Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bush to Attend Emergency Summit; Smart Family Celebrates Elizabeth's Return; U.S. Military Prepares for War

Aired March 15, 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.


DANA BASH, 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 Dana Bash. The president is bound for a summit in what seems to be a final countdown to war.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Jeanne Meserve, on the story in Salt Lake City, Utah, where there is celebration over the return of Elizabeth Smart and questions about how police handled the investigation.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad. I'm on the story of massive demonstrations throughout Iraq and claims here that the dispute at the United Nations is in fact a defeat for the United States.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr, on the story of the U.S. military preparing to fight and considering preemptive strikes to push Iraqi forces back from the Kuwaiti border.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Washington, D.C. I'll be back later on in the hour, on the story of voices raised in protest here and around the country.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations, on the story of the backstage struggles of diplomacy as the curtain may be falling on diplomacy.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Patty Davis, on the story of how possible war has already rattled U.S. airlines and what's at stake for us as passengers.

We'll be on all of these stories. Rym, Maria and Jeanne will return later in the hour.

And we want to hear from you. E-mail us, onthestory@cnn.com.

Listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour, but first a check on what's making headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are indeed in the final stages of diplomacy. And in these final stages, the president is going the extra mile.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer talking earlier this week before we knew that "extra miles" involved heading to the Azores for what's billed as an emergency summit.

We're ON THE STORY.

And, you know, covering the story from the White House, with the zigs and zags, twists and turns this week, it was almost enough to give me whiplash. Because at the beginning of the week, it was firm, they were going to have a vote no matter what. It was going to be at the end of the week. By yesterday, well, clearly there wasn't a vote this past week at the U.N., and you know what? Maybe they aren't going to have a vote at all. So many different...

STARR: Dana, it seems like it's foreign policy on the fly...

BASH: Well, you know...

STARR: ... from an administration that doesn't do that sort of thing.

BASH: It's really -- you don't see this kind of thing very much, you're right, with this administration. They're very, very, kind of, collected and controlled, and they have their act together.

And in this particular sense, there are so many outside factors. What we're seeing here is diplomacy, which goes on all the time, every day, but it's so out in the open that it's hard to kind of keep their message on point and together.

You know, even mid-week, this week, we heard from administration sources that they were really close, they thought they had -- that they were just one vote away from having the majority at the U.N. Security Council. By the end of the week, that maybe they weren't even...

DAVIS: Well, what happened to the six votes that they thought they might have?

BASH: Well, what we're told, from the administration's point of view and also from the British point of view, is the French, they believe, kind of messed it up for them, because they thought that they were very close and that the fact that they had this new idea from the British to have six benchmarks for Iraqi disarmament.

Well, the fact that the French said, "That's not going to work," even before the Iraqis did, the White House felt that that really doomed the prospects for getting the votes.

But, Rym, I wanted to hear from you, what you're hearing in Iraq about all of the kind of zigs and zags that's going on in the final push to get something through at the U.N.

BRAHIMI: Well, there's not much official reaction, you know, from here, but there is a lot of reaction in the state-run media, even in the sermons at government-run mosques.

And just now, actually, we received a story, a commentary from the state-run Iraqi news agency, first of all calling that summit a war summit and saying it was being held by the evil three, the evil three being President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar of Spain.

BRAHIMI: Also of course, lashing out at the United States administration, saying it's using the suffering of the Palestinian people in order to get to sort of curry the opinion of the Arab countries.

But that's also something that's been seen that's been -- it's a line that's been given also in the newspapers here. And even as I was saying on Friday, for instance, that the government-run mosque, the sermon, the imam there said that all these disputes at the United Nations Security Council were a clear sign of victory for Iraq and defeat for the United States, even calling on Americans and Brits to rise up against their own governments.

So here it's got a lot of play, and it's also -- what's got a lot of play, of course, is the French, the Chinese and the Russian attitude, playing up the opposition of those countries to what the U.S. and Britain have been proposing.

BASH: You know, Rym, it's interesting that you point out the fact that there are these three countries that are meeting together. They all agree. When you think of a summit, you think of two opposing sides getting together to hash out their differences. Well, in this case, you have three allies getting together to, really, what it is, is they're conferring face to face to figure out what are they going to do next, what is their plan.

They're aren't -- you don't see any of the six swing votes at the Security Council being invited to this so-called summit in the Azores. It's really just the allies trying to...

DAVIS: But have they given up on a U.N. resolution? Is that a moot point now?

BASH: It's not a moot point now in the sense that they're trying to decide whether or not it's worth it to at least put the resolution before the United Nations and have the resolution, as the president said last week, make the member nations show their cards. Because they believe, in the end...

NEISLOSS: Dana...

BASH: Yes, Liz, I'd like to see what Liz has to say about that.

NEISLOSS: It's far from clear here that they're really -- there are many reasons why they might not even bother to do that, which we don't have to go into right now. But I have to say the Spanish ambassador said basically, last night, "Look, Saddam is watching all of this and laughing from one palace to the next." He's, you know, certainly happy to see the differences.

STARR: And, Rym, that brings us back to Baghdad.

BRAHIMI: Yes, that's...

STARR: That brings us back to Baghdad. Rym, what is the real...

BRAHIMI: Sorry. Exactly, what Liz was saying just now, exactly. There is a lot of that. That comes through, again, in the state-run media, this impression that we're loving it, "The U.S. and Britain, they can't get their act together. Nobody is supporting them at the United Nations Security Council. They thought they'd get the six; well, they ain't getting them." This is pretty much the tone of a lot of the newspapers here.

But, of course, diplomatic circles see, of course, here the gravity of the situation, as do Iraqi officials who are looking at this from an also, maybe from an international-law point of view. And they're saying, this is really going -- violating international law. The foreign ministry here pointing at everything they see as a violation of international law, writing letters to Kofi Annan saying what's happening on the border with Kuwait is a violation of the Charter. What the U.S. is trying to do is a violation of the Charter.

And the -- I mean, the serious, there is also a serious aspect to it, in that many officials here, and indeed that is what we hear from diplomatic circles, are convinced that basically this summit was bad news from the start. From the moment that they decided to hold that summit and that it was going to take place, then they're not expecting peace to last, and they're expecting an attack quite soon after that.

STARR: But, Rym, what do you see, besides the politicians and the process, on the streets of Baghdad, the mood of the people? Do you see the military now on the street? Are people afraid?

BRAHIMI: Well, you do see a little bit of movement here and there. Of course, again, the Iraqis are pretty good at -- they don't really do that very much in the open, but you do see a little bit of movement. You do see a lot of sandbags now in the streets and government buildings -- around government buildings, sandbags, the digging of trenches. That's been the case for the past two weeks.

People here are very worried. Now, there were massive demonstrations today throughout the whole country. In Baghdad, I mean, I just saw thousands of people just in one street, one neighborhood. And there were high school girls, there were members of the ruling Ba'ath party.

I went and spoke to the high school girls, and many of them were very cheerful. It was a day off of school of course, and they were saying, "No, we're just here to say no to war and yes to peace." But then the ruling Ba'ath party members, walking, marching by with their weapons. And of course for them, it's also an opportunity to make this big public show of support for President Saddam Hussein, saying, "We will fight if we are attacked, and we will defeat the enemy."

But then of course, that's really the show. This is what goes on Iraqi TV. And then when you talk to people in their homes, their daily preoccupations are really, do I have enough to eat if something happens? How am I going to protect my kids? How can I make sure that they're not going to be a school if something happens and that we can all sort of stay in one safe place?

NEISLOSS: Well, there is clearly a lot of fear, a lot of fear in Iraq, a lot of fear among diplomats watching Iraq, journalists certainly in Iraq as well. So we will be thinking about you, Rym.

And from Baghdad where Rym is, to Washington, to capitals around the world, it's a diplomatic ping pong over Iraq, most publicly played out at a place where nations have just not been able to unite.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are working hard to see if we can take this to a vote that would be a vote to help unify the council. But we haven't excluded any of the other obvious options that are out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell this week, revealing a major shift for the U.S., that perhaps no vote at all, after very, very, firmly pushing here at the U.N., saying, "Friday, it's going to be Friday," President Bush says, "We're going to make them show their cards, lay them on the table," and suddenly, maybe not.

The diplomacy here was really -- there was a lot of floundering. The British tried, the Chileans tried. All these proposals being thrown out. And then suddenly, by the end of the week, the Angolan ambassador said, "I think we're finished." Their positions are really hardened.

BASH: Liz, the president was on the phone all week long, really. We didn't see him all week long. He must have made more than 20 phone calls. Tony Blair, I'm told, made 30. What he normally makes in three months he made in six days.

But did it just fall on deaf ears? What was the reaction to those phone calls up at the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, you don't literally hear the reaction to what's going on in the phone calls, but basically what filtered here was that positions are very hard.

There has been a lot of grandstanding through this process. France very dramatic, the U.S. very dramatic. Some diplomats are theorizing, look, these positions were way too firmly staked out. It was very public dimplomacy, and it's very hard for people to climb back from their positions.

And then you have the middle six countries, those supposedly undecided, who are being asked to choose war or no war. So it...

BRAHIMI: I would've liked to ask Dana here, you know, you can hear, first of all, the call to prayer behind me. It's coming down to the evening, so it's getting to a more quiet time now.

There is a sense now, as tension really gets higher and higher every day, there is maybe a wishful thinking when you read the editorials in the newspapers that this has cost President Bush a lot of credibility. One commentary in the press was saying that nobody will ever reelect Bush. His first election was already controversial enough.

I mean, has Bush suffered to the extent that Prime Minister Blair has at home, in any way?

BASH: Not really, actually. When you look at the public opinion polls, actually they came out this week, it's interesting, the American people, if you believe the polls, are supporting the president even more now and are more kind of negative toward the United Nations.

So Tony Blair seems to be in more trouble than the president is. But the president -- which is kind of why the president and his aides are making it really clear to us that no matter what happens at the U.N., he's ready to go. And he's kind of having this summit tomorrow and dealing the last final days with potentially going to the U.N. to help his allies.

NEISLOSS: Dana, the Bush-Blair relationship, I have to say on that, is really -- that's definitely been a subject of discussion by diplomats at the U.N. They really talk about how much effort Bush has been personally making to really go to bat to make the last effort, the final mile, all for Tony Blair, when they might have been able to put an end to this perhaps much sooner. They are pushing to the final limit.

And some are theorizing here that, look, even this summit, even waiting till early next week, is all to help Blair show that he's really going the last mile. Maybe that will help him at home.

STARR: Liz, at the end of the day, is there permanent damage to the U.N. from all of this?

NEISLOSS: You know, Kofi Annan very publicly said earlier in the week, if the U.S. strikes alone, it will violate the U.N. Charter. There are arguments for and against that thought.

But basically, as the Spanish ambassador said literally late last night in this very office, he said, the U.N. has nine lives. It will go on. It will have many roles. When the bombs stop falling, they're going to have to come together and talk. They're going to have to figure out humanitarian efforts, relief efforts. These are all areas where the U.N. has an expertise. And diplomats will also say, "Look, there are so many other things. We have terrorism, Afghanistan, AIDS. It's not just Iraq."

STARR: Well, we want to thank Rym Brahimi, first, for joining us from Baghdad.

We're going to be talking more about war and peace later in the hour. Military preparations and psychological warfare, war protests and cloudy skies ahead for the airlines.

Up next, we'll check on the other big story of the week, the return home of teenager Elizabeth Smart, abducted from her home in Utah more than nine months ago. Jeanne Meserve will be on the story in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED SMART, FATHER OF ELIZABETH SMART: It's real.

(LAUGHTER)

It's real.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: A very happy Ed Smart, speaking the say after his daughter Elizabeth was recovered. We're ON THE STORY in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thanks for joining us.

Salt Lake County sheriffs yesterday said yesterday that they expect to bring charges against Brian David Mitchell, not in the connection with the abduction of Elizabeth Smart, but for the attempted kidnapping of her cousin last summer. The sheriff says he has strong evidence in the case developed since the recovery of Elizabeth. Charges could be brought as early as next week.

In addition, we've now had a chance to look at some of the religious writings of Mitchell. In those writings, multiple references to polygamy, including one sentence which refers to bringing seven sisters to heart and home.

Wanda Barzee, who is also in jail in connection with the disappearance of Elizabeth, had a visit in friend in jail. That friend emerged saying that Wanda told her that was a reference to polygamy, and that Elizabeth was one of the wives.

Back to you.

DAVIS: Well, the family had -- the family had been imploring the police, "Please look at this guy," and they didn't for a long time. What happened? MESERVE: Well, that's the big question. Mary Katherine, the younger sister, was the only eye witness to this crime. She came forward to her family some time last fall and said, "It's Emmanuel," this man who worked briefly on the Smart's home. The Smarts took it police, and police did not do much with it. The police say there were a couple of reasons they didn't. One, they had trouble for a while figuring out exactly who Emmanuel was. It took a while to match him up with the name Brian David Mitchell.

In addition, they say this was a man who didn't have the sort of criminal record that made them interested in him. They didn't go forward with a sketch because they say the family produced three sketches of this individual that were different in nature. They were afraid of putting out the wrong one and developing a lot of false leads.

One really interesting thing to us about this is that sketch, which shows a man without a beard. Also, if you go back to the initial description that Mary Katherine gave right after the abduction, there is no reference to facial hair. And yet in absolutely every picture we have seen of this man both before the abduction and since, he has what is very obviously a beard that he's had for some time.

NEISLOSS: Is there anything, Jeanne, to be drawn from the fact that this very sort of bizarre group of people were wandering around right basically under the noses of the police, within -- I guess Elizabeth reportedly could hear them within shouting distance of people looking for her?

MESERVE: It's really quite amazing. She heard he uncle shouting for her. She was held just a couple of miles away from her home for a couple of months. And then they emerged. They came back down into the city.

I've talked to a number of people who spotted them while they were here. They have said that part of Mitchell's belief was that the women shouldn't talk. And so the women were never heard to say anything. They walked silently behind him.

They've also said that Elizabeth appeared to be very comfortable with her companions, that she had opportunities when she might have been able to speak, when she might have been able to escape, that she did not take those.

Unclear exactly why all of that happened. Police have said there is some sort of psychological impact here. Her father said she's been brainwashed.

But people did not recognize her, in part because she had a veil across most of her face, but also because she was so much older and taller than what they expected. Most of the pictures we saw were of a relatively young girl. She's now a young woman. People just never made the connection.

BASH: Hey, Jeanne, I'm wondering what the kind of relationship between the Smart family and the media is now, because the media obviously played such a huge part in helping find her with the Amber Alert. And I'm wondering now that she's found, what the relationship is. MESERVE: They are ecstatic about the media. I was here in June, came back. I had family members coming up and throwing their arm around me and saying, "Wow, isn't this great? And thank you guys for your help."

BASH: That doesn't happen very often.

MESERVE: No, it doesn't.

(LAUGHTER)

And John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted, who played a part in this recovery, was a special guest last night at a homecoming reunion.

My question is, is this going to last? Because there's a lot of sensitive stuff that's got to be dealt with here about her time in captivity, stuff that's going to dwell around that subject of possible polygamy. And I wonder in a couple of months' time exactly how the Smarts are going to feel about the media handles that.

DAVIS: But is there any hand wringing in police circles there in Salt Lake, in terms of spending too much time on Richard Ricci, the guy who died in jail of a brain hemorrhage on unrelated charges. Is he even suspected as being a part of this now?

MESERVE: No, they have now exonerated him. They say he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

He was a prime suspect in this case for a very long time. In fact, you heard me refer earlier to this second possible attempted kidnapping that they believe Mitchell is associated with. At the time that occurred last summer, I spoke to law enforcement sources, they were very puzzled because Ricci was in prison, and several things about the crime seemed reminiscent of what had happened at the Smart home.

MESERVE: I even had one source say to me -- they speculated that perhaps this might be a confederate of Ricci's who was trying to put police off the trail by doing something when he was in prison. Police say now, in hindsight, they wished they'd handled things differently. Obviously, a lot of other people wish that too.

STARR: Well, Jeanne, we want to say thanks to you. We know you have to get back to covering the Elizabeth Smart story. Thanks for joining us.

Coming up, we're on the story of how the United States military is preparing for the worst, as well as trying to fake out the Iraqis. Also, we'll have the latest on protests, both for and against the war. And Patty Davis will talk about how U.S. airlines are already crying poor.

All ahead, ON THE STORY, plus a news alert. And visit cnn.com if you'd like to sign up for our weekly e-mail to learn more about the topics we'll cover every Saturday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No battle plan is ever executed with 100 percent perfection. There is something that is called the fog of war. It's as old as warfare itself, and still in this age of digital clarity, that fog still exists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Former Defense Secretary William Cohen, warning everyone that plans go out the window when the bullets start to fly.

We're ON THE STORY and joined by our colleague, Maria Hinojosa, who is covering today's anti-war demonstration here in Washington.

Protests aside, the U.S. military is ready to fight and is working to win this pre-war phase of the standoff. And that's really the question this week. Are we in the pre-war, or are we going to look back and find out this week that actually, in a strange way, that the already has begun?

The final moves are being put into place. Ships are now in the Red Sea, ready to fire their Tomahawk missiles. Troops are in their forward locations. The Iraqis are being watched literally around the clock by U.S. intelligence. As soon as somebody makes the first move, it's begun.

NEISLOSS: Barbara, we hear a lot about maybe a final ultimatum from Bush. He may get on television, make a speech. What kind of danger does that present for the military, this really public warning?

STARR: Well, that's why a lot of people are beginning to say, look, for all intents and purposes, the war has begun, because once the ultimatum is issued, what happens, the Pentagon worries, if Saddam Hussein then makes a move with his Scud missiles, with his chem-bio, if he lights the oil fields on fire?

The U.S., once the ultimatum comes, the U.S. military will consider, even if they don't have the official order, that they must be absolutely ready to go on a moment's notice.

The sorties, the flights over the southern no-fly zones, for example, there are 1,000 planes in the air over southern Iraq and virtually around the clock, keeping a very close eye. If Saddam begins to make a move, those planes will be ready to move in. This is what warfare is all about.

The real question is, how does the U.S. get, you know -- fire the start gun on this enterprise in a controlled fashion so that they control the opening hours of the war and not Saddam? That's what they don't want to have happen. HINOJOSA: Hey, Barbara, I'm wondering about your role as a journalist. And I know this is somewhat difficult -- difficult for you to answer. But, you know, when you're there and you're essentially having to report what the Pentagon is giving the information to you, I mean, is that difficult when you see that you're playing this information role for the Pentagon?

And also, what's up with that story about Saddam Hussein buying those uniforms that ultimately you ended up having to report about?

STARR: Well, you know, there's no question journalists in this are going to function as the conduit for what the administration wants to say. But like all of us, we all place it into context. You try and do the reporting and find out both sides, and you try and make sure that you're not being unduly used, that if the administration is telling you something, that you actually portray it into, you know, a reasonable point of view.

The uniform story that Maria referred to is actually a very good point. They told us Saddam is trying to buy uniforms. They offered no actual real evidence of that, other than to say a move had been made on the Internet. We had to report it that way.

BASH: Barbara, the mother of all bombs, MOAB, tell us about that. What a picture coming from the Pentagon this week and what an event that they had, huh?

STARR: The least routine weapons test in years. This will be the largest weapon in the conventional U.S. inventory, 20,000-pound bomb. In November, we first reported this when it was just some sketches on paper. They've put together test articles, tested it this week. You see there a 10,000-foot cloud created over Florida, over the test range.

That was the message they were sending to Saddam. They wanted to make sure President Saddam Hussein saw that picture and that it would be part of the psychological warfare campaign to demoralize the Iraqi military, to try to convince them they had no hope of winning against the U.S., they might as well give up.

DAVIS: But bottom line here, we have to get -- the U.S. has to get Saddam this time. That's the goal. How does the military plan to do that? They didn't do it last time.

STARR: It's the big unanswered question. What happens if Saddam Hussein agrees to go into exile at the 11th hour and some other Iraqi is put into power, and maybe the U.S. -- you know, this is the Pentagon nightmare -- and the administration feels that person may not be exactly the right person?

That would be the big nightmare. What if Saddam goes into exile, puts a puppet in and plays the strings from a third country? Then what does the United States do? The scenarios here are endless, and nobody has really figured out the answers yet.

NEISLOSS: Barbara, have you heard anything about whether or not the theories on whether or not Saddam would actually unleash chemical or biological weapons?

STARR: It's a worry. The real issue -- it sounds so cliched, no one really knows. But they are watching literally around the clock to see any sign of that. Very, very concerned.

HINOJOSA: Well, from military preparations overseas to domestic protests here at home, who's raising their voices and who's listening? I'm on the story when we're back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do they really believe that now is the time for our children, our loved ones to come back in these body bags? Is now the time for this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HINOJOSA: And that is Nancy Lessian (ph), just a few minutes before she was going to be arrested for civil disobedience on Capitol Hill, and one of the many groups that are here in Washington to protest a possible war with Iraq.

I'm Maria Hinojosa, and back now on the story of the protests.

And you know, a lot of the organizers are saying that what's happening, now Saturday after Saturday after Saturday with all of these protests and throughout the week, is really historic. Because this is really the largest mobilization that has occurred ever for a war even before it has begun. And you've never quite seen anything like this in terms of national demonstrations occurring, as well as international demonstrations.

And I have to tell you about one woman who I just meant. She was here at 8 o'clock in the morning when I got here. And she was like, "I'm Doris. I'm from Albany, New York. I've never done this before. I couldn't protest during Vietnam because I was raising my kids. And I didn't protest during the other Gulf War because my son was in the Navy. But no one is stopping me from coming out and protesting now."

So a lot of those people who just find their way here because they feel that this is our time to speak out.

STARR: Maria, you're seeing some protests, some organizers that are different than the types of people seen in the past.

HINOJOSA: You know, it's also -- that's something else that makes this pretty unique. I've spent a lot of the last week talking to the different groups that make up this very, very broad-based anti- war movement.

And what's interesting, Barbara, is the fact that you really have got from the very far right, conservative libertarians, ultra- conservative Republicans, to the very far left. This is one of the groups, ANSWER, that's supporting this demonstration here, is one of the more to the -- radical groups.

But to a T, all of the organizers that I've spoken to have said, "You know what, we understand we have very different ideological bases." But the situation here is so direct and so focused on the war against Iraq, that they have really, surprisingly, been able to put apart their differences and stay focused, which is not usually what happens in these movements. But for now at least, they've been able to do that.

STARR: But there's another factor here at work, isn't there? The Internet as an organizing tool?

HINOJOSA: Oh, incredible. I was -- earlier this week I was this young guy. His name is Eli Brisier (ph). And he's 22 years old. He's one of the main organizers for a group called moveon.org. And he sits in this tiny little room that's maybe like, I don't know, six feet by six feet, at his computer. And from there, he has helped to organize thousands upon thousands of people to take part in these demonstrations as well as like the virtual march on Washington.

And what they've done -- it's really incredible. It's like learn how to be an activist through the Internet. You go and you click on it. It will say, like for example, they're organizing a big candlelight vigil that started with just a couple of cities. It's now over -- the last town I had was 2,600 cities around the world.

And you'll click on there and it will say, "Do you want to organize a candlelight vigil? Where do you want to do it? Here's what you need to do. Here are the other people in your area that want to do the same thing."

So it's phenomenal. I mean, the numbers just grow and grow and its ways for people who are way out there that maybe feel very isolated, how they can get in contact with other people who think the same way, who they're only meeting through the Internet and through this organization. It's really...

NEISLOSS: Maria, you're obviously at an anti-war protest, but also around the country, there are other rallies going on that are pro-America rallies. What do you know about those? And are those getting the kinds of numbers that you're seeing where you are?

HINOJOSA: Well, not really. And really, these demonstrations call themselves pro-America, patriotic and very much, as well, in support of the troops. Those demonstrations, you have been seeing a lot of them outside of military bases. They're very concerned about what these anti-war demonstrations might send a message to the troops.

But you haven't seen the numbers out there, which actually raises an interesting point. What happens if you have these smaller demonstrations that are supposedly pro-troops or pro-war that continually are smaller than these anti-war demonstrations? I'm wondering if that in and of itself isn't more demoralizing that just having these anti-war demonstrations.

DAVIS: Well, you know, from where you are.. NEISLOSS: Maria, do you have a sense of how much fellow media presence there is? In other words, how much coverage, attention they're really getting, you know? Right behind me, across the street from the U.N., there is a park. There's some demonstrators daily. And yards away, there are dozens of satellite television trucks, but they barely even look at these protests here.

So do you have a sense of how much other coverage, how many other media have kind of descended on these protests?

HINOJOSA: No, because I'm too busy covering all of the protests.

(LAUGHTER)

NEISLOSS: I can imagine.

HINOJOSA: I think that the demonstrators across the board will tell you that they feel that they -- if the coverage was really equal, that they'd be getting 50 percent of the time, because they say 50 percent of the public is against the possible war right now. So they say they should be on half of the time. They say that they're not.

So they're not very happy with the coverage, but of course, CNN has been doing this consistently now for well over several months. So we're definitely on the story.

DAVIS: Well, protesters are claiming that too few Americans are focusing on possible war. U.S. airlines are already spreading the alarm of what may be the impact on them and their passengers. I'm on the story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES MAY, PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION: We know from our experience with the first Gulf War that there will be serious economic consequences for the airline industry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: James May, president of the Air Transport Association, warning of what he called a bleak outlook for the airlines in the event of war.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

Airlines are setting down their policies already about what to do if flights are cancelled or changed because of war. And they're already setting off an early alarm that further disruption will mean more airlines will fail. Bankruptcies, bankruptcies, bankruptcies is what they're saying if we go to war.

You have United, you've got U.S. Airways already bankrupt. American could be next. American says it's losing $5 million a day in cash. And analysts say if American goes, you're going to see a lot more airlines going down the tubes with them.

BASH: You know, Patty, in the days after 9/11 I remember covering these intense negotiations in Congress about giving the airlines a bailout. They ended up giving them like $15 billion, all told.

DAVIS: That's right.

BASH: Was that money just kind of gone and spent, and they're off to asking for more money already?

DAVIS: Apprently not enough. It was $5 billion in cash, $10 billion in loan guarantees. And what the airlines are saying is, "Hey, that bailed us out for the two days that we couldn't fly, that the U.S. government shut us down. What we need now is we need this security -- $4 billion in costs that you, the government, have put on us; cockpit doors that have to be fortified. We're paying for that; you should pick up that cost. Also pick up the jet fuel tax for a while. Give us a break. We have to survive." They're even saying, perhaps, even, the airlines might have to be nationalized if things get really bad. I'm not sure that will actually happen, but there's big threats out there.

HINOJOSA: So, Patty, last night I took a Delta flight into D.C., and it was pretty packed. When I was reading up on all the information we were going to be talking about, there was this whole boycott Delta movement because of the fact that they now want to have these ways of pre-identifying, some people are saying profiling. A lot of passengers saying that they're going to get too much access to people's information.

I'm just wondering how you see this, as a kind of nascent protest movement in and of itself. It's saying, "Hey, we don't want to go down this route, and you're forcing us, and we're going to now boycott you."

DAVIS: That's right. Really took Delta by surprise, this boycott Delta movement out there. And why it's happening is because Delta is the first airline to help test with the Transportation Security Administration this new passenger, kind of, profiling system, whereby you give them your name, address, your date of birth, and they run it through huge databases which include even looking to see if you have a credit rating, possibly looking at financial records.

A lot of anger out there. People are saying, "We're not going to stand for it." And that's really what this big Delta boycott has grown out of. Delta caught by surprise on this one.

NEISLOSS: Are they going to change their policy?

DAVIS: Well, they haven't tested (ph) it yet. And no, they aren't going to change the policy. The U.S. government, the TSA, says it's going ahead with this new passenger-profiling system simply because the old one just doesn't work anymore. Right now when you go to the airport, if you pay cash or you buy a one-way ticket, that gets you the extra screening. This will change that and bring it kind of up to date.

What TSA says is U.S. government looks through your personal information every day. There is a lot of access available to these huge databases. Why shouldn't we have the option of looking through them and better be able to identify possible terrorists?

HINOJOSA: Yes, but does it make us any safer? Does it really make us any safer, is a question.

DAVIS: Well, the TSA says yes, and in fact it will decrease the hassle factor as well. Because once we're better able to identify who is a terrorist and who aren't, or who's potential threats and who's not, those of us who are getting that extra screening, the grandmas, the me and you who are going through, the children who have to get that extra screening when they go through the passenger screening area, won't get it. You'll get a green light.

So they say, yes, it's definitely going to make things safer; it's going to make it more hassle-free as well.

NEISLOSS: What are you hearing from authorities? I know publicly, I'm sure, they would try to calm fears. But should people be worried about traveling? And should people be watching the calendar and saying, "I'm not going to make my plans until two months, three months from now"?

DAVIS: Well, interesting. Airlines are really trying to counteract that, if people are worried about it. We are seeing, when the orange alert went into effect, a 20 percent drop in airline booking. Airlines are expecting that now, about a 15 percent drop in bookings, when this war and if this war happens.

What they're doing -- United, Continental, Delta -- all of the major airlines are saying, "We're going to give you a break, passengers. We'll waive that $100 fee. If and when a war comes or if a red alert comes, you won't have to pay it. If you're nervous, you can rebook your flight for a later date.

All the airlines, though, are different. Some are saying, OK, if you have an international flight you can rebook it a different date, but not domestic. Others are saying, no, domestic and international. So you really have to look at your airline specifically. Go on their website or call them and find out what are they going to do for you.

BASH: Customer service from the airlines. Thanks, Patty.

And thank you to all my colleagues.

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

Still ahead, "People in the News," with the inside story on Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld. At 12:00 noon eastern, 9:00 p.m. Pacific, a special two-hour edition of "Showdown: Iraq," anchored by Kelly Wallace from Tel Aviv. And at 2:00 p.m. eastern, CNN's "Live Saturday." Coming up at te top of the hour, a news alert, but first the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

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

This weekend marks a bitter anniversary for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja. With that single order, the regime killed thousands of Iraq's Kurdish citizens.

Whole families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard agents descending from the sky. Many who managed to survive still suffer from cancer, blindness, respiratory diseases, miscarriages, and severe birth defects among their children.

The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons.

Recognizing this threat, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Saddam Hussein give up all his weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Gulf War 12 years ago. The Security Council has repeated this demand numerous times and warned that Iraq faces serious consequences if it fails to comply. Iraq has responded with defiance, delay and deception.

The United States, Great Britain and Spain continue to work with fellow members of the U.N. Security Council to confront this common danger. We have seen far too many instances in the past decade -- from Bosnia, to Rwanda, to Kosovo -- where the failure of the Security Council to act decisively has led to tragedy. And we must recognize that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military force.

As diplomatic efforts continue, we must never lose sight of the basic facts about the regime of Baghdad. We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence.

As the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, said this week, "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq."

We know from prior weapons inspections that Saddam has failed to account for vast quantities of biological and chemical agents, including mustard agent, botulinum toxin and sarin, capable of killing millions of people. We know the Iraqi regime finances and sponsors terror. And we know the regime has plans to place innocent people around military installations to act as human shields.

There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm. If force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve victory. The people of Iraq can know that every effort will be made to spare innocent life, and to help Iraq recover from three decades of totalitarian rule. And plans are in place to provide Iraqis with massive amounts of food, as well as medicine and other essential supplies, in the event of hostilities.

Crucial days lie ahead for the free nations of the world. Governments are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are words alone -- or convictions they're prepared to act upon. And for the government of the United States and the coalition we lead, there is no doubt: we will confront a growing danger, to protect ourselves, to remove a patron and protector of terror, and to keep the peace of the world.

Thank you for listening.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

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




Elizabeth's Return; U.S. Military Prepares for War>


Aired March 15, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DANA BASH, 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 Dana Bash. The president is bound for a summit in what seems to be a final countdown to war.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Jeanne Meserve, on the story in Salt Lake City, Utah, where there is celebration over the return of Elizabeth Smart and questions about how police handled the investigation.

RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad. I'm on the story of massive demonstrations throughout Iraq and claims here that the dispute at the United Nations is in fact a defeat for the United States.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr, on the story of the U.S. military preparing to fight and considering preemptive strikes to push Iraqi forces back from the Kuwaiti border.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Washington, D.C. I'll be back later on in the hour, on the story of voices raised in protest here and around the country.

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Liz Neisloss at the United Nations, on the story of the backstage struggles of diplomacy as the curtain may be falling on diplomacy.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Patty Davis, on the story of how possible war has already rattled U.S. airlines and what's at stake for us as passengers.

We'll be on all of these stories. Rym, Maria and Jeanne will return later in the hour.

And we want to hear from you. E-mail us, onthestory@cnn.com.

Listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour, but first a check on what's making headlines right now from CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are indeed in the final stages of diplomacy. And in these final stages, the president is going the extra mile.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer talking earlier this week before we knew that "extra miles" involved heading to the Azores for what's billed as an emergency summit.

We're ON THE STORY.

And, you know, covering the story from the White House, with the zigs and zags, twists and turns this week, it was almost enough to give me whiplash. Because at the beginning of the week, it was firm, they were going to have a vote no matter what. It was going to be at the end of the week. By yesterday, well, clearly there wasn't a vote this past week at the U.N., and you know what? Maybe they aren't going to have a vote at all. So many different...

STARR: Dana, it seems like it's foreign policy on the fly...

BASH: Well, you know...

STARR: ... from an administration that doesn't do that sort of thing.

BASH: It's really -- you don't see this kind of thing very much, you're right, with this administration. They're very, very, kind of, collected and controlled, and they have their act together.

And in this particular sense, there are so many outside factors. What we're seeing here is diplomacy, which goes on all the time, every day, but it's so out in the open that it's hard to kind of keep their message on point and together.

You know, even mid-week, this week, we heard from administration sources that they were really close, they thought they had -- that they were just one vote away from having the majority at the U.N. Security Council. By the end of the week, that maybe they weren't even...

DAVIS: Well, what happened to the six votes that they thought they might have?

BASH: Well, what we're told, from the administration's point of view and also from the British point of view, is the French, they believe, kind of messed it up for them, because they thought that they were very close and that the fact that they had this new idea from the British to have six benchmarks for Iraqi disarmament.

Well, the fact that the French said, "That's not going to work," even before the Iraqis did, the White House felt that that really doomed the prospects for getting the votes.

But, Rym, I wanted to hear from you, what you're hearing in Iraq about all of the kind of zigs and zags that's going on in the final push to get something through at the U.N.

BRAHIMI: Well, there's not much official reaction, you know, from here, but there is a lot of reaction in the state-run media, even in the sermons at government-run mosques.

And just now, actually, we received a story, a commentary from the state-run Iraqi news agency, first of all calling that summit a war summit and saying it was being held by the evil three, the evil three being President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar of Spain.

BRAHIMI: Also of course, lashing out at the United States administration, saying it's using the suffering of the Palestinian people in order to get to sort of curry the opinion of the Arab countries.

But that's also something that's been seen that's been -- it's a line that's been given also in the newspapers here. And even as I was saying on Friday, for instance, that the government-run mosque, the sermon, the imam there said that all these disputes at the United Nations Security Council were a clear sign of victory for Iraq and defeat for the United States, even calling on Americans and Brits to rise up against their own governments.

So here it's got a lot of play, and it's also -- what's got a lot of play, of course, is the French, the Chinese and the Russian attitude, playing up the opposition of those countries to what the U.S. and Britain have been proposing.

BASH: You know, Rym, it's interesting that you point out the fact that there are these three countries that are meeting together. They all agree. When you think of a summit, you think of two opposing sides getting together to hash out their differences. Well, in this case, you have three allies getting together to, really, what it is, is they're conferring face to face to figure out what are they going to do next, what is their plan.

They're aren't -- you don't see any of the six swing votes at the Security Council being invited to this so-called summit in the Azores. It's really just the allies trying to...

DAVIS: But have they given up on a U.N. resolution? Is that a moot point now?

BASH: It's not a moot point now in the sense that they're trying to decide whether or not it's worth it to at least put the resolution before the United Nations and have the resolution, as the president said last week, make the member nations show their cards. Because they believe, in the end...

NEISLOSS: Dana...

BASH: Yes, Liz, I'd like to see what Liz has to say about that.

NEISLOSS: It's far from clear here that they're really -- there are many reasons why they might not even bother to do that, which we don't have to go into right now. But I have to say the Spanish ambassador said basically, last night, "Look, Saddam is watching all of this and laughing from one palace to the next." He's, you know, certainly happy to see the differences.

STARR: And, Rym, that brings us back to Baghdad.

BRAHIMI: Yes, that's...

STARR: That brings us back to Baghdad. Rym, what is the real...

BRAHIMI: Sorry. Exactly, what Liz was saying just now, exactly. There is a lot of that. That comes through, again, in the state-run media, this impression that we're loving it, "The U.S. and Britain, they can't get their act together. Nobody is supporting them at the United Nations Security Council. They thought they'd get the six; well, they ain't getting them." This is pretty much the tone of a lot of the newspapers here.

But, of course, diplomatic circles see, of course, here the gravity of the situation, as do Iraqi officials who are looking at this from an also, maybe from an international-law point of view. And they're saying, this is really going -- violating international law. The foreign ministry here pointing at everything they see as a violation of international law, writing letters to Kofi Annan saying what's happening on the border with Kuwait is a violation of the Charter. What the U.S. is trying to do is a violation of the Charter.

And the -- I mean, the serious, there is also a serious aspect to it, in that many officials here, and indeed that is what we hear from diplomatic circles, are convinced that basically this summit was bad news from the start. From the moment that they decided to hold that summit and that it was going to take place, then they're not expecting peace to last, and they're expecting an attack quite soon after that.

STARR: But, Rym, what do you see, besides the politicians and the process, on the streets of Baghdad, the mood of the people? Do you see the military now on the street? Are people afraid?

BRAHIMI: Well, you do see a little bit of movement here and there. Of course, again, the Iraqis are pretty good at -- they don't really do that very much in the open, but you do see a little bit of movement. You do see a lot of sandbags now in the streets and government buildings -- around government buildings, sandbags, the digging of trenches. That's been the case for the past two weeks.

People here are very worried. Now, there were massive demonstrations today throughout the whole country. In Baghdad, I mean, I just saw thousands of people just in one street, one neighborhood. And there were high school girls, there were members of the ruling Ba'ath party.

I went and spoke to the high school girls, and many of them were very cheerful. It was a day off of school of course, and they were saying, "No, we're just here to say no to war and yes to peace." But then the ruling Ba'ath party members, walking, marching by with their weapons. And of course for them, it's also an opportunity to make this big public show of support for President Saddam Hussein, saying, "We will fight if we are attacked, and we will defeat the enemy."

But then of course, that's really the show. This is what goes on Iraqi TV. And then when you talk to people in their homes, their daily preoccupations are really, do I have enough to eat if something happens? How am I going to protect my kids? How can I make sure that they're not going to be a school if something happens and that we can all sort of stay in one safe place?

NEISLOSS: Well, there is clearly a lot of fear, a lot of fear in Iraq, a lot of fear among diplomats watching Iraq, journalists certainly in Iraq as well. So we will be thinking about you, Rym.

And from Baghdad where Rym is, to Washington, to capitals around the world, it's a diplomatic ping pong over Iraq, most publicly played out at a place where nations have just not been able to unite.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are working hard to see if we can take this to a vote that would be a vote to help unify the council. But we haven't excluded any of the other obvious options that are out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell this week, revealing a major shift for the U.S., that perhaps no vote at all, after very, very, firmly pushing here at the U.N., saying, "Friday, it's going to be Friday," President Bush says, "We're going to make them show their cards, lay them on the table," and suddenly, maybe not.

The diplomacy here was really -- there was a lot of floundering. The British tried, the Chileans tried. All these proposals being thrown out. And then suddenly, by the end of the week, the Angolan ambassador said, "I think we're finished." Their positions are really hardened.

BASH: Liz, the president was on the phone all week long, really. We didn't see him all week long. He must have made more than 20 phone calls. Tony Blair, I'm told, made 30. What he normally makes in three months he made in six days.

But did it just fall on deaf ears? What was the reaction to those phone calls up at the U.N.?

NEISLOSS: Well, you don't literally hear the reaction to what's going on in the phone calls, but basically what filtered here was that positions are very hard.

There has been a lot of grandstanding through this process. France very dramatic, the U.S. very dramatic. Some diplomats are theorizing, look, these positions were way too firmly staked out. It was very public dimplomacy, and it's very hard for people to climb back from their positions.

And then you have the middle six countries, those supposedly undecided, who are being asked to choose war or no war. So it...

BRAHIMI: I would've liked to ask Dana here, you know, you can hear, first of all, the call to prayer behind me. It's coming down to the evening, so it's getting to a more quiet time now.

There is a sense now, as tension really gets higher and higher every day, there is maybe a wishful thinking when you read the editorials in the newspapers that this has cost President Bush a lot of credibility. One commentary in the press was saying that nobody will ever reelect Bush. His first election was already controversial enough.

I mean, has Bush suffered to the extent that Prime Minister Blair has at home, in any way?

BASH: Not really, actually. When you look at the public opinion polls, actually they came out this week, it's interesting, the American people, if you believe the polls, are supporting the president even more now and are more kind of negative toward the United Nations.

So Tony Blair seems to be in more trouble than the president is. But the president -- which is kind of why the president and his aides are making it really clear to us that no matter what happens at the U.N., he's ready to go. And he's kind of having this summit tomorrow and dealing the last final days with potentially going to the U.N. to help his allies.

NEISLOSS: Dana, the Bush-Blair relationship, I have to say on that, is really -- that's definitely been a subject of discussion by diplomats at the U.N. They really talk about how much effort Bush has been personally making to really go to bat to make the last effort, the final mile, all for Tony Blair, when they might have been able to put an end to this perhaps much sooner. They are pushing to the final limit.

And some are theorizing here that, look, even this summit, even waiting till early next week, is all to help Blair show that he's really going the last mile. Maybe that will help him at home.

STARR: Liz, at the end of the day, is there permanent damage to the U.N. from all of this?

NEISLOSS: You know, Kofi Annan very publicly said earlier in the week, if the U.S. strikes alone, it will violate the U.N. Charter. There are arguments for and against that thought.

But basically, as the Spanish ambassador said literally late last night in this very office, he said, the U.N. has nine lives. It will go on. It will have many roles. When the bombs stop falling, they're going to have to come together and talk. They're going to have to figure out humanitarian efforts, relief efforts. These are all areas where the U.N. has an expertise. And diplomats will also say, "Look, there are so many other things. We have terrorism, Afghanistan, AIDS. It's not just Iraq."

STARR: Well, we want to thank Rym Brahimi, first, for joining us from Baghdad.

We're going to be talking more about war and peace later in the hour. Military preparations and psychological warfare, war protests and cloudy skies ahead for the airlines.

Up next, we'll check on the other big story of the week, the return home of teenager Elizabeth Smart, abducted from her home in Utah more than nine months ago. Jeanne Meserve will be on the story in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED SMART, FATHER OF ELIZABETH SMART: It's real.

(LAUGHTER)

It's real.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: A very happy Ed Smart, speaking the say after his daughter Elizabeth was recovered. We're ON THE STORY in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thanks for joining us.

Salt Lake County sheriffs yesterday said yesterday that they expect to bring charges against Brian David Mitchell, not in the connection with the abduction of Elizabeth Smart, but for the attempted kidnapping of her cousin last summer. The sheriff says he has strong evidence in the case developed since the recovery of Elizabeth. Charges could be brought as early as next week.

In addition, we've now had a chance to look at some of the religious writings of Mitchell. In those writings, multiple references to polygamy, including one sentence which refers to bringing seven sisters to heart and home.

Wanda Barzee, who is also in jail in connection with the disappearance of Elizabeth, had a visit in friend in jail. That friend emerged saying that Wanda told her that was a reference to polygamy, and that Elizabeth was one of the wives.

Back to you.

DAVIS: Well, the family had -- the family had been imploring the police, "Please look at this guy," and they didn't for a long time. What happened? MESERVE: Well, that's the big question. Mary Katherine, the younger sister, was the only eye witness to this crime. She came forward to her family some time last fall and said, "It's Emmanuel," this man who worked briefly on the Smart's home. The Smarts took it police, and police did not do much with it. The police say there were a couple of reasons they didn't. One, they had trouble for a while figuring out exactly who Emmanuel was. It took a while to match him up with the name Brian David Mitchell.

In addition, they say this was a man who didn't have the sort of criminal record that made them interested in him. They didn't go forward with a sketch because they say the family produced three sketches of this individual that were different in nature. They were afraid of putting out the wrong one and developing a lot of false leads.

One really interesting thing to us about this is that sketch, which shows a man without a beard. Also, if you go back to the initial description that Mary Katherine gave right after the abduction, there is no reference to facial hair. And yet in absolutely every picture we have seen of this man both before the abduction and since, he has what is very obviously a beard that he's had for some time.

NEISLOSS: Is there anything, Jeanne, to be drawn from the fact that this very sort of bizarre group of people were wandering around right basically under the noses of the police, within -- I guess Elizabeth reportedly could hear them within shouting distance of people looking for her?

MESERVE: It's really quite amazing. She heard he uncle shouting for her. She was held just a couple of miles away from her home for a couple of months. And then they emerged. They came back down into the city.

I've talked to a number of people who spotted them while they were here. They have said that part of Mitchell's belief was that the women shouldn't talk. And so the women were never heard to say anything. They walked silently behind him.

They've also said that Elizabeth appeared to be very comfortable with her companions, that she had opportunities when she might have been able to speak, when she might have been able to escape, that she did not take those.

Unclear exactly why all of that happened. Police have said there is some sort of psychological impact here. Her father said she's been brainwashed.

But people did not recognize her, in part because she had a veil across most of her face, but also because she was so much older and taller than what they expected. Most of the pictures we saw were of a relatively young girl. She's now a young woman. People just never made the connection.

BASH: Hey, Jeanne, I'm wondering what the kind of relationship between the Smart family and the media is now, because the media obviously played such a huge part in helping find her with the Amber Alert. And I'm wondering now that she's found, what the relationship is. MESERVE: They are ecstatic about the media. I was here in June, came back. I had family members coming up and throwing their arm around me and saying, "Wow, isn't this great? And thank you guys for your help."

BASH: That doesn't happen very often.

MESERVE: No, it doesn't.

(LAUGHTER)

And John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted, who played a part in this recovery, was a special guest last night at a homecoming reunion.

My question is, is this going to last? Because there's a lot of sensitive stuff that's got to be dealt with here about her time in captivity, stuff that's going to dwell around that subject of possible polygamy. And I wonder in a couple of months' time exactly how the Smarts are going to feel about the media handles that.

DAVIS: But is there any hand wringing in police circles there in Salt Lake, in terms of spending too much time on Richard Ricci, the guy who died in jail of a brain hemorrhage on unrelated charges. Is he even suspected as being a part of this now?

MESERVE: No, they have now exonerated him. They say he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

He was a prime suspect in this case for a very long time. In fact, you heard me refer earlier to this second possible attempted kidnapping that they believe Mitchell is associated with. At the time that occurred last summer, I spoke to law enforcement sources, they were very puzzled because Ricci was in prison, and several things about the crime seemed reminiscent of what had happened at the Smart home.

MESERVE: I even had one source say to me -- they speculated that perhaps this might be a confederate of Ricci's who was trying to put police off the trail by doing something when he was in prison. Police say now, in hindsight, they wished they'd handled things differently. Obviously, a lot of other people wish that too.

STARR: Well, Jeanne, we want to say thanks to you. We know you have to get back to covering the Elizabeth Smart story. Thanks for joining us.

Coming up, we're on the story of how the United States military is preparing for the worst, as well as trying to fake out the Iraqis. Also, we'll have the latest on protests, both for and against the war. And Patty Davis will talk about how U.S. airlines are already crying poor.

All ahead, ON THE STORY, plus a news alert. And visit cnn.com if you'd like to sign up for our weekly e-mail to learn more about the topics we'll cover every Saturday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: No battle plan is ever executed with 100 percent perfection. There is something that is called the fog of war. It's as old as warfare itself, and still in this age of digital clarity, that fog still exists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Former Defense Secretary William Cohen, warning everyone that plans go out the window when the bullets start to fly.

We're ON THE STORY and joined by our colleague, Maria Hinojosa, who is covering today's anti-war demonstration here in Washington.

Protests aside, the U.S. military is ready to fight and is working to win this pre-war phase of the standoff. And that's really the question this week. Are we in the pre-war, or are we going to look back and find out this week that actually, in a strange way, that the already has begun?

The final moves are being put into place. Ships are now in the Red Sea, ready to fire their Tomahawk missiles. Troops are in their forward locations. The Iraqis are being watched literally around the clock by U.S. intelligence. As soon as somebody makes the first move, it's begun.

NEISLOSS: Barbara, we hear a lot about maybe a final ultimatum from Bush. He may get on television, make a speech. What kind of danger does that present for the military, this really public warning?

STARR: Well, that's why a lot of people are beginning to say, look, for all intents and purposes, the war has begun, because once the ultimatum is issued, what happens, the Pentagon worries, if Saddam Hussein then makes a move with his Scud missiles, with his chem-bio, if he lights the oil fields on fire?

The U.S., once the ultimatum comes, the U.S. military will consider, even if they don't have the official order, that they must be absolutely ready to go on a moment's notice.

The sorties, the flights over the southern no-fly zones, for example, there are 1,000 planes in the air over southern Iraq and virtually around the clock, keeping a very close eye. If Saddam begins to make a move, those planes will be ready to move in. This is what warfare is all about.

The real question is, how does the U.S. get, you know -- fire the start gun on this enterprise in a controlled fashion so that they control the opening hours of the war and not Saddam? That's what they don't want to have happen. HINOJOSA: Hey, Barbara, I'm wondering about your role as a journalist. And I know this is somewhat difficult -- difficult for you to answer. But, you know, when you're there and you're essentially having to report what the Pentagon is giving the information to you, I mean, is that difficult when you see that you're playing this information role for the Pentagon?

And also, what's up with that story about Saddam Hussein buying those uniforms that ultimately you ended up having to report about?

STARR: Well, you know, there's no question journalists in this are going to function as the conduit for what the administration wants to say. But like all of us, we all place it into context. You try and do the reporting and find out both sides, and you try and make sure that you're not being unduly used, that if the administration is telling you something, that you actually portray it into, you know, a reasonable point of view.

The uniform story that Maria referred to is actually a very good point. They told us Saddam is trying to buy uniforms. They offered no actual real evidence of that, other than to say a move had been made on the Internet. We had to report it that way.

BASH: Barbara, the mother of all bombs, MOAB, tell us about that. What a picture coming from the Pentagon this week and what an event that they had, huh?

STARR: The least routine weapons test in years. This will be the largest weapon in the conventional U.S. inventory, 20,000-pound bomb. In November, we first reported this when it was just some sketches on paper. They've put together test articles, tested it this week. You see there a 10,000-foot cloud created over Florida, over the test range.

That was the message they were sending to Saddam. They wanted to make sure President Saddam Hussein saw that picture and that it would be part of the psychological warfare campaign to demoralize the Iraqi military, to try to convince them they had no hope of winning against the U.S., they might as well give up.

DAVIS: But bottom line here, we have to get -- the U.S. has to get Saddam this time. That's the goal. How does the military plan to do that? They didn't do it last time.

STARR: It's the big unanswered question. What happens if Saddam Hussein agrees to go into exile at the 11th hour and some other Iraqi is put into power, and maybe the U.S. -- you know, this is the Pentagon nightmare -- and the administration feels that person may not be exactly the right person?

That would be the big nightmare. What if Saddam goes into exile, puts a puppet in and plays the strings from a third country? Then what does the United States do? The scenarios here are endless, and nobody has really figured out the answers yet.

NEISLOSS: Barbara, have you heard anything about whether or not the theories on whether or not Saddam would actually unleash chemical or biological weapons?

STARR: It's a worry. The real issue -- it sounds so cliched, no one really knows. But they are watching literally around the clock to see any sign of that. Very, very concerned.

HINOJOSA: Well, from military preparations overseas to domestic protests here at home, who's raising their voices and who's listening? I'm on the story when we're back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do they really believe that now is the time for our children, our loved ones to come back in these body bags? Is now the time for this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HINOJOSA: And that is Nancy Lessian (ph), just a few minutes before she was going to be arrested for civil disobedience on Capitol Hill, and one of the many groups that are here in Washington to protest a possible war with Iraq.

I'm Maria Hinojosa, and back now on the story of the protests.

And you know, a lot of the organizers are saying that what's happening, now Saturday after Saturday after Saturday with all of these protests and throughout the week, is really historic. Because this is really the largest mobilization that has occurred ever for a war even before it has begun. And you've never quite seen anything like this in terms of national demonstrations occurring, as well as international demonstrations.

And I have to tell you about one woman who I just meant. She was here at 8 o'clock in the morning when I got here. And she was like, "I'm Doris. I'm from Albany, New York. I've never done this before. I couldn't protest during Vietnam because I was raising my kids. And I didn't protest during the other Gulf War because my son was in the Navy. But no one is stopping me from coming out and protesting now."

So a lot of those people who just find their way here because they feel that this is our time to speak out.

STARR: Maria, you're seeing some protests, some organizers that are different than the types of people seen in the past.

HINOJOSA: You know, it's also -- that's something else that makes this pretty unique. I've spent a lot of the last week talking to the different groups that make up this very, very broad-based anti- war movement.

And what's interesting, Barbara, is the fact that you really have got from the very far right, conservative libertarians, ultra- conservative Republicans, to the very far left. This is one of the groups, ANSWER, that's supporting this demonstration here, is one of the more to the -- radical groups.

But to a T, all of the organizers that I've spoken to have said, "You know what, we understand we have very different ideological bases." But the situation here is so direct and so focused on the war against Iraq, that they have really, surprisingly, been able to put apart their differences and stay focused, which is not usually what happens in these movements. But for now at least, they've been able to do that.

STARR: But there's another factor here at work, isn't there? The Internet as an organizing tool?

HINOJOSA: Oh, incredible. I was -- earlier this week I was this young guy. His name is Eli Brisier (ph). And he's 22 years old. He's one of the main organizers for a group called moveon.org. And he sits in this tiny little room that's maybe like, I don't know, six feet by six feet, at his computer. And from there, he has helped to organize thousands upon thousands of people to take part in these demonstrations as well as like the virtual march on Washington.

And what they've done -- it's really incredible. It's like learn how to be an activist through the Internet. You go and you click on it. It will say, like for example, they're organizing a big candlelight vigil that started with just a couple of cities. It's now over -- the last town I had was 2,600 cities around the world.

And you'll click on there and it will say, "Do you want to organize a candlelight vigil? Where do you want to do it? Here's what you need to do. Here are the other people in your area that want to do the same thing."

So it's phenomenal. I mean, the numbers just grow and grow and its ways for people who are way out there that maybe feel very isolated, how they can get in contact with other people who think the same way, who they're only meeting through the Internet and through this organization. It's really...

NEISLOSS: Maria, you're obviously at an anti-war protest, but also around the country, there are other rallies going on that are pro-America rallies. What do you know about those? And are those getting the kinds of numbers that you're seeing where you are?

HINOJOSA: Well, not really. And really, these demonstrations call themselves pro-America, patriotic and very much, as well, in support of the troops. Those demonstrations, you have been seeing a lot of them outside of military bases. They're very concerned about what these anti-war demonstrations might send a message to the troops.

But you haven't seen the numbers out there, which actually raises an interesting point. What happens if you have these smaller demonstrations that are supposedly pro-troops or pro-war that continually are smaller than these anti-war demonstrations? I'm wondering if that in and of itself isn't more demoralizing that just having these anti-war demonstrations.

DAVIS: Well, you know, from where you are.. NEISLOSS: Maria, do you have a sense of how much fellow media presence there is? In other words, how much coverage, attention they're really getting, you know? Right behind me, across the street from the U.N., there is a park. There's some demonstrators daily. And yards away, there are dozens of satellite television trucks, but they barely even look at these protests here.

So do you have a sense of how much other coverage, how many other media have kind of descended on these protests?

HINOJOSA: No, because I'm too busy covering all of the protests.

(LAUGHTER)

NEISLOSS: I can imagine.

HINOJOSA: I think that the demonstrators across the board will tell you that they feel that they -- if the coverage was really equal, that they'd be getting 50 percent of the time, because they say 50 percent of the public is against the possible war right now. So they say they should be on half of the time. They say that they're not.

So they're not very happy with the coverage, but of course, CNN has been doing this consistently now for well over several months. So we're definitely on the story.

DAVIS: Well, protesters are claiming that too few Americans are focusing on possible war. U.S. airlines are already spreading the alarm of what may be the impact on them and their passengers. I'm on the story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES MAY, PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION: We know from our experience with the first Gulf War that there will be serious economic consequences for the airline industry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: James May, president of the Air Transport Association, warning of what he called a bleak outlook for the airlines in the event of war.

We're ON THE STORY. Welcome back.

Airlines are setting down their policies already about what to do if flights are cancelled or changed because of war. And they're already setting off an early alarm that further disruption will mean more airlines will fail. Bankruptcies, bankruptcies, bankruptcies is what they're saying if we go to war.

You have United, you've got U.S. Airways already bankrupt. American could be next. American says it's losing $5 million a day in cash. And analysts say if American goes, you're going to see a lot more airlines going down the tubes with them.

BASH: You know, Patty, in the days after 9/11 I remember covering these intense negotiations in Congress about giving the airlines a bailout. They ended up giving them like $15 billion, all told.

DAVIS: That's right.

BASH: Was that money just kind of gone and spent, and they're off to asking for more money already?

DAVIS: Apprently not enough. It was $5 billion in cash, $10 billion in loan guarantees. And what the airlines are saying is, "Hey, that bailed us out for the two days that we couldn't fly, that the U.S. government shut us down. What we need now is we need this security -- $4 billion in costs that you, the government, have put on us; cockpit doors that have to be fortified. We're paying for that; you should pick up that cost. Also pick up the jet fuel tax for a while. Give us a break. We have to survive." They're even saying, perhaps, even, the airlines might have to be nationalized if things get really bad. I'm not sure that will actually happen, but there's big threats out there.

HINOJOSA: So, Patty, last night I took a Delta flight into D.C., and it was pretty packed. When I was reading up on all the information we were going to be talking about, there was this whole boycott Delta movement because of the fact that they now want to have these ways of pre-identifying, some people are saying profiling. A lot of passengers saying that they're going to get too much access to people's information.

I'm just wondering how you see this, as a kind of nascent protest movement in and of itself. It's saying, "Hey, we don't want to go down this route, and you're forcing us, and we're going to now boycott you."

DAVIS: That's right. Really took Delta by surprise, this boycott Delta movement out there. And why it's happening is because Delta is the first airline to help test with the Transportation Security Administration this new passenger, kind of, profiling system, whereby you give them your name, address, your date of birth, and they run it through huge databases which include even looking to see if you have a credit rating, possibly looking at financial records.

A lot of anger out there. People are saying, "We're not going to stand for it." And that's really what this big Delta boycott has grown out of. Delta caught by surprise on this one.

NEISLOSS: Are they going to change their policy?

DAVIS: Well, they haven't tested (ph) it yet. And no, they aren't going to change the policy. The U.S. government, the TSA, says it's going ahead with this new passenger-profiling system simply because the old one just doesn't work anymore. Right now when you go to the airport, if you pay cash or you buy a one-way ticket, that gets you the extra screening. This will change that and bring it kind of up to date.

What TSA says is U.S. government looks through your personal information every day. There is a lot of access available to these huge databases. Why shouldn't we have the option of looking through them and better be able to identify possible terrorists?

HINOJOSA: Yes, but does it make us any safer? Does it really make us any safer, is a question.

DAVIS: Well, the TSA says yes, and in fact it will decrease the hassle factor as well. Because once we're better able to identify who is a terrorist and who aren't, or who's potential threats and who's not, those of us who are getting that extra screening, the grandmas, the me and you who are going through, the children who have to get that extra screening when they go through the passenger screening area, won't get it. You'll get a green light.

So they say, yes, it's definitely going to make things safer; it's going to make it more hassle-free as well.

NEISLOSS: What are you hearing from authorities? I know publicly, I'm sure, they would try to calm fears. But should people be worried about traveling? And should people be watching the calendar and saying, "I'm not going to make my plans until two months, three months from now"?

DAVIS: Well, interesting. Airlines are really trying to counteract that, if people are worried about it. We are seeing, when the orange alert went into effect, a 20 percent drop in airline booking. Airlines are expecting that now, about a 15 percent drop in bookings, when this war and if this war happens.

What they're doing -- United, Continental, Delta -- all of the major airlines are saying, "We're going to give you a break, passengers. We'll waive that $100 fee. If and when a war comes or if a red alert comes, you won't have to pay it. If you're nervous, you can rebook your flight for a later date.

All the airlines, though, are different. Some are saying, OK, if you have an international flight you can rebook it a different date, but not domestic. Others are saying, no, domestic and international. So you really have to look at your airline specifically. Go on their website or call them and find out what are they going to do for you.

BASH: Customer service from the airlines. Thanks, Patty.

And thank you to all my colleagues.

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

Still ahead, "People in the News," with the inside story on Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld. At 12:00 noon eastern, 9:00 p.m. Pacific, a special two-hour edition of "Showdown: Iraq," anchored by Kelly Wallace from Tel Aviv. And at 2:00 p.m. eastern, CNN's "Live Saturday." Coming up at te top of the hour, a news alert, but first the president's weekly radio address.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

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

This weekend marks a bitter anniversary for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein's regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja. With that single order, the regime killed thousands of Iraq's Kurdish citizens.

Whole families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and mustard agents descending from the sky. Many who managed to survive still suffer from cancer, blindness, respiratory diseases, miscarriages, and severe birth defects among their children.

The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons.

Recognizing this threat, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Saddam Hussein give up all his weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Gulf War 12 years ago. The Security Council has repeated this demand numerous times and warned that Iraq faces serious consequences if it fails to comply. Iraq has responded with defiance, delay and deception.

The United States, Great Britain and Spain continue to work with fellow members of the U.N. Security Council to confront this common danger. We have seen far too many instances in the past decade -- from Bosnia, to Rwanda, to Kosovo -- where the failure of the Security Council to act decisively has led to tragedy. And we must recognize that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military force.

As diplomatic efforts continue, we must never lose sight of the basic facts about the regime of Baghdad. We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence.

As the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, said this week, "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq."

We know from prior weapons inspections that Saddam has failed to account for vast quantities of biological and chemical agents, including mustard agent, botulinum toxin and sarin, capable of killing millions of people. We know the Iraqi regime finances and sponsors terror. And we know the regime has plans to place innocent people around military installations to act as human shields.

There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm. If force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve victory. The people of Iraq can know that every effort will be made to spare innocent life, and to help Iraq recover from three decades of totalitarian rule. And plans are in place to provide Iraqis with massive amounts of food, as well as medicine and other essential supplies, in the event of hostilities.

Crucial days lie ahead for the free nations of the world. Governments are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are words alone -- or convictions they're prepared to act upon. And for the government of the United States and the coalition we lead, there is no doubt: we will confront a growing danger, to protect ourselves, to remove a patron and protector of terror, and to keep the peace of the world.

Thank you for listening.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

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




Elizabeth's Return; U.S. Military Prepares for War>