Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
Search for Missing Girl Continues in Virginia; Hatfill Claims FBI Leaks Ruined His Life; CEO Certification Deadline Passes Without Incident
Aired August 17, 2002 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to our viewers across North America. This is SATURDAY EDITION. I'm CNN correspondent Jeanne Meserve in Collinsville, Virginia.
Just ahead, the search for a missing girl here and the national debate over Amber Alert System for finding missing children.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENTE: I'm medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. Washington offers public meetings, but is that enough to answer the concerns of millions of women and their families over hormone replacement therapy?
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I'm justice correspondent Kelli Arena. How one man is attacking the FBI anthrax investigation and claiming FBI leaks are ruining his life.
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I'm financial correspondent Susan Lisovicz in New York, where Wall Street sighed a huge sigh of relief after the CEO certification deadline came and went without incident, but is it enough to revive the markets?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. The president and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, beat the Iraqi war drum this week, as some Bush loyalists warn it's the wrong move at the wrong time.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas. The president is talking tough about government spending, saying he'll stand up to Congress.
Now, we're waiting for the president's weekly radio address. It will happen in just moments. But right now, this news alert with Charles Molineaux in Atlanta.
(NEWSBREAK)
MALVEAUX: The focus, the spotlight this morning is on fundraising, the White House releasing a list of 160 overnight guests at the Bush White House, some of those guests being the six top Republican fundraisers.
Now, you may recall, there was a big to-do when that list came out for the Clinton administration, when it was found out that Republicans -- or rather, Democrats were offering an overnight stay in the Lincoln Bedroom for donations.
Well, I talked to White House spokesperson Claire Buchan, who says any type of comparison of that nature is really just absurd, that if you know the list, you see the list, that those are Bush old family friends, as well as folks that he has known for a very long time, that if they are fundraisers it would make sense they would support the president in that kind of way.
But the Bush administration really is extraordinarily skilled in fundraising. It was just yesterday, as a matter of fact, that there were the pioneers, the top Bush moneymakers, Republican moneymakers, more than 200. They collectively raised $100 million for the Bush 2000 campaign.
And President Bush has the distinction, really, some calling him fundraiser-in-chief because he has raised more money for his party than any of his predecessors, including President Clinton. But this week, the message that the Bush administration not about big money, but rather about recognizing Americans' economic hardship over the weeks ahead.
LISOVICZ: Suzanne, Susan Lisovicz here in New York, and I wanted to pick up on that very topic. During this so-called working vacation, there was that two-day economic summit. The markets did not respond on Tuesday, the same day the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, said the economy now has a greater risk of recession than inflation.
What did the president take away from that summit?
MALVEAUX: Well, as you know, there was really a big controversy over the summit. The Democrats were really crying foul because they took a look at the list -- there were about 240 participants -- and they said a lot of these people are big-time Republican donors, a lot of CEOs. As a matter of fact, nearly half of the participants were either company managers or a CEO of major corporations.
But the Bush administration said that, yes, they're taking a lot of ideas into consideration, that they are considering ideas about increasing the limit for 401(k)s and IRAs, that they're looking at all kinds of possibilities when it comes to capital gains taxes, things of that nature, that they're taking in all of those suggestions.
But the Democrats really don't buy it. They said it's just one big public-relations stunt, when you look at the fact that they weren't invited. They had an idea to have a summit in January that they say was roundly rejected.
And having covered it and having listened to some of those sessions, yes, there were ideas, there was a lot of note-taking, but very little debate that was taking place.
LISOVICZ: Suzanne, though, the markets did not listen either. You know, Democrats certainly criticize the president because it was a hand-picked audience. On websites, it was called the fake forum, and the markets sold off that day when the president said it was simply a rough patch. Yes, he did now detail some ideas, but what's the track on those becoming reality? That's really what the market wants. It wants solid earnings reports and it wants ideas that are made reality into stimulating the economy. What's the prospects there?
MALVEAUX: Well, sure, the administration is saying that the president is going to bring these ideas to Congress, to give these type of tax breaks to small investors, to make it easier for people to enter the markets and to have confidence in those markets.
Now, here's the president's radio address, in just a moment.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.
This week I hosted an economic forum at Baylor University in Texas. Participants shared their concerns about the economic challenges we face and their ideas for making the economy stronger.
A common theme among many panelists was that we must leave every dollar we can in the hands of the people who have earned it. We must be disciplined with our taxpayers' money, which requires Congress to focus on funding our nation's priorities.
Winning the war in terror is our top priority. The men and women fighting the war must have every tool and all the training they need to fight and win. That is why my budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in a generation. And that is why I urge the Congress to pass a final defense appropriations bill as soon as they return to Washington.
Keeping our homeland secure is another high priority. My budget would nearly double funding for homeland security to almost $38 billion: money to train and equip firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel, money for the Coast Guard to protect our ports and coasts, money to keep our water-treatment plants and nuclear facilities safe.
A few weeks ago, Congress passed an emergency funding bill that provides more that $13 billion in immediate funding for the war on terror, more than $4 billion for homeland security, and completes our $20 billion commitment to the people of New York. I was pleased to sign it.
But Congress also sent along more than $5 billion in extra spending I did not ask for. Some of that $5 billion I've endorsed and will work to secure, but a lot of that money has nothing to do with the national emergency.
Those who wrote the bill designed it so either I have to spend all the money or none of it. At the economic forum on Tuesday, I made my position clear. I will spend none of the $5 billion.
We must remember the lessons of the past. In the 1960s, increased spending required by war was not balanced by slower spending in the rest of the government. As a result, in the 1970s, we faced unemployment and growing deficits and spiraling inflation. We cannot go down the path of soaring budget deficits. We must meet our defense and homeland-security needs and hold the line on other spending. My budget raises defense spending by more than 14 percent. It nearly doubles homeland-security funding. In all other areas, increases spending by 2 percent. Many families are living with raises like that, and so should the government.
The House of Representatives has done well by staying within these limits. Unfortunately, the Senate has not even passed a budget framework, and so far it has been ignoring fiscal discipline.
I requested $2.4 billion for public housing. The bill moving through the Senate includes $300 million more. I requested $2.2 billion for agricultural research. Again, the Senate wants to spend $300 million more. I requested $3.1 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Senate wants to spend $200 million more. And these levels could go higher.
I challenge Congress to respect the taxpayers and show restraint with their money. It is very important they do so in order for our economy to continue to grow. If Congress will not show spending restraint, I will enforce spending restraint for the good of our economy, for the good of the people who pay taxes. My administration will spend what is truly needed and not a dollar more.
Thank you for listening.
MALVEAUX: So what I found most interesting this week about the president's message to the American people wasn't really just about the fundamentals of the economy are strong when he's trying to attract investors back into the markets, but he is now saying we need to tighten our belts. It was really a call for fiscal responsibility.
He took this tour of the Midwest this week. He went to Wisconsin and Iowa and South Dakota. And in Mount Rushmore is actually when a lot of people were expecting -- ranchers and farmers who he was talking to -- were expecting some sort of announcement, some emergency relief for a drought relief. They have suffered greatly in that area of the country. They were very disappointed at what they heard, the president saying that, yes, this is a time of fiscal discipline and responsibility. He did not mention any type of emergency funding that they had hoped. They say that they need some $5 billion. He said there's $150 million that's actually available through the Agriculture Department, but not the kind of money that they had expected -- a real disappointment for folks.
I think this is the message that we're going to be hearing in the weeks to come, particularly to Congress. There is going to be a battle on their hands over government spending.
COHEN: Suzanne, the president had quite a week. Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, canceled the trip to the president's ranch. As an outsider, to me it looked a little strange. Is this a setback for relations between the two countries?
MALVEAUX: Well, the Bush administration says that the president understands Fox's position. They called -- they actually spoke on Tuesday evening before the execution. But clearly, this is -- really just adds another layer of tension to this relationship.
This was a case, really, where President Fox was personally involved in trying to save the life of this man who was executed in Huntsville, Texas, that he had actually called Texas Governor Rick Perry, that he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that he called President Bush on Tuesday evening before the execution, hoping that this would not happen. He was not able to do that.
This is clearly going to put somewhat of a tension between the two of them. But the administration is saying they understand, they hope that he'll come back at a later date to visit with the president, perhaps not at the ranch.
MESERVE: There is another story breaking today. A young girl in Virginia is missing after the murder of her parents. The latest on that and what states are doing to try to speed up the recovery of missing children, when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MESERVE: It has now been more than 48 hours since young Jennifer Short was discovered missing, and the investigation appears to be going nowhere fast. There is still no sign of Jennifer herself. There are no promising leads in this case. There is no motive. There is no suspect. There is no vehicle description. There is no timeline at this point.
In a briefing a short time ago, the local sheriff said, the longer the timeframe, the more desperate it becomes. It also laid out where the investigation would be going today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF H.F. CASSELL, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA: We will be interviewing potential witnesses, people that may have seen anything. We'll be interviewing family members. We'll be interviewing past employees, present employees, associates. This is what we've been doing for the last two days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: After that briefing was done, the sheriff gave us the most tantalizing piece of information. He said investigators believe that the perpetrator of this crime was known to the whole family. He did not tell us why. He didn't say it was a hunch or physical evidence, but he also did reveal that there was no sign of a struggle in the Short home.
ARENA: Well, Jeanne, this is Kelli Arena, wondering, does law enforcement have any suspicion at all that the child herself was involved in this?
MESERVE: Kelli, they say they're not crossing out any theory, but that one seems a very unlikely one, for two reasons: One, this was a very small child. She was only 9 years old, 4'3" tall. Also, several neighbors and acquaintances of the family have said to me that she was extraordinarily close with her parents, that she was almost always with one of them. The father was described as doting. Apparently if she had a softball game, he quit work to be with her. There was no sign of any sort of discord or tension between the child and her parents.
COHEN: And, Jeanne, you covered the Smart case, and there have been many of these horrible cases this summer. Do you see any parallels between the Smart case and this one? Does it feel similar to you at all?
MESERVE: Well, let me tell you, first of all, that investigators don't feel there's any connection between this abduction and any of the others we've looked at this year.
One of the things that really struck me was this, that in the Smart case, you had an extended family that was very vocal, very eager to go in front of the cameras every day to keep up interest in this particular story. And they knew how to do it. Every day they'd put out some tantalizing new piece of information about her favorite song or a story she might have particularly liked.
Here, the parents are dead. And I've been told that even though the mother and father both had extended family, the family didn't appear to be particularly close. And when I asked, "Well, gee, who here will be filling that same role that we saw out in Salt Lake City," the investigator said to me, "We will, the police will have to do it."
So I doubt this story is going to stay in the headlines the same way the Smart case did.
LISOVICZ: Jeanne, Susan Lisovicz in New York. Isn't time of the essence now when there is a child missing or a child abducted? We don't know what the case is. But time is very critical because this is when, if the child is killed, it often comes within the first 24 hours. Isn't that the case?
MESERVE: It's true. And they're very disturbed here that nobody saw this family after midnight on Wednesday, and the girl wasn't discovered missing until 9 o'clock the next morning, which means that the abductor or abductors could have had a head start of many, many hours.
It's one reason why there's some question about who effective the Amber Alert System will be here. They did put it in effect, but because of that time lag, because they don't have a suspect or vehicle description, and because they don't even know what this young girl was wearing, they just don't know how effective it's going to be here. Although it has given them several tips, none of them have panned out.
ARENA: In nine hours, you could be out of the state of New Jersey. I mean...
MESERVE: That's right. MALVEAUX: Jeanne, this is Suzanne. I have a question. You were talking about the effectiveness of actually putting the case out there, having the parents talk to the media and public. And I was just wondering, how effective really is that?
I mean, we take a look and we saw the Chandra Levy case. And it seemed to me as if you had so much publicity around that case, but that it all just came down to really an accident, that it was luck that they found her remains in the woods.
I mean, is there really a correlation there, where you put the word out and it really makes people move and it's more effective than actually finding a missing child?
MESERVE: Well, I can't help but think it's effective in that it keeps putting that picture and description out there in front of people. And that may help in case anybody has had any sighting of this kid. I think, for that reason alone, it's potentially very significant.
As to whether it leads anywhere in the investigation, that's always a crapshoot. But I'll tell you, one of the investigators here said, you know, sometimes these things lead to a lot of leads, and a lot of them take us nowhere, but we'd rather have too many leads to work with than too few.
COHEN: And, Jeanne, there have been so many of these incidents over the summer that we've heard about, been in the news. Are there really more kidnappings than ever before, more abductions than ever before, or are we just hearing more about it?
MESERVE: Well, there's a lot of question about how the statistics are kept and whether they're accurate or not. But the official statistics indicate there are not all that many that are not cases of runaways or cases of custody disputes. I think the number this year is somewhere in the 60s, so far this year. So the number is not tremendous.
But obviously, they're tremendously scary for adults and for children, and so they do get a lot of publicity, perhaps more this year than any other.
ARENA: Well, Jeanne, let's move on to another topic. There is another criminal investigation with seemingly no end in sight, and that's the hunt for the anthrax killer. We'll talk about how one man is fighting back against investigators and what he claims are unfair FBI tactics.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ARENA: Federal investigators say they have found a mailbox in Princeton, New Jersey, contaminated with anthrax, suggesting some of the letters may have been mailed from there.
Meanwhile, a former government scientist, Steven Hatfill, says he is being destroyed by the investigation and by FBI leaks. Now, Hatfill is not a suspect, say the Feds, but what they call a person of interest. And Hatfill and his spokesman have slammed the FBI investigation and what they claim are damaging leaks.
Now, I will tell you that, just in covering this investigation, there is more than the FBI involved. I mean, in all fairness, you have the postal inspection service, you have state and local authorities that are also on this task force that is investigating the anthrax killings. So there are lots of different ways for reporters to get information.
I pointed this out to Pat Clawson, who was actually Steven Hatfill's friend, who's also serving as his representative, and said a lot more out there than the FBI. But he was insistent and said, no, the FBI is out there, they are determined to, you know, slander my friend with no hard evidence.
STARR: Why is the federal government then, if those allegations do prove eventually to be true, why is the federal government putting this man's name out there?
Because I think most people remember the case of the bombings in Atlanta with the Olympics and the Richard Jewell case and how that name was put out there and he was proven later to be completely innocent. And one would think the FBI would have learned its lesson from that incident.
ARENA: Well, I'll tell you, in every conversation, every conversation, with agents and investigators, I am told, "Kelli, I have two words for you: Richard Jewell."
And I will say that, officially, the FBI hasn't put out anyone's name. The only thing that we've heard from Attorney General John Ashcroft is that, when he was asked directly about Steven Hatfill, said, well, he is a person of interest. But there are supposedly between 20 and 30 other persons of interest.
STARR: Why have none of those people of interest been named? Why have none of those names surfaced?
ARENA: Well, you know, the first surfacing of Hatfill's name came from people within the scientific community. It was actually talked about on websites. And so, that's where his name was first publicly revealed. And then, after some digging, the press was able to confirm that, yes, this was one of the people that was being looked at.
COHEN: So 20 to 30 persons of interest...
ARENA: Right.
COHEN: ... but he is the only one where they got a criminal search warrant for his home, right?
ARENA: As far as we know, yes. And our sources tell us that, yes, this is the only person that they got a criminal search warrant on. And this is the -- there's also an investigation going on around that mailbox in Princeton, New Jersey, and we've spoken to several businesspeople there, who have said that federal investigators are walking around with one photo, and that one photo is of Steven Hatfill, no one else.
COHEN: And usually they don't do that. Usually they do a whole array.
ARENA: Right.
MESERVE: Kelli, what does this term "person of interest," what does that mean exactly?
ARENA: Well, according to investigators, it means someone that would have had access to anthrax, the anthrax bacteria; someone who had the knowledge, the scientific knowledge, to pull this off; and someone who has circumstantial evidence surrounding them that makes them more interesting than another colleague.
MESERVE: What's the difference between that and a suspect?
MALVEAUX: So, Kelli, how is that different from a suspect? Exactly, that's what I was going to ask as well.
ARENA: The FBI will not use the word "suspect." They are staying away from that word. And I said before, every other investigator that I speak to says, you know, there's two words for that and that's "Richard Jewell," even though in all fairness, going back to the Richard Jewell situation, that came from local...
MESERVE: But, Kelli, whether it's a suspect or whether it's a person of interest, the fact is now that this man, who is becoming a household name, has gone on the offensive and said that he has done nothing wrong, that he is a patriot, and that he is being unfairly singled out, and that it's ruining his life. He's been fired from one job. He's been put on paid leave on another. How damaging is that, when you see this kind of reverse media blitz?
ARENA: Well, if you speak to his lawyer and his representative, very damaging. I mean, this man says that he cannot walk in public places without being approached by strangers. He says that he will never be able to get his reputation back.
And let us point out here, there is no hard evidence. Investigators have told us there is absolutely no hard evidence that suggests that Steven Hatfill is the anthrax killer. If there were, he's been in custody.
STARR: And, in fact, this mystery may be far from over. I've spoken this week to some very senior military officials involved in the chemical weapons program. As you know, Hatfill worked at Fort Detrick. There are other military facilities in this country where anthrax is used in chemical-weapons research and defense.
And they point to some mysteries that they can't resolve in their minds. And these are people very expert in anthrax. One, how would anybody have in fact gotten anthrax out of Fort Detrick? There are very stringent rules. Equipment goes through an autoclave. People go through decontamination. He would've had to have scraped off microscopic amounts and then grown additional spores. There is no reportable amount of anthrax missing.
But the thing that has military people the most concerned, still, is the mystery about the quality of this anthrax. It is very highly produced, high-grade, highly milled, as they call it...
ARENA: Well, because it was so easily aerosolized.
STARR: ... and that requires a very specific capability, a very specific type of equipment. And the question is still open as to how that took place.
None of those questions are resolved at the moment.
ARENA: A great level of sophistication necessary to pull this off.
And, you know, at the end of the day, the situation is, there's still an anthrax killer out there. There is nobody -- there has been not one arrest made in this investigation since last fall. You have five people dead and not one person in custody.
And, you know, so, as much as you want to look at, you know, all this circumstantial, interesting evidence surrounding anybody, the fact is there is no hard evidence, there is nobody in custody, nobody has been charged. And I don't know about you, but that does not make me very comfortable.
LISOVICZ: Well, the anthrax investigation certainly is a baffling one. Here's another tough case, the economy. The president and the chairman of the Federal Reserve both had a lot to say about it this week.
We'll be talking about that next, but first let's go to Atlanta. Charles Molineaux has a news update.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Like you, I have been disappointed in the performance of some of America's chief executive officers. They let us down. They didn't uphold their responsibility as a leader should. They fudged the books. They didn't tell the truth. And now they're going to pay the price.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LISOVICZ: Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Susan Lisovicz in New York, and that was President Bush talking about the economy. The president held a two-day economic summit in Waco, Texas, this week. On Tuesday, he said the U.S. economy was merely going through a rough patch. The same day, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, suggested that the U.S. economy might go into a second quick recession, what everyone calls a double-dip recession.
Markets sold off on that news. But the next day, a whiplash rally, because that was the day the CEO certification process came and went largely without incident.
But clearly, economic data continues to rattle investors. This week, three of the nation's largest airlines either talked about massive job cuts or Chapter 11 protection.
We have a lot on our plate to talk about, but before we do, our thanks to Jeanne Meserve, who has gone on to follow that missing child case, Jennifer Short, in Virginia.
STARR: Susan, you know, the question about the airlines -- of course, since we all fly, we read in the newspaper it's like our favorite airline may be either going out of business or reorganizing -- is the airline industry still actually being affected economically by 9/11?
LISOVICZ: Oh, no question. You know, for the airlines, Barbara, it's been like the perfect storm. It's been terribly devastating. People aren't flying as much. They're driving. They're taking, say, longer trips, but they're road trips. Businesses aren't flying, and that's where airlines make the bulk of their profits.
And then you have the situations where fuel prices are rising because of tensions in the Middle East. You have continued, you know, corporate profits declining. It's just a terrible, terrible situation.
This is a very high-cost business. It's a highly unionized business. And the airline sometimes inexplicably, during some of the worst of times, do these fare wars, which are great for consumers to try to nudge them to take a flight; on the other hand, they eat into these profits. And they have just been hemorrhaging since September.
Of course, the stocks themselves have been down tremendously. And when you get word this past week, as we have, from three of the nation's largest, it just erodes investor confidence even more. So it's a vicious circle.
STARR: How come -- here's what I don't understand. How come, when you see all these sectors of the economy continue to be so battered by the 9/11, by the sort of spiralling issues in the economy, the decline in the stock market, why is the real estate sector doing so well at the moment? Why are interest rates for real estate loans, why do they keep declining and housing prices continue to go up? Why is that sector responding so well?
LISOVICZ: You know, it kind of reminds me of that scene in Gone With the Wind where, you know, Scarlet O'Hara's father says, land, you know, "Land is the only thing you can believe in."
(LAUGHTER)
It's tangible. It's a roof over your head.
Having said that, we do have low interest rates. We haven't seen these kind of mortgage rates in decades. So people are saying, "Wow, I don't like what I'm seeing in my stock portfolio," and they're pouring it into the stock market.
And those mortgage rates, of course, are a huge reason why. Why are they so low? Because the Federal Reserve did lower interest rates 11 times last year. And then what happens is, when the stock market falls, typically investors will go -- professional investors go into bonds. And when bond prices rise, yields go lower. And so, what happens is that presses interest rates even lower. And that's why you have that cause and effect there.
But there are concerns of a bubble right now. And for -- it really is a word of advice, if you're thinking that this is the next tech stock, that real estate is the next tech stock, think again. That is not why professional financial planners say you should be buying real estate. You should be buying real estate because it's something that you think you can use over the long term and you should diversify your portfolio, as always.
COHEN: Susan, to move on to corporate misdeeds, we just heard President Bush say these people are going to pay the price, the ones who are fudging the books and all that kind of thing. But to an outsider, it doesn't feel much like anyone's paying the price. I mean, there have been a couple of publicized perp walks. But are people really being arrested in huge numbers? It doesn't look that way.
LISOVICZ: Well, no, it has changed. I mean, perhaps it may seem symbolic when you do have these infamous perp walks. But the charges against some of these CEOs are quite real and could result in some very severe fines, as well as prison time.
On top of that, of course, we had a very high-level resignation this week from one of the biggest high flyers -- former high flyers on Wall Street, Jack Grubman. Jack Grubman was a huge force in the telecom sector. Telecoms, like dot-coms, were just really hot sector. Jack Grubman earned about $20 million a year.
He resigned, though, under pressure, because he was consulting with these companies. He was analyzing the companies as well as consulting with the companies. That certainly creates a conflict of interest.
LISOVICZ: And what happens was, he was bullish on a lot of these companies that he also consulted with until the bitter end. And investors got burned, needless to say. He is the subject of some lawsuits, the probe from both the SEC as well as the Justice Department. And Salomon Smith Barney, which had been the recipient of some hefty fees during his heyday, also was seeing now the damages associated with his tenure there. And he resigned under pressure.
MALVEAUX: Susan, this is Suzanne. I have a question. I know that the CEOs had to turn over their records and certify their records. I wondered just how that was impacting the markets.
And also, it was really interesting coming out of this economic forum this past week, we actually heard from Charles Schwab, as in, you know, the investor giant Charles Schwab, who said, "This has been a tough time even for him." And we all looked at each other and thought, "Oh, if it's tough for Charles Schwab, you know, think about the smaller investors like ourselves."
(LAUGHTER)
You know, what are we dealing with? Was there a ripple effect or an impact from those records that came out?
LISOVICZ: Misery loves company, and it's comforting to know that the pros got burned too.
The CEO certification came and went without incident. The markets responded to that. Some people say, "Hey, it's just symbolic. I mean, do you think that Jeffrey Skilling of Enron would have signed off on Wednesday if Enron was still operating and he was still CEO? Yes, he would have." The fact is, again, there is criminal penalties that await these CEOs if the books are cooked.
STARR: Well, speculation on Wall Street is nothing compared to speculation over a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. How the administration is making its case this week and taking some shots from its own side, when SATURDAY EDITION returns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: It's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People should be allowed to express their opinion. But America need to know, I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country, plus our friends and allies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STARR: The source of information about news of day, the terrorism war and other news can be found at CNN.com.
This week the Bush administration offered tough talk on Iraq with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on the BBC Radio, arguing the case for ousting Saddam Hussein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Clearly, if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he's doing now, this is a threat that will emerge and emerge in a very big way. And history is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: Well, there have been a lot of developments in Iraq, and people are watching quite closely, but nobody really knows what it all means at the moment. Iraq is moving its surface-to-air missiles around. There's been activity at some of their suspected biological weapons plants. They're digging bunkers to protect some of their military equipment.
And on the other side, the Bush administration insists, the president insists he's made absolutely no decision about whether to attack Iraq. He's taking a lot of heat from some of his closest supporters, Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor to his father, this week, cautioning, everybody should take a deep breath about attacking Iraq, that is we attack Iraq, it will divert from the priority, which is the war on terrorism.
Condoleezza Rice saying there is a moral case to be made to attack Saddam Hussein, to have regime change in Iraq because of the threat of his chemical and biological weapons.
And we probably really don't know yet how this is going to sort out. We may look back months from now and be able to understand what's going on right now. But at the moment, it's just not very clear how close the Bush administration really is to making a decision about attacking Iraq.
COHEN: And there's been so much talk about it for months now. Is Bush waiting for some magic moment when all of the stars are aligned? I mean, is there some moment that would make it a good time?
STARR: If only Saddam would give him a good reason to go ahead...
(LAUGHTER)
... but Saddam is a pretty crafty guy, and he's not about to do that.
President Bush said this week that he will do the -- he will act upon the current intelligence that he has. What Bush really needs is for some piece of intelligence to make the overwhelming case for one of two things: that Iraq was involved with bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks, for which there is no evidence, or that Saddam is about to use his weapons of mass destruction.
ARENA: But we haven't had inspectors in Iraq, I mean, real inspectors in Iraq for a long time. I mean, where is this intelligence supposed to come from, in terms of what Saddam is up to or what capabilities he does have?
STARR: Well, there is, you know, there's intelligence, and there's intelligence. The U.S. at the moment, is pretty much restricted to satellite imagery, flying over Iraq, seeing what it can glean from there and... ARENA: But haven't talked of tunnels? I mean, they've...
STARR: ... defectors.
ARENA: Right, I mean, there are defectors out there that they have spoken to who have varying degrees of veracity about what they say to the CIA.
But, you know, Brent Scowcroft, in this editorial this week, made a very interesting point. He said, "Take a deep breath. Is Saddam really going to give his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?" Probably not. Saddam wants to hold on to that because Saddam is driven by holding on to power. He does not want, Scowcroft makes the argument -- Saddam is not a guy who likes to share. He in fact -- he and bin Laden have been arch enemies for years.
And it's not likely that he's going -- here's what Brent Scowcroft said. We're showing it on our screen right now. Saddam is not likely to really share with terrorists because he will view that as a threat to his own ability to hold on to power in his own country, and that's his number-one goal.
MALVEAUX: Hey, Barbara, if I could just jump in too, another one of the things that really concerns the Bush administration is really kind of getting the allies to rally with the president. I mean, that has been a very difficult point.
And they've really been trying very hard, because they talk about, "Yes, we're talking to members of Congress." They even have the top Republicans that are going against this.
But just this morning we learned that Russia has a new economic five-year plan with Iraq, clearly demonstrating that they have a fairly close relationship with Iraq. Russia also has a plan -- nuclear cooperation with Iran.
That you have countries like Russia that are working closely with what the president calls the axis of evil -- North Korea, Iraq and Iran, as well as many other countries in the Middle East and Europe. I mean, that is a real difficult hurdle to jump over, that they're going to have to try to convince some significant allies to come on board with this. And that has been a very tough argument for them to win.
STARR: Absolutely, Suzanne. And, you know, so far, the score card is zero, to a large extent, on key allies. The Russian leader, who George W. Bush says is one of his best friends, of course as you point out, now has economic relationships with everyone in the axis of evil. And, of course, we've also learned in the last day or so that the U.S. is reprimanding the German chancellor, Schroeder, because the German government is not supporting action against Iraq.
LISOVICZ: Barbara, not only the allies, as a question of convincing the allies to go along, it's the American public. Clearly, the American public thinks Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, but they don't want severe casualties. Does anyone think, in their right mind, that a conflict with Iraq wouldn't result in terrible casualties? STARR: Well, that's an excellent question, because the uniformed military's -- one of their very significant concerns about the political rhetoric at the moment is, if Saddam Hussein feels he is being backed into a corner and that he is about to lose power, at what point will he lash out and possibly use weapons of mass destruction, potentially attack Israel? We saw Israel this week, of course, saying that if Saddam attacks Israel, Israel will attack Iraq.
COHEN: Now, I know there's one subject that Saddam Hussein doesn't care about, and that's hormone replacement therapy.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm sure that's not on the top of his mind. When we come back, we'll talk about the battles over hormones taken by millions of women, just ahead as SATURDAY EDITION continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COHEN: Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.
Millions of women, their families and their doctors are confused about the safety and effectiveness of combinations of hormones to treat the symptoms of menopause. A decision to take the drugs has to be balanced with new information about increased risk of heart disease and other health risks.
And now the government is calling public meetings this fall to help sort this all out. That's a tall order. The FDA is going to have these public meetings. I'm sure 6 million women who are taking these will fit in the room.
ARENA: Hello?
COHEN: Yes, I think it's going to be very difficult.
ARENA: In the fall, when they have these findings come out, everybody that I know is sick to their stomach over this. And we're not going to get any answers until forums are done?
COHEN: Right. This big study came out last month that said there were slight -- I emphasize slight -- slight risks to taking these combination of hormones. And, I mean, a friend of mine, her mother took to her bed for two days, she was so upset about this, because she'd been taking it for decades. She was like, "What have I been doing to myself?"
STARR: But is there some new development here that I'm not clear on, which is now there's a greater understanding that that study was talking about women who already have the risk of heart disease? Or is it...
COHEN: That's another study, no. These were -- the average age of these women were 63, and these were not women who all had heart disease. So no, these are -- I mean, this study was about as good as it gets. ARENA: Is this the first comprehensive -- is this the first -- I mean, people have been using hormone replacement since before I was born.
COHEN: Right.
ARENA: So is this the first time we're seeing a comprehensive study?
COHEN: Well, when Wyeth-Ayers put these hormones on the market -- they had to do initial studies to get them on the market. But once you put something on the market, then the studies, in many ways, can get even better because you've got longer term. And this is the first one that's a clinical trial. Eight hundred women got the hormones, 800 women got placebos, and they got to follow them for years and really look at how they did.
ARENA: But how long are you supposed to be on this stuff anyway?
COHEN: You know, there's no "supposed to." There's really no "supposed to" here. I mean, some women just take it short term, let's say six months or a year. Other women take it for decades. They say it makes them feel great and they want to keep taking it til they're 70 or 80 or older, I suppose. So there really is no "supposed to."
MALVEAUX: I know that they're holding these hearings and they're going to be trying to hold them accountable, but maybe it's too far along the road, but are there any women who are threatening lawsuits or saying, "Hey, wait a minute, you know, I just didn't have enough information here," I mean, really holding them accountable to this new information?
COHEN: I haven't heard of that, but you just gave someone a good idea. That may be...
(LAUGHTER)
Somebody's thought of it, I'm sure, 6 million women taking it.
MALVEAUX: You know, I have lawyers in my family, so I think these things.
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: Yes, sure. That's right.
You know, I suppose that that would happen, because with 6 million women taking it, I guess that may be possibly inevitable.
There's something interesting. You talked about the hearings about holding these companies accountable. The hearings are actually for the purpose of helping to explain this to the public and helping to sort this all out. And that, I think, is going to be really tough order, because all of this is so individually based. What's good for you might not be good for you. I mean, there's just -- it's very individual. And a lot of it has to depend on how much risk you want to take. If you have terrible symptoms, you can't live your life normally, and you think these hormones make you feel great, you might want to take that risk of getting the -- the slight risk of getting cancer or heart disease. But I think a lot of women are going to say they just don't want to take that risk. STARR: So is part of the answer better communication with a doctor to evaluate this? Is that -- what should women do, I think is their question.
COHEN: Oh, absolutely. And the problem is, there's no real answer. I mean, the answer is, go see your doctor and talk to them. I mean, one doctor I know, she said for days all she did was she had patient after patient, talk about hormones, talk about hormones, talk about hormones. That's all she did, and that's really, at this point, all you can do.
LISOVICZ: You know, Elizabeth, one of the biggest complaints about the way Americans treat our health is that we overprescribe, that we rely too much on the drugs. And is that a criticism here? Has hormone replacement therapy been overprescribed? Is that at least a possibility here?
COHEN: Oh, sure, that is a possibility. And a lot of experts will tell you that this stuff was just pushed and pushed and pushed. There were these ads with these women looking all young.
ARENA: (OFF-MIKE) osteoporosis? I mean, I know people who didn't have any menopausal side effects but were told to take it because it strengthens your bones.
COHEN: Well, that is actually one of the few things that it does seem to do. The study that found that it could increase your risk of heart disease, cancer, et cetera, that it actually seemed to be good for osteoporosis. But I think a lot of doctors would say, well, that's not worth the risk of these other things.
But I think that many people, Susan, will tell you that, that this was pushed too far and that at the sake of looking at things like soy or looking at herbs, looking at other things that might help without the risk.
ARENA: Well, what about beer?
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, you're telling us herbs, I want to know about the beer.
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: For menopause? No, no.
ARENA: I heard beer is good for me. My husband is going to be so happy. What's the deal on that?
COHEN: Well, what happened with this, basically, is that it has been known for a very long time now that a little bit of alcohol -- one drink a day for women, two for men -- is a good thing for you. Helps fight off heart disease.
The beer industry is sort of pushing like, oh, maybe beer is the best kind of alcohol for you. But in fact, when you look at the studies...
ARENA: Charlie, we want beer.
(LAUGHTER)
COHEN: What's with this water you're giving us?
(LAUGHTER)
ARENA: But in fact, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. It doesn't matter what you drink. Red wine is no better, beer is no better. A drink or two a day, no more than that. More than that and you get no benefit or you even put yourself in the category of being at high risk.
Thank you for watching us on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Elizabeth Cohen.
A news alert is next, followed by People in the News and Robert Downey Jr., Morgan Freeman, and Rufus Wainwright.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
