Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

U.N. Weapons Inspectors Return to Iraq; Saudi Arabia Demands U.S. Solves Mideast Crisis; Vaccine Preventing Cervical Cancer Discovered

Aired November 23, 2002 - 10:00   ET

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

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


BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they covered this week. I'm Barbara Starr.
What's happening in the skies over Iraq looks like war already, with U.S. pilots at risk and fighting back almost daily.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss, in New York. The stakes don't come any higher -- war or peace -- as United Nations weapons inspectors return to Iraq.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelli Arena. FBI agents get a rocket from headquarters to get out on the street and get moving on terrorism.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace. New bloodshed in the Mideast and new demands from Saudi Arabia that the U.S. work on that problem first before any war with Iraq.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Elizabeth Cohen. There was an important medical this week -- medical victory this week, a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, plus Suzanne Malveaux will join us from Bucharest, Romania, where she's traveling with President Bush.

We'll listen to the president's radio address at the end of this hour. We'll even talk about that TV ratings champion of the week, ABC's "The Bachelor."

But first, a check on what's making headlines at this hour from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

STARR: If it looks, sounds and has deadly consequences like a war, is it a war? That's the question hanging over the almost daily dueling between the U.S. and allied pilots patrolling wide areas of Iraq, the so-called no fly zones drawn after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.

And that's what's going on right now. Since November 8th, as we know, since the U.N. resolution passed, almost daily shooting back and forth between the United States, the British pilots flying, and Iraq, in both their southern and -- no-fly zones.

A lot of people may not realize, one day last week the Iraqis fired at coalition planes 50 times in one day over the southern no-fly zone. This is really -- both sides apparently goading each other into seeing if they can get a war started. It just appears to be that way.

COHEN: And what do these almost daily occurrences mean for the possible upcoming real war with Iraq?

STARR: Well, the U.S. is getting a lot of intelligence. One of the really crucial things going on here, U.S. pilots flying over both northern and southern Iraq are gathering a lot of intelligence about Iraqi forces and Iraqi weapons on the ground.

As they patrol the no-fly zones, as they look and see what the Iraqis are doing, they can gain intelligence about where the Iraqis have forces, what their tactics are, get a lot of detail, and certainly get ready if and when President Bush decides on military action against Iraq.

WALLACE: The interesting this is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld believes that, you know, any violation of those no-fly zones should be what he calls a material breach. And, Liz, you probably know this a lot too, you have the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan saying something differently.

So what -- are you sensing some pressure that there's going to be over these no-fly zones, what's happening between how the defense secretary feels and how other diplomats feel up at the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, I have to say I think, just to jump in here for a second, I think most people do not understand that the no-fly zones are really not clearly, explicitly authorized in any Security Council resolution. So the U.S. is not going to have a lot of luck calling this a material breach, something that's actually a trigger for war. I think it's just not in the paperwork. It's not on paper at the U.N.

So for now, you know, this may -- this is seen more as for domestic political consumption really.

ARENA: But could that possibly give them some wiggle room?

STARR: Well, I think Liz is absolutely right here. What's going on here is politics -- U.N. politics, Bush administration politics, European politics, Persian Gulf politics. Every country has got an opinion and wants to make a case based on what's good for their political goal and agenda at the moment.

It seems, Kelly, that the White House is engaging in what John King called earlier this week "strategic ambiguity," not being very clear. The president one day says, you know, "This is it, there is a material breach." Rumsfeld says "A material breach." Kofi Annan says, "No material breach yet." Condoleezza Rice, a little bit unclear about whether or not she thinks there's a tripwire, if things are really headed in that direction.

They don't seem to want to show their hand, and there's a probably a good reason for that.

WALLACE: Well, there's a political reason for it, no question. I mean, the president has talked about -- we've all heard him talk about zero tolerance, you know, zero tolerance for what the Iraqis will do. And we'll talk more, obviously, about what will happen when those inspectors go back in.

COHEN: And, Barbara, so...

WALLACE: But no, the second point is politically, this president might have some decisions that he might feel he's making or will make. But politically, you know, he needs to get really the support of other countries. You have some behind-the-scenes -- they're talking, as you know, Barbara, to other countries about what those countries will do, how they will help. But there has to be some legal room there to get those other countries most likely to support him.

COHEN: But what about -- what about troop readiness, Barbara? I mean, when do...

STARR: And that's the key, right. You know, Bush understands very clearly, the White House knows, while they're engaged in this political dialogue with the allies, at the Pentagon the military is not ready.

Could they start bombing Iraq tomorrow? Absolutely. But what would they follow up with? They don't have the ground troops in position to enact regime change, which is what they say they still want to do.

ARENA: And so far, no U.S. casualties in these hostilities that have been happening. But what are the chances...

STARR: No, certainly not.

ARENA: ... that we're going to hear that something has happened to a U.S. pilot?

STARR: That, well, you know, so far, knock on wood, the Iraqis aren't very good shots. They don't have great aim. That is really, of course, the most dire of consequences, if a U.S. pilot was to be lost over Iraq after more than a decade of patrolling these no-fly zones.

NEISLOSS: Well, Barbara, from the dangerous game in the skies that we're seeing now over Iraq, to the weapons inspectors on the ground, we're going to talk about the preparations and the expectations for the inspectors, when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, UNITED NATIONS CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: If the answer of the Iraqi government were to be that there aren't any, less, whatever, then they must convincingly show that they, by documentation and by evidence, that nothing is remaining.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix saying Iraq must offer proof, not just words, about what the true status may be of its own weapons of mass destruction.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

I traveled with Hans Blix as he made his way from Cyprus to -- from New York to Cyprus. This was a jumping-off point for him and his team as they were moving back into Baghdad.

I have to say, this is a guy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders. All eyes are on him. He may decide, although he denies it, he may decide war and peace, and yet he is cool, calm. This is a guy who drags his own baggage through the airport just like any other business traveller. He doesn't come with a big entourage.

And yet he has to deal with the pressure, the huge pressure that the U.S. is putting on him. They want him to be aggressive. They want him to be confrontational. And that is not his style.

STARR: Liz, it appears that he actually, in the last couple of days, is making that point very clear to the administration. He is not rushing into anything, which sort of begs the question. The next big date on this calendar is December 8th, when the Iraqis are supposed to make a declaration. Is that going to be a tripwire in the mind of Hans Blix? Is that going to set something off here? How closely should we be watching that?

NEISLOSS: Well, absolutely, potentially, a huge tripwire. Certainly for the U.S. because they will be scrutinizing this document. And for Hans Blix, it's really a jumping-off point. I think he has said he's not going to take this piece of paper as the sort of final word. He's going to go do his own leg work. He will go out digging. Inspectors are planning to start on Wednesday. This is well before Iraq hands over its declaration. One Arab diplomat who is very close to the Iraqis did say to us this week, "Look, this letter from Iraq is going to be very short, very brief. They will say they have nothing."

So it should be very interesting.

WALLACE: And, Liz, I have a question. You said, you know, you traveled with him. You talked a little bit about what he's like. Because the Bush administration initially had been skeptical about Hans Blix, thinking that he really isn't tough enough for the task. After he came to the White House a few weeks ago, they felt better.

What's your sense, though, of how confrontational he's going to be and whether he will do things such as take Iraqi scientists out of the country to question them?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think he is still trying to temper what his own style is with the pressures that are being put on him. I think -- he describes it as basically his approach may be more productive with the Iraqis.

The one trick he may have in the bag is what you referred to, Kelly, and that's the ability to take the inspectors out -- to take the Iraqi scientists out of the country to interview them. It's very difficult, as anybody can imagine, to get real information from an Iraqi scientist with an Iraqi minder basically hovering over this person.

And as one former weapons inspector said, "Listen, if I had 100 U.S. green cards, I could have cleared up the whole weapons mess in a very short time."

(LAUGHTER)

So basically the idea is, if you can get them out of there, they will talk.

COHEN: So what does Blix do if Saddam Hussein issues that one- sentence report you mentioned that just says, "I don't have any weapons of mass destruction, I'm clean, everything's fine"? What can Blix do to see if he's lying or not?

NEISLOSS: Well, it goes back to doing that detective work, doing that leg work. He's got to depend on his team on being able to uncover things, relying on defectors, sources of information, in particular as I was just saying, you know, human intelligence.

And so he is not going to take the Iraqi statement as the final word. He's got to keep going and keep digging. We may see there will be some open questions at the end.

ARENA: Liz, getting back to those scientists though, do they leave the country with their families? Do they have to go back? I mean, if they're giving information, they still face consequences and repercussions when they return. So how does that help to take them out of the country unless you're going to keep them out of the country?

NEISLOSS: Well, it's actually pretty amazing. This has not really been spelled out. You would think that this would all be on a piece of paper with all the T's crossed and the I's dotted. It was a very controversial idea in the Security Council to be able to do this.

Hans Blix has basically said, "Look, there's a lot that we have to sort out," exactly what you mentioned. Do we take the whole family? Do we take the neighbors? When do they return? Do they return? So they actually haven't quite figured out how or if they will really make use of this option.

COHEN: And, Liz, things like missiles and planes and whatnot are pretty -- are easier to find. They're big. But what if someone just has a lab in their basement where they're doing smallpox or anthrax or some other kind of biological or chemical weapon? I mean, that could be quite small.

NEISLOSS: Well, that is the big challenge again. And as, you know, the biological weapons experts will tell you, you could have a virus in a vial, you could have something tiny and walk out the door with it. They really are going to have to use the detective work. There are stories that things have been hidden in underground bunkers, that they have been put on movable transport. So it's really going to have to be detective work.

And Blix is also using a fairly green team. He's got some -- he's got some familiar people, but he's also got some new faces. And these are not all people who are that familiar with the military side of weaponry. They are lab scientists, a lot of these people.

COHEN: And so, how were they trained?

NEISLOSS: Well, you know, they've all gone through a five-week general training course. And it's funny, I mean, they learn everything from cultural training, how to deal with Iraqis, to actually how to spot dual-use machinery.

And that's a very important thing, that last point, because this will be very tricky. Dual-use equipment could be something like a brewery. Something that makes beer could also be turned into something that makes a biological weapon. Or a vaccine production plant.

So these are all the sorts of things they have to learn to spot. So they've gone through some of that training.

WALLACE: Liz, talk to the viewers a little bit, because what one top senior adviser told me a few weeks back is this is going to be an awkward time, because you're going to have the inspectors inside the country, and the question is, how quickly is Hans Blix going to report any violation?

What's his sense -- did he give you any kind of timetable that he sees in mind about what he's going to do, how long it's going to take, and obviously, what's the first deadline of when he should have a full report back to the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, he has until January, really, to come up with a real, solid report that he has to give them. That will not be the final word. But on Monday, actually, he will be going into the Security Council, and this was his idea, to go in and just say, "Hey, here's how it went."

You know, the British ambassador was saying things like, "Well, you know, he'll tell us what it was like to have cookies with the Iraqis,." I mean, not much has really happened.

But I think Blix is making it clear, look, I'm going to come to the Council, I'm going to come to you and tell you everything I know, as I can. So it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

COHEN: Liz, we're going to shift gears a little bit, from the international view about what's at stake with Iraq, to the domestic story of the war on terrorism, and new questions about the effectiveness of that fight. That's coming up on SATURDAY EDITION. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We're going to do everything we can to identify those who would hurt us, to disrupt them, to delay them, to defeat them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: That's Attorney General John Ashcroft this week welcoming new wiretapping authority for the feds to track people considered national security risks.

Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

A special court this week gave those new powers to counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigators at the start of the week. It was a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI. But toward the end of the week, new questions about how energized and effective the FBI is in the terror fight.

We actually got copies of an e-mail that was sent by the deputy director of the FBI, Bruce Gephardt, to all the field offices across the country saying that he was astounded that more resources, that the proper amount of resources were not being devoted by field agents to the war on terror. He said, "Get out on the street. Develop sources. Let's make this a priority."

The FBI, in reaction, said, "Look, this is an ongoing dialogue that we need to have to keep priorities in place, to keep the troops energized. This does not represent any crisis in the field."

But some agents that we contacted say that there is a great deal of frustration that they have with some of their colleagues, that they continue to focus on criminal activity in their communities and putting that first, instead of putting the war on terror first, which is the new mandate.

WALLACE: I have to tell you, I was out of the country just for a few days and came back to that headline. And so, it was stunning, really, because how many months, 14 months after September 11th, and there's that headline.

So I guess my question for you is, is there still sort of a cultural problem in a way? The culture, has it changed enough to really make domestic terrorism the top priority that the FBI and, you know, the rest of the federal government says it should be?

ARENA: That's the key question. There's why you know that there's this sort of subtle conversation going on about the possible need for a separate agency to do domestic intelligence gathering. It hasn't really gained a lot of traction or momentum at this point, but it's out there as a conversation. Director Mueller says, "Look, we are going through -- the FBI's going through an amazing transformation under incredibly different circumstances, under a microscope. Obviously, there's going to be growing pains. And he has said -- and admittedly, even critics have said -- there has been a great deal of change at the Bureau in the past year. Is it enough? No one says it's enough.

STARR: And in the midst of all of this, of course, we've had the revelation that the United States had captured a major al Qaeda suspect.

ARENA: Abd al-Rashim al-Nashiri -- you're all impressed, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Very.

ARENA: He was a military operations guy in the Persian Gulf for al Qaeda allegedly, and he was taken into custody, is being held at a secret location.

This man was allegedly involved in planning the attack on the USS Cole. Maritime explosions are, according to investigators, his specialty. There was a bulletin that came out from the FBI this week warning of possible large-scale maritime attacks on cruise-ship docks, navy vessels and so on.

STARR: This is the key reason, we learned from intelligent sources, all of us this week, that they wanted to keep his capture secret as long as possible.

ARENA: That's right. That's right.

STARR: There had been, we are told, a persistent stream of reporting, they call it, about the possibility of attacks on maritime shipping, including U.S. Navy war ships throughout the Persian Gulf, throughout the Red Sea. They even had reports of the possible operations to fly airplanes, again, into warships.

ARENA: Right.

STARR: A lot of concern. And so, they wanted to keep this guy locked up tight. What may be the most interesting is why they were finally ready to reveal his name.

ARENA: Well, you know, some -- if you're a critic, and I've spoken to many this week, you would argue, well, you know, there was a lot of bad press out there for the administration, the FBI, in terms of this war on terror. And so, they very nicely got this name out there and said, "Rah rah, look what we have, another senior al Qaeda operative."

Though I will tell you that several people in the intelligence community that we contacted were very angry that the name was out there. They said they weren't ready to have that name released because they were hot on the tail of some associates and some information that they were able to gather, and thought that his capture may have made other leaders vulnerable. When you move -- when there's a capture and you have other al Qaeda operatives moving from one safe location to another as a result of that capture, that's when they are most vulnerable. And so, there was a sense they may have been able to, you know, strike while the iron was hot and take some other people into custody.

COHEN: So possibly this arrest was a victory in the war against terrorism, or maybe leading in that direction. And President Bush kept returning to the subject of terrorism at the NATO summit and at his other stops in Europe this week. We'll talk to White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux in two minutes.

Also coming up, will Mideast bloodshed divert attention from the standoff with Iraq? On the medical front, can Israel provide lessons to the U.S. about the safety of the smallpox vaccine? Plus, the president's weekly radio address, and yes, one of us did watch "The Bachelor" this week. Stay with CNN's SATURDAY EDITION to find out exactly who.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Those with fresh memories of tyranny know the value of freedom. Those who have lived through a struggle of good against evil are never neutral between them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're here in Bucharest, Romania. We're here at Revolution Square. There were tens of thousands of people who were attending this rally just about 20 minutes ago before President Bush, as well as the president of Romania. Really a very large and boisterous crowd, very supportive here. Romania being one of the seven former communist countries to join NATO, and that was announced at the NATO summit in Prague this coming week.

This is all a part of the president wrapping up his trip in Eastern Europe, really celebrating the admittance of these new members. Also addressing some of the concerns that Russia had about its security, having these new NATO members right up at its border.

But clearly, the president very pleased with this trip.

Of course, it's also a part about enlisting these countries for support for the war on terror. All of these different countries being able to contribute various resources, be it troops, expertise, or even airspace, things of that nature. But just getting started with some of these former Baltic states, and really a sense that history was made here in Romania earlier today.

STARR: Suzanne, it's Barbara. Can we ask you, because you are on the trip, you were at the summit, coming out of the summit, what is your sense of the role that the NATO allies either want to play in any war in Iraq or a role that they're willing to play? Are we going to see the European, the NATO allies, involved in a war in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: You know, it's a very good question because the answer is different for different NATO members.

When you look at the seven former communist countries, you see a much greater sense of commitment to this possible war in Iraq. Just take Romania, for example. They have already committed their own troops on the ground in Afghanistan voluntarily. They've already offered airspace and really have demonstrated a true commitment. This is a country that wants to see very close ties to the United States. It is a poor country. Wants to develop those relationships. Wants to separate itself somewhat from possible instability of its neighbors, be it Russia, Ukraine. So you have a country that is really willing to put its neck out there.

A lot of the Eastern European countries much more so willing to get involved in this war on terror than some of the Western European countries that we've seen, when you talk about Germany and France and some of the reservations that they've had with this U.N. Security Council resolution.

But the president really hoping that he can build on these relationships and that this will only help in terms of enlisting the kind of support that he hopes for the war on terror.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, this is Liz Neisloss in New York. What about Russia? They have a kind of a tricky line to walk here, watching NATO expand. Can you tell us a little bit about how the interaction was between Bush and Putin?

MALVEAUX: Well, it's very interesting because President Bush, right after the NATO summit, went to St. Petersburg to visit with President Putin.

It was a really interesting bilateral meeting on a number of fronts. First of all, the president wanted to reassure Putin that this is not a security threat because of these NATO members right up on its doorstep, on its borders -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -- concern that there will be troops or tanks that will be put there, positioned there. They wanted some reassurances that there would be limits on that type of military assets there. So the president, on one hand, trying to reassure them.

But on the other hand, what was really interesting that came out of this was they issued this joint statement on Iraq. It said that, yes, they both support the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply with the weapons inspections and disarm.

But then afterwards, when asked some questions toward Putin, he said, yes, he believes this, but then he want on to talk about some unfinished business in this war on terror, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, talked about the role of Pakistan having weapons of mass destruction, and also brought up the fact that 16 of the 19 hijackers from September 11th were all from Saudi Arabia, talking about the possible financing of terror, that they're suggesting that there are many other aspects, other things that need to be done before the United States takes a look at Iraq and what it has do with Iraq.

WALLACE: Suzanne, it's Kelly Wallace. I'm wondering, the point you just raised, what was the White House's reaction to that, U.S. officials, when there is President Putin talking about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, saying the many unfinished business -- a lot of unfinished business when it comes to the war on terror. It seemed like the president cut short the news conference.

What was the White House's reaction to that?

MALVEAUX: Well, it's a very good point, Kelly, because the White House was pretty dismissive of it. They didn't make much of it. There was a little bit of confusion because we had asked several times White House spokesmen about this, "What do you make of these comments? Do you think it's significant?" Really, they couldn't explain it.

But it seemed to be as if Putin was suggesting that there were these other aspects, particularly dealing with U.S. allies on the war on terror, that had to be worked out, that had to be dealt with before Putin and others were going to commit to any type of military action against Saddam Hussein or Iraq. And he warned, saying that it would be wise to go within the U.N. Security Council resolution and not beyond that.

WALLACE: Well, Suzanne, thanks for joining us. Go get some sleep on that long flight home from Romania.

And now...

MALVEAUX: Thanks. We started at 1:00 in the morning.

WALLACE: Lots of sleep to catch up on.

Well, as the United States cements support among its European allies, some of Arab allies are asking that President Bush spend more time and attention on ending violence in the Mideast before pushing for any war with Iraq.

We'll talk about that when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: The scene in Jerusalem Thursday, where a suspected suicide bomber killed 11 people, including four children. It was really a horrific sight. You saw mothers crying, clutching their arms, wondering -- they had put their children on that bus. Four children we know, obviously, killed. The Islamic militant group, Hamas, claiming responsibility.

I can tell you -- as you know, of course, I'm leaving for Jerusalem a week from yesterday, and I've been talking to a number of Arab ambassadors, former U.S. ambassadors to Israel, Israeli officials, Palestinian officials. The one common theme: just a lot of hopelessness.

People don't really see a way out, for a couple of reasons. Number one, you will have the Israeli elections. They will elect a new prime minister at the end of January.

You have Iraq. A lot of people think that the whole Middle East conflict will be put on hold while you have any war with Iraq.

And then there's the sense of the current leadership, Yasser Arafat, Prime Minister Sharon in Israel, whether these leaders will truly be able to lead their people to peace.

So not a lot of optimism there at all.

STARR: Kelly, do people in the region, those you've talked to, do they still look to Washington, do they still look to the White House to be a player in this and to try and at least bring people to the table, or has that era now passed? I mean, there's no -- we haven't heard from the White House substantively about this conflict in some days now.

WALLACE: Well, the first point, the Arab leaders absolutely look to the White House, and say that there's just no way, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, you're ever going to get to a negotiated settlement without a third party, a trusted third party, between both sides.

You do have countries, you have Saudi Arabia, you have other leaders saying this White House needs to get more involved. Even Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser in President Bush's father's administration, says, "Let's do exactly what we've done with Iraq, build this coalition. Strong diplomacy to deal with Iraq, well, let's do this with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But there's not a sense from people that the White House is putting that commitment in. Iraq seems to be getting...

STARR: It seems the international view increasingly is that the White House is maybe just letting this all slip between the cracks, between the war on terrorism and Iraq and...

COHEN: Any thought with the upcoming elections that anything might change in Israel?

WALLACE: Well, between now and the elections, no. The Israelis have basically said, how can we have substantive negotiations when you could have a new government in place? And that message has been conveyed to the White House. The White House, according to the people I talk to, say we sort of -- we understand that. But they're hoping that at least we're not going to see the situation take many steps backwards.

You do have Amram Mitzna, who is now the new head of the Labor Party, who will run against whoever wins the Likud primary, which will be next week, between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a name many of our viewers know, Benjamin Netanyahu. What's interesting about Mitzna is he's saying, "Let's unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip right now, have the Israelis withdraw, and have immediate negotiations with the Palestinians over the West Bank."

The Arab leaders love this. They say he's a breath of fresh air. The sense, though, is that the Israeli public, because of the security concerns, they're just not likely to go ahead and support him, that Sharon is viewed almost now as sort of the moderate elder statesman and that he's likely to be reelected in January.

COHEN: And speaking of sort of -- we've been talking about war preparations in Israel, there are preparations going on right now, they're almost done inoculating a group of 15,000 health workers and other first-responders. So while in the U.S. we're trying to figure out what we're going to do, the president has...

ARENA: That's for smallpox, right?

COHEN: Smallpox, right, vaccinations against smallpox. They're actually going forward and doing that, which tells you perhaps they're expecting something or they want to be prepared. That's what they've told me, they want to be prepared in case something happens, and they have a plan for maybe vaccinating the whole country.

WALLACE: What's interesting, talking to people, is that almost everyone believes war is inevitable. That there's almost a sense that everyone thinks it's going to happen.

Obviously, people who are very much against it are still hopeful. But just by what you're watching and just by the mindset, from what I'm talking to -- I haven't been there yet -- but what I'll likely pick up on the streets of Israel and other Arab countries, people think war is likely.

STARR: And to be clear, Kelly, of course back in Desert Storm, when Israel was attacked with Scud missiles by Saddam Hussein, they agreed to stay out of it. They let the U.S. take care of it. What is the Israeli position this time? If Saddam attacks Israel, will they let the U.S. take care of it?

WALLACE: That is the key, key point. The Israelis are not saying. They are not saying that, "We will not retaliate." If anything, the message being conveyed to the White House is, Israel will retaliate if there is some massive destruction in terms of the population of the people of Israel.

What you know from your sources, the U.S. military will try and do everything it possibly can, go into western Iraq, try and prevent any possible Scud missile from landing in Israel.

But the people I've talked to, some Israelis believe that they suffered by not retaliating in the Gulf War, earlier Gulf War, that they're viewed now as weak. And that in order to show in that region, as well all learn, and I'm learning a lot about it, you know, you have to show that you're going to be tough, as a deterrent, to prevent any possible attacks.

So that is something, a very big concern on the part of the American military and part of the Israeli public as well. COHEN: Well, Kelly, we're hoping that you bring peace to the Middle East.

WALLACE: All right, I'm going to single-handledly going to...

COHEN: Yes, you're the answer. Kelly Wallace is the answer.

(LAUGHTER)

From the continuing failures to find the path of peace in the Middle East, to a success in the world of medicine and a way to prevent cervical cancer. More when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COHEN: An important source of information about the news of the day, Iraq and the latest medical news of the day can be found online at CNN.com. The AOL keyword is CNN.

In medical news this week, researchers declared at least partial success in one battle in the still-continuing war on cancer. Scientists found that a vaccine provides some protection against cervical cancer, a disease that develops in 15,000 women in the U.S. every year.

I'm telling you, this was big news about cancer this week. It's a little bit confusing, but most cases of cervical cancer are caused by a virus. And there's one particular strain of this virus that causes half of the cases. When they gave women a vaccine, they did not develop this virus that causes half of the cases of cervical cancer. In fact, it was a 100 percent effective.

I have to tell, I can count on one hand, and I would still have some fingers left, to say how many medical studies got 100 percent effectiveness. I mean, that's very unusual.

NEISLOSS: Elizabeth, how quickly will this be rolled out? I mean, I know we hear success in the testing. So what should women expect?

COHEN: About five years. It will take about five years. Whenever anything is published -- this was in the New England Journal of Medicine -- it takes another five years usually of studies to corroborate that first study, make sure that it really is safe. So it would take a while.

And what's interesting is who would get it. And that's a little bit sticky there because you'd have to convince parents, "You know what, your child may be three years now, but someday she may be sexually active and get this virus. So give her the vaccine now."

ARENA: So that's how you get the virus?

COHEN: So it's a little different than measles...

ARENA: Is that how you get the virus? COHEN: Right, exactly.

ARENA: OK.

COHEN: You would get the virus that way. So it's a little different than measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox. There's a sexual-activity element of it that I think would make this an interesting...

ARENA: But is there any complication that know of with the vaccination?

COHEN: No, not that they know of, not that they've said.

STARR: And do they believe it's lifetime immunization if they give this?

COHEN: They don't know that because that's another reason why they need to spend a few more years on this because they've only done this one trial. And what they found is that when they followed these women for years -- some women got the real shot, and some women got a placebo. The women who got the real shot didn't get the virus. The women who got the placebo, many of them did go on to get the virus.

STARR: And even though its a virus, is there any potential research application for other forms of cancer? Or is this really so unique?

COHEN: This is cervical cancer. But what's interesting about it is that I was saying it's the virus that seems to cause half the cases. There are studies going on for viruses that cause the other half of the cases.

ARENA: But do viruses cause other types of cancer?

COHEN: In some cases, yes. But for this vaccine, we're just looking at cervical cancer.

And it was interesting, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine said, "A beginning of the end of cervical cancer," which is -- I mean, this is a very conservative publication, so for them to say that I thought it was interesting.

WALLACE: And news about diet and the little pyramid that we all learn about in elementary school and we try to use throughout our lives is not right. Is that...

COHEN: Well, that's what a group of Harvard researchers say. That's (inaudible). But a group of Harvard researchers say, "Forget this pyramid. Turn it around." And when people follow the Harvard pyramid, they seem to get cardiovascular disease less.

And the difference is, is that the Harvard pyramid is saying, "Forget about protein, forget about carbs. Think about good proteins, bad proteins, good carbs, bad carbs." They say, "Eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. Eat a lot of whole grains." And they say, "Eat a lot of fish and other mono-unsaturated forms of fat."

ARENA: So what can you eat?

COHEN: Well, you can eat whatever you want, Kelli. You're a mom. You can eat whatever you want. But what you hear over and over again now is fish, whole grains, fruits and vegetables. The Harvard researchers say, "Make red meat a very small part of your diet. Make butter and other full fat dairy a small part of your diet."

So you're beginning to hear something of a consensus -- fruits and vegetables, whole grain, fish.

WALLACE: Is there a sense that we're learning...

NEISLOSS: So...

WALLACE: ... more -- sorry, Liz -- is there a sense that we're learning more about the food we eat so that the old pyramid of you know, meats and dairy and cheese, you know, changing to, you know, fruits, vegetables? Is that the sense?

COHEN: A sense of learning more and a sense of making more distinctions. The pyramid as it exists now by the USDA does not make a distinction between different kinds of carbohydrates or starches. So potatoes are just as good as whole grains. White bread is just as good as whole wheat bread.

ARENA: Well, I also think, though, activity levels overall in the nation have decreased substantially since that pyramid was put together. So you have a lot more kids sitting watching video -- you know, playing with video games and television than they are outside running around.

And I think that you need to adapt -- I don't know, I'm not the nutrition expert; you are. But wouldn't it seem like you would have to adapt what you eat to correlate with what you do?

COHEN: Yes. And actually the Harvard pyramid has exercise right in the pyramid, which a lot of -- they also have red wine or wine off to the side of the pyramid, which a lot of people really like...

(LAUGHTER)

... because these Harvard researchers are trying to encourage people to...

(LAUGHTER)

STARR: The bottom line is, it's all common sense. There's no free lunch...

COHEN: It's all common sense, right. It is all common sense, right.

STARR: We shouldn't be eating bacon cheeseburgers and milkshakes. COHEN: Right, it is all common sense.

Now, Liz Neisloss in New York, go ahead.

NEISLOSS: Well, you know, I was going to ask -- every week it seems like people come out with more information about diets. Now you're saying sort of the consensus is emerging. But you hear about things like the Atkins diet.

So what should people do with that kind of information when, you know, there are basically salesmen for one diet or another? You know, what do they do with the information?

COHEN: And salesmen, Liz, is the exact right word. Everyone has a ton of money to make. Every time a word comes out of almost anyone's mouth, they are trying to make money when it comes to diets -- sell books, sell diets, sell whatever. And you have to keep that in mind.

Remember the trieds and trues: fruits, vegetables, whole grain, fish. I mean, you can't, from a nutritional point of view, you can't really go wrong with those.

COHEN: Now, here's something completely different. Twenty-six million people...

(LAUGHTER)

... broke away from Iraq, terrorism, the Mideast, NATO and cancer on Wednesday night and they watched the final episode of the ABC series, "The Bachelor."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is everything I've ever wanted in a guy and more, so much more. And I'm -- you know, even though I got my heart just smashed in a thousand pieces, it was worth it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're going to make me cry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Helene...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you marry me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I will, without a doubt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without a doubt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Corny, corny, corny. That's all I have to say. Now, one person here actually watched this. Who is going to admit to it?

WALLACE: OK, I admit it.

(LAUGHTER)

But I tuned in at the very end, I want you to know. I heard millions of people are watching, I watched it. Unbelievable, public humiliation. I said, what about "The Bachelorette"? And I'm told it's coming next fall.

STARR: You watched this?

WALLACE: Just the end.

(LAUGHTER)

I wanted to know what 26 million -- all right, I think that's all the time we have, now that I've publicly humiliated myself on television.

(LAUGHTER)

That's all for SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks to our fabulous panelists of CNN correspondents, who I won't see in person anytime soon but from Jerusalem.

And thanks to all of you for watching. Coming up, a news alert and CNN's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" with Bond girl Halle Berry.

But first, President Bush talks about the new Department of Homeland Security and the just-completed NATO summit in his weekly radio address.

BUSH: Good morning.

I'm speaking to you from Europe, where this week I am meeting with NATO allies and friends to discuss terrorism and other threats to our shared security.

It has also been an important week at home on Capitol Hill. After two years of achievements, which included tax relief and education reform, the last days of this session of Congress brought additional historic progress. Soon after I return from Europe, I will sign several important new laws that help secure the homeland and create jobs.

Republicans and Democrats approved the Department of Homeland Security that will unite dozens of federal agencies and nearly 170,000 federal workers behind a single overriding mission -- keeping Americans safe.

This new department will coordinate our response to any future emergency. It will help us know who is coming into our country and who's going out. This new department will bring together the best intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect America.

I appreciate the Congress listening to my concerns and retaining the authority of the president to put the right people in the right place at the right time in the defense of our country.

Congress also acted to protect the nation's ports and coasts by passing port security legislation. With this law, we will add port security agents, restrict access to sensitive areas, and require ships to provide more information about the cargo, crew and passengers they carry. These measures will help keep terrorists and their weapons out of America.

In addition, Congress passed terrorism insurance legislation to help protect our economy from any future terrorist attack. This new important law will lower insurance premiums and get many real estate and construction projects that had been put on hold moving again, creating thousands of hardhat jobs.

On my trip this week here in Europe, I'm consulting with our friends and NATO allies about the new threats to freedom that we face together. Today the United States is joined by more than 90 nations in a global coalition against terrorism, sharing intelligence, cutting off terrorist finance and pursuing the terrorists where they plot and train.

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands. We must not and will not permit either terrorists or tyrants to blackmail freedom-loving nations.

Our NATO allies are making important contributions. Sixteen NATO countries have sent military forces to the fight against terror in Afghanistan. And at this week's summit, NATO committed to build a new military response force with strong, ready forces that are prepared to deploy on short notice wherever they are needed.

NATO members also voted to invite seven of Europe's newest democracies to join our alliance. The addition of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will increase NATO's military strength. These nations will also bring greater clarity to NATO's purposes because they know from the hard experience of the 20th century that threats to freedom must be opposed, not ignored or appeased.

This week we saw the historic expansion of NATO and historic progress by Congress. Both will make America more secure.

Thank you for listening.

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




Demands U.S. Solves Mideast Crisis; Vaccine Preventing Cervical Cancer Discovered>


Aired November 23, 2002 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they covered this week. I'm Barbara Starr.
What's happening in the skies over Iraq looks like war already, with U.S. pilots at risk and fighting back almost daily.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss, in New York. The stakes don't come any higher -- war or peace -- as United Nations weapons inspectors return to Iraq.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelli Arena. FBI agents get a rocket from headquarters to get out on the street and get moving on terrorism.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace. New bloodshed in the Mideast and new demands from Saudi Arabia that the U.S. work on that problem first before any war with Iraq.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Elizabeth Cohen. There was an important medical this week -- medical victory this week, a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, plus Suzanne Malveaux will join us from Bucharest, Romania, where she's traveling with President Bush.

We'll listen to the president's radio address at the end of this hour. We'll even talk about that TV ratings champion of the week, ABC's "The Bachelor."

But first, a check on what's making headlines at this hour from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

STARR: If it looks, sounds and has deadly consequences like a war, is it a war? That's the question hanging over the almost daily dueling between the U.S. and allied pilots patrolling wide areas of Iraq, the so-called no fly zones drawn after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.

And that's what's going on right now. Since November 8th, as we know, since the U.N. resolution passed, almost daily shooting back and forth between the United States, the British pilots flying, and Iraq, in both their southern and -- no-fly zones.

A lot of people may not realize, one day last week the Iraqis fired at coalition planes 50 times in one day over the southern no-fly zone. This is really -- both sides apparently goading each other into seeing if they can get a war started. It just appears to be that way.

COHEN: And what do these almost daily occurrences mean for the possible upcoming real war with Iraq?

STARR: Well, the U.S. is getting a lot of intelligence. One of the really crucial things going on here, U.S. pilots flying over both northern and southern Iraq are gathering a lot of intelligence about Iraqi forces and Iraqi weapons on the ground.

As they patrol the no-fly zones, as they look and see what the Iraqis are doing, they can gain intelligence about where the Iraqis have forces, what their tactics are, get a lot of detail, and certainly get ready if and when President Bush decides on military action against Iraq.

WALLACE: The interesting this is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld believes that, you know, any violation of those no-fly zones should be what he calls a material breach. And, Liz, you probably know this a lot too, you have the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan saying something differently.

So what -- are you sensing some pressure that there's going to be over these no-fly zones, what's happening between how the defense secretary feels and how other diplomats feel up at the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, I have to say I think, just to jump in here for a second, I think most people do not understand that the no-fly zones are really not clearly, explicitly authorized in any Security Council resolution. So the U.S. is not going to have a lot of luck calling this a material breach, something that's actually a trigger for war. I think it's just not in the paperwork. It's not on paper at the U.N.

So for now, you know, this may -- this is seen more as for domestic political consumption really.

ARENA: But could that possibly give them some wiggle room?

STARR: Well, I think Liz is absolutely right here. What's going on here is politics -- U.N. politics, Bush administration politics, European politics, Persian Gulf politics. Every country has got an opinion and wants to make a case based on what's good for their political goal and agenda at the moment.

It seems, Kelly, that the White House is engaging in what John King called earlier this week "strategic ambiguity," not being very clear. The president one day says, you know, "This is it, there is a material breach." Rumsfeld says "A material breach." Kofi Annan says, "No material breach yet." Condoleezza Rice, a little bit unclear about whether or not she thinks there's a tripwire, if things are really headed in that direction.

They don't seem to want to show their hand, and there's a probably a good reason for that.

WALLACE: Well, there's a political reason for it, no question. I mean, the president has talked about -- we've all heard him talk about zero tolerance, you know, zero tolerance for what the Iraqis will do. And we'll talk more, obviously, about what will happen when those inspectors go back in.

COHEN: And, Barbara, so...

WALLACE: But no, the second point is politically, this president might have some decisions that he might feel he's making or will make. But politically, you know, he needs to get really the support of other countries. You have some behind-the-scenes -- they're talking, as you know, Barbara, to other countries about what those countries will do, how they will help. But there has to be some legal room there to get those other countries most likely to support him.

COHEN: But what about -- what about troop readiness, Barbara? I mean, when do...

STARR: And that's the key, right. You know, Bush understands very clearly, the White House knows, while they're engaged in this political dialogue with the allies, at the Pentagon the military is not ready.

Could they start bombing Iraq tomorrow? Absolutely. But what would they follow up with? They don't have the ground troops in position to enact regime change, which is what they say they still want to do.

ARENA: And so far, no U.S. casualties in these hostilities that have been happening. But what are the chances...

STARR: No, certainly not.

ARENA: ... that we're going to hear that something has happened to a U.S. pilot?

STARR: That, well, you know, so far, knock on wood, the Iraqis aren't very good shots. They don't have great aim. That is really, of course, the most dire of consequences, if a U.S. pilot was to be lost over Iraq after more than a decade of patrolling these no-fly zones.

NEISLOSS: Well, Barbara, from the dangerous game in the skies that we're seeing now over Iraq, to the weapons inspectors on the ground, we're going to talk about the preparations and the expectations for the inspectors, when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, UNITED NATIONS CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: If the answer of the Iraqi government were to be that there aren't any, less, whatever, then they must convincingly show that they, by documentation and by evidence, that nothing is remaining.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix saying Iraq must offer proof, not just words, about what the true status may be of its own weapons of mass destruction.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

I traveled with Hans Blix as he made his way from Cyprus to -- from New York to Cyprus. This was a jumping-off point for him and his team as they were moving back into Baghdad.

I have to say, this is a guy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders. All eyes are on him. He may decide, although he denies it, he may decide war and peace, and yet he is cool, calm. This is a guy who drags his own baggage through the airport just like any other business traveller. He doesn't come with a big entourage.

And yet he has to deal with the pressure, the huge pressure that the U.S. is putting on him. They want him to be aggressive. They want him to be confrontational. And that is not his style.

STARR: Liz, it appears that he actually, in the last couple of days, is making that point very clear to the administration. He is not rushing into anything, which sort of begs the question. The next big date on this calendar is December 8th, when the Iraqis are supposed to make a declaration. Is that going to be a tripwire in the mind of Hans Blix? Is that going to set something off here? How closely should we be watching that?

NEISLOSS: Well, absolutely, potentially, a huge tripwire. Certainly for the U.S. because they will be scrutinizing this document. And for Hans Blix, it's really a jumping-off point. I think he has said he's not going to take this piece of paper as the sort of final word. He's going to go do his own leg work. He will go out digging. Inspectors are planning to start on Wednesday. This is well before Iraq hands over its declaration. One Arab diplomat who is very close to the Iraqis did say to us this week, "Look, this letter from Iraq is going to be very short, very brief. They will say they have nothing."

So it should be very interesting.

WALLACE: And, Liz, I have a question. You said, you know, you traveled with him. You talked a little bit about what he's like. Because the Bush administration initially had been skeptical about Hans Blix, thinking that he really isn't tough enough for the task. After he came to the White House a few weeks ago, they felt better.

What's your sense, though, of how confrontational he's going to be and whether he will do things such as take Iraqi scientists out of the country to question them?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think he is still trying to temper what his own style is with the pressures that are being put on him. I think -- he describes it as basically his approach may be more productive with the Iraqis.

The one trick he may have in the bag is what you referred to, Kelly, and that's the ability to take the inspectors out -- to take the Iraqi scientists out of the country to interview them. It's very difficult, as anybody can imagine, to get real information from an Iraqi scientist with an Iraqi minder basically hovering over this person.

And as one former weapons inspector said, "Listen, if I had 100 U.S. green cards, I could have cleared up the whole weapons mess in a very short time."

(LAUGHTER)

So basically the idea is, if you can get them out of there, they will talk.

COHEN: So what does Blix do if Saddam Hussein issues that one- sentence report you mentioned that just says, "I don't have any weapons of mass destruction, I'm clean, everything's fine"? What can Blix do to see if he's lying or not?

NEISLOSS: Well, it goes back to doing that detective work, doing that leg work. He's got to depend on his team on being able to uncover things, relying on defectors, sources of information, in particular as I was just saying, you know, human intelligence.

And so he is not going to take the Iraqi statement as the final word. He's got to keep going and keep digging. We may see there will be some open questions at the end.

ARENA: Liz, getting back to those scientists though, do they leave the country with their families? Do they have to go back? I mean, if they're giving information, they still face consequences and repercussions when they return. So how does that help to take them out of the country unless you're going to keep them out of the country?

NEISLOSS: Well, it's actually pretty amazing. This has not really been spelled out. You would think that this would all be on a piece of paper with all the T's crossed and the I's dotted. It was a very controversial idea in the Security Council to be able to do this.

Hans Blix has basically said, "Look, there's a lot that we have to sort out," exactly what you mentioned. Do we take the whole family? Do we take the neighbors? When do they return? Do they return? So they actually haven't quite figured out how or if they will really make use of this option.

COHEN: And, Liz, things like missiles and planes and whatnot are pretty -- are easier to find. They're big. But what if someone just has a lab in their basement where they're doing smallpox or anthrax or some other kind of biological or chemical weapon? I mean, that could be quite small.

NEISLOSS: Well, that is the big challenge again. And as, you know, the biological weapons experts will tell you, you could have a virus in a vial, you could have something tiny and walk out the door with it. They really are going to have to use the detective work. There are stories that things have been hidden in underground bunkers, that they have been put on movable transport. So it's really going to have to be detective work.

And Blix is also using a fairly green team. He's got some -- he's got some familiar people, but he's also got some new faces. And these are not all people who are that familiar with the military side of weaponry. They are lab scientists, a lot of these people.

COHEN: And so, how were they trained?

NEISLOSS: Well, you know, they've all gone through a five-week general training course. And it's funny, I mean, they learn everything from cultural training, how to deal with Iraqis, to actually how to spot dual-use machinery.

And that's a very important thing, that last point, because this will be very tricky. Dual-use equipment could be something like a brewery. Something that makes beer could also be turned into something that makes a biological weapon. Or a vaccine production plant.

So these are all the sorts of things they have to learn to spot. So they've gone through some of that training.

WALLACE: Liz, talk to the viewers a little bit, because what one top senior adviser told me a few weeks back is this is going to be an awkward time, because you're going to have the inspectors inside the country, and the question is, how quickly is Hans Blix going to report any violation?

What's his sense -- did he give you any kind of timetable that he sees in mind about what he's going to do, how long it's going to take, and obviously, what's the first deadline of when he should have a full report back to the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, he has until January, really, to come up with a real, solid report that he has to give them. That will not be the final word. But on Monday, actually, he will be going into the Security Council, and this was his idea, to go in and just say, "Hey, here's how it went."

You know, the British ambassador was saying things like, "Well, you know, he'll tell us what it was like to have cookies with the Iraqis,." I mean, not much has really happened.

But I think Blix is making it clear, look, I'm going to come to the Council, I'm going to come to you and tell you everything I know, as I can. So it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

COHEN: Liz, we're going to shift gears a little bit, from the international view about what's at stake with Iraq, to the domestic story of the war on terrorism, and new questions about the effectiveness of that fight. That's coming up on SATURDAY EDITION. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We're going to do everything we can to identify those who would hurt us, to disrupt them, to delay them, to defeat them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: That's Attorney General John Ashcroft this week welcoming new wiretapping authority for the feds to track people considered national security risks.

Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

A special court this week gave those new powers to counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigators at the start of the week. It was a victory for the Justice Department and the FBI. But toward the end of the week, new questions about how energized and effective the FBI is in the terror fight.

We actually got copies of an e-mail that was sent by the deputy director of the FBI, Bruce Gephardt, to all the field offices across the country saying that he was astounded that more resources, that the proper amount of resources were not being devoted by field agents to the war on terror. He said, "Get out on the street. Develop sources. Let's make this a priority."

The FBI, in reaction, said, "Look, this is an ongoing dialogue that we need to have to keep priorities in place, to keep the troops energized. This does not represent any crisis in the field."

But some agents that we contacted say that there is a great deal of frustration that they have with some of their colleagues, that they continue to focus on criminal activity in their communities and putting that first, instead of putting the war on terror first, which is the new mandate.

WALLACE: I have to tell you, I was out of the country just for a few days and came back to that headline. And so, it was stunning, really, because how many months, 14 months after September 11th, and there's that headline.

So I guess my question for you is, is there still sort of a cultural problem in a way? The culture, has it changed enough to really make domestic terrorism the top priority that the FBI and, you know, the rest of the federal government says it should be?

ARENA: That's the key question. There's why you know that there's this sort of subtle conversation going on about the possible need for a separate agency to do domestic intelligence gathering. It hasn't really gained a lot of traction or momentum at this point, but it's out there as a conversation. Director Mueller says, "Look, we are going through -- the FBI's going through an amazing transformation under incredibly different circumstances, under a microscope. Obviously, there's going to be growing pains. And he has said -- and admittedly, even critics have said -- there has been a great deal of change at the Bureau in the past year. Is it enough? No one says it's enough.

STARR: And in the midst of all of this, of course, we've had the revelation that the United States had captured a major al Qaeda suspect.

ARENA: Abd al-Rashim al-Nashiri -- you're all impressed, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Very.

ARENA: He was a military operations guy in the Persian Gulf for al Qaeda allegedly, and he was taken into custody, is being held at a secret location.

This man was allegedly involved in planning the attack on the USS Cole. Maritime explosions are, according to investigators, his specialty. There was a bulletin that came out from the FBI this week warning of possible large-scale maritime attacks on cruise-ship docks, navy vessels and so on.

STARR: This is the key reason, we learned from intelligent sources, all of us this week, that they wanted to keep his capture secret as long as possible.

ARENA: That's right. That's right.

STARR: There had been, we are told, a persistent stream of reporting, they call it, about the possibility of attacks on maritime shipping, including U.S. Navy war ships throughout the Persian Gulf, throughout the Red Sea. They even had reports of the possible operations to fly airplanes, again, into warships.

ARENA: Right.

STARR: A lot of concern. And so, they wanted to keep this guy locked up tight. What may be the most interesting is why they were finally ready to reveal his name.

ARENA: Well, you know, some -- if you're a critic, and I've spoken to many this week, you would argue, well, you know, there was a lot of bad press out there for the administration, the FBI, in terms of this war on terror. And so, they very nicely got this name out there and said, "Rah rah, look what we have, another senior al Qaeda operative."

Though I will tell you that several people in the intelligence community that we contacted were very angry that the name was out there. They said they weren't ready to have that name released because they were hot on the tail of some associates and some information that they were able to gather, and thought that his capture may have made other leaders vulnerable. When you move -- when there's a capture and you have other al Qaeda operatives moving from one safe location to another as a result of that capture, that's when they are most vulnerable. And so, there was a sense they may have been able to, you know, strike while the iron was hot and take some other people into custody.

COHEN: So possibly this arrest was a victory in the war against terrorism, or maybe leading in that direction. And President Bush kept returning to the subject of terrorism at the NATO summit and at his other stops in Europe this week. We'll talk to White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux in two minutes.

Also coming up, will Mideast bloodshed divert attention from the standoff with Iraq? On the medical front, can Israel provide lessons to the U.S. about the safety of the smallpox vaccine? Plus, the president's weekly radio address, and yes, one of us did watch "The Bachelor" this week. Stay with CNN's SATURDAY EDITION to find out exactly who.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Those with fresh memories of tyranny know the value of freedom. Those who have lived through a struggle of good against evil are never neutral between them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're here in Bucharest, Romania. We're here at Revolution Square. There were tens of thousands of people who were attending this rally just about 20 minutes ago before President Bush, as well as the president of Romania. Really a very large and boisterous crowd, very supportive here. Romania being one of the seven former communist countries to join NATO, and that was announced at the NATO summit in Prague this coming week.

This is all a part of the president wrapping up his trip in Eastern Europe, really celebrating the admittance of these new members. Also addressing some of the concerns that Russia had about its security, having these new NATO members right up at its border.

But clearly, the president very pleased with this trip.

Of course, it's also a part about enlisting these countries for support for the war on terror. All of these different countries being able to contribute various resources, be it troops, expertise, or even airspace, things of that nature. But just getting started with some of these former Baltic states, and really a sense that history was made here in Romania earlier today.

STARR: Suzanne, it's Barbara. Can we ask you, because you are on the trip, you were at the summit, coming out of the summit, what is your sense of the role that the NATO allies either want to play in any war in Iraq or a role that they're willing to play? Are we going to see the European, the NATO allies, involved in a war in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: You know, it's a very good question because the answer is different for different NATO members.

When you look at the seven former communist countries, you see a much greater sense of commitment to this possible war in Iraq. Just take Romania, for example. They have already committed their own troops on the ground in Afghanistan voluntarily. They've already offered airspace and really have demonstrated a true commitment. This is a country that wants to see very close ties to the United States. It is a poor country. Wants to develop those relationships. Wants to separate itself somewhat from possible instability of its neighbors, be it Russia, Ukraine. So you have a country that is really willing to put its neck out there.

A lot of the Eastern European countries much more so willing to get involved in this war on terror than some of the Western European countries that we've seen, when you talk about Germany and France and some of the reservations that they've had with this U.N. Security Council resolution.

But the president really hoping that he can build on these relationships and that this will only help in terms of enlisting the kind of support that he hopes for the war on terror.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, this is Liz Neisloss in New York. What about Russia? They have a kind of a tricky line to walk here, watching NATO expand. Can you tell us a little bit about how the interaction was between Bush and Putin?

MALVEAUX: Well, it's very interesting because President Bush, right after the NATO summit, went to St. Petersburg to visit with President Putin.

It was a really interesting bilateral meeting on a number of fronts. First of all, the president wanted to reassure Putin that this is not a security threat because of these NATO members right up on its doorstep, on its borders -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -- concern that there will be troops or tanks that will be put there, positioned there. They wanted some reassurances that there would be limits on that type of military assets there. So the president, on one hand, trying to reassure them.

But on the other hand, what was really interesting that came out of this was they issued this joint statement on Iraq. It said that, yes, they both support the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply with the weapons inspections and disarm.

But then afterwards, when asked some questions toward Putin, he said, yes, he believes this, but then he want on to talk about some unfinished business in this war on terror, the hunt for Osama bin Laden, talked about the role of Pakistan having weapons of mass destruction, and also brought up the fact that 16 of the 19 hijackers from September 11th were all from Saudi Arabia, talking about the possible financing of terror, that they're suggesting that there are many other aspects, other things that need to be done before the United States takes a look at Iraq and what it has do with Iraq.

WALLACE: Suzanne, it's Kelly Wallace. I'm wondering, the point you just raised, what was the White House's reaction to that, U.S. officials, when there is President Putin talking about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, saying the many unfinished business -- a lot of unfinished business when it comes to the war on terror. It seemed like the president cut short the news conference.

What was the White House's reaction to that?

MALVEAUX: Well, it's a very good point, Kelly, because the White House was pretty dismissive of it. They didn't make much of it. There was a little bit of confusion because we had asked several times White House spokesmen about this, "What do you make of these comments? Do you think it's significant?" Really, they couldn't explain it.

But it seemed to be as if Putin was suggesting that there were these other aspects, particularly dealing with U.S. allies on the war on terror, that had to be worked out, that had to be dealt with before Putin and others were going to commit to any type of military action against Saddam Hussein or Iraq. And he warned, saying that it would be wise to go within the U.N. Security Council resolution and not beyond that.

WALLACE: Well, Suzanne, thanks for joining us. Go get some sleep on that long flight home from Romania.

And now...

MALVEAUX: Thanks. We started at 1:00 in the morning.

WALLACE: Lots of sleep to catch up on.

Well, as the United States cements support among its European allies, some of Arab allies are asking that President Bush spend more time and attention on ending violence in the Mideast before pushing for any war with Iraq.

We'll talk about that when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: The scene in Jerusalem Thursday, where a suspected suicide bomber killed 11 people, including four children. It was really a horrific sight. You saw mothers crying, clutching their arms, wondering -- they had put their children on that bus. Four children we know, obviously, killed. The Islamic militant group, Hamas, claiming responsibility.

I can tell you -- as you know, of course, I'm leaving for Jerusalem a week from yesterday, and I've been talking to a number of Arab ambassadors, former U.S. ambassadors to Israel, Israeli officials, Palestinian officials. The one common theme: just a lot of hopelessness.

People don't really see a way out, for a couple of reasons. Number one, you will have the Israeli elections. They will elect a new prime minister at the end of January.

You have Iraq. A lot of people think that the whole Middle East conflict will be put on hold while you have any war with Iraq.

And then there's the sense of the current leadership, Yasser Arafat, Prime Minister Sharon in Israel, whether these leaders will truly be able to lead their people to peace.

So not a lot of optimism there at all.

STARR: Kelly, do people in the region, those you've talked to, do they still look to Washington, do they still look to the White House to be a player in this and to try and at least bring people to the table, or has that era now passed? I mean, there's no -- we haven't heard from the White House substantively about this conflict in some days now.

WALLACE: Well, the first point, the Arab leaders absolutely look to the White House, and say that there's just no way, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, you're ever going to get to a negotiated settlement without a third party, a trusted third party, between both sides.

You do have countries, you have Saudi Arabia, you have other leaders saying this White House needs to get more involved. Even Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser in President Bush's father's administration, says, "Let's do exactly what we've done with Iraq, build this coalition. Strong diplomacy to deal with Iraq, well, let's do this with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But there's not a sense from people that the White House is putting that commitment in. Iraq seems to be getting...

STARR: It seems the international view increasingly is that the White House is maybe just letting this all slip between the cracks, between the war on terrorism and Iraq and...

COHEN: Any thought with the upcoming elections that anything might change in Israel?

WALLACE: Well, between now and the elections, no. The Israelis have basically said, how can we have substantive negotiations when you could have a new government in place? And that message has been conveyed to the White House. The White House, according to the people I talk to, say we sort of -- we understand that. But they're hoping that at least we're not going to see the situation take many steps backwards.

You do have Amram Mitzna, who is now the new head of the Labor Party, who will run against whoever wins the Likud primary, which will be next week, between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a name many of our viewers know, Benjamin Netanyahu. What's interesting about Mitzna is he's saying, "Let's unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip right now, have the Israelis withdraw, and have immediate negotiations with the Palestinians over the West Bank."

The Arab leaders love this. They say he's a breath of fresh air. The sense, though, is that the Israeli public, because of the security concerns, they're just not likely to go ahead and support him, that Sharon is viewed almost now as sort of the moderate elder statesman and that he's likely to be reelected in January.

COHEN: And speaking of sort of -- we've been talking about war preparations in Israel, there are preparations going on right now, they're almost done inoculating a group of 15,000 health workers and other first-responders. So while in the U.S. we're trying to figure out what we're going to do, the president has...

ARENA: That's for smallpox, right?

COHEN: Smallpox, right, vaccinations against smallpox. They're actually going forward and doing that, which tells you perhaps they're expecting something or they want to be prepared. That's what they've told me, they want to be prepared in case something happens, and they have a plan for maybe vaccinating the whole country.

WALLACE: What's interesting, talking to people, is that almost everyone believes war is inevitable. That there's almost a sense that everyone thinks it's going to happen.

Obviously, people who are very much against it are still hopeful. But just by what you're watching and just by the mindset, from what I'm talking to -- I haven't been there yet -- but what I'll likely pick up on the streets of Israel and other Arab countries, people think war is likely.

STARR: And to be clear, Kelly, of course back in Desert Storm, when Israel was attacked with Scud missiles by Saddam Hussein, they agreed to stay out of it. They let the U.S. take care of it. What is the Israeli position this time? If Saddam attacks Israel, will they let the U.S. take care of it?

WALLACE: That is the key, key point. The Israelis are not saying. They are not saying that, "We will not retaliate." If anything, the message being conveyed to the White House is, Israel will retaliate if there is some massive destruction in terms of the population of the people of Israel.

What you know from your sources, the U.S. military will try and do everything it possibly can, go into western Iraq, try and prevent any possible Scud missile from landing in Israel.

But the people I've talked to, some Israelis believe that they suffered by not retaliating in the Gulf War, earlier Gulf War, that they're viewed now as weak. And that in order to show in that region, as well all learn, and I'm learning a lot about it, you know, you have to show that you're going to be tough, as a deterrent, to prevent any possible attacks.

So that is something, a very big concern on the part of the American military and part of the Israeli public as well. COHEN: Well, Kelly, we're hoping that you bring peace to the Middle East.

WALLACE: All right, I'm going to single-handledly going to...

COHEN: Yes, you're the answer. Kelly Wallace is the answer.

(LAUGHTER)

From the continuing failures to find the path of peace in the Middle East, to a success in the world of medicine and a way to prevent cervical cancer. More when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COHEN: An important source of information about the news of the day, Iraq and the latest medical news of the day can be found online at CNN.com. The AOL keyword is CNN.

In medical news this week, researchers declared at least partial success in one battle in the still-continuing war on cancer. Scientists found that a vaccine provides some protection against cervical cancer, a disease that develops in 15,000 women in the U.S. every year.

I'm telling you, this was big news about cancer this week. It's a little bit confusing, but most cases of cervical cancer are caused by a virus. And there's one particular strain of this virus that causes half of the cases. When they gave women a vaccine, they did not develop this virus that causes half of the cases of cervical cancer. In fact, it was a 100 percent effective.

I have to tell, I can count on one hand, and I would still have some fingers left, to say how many medical studies got 100 percent effectiveness. I mean, that's very unusual.

NEISLOSS: Elizabeth, how quickly will this be rolled out? I mean, I know we hear success in the testing. So what should women expect?

COHEN: About five years. It will take about five years. Whenever anything is published -- this was in the New England Journal of Medicine -- it takes another five years usually of studies to corroborate that first study, make sure that it really is safe. So it would take a while.

And what's interesting is who would get it. And that's a little bit sticky there because you'd have to convince parents, "You know what, your child may be three years now, but someday she may be sexually active and get this virus. So give her the vaccine now."

ARENA: So that's how you get the virus?

COHEN: So it's a little different than measles...

ARENA: Is that how you get the virus? COHEN: Right, exactly.

ARENA: OK.

COHEN: You would get the virus that way. So it's a little different than measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox. There's a sexual-activity element of it that I think would make this an interesting...

ARENA: But is there any complication that know of with the vaccination?

COHEN: No, not that they know of, not that they've said.

STARR: And do they believe it's lifetime immunization if they give this?

COHEN: They don't know that because that's another reason why they need to spend a few more years on this because they've only done this one trial. And what they found is that when they followed these women for years -- some women got the real shot, and some women got a placebo. The women who got the real shot didn't get the virus. The women who got the placebo, many of them did go on to get the virus.

STARR: And even though its a virus, is there any potential research application for other forms of cancer? Or is this really so unique?

COHEN: This is cervical cancer. But what's interesting about it is that I was saying it's the virus that seems to cause half the cases. There are studies going on for viruses that cause the other half of the cases.

ARENA: But do viruses cause other types of cancer?

COHEN: In some cases, yes. But for this vaccine, we're just looking at cervical cancer.

And it was interesting, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine said, "A beginning of the end of cervical cancer," which is -- I mean, this is a very conservative publication, so for them to say that I thought it was interesting.

WALLACE: And news about diet and the little pyramid that we all learn about in elementary school and we try to use throughout our lives is not right. Is that...

COHEN: Well, that's what a group of Harvard researchers say. That's (inaudible). But a group of Harvard researchers say, "Forget this pyramid. Turn it around." And when people follow the Harvard pyramid, they seem to get cardiovascular disease less.

And the difference is, is that the Harvard pyramid is saying, "Forget about protein, forget about carbs. Think about good proteins, bad proteins, good carbs, bad carbs." They say, "Eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. Eat a lot of whole grains." And they say, "Eat a lot of fish and other mono-unsaturated forms of fat."

ARENA: So what can you eat?

COHEN: Well, you can eat whatever you want, Kelli. You're a mom. You can eat whatever you want. But what you hear over and over again now is fish, whole grains, fruits and vegetables. The Harvard researchers say, "Make red meat a very small part of your diet. Make butter and other full fat dairy a small part of your diet."

So you're beginning to hear something of a consensus -- fruits and vegetables, whole grain, fish.

WALLACE: Is there a sense that we're learning...

NEISLOSS: So...

WALLACE: ... more -- sorry, Liz -- is there a sense that we're learning more about the food we eat so that the old pyramid of you know, meats and dairy and cheese, you know, changing to, you know, fruits, vegetables? Is that the sense?

COHEN: A sense of learning more and a sense of making more distinctions. The pyramid as it exists now by the USDA does not make a distinction between different kinds of carbohydrates or starches. So potatoes are just as good as whole grains. White bread is just as good as whole wheat bread.

ARENA: Well, I also think, though, activity levels overall in the nation have decreased substantially since that pyramid was put together. So you have a lot more kids sitting watching video -- you know, playing with video games and television than they are outside running around.

And I think that you need to adapt -- I don't know, I'm not the nutrition expert; you are. But wouldn't it seem like you would have to adapt what you eat to correlate with what you do?

COHEN: Yes. And actually the Harvard pyramid has exercise right in the pyramid, which a lot of -- they also have red wine or wine off to the side of the pyramid, which a lot of people really like...

(LAUGHTER)

... because these Harvard researchers are trying to encourage people to...

(LAUGHTER)

STARR: The bottom line is, it's all common sense. There's no free lunch...

COHEN: It's all common sense, right. It is all common sense, right.

STARR: We shouldn't be eating bacon cheeseburgers and milkshakes. COHEN: Right, it is all common sense.

Now, Liz Neisloss in New York, go ahead.

NEISLOSS: Well, you know, I was going to ask -- every week it seems like people come out with more information about diets. Now you're saying sort of the consensus is emerging. But you hear about things like the Atkins diet.

So what should people do with that kind of information when, you know, there are basically salesmen for one diet or another? You know, what do they do with the information?

COHEN: And salesmen, Liz, is the exact right word. Everyone has a ton of money to make. Every time a word comes out of almost anyone's mouth, they are trying to make money when it comes to diets -- sell books, sell diets, sell whatever. And you have to keep that in mind.

Remember the trieds and trues: fruits, vegetables, whole grain, fish. I mean, you can't, from a nutritional point of view, you can't really go wrong with those.

COHEN: Now, here's something completely different. Twenty-six million people...

(LAUGHTER)

... broke away from Iraq, terrorism, the Mideast, NATO and cancer on Wednesday night and they watched the final episode of the ABC series, "The Bachelor."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is everything I've ever wanted in a guy and more, so much more. And I'm -- you know, even though I got my heart just smashed in a thousand pieces, it was worth it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're going to make me cry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Helene...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you marry me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I will, without a doubt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without a doubt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Corny, corny, corny. That's all I have to say. Now, one person here actually watched this. Who is going to admit to it?

WALLACE: OK, I admit it.

(LAUGHTER)

But I tuned in at the very end, I want you to know. I heard millions of people are watching, I watched it. Unbelievable, public humiliation. I said, what about "The Bachelorette"? And I'm told it's coming next fall.

STARR: You watched this?

WALLACE: Just the end.

(LAUGHTER)

I wanted to know what 26 million -- all right, I think that's all the time we have, now that I've publicly humiliated myself on television.

(LAUGHTER)

That's all for SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks to our fabulous panelists of CNN correspondents, who I won't see in person anytime soon but from Jerusalem.

And thanks to all of you for watching. Coming up, a news alert and CNN's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" with Bond girl Halle Berry.

But first, President Bush talks about the new Department of Homeland Security and the just-completed NATO summit in his weekly radio address.

BUSH: Good morning.

I'm speaking to you from Europe, where this week I am meeting with NATO allies and friends to discuss terrorism and other threats to our shared security.

It has also been an important week at home on Capitol Hill. After two years of achievements, which included tax relief and education reform, the last days of this session of Congress brought additional historic progress. Soon after I return from Europe, I will sign several important new laws that help secure the homeland and create jobs.

Republicans and Democrats approved the Department of Homeland Security that will unite dozens of federal agencies and nearly 170,000 federal workers behind a single overriding mission -- keeping Americans safe.

This new department will coordinate our response to any future emergency. It will help us know who is coming into our country and who's going out. This new department will bring together the best intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect America.

I appreciate the Congress listening to my concerns and retaining the authority of the president to put the right people in the right place at the right time in the defense of our country.

Congress also acted to protect the nation's ports and coasts by passing port security legislation. With this law, we will add port security agents, restrict access to sensitive areas, and require ships to provide more information about the cargo, crew and passengers they carry. These measures will help keep terrorists and their weapons out of America.

In addition, Congress passed terrorism insurance legislation to help protect our economy from any future terrorist attack. This new important law will lower insurance premiums and get many real estate and construction projects that had been put on hold moving again, creating thousands of hardhat jobs.

On my trip this week here in Europe, I'm consulting with our friends and NATO allies about the new threats to freedom that we face together. Today the United States is joined by more than 90 nations in a global coalition against terrorism, sharing intelligence, cutting off terrorist finance and pursuing the terrorists where they plot and train.

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands. We must not and will not permit either terrorists or tyrants to blackmail freedom-loving nations.

Our NATO allies are making important contributions. Sixteen NATO countries have sent military forces to the fight against terror in Afghanistan. And at this week's summit, NATO committed to build a new military response force with strong, ready forces that are prepared to deploy on short notice wherever they are needed.

NATO members also voted to invite seven of Europe's newest democracies to join our alliance. The addition of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will increase NATO's military strength. These nations will also bring greater clarity to NATO's purposes because they know from the hard experience of the 20th century that threats to freedom must be opposed, not ignored or appeased.

This week we saw the historic expansion of NATO and historic progress by Congress. Both will make America more secure.

Thank you for listening.

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




Demands U.S. Solves Mideast Crisis; Vaccine Preventing Cervical Cancer Discovered>