Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Democrats to Make Homeland Security Issue in Next Election; Bush Monitors Situation in North Korea; Preparations for Iraq War Continue

Aired December 28, 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.


JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they covered this week.
I'm Jeanne Meserve.

Why Democrats think terrorism and homeland security are among the big issues of the next presidential election.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas. The big challenge for President Bush: to sort out the words and actions of North Korea about its nuclear weapons.

JOSIE KARP, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Josie Karp. And I have just want the doctor ordered if you're fed up with all those stories about big money and big egos in the sports world.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. New violence in the Middle East and new preparations for a war with Iraq that many here see as inevitable.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Patty Davis. Many of us end the year in the U.S. traveling through new security, as airlines struggle to keep flying.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena. A tug of war in the terrorism fight between law enforcement and people who worry privacy is slipping away.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, and we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour. But first, an update on the stories in the headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

MALVEAUX: Now President Bush continues his holiday at the Crawford ranch, but at the same time the Bush administration closely monitoring the developments in North Korea, as well as Iraq. And this week, North Korea boldly reminding the world that it's armed and unpredictable.

I have to tell you, this was really an amazing week, because North Korea started off saying, "Here's what we're going to do. We're going to shut down the cameras. We're going to reopen our nuclear complex, and then we're going to basically kick out the inspectors." And that is exactly what North Korea is doing.

We have seen this at a dizzying pace for the White House. And really, publicly, the administration is saying, "Well, we're downplaying this. This doesn't mean that much. We have time to deal with this. We're going to deal with it diplomatically." But privately, I have to tell you that administration officials are concerned about this. There is a great deal of worry here.

And it's quite unpredictable. This is exactly the opposite of what White House aides and officials thought was going to happen. From the very first moment when you had the envoy who went over and presented the evidence to North Korea saying, "We know that you've been developing a nuclear weapons program" -- North Korea admits to it, but then not only does it admit to it, it goes ahead and decides, "OK, well, we're going to escalate this situation. We're going to escalate the war of words, and we're going to start this whole chain reaction."

MESERVE: Suzanne, the administration making it very clear it wants to rely on diplomacy here. But why should they think that diplomacy is going to work with a regime like the one in North Korea? They seem absolutely impervious to world opinion.

MALVEAUX: You know, it's a very good question, because one of the things that we have been told by our own intelligence officials from the administration -- and it's really contrary to some of the reports that you've been hearing -- is that they do not believe that North Korea can actually build a new nuclear weapon within the year's time span. We've heard a lot of people talk about that window. But the administration feels that they do have the time for diplomacy to actually work.

There are a couple of other things that in play here, which is the administration is banking on the fact that they believe North Korea is going to blink. Because they say, "Look, winter is coming up. Their people are starving. They're going to be in dire straights."

Of course the regime is totally unpredictable so they don't know which way Kim Jong Il is going to go. But they hope that officials realize it's in its own best interest.

And finally, the last point really is the fact that North Korea is a lot more threatening to its neighbors than it is to the administration. And they're hoping that banking on that fact, that you'll have Japan, you'll have South Korea, even Russia and China to get involved in this and really put a lot of pressure on North Korea to actually comply.

But I'll tell you one thing, what we're seeing here is that really kind of a change in the strategy from the administration. Just within the last couple of weeks, it's really evolved, you know, from the stance that, "Well, we're not going to get involved. We're not going to talk directly to the North Koreans. We're not even going to deal with any kind of provocation," to "Yes, OK, well, let's go ahead and let's get our allies involved with sanctions, cutting back oil."

And now what we are seeing, the administration actually working through the International Atomic Energy Agency, those monitors, to get to the United Nations Security Council. Put it on the table, let them deal with it, say, "Look, you know, you've got to deal with North Korea in addition to Iraq."

WALLACE: Suzanne, it's Kelly. Question for you, the administration all along has always said it can use different strategies, different approaches for different countries that the president has put in his, quote, "axis of evil," saying it could use diplomacy and economic isolation for North Korea and a different strategy for Iraq.

But is this administration now sort of being called to question about its approach, when now it doesn't appear that what it's doing with North Korea is working? And it's also trying to deal with Iraq at the same time.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. That's an excellent point. There are a lot of people who are looking to the administration and saying, "Well, you know, is this a policy that's really effective?" I think that there are those within the administration themselves who are reexamining this.

And it's something that is changing, it is evolving. Because they see that from the very beginning they thought, "Well, if we disengage from North Korea" -- President Bush calling it the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address -- "If we disengage from them, maybe they'll come to us and say, `Look, you know, well, hey, we were trying to get attention here. We were trying to get concessions. We realize this isn't working. Let's cooperate here.'" The United States offering, saying, "Look, we're not going to invade North Korea. We're not going to do that at this time." But they realize exactly the opposite has happened.

And yes, you bring up a very good point which is that they are simultaneously dealing with Iraq. This is something that's -- it's an incredible burden on the administration.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said this week, "Well, we can deal with two fronts at the same time," rather excited and boisterous about the point that he was making. But a lot of people feel like, "Well, that was kind of the military might," you know, the words, the strong words backing it up.

But look, it's going to be very difficult to try to handle those two things at once. That is not what the administration wants to do. They want to focus with Iraq first. They want to deal with North Korea diplomatically, economically if they can. It is not something that they want to see happen at the same time.

ARENA: Suzanne?

MALVEAUX: Yes?

ARENA: This really does seem to have escalated just unbelievably quickly, out of nowhere. And you have the situation in Iraq, you have the situation now in North Korea.

How prepared really is the United States to deal with two entirely separate issues?

MALVEAUX: Well, if you talk to Pentagon sources and officials, they'll say, "Well, yes, we can handle both at the same time." But the administration doesn't want to do that.

And it's one thing that some people are concerned about, is the fact that perhaps North Korea is really taking advantage of the timing of all of this, that the administration is so focused on Iraq that they are not paying enough attention to North Korea. That's what some of the critics are saying.

But you're right, I mean, there is a challenge now for the United States not only to try to keep the Middle East on board with Iraq, but also to really try to convince allies -- Japan, Russia, China and South Korea -- to be a lot more aggressive with North Korea in resolving this diplomatically. It's a very difficult situation.

MESERVE: And from the problems facing an incumbent president to the aspirations of Democrats who want the top job for themselves. Coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, how Democrats think terrorism and how to defend against it are some of the big issues of the next election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: It's time for all of us, without regard to party, to say what everyone of us already knows: Washington is not doing enough to make America safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Senator John Edwards, Democrat of North Carolina, hitting a popular theme among presidential wannabes, that despite what the present administration has done, the U.S. remains vulnerable to terror attack.

Edwards giving a major policy speech on this this week, laying out his program, which included creation of a domestic intelligence agency and slamming the administration, saying that it has its priorities out of whack, that it's more interested in giving tax cuts to the wealthy than in providing security for all Americans.

DAVIS: But is it wise to be making a political issue out of this?

MESERVE: Well, there are definitely risks to it. You have to say that. Because there has been a sense that the United States should rally around the president in this time of need. And is there a possibility that the Democrats will sound a little bit too shrill, that they will sound as if they're being unpatriotic? Yes, there is a risk.

The key question is, I think, what's going to happen on the terrorism front, the homeland security front, between now and 2004 when the next election is held.

MALVEAUX: You know, Jeanne, the White House is really saying, "Bring it on," at this point. I mean, they're looking at poll numbers. They say that the president is very popular, he remains very popular, and that they are taking care of homeland security, that the war on terror is something that a lot of Americans -- it resonates with them. They don't really feel challenged by this.

MESERVE: No, they love it. They say exactly what you mentioned, "Bring it on." They say, "Look, we've created this Department of Homeland Security. We've taken steps to improve container security," that one of the big dangers in this country. They say, "We propose spending a lot of money."

There are Democrats who counter, however, saying, "Wait, look at the recent reports. Look at, for instance, Hart-Rudman which says we're still dangerously unprepared for a terrorist attack and that we're unprepared to respond to it."

And there are Democrats on Capital Hill, particularly Congressman Obey, head of the Appropriations Committee in the House, who will lay out chapter and verse on the funding that has been proposed either by the White House or by a bipartisan group in Congress that has been cut back by the White House.

So you're going to see a constant battle on this.

ARENA: But, Jeanne, how...

MESERVE: There are points of vulnerability, politically.

ARENA: Right, but how many of these Democrats actually have bona fide credentials on the terrorism front?

MESERVE: Some of them do. I mean, Joseph Lieberman does. The idea for a Department of Homeland Security was his idea, which was initially opposed by the White House. That was later picked up by the White House. So he does.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, now being talked about as a possible Democratic contender, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Certainly you can't say he doesn't have credentials.

And the others, like John Edwards, are doing things like giving major policy speeches, trying to establish credentials.

DAVIS: And the Democrats need an issue. They tried the economy in the last elections. It just did not resonate. MESERVE: That's right. And this issue proved to be one that the White House exploited quite successfully. Look at that Senate race in Georgia. Why did Max Cleland lose his seat in the U.S. Senate? It's because he voted against the administration on the Department of Homeland Security. Saxby Chambliss had made this a big issue, and it worked.

KARP: Jeanne, is there just one way the Democrats are going to go about making terrorism part of this big agenda, or are there going to be factions even within the party about just how to do it?

MESERVE: Sure, there are going to be disagreements among the different candidates about exactly how they're going to approach this. Edwards, for instance, is very up front about creating a domestic intelligence agency. Some of the others probably will not go down that road. But we've yet to see the full scope of what they're all going to propose.

Kelly, you're over there in Jerusalem. Chime in.

WALLACE: Yes. Jeanne, Senator Joe Lieberman, who you mentioned, happened to be in Israel this past week. Had meetings with Prime Minister Sharon, also talked with some Palestinian leaders, trying to sort of talk about the Mideast conflict.

But it's interesting, I have a questions for you, which is this. What do the Democrats think they can do differently?

They seemed to be afraid in the run-up before the November elections to challenge the president when it comes to the war on terror. And if you have a possible war against Iraq in the early part of 2003, are these Democrats still going to be afraid? Or what are they going to do differently this time around that they didn't do a few months ago?

MESERVE: Well, I think that strategy isn't fully formed, because they just don't know how events are going to unfold. They're setting the stage here. They're floating some criticism, leveling some criticism at the administration.

But as I mentioned earlier, what's going to be critical is what happens between now and the next election if there is, for instance, another terrorist attack. Which way did they look? Do they say, "This president wasn't prepared; he's had two years to get us ready, and by golly, he hasn't done it"? Or do they have to rally around the president? It will depend on a number of factors, which at the moment are completely unpredictable, including how devastating that attack could be.

KARP: Are the Democrats being mindful of the fact that there could be the perception that, as ludicrous as it sounds, that it might look like somebody's hoping for something to happen as a test?

MESERVE: Exactly, exactly. And that criticism is already being leveled by some people on the Republican side, saying, "Wait a minute, you look like you're politicizing the issue." But let's face it, the fact of the matter is this issue already has been politicized, and quite successfully. The administration did use this very effectively in the past election.

And it's my belief that this is an issue that isn't going to go away. There are questions about, does it play in the Heartland right now or is it mostly an East Coast/West Coast kind of issue? There are questions about that.

But it's my guess -- everyone predicts, including George Tenet, that there will be future attacks, that this is going to continue to be an issue. And it's going to be like education, like health care. It's going to be one of those things that's going to come back every single election cycle from hence forward.

KARP: Well, from one national sport, politics, to another, baseball, we'll talk about one star who still shines brightly 30 years after his death and another who is still tarnished. Coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He stood out among all the players, you know. You could see he was a great athlete. He had the greatest arm I ever saw.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never got tired of watching him. He was like a baseball machine. He had presence that was like a cut above.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

KARP: Those are friends and former teammates of Roberto Clemente, the Hall-of-Famer right-fielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He died 30 years ago next week when he was leading a goodwill mission from his native Puerto Rico to earthquake victims in Nicaragua.

When I traveled to Puerto Rico, there were signs all over the island that showed just how much he is still missed.

And two quick anecdotes: One, I spent a lot of time with his son, Roberto Clemente, Jr. And I asked him, "When people hear your name, Roberto Clemente, Jr., how do they react?" And he said, "They start crying a lot of times." I mean, grown men hear his name and start crying.

And the other thing is, in Puerto Rico they have a beautiful art museum. This is a gorgeous art museum. It's the art museum of Puerto Rico. The newest exhibit that opened there is all about Roberto Clemente. It opened a couple weeks ago; it's going to run for five months. It has pictures, it has artifacts, it has things from his baseball career and things from his life as a humanitarian.

And it goes to show just how his memory is still so vibrant there even though he's been gone for so long. And it's incredible because, with a sports figure especially, you don't see this kind of hero worship.

ARENA: Right. Well, I was going to say, he's been dead now for 30 years. I mean, is there no other baseball star, athlete that has sort of filled that void for the fans?

KARP: Well, the thing that sticks out with Roberto Clemente is the fact that, number one, he was such a good player, but there are a lot of good players. The thing that he did that nobody else did is that he was this humanitarian, this person who always went out of his way for other people.

And it's a good question to ask, is there no one else? Well, the feeling really is that, you know, there isn't.

The other aspect to this, why is he remembered this way, is because he died so young. He was 38 years old. It was on New Year's Eve, a date that everyone remembers. And he was doing something that was meant to better society, to better the world. And I think that goes into creating this legend, really.

DAVIS: Well, Roberto Clemente, much loved. But Pete Rose, not so loved. Although he's coming back?

KARP: Yes, you know, it's interesting to note, Pete Rose obviously is up there with Roberto Clemente when it comes to being a great ballplayer. But the biggest story in the sports world for the entire year of 2003 could take place in the next three or four weeks, because they're considering bringing Pete Rose back in some way, shape or form to baseball.

The commissioner, Bud Selig, is going to have a meeting, a big meeting, January 17th expected, with the living Hall of Fame members to feel them out, to see if, "Hey, what do you think? Is it OK if Pete Rose comes back?"

ARENA: Is that really about Pete Rose or about Bud Selig though?

KARP: Well, you know, it's a good question, because we've talked on this show before about all the problems that Bud Selig has had.

He sees that people, for whatever reason, love Pete Rose. The public loves Pete Rose. This is something that he could do that would help Pete Rose and that would also help him.

MESERVE: Some have pointed out to me that there are plenty of athletes, some of them in halls of fame, who've had brushes with the law. So why not Pete Rose?

KARP: Well, it might sound sanctimonious, but the thing with Pete Rose is that the people who love the game of baseball say that he violated a trust, he violated the sanctity of the game. Because it is written in the Dowd Report, that had served to banish him really from baseball, that he bet on baseball. And it says everywhere you go you cannot bet on baseball.

MESERVE: But there's a tradition of that in baseball. KARP: Yes, but the tradition holds that you are not allowed back in if you bet on baseball.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, none of those guys in the...

(CROSSTALK)

ARENA: And what message does this send to young fans? I mean, so if you wait it out long enough, then, you know, your record is wiped clean.

KARP: Well, the fans do figure into that, because certainly that does send a bad message. But the other thing is...

ARENA: Not that the young people can actually afford...

KARP: Right.

ARENA: ... to go to baseball games. That's another issue.

KARP: The other thing is that they say that baseball is a game for the fans. And if the fans want it -- and they're showing that they are by chanting "Hall of Fame" at the World Series when Pete Rose is trotted out -- maybe it has to be done, because they're the holders of the game really, not the Hall of Famers or the managers or the players.

Kelly, do you have something to say in Jerusalem?

WALLACE: Josie, I was going to say, let's talk about the women. Why don't you tell us about this woman who really broke the records here, the first woman, I believe -- you could tell us -- to play in a college football game. New Mexico, I worked there for many years. Tell us all about it.

KARP: This was interesting. This was in a Christmas Day bowl game, the Las Vegas Bowl. There's a woman kicker who plays for New Mexico. She got in to attempt an extra point against UCLA. It was a monumental, historic occasion. And the extra point attempt was blocked.

So here you have this woman doing something courageous and doing something that nobody had ever done before, and it's been turned into a little bit of a controversy, because a lot of people are saying, even women, that she didn't belong out there, and it was just a sort of dog and pony show.

MESERVE: But how significant was her doing this? I mean, OK, she was the first, and it's certainly got a novelty aspect. But are there a lot of women out there pounding down the doors trying to play college football?

KARP: I don't think that there's a huge majority out there, that you're going to go to every city in America or in Texas on Friday night and see a lot of girls who want to do it. But there's something to be said for, hey, if you do want to do it, now there's someone to look up to and say, "She can do it."

But the bigger question and the thing that did strike me is that there was this sort of backlash. And the one -- I read one article from a very well respected woman sports columnist in Los Angeles, and she just ripped this woman and ripped the school to allowing this to happen. And her point was, "Women shouldn't be out on the football field. They're not big enough. They're not strong enough."

DAVIS: Well, that's my question. How big is this woman? You have to be pretty big to play football. But perhaps she was a kicker...

ARENA: Not to be a punter though.

KARP: Actually, she is not a tiny, little person. She's 5'9", 150, obviously in good shape.

The other thing about the story that grabbed me is the coach said in New Mexico that he called this kicker after seeing a tape but didn't know that she was a woman and didn't find out until he talked to her.

(CROSSTALK)

KARP: That's what he says. I don't know. She had a ponytail and he could see it.

(LAUGHTER)

But in this day and age, you know, football players, even in the NFL, some of them have ponytails. You know, Ricky Williams with his dredlocks that he could pull into a ponytail, Kyle Turley (ph), people like that.

ARENA: Well, Josie, from sports we go back to other issues dominating the news at the end of the year: terrorism, Al-Qaida's planners and financiers still at large, the safety of the nation's transportation system and the violence that plagues the Middle East. All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION after a break and a news alert.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Worldwide, we have come to understand that we have prevented any number of terrorist attacks on United States facilities, some of them within the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: FBI Director Robert Mueller speaking in New York last week and claiming that much has been accomplished in the war on terror.

But still, many al Qaeda leaders are still free. The FBI has renewed warnings of threats to air safety, and new government attempts to monitor immigrants and students have fired up people who see privacy under threat.

Let's start with the threat first. You have, as I said, many al Qaeda leaders -- first among them Osama bin Laden, his second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri -- still at large, which has many terrorist analysts saying that al Qaeda could in fact plan another large-scale attack.

You had the FBI warning its state and local partners this week about the possibility of another explosive being taken on a commercial airliner, a la Richard Reid and the shoe bomb.

They said with people wearing winter bulky clothing, that, you know, keep an eye out and make sure you're on top of things.

You have air restrictions over New York City for the New Year's Day holiday. You have air restrictions over Pasadena.

DAVIS: But you have all these restrictions. Is there anything specific? We keep hearing warning, warning, warning, and they are nothing specific.

ARENA: Right, there is nothing specific, nothing specific and credible. If there were, law enforcement authorities say that they would up the threat level and they would also let the public know about it. For example, the Rose Bowl, Pasadena. You have air restrictions over Pasadena. There's nothing specific to Pasadena, but you have information that's come in from detainees suggesting that the Statue of Liberty, for example, was discussed as a target. So you have the air space around the Statue of Liberty restricted for the New Year's Day holiday.

So this is just information that has been gathered in a general nature, nothing specific but still causing some concern.

DAVIS: But we continue to have the issue, is the public really responding to this? You keep hearing the warnings. There's no specifics. Does the public care? Does the public respond?

ARENA: Well, the public doesn't know what to do with it, which is part of the problem. And that's what local governments are worried about.

MESERVE: Well, and state and local governments don't know what to do either.

ARENA: Exactly, because there's no -- right, there's no plan in place. They're told, "Well, deal with this as you see fit." Of course in New York, you know, they go to one extreme. And then you have other cities that don't take as many precautions as perhaps New York or Washington.

MESERVE: And you have some cities saying, "We don't have the money to take additional precautions because the...

ARENA: That's right.

MESERVE: ... federal government hasn't coughed it up yet.

ARENA: That's right. And all those budget cuts are just -- you know, taxes are not what they -- the tax income is not what they thought it would be.

KARP: You mentioned earlier about the privacy, about the fact that there are government agencies that are requesting schools to give up lists, names of foreign students, things like that...

ARENA: Right. The FBI has asked the universities and colleges for information, contact information -- name, Social Security, so on and so forth -- for several students.

You have the FBI going into some libraries with warrants, asking for information on what certain people have read or Internet use. You have -- they even went to scuba shops, if you remember, about a year ago, asking for client lists and who had rented scuba gear, because there was some talk of possible underwater attacks.

DAVIS: Just kind of brings into mind Big Brother.

ARENA: Right, and that is the major concern. I mean, you had an Association of Libraries meeting where they said, "Destroy your records as quickly as possible," because there was a great deal of concern that perhaps law enforcement was going too far.

But the FBI says, "Look, we've got the Patriot Act, and that allows us to gather information."

MESERVE: You even have the Gilmore Commission, which is one of the really reputable groups looking at issues of homeland security, expressing concerns about how far civil liberties are eroding...

ARENA: Right, but it's a fine line.

MESERVE: ... and saying that we really have to reexamine it.

ARENA: You know, we talk to these agents every single day, and they say...

MESERVE: Well, it's a fuzzy line. That's the problem.

ARENA: Well, it is. Say, for example, you have the immigration situation where you had several immigrant groups who were asked to register in December. If they were here -- if they were from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, they said, "Come in, let us know you're here, we want to know all your information."

Many of those people, over 400, were detained. Now it's down to 21 that are still in detention. But this was seen as entrapment. I mean, the civil rights groups were up in arms, screaming. And they said -- but on the flip side, several agents that we spoke to said, "Wait a minute, listen to this. Let's say, for example, one of these names caused some confusion, they didn't have their proper paperwork, and we just let them go and said, `Don't worry it, we'll sort it out, but you're free to go.' And let's say, God forbid, one of these individuals actually committed an act of terror against the United States. The first thing that would happen is they would come back to us and say, `You had them in custody! What did you do? How could you let them go?"

And so they say, "We really need to walk a very fine line here. I mean, if you're out of status, if you don't have the proper paperwork, if your name comes up in some database with a hit, we have got to investigate. And while we investigate, we've got to keep you close to us."

Kel, I heard you interject before?

WALLACE: Yes. Kelli, question for you, has there ever been a full accounting by the FBI, the Justice Department, of all the people who have been held in prison, on what charges, the length of time, whether they're free or if they're still in prison, since September 11th?

ARENA: No.

WALLACE: Has there been any sort of massive accounting of that?

ARENA: No.

WALLACE: And is the Justice Department or the FBI feeling any pressure to provide that information?

ARENA: Yes. No and yes. The first part is an issue of great controversy, as Jeanne knows. I mean, we've covered these stories before.

They have material witnesses that have been kept. They have people who have been detained and then deported very secretly, you know, for violations; people who have been, you know, just plain out arrested, like you have with the people in Buffalo.

So there's a variety of different categories of people who have been taken into custody for one reason or another. But the Justice Department has not revealed a list of names.

And now, of course, its argument is, "If we have someone say it as a material witness, well, those people don't want their names out, out in the press and in the public because they're afraid, once they're released, of retaliation perhaps."

But on the other side of the coin, civil liberties groups say, "Well, they're just doing it all in secret. They don't want people to know exactly how aggressive they're being."

So major, major concern here. DAVIS: Well, part of the terrorism fight of course has focused on airports and airlines. I'll talk about what's been won, what's coming up with next week's deadline, and whether major airlines can survive difficult financial times. All ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DAVIS: Travelers this holiday season battled snow, anti- terrorism security procedures, and airlines fight to stay aloft financially.

A big deadline at the end of the year, just three days away now. The TSA, Transportation Security Administration, going to screen all checked luggage. That's something that's brand new.

Most airlines will make that deadline. However, the TSA says 30 to 40 airports, in fact, won't be able to get those big bomb-detection machines in place in time. They'll be using bomb-sniffing dogs, hand searches.

And I can tell you, I was in Chicago O'Hare just yesterday. They're starting that bag screening, but they have a long way to go. It was slow. Those trace-detection machines where they swab bags, almost in place. A lot of boxes out there in the lobbies.

It is going to be potentially very ugly at the airports...

(LAUGHTER)

... come January 1st.

KARP: As someone who travels a lot, I was very conscious of the fact early on after September 11th, over the past, you know, year or so, that you had to put everything in your checked bag, because you didn't want to carry anything on because that was going to really slow you down.

Now, advise me, what am I supposed to do?

(LAUGHTER)

Are you supposed to not put things in the checked bag? Are you supposed to only have your carry-on? Or is the checked bag still the way to go?

DAVIS: Well, what the TSA says, first of all, don't put film in your checked bag, because when it goes through the big bomb-detection machines, it will strip it. So you don't want to do that.

ARENA: Oh, no.

DAVIS: Put that in your hand-carry luggage.

ARENA: Oh, geez.

DAVIS: But other things like knives, obviously you can't carry those on.

(LAUGHTER)

Your gun, don't bring that unless it's registered...

(LAUGHTER)

MESERVE: And people haven't gotten that message, remarkably enough. They're still confiscating this stuff, aren't they?

DAVIS: That's true. They have thousands and thousands over the holidays, Thanksgiving holiday, thousands of knives.

ARENA: They confiscated Jeanne's nail clippers.

DAVIS: People aren't getting it.

But I can tell you, new suggestions coming out. In fact, this is a lock. TSA says it will break your lock if you lock your bags now when you check them. Don't lock your bags. Instead, put this -- the airports and airlines will give you this and the TSA can snip it, a red lock. And they'll put a blue lock in its place, and thereby, you'll know that your bag has been opened.

They'll also put a piece of paper in there saying, "OK, your bag has been opened. If you have a question or you have a problem, you think something has been stolen, you can call this 800 number. We'll deal with this on a case-by-case basis."

MESERVE: What are they doing about the theft issue? I mean, I think we've all seen videotapes of, you know, surveillance of baggage areas where people are just rifling through bags, taking stuff. I mean, that's very flimsy. Anybody can get in.

DAVIS: Right, right. We're talking more surveillance at this point. They're saying they're going to eventually work in video cameras into the baggage areas, which is where they're going to be screening and opening a lot of you bags out of your sight in a lot these airports.

MESERVE: Is that going to do the job?

DAVIS: Well, I mean, the big question on that is, OK, my bag has been opened, but which black bag among the thousands on the videotape was mine? And how am I going to know whether it was my bag or not? How are they ever going to find it?

They're saying case-by-case basis, because once your bag leaves the TSA, then the airline ramp workers handle your bag, and perhaps...

ARENA: Oh, great.

DAVIS: ... you know, there's a possibility that they could go in it.

ARENA: That's nice. KARP: Can you talk about now what airline we should travel on? And are there going to be any airlines left?

(LAUGHTER)

What is the state of the airline industry right now?

DAVIS: Good question. Airlines in huge trouble. Not only did they have a bad Christmas season -- fewer passengers traveling now as opposed to 2000, which was a banner year for them.

ARENA: So it was fewer?

DAVIS: It is fewer.

Also, airlines expected to lose a record amount this year, $10 billion. Next year, another $5 billion to $6 billion. No recovery on the horizon.

And in fact, a couple of airline analysts told me that we could actually, physically lose an airline, there is so much capacity, and it wouldn't affect anything. We could physically give up an airline in the United States, and we could still be...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: It would affect prices. Prices are going to have to come up, anyway, though, analysts are saying, because the airlines can't survive with these rock-bottom prices that are out there.

MESERVE: But aren't they saying prices have to come down to attract more people to fly the airline?

DAVIS: They have. They've come done. And people are coming back somewhat, but airlines are just in tatters. They just cannot make ends meet.

Of course, you saw U.S. Airways declared bankruptcy in August. You saw United just earlier this month declared bankruptcy as well. U.S. Airways looks like it will emerge early next year. United, some analysts tell me that's still a question, are they going to emerge or not? And that's a huge airline.

MESERVE: Wow. Just hope they don't go under before January...

WALLACE: Patti, a quick question for you, an issue of great concern of course to Israelis, you know, after we saw the Mombasa, Kenya, attempted shootdown of an Israeli airliner, lots of questions here about what Israeli airliners are doing to protect against that.

Any sense of what U.S. airliners are doing to prevent any possible attempted shootdown by shoulder-launched missiles?

DAVIS: That's right. You're talking about those heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles. And in fact, the TSA and the FBI put out an alert to airlines, recently and also months ago, that this could be a concern.

FAA officials tell me privately there is really nothing that the airlines or the airports can do about this. Security officials say what they do need to do, though, to help head off this problem is to go ahead and increase patrols around the airports. That's labor- intensive, that costs a lot of money as well.

And so, that's where we are right now. What really can they do? Well, airports and FAA say not much.

ARENA: Thank you. That's lovely.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Well, from issues relating to U.S. travel to ever- present security concerns here in the Middle East, up next we'll talk about the sense of the immediacy of a war with Iraq and new questions about whether Iraq may have hidden some of its weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MESERVE: Well, welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

United Nations weapons inspectors have been making their way through Iraq, trying to determine if Saddam Hussein does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction.

We get an update from Rym Brahimi in Baghdad -- Rym.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jeanne, well, I'm just outside of the headquarters of the United Nations where we were briefed by the spokesman of the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams that are here.

Two important announcements, Jeanne. One is that the United Nations' weapons inspectors have received today from the Iraqi national monitoring directorate a list of the names of the personnel that was associated with Iraq's weapons programs.

He specified namely the chemical, biological and missile programs. He said the list has more then 500 names on it. This is the list of course that Dr. Hans Blix, the U.N. chief weapons inspector, had requested in a letter on December 12th to the person in charge here of the monitoring weapons on the Iraqi side.

This is obviously part of this new Resolution 1441. It's one of the rights the inspectors have under that resolution.

A second point he made, Jeanne, referring to this second interview with an Iraqi scientist that took place yesterday, the Iraqi scientist in question protested somewhat today talking to reporters. He said that he wasn't really happy at how his interview had been described by the U.N.

The U.N. had said that he had provided information about the military program and that that military program had attracted a lot of attention because it may have been a possible prelude to a potential nuclear program -- all full of potentials and possibles. But he was still very unhappy about that.

Today, a clarification from the U.N., Jeanne, saying that the IAEA team, the nuclear experts team that interviewed this scientist was aware that this scientist in question was not involved in previous nuclear programs in Iraq, and his statement was a statement about non- classified information about a military program -- Jeanne.

MESERVE: Rym Brahimi in Baghdad, thank you very much.

Kelly Wallace, let me turn right to you and ask you how this prospect of a possible war in the Middle East is affecting the climate there in Israel.

WALLACE: Well, you are seeing, Jeanne, a stepped-up rhetoric by Israeli officials about a possible war with Iraq. You even have stepped-up activity. Students in schools getting lessons in how to deal with and prepare and wear gas masks.

But with all of this, it's very interesting, talking to people over the past several weeks, you don't sense sort of panic on the street, a great deal of fear. On one hand, many people have dealt with this more a than a decade ago. Many people here, unfortunately, are used to dealing with fear and violence. And some are sort of are not sure if it will happen.

But there is a sense though, growing anticipation of what could come. And then of course, what ramifications it could have for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- Jeanne.

ARENA: And if, of course, Israeli retaliates, I mean, that is always a key question, Kelly. What are you hearing on that front?

WALLACE: Well, you're seeing, Kelli, a great deal of coordination between U.S. and Israeli officials over the past several weeks. The Bush administration absolutely wants to make sure that Israel does not get involved in any possible war with Iraq.

Israel didn't retaliate back in 1991. Many people here, both civilians and government officials, believe that was a mistake, that it made Israel look weak. And so there is a sense that if there is some major attack by Iraq against Israel, that Israel could possibly retaliate.

But the Bush administration is trying to do everything it can in every way possible to prevent that from happening.

DAVIS: And the thought there, that would just make things worse. It would draw Israel then into the war.

WALLACE: It would, exactly, make things very worse. Because already the administration, as you all know, is having a difficult time getting Arab support for any ongoing campaign against Iraq.

If Israel stepped into this in any way, that would kind of get rid of any possible coalition this administration would get together. There is a possibility that other countries, other Arab countries could get involved and fight against Israel.

And again, there is also this ongoing situation, continued violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the sense is, if other countries got involved, there would be no sense of resolving that conflict any time soon.

KARP: Kelly, what's the reaction when, such as a time this week when Israel comes out and says, "There's a chance perhaps Iraq has been hiding weapons in Syria."

Number one, have they been able to back that up, verify that in any way? And is there a public outcry at all that maybe they should?

WALLACE: Well, no, they have not been able to back that up. Prime Minister Sharon actually was asked a question about this in an interview and said he has information to believe that Syria is in fact hiding some of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Syria called that laughable. The Israelis have said that they're trying to verify those reports.

But there is this sense, increasing talk about the concern chemical, biological and nuclear concerns posed by Iraq, a sense that the Israeli government trying to prepare its public for a possible war.

And I have to tell you, some political analysts will point out, there is of course a campaign going on here. There will be elections at the end of January, and some believe talk of war could possibly help Prime Minister Sharon get reelected.

MESERVE: And, Kelly, the perspective from here is that meanwhile the Israeli-Palestinians violence is only growing worse.

WALLACE: Only growing worse, Jeanne. On Thursday, you had nine Palestinians killed in various parts of the West Bank.

And then Friday evening, you had four Jewish settlers. These were -- some were soldiers, two were soldiers. Four of them were studying at this rabbinical college at a settlement in Hebron.

The Israelis are saying they are trying to go after any and all threats of terror. They say they have some 40 warnings every day.

But you have the Palestinians who say there's a stepped-up offensive by the Israelis, that it's only fueling the violence, and it's that the Israelis don't want to have any cease-fire, and that Prime Minister Sharon in some way is trying to push security before his election.

So not a good situation whatsoever, Jeanne.

MESERVE: Kelly Wallace, thanks.

And that's our SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks to all of my colleagues here, and thank you for watching.

Coming up, a news alert and CNN's People in the News, focusing on Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.

We'll see you next week on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. But first, the president's weekly radio address.

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

2002 brought great challenges to America, and we had many successes at home and abroad. In 2002 our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and it was pulling out a recession that began before I took office.

Our government came together to pass an economic growth bill to jumpstart the economy. We extended unemployment benefits for workers who lost their jobs after the terrorist attacks. Congress passed trade promotion authority, which gave me a stronger hand to help America's farmers and businesses sell their products abroad. And we worked together to enact terrorist insurance legislation so our construction workers could get back on the job. As a result of these actions, the United States economy is growing again.

Our nation learned of scandalous abuses by some corporate leaders, and so I signed the most sweeping corporate reforms in more than half a century. We are strictly enforcing the laws against fraud and deception in corporate America because workers and investors must have confidence in America's businesses and business leaders.

America in 2002 continued our efforts to confront the danger of terrorism. We increased the security of our ports and coasts and airlines and created a new Department of Homeland Security. This department will unite dozens of federal agencies behind a single mission: protecting the American people.

I hope the Senate will act quickly in the new session to confirm Governor Tom Ridge to serve as America's first secretary of homeland security.

In 2002 the war on terror that began with the liberation of Afghanistan continued on many fronts. Working with our allies around the world, we captured top al Qaeda leaders, destroyed terror training camps and froze millions of dollars in terrorist assets.

In the new year we will prosecute the war on terror with patience and focus and determination. With the help of a broad coalition, we will make certain that terrorists and their supporters are not safe in any cave or corner of the world.

The war on terror also requires us to confront the danger of catastrophic violence posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously affirmed that Saddam Hussein is a danger to his neighbors and to the peace of the world. The burden now is on Iraq's dictator to disclose and destroy his arsenal of weapons. If he refuses, then for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime and free the Iraqi people.

Also in the new year, we will press on in the effort to turn our economic recovery into sustained economic growth. This economy is strong, and it can be stronger. I will work with Congress on a jobs and growth package to add momentum to the recovery and to put people back to work. And one of my first priorities for the new Congress will be an extension of unemployment benefits for Americans who need them.

We will also work to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable health care. We will keep our commitment to America's seniors by working to reform and modernize Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit to help seniors who are squeezed by rising drug prices. We will tackle the crisis of frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care.

We will continue to carry out the comprehensive education reforms I signed into law last January, so no child in America is left behind. My administration will work to continue to remove barriers that hinder the good work of faith-based and community groups. And we will work to reauthorize the historic welfare reform law that has improved so many lives. Our successes in the past year prepared the way for great progress in 2003. Working together, we can make America more prosperous and keep the peace of the world.

Thank you for listening, and Happy New Year.

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




Election; Bush Monitors Situation in North Korea; Preparations for Iraq War Continue>


Aired December 28, 2002 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, where our journalists have the inside scoop on the stories they covered this week.
I'm Jeanne Meserve.

Why Democrats think terrorism and homeland security are among the big issues of the next presidential election.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas. The big challenge for President Bush: to sort out the words and actions of North Korea about its nuclear weapons.

JOSIE KARP, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Josie Karp. And I have just want the doctor ordered if you're fed up with all those stories about big money and big egos in the sports world.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. New violence in the Middle East and new preparations for a war with Iraq that many here see as inevitable.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Patty Davis. Many of us end the year in the U.S. traveling through new security, as airlines struggle to keep flying.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena. A tug of war in the terrorism fight between law enforcement and people who worry privacy is slipping away.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, and we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour. But first, an update on the stories in the headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

MALVEAUX: Now President Bush continues his holiday at the Crawford ranch, but at the same time the Bush administration closely monitoring the developments in North Korea, as well as Iraq. And this week, North Korea boldly reminding the world that it's armed and unpredictable.

I have to tell you, this was really an amazing week, because North Korea started off saying, "Here's what we're going to do. We're going to shut down the cameras. We're going to reopen our nuclear complex, and then we're going to basically kick out the inspectors." And that is exactly what North Korea is doing.

We have seen this at a dizzying pace for the White House. And really, publicly, the administration is saying, "Well, we're downplaying this. This doesn't mean that much. We have time to deal with this. We're going to deal with it diplomatically." But privately, I have to tell you that administration officials are concerned about this. There is a great deal of worry here.

And it's quite unpredictable. This is exactly the opposite of what White House aides and officials thought was going to happen. From the very first moment when you had the envoy who went over and presented the evidence to North Korea saying, "We know that you've been developing a nuclear weapons program" -- North Korea admits to it, but then not only does it admit to it, it goes ahead and decides, "OK, well, we're going to escalate this situation. We're going to escalate the war of words, and we're going to start this whole chain reaction."

MESERVE: Suzanne, the administration making it very clear it wants to rely on diplomacy here. But why should they think that diplomacy is going to work with a regime like the one in North Korea? They seem absolutely impervious to world opinion.

MALVEAUX: You know, it's a very good question, because one of the things that we have been told by our own intelligence officials from the administration -- and it's really contrary to some of the reports that you've been hearing -- is that they do not believe that North Korea can actually build a new nuclear weapon within the year's time span. We've heard a lot of people talk about that window. But the administration feels that they do have the time for diplomacy to actually work.

There are a couple of other things that in play here, which is the administration is banking on the fact that they believe North Korea is going to blink. Because they say, "Look, winter is coming up. Their people are starving. They're going to be in dire straights."

Of course the regime is totally unpredictable so they don't know which way Kim Jong Il is going to go. But they hope that officials realize it's in its own best interest.

And finally, the last point really is the fact that North Korea is a lot more threatening to its neighbors than it is to the administration. And they're hoping that banking on that fact, that you'll have Japan, you'll have South Korea, even Russia and China to get involved in this and really put a lot of pressure on North Korea to actually comply.

But I'll tell you one thing, what we're seeing here is that really kind of a change in the strategy from the administration. Just within the last couple of weeks, it's really evolved, you know, from the stance that, "Well, we're not going to get involved. We're not going to talk directly to the North Koreans. We're not even going to deal with any kind of provocation," to "Yes, OK, well, let's go ahead and let's get our allies involved with sanctions, cutting back oil."

And now what we are seeing, the administration actually working through the International Atomic Energy Agency, those monitors, to get to the United Nations Security Council. Put it on the table, let them deal with it, say, "Look, you know, you've got to deal with North Korea in addition to Iraq."

WALLACE: Suzanne, it's Kelly. Question for you, the administration all along has always said it can use different strategies, different approaches for different countries that the president has put in his, quote, "axis of evil," saying it could use diplomacy and economic isolation for North Korea and a different strategy for Iraq.

But is this administration now sort of being called to question about its approach, when now it doesn't appear that what it's doing with North Korea is working? And it's also trying to deal with Iraq at the same time.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. That's an excellent point. There are a lot of people who are looking to the administration and saying, "Well, you know, is this a policy that's really effective?" I think that there are those within the administration themselves who are reexamining this.

And it's something that is changing, it is evolving. Because they see that from the very beginning they thought, "Well, if we disengage from North Korea" -- President Bush calling it the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address -- "If we disengage from them, maybe they'll come to us and say, `Look, you know, well, hey, we were trying to get attention here. We were trying to get concessions. We realize this isn't working. Let's cooperate here.'" The United States offering, saying, "Look, we're not going to invade North Korea. We're not going to do that at this time." But they realize exactly the opposite has happened.

And yes, you bring up a very good point which is that they are simultaneously dealing with Iraq. This is something that's -- it's an incredible burden on the administration.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said this week, "Well, we can deal with two fronts at the same time," rather excited and boisterous about the point that he was making. But a lot of people feel like, "Well, that was kind of the military might," you know, the words, the strong words backing it up.

But look, it's going to be very difficult to try to handle those two things at once. That is not what the administration wants to do. They want to focus with Iraq first. They want to deal with North Korea diplomatically, economically if they can. It is not something that they want to see happen at the same time.

ARENA: Suzanne?

MALVEAUX: Yes?

ARENA: This really does seem to have escalated just unbelievably quickly, out of nowhere. And you have the situation in Iraq, you have the situation now in North Korea.

How prepared really is the United States to deal with two entirely separate issues?

MALVEAUX: Well, if you talk to Pentagon sources and officials, they'll say, "Well, yes, we can handle both at the same time." But the administration doesn't want to do that.

And it's one thing that some people are concerned about, is the fact that perhaps North Korea is really taking advantage of the timing of all of this, that the administration is so focused on Iraq that they are not paying enough attention to North Korea. That's what some of the critics are saying.

But you're right, I mean, there is a challenge now for the United States not only to try to keep the Middle East on board with Iraq, but also to really try to convince allies -- Japan, Russia, China and South Korea -- to be a lot more aggressive with North Korea in resolving this diplomatically. It's a very difficult situation.

MESERVE: And from the problems facing an incumbent president to the aspirations of Democrats who want the top job for themselves. Coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION, how Democrats think terrorism and how to defend against it are some of the big issues of the next election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: It's time for all of us, without regard to party, to say what everyone of us already knows: Washington is not doing enough to make America safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Senator John Edwards, Democrat of North Carolina, hitting a popular theme among presidential wannabes, that despite what the present administration has done, the U.S. remains vulnerable to terror attack.

Edwards giving a major policy speech on this this week, laying out his program, which included creation of a domestic intelligence agency and slamming the administration, saying that it has its priorities out of whack, that it's more interested in giving tax cuts to the wealthy than in providing security for all Americans.

DAVIS: But is it wise to be making a political issue out of this?

MESERVE: Well, there are definitely risks to it. You have to say that. Because there has been a sense that the United States should rally around the president in this time of need. And is there a possibility that the Democrats will sound a little bit too shrill, that they will sound as if they're being unpatriotic? Yes, there is a risk.

The key question is, I think, what's going to happen on the terrorism front, the homeland security front, between now and 2004 when the next election is held.

MALVEAUX: You know, Jeanne, the White House is really saying, "Bring it on," at this point. I mean, they're looking at poll numbers. They say that the president is very popular, he remains very popular, and that they are taking care of homeland security, that the war on terror is something that a lot of Americans -- it resonates with them. They don't really feel challenged by this.

MESERVE: No, they love it. They say exactly what you mentioned, "Bring it on." They say, "Look, we've created this Department of Homeland Security. We've taken steps to improve container security," that one of the big dangers in this country. They say, "We propose spending a lot of money."

There are Democrats who counter, however, saying, "Wait, look at the recent reports. Look at, for instance, Hart-Rudman which says we're still dangerously unprepared for a terrorist attack and that we're unprepared to respond to it."

And there are Democrats on Capital Hill, particularly Congressman Obey, head of the Appropriations Committee in the House, who will lay out chapter and verse on the funding that has been proposed either by the White House or by a bipartisan group in Congress that has been cut back by the White House.

So you're going to see a constant battle on this.

ARENA: But, Jeanne, how...

MESERVE: There are points of vulnerability, politically.

ARENA: Right, but how many of these Democrats actually have bona fide credentials on the terrorism front?

MESERVE: Some of them do. I mean, Joseph Lieberman does. The idea for a Department of Homeland Security was his idea, which was initially opposed by the White House. That was later picked up by the White House. So he does.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, now being talked about as a possible Democratic contender, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Certainly you can't say he doesn't have credentials.

And the others, like John Edwards, are doing things like giving major policy speeches, trying to establish credentials.

DAVIS: And the Democrats need an issue. They tried the economy in the last elections. It just did not resonate. MESERVE: That's right. And this issue proved to be one that the White House exploited quite successfully. Look at that Senate race in Georgia. Why did Max Cleland lose his seat in the U.S. Senate? It's because he voted against the administration on the Department of Homeland Security. Saxby Chambliss had made this a big issue, and it worked.

KARP: Jeanne, is there just one way the Democrats are going to go about making terrorism part of this big agenda, or are there going to be factions even within the party about just how to do it?

MESERVE: Sure, there are going to be disagreements among the different candidates about exactly how they're going to approach this. Edwards, for instance, is very up front about creating a domestic intelligence agency. Some of the others probably will not go down that road. But we've yet to see the full scope of what they're all going to propose.

Kelly, you're over there in Jerusalem. Chime in.

WALLACE: Yes. Jeanne, Senator Joe Lieberman, who you mentioned, happened to be in Israel this past week. Had meetings with Prime Minister Sharon, also talked with some Palestinian leaders, trying to sort of talk about the Mideast conflict.

But it's interesting, I have a questions for you, which is this. What do the Democrats think they can do differently?

They seemed to be afraid in the run-up before the November elections to challenge the president when it comes to the war on terror. And if you have a possible war against Iraq in the early part of 2003, are these Democrats still going to be afraid? Or what are they going to do differently this time around that they didn't do a few months ago?

MESERVE: Well, I think that strategy isn't fully formed, because they just don't know how events are going to unfold. They're setting the stage here. They're floating some criticism, leveling some criticism at the administration.

But as I mentioned earlier, what's going to be critical is what happens between now and the next election if there is, for instance, another terrorist attack. Which way did they look? Do they say, "This president wasn't prepared; he's had two years to get us ready, and by golly, he hasn't done it"? Or do they have to rally around the president? It will depend on a number of factors, which at the moment are completely unpredictable, including how devastating that attack could be.

KARP: Are the Democrats being mindful of the fact that there could be the perception that, as ludicrous as it sounds, that it might look like somebody's hoping for something to happen as a test?

MESERVE: Exactly, exactly. And that criticism is already being leveled by some people on the Republican side, saying, "Wait a minute, you look like you're politicizing the issue." But let's face it, the fact of the matter is this issue already has been politicized, and quite successfully. The administration did use this very effectively in the past election.

And it's my belief that this is an issue that isn't going to go away. There are questions about, does it play in the Heartland right now or is it mostly an East Coast/West Coast kind of issue? There are questions about that.

But it's my guess -- everyone predicts, including George Tenet, that there will be future attacks, that this is going to continue to be an issue. And it's going to be like education, like health care. It's going to be one of those things that's going to come back every single election cycle from hence forward.

KARP: Well, from one national sport, politics, to another, baseball, we'll talk about one star who still shines brightly 30 years after his death and another who is still tarnished. Coming up on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He stood out among all the players, you know. You could see he was a great athlete. He had the greatest arm I ever saw.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never got tired of watching him. He was like a baseball machine. He had presence that was like a cut above.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

KARP: Those are friends and former teammates of Roberto Clemente, the Hall-of-Famer right-fielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He died 30 years ago next week when he was leading a goodwill mission from his native Puerto Rico to earthquake victims in Nicaragua.

When I traveled to Puerto Rico, there were signs all over the island that showed just how much he is still missed.

And two quick anecdotes: One, I spent a lot of time with his son, Roberto Clemente, Jr. And I asked him, "When people hear your name, Roberto Clemente, Jr., how do they react?" And he said, "They start crying a lot of times." I mean, grown men hear his name and start crying.

And the other thing is, in Puerto Rico they have a beautiful art museum. This is a gorgeous art museum. It's the art museum of Puerto Rico. The newest exhibit that opened there is all about Roberto Clemente. It opened a couple weeks ago; it's going to run for five months. It has pictures, it has artifacts, it has things from his baseball career and things from his life as a humanitarian.

And it goes to show just how his memory is still so vibrant there even though he's been gone for so long. And it's incredible because, with a sports figure especially, you don't see this kind of hero worship.

ARENA: Right. Well, I was going to say, he's been dead now for 30 years. I mean, is there no other baseball star, athlete that has sort of filled that void for the fans?

KARP: Well, the thing that sticks out with Roberto Clemente is the fact that, number one, he was such a good player, but there are a lot of good players. The thing that he did that nobody else did is that he was this humanitarian, this person who always went out of his way for other people.

And it's a good question to ask, is there no one else? Well, the feeling really is that, you know, there isn't.

The other aspect to this, why is he remembered this way, is because he died so young. He was 38 years old. It was on New Year's Eve, a date that everyone remembers. And he was doing something that was meant to better society, to better the world. And I think that goes into creating this legend, really.

DAVIS: Well, Roberto Clemente, much loved. But Pete Rose, not so loved. Although he's coming back?

KARP: Yes, you know, it's interesting to note, Pete Rose obviously is up there with Roberto Clemente when it comes to being a great ballplayer. But the biggest story in the sports world for the entire year of 2003 could take place in the next three or four weeks, because they're considering bringing Pete Rose back in some way, shape or form to baseball.

The commissioner, Bud Selig, is going to have a meeting, a big meeting, January 17th expected, with the living Hall of Fame members to feel them out, to see if, "Hey, what do you think? Is it OK if Pete Rose comes back?"

ARENA: Is that really about Pete Rose or about Bud Selig though?

KARP: Well, you know, it's a good question, because we've talked on this show before about all the problems that Bud Selig has had.

He sees that people, for whatever reason, love Pete Rose. The public loves Pete Rose. This is something that he could do that would help Pete Rose and that would also help him.

MESERVE: Some have pointed out to me that there are plenty of athletes, some of them in halls of fame, who've had brushes with the law. So why not Pete Rose?

KARP: Well, it might sound sanctimonious, but the thing with Pete Rose is that the people who love the game of baseball say that he violated a trust, he violated the sanctity of the game. Because it is written in the Dowd Report, that had served to banish him really from baseball, that he bet on baseball. And it says everywhere you go you cannot bet on baseball.

MESERVE: But there's a tradition of that in baseball. KARP: Yes, but the tradition holds that you are not allowed back in if you bet on baseball.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, none of those guys in the...

(CROSSTALK)

ARENA: And what message does this send to young fans? I mean, so if you wait it out long enough, then, you know, your record is wiped clean.

KARP: Well, the fans do figure into that, because certainly that does send a bad message. But the other thing is...

ARENA: Not that the young people can actually afford...

KARP: Right.

ARENA: ... to go to baseball games. That's another issue.

KARP: The other thing is that they say that baseball is a game for the fans. And if the fans want it -- and they're showing that they are by chanting "Hall of Fame" at the World Series when Pete Rose is trotted out -- maybe it has to be done, because they're the holders of the game really, not the Hall of Famers or the managers or the players.

Kelly, do you have something to say in Jerusalem?

WALLACE: Josie, I was going to say, let's talk about the women. Why don't you tell us about this woman who really broke the records here, the first woman, I believe -- you could tell us -- to play in a college football game. New Mexico, I worked there for many years. Tell us all about it.

KARP: This was interesting. This was in a Christmas Day bowl game, the Las Vegas Bowl. There's a woman kicker who plays for New Mexico. She got in to attempt an extra point against UCLA. It was a monumental, historic occasion. And the extra point attempt was blocked.

So here you have this woman doing something courageous and doing something that nobody had ever done before, and it's been turned into a little bit of a controversy, because a lot of people are saying, even women, that she didn't belong out there, and it was just a sort of dog and pony show.

MESERVE: But how significant was her doing this? I mean, OK, she was the first, and it's certainly got a novelty aspect. But are there a lot of women out there pounding down the doors trying to play college football?

KARP: I don't think that there's a huge majority out there, that you're going to go to every city in America or in Texas on Friday night and see a lot of girls who want to do it. But there's something to be said for, hey, if you do want to do it, now there's someone to look up to and say, "She can do it."

But the bigger question and the thing that did strike me is that there was this sort of backlash. And the one -- I read one article from a very well respected woman sports columnist in Los Angeles, and she just ripped this woman and ripped the school to allowing this to happen. And her point was, "Women shouldn't be out on the football field. They're not big enough. They're not strong enough."

DAVIS: Well, that's my question. How big is this woman? You have to be pretty big to play football. But perhaps she was a kicker...

ARENA: Not to be a punter though.

KARP: Actually, she is not a tiny, little person. She's 5'9", 150, obviously in good shape.

The other thing about the story that grabbed me is the coach said in New Mexico that he called this kicker after seeing a tape but didn't know that she was a woman and didn't find out until he talked to her.

(CROSSTALK)

KARP: That's what he says. I don't know. She had a ponytail and he could see it.

(LAUGHTER)

But in this day and age, you know, football players, even in the NFL, some of them have ponytails. You know, Ricky Williams with his dredlocks that he could pull into a ponytail, Kyle Turley (ph), people like that.

ARENA: Well, Josie, from sports we go back to other issues dominating the news at the end of the year: terrorism, Al-Qaida's planners and financiers still at large, the safety of the nation's transportation system and the violence that plagues the Middle East. All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION after a break and a news alert.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: Worldwide, we have come to understand that we have prevented any number of terrorist attacks on United States facilities, some of them within the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: FBI Director Robert Mueller speaking in New York last week and claiming that much has been accomplished in the war on terror.

But still, many al Qaeda leaders are still free. The FBI has renewed warnings of threats to air safety, and new government attempts to monitor immigrants and students have fired up people who see privacy under threat.

Let's start with the threat first. You have, as I said, many al Qaeda leaders -- first among them Osama bin Laden, his second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri -- still at large, which has many terrorist analysts saying that al Qaeda could in fact plan another large-scale attack.

You had the FBI warning its state and local partners this week about the possibility of another explosive being taken on a commercial airliner, a la Richard Reid and the shoe bomb.

They said with people wearing winter bulky clothing, that, you know, keep an eye out and make sure you're on top of things.

You have air restrictions over New York City for the New Year's Day holiday. You have air restrictions over Pasadena.

DAVIS: But you have all these restrictions. Is there anything specific? We keep hearing warning, warning, warning, and they are nothing specific.

ARENA: Right, there is nothing specific, nothing specific and credible. If there were, law enforcement authorities say that they would up the threat level and they would also let the public know about it. For example, the Rose Bowl, Pasadena. You have air restrictions over Pasadena. There's nothing specific to Pasadena, but you have information that's come in from detainees suggesting that the Statue of Liberty, for example, was discussed as a target. So you have the air space around the Statue of Liberty restricted for the New Year's Day holiday.

So this is just information that has been gathered in a general nature, nothing specific but still causing some concern.

DAVIS: But we continue to have the issue, is the public really responding to this? You keep hearing the warnings. There's no specifics. Does the public care? Does the public respond?

ARENA: Well, the public doesn't know what to do with it, which is part of the problem. And that's what local governments are worried about.

MESERVE: Well, and state and local governments don't know what to do either.

ARENA: Exactly, because there's no -- right, there's no plan in place. They're told, "Well, deal with this as you see fit." Of course in New York, you know, they go to one extreme. And then you have other cities that don't take as many precautions as perhaps New York or Washington.

MESERVE: And you have some cities saying, "We don't have the money to take additional precautions because the...

ARENA: That's right.

MESERVE: ... federal government hasn't coughed it up yet.

ARENA: That's right. And all those budget cuts are just -- you know, taxes are not what they -- the tax income is not what they thought it would be.

KARP: You mentioned earlier about the privacy, about the fact that there are government agencies that are requesting schools to give up lists, names of foreign students, things like that...

ARENA: Right. The FBI has asked the universities and colleges for information, contact information -- name, Social Security, so on and so forth -- for several students.

You have the FBI going into some libraries with warrants, asking for information on what certain people have read or Internet use. You have -- they even went to scuba shops, if you remember, about a year ago, asking for client lists and who had rented scuba gear, because there was some talk of possible underwater attacks.

DAVIS: Just kind of brings into mind Big Brother.

ARENA: Right, and that is the major concern. I mean, you had an Association of Libraries meeting where they said, "Destroy your records as quickly as possible," because there was a great deal of concern that perhaps law enforcement was going too far.

But the FBI says, "Look, we've got the Patriot Act, and that allows us to gather information."

MESERVE: You even have the Gilmore Commission, which is one of the really reputable groups looking at issues of homeland security, expressing concerns about how far civil liberties are eroding...

ARENA: Right, but it's a fine line.

MESERVE: ... and saying that we really have to reexamine it.

ARENA: You know, we talk to these agents every single day, and they say...

MESERVE: Well, it's a fuzzy line. That's the problem.

ARENA: Well, it is. Say, for example, you have the immigration situation where you had several immigrant groups who were asked to register in December. If they were here -- if they were from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Sudan, they said, "Come in, let us know you're here, we want to know all your information."

Many of those people, over 400, were detained. Now it's down to 21 that are still in detention. But this was seen as entrapment. I mean, the civil rights groups were up in arms, screaming. And they said -- but on the flip side, several agents that we spoke to said, "Wait a minute, listen to this. Let's say, for example, one of these names caused some confusion, they didn't have their proper paperwork, and we just let them go and said, `Don't worry it, we'll sort it out, but you're free to go.' And let's say, God forbid, one of these individuals actually committed an act of terror against the United States. The first thing that would happen is they would come back to us and say, `You had them in custody! What did you do? How could you let them go?"

And so they say, "We really need to walk a very fine line here. I mean, if you're out of status, if you don't have the proper paperwork, if your name comes up in some database with a hit, we have got to investigate. And while we investigate, we've got to keep you close to us."

Kel, I heard you interject before?

WALLACE: Yes. Kelli, question for you, has there ever been a full accounting by the FBI, the Justice Department, of all the people who have been held in prison, on what charges, the length of time, whether they're free or if they're still in prison, since September 11th?

ARENA: No.

WALLACE: Has there been any sort of massive accounting of that?

ARENA: No.

WALLACE: And is the Justice Department or the FBI feeling any pressure to provide that information?

ARENA: Yes. No and yes. The first part is an issue of great controversy, as Jeanne knows. I mean, we've covered these stories before.

They have material witnesses that have been kept. They have people who have been detained and then deported very secretly, you know, for violations; people who have been, you know, just plain out arrested, like you have with the people in Buffalo.

So there's a variety of different categories of people who have been taken into custody for one reason or another. But the Justice Department has not revealed a list of names.

And now, of course, its argument is, "If we have someone say it as a material witness, well, those people don't want their names out, out in the press and in the public because they're afraid, once they're released, of retaliation perhaps."

But on the other side of the coin, civil liberties groups say, "Well, they're just doing it all in secret. They don't want people to know exactly how aggressive they're being."

So major, major concern here. DAVIS: Well, part of the terrorism fight of course has focused on airports and airlines. I'll talk about what's been won, what's coming up with next week's deadline, and whether major airlines can survive difficult financial times. All ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DAVIS: Travelers this holiday season battled snow, anti- terrorism security procedures, and airlines fight to stay aloft financially.

A big deadline at the end of the year, just three days away now. The TSA, Transportation Security Administration, going to screen all checked luggage. That's something that's brand new.

Most airlines will make that deadline. However, the TSA says 30 to 40 airports, in fact, won't be able to get those big bomb-detection machines in place in time. They'll be using bomb-sniffing dogs, hand searches.

And I can tell you, I was in Chicago O'Hare just yesterday. They're starting that bag screening, but they have a long way to go. It was slow. Those trace-detection machines where they swab bags, almost in place. A lot of boxes out there in the lobbies.

It is going to be potentially very ugly at the airports...

(LAUGHTER)

... come January 1st.

KARP: As someone who travels a lot, I was very conscious of the fact early on after September 11th, over the past, you know, year or so, that you had to put everything in your checked bag, because you didn't want to carry anything on because that was going to really slow you down.

Now, advise me, what am I supposed to do?

(LAUGHTER)

Are you supposed to not put things in the checked bag? Are you supposed to only have your carry-on? Or is the checked bag still the way to go?

DAVIS: Well, what the TSA says, first of all, don't put film in your checked bag, because when it goes through the big bomb-detection machines, it will strip it. So you don't want to do that.

ARENA: Oh, no.

DAVIS: Put that in your hand-carry luggage.

ARENA: Oh, geez.

DAVIS: But other things like knives, obviously you can't carry those on.

(LAUGHTER)

Your gun, don't bring that unless it's registered...

(LAUGHTER)

MESERVE: And people haven't gotten that message, remarkably enough. They're still confiscating this stuff, aren't they?

DAVIS: That's true. They have thousands and thousands over the holidays, Thanksgiving holiday, thousands of knives.

ARENA: They confiscated Jeanne's nail clippers.

DAVIS: People aren't getting it.

But I can tell you, new suggestions coming out. In fact, this is a lock. TSA says it will break your lock if you lock your bags now when you check them. Don't lock your bags. Instead, put this -- the airports and airlines will give you this and the TSA can snip it, a red lock. And they'll put a blue lock in its place, and thereby, you'll know that your bag has been opened.

They'll also put a piece of paper in there saying, "OK, your bag has been opened. If you have a question or you have a problem, you think something has been stolen, you can call this 800 number. We'll deal with this on a case-by-case basis."

MESERVE: What are they doing about the theft issue? I mean, I think we've all seen videotapes of, you know, surveillance of baggage areas where people are just rifling through bags, taking stuff. I mean, that's very flimsy. Anybody can get in.

DAVIS: Right, right. We're talking more surveillance at this point. They're saying they're going to eventually work in video cameras into the baggage areas, which is where they're going to be screening and opening a lot of you bags out of your sight in a lot these airports.

MESERVE: Is that going to do the job?

DAVIS: Well, I mean, the big question on that is, OK, my bag has been opened, but which black bag among the thousands on the videotape was mine? And how am I going to know whether it was my bag or not? How are they ever going to find it?

They're saying case-by-case basis, because once your bag leaves the TSA, then the airline ramp workers handle your bag, and perhaps...

ARENA: Oh, great.

DAVIS: ... you know, there's a possibility that they could go in it.

ARENA: That's nice. KARP: Can you talk about now what airline we should travel on? And are there going to be any airlines left?

(LAUGHTER)

What is the state of the airline industry right now?

DAVIS: Good question. Airlines in huge trouble. Not only did they have a bad Christmas season -- fewer passengers traveling now as opposed to 2000, which was a banner year for them.

ARENA: So it was fewer?

DAVIS: It is fewer.

Also, airlines expected to lose a record amount this year, $10 billion. Next year, another $5 billion to $6 billion. No recovery on the horizon.

And in fact, a couple of airline analysts told me that we could actually, physically lose an airline, there is so much capacity, and it wouldn't affect anything. We could physically give up an airline in the United States, and we could still be...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: It would affect prices. Prices are going to have to come up, anyway, though, analysts are saying, because the airlines can't survive with these rock-bottom prices that are out there.

MESERVE: But aren't they saying prices have to come down to attract more people to fly the airline?

DAVIS: They have. They've come done. And people are coming back somewhat, but airlines are just in tatters. They just cannot make ends meet.

Of course, you saw U.S. Airways declared bankruptcy in August. You saw United just earlier this month declared bankruptcy as well. U.S. Airways looks like it will emerge early next year. United, some analysts tell me that's still a question, are they going to emerge or not? And that's a huge airline.

MESERVE: Wow. Just hope they don't go under before January...

WALLACE: Patti, a quick question for you, an issue of great concern of course to Israelis, you know, after we saw the Mombasa, Kenya, attempted shootdown of an Israeli airliner, lots of questions here about what Israeli airliners are doing to protect against that.

Any sense of what U.S. airliners are doing to prevent any possible attempted shootdown by shoulder-launched missiles?

DAVIS: That's right. You're talking about those heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles. And in fact, the TSA and the FBI put out an alert to airlines, recently and also months ago, that this could be a concern.

FAA officials tell me privately there is really nothing that the airlines or the airports can do about this. Security officials say what they do need to do, though, to help head off this problem is to go ahead and increase patrols around the airports. That's labor- intensive, that costs a lot of money as well.

And so, that's where we are right now. What really can they do? Well, airports and FAA say not much.

ARENA: Thank you. That's lovely.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Well, from issues relating to U.S. travel to ever- present security concerns here in the Middle East, up next we'll talk about the sense of the immediacy of a war with Iraq and new questions about whether Iraq may have hidden some of its weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MESERVE: Well, welcome back to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

United Nations weapons inspectors have been making their way through Iraq, trying to determine if Saddam Hussein does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction.

We get an update from Rym Brahimi in Baghdad -- Rym.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jeanne, well, I'm just outside of the headquarters of the United Nations where we were briefed by the spokesman of the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams that are here.

Two important announcements, Jeanne. One is that the United Nations' weapons inspectors have received today from the Iraqi national monitoring directorate a list of the names of the personnel that was associated with Iraq's weapons programs.

He specified namely the chemical, biological and missile programs. He said the list has more then 500 names on it. This is the list of course that Dr. Hans Blix, the U.N. chief weapons inspector, had requested in a letter on December 12th to the person in charge here of the monitoring weapons on the Iraqi side.

This is obviously part of this new Resolution 1441. It's one of the rights the inspectors have under that resolution.

A second point he made, Jeanne, referring to this second interview with an Iraqi scientist that took place yesterday, the Iraqi scientist in question protested somewhat today talking to reporters. He said that he wasn't really happy at how his interview had been described by the U.N.

The U.N. had said that he had provided information about the military program and that that military program had attracted a lot of attention because it may have been a possible prelude to a potential nuclear program -- all full of potentials and possibles. But he was still very unhappy about that.

Today, a clarification from the U.N., Jeanne, saying that the IAEA team, the nuclear experts team that interviewed this scientist was aware that this scientist in question was not involved in previous nuclear programs in Iraq, and his statement was a statement about non- classified information about a military program -- Jeanne.

MESERVE: Rym Brahimi in Baghdad, thank you very much.

Kelly Wallace, let me turn right to you and ask you how this prospect of a possible war in the Middle East is affecting the climate there in Israel.

WALLACE: Well, you are seeing, Jeanne, a stepped-up rhetoric by Israeli officials about a possible war with Iraq. You even have stepped-up activity. Students in schools getting lessons in how to deal with and prepare and wear gas masks.

But with all of this, it's very interesting, talking to people over the past several weeks, you don't sense sort of panic on the street, a great deal of fear. On one hand, many people have dealt with this more a than a decade ago. Many people here, unfortunately, are used to dealing with fear and violence. And some are sort of are not sure if it will happen.

But there is a sense though, growing anticipation of what could come. And then of course, what ramifications it could have for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- Jeanne.

ARENA: And if, of course, Israeli retaliates, I mean, that is always a key question, Kelly. What are you hearing on that front?

WALLACE: Well, you're seeing, Kelli, a great deal of coordination between U.S. and Israeli officials over the past several weeks. The Bush administration absolutely wants to make sure that Israel does not get involved in any possible war with Iraq.

Israel didn't retaliate back in 1991. Many people here, both civilians and government officials, believe that was a mistake, that it made Israel look weak. And so there is a sense that if there is some major attack by Iraq against Israel, that Israel could possibly retaliate.

But the Bush administration is trying to do everything it can in every way possible to prevent that from happening.

DAVIS: And the thought there, that would just make things worse. It would draw Israel then into the war.

WALLACE: It would, exactly, make things very worse. Because already the administration, as you all know, is having a difficult time getting Arab support for any ongoing campaign against Iraq.

If Israel stepped into this in any way, that would kind of get rid of any possible coalition this administration would get together. There is a possibility that other countries, other Arab countries could get involved and fight against Israel.

And again, there is also this ongoing situation, continued violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the sense is, if other countries got involved, there would be no sense of resolving that conflict any time soon.

KARP: Kelly, what's the reaction when, such as a time this week when Israel comes out and says, "There's a chance perhaps Iraq has been hiding weapons in Syria."

Number one, have they been able to back that up, verify that in any way? And is there a public outcry at all that maybe they should?

WALLACE: Well, no, they have not been able to back that up. Prime Minister Sharon actually was asked a question about this in an interview and said he has information to believe that Syria is in fact hiding some of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Syria called that laughable. The Israelis have said that they're trying to verify those reports.

But there is this sense, increasing talk about the concern chemical, biological and nuclear concerns posed by Iraq, a sense that the Israeli government trying to prepare its public for a possible war.

And I have to tell you, some political analysts will point out, there is of course a campaign going on here. There will be elections at the end of January, and some believe talk of war could possibly help Prime Minister Sharon get reelected.

MESERVE: And, Kelly, the perspective from here is that meanwhile the Israeli-Palestinians violence is only growing worse.

WALLACE: Only growing worse, Jeanne. On Thursday, you had nine Palestinians killed in various parts of the West Bank.

And then Friday evening, you had four Jewish settlers. These were -- some were soldiers, two were soldiers. Four of them were studying at this rabbinical college at a settlement in Hebron.

The Israelis are saying they are trying to go after any and all threats of terror. They say they have some 40 warnings every day.

But you have the Palestinians who say there's a stepped-up offensive by the Israelis, that it's only fueling the violence, and it's that the Israelis don't want to have any cease-fire, and that Prime Minister Sharon in some way is trying to push security before his election.

So not a good situation whatsoever, Jeanne.

MESERVE: Kelly Wallace, thanks.

And that's our SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks to all of my colleagues here, and thank you for watching.

Coming up, a news alert and CNN's People in the News, focusing on Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.

We'll see you next week on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. But first, the president's weekly radio address.

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

2002 brought great challenges to America, and we had many successes at home and abroad. In 2002 our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and it was pulling out a recession that began before I took office.

Our government came together to pass an economic growth bill to jumpstart the economy. We extended unemployment benefits for workers who lost their jobs after the terrorist attacks. Congress passed trade promotion authority, which gave me a stronger hand to help America's farmers and businesses sell their products abroad. And we worked together to enact terrorist insurance legislation so our construction workers could get back on the job. As a result of these actions, the United States economy is growing again.

Our nation learned of scandalous abuses by some corporate leaders, and so I signed the most sweeping corporate reforms in more than half a century. We are strictly enforcing the laws against fraud and deception in corporate America because workers and investors must have confidence in America's businesses and business leaders.

America in 2002 continued our efforts to confront the danger of terrorism. We increased the security of our ports and coasts and airlines and created a new Department of Homeland Security. This department will unite dozens of federal agencies behind a single mission: protecting the American people.

I hope the Senate will act quickly in the new session to confirm Governor Tom Ridge to serve as America's first secretary of homeland security.

In 2002 the war on terror that began with the liberation of Afghanistan continued on many fronts. Working with our allies around the world, we captured top al Qaeda leaders, destroyed terror training camps and froze millions of dollars in terrorist assets.

In the new year we will prosecute the war on terror with patience and focus and determination. With the help of a broad coalition, we will make certain that terrorists and their supporters are not safe in any cave or corner of the world.

The war on terror also requires us to confront the danger of catastrophic violence posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously affirmed that Saddam Hussein is a danger to his neighbors and to the peace of the world. The burden now is on Iraq's dictator to disclose and destroy his arsenal of weapons. If he refuses, then for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime and free the Iraqi people.

Also in the new year, we will press on in the effort to turn our economic recovery into sustained economic growth. This economy is strong, and it can be stronger. I will work with Congress on a jobs and growth package to add momentum to the recovery and to put people back to work. And one of my first priorities for the new Congress will be an extension of unemployment benefits for Americans who need them.

We will also work to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable health care. We will keep our commitment to America's seniors by working to reform and modernize Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit to help seniors who are squeezed by rising drug prices. We will tackle the crisis of frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care.

We will continue to carry out the comprehensive education reforms I signed into law last January, so no child in America is left behind. My administration will work to continue to remove barriers that hinder the good work of faith-based and community groups. And we will work to reauthorize the historic welfare reform law that has improved so many lives. Our successes in the past year prepared the way for great progress in 2003. Working together, we can make America more prosperous and keep the peace of the world.

Thank you for listening, and Happy New Year.

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




Election; Bush Monitors Situation in North Korea; Preparations for Iraq War Continue>