Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bush Ousts Lindsey, O'Neill; Iraq to Hand Off Weapons Declaration; Saudi Arabia Launches PR Blitz

Aired December 07, 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.


SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they cover this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux.
A quick ax to the Bush economic team, and as steady as she goes in the standoff with Iraq.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations. The U.N. has long wanted to turn a page in its relations with Iraq. Now they'll have the chance to turn more than 10,000. Any one of them could spell war or peace.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: I'm Andrea Koppel. As the Iraqi standoff plays out, Saudi Arabia goes on the offense, launching a PR blitz. Is the U.S.- Saudi relationship in trouble again?

LINDA ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Linda Roth in Doha, Qatar. Later in the hour, I'll be talking about the U.S. war games set to begin here in a tiny Persian Gulf country right in Saddam Hussein's backyard.

REA BLAKEY, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Rea Blakey. Waiting for the White House to decide how to protect the nation from one frightening unknown in the war on terrorism -- smallpox.

We'll talk about all these stories over the hour. And in New Orleans, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley is in the midst of a U.S. Senate election. We'll also listen to the president's weekly radio address.

But first, this news alert from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

NEISLOSS: There's a lot of anticipation here in New York at U.N. headquarters about a document that Iraq is supposed to hand over today. This is going to be the tell-all document. It will contain over 10,000 pages about, as you've probably just heard, the chemical, biological, nuclear and missiles that Iraq may or may not have.

And a lot of other information may also be included in this. Iraq has been told to declare all its dual-use equipment; that's military or civilian equipment. So we could be seeing a lot of documentation about their paint industry or the making of plastic slippers. MALVEAUX: But one thing we won't see, Liz -- or at least, when I say "we," the U.S. or any members of the Council -- is that sensitive documentation before Hans Blix and the IAEA have had a chance to go through it. Why did the U.S. agree to this in the Council yesterday?

NEISLOSS: Well, there are a lot of questions about why they did agree. Apparently, inside the Security Council yesterday, there was a meeting where they talked with Hans Blix about how are they going to distribute this document.

Apparently the U.S. was perfectly happy with the idea that the weapons inspectors would basically take the document, comb it, clean it for sensitive information, and then distribute it.

Now, the sensitive information that they want to remove is actually...

MALVEAUX: Liz, if I could just interrupt a moment.

NEISLOSS: Sure, sure.

MALVEAUX: The president is about to give his weekly radio address, so let's take a listen.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.

This weekend is the deadline for the Iraqi regime to fully disclose to the U.N. Security Council all of its weapons of mass destruction. Disarming that regime is a central commitment of the war on terror. We must, and we will, prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.

Saddam Hussein has been under a duty to disarm for more than a decade. Yet he has consistently and systematically violated that obligation and undermined U.N. inspections. And he only admitted to a massive biological weapons program after being confronted with the evidence.

Now the U.N. Security Council and the United States have told Saddam Hussein the game is over. Saddam Hussein will fully disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction, and if he does not, America will lead a coalition to disarm him.

As the new inspections process proceeds, the United States will be making only one judgment: Has Saddam Hussein changed his behavior of the last 11 years and decided to cooperate willingly and comply completely, or has he not?

Inspections will work only if Iraq complies fully and in good faith. Inspectors do not have the duty or the ability to uncover terrible weapons hidden in a vast country. The responsibility of inspectors is simply to confirm evidence of voluntary and total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has the responsibility to provide that evidence as directed and in full.

The world expects more than Iraq's cooperation with inspectors. The world expects and requires Iraq's complete, willing and prompt disarmament. It is not enough for Iraq to merely open doors for inspectors. Compliance means bringing all requested information and evidence out into full view to show that Iraq has abandoned the deceptions of the last decade.

Any act of delay or defiance will prove that Saddam Hussein has not adopted the path of compliance, and has rejected the path of peace.

Thus far, we are not seeing the fundamental shift in practice and attitude that the world is demanding. Iraq's letters to the U.N. regarding inspections show that their attitude is grudging and conditional. And in recent days, Iraq has fired on American and British pilots enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone.

Iraq is now required by the United Nations to provide a full and accurate declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. We will judge the declaration's honesty and completeness only after we have thoroughly examined it, and that will take some time.

The declaration must be credible and accurate and complete, or the Iraqi dictator will have demonstrated to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior.

Americans seek peace in the world. War is the last option for confronting threats. Yet the temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to a broader war and greater horror.

America will confront gathering dangers early. By showing our resolve today, we are building a future of peace.

Thank you for listening.

MALVEAUX: Now, really, White House sources, inside sources are telling me this is their biggest concern, is that Saddam Hussein is already winning the war, but it's the public relations war.

I mean, clearly, that you have the last week where apparently there was cooperation with these weapons inspectors. You have them now handing over this declaration a day early. And the White House is concerned that allies are simply more empathetic with Iraq.

Liz, do you see that? How is that playing where you are?

NEISLOSS: Well, it seems to be fitting right in with the game that we've seen from Iraq, their diplomatic strategy. They like to do the good-cop, bad-cop routine. So one day their vice president will scream about the outrage of inspectors going into palaces. The next day Saddam Hussein will say, "We must have patience. I'm protecting my people."

It's really seen here as Iraq's way of keeping the world off balance and keeping whatever control they have. KOPPEL: Which is why we just heard the president trying to make very clear that -- this is not -- it's not up to the inspectors to find the evidence of WMD. It's up to Saddam Hussein to come clean with what the U.S. says is a weapons program.

But, Liz, I wanted to ask you. You had just mentioned that this was something that the U.S. had signed on to, this decision to allow the IAEA to review all of the documents before they distribute it.

But I'm hearing from my sources here in Washington that in fact not everyone in the administration was happy about this. In fact, some were outraged, and one guy I spoke to said he was working the phones. He said, "We are not getting those documents after Hans Blix gets them. We're getting them at the same time."

NEISLOSS: There's -- I have to say, throughout this Iraq saga, we have often seen a disconnect between what happens here, what's happening in Washington, the splits in Washington among the hardliners and the Powell aides.

I think what's interesting is to look at what it is that they're concerned about, and that is what material might get into public hands. Iraq, in the past, has put in these declarations things like recipes for VX, instructions on missiles. Inspectors have called these "cookbooks" jokingly. So they don't want this kind of stuff to get in the wrong people's hands.

So this is what they're talking about removing, excising from the documents before it gets out into public hands. But the U.S. certainly has its own reasons for wanting to see absolutely every thing. There could be more than one way of making VX, for example. Iraq might say, "We only know one." And the U.S. would want to be able to say, "Ah, but there are two more, and they probably know them." So...

MALVEAUX: I know that was a big concern too, because President Bush met with the National Security Council yesterday. And that was a huge issue in terms of, what do we allow others to see? Does it get into the wrong hands? And by saying we want so much information, are we really shooting ourselves in the foot when this gets into the -- you know, people who want those weapons of mass destruction?

KOPPEL: And isn't there also a point, Liz, that the inspectors, Hans Blix is saying to the U.S. and to Britain and to -- "Give us the intel that you're talking about, so that we can...

NEISLOSS: Exactly.

KOPPEL: ... find out what you're alleging, that there is a weapons program."

NEISLOSS: You hit the nail on the head. There's actually really growing frustration, which really boiled over in Baghdad this week, where one lead inspector basically said, "Look, if you've got it" -- to the U.S. -- "if you've got it, show it." They're wondering, are they going to give them a hot tip, and are they going to wait until a big meeting of the Security Council and just throw something on the table. So we'll have to see. But it's a very sort of frustrating thing right now for the inspectors.

MALVEAUX: Well, if the U.N. is watching and awaiting events closely, the White House is just behind them. We'll talk about the president and the Iraq standoff when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION comes back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president will wait until they make the formal declaration, as required by the United Nations Security Council. However, the last time the Iraqis said they had no weapons of mass destruction, they turned out to be liars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer pitching the administration line that Iraq has lied in the past and may lie again.

Now...

BLAKEY: That's (ph) a (ph) problem.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. The administration really saying they don't expect very much from these thousands and thousands of pages here. They don't think that there's anything meaningful in the documents.

The way they set the stage is, is that Saddam Hussein has a history of lying for the last 11 years, why should we believe anything that they put down on paper?

It's all a part of moving forward. The administration setting up a confrontation, setting up a confrontation with Saddam Hussein, saying, "Look, if we find anything, any type of misstatement in this declaration, Iraq will be in material breach."

BLAKEY: And that term, "material breach," I mean, the administration apparently is going to be using that to kind of move forward its PR campaign, because let's face it, Iraq has a pretty extensive PR campaign and they're very effective at getting people to, you know, have a sense of feeling for them and what's going on there.

But, I mean, how much weight will that really bear in the long run?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, they say "material breach," but it's not a trigger for military action, as Andrea knows. I mean, this is something where they're going to put aside and say, "OK, we have this on the record, Iraq is in material breach," so no one else who comes along and says, "Oh, well, we don't see anything wrong with the declaration," they go on record saying that.

Then they wait. They let it play out. The inspectors go in for another two or three weeks, let them do their jobs. But then the administration comes back and says, "Here's our intelligence. Here's what we have. Go find these weapons of mass destruction, or we'll just base our own information on our own intelligence and we'll do it ourselves."

KOPPEL: But in fact, as you know, Suzanne, there was a huge debate this week within the Bush Cabinet as to whether or not the president should come out after the U.S. gets its hands on these documents -- we don't know when, in fact, that will be; it could be days -- and declare Iraq to be in material breach.

Because the Pentagon, the vice president, Secretary Rumsfeld are saying privately behind closed doors, "If you declare material breach, that's a trigger for war. Don't throw this term around." There are others who are saying, no, the president should declare Iraq in material breach and say what you just mentioned, that it's not an automatic trigger for military action.

But, you know, the question is, Liz, are U.N. diplomats going to say that the U.S. is too flip and too casual with this language?

NEISLOSS: Well, you are going to see a lot of the same old splits that there used to be once the whole material breach thing comes up. Just because this resolution was unanimous that brought weapons inspectors back doesn't mean that it will stay that way. It's really a veneer at this point.

On the day that the vote was taken for the resolution, we saw the Russian ambassador leave the Security Council after the vote, go to a lounge where ambassadors sit and gather, sat down with the Iraqi ambassador who was watching speeches on a monitor and went over the resolution with him.

So we are expecting to see that there will be some of those same alliances which crop up and cause a lot of trouble when it comes to saying, what's the point when Iraq went over the line?

MALVEAUX: I want to tell you, all of you, about another big story in the White House, as you know, the big economic shakeup of the team. I mean, absolutely amazing, the announcement of the resignations of the Treasury Secretary O'Neill as well as economic adviser Larry Lindsey.

Really difficult to even get the White House to admit that it was the president who asked them to resign. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did President Bush ask either O'Neill or Lindsey to resign? Or did he request anybody else to ask for them to resign?

FLEISCHER: I've answered it as directly as I can. The individuals resigned, as you know.

QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?

FLEISCHER: The individuals resigned, as you know.

QUESTION: So are you denying that they were asked to resign?

FLEISCHER: I've answered the question, and that's what I intend to say about it.

QUESTION: You haven't answered the question.

QUESTION: You actually -- yes, right.

FLEISCHER: The individuals, as you know, have resigned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: There were a whole bunch of us who were asking the same question, trying to get him to answer it. But it's not surprising that he didn't answer the question because, quite frankly, President Bush is fiercely loyal to his employees, and the White House would not publicly come out and say that the president made the decision to fire his two top economic guys.

But that's exactly what happened. He made the decision on Thursday, told Andy Card, chief of staff, to go ahead, call them up, he did, and put those letters of resignation on his desk the next morning.

And interestingly enough, Andy Card told all of the staffers when they first started -- he said two things. He said, "Have that letter of resignation in your desk. We serve at the pleasure of the president."

KOPPEL: Suzanne, I'm kind of curious. Did you get any kind of sense of the timing of the announcement? You know, we're a month after midterm elections. Is this a way of -- a subtle way of acknowledging that the administration squeaked through in the midterms, you know, on the economic front?

MALVEAUX: What happened is, is that in October, really, this is when it started to kind of simmer, and they started to decide that they were going to look for someone to replace O'Neill.

This is something that we had been thinking about, rumored, speculation for months now. The thinking was, is that this is a new term, it's a new year, let's clear the slate, and let's go ahead and let's start over.

O'Neill, as you know, a number of public gaffes. The administration, President Bush, very concerned, very frustrated really with the public comments against the tax cut. I mean, the administration wants to go ahead, announce this economic package, further tax cuts, making those tax cuts permanent, didn't want anybody to get in the way of that. Larry Lindsey, from one of my sources, said he was more collateral damage, that he was somebody who had to go because they head to sweep the team.

KOPPEL: So who are you hearing will replace them?

MALVEAUX: Oh, OK...

(LAUGHTER)

Let's see, Lindsey: We are hearing Steve Friedman (ph), the economist. And he was with Goldman Sachs. And for O'Neill, we are hearing Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, although that's not, you know, not...

KOPPEL: Not firm.

MALVEAUX: ... no, not firm. They're looking at a couple of others that are from Wall Street, from the private sector, as well. KOPPEL: Terrific. Well, imagine the most ambitious juggling act possible, and that's one way to understand what the Bush administration is doing on the diplomatic front, especially in the Mideast.

CNN's SATURDAY EDITION is back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADEL AL-JUBEIR, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO SAUDI CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH: The atmosphere in the United States, unfortunately is it's a feeding frenzy. It's "let's bash the Saudis" time. We are guilty before we say anything. We are guilty as charged. Nobody looks at the evidence. Nobody tries to prove these points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir in the midst of a bumpy stretch of relations between his country and the United States. At the heart of it, U.S. suspicion that Saudi money has and continues to pay the bills for terrorism operations, and worries that Saudi Arabia won't be the ally the United States needs if war breaks out.

This was -- I mean, for us, we see these press conferences all the time. But for the Saudis, and certainly for the Middle East, this is very unusual to do this. And to my memory, this is only the second time that the Saudis have held a press conference, certainly since 9/11.

It is an indicator as to just how concerned they are that the leaks that Adel al-Jubeir is referring to there -- unnamed U.S. officials, every few months the stories leak out that the Saudis aren't doing enough. What prompted this press conference, as you know, Suzanne, is the fact that the Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, is alleged to have given money, charitable donations, to one family, which then, through another set of hands, may have ended up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers. But they're...

MALVEAUX: Why didn't they know -- why didn't they figure this out sooner? Why did they just start make these public statements? I mean, to me, it seems like the administration officials, you know, behind the scenes were quietly complaining for a long time, saying the Saudis weren't doing enough to follow this money trail. I mean, why are we just hearing from him now?

KOPPEL: That is an excellent question. And the fact of the matter is, we have been hearing from the Saudis. They just haven't done a very good job of getting their message out. They have taken...

BLAKEY: So they haven't had a very effective PR machine, is that what you're saying?

KOPPEL: They have what?

BLAKEY: They've not had an effective PR machine?

KOPPEL: Well, yes, you could say that. And actually, Adel al- Jubeir is a very sophisticated, as you can see, very slick operator. He knows the United States. He went to school in this country. He's lived here on and off for 20 years. The fact of the matter is, the Saudis have taken steps.

But privately, as you and I hear behind the scenes, they haven't actually put their money where their mouth is. They may have these audits that they now claim they're going to have of 300 charitable organizations. But in point of fact, will they be able to stop the money going from Saudi citizens, some of whom are members of the royal family, to various terrorist organizations?

MALVEAUX: And how long would that take? I mean, you're talking about, you know, thousands of people who are giving to these organizations. They don't have the infrastructure set up yet, I mean, they don't have what we have to actually, you know, trace the money. Do they expect that there are going to be any type of results any time soon, or...

KOPPEL: Well, they say that they have had some results, that they have actually frozen $70 million, that they have taken 33 banks and frozen those accounts belonging to three individuals. They say they've taken various steps.

But you're right, this is not something that happens overnight. The Treasury Department has had a team in Riyadh on and off, trying to help them create the right structure to be able to filter the money that gets out of Saudi Arabia.

But in point of fact, another problem, as you all know, there's a lawsuit, a $1 trillion lawsuit by... MALVEAUX: Oh, right, right, absolutely.

KOPPEL: ... about 3,000 family members of the 9/11 attacks. And some of the attorneys have been doing their own research preparing for the case, and they say that it's not just the charitable organizations that are leaving the kingdom, but there are offshore corporations that are set up, they allege, that the money is filtered to terrorists. And so, it's much more complicated than what meets the eye.

BLAKEY: And then, the question of whether or not there is some nugget of truth to what the spokesperson has said in regards to the idea that, you know, Osama bin Laden came and personally recruited, in a sense, a number of Saudis who obviously were involved in this hijacking -- at least that's what we suspect.

You know, how real is the idea that there really was an attempt by bin Laden to really put a separation between the U.S. and the Saudis, the relationship that we've had all these years?

KOPPEL: Yes, I think until -- and certainly some of bin Laden's operatives may be talking to U.S. officials, to investigators and telling them more about that.

It's our understanding, at least listening to Adel al- Jubeir, that it was no accident that Osama bin Laden, who himself was a Saudi citizen -- is no longer, because they kicked him out -- but he was going after the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Adel al-Jubeir saying, "Why didn't he pick 15 Spanish citizens or people from Jamaica?" Or it was no accident, he said, that Osama bin Laden had 15 of 19 hijackers being Saudi citizens.

NEISLOSS: Andrea, at the U.N., the U.S. is definitely not putting any particular pressure on the Saudis. And they could, in various forums, about terrorism and try to squeeze them there. It's obviously so delicate. So how far can they carry this? Because they really need the Saudis.

KOPPEL: Well, that's absolutely right. And that is why you hear the leaks, or you see the leaks privately by unnamed officials. And you and I, talking to U.S. officials on background, Suzanne, will hear the criticism, but you won't hear it publicly.

MALVEAUX: Publicly.

KOPPEL: What you hear from the podium is, "The Saudis are good allies. Not great allies. They're good allies."

MALVEAUX: The bases...

KOPPEL: Because we have the potential of a war coming up. Absolutely.

MALVEAUX: ... the oil. Exactly.

KOPPEL: War and the potential of, you know, of needing the Saudis to pump more oil. So that is the realism of this situation. And until that passes, I don't think you're going to hear any more public critique of the Saudis.

BLAKEY: All right. Well, from the diplomacy in and around the Persian Gulf to the mood of the people there. Just ahead, we'll talk to our producer in Qatar, Linda Roth, about preparations for both war games and possible real war. And we'll also go to New Orleans to our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley. And I'll talk about the hard national and personal decisions you may have to make about smallpox.

All coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. But first, a news alert from CNN's headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The problem with the Americans now, they are trying to play as the policeman of the world. They are trying to control everything. And if you go back to history, this could never happen. And this will take them down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: One of the few people in the small Persian Gulf country of Qatar willing to publicly criticize the U.S. for its military presence here.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Linda Roth in Doha, Qatar.

It's a small bump on the Persian Gulf coast, but it's a very big part of U.S. military and political plans here in the region and in any possible war with Iraq.

The war games are supposed to start here on Monday, but things are already cooking. General Tommy Franks arrived here less than 24 hours ago. He's already met with 200 of his senior battle staff. And they're conducting today and tomorrow what they call "rock drills."

And it's a practice for the practice of sorts. They -- "rock drills," the term is an old military term back when they used sand boxes and rocks to move around and simulate troop movements. Of course, now, guys, it's a lot more sophisticated. They're using computers, satellites, big-screen TVs and all of that stuff.

KOPPEL: Linda, I'm curious, why did you say in the open that that was one of the few people that you'll find in Qatar to openly criticize the U.S. presence there?

ROTH: A lot of people here just don't want to talk about politics. You go out in the streets, you go out in the malls, and people, when you ask them, they're just, "Politics is for the government to handle. It's not for us to decide." People are very, very reluctant to talk.

KOPPEL: And what is it like there? I don't know if you've ever been to Qatar before. I haven't. What is it like there as a woman and for women in Qatar?

ROTH: Well, it's my first time here, so I'll admit it. But it's very, very modern here. I didn't expect it. There are a lot of Western influences. Not far from here there's one of the largest malls in the Persian Gulf, and it has everything in it. There's Starbucks on every floor. There's a Body Shop, a Tommy Hilfiger, all kinds of stuff like that.

MALVEAUX: Linda, do you get the sense that...

ROTH: And being a woman...

MALVEAUX: No, go ahead.

ROTH: Being a women here, it's a little more progressive than other Persian Gulf countries. Women can vote. Women can run for office. Women can drive. So they have a lot more than other Gulf countries in that sense.

But it's still a very traditional place. And I'd say about 75 percent of the women we see are dressed in traditional garb, you know, head to toe in black.

MALVEAUX: Do you get a sense where you are that, with these war games and the practice and all of this hardware, personnel, do you get the sense that war is inevitable? Is that what people feel where you are? Is that really palpable?

ROTH: You don't really feel it here. There's really tight security around the three bases that have U.S. military personnel on them. You can't really get anywhere near it. I can tell you from personal experience, it took 47 seconds for us to get stopped and asked what we were doing there.

So it's really separate. You know, Ramadan just ended. It's the Eid holiday. It's a time for celebration with family and friends. And people here are really concentrated on that. They're not really paying that much attention to what's going on.

NEISLOSS: What are you able to hear about the war games that are actually going to take place? How is it being described to journalists there, and what are you able to see?

ROTH: Well, we're not able to see much. Again, the exercises begin on Monday. And it's not going to be tanks rolling across the desert or troops running around with weapons. This is a computer exercise, computer-generated exercise with different battle scenarios. And the main purpose of it is to test command communications for any possible war. So it's mostly a test of the communications. This exercise is one that the military does every two years. But this is the first time that they've ever done it outside of the continental U.S. So that's going to be the test here, whether General Tommy Franks can successfully run a war from this country in a mobile headquarters.

BLAKEY: You know, Linda, that's an interesting point. People often wonder, you know, what's in it for Qatar?

But one of the things I found intriguing about this country is that the vast majority of people who are there are foreigners. So, you know, for this country...

ROTH: That's right.

BLAKELY: ... what's the deal?

ROTH: Well, this is small country. It's smaller than Connecticut. And it's surrounded by a lot of big -- bigger fish. And the region is unstable, and I really think the government here wanted a friend, wanted an ally in the United States.

They agreed to let the U.S. come and do this. In fact, Qatar has no really military to speak of, no air force, no army. They built an entire air base. It's called Al Udeid, and it has the longest runway in the Persian Gulf. And they did it kind of, if you build it they will come, kind of thing...

BLAKEY: Right.

ROTH: ... to get people to come here. So...

MALVEAUX: Well, our thanks to our CNN colleague, Linda Roth, in Qatar.

From the practice and buildup of war in the Persian Gulf to a hard-fought political battle in Louisiana. Coming up, we'll talk to Candy Crowley in New Orleans, as one of the last gasps (ph) of the campaign 2002 play out today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: So I'm here in the great state of Louisiana urging all the citizens, Republicans and Democrats and folks that could care less about political party, to go to the polls this Saturday.

But I got a suggestion.

(LAUGHTER)

For the good of Louisiana, for the good of everybody in Louisiana, Suzie Terrell needs to be the next United States senator.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Republicans are already assured a majority in the Senate next year, but you can see how much George Bush would like just one more seat.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Candy Crowley in New Orleans, or N'Orleans as we call it down here.

Terrell is running against incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu. And to give you all an idea, you know how Tip O'Neill said all politics is local? I have to tell you, there is such a huge Bush factor in this race.

We were in southern Louisiana yesterday at a rally that Mary Landrieu had. And somebody came up to me after the rally and said, "Boy, you're really going to have something to talk about Monday. You're going to talk about how Louisiana stopped the Republican tide in the midterm elections."

So George Bush is playing on one side and on the other. It will be interesting to see who pulls the hardest.

BLAKEY: Well, Candy, is this really substantive, or, you know, is this just an effort for the Republicans to say, "We just got one more, we're going to rub it in your face" kind of thing?

CROWLEY: Oh, it's substantive. Look, if he has one more vote in the Senate, first of all, that's a guard against any kind of defections. And one vote in the Senate is everything sometimes. I mean, you can't count on 52 Republicans to always vote Republican.

On the Democratic side, absolutely, because, look, there has been this sort of Republican tide that has taken over in the South. This is one of the last footholds that Democrats have. They've got a Democratic senator, John Breaux, and they have Mary Landrieu. They lose it and you can begin to feel the turf in Louisiana also flowing Republican.

KOPPEL: So, Candy, how is it looking? What is Landrieu's strategy, and do you think she's going to be able to pull it off?

CROWLEY: Look, her strategy is to get out her base, which is the urban, largely African-American vote. She was able to turn out a pretty good African-American vote in the first election, the actual one where she didn't get over 50 percent, which forced this runoff. She has been working very hard to try to turn out that base.

But she also has to bring out a fair percentage of conservative white Democrats. And the problem there is, it's very hard here for her to appeal to both crowds. She sort of started the main election by talking about how much she had in common with George Bush, who's got like a 64 percent approval rating or something. And now, in order to attract his base, she has to sort of emphasize what she doesn't have in common with George Bush. So it's a really fine line for a Democrat down here.

MALVEAUX: Candy, I feel like I'm in the middle of that movie, "Groundhog Day." You keep experiencing the same thing over and over.

(LAUGHTER)

I've been to so many of these campaign stops with Bush before. Do you get the sense that the polls are changing, the tide is changing a little bit? Because I know the Bush administration very confident when they went in there that, look, we're going to put the prestige behind the president and lend it to this candidate, that it's really going to make a difference. Do you see any signs of that?

CROWLEY: Well, yes, absolutely. There's no doubt that -- and it hasn't just been President Bush, it's been 41, former President Bush. It's been Karen Hughes, it's been Dick Cheney, it's been Elizabeth Dole. So they've all been here, and they've poured a lot of time and effort into this.

First of all, it's the only game in town. And second of all, you know, people tell me, look, he can't go out and campaign as heavily as he did, the president, in the election in November and not show up down here. Obviously they really want this seat.

And there has been -- Terrell got about 26 percent, I think, in November. She obviously needs a good deal more of that. She was running with a bunch of other Republicans on the same ticket. So yes, there has been a huge push for her to come up to about even. So from 26 to, you know, roughly 50-50 at this point.

So the momentum is hers. But, you know, the world belongs to the people who show up today, and that is who gets their voters out. Republicans were really good at doing it. On the other hand, they have a lot of old pros. Donna Brazile, who used to run Al Gore's campaign, is down here getting out the vote for Mary Landrieu. So right now, it's just, we're all down to the ground war.

NEISLOSS: Candy, how are the international issues playing there? Is Iraq now a factor? Is this something that you're hearing a lot of?

CROWLEY: You know what I heard a lot of? Sugar.

(LAUGHTER)

It's a big industry down here. And the talk was of a secret deal -- the Landrieu campaign found an article in a Mexican newspaper that said that the Bush administration was going to allow a whole bunch of import of Mexican sugar, which clearly would cost jobs here in Louisiana.

Nothing about Iraq. In fact, you know, with Bush's popularity, what you hear from Mary Landrieu, the Democrat, is, you know, "Look, I supported President Bush on the war. You know, I believe in a strong America." So there's sort of a lot sort of support down here for that.

Not a lot of talk about the war in Iraq. It's about sugar, it's about George Bush, it's about tax cuts -- mostly domestic, very at- home issues. Because what Landrieu has tried to do is say, "Yes, I'll support the president when I can, but the fact of the matter is, I'm going to support Louisiana."

So Iraq has not been a factor.

KOPPEL: Candy, I'd like to ask you a question -- just profess my own ignorance here. Elections were a month ago. Why is this election only happening now?

CROWLEY: Because it's Louisiana, and you have to love Louisiana...

(LAUGHTER)

... politics.

Look, it's because -- you know, the short version of this is that everybody runs on the same ballot. So what happened on Election Day is that Mary Landrieu, the Democrat, ran along with three Republicans, including Suzie Terrell. So all of these people ran on the same thing.

If you don't get 50 percent, you've got to have a run-off. And Landrieu got 46.

So the top two people, and that would Suzie Terrell and Mary Landrieu, are now in a run-off, because you've got to hit 50 percent and they didn't. And that's just how Louisiana does it, like no other state in the nation.

BLAKEY: Well, Candy, you said Suzie and Mary are not playing well together.

(LAUGHTER)

Tell me about what you think about the ads that have been running there. How are people responding to those ads?

CROWLEY: Well, it's tough, very tough. But again, though, this is -- politics is really the state game here. They love their politics. They have been very tough commercials, especially those from the Republican camp aimed at Landrieu.

They have very tough on, you know, calling her the most liberal Democrat in the Senate, which is not a good thing to be when you're from Louisiana. They have talked about her support for morning-after pills, you know, that kind of thing, in a very conservative, very Catholic state. So there have been those sort of negative ads.

And Landrieu has sort of played on this, "Look, this woman says she's going to vote with George Bush 100 percent of the time. But look at all of these issues. We've got to have someone who really stands up for you."

They were just very, very tough ads, you know, entertaining as a reporter. And of course down here again, they love their politics. So it doesn't come across quite as negatively to them. It's more, you know, entertainment. BLAKEY: All right, Candy. We always you entertaining.

(LAUGHTER)

So thanks a lot.

From the political battles to the fight against bioterrorism, the government prepares for massive smallpox vaccinations. We'll talk about who will be on the receiving end and why, when SATURDAY EDITION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not only a public health decision, but it is also decision of national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLAKEY: President Bush is expected to announce soon the resumption of smallpox vaccinations of hundreds of thousands of health care workers. It would be the largest smallpox vaccination ever in certainly more than 20 years, almost 30. It was 1972 that the U.S. stopped the routine vaccinations of smallpox.

This is a huge ordeal, because it really will stress the public health system. And we thought anthrax was an issue because it hit us all of a sudden. We didn't really have background information with smallpox. We have a history that we can work from.

But the real dilemma here is going to be educating not only these health care workers, but subsequently the public because there are so many more restrictions that we know, risk factors that we're aware of -- people shouldn't be vaccinated.

So it's going to be a huge ordeal.

MALVEAUX: So what does the problem...

NEISLOSS: Well, maybe...

BLAKEY: Well, at this point, what we understand the Bush is going to present is they're going to say about 500,000 health care workers nationwide should be vaccinated, because those people would be potentially the first to be exposed, should there be a case.

There is another plan that would call for a ring of another 7 million to 10 million people. These would be first responders, hopefully. I would hope members of the media, as well. But firefighters, police officers, folks who would come to the scene should there be -- but again, you've got to look at it from the vantage point of A, how likely is an attack? And of course, we're talking about the possibility that Iraq has, you know, plenty of weapons of mass destruction, even though obviously the U.N. is sorting through all of that, and the Bush administration says, "We know of some things as well."

So you've got to balance the risks of an attack versus the benefits of vaccinating so many people, because there are risks associated with the vaccine. There are many people who really shouldn't be vaccinated.

NEISLOSS: What are those risks? Maybe, Rea, you could tell us a little bit about what those risks are. I feel like I've just been hearing horror stories, and you see awful-looking pictures.

BLAKEY: Right.

NEISLOSS: What's the reality?

BLAKEY: The reality is potentially 30 million to 50 million Americans probably should not be vaccinated. The issue being that there are so many more people in the world today who are immuno- compromised, whether they have HIV, whether they're patients who are receiving chemotherapy.

And another huge group who would be at risk potentially from this vaccine, are people with excema or skin conditions, because smallpox does show up on the skin.

Yes, so I mean, the key here is being certain to screen people properly before you would vaccinate. But when you think about HIV, for example, you know, there are people out there, millions, who don't know that they've been exposed to HIV, don't know that they have it.

KOPPEL: And what about kids? Because I heard that if -- something about children are more at risk if they're vaccinated of having some sort of side effects.

BLAKEY: You know, what we know is that people who have been vaccinated in the U.S. -- generally it's the population that's over the age of 30 -- we know what happened there. We know -- we've got history there. We don't know what would happen with people who are under the age of 30.

Ideally, there would not be huge risks associated, but at this point, the CDC is not recommending vaccinations for children under the age of 18, even though many of the plans that a lot of states and the larger cities have to devise for preparedness just in case of a smallpox outbreak would include vaccinating many people.

And then the issue then becomes, do you then make the cut-off, you know, you don't vaccinate kids under the age of 1? Pregnant women probably should not be vaccinated because we're not certain of what the risk will be there. They could potentially be a greater risk. You know, does every woman know that she's pregnant? How efficiently will the screening process be conducted?

So it is a huge ordeal.

MALVEAUX: And who makes the decision? How is that set up? Is it the federal government, is it local officials? I mean, how do they work that out?

BLAKEY: You remember anthrax, you know, when we had local here and federal there, and everybody was trying to, you know, blend the mix. It's similar in this sense, but we've had a little bit more lead time. So the bottom line here is that public health departments really do have to make the decision.

But in Florida, for example, where they say they're prepared in 10 days to vaccinate everybody in the state in case of an emergency, you know, you've got to keep in mind that if there is in fact a smallpox outbreak, let's say it's in New York, do you really need to vaccinate all of the people in Florida? Well, it's a global society, so you know, you may have to consider that.

KOPPEL: How is it spread? Is this something that's incredibly infectious? Is that why they're advising...

BLAKEY: It is incredibly infectious. And one-third of the people who are exposed will very likely die. But then keep in mind that the vaccine -- one-third -- the vaccine itself could potentially cause deaths, which someone like Anthony Fauci has said, you know, for that reason, we should probably wait until there is a case and then surround that person and all the contact people who have been come in close contact with that individual, and then work rings out, so that we're not exposing all of the other people to the potential dangers of a vaccine. Because vaccines aren't guaranteed.

But the other thing about a potential outbreak -- and this, I think, is somewhat scary to me -- is that, you know, we do have the possibility for getting to people and vaccinating them even after exposure. You've got about a four-day lead time. But what happens if you've got, you know, 16 million people in one state, and you can't get to all of them?

KOPPEL: Right. And isn't another factor that the symptoms don't appear for a number of days, so you don't even know...

BLAKEY: For about...

KOPPEL: ... if you have it.

BLAKEY: Exactly.

KOPPEL: How can you get inoculated?

BLAKEY: And yet you could be contagious for up to three weeks. So I mean, it is a huge risk, which is why certainly you want to make sure that health care providers are vaccinated. But again, it's voluntary, so they don't necessarily have to do it.

KOPPEL: Well, on that light note...

(LAUGHTER)

... I want to thank all of my colleagues, and thank you for watching SATURDAY EDITION. A news alert is next, followed by a special edition of Showdown: Iraq, with Blitzer in Doha, Qatar.

We'll see you next week.

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




Declaration; Saudi Arabia Launches PR Blitz>


Aired December 7, 2002 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they cover this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux.
A quick ax to the Bush economic team, and as steady as she goes in the standoff with Iraq.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations. The U.N. has long wanted to turn a page in its relations with Iraq. Now they'll have the chance to turn more than 10,000. Any one of them could spell war or peace.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: I'm Andrea Koppel. As the Iraqi standoff plays out, Saudi Arabia goes on the offense, launching a PR blitz. Is the U.S.- Saudi relationship in trouble again?

LINDA ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Linda Roth in Doha, Qatar. Later in the hour, I'll be talking about the U.S. war games set to begin here in a tiny Persian Gulf country right in Saddam Hussein's backyard.

REA BLAKEY, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Rea Blakey. Waiting for the White House to decide how to protect the nation from one frightening unknown in the war on terrorism -- smallpox.

We'll talk about all these stories over the hour. And in New Orleans, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley is in the midst of a U.S. Senate election. We'll also listen to the president's weekly radio address.

But first, this news alert from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

NEISLOSS: There's a lot of anticipation here in New York at U.N. headquarters about a document that Iraq is supposed to hand over today. This is going to be the tell-all document. It will contain over 10,000 pages about, as you've probably just heard, the chemical, biological, nuclear and missiles that Iraq may or may not have.

And a lot of other information may also be included in this. Iraq has been told to declare all its dual-use equipment; that's military or civilian equipment. So we could be seeing a lot of documentation about their paint industry or the making of plastic slippers. MALVEAUX: But one thing we won't see, Liz -- or at least, when I say "we," the U.S. or any members of the Council -- is that sensitive documentation before Hans Blix and the IAEA have had a chance to go through it. Why did the U.S. agree to this in the Council yesterday?

NEISLOSS: Well, there are a lot of questions about why they did agree. Apparently, inside the Security Council yesterday, there was a meeting where they talked with Hans Blix about how are they going to distribute this document.

Apparently the U.S. was perfectly happy with the idea that the weapons inspectors would basically take the document, comb it, clean it for sensitive information, and then distribute it.

Now, the sensitive information that they want to remove is actually...

MALVEAUX: Liz, if I could just interrupt a moment.

NEISLOSS: Sure, sure.

MALVEAUX: The president is about to give his weekly radio address, so let's take a listen.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.

This weekend is the deadline for the Iraqi regime to fully disclose to the U.N. Security Council all of its weapons of mass destruction. Disarming that regime is a central commitment of the war on terror. We must, and we will, prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.

Saddam Hussein has been under a duty to disarm for more than a decade. Yet he has consistently and systematically violated that obligation and undermined U.N. inspections. And he only admitted to a massive biological weapons program after being confronted with the evidence.

Now the U.N. Security Council and the United States have told Saddam Hussein the game is over. Saddam Hussein will fully disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction, and if he does not, America will lead a coalition to disarm him.

As the new inspections process proceeds, the United States will be making only one judgment: Has Saddam Hussein changed his behavior of the last 11 years and decided to cooperate willingly and comply completely, or has he not?

Inspections will work only if Iraq complies fully and in good faith. Inspectors do not have the duty or the ability to uncover terrible weapons hidden in a vast country. The responsibility of inspectors is simply to confirm evidence of voluntary and total disarmament. Saddam Hussein has the responsibility to provide that evidence as directed and in full.

The world expects more than Iraq's cooperation with inspectors. The world expects and requires Iraq's complete, willing and prompt disarmament. It is not enough for Iraq to merely open doors for inspectors. Compliance means bringing all requested information and evidence out into full view to show that Iraq has abandoned the deceptions of the last decade.

Any act of delay or defiance will prove that Saddam Hussein has not adopted the path of compliance, and has rejected the path of peace.

Thus far, we are not seeing the fundamental shift in practice and attitude that the world is demanding. Iraq's letters to the U.N. regarding inspections show that their attitude is grudging and conditional. And in recent days, Iraq has fired on American and British pilots enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone.

Iraq is now required by the United Nations to provide a full and accurate declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. We will judge the declaration's honesty and completeness only after we have thoroughly examined it, and that will take some time.

The declaration must be credible and accurate and complete, or the Iraqi dictator will have demonstrated to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior.

Americans seek peace in the world. War is the last option for confronting threats. Yet the temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to a broader war and greater horror.

America will confront gathering dangers early. By showing our resolve today, we are building a future of peace.

Thank you for listening.

MALVEAUX: Now, really, White House sources, inside sources are telling me this is their biggest concern, is that Saddam Hussein is already winning the war, but it's the public relations war.

I mean, clearly, that you have the last week where apparently there was cooperation with these weapons inspectors. You have them now handing over this declaration a day early. And the White House is concerned that allies are simply more empathetic with Iraq.

Liz, do you see that? How is that playing where you are?

NEISLOSS: Well, it seems to be fitting right in with the game that we've seen from Iraq, their diplomatic strategy. They like to do the good-cop, bad-cop routine. So one day their vice president will scream about the outrage of inspectors going into palaces. The next day Saddam Hussein will say, "We must have patience. I'm protecting my people."

It's really seen here as Iraq's way of keeping the world off balance and keeping whatever control they have. KOPPEL: Which is why we just heard the president trying to make very clear that -- this is not -- it's not up to the inspectors to find the evidence of WMD. It's up to Saddam Hussein to come clean with what the U.S. says is a weapons program.

But, Liz, I wanted to ask you. You had just mentioned that this was something that the U.S. had signed on to, this decision to allow the IAEA to review all of the documents before they distribute it.

But I'm hearing from my sources here in Washington that in fact not everyone in the administration was happy about this. In fact, some were outraged, and one guy I spoke to said he was working the phones. He said, "We are not getting those documents after Hans Blix gets them. We're getting them at the same time."

NEISLOSS: There's -- I have to say, throughout this Iraq saga, we have often seen a disconnect between what happens here, what's happening in Washington, the splits in Washington among the hardliners and the Powell aides.

I think what's interesting is to look at what it is that they're concerned about, and that is what material might get into public hands. Iraq, in the past, has put in these declarations things like recipes for VX, instructions on missiles. Inspectors have called these "cookbooks" jokingly. So they don't want this kind of stuff to get in the wrong people's hands.

So this is what they're talking about removing, excising from the documents before it gets out into public hands. But the U.S. certainly has its own reasons for wanting to see absolutely every thing. There could be more than one way of making VX, for example. Iraq might say, "We only know one." And the U.S. would want to be able to say, "Ah, but there are two more, and they probably know them." So...

MALVEAUX: I know that was a big concern too, because President Bush met with the National Security Council yesterday. And that was a huge issue in terms of, what do we allow others to see? Does it get into the wrong hands? And by saying we want so much information, are we really shooting ourselves in the foot when this gets into the -- you know, people who want those weapons of mass destruction?

KOPPEL: And isn't there also a point, Liz, that the inspectors, Hans Blix is saying to the U.S. and to Britain and to -- "Give us the intel that you're talking about, so that we can...

NEISLOSS: Exactly.

KOPPEL: ... find out what you're alleging, that there is a weapons program."

NEISLOSS: You hit the nail on the head. There's actually really growing frustration, which really boiled over in Baghdad this week, where one lead inspector basically said, "Look, if you've got it" -- to the U.S. -- "if you've got it, show it." They're wondering, are they going to give them a hot tip, and are they going to wait until a big meeting of the Security Council and just throw something on the table. So we'll have to see. But it's a very sort of frustrating thing right now for the inspectors.

MALVEAUX: Well, if the U.N. is watching and awaiting events closely, the White House is just behind them. We'll talk about the president and the Iraq standoff when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION comes back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president will wait until they make the formal declaration, as required by the United Nations Security Council. However, the last time the Iraqis said they had no weapons of mass destruction, they turned out to be liars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer pitching the administration line that Iraq has lied in the past and may lie again.

Now...

BLAKEY: That's (ph) a (ph) problem.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. The administration really saying they don't expect very much from these thousands and thousands of pages here. They don't think that there's anything meaningful in the documents.

The way they set the stage is, is that Saddam Hussein has a history of lying for the last 11 years, why should we believe anything that they put down on paper?

It's all a part of moving forward. The administration setting up a confrontation, setting up a confrontation with Saddam Hussein, saying, "Look, if we find anything, any type of misstatement in this declaration, Iraq will be in material breach."

BLAKEY: And that term, "material breach," I mean, the administration apparently is going to be using that to kind of move forward its PR campaign, because let's face it, Iraq has a pretty extensive PR campaign and they're very effective at getting people to, you know, have a sense of feeling for them and what's going on there.

But, I mean, how much weight will that really bear in the long run?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, they say "material breach," but it's not a trigger for military action, as Andrea knows. I mean, this is something where they're going to put aside and say, "OK, we have this on the record, Iraq is in material breach," so no one else who comes along and says, "Oh, well, we don't see anything wrong with the declaration," they go on record saying that.

Then they wait. They let it play out. The inspectors go in for another two or three weeks, let them do their jobs. But then the administration comes back and says, "Here's our intelligence. Here's what we have. Go find these weapons of mass destruction, or we'll just base our own information on our own intelligence and we'll do it ourselves."

KOPPEL: But in fact, as you know, Suzanne, there was a huge debate this week within the Bush Cabinet as to whether or not the president should come out after the U.S. gets its hands on these documents -- we don't know when, in fact, that will be; it could be days -- and declare Iraq to be in material breach.

Because the Pentagon, the vice president, Secretary Rumsfeld are saying privately behind closed doors, "If you declare material breach, that's a trigger for war. Don't throw this term around." There are others who are saying, no, the president should declare Iraq in material breach and say what you just mentioned, that it's not an automatic trigger for military action.

But, you know, the question is, Liz, are U.N. diplomats going to say that the U.S. is too flip and too casual with this language?

NEISLOSS: Well, you are going to see a lot of the same old splits that there used to be once the whole material breach thing comes up. Just because this resolution was unanimous that brought weapons inspectors back doesn't mean that it will stay that way. It's really a veneer at this point.

On the day that the vote was taken for the resolution, we saw the Russian ambassador leave the Security Council after the vote, go to a lounge where ambassadors sit and gather, sat down with the Iraqi ambassador who was watching speeches on a monitor and went over the resolution with him.

So we are expecting to see that there will be some of those same alliances which crop up and cause a lot of trouble when it comes to saying, what's the point when Iraq went over the line?

MALVEAUX: I want to tell you, all of you, about another big story in the White House, as you know, the big economic shakeup of the team. I mean, absolutely amazing, the announcement of the resignations of the Treasury Secretary O'Neill as well as economic adviser Larry Lindsey.

Really difficult to even get the White House to admit that it was the president who asked them to resign. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did President Bush ask either O'Neill or Lindsey to resign? Or did he request anybody else to ask for them to resign?

FLEISCHER: I've answered it as directly as I can. The individuals resigned, as you know.

QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?

FLEISCHER: The individuals resigned, as you know.

QUESTION: So are you denying that they were asked to resign?

FLEISCHER: I've answered the question, and that's what I intend to say about it.

QUESTION: You haven't answered the question.

QUESTION: You actually -- yes, right.

FLEISCHER: The individuals, as you know, have resigned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: There were a whole bunch of us who were asking the same question, trying to get him to answer it. But it's not surprising that he didn't answer the question because, quite frankly, President Bush is fiercely loyal to his employees, and the White House would not publicly come out and say that the president made the decision to fire his two top economic guys.

But that's exactly what happened. He made the decision on Thursday, told Andy Card, chief of staff, to go ahead, call them up, he did, and put those letters of resignation on his desk the next morning.

And interestingly enough, Andy Card told all of the staffers when they first started -- he said two things. He said, "Have that letter of resignation in your desk. We serve at the pleasure of the president."

KOPPEL: Suzanne, I'm kind of curious. Did you get any kind of sense of the timing of the announcement? You know, we're a month after midterm elections. Is this a way of -- a subtle way of acknowledging that the administration squeaked through in the midterms, you know, on the economic front?

MALVEAUX: What happened is, is that in October, really, this is when it started to kind of simmer, and they started to decide that they were going to look for someone to replace O'Neill.

This is something that we had been thinking about, rumored, speculation for months now. The thinking was, is that this is a new term, it's a new year, let's clear the slate, and let's go ahead and let's start over.

O'Neill, as you know, a number of public gaffes. The administration, President Bush, very concerned, very frustrated really with the public comments against the tax cut. I mean, the administration wants to go ahead, announce this economic package, further tax cuts, making those tax cuts permanent, didn't want anybody to get in the way of that. Larry Lindsey, from one of my sources, said he was more collateral damage, that he was somebody who had to go because they head to sweep the team.

KOPPEL: So who are you hearing will replace them?

MALVEAUX: Oh, OK...

(LAUGHTER)

Let's see, Lindsey: We are hearing Steve Friedman (ph), the economist. And he was with Goldman Sachs. And for O'Neill, we are hearing Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, although that's not, you know, not...

KOPPEL: Not firm.

MALVEAUX: ... no, not firm. They're looking at a couple of others that are from Wall Street, from the private sector, as well. KOPPEL: Terrific. Well, imagine the most ambitious juggling act possible, and that's one way to understand what the Bush administration is doing on the diplomatic front, especially in the Mideast.

CNN's SATURDAY EDITION is back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADEL AL-JUBEIR, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO SAUDI CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH: The atmosphere in the United States, unfortunately is it's a feeding frenzy. It's "let's bash the Saudis" time. We are guilty before we say anything. We are guilty as charged. Nobody looks at the evidence. Nobody tries to prove these points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOPPEL: Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir in the midst of a bumpy stretch of relations between his country and the United States. At the heart of it, U.S. suspicion that Saudi money has and continues to pay the bills for terrorism operations, and worries that Saudi Arabia won't be the ally the United States needs if war breaks out.

This was -- I mean, for us, we see these press conferences all the time. But for the Saudis, and certainly for the Middle East, this is very unusual to do this. And to my memory, this is only the second time that the Saudis have held a press conference, certainly since 9/11.

It is an indicator as to just how concerned they are that the leaks that Adel al-Jubeir is referring to there -- unnamed U.S. officials, every few months the stories leak out that the Saudis aren't doing enough. What prompted this press conference, as you know, Suzanne, is the fact that the Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, is alleged to have given money, charitable donations, to one family, which then, through another set of hands, may have ended up in the hands of two of the 9/11 hijackers. But they're...

MALVEAUX: Why didn't they know -- why didn't they figure this out sooner? Why did they just start make these public statements? I mean, to me, it seems like the administration officials, you know, behind the scenes were quietly complaining for a long time, saying the Saudis weren't doing enough to follow this money trail. I mean, why are we just hearing from him now?

KOPPEL: That is an excellent question. And the fact of the matter is, we have been hearing from the Saudis. They just haven't done a very good job of getting their message out. They have taken...

BLAKEY: So they haven't had a very effective PR machine, is that what you're saying?

KOPPEL: They have what?

BLAKEY: They've not had an effective PR machine?

KOPPEL: Well, yes, you could say that. And actually, Adel al- Jubeir is a very sophisticated, as you can see, very slick operator. He knows the United States. He went to school in this country. He's lived here on and off for 20 years. The fact of the matter is, the Saudis have taken steps.

But privately, as you and I hear behind the scenes, they haven't actually put their money where their mouth is. They may have these audits that they now claim they're going to have of 300 charitable organizations. But in point of fact, will they be able to stop the money going from Saudi citizens, some of whom are members of the royal family, to various terrorist organizations?

MALVEAUX: And how long would that take? I mean, you're talking about, you know, thousands of people who are giving to these organizations. They don't have the infrastructure set up yet, I mean, they don't have what we have to actually, you know, trace the money. Do they expect that there are going to be any type of results any time soon, or...

KOPPEL: Well, they say that they have had some results, that they have actually frozen $70 million, that they have taken 33 banks and frozen those accounts belonging to three individuals. They say they've taken various steps.

But you're right, this is not something that happens overnight. The Treasury Department has had a team in Riyadh on and off, trying to help them create the right structure to be able to filter the money that gets out of Saudi Arabia.

But in point of fact, another problem, as you all know, there's a lawsuit, a $1 trillion lawsuit by... MALVEAUX: Oh, right, right, absolutely.

KOPPEL: ... about 3,000 family members of the 9/11 attacks. And some of the attorneys have been doing their own research preparing for the case, and they say that it's not just the charitable organizations that are leaving the kingdom, but there are offshore corporations that are set up, they allege, that the money is filtered to terrorists. And so, it's much more complicated than what meets the eye.

BLAKEY: And then, the question of whether or not there is some nugget of truth to what the spokesperson has said in regards to the idea that, you know, Osama bin Laden came and personally recruited, in a sense, a number of Saudis who obviously were involved in this hijacking -- at least that's what we suspect.

You know, how real is the idea that there really was an attempt by bin Laden to really put a separation between the U.S. and the Saudis, the relationship that we've had all these years?

KOPPEL: Yes, I think until -- and certainly some of bin Laden's operatives may be talking to U.S. officials, to investigators and telling them more about that.

It's our understanding, at least listening to Adel al- Jubeir, that it was no accident that Osama bin Laden, who himself was a Saudi citizen -- is no longer, because they kicked him out -- but he was going after the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Adel al-Jubeir saying, "Why didn't he pick 15 Spanish citizens or people from Jamaica?" Or it was no accident, he said, that Osama bin Laden had 15 of 19 hijackers being Saudi citizens.

NEISLOSS: Andrea, at the U.N., the U.S. is definitely not putting any particular pressure on the Saudis. And they could, in various forums, about terrorism and try to squeeze them there. It's obviously so delicate. So how far can they carry this? Because they really need the Saudis.

KOPPEL: Well, that's absolutely right. And that is why you hear the leaks, or you see the leaks privately by unnamed officials. And you and I, talking to U.S. officials on background, Suzanne, will hear the criticism, but you won't hear it publicly.

MALVEAUX: Publicly.

KOPPEL: What you hear from the podium is, "The Saudis are good allies. Not great allies. They're good allies."

MALVEAUX: The bases...

KOPPEL: Because we have the potential of a war coming up. Absolutely.

MALVEAUX: ... the oil. Exactly.

KOPPEL: War and the potential of, you know, of needing the Saudis to pump more oil. So that is the realism of this situation. And until that passes, I don't think you're going to hear any more public critique of the Saudis.

BLAKEY: All right. Well, from the diplomacy in and around the Persian Gulf to the mood of the people there. Just ahead, we'll talk to our producer in Qatar, Linda Roth, about preparations for both war games and possible real war. And we'll also go to New Orleans to our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley. And I'll talk about the hard national and personal decisions you may have to make about smallpox.

All coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. But first, a news alert from CNN's headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The problem with the Americans now, they are trying to play as the policeman of the world. They are trying to control everything. And if you go back to history, this could never happen. And this will take them down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: One of the few people in the small Persian Gulf country of Qatar willing to publicly criticize the U.S. for its military presence here.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Linda Roth in Doha, Qatar.

It's a small bump on the Persian Gulf coast, but it's a very big part of U.S. military and political plans here in the region and in any possible war with Iraq.

The war games are supposed to start here on Monday, but things are already cooking. General Tommy Franks arrived here less than 24 hours ago. He's already met with 200 of his senior battle staff. And they're conducting today and tomorrow what they call "rock drills."

And it's a practice for the practice of sorts. They -- "rock drills," the term is an old military term back when they used sand boxes and rocks to move around and simulate troop movements. Of course, now, guys, it's a lot more sophisticated. They're using computers, satellites, big-screen TVs and all of that stuff.

KOPPEL: Linda, I'm curious, why did you say in the open that that was one of the few people that you'll find in Qatar to openly criticize the U.S. presence there?

ROTH: A lot of people here just don't want to talk about politics. You go out in the streets, you go out in the malls, and people, when you ask them, they're just, "Politics is for the government to handle. It's not for us to decide." People are very, very reluctant to talk.

KOPPEL: And what is it like there? I don't know if you've ever been to Qatar before. I haven't. What is it like there as a woman and for women in Qatar?

ROTH: Well, it's my first time here, so I'll admit it. But it's very, very modern here. I didn't expect it. There are a lot of Western influences. Not far from here there's one of the largest malls in the Persian Gulf, and it has everything in it. There's Starbucks on every floor. There's a Body Shop, a Tommy Hilfiger, all kinds of stuff like that.

MALVEAUX: Linda, do you get the sense that...

ROTH: And being a woman...

MALVEAUX: No, go ahead.

ROTH: Being a women here, it's a little more progressive than other Persian Gulf countries. Women can vote. Women can run for office. Women can drive. So they have a lot more than other Gulf countries in that sense.

But it's still a very traditional place. And I'd say about 75 percent of the women we see are dressed in traditional garb, you know, head to toe in black.

MALVEAUX: Do you get a sense where you are that, with these war games and the practice and all of this hardware, personnel, do you get the sense that war is inevitable? Is that what people feel where you are? Is that really palpable?

ROTH: You don't really feel it here. There's really tight security around the three bases that have U.S. military personnel on them. You can't really get anywhere near it. I can tell you from personal experience, it took 47 seconds for us to get stopped and asked what we were doing there.

So it's really separate. You know, Ramadan just ended. It's the Eid holiday. It's a time for celebration with family and friends. And people here are really concentrated on that. They're not really paying that much attention to what's going on.

NEISLOSS: What are you able to hear about the war games that are actually going to take place? How is it being described to journalists there, and what are you able to see?

ROTH: Well, we're not able to see much. Again, the exercises begin on Monday. And it's not going to be tanks rolling across the desert or troops running around with weapons. This is a computer exercise, computer-generated exercise with different battle scenarios. And the main purpose of it is to test command communications for any possible war. So it's mostly a test of the communications. This exercise is one that the military does every two years. But this is the first time that they've ever done it outside of the continental U.S. So that's going to be the test here, whether General Tommy Franks can successfully run a war from this country in a mobile headquarters.

BLAKEY: You know, Linda, that's an interesting point. People often wonder, you know, what's in it for Qatar?

But one of the things I found intriguing about this country is that the vast majority of people who are there are foreigners. So, you know, for this country...

ROTH: That's right.

BLAKELY: ... what's the deal?

ROTH: Well, this is small country. It's smaller than Connecticut. And it's surrounded by a lot of big -- bigger fish. And the region is unstable, and I really think the government here wanted a friend, wanted an ally in the United States.

They agreed to let the U.S. come and do this. In fact, Qatar has no really military to speak of, no air force, no army. They built an entire air base. It's called Al Udeid, and it has the longest runway in the Persian Gulf. And they did it kind of, if you build it they will come, kind of thing...

BLAKEY: Right.

ROTH: ... to get people to come here. So...

MALVEAUX: Well, our thanks to our CNN colleague, Linda Roth, in Qatar.

From the practice and buildup of war in the Persian Gulf to a hard-fought political battle in Louisiana. Coming up, we'll talk to Candy Crowley in New Orleans, as one of the last gasps (ph) of the campaign 2002 play out today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: So I'm here in the great state of Louisiana urging all the citizens, Republicans and Democrats and folks that could care less about political party, to go to the polls this Saturday.

But I got a suggestion.

(LAUGHTER)

For the good of Louisiana, for the good of everybody in Louisiana, Suzie Terrell needs to be the next United States senator.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Republicans are already assured a majority in the Senate next year, but you can see how much George Bush would like just one more seat.

Welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Candy Crowley in New Orleans, or N'Orleans as we call it down here.

Terrell is running against incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu. And to give you all an idea, you know how Tip O'Neill said all politics is local? I have to tell you, there is such a huge Bush factor in this race.

We were in southern Louisiana yesterday at a rally that Mary Landrieu had. And somebody came up to me after the rally and said, "Boy, you're really going to have something to talk about Monday. You're going to talk about how Louisiana stopped the Republican tide in the midterm elections."

So George Bush is playing on one side and on the other. It will be interesting to see who pulls the hardest.

BLAKEY: Well, Candy, is this really substantive, or, you know, is this just an effort for the Republicans to say, "We just got one more, we're going to rub it in your face" kind of thing?

CROWLEY: Oh, it's substantive. Look, if he has one more vote in the Senate, first of all, that's a guard against any kind of defections. And one vote in the Senate is everything sometimes. I mean, you can't count on 52 Republicans to always vote Republican.

On the Democratic side, absolutely, because, look, there has been this sort of Republican tide that has taken over in the South. This is one of the last footholds that Democrats have. They've got a Democratic senator, John Breaux, and they have Mary Landrieu. They lose it and you can begin to feel the turf in Louisiana also flowing Republican.

KOPPEL: So, Candy, how is it looking? What is Landrieu's strategy, and do you think she's going to be able to pull it off?

CROWLEY: Look, her strategy is to get out her base, which is the urban, largely African-American vote. She was able to turn out a pretty good African-American vote in the first election, the actual one where she didn't get over 50 percent, which forced this runoff. She has been working very hard to try to turn out that base.

But she also has to bring out a fair percentage of conservative white Democrats. And the problem there is, it's very hard here for her to appeal to both crowds. She sort of started the main election by talking about how much she had in common with George Bush, who's got like a 64 percent approval rating or something. And now, in order to attract his base, she has to sort of emphasize what she doesn't have in common with George Bush. So it's a really fine line for a Democrat down here.

MALVEAUX: Candy, I feel like I'm in the middle of that movie, "Groundhog Day." You keep experiencing the same thing over and over.

(LAUGHTER)

I've been to so many of these campaign stops with Bush before. Do you get the sense that the polls are changing, the tide is changing a little bit? Because I know the Bush administration very confident when they went in there that, look, we're going to put the prestige behind the president and lend it to this candidate, that it's really going to make a difference. Do you see any signs of that?

CROWLEY: Well, yes, absolutely. There's no doubt that -- and it hasn't just been President Bush, it's been 41, former President Bush. It's been Karen Hughes, it's been Dick Cheney, it's been Elizabeth Dole. So they've all been here, and they've poured a lot of time and effort into this.

First of all, it's the only game in town. And second of all, you know, people tell me, look, he can't go out and campaign as heavily as he did, the president, in the election in November and not show up down here. Obviously they really want this seat.

And there has been -- Terrell got about 26 percent, I think, in November. She obviously needs a good deal more of that. She was running with a bunch of other Republicans on the same ticket. So yes, there has been a huge push for her to come up to about even. So from 26 to, you know, roughly 50-50 at this point.

So the momentum is hers. But, you know, the world belongs to the people who show up today, and that is who gets their voters out. Republicans were really good at doing it. On the other hand, they have a lot of old pros. Donna Brazile, who used to run Al Gore's campaign, is down here getting out the vote for Mary Landrieu. So right now, it's just, we're all down to the ground war.

NEISLOSS: Candy, how are the international issues playing there? Is Iraq now a factor? Is this something that you're hearing a lot of?

CROWLEY: You know what I heard a lot of? Sugar.

(LAUGHTER)

It's a big industry down here. And the talk was of a secret deal -- the Landrieu campaign found an article in a Mexican newspaper that said that the Bush administration was going to allow a whole bunch of import of Mexican sugar, which clearly would cost jobs here in Louisiana.

Nothing about Iraq. In fact, you know, with Bush's popularity, what you hear from Mary Landrieu, the Democrat, is, you know, "Look, I supported President Bush on the war. You know, I believe in a strong America." So there's sort of a lot sort of support down here for that.

Not a lot of talk about the war in Iraq. It's about sugar, it's about George Bush, it's about tax cuts -- mostly domestic, very at- home issues. Because what Landrieu has tried to do is say, "Yes, I'll support the president when I can, but the fact of the matter is, I'm going to support Louisiana."

So Iraq has not been a factor.

KOPPEL: Candy, I'd like to ask you a question -- just profess my own ignorance here. Elections were a month ago. Why is this election only happening now?

CROWLEY: Because it's Louisiana, and you have to love Louisiana...

(LAUGHTER)

... politics.

Look, it's because -- you know, the short version of this is that everybody runs on the same ballot. So what happened on Election Day is that Mary Landrieu, the Democrat, ran along with three Republicans, including Suzie Terrell. So all of these people ran on the same thing.

If you don't get 50 percent, you've got to have a run-off. And Landrieu got 46.

So the top two people, and that would Suzie Terrell and Mary Landrieu, are now in a run-off, because you've got to hit 50 percent and they didn't. And that's just how Louisiana does it, like no other state in the nation.

BLAKEY: Well, Candy, you said Suzie and Mary are not playing well together.

(LAUGHTER)

Tell me about what you think about the ads that have been running there. How are people responding to those ads?

CROWLEY: Well, it's tough, very tough. But again, though, this is -- politics is really the state game here. They love their politics. They have been very tough commercials, especially those from the Republican camp aimed at Landrieu.

They have very tough on, you know, calling her the most liberal Democrat in the Senate, which is not a good thing to be when you're from Louisiana. They have talked about her support for morning-after pills, you know, that kind of thing, in a very conservative, very Catholic state. So there have been those sort of negative ads.

And Landrieu has sort of played on this, "Look, this woman says she's going to vote with George Bush 100 percent of the time. But look at all of these issues. We've got to have someone who really stands up for you."

They were just very, very tough ads, you know, entertaining as a reporter. And of course down here again, they love their politics. So it doesn't come across quite as negatively to them. It's more, you know, entertainment. BLAKEY: All right, Candy. We always you entertaining.

(LAUGHTER)

So thanks a lot.

From the political battles to the fight against bioterrorism, the government prepares for massive smallpox vaccinations. We'll talk about who will be on the receiving end and why, when SATURDAY EDITION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not only a public health decision, but it is also decision of national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLAKEY: President Bush is expected to announce soon the resumption of smallpox vaccinations of hundreds of thousands of health care workers. It would be the largest smallpox vaccination ever in certainly more than 20 years, almost 30. It was 1972 that the U.S. stopped the routine vaccinations of smallpox.

This is a huge ordeal, because it really will stress the public health system. And we thought anthrax was an issue because it hit us all of a sudden. We didn't really have background information with smallpox. We have a history that we can work from.

But the real dilemma here is going to be educating not only these health care workers, but subsequently the public because there are so many more restrictions that we know, risk factors that we're aware of -- people shouldn't be vaccinated.

So it's going to be a huge ordeal.

MALVEAUX: So what does the problem...

NEISLOSS: Well, maybe...

BLAKEY: Well, at this point, what we understand the Bush is going to present is they're going to say about 500,000 health care workers nationwide should be vaccinated, because those people would be potentially the first to be exposed, should there be a case.

There is another plan that would call for a ring of another 7 million to 10 million people. These would be first responders, hopefully. I would hope members of the media, as well. But firefighters, police officers, folks who would come to the scene should there be -- but again, you've got to look at it from the vantage point of A, how likely is an attack? And of course, we're talking about the possibility that Iraq has, you know, plenty of weapons of mass destruction, even though obviously the U.N. is sorting through all of that, and the Bush administration says, "We know of some things as well."

So you've got to balance the risks of an attack versus the benefits of vaccinating so many people, because there are risks associated with the vaccine. There are many people who really shouldn't be vaccinated.

NEISLOSS: What are those risks? Maybe, Rea, you could tell us a little bit about what those risks are. I feel like I've just been hearing horror stories, and you see awful-looking pictures.

BLAKEY: Right.

NEISLOSS: What's the reality?

BLAKEY: The reality is potentially 30 million to 50 million Americans probably should not be vaccinated. The issue being that there are so many more people in the world today who are immuno- compromised, whether they have HIV, whether they're patients who are receiving chemotherapy.

And another huge group who would be at risk potentially from this vaccine, are people with excema or skin conditions, because smallpox does show up on the skin.

Yes, so I mean, the key here is being certain to screen people properly before you would vaccinate. But when you think about HIV, for example, you know, there are people out there, millions, who don't know that they've been exposed to HIV, don't know that they have it.

KOPPEL: And what about kids? Because I heard that if -- something about children are more at risk if they're vaccinated of having some sort of side effects.

BLAKEY: You know, what we know is that people who have been vaccinated in the U.S. -- generally it's the population that's over the age of 30 -- we know what happened there. We know -- we've got history there. We don't know what would happen with people who are under the age of 30.

Ideally, there would not be huge risks associated, but at this point, the CDC is not recommending vaccinations for children under the age of 18, even though many of the plans that a lot of states and the larger cities have to devise for preparedness just in case of a smallpox outbreak would include vaccinating many people.

And then the issue then becomes, do you then make the cut-off, you know, you don't vaccinate kids under the age of 1? Pregnant women probably should not be vaccinated because we're not certain of what the risk will be there. They could potentially be a greater risk. You know, does every woman know that she's pregnant? How efficiently will the screening process be conducted?

So it is a huge ordeal.

MALVEAUX: And who makes the decision? How is that set up? Is it the federal government, is it local officials? I mean, how do they work that out?

BLAKEY: You remember anthrax, you know, when we had local here and federal there, and everybody was trying to, you know, blend the mix. It's similar in this sense, but we've had a little bit more lead time. So the bottom line here is that public health departments really do have to make the decision.

But in Florida, for example, where they say they're prepared in 10 days to vaccinate everybody in the state in case of an emergency, you know, you've got to keep in mind that if there is in fact a smallpox outbreak, let's say it's in New York, do you really need to vaccinate all of the people in Florida? Well, it's a global society, so you know, you may have to consider that.

KOPPEL: How is it spread? Is this something that's incredibly infectious? Is that why they're advising...

BLAKEY: It is incredibly infectious. And one-third of the people who are exposed will very likely die. But then keep in mind that the vaccine -- one-third -- the vaccine itself could potentially cause deaths, which someone like Anthony Fauci has said, you know, for that reason, we should probably wait until there is a case and then surround that person and all the contact people who have been come in close contact with that individual, and then work rings out, so that we're not exposing all of the other people to the potential dangers of a vaccine. Because vaccines aren't guaranteed.

But the other thing about a potential outbreak -- and this, I think, is somewhat scary to me -- is that, you know, we do have the possibility for getting to people and vaccinating them even after exposure. You've got about a four-day lead time. But what happens if you've got, you know, 16 million people in one state, and you can't get to all of them?

KOPPEL: Right. And isn't another factor that the symptoms don't appear for a number of days, so you don't even know...

BLAKEY: For about...

KOPPEL: ... if you have it.

BLAKEY: Exactly.

KOPPEL: How can you get inoculated?

BLAKEY: And yet you could be contagious for up to three weeks. So I mean, it is a huge risk, which is why certainly you want to make sure that health care providers are vaccinated. But again, it's voluntary, so they don't necessarily have to do it.

KOPPEL: Well, on that light note...

(LAUGHTER)

... I want to thank all of my colleagues, and thank you for watching SATURDAY EDITION. A news alert is next, followed by a special edition of Showdown: Iraq, with Blitzer in Doha, Qatar.

We'll see you next week.

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




Declaration; Saudi Arabia Launches PR Blitz>