Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Time Running Out for Kidnapped Journalist; Bush Administration Criticized on Human Rights Failings; Iran, Europe Not to Continue Nuclear Negotiations; Dueling Ethics Reform Proposals on Capitol Hill; Web Sites Give Insight into House Majority Leader Race; Supreme Court Decides on Abortion Case; Top al Qaeda Operatives Possibly Killed in Pakistan Attack

Aired January 18, 2006 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you very much. And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information from around the world are arriving all the time.
Happening now: the clock is ticking for an American taken hostage in Iraq. It's midnight in Baghdad. Will Jill Carroll's captors' demands be met? We'll have the latest on one woman's hostage horror. And we'll take a closer look at the kidnapping threat since 9/11.

Also this hour, another prescription for curing ethics problems in the U.S. Congress. It's 4 p.m. here in Washington. Can Democrats do a better job cleaning up Capitol Hill than Republicans can?

And the U.S. Supreme Court sidesteps a major decision on abortion. What does it say about a court in transition, and about the legacy retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Up first an American journalist life on the line. U.S. and Iraqi officials are desperately trying to find Jill Carroll before it's too late. And just a short time ago her employer made yet another plea for her release. The freelance writer for "The Christian Science Monitor" was kidnapped 11 days ago, and she may only have hours left to live.

Let's go to CNN's Zain Verjee at the CNN Center for an update on this case -- Zain.

ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, time may be running out for Jill Carroll. In a videotape aired on the Arab language Al Jazeera network, her kidnappers threatened to kill her unless the U.S. releases all female Iraqi prisoners. That tape, which aired yesterday, set a deadline of 72 hours. It also briefly showed the 28- year-old journalist, who could be seen talking, but there was no audio.

The White House commented on Carroll's plight today, although a spokesman says he couldn't provide details because of the sensitivity of the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Any time, there is an American held hostage, it is a priority for the administration. Her safe return is a priority. And that's what we all want to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VERJEE: Carroll had been working as a freelance reporter in the region for three years and she was on assignment for the "Christian Science Monitor" when she was abducted on January the 7th in a very well-coordinated ambush in western Baghdad, in which her interpreter was killed.

A friend and a fellow reporters says Carroll was well aware of the dangers of working in Iraq and that she always spoke Arabic and wore a head scarf when she was in public.

A group calling itself the Brigades of Justice claims that it's holding Carroll, although no one has ever heard of this group before, and its demand for the release of female Iraqi prisoners is a little bit unusual, because of the 14,000 people being detained by the U.S. military in Iraq, only eight of them are women. Advocacy groups say more than 30 journalists have been killed -- excuse me, kidnapped in Iraq, and six have been killed -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you very much, Zain Verjee reporting.

The "Christian Science Monitor" says it's undertaking strenuous efforts on behalf of Jill Carroll. The "Monitor's" Washington bureau chief held a news conference here in Washington just a short while ago.

Let's bring in our correspondent, Brian Todd. He's in the newsroom -- Brian.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, David Cook spoke in very carefully measured tones, knowing that among those who may have been watching were Jill Carroll's abductors. He says the "Monitor" is exploring every option to try to save Carroll's life, and that her family and colleagues are holding out hope that she will be freed before the deadline set by her captors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID COOK, "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR": The question is can I say flatly no that there have been no negotiations? I'd answer that by saying that the "Monitor" is undertaking strenuous efforts on Jill's behalf, taking advantage of every opportunity we have at our disposal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The video was aired with pictures but no sound. Have you been able to determine what Jill was saying?

COOK: The question is have we been able to determine what Jill was saying? No one at the "Monitor" has seen more of the tape than you saw last night. It's our understanding that she was speaking on the tame. You could see her lips moving, so you knew she was speaking. But we don't have a transcript of it, and we haven't seen the tape any more than you've seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: The "Christian Science Monitor" says Jill Carroll was respectful of Arab culture and traditions and wanted to bring attention of the lives of the Iraqi people. The bureau chief, David Cook, appealed to her captors to show mercy and spare her life -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Brian, for that. We'll have much more on Jill Carroll coming up this hour, as well as the next hour right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

We'll move onto President Bush now and the overall situation in Iraq. He's been talking today about brutality during Saddam Hussein's regime and he's also facing some questions about alleged human rights abuses by the United States itself.

Let's go to the White House, our correspondent, Dana Bash, is standing by -- Dana.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, that report came out just as the president was talking about human rights, as you mentioned, Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses. And it was part of the White House strategy to have the president, in order to try to shore up public opinion about Iraq, constantly talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BASH (voice-over): Tales of torture at the hand of Saddam Hussein, that's what the president heard privately from nearly a dozen Iraqis at the White House.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are folks who have suffered one way or the other, because the tyrant was a law unto himself and was willing to deny people basic human rights.

BASH: Highlighting Saddam's brutality nearly two years after his regime was toppled is the latest Bush effort to justify the Iraq war.

But the event came on the same day the group Human Rights Watch released an annual report saying Mr. Bush may be no Saddam but no saint either. Concluding that in 2005, the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate central part of Bush administration's strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.

KENNETH ROTH, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: The use of torture and inhumane treatment was the Bush administration's policy.

BASH: The president repeatedly says the U.S. does not torture, but Human Rights Watch says the administration's pushing for exemptions that may be inhumane creates a hypocrisy factor that severely damages the credibility.

The White House dismissed the report. MCCLELLAN: It appears that the report is based more on a political agenda than on facts. The United States of America does more than any country in the world to advance freedom and promote human rights.

BASH: But it was, in fact, Human Rights Watch that took the lead in the late 1980s and '90s, telling the world of Saddam Hussein's abuses, the same abuses Mr. Bush is still trying to remind the world about.

SHIBLEY TELHAMI, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: That is really ironic, and it tells you something about the difficulty that the United States is having in its advocacy of human rights around the world and certainly in the Middle East.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: But the target audience, Wolf, for the president's meeting here was not in the Middle East. It was right here at home: Americans who are still skeptical about why he went to war in Iraq in the first place -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Dana Bash at the White House. Thank you, Dana, very much.

Now, a follow-up on those red hot comments by Senator Hillary Clinton. The New York Democrat today is standing by her comparison of the House of Representatives to a plantation. Senator Clinton says it's an accurate description of the top-down way the House of Representatives is run, which she says denies meaningful debate.

Meantime, the first lady, Laura Bush, is weighing in on Mrs. Clinton's remarks, calling them ridiculous. Mrs. Bush was asked about Senator Clinton's attacks on Republicans on her way back to Washington from Africa.

Let's check in with Jack Cafferty. He's in New York now with the "Cafferty File."

Hi, Jack.

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: How you doing? Why is it every time now somebody levels a charge at the White House it's always politically motivated? They very seldom -- they never stand up and say, "No, we didn't do that." It's "This is politically motivated." I'm not sure I understand that.

Everywhere you turn this week, you see old Democrats. They're everywhere. Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton. They're all making noises that could be mistaken for the early rumblings of a presidential campaign. It's kind of like "The Dawn of the Living Dead."

Here's some of what "New York Times" columnist Maureen Dowd had to say today about this trio. We quote here: "Two of them, who could have stopped W. and Dick Cheney before they undid 230 years of American democracy, didn't, because they allowed themselves to be painted as girlie men.

The other, a manly girl, has been so cautious and opportunistic about weighing in on everything from Schiavo to Alito and Iraq that when she finally sang out on Monday and railed against W., she sounded more soprano than basso profundo."

Maureen has a way with words. I love the way she writes.

There are also reports that this guy, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, is considering a run for the '08 nomination. He was the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and then he lost his re- election bid.

Here's the question: who would be the smartest choice for the Democrats in '08? You can e-mail us at Caffertyfile@CNN.com or you can go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile.

BLITZER: Good question Jack, as usual. Thank you very much.

And coming up, a Supreme Court ruling on abortion that could seal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's legacy. We'll take a closer look at the case, the law and the politics surrounding it.

Also ahead, house cleaning gone wild. We'll tell you who's trying now to look like the ultimate ethics reformers.

And the nuclear standoff with Iran. Is there any room left for negotiation? We'll have the latest from top officials. Get perspective from our chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, who's just left Iran. We'll get her latest assessment. All that coming up. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

The United States and its European allies are rejecting Iran's request for more negotiations on its nuclear program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed Iran's nuclear threat today with the European Union former policy chief Javier Solana.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: It's the Iranians who walked away from the negotiations, who broke the moratorium, and as that condition exists, I am sensing from the Europeans that there's not much to talk about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The United Nations nuclear watchdog group agreed today to hold an emergency meeting next month on Iran's resumption of its nuclear program. The Tehran government insists this program is for peaceful purposes and that it's not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Our chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, has been covering this story. She was just in Iran. Back in London right now.

Christiane, is this standoff or stalemate, whatever we want to call it, is it resolvable, if you will? Can both sides restart these negotiations and get the Iranians to stop developing and enriching uranium?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's hard to tell at this moment. You know, over the last week, when Iran restarted its program, took the seals off with the IAEA monitors there and carried out what it said it would do when the new president was elected last summer, there have been conflicting sort of tones from Iran.

Very dramatic defiance from the president who consistently says that Iran's right to nuclear technology and a nuclear program is nonnegotiable, and more conciliatory comments from their chief nuclear negotiators and others, who have said that Iran wants still to negotiate, will not break its relations with the IAEA or pull out of the NPT and continuing to hold the door open to negotiations.

But the question is negotiate about what, if there's nothing new on the table? And is Iran, in the final analysis, will it be ready to continue its voluntary moratorium?

You know, Iran has broken a law by continuing its nuclear program. It has broken a voluntary suspension of its -- of its agreement with the Europeans to voluntarily suspend its program. It remains within the guidelines of the IAEA and the NPT, but, of course, the question always has been what are its ultimate intentions, and that's what's getting it into a lot of trouble.

And Iran is not being helped at all by the tone and the words of its current president, Ahmadinejad, who is consistently saying inflammatory and defiant things in public, Wolf.

BLITZER: Christiane, you've been a frequent visitor to Iran. Was it any different this time as to -- as opposed to some of your earlier visits? I asked the question because top U.S. officials have said to me repeatedly, what they're hoping for is a regime change, if you will, peacefully from within. The people of Iran standing up and getting rid of this guy. Did you see any signs that that was even remotely realistic?

AMANPOUR: No. However, the Iranians, this current government, believes the regime change is precisely the aim of the U.S. and the Europeans, that the nuclear dossier is, in the words of the Iranian officials, an excuse or a rallying point for regime change.

They say that they have seen what happened in Iraq, and they feel that they are heading in the same way, or rather the U.S. And Europe is heading in the same way to bring regime change.

They -- even though there's no talk of military action against Iran, they say how are we to believe that there won't be any military action, and even they believe sanctions are aimed at regime change. Now the Iranian government has waged a consistent campaign to convince the Iranian people that it is their right to have a nuclear program. And, according to the law, it is their right to have a nuclear program, and many, many, many Iranians from all quarters have told me that they believe it is their right, and they agree with their government on the issue of having the right to a nuclear program.

On the other hand, I've talked to opposition figures in Iran. That means the party of the former president, Mohammed Khatami, and he says -- they say that, yes, the Iranians believe it is their right to have a program, but they do not believe that Iran wants to cause such rupture with the west that it brings them into confrontation, even if it's only economic sanctions confrontation, even if there isn't a military component.

So the people -- I don't think to answer your question -- are anywhere near rising up and deposing this government. But on the other hand, do they want a confrontation over the nuclear program? No.

BLITZER: Christiane Amanpour is back in London from Iran. Christiane, thanks for the good work, as usual.

And CNN's Zain Verjee is joining us once again from the CNN Center in Atlanta with a -- for a look at some of the other stories making news right now. -- Zain.

VERJEE: Wolf, in its efforts to recruit more troops, the U.S. Army will continue to use the lure of big bonuses. Officials say they're going to double the bonuses over the last year. This year they plan to offer new active duty recruits $40,000. That's up from $20,000 last year. The plan is one of several ways to help the Army meet this year's recruiting goals.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just announced that the date of its first hearings on the NSA secret spying program. The hearings are scheduled to begin on Monday the 6th of February.

President Bush authorized the National Security Administration (sic) to spy on some Americans without a warrant after the September 11 attacks. The president says it's within his constitutional power to protect the country. Critics allege that it is an unconstitutional power grab.

The secretary of homeland security calls most Mexican military and police incursions into the U.S. innocent. Secretary Chertoff says Mexican law enforcement officials make incursions into the U.S. territory about 20 times a year. He calls reports of these incidents overblown and he adds, quote, "I don't think we have a serious problem with official incursions."

And today North Korea's news agency reported that the nation's leader visited China. The news agency reports Kim Jong-Il met with Chinese President Hu Jintao. They reportedly discussed international and regional issues, and the North Korean leader reportedly pledged to continue the six-party talks over nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula. Those have been stalled. Word of Kim Jong-Il's trip ends weeks of speculation over whether he had actually even made the trip -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We now know he did make the trip. They sealed off that whole area specifically for him. Zain, thank you very much for that.

Still ahead here on THE SITUATION ROOM, Capitol Hill and charges of corruption. Now that Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is presumably telling all to prosecutors, we'll tell you how Democrats want to clean things up and whether they've got any different ideas than Republicans.

And later, the U.S. Supreme Court rules on abortion but sidesteps any big decision. What does it tell us about the Roberts court and the soon-to-be departing justice, Sandra Day O'Connor? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: On Capitol Hill here in Washington, a bidding war of sorts over lobbying reform, and that war is getting more intense by the day. Democrats and Republicans are trying to outdo one another with various proposals, even as an influence peddling scandal continues to unfold. Today Democratic leaders put their plans on the table.

Our congressional correspondent, Ed Henry, is joining us now with more. Ed, what's going on?

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, you're right. The stampede is going on to see who can clean up Congress faster.

Yesterday, of course, Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, under heavy political pressure because of the Jack Abramoff scandal, declaring he wants to ban all privately financed travel and limit gifts to 20 bucks.

Democratic leaders today trying to up the ante, saying they don't want to limit gifts; they want to ban them altogether, no meals, no, nothing. And as they rolled out their reform plan today, Democrats stole a page from the Republican playbook circa 1994, signing a pledge to clean up government, visions of the Contract with America, Democrats hoping this will propel them to victory, just as it did for the Republicans.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi saying that they want to basically end the congressional dependence on lobbyists. But I can tell you reform groups doubt that, because they say it's sort of odd that lawmakers are talking about banning $50 steaks from lobbyists, but they'll still take $1,000 campaign checks from the same lobbyists, that absurdity raising eyebrows among some.

For example, Republican Senator Trent Lott, maybe half in jest, today saying that the rate, the only restaurant where lobbyists and senators will be able to hang out together will be McDonald's -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What is the -- what is the number right now, the amount someone can spend to take a member of the House out to lunch?

HENRY: It's only 50 bucks from any one lobbyist, $100 over the course of a year, but 50 bucks in one meal. And I can tell you, specifically for dinner, a lot of people think that a lot of people have been look the other way for years. There's been no enforcement. A lot of people have been breaking that $50 limit. And so one point that's being made is you can write any rule you want but lawmakers have to follow them, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much. Ed Henry reporting for us.

There will be no cameras allowed on Capitol Hill when House Republicans select their new majority leader, but there may be no better way to get a glimpse into the dynamics of that closed-door session than online.

Our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton, is here to explain -- Abbi.

ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, what the contenders' web sites say and what they don't say giving us a little bit of insight here.

Congressman John Boehner here from Ohio, maybe not the leading contender in this race, but he seems to be raising his profile on his web site. Here, look, a 37-page document describing exactly what he would do as House leader.

Also if this is a name that's not familiar to you, his political action committee spells it out for you. It's right there online, "Say Bay-ner," if you didn't know how to pronounce that name.

John Shadegg from Arizona, who jumped into the race last week, he has put his agenda letter that he sent to his Republican colleagues online on his web site.

Congressman Roy Blunt's web site here has no information or press releases about the leadership race. I contacted them today, and they said that there's nothing there on the site about it. Roy Blunt, the congressman, said last weekend he has the race all but wrapped up.

But that doesn't mean the people behind him are not web savvy. If you go to StopRoyBlunt.com, you're actually directed to Roy Blunt's political action committee -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Very savvy, indeed, very tricky. Thanks very much, Abbi, for that.

In the culture war, abortion and the United States Supreme Court. The justices today unanimously greed that a lower court was wrong in striking down a New Hampshire parental notification law, but the high court avoided a major ruling by telling the appeals court to go back and reconsider the law.

Still this case does represent a milestone of sorts. Our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is here to explain -- Bill. BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, today's Supreme Court ruling in the New Hampshire abortion case could be the last one written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and it does capture her legacy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Victory for the antiabortion side? Not entirely. The Supreme Court's decision splits the difference on the abortion issue, because the ruling says the New Hampshire law cannot be applied in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks. That's O'Connor's legacy, a practical justice who favors sensible solutions.

ANDREW MCBRIDE, FORMER O'CONNOR LAW CLERK: Her greatest legacy is the changes in the law and women in the law, when you think about it, women in all careers, really.

SCHNEIDER: She defined the undue burden standard accepted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1992 Pennsylvania decision. That decision said the right to abortion could be limited and restricted, so long as the restrictions do not constitute an undue burden or obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.

What constitutes an undue burden? At last week's hearings, Judge Alito reflected on the issue when he discussed his opinion in the Pennsylvania case before it got to the Supreme Court.

JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I wrestled with that issue, but based on the information they had from Justice O'Connor's opinions, it seemed to me this was not what she had in mind. Now that turned out not to be a correct prediction about how she herself would apply the undue burden standard.

SCHNEIDER: The implication is that if Alito replaces O'Connor on the court, that standard could change.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Critics -- critics say O'Connor's cautious, limited approach does not provide much of a road map for future court decisions, but it does enable the court to find common ground. The decision she wrote today in the New Hampshire case was unanimous -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Bill, thank you very much. Bill Schneider with that analysis.

Let's talk a little bit about the high court's ruling today, what it means for abortion rights for women in this country. Our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, is joining us.

Whenever you get a unanimous decision and the word "abortion" in there and you have Antonin Scalia agreeing with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, what does it say, Jeff? JEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It says they agreed basically not to decide the substantive issue and send the case back. Although in Justice O'Connor's characteristic way, she did lay out the law of abortion, claiming that she was simply reciting what they already decided, in a way that shows just how much she affected the law over her 25 years on the court.

She said, as Bill Schneider just said, that abortion is a protected right in America. We know that. And -- and that is something that she came to decide after a good deal of soul-searching in the Casey decision, and she stuck with that. And her position has been law of the land for the past 13 years.

BLITZER: Was this just a technical decision today, or is it fair to say that the nine justices are finding at least, moving closer towards common ground?

TOOBIN: Boy, I wish I could say that, Wolf. But I think it really is mostly an opportunity for them to unite around a procedural issue and get away from their profound, profound difference on the question of abortion.

I don't think anyone believes -- I certainly don't believe -- that there is common ground on the question of abortion here. There are Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, deeply committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. They've said it repeatedly.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, very much committed to preserving a woman's right to choose under the Constitution. And Anthony Kennedy, justice - - Chief Justice Roberts and presumably Judge Alito very much up in the air. Not clear to me, not clear to most people how they'll ultimately decide those issues.

BLITZER: This decision today came as a surprise to me. I don't know if it came as a surprise to you. I was expecting one of these 5- 4, 6-3 decisions.

But let me just throw out this idea. When I heard it and I heard that Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion, I immediately said to myself, maybe this is just a big wet kiss to let her end her days on the Supreme Court with a unanimous decision surrounding her.

TOOBIN: I think there is definitely something to that, Wolf. Although, from the oral argument, which I listened to, it was clear they were looking to try to get rid of this case procedurally rather than address the very difficult issues.

But you're right that this is a case that very much sums up Sandra Day O'Connor's jurisprudence, which was not trying to make grand pronouncements, decide cases very narrowly, don't reach out for difficult decisions if you don't have to make them, you know.

I said before, she once showed me around the Supreme Court, and it was really thrilling. And in the courtyards there, there are these big old lampposts, beautifully carved. And she said, "Look at the bottom of those lamppost. They're turtles. They're sculptured turtles underneath the lampposts. That's what we are here. We're very sturdy; we move slowly; we don't lurch from side to side."

And I think today's decision is very much in the turtle-like tradition of her opinions, and it sums her up well.

BLITZER: And we wish her only the best in the next chapter in her life. Jeff Toobin, thanks very much for helping us better understand the Supreme Court, as you always do.

Up next, we have a developing story we're watching here in THE SITUATION ROOM. There's new word now on what's being described as a high-value target who might, repeat, might have been killed in that al Qaeda strike in Pakistan last Friday. We have two correspondents on this story. They're standing by here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We're going to update you on it as soon as we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: There's a developing story we're watching here in THE SITUATION ROOM right now. Let's bring in our national security correspondent, David Ensor, our senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson. They're both watching the story.

David, what precisely are you learning?

DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are learning, Wolf, that there was another dinner guest last Friday who perhaps is a very important target for U.S. intelligence, and he may or may not have been killed by the air attacks the CIA launched on that Friday night.

BLITZER: Now, let me just recap for those viewers who may be not necessarily familiar. This was the U.S. attack targeting a house along the border with Afghanistan that the U.S. suspected Ayman al- Zawahiri, the al Qaeda number two man, might be there, together with other al Qaeda operatives?

ENSOR: That's right. And now, Pakistani officials are saying they don't think Zawahiri was there. Some are suggesting that this other man was. What I'm hearing from U.S. officials is they just can't confirm that.

But that said, there was evidence that this individual -- his name is Midhat Mursi or Abu Khabab al-Masri -- may have been killed by the attack on Friday. Again, they cannot confirm that he was, but he may have been.

And he's a big fish, Wolf. There's a $5 million reward out for this man. He was known as the sort of chemical weapons expert, the bomb maker for al Qaeda. He ran the Durunta camp in Afghanistan and used -- used chemical weapons in training people in the use of them.

So this is a moderately big fish. It would be a great success for the U.S. if they got him. But again, U.S. intelligence officials saying, while there was evidence he might be there, they can't confirm whether or not they got him.

BLITZER: And Nic, we put his picture up, Abu al-Masri, behind you here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Talk a little bit this terrorist?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He was a master bomb maker, and he was behind al Qaeda's experimenting with chemical and biological weapons.

There have been training manuals found in Afghanistan after September the 11th, after the United States went into Afghanistan that he was -- that he had put together that where teaching al Qaeda trainees how to make simple chemical weapons, how to make simple biological weapons.

A videotape that CNN discovered, received in Afghanistan in 2002 showed this training camp in Durunta before September the 11th when Abu Khabab was running his chemical weapons, biological weapons training facility. And on that videotape, a dog is seen being gassed to death by some kind of lethal poisonous gas.

Middle East intelligence source at that time told us the voice that they could hear on that tape was Abu Khabab, this man who may have been killed in this air strike last week.

Another interesting detail, after September the 11th, after the Durunta camp in Afghanistan was destroyed, he was believed to have then moved to another safe al Qaeda location, the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia, the former Soviet republic. They are believed to have been at that camp for some time with Zarqawi, the known terrorist leader in Iraq at the moment.

BLITZER: Are you getting information, David -- I know this is very sensitive, but I want to be precise with our viewers -- that the real target was Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al Qaeda number two? He may not necessarily have shown up for the dinner at this house at Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan, but other al Qaeda operatives did show up? And now they suspect, perhaps this guy, this bomb maker, was one -- among those who might have been killed?

ENSOR: Well, that's right. They're saying that they are quite confident that at least four, and perhaps as many as eight al Qaeda personnel were killed on Friday.

It is -- some of these individuals are said to be close to Zawahiri. And they include Egyptians. This man again is an Egyptian. He's a 52-year-old Egyptian, part of Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and very close to Zawahiri for many years now.

So this is part of the inner core that they're now going after and may have succeeded in getting. I should just mention he also trained -- is said to have trained Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui.

BLITZER: The shoe bomber, Richard Reid. And Ayman al-Zawahiri is Egyptian himself. All right, guys. We're going to have much more on this story coming up at the top of the hour in the next hour, but thanks for sharing that with our viewers.

Just ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM, your cell phone records for sale. How can it be stopped? It's a story we've been following now for several days. There's new information, information you need to know.

And on the heels of Hillary Clinton's controversial attacks on Republicans, we'll listen for any new red meat coming in from the senator. Coming up later tonight, she's going to be speaking during our 7 p.m. Eastern hour of THE SITUATION ROOM, and we're going to be listening very closely to what she has to say.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

In our strategy session today, the rush to reform. In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, Democrats and Republicans are now offering competing plans to try to clean up Washington. Will either succeed?

And presidential candidates for 2008 already laying out some of the groundwork. What's their best strategy?

Joining us CNN political analyst, Democratic strategist Paul Begala; Terry Jeffrey, he's the editor of "Human Events."

Terry, listen to what Republican Chris Shays, a moderate, says, quoted by the Hill newspaper. "We have to overcompensate to gain credibility and control again." This is a big problem for the Republicans.

TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": Well, there's no doubt it's a problem, Wolf, but I don't think some kind of technical reform of house rules is going to make a difference.

I think voters are going vote for their own congressman. If they think he's OK, and they don't think he's corrupted, they're going to vote for him. But if they think he has a taint of corruption, they're not going to vote for him because he voted for a technical reform of House rules.

I think the real problem for Republicans will come if and only when additional congressmen are indicted or convicted and happen to be all Republicans. I think what might happen, though, is you get some Democrats mixed into the scandal, including Democrats who are indicted, and then it becomes a political wash.

BLITZER: Are there Democrats who are about to be indicted? Do you see any Democrats who are?

JEFFREY: No, but I think a lot of this so far has been guilt by association. You had Nancy Pelosi going out and saying there's a culture of corruption in Congress.

That's basically premised on the idea that just because some congressman got money from people who are tied to a lobbyist and then did certain things legislatively that that's corrupt. You can paint that same exact model for the Democrats. I think these guys have to hold fire...

BLITZER: Here's what the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said, "The idea of Republicans reforming themselves is like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime."

Do the -- what should the Democratic strategy in dealing with this problem be?

PAUL BEGALA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: They have to differentiate themselves. Right now if you do a poll, most voters say a pox on both their houses. This drives Democrats crazy. Because every politician who's been indicted has been a Republican. Every politician who's been accused has been a Republican. Every politician who's pleaded guilty has been a Republican. And yet, the country is ready to blame them both. So Democrats have to get out there and say, "It was them, not me."

BLITZER: Terry makes a valid point. All the polls I've seen over all the years, when you generically, generally ask the American public, what do you think of Congress, they have negative feelings. But what do you think about your member of Congress, your congressman and your congresswoman, usually they're pretty good.

BEGALA: But right now, it's about 11 years since we've had such an unfavorable view of our Congress. That was 1994, when Newt Gingrich took a bank scandal at the House, where members were writing checks that they didn't have money to cover. A couple of Democrats were, like, stealing stamps and furniture. Pretty minor stuff.

And used that to leverage a case that Democrats have become corrupt, he said, in the lower absence (ph), that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the case Democrats should make now. They control the House, the Senate and the White House, and they have become corrupt from the fallout.

BLITZER: A lot of people are looking at the '94 example and saying it's reversed now, that the Democrats in 2006 have the chance that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans had in '94.

JEFFREY: You know, Wolf, if you look at that carefully, it's really in the late 1980s when the Democrats had their serious scandals in the House. That's when Jim Wright (ph) had -- resigned. That's when Tony Coelho resigned. Wasn't until 1994 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.

And they did it with the Contract with America. They nationalized the election not on Democratic corruption in the Congress but on their own positive agenda, on issue that united the country, at least the majority of people, behind the Republicans.

BEGALA: Six out of 10 planks in the Contract with America were about reform, and now we have the sense in the country that -- that the Republicans who came in as reformers a decade ago have now become part of corruption. This is not just me, but the "Wall Street Journal" editorial page has written about it. A very conservative editorial page.

BLITZER: Does it make any difference, Paul, if a lobbyist can take a member of Congress out to lunch and spend $50 for a meal or $20 for a meal?

BEGALA: No. No, they ought to clean it up much more than that. I think they ought not be able to take one dime, not a single dime, from these -- from these lobbyists.

But here's -- this is the political, the strategic imperative. This is going to be interesting. Republicans need to muddle the water; Democrats need to draw clear distinctions.

I think the Democrats have been given a gift by the Republicans when the Republicans put Rick Santorum in charge of reform, since Senator Santorum, Republican for Pennsylvania, was also in charge of what's called the K Street project, which was a way that they used to strong arm lobbyists. It was a corrupt enterprise.

JEFFREY: I'll agree with you on one thing. The Republicans came in with a Contract with America. A lot of those things were based on reform. There's one reform they didn't follow through on; that was term limits.

If Republicans and Democrats came together now and said, "We're going to impose term limits on every member of the House and Senate," I believe that would clean up corruption in Washington. You'd have citizen legislators, legislators who would come here, serve for a short time and go home.

Now we have congressmen who come here and stay here permanently. Either permanently in Congress itself or if they leave Congress, they go down to K Street and become a lobbyist. That's what needs to stop.

BLITZER: We've got to leave it there. Terry, Paul, thanks very much. A good discussion.

Coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM, U.S. troops in Iraq needed for protection, but they might not want the extra weight. At issue, body armor. The secretary of the Army says more is on the way to Iraq. Will it offer the protection that troops need?

Much more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: As we've been reporting, a deadline is looming for Jill Carroll, that American journalist abducted in Iraq. She's only 28 years old.

Our national correspondent, Bruce Morton, has been looking at this hostage drama and others from the past, as well -- Bruce.

BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the late CBS News commentator, Eric Severeid, wrote during an earlier hostage-taking about the special strength of the shameless, the shadowy men who seek not combat but terror, whose victims of choice are the innocent.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MORTON (voice-over): The hostage-takers are such people, and they work very hard. Reuters news service reports today the kidnapping of a Malawian engineer while the sister of Iraq's minister of interior was freed after being held for two weeks.

How many are there? Reuters says more than 200 foreigners and thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Fifty-four foreign hostages have been executed, 41 in 2004 and 13 in 2005.

The best guess is that more than 50 hostages are currently captive, including at least four Americans, but the numbers are fuzzy.

Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group, says Jill Carroll is the 35th media worker kidnapped since the invasion. Five, four Iraqis and an Italian, were killed, the group says, the others released.

There are usually demands, but most governments won't deal with hostage-takers, on the grounds that bargaining with them would only encourage them to capture more innocent people.

Four of the hostages currently held, including one American, are peace activists.

The hostage takers are not soldiers. They don't aim to win battles or take territory. Their stock in trade is fear. They don't win wars; they can't. They just make life in the war zone more dangerous, more fearful.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MORTON: And they are, as Severeid said, shameless. How else could they live with what they do -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Bruce, thank you very much. Bruce Morton with that essay.

Still to come, time is running out for that American journalist, Jill Carroll. Her kidnappers say they'll kill her if their demands are not met. The White House says her safety is a top priority, but should the U.S. government negotiate for her release?

And former President Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair, at least for awhile. Now he be -- he may be able to get his law license back. Will he? We'll have details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: On our "Political Radar" this Wednesday, former President Gerald Ford is continuing to show improvement after a bout with pneumonia. Doctors at a California hospital say they're optimistic Ford will be able to go home tomorrow. The 92-year-old former president was hospitalized Saturday. Doctors say he's now able to sit up in a chair and read his newspapers.

The U.S. Senate has a new member. New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez was sworn in today. The seven-term congressman will finish out the term of fellow Democrat Jon Corzine, who was inaugurated this week as governor of New Jersey.

And a milestone for former President Bill Clinton. This week, he's eligible to reclaim his law license in Arkansas. As you may remember, he was suspended from the state bar in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It's unclear if Clinton will actually try to reclaim his law license. Arkansas officials reportedly are preparing for such a request.

Jack Cafferty is back now in New York, smiling as usual. Why are you smiling, Jack?

CAFFERTY: Clinton should go down there and get his law license back and then sue himself for the job he did as president.

The question this hour is who would the smartest choice for the Democrats be in 2008?

"Barack Obama," says Kay, "is intelligent, admired and so far skilled at handling the job his voters mandated." He's the new senator in Illinois. "To those objectors claiming he hasn't the experience, I say nor has he had the chance to become a truly corrupt politician. Instead of nominating another ticket puncher, let's get a young one and raise him right."

Vic in Roxboro, North Carolina: "John Edwards will be the one, if he chooses to run. He'll be the new John Kennedy." Please. "If he hadn't run with Kerry and had the Democratic machine behind him, he would have won."

Greg in Westville, Nova Scotia: "Hillary Clinton, provided someone can implant a filter between her brain and lips before she opens her yap again!"

Gini in Westbrook, Maine: "Bill Richardson. He's got a great resume: former cabinet member, former ambassador to the U.N., present governor of a swing state. Plus, he's a Latino. It doesn't get any better than this."

Scott writes from Palm Beach, Florida, "What a question. That's like asking, 'What type of manure is best, hog or cow?' If I were the Democrats, I would be reminding John McCain every day what George Bush did to him in the 2000 election and how they just use him for photo ops and play him for the fool and just hope that I could get him to switch parties and run as a Democrat in '08."

And Vivian in Seattle, Washington: "Jack, I think Dr. Phil would be the best choice for the Democrats. That way American could be counseled by a professional after the Republicans steal the election again" -- Wolf. BLITZER: All right, Jack. Thanks very much, and thanks to our viewers.

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