... on the Kerry campaign's part.

CARVILLE: I mean -- no. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a mistake -- what did John Kerry -- I mean, what -- why are you asking me if it's a mistake for the Kerry campaign? John Kerry served his country honorably. George Bush didn't show up for National Guard duty.

ZAHN: No, but what I'm saying is...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Tucker's talking about the strategy of...

CARVILLE: Of what?

ZAHN: ... of the Democrats...

CARVILLE: It's Cheney attacking...

ZAHN: ... attacking Cheney for getting...

CARVILLE: Come on!

ZAHN: ... out of service...

CARVILLE: Paula, Paula...

ZAHN: ... by having kids.

CARVILLE: Paula, Paula...

ZAHN: Is that a stupid way to go?

CARVILLE: It was one group. I don't know if it's stupid way to go. It's one group in the Democratic Party. It's hardly the Democrats. I mean, come on. Get real here.

CARLSON: But actually...

CARVILLE: John -- actually John Kerry fired Jim Jordan (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I have no idea of the timing of this. I do know this, that there's one person running for president who served with valor and honor. That person is John Kerry. That is a fact. There's one person running for president of the United States that didn't show up for National Guards meetings, which was his obligation. That person is President Bush. You can take that information, you can do what you want with it. But those are the facts. So why are you asking me about John Kerry?

CARLSON: I'll tell you...

CARVILLE: Why don't you ask him about George Bush not showing up for...

ZAHN: Well, let me ask...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: ... give me the opportunity to do just that.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Tucker, what about that issue of the president's vulnerability, particularly when it comes to all of the questions raised about...

CARLSON: Well, Bush...

ZAHN: ... the service or lack of service...

CARLSON: I mean -- I don't...

ZAHN: ... in the National Guard?

CARLSON: I don't understand it. Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. That's why he joined the National Guard. End of story. He didn't want to go to Vietnam. He joined the National Guard, as a lot of other people did. The question here is, though, do you have credibility, do you have a moral right to speak out on war if you didn't fight in a war? And the answer is, of course you do. Look, up until five years ago, no women fought in wars. None. And does that mean that women are not allowed to weigh in on what they think about Iraq? It's a crazy argument!

CARVILLE: That's not the criticism of it. The criticism of it is, is that he got in the National Guard through political influence. The least he could have done was show up for the meetings. That's not -- that's the entire criticism.

CARLSON: This is such a...

CARVILLE: If you get in there... CARLSON: ... stupid argument.

CARVILLE: ... and everybody else does, why didn't he show up for the meetings? And you're asking me about John Kerry, who's gotten medals hanging all over the place. It's a -- of course it's a ridiculous...

ZAHN: Why is that a stupid...

CARVILLE: ... argument.

ZAHN: ... argument, Tucker?

CARLSON: I'll tell you exactly...

ZAHN: Why isn't it fair to raise...

CARLSON: ... why. I'll tell you -- I...

ZAHN: ... the question...

CARLSON: I'll tell you...

ZAHN: ... if you get into the National Guard, why you don't show up for meetings?

CARLSON: Oh, I'm not saying that narrow question itself is illegitimate. OK, he showed up for the meetings, he didn't show up for the meetings. I mean, I personally could care less, just as I could care less about whose medals John Kerry did throw, in the end. I just think the core argument they're making -- again, for the third time -- is if you didn't serve, you don't have a right to criticize or -- the people who did serve. Moreover, there's a war going on. If you don't like Bush's policy on the war, attack his policy on the war. Instead, you attack his beer drinking 30 years ago, some meeting he did or did not go to, and his running mate's wife's choice to have a baby. It's, like, insane! And I don't think you can get elected president making those arguments.

CARVILLE: We can come back to all of the ancillary issues. The two principals involved in this are Senator Kerry and President Bush. Senator Kerry served, by every account, with valor and distinction. President Bush got into the National Guard via political influence and didn't show up for the meetings. I don't know what that means. That's a fact.

CARLSON: Oh, God!

CARVILLE: You can take that fact and do anything that you want with it.

CARLSON: Oh! Good luck.

CARVILLE: I find it completely ironic...

CARLSON: Good luck. CARVILLE: Cheney said he didn't serve because he had other priorities...

CARLSON: Good luck.

CARVILLE: ... during Vietnam.

CARLSON: I hope you can win on that. I really do. I mean...

CARVILLE: Don't know if he'll win, but it's fact.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen. We're going to close on that thought. Tucker Carlson, James Carville, thank you.

CARLSON: On a high note. Thanks, Paula.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: Well, the state has a lot of voting power. It is split down the middle and is politically very hot, hot, hot. Find out what makes it a must-win in this year's election and maybe even the new Florida.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: After all the words, the attacks and the counterattacks, the presidential race will come down to numbers, of course, and Democratic strategists figure it this way. John Kerry will win if he holds onto all the states Gore won in 2000 and picks up one George Bush state. Well, what state would you pick? Here's senior political correspondent Candy Crowley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Say close election, and you think, well, Florida. That is so 2000. Think 2004. Think Ohio.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is this year's Florida. I -- you know, I've heard many people say that maybe we should just run the race in Ohio and that'll decide it for everyone.

CROWLEY: While the nation riveted on Florida four years ago, George Bush won comfortably in Ohio. But that was before steelworker Fred Hannon was worried about his job.

FRED HANNON, JR., OHIO WORKER: Been there for going on -- be 25 years in September, and I don't know if I'll have a job tomorrow, you know, so -- Everything's moving out of state, out of the United States and going somewhere else. You know, it's an ugly situation.

CROWLEY: Ohio had the fifth largest increase in unemployment last year. A lot of industrial jobs may be gone for good. Not even Republicans can pretty that up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're in a very transitional recession right now and a transitional economy. And basically, in this area, we have seen industry flee, and we've also seen some downsizing.

CROWLEY: Florida is different, too. It's created more jobs than any other state. Democrats don't dare spin that around.

MAYOR BUDDY DYER (D), ORLANDO, FLORIDA: Well, we're -- I can't go on record saying I hope the economy slumps just to help the presidential election because I think that this campaign can be waged on ideas.

CROWLEY: The I-4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando to Daytona is home to most of the states's persuadable voters. It's where Florida elections are decided. In 2002, the I-4 reelected this governor.

PROF. AUBREY JEWETT, UNIV. OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: One thing is particular is the Hispanic voter, non-Cuban Hispanic voter. Jeb Bush had yeoman outreach into that community, particularly in central Florida, along the I-4 corridor, with the emerging Puerto Rican population.

CROWLEY: It worked. Bush and Republican state rep John Quinones both won a heavily Democratic, heavily Puerto Rican I-4 district. Quinones expects the president can tout his family values, his high- profile Hispanic appointments to piggyback off what he thinks Jeb did right and Democrats do wrong.

JOHN QUINONES (R), FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATURE: It translates to taking the Latino or the minority vote for granted and saying, Oh, we care about you. We care about you. But you know, just vote for us, but we'll keep you down on the shelf. We'll keep you down at the bottom. And that's what this president has not done. He has talked the talk and walked the walk.

CROWLEY: Redistributing also tipped the scales toward Republicans, but there are still more Democrats in the state, so don't rule out a close one. But a popular brother and a booming economy gives the president an edge and John Kerry a hill to climb. Whereas in Ohio, where over five-and-a-half million voters are not registered by party and the economy struggles, the playing field seems level. Welcome to Ohio, the new Florida.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I intend to campaign very hard in Ohio. Ohio matters. We want Ohio to know there really is a better choice of how we put people back to work, of how we keep faith with the middle class.

CROWLEY: George Bush will make his third trip of the year to Ohio next week. He'll be talking about jobs. Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And that wraps it up for all of us here tonight. Thanks so much for being with us. Tomorrow night: Some of the biggest celebrity CEOs of the '90s were praised for their visionary ideas. We'll look at what's become of some of them. Some of them have fallen very hard, indeed.

And we will hear from the families of 9/11 victims about what they want to hear from the president and vice president, who will be interviewed on Thursday by the 9/11 commission. We'll also explore the question of why they are testifying together, in the first place.

Again, that wraps it up for all of us here. Thanks so much for being with us tonight. We'll be back same time, same place tomorrow night. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next. Have a great night.

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