Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

What Are Political Implications of Tax Cut Vote?; Terrorist Attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco Rattle Law Enforcement; Bush Straddles Line Between Conservatives, Moderates

Aired May 17, 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.


KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Kate Snow, on the story of the tricky math, the political spin, and the impact of the tax cut vote in the Senate this week.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena, on the story of how terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and now Morocco have rattled law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic offices all the way back here in Washington.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr, on the story of veterans of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan coming home, the demands on them and their families.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of how President Bush walks the line between conservatives and moderates, a line his advisers say leads straight to 2004.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Elizabeth Cohen, on the story of changing the rules this week for some big health issues, including high blood pressure and breast cancer.

We'll be talking about all of these stories. We're also on the story of a 41-year-old secret of the intern who had an affair with JFK. We'll talk about how run for the border is a new political ploy in Texas and may be copied. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address later in the hour.

We want to hear from you. Send us your questions and comments to onthestory@cnn.com.

Kelli Arena, now we'll talk about the Saudi terror attacks.

ARENA: That's right. Well, the attacks in Saudi Arabia Monday killed 25 people, including eight Americans. The gunfights and bombings returned the war on terror to the top of the pile. They prompted new questions about intelligence warnings and the fate of al Qaeda. And they again turned up the heat on the...

(AUDIO GAP)

ARENA: ... Saudi Arabia earlier this week. We had more attacks. Same mode of attack, using truck bombs, car bombs, in Morocco today.

The thing that we're focusing most on, or at least law enforcement is focusing most on, is the fact that these involved soft targets. Soft targets are very difficult to protect. They include things like apartment buildings, discotheques, anything that is not owned by the government like an embassy or a military facility, for example, that we know can be hardened.

MALVEAUX: Do we know who's responsible? Is it al Qaeda? Because one thing that President Bush is talking about constantly -- and he actually mentioned it yesterday -- he said about half of the al Qaeda operatives are really out of business, and the other half are very much alive.

Do we know who's responsible for this?

ARENA: Well, it's the other half that law enforcement and intelligence officials are saying is responsible. They've actually -- sources have said that Saif Al-Adel (ph), who is number three in the al Qaeda hierarchy, is allegedly a major planner of the attacks, at least on Saudi Arabia.

Morocco is newer. It bears the markings of al Qaeda, but there has to be some more investigative work done there before any link can be made.

But at least in Saudi Arabia, every official that we've spoken to this week -- and Barbara can back me up here -- does seem to point the finger directly at al Qaeda involvement and also bringing in Iran in that equation, because at least Saif Al-Adel (ph), among other al Qaeda operatives, are said to be, according to the most recent intelligence, holed up in Iran at this time.

SNOW: Go back to this issue of soft targets. I talked to Adel Al-Jubeir, who's the foreign affairs adviser to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who you've probably seen because he's been all over the air waves over the last couple of days sort of apologizing and saying, "Yes, we did have some warning, we didn't do enough to protect those housing complexes" in Saudi Arabia, but can they even do enough? I mean, there are thousands of complexes just like it in Saudi Arabia that they would have to somehow protect.

ARENA: Right. Well, the bottom line is that the U.S. officials we've spoken to have said that they were never -- they never passed along to the Saudis any specific intelligence regarding any one target. They did mention certain (UNINTELLIGIBLE), saying, well, we think this may be vulnerable. But in terms of the intelligence, it wasn't like they had an address or even a block that they came to the Saudis with and said, hey, this is what we're dealing with.

But soft targets are very difficult. OK, let's parallel it here to the United States. You have apartment buildings. Take one example, apartment buildings. The government goes to a landlord and says, "Look, you know, we know that soft targets are vulnerable, you need to beef up security." And the landlord comes back and says, "Well, you know what, that means I have to raise rents, and I'm already hardly make a dime in this market. And, you know what, unless you come back to me with specific intelligence, I think we're doing just fine. We have a doorman."

I mean, it's not like the government can come and mandate that certain things be put in place, at least not yet.

MALVEAUX: The White House is really frustrated this week, too, with Saudi officials. I mean, they've brought up this time and time again, quietly, that Saudi Arabia's really not doing enough to confront its terrorist problem. And this week was the first time that they actually came forward and said, "Yes, we're facing this head on, we have a serious problem."

STARR: It does, but I think it also raises a much broader question. The intelligence community this week saying al Qaeda remains active in half a dozen or more countries across Africa, Asia, the Pacific. It raises the question of, even with all the hundreds of people they've taken into custody, is al Qaeda -- either is it back, or did it never go away? Is, in fact, there...

ARENA: Well, I mean, they would argue it never went away, Barbara.

STARR: Right. Is there a new generation of al Qaeda leaders? Does Osama bin Laden matter any more? Or are there...

ARENA: Let's not forget that you had thousands of people that went through those training camps in Afghanistan, thousands of people, that remain unaccounted for. And just recently in the past few weeks, you had two Middle East men who were arrested in the United States, secret arrests of these individuals who officials tell CNN were conducting what they call, pre-surveillance activity, looking for opportunity, looking for targets that they could identify. They were part of a larger group, we are told, of at least half a dozen al Qaeda operatives, who were also conducting what they call surveillance, what officials call surveillance-type activities.

So even right here within the United States, surveillance continues, activity continues by alleged al Qaeda operatives. Because we -- you know, just because we've hardened and we've done a lot since September 11, does not mean that this focus on so-called soft targets or other targets, are not -- are still not on the mind of people who are willing and capable and have a great desire to do harm to the United States or U.S. interests.

COHEN: Well, Kelli, thank you for all of that information about Saudi Arabia.

And from a dangerous world, to the risk we see all around us in our personal lives. And just this week, the experts we trust, changed some of the rules about what we're supposed to do to stay healthy.

I'm on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOMMY THOMPSON, HHS SECRETARY: Two-thirds of our American citizens are overweight or obese, and 15 to 20 percent of our children. And that's very unhealthy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson taking aim at overweight Americans and the fast food restaurants that feed them.

Welcome back. We're back ON THE STORY.

So what Tommy Thompson basically wants to do is he wants to sort of crack down on fast food restaurants and say, "You know what, 64 percent of Americans obese or overweight. The restaurants need to do what's right."

Specifically, what is he going to do? How is hie going to accomplish that? What's he going to do to get them to change?

STARR: Is it portion control? Are restaurants -- is the industry going to cut back on how much they serve people?

COHEN: That would certainly be one way to do it, but he didn't specifically say that. So it's a little bit of a mystery about exactly he would do.

STARR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cheeseburger.

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Right, exactly. You can have a cheeseburger is you're this weight and a whole cheeseburger if you're that weight. I mean, who knows.

ARENA: Going to cut you off, buddy.

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: That's right.

ARENA: One cheeseburger. You're a little overweight there. (LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Right. It really is, it's just a little bit unclear exactly what it is that he plans to do. But portion control is huge.

ARENA: People eat this because they want to eat this.

COHEN: Right.

ARENA: I mean, if there was not a desire and a demand for this type of food, then restaurants would be making something else. I mean, come on. COHEN: And that's what the restaurant industry says. They say, "Look, we give people what they want. We don't -- we're not making this up. People are buying certain things. Like, what ever happened to McLean Deluxe? Well, it disappeared because basically people didn't want it. They wanted a Big Mac instead.

STARR: Do they think people are going to McDonalds and buying salads?

I mean, is that happening?

ARENA: Well, they do though. They're advertising salads as an offering.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Those are for the mommies who have to -- who are forced to bring their children to McDonalds once a month. We give in once a month.

(LAUGHTER)

And Kelli and I know this from experience. And...

(CROSSTALK)

STARR: And you need something to eat.

ARENA: ... because you're starving and you're looking at this menu and going, oh, my God, this is going straight to the hips."

COHEN: But there is a real fundamental problem here which is that consumers clearly want this, and they clearly want the super sizes. I mean, you see those things, some of those super sizes have like 1,000 calories in one meal.

ARENA: But what can the government do really? I mean, can they do anything at all?

COHEN: That's the big question. I mean some nutrition advocates say, "Yes, there are things they can do." For example, there's one group that says, "Let's require that fast food restaurants put the calories right next to the menu items on the board." So can you imagine, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you're looking up at the board you know, and it says hamburger, 400 calories. I mean the calories would be right there. And it would probably make you think twice.

So that's one thing that the government could do. But some people say that's far too much intrusion and we shouldn't be requiring these kinds of things.

SNOW: So with all of the obesity, obviously a huge problem, now there is some new guidance on blood pressure. Is that related?

COHEN: That's right. So if last week your doctor you told you, you know, what your blood pressure is OK. Next week he might tell you, "You know what, you're pre-hypertensive." And that means if you're in a certain range, 120 over 40 to 139 over 89, if you're in that range, where previously they might have said, "You're OK." Now they're saying, "You're pre-hypertensive. You don't need to take drugs, but you should watch what you eat, watch your weight, don't eat too much sodium and exercise so that you don't go into that other area."

ARENA: But that's a big problem though, because it's not -- it's not only the -- you know, it's how large you are, but it's also how much sodium. I mean, I remember my mom had high blood pressure and they told her to just cut out the salt.

COHEN: And that is very, very hard to do. And so the NIH this week actually called on food makers to cut 50 percent of their sodium out of food products in next decade, which would be a very difficult thing to do.

ARENA: There's a lot. I mean, as you know, when you start -- when you really look for sodium intakes, it is...

COHEN: Oh, it's huge.

ARENA: ... amazing when you really...

COHEN: It's huge.

ARENA: ... start paying attention to that how much sodium there is.

COHEN: Right, people think, oh, I just won't shake so much on my food.

Well, that's not where you sodium comes from.

ARENA: What does it mean if your doctor, if you go in and you're one of these millions of people now who are pre...

COHEN: Pre-hypertensive.

ARENA: ... hypertensive. What does that mean? Am I -- am I changed? What do I do? Am I supposed to change everything?

COHEN: Well, if you're overweight, you're supposed to lose weight. Because that will help bring your blood pressure down. You're supposed to eat less sodium, and you're supposed in general eat a healthier diet. And you're supposed to exercise. And hopefully that will keep your blood pressure down to a OK level, so that you won't have to take drugs.

Because millions of Americans take these drugs, but they have some pretty heavy side effects. And so you don't want to take them unless you have to.

ARENA: Plus, another story that riled me -- I'm sorry -- the situation on the breast examines. COHEN: It riled many people. I was talking to a survivor who was just furious about this.

What happened is the American Cancer Society came out this week and for the first time, said, "Hey, you know, those breast exams that we've been telling you to do every month for decades now, well, guess what, it's an option. You don't have to do it. It is acceptable not to do it. You should be aware of how your breasts feel, but you don't actually have to do these monthly exams."

STARR: On what evidence do they make that change?

COHEN: They made the change based on scientific evidence. There are studies that show that they work. But there are also studies that show that they don't work.

There was a big study that came out of Shanghai in the past year that showed that when they had women do these exams, it didn't help cut down on cancer mortality. So the American Cancer Society is basically saying, "How can we tell women to do this when there is not the scientific evidence?"

ARENA: Well, isn't early detection though, part of the question?

COHEN: Part of the question is does it really help early detection? And one of the survivors I was talking to, she...

STARR: It couldn't hurt.

COHEN: ... well, she said that it actually helped her.

STARR: Right.

COHEN: She said that twice she caught her lump because or a self -- breast self examination. She caught it herself. So she is furious that the Cancer Society is now telling women it's an option.

ARENA: Yes, but the thing is, like Barbara said, "It doesn't hurt."

COHEN: Right.

ARENA: So if it doesn't hurt, and it may help...

COHEN: Well, I talked to a doctor from the Cancer Society, who said, "Look, we don't want women to feel guilty if they're not doing this." She said, "We get the feeling that women are feeling, 'Oh, gosh, I'm not doing it, I fell terrible, I'm not doing it right. I'm feeling all of these lumps and I don't know what I'm feeling,' so why should we sort of make these women feel bad when there's not a lot of scientific evidence that it works?" But obviously, there are lots of people who disagree with that.

MALVEAUX: And you heard the story about -- for the cookie lovers, Oreos.

COHEN: That's right.

MALVEAUX: What happened there?

COHEN: Raise your hand if you like Oreos.

SNOW: Me, I love Oreos. That's my most favorite cookie.

(LAUGHTER)

That was the only thing in my cupboard last night, honest to God.

COHEN: You had an Oreo dinner.

SNOW: I ate three Oreos last night.

(LAUGHTER)

ARENA: You're in for it.

COHEN That was your daily portion of trans-fatty acids.

SNOW: Is that right?

COHEN: Well, no, no. I shouldn't say that. I'm kidding. That was -- you got some trans-fatty acids there.

There is a gentleman in California who sued because he said that Oreos contained trans-fatty acids and that Kraft knows. Kraft, which makes them, knows that trans-fatty acids can clog arteries which is true. I mean, there are lots of evidence out there that trans-fatty acids are not good for your health. But trans-fatty acids are also in hundred, thousands of products, cakes and cookies and all that kind of stuff.

SNOW: And you take it out of the Oreos and I'm guessing they taste nothing like Oreos then.

COHEN: Well, I've never tasted an Oreo without them, so I don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

STARR: Trans-fatty acids in the creme or the cookie part? Just so we know.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: I read that it's in both, both the cookie and the creme.

SNOW: You can't away from it.

COHEN: You can't get away from it. You just have to smell them or something. But it's -- it's -- they're all over in all sorts of different products, in all sorts of different products. SNOW: Well, from, food fights to political fights -- a great segue -- the U.S. Senate served up not exactly what the president ordered last night, but pretty close.

I'm back in two minutes on the story of taxes and guns as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the sake of economic vitality, Congress has got to act and act boldly on this plan to get more of your own money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Economist-in-chief President Bush saying Congress must deliver and the Senate working late on Thursday, by a squeaker of a vote, gave the president a victory. They got three Democrats to vote for the tax cut in the Senate. Three Republicans bolted. In the end, tie breaker, Dick Cheney. They squeaked it through the Senate.

It's a different plan than passed the House. And the big question now as always -- I hate the word conference committee, I hate mentioning on television -- but that's what happens. They've got to conference this thing. They've got to work out the differences between the House and the Senate.

Of course, Republicans control both. So you would think they'll be able to come up with a tax cut.

ARENA: Well, that was what I was going to ask you. I mean, at the end of the day, knowing what you know and then the people that you talk to, will be get a tax cut or not? I mean, is there enough desire for that?

SNOW: Yes, I think the short answer is yes, but it's the details that are going to be tricky. The president, you guys remember, has been going out and calling for ending the double taxation on dividends, which I'm even sure everybody knows what we're taking about -- stock dividends. Not everybody gets stock dividends. It's mainly wealthy Americans, older Americans.

ARENA: You get taxed twice.

SNOW: Yes, the government taxes it twice. So the president has said over and over again, "End it, get rid of it."

Well, what the Senate did, is they ended it for -- they phased it out and ended it for three years. And then it would come back. The House did something completely different, lowering the dividend tax to 15 percent and also the capital gains tax, politically very popular item there. That's not in the Senate bill.

The Senate bill has some aid to the states, $20 billion. That's not in the House bill. You start to see the differences... (CROSSTALK)

STARR: Is that going to be the major difference, or is there something lurking out there that may...

SNOW: The state aid is a big thing. A lot of House members don't like that, but Tom DeLay even said that -- last week or this week -- that they might have to suck it up and live with that. States are really hurting now. They need more -- you know, they're in the red big time.

The dividend tax cut is probably the biggest item that they've got to reconcile their differences on that. And this whole capital gains issue that's in the House bill and not in the Senate bill.

I don't think the House ever thought they were going to get that whole thing through.

COHEN: And the president has a totally different idea.

SNOW: And neither (ph) of these, right...

MALVEAUX: The bottom line of the White House strategy, I mean, it's predictable, and yet at the same time, it really very smart what they're doing. Because what they do is they aim very high. They say, "OK, the president starts at $726 billion." They lower the expectations, they go in there, they say, "This is what we want." Already you have the White House insiders saying, "No, this is a victory for the president," where he's going to come out at the very least with $350 billion tax cut package, and at least addressing what he wanted, which was the double tax on the corporate dividends.

SNOW: And why? Because he wants to be able to go on the campaign trail and say, "I did something for this economy. I passed a tax cut." Or if it doesn't work, and the economy doesn't come back, he can go and say, "Oh, they passed a tax cut, but it wasn't as big as what I wanted. And so it didn't work. "

So he's going to be able to play it both ways.

ARENA: He's also playing it both way on guns, too, right.

SNOW: The assault weapons ban, the assault weapons ban is supposed to expire the end of -- the fall of next year. So it's not even for like a year-and-a-half now. But it came up in the news. The president's spokesperson was asked about it last month, I think it was, and said, "The President supports extending the ban on these," I think it's 19 different assault weapons, various types of semi- automatic weapons.

What happened this week that was really interesting on the Hill is that you had Tom DeLay coming out and saying to reports, "Well, I don't think we have the votes for this." And then his spokesman suggested that they had no intention of brining up -- even bringing it up for a vote in the Congress, to extend the assault weapons ban. That made headlines, front page of the Washington Post. That didn't sit very well with Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, I'm told by some insiders. That he sort of went, "Oh, no, I've got suburban moms in my district."

MALVEAUX: The president can play it both ways. He can basically satisfy the conservatives as well as the moderates. It doesn't come up for a vote. At the same time he comes forward and says, "Yes, of course, I'm going to extend the ban."

ARENA: So is it coming up for a vote or not?

SNOW: Well, we don't know because what happened...

MALVEAUX: It was a political hot potato too. I mean, even the Democrats...

SNOW: The speaker came out and said -- interesting political drama inside the Beltway that the speaker contradicted what DeLay said, his number two. The speaker came out and said, "Well, I haven't talked to the president yet. We're waiting for some guidance from the president."

ARENA: So we don't know what's going to happen.

SNOW: So we don't know if it's going to come up, but I think Suzanne is exactly right, that probably, even if it does come up, it might get stuck in committee. It might never go anywhere. The president would very much like to be publicly saying I support the extension of the ban, but privately saying to people on the Hill, "Let's not even bring this one up."

Why is it such a hot potato? It's all about the NRA. It's all about the fact that some Democrats out there who favor gun rights. And there's other Democrats out there who say, "Oh, no, I'm for gun control." But if they do that, the NRA is going to attack them in ads.

So it's a really tricky political calculation for all of the Members. And even a Democrat...

ARENA: You have a lot of popular support for gun ownership.

SNOW: Yes. And even a Democrat said to me, a senior Democratic aid said to me this week, "Well, we're going to say that we want this to come up for a vote, but we're not going to really push it. We're going to wait for the president to push it because," he said, "this is a bad political pun," but he said, "We're not going to bite the bullet, we're not going to take the bullet on this one."

MALVEAUX: Thanks, Kate.

We're coming down from Capitol Hill to what President Bush did this week, plus a check on what's making headlines right now. And the president's weekly radio address.

I'm back on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: There is no doubt in my mind this nation will rise to the challenges which we face. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the world is going to be more peaceful because of the actions taken by the United States of America and our friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush in New Mexico this week.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Well, the president made news of course. He officially threw his hate in the ring, that he's going to run again...

ARENA: Shocking.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: ... for re-election. We all knew that, but the officially started the process. It's really just a legal process, filing with the Federal Elections Commission.

What was really interesting, however, was the fact that it was done so quietly. I mean, even Ari Fleischer, his White House spokesperson, no announcements made. It was simply, "Yes," confirming this has happened. And it's part of the strategy, quietly begin to build the campaign, begin to build the war chest.

We're going to see the fund raising happening. But at the same time, don't have the president come out there and be vulnerable to attacks perhaps from the Democrats, saying, "I'm officially a candidate," and then they start in on his agenda.

SNOW: So he's building the war chest. Also some news about the money that he's already got this week. They have to file and disclose what they've got.

MALVEAUX: And it was very interesting. A lot of people looked at this because essentially they have to file for what their assets are, financial disclosure every year, he and the vice president. He's worth anywhere from $8 million to $22 million depending on -- that's a wide range...

ARENA: I know. It's a very wide range. And the vice president was like even wider.

MALVEAUX: Yes.

ARENA: Like to $90 million, something...

MALVEAUX: Yes, actually $96, $96. And the reason why is because of the form itself. You can chose to say, "Well, OK, I think this is worth $5,000 anywhere to $10,000. Well, I think this is worth," well there is a broad range. And the reason for that is because also...

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: The reason is it's more important for the government to know that this is not a conflict of interest when they talk about their assets instead of an accounting, and exact accounting of what they own.

What was very interesting was the gifts portion, as well. They have to go ahead and disclose gifts, any gift more than $285 from a single donor.

What did we see? We saw about $14,000 worth of gifts for the president. Eight tickets to the Rolling Stones.

ARENA: He did not go though, right?

MALVEAUX: He did not go. He's not a fan. Jenna went; it was for his daughter. And interesting, Tommy Mattola was the one who gave the tickets.

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: ... gave six tickets. That's right -- eight tickets, a boat, a dock, a cowboy hat, a barbecue pit, $325 from his staff. And just a number of really quirky items.

The vice president really interesting -- a fishing rod, a sculpture of a trout, things like this.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: But this is what they had. They have to account for their gifts in order to show that it's not a conflict of interest.

STARR: And new running shoes.

MALVEAUX: Oh, yes, running shows -- $725, I think.

ARENA: But nothing unethical, nothing -- no hint of any problem?

MALVEAUX: Absolutely not, and the reason why is because under federal guidelines of course, there are some guidelines about what the president can and cannot keep and from whom. But it is largely at the president's discretion what it is that he is allowed to keep. And that's why we see a lot of controversy sometimes.

We saw it with the Clintons, taking the furniture. Does it belong to them, does it not belong to them, is it personal? We saw it with Nancy Reagan with the $20,000 dress and so forth.

So there is a murky -- it's a gray area. But the president is going to be focusing primarily on looking for -- he's going to be talking about the war efforts. And this is something that he addresses in his weekly radio address.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

BUSH: Good morning.

May 17th is Armed Forces Day, when America honors the men and women who serve in every branch of the service. Here in the Oval Office, I'm joined by some distinguished Americans: eight members of the military who fought bravely during the battle of Iraq. All of them were wounded in battle and are recovering from their injuries. All of them have earned the respect and the gratitude of our nation.

Americans are proud of every man and woman who has faced the risks of war in the cause of freedom. Many still face dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they provide order and stability in liberated countries.

Many are fighting on other fronts in the war against terror, and some brave Americans have given their lives to protect our country and to keep the peace. Our whole nation honors their memory, and our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones they left behind.

The world has seen the tremendous capabilities of the United States military. With fine allies at their side, American soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines used advanced technology to gain historic victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unmanned Predator aircraft carried out bombing missions deep behind enemy lines, keeping more of our pilots out of harm's way. Satellites high above the earth, at any time of day or night, provided detailed images of individual targets and whole battlefields. At least two-thirds of the bombs used by coalition forces in Iraq were precision-guided by lasers of global-positioning satellites, compared with just 13 percent of the bombs we used in the 1991 Gulf War.

For all the contributions of technology, however, the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan were won by the skill and courage of well- trained, highly motivated men and women. In the recent fighting, Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. Pilots flew through blinding sandstorms. Soldiers and Marines ran into the face of gunfire, at times ignoring their own injuries to save wounded comrades.

Special Operations forces conducted daring raids to seize airfields and missile-launch sites. Every branch of the service worked in united purpose and displayed the highest standards of professionalism and honor.

With the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed allies of al Qaeda, cut off sources of terrorist funding, and made certain that no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

These two battles were important victories in the larger war on terror, yet the terrorist attacks this week in Saudi Arabia, which killed innocent civilians from more than half a dozen countries, including our own, provide a stark reminder that the war on terror continues.

The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government is taking unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And from Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers. So far, nearly one-half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed. And we will remain on the hunt until they are all brought to justice.

This nation accepts the responsibilities of keeping the peace. And the best way to keep the peace is to make sure that our military remains second to none.

On this Armed Forces Day, we are grateful to all who serve and sacrifice as members of the United States Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marines.

Thank you for listening.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: We talked about the president running again, and two things that we're going to hear very clearly, is the president is going to emphasize, that yes, he is concerned about the security, domestic security of Americans and also about their financial security.

He's also going to be talking about al Qaeda. Cynics say on the one hand, if you always talk about al Qaeda, you have this war on terror, it never goes away. He's a popular president. I hear -- and a lot of credit for the war itself. And some cynics, some critics are saying, "Well, perhaps he's just going to keep promoting this through the election."

STARR: Well, lots of well-deserved patriotic talk in that radio address, but what we didn't hear him talk a lot about was the weapons of mass destruction, the presumed reason for going to war in Iraq. You have to wonder if that's going to be an issue on the campaign trail, or is that because they haven't found any weapons, are the White House operatives just pushing that aside now?

MALVEAUX: I think if it's going to be a campaign issue, it's going to be something that's either going to come from the media or it's going to come from the Democrats. I don't necessarily think that the Bush administration is going to bring that forward. At the same time, if they are asked, essentially what they argue is that, "Well, it takes a long time. Perhaps these weapons have been destroyed. They're hidden. They're stolen. They've -- it was very difficult. The inspectors didn't find them to begin with. So this is something that they continue to work on."

But they will also make the argument that it's a much broader issue than weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the war on terror is something that they are working on in earnest.

STARR: Well, from combat in Washington to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. And new efforts by the Pentagon to spot stress and troubles for U.S. troops and their families.

I'll be back on the story in two minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He went up and smacked the television and said, "Give me my daddy out of that television." And there's nothing you can do for a child that young to really explain to him where daddy and when daddy is coming home, because all of the noble and good stories you tell don't make sense to a 2-year old whose daddy is not there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Well, the fears and frustrations of military families separated for long periods, often unable to know where their loved ones are going, what they're doing, when they will return.

Welcome back. I'm on the story.

This week we went down to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to talk to a number of women married to Special Forces soldiers, the men who have been away from home for so long, both in the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the men who actually go out on the front lines and confront the al Qaeda, confront the Iraqi Saddam loyalists head to head. Very tough business. And their wives are left behind with children, who often do know, who do understand where their fathers are, do have some understanding of what they're doing. And it contributes to a lot of stress.

We went to talk to them about how they deal with these very unique family situations. It's tough going for them. But they make do. They talk about their husbands as going away on long business trips. And then you think about what these men are doing, and that's not exactly what we here think of most men as doing on long business trips.

COHEN: And the military is trying to change when these folks come back home, to try to help them ease their way back into things.

STARR: That really is the story this week. The Army, for the first time now, will have a mandatory screening program of wellbeing for all soldiers returning from deployments. They've sort of learned the lesson the hard way, that they really need to keep a pair of eyeballs on every person coming back and make sure they're able to cope and reintegrate with their families.

One day you're in Afghanistan. The next day you're at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, pushing the lawn mower. It's a tough transition.

ARENA: And the hard way because there were some bad incidents last summer.

STARR: Fort Bragg was very hard hit last summer. There were four spouse murders in a period of six weeks. None of them were proven, we should say, to be tied to the stress of combat. But several of them involved men who had just come back from Afghanistan and did -- it is proven -- they did kill their wives. It was a wake- up call for the military. They wanted to make sure they were doing enough, so hence, this new program.

SNOW: I'm curious. What did they say to you about the embedded journalists program? I mean, you know, this war we had embedded journalists over there reporting right from the lines with units. So I'm sure that the women and men who were left behind could watch and go, "Oh, my God, that's my husband, that's his unit."

STARR: One of the women we talked to she saw a news report on TV that a Special Forces unit in Iraq, where she thought her husband was, had been hit by friendly fire. She told us she spent the entire day staring out the window waiting for a military vehicle to pull up to her front door.

She was terrified. And then she said, "Another wife and had checked it all out, and quote, 'The team was fine.'" She said she went to her bedroom and just burst into tears.

MALVEAUX: Barbara, tell us what's going on, on the ground in Iraq?

STARR: Well, that's really important, Suzanne, because as we all know, the Iraq story has not gone away. It think the real change this week was now everywhere from the White House to the Pentagon, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer in Baghdad. Everyone is now saying security is the number one concern.

No more of the talk we heard a few weeks ago, "Oh, isolated incidents." There is looting. There is unrest. There are problems. Paul Bremer trying to get a handle on it, issuing procedures now that say, "Baath Party loyalists will basically be shut out of a new government."

They believe some of the Saddam loyalists are behind the looting and unrest in Baghdad. And the people there are still terrified by all accounts. From the CNN reporters that we have on the ground, they are very nervous, very upset about the lack of security in the capital.

ARENA: Is the military equipped to deal with that type of a situation?

STARR: Well, they're trying. These are young soldiers, young kids and suddenly they're on the streets of Baghdad acting as policemen. And there is a crack down on the looting. There is...

SNOW: Do they have orders now? Didn't I hear this week they have orders now where they can shoot at looters?

STARR: Well, they can shoot in self-defense. That has not changed. But they're trying to crack down. They're grabbing looters, and they're putting them into custody for a couple of weeks, trying to discourage these people from this type of activity. More of a crack down, more of saying, "Just don't do it." Trying to get more discipline on the streets of Baghdad. They hope it's going to work.

COHEN: And is the policy being done entirely by coalition forces? Is there any sort of semblance of police left in Iraq?

STARR: In several cities across Iraq, they are putting what they hope are you know, loyal to the transition Iraqis, back to work as policemen in several places. Some of it is working. Some of it is not.

What you hear now is it may take a much longer time to restore order than they originally believed. So much more of a reality check on what's going on.

SNOW: Just ahead, back to politics. The Texas Democrats who, outnumbered, ran for the border. And why 41 years later, a JFK secret comes out?

We're on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM DUNNUM, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS: We have a message for Tom DeLay, "Don't mess with Texas."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Jim Dunnum, chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the Texas legislature, taking aim at Republican Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom DeLay. A new round in a long political game, that's over now. It was over numbers. It was about drawing a new election district map in Texas, trying to come out on top. Tom DeLay, essentially rewrote the map and said, "Here you go, Texas legislature. Let's pass a new map," because the legislature when they were supposed to do it two years ago couldn't come up with a new map. And some judges made the decision. Well, the Republicans didn't like the judges' decision, so they tried to force through this new map.

But that got lost in the story, right. That didn't even really matter. What mattered was a bunch of Democrats got on planes and buses and went to Oklahoma.

Big political theater. It got a lot of attention this week. And it worked. They successfully went back yesterday after the deadline. And it's too late now for them to introduce it in this session, the map for the new congressional districts.

ARENA: Are we going to see this across the country, people running for the border?

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, entertaining this in all seriousness?

SNOW: It ought (ph) to work. I mean, in all -- all right, in partial seriousness, I've heard a lot of Democrats on the Hill, on Capitol Hill this week, saying, "Maybe we should try that."

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: It came up at their meeting this week. They have these weekly caucus meetings where they discuss, you know, strategy. And a number of them, I'm told, were raising their hands going, "We should do something like that," because it got a lot of media attention, a lot of media play. And the poor Democrats on Capitol Hill right now feel like they're a little slighted, they're ignored. They don't matter, right.

ARENA: Yes, but if they went to Tijuana, some one would pay attention to them, yes.

SNOW: It wouldn't matter in the U.S. Congress, because -- in the Texas House it worked because the quorum issue. They have to have a number of people in order to pass anything. In the U.S. House, the rules wouldn't make any difference if the Democrats left. The Republicans could still -- they could just pass everything they wanted then.

So but you know what, the funny -- my favorite antidote of this whole thing was, is that you know, you had everybody calling each other names. They called the Democrats cowards. Well, then some -- one Democrat in Congress in Washington, sent books to everyone of the Texas Democrats who had left, they sent "Profiles in Courage," copies of the book. And Willie Nelson sent some CDs to them.

I mean, it's just crazy.

ARENA: What I don't understand. This was a state issue. Why was Tom DeLay involved?

SNOW: Well, his office says -- I've talked to them a lot about this -- they say again, that the process hadn't worked. It broke down because back when they tried to do the map in the legislature, it was -- the two houses are controlled -- were controlled by Democrats and Republicans -- stalemated. They couldn't get anything through.

So they're saying they're just trying to fix what didn't work. They're trying to now get something through the state legislature now that it happens to be controlled all by Republicans.

So that's how the whole thing started.

STARR: Go back to what you were saying about Washington for one second, and the same sort of scenario. It's an interesting thing. What can the Democrats on Capital Hill do now to get any profile for themselves. No one pays attention.

SNOW: They're really worried about that, they're really worried. Steny Hoyer, who is the number two in the House, Democrat, had a -- we call it a pen and pad briefing -- no cameras, this week. And he complained to the media and said, "You guys aren't covering, you media people are not covering Democratic tax plans, for example. We're irrelevant to you."

Well, it's because their votes -- they don't have the votes. And so you know, if I go on TV and I have two minutes to talk about the tax cut, if I spend a lot of time talking about the Democratic plan that I know isn't going any where, it's kind of a catch-22.

COHEN: Now Kate, we're going to stay on the political beat, but barely.

Here's the ON THE STORY question of the week. "Is it never too late for JFK's secrets?" This was the week that broke open a 41-year political secret. Or was it just a celebrity secret about former President John F. Kennedy having an affair with an intern? Is this just gossip or this important at all?

ARENA: Well, that's what Democrats could do. They could have affairs with interns and then look at...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

No, I'm sorry.

SNOW: You know what I find of interest? It was two lines apparently. I haven't read the book. My colleague Jon Karl, not only did he read the 800 page book, but he wrote the review in the Wall Street Journal the other day. He's amazing. But it told me it was two lines in the book of 800 pages.

So it's more a media creation. And this woman now coming out with her statement, having to come out, because it got so much attention.

COHEN: Now tell me all of you, if you agree with me or not, I feel sorry for this woman. She had an affair at age 19 with the president, and then she stayed silent for 40 years. She didn't say anything. She didn't try to cash in on it. She didn't try to get attention. I feel bad for her.

MALVEAUX: I think there is the "who cares" factor here. I think there are a lot of people who listen to this, they hear this story and they just don't care.

That there are much bigger issues.

ARENA: Well, because everyone assumes he had affairs with interns, right?

COHEN: This was a really long time ago, and it's not like this is the first revelation about JFK's love life.

I mean, you know, does this shock anybody? It didn't shock me. You know, so she has the support of her family.

ARENA: I don't feel sorry for her because she's probably going to get a book deal now, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: But she hasn't. She didn't try before. I mean, for four decades, she could have gotten a book deal and she didn't.

ARENA: But how she's got the publicity. Who knows.

COHEN: That's right.

MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues. And thank you for watching The Story.

Still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," focusing this week on Shania Twain, whose latest album has sold more than any other female artist ever. At 12 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY: with a report on SARS and the West Nile disease, how to protect yourself. And at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific, "IN THE MONEY" looks at how the U.S.-Saudi friendship gets down to business.

Coming up before the top of the hour, a check on what's making headlines right now.

We're back ON THE STORY next week.

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




Terrorist Attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco Rattle Law Enforcement; Bush Straddles Line Between Conservatives, Moderates>


Aired May 17, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.
I'm Kate Snow, on the story of the tricky math, the political spin, and the impact of the tax cut vote in the Senate this week.

KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelli Arena, on the story of how terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and now Morocco have rattled law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic offices all the way back here in Washington.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I'm Barbara Starr, on the story of veterans of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan coming home, the demands on them and their families.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of how President Bush walks the line between conservatives and moderates, a line his advisers say leads straight to 2004.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Elizabeth Cohen, on the story of changing the rules this week for some big health issues, including high blood pressure and breast cancer.

We'll be talking about all of these stories. We're also on the story of a 41-year-old secret of the intern who had an affair with JFK. We'll talk about how run for the border is a new political ploy in Texas and may be copied. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address later in the hour.

We want to hear from you. Send us your questions and comments to onthestory@cnn.com.

Kelli Arena, now we'll talk about the Saudi terror attacks.

ARENA: That's right. Well, the attacks in Saudi Arabia Monday killed 25 people, including eight Americans. The gunfights and bombings returned the war on terror to the top of the pile. They prompted new questions about intelligence warnings and the fate of al Qaeda. And they again turned up the heat on the...

(AUDIO GAP)

ARENA: ... Saudi Arabia earlier this week. We had more attacks. Same mode of attack, using truck bombs, car bombs, in Morocco today.

The thing that we're focusing most on, or at least law enforcement is focusing most on, is the fact that these involved soft targets. Soft targets are very difficult to protect. They include things like apartment buildings, discotheques, anything that is not owned by the government like an embassy or a military facility, for example, that we know can be hardened.

MALVEAUX: Do we know who's responsible? Is it al Qaeda? Because one thing that President Bush is talking about constantly -- and he actually mentioned it yesterday -- he said about half of the al Qaeda operatives are really out of business, and the other half are very much alive.

Do we know who's responsible for this?

ARENA: Well, it's the other half that law enforcement and intelligence officials are saying is responsible. They've actually -- sources have said that Saif Al-Adel (ph), who is number three in the al Qaeda hierarchy, is allegedly a major planner of the attacks, at least on Saudi Arabia.

Morocco is newer. It bears the markings of al Qaeda, but there has to be some more investigative work done there before any link can be made.

But at least in Saudi Arabia, every official that we've spoken to this week -- and Barbara can back me up here -- does seem to point the finger directly at al Qaeda involvement and also bringing in Iran in that equation, because at least Saif Al-Adel (ph), among other al Qaeda operatives, are said to be, according to the most recent intelligence, holed up in Iran at this time.

SNOW: Go back to this issue of soft targets. I talked to Adel Al-Jubeir, who's the foreign affairs adviser to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who you've probably seen because he's been all over the air waves over the last couple of days sort of apologizing and saying, "Yes, we did have some warning, we didn't do enough to protect those housing complexes" in Saudi Arabia, but can they even do enough? I mean, there are thousands of complexes just like it in Saudi Arabia that they would have to somehow protect.

ARENA: Right. Well, the bottom line is that the U.S. officials we've spoken to have said that they were never -- they never passed along to the Saudis any specific intelligence regarding any one target. They did mention certain (UNINTELLIGIBLE), saying, well, we think this may be vulnerable. But in terms of the intelligence, it wasn't like they had an address or even a block that they came to the Saudis with and said, hey, this is what we're dealing with.

But soft targets are very difficult. OK, let's parallel it here to the United States. You have apartment buildings. Take one example, apartment buildings. The government goes to a landlord and says, "Look, you know, we know that soft targets are vulnerable, you need to beef up security." And the landlord comes back and says, "Well, you know what, that means I have to raise rents, and I'm already hardly make a dime in this market. And, you know what, unless you come back to me with specific intelligence, I think we're doing just fine. We have a doorman."

I mean, it's not like the government can come and mandate that certain things be put in place, at least not yet.

MALVEAUX: The White House is really frustrated this week, too, with Saudi officials. I mean, they've brought up this time and time again, quietly, that Saudi Arabia's really not doing enough to confront its terrorist problem. And this week was the first time that they actually came forward and said, "Yes, we're facing this head on, we have a serious problem."

STARR: It does, but I think it also raises a much broader question. The intelligence community this week saying al Qaeda remains active in half a dozen or more countries across Africa, Asia, the Pacific. It raises the question of, even with all the hundreds of people they've taken into custody, is al Qaeda -- either is it back, or did it never go away? Is, in fact, there...

ARENA: Well, I mean, they would argue it never went away, Barbara.

STARR: Right. Is there a new generation of al Qaeda leaders? Does Osama bin Laden matter any more? Or are there...

ARENA: Let's not forget that you had thousands of people that went through those training camps in Afghanistan, thousands of people, that remain unaccounted for. And just recently in the past few weeks, you had two Middle East men who were arrested in the United States, secret arrests of these individuals who officials tell CNN were conducting what they call, pre-surveillance activity, looking for opportunity, looking for targets that they could identify. They were part of a larger group, we are told, of at least half a dozen al Qaeda operatives, who were also conducting what they call surveillance, what officials call surveillance-type activities.

So even right here within the United States, surveillance continues, activity continues by alleged al Qaeda operatives. Because we -- you know, just because we've hardened and we've done a lot since September 11, does not mean that this focus on so-called soft targets or other targets, are not -- are still not on the mind of people who are willing and capable and have a great desire to do harm to the United States or U.S. interests.

COHEN: Well, Kelli, thank you for all of that information about Saudi Arabia.

And from a dangerous world, to the risk we see all around us in our personal lives. And just this week, the experts we trust, changed some of the rules about what we're supposed to do to stay healthy.

I'm on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOMMY THOMPSON, HHS SECRETARY: Two-thirds of our American citizens are overweight or obese, and 15 to 20 percent of our children. And that's very unhealthy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson taking aim at overweight Americans and the fast food restaurants that feed them.

Welcome back. We're back ON THE STORY.

So what Tommy Thompson basically wants to do is he wants to sort of crack down on fast food restaurants and say, "You know what, 64 percent of Americans obese or overweight. The restaurants need to do what's right."

Specifically, what is he going to do? How is hie going to accomplish that? What's he going to do to get them to change?

STARR: Is it portion control? Are restaurants -- is the industry going to cut back on how much they serve people?

COHEN: That would certainly be one way to do it, but he didn't specifically say that. So it's a little bit of a mystery about exactly he would do.

STARR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cheeseburger.

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Right, exactly. You can have a cheeseburger is you're this weight and a whole cheeseburger if you're that weight. I mean, who knows.

ARENA: Going to cut you off, buddy.

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: That's right.

ARENA: One cheeseburger. You're a little overweight there. (LAUGHTER)

COHEN: Right. It really is, it's just a little bit unclear exactly what it is that he plans to do. But portion control is huge.

ARENA: People eat this because they want to eat this.

COHEN: Right.

ARENA: I mean, if there was not a desire and a demand for this type of food, then restaurants would be making something else. I mean, come on. COHEN: And that's what the restaurant industry says. They say, "Look, we give people what they want. We don't -- we're not making this up. People are buying certain things. Like, what ever happened to McLean Deluxe? Well, it disappeared because basically people didn't want it. They wanted a Big Mac instead.

STARR: Do they think people are going to McDonalds and buying salads?

I mean, is that happening?

ARENA: Well, they do though. They're advertising salads as an offering.

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: Those are for the mommies who have to -- who are forced to bring their children to McDonalds once a month. We give in once a month.

(LAUGHTER)

And Kelli and I know this from experience. And...

(CROSSTALK)

STARR: And you need something to eat.

ARENA: ... because you're starving and you're looking at this menu and going, oh, my God, this is going straight to the hips."

COHEN: But there is a real fundamental problem here which is that consumers clearly want this, and they clearly want the super sizes. I mean, you see those things, some of those super sizes have like 1,000 calories in one meal.

ARENA: But what can the government do really? I mean, can they do anything at all?

COHEN: That's the big question. I mean some nutrition advocates say, "Yes, there are things they can do." For example, there's one group that says, "Let's require that fast food restaurants put the calories right next to the menu items on the board." So can you imagine, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you're looking up at the board you know, and it says hamburger, 400 calories. I mean the calories would be right there. And it would probably make you think twice.

So that's one thing that the government could do. But some people say that's far too much intrusion and we shouldn't be requiring these kinds of things.

SNOW: So with all of the obesity, obviously a huge problem, now there is some new guidance on blood pressure. Is that related?

COHEN: That's right. So if last week your doctor you told you, you know, what your blood pressure is OK. Next week he might tell you, "You know what, you're pre-hypertensive." And that means if you're in a certain range, 120 over 40 to 139 over 89, if you're in that range, where previously they might have said, "You're OK." Now they're saying, "You're pre-hypertensive. You don't need to take drugs, but you should watch what you eat, watch your weight, don't eat too much sodium and exercise so that you don't go into that other area."

ARENA: But that's a big problem though, because it's not -- it's not only the -- you know, it's how large you are, but it's also how much sodium. I mean, I remember my mom had high blood pressure and they told her to just cut out the salt.

COHEN: And that is very, very hard to do. And so the NIH this week actually called on food makers to cut 50 percent of their sodium out of food products in next decade, which would be a very difficult thing to do.

ARENA: There's a lot. I mean, as you know, when you start -- when you really look for sodium intakes, it is...

COHEN: Oh, it's huge.

ARENA: ... amazing when you really...

COHEN: It's huge.

ARENA: ... start paying attention to that how much sodium there is.

COHEN: Right, people think, oh, I just won't shake so much on my food.

Well, that's not where you sodium comes from.

ARENA: What does it mean if your doctor, if you go in and you're one of these millions of people now who are pre...

COHEN: Pre-hypertensive.

ARENA: ... hypertensive. What does that mean? Am I -- am I changed? What do I do? Am I supposed to change everything?

COHEN: Well, if you're overweight, you're supposed to lose weight. Because that will help bring your blood pressure down. You're supposed to eat less sodium, and you're supposed in general eat a healthier diet. And you're supposed to exercise. And hopefully that will keep your blood pressure down to a OK level, so that you won't have to take drugs.

Because millions of Americans take these drugs, but they have some pretty heavy side effects. And so you don't want to take them unless you have to.

ARENA: Plus, another story that riled me -- I'm sorry -- the situation on the breast examines. COHEN: It riled many people. I was talking to a survivor who was just furious about this.

What happened is the American Cancer Society came out this week and for the first time, said, "Hey, you know, those breast exams that we've been telling you to do every month for decades now, well, guess what, it's an option. You don't have to do it. It is acceptable not to do it. You should be aware of how your breasts feel, but you don't actually have to do these monthly exams."

STARR: On what evidence do they make that change?

COHEN: They made the change based on scientific evidence. There are studies that show that they work. But there are also studies that show that they don't work.

There was a big study that came out of Shanghai in the past year that showed that when they had women do these exams, it didn't help cut down on cancer mortality. So the American Cancer Society is basically saying, "How can we tell women to do this when there is not the scientific evidence?"

ARENA: Well, isn't early detection though, part of the question?

COHEN: Part of the question is does it really help early detection? And one of the survivors I was talking to, she...

STARR: It couldn't hurt.

COHEN: ... well, she said that it actually helped her.

STARR: Right.

COHEN: She said that twice she caught her lump because or a self -- breast self examination. She caught it herself. So she is furious that the Cancer Society is now telling women it's an option.

ARENA: Yes, but the thing is, like Barbara said, "It doesn't hurt."

COHEN: Right.

ARENA: So if it doesn't hurt, and it may help...

COHEN: Well, I talked to a doctor from the Cancer Society, who said, "Look, we don't want women to feel guilty if they're not doing this." She said, "We get the feeling that women are feeling, 'Oh, gosh, I'm not doing it, I fell terrible, I'm not doing it right. I'm feeling all of these lumps and I don't know what I'm feeling,' so why should we sort of make these women feel bad when there's not a lot of scientific evidence that it works?" But obviously, there are lots of people who disagree with that.

MALVEAUX: And you heard the story about -- for the cookie lovers, Oreos.

COHEN: That's right.

MALVEAUX: What happened there?

COHEN: Raise your hand if you like Oreos.

SNOW: Me, I love Oreos. That's my most favorite cookie.

(LAUGHTER)

That was the only thing in my cupboard last night, honest to God.

COHEN: You had an Oreo dinner.

SNOW: I ate three Oreos last night.

(LAUGHTER)

ARENA: You're in for it.

COHEN That was your daily portion of trans-fatty acids.

SNOW: Is that right?

COHEN: Well, no, no. I shouldn't say that. I'm kidding. That was -- you got some trans-fatty acids there.

There is a gentleman in California who sued because he said that Oreos contained trans-fatty acids and that Kraft knows. Kraft, which makes them, knows that trans-fatty acids can clog arteries which is true. I mean, there are lots of evidence out there that trans-fatty acids are not good for your health. But trans-fatty acids are also in hundred, thousands of products, cakes and cookies and all that kind of stuff.

SNOW: And you take it out of the Oreos and I'm guessing they taste nothing like Oreos then.

COHEN: Well, I've never tasted an Oreo without them, so I don't know.

(LAUGHTER)

STARR: Trans-fatty acids in the creme or the cookie part? Just so we know.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: I read that it's in both, both the cookie and the creme.

SNOW: You can't away from it.

COHEN: You can't get away from it. You just have to smell them or something. But it's -- it's -- they're all over in all sorts of different products, in all sorts of different products. SNOW: Well, from, food fights to political fights -- a great segue -- the U.S. Senate served up not exactly what the president ordered last night, but pretty close.

I'm back in two minutes on the story of taxes and guns as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the sake of economic vitality, Congress has got to act and act boldly on this plan to get more of your own money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Economist-in-chief President Bush saying Congress must deliver and the Senate working late on Thursday, by a squeaker of a vote, gave the president a victory. They got three Democrats to vote for the tax cut in the Senate. Three Republicans bolted. In the end, tie breaker, Dick Cheney. They squeaked it through the Senate.

It's a different plan than passed the House. And the big question now as always -- I hate the word conference committee, I hate mentioning on television -- but that's what happens. They've got to conference this thing. They've got to work out the differences between the House and the Senate.

Of course, Republicans control both. So you would think they'll be able to come up with a tax cut.

ARENA: Well, that was what I was going to ask you. I mean, at the end of the day, knowing what you know and then the people that you talk to, will be get a tax cut or not? I mean, is there enough desire for that?

SNOW: Yes, I think the short answer is yes, but it's the details that are going to be tricky. The president, you guys remember, has been going out and calling for ending the double taxation on dividends, which I'm even sure everybody knows what we're taking about -- stock dividends. Not everybody gets stock dividends. It's mainly wealthy Americans, older Americans.

ARENA: You get taxed twice.

SNOW: Yes, the government taxes it twice. So the president has said over and over again, "End it, get rid of it."

Well, what the Senate did, is they ended it for -- they phased it out and ended it for three years. And then it would come back. The House did something completely different, lowering the dividend tax to 15 percent and also the capital gains tax, politically very popular item there. That's not in the Senate bill.

The Senate bill has some aid to the states, $20 billion. That's not in the House bill. You start to see the differences... (CROSSTALK)

STARR: Is that going to be the major difference, or is there something lurking out there that may...

SNOW: The state aid is a big thing. A lot of House members don't like that, but Tom DeLay even said that -- last week or this week -- that they might have to suck it up and live with that. States are really hurting now. They need more -- you know, they're in the red big time.

The dividend tax cut is probably the biggest item that they've got to reconcile their differences on that. And this whole capital gains issue that's in the House bill and not in the Senate bill.

I don't think the House ever thought they were going to get that whole thing through.

COHEN: And the president has a totally different idea.

SNOW: And neither (ph) of these, right...

MALVEAUX: The bottom line of the White House strategy, I mean, it's predictable, and yet at the same time, it really very smart what they're doing. Because what they do is they aim very high. They say, "OK, the president starts at $726 billion." They lower the expectations, they go in there, they say, "This is what we want." Already you have the White House insiders saying, "No, this is a victory for the president," where he's going to come out at the very least with $350 billion tax cut package, and at least addressing what he wanted, which was the double tax on the corporate dividends.

SNOW: And why? Because he wants to be able to go on the campaign trail and say, "I did something for this economy. I passed a tax cut." Or if it doesn't work, and the economy doesn't come back, he can go and say, "Oh, they passed a tax cut, but it wasn't as big as what I wanted. And so it didn't work. "

So he's going to be able to play it both ways.

ARENA: He's also playing it both way on guns, too, right.

SNOW: The assault weapons ban, the assault weapons ban is supposed to expire the end of -- the fall of next year. So it's not even for like a year-and-a-half now. But it came up in the news. The president's spokesperson was asked about it last month, I think it was, and said, "The President supports extending the ban on these," I think it's 19 different assault weapons, various types of semi- automatic weapons.

What happened this week that was really interesting on the Hill is that you had Tom DeLay coming out and saying to reports, "Well, I don't think we have the votes for this." And then his spokesman suggested that they had no intention of brining up -- even bringing it up for a vote in the Congress, to extend the assault weapons ban. That made headlines, front page of the Washington Post. That didn't sit very well with Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, I'm told by some insiders. That he sort of went, "Oh, no, I've got suburban moms in my district."

MALVEAUX: The president can play it both ways. He can basically satisfy the conservatives as well as the moderates. It doesn't come up for a vote. At the same time he comes forward and says, "Yes, of course, I'm going to extend the ban."

ARENA: So is it coming up for a vote or not?

SNOW: Well, we don't know because what happened...

MALVEAUX: It was a political hot potato too. I mean, even the Democrats...

SNOW: The speaker came out and said -- interesting political drama inside the Beltway that the speaker contradicted what DeLay said, his number two. The speaker came out and said, "Well, I haven't talked to the president yet. We're waiting for some guidance from the president."

ARENA: So we don't know what's going to happen.

SNOW: So we don't know if it's going to come up, but I think Suzanne is exactly right, that probably, even if it does come up, it might get stuck in committee. It might never go anywhere. The president would very much like to be publicly saying I support the extension of the ban, but privately saying to people on the Hill, "Let's not even bring this one up."

Why is it such a hot potato? It's all about the NRA. It's all about the fact that some Democrats out there who favor gun rights. And there's other Democrats out there who say, "Oh, no, I'm for gun control." But if they do that, the NRA is going to attack them in ads.

So it's a really tricky political calculation for all of the Members. And even a Democrat...

ARENA: You have a lot of popular support for gun ownership.

SNOW: Yes. And even a Democrat said to me, a senior Democratic aid said to me this week, "Well, we're going to say that we want this to come up for a vote, but we're not going to really push it. We're going to wait for the president to push it because," he said, "this is a bad political pun," but he said, "We're not going to bite the bullet, we're not going to take the bullet on this one."

MALVEAUX: Thanks, Kate.

We're coming down from Capitol Hill to what President Bush did this week, plus a check on what's making headlines right now. And the president's weekly radio address.

I'm back on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: There is no doubt in my mind this nation will rise to the challenges which we face. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the world is going to be more peaceful because of the actions taken by the United States of America and our friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush in New Mexico this week.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Well, the president made news of course. He officially threw his hate in the ring, that he's going to run again...

ARENA: Shocking.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: ... for re-election. We all knew that, but the officially started the process. It's really just a legal process, filing with the Federal Elections Commission.

What was really interesting, however, was the fact that it was done so quietly. I mean, even Ari Fleischer, his White House spokesperson, no announcements made. It was simply, "Yes," confirming this has happened. And it's part of the strategy, quietly begin to build the campaign, begin to build the war chest.

We're going to see the fund raising happening. But at the same time, don't have the president come out there and be vulnerable to attacks perhaps from the Democrats, saying, "I'm officially a candidate," and then they start in on his agenda.

SNOW: So he's building the war chest. Also some news about the money that he's already got this week. They have to file and disclose what they've got.

MALVEAUX: And it was very interesting. A lot of people looked at this because essentially they have to file for what their assets are, financial disclosure every year, he and the vice president. He's worth anywhere from $8 million to $22 million depending on -- that's a wide range...

ARENA: I know. It's a very wide range. And the vice president was like even wider.

MALVEAUX: Yes.

ARENA: Like to $90 million, something...

MALVEAUX: Yes, actually $96, $96. And the reason why is because of the form itself. You can chose to say, "Well, OK, I think this is worth $5,000 anywhere to $10,000. Well, I think this is worth," well there is a broad range. And the reason for that is because also...

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: The reason is it's more important for the government to know that this is not a conflict of interest when they talk about their assets instead of an accounting, and exact accounting of what they own.

What was very interesting was the gifts portion, as well. They have to go ahead and disclose gifts, any gift more than $285 from a single donor.

What did we see? We saw about $14,000 worth of gifts for the president. Eight tickets to the Rolling Stones.

ARENA: He did not go though, right?

MALVEAUX: He did not go. He's not a fan. Jenna went; it was for his daughter. And interesting, Tommy Mattola was the one who gave the tickets.

(CROSSTALK)

MALVEAUX: ... gave six tickets. That's right -- eight tickets, a boat, a dock, a cowboy hat, a barbecue pit, $325 from his staff. And just a number of really quirky items.

The vice president really interesting -- a fishing rod, a sculpture of a trout, things like this.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: But this is what they had. They have to account for their gifts in order to show that it's not a conflict of interest.

STARR: And new running shoes.

MALVEAUX: Oh, yes, running shows -- $725, I think.

ARENA: But nothing unethical, nothing -- no hint of any problem?

MALVEAUX: Absolutely not, and the reason why is because under federal guidelines of course, there are some guidelines about what the president can and cannot keep and from whom. But it is largely at the president's discretion what it is that he is allowed to keep. And that's why we see a lot of controversy sometimes.

We saw it with the Clintons, taking the furniture. Does it belong to them, does it not belong to them, is it personal? We saw it with Nancy Reagan with the $20,000 dress and so forth.

So there is a murky -- it's a gray area. But the president is going to be focusing primarily on looking for -- he's going to be talking about the war efforts. And this is something that he addresses in his weekly radio address.

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

BUSH: Good morning.

May 17th is Armed Forces Day, when America honors the men and women who serve in every branch of the service. Here in the Oval Office, I'm joined by some distinguished Americans: eight members of the military who fought bravely during the battle of Iraq. All of them were wounded in battle and are recovering from their injuries. All of them have earned the respect and the gratitude of our nation.

Americans are proud of every man and woman who has faced the risks of war in the cause of freedom. Many still face dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they provide order and stability in liberated countries.

Many are fighting on other fronts in the war against terror, and some brave Americans have given their lives to protect our country and to keep the peace. Our whole nation honors their memory, and our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones they left behind.

The world has seen the tremendous capabilities of the United States military. With fine allies at their side, American soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines used advanced technology to gain historic victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unmanned Predator aircraft carried out bombing missions deep behind enemy lines, keeping more of our pilots out of harm's way. Satellites high above the earth, at any time of day or night, provided detailed images of individual targets and whole battlefields. At least two-thirds of the bombs used by coalition forces in Iraq were precision-guided by lasers of global-positioning satellites, compared with just 13 percent of the bombs we used in the 1991 Gulf War.

For all the contributions of technology, however, the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan were won by the skill and courage of well- trained, highly motivated men and women. In the recent fighting, Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. Pilots flew through blinding sandstorms. Soldiers and Marines ran into the face of gunfire, at times ignoring their own injuries to save wounded comrades.

Special Operations forces conducted daring raids to seize airfields and missile-launch sites. Every branch of the service worked in united purpose and displayed the highest standards of professionalism and honor.

With the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed allies of al Qaeda, cut off sources of terrorist funding, and made certain that no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

These two battles were important victories in the larger war on terror, yet the terrorist attacks this week in Saudi Arabia, which killed innocent civilians from more than half a dozen countries, including our own, provide a stark reminder that the war on terror continues.

The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government is taking unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And from Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers. So far, nearly one-half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed. And we will remain on the hunt until they are all brought to justice.

This nation accepts the responsibilities of keeping the peace. And the best way to keep the peace is to make sure that our military remains second to none.

On this Armed Forces Day, we are grateful to all who serve and sacrifice as members of the United States Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marines.

Thank you for listening.

(END AUDIOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: We talked about the president running again, and two things that we're going to hear very clearly, is the president is going to emphasize, that yes, he is concerned about the security, domestic security of Americans and also about their financial security.

He's also going to be talking about al Qaeda. Cynics say on the one hand, if you always talk about al Qaeda, you have this war on terror, it never goes away. He's a popular president. I hear -- and a lot of credit for the war itself. And some cynics, some critics are saying, "Well, perhaps he's just going to keep promoting this through the election."

STARR: Well, lots of well-deserved patriotic talk in that radio address, but what we didn't hear him talk a lot about was the weapons of mass destruction, the presumed reason for going to war in Iraq. You have to wonder if that's going to be an issue on the campaign trail, or is that because they haven't found any weapons, are the White House operatives just pushing that aside now?

MALVEAUX: I think if it's going to be a campaign issue, it's going to be something that's either going to come from the media or it's going to come from the Democrats. I don't necessarily think that the Bush administration is going to bring that forward. At the same time, if they are asked, essentially what they argue is that, "Well, it takes a long time. Perhaps these weapons have been destroyed. They're hidden. They're stolen. They've -- it was very difficult. The inspectors didn't find them to begin with. So this is something that they continue to work on."

But they will also make the argument that it's a much broader issue than weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the war on terror is something that they are working on in earnest.

STARR: Well, from combat in Washington to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. And new efforts by the Pentagon to spot stress and troubles for U.S. troops and their families.

I'll be back on the story in two minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He went up and smacked the television and said, "Give me my daddy out of that television." And there's nothing you can do for a child that young to really explain to him where daddy and when daddy is coming home, because all of the noble and good stories you tell don't make sense to a 2-year old whose daddy is not there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Well, the fears and frustrations of military families separated for long periods, often unable to know where their loved ones are going, what they're doing, when they will return.

Welcome back. I'm on the story.

This week we went down to Fort Bragg, North Carolina to talk to a number of women married to Special Forces soldiers, the men who have been away from home for so long, both in the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the men who actually go out on the front lines and confront the al Qaeda, confront the Iraqi Saddam loyalists head to head. Very tough business. And their wives are left behind with children, who often do know, who do understand where their fathers are, do have some understanding of what they're doing. And it contributes to a lot of stress.

We went to talk to them about how they deal with these very unique family situations. It's tough going for them. But they make do. They talk about their husbands as going away on long business trips. And then you think about what these men are doing, and that's not exactly what we here think of most men as doing on long business trips.

COHEN: And the military is trying to change when these folks come back home, to try to help them ease their way back into things.

STARR: That really is the story this week. The Army, for the first time now, will have a mandatory screening program of wellbeing for all soldiers returning from deployments. They've sort of learned the lesson the hard way, that they really need to keep a pair of eyeballs on every person coming back and make sure they're able to cope and reintegrate with their families.

One day you're in Afghanistan. The next day you're at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, pushing the lawn mower. It's a tough transition.

ARENA: And the hard way because there were some bad incidents last summer.

STARR: Fort Bragg was very hard hit last summer. There were four spouse murders in a period of six weeks. None of them were proven, we should say, to be tied to the stress of combat. But several of them involved men who had just come back from Afghanistan and did -- it is proven -- they did kill their wives. It was a wake- up call for the military. They wanted to make sure they were doing enough, so hence, this new program.

SNOW: I'm curious. What did they say to you about the embedded journalists program? I mean, you know, this war we had embedded journalists over there reporting right from the lines with units. So I'm sure that the women and men who were left behind could watch and go, "Oh, my God, that's my husband, that's his unit."

STARR: One of the women we talked to she saw a news report on TV that a Special Forces unit in Iraq, where she thought her husband was, had been hit by friendly fire. She told us she spent the entire day staring out the window waiting for a military vehicle to pull up to her front door.

She was terrified. And then she said, "Another wife and had checked it all out, and quote, 'The team was fine.'" She said she went to her bedroom and just burst into tears.

MALVEAUX: Barbara, tell us what's going on, on the ground in Iraq?

STARR: Well, that's really important, Suzanne, because as we all know, the Iraq story has not gone away. It think the real change this week was now everywhere from the White House to the Pentagon, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer in Baghdad. Everyone is now saying security is the number one concern.

No more of the talk we heard a few weeks ago, "Oh, isolated incidents." There is looting. There is unrest. There are problems. Paul Bremer trying to get a handle on it, issuing procedures now that say, "Baath Party loyalists will basically be shut out of a new government."

They believe some of the Saddam loyalists are behind the looting and unrest in Baghdad. And the people there are still terrified by all accounts. From the CNN reporters that we have on the ground, they are very nervous, very upset about the lack of security in the capital.

ARENA: Is the military equipped to deal with that type of a situation?

STARR: Well, they're trying. These are young soldiers, young kids and suddenly they're on the streets of Baghdad acting as policemen. And there is a crack down on the looting. There is...

SNOW: Do they have orders now? Didn't I hear this week they have orders now where they can shoot at looters?

STARR: Well, they can shoot in self-defense. That has not changed. But they're trying to crack down. They're grabbing looters, and they're putting them into custody for a couple of weeks, trying to discourage these people from this type of activity. More of a crack down, more of saying, "Just don't do it." Trying to get more discipline on the streets of Baghdad. They hope it's going to work.

COHEN: And is the policy being done entirely by coalition forces? Is there any sort of semblance of police left in Iraq?

STARR: In several cities across Iraq, they are putting what they hope are you know, loyal to the transition Iraqis, back to work as policemen in several places. Some of it is working. Some of it is not.

What you hear now is it may take a much longer time to restore order than they originally believed. So much more of a reality check on what's going on.

SNOW: Just ahead, back to politics. The Texas Democrats who, outnumbered, ran for the border. And why 41 years later, a JFK secret comes out?

We're on the story in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM DUNNUM, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS: We have a message for Tom DeLay, "Don't mess with Texas."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Jim Dunnum, chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the Texas legislature, taking aim at Republican Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom DeLay. A new round in a long political game, that's over now. It was over numbers. It was about drawing a new election district map in Texas, trying to come out on top. Tom DeLay, essentially rewrote the map and said, "Here you go, Texas legislature. Let's pass a new map," because the legislature when they were supposed to do it two years ago couldn't come up with a new map. And some judges made the decision. Well, the Republicans didn't like the judges' decision, so they tried to force through this new map.

But that got lost in the story, right. That didn't even really matter. What mattered was a bunch of Democrats got on planes and buses and went to Oklahoma.

Big political theater. It got a lot of attention this week. And it worked. They successfully went back yesterday after the deadline. And it's too late now for them to introduce it in this session, the map for the new congressional districts.

ARENA: Are we going to see this across the country, people running for the border?

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, entertaining this in all seriousness?

SNOW: It ought (ph) to work. I mean, in all -- all right, in partial seriousness, I've heard a lot of Democrats on the Hill, on Capitol Hill this week, saying, "Maybe we should try that."

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: It came up at their meeting this week. They have these weekly caucus meetings where they discuss, you know, strategy. And a number of them, I'm told, were raising their hands going, "We should do something like that," because it got a lot of media attention, a lot of media play. And the poor Democrats on Capitol Hill right now feel like they're a little slighted, they're ignored. They don't matter, right.

ARENA: Yes, but if they went to Tijuana, some one would pay attention to them, yes.

SNOW: It wouldn't matter in the U.S. Congress, because -- in the Texas House it worked because the quorum issue. They have to have a number of people in order to pass anything. In the U.S. House, the rules wouldn't make any difference if the Democrats left. The Republicans could still -- they could just pass everything they wanted then.

So but you know what, the funny -- my favorite antidote of this whole thing was, is that you know, you had everybody calling each other names. They called the Democrats cowards. Well, then some -- one Democrat in Congress in Washington, sent books to everyone of the Texas Democrats who had left, they sent "Profiles in Courage," copies of the book. And Willie Nelson sent some CDs to them.

I mean, it's just crazy.

ARENA: What I don't understand. This was a state issue. Why was Tom DeLay involved?

SNOW: Well, his office says -- I've talked to them a lot about this -- they say again, that the process hadn't worked. It broke down because back when they tried to do the map in the legislature, it was -- the two houses are controlled -- were controlled by Democrats and Republicans -- stalemated. They couldn't get anything through.

So they're saying they're just trying to fix what didn't work. They're trying to now get something through the state legislature now that it happens to be controlled all by Republicans.

So that's how the whole thing started.

STARR: Go back to what you were saying about Washington for one second, and the same sort of scenario. It's an interesting thing. What can the Democrats on Capital Hill do now to get any profile for themselves. No one pays attention.

SNOW: They're really worried about that, they're really worried. Steny Hoyer, who is the number two in the House, Democrat, had a -- we call it a pen and pad briefing -- no cameras, this week. And he complained to the media and said, "You guys aren't covering, you media people are not covering Democratic tax plans, for example. We're irrelevant to you."

Well, it's because their votes -- they don't have the votes. And so you know, if I go on TV and I have two minutes to talk about the tax cut, if I spend a lot of time talking about the Democratic plan that I know isn't going any where, it's kind of a catch-22.

COHEN: Now Kate, we're going to stay on the political beat, but barely.

Here's the ON THE STORY question of the week. "Is it never too late for JFK's secrets?" This was the week that broke open a 41-year political secret. Or was it just a celebrity secret about former President John F. Kennedy having an affair with an intern? Is this just gossip or this important at all?

ARENA: Well, that's what Democrats could do. They could have affairs with interns and then look at...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

No, I'm sorry.

SNOW: You know what I find of interest? It was two lines apparently. I haven't read the book. My colleague Jon Karl, not only did he read the 800 page book, but he wrote the review in the Wall Street Journal the other day. He's amazing. But it told me it was two lines in the book of 800 pages.

So it's more a media creation. And this woman now coming out with her statement, having to come out, because it got so much attention.

COHEN: Now tell me all of you, if you agree with me or not, I feel sorry for this woman. She had an affair at age 19 with the president, and then she stayed silent for 40 years. She didn't say anything. She didn't try to cash in on it. She didn't try to get attention. I feel bad for her.

MALVEAUX: I think there is the "who cares" factor here. I think there are a lot of people who listen to this, they hear this story and they just don't care.

That there are much bigger issues.

ARENA: Well, because everyone assumes he had affairs with interns, right?

COHEN: This was a really long time ago, and it's not like this is the first revelation about JFK's love life.

I mean, you know, does this shock anybody? It didn't shock me. You know, so she has the support of her family.

ARENA: I don't feel sorry for her because she's probably going to get a book deal now, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COHEN: But she hasn't. She didn't try before. I mean, for four decades, she could have gotten a book deal and she didn't.

ARENA: But how she's got the publicity. Who knows.

COHEN: That's right.

MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues. And thank you for watching The Story.

Still ahead, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," focusing this week on Shania Twain, whose latest album has sold more than any other female artist ever. At 12 noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "CNN LIVE SATURDAY: with a report on SARS and the West Nile disease, how to protect yourself. And at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, 10:00 a.m. Pacific, "IN THE MONEY" looks at how the U.S.-Saudi friendship gets down to business.

Coming up before the top of the hour, a check on what's making headlines right now.

We're back ON THE STORY next week.

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




Terrorist Attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco Rattle Law Enforcement; Bush Straddles Line Between Conservatives, Moderates>