Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Is Iraq becoming a Target for Terrorist? Tale of Charleston, West Virginia: A city Caught in Cross-fire of a Sniper

Aired August 23, 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.


LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Liz in New York, on the story of a United Nations stunned by a deadly attack in Iraq and facing new questions about its post-war role.
RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad, on the story of an Iraq that many fear is becoming a magnet for terrorists.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN URBAN FAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Charleston, West Virginia, on the story of a city caught in the cross-fire of a sniper.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas, on the story of President Bush facing dual challenges on the Middle East and Iraq, all while looking forward at election 2004.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelly Wallace in Los Angeles, on the story of the California recall. An embattled Democratic governor going on the offensive, and the political challengers fighting to succeed him.

We'll also go to CNN's Kathleen Koch at the Lincoln Memorial, where civil rights veterans are calling a new generation to action on this, the 40th anniversary of the historic march on Washington.

We will also hear from the president as his radio address is released this hour.

And we want to hear from you. Send your comments and questions to onthestory@cnn.com.

Now we turn to our colleague, Rym Brahimi, to focus on this week's terror attack in Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL BREMER, U.S. ADMINISTRATOR: We know in general terms who is behind it. It's people who are fighting against a liberated Iraq that most Iraqis have welcomed. It's people who do not share the vision of a free Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRAHIMI: That was U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer, the head of the coalition authority here in Iraq, with his assessment of who could be behind those recurrent attacks, be they sabotage or terrorist attacks, that have been occurring increasingly in Iraq.

Now we actually just had a press conference. Paul Bremer spoke to reporters only a few moments ago. And addressing the media here, he also threatened those terrorists. He actually warned them that whatever they did would not yield them victory, saying that if they were trying to bring about the return of the Ba'ath Party, they would fail, and if they were trying to install a new tyranny, they would also fail.

Paul Bremer also praised the United Nations, paid tribute to the U.N. staff workers who died in the attack Tuesday that killed 22 U.N. workers, at least, when the bomb slammed into the U.N. compound here in Baghdad. He also praised them for having the courage to return to work today, just four days after that attack.

NEISLOSS: Are there any theories about what happened and why the U.N. was attacked? There's so much confusion at the U.N. headquarters, in particular in New York. Is there any idea why the U.N. would have been targeted?

BRAHIMI: Well, there are various theories floating, if you will. But, really, a lot of it is mere speculation. As you know, the investigation is still very much in its early stages. Now of course there are those questions that were raised about the local United Nations staff, in particular some of the security staff, because reports said they had been former secret service agents.

Now the problem with that is it's very possible; anything is possible. But at the same time, those of us who have been in Iraq for a long time know that any Iraqi working in the past for a foreign embassy, a foreign company, or anything that involves international workers, they had to report to the secret service, whether or not they belonged to the secret service themselves. That was something they had to do.

And so that's something a lot of U.N. staff workers really don't want to cling on to because they're actually looking at why the flank of the building was so exposed and why it wasn't protected on the outside by coalition forces. So for the time being, there's a lot of theories coming out.

Why the U.N.? Well, you know, the U.N. -- there were sanctions against Iraq for 13 years, sanctions placed on Iraq. And many people see the fact that the United Nations was working in Iraq under the U.S. occupation as a sign the U.N. may have been linked closely to the United States.

WALLACE: Rym, what visible steps are you seeing on the ground, the changes on the ground following this attack? And privately, what are your sources saying that the U.N. and the coalition forces will do differently from here on out? BRAHIMI: Well, what we hear is that definitely there has been meeting after meeting to try and assess how they're going to work from here, you know where they're going to take it from here. And actually, not just the United Nations, but also between coalition officials and other international organizations, foreign embassies as well.

In terms of concrete steps, well we've seen a lot. In fact, just near the Palestine Hotel, where we're staying, there has been a series of additional concrete blocks that have been placed. They were just placed last night, in fact. It seems that there may have been threats to the effect of the hotel or something. And they've been around the area where the coalition authority members meet, known as the convention center.

They've really hyped up security and stepped up security there. At certain times of the day, we see more helicopter patrol as well. I mean, definitely they're on the lookout.

HINOJOSA: Rym, you know, I left New York earlier in this week where people were mourning the loss of Arthur Helton, who was a well known international and human rights and refugee advocate. He was in that compound when it was bombed.

Now, I'm wondering, Rym, there has been this talk of a strategy of chaos on the part of terrorists in Iraq. What do you think about that? And also, what's the state of mind of the troops there, of the U.S. troops, when they realize that not only they're being targeted, but now it seems that anybody is open for target?

BRAHIMI: That's a good question. Well, in terms of, you know, the state of mind -- I'm sorry, the first question was about the theory about the chaos, yes.

The chaos theory is very possible. It is something that, you know there were a lot of analysis done before the war, in the build-up to the war. And a lot of these analysis tended to think that the Ba'ath Party officials would want to basically carry out a scorched earth policy, which is why when there are acts of sabotage around oil installations or electrical installations, the finger is usually pointed at remnants of the Ba'ath Party regime, rather than any other terrorist group.

So that's one thing. And obviously, it's a distinct possibility, as the Ba'ath Party officials had several times threatened that they would do what they could to kick the occupiers out, in their words.

Now in terms of the state of mind of troops here, they do seem to be on heightened alert. And many of them believe that, of course, they do realize that it is their responsibility, according to the Geneva Convention, the occupying power has the responsibility of security in the country. But they're really saying that they're doing what they can.

I think at the level of troops, if you're talking just soldiers really, they're really doing what they can. And they're convinced that this is something -- they're bringing about something good, some positive changes. And actually, interestingly enough, they come to us, and they're often very upset, if you will, because they say that the media only reports what's going badly.

But here they are; they say, "We've been building schools, we've been doing this and that. Why doesn't that get reported? You only talk about our colleagues who die or about the attacks."

MALVEAUX: Rym, really an extraordinary admission from the president. He said that they needed additional support, foreign troops inside of the country. There were also administration officials this week who told me they believed this is the work of al Qaeda-types, or those who might be loyal or sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.

Is there any sense of who is responsible for this latest attack? Obviously, they said there was a different type of strategy that was used, it was much bolder. But is there any kind of sense of who actually did this and who they're going after now?

BRAHIMI: It's very, very difficult to say. Everybody's been extremely cautious between the FBI and the various coalition officials that we've spoken to not to make any speculations at all with regard to who might have been behind that. The only thing Paul Bremer has said is that every group is actually a suspect, be it the Ba'athist groups or the Islamist groups, if you will.

That said, of course there has been, as you said, this admission that not only they need maybe more equipment, but the admission that now they have -- the borders are more difficult to control, maybe, then had been planned or imagined. And there has been acknowledgement by this coalition authority, including Paul Bremer, that a number of foreign terrorists -- they say they have evidence that there are foreign fighters now in Iraq.

And of course it begs the question, well, of course, these people weren't here before. They came in after the invasion of Iraq or rather after the fall of the Iraqi regime. And so it's -- in a way, one could almost say it's now a new playground for all these groups who may not be able to play in Afghanistan anymore, but now they've found in Iraq a place where they have weapons that they can find quite easily.

Now the U.S. is, you know, trying to -- the U.S. forces here do try to crack down on them. They tell us all the time they carry out 200 raids in 48 hours. They've carried out raids here, they've confiscated weapons. But there seems to be always more weapons coming out.

NEISLOSS: Well, Rym, we're going to move from the escalating terrorism in Iraq now to a United Nations reassessing its role there. I'm on the story in two minutes.

ANNOUNCER: Liz Neisloss is CNN's United Nations senior producer. She graduated from Dartmouth, joined CNN in 1990, and she won the U.N. Correspondents Association Gold Award for her reporting in 1999. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: We, whose work is so wrapped up in the tragedies of others, now face one of our own. The ache in our souls is almost too much to bear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a rare scene at the United Nations this week, after the worst attack on the world body in its 58-year history. Welcome back to ON THE STORY.

Kofi Annan, this was a video address that he gave, that sound that you just heard. He was speaking to the tens of thousands of U.N. staff that are around the world. He told them "We will not be reckless, but we will not be intimidated. And the U.N., it is not just a job, it's a calling." He said "We will continue the mission there."

So this was really the rallying speech, the comforting speech, from Kofi Annan.

BRAHIMI: Liz, you know we've been following this, as you know, here in Baghdad. And it's been extremely emotional for us as well. A lot of people that we knew that -- the same case as you, I imagine, because you've been covering the United Nations for so long. You seem to be -- you know, we're very familiar with these people, we've worked together with them all this time.

I was very touched by the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) eulogy just when they had the memorial service yesterday for Sergio de Mello. He said that in his last dying word, Sergio actually said "Don't let them pull the mission out."

Do you have a sense that that's part of the reason they are back at work so quickly, they insisted on continuing, or is it also just a political decision from the part of the world body to just not be deterred by these attacks?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think that it's part of that philosophy of the U.N. that they will not be deterred, as you say. And really, a big factor in this whole picture which should not be underplayed, is Sergio Vieira de Mello. He was the U.N.'s key guy in Iraq.

He was basically seen as a star in the U.N. System; he was seen as a star in diplomatic circles. This was a guy who had been to Cambodia, Lebanon, Rwanda, East Timor, Kosovo. He had key roles in all those places.

He was also someone who was often referred to as a suave and dapper guy. And a very funny moment happened a few years ago in the Security Council in a meeting on East Timor. The U.S. ambassador at the time, Richard Holbrook, basically said, why is it in this hot, sweaty country we were all rumpled, and there was Sergio, all perfectly pressed?

He just had the ability to go in looking wonderful, and yet he could still talk to either a president or a refugee, and equally be able to connect. So they lost a very key person.

HINOJOSA: Liz, I'm wondering, you know what's the sense inside the United Nations? Have you heard from any of the people there saying, you know, we were against this war, we didn't want this war, and now we're the ones who are suffering this attack, on the one hand? And on the other hand, what's your sense of the response when they're seeing Colin Powell saying, "We respect the United Nations, we believe the United Nations has a role?" Was there any sense of anyone taking this as somewhat disingenuous when the United States overruled the United Nations in terms of this war?

NEISLOSS: Well, I mean I have to say, there's a lot of frustration at the U.N. with the mandate that was spelled out in a resolution. It's called "vague," it's kind of unclear what it is that the U.N. can do in Iraq.

I think that someone like Sergio Vieira de Mello was looking to be able to play on this vagueness and expand the U.N. role. But staffers were obviously sad, and also angry. They are angry at how they could be targeted. They, people who were going in to help.

And I think they're also wondering what will be done? Will there be more protection for the U.N. in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: And Liz, I know there have been a lot of questions, a lot of discussion over the possibility of a second U.N. Security Council resolution, perhaps giving the United Nations a little bit more power, a little bit more say-so. Is there any indication from the people you talk to that that's going to be good enough for some of these countries to get involved in this -- whether it's a humanitarian effort, or whether or not it's contributing troops, in light of what has happened? Or does it seem like they're quite discouraged, they really don't want to enter what some are calling a quagmire at this point?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think the answer to that partly depends on what it is that the resolution actually spells out. And also, behind the scenes, how much control the U.S. really is willing to cede.

The way it's being played, at the U.N. At least, is that this is somewhat of a catch-22 for the U.S. They want help, they want military help, they want economic help. But at the same time, they're not prepared to give the reigns over, or even cede some of the control, and that's what countries want.

They expect to be able to participate in military command, in economic planning, and political planning, maybe reap some economic benefit. They want to get something back if they're going to share the burden. So a lot will depend on the language in the resolution. But, you know this week, Kofi Annan was a little bit pessimistic, saying that he doubts that they will be able to come to some sort of agreement, unless the U.S. is willing to cede more control. And they are not indicating that at this point.

WALLACE: Liz, what are the diplomats saying in the halls of the United Nations about the way the U.N. should operate on the ground from here on out in Iraq? I believe there were some questions about the U.S. forces wanting to provide a little more security to the U.N., but the U.N. not wanting that because it wants to be accessible tor the people, the Iraqi people. What are people saying behind the scenes right now?

NEISLOSS: Well, those are issues that are really more discussed actually by U.N. staff as opposed to the member states of the U.N. And the U.N.'s philosophy seems to have always been, look, we cannot be an armed fortress, we can't be an armed camp. Part of the mission is to be able to be open, accessible to people and not to be seen. And this is a very delicate thing, not to be seen as part of the U.S. occupation.

So they say we never blanket, refused an offer of military protection or any police protection. But at the same time, they were not looking for a massive presence. So they also, though, this week, were combing their records. Apparently there was some word put out, perhaps from Washington, that the U.N. rejected offers of security. And the U.N. is basically saying no, we really have no record of an actual offer that was refused.

BRAHIMI: Liz, I'd just like to go back to the team that Sergio de Mello was heading. It was known, I believe, as the dream team. I was closer to one of the members of that team, Nadia Younes. I'm sure you knew her; a very successful person from the United Nations.

She was known for her dynamism and also for her sense of humor. And I think she's somebody that everybody really enjoyed working with. And she worked for many years in the United Nations, in various departments, various parts of the world.

Can you tell us basically that whole team is now, in the words of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), who is somebody who is also part of the group, totally dismasted. But what were the hopes that were pinned on that team when it was put together, with all these experts, all these people with all that know-how to work together on this project in Iraq?

NEISLOSS: Well, there were very high hopes. Obviously, this is a huge, huge potential program for the U.N. There were high hopes that they would be able to somehow work themselves in, to take more control politically.

I heard a lot of frustration from U.N. staff this week who said, look, we had top people there who were prepared to take control politically, to really work very visibly on a political front, and they weren't being given the opportunity to do that. I think de Mello was making a point. Also, though, to really try to work from within.

He made a point of saying publicly the U.S.-picked coalition, this hand-picked group from the U.S., it's the best we can do. Let's take them. It's not perfectly democratic, but we're going to work with them. So there really was the sense that the U.N. was going to help move the process forward that the U.S. had been starting.

WALLACE: Liz, certainly a tough time at the U.N. and a tough time, of course, for our colleagues in Baghdad. Rym Brahimi, we want to thank you for joining us. Rym, what stories will you be working on over the next few days?

BRAHIMI: Well, there's been a lot going on today, as you can imagine. Obviously, we're still following the investigation of the bombing against the United Nations. But there are also ethnic clashes in the north, around Kirkuk, the first such ethnic clashes since May.

A sense among a lot of people that, is this falling apart? That's a big question. And a lot of international organizations, including the Red Cross, gradually pulling out some of their staff. So we'll be looking at all that in the next few days.

WALLACE: OK. Thanks, Rym. And we of course will be following your reports.

Well, from the battles in Iraq to battles of a different sort, the political battles here in California. I'm on the story of the California recall in Los Angeles right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: This recall is bigger than California. What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: California's embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis' message to voters this week: "This recall is nothing more than a right-wing power grab."

Welcome back to ON THE STORY. I'm Kelly Wallace in Los Angeles.

Well, Governor Davis is taking the offensive, and his aides couldn't be happier about the latest poll. Released yesterday by the "Los Angeles Times," it shows this recall race is very, very tight. Fifty percent of likely voters saying Governor Davis should be recalled, 45 percent, though, saying he should remain in office.

Now, at the same time this week, we also saw Arnold Schwarzenegger, the superstar turned political candidate, making his first outings as a political candidate. Something else interesting, though, we are seeing Republicans appear to be somewhat concerned and appear to be trying to encourage the other Republican candidates, who right now are trailing Schwarzenegger in the polls, to get out of the race to avoid splitting the vote and to avoid helping Democrats, in their words, to victory next month.

HINOJOSA: Kelly, you know I'm wondering, there's a saying in Spanish that it says (UNINTELLIGIBLE), which means that something backfires. And if there was this plan on the part of the Republicans to get this Democrat out of office, well, I'm wondering what you're hearing on the ground in terms of the Latino vote and Cruz Bustamante?

This is very tight. In fact, what might turn out happening is that a Democrat ends up replacing another Democrat. And is there a sense of an anti-Arnold sentiment among Latinos? He was for Prop 187, which was to deny immigrants all kinds of services there. So are you getting the sense that the Latino population, the Latino electorate is saying, this is a chance where we can really flex our muscles and show what kind of power we have at the polls?

WALLACE: Well, Maria, you touch on one of the major points here, a key point that a lot of strategists are talking about, the importance of the Latino vote. For our viewers, Cruz Bustamante is the current Democratic lieutenant governor. He put his name on the ballot, he says, as a fallback in case Governor Gray Davis is ousted.

Well, right now in some of these polls, Bustamante is just either leading Arnold Schwarzenegger by a few points or trailing him by a few points. And that is why, again, Republicans are somewhat concerned, and why they want to see some of these other Republican challengers to Schwarzenegger to get out of the race.

Also what we're seeing, Maria, is Governor Davis, who has really been very critical behind the scenes about other Democrats getting on the ballot, believing this is only legitimizing the recall, now he appears to be shifting a little bit, saying, you know what, Cruz Bustamante could get more people to the polls, including Hispanics, more people who could vote "no" when it comes to recalling Gray Davis.

But then there's the question, could those Hispanic voters go ahead and vote yes, we want to get rid of Governor Davis because we want Cruz Bustamante to be the new govern? Lots of questions. And it's unclear right now in terms of how the Hispanic population feels about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Many Hispanic males, in fact, like him very much. But right now, it's a bit unclear because some of his views, particularly on Proposition 187, have not really been fully dissected and he hasn't responded to them just yet.

MALVEAUX: And, Kelly, there's been so much discussion in Washington on whether or not the Bush administration is really behind some of this recall effort. I spoke with the chief of staff, Andy Card, who insists that they have not had direct talks with Schwarzenegger, they have not tried to egg on this recall effort. And some Bush aides who you talk to privately say, well, you know the reason why is of course they don't know how Schwarzenegger's going to do. There's a big political risk to -- in alienating, as you had said before, either the Hispanics or some of those more conservative who are against Arnold because of his position on abortion rights, gay rights, that type of thing.

If you can tell me, is there any indication at all of Karl Rove's fingerprints on this? Is there anything you see that might indicate that the Bush administration does have a hand in some of this maneuvering along the way?

WALLACE: Nothing we've seen just yet, Suzanne. You won't be surprised to hear that Democrats definitely believe that the White House is involved. The Democratic National Committee, in fact, putting out word, believing this sort of Republican Leadership Council, a committee, is somehow getting involved in this recall race, but nothing really confirmed just yet.

What is interesting, though, is if the president down the road decides to get on the phone and encourage these other Republican candidates to get out of the race -- I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, look, if the president of the United States decides he wants to get involved and wants to help Republicans to victory, he could get on the phone and call these other candidates to get out of the race and what are they going to say? They're not going to say no to the president of the United States.

NEISLOSS: Kelly, this is a race where obviously you have Schwarzenegger, you have a stripper, you have a child actor, all of those wacky things that have been discussed about this election. Has Schwarzenegger actually come out and really started to give details about what it is he's going to do beyond all this, you know, Hollywood stuff?

WALLACE: Lots of celebrity. The power of celebrity here, Liz.

Well, he has certainly been criticized for not providing specifics, for not coming forward. And so on Wednesday, it was really his first outing. He convened this economic summit, looking almost the part of a governor, huddling with some financial advisers. And then he had his first full-fledged news conference, spending about 45 minutes with reporters.

He talked about what he would do if he became governor. And he said that he would call for a 60-day audit of the state books to find out what to do. He said he would cut spending, but he refused to say exactly where those cuts would come from. And he said he wouldn't raise taxes, although he said he couldn't rule that out if there happened to be some natural disaster down the road.

He is still getting criticized, though, I will tell you, for not getting more specific. His answer, though, he says the voters don't care. He says they don't believe or they're tired of figures. They just want someone who is going to be tough. Again, it remains to be seen if that will be enough for these California voters.

MALVEAUX: Well, from California politics to President Bush's next move in the Middle East crisis, I'm on that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The most important thing is for the parties that care for peace to dismantle terrorist organizations that want to kill. That's how we're going to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now President Bush saying that the administration is committed to Middle East peace, at the same time, not letting those terrorists destroy the road map. This has been an extraordinary week, a tragic week.

Tuesday, the bombing in Israel, killing 20 people. Hamas claimed responsibility. The Bush administration huddled together and looked at the situation. They realize this whole thing could simply just unravel. And what was extraordinary, it was just yesterday that President Bush announced that the treasury secretary, he directed them to freeze the assets of six top Hamas leaders, as well as the assets of five non-governmental organizations that they believe contribute financially to Hamas.

And the reason why that was so significant is because those leaders were all political leaders around the globe and they essentially are not making the distinction anymore between the political wing of Hamas and the military, more extreme wing of Hamas. They are saying that these political leaders around the world are equally responsible for these terrorist attacks. We no longer make the distinction.

This is clearly a move by the Bush administration to destroy this organization. And there is a lot of concern. Of course, as you know, European allies, Arab allies, they point to Hamas and they say, well, this organization does a lot of relief work, a lot of social services. How is it that you can separate -- how is it that you can simply dismiss this organization outright?

That is the big question. Are they going to be able to convince some of these other countries to look at this organization in this way? The administration argues, and White House aides who I've spoken to argue, that there has been a history of these groups, these NGOs who have used Hamas to essentially do fund-raising for these charitable groups, these charitable causes, but also that it contributes to these terrorists acts. And they just cannot separate the two any longer.

WALLACE: And, Suzanne, this action of course coming just after the Israeli forces, Israeli airstrikes killed Abu Shanab, a leader of Hamas viewed as a moderate and somewhat more aligned some thought with the political wing. My question for you, though, is why now? Why is the administration doing this now? Because the Israelis have long said that there should be no distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas.

In fact, when I was in Israel back in June, the Israelis were going after other leaders some people identified as more political leaders, and the Israelis were saying they are linked with terrorism as well. Why did the administration decide to do this now and not back, let's say in June, when the Israelis were really pointing the finger at some of these political leaders as well? MALVEAUX: Well Kelly, as you know, this has really been kind of an extraordinary week when you saw the developments over there. And you have talked to a lot of those folks over there, I know.

And what happened is that the administration really looked at the situation. They said, OK, we see that Sharon again is doing these targeted killings. We are not going to publicly come out and condemn that. We're going to say, yes, that they have the right to defend themselves. At the same time, recognize the consequences of their action.

But what the administration is really saying is that we put this responsibility on the Palestinian Authority, particularly Mahmoud Abbas. And what they are trying to do is really bolster the support and try to empower Abbas to do something in terms of dismantling Hamas and some of these other organizations. That is specifically why they're going after Hamas.

One of the other things that was very ironic this week that happened was that Yasser Arafat kind of jumped into the picture because Abbas said, well, I can't crack down on these terrorist organizations. I can't crack down on Hamas unless I have the support of Palestinian security forces. And Arafat is in control of some of those forces. He says, I'm not going to let you have them.

So we actually saw Secretary Powell coming out in public, really appealing to the one man who this administration has tried to marginalize for some time, asking Arafat for help to go ahead and release those forces to crack down on Hamas and these other organizations. Really, an extraordinary move by this administration, an extraordinary recognition that they need Arafat involved in this process if this is going to work.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, I want to turn things to Iraq, the other disaster of the week. What are you hearing from the administration on what this means, what this bombing at the U.N. means for the whole U.S. in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: Well, Liz, that was another thing that was quite amazing that happened, is that the president yesterday came out and said, we need and welcome more foreign troops inside Iraq. He also said that the administration, as you know, is looking at a possible second U.N. Security Council resolution to get those other countries involved, offering them things, an invitation, really just political cover to offer troops or aid or something to that effect. But this administration is saying that they need these countries.

This is an administration six months ago, when it went before the United Nations, said, we appreciate, we welcome your help, but here's what we're going to do. Now the situation that the president and his aides are in is that, we need your help if this is going to work. We recognize that this has become a hotbed of terrorism. There are foreign terrorists, al Qaeda types that are coming into Iraq. I mean, this is a clear recognition that the forces, the coalition forces do need outside help. HINOJOSA: Suzanne, I'm wondering -- I was talking to some political analysts who were watching that Bush press conference. And they said that even when he's supposed to be angry about these attacks, that he seems somewhat scripted, somewhat unfocused. Can you give us a sense, inside, is he feeling a little embattled, a little weary about all of this?

MALVEAUX: Well, I think what the president recognizes is that this is going to be a very long and difficult situation. This is not going to go away anytime soon.

The political types behind the scenes of course are looking at election 2000, and they're looking at his strengths and weaknesses. Some of the areas that he's not as strong on, the economy and the environment, those are two things that he went to Oregon and Washington state to talk about to really kind of pump up his agenda, to highlight his agenda.

The big thing is that he has really been strong on the war on terrorism. That is a fear that some of the political operatives that I've spoken with have, is he may be weakened if you still see the kind of problems, the attacks that have happened in Iraq, the type of attacks that we've seen in the Middle East. That it could undermine his credibility when it comes to how he handles foreign policy.

HINOJOSA: OK, Suzanne. Well, we say good-bye to you. Stay cool in Crawford, Texas there.

And from the president to the hunt for a deadly sniper here in West Virginia, I'm on the story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY PAULEY, WEST VIRGINIA POLICE CHIEF: We got a report back from the state police. It does positively link the three bullets together. They all three came from the same weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HINOJOSA: Well, that's Charleston West Virginia police chief, Jerry Pauley, confirming what many fear, that perhaps there really is a sniper on the loose here in Charleston, West Virginia. A lot of fear, a lot of concern. It has been now nine days since the last deadly shooting.

Yesterday, that would be eight days after the last fatal shooting, the ATF finally doing a re-creation of the crime scene, trying to get more information. No leads. But right now there is no information that we're getting that they have any positive leads.

So this is a city that is on edge, on the one hand. And other people are just saying we're not going to let this person, these shooters, force us into fear, into staying in our homes. WALLACE: But, Maria, how are people changing their everyday behaviors? I think you were showing us earlier a cover of one of the newspaper, people ducking to get gas. That's very reminiscent of what a lot of us were going through in Washington when the sniper situation hit there last year.

HINOJOSA: You know, that's exactly right, Kelly. This is the front page of the newspaper here today. And there you see someone ducking to get out of the way as he's putting in gas.

Now, most of the -- the three shootings did occur in gas stations. They did occur, though, after dark. But you know, it really depends, Kelly. It depends on who you speak to.

I was most interested with some of the elderly folks who I met, who said, we're not going to stay indoors, we're not going to let this person lead us into fear. We're not changing anything. And then you speak to some people who say that they feel very comforted seeing more of a police presence.

And then you speak to others who say they're watching their back all the time. When they're in the car at the stop light, they're look over the shoulders. And even myself, who just arrived here -- I'm at my hotel -- I suddenly was looking out the window and saying maybe I should draw the shades. So it really depends on your own ways of coping. But again, it has been nine days since this alleged sniper struck.

NEISLOSS: Maria, what are the laws about being able to carry guns in the state?

HINOJOSA: Well, this was really interesting, Liz, because when we were doing some interviews of people in one of these diners a man said to me -- he said, "Well, you know, this shooter better start watching his back because a lot of people are going to be packing right now and they're going to try to take him out before he takes out someone else." And I was kind of like, "Oh, my god." But he said, "Well, you know, by law here, if you have a permit, you can carry a loaded and concealed weapon." So he had a message that he actually said to me on camera, which is, "This guy better be watching his back because we're watching ours."

WALLACE: Quickly, Maria, any leads, any major leads that they have, the detectives have right now?

HINOJOSA: Not that we're hearing at all at this point. Now the interesting thing, Kelly, of course, is that there had been some discussion about whether or not this might have been drug related. There was some infighting here between the mayor and sheriff, the mayor trying to protect the image of Charleston, West Virginia, which does have a drug problem, crack and methamphetamine.

But what we had just heard last night from federal sources is that they are not ruling anything out at this point, that they want to have a very wide net in this investigation, that they want to be as widespread and as thorough as they possibly can be. So at this point, they're not willing to discount any possible theory at all.

WALLACE: OK, Maria.

Up next, the historic march on Washington remembered. We go to Kathleen Koch at the Lincoln Memorial. That's right after this break. ON THE STORY continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kathleen Koch here live on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., where soon thousands of people are expected to gather to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the march on Washington for civil rights. Now of course that historic march was marked by Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, some say the most powerful and eloquent persuasive speech in U.S. history. It had a great deal to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

We again are expecting about 10,000 people to show up here today. The events begin at 3:00 p.m. Ten thousand people is somewhat down from the last anniversary remembrance just some 10 years ago, when 75,000 people showed up. In 1983, the 20th anniversary, there were 250,000.

Now that was the number that was here some 40 years ago. On Thursday is actually the actual anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech. But they say that they're rallying here today because Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream for full equality for African-Americans was never fully realized, that too many African- Americans still make up a large percentage of the poor, of the homeless, of the unemployed and the uninsured in the U.S.

HINOJOSA: Kathleen, I'm wondering what kinds of folks are you seeing there? Are you seeing a large contingent of old people, are you seeing some younger people? And is the message going to President Bush, or just in general a marking of this anniversary?

KOCH: Maria, it's a very mixed group here. There are some 100 different organizations who are sponsoring this event. Both African- American organizations and then organizations -- Hispanic, Arab- American. There are environmental groups, also labor groups, gay and lesbian organizations, women's rights groups.

So again, very mixed. And their messages are mixed. Though they are, again, calling for the full realization of Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, they want to try to stop U.S. involvement in Iraq, a lot of different causes. But there aren't a lot of people here right now, honestly.

Some teachings began at 11:00 in some tents just south of here. So the crowd is still pretty small.

NEISLOSS: Any sense, Kathleen, that all those messages will dilute the message that was given 40 years ago by Dr. King?

KOCH: There is of course that concern. But as Maria can attest, she's covered a lot of protests in Washington, D.C. over the last year, that has become the nature of protest in the nation's capital. There is a conglomeration of groups that come together with a lot of mixed messages, though they do feel that there are some similarities so that they all pull together to help improve the lives for the poor and the underprivileged.

WALLACE: Kathleen, any presidential candidates who will likely be there? Because this march is coming as we're entering a presidential election, the importance of the African-American vote to these candidates, very crucial, I would believe.

KOCH: We know for certain that there are at least two presidential candidates who are going to be here, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and also Howard Dean. But when I talked to the organizer of today's event, Walter Fontroy (ph), a former D.C. delegate, and he was one of the coordinators of the initial march here back in 1963, he said that they will recognize that their role here today is simply to listen and to take the message back and take some action on Capitol Hill.

NEISLOSS: Kathleen, do you have any idea how many people are expected at this particular time?

KOCH: We're expecting about 10,000. And that, again, is a far cry from the 250,000 who were here 40 years ago. But again, I was speaking with Mr. Fontroy (ph) about an hour ago, and he was saying it was a day very similar to today 40 years ago, a bright, hot August day. A little cooler today than it was then.

But he was telling me a story of some of the obstacles that they had to overcome. The night before the big speech, the big march, someone cut, very precisely, all the cables to their loud speakers up and down the Mall. And he had to make an emergency call to Bobby Kennedy at the last minute to get some cables from the Army's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to help re-electrify all those loud speakers, and they came on just at the last minute.

So if you hear some banging and hammering around me right now, that sort of thing is going on right now. Not repairing, but they're still putting the last-minute touches on the stages and getting everything ready for this afternoon's event. But he said, also, again, was a very different feeling. People were very inspired then, very aware of there -- that this was a critical moment in U.S. history, and that they were right there on the cusp of something happening, something challenging radically.

Things are different today. But still they're very inspired and very committed.

NEISLOSS: Well, thanks to Kathleen Koch and all of my colleagues. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back 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




Charleston, West Virginia: A city Caught in Cross-fire of a Sniper>


Aired August 23, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Liz in New York, on the story of a United Nations stunned by a deadly attack in Iraq and facing new questions about its post-war role.
RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rym Brahimi in Baghdad, on the story of an Iraq that many fear is becoming a magnet for terrorists.

MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN URBAN FAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Maria Hinojosa in Charleston, West Virginia, on the story of a city caught in the cross-fire of a sniper.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Crawford, Texas, on the story of President Bush facing dual challenges on the Middle East and Iraq, all while looking forward at election 2004.

KELLY WALLACE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kelly Wallace in Los Angeles, on the story of the California recall. An embattled Democratic governor going on the offensive, and the political challengers fighting to succeed him.

We'll also go to CNN's Kathleen Koch at the Lincoln Memorial, where civil rights veterans are calling a new generation to action on this, the 40th anniversary of the historic march on Washington.

We will also hear from the president as his radio address is released this hour.

And we want to hear from you. Send your comments and questions to onthestory@cnn.com.

Now we turn to our colleague, Rym Brahimi, to focus on this week's terror attack in Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL BREMER, U.S. ADMINISTRATOR: We know in general terms who is behind it. It's people who are fighting against a liberated Iraq that most Iraqis have welcomed. It's people who do not share the vision of a free Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRAHIMI: That was U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer, the head of the coalition authority here in Iraq, with his assessment of who could be behind those recurrent attacks, be they sabotage or terrorist attacks, that have been occurring increasingly in Iraq.

Now we actually just had a press conference. Paul Bremer spoke to reporters only a few moments ago. And addressing the media here, he also threatened those terrorists. He actually warned them that whatever they did would not yield them victory, saying that if they were trying to bring about the return of the Ba'ath Party, they would fail, and if they were trying to install a new tyranny, they would also fail.

Paul Bremer also praised the United Nations, paid tribute to the U.N. staff workers who died in the attack Tuesday that killed 22 U.N. workers, at least, when the bomb slammed into the U.N. compound here in Baghdad. He also praised them for having the courage to return to work today, just four days after that attack.

NEISLOSS: Are there any theories about what happened and why the U.N. was attacked? There's so much confusion at the U.N. headquarters, in particular in New York. Is there any idea why the U.N. would have been targeted?

BRAHIMI: Well, there are various theories floating, if you will. But, really, a lot of it is mere speculation. As you know, the investigation is still very much in its early stages. Now of course there are those questions that were raised about the local United Nations staff, in particular some of the security staff, because reports said they had been former secret service agents.

Now the problem with that is it's very possible; anything is possible. But at the same time, those of us who have been in Iraq for a long time know that any Iraqi working in the past for a foreign embassy, a foreign company, or anything that involves international workers, they had to report to the secret service, whether or not they belonged to the secret service themselves. That was something they had to do.

And so that's something a lot of U.N. staff workers really don't want to cling on to because they're actually looking at why the flank of the building was so exposed and why it wasn't protected on the outside by coalition forces. So for the time being, there's a lot of theories coming out.

Why the U.N.? Well, you know, the U.N. -- there were sanctions against Iraq for 13 years, sanctions placed on Iraq. And many people see the fact that the United Nations was working in Iraq under the U.S. occupation as a sign the U.N. may have been linked closely to the United States.

WALLACE: Rym, what visible steps are you seeing on the ground, the changes on the ground following this attack? And privately, what are your sources saying that the U.N. and the coalition forces will do differently from here on out? BRAHIMI: Well, what we hear is that definitely there has been meeting after meeting to try and assess how they're going to work from here, you know where they're going to take it from here. And actually, not just the United Nations, but also between coalition officials and other international organizations, foreign embassies as well.

In terms of concrete steps, well we've seen a lot. In fact, just near the Palestine Hotel, where we're staying, there has been a series of additional concrete blocks that have been placed. They were just placed last night, in fact. It seems that there may have been threats to the effect of the hotel or something. And they've been around the area where the coalition authority members meet, known as the convention center.

They've really hyped up security and stepped up security there. At certain times of the day, we see more helicopter patrol as well. I mean, definitely they're on the lookout.

HINOJOSA: Rym, you know, I left New York earlier in this week where people were mourning the loss of Arthur Helton, who was a well known international and human rights and refugee advocate. He was in that compound when it was bombed.

Now, I'm wondering, Rym, there has been this talk of a strategy of chaos on the part of terrorists in Iraq. What do you think about that? And also, what's the state of mind of the troops there, of the U.S. troops, when they realize that not only they're being targeted, but now it seems that anybody is open for target?

BRAHIMI: That's a good question. Well, in terms of, you know, the state of mind -- I'm sorry, the first question was about the theory about the chaos, yes.

The chaos theory is very possible. It is something that, you know there were a lot of analysis done before the war, in the build-up to the war. And a lot of these analysis tended to think that the Ba'ath Party officials would want to basically carry out a scorched earth policy, which is why when there are acts of sabotage around oil installations or electrical installations, the finger is usually pointed at remnants of the Ba'ath Party regime, rather than any other terrorist group.

So that's one thing. And obviously, it's a distinct possibility, as the Ba'ath Party officials had several times threatened that they would do what they could to kick the occupiers out, in their words.

Now in terms of the state of mind of troops here, they do seem to be on heightened alert. And many of them believe that, of course, they do realize that it is their responsibility, according to the Geneva Convention, the occupying power has the responsibility of security in the country. But they're really saying that they're doing what they can.

I think at the level of troops, if you're talking just soldiers really, they're really doing what they can. And they're convinced that this is something -- they're bringing about something good, some positive changes. And actually, interestingly enough, they come to us, and they're often very upset, if you will, because they say that the media only reports what's going badly.

But here they are; they say, "We've been building schools, we've been doing this and that. Why doesn't that get reported? You only talk about our colleagues who die or about the attacks."

MALVEAUX: Rym, really an extraordinary admission from the president. He said that they needed additional support, foreign troops inside of the country. There were also administration officials this week who told me they believed this is the work of al Qaeda-types, or those who might be loyal or sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.

Is there any sense of who is responsible for this latest attack? Obviously, they said there was a different type of strategy that was used, it was much bolder. But is there any kind of sense of who actually did this and who they're going after now?

BRAHIMI: It's very, very difficult to say. Everybody's been extremely cautious between the FBI and the various coalition officials that we've spoken to not to make any speculations at all with regard to who might have been behind that. The only thing Paul Bremer has said is that every group is actually a suspect, be it the Ba'athist groups or the Islamist groups, if you will.

That said, of course there has been, as you said, this admission that not only they need maybe more equipment, but the admission that now they have -- the borders are more difficult to control, maybe, then had been planned or imagined. And there has been acknowledgement by this coalition authority, including Paul Bremer, that a number of foreign terrorists -- they say they have evidence that there are foreign fighters now in Iraq.

And of course it begs the question, well, of course, these people weren't here before. They came in after the invasion of Iraq or rather after the fall of the Iraqi regime. And so it's -- in a way, one could almost say it's now a new playground for all these groups who may not be able to play in Afghanistan anymore, but now they've found in Iraq a place where they have weapons that they can find quite easily.

Now the U.S. is, you know, trying to -- the U.S. forces here do try to crack down on them. They tell us all the time they carry out 200 raids in 48 hours. They've carried out raids here, they've confiscated weapons. But there seems to be always more weapons coming out.

NEISLOSS: Well, Rym, we're going to move from the escalating terrorism in Iraq now to a United Nations reassessing its role there. I'm on the story in two minutes.

ANNOUNCER: Liz Neisloss is CNN's United Nations senior producer. She graduated from Dartmouth, joined CNN in 1990, and she won the U.N. Correspondents Association Gold Award for her reporting in 1999. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: We, whose work is so wrapped up in the tragedies of others, now face one of our own. The ache in our souls is almost too much to bear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a rare scene at the United Nations this week, after the worst attack on the world body in its 58-year history. Welcome back to ON THE STORY.

Kofi Annan, this was a video address that he gave, that sound that you just heard. He was speaking to the tens of thousands of U.N. staff that are around the world. He told them "We will not be reckless, but we will not be intimidated. And the U.N., it is not just a job, it's a calling." He said "We will continue the mission there."

So this was really the rallying speech, the comforting speech, from Kofi Annan.

BRAHIMI: Liz, you know we've been following this, as you know, here in Baghdad. And it's been extremely emotional for us as well. A lot of people that we knew that -- the same case as you, I imagine, because you've been covering the United Nations for so long. You seem to be -- you know, we're very familiar with these people, we've worked together with them all this time.

I was very touched by the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) eulogy just when they had the memorial service yesterday for Sergio de Mello. He said that in his last dying word, Sergio actually said "Don't let them pull the mission out."

Do you have a sense that that's part of the reason they are back at work so quickly, they insisted on continuing, or is it also just a political decision from the part of the world body to just not be deterred by these attacks?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think that it's part of that philosophy of the U.N. that they will not be deterred, as you say. And really, a big factor in this whole picture which should not be underplayed, is Sergio Vieira de Mello. He was the U.N.'s key guy in Iraq.

He was basically seen as a star in the U.N. System; he was seen as a star in diplomatic circles. This was a guy who had been to Cambodia, Lebanon, Rwanda, East Timor, Kosovo. He had key roles in all those places.

He was also someone who was often referred to as a suave and dapper guy. And a very funny moment happened a few years ago in the Security Council in a meeting on East Timor. The U.S. ambassador at the time, Richard Holbrook, basically said, why is it in this hot, sweaty country we were all rumpled, and there was Sergio, all perfectly pressed?

He just had the ability to go in looking wonderful, and yet he could still talk to either a president or a refugee, and equally be able to connect. So they lost a very key person.

HINOJOSA: Liz, I'm wondering, you know what's the sense inside the United Nations? Have you heard from any of the people there saying, you know, we were against this war, we didn't want this war, and now we're the ones who are suffering this attack, on the one hand? And on the other hand, what's your sense of the response when they're seeing Colin Powell saying, "We respect the United Nations, we believe the United Nations has a role?" Was there any sense of anyone taking this as somewhat disingenuous when the United States overruled the United Nations in terms of this war?

NEISLOSS: Well, I mean I have to say, there's a lot of frustration at the U.N. with the mandate that was spelled out in a resolution. It's called "vague," it's kind of unclear what it is that the U.N. can do in Iraq.

I think that someone like Sergio Vieira de Mello was looking to be able to play on this vagueness and expand the U.N. role. But staffers were obviously sad, and also angry. They are angry at how they could be targeted. They, people who were going in to help.

And I think they're also wondering what will be done? Will there be more protection for the U.N. in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: And Liz, I know there have been a lot of questions, a lot of discussion over the possibility of a second U.N. Security Council resolution, perhaps giving the United Nations a little bit more power, a little bit more say-so. Is there any indication from the people you talk to that that's going to be good enough for some of these countries to get involved in this -- whether it's a humanitarian effort, or whether or not it's contributing troops, in light of what has happened? Or does it seem like they're quite discouraged, they really don't want to enter what some are calling a quagmire at this point?

NEISLOSS: Well, I think the answer to that partly depends on what it is that the resolution actually spells out. And also, behind the scenes, how much control the U.S. really is willing to cede.

The way it's being played, at the U.N. At least, is that this is somewhat of a catch-22 for the U.S. They want help, they want military help, they want economic help. But at the same time, they're not prepared to give the reigns over, or even cede some of the control, and that's what countries want.

They expect to be able to participate in military command, in economic planning, and political planning, maybe reap some economic benefit. They want to get something back if they're going to share the burden. So a lot will depend on the language in the resolution. But, you know this week, Kofi Annan was a little bit pessimistic, saying that he doubts that they will be able to come to some sort of agreement, unless the U.S. is willing to cede more control. And they are not indicating that at this point.

WALLACE: Liz, what are the diplomats saying in the halls of the United Nations about the way the U.N. should operate on the ground from here on out in Iraq? I believe there were some questions about the U.S. forces wanting to provide a little more security to the U.N., but the U.N. not wanting that because it wants to be accessible tor the people, the Iraqi people. What are people saying behind the scenes right now?

NEISLOSS: Well, those are issues that are really more discussed actually by U.N. staff as opposed to the member states of the U.N. And the U.N.'s philosophy seems to have always been, look, we cannot be an armed fortress, we can't be an armed camp. Part of the mission is to be able to be open, accessible to people and not to be seen. And this is a very delicate thing, not to be seen as part of the U.S. occupation.

So they say we never blanket, refused an offer of military protection or any police protection. But at the same time, they were not looking for a massive presence. So they also, though, this week, were combing their records. Apparently there was some word put out, perhaps from Washington, that the U.N. rejected offers of security. And the U.N. is basically saying no, we really have no record of an actual offer that was refused.

BRAHIMI: Liz, I'd just like to go back to the team that Sergio de Mello was heading. It was known, I believe, as the dream team. I was closer to one of the members of that team, Nadia Younes. I'm sure you knew her; a very successful person from the United Nations.

She was known for her dynamism and also for her sense of humor. And I think she's somebody that everybody really enjoyed working with. And she worked for many years in the United Nations, in various departments, various parts of the world.

Can you tell us basically that whole team is now, in the words of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), who is somebody who is also part of the group, totally dismasted. But what were the hopes that were pinned on that team when it was put together, with all these experts, all these people with all that know-how to work together on this project in Iraq?

NEISLOSS: Well, there were very high hopes. Obviously, this is a huge, huge potential program for the U.N. There were high hopes that they would be able to somehow work themselves in, to take more control politically.

I heard a lot of frustration from U.N. staff this week who said, look, we had top people there who were prepared to take control politically, to really work very visibly on a political front, and they weren't being given the opportunity to do that. I think de Mello was making a point. Also, though, to really try to work from within.

He made a point of saying publicly the U.S.-picked coalition, this hand-picked group from the U.S., it's the best we can do. Let's take them. It's not perfectly democratic, but we're going to work with them. So there really was the sense that the U.N. was going to help move the process forward that the U.S. had been starting.

WALLACE: Liz, certainly a tough time at the U.N. and a tough time, of course, for our colleagues in Baghdad. Rym Brahimi, we want to thank you for joining us. Rym, what stories will you be working on over the next few days?

BRAHIMI: Well, there's been a lot going on today, as you can imagine. Obviously, we're still following the investigation of the bombing against the United Nations. But there are also ethnic clashes in the north, around Kirkuk, the first such ethnic clashes since May.

A sense among a lot of people that, is this falling apart? That's a big question. And a lot of international organizations, including the Red Cross, gradually pulling out some of their staff. So we'll be looking at all that in the next few days.

WALLACE: OK. Thanks, Rym. And we of course will be following your reports.

Well, from the battles in Iraq to battles of a different sort, the political battles here in California. I'm on the story of the California recall in Los Angeles right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GRAY DAVIS (D), CALIFORNIA: This recall is bigger than California. What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: California's embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis' message to voters this week: "This recall is nothing more than a right-wing power grab."

Welcome back to ON THE STORY. I'm Kelly Wallace in Los Angeles.

Well, Governor Davis is taking the offensive, and his aides couldn't be happier about the latest poll. Released yesterday by the "Los Angeles Times," it shows this recall race is very, very tight. Fifty percent of likely voters saying Governor Davis should be recalled, 45 percent, though, saying he should remain in office.

Now, at the same time this week, we also saw Arnold Schwarzenegger, the superstar turned political candidate, making his first outings as a political candidate. Something else interesting, though, we are seeing Republicans appear to be somewhat concerned and appear to be trying to encourage the other Republican candidates, who right now are trailing Schwarzenegger in the polls, to get out of the race to avoid splitting the vote and to avoid helping Democrats, in their words, to victory next month.

HINOJOSA: Kelly, you know I'm wondering, there's a saying in Spanish that it says (UNINTELLIGIBLE), which means that something backfires. And if there was this plan on the part of the Republicans to get this Democrat out of office, well, I'm wondering what you're hearing on the ground in terms of the Latino vote and Cruz Bustamante?

This is very tight. In fact, what might turn out happening is that a Democrat ends up replacing another Democrat. And is there a sense of an anti-Arnold sentiment among Latinos? He was for Prop 187, which was to deny immigrants all kinds of services there. So are you getting the sense that the Latino population, the Latino electorate is saying, this is a chance where we can really flex our muscles and show what kind of power we have at the polls?

WALLACE: Well, Maria, you touch on one of the major points here, a key point that a lot of strategists are talking about, the importance of the Latino vote. For our viewers, Cruz Bustamante is the current Democratic lieutenant governor. He put his name on the ballot, he says, as a fallback in case Governor Gray Davis is ousted.

Well, right now in some of these polls, Bustamante is just either leading Arnold Schwarzenegger by a few points or trailing him by a few points. And that is why, again, Republicans are somewhat concerned, and why they want to see some of these other Republican challengers to Schwarzenegger to get out of the race.

Also what we're seeing, Maria, is Governor Davis, who has really been very critical behind the scenes about other Democrats getting on the ballot, believing this is only legitimizing the recall, now he appears to be shifting a little bit, saying, you know what, Cruz Bustamante could get more people to the polls, including Hispanics, more people who could vote "no" when it comes to recalling Gray Davis.

But then there's the question, could those Hispanic voters go ahead and vote yes, we want to get rid of Governor Davis because we want Cruz Bustamante to be the new govern? Lots of questions. And it's unclear right now in terms of how the Hispanic population feels about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Many Hispanic males, in fact, like him very much. But right now, it's a bit unclear because some of his views, particularly on Proposition 187, have not really been fully dissected and he hasn't responded to them just yet.

MALVEAUX: And, Kelly, there's been so much discussion in Washington on whether or not the Bush administration is really behind some of this recall effort. I spoke with the chief of staff, Andy Card, who insists that they have not had direct talks with Schwarzenegger, they have not tried to egg on this recall effort. And some Bush aides who you talk to privately say, well, you know the reason why is of course they don't know how Schwarzenegger's going to do. There's a big political risk to -- in alienating, as you had said before, either the Hispanics or some of those more conservative who are against Arnold because of his position on abortion rights, gay rights, that type of thing.

If you can tell me, is there any indication at all of Karl Rove's fingerprints on this? Is there anything you see that might indicate that the Bush administration does have a hand in some of this maneuvering along the way?

WALLACE: Nothing we've seen just yet, Suzanne. You won't be surprised to hear that Democrats definitely believe that the White House is involved. The Democratic National Committee, in fact, putting out word, believing this sort of Republican Leadership Council, a committee, is somehow getting involved in this recall race, but nothing really confirmed just yet.

What is interesting, though, is if the president down the road decides to get on the phone and encourage these other Republican candidates to get out of the race -- I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, look, if the president of the United States decides he wants to get involved and wants to help Republicans to victory, he could get on the phone and call these other candidates to get out of the race and what are they going to say? They're not going to say no to the president of the United States.

NEISLOSS: Kelly, this is a race where obviously you have Schwarzenegger, you have a stripper, you have a child actor, all of those wacky things that have been discussed about this election. Has Schwarzenegger actually come out and really started to give details about what it is he's going to do beyond all this, you know, Hollywood stuff?

WALLACE: Lots of celebrity. The power of celebrity here, Liz.

Well, he has certainly been criticized for not providing specifics, for not coming forward. And so on Wednesday, it was really his first outing. He convened this economic summit, looking almost the part of a governor, huddling with some financial advisers. And then he had his first full-fledged news conference, spending about 45 minutes with reporters.

He talked about what he would do if he became governor. And he said that he would call for a 60-day audit of the state books to find out what to do. He said he would cut spending, but he refused to say exactly where those cuts would come from. And he said he wouldn't raise taxes, although he said he couldn't rule that out if there happened to be some natural disaster down the road.

He is still getting criticized, though, I will tell you, for not getting more specific. His answer, though, he says the voters don't care. He says they don't believe or they're tired of figures. They just want someone who is going to be tough. Again, it remains to be seen if that will be enough for these California voters.

MALVEAUX: Well, from California politics to President Bush's next move in the Middle East crisis, I'm on that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The most important thing is for the parties that care for peace to dismantle terrorist organizations that want to kill. That's how we're going to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now President Bush saying that the administration is committed to Middle East peace, at the same time, not letting those terrorists destroy the road map. This has been an extraordinary week, a tragic week.

Tuesday, the bombing in Israel, killing 20 people. Hamas claimed responsibility. The Bush administration huddled together and looked at the situation. They realize this whole thing could simply just unravel. And what was extraordinary, it was just yesterday that President Bush announced that the treasury secretary, he directed them to freeze the assets of six top Hamas leaders, as well as the assets of five non-governmental organizations that they believe contribute financially to Hamas.

And the reason why that was so significant is because those leaders were all political leaders around the globe and they essentially are not making the distinction anymore between the political wing of Hamas and the military, more extreme wing of Hamas. They are saying that these political leaders around the world are equally responsible for these terrorist attacks. We no longer make the distinction.

This is clearly a move by the Bush administration to destroy this organization. And there is a lot of concern. Of course, as you know, European allies, Arab allies, they point to Hamas and they say, well, this organization does a lot of relief work, a lot of social services. How is it that you can separate -- how is it that you can simply dismiss this organization outright?

That is the big question. Are they going to be able to convince some of these other countries to look at this organization in this way? The administration argues, and White House aides who I've spoken to argue, that there has been a history of these groups, these NGOs who have used Hamas to essentially do fund-raising for these charitable groups, these charitable causes, but also that it contributes to these terrorists acts. And they just cannot separate the two any longer.

WALLACE: And, Suzanne, this action of course coming just after the Israeli forces, Israeli airstrikes killed Abu Shanab, a leader of Hamas viewed as a moderate and somewhat more aligned some thought with the political wing. My question for you, though, is why now? Why is the administration doing this now? Because the Israelis have long said that there should be no distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas.

In fact, when I was in Israel back in June, the Israelis were going after other leaders some people identified as more political leaders, and the Israelis were saying they are linked with terrorism as well. Why did the administration decide to do this now and not back, let's say in June, when the Israelis were really pointing the finger at some of these political leaders as well? MALVEAUX: Well Kelly, as you know, this has really been kind of an extraordinary week when you saw the developments over there. And you have talked to a lot of those folks over there, I know.

And what happened is that the administration really looked at the situation. They said, OK, we see that Sharon again is doing these targeted killings. We are not going to publicly come out and condemn that. We're going to say, yes, that they have the right to defend themselves. At the same time, recognize the consequences of their action.

But what the administration is really saying is that we put this responsibility on the Palestinian Authority, particularly Mahmoud Abbas. And what they are trying to do is really bolster the support and try to empower Abbas to do something in terms of dismantling Hamas and some of these other organizations. That is specifically why they're going after Hamas.

One of the other things that was very ironic this week that happened was that Yasser Arafat kind of jumped into the picture because Abbas said, well, I can't crack down on these terrorist organizations. I can't crack down on Hamas unless I have the support of Palestinian security forces. And Arafat is in control of some of those forces. He says, I'm not going to let you have them.

So we actually saw Secretary Powell coming out in public, really appealing to the one man who this administration has tried to marginalize for some time, asking Arafat for help to go ahead and release those forces to crack down on Hamas and these other organizations. Really, an extraordinary move by this administration, an extraordinary recognition that they need Arafat involved in this process if this is going to work.

NEISLOSS: Suzanne, I want to turn things to Iraq, the other disaster of the week. What are you hearing from the administration on what this means, what this bombing at the U.N. means for the whole U.S. in Iraq?

MALVEAUX: Well, Liz, that was another thing that was quite amazing that happened, is that the president yesterday came out and said, we need and welcome more foreign troops inside Iraq. He also said that the administration, as you know, is looking at a possible second U.N. Security Council resolution to get those other countries involved, offering them things, an invitation, really just political cover to offer troops or aid or something to that effect. But this administration is saying that they need these countries.

This is an administration six months ago, when it went before the United Nations, said, we appreciate, we welcome your help, but here's what we're going to do. Now the situation that the president and his aides are in is that, we need your help if this is going to work. We recognize that this has become a hotbed of terrorism. There are foreign terrorists, al Qaeda types that are coming into Iraq. I mean, this is a clear recognition that the forces, the coalition forces do need outside help. HINOJOSA: Suzanne, I'm wondering -- I was talking to some political analysts who were watching that Bush press conference. And they said that even when he's supposed to be angry about these attacks, that he seems somewhat scripted, somewhat unfocused. Can you give us a sense, inside, is he feeling a little embattled, a little weary about all of this?

MALVEAUX: Well, I think what the president recognizes is that this is going to be a very long and difficult situation. This is not going to go away anytime soon.

The political types behind the scenes of course are looking at election 2000, and they're looking at his strengths and weaknesses. Some of the areas that he's not as strong on, the economy and the environment, those are two things that he went to Oregon and Washington state to talk about to really kind of pump up his agenda, to highlight his agenda.

The big thing is that he has really been strong on the war on terrorism. That is a fear that some of the political operatives that I've spoken with have, is he may be weakened if you still see the kind of problems, the attacks that have happened in Iraq, the type of attacks that we've seen in the Middle East. That it could undermine his credibility when it comes to how he handles foreign policy.

HINOJOSA: OK, Suzanne. Well, we say good-bye to you. Stay cool in Crawford, Texas there.

And from the president to the hunt for a deadly sniper here in West Virginia, I'm on the story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY PAULEY, WEST VIRGINIA POLICE CHIEF: We got a report back from the state police. It does positively link the three bullets together. They all three came from the same weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HINOJOSA: Well, that's Charleston West Virginia police chief, Jerry Pauley, confirming what many fear, that perhaps there really is a sniper on the loose here in Charleston, West Virginia. A lot of fear, a lot of concern. It has been now nine days since the last deadly shooting.

Yesterday, that would be eight days after the last fatal shooting, the ATF finally doing a re-creation of the crime scene, trying to get more information. No leads. But right now there is no information that we're getting that they have any positive leads.

So this is a city that is on edge, on the one hand. And other people are just saying we're not going to let this person, these shooters, force us into fear, into staying in our homes. WALLACE: But, Maria, how are people changing their everyday behaviors? I think you were showing us earlier a cover of one of the newspaper, people ducking to get gas. That's very reminiscent of what a lot of us were going through in Washington when the sniper situation hit there last year.

HINOJOSA: You know, that's exactly right, Kelly. This is the front page of the newspaper here today. And there you see someone ducking to get out of the way as he's putting in gas.

Now, most of the -- the three shootings did occur in gas stations. They did occur, though, after dark. But you know, it really depends, Kelly. It depends on who you speak to.

I was most interested with some of the elderly folks who I met, who said, we're not going to stay indoors, we're not going to let this person lead us into fear. We're not changing anything. And then you speak to some people who say that they feel very comforted seeing more of a police presence.

And then you speak to others who say they're watching their back all the time. When they're in the car at the stop light, they're look over the shoulders. And even myself, who just arrived here -- I'm at my hotel -- I suddenly was looking out the window and saying maybe I should draw the shades. So it really depends on your own ways of coping. But again, it has been nine days since this alleged sniper struck.

NEISLOSS: Maria, what are the laws about being able to carry guns in the state?

HINOJOSA: Well, this was really interesting, Liz, because when we were doing some interviews of people in one of these diners a man said to me -- he said, "Well, you know, this shooter better start watching his back because a lot of people are going to be packing right now and they're going to try to take him out before he takes out someone else." And I was kind of like, "Oh, my god." But he said, "Well, you know, by law here, if you have a permit, you can carry a loaded and concealed weapon." So he had a message that he actually said to me on camera, which is, "This guy better be watching his back because we're watching ours."

WALLACE: Quickly, Maria, any leads, any major leads that they have, the detectives have right now?

HINOJOSA: Not that we're hearing at all at this point. Now the interesting thing, Kelly, of course, is that there had been some discussion about whether or not this might have been drug related. There was some infighting here between the mayor and sheriff, the mayor trying to protect the image of Charleston, West Virginia, which does have a drug problem, crack and methamphetamine.

But what we had just heard last night from federal sources is that they are not ruling anything out at this point, that they want to have a very wide net in this investigation, that they want to be as widespread and as thorough as they possibly can be. So at this point, they're not willing to discount any possible theory at all.

WALLACE: OK, Maria.

Up next, the historic march on Washington remembered. We go to Kathleen Koch at the Lincoln Memorial. That's right after this break. ON THE STORY continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kathleen Koch here live on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., where soon thousands of people are expected to gather to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the march on Washington for civil rights. Now of course that historic march was marked by Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, some say the most powerful and eloquent persuasive speech in U.S. history. It had a great deal to do with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

We again are expecting about 10,000 people to show up here today. The events begin at 3:00 p.m. Ten thousand people is somewhat down from the last anniversary remembrance just some 10 years ago, when 75,000 people showed up. In 1983, the 20th anniversary, there were 250,000.

Now that was the number that was here some 40 years ago. On Thursday is actually the actual anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech. But they say that they're rallying here today because Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream for full equality for African-Americans was never fully realized, that too many African- Americans still make up a large percentage of the poor, of the homeless, of the unemployed and the uninsured in the U.S.

HINOJOSA: Kathleen, I'm wondering what kinds of folks are you seeing there? Are you seeing a large contingent of old people, are you seeing some younger people? And is the message going to President Bush, or just in general a marking of this anniversary?

KOCH: Maria, it's a very mixed group here. There are some 100 different organizations who are sponsoring this event. Both African- American organizations and then organizations -- Hispanic, Arab- American. There are environmental groups, also labor groups, gay and lesbian organizations, women's rights groups.

So again, very mixed. And their messages are mixed. Though they are, again, calling for the full realization of Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, they want to try to stop U.S. involvement in Iraq, a lot of different causes. But there aren't a lot of people here right now, honestly.

Some teachings began at 11:00 in some tents just south of here. So the crowd is still pretty small.

NEISLOSS: Any sense, Kathleen, that all those messages will dilute the message that was given 40 years ago by Dr. King?

KOCH: There is of course that concern. But as Maria can attest, she's covered a lot of protests in Washington, D.C. over the last year, that has become the nature of protest in the nation's capital. There is a conglomeration of groups that come together with a lot of mixed messages, though they do feel that there are some similarities so that they all pull together to help improve the lives for the poor and the underprivileged.

WALLACE: Kathleen, any presidential candidates who will likely be there? Because this march is coming as we're entering a presidential election, the importance of the African-American vote to these candidates, very crucial, I would believe.

KOCH: We know for certain that there are at least two presidential candidates who are going to be here, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and also Howard Dean. But when I talked to the organizer of today's event, Walter Fontroy (ph), a former D.C. delegate, and he was one of the coordinators of the initial march here back in 1963, he said that they will recognize that their role here today is simply to listen and to take the message back and take some action on Capitol Hill.

NEISLOSS: Kathleen, do you have any idea how many people are expected at this particular time?

KOCH: We're expecting about 10,000. And that, again, is a far cry from the 250,000 who were here 40 years ago. But again, I was speaking with Mr. Fontroy (ph) about an hour ago, and he was saying it was a day very similar to today 40 years ago, a bright, hot August day. A little cooler today than it was then.

But he was telling me a story of some of the obstacles that they had to overcome. The night before the big speech, the big march, someone cut, very precisely, all the cables to their loud speakers up and down the Mall. And he had to make an emergency call to Bobby Kennedy at the last minute to get some cables from the Army's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to help re-electrify all those loud speakers, and they came on just at the last minute.

So if you hear some banging and hammering around me right now, that sort of thing is going on right now. Not repairing, but they're still putting the last-minute touches on the stages and getting everything ready for this afternoon's event. But he said, also, again, was a very different feeling. People were very inspired then, very aware of there -- that this was a critical moment in U.S. history, and that they were right there on the cusp of something happening, something challenging radically.

Things are different today. But still they're very inspired and very committed.

NEISLOSS: Well, thanks to Kathleen Koch and all of my colleagues. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back 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




Charleston, West Virginia: A city Caught in Cross-fire of a Sniper>