Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bush Warns of Iraq's Danger to World; Israel Prepares for War; Blix Prepares Report on Iraqi Cooperation

Aired March 01, 2003 - 10:00   ET

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

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


SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Suzanne Malveaux. The president keeps the diplomatic and military temperature on high this week, warning the danger of Iraq cannot be wished away.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. I'm on the story of preparations here for war and reaction to President Bush's comments that a change in Iraq could make progress toward a democratic Palestinian state.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr. New observations that week that it's not just the U.S. military on the move; Iraqi soldiers are moving too.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss, on the story at the United Nations on the potential vote for war. Also, Hans Blix's latest report -- it could be his last.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen, on the story of new government warnings but not a ban on Ephedra, the herbal ingredient in many over- the-counter dietary supplements.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Patty Davis, on the story of how some airline pilots could be carrying guns in the cockpit in just a couple of months.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, and we want to hear from you. Our e-mail address is onthestory@cnn.com. And we'll listen to the president's radio address at the end of the hour. Now, a check on what's making headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We welcome every step. And I have the impression that they've stepped up their efforts lately, but don't think I should give a more general characterization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: We are ON THE STORY. That is the ever-cautious Hans Blix, talking about his latest report. It could be a pivotal report.

Thanks for joining us ON THE STORY.

This week, another major week for the United Nations. We have a face-off here. The U.S., the U.K. and Spain have their resolution, and a counterproposal from France, Germany and Russia. They want to extend weapons inspections. The U.S. -- it's essentially a vote on war.

Thrown into that whole mix, a weapons report, as I said, from Hans Blix, which could be pivotal for either side.

STARR: Liz, we've seen some evidence today that Iraq is beginning to destroy those missiles. Where does everything stand? What comes next?

NEISLOSS: Well, as far as the missile destruction goes, according to the critics of Iraq, this fits perfectly with the pattern: push it right up to the brink and then take some action.

The U.S. will have a response, certainly. I'm sure it will be, they're telling us already, "Too little too late. It's just the tip of the iceberg." Others will find some fodder in this, to say, "Let's keep this process going."

What is next is to try to bridge those differences. Whether or not it will happen, it's not clear. We have an open meeting, probably, on this Blix report on cooperation in which two sides will finally come together.

But the sides are so far apart right now, they have not even been able to decide on a date. It looks like it could be the end of next week. Following that, maybe a vote on a resolution.

WALLACE: Liz, what are you hearing in the halls of the United Nations, Liz? What are you hearing in terms of how this decision by Iraq to destroy some of these missiles, what impact that will have on the possibility the U.S. and Britain can get nine "yes" votes for that second resolution and no vetoes?

NEISLOSS: The factor of the missiles is very difficult to gauge. Those in favor of a resolution are already making it clear it's not going to matter, it's not enough. Those who support continuing inspections will probably use this to say, "Look, there is some action by Iraq. It does show that they are cooperating."

And those swing votes in the middle, it's very hard to say. We could certainly talk about vote counting. And right now, it's probably the favored diplomatic parlor game. I mean, I've even been approached by an ambassador trying to bet me on what the vote outcome will be, how many abstentions, how many vetoes. It's really very hard to say.

MALVEAUX: Liz, I talked to the White House -- one of the White House officials this morning, and essentially their reaction to all this with the missiles is they're saying, "Look, this really doesn't matter. This is war deception, war games." I mean, we even heard from Fleischer yesterday, who was saying that this is what the president expected, that he was going to go ahead and destroy these missiles, give this kind of gesture, because he did it more than a decade ago. It didn't really make a difference.

And bottom line is, is that Saddam Hussein has not completely disarmed, as the resolution calls for, so it really is meaningless. I mean, what are they -- how are they reacting there?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think that what you've described is what we are facing. Each side, whether it's with the missiles or with Hans Blix's latest report, they will find in this information what they want to find. It's why the sides are so far apart.

This week there was a meeting to discuss the resolution that was introduced this week. Diplomats going in said, don't expect much. But coming out, they said of course nothing happened, but there was increasing irritation, the two sides holding firm. One diplomat said, "Look, everybody's coming up with innovative ways of describing, defending their own position, but nobody's making any attempt to bridge the gaps."

DAVIS: But why this vote? Is it providing political cover for any country?

NEISLOSS: It certainly seems to be. There are various theories, but the U.S. seems to need it, whether you're talking about polls, whether you're talking about wanting to show support for Blair. Blair certainly needs this. It's been described in some corners as desperately wants the U.N. to back this resolution, not to let the U.S. go it alone.

But one diplomat, undecided, said, "Look, there is -- the only thing worse than unilateralism is a fragmented Security Council supporting unilateralism." So that's if the U.S. does manage to get enough votes to actually pass some kind of resolution, what will it represent if it's really not a unanimous or a strongly-backed resolution?

WALLACE: Well, Liz, the standoff at the U.N. and the looming possibility of a war definitely getting a great deal of attention here in the Middle East. We are on that story and back after two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Bush speaking Wednesday night about how a change in Iraq could ripple across the map of the entire region.

Welcome back. We are on the story of how Israelis and Palestinians were watching President Bush's comments very closely. In fact, one top Palestinian adviser said he stayed up into the middle of the night to watch those comments live.

Israelis and Palestinians, though, not seeing eye to eye on much lately, but they both agree with this: They think, until the situation in Iraq is resolved, until the crisis is resolved, until there is some possible military action in Iraq, the United States is not likely to devote 100 percent of its time and its efforts into resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

DAVIS: Kelly, with Sharon's new government, will that change U.S. plans for war with Iraq?

WALLACE: Not likely, Patty. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, definitely putting together a coalition that does have a very right- wing slant, hardline policies when it comes to the Palestinians.

But policy with Iraq to continue. There is coordination between Israel and the United States. Israeli officials very much would like to see Saddam Hussein dealt with. They also know the United States does not want to see Israel get into this conflict in any way.

So, again, the coordination to continue, the new government not likely to change things much.

STARR: Kelly, you've just returned from Gaza. Tell us about the mood there and how the people view the possibility of war with Iraq.

WALLACE: Well, it's very interesting, Barbara, we've done a number of stories about how Israelis are preparing for the possibility of a war with Iraq and the possibility of Iraqi Scud attacks against Israel. So we decided to focus on the Palestinians.

And it's interesting, there is more concern than you might expect. Most people do not expect Saddam Hussein to launch any attack against Gaza. After all, Saddam Hussein is a big supporter of the Palestinian people. He is known to give up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Still, there are concerns. Some Palestinians think with all the media attention on Iraq that the Israelis could take more stronger actions in Gaza. The Israelis say that is not the case. And again, there is concern that as the world focuses on Iraq, a lot of people are not really focusing on this conflict that is now 29 months old.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, the president in his speech, he talked about -- he made this case that Saddam Hussein, if you get rid of him, you get rid of somebody who's been supporting these terrorists, funding these terrorists, and therefore Middle East peace can flourish.

I know some average, you know, just everyday Americans were saying, "This sounds like a stretch to me. I'm not sure if I believe this. Why is the president bringing this up now?" I mean, how is that received with Palestinians and Israelis? Did they buy that argument? Did they agree that yes, get rid of Saddam Hussein, perhaps Middle East peace could flourish or there would be a better chance of it?

WALLACE: No surprise, Suzanne, it depends on whom you ask. The Israelis buy that argument, because they like to match the argument with Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat. They want him to go, and they believe it's time for new Palestinian leadership, that the Israelis say is not, in their words, compromised by terror. So they think the president's argument with Iraq could fully match with the situation with the Palestinian community.

Again, no surprise, Palestinians disagree, in part because everyday Palestinians seem to like the Iraqi leader. There's a lot of anger. Some people think this is going to be, if there's a war, some aggressive action by the United States. There's concern the U.S. isn't spending more time putting pressure on the Israelis.

So it really depends on whom you ask, just how they feel about what the president said and how it can impact people here.

NEISLOSS: Kelly, what are the latest assurances that the Israelis have given the U.S., in terms of how they will respond if they are attacked?

WALLACE: Well, to show you how close this coordination is, Liz, you have an American military liaison team currently at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and it will remain there during any possible war with Iraq to coordinate.

Again, the United States does not want to see Israel get involved, and the assurances are as follows: Israel saying it understands that, but it is also saying if there is an Iraqi attack that leads to many, many casualties or one using chemical or biological weapons, many officials here believe they will be forced, in their words, to respond.

STARR: Well, the U.S. military buildup in the land and sea surrounding Iraq topped 200,000 this week. And now, new signs that the Iraqi military is getting ready also. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There remains a possibility for peace. There remains an off-ramp. The only person standing in the way of the off-ramp is Saddam Hussein. If Saddam Hussein disarms, we can take the off-ramp.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: There is an off-ramp on the road to war, says White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

More military assets have moved along the road to war this week, and some of those military assets are in Turkey, where my colleague Jane Arraf is joining us.

Jane, tell us about where you are in Turkey, what you're seeing, military moves in your part of the world.

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Barbara, we're in Eskanderoon (ph), which is a Mediterranean port here. And what we're seeing behind is a bunch of cranes, but those cranes, until very recently, were attached to U.S. ships that had come in, U.S. Navy ships bringing military equipment.

Now, this, of course, is what it's all about. This military equipment is going to bases that the U.S. hopes to bring troops into. Whether those troops are allowed to come in depends on what happens in the next few hours in parliament.

And the parliament in Ankara -- members of parliament are now debating whether Turkey should allow those 62,000 troops to be here. There are big protests all over Turkey today, a huge one in Ankara, a smaller one here in this port city, all of them saying they don't care what the parliament decides, the Turkish people do not want the U.S. troops here.

MALVEAUX: Jane, why is this taking so long? Because I know administration officials have been really very impatient about this, they've been pushing, and there's been a lot of diplomacy behind the scenes. But what has been the hold-up here?

ARRAF: I think probably one of the big hold-ups is it hasn't always been behind-the-scenes diplomacy. It's been very public, and it's not something that's gone over well here. Colin Powell has publicly called twice the prime minister of Turkey, phone calls made public rather. And what the Turkish prime minister told him last time was, essentially, "Look, this is a democracy, like your democracy."

The government has done all they can. They've asked for parliament to approve this measure. But when it comes down to the members of parliament actually holding a vote -- which they're doing in secret now, this is so contentious -- then it's a much bigger, more divisive issue.

What it's come down to now is basically a test of this new government, a vote of confidence in the government. For that reason, they're expected to approve it, but it's been a very long and hard road.

DAVIS: But what about that $30 billion that the U.S. promised, that Turkey demanded? Doesn't that play a huge role in here? I thought that's already been signed off on.

ARRAF: You'd think it might, but when you break it down, officials here say, "Look, it sounds like a lot of money, but it's not really." What it is essentially, the bottom line that they've come down to, is $4 billion in grants, $2 billion -- an additional $2 billion that Turkey can spend on U.S. military purchases, all of this aimed at stopping the damage to the Turkish economy.

Now, what people really keep in mind here is that in 1991 the U.S. made promises, everyone did, to get the coalition together. At that point, there was a reason to go to war, a lot of people felt. Now there's not so much of a reason, and their economy has really suffered. They don't really believe that $6 billion or however much you spin it into, if you take loans instead of grants, is going to do that much.

But on top of that, they really do not want to see a war, not only because they're anti-war, but because it's right on their borders and they think it can do nothing but harm to Turkey and the region.

STARR: This is why the Pentagon is watching all of this so carefully of course, because they want that northern front, they want to put U.S. troops into Turkey to possibly move into northern Iraq.

And of course, this week, we saw the first move by the Iraqi military, moving a Republican Guard division from the north, from Mosul where it was positioned against the Kurds, repositioning it down near Tikrit, possibly it will go all the way to Baghdad. So lots of movement by the Iraqi military to counter some of these strategies that they see.

NEISLOSS: Barbara was just talking about Turks moving into northern Iraq. What are the fears, if you're able to hear from the Kurds or about the Kurds, about the protection of the population or not? It seems that the U.S. was able to perhaps seal this deal with Turkey by allowing troops to come -- Turkish troops to come into northern Iraq. What is being said about what will happen to the Kurds?

ARRAF: This is one of the really interesting things and one of the really tricky things and part of the reason why it's taken so long to come to an agreement.

Now, we've seen in the last few days tension increasing between Turkey and Iraq. Now, Turkey, which is a major trading partner of Iraq's, a partner of Iraq's, and a Muslim country, is basically now being seen as a collaborator with the U.S. It's closed its border, it's recalled its diplomats, it is almost on a war footing.

And that same tension has been increasing between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. Now, as you mentioned, Turkey plans to send in a force to northern Iraq. What the United States has tried to do is reassure the Kurds that this Turkish force would not be a threat to them.

And what Turkey's trying to do is say, "We do intend to have troops there on the border, but this would not be part of the war." They make clear that they're not going to enter the war. But they do intend to have troops, as many troops as the U.S., some officials say, along the border to make sure that no Kurdish state emerges and no refugee crisis emerges, as it did in 1991. WALLACE: Barbara, a quick question for you. How is the weather affecting the timetable? It was an incredibly warm day here in the Middle East. Is there a concern that the weather is going to get warmer now and this will be more difficult for U.S. and other coalition forces?

STARR: Well, what the Pentagon says is weather will not be a show-stopper. If this drags on into the warm-weather season in the Gulf, they will fight at night if they have to. And the U.S. military, by everyone's standards, has superior night-vision capability. So they think it won't be a problem.

But what's really clear is they don't want -- the military doesn't want this to drag on forever. They either want to go do what the president orders them to do or have some sense of what the future is going to hold for them. They'll wait until the president gives the order, but people would like to see this resolved one way or the other. I think there's no question.

DAVIS: Well, our thanks to CNN's Jane Arraf in Turkey and Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. We'll be talking to you again soon.

From defense to another kind of public safety, new warnings this week about ephedra, the diet supplement. Elizabeth Cohen is on that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOMMY THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I would not take this, not give it to my family, and I don't know why anyone would take these products. Why take the risk?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: That was Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, speaking Friday about the diet supplement ephedra.

We're on that story. Welcome back.

Some people said those were strong words from the secretary, but are his actions strong enough? What he said was that he thinks that ephedra, which is the over-the-counter herbal supplement that people take to lose weight and to boost energy, he said there ought to be a warning label on the front of the bottle that says all sorts of things can happen -- strokes, seizures, heart attacks, even death.

He did not, however, call for a ban. The people who make ephedra say they would support such a label. Doctors concerned about ephedra said the secretary missed the boat, he should have called for a ban on over-the-counter ephedra.

MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, if I could just interrupt for a moment, we have some breaking news here. We just found out that three suspected al Qaeda members have been arrested near Islamabad, Pakistan. And we understand that one of them even is on the FBI's Most Wanted list of terrorists. This from government sources, just coming across.

I do have another question, though, however, about whether or not this should be banned federally and why this hasn't happened before.

COHEN: Right, a lot of people are asking that question. They say, look, you know, the diet drug fen-phen was held accountable for only a few deaths and a few illnesses, whereas ephedra, many people say, is much more dangerous. It's been linked possibly to 88 deaths and more than 1,400 illnesses.

The reason is that, for an herb, basically the bar is a whole lot higher. The government has the burden of proving that an herb is an imminent hazard or a significant or unreasonable risk of causing illness or injury. That is a very, very high bar. It would take a lot for the government to prove that.

And that's why many experts said, you know what, they thought that the secretary should have banned it, but they understood why he didn't, because they say it is a big burden to bear.

NEISLOSS: Is there any effort under way to change, to lower that bar? Because it certainly seems clear by now that herbs are drugs, they can be used as drugs. But the general public doesn't seem to get that point. Is there any way the government plans to maybe take a look at these regulations and decide something needs to be done?

COHEN: Well, the last time that people did try to do just what you're talking about, Liz, basically the herbal manufacturers, they said no way, and they launched a very large marketing and public- relations effort so that the government would not regulate herbs the way that they regulate drugs. And they got a lot of Americans very upset. They said, "Oh my goodness, the government wants to take away my vitamin C."

That's what happens when the government starts getting in to the business of regulating herbs as if they were drugs. People basically -- they flip out, is what happens. They hold protests and all that sort of thing. So that if they were going to do it again, they would have to probably proceed with great caution.

DAVIS: What does ephedra do to your body that causes you to lose weight?

COHEN: What it does is it revs up your metabolism. And whether or not ephedra actually works is certainly open to debate.

The government commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation that said that it did actually help people lose weight in the short term. They said that it did not seem to improve athletic ability, athletic performance, which is what some of the bottles claim.

But it basically just revs your body up, makes the metabolism go faster, which would explain why it would help you lose weight, explain why it would help you get energy.

STARR: Elizabeth, this week there was another development. The FDA made a ruling on wrinkle busters?

COHEN: That's right, on a wrinkle buster called AutoColl (ph). And it was actually an FDA advisory committee said to the FDA, "We think that you ought to approve this drug called AutoColl (ph)."

And what it is is it's little beads filled with bovine collagen, which is exactly like what it sounds like. You put them under the skin, and it apparently can iron out wrinkles. You don't see the wrinkles anymore.

What's different about it from botox is that it's permanent, it's not temporary.

STARR: And is it as safe as -- is there a safety factor on this?

COHEN: There is something of a safety factor in some people, and it's really a minority of people. They get some lumps, some lumps after the injections. And sometimes the lumps can last for a while. Doctors can then do something to those lumps that can easily get rid of them, but there are some downsides.

NEISLOSS: Elizabeth, how do they test these things? Do people actually get these kinds of injections and wait and see what happens? I mean, how do they get ready to approve it?

COHEN: Absolutely, they do clinical trials with these kinds of drugs. I mean, they put them through certain kinds of safety tests first to make sure that they're OK to use. And then they actually put them in large numbers of people to see if it actually works and to see if it's safe. These people know it's an experimental drug.

MALVEAUX: Thanks, Elizabeth.

Some of us are willing to pay whatever it takes to look our best, and now a debate on how much the U.S. is willing to pay to wage a war with Iraq and rebuild the country after the fighting stops. We're ON THE STORY and we'll be back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The risk of thinking and hoping for the best for the American people far outweighs the risk of committing troops if we have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush speak Wednesday about the risks of doing nothing about Iraq, as the debate heats up between the administration and its critics over just how much war, and what comes after war, may cost. Very quietly, President Bush met with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as the head of the OMB, Mitch Daniels, this week, talking about the cost of war. Pentagon says anywhere up to $95 billion. Office of Management and Budget wants to keep it, say, at $61 billion, pretty much...

DAVIS: And that's a short war.

MALVEAUX: Well, yes, that would be a short war. Pretty much the cost of the Persian Gulf War.

Who knows how much it's going to cost now? It's very sensitive. It's a controversial issue because the administration is looking at a record-breaking federal deficit. We're looking at $300 billion. Obviously it's going to go up. They don't know exactly how much it's going to cost. And a lot of it depends on the factors, Barbara, as you know, on how this war is just going to play out.

STARR: How the war goes. And they're not, by any stretch of the imagination, going to get the other allies to pay for as much as they did last time. Remember Desert Storm, the price tag was $60 billion. Kuwait and the other allies reimbursed the United States something like $51 billion. One Pentagon official said to me jokingly, "We almost made money on that war." A joke, but still it was the point the U.S. really didn't have to pay very much for Desert Storm. This time is seems like they will.

DAVIS: What, so Britain and Spain, they're not going to contribute anything?

STARR: They're not going to have a lot of money to pay for the kinds of costs that are going to be incurred. The numbers are all over the place, but one senior Pentagon budgeter said, "Look, a short, intense war could cost half a billion dollars a day." And that's pretty good, because if it's intense and short, the bills won't rack up. If it starts running into weeks, who knows?

DAVIS: Barbara, how short are we talking? What's the estimate?

STARR: Nobody knows, but what they're hoping is days and weeks, a short number of weeks at best. They hope for a very quick victory. The big unknown in all of this is how much resistant they will encounter.

MALVEAUX: And of course, what is Saddam Hussein going to do? I mean, is he going to use chemical, biological weapons? Is he going to leave? I mean, is this going to be something where he digs in or even perhaps burns the oil fields? I mean, all of that is going to make a tremendous difference in how much the war is going to cost.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, can you shed a little light maybe on the diplomacy that's happening in the White House? Because here at the U.N., we're hearing, "Well, a lot of this is in capitals." And it's like a card game where everybody is slipping somebody else a card at the table, but this slipping of cards is happening between capitals.

So what's the sense of how the U.S. is working to get alliances?

MALVEAUX: Well, as you know, they're working very hard. You're talking about Turkey, just how much they're going to provide in aid to Turkey. I think we have some numbers, a graphic as a matter of fact, that we could actually pull up that would show some of those numbers.

We're talking about, perhaps -- well, here's one of the polls now, U.S. troops to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power: 59 percent in favor and 37 percent opposing.

But again, we're talking anywhere from billions and billions of dollars for humanitarian aid, the cost of peace. You're talking about aid to Turkey, as well as Egypt and some of the other allies. They really don't know, and that's one of the controversial issues. I mean, what we...

STARR: And Congress expressed a lot of agitation this week that neither the White House or the Pentagon would actually come up with some estimate. They said, you know, "You're just asking us to write a blank check. We want to know."

And the other controversy was, how many troops for occupation of Iraq? How long will that take, and what will that cost? A big issue. Another element that the White House is being pressed to talk about. But Ari Fleischer didn't seem to want to go down the road of providing those kinds of numbers this week.

MALVEAUX: Well, the White House isn't going to go down that road. I mean, they realize that this is going to be -- I mean, it's a very sensitive issue. And they realize, too, that they're still just working on building up allies to make sure that, yes, they're on board as well, that perhaps they'll share this.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: ... go down that road. We're talking about Congress has to appropriate the money.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. And they don't know -- they don't know how much Congress is going to approve.

Elizabeth, I think you were trying to say...

COHEN: Yes, actually a similar question. I mean, how much angst is there? Is that money actually there? Or are they feeling like, Oh, OK, well, we'll find is somehow? Are they anxious about this?

MALVEAUX: Well, here's one thing that people aren't really talking about. They're saying, "OK, well, how -- what is the role of oil in all of this?" Well, senior administration officials say oil will provide -- Iraqi oil will provide the money for reconstructing Iraq.

The cost of the war nobody knows. Now, that's going to be a very, very interesting debate that's going to come up later on, and it's already happening now. Perhaps, what would happen if you pump that oil, Iraqi oil, and use that for the cost of war?

Some people believe that that's what should happen. Others are saying it's just going to be used for the reconstruction.

STARR: And just to complicate that, the real question, of course, is, will OPEC make room in the marketplace for Iraqi oil. To make room for that and keep oil prices at a level OPEC would like them, other Arab countries, other Arab economies are going to have to ratchet back on their production. So the complications really begin to ripple throughout the world.

MALVEAUX: And I know a lot of people are asking, you know, has the president already made up his mind? And we've heard a lot of statements, but one thing that's been really consistent with the White House is their strategy, and they have been preparing the American public two steps ahead, jumping two steps ahead.

Two weeks ago, President Bush goes before sailors and declares victory, before he's even declared war. This week, we saw him talking about a post-Saddam regime, about humanitarian aid, what this is all going to look like. Clearly, this administration is looking forward, trying to prepare the American people psychologically for the very real possibility of war.

DAVIS: Well, from national defense to homeland defense and more, particularly giving pilots guns to defend the cockpit. We're ON THE STORY when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: We are training pilots to protect and defend a very limited space inside the aircraft, that being the cockpit. That is their only official jurisdiction as federal flight deck officers. That's what they will be trained to defend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: Robert Johnson of the Transportation Security Administration, on one hotly debated story that moved forward this week: guns in the cockpit.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

On Tuesday, the government approved new rules for arming and training commercial pilots, meaning a pilot with a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol could be at the controls of your jetliner within a few months. We're talking 48 hours of training -- that's five straight days -- versus 12 weeks that an air marshal gets.

And in fact, I was asking pilots out at National Airport what they think, will they carry guns. One that I ran into happened to have lost his wife on the plane that rammed into the Pentagon on September 11th, and said while he supports guns in the cockpit, he won't personally be carrying one, which surprised me. You'd think if anybody would that he would.

And it kind of raised -- he said there's air marshals on his flights mostly. It raised the question to me, like, how many pilots actually will carry these guns?

STARR: Is it not mandatory now?

DAVIS: It's not mandatory. It's a voluntary program. The airlines, though, can't choose the pilots. Any pilot who wants to do it can take the training. But first there are various things you have to go through, including psychological testing, you've got to pass that, that 48 hours of training, and other things. But there's a lot of controversy involved in this.

STARR: What -- so all pilots don't really want to participate?

DAVIS: The majority of pilots want guns, but it's true, some pilots really have problems with this, specifically that psychological testing. And what they're saying about that is that, why should we have to undergo that? That may cost us our jobs. What if they find out that we have something in our background or something in our minds that may somehow jeopardize a flight?

Well, the Transportation Security Administration says they're not going to be looking at that. They're specifically only looking at the bottom line here, can you fire the gun if you have to fire the gun? If somebody intrudes into the cockpit, you've got to be able to pull the trigger, and not everybody can do it. Can you?

The other issue that pilots have a problem with is holstering. Now, they're going to be carrying the gun in the cockpit on a holster at their hips, like they do in the Westerns. But when they get off the flight, they've got to put it in a locked box and carry it in a nondescript bag. And pilots are saying, wait a second, law enforcement officers don't have to take their guns off. It's going to be stolen, for one, and we're going to leave it somewhere. You're introducing guns -- some possibilities that this could happen with our gun.

MALVEAUX: I guess the worst-case scenario -- I hate to bring it up or even think about it, but what happens if you have a passenger, an innocent passenger, there's a misunderstanding, they're going to the bathroom, up to the cockpit there, and they're shot? I mean, what -- is there training to understand or to explain, "Here's the scenario, here's what's going to happen"?

DAVIS: That's part of it, that's true. But the bottom line here is, pilots cannot come out of the cockpit with that gun. You're not going to see a pilot rushing the passenger cabin like an air marshal would, shooting it up and shooting toward the back of the plane. They stay in that cockpit, number one.

And number two, you're not going to have an innocent passenger heading to the restroom, trying to break into the cockpit. Anybody who does try to break into the cockpit, of course the pilot will be trained to figure out, is this an intruder that I need to shoot or not? But bottom line, they want that person stopped coming into the cockpit.

COHEN: Patty, it does seem that a possible danger here is that some bad guy gets into the cockpit and takes the gun from the pilot.

DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. Transportation Security Administration was worried about that from the beginning. But pilots and members of Congress overruled that and said, "We want pilots to have guns. It's a deterrent to terrorists, along with those air marshals, and we're going to train pilots well enough that they'll be careful and hopefully won't have those guns taken away from them."

Pilots tell me, is it better that we even have a fighting chance to begin with and have a gun, and they say yes.

STARR: Are there any other new screening procedures coming down the road that we should be aware of?

DAVIS: Well, we have a computer-assisted passenger prescreening, a new system, coming out some time this year. And specifically, that's been very controversial as well, because what the government's going to do is when you make a reservation to fly, they're going to take a lot more information than they do about you now -- your address, your date of birth, possibly your Social Security.

They're going to run through databases, not only that watch list that the FBI and others have out there, but they're going to look possibly even into your financial records, your bank account. Are you a solid citizen?

They're going to assign you a red, yellow or green light. If you get a green light, you're fine to travel. If you get a red light, you cannot fly and, in some cases, you might even be arrested. Civil libertarians...

COHEN: What would my bank account tell them?

DAVIS: Well, perhaps you've got money-laundering transactions going through, or you've got some odd activity, large deposits. They want to know, do you have a pattern -- just like a credit card company would look at, do you have a pattern that's recognizable? Are you a solid citizen?

STARR: Well, thanks to all of my colleagues.

And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

Still ahead, CNN's "People in the News," focusing this week on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, as well as actor and murder suspect Robert Blake. At 12:00 noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, a special two-hour edition of "Showdown: Iraq," anchored by Christiane Amanpour from Sharm el-Sheikh and Martin Savidge from Kuwait. And at 2:00 p.m. eastern, CNN's "American Stories," with dramatic pictures of a U.S. Coast Guard drug bust.

Coming up at the top of the hour, a news alert, but first, the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

America is determined to enforce the demands of the United Nations Security Council by confronting the grave and growing danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. This dictator will not be allowed to intimidate and blackmail the civilized world, or to supply his terrible weapons to terrorist groups, who would not hesitate to use them against us. The safety of the American people depends on ending this threat.

But America's cause is always larger than America's security. We also stand for the advance of freedom and opportunity and hope. The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of brutal crimes, especially in time of war -- even against his own citizens. If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction.

In order to minimize the suffering of Iraq's people, the United States and our coalition partners stand ready to provide vital help. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating with supplies from the oil-for-food program, are stocked and open as soon a possible.

We are stockpiling relief supplies, such as blankets and water containers, for 1 million people. We are moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Programme and UNICEF, so they will be ready to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed World War II.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies; we left constitutions and parliaments. We did not leave behind permanent foes; we found new friends and allies.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. They were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They, too, are mistaken. The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. Yet the security of our nation and the hopes of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

Thank you for listening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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




War; Blix Prepares Report on Iraqi Cooperation>


Aired March 1, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Suzanne Malveaux. The president keeps the diplomatic and military temperature on high this week, warning the danger of Iraq cannot be wished away.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. I'm on the story of preparations here for war and reaction to President Bush's comments that a change in Iraq could make progress toward a democratic Palestinian state.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr. New observations that week that it's not just the U.S. military on the move; Iraqi soldiers are moving too.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN PRODUCER: I'm Liz Neisloss, on the story at the United Nations on the potential vote for war. Also, Hans Blix's latest report -- it could be his last.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen, on the story of new government warnings but not a ban on Ephedra, the herbal ingredient in many over- the-counter dietary supplements.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Patty Davis, on the story of how some airline pilots could be carrying guns in the cockpit in just a couple of months.

We'll be talking about all of these stories, and we want to hear from you. Our e-mail address is onthestory@cnn.com. And we'll listen to the president's radio address at the end of the hour. Now, a check on what's making headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: We welcome every step. And I have the impression that they've stepped up their efforts lately, but don't think I should give a more general characterization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: We are ON THE STORY. That is the ever-cautious Hans Blix, talking about his latest report. It could be a pivotal report.

Thanks for joining us ON THE STORY.

This week, another major week for the United Nations. We have a face-off here. The U.S., the U.K. and Spain have their resolution, and a counterproposal from France, Germany and Russia. They want to extend weapons inspections. The U.S. -- it's essentially a vote on war.

Thrown into that whole mix, a weapons report, as I said, from Hans Blix, which could be pivotal for either side.

STARR: Liz, we've seen some evidence today that Iraq is beginning to destroy those missiles. Where does everything stand? What comes next?

NEISLOSS: Well, as far as the missile destruction goes, according to the critics of Iraq, this fits perfectly with the pattern: push it right up to the brink and then take some action.

The U.S. will have a response, certainly. I'm sure it will be, they're telling us already, "Too little too late. It's just the tip of the iceberg." Others will find some fodder in this, to say, "Let's keep this process going."

What is next is to try to bridge those differences. Whether or not it will happen, it's not clear. We have an open meeting, probably, on this Blix report on cooperation in which two sides will finally come together.

But the sides are so far apart right now, they have not even been able to decide on a date. It looks like it could be the end of next week. Following that, maybe a vote on a resolution.

WALLACE: Liz, what are you hearing in the halls of the United Nations, Liz? What are you hearing in terms of how this decision by Iraq to destroy some of these missiles, what impact that will have on the possibility the U.S. and Britain can get nine "yes" votes for that second resolution and no vetoes?

NEISLOSS: The factor of the missiles is very difficult to gauge. Those in favor of a resolution are already making it clear it's not going to matter, it's not enough. Those who support continuing inspections will probably use this to say, "Look, there is some action by Iraq. It does show that they are cooperating."

And those swing votes in the middle, it's very hard to say. We could certainly talk about vote counting. And right now, it's probably the favored diplomatic parlor game. I mean, I've even been approached by an ambassador trying to bet me on what the vote outcome will be, how many abstentions, how many vetoes. It's really very hard to say.

MALVEAUX: Liz, I talked to the White House -- one of the White House officials this morning, and essentially their reaction to all this with the missiles is they're saying, "Look, this really doesn't matter. This is war deception, war games." I mean, we even heard from Fleischer yesterday, who was saying that this is what the president expected, that he was going to go ahead and destroy these missiles, give this kind of gesture, because he did it more than a decade ago. It didn't really make a difference.

And bottom line is, is that Saddam Hussein has not completely disarmed, as the resolution calls for, so it really is meaningless. I mean, what are they -- how are they reacting there?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think that what you've described is what we are facing. Each side, whether it's with the missiles or with Hans Blix's latest report, they will find in this information what they want to find. It's why the sides are so far apart.

This week there was a meeting to discuss the resolution that was introduced this week. Diplomats going in said, don't expect much. But coming out, they said of course nothing happened, but there was increasing irritation, the two sides holding firm. One diplomat said, "Look, everybody's coming up with innovative ways of describing, defending their own position, but nobody's making any attempt to bridge the gaps."

DAVIS: But why this vote? Is it providing political cover for any country?

NEISLOSS: It certainly seems to be. There are various theories, but the U.S. seems to need it, whether you're talking about polls, whether you're talking about wanting to show support for Blair. Blair certainly needs this. It's been described in some corners as desperately wants the U.N. to back this resolution, not to let the U.S. go it alone.

But one diplomat, undecided, said, "Look, there is -- the only thing worse than unilateralism is a fragmented Security Council supporting unilateralism." So that's if the U.S. does manage to get enough votes to actually pass some kind of resolution, what will it represent if it's really not a unanimous or a strongly-backed resolution?

WALLACE: Well, Liz, the standoff at the U.N. and the looming possibility of a war definitely getting a great deal of attention here in the Middle East. We are on that story and back after two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: President Bush speaking Wednesday night about how a change in Iraq could ripple across the map of the entire region.

Welcome back. We are on the story of how Israelis and Palestinians were watching President Bush's comments very closely. In fact, one top Palestinian adviser said he stayed up into the middle of the night to watch those comments live.

Israelis and Palestinians, though, not seeing eye to eye on much lately, but they both agree with this: They think, until the situation in Iraq is resolved, until the crisis is resolved, until there is some possible military action in Iraq, the United States is not likely to devote 100 percent of its time and its efforts into resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

DAVIS: Kelly, with Sharon's new government, will that change U.S. plans for war with Iraq?

WALLACE: Not likely, Patty. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, definitely putting together a coalition that does have a very right- wing slant, hardline policies when it comes to the Palestinians.

But policy with Iraq to continue. There is coordination between Israel and the United States. Israeli officials very much would like to see Saddam Hussein dealt with. They also know the United States does not want to see Israel get into this conflict in any way.

So, again, the coordination to continue, the new government not likely to change things much.

STARR: Kelly, you've just returned from Gaza. Tell us about the mood there and how the people view the possibility of war with Iraq.

WALLACE: Well, it's very interesting, Barbara, we've done a number of stories about how Israelis are preparing for the possibility of a war with Iraq and the possibility of Iraqi Scud attacks against Israel. So we decided to focus on the Palestinians.

And it's interesting, there is more concern than you might expect. Most people do not expect Saddam Hussein to launch any attack against Gaza. After all, Saddam Hussein is a big supporter of the Palestinian people. He is known to give up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Still, there are concerns. Some Palestinians think with all the media attention on Iraq that the Israelis could take more stronger actions in Gaza. The Israelis say that is not the case. And again, there is concern that as the world focuses on Iraq, a lot of people are not really focusing on this conflict that is now 29 months old.

MALVEAUX: Kelly, the president in his speech, he talked about -- he made this case that Saddam Hussein, if you get rid of him, you get rid of somebody who's been supporting these terrorists, funding these terrorists, and therefore Middle East peace can flourish.

I know some average, you know, just everyday Americans were saying, "This sounds like a stretch to me. I'm not sure if I believe this. Why is the president bringing this up now?" I mean, how is that received with Palestinians and Israelis? Did they buy that argument? Did they agree that yes, get rid of Saddam Hussein, perhaps Middle East peace could flourish or there would be a better chance of it?

WALLACE: No surprise, Suzanne, it depends on whom you ask. The Israelis buy that argument, because they like to match the argument with Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat. They want him to go, and they believe it's time for new Palestinian leadership, that the Israelis say is not, in their words, compromised by terror. So they think the president's argument with Iraq could fully match with the situation with the Palestinian community.

Again, no surprise, Palestinians disagree, in part because everyday Palestinians seem to like the Iraqi leader. There's a lot of anger. Some people think this is going to be, if there's a war, some aggressive action by the United States. There's concern the U.S. isn't spending more time putting pressure on the Israelis.

So it really depends on whom you ask, just how they feel about what the president said and how it can impact people here.

NEISLOSS: Kelly, what are the latest assurances that the Israelis have given the U.S., in terms of how they will respond if they are attacked?

WALLACE: Well, to show you how close this coordination is, Liz, you have an American military liaison team currently at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, and it will remain there during any possible war with Iraq to coordinate.

Again, the United States does not want to see Israel get involved, and the assurances are as follows: Israel saying it understands that, but it is also saying if there is an Iraqi attack that leads to many, many casualties or one using chemical or biological weapons, many officials here believe they will be forced, in their words, to respond.

STARR: Well, the U.S. military buildup in the land and sea surrounding Iraq topped 200,000 this week. And now, new signs that the Iraqi military is getting ready also. We're ON THE STORY and back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There remains a possibility for peace. There remains an off-ramp. The only person standing in the way of the off-ramp is Saddam Hussein. If Saddam Hussein disarms, we can take the off-ramp.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: There is an off-ramp on the road to war, says White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

More military assets have moved along the road to war this week, and some of those military assets are in Turkey, where my colleague Jane Arraf is joining us.

Jane, tell us about where you are in Turkey, what you're seeing, military moves in your part of the world.

JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Barbara, we're in Eskanderoon (ph), which is a Mediterranean port here. And what we're seeing behind is a bunch of cranes, but those cranes, until very recently, were attached to U.S. ships that had come in, U.S. Navy ships bringing military equipment.

Now, this, of course, is what it's all about. This military equipment is going to bases that the U.S. hopes to bring troops into. Whether those troops are allowed to come in depends on what happens in the next few hours in parliament.

And the parliament in Ankara -- members of parliament are now debating whether Turkey should allow those 62,000 troops to be here. There are big protests all over Turkey today, a huge one in Ankara, a smaller one here in this port city, all of them saying they don't care what the parliament decides, the Turkish people do not want the U.S. troops here.

MALVEAUX: Jane, why is this taking so long? Because I know administration officials have been really very impatient about this, they've been pushing, and there's been a lot of diplomacy behind the scenes. But what has been the hold-up here?

ARRAF: I think probably one of the big hold-ups is it hasn't always been behind-the-scenes diplomacy. It's been very public, and it's not something that's gone over well here. Colin Powell has publicly called twice the prime minister of Turkey, phone calls made public rather. And what the Turkish prime minister told him last time was, essentially, "Look, this is a democracy, like your democracy."

The government has done all they can. They've asked for parliament to approve this measure. But when it comes down to the members of parliament actually holding a vote -- which they're doing in secret now, this is so contentious -- then it's a much bigger, more divisive issue.

What it's come down to now is basically a test of this new government, a vote of confidence in the government. For that reason, they're expected to approve it, but it's been a very long and hard road.

DAVIS: But what about that $30 billion that the U.S. promised, that Turkey demanded? Doesn't that play a huge role in here? I thought that's already been signed off on.

ARRAF: You'd think it might, but when you break it down, officials here say, "Look, it sounds like a lot of money, but it's not really." What it is essentially, the bottom line that they've come down to, is $4 billion in grants, $2 billion -- an additional $2 billion that Turkey can spend on U.S. military purchases, all of this aimed at stopping the damage to the Turkish economy.

Now, what people really keep in mind here is that in 1991 the U.S. made promises, everyone did, to get the coalition together. At that point, there was a reason to go to war, a lot of people felt. Now there's not so much of a reason, and their economy has really suffered. They don't really believe that $6 billion or however much you spin it into, if you take loans instead of grants, is going to do that much.

But on top of that, they really do not want to see a war, not only because they're anti-war, but because it's right on their borders and they think it can do nothing but harm to Turkey and the region.

STARR: This is why the Pentagon is watching all of this so carefully of course, because they want that northern front, they want to put U.S. troops into Turkey to possibly move into northern Iraq.

And of course, this week, we saw the first move by the Iraqi military, moving a Republican Guard division from the north, from Mosul where it was positioned against the Kurds, repositioning it down near Tikrit, possibly it will go all the way to Baghdad. So lots of movement by the Iraqi military to counter some of these strategies that they see.

NEISLOSS: Barbara was just talking about Turks moving into northern Iraq. What are the fears, if you're able to hear from the Kurds or about the Kurds, about the protection of the population or not? It seems that the U.S. was able to perhaps seal this deal with Turkey by allowing troops to come -- Turkish troops to come into northern Iraq. What is being said about what will happen to the Kurds?

ARRAF: This is one of the really interesting things and one of the really tricky things and part of the reason why it's taken so long to come to an agreement.

Now, we've seen in the last few days tension increasing between Turkey and Iraq. Now, Turkey, which is a major trading partner of Iraq's, a partner of Iraq's, and a Muslim country, is basically now being seen as a collaborator with the U.S. It's closed its border, it's recalled its diplomats, it is almost on a war footing.

And that same tension has been increasing between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. Now, as you mentioned, Turkey plans to send in a force to northern Iraq. What the United States has tried to do is reassure the Kurds that this Turkish force would not be a threat to them.

And what Turkey's trying to do is say, "We do intend to have troops there on the border, but this would not be part of the war." They make clear that they're not going to enter the war. But they do intend to have troops, as many troops as the U.S., some officials say, along the border to make sure that no Kurdish state emerges and no refugee crisis emerges, as it did in 1991. WALLACE: Barbara, a quick question for you. How is the weather affecting the timetable? It was an incredibly warm day here in the Middle East. Is there a concern that the weather is going to get warmer now and this will be more difficult for U.S. and other coalition forces?

STARR: Well, what the Pentagon says is weather will not be a show-stopper. If this drags on into the warm-weather season in the Gulf, they will fight at night if they have to. And the U.S. military, by everyone's standards, has superior night-vision capability. So they think it won't be a problem.

But what's really clear is they don't want -- the military doesn't want this to drag on forever. They either want to go do what the president orders them to do or have some sense of what the future is going to hold for them. They'll wait until the president gives the order, but people would like to see this resolved one way or the other. I think there's no question.

DAVIS: Well, our thanks to CNN's Jane Arraf in Turkey and Kelly Wallace in Jerusalem. We'll be talking to you again soon.

From defense to another kind of public safety, new warnings this week about ephedra, the diet supplement. Elizabeth Cohen is on that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOMMY THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I would not take this, not give it to my family, and I don't know why anyone would take these products. Why take the risk?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: That was Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, speaking Friday about the diet supplement ephedra.

We're on that story. Welcome back.

Some people said those were strong words from the secretary, but are his actions strong enough? What he said was that he thinks that ephedra, which is the over-the-counter herbal supplement that people take to lose weight and to boost energy, he said there ought to be a warning label on the front of the bottle that says all sorts of things can happen -- strokes, seizures, heart attacks, even death.

He did not, however, call for a ban. The people who make ephedra say they would support such a label. Doctors concerned about ephedra said the secretary missed the boat, he should have called for a ban on over-the-counter ephedra.

MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, if I could just interrupt for a moment, we have some breaking news here. We just found out that three suspected al Qaeda members have been arrested near Islamabad, Pakistan. And we understand that one of them even is on the FBI's Most Wanted list of terrorists. This from government sources, just coming across.

I do have another question, though, however, about whether or not this should be banned federally and why this hasn't happened before.

COHEN: Right, a lot of people are asking that question. They say, look, you know, the diet drug fen-phen was held accountable for only a few deaths and a few illnesses, whereas ephedra, many people say, is much more dangerous. It's been linked possibly to 88 deaths and more than 1,400 illnesses.

The reason is that, for an herb, basically the bar is a whole lot higher. The government has the burden of proving that an herb is an imminent hazard or a significant or unreasonable risk of causing illness or injury. That is a very, very high bar. It would take a lot for the government to prove that.

And that's why many experts said, you know what, they thought that the secretary should have banned it, but they understood why he didn't, because they say it is a big burden to bear.

NEISLOSS: Is there any effort under way to change, to lower that bar? Because it certainly seems clear by now that herbs are drugs, they can be used as drugs. But the general public doesn't seem to get that point. Is there any way the government plans to maybe take a look at these regulations and decide something needs to be done?

COHEN: Well, the last time that people did try to do just what you're talking about, Liz, basically the herbal manufacturers, they said no way, and they launched a very large marketing and public- relations effort so that the government would not regulate herbs the way that they regulate drugs. And they got a lot of Americans very upset. They said, "Oh my goodness, the government wants to take away my vitamin C."

That's what happens when the government starts getting in to the business of regulating herbs as if they were drugs. People basically -- they flip out, is what happens. They hold protests and all that sort of thing. So that if they were going to do it again, they would have to probably proceed with great caution.

DAVIS: What does ephedra do to your body that causes you to lose weight?

COHEN: What it does is it revs up your metabolism. And whether or not ephedra actually works is certainly open to debate.

The government commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation that said that it did actually help people lose weight in the short term. They said that it did not seem to improve athletic ability, athletic performance, which is what some of the bottles claim.

But it basically just revs your body up, makes the metabolism go faster, which would explain why it would help you lose weight, explain why it would help you get energy.

STARR: Elizabeth, this week there was another development. The FDA made a ruling on wrinkle busters?

COHEN: That's right, on a wrinkle buster called AutoColl (ph). And it was actually an FDA advisory committee said to the FDA, "We think that you ought to approve this drug called AutoColl (ph)."

And what it is is it's little beads filled with bovine collagen, which is exactly like what it sounds like. You put them under the skin, and it apparently can iron out wrinkles. You don't see the wrinkles anymore.

What's different about it from botox is that it's permanent, it's not temporary.

STARR: And is it as safe as -- is there a safety factor on this?

COHEN: There is something of a safety factor in some people, and it's really a minority of people. They get some lumps, some lumps after the injections. And sometimes the lumps can last for a while. Doctors can then do something to those lumps that can easily get rid of them, but there are some downsides.

NEISLOSS: Elizabeth, how do they test these things? Do people actually get these kinds of injections and wait and see what happens? I mean, how do they get ready to approve it?

COHEN: Absolutely, they do clinical trials with these kinds of drugs. I mean, they put them through certain kinds of safety tests first to make sure that they're OK to use. And then they actually put them in large numbers of people to see if it actually works and to see if it's safe. These people know it's an experimental drug.

MALVEAUX: Thanks, Elizabeth.

Some of us are willing to pay whatever it takes to look our best, and now a debate on how much the U.S. is willing to pay to wage a war with Iraq and rebuild the country after the fighting stops. We're ON THE STORY and we'll be back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The risk of thinking and hoping for the best for the American people far outweighs the risk of committing troops if we have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush speak Wednesday about the risks of doing nothing about Iraq, as the debate heats up between the administration and its critics over just how much war, and what comes after war, may cost. Very quietly, President Bush met with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, as well as the head of the OMB, Mitch Daniels, this week, talking about the cost of war. Pentagon says anywhere up to $95 billion. Office of Management and Budget wants to keep it, say, at $61 billion, pretty much...

DAVIS: And that's a short war.

MALVEAUX: Well, yes, that would be a short war. Pretty much the cost of the Persian Gulf War.

Who knows how much it's going to cost now? It's very sensitive. It's a controversial issue because the administration is looking at a record-breaking federal deficit. We're looking at $300 billion. Obviously it's going to go up. They don't know exactly how much it's going to cost. And a lot of it depends on the factors, Barbara, as you know, on how this war is just going to play out.

STARR: How the war goes. And they're not, by any stretch of the imagination, going to get the other allies to pay for as much as they did last time. Remember Desert Storm, the price tag was $60 billion. Kuwait and the other allies reimbursed the United States something like $51 billion. One Pentagon official said to me jokingly, "We almost made money on that war." A joke, but still it was the point the U.S. really didn't have to pay very much for Desert Storm. This time is seems like they will.

DAVIS: What, so Britain and Spain, they're not going to contribute anything?

STARR: They're not going to have a lot of money to pay for the kinds of costs that are going to be incurred. The numbers are all over the place, but one senior Pentagon budgeter said, "Look, a short, intense war could cost half a billion dollars a day." And that's pretty good, because if it's intense and short, the bills won't rack up. If it starts running into weeks, who knows?

DAVIS: Barbara, how short are we talking? What's the estimate?

STARR: Nobody knows, but what they're hoping is days and weeks, a short number of weeks at best. They hope for a very quick victory. The big unknown in all of this is how much resistant they will encounter.

MALVEAUX: And of course, what is Saddam Hussein going to do? I mean, is he going to use chemical, biological weapons? Is he going to leave? I mean, is this going to be something where he digs in or even perhaps burns the oil fields? I mean, all of that is going to make a tremendous difference in how much the war is going to cost.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, can you shed a little light maybe on the diplomacy that's happening in the White House? Because here at the U.N., we're hearing, "Well, a lot of this is in capitals." And it's like a card game where everybody is slipping somebody else a card at the table, but this slipping of cards is happening between capitals.

So what's the sense of how the U.S. is working to get alliances?

MALVEAUX: Well, as you know, they're working very hard. You're talking about Turkey, just how much they're going to provide in aid to Turkey. I think we have some numbers, a graphic as a matter of fact, that we could actually pull up that would show some of those numbers.

We're talking about, perhaps -- well, here's one of the polls now, U.S. troops to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power: 59 percent in favor and 37 percent opposing.

But again, we're talking anywhere from billions and billions of dollars for humanitarian aid, the cost of peace. You're talking about aid to Turkey, as well as Egypt and some of the other allies. They really don't know, and that's one of the controversial issues. I mean, what we...

STARR: And Congress expressed a lot of agitation this week that neither the White House or the Pentagon would actually come up with some estimate. They said, you know, "You're just asking us to write a blank check. We want to know."

And the other controversy was, how many troops for occupation of Iraq? How long will that take, and what will that cost? A big issue. Another element that the White House is being pressed to talk about. But Ari Fleischer didn't seem to want to go down the road of providing those kinds of numbers this week.

MALVEAUX: Well, the White House isn't going to go down that road. I mean, they realize that this is going to be -- I mean, it's a very sensitive issue. And they realize, too, that they're still just working on building up allies to make sure that, yes, they're on board as well, that perhaps they'll share this.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: ... go down that road. We're talking about Congress has to appropriate the money.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely. And they don't know -- they don't know how much Congress is going to approve.

Elizabeth, I think you were trying to say...

COHEN: Yes, actually a similar question. I mean, how much angst is there? Is that money actually there? Or are they feeling like, Oh, OK, well, we'll find is somehow? Are they anxious about this?

MALVEAUX: Well, here's one thing that people aren't really talking about. They're saying, "OK, well, how -- what is the role of oil in all of this?" Well, senior administration officials say oil will provide -- Iraqi oil will provide the money for reconstructing Iraq.

The cost of the war nobody knows. Now, that's going to be a very, very interesting debate that's going to come up later on, and it's already happening now. Perhaps, what would happen if you pump that oil, Iraqi oil, and use that for the cost of war?

Some people believe that that's what should happen. Others are saying it's just going to be used for the reconstruction.

STARR: And just to complicate that, the real question, of course, is, will OPEC make room in the marketplace for Iraqi oil. To make room for that and keep oil prices at a level OPEC would like them, other Arab countries, other Arab economies are going to have to ratchet back on their production. So the complications really begin to ripple throughout the world.

MALVEAUX: And I know a lot of people are asking, you know, has the president already made up his mind? And we've heard a lot of statements, but one thing that's been really consistent with the White House is their strategy, and they have been preparing the American public two steps ahead, jumping two steps ahead.

Two weeks ago, President Bush goes before sailors and declares victory, before he's even declared war. This week, we saw him talking about a post-Saddam regime, about humanitarian aid, what this is all going to look like. Clearly, this administration is looking forward, trying to prepare the American people psychologically for the very real possibility of war.

DAVIS: Well, from national defense to homeland defense and more, particularly giving pilots guns to defend the cockpit. We're ON THE STORY when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT JOHNSON, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: We are training pilots to protect and defend a very limited space inside the aircraft, that being the cockpit. That is their only official jurisdiction as federal flight deck officers. That's what they will be trained to defend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: Robert Johnson of the Transportation Security Administration, on one hotly debated story that moved forward this week: guns in the cockpit.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

On Tuesday, the government approved new rules for arming and training commercial pilots, meaning a pilot with a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol could be at the controls of your jetliner within a few months. We're talking 48 hours of training -- that's five straight days -- versus 12 weeks that an air marshal gets.

And in fact, I was asking pilots out at National Airport what they think, will they carry guns. One that I ran into happened to have lost his wife on the plane that rammed into the Pentagon on September 11th, and said while he supports guns in the cockpit, he won't personally be carrying one, which surprised me. You'd think if anybody would that he would.

And it kind of raised -- he said there's air marshals on his flights mostly. It raised the question to me, like, how many pilots actually will carry these guns?

STARR: Is it not mandatory now?

DAVIS: It's not mandatory. It's a voluntary program. The airlines, though, can't choose the pilots. Any pilot who wants to do it can take the training. But first there are various things you have to go through, including psychological testing, you've got to pass that, that 48 hours of training, and other things. But there's a lot of controversy involved in this.

STARR: What -- so all pilots don't really want to participate?

DAVIS: The majority of pilots want guns, but it's true, some pilots really have problems with this, specifically that psychological testing. And what they're saying about that is that, why should we have to undergo that? That may cost us our jobs. What if they find out that we have something in our background or something in our minds that may somehow jeopardize a flight?

Well, the Transportation Security Administration says they're not going to be looking at that. They're specifically only looking at the bottom line here, can you fire the gun if you have to fire the gun? If somebody intrudes into the cockpit, you've got to be able to pull the trigger, and not everybody can do it. Can you?

The other issue that pilots have a problem with is holstering. Now, they're going to be carrying the gun in the cockpit on a holster at their hips, like they do in the Westerns. But when they get off the flight, they've got to put it in a locked box and carry it in a nondescript bag. And pilots are saying, wait a second, law enforcement officers don't have to take their guns off. It's going to be stolen, for one, and we're going to leave it somewhere. You're introducing guns -- some possibilities that this could happen with our gun.

MALVEAUX: I guess the worst-case scenario -- I hate to bring it up or even think about it, but what happens if you have a passenger, an innocent passenger, there's a misunderstanding, they're going to the bathroom, up to the cockpit there, and they're shot? I mean, what -- is there training to understand or to explain, "Here's the scenario, here's what's going to happen"?

DAVIS: That's part of it, that's true. But the bottom line here is, pilots cannot come out of the cockpit with that gun. You're not going to see a pilot rushing the passenger cabin like an air marshal would, shooting it up and shooting toward the back of the plane. They stay in that cockpit, number one.

And number two, you're not going to have an innocent passenger heading to the restroom, trying to break into the cockpit. Anybody who does try to break into the cockpit, of course the pilot will be trained to figure out, is this an intruder that I need to shoot or not? But bottom line, they want that person stopped coming into the cockpit.

COHEN: Patty, it does seem that a possible danger here is that some bad guy gets into the cockpit and takes the gun from the pilot.

DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. Transportation Security Administration was worried about that from the beginning. But pilots and members of Congress overruled that and said, "We want pilots to have guns. It's a deterrent to terrorists, along with those air marshals, and we're going to train pilots well enough that they'll be careful and hopefully won't have those guns taken away from them."

Pilots tell me, is it better that we even have a fighting chance to begin with and have a gun, and they say yes.

STARR: Are there any other new screening procedures coming down the road that we should be aware of?

DAVIS: Well, we have a computer-assisted passenger prescreening, a new system, coming out some time this year. And specifically, that's been very controversial as well, because what the government's going to do is when you make a reservation to fly, they're going to take a lot more information than they do about you now -- your address, your date of birth, possibly your Social Security.

They're going to run through databases, not only that watch list that the FBI and others have out there, but they're going to look possibly even into your financial records, your bank account. Are you a solid citizen?

They're going to assign you a red, yellow or green light. If you get a green light, you're fine to travel. If you get a red light, you cannot fly and, in some cases, you might even be arrested. Civil libertarians...

COHEN: What would my bank account tell them?

DAVIS: Well, perhaps you've got money-laundering transactions going through, or you've got some odd activity, large deposits. They want to know, do you have a pattern -- just like a credit card company would look at, do you have a pattern that's recognizable? Are you a solid citizen?

STARR: Well, thanks to all of my colleagues.

And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

Still ahead, CNN's "People in the News," focusing this week on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, as well as actor and murder suspect Robert Blake. At 12:00 noon eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, a special two-hour edition of "Showdown: Iraq," anchored by Christiane Amanpour from Sharm el-Sheikh and Martin Savidge from Kuwait. And at 2:00 p.m. eastern, CNN's "American Stories," with dramatic pictures of a U.S. Coast Guard drug bust.

Coming up at the top of the hour, a news alert, but first, the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

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

America is determined to enforce the demands of the United Nations Security Council by confronting the grave and growing danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. This dictator will not be allowed to intimidate and blackmail the civilized world, or to supply his terrible weapons to terrorist groups, who would not hesitate to use them against us. The safety of the American people depends on ending this threat.

But America's cause is always larger than America's security. We also stand for the advance of freedom and opportunity and hope. The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of brutal crimes, especially in time of war -- even against his own citizens. If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction.

In order to minimize the suffering of Iraq's people, the United States and our coalition partners stand ready to provide vital help. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating with supplies from the oil-for-food program, are stocked and open as soon a possible.

We are stockpiling relief supplies, such as blankets and water containers, for 1 million people. We are moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Programme and UNICEF, so they will be ready to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed World War II.

After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies; we left constitutions and parliaments. We did not leave behind permanent foes; we found new friends and allies.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. They were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They, too, are mistaken. The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. Yet the security of our nation and the hopes of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

Thank you for listening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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




War; Blix Prepares Report on Iraqi Cooperation>