Return to Transcripts main page
Paula Zahn Now
Media Overdose on Iraqi Abuse Scandal?; Martha Stewart Shocker; A Look At Madonna Reinvention Tour
Aired May 21, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): The slow drip of photos and now video of prisoner abuse. Is the media overdose fanning political warfare?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to hear it from you all before we see it in the paper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iraqi people, I think, deserve to see how we handle this.
ZAHN: The government says watch out for suicide bombers. But who and where? Tonight, nebulous warnings, real fears.
And a shocking development in the Martha Stewart case. Could it be the recipe for a new trial?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Good evening. Welcome to the end of the week. Thank so much for joining us tonight.
Well, today, Americans recoiled again at new images of U.S. soldiers beating and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. The pictures appeared first in "The Washington Post" on a day when the U.S. released more than 450 inmates from Abu Ghraib prison, when Spain pulled the last of its troops from Iraq, and when the White House said President Bush will make a prime-time address on Monday to outline the process of handing over power to the Iraqis and to warn Americans of difficult days ahead.
This time, the latest images include video, adding a new sense of reality to what really happened at Abu Ghraib.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): They were plastered on America's television screens, printed front and center in our newspapers, yet another rude awakening, new pictures of the same abuse at the same prison, the now notorious Abu Ghraib. And now we can see the abuse in full motion, as it happened, slapping one man, dragging another, and arranging a third as if for a pyramid, like we saw in previous images.
The still pictures, too, brought new horrors, a dog apparently terrifying this jumpsuit-clad prisoner, a soldier, his arm cocked, ready to strike a detainee, a naked man shackled at the ankles, smeared with a brown substance, a hooded man in a so-called stress position, shackled to the wall, a soldier appearing to kneel on a pile of prisoners, and a hooded handcuffed man who seems to have collapsed.
With today's new images, we are still left to wonder when, if ever, we will see the whole picture.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Joining us now is senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
Good evening, Jamie. What do we know about the source of these photos?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know much.
We know that these are the same photographs that have been viewed by members of Congress, provided by the Pentagon. We know they have been under very close hold at the Pentagon, hopeful that they would not get out. But they were obtained by "The Washington Post." The most likely source for this kind of thing is from some of the defense attorneys who have access to the material as part of the discovery process.
But it's impossible to say with any certainty who leaked them and what their motivation was.
ZAHN: And do we know tonight, Jamie, if these are some of the same photos that the lawmakers had seen several weeks ago?
MCINTYRE: Yes, they are some of them, some of the same videos as well. What we don't know is whether "The Post" has essentially everything that's left out there or whether there's still more to be leaked.
ZAHN: And, obviously, the Pentagon is concerned about how many more days the story will have legs. Is there any consideration to making all of these photos public, so they don't drip out a day at a time?
MCINTYRE: Boy, that's the hot topic of debate here at the Pentagon. Many Pentagon officials, I can tell you, are firmly convinced that they, the U.S. government, ought to release everything all at once and get it out there and get it over with. The Pentagon, however, has been holding back on that course of action, relying on the advice of Pentagon attorneys who insist that an official release of the images would in itself constitute a breach of the Geneva Conventions against humiliating prisoners.
But I can tell you that there are many people here who think it's a public relations disaster to continue to allow these images to show up piecemeal over a long period of time.
ZAHN: And, finally, today another challenge for the Pentagon when we learned that the Army is opening some investigations into deaths of detainees, not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. What can you tell us about that?
MCINTYRE: Well, there are lots of questions about the deaths of prisoners, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the hands of U.S. troops and what the status is today.
The Army updated us on that and told us essentially that there are 33 separate investigations. Now, some of these have been closed. Some have been ruled natural causes. But in several cases, they've been ruled homicides. And there are eight open cases that are potential murders, where the deaths could have been caused by the abuse.
One case -- and they released some of the death reports today. One of them here, for instance, is an Iraqi general who died in custody. The cause of death ruled as asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Doesn't sound like an innocuous death, but that case is still under investigation.
ZAHN: Yes, it certainly doesn't.
Jamie McIntyre, thanks so much for the update.
Now, our military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd, has spoken with high-ranking military officials to get their reactions to the ongoing prison abuse scandal. He joins us tonight from Tucson, Arizona.
Always good to see you, General.
I want to start off where -- basically where Jamie left off and now the public record that some 33 criminal investigations are going on into the deaths of these detainees. Is that a number that one should expect during these kinds of military operations?
RETIRED MAJOR GEN. DONALD SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I don't know how to set a number that you would expect, Paula. But 33 really doesn't surprise me because of the size of the operations going on, the number of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and probably Guantanamo, too.
Some of these, according to the initial reports, you say have been homicides, being investigated as homicides, some natural deaths, some escapees, some suicides as well. So it doesn't surprise me, the number, 33. But, again, I don't know how you set a right number for something like this.
ZAHN: Let's come back to the story of more pictures being released of alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. There is a feeling among folks who have released these photos that you can actually learn something new potentially about the chain of command having been involved here. Do you believe that's where this takes us?
SHEPPERD: Yes, you're going to go up the chain of command in some fashion. Clearly we see about 300 photos and we see a lot of those same faces, and we see a lot of tier block 1-A in Abu Ghraib prison.
But the chain of command is responsible for what the soldiers underneath them do and what they don't do. Now, how high up this goes is hard to say. The investigations going on will tell us a lot more, because the investigations so far have been the Taguba report on the military police, the Fay report due out on the military intelligence, and other investigations. We'll see how far this goes.
The key questions are, what did you know about what your troops were doing? What did you do about it? Did you ignore any warnings out there? That will be the key questions for the chain of command, Paula.
ZAHN: What's your sense tonight of how far up this may go?
SHEPPERD: I don't think it's going to go real high. Bad things go on all the time. And you can't replace the top commanders every time something goes on, because you would be replacing them daily in big operations, particularly in combat. I don't think it's going to go real high.
But it's clearly going to go further than those that have already been leveled. Now, even those that have been admonished or reprimanded, if investigations find that criminal charges should be lodged, they can face courts-martial even after they received reprimands, and maybe even career-ending punishment.
ZAHN: I'm really surprised to hear what you just said, when you said you might be replacing generals daily for various infractions? What kind of infractions are you talking about?
SHEPPERD: What I'm saying is, in a large organization, bad things go on every day. And you can't just replace somebody every time something goes wrong, a bad accident, this type of thing. You have to go down the chain of command.
We're experienced at investigating these things and determining how high people should be held responsible. But you don't just replace the top generals, the secretary of defense, the president, every time something goes wrong. It's impractical.
ZAHN: All right, but you've heard people out there calling for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. And they believe that he actually gave troops tacit approval through his generals.
SHEPPERD: Yes, well, all of this is in an election year, so I put some of that aside. On the other hand, there has been a confusing, confusing array of instructions about what rules apply in Guantanamo, what apply in Iraq, what apply in Afghanistan, whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply.
All of that needs to be straightened out after investigations. On the other hand, you've got to get right back to the basics. No amount of instruction on the wall is going to keep prisoners that are -- I mean, going to keep the people that are going to treat detainees like this from happening. These people knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew it was illegal. Everybody knew it was illegal without any piece of paper, any piece of paper, any instruction anywhere.
This is criminal conduct. And the people doing it knew it.
ZAHN: General Shepperd, thanks for joining us. I know those pictures just make you sick to look at. You've told us that before. Appreciate your time.
Would the prisoner abuse scandal be as big without those increasingly graphic images in the news? They have filled the front pages, dominated the tubes, spread around the world on the Internet. We're going to debate whether the media has gone too far.
Also, could a surprise development derail Martha Stewart's upcoming sentencing? We'll ask legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
And she has certainly shocked us before. Now Madonna is getting to launch a new tour and some of the rumors are simply outrageous.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: In the coming days, the new prisoner abuse images you see tonight will surely are printed or broadcast again and again, especially in the 24-hour competitive news environment.
The images may be shocking. They may be disturbing, but do they deserve all the media attention they're now getting?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): Is this really news? Is this? "The Washington Post" says these newly released photographs and video go beyond the photos previously released. But do they go beyond what we already know? We have heard detail after detail about the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Those earlier pictures gave us our first glimpse. The hearings...
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: In simple words, your own soldiers' language, how did this happen?
ZAHN: ... gave us more. So we knew these pictures were out there.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners.
ZAHN: And we knew pretty much what they conveyed, that many images were worse than what we've seen before.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: What we all know, and I think what we left the observation period with is, a sick feeling, appalling in what we saw.
ZAHN: But do we really need to see more? Practically every photo that leaks out has been published around the world in newspapers and magazines, over the Internet and on television.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the publication of still more photos of prisoner abuse...
ZAHN: That has infuriated some here in the U.S.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: I would call on the media that has now given more attention to these seven people and what they did than to the invasion of Normandy, is that we are at this point disturbing our military operation in theater.
ZAHN: And overseas, especially in the Muslim world. "The Washington Post" says even these new images still don't answer the question who's responsible. So why were they on the front page or the lead story in many broadcasts, including this one, if they don't convey new information? Should the media continue to display these pictures? Or is it simply overkill?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Well, that question has certainly stirred up some very strong opinions.
I discussed the media coverage of the prisoner abuse scandal with two journalists who do not see eye to eye on it, "The New Republic"'s editor, Peter Beinart, who believes these images tell more of the story and should be shown, while "Wall Street Journal" columnist John Fund has had enough of them if they're not put into context.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: So, Peter, you say it's important for all information on Abu Ghraib to become public? But do these pictures really add anything new to our understanding of the story and what went wrong?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": What they do is they keep the pressure on. And I think that's what's important. This scandal has always been different from other scandals because of the pictures. The pictures make it much more gripping.
And the pictures are what will keep the pressure on from Congress and the public to try to figure out the really important story here, which was, was Abu Ghraib part of a systematic policy of torture and abuse which came from the highest ranking officials of this administration. We still don't know the answer to that. The pictures will help us find out.
ZAHN: That's exactly, John Fund, what the manager of "The Washington Post" is saying, in printing these, that you're actually revealing new information about whether this was just the group -- the work of six or seven errant soldiers or whether the chain of command was involved.
JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": I'm not going to argue with that. But I'm going to say that in contemporary crisis journalism, we're in the middle of a war with 130,000 American troops at risk, the media should put things in a broader context, because I don't think the media wants to be blamed with losing this war, fairly or unfairly, if we do the same thing that we did in Vietnam, which is misreport some things or not give full information.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: What are we misreporting in the prison abuse scandal?
FUND: Well, let me give you some context.
We now know that a large majority of these pictures were taken on one day after a bunch of Americans died, November 8. That puts it in context. That means it may not have gone on over a long period of time, that most of it was isolated to one angry day.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: All right, but you're not saying that their actions are justified, are they?
FUND: No, of course not. But I'm talking about context.
Secondly, another bit of context. We have a situation in which, while, of course, it's inexcusable for this to happen, guess how many calls the U.S. military command has gotten about who these prisoners were? Of course there are a lot of innocent people. They were outside the gates. In those cell blocks, we had people who were blowing up Americans. We had terrorists. We had Saddam Hussein's butchers. That is context. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it's information the American people are not being given properly.
In addition
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: We show all of these pictures. We don't show Nick Berg being beheaded.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Why being selective?
BEINART: If I can just get in, that is completely misleading context. We also know that there have been homicides in Afghanistan at Bagram Air Force Base. There have been accusations that CIA used water torture against...
FUND: And those should be reported, too.
BEINART: No, no. So the context does not only suggest this was an isolated incident, and it certainly doesn't suggest we know all these guys are guilty, since we've had estimates that as much as 70 or 90 percent of them were innocent civilians. (CROSSTALK)
BEINART: When you ask the media to suggest context, you can't just introduce context which suggests that that's it's a Small incident, when we don't know it is.
FUND: None of those people in the cell blocks -- those were really bad guys. What happened to them was inexcusable, but they're really bad guys.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: In Vietnam, after Tet, we now know that Tet was not reported in full context. It was a Vietnamese military defeat. But it destroyed American morale both at home and in Vietnam. And the Vietnamese said that was critical to their winning the war.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Hang on one second.
John, come back to the core issue, though. Are you saying it's just because it isn't put in context or too many of these pictures have been shared with the public?
FUND: No.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: And there's a lack of proportion to the coverage?
BEINART: And we should also have been shown the Nick Berg video. Why selective? We need more information, not less.
ZAHN: You think the American public should have been seen him beheaded?
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Yes.
BEINART: Yes. I agree with John. I agree with him. We should have shown that, too. We should show it all.
But the idea that the media here is only focusing on an issue is just ridiculous. The media is day after day after day writing about the other disasters in this policy in Iraq that are going on with our handover on -- the idea that the media is overly focused on this is just silly.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: What's the bottom line here tonight, gentlemen, tonight?
John, you don't object to the reporting on these stories. Just give it context. You don't even care so much about the volume of the Abu Ghraib prison stories told?
FUND: Whatever pictures are given to the media, they're going to show. Let's have them and let's have the context. When did they happen? How pervasive was this? How many people were involved? And who were these bad guys? Was there some pretext for people to be treated this way, even though it was unfortunate and completely unacceptable?
ZAHN: A lot of things we don't know the answers to, right, Peter?
BEINART: No, we don't.
And that's why we need to keep the pressure on. I think these photos will do that. There are many, important questions that have been unanswered. This is not, unlike as some conservatives have said, a small story that now should have passed. We don't know the important answers yet.
FUND: No, it's a big story. But let's find out first how bad these guys were and what motivation our people had to mistreat them.
ZAHN: Peter, you get the last word tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Let's find out whether this was part of a policy that came from the top. The photos will help us do that.
ZAHN: John Fund, Peter Beinart, thank you for both of your perspectives.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Good thing we separate those two guys physically.
Straight ahead, the other big development in Iraq that is causing major fallout in Iraq, new information about that raid on Ahmad Chalabi, the once trusted Pentagon adviser who promoted war with Iraq. We're going to tell you what the U.S. government says he was really up to.
And suicide bombings like this have not happened in the United States. But now there is an FBI warning aimed at preventing them.
That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: Welcome back.
We turn now to another as aspect of the Iraq story, the meteoric rise and fall of Ahmad Chalabi, who used to be considered one of America's best friends in the new Iraq. U.S. intelligence officials confirm that Chalabi is now suspected of giving intelligence secrets to Iran that are so closely held in the U.S. that only a handful of senior officials know that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): He was the talk of Washington today, Ahmad Chalabi, seen here behind the first lady at the president's State of the Union address this past January.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are even allegations that he may have been an Iranian agent all the time.
ZAHN: A stunning fall from grace. Once held up by some administration officials as a key to a free Iraq, now, in the wake of yesterday's raid of his home and office, senior U.S. officials say that Mr. Chalabi passed sensitive U.S. secrets to Iran about U.S. operations in Iraq, information that, according to one official, could get Americans killed.
PATRICK BASHAM, CATO INSTITUTE: He has crossed swords with the American government on a variety of issues, including relations with Iran. And it has just got to the breaking point.
ZAHN: Chalabi's ties to Iran date back to the day of the shah. But he has grown closer to Tehran in recent weeks, as it became clear few Iraqis supported him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): When America treats its friends this way, then they are in big trouble.
ZAHN: And now that the Americans have distanced themselves from Chalabi, he may need the Iranians more than ever. Chalabi, a secular Shiite, is also aligning himself with the popular Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Ahmad Chalabi, down and out with his old buddies in Washington, now working hard to make new friends closer to home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: And joining us now from Washington, national security correspondent David Ensor, who has some new details tonight on what secrets the U.S. believes Chalabi handed over to Iraq.
Always good to see you, David. Welcome.
First off, David, as I understand it, you can confirm tonight that the FBI is actually conducting an investigation to figure out who it is who leaked this information to Mr. Chalabi. What do we know?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's correct.
And this is routine in these affairs. This is sort of a little bit like Joe Wilson's wife, you remember, the CIA officer who was outed. There will now be an FBI investigation. And there is only a handful of people who know these secrets, according to the U.S. officials I've spoken to. So the net will not have to be cast all that wide. There's just so many people who could have told Ahmad Chalabi what he is alleged to have told Iranian intelligence.
Now, one other thing I should mention that we've learned this evening, not only is he alleged to have passed over secrets that were only known by a handful of people, he's alleged also to have met with a senior Iranian intelligence official who U.S. officials tell me has been involved over the years in what these officials call nefarious activities aimed against the United States. So this is a very bad man, they are saying, that Chalabi met with and they're saying that Chalabi has never admitted to having that meeting. But they're convinced it took place.
ZAHN: So why did officials not arrest Mr. Chalabi? I don't understand. If just a handful of people had access to this information, and he never should have been exposed to it, once they confirmed he had this information, why didn't they arrest him?
ENSOR: I really don't know the answer to that question, to be quite frank with you. They certainly are going after him, in the sense that all the funding that over the years he's received was cut off a few days ago, the last of it, by the Pentagon. His offices have now been searched by Iraqi police. And that was authorized by Mr. Bremer, Paul Bremer, the head of the council -- the coalition protection -- the coalition that's in Iraq.
So certainly his fall from grace is leading to all kinds of problems for him in Washington and with the United States. But I do not know why he's not been arrested.
ZAHN: And, David, are there any new details about what specific kind of information he was privy to?
ENSOR: You know, this is the mystery, because I've talked to some of his supporters in and out of the administration, who say that he simply didn't have access to the kind of classified information that these reports are talking about. So they say that they're mystified by the suggestion that he could have passed on very important secrets to Iran, because they say he never had access to them.
It's a mystery, but that's what's going to have to be looked into now.
ZAHN: And is there any consensus on what this means about any increased vulnerability of our troops in Iraq?
ENSOR: Well, it's not a good thing. It's yet another development that's of some concern.
At the same time, officials at the CIA and the State Department, who have long had a low opinion of Ahmad Chalabi are, one would almost say, pleased tonight to see that the rest of the government, the president on down, have now decided that he is not America's best friend in Iraq and they need to start treating him with a lot less kindness -- Paula.
ZAHN: Yes, especially after the developments of the last 24 hours.
David Ensor, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Now, recent events in Iraq may actually be increasing the threat of terrorist attacks. More on that coming up.
But, first, will Martha Stewart get a new trial after all? What an unexpected perjury charge against a witness could actually mean for her future.
Well, the material girl is going back on the road, but some say her new concert tour could raise some eyebrows, surprise, surprise. We'll have a preview.
And we're going to show you why the elephant and the donkey are beginning more important than the zodiac for singles. Wait until you see what happens when politics makes the dating scene.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: The government today filed perjury charges against one of the key prosecution witnesses in the Martha Stewart case. Her attorneys immediately called it grounds for a new trial. But this may be the legal equivalent of taking a souffle out of the oven too early.
Here is some background for you tonight. Larry Stewart, who is not related to Martha Stewart, testified as an expert in ink analysis. Yes, that's right. His testimony knocked down a defense claim that Martha Stewart's broker was instructed to sell her shares of Imclone stock when the price fell to $60 a share. Well, Larry Stewart testified the ink used to make the notation "at 60" was different from the other ink on the page. The perjury charges deal with Larry Stewart's claims about taking part in the lab tests on the ink.
Well, prosecutors think Martha Stewart sold the stock on the basis of an insider tip, and the written instructions were added later as a cover-up. She was convicted of lying to investigators and is scheduled to be sentenced next month.
Well, prosecutors say today's developments won't make any difference at all. Stewart's attorneys disagree. Quote, "The arrest of one of the government's key witnesses for perjury clearly demonstrates that the trial of Martha Stewart was fatally flawed and unfair."
Well, earlier, I talked all of this over with CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Charles Gasparino of "Newsweek" magazine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Gentlemen, welcome. Great to see both of you. So Jeffrey, how likely is it that Martha Stewart will get a retrial out of it?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: She's going to get a real serious look at this issue. This is a not trivial matter. This is a very important development. This was an important government witness -- perhaps not the most important government witness, but a serious witness. And for the government to say he has made a material false statement in his testimony, that's a big deal, much bigger than anything that's happened since the verdict.
ZAHN: Charles, do you believe this man's testimony made a material difference in the judgment of jurors?
CHARLES GASPARINO, "NEWSWEEK": I don't know about the jurors, but I'll you, everybody in the courtroom that I know, Jeffrey included, we didn't think it amounted to a hill of beans. I mean, he was one of the guys that we almost laughed at, at this trial.
ZAHN: Why?
GASPARINO: You know -- well, I mean, he's an ink expert. I mean, you sit around, you talk about 8,000 types of inks, 6,000 types of pens. And basically, what he said was thrown out of court. The one charge that he would have really made an impact on, which was Bacanovic's charge about putting the $60 stop loss writing on the piece of paper, was thrown out. So in my view, this is immaterial.
TOOBIN: And that's what the government's going to argue. What the government's going to argue is this testimony related only to the conduct that Bacanovic was acquitted of, so it's irrelevant that he lied. But that evidence also was relevant to the conspiracy charge that both of the defendants were both convicted of. And there is the overall problem of the government putting on perjured testimony, which the defense is really going to make a lot out of it.
ZAHN: Walk us through, then, what Larry Stewart, the ink guy, is accused of doing. Specifically.
GASPARINO: Well, he basically lied about knowing about a proposal on a book. I mean, it sounds very trivial. And then he lied about being part of some examination. Both of the things...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: The second one is more important. You know, he testified repeatedly that he examined the document, that he put the potions on, he did -- when, in fact, according to the government today, he didn't examine the document.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Well, you know, I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: And why would he do that?
TOOBIN: Well, why would he...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Why would he do it is a complete mystery because it didn't really matter. He could have said, I discussed it with the person who did the examination, and that would have been perfectly appropriate under the rules of evidence for expert witnesses. But he, according to the government, lied. And he was cross-examined on this very point: Did you do the tests yourself, or did you just examine what someone else did? And he said he did it himself.
GASPARINO: He did come across as an egomaniac!
TOOBIN: He did. And I think that's the answer...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: ... to why he -- why he did it, if he did it.
GASPARINO: ... and that is the why. But the reality is, nothing he said mattered. I mean, I just can't imagine anybody sitting in that room walked out and said, Oh, Jesus, did you hear what Larry Stewart said? This is going to, like, knock down the case.
TOOBIN: Well, but I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Does that explain why it took a couple months for someone to rat him out after this trial was...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: ... more bizarre?
TOOBIN: It -- it's hard...
ZAHN: You had to wait for his testimony, right?
TOOBIN: You had to wait for his testimony. And then people in the Secret Service came forward and said, Look, this wasn't true. But it's not that trivial. I don't think his testimony was as trivial as all that because that document...
GASPARINO: You didn't see so many people sleeping.
TOOBIN: No, there were a lot of people sleeping, perhaps including myself.
ZAHN: Different issue!
TOOBIN: But you know, this -- the idea that they doctored -- that Peter Bacanovic doctored this document, that he added the words "at 60" later, that came up frequently during the trial.
GASPARINO: Although the jury -- I remember some of the jurors being interviewed. They were saying, Listen, he could have had two pens. I mean, they basically didn't give that much credence -- listen, they thought that -- I think a lot of jurors thought he did doctor the -- you know, doctored the document. But they thought there was more than a reasonable chance that he had two pens. So I just don't see how this really plays into the other -- the other aspects of the case. I mean, you have to realize, they had Marianna Pasternak (ph). They had Doug Faneuil. I mean, those are the witnesses that really had an impact. This guy -- I'm telling you, if they -- if those jurors really paid attention to this guy, it was probably -- they were probably laughing at him.
ZAHN: So what does the judge have to weigh?
TOOBIN: The standard is, did the false now -- accused false testimony materially affect the result of the trial? That's hard to do after the fact. And you have to -- there's a human element here, too. Judge Cedarbaum (ph) is going to be furious that a federal agent sat right in her courtroom, right next to her...
ZAHN: And lied.
TOOBIN: ... and lied.
ZAHN: Absolutely.
TOOBIN: That's a big factor. She's going to be angry. She also doesn't want to retry this case. That's clear. So she's going to be pulled in two directions. It's a tough...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: ... Martha Stewart stock price really rose on this news today.
GASPARINO: I'd be shorting the stock, and a short sale's when you make money when the stock goes down, because I really don't think this is going to have a material impact on the company. Listen, if she's retried, OK, she's still not going to be head of the company.
ZAHN: And you're telling Martha tonight...
GASPARINO: Right, if...
ZAHN: ... to what, not to break out the magnum of champagne but maybe a little sparkling wine?
TOOBIN: Not yet, but I think the June 17 sentencing date will not take place. There'll be hearings before there's any sentence in this case.
GASPARINO: The stock will go up another $10 then.
TOOBIN: Could be.
ZAHN: We'll see. Charles and Jeffrey, thank you both.
And coming up next: It's shaping up to be the summer of heightened security. The FBI puts out a warning about suspicious people in public places. We're going to look at why and what it is all about. And then on Monday, President Bush makes the first in a series of speeches to lay out his strategy for the handover in Iraq. We will be bringing you the president's address live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: The prison abuse scandal has the FBI more concerned about suicide bombers strikers inside the United States. And while there is no hard intelligence about plans for suicide attacks, the agency has sent a warning to police departments across the country. Now, that warning tells them to watch out for people wearing bulky jackets on warm days, people smelling of chemicals, and even people with tightly clenched fists. Also included in the warning, people disguised as police using stolen uniforms and people disguised as pregnant women.
Joining us now is former FBI investigator William Daly. He is senior vice president of Control Risks Group. Good to see you
WILLIAM DALY, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: Good to see you, Paula.
ZAHN: What do you make of this warning? How concerned should we be?
DALY: Well, first of all, let's put it in context, is that the FBI sends out bulletins and warnings to law enforcement agencies, you know, on a periodic basis. I mean, there are literally scores of these bulletins that are sent out on a variety of subjects. This one today, or yesterday, actually dealt with the issue of suicide bombers, really, not predicated on any current intelligence, not background chatter, no substantiated, you know, claims, but saying, Be aware. Be warned. We've seen them happen elsewhere in the world. We're entering into a time now when we're getting near conventions, elections. Something may happen in this country.
ZAHN: But is it a responsible thing to issue this alert when there is no hard intelligence suggesting that there is a plot in the works?
DALY: Well, let's again, you know, going back, putting it in context. It really is meant for law enforcement. It's an advisory. It's part of...
ZAHN: You say that, Bill, but every time, these alerts end up being leaked to the public. You know that.
DALY: Well, they're -- they would be called lightly classified. There's really no classification. And the FBI will assume that some of this may go out into the public sector, but it's not meant as a public warning. It's meant as a warning, an education to law enforcement. In fact, there's an agency, a group within the FBI, to coordinate law enforcement information and education on these topics. And this is what the free flow is.
In fact, yesterday, Director Mueller had, in fact, testified to say one of the key things in fighting -- one of the four things in fighting terrorism is a continuous flow of information. So as much as we may pick it up and kind of run with it and talk about it and say, you know, Is it wise, I think it is because it's telling local law enforcement to say, Listen, you know, it's not all-clear sign. We have indications that things are happening elsewhere in the world. We've had Madrid. We've had bombings in North Africa. We've had major plots in Jordan. It's not to say that it couldn't happen here.
ZAHN: But with this free flow of information, aren't you running the risk of alienating -- not only alienating, scaring the heck out of Americans?
DALY: Well, you know, Paula, I -- you know, in this day and age, you know, what is -- what is scaring everyone? If people are a little bit more sensitized, a little bit more aware of their surroundings, particular in big cities, particular, you know, around these times, I think it's that a helpful thing. It's not a scare thing. I think many of us have been -- already gone through that whole, you know, kind of metamorphosis of being, you know, scared and concerned. And now it's, like, we just want to stop it. We don't want something to happen.
It's not to say that, you know, people on the street are going to see someone who's a suicide bomber and be able to stop them themselves. We hope it happens long before they even get into strapping something on and parading down the street or walking into a train station or driving a vehicle. But nonetheless, it's, I think, something -- forewarned is forearmed. And I think the criticism has been of the FBI and other agencies that they didn't share information. We're sharing now. I don't think there's a reason to be concerned.
ZAHN: And what is it the FBI would like to get out of American citizens? If we're not going to be out there cracking open these investigations, certainly, they welcome the couple hundred million extra eyes and ears.
DALY: Eyes and ears, sensitivity. I mean, even would-be terrorists knowing that more and more people are looking, that even they've outlined in this bulletin perhaps some -- some guises, some ruses that might be used by terrorists, that may throw a -- you know, something into their works. It may disrupt their current plans and may give them a little bit more time, give the intelligence agencies and the FBI more time to perhaps come across these people.
So I think, you know, in this case, the more the better. This is not, you know, highly confidential information. This is not something that we need to be concerned there was a leak. This was something meant for law enforcement. It's made it out to the public sector. But so be it.
ZAHN: There was one comment that Condoleezza Rice made several months ago that I think scared a lot of people, when she said there is a distinct possibility that there will be some kind of terrorist attack potentially on U.S. soil in advance of the election. What is your concern, as we move into these high-profile events, celebrations surrounding July 4, and then, of course, the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions?
DALY: Well, I think, you know, what you just said kind of, you know, indicates why. We have some major events here in this country. We have, you know, planning for a presidential election. We saw what happened in Madrid. We saw what happened just a few days before the election, and actually turned, you know, a person who had a lead in that race, and had -- and he lost it. And people are saying it was because of a reaction by the citizens, as a result of a terrorist act.
So we just don't know what's in the minds of these evildoers, people out there planning things. And it would be a time for them to -- you know, to one-up, to take the stage, you know, to cause some disruption and dismay and perhaps, you know, try to throw some type of monkeywrench into our political system. So I think what we're talking about her is that the time is right. We can't predict the day or the hour, but certainly, you know, if the season is right, if the temperature's right, this seems to be around the time we need to really be concerned.
ZAHN: Are you confident, given some of the changes that have made in this country, that we are any safer than we were a couple years ago?
DALY: Oh, I am. And if you read through what the FBI and the CIA are now doing and some of the joint operations, the sharing of information, do we have a way to go? Yes. But we're much further than we were. I think we're much more smarter as a people, if not by, you know, these agencies, to be -- you know, be warning people to be aware, to be out there, more eyes and ears, and not think that they can do it electronically. Then you could get in, you know, infiltrate groups, disrupt operations. And I think we're much better than we were two, three years ago.
ZAHN: Bill Daly, thank you for all your information. Some night, we might have you come by and talk about something a little more cheerful.
DALY: That would be nice.
ZAHN: A guy being a former FBI always has to talk about the serious stuff. Have a good weekend. Thanks.
DALY: Good to see you.
ZAHN: Well, it is Friday night, of course, and a lot of singles are ready to play the dating game. We're going to show you why the search for a soulmate has become very political. And Madonna's about to reinvent herself again. She's getting ready to launch a road tour that may offend as many people as it entertains. We'll tell you why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: Ah, Madonna, getting set to tour again. She may not exactly be a material girl anymore, but she can still justify her relevance. Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas previews the appropriately named Reinvention tour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIBILA VARGAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even her songs get reinvented at rehearsals of her Reinvention tour. When it comes to reshaping her image, Madonna has been doing it for decades. Since she first came on the scene two decades ago, she's made shock value her hallmark. That helped her sell 200 million records worldwide and chart more top 40 singles than any other female artist.
In contrast to her music, she's had mixed success in movies. Her most recent film, "Swept Away," directed by husband Guy Richie, was a flop. And the woman who once wrote a book called "Sex" is now the author of children's books.
MADONNA: I'm having a really good time sharing the things that I've learned in life through children's stories.
VARGAS: This mother of two still finds plenty of ways to shock audiences. Who could forget her lip-lock with Britney Spears at last year's MTV Music Awards? Now, at age 45, Madonna's going back on the road for the first time in three years. Industry observers say her Reinvention tour will be more thought-provoking than racy.
JOE LEVY, DEPUTY EDITOR, "ROLLING STONE"*: When Madonna goes on tour, it is always visually spectacular. It's also always, to one degree or another, sexual. What I expect out of this tour is that it will be more intellectual and a little less sexual.
VARGAS: Rehearsals seemed pretty tame, with Madonna singing fan favorite "Get Into the Groove" complete with Scottish kilts and bagpipes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas joins us now from the Great Western Forum (ph) in Inglewood, California, where Madonna's tour kicks off next Monday. So Sibila, people can say whatever they want to say about her music, about her dancing, but you've got to give her one thing, she is an amazing businesswoman. How much is this tour going to gross her?
VARGAS: Well, just to give you an idea, back in 2001, she was -- she made something like $54 million. And that was half the dates that she's going to have in this tour. So you can imagine it's probably going to be double that amount.
ZAHN: Now, in addition to that, she's also cut a deal with CBS, and I'm told that might be the most profitable concert ever for a performer. Is that true?
VARGAS: Absolutely. The report right now is that CBS is reportedly going to pay her $11 million. That's a lot of money, probably more than they've ever paid. Actually, it's reportedly more than they've ever paid for a rock broadcast. That's even more money than they paid Michael Jackson a few years ago.
ZAHN: Go, Madonna, go! And finally, where is she going to be performing across the country?
VARGAS: Well, she's going to be performing here, of course, in Los Angeles, in Inglewood, California. She's also going to be in Las Vegas. She's also going to have a tour date in Atlanta, New York, just to name a few places. And she's also going to be performing abroad, in London and also in Paris. But there's a lot more dates coming. And you know, they're announcing them even as we speak, Paula.
ZAHN: And Boy, are you having to compete with the traffic there this evening, Sibila. Nice job. We could hear you.
VARGAS: I sure am!
ZAHN: You cut above those trucks. Have a good weekend. Thanks so much.
Coming up next: Is it possible to find love across political party lines? Some couples have managed to bridge the gap. But is match-making based on politics the best way to meet that someone special?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I kind of liked the old way, you know, where you just sort of bump into somebody at a bar or a supermarket or get fixed up and then see if the sparks fly or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: James Carville, our own, Mary Matalin, the odd political couple.
Finally, tonight, ever since the 2000 election, it's been clear that we live in a fractured country. The U.S. is split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats. And now, as Bruce Burkhardt found out, that divide is seeping into the dating world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So tell me about yourself.
BRUCE BURKHARDT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Couples getting to know each other fast.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, ready?
BURKHARDT: It's called speed or hurry dating, conversing with one person for three minutes, then...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On to the next (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in alphabetical order!
BURKHARDT: ... moving on to the next person, a way for singles to find their ideal mate. And nowadays, if you use the old line, "What's your sign," the answer might well be a Bush sign or a Kerry sign.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a Republican, so I feel as if Republicans and Democrats are a complete opposite. BURKHARDT: Earlier, on line, all these people filled out their profiles. Do you drink? Do you smoke? Your favorite movie? And are your politics on the right or the left?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't believe in the "opposites attract" rule. I mean, that's often said, and I just don't believe it.
BURKHARDT: A number of on-line dating services have sprung up recently catering to political match-making -- Republicansingles.com, Democratsingles.com and Loveandwar.com. Isn't dating complicated enough without adding politics to the mix?
(on camera): This idea of identifying ourselves and a future mate through our political beliefs is maybe a sign of something larger going on.
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But you know what researchers have found? That today -- over the last 30 years, at least -- people have sorted themselves out by party. America is more segregated today than it's been in decades, not by race, by party.
BURKHARDT (voice-over): And yet sometimes opposites do attract -- not only attract, but endure. Witness James Carville and Mary Matalin.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": The whole idea that somehow or another I think that you can run a computer program and put everything through it, find out who's compatible -- I kind of liked the old way, you know, where you just sort of bump into somebody at a bar or the supermarket or get fixed up and then see if sparks fly or not.
BURKHARDT: And even if you can't read a book by its cover, you can at least find out if it's a Republican or Democrat book. And sleeping with the enemy, it seems, is now the exception, not the rule.
Bruce Burkhardt, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Aw! That wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight as we wrap up the week here. Coming up on Monday, a primetime speech from President Bush on the future of Iraq. We will bring you it live starting at 8:00 PM. Have a great weekend. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.
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 May 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): The slow drip of photos and now video of prisoner abuse. Is the media overdose fanning political warfare?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to hear it from you all before we see it in the paper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iraqi people, I think, deserve to see how we handle this.
ZAHN: The government says watch out for suicide bombers. But who and where? Tonight, nebulous warnings, real fears.
And a shocking development in the Martha Stewart case. Could it be the recipe for a new trial?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Good evening. Welcome to the end of the week. Thank so much for joining us tonight.
Well, today, Americans recoiled again at new images of U.S. soldiers beating and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. The pictures appeared first in "The Washington Post" on a day when the U.S. released more than 450 inmates from Abu Ghraib prison, when Spain pulled the last of its troops from Iraq, and when the White House said President Bush will make a prime-time address on Monday to outline the process of handing over power to the Iraqis and to warn Americans of difficult days ahead.
This time, the latest images include video, adding a new sense of reality to what really happened at Abu Ghraib.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): They were plastered on America's television screens, printed front and center in our newspapers, yet another rude awakening, new pictures of the same abuse at the same prison, the now notorious Abu Ghraib. And now we can see the abuse in full motion, as it happened, slapping one man, dragging another, and arranging a third as if for a pyramid, like we saw in previous images.
The still pictures, too, brought new horrors, a dog apparently terrifying this jumpsuit-clad prisoner, a soldier, his arm cocked, ready to strike a detainee, a naked man shackled at the ankles, smeared with a brown substance, a hooded man in a so-called stress position, shackled to the wall, a soldier appearing to kneel on a pile of prisoners, and a hooded handcuffed man who seems to have collapsed.
With today's new images, we are still left to wonder when, if ever, we will see the whole picture.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Joining us now is senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
Good evening, Jamie. What do we know about the source of these photos?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know much.
We know that these are the same photographs that have been viewed by members of Congress, provided by the Pentagon. We know they have been under very close hold at the Pentagon, hopeful that they would not get out. But they were obtained by "The Washington Post." The most likely source for this kind of thing is from some of the defense attorneys who have access to the material as part of the discovery process.
But it's impossible to say with any certainty who leaked them and what their motivation was.
ZAHN: And do we know tonight, Jamie, if these are some of the same photos that the lawmakers had seen several weeks ago?
MCINTYRE: Yes, they are some of them, some of the same videos as well. What we don't know is whether "The Post" has essentially everything that's left out there or whether there's still more to be leaked.
ZAHN: And, obviously, the Pentagon is concerned about how many more days the story will have legs. Is there any consideration to making all of these photos public, so they don't drip out a day at a time?
MCINTYRE: Boy, that's the hot topic of debate here at the Pentagon. Many Pentagon officials, I can tell you, are firmly convinced that they, the U.S. government, ought to release everything all at once and get it out there and get it over with. The Pentagon, however, has been holding back on that course of action, relying on the advice of Pentagon attorneys who insist that an official release of the images would in itself constitute a breach of the Geneva Conventions against humiliating prisoners.
But I can tell you that there are many people here who think it's a public relations disaster to continue to allow these images to show up piecemeal over a long period of time.
ZAHN: And, finally, today another challenge for the Pentagon when we learned that the Army is opening some investigations into deaths of detainees, not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. What can you tell us about that?
MCINTYRE: Well, there are lots of questions about the deaths of prisoners, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the hands of U.S. troops and what the status is today.
The Army updated us on that and told us essentially that there are 33 separate investigations. Now, some of these have been closed. Some have been ruled natural causes. But in several cases, they've been ruled homicides. And there are eight open cases that are potential murders, where the deaths could have been caused by the abuse.
One case -- and they released some of the death reports today. One of them here, for instance, is an Iraqi general who died in custody. The cause of death ruled as asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Doesn't sound like an innocuous death, but that case is still under investigation.
ZAHN: Yes, it certainly doesn't.
Jamie McIntyre, thanks so much for the update.
Now, our military analyst, retired Major General Don Shepperd, has spoken with high-ranking military officials to get their reactions to the ongoing prison abuse scandal. He joins us tonight from Tucson, Arizona.
Always good to see you, General.
I want to start off where -- basically where Jamie left off and now the public record that some 33 criminal investigations are going on into the deaths of these detainees. Is that a number that one should expect during these kinds of military operations?
RETIRED MAJOR GEN. DONALD SHEPPERD, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I don't know how to set a number that you would expect, Paula. But 33 really doesn't surprise me because of the size of the operations going on, the number of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and probably Guantanamo, too.
Some of these, according to the initial reports, you say have been homicides, being investigated as homicides, some natural deaths, some escapees, some suicides as well. So it doesn't surprise me, the number, 33. But, again, I don't know how you set a right number for something like this.
ZAHN: Let's come back to the story of more pictures being released of alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. There is a feeling among folks who have released these photos that you can actually learn something new potentially about the chain of command having been involved here. Do you believe that's where this takes us?
SHEPPERD: Yes, you're going to go up the chain of command in some fashion. Clearly we see about 300 photos and we see a lot of those same faces, and we see a lot of tier block 1-A in Abu Ghraib prison.
But the chain of command is responsible for what the soldiers underneath them do and what they don't do. Now, how high up this goes is hard to say. The investigations going on will tell us a lot more, because the investigations so far have been the Taguba report on the military police, the Fay report due out on the military intelligence, and other investigations. We'll see how far this goes.
The key questions are, what did you know about what your troops were doing? What did you do about it? Did you ignore any warnings out there? That will be the key questions for the chain of command, Paula.
ZAHN: What's your sense tonight of how far up this may go?
SHEPPERD: I don't think it's going to go real high. Bad things go on all the time. And you can't replace the top commanders every time something goes on, because you would be replacing them daily in big operations, particularly in combat. I don't think it's going to go real high.
But it's clearly going to go further than those that have already been leveled. Now, even those that have been admonished or reprimanded, if investigations find that criminal charges should be lodged, they can face courts-martial even after they received reprimands, and maybe even career-ending punishment.
ZAHN: I'm really surprised to hear what you just said, when you said you might be replacing generals daily for various infractions? What kind of infractions are you talking about?
SHEPPERD: What I'm saying is, in a large organization, bad things go on every day. And you can't just replace somebody every time something goes wrong, a bad accident, this type of thing. You have to go down the chain of command.
We're experienced at investigating these things and determining how high people should be held responsible. But you don't just replace the top generals, the secretary of defense, the president, every time something goes wrong. It's impractical.
ZAHN: All right, but you've heard people out there calling for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. And they believe that he actually gave troops tacit approval through his generals.
SHEPPERD: Yes, well, all of this is in an election year, so I put some of that aside. On the other hand, there has been a confusing, confusing array of instructions about what rules apply in Guantanamo, what apply in Iraq, what apply in Afghanistan, whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply.
All of that needs to be straightened out after investigations. On the other hand, you've got to get right back to the basics. No amount of instruction on the wall is going to keep prisoners that are -- I mean, going to keep the people that are going to treat detainees like this from happening. These people knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew it was illegal. Everybody knew it was illegal without any piece of paper, any piece of paper, any instruction anywhere.
This is criminal conduct. And the people doing it knew it.
ZAHN: General Shepperd, thanks for joining us. I know those pictures just make you sick to look at. You've told us that before. Appreciate your time.
Would the prisoner abuse scandal be as big without those increasingly graphic images in the news? They have filled the front pages, dominated the tubes, spread around the world on the Internet. We're going to debate whether the media has gone too far.
Also, could a surprise development derail Martha Stewart's upcoming sentencing? We'll ask legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
And she has certainly shocked us before. Now Madonna is getting to launch a new tour and some of the rumors are simply outrageous.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: In the coming days, the new prisoner abuse images you see tonight will surely are printed or broadcast again and again, especially in the 24-hour competitive news environment.
The images may be shocking. They may be disturbing, but do they deserve all the media attention they're now getting?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): Is this really news? Is this? "The Washington Post" says these newly released photographs and video go beyond the photos previously released. But do they go beyond what we already know? We have heard detail after detail about the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Those earlier pictures gave us our first glimpse. The hearings...
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: In simple words, your own soldiers' language, how did this happen?
ZAHN: ... gave us more. So we knew these pictures were out there.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners.
ZAHN: And we knew pretty much what they conveyed, that many images were worse than what we've seen before.
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: What we all know, and I think what we left the observation period with is, a sick feeling, appalling in what we saw.
ZAHN: But do we really need to see more? Practically every photo that leaks out has been published around the world in newspapers and magazines, over the Internet and on television.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the publication of still more photos of prisoner abuse...
ZAHN: That has infuriated some here in the U.S.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: I would call on the media that has now given more attention to these seven people and what they did than to the invasion of Normandy, is that we are at this point disturbing our military operation in theater.
ZAHN: And overseas, especially in the Muslim world. "The Washington Post" says even these new images still don't answer the question who's responsible. So why were they on the front page or the lead story in many broadcasts, including this one, if they don't convey new information? Should the media continue to display these pictures? Or is it simply overkill?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Well, that question has certainly stirred up some very strong opinions.
I discussed the media coverage of the prisoner abuse scandal with two journalists who do not see eye to eye on it, "The New Republic"'s editor, Peter Beinart, who believes these images tell more of the story and should be shown, while "Wall Street Journal" columnist John Fund has had enough of them if they're not put into context.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: So, Peter, you say it's important for all information on Abu Ghraib to become public? But do these pictures really add anything new to our understanding of the story and what went wrong?
PETER BEINART, EDITOR, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": What they do is they keep the pressure on. And I think that's what's important. This scandal has always been different from other scandals because of the pictures. The pictures make it much more gripping.
And the pictures are what will keep the pressure on from Congress and the public to try to figure out the really important story here, which was, was Abu Ghraib part of a systematic policy of torture and abuse which came from the highest ranking officials of this administration. We still don't know the answer to that. The pictures will help us find out.
ZAHN: That's exactly, John Fund, what the manager of "The Washington Post" is saying, in printing these, that you're actually revealing new information about whether this was just the group -- the work of six or seven errant soldiers or whether the chain of command was involved.
JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": I'm not going to argue with that. But I'm going to say that in contemporary crisis journalism, we're in the middle of a war with 130,000 American troops at risk, the media should put things in a broader context, because I don't think the media wants to be blamed with losing this war, fairly or unfairly, if we do the same thing that we did in Vietnam, which is misreport some things or not give full information.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: What are we misreporting in the prison abuse scandal?
FUND: Well, let me give you some context.
We now know that a large majority of these pictures were taken on one day after a bunch of Americans died, November 8. That puts it in context. That means it may not have gone on over a long period of time, that most of it was isolated to one angry day.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: All right, but you're not saying that their actions are justified, are they?
FUND: No, of course not. But I'm talking about context.
Secondly, another bit of context. We have a situation in which, while, of course, it's inexcusable for this to happen, guess how many calls the U.S. military command has gotten about who these prisoners were? Of course there are a lot of innocent people. They were outside the gates. In those cell blocks, we had people who were blowing up Americans. We had terrorists. We had Saddam Hussein's butchers. That is context. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it's information the American people are not being given properly.
In addition
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: We show all of these pictures. We don't show Nick Berg being beheaded.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Why being selective?
BEINART: If I can just get in, that is completely misleading context. We also know that there have been homicides in Afghanistan at Bagram Air Force Base. There have been accusations that CIA used water torture against...
FUND: And those should be reported, too.
BEINART: No, no. So the context does not only suggest this was an isolated incident, and it certainly doesn't suggest we know all these guys are guilty, since we've had estimates that as much as 70 or 90 percent of them were innocent civilians. (CROSSTALK)
BEINART: When you ask the media to suggest context, you can't just introduce context which suggests that that's it's a Small incident, when we don't know it is.
FUND: None of those people in the cell blocks -- those were really bad guys. What happened to them was inexcusable, but they're really bad guys.
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: In Vietnam, after Tet, we now know that Tet was not reported in full context. It was a Vietnamese military defeat. But it destroyed American morale both at home and in Vietnam. And the Vietnamese said that was critical to their winning the war.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Hang on one second.
John, come back to the core issue, though. Are you saying it's just because it isn't put in context or too many of these pictures have been shared with the public?
FUND: No.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: And there's a lack of proportion to the coverage?
BEINART: And we should also have been shown the Nick Berg video. Why selective? We need more information, not less.
ZAHN: You think the American public should have been seen him beheaded?
(CROSSTALK)
FUND: Yes.
BEINART: Yes. I agree with John. I agree with him. We should have shown that, too. We should show it all.
But the idea that the media here is only focusing on an issue is just ridiculous. The media is day after day after day writing about the other disasters in this policy in Iraq that are going on with our handover on -- the idea that the media is overly focused on this is just silly.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: What's the bottom line here tonight, gentlemen, tonight?
John, you don't object to the reporting on these stories. Just give it context. You don't even care so much about the volume of the Abu Ghraib prison stories told?
FUND: Whatever pictures are given to the media, they're going to show. Let's have them and let's have the context. When did they happen? How pervasive was this? How many people were involved? And who were these bad guys? Was there some pretext for people to be treated this way, even though it was unfortunate and completely unacceptable?
ZAHN: A lot of things we don't know the answers to, right, Peter?
BEINART: No, we don't.
And that's why we need to keep the pressure on. I think these photos will do that. There are many, important questions that have been unanswered. This is not, unlike as some conservatives have said, a small story that now should have passed. We don't know the important answers yet.
FUND: No, it's a big story. But let's find out first how bad these guys were and what motivation our people had to mistreat them.
ZAHN: Peter, you get the last word tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: Let's find out whether this was part of a policy that came from the top. The photos will help us do that.
ZAHN: John Fund, Peter Beinart, thank you for both of your perspectives.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Good thing we separate those two guys physically.
Straight ahead, the other big development in Iraq that is causing major fallout in Iraq, new information about that raid on Ahmad Chalabi, the once trusted Pentagon adviser who promoted war with Iraq. We're going to tell you what the U.S. government says he was really up to.
And suicide bombings like this have not happened in the United States. But now there is an FBI warning aimed at preventing them.
That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: Welcome back.
We turn now to another as aspect of the Iraq story, the meteoric rise and fall of Ahmad Chalabi, who used to be considered one of America's best friends in the new Iraq. U.S. intelligence officials confirm that Chalabi is now suspected of giving intelligence secrets to Iran that are so closely held in the U.S. that only a handful of senior officials know that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): He was the talk of Washington today, Ahmad Chalabi, seen here behind the first lady at the president's State of the Union address this past January.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are even allegations that he may have been an Iranian agent all the time.
ZAHN: A stunning fall from grace. Once held up by some administration officials as a key to a free Iraq, now, in the wake of yesterday's raid of his home and office, senior U.S. officials say that Mr. Chalabi passed sensitive U.S. secrets to Iran about U.S. operations in Iraq, information that, according to one official, could get Americans killed.
PATRICK BASHAM, CATO INSTITUTE: He has crossed swords with the American government on a variety of issues, including relations with Iran. And it has just got to the breaking point.
ZAHN: Chalabi's ties to Iran date back to the day of the shah. But he has grown closer to Tehran in recent weeks, as it became clear few Iraqis supported him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): When America treats its friends this way, then they are in big trouble.
ZAHN: And now that the Americans have distanced themselves from Chalabi, he may need the Iranians more than ever. Chalabi, a secular Shiite, is also aligning himself with the popular Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Ahmad Chalabi, down and out with his old buddies in Washington, now working hard to make new friends closer to home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: And joining us now from Washington, national security correspondent David Ensor, who has some new details tonight on what secrets the U.S. believes Chalabi handed over to Iraq.
Always good to see you, David. Welcome.
First off, David, as I understand it, you can confirm tonight that the FBI is actually conducting an investigation to figure out who it is who leaked this information to Mr. Chalabi. What do we know?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's correct.
And this is routine in these affairs. This is sort of a little bit like Joe Wilson's wife, you remember, the CIA officer who was outed. There will now be an FBI investigation. And there is only a handful of people who know these secrets, according to the U.S. officials I've spoken to. So the net will not have to be cast all that wide. There's just so many people who could have told Ahmad Chalabi what he is alleged to have told Iranian intelligence.
Now, one other thing I should mention that we've learned this evening, not only is he alleged to have passed over secrets that were only known by a handful of people, he's alleged also to have met with a senior Iranian intelligence official who U.S. officials tell me has been involved over the years in what these officials call nefarious activities aimed against the United States. So this is a very bad man, they are saying, that Chalabi met with and they're saying that Chalabi has never admitted to having that meeting. But they're convinced it took place.
ZAHN: So why did officials not arrest Mr. Chalabi? I don't understand. If just a handful of people had access to this information, and he never should have been exposed to it, once they confirmed he had this information, why didn't they arrest him?
ENSOR: I really don't know the answer to that question, to be quite frank with you. They certainly are going after him, in the sense that all the funding that over the years he's received was cut off a few days ago, the last of it, by the Pentagon. His offices have now been searched by Iraqi police. And that was authorized by Mr. Bremer, Paul Bremer, the head of the council -- the coalition protection -- the coalition that's in Iraq.
So certainly his fall from grace is leading to all kinds of problems for him in Washington and with the United States. But I do not know why he's not been arrested.
ZAHN: And, David, are there any new details about what specific kind of information he was privy to?
ENSOR: You know, this is the mystery, because I've talked to some of his supporters in and out of the administration, who say that he simply didn't have access to the kind of classified information that these reports are talking about. So they say that they're mystified by the suggestion that he could have passed on very important secrets to Iran, because they say he never had access to them.
It's a mystery, but that's what's going to have to be looked into now.
ZAHN: And is there any consensus on what this means about any increased vulnerability of our troops in Iraq?
ENSOR: Well, it's not a good thing. It's yet another development that's of some concern.
At the same time, officials at the CIA and the State Department, who have long had a low opinion of Ahmad Chalabi are, one would almost say, pleased tonight to see that the rest of the government, the president on down, have now decided that he is not America's best friend in Iraq and they need to start treating him with a lot less kindness -- Paula.
ZAHN: Yes, especially after the developments of the last 24 hours.
David Ensor, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Now, recent events in Iraq may actually be increasing the threat of terrorist attacks. More on that coming up.
But, first, will Martha Stewart get a new trial after all? What an unexpected perjury charge against a witness could actually mean for her future.
Well, the material girl is going back on the road, but some say her new concert tour could raise some eyebrows, surprise, surprise. We'll have a preview.
And we're going to show you why the elephant and the donkey are beginning more important than the zodiac for singles. Wait until you see what happens when politics makes the dating scene.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: The government today filed perjury charges against one of the key prosecution witnesses in the Martha Stewart case. Her attorneys immediately called it grounds for a new trial. But this may be the legal equivalent of taking a souffle out of the oven too early.
Here is some background for you tonight. Larry Stewart, who is not related to Martha Stewart, testified as an expert in ink analysis. Yes, that's right. His testimony knocked down a defense claim that Martha Stewart's broker was instructed to sell her shares of Imclone stock when the price fell to $60 a share. Well, Larry Stewart testified the ink used to make the notation "at 60" was different from the other ink on the page. The perjury charges deal with Larry Stewart's claims about taking part in the lab tests on the ink.
Well, prosecutors think Martha Stewart sold the stock on the basis of an insider tip, and the written instructions were added later as a cover-up. She was convicted of lying to investigators and is scheduled to be sentenced next month.
Well, prosecutors say today's developments won't make any difference at all. Stewart's attorneys disagree. Quote, "The arrest of one of the government's key witnesses for perjury clearly demonstrates that the trial of Martha Stewart was fatally flawed and unfair."
Well, earlier, I talked all of this over with CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Charles Gasparino of "Newsweek" magazine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Gentlemen, welcome. Great to see both of you. So Jeffrey, how likely is it that Martha Stewart will get a retrial out of it?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: She's going to get a real serious look at this issue. This is a not trivial matter. This is a very important development. This was an important government witness -- perhaps not the most important government witness, but a serious witness. And for the government to say he has made a material false statement in his testimony, that's a big deal, much bigger than anything that's happened since the verdict.
ZAHN: Charles, do you believe this man's testimony made a material difference in the judgment of jurors?
CHARLES GASPARINO, "NEWSWEEK": I don't know about the jurors, but I'll you, everybody in the courtroom that I know, Jeffrey included, we didn't think it amounted to a hill of beans. I mean, he was one of the guys that we almost laughed at, at this trial.
ZAHN: Why?
GASPARINO: You know -- well, I mean, he's an ink expert. I mean, you sit around, you talk about 8,000 types of inks, 6,000 types of pens. And basically, what he said was thrown out of court. The one charge that he would have really made an impact on, which was Bacanovic's charge about putting the $60 stop loss writing on the piece of paper, was thrown out. So in my view, this is immaterial.
TOOBIN: And that's what the government's going to argue. What the government's going to argue is this testimony related only to the conduct that Bacanovic was acquitted of, so it's irrelevant that he lied. But that evidence also was relevant to the conspiracy charge that both of the defendants were both convicted of. And there is the overall problem of the government putting on perjured testimony, which the defense is really going to make a lot out of it.
ZAHN: Walk us through, then, what Larry Stewart, the ink guy, is accused of doing. Specifically.
GASPARINO: Well, he basically lied about knowing about a proposal on a book. I mean, it sounds very trivial. And then he lied about being part of some examination. Both of the things...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: The second one is more important. You know, he testified repeatedly that he examined the document, that he put the potions on, he did -- when, in fact, according to the government today, he didn't examine the document.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Well, you know, I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: And why would he do that?
TOOBIN: Well, why would he...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Why would he do it is a complete mystery because it didn't really matter. He could have said, I discussed it with the person who did the examination, and that would have been perfectly appropriate under the rules of evidence for expert witnesses. But he, according to the government, lied. And he was cross-examined on this very point: Did you do the tests yourself, or did you just examine what someone else did? And he said he did it himself.
GASPARINO: He did come across as an egomaniac!
TOOBIN: He did. And I think that's the answer...
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: ... to why he -- why he did it, if he did it.
GASPARINO: ... and that is the why. But the reality is, nothing he said mattered. I mean, I just can't imagine anybody sitting in that room walked out and said, Oh, Jesus, did you hear what Larry Stewart said? This is going to, like, knock down the case.
TOOBIN: Well, but I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Does that explain why it took a couple months for someone to rat him out after this trial was...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: ... more bizarre?
TOOBIN: It -- it's hard...
ZAHN: You had to wait for his testimony, right?
TOOBIN: You had to wait for his testimony. And then people in the Secret Service came forward and said, Look, this wasn't true. But it's not that trivial. I don't think his testimony was as trivial as all that because that document...
GASPARINO: You didn't see so many people sleeping.
TOOBIN: No, there were a lot of people sleeping, perhaps including myself.
ZAHN: Different issue!
TOOBIN: But you know, this -- the idea that they doctored -- that Peter Bacanovic doctored this document, that he added the words "at 60" later, that came up frequently during the trial.
GASPARINO: Although the jury -- I remember some of the jurors being interviewed. They were saying, Listen, he could have had two pens. I mean, they basically didn't give that much credence -- listen, they thought that -- I think a lot of jurors thought he did doctor the -- you know, doctored the document. But they thought there was more than a reasonable chance that he had two pens. So I just don't see how this really plays into the other -- the other aspects of the case. I mean, you have to realize, they had Marianna Pasternak (ph). They had Doug Faneuil. I mean, those are the witnesses that really had an impact. This guy -- I'm telling you, if they -- if those jurors really paid attention to this guy, it was probably -- they were probably laughing at him.
ZAHN: So what does the judge have to weigh?
TOOBIN: The standard is, did the false now -- accused false testimony materially affect the result of the trial? That's hard to do after the fact. And you have to -- there's a human element here, too. Judge Cedarbaum (ph) is going to be furious that a federal agent sat right in her courtroom, right next to her...
ZAHN: And lied.
TOOBIN: ... and lied.
ZAHN: Absolutely.
TOOBIN: That's a big factor. She's going to be angry. She also doesn't want to retry this case. That's clear. So she's going to be pulled in two directions. It's a tough...
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: ... Martha Stewart stock price really rose on this news today.
GASPARINO: I'd be shorting the stock, and a short sale's when you make money when the stock goes down, because I really don't think this is going to have a material impact on the company. Listen, if she's retried, OK, she's still not going to be head of the company.
ZAHN: And you're telling Martha tonight...
GASPARINO: Right, if...
ZAHN: ... to what, not to break out the magnum of champagne but maybe a little sparkling wine?
TOOBIN: Not yet, but I think the June 17 sentencing date will not take place. There'll be hearings before there's any sentence in this case.
GASPARINO: The stock will go up another $10 then.
TOOBIN: Could be.
ZAHN: We'll see. Charles and Jeffrey, thank you both.
And coming up next: It's shaping up to be the summer of heightened security. The FBI puts out a warning about suspicious people in public places. We're going to look at why and what it is all about. And then on Monday, President Bush makes the first in a series of speeches to lay out his strategy for the handover in Iraq. We will be bringing you the president's address live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: The prison abuse scandal has the FBI more concerned about suicide bombers strikers inside the United States. And while there is no hard intelligence about plans for suicide attacks, the agency has sent a warning to police departments across the country. Now, that warning tells them to watch out for people wearing bulky jackets on warm days, people smelling of chemicals, and even people with tightly clenched fists. Also included in the warning, people disguised as police using stolen uniforms and people disguised as pregnant women.
Joining us now is former FBI investigator William Daly. He is senior vice president of Control Risks Group. Good to see you
WILLIAM DALY, FORMER FBI INVESTIGATOR: Good to see you, Paula.
ZAHN: What do you make of this warning? How concerned should we be?
DALY: Well, first of all, let's put it in context, is that the FBI sends out bulletins and warnings to law enforcement agencies, you know, on a periodic basis. I mean, there are literally scores of these bulletins that are sent out on a variety of subjects. This one today, or yesterday, actually dealt with the issue of suicide bombers, really, not predicated on any current intelligence, not background chatter, no substantiated, you know, claims, but saying, Be aware. Be warned. We've seen them happen elsewhere in the world. We're entering into a time now when we're getting near conventions, elections. Something may happen in this country.
ZAHN: But is it a responsible thing to issue this alert when there is no hard intelligence suggesting that there is a plot in the works?
DALY: Well, let's again, you know, going back, putting it in context. It really is meant for law enforcement. It's an advisory. It's part of...
ZAHN: You say that, Bill, but every time, these alerts end up being leaked to the public. You know that.
DALY: Well, they're -- they would be called lightly classified. There's really no classification. And the FBI will assume that some of this may go out into the public sector, but it's not meant as a public warning. It's meant as a warning, an education to law enforcement. In fact, there's an agency, a group within the FBI, to coordinate law enforcement information and education on these topics. And this is what the free flow is.
In fact, yesterday, Director Mueller had, in fact, testified to say one of the key things in fighting -- one of the four things in fighting terrorism is a continuous flow of information. So as much as we may pick it up and kind of run with it and talk about it and say, you know, Is it wise, I think it is because it's telling local law enforcement to say, Listen, you know, it's not all-clear sign. We have indications that things are happening elsewhere in the world. We've had Madrid. We've had bombings in North Africa. We've had major plots in Jordan. It's not to say that it couldn't happen here.
ZAHN: But with this free flow of information, aren't you running the risk of alienating -- not only alienating, scaring the heck out of Americans?
DALY: Well, you know, Paula, I -- you know, in this day and age, you know, what is -- what is scaring everyone? If people are a little bit more sensitized, a little bit more aware of their surroundings, particular in big cities, particular, you know, around these times, I think it's that a helpful thing. It's not a scare thing. I think many of us have been -- already gone through that whole, you know, kind of metamorphosis of being, you know, scared and concerned. And now it's, like, we just want to stop it. We don't want something to happen.
It's not to say that, you know, people on the street are going to see someone who's a suicide bomber and be able to stop them themselves. We hope it happens long before they even get into strapping something on and parading down the street or walking into a train station or driving a vehicle. But nonetheless, it's, I think, something -- forewarned is forearmed. And I think the criticism has been of the FBI and other agencies that they didn't share information. We're sharing now. I don't think there's a reason to be concerned.
ZAHN: And what is it the FBI would like to get out of American citizens? If we're not going to be out there cracking open these investigations, certainly, they welcome the couple hundred million extra eyes and ears.
DALY: Eyes and ears, sensitivity. I mean, even would-be terrorists knowing that more and more people are looking, that even they've outlined in this bulletin perhaps some -- some guises, some ruses that might be used by terrorists, that may throw a -- you know, something into their works. It may disrupt their current plans and may give them a little bit more time, give the intelligence agencies and the FBI more time to perhaps come across these people.
So I think, you know, in this case, the more the better. This is not, you know, highly confidential information. This is not something that we need to be concerned there was a leak. This was something meant for law enforcement. It's made it out to the public sector. But so be it.
ZAHN: There was one comment that Condoleezza Rice made several months ago that I think scared a lot of people, when she said there is a distinct possibility that there will be some kind of terrorist attack potentially on U.S. soil in advance of the election. What is your concern, as we move into these high-profile events, celebrations surrounding July 4, and then, of course, the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions?
DALY: Well, I think, you know, what you just said kind of, you know, indicates why. We have some major events here in this country. We have, you know, planning for a presidential election. We saw what happened in Madrid. We saw what happened just a few days before the election, and actually turned, you know, a person who had a lead in that race, and had -- and he lost it. And people are saying it was because of a reaction by the citizens, as a result of a terrorist act.
So we just don't know what's in the minds of these evildoers, people out there planning things. And it would be a time for them to -- you know, to one-up, to take the stage, you know, to cause some disruption and dismay and perhaps, you know, try to throw some type of monkeywrench into our political system. So I think what we're talking about her is that the time is right. We can't predict the day or the hour, but certainly, you know, if the season is right, if the temperature's right, this seems to be around the time we need to really be concerned.
ZAHN: Are you confident, given some of the changes that have made in this country, that we are any safer than we were a couple years ago?
DALY: Oh, I am. And if you read through what the FBI and the CIA are now doing and some of the joint operations, the sharing of information, do we have a way to go? Yes. But we're much further than we were. I think we're much more smarter as a people, if not by, you know, these agencies, to be -- you know, be warning people to be aware, to be out there, more eyes and ears, and not think that they can do it electronically. Then you could get in, you know, infiltrate groups, disrupt operations. And I think we're much better than we were two, three years ago.
ZAHN: Bill Daly, thank you for all your information. Some night, we might have you come by and talk about something a little more cheerful.
DALY: That would be nice.
ZAHN: A guy being a former FBI always has to talk about the serious stuff. Have a good weekend. Thanks.
DALY: Good to see you.
ZAHN: Well, it is Friday night, of course, and a lot of singles are ready to play the dating game. We're going to show you why the search for a soulmate has become very political. And Madonna's about to reinvent herself again. She's getting ready to launch a road tour that may offend as many people as it entertains. We'll tell you why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAHN: Ah, Madonna, getting set to tour again. She may not exactly be a material girl anymore, but she can still justify her relevance. Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas previews the appropriately named Reinvention tour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIBILA VARGAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even her songs get reinvented at rehearsals of her Reinvention tour. When it comes to reshaping her image, Madonna has been doing it for decades. Since she first came on the scene two decades ago, she's made shock value her hallmark. That helped her sell 200 million records worldwide and chart more top 40 singles than any other female artist.
In contrast to her music, she's had mixed success in movies. Her most recent film, "Swept Away," directed by husband Guy Richie, was a flop. And the woman who once wrote a book called "Sex" is now the author of children's books.
MADONNA: I'm having a really good time sharing the things that I've learned in life through children's stories.
VARGAS: This mother of two still finds plenty of ways to shock audiences. Who could forget her lip-lock with Britney Spears at last year's MTV Music Awards? Now, at age 45, Madonna's going back on the road for the first time in three years. Industry observers say her Reinvention tour will be more thought-provoking than racy.
JOE LEVY, DEPUTY EDITOR, "ROLLING STONE"*: When Madonna goes on tour, it is always visually spectacular. It's also always, to one degree or another, sexual. What I expect out of this tour is that it will be more intellectual and a little less sexual.
VARGAS: Rehearsals seemed pretty tame, with Madonna singing fan favorite "Get Into the Groove" complete with Scottish kilts and bagpipes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Entertainment correspondent Sibila Vargas joins us now from the Great Western Forum (ph) in Inglewood, California, where Madonna's tour kicks off next Monday. So Sibila, people can say whatever they want to say about her music, about her dancing, but you've got to give her one thing, she is an amazing businesswoman. How much is this tour going to gross her?
VARGAS: Well, just to give you an idea, back in 2001, she was -- she made something like $54 million. And that was half the dates that she's going to have in this tour. So you can imagine it's probably going to be double that amount.
ZAHN: Now, in addition to that, she's also cut a deal with CBS, and I'm told that might be the most profitable concert ever for a performer. Is that true?
VARGAS: Absolutely. The report right now is that CBS is reportedly going to pay her $11 million. That's a lot of money, probably more than they've ever paid. Actually, it's reportedly more than they've ever paid for a rock broadcast. That's even more money than they paid Michael Jackson a few years ago.
ZAHN: Go, Madonna, go! And finally, where is she going to be performing across the country?
VARGAS: Well, she's going to be performing here, of course, in Los Angeles, in Inglewood, California. She's also going to be in Las Vegas. She's also going to have a tour date in Atlanta, New York, just to name a few places. And she's also going to be performing abroad, in London and also in Paris. But there's a lot more dates coming. And you know, they're announcing them even as we speak, Paula.
ZAHN: And Boy, are you having to compete with the traffic there this evening, Sibila. Nice job. We could hear you.
VARGAS: I sure am!
ZAHN: You cut above those trucks. Have a good weekend. Thanks so much.
Coming up next: Is it possible to find love across political party lines? Some couples have managed to bridge the gap. But is match-making based on politics the best way to meet that someone special?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I kind of liked the old way, you know, where you just sort of bump into somebody at a bar or a supermarket or get fixed up and then see if the sparks fly or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: James Carville, our own, Mary Matalin, the odd political couple.
Finally, tonight, ever since the 2000 election, it's been clear that we live in a fractured country. The U.S. is split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats. And now, as Bruce Burkhardt found out, that divide is seeping into the dating world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So tell me about yourself.
BRUCE BURKHARDT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Couples getting to know each other fast.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, ready?
BURKHARDT: It's called speed or hurry dating, conversing with one person for three minutes, then...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On to the next (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in alphabetical order!
BURKHARDT: ... moving on to the next person, a way for singles to find their ideal mate. And nowadays, if you use the old line, "What's your sign," the answer might well be a Bush sign or a Kerry sign.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a Republican, so I feel as if Republicans and Democrats are a complete opposite. BURKHARDT: Earlier, on line, all these people filled out their profiles. Do you drink? Do you smoke? Your favorite movie? And are your politics on the right or the left?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't believe in the "opposites attract" rule. I mean, that's often said, and I just don't believe it.
BURKHARDT: A number of on-line dating services have sprung up recently catering to political match-making -- Republicansingles.com, Democratsingles.com and Loveandwar.com. Isn't dating complicated enough without adding politics to the mix?
(on camera): This idea of identifying ourselves and a future mate through our political beliefs is maybe a sign of something larger going on.
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But you know what researchers have found? That today -- over the last 30 years, at least -- people have sorted themselves out by party. America is more segregated today than it's been in decades, not by race, by party.
BURKHARDT (voice-over): And yet sometimes opposites do attract -- not only attract, but endure. Witness James Carville and Mary Matalin.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": The whole idea that somehow or another I think that you can run a computer program and put everything through it, find out who's compatible -- I kind of liked the old way, you know, where you just sort of bump into somebody at a bar or the supermarket or get fixed up and then see if sparks fly or not.
BURKHARDT: And even if you can't read a book by its cover, you can at least find out if it's a Republican or Democrat book. And sleeping with the enemy, it seems, is now the exception, not the rule.
Bruce Burkhardt, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Aw! That wraps it up for all of us here this evening. Thanks so much for being with us tonight as we wrap up the week here. Coming up on Monday, a primetime speech from President Bush on the future of Iraq. We will bring you it live starting at 8:00 PM. Have a great weekend. "LARRY KING LIVE" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
