Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

President Bush Faces Anti-War Protest in London; Bush Changes Midcourse About How Iraq Will Governing itself

Aired November 15, 2003 - 10:00   ET

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

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


SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of President Bush and his midcourse change about when and how Iraq will govern itself.
DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Diana Muriel in London, on the story of how President Bush will face big anti-war protests when he arrives here next week.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Susan Candiotti in Miami, on the story of a Canadian citizen claiming the U.S. shipped him to Syria for interrogation and torture as a possible terrorist.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Patty Davis, on the story of a mother of seven, an Army medic in Iraq, and her choice of going AWOL or child abandonment.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of a break for consumers who wanted to keep their number and dump their phone company. We'll also be talking about the scandal reporters can't report in Britain.

We'll talk about Rush, out of rehab and back on the air next week. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.

E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com. Straight ahead now to Suzanne Malveaux and the U.S. in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States will complete our work in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Democracy in those two countries will succeed, and that success will be a great milestone in the history of liberty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush, speaking Tuesday, hitting the note of the week, that the U.S. won't cut and run. Changes, yes, speed up, yes, but no quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This was an incredible week. Some people say it was the breaking point of the administration. Others say it was the turning point. Here's what happened. Almost every single day you have these U.S. soldiers being killed in Iraq. The Italians were hit, 18 killed all at once on Wednesday. Then you have this Iraqi Governing Council.

The members aren't showing up to their meetings. And then you've got Ambassador Bremer, on his way back to Baghdad. Summoned back to Washington, emergency meetings with the president in the Oval Office. And somewhere along the line, they realized this is broken, we have to fix it, we have do something else.

So what did they do? They abandon their strategy. Before, it was going to be, let's wait for the Iraqis to get a constitution. Let's wait to elections. Then they'll be ready to take power and then we can actually move this thing forward.

Not happening anymore. They said we're abandoning that plan. Now we want the Iraqis to get power as quickly as possible.

MURIEL: Suzanne, just tell us, why is the timetable being speeded up, this timetable for handing over?

MALVEAUX: Well, there are a number of things. I mean, first of all, just -- the situation on the ground is just so dire when it comes to the military. And you know that there's Iron Hammer that they announced this week where they actually have -- going after these terrorists more aggressively.

And then, secondly, the political reality was this Iraqi Governing Council didn't really have the power to do very much. So these guys weren't showing up to the meetings, they were out of the country. And they said, look, we want more power to actually change things.

So today, this morning, we actually heard from Chalabi, who is head of this Governing Council who said, yes, we have a plan with the United States. It's a new plan. We're going to have a transitional government. This is going to be in place. We don't have to wait for the constitution; we don't have to wait for the national elections.

This is the body that's going to go ahead, take over the political aspects of this, the financial aspects, and even the security inside of the country. We're going to have this in place by June of next year. And then later, a couple of years down the road, we'll have something more permanent that's in place.

CANDIOTTI: Of course, the significance of the timing of this, Suzanne, is not lost on most people. If this is supposed to be in place by May, we know the election is coming up in November. So what does this mean politically?

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. I mean, you bring up a very good point. And the bottom line is, let's fast forward, let's take a look at next November.

If you have the Iraqis in place, they're governing their country, or at least on the surface they have more power governing their country, the Iraqis are in charge of security. So if things go wrong, the Iraqis are in charge of that aspect. And you have this -- this stand-down of U.S. troops. This is the best position for the Bush administration going into this re-election bid.

That is exactly what they would like to see. I mean, you're talking about, at this time, the Japanese, who said, look, we're not ready to hand over troops. We were going to hand over troops. This is too dangerous on the ground.

You have the South Koreans saying just 3,000. I mean, you've got a lot of people who are nervous about what is happening inside of that country. They don't want people to be nervous, either here or abroad next November.

HAYS: But that, I think, is what's going to get the skeptics going, Suzanne. They're going to say this is all just too neat. Because there are forces in Iraq who are also very skeptical of having a Governing Council make itself now the ruler, without elections, without really having that kind of authority.

And this plays so well into Bush's plan. Many people, including some high-profile conservatives, saying you cannot get out too quick, you cannot reduce the troops too quickly. And I think some people are going to say, this just smells too much of politics. It's too convenient for the Bush administration.

MALVEAUX: And you bring up a very good point. I mean, they are very much aware of that reality. And what they say is, well, we're above politics, but, you know, on the other hand, it's quite obvious that everybody is trying make this work in whatever way. And of course politics does play a part of that.

The other thing that's really interesting about this is Saddam Hussein. What is the role of Saddam Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction? They have found neither. And part of this deal that they have with the Iraqis is that, there is going to be a U.S. presence inside of Iraq for as long as the Bush administration would like a U.S. presence inside Iraq.

DAVIS: Well, and how important is it, still, the finding of Saddam Hussein in all of this?

MALVEAUX: I think the voters are really going to determine that, to tell you the truth. Because if you look at Afghanistan, and you look at the argument that the administration made, no Osama bin Laden. And eventually, they said, well, it's not about Osama bin Laden, it's not about one man. It depends on what the voters say.

If they say, well, this is really important to, us where is Saddam, I think you're going to see them stepping up and saying, look, we're trying to find him. Or, hey, it's not that important. But one thing that you do know is that it certainly emboldens these terrorists and these militants to have him out there.

HAYS: And certainly, some stability in this region is very important to Bush. He'd rather have the troops home, but he does not want this thing blowing up in his face right before the election.

MALVEAUX: And the troops are going to be there. I mean, the key to this is the numbers. I mean, they really don't want large numbers of troops in there around November. So that's -- that's the main concern.

MURIEL: President Bush will be treated to a state visit this coming week in Britain. And also to what are expected to be huge protests against his Iraq policy. I'm back ON THE STORY after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we all get very frustrated and we get very angry. And we want to march to Downing Street because we know that's where George Bush and Tony Blair will be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURIEL: One of the people getting ready to demonstrate against President Bush when he arrives in London next week. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Mr. Bush has said he doesn't expect everyone in the world to agree with his policies. And many Britains are preparing to make their disagreement very vocal and very visible. Perhaps the most visible element will be a 20-foot effigy that's being built, an effigy of President Bush, which will be taken to try Trafalgar Square at the end of the a huge rally that's expected to take place in the capital on Thursday. And he'll be ceremoniously toppled over, a sort of rather cynical echo of the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

That's what's planned by the protesters. But, of course, there's an awful lot of security planned by the British police as well.

CANDIOTTI: Diana, given the unpopularity of the war in Iraq there in Great Britain, as you talk to people, is there more a feeling of anti-Americanism because of it, or is it more anti-Bush?

MURIEL: Well, it seems that it is more anti-Bush. But there has been a growing sense -- and this is something that's been talked about in the British press, papers, and on television and radio, about a growing sense of anti-Americanism. That the longer this continues, the more these policies are pursued in places like Iraq, the more Americans themselves become identified with the president's policies, rather than being separated from them.

I've been speaking to various expatriates here in London. There are about 200,000 expatriate Americans living in the U.K. They say they've noticed a significant shift since the war in Iraq. They sense they have to defend themselves as much as their country and, indeed, their president when they discuss politics with ordinary Britains. This hasn't spilled over into any overt hostility. They're not being yelled at in the street, as one described to me. But they are seeing more anti-American graffiti in and around the capital and other cities in London, and they think that will only get worse when the president himself arrives here next Tuesday night.

HAYS: Well, Diana, just switching gears. Some news just in that I'm sure you and all of our viewers are going to find important here.

An accident aboard the Queen Mary, the world's largest passenger ship, the Queen Mary II. Apparently under construction in France. The gangway collapsed, killing 11 people, injuring as many as 20. This is from The Associated Press. That's what we have so far.

Diana, you know, certainly a symbol -- one kind of symbol of Britain to the rest of the world. I wonder how this plays into the scene there at a time when there is such a sense of turmoil.

MURIEL: Well, indeed. I mean this is believed to be, at this stage at least, a simple accident. A tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless. Although, I should say, also this morning we understand from the intelligence services in Britain that they have changed their threat alert level. They say that this is due to information they've received, that an attack is imminent in the U.K. with al Qaeda working out of North Africa.

They aren't giving any details about a specific threat or a specific attack that might be planned. They do say it that is has nothing to do directly with President Bush's visit to this country. But nonetheless, they've gone to an internal threat alert state of severe general, which is one up from where they were yesterday.

So this, of course, all comes together. There's going to be enormous security for the president's visit. Five thousand policemen are going to be on the streets of the capital. All police leave has been canceled.

Bush will also be bringing, of course, his own security personnel. And even Buckingham Palace is not immune to this. We understand that there have been teams sweeping the palace, checking interior walls, possible explosive devices that may be hidden there, et cetera, et cetera. This is -- no chances are being taken with the president's visit here to Britain.

MALVEAUX: Diana, how do you think it will play for those there? I mean, how will this actually impact British Prime Minister Tony Blair's standing? I know that he has had a number of difficulties. And really, is it going to help to have this kind of one-on-one, this presence where you actually have President Bush there on the ground involved in these talks?

MURIEL: Well, the timing couldn't be worse really. These things of course are planned months, if not years, in advance. But Tony Blair and his relationship with Bush is not particularly healthy in terms of the perceptions of the British electorate. He's perceived by many in Britain, not exclusively, but by many in Britain as being far too close to the president, as being his poodle, if you like. And, in fact, there have been many cartoons in European newspapers, particularly in French newspapers, about Blair being President Bush's poodle.

Blair has a very close relationship with President Bush, and he means to honor that. Although, I think he is keeping one eye on this -- how it may play out in the electorate here in the U.K. But having said that, Blair has planned to take the president to his own home constituency. And they'll be paying a visit up north to the prime minister's home constituency during the course of the visit.

So he seems to be quite relaxed about showing the president off to his direct voters. But there are many who say that he's looking uncomfortably close to very unpopular policies that the president, of course, is pursuing in Iraq and elsewhere.

DAVIS: Diana, turning the corner to an alleged sexual incident in Britain involving Prince Charles, now the British press has been very good about not saying much about it. I can tell you, if this was the U.S., the press would be all over it. Now, why is that?

MURIEL: Well, we have to be very careful about this. If I were to tell you exactly what happened according to the rumor and the scandal that's out there on the Internet and in European newspapers and in American newspapers and all over the rest of the world, I'd have to pack my toothbrush and be sent to her majesty's prison because I would be in contempt of court.

There is an injunction in London and Wales by a U.K. court, which means that I can't tell you what the alleged incident is all about. All I can tell you is that Prince Charles has come out, rather oddly, and said that he is the senior royal at the heart of these allegations and that they are untrue.

Now, no one had ever done that before in the royal family. Whether that policy was an intelligent one remains to be seen. It seems to be working. And I can tell you that there is this former valet called George Smith (ph) who alleges that he witnessed a sexual instance between a member of the prince's household and a senior royal.

And so I'm going to leave it to you to put two and two together and do your own research on the Internet. I, speaking as I am from London, cannot tell you what happened. These are part of the arcane liable laws that exist here in the U.K. And I think part of the reason why Prince Charles came out and said, look, I'm the senior royal at the heart of this it's not true, is that he lives in the real world.

He knew that it was all -- it was going to be all over the Internet and all over other press. And he wanted them to be able to publish his denial, along with the story, so that he covered that base, if you like, before it -- before it became -- in Britain. No one here is prepared to put their head above the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- that includes me -- and tell you what the story is. But of course it's out there elsewhere in the world.

HAYS: Well, we wouldn't expect you to put your head (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Diana, certainly not for that story. And of course, by now, in the United States, you probably have a reality TV show being built around a story like this. What a difference.

But before we thank you and let you go, tell us, what's ON THE STORY for you coming up this week?

MURIEL: Well, I will be of course covering the president's arrival here and the various demonstrations and protests that will be taking place in the capital and elsewhere, and seeing whether or not any of them turn violent. That's one of the big concerns of the British police here while the president is with us.

HAYS: That's certainly a story we're following very closely from here in the United States. Thanks to Diana Muriel.

From across the Atlantic, closer to home, the pocketbook, the nest egg, and even holding on to your cell phone number. We're on those stories when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I will stay focused on our economy until the American people are able to put food on the table and take care of their family responsibilities by finding a job.

HAYS: Cheerleader and chief for the U.S. economy, President Bush, at a political fund-raiser in Arkansas at the start of the week. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Well, he can cheer lead all he wants. And it does look like the economy's turning around. You know, in the past couple of weeks, we've had a huge growth in the economy in the third quarter, more than seven percent. Jobs growing, three months in a row.

But something that is really dogging people right now, the mutual fund scandal is just getting bigger and bigger, bringing in more and more companies. We're finding all kinds of instances where big companies, big investors, got to trade at our expense. Ninety-five million Americans own mutual funds. It's something, again, that I think is really going to eat more and more at people's sense of security, even if the economy's picking up.

DAVIS: It does seem to be growing, more firms upon more firms being added every day. How can the small investor have any confidence where to put their money nowadays?

HAYS: Well, you know -- and right now, of course, there's legislation being introduced in Congress to have more oversight, more enforcement to kind of clamp down on these thing. The attorney generals of New York and Massachusetts complaining that the SEC settled too quickly and too easily with Putnam Investments, the fifth largest mutual fund in the country. It had $174 billion under management, $14 billion have been withdrawn.

An anecdote this week. On the flip side, on CNNFN, we had a caller call in and said, "I'm 49 years old, I'm retired. All my money is in Putnam Investments. What do I do?"

Two separate guests. One says the worst is probably behind us, hold on. Another one says sell, because you know the management is bad. You know, look for a more secure fund. And some of the names people say still look good are Vanguard, Fidelity, names like that.

But it's interesting to me -- I think the American people have to stop and think about something. We were told, from now on, you won't get a guaranteed pension. We're going to give you a 401k. You can manage it yourself.

Well, now we find out that the brokers, even the mutual funds have more information. They're trading at our expense. It is an unleveled playing field. I think, sooner or later, policymakers are going to have to look at this.

CANDIOTTI: You know, Kathleen, another issue for consumers out there is what's happening with cell phones now. Now it turns out that we may be able to -- if we want to switch services, we can hold on to our cell phone number, but that wasn't always the case?

HAYS: Oh, it hasn't been. And that's one reason -- you get a great number, and you give it to your friends and your business associates, you don't want to give up your number. So many are not so thrilled with this service, but you'll stick with it just to hold on to that great phone number.

Well, so many people, so many consumer groups complained about this. As of November 24, not only will you be able to change your cell phone service and take your great phone number with you, or maybe just because you've had it in business so long you want to hold on to it. Now, also, it looks like we can take our home phone, the land line that all our kids are saying, who wants to use a land line, and put that on to a cell phone, which would be very handy.

The problem is, the cell phone companies are saying, this is great, we're on board, we spent $1.7 billion getting the technology ready to do this, but there's going to be such a Rush. We're not sure how the technology works. There could be a lot of snafus along the way.

There could be some delays. There could be some very disgruntled consumers, even though in the long run this looks like a boon to most of us.

MALVEAUX: Tell us what happened this week when it comes to trade. Because I know that the World Trade Organization said, look, this is illegal, the kind of tariffs that the Bush administration is putting on the steel industry. And he really faces -- the Bush administration faces billions of dollars in sanctions if they don't lift that tariff. What does this mean for our economy? HAYS: Well, this is such an interesting battle, because, on the one hand, you have the beleaguered steel industry. They say that the rest of the world dumped their steel unfairly on the U.S.. That's why Bush put on the tariffs of 30 percent in March 2002.

Most everybody thought who knows that the rules of the World Trade Organization, of which we are a part, and of which we're always asking the rest of the world to please join and please play by the rules, we knew this would be found illegal. So this week they ruled as expected.

Now, the EU, if we don't lift the tariffs off of steel, has the right to come in and slap $2.2 billion worth of tariffs on us. The irony is everyone says this was a political move by President Bush when he did it. He's supposed to be a free trader; he is a free trader. He's pushing free trade on many fronts now.

He wanted the vote of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. But the irony is that now these sanctions could hurt voters in states like Florida, the citrus growers. That was a key state.

Wisconsin they lost. Harley Davidson could get hit with tariffs. Apples in Washington and Oregon, two more close states. The Carolinas, textiles, apparel will be targeted.

So it's a really tough choice for Mr. Bush. What does he do? Does he back off on the tariffs? Does he hold his ground to keep his steelworker votes, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) votes, or does he find maybe another little technicality, a little window he can wiggle through? And some people think that will happen.

DAVIS: And is there a deadline here by which he has to make that decision?

HAYS: The WTO has to rule, I believe, by December 15. And the Bush administration, again, is still hoping they can find some kind of an arrangement with the EU, that they can find some sort of technicality.

There may be a way where they can slightly change the U.S. anti- dumping laws. There may be some kind of technicality they can kind of shift this around on. But there's also $4 billion in a whole other area tied up with U.S. corporate taxes that the EU stands ready to slap us with.

So the trade picture gets murkier and murkier. And ironically, again, this is a free trade president who is caught up in a protectionist battle.

CANDIOTTI: Well, Kathleen, from pocketbook issues to the war on terrorism, and the story of a Canadian citizen who says the United States sent him to Syria to be tortured and interrogated. We're on that story after this and a check of what's making headlines at this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER ARAR, DETAINED: To find (ph) someone as a terrorist, especially after 9/11, basically is to destroy this person's life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: Maher Arar detained by the United States and then, he says, sent to Syria for torture and interrogation. Welcome back. I'm on the story of a Syrian man. He's got dual citizenship. Born in Syria, but a naturalized Canadian citizen.

And he says he's a living example of how the war on terrorism can go a bit too far. He blames both the United States and Canada. And just last week, I flew to Ottawa, Canada, from here in Florida, to speak to Maher Arar.

This was his first American television interview, an exclusive interview, since he was released by the Syrians. And remember, he wasn't charged with anything. It's a scary story about a man who was on vacation in Tunisia with his family, came back to the United States, and was detained here and questioned. And, he says he is an innocent man.

MALVEAUX: Now what is the U.S. administration saying about this, Susan?

CANDIOTTI: Well, it's very hard to pry anything out of them. They're saying very little, other than the fact that the reason the United States sent him to Syria, even though he was traveling on a Canadian passport, was based on information the United States received from Canada. And other than that, they're not saying much more.

Although, I can tell you that, just today, someone from the Bush administration is being quoted in "The New York Times" as saying that what happened to Maher Arar is shorthand, they're saying, for an excess of what can happen in the name of national security.

KAYS: Susan, this -- I think one of the things that was most chilling to me, following your work, reading some stories this week, was this was called an act of rendition, where the United states government allows someone to basically be taken and sent to a country where they know this person will be tortured. Is that accurate? How did that play in?

CANDIOTTI: It's unclear if that's what's happened here. That is an allegation being made by lawyers who are representing Maher Arar in Canada. The Center for Constitutional Rights here in the United States helping to represent him. Rendition, a it's very murky matter.

Of course, the United States said it would never send anyone to another country to be tortured. And what's important to remember here is that the United States is party to a worldwide treaty against sending anyone to any country where torture is known to be taking place. And Syria is well known to be one of those countries. DAVIS: Well, who do the U.S. authorities believe he was connected to? And is there any realistic thought he might be associated with terrorism in any way?

CANDIOTTI: Well, that's what the United States isn't letting on right now about exactly and precisely what information they had. They maintain that it's all classified.

What we do know is this, according to Mr. Arar. He says it is his belief that the United States was questioning him about a six- year-old rental lease that he had signed for an apartment and someone who witnessed that lease they say, he says, is who they seem to be most interested in. And that person also is still being held in Syria. And there are efforts under way by the Canadian government, because also he is Canadian, to get him released and back home to Canada.

HAYS: So what is his legal standing now? You said there's the Center for Constitutional Rights here in the United States looking into this. We know we're having a change of government coming up here in Canada. Jacques Chretien is giving way to Mr. Martin as the next prime minister.

I guess what I'm wondering if this could get lost in the shuffle. And meanwhile, what happens to the victim of something that nobody wants to take credit for, or blame for, making me think that maybe this was a mistake on somebody's part. They just don't want to admit it yet.

CANDIOTTI: It may very well be the case. There has been a call for a public inquiry in Canada. Also, his lawyers are calling on U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to conduct a criminal investigation about how something like this can happen.

In the meantime, no one really knows for sure whether the truth will ever come out. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that he will share the names of the people in -- with the Canadian government who gave the United States government this information about him. But in the meantime, of course, you have Mr. Arar, who says that no matter what anybody says about this, and despite his claims that he hasn't done anything wrong, there will still be -- and no charges being filed against him -- there will still be people out there on the street who will still look for him and always wonder if there was something to this. He says his life's been ruined.

DAVIS: Well, thank you, Susan. From the terrorism war, to the war in Iraq, and how one woman found herself in a public fight over her responsibilities as a soldier and a mother. We're back ON THE STORY in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMONE HOLCOMB, U.S. ARMY MEDIC: Staying strong for the kids is my number one priority. My children have always been first. (END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: "My children have always come first," says U.S. Army medic Simone Holcomb. She has been at the center of a storm over how to do her duty to her family and the Army. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

This woman had seven children along with her husband. She and her husband were sent to Iraq, as many families are experiencing, both the mom and dad going. But the problem came up in that his ex-wife wanted to regain custody of two of those seven children, which were her biological children.

The Army flew them both back to the United States. And then a Colorado judge ordered one of them to stay, if they were to retain custody. She said, "I will." Then the Army said, "No, you must go back to Iraq." And she said, "No, I can't do it."

HAYS: And everybody knows what a decision for a mother or a father to have to make. Go back to Iraq and lose custody of your kids, have your kids that are your husband's biological kids. Your other kid goes to foster homes.

What mother wouldn't say, I'm staying with my kids? Because that supersedes everything. What happens next though? How is this resolved?

DAVIS: Well, her attorney was arguing for compassionate reassignment, which means, keep her back in the United States so that she doesn't have to put her kids into foster care and lose custody of those two children to the ex-wife. And she ended up getting that.

What happened was -- I was at the Pentagon actually on Monday when that decision came down from the Army. And they said, all right, this is a really messy situation. This is best for both of us. We're going to give you compassionate reassignment.

She goes back to her National Guard unit in Colorado so she can stay in the U.S. Here husband will stay over in Iraq. And then, in the meantime, though, she was strapped with an Article 15, a punishment by her commander who said, listen, you didn't obey my order. So, in other words, I'm punishing you for this.

And she's fighting that, because her lawyer says she can still be court marshaled over that. And she could lose veterans' benefits. She doesn't want either of those things to happen.

CANDIOTTI: Patty, with this being an all-volunteer Army, I mean, what kind of an impact could this have on people signing up?

DAVIS: Yes. You have to think that other people in the National Guard are looking at this. And people who may be potentially going into the military. What are we going to do about our families?

And so everybody has to have a family plan. And, in fact, this couple did have a family plan. The grandmother was going to come in. And she did take care of the kids for about seven or eight months but she had a problem and had to leave. And it just didn't work out.

And I think this shows the military, in some ways, that it really has to have some compassion. You just can't follow orders to the exclusion of everything else in your family.

MALVEAUX: Now, was there a consideration of the husband coming back and taking care of the children, or was there any discussion about that at all?

DAVIS: Yes. That's the decision that they made, the two of them. One them was going to have to stay, either she or her husband. And as a couple, they made the decision that she would stay.

HAYS: It does seem to me like -- following on Susan's point, though, that the Army at some point is going to have to address this question of maybe -- to me, maybe they're being a little too politically correct saying, OK, you can both go to war. It seems to me there will be some consideration for the children. That in the event you have two people in Iraq, both parents, god forbid, could be killed. You would orphan a whole family.

I wonder if there's any thought on that, if this is going to spur some thinking, some rethinking about the policy, you know, 10 years after the Gulf War, so many more women in the service.

DAVIS: Good question. And I think you're going to have to ask the Pentagon for the answer to that, are they going to change their policy on that. But certainly, a very difficult situation for members of the military, especially as the U.S. relies more and more on Reservists and National Guard.

CANDIOTTI: Patty, you've also been covering the Beltway sniper trials. Of course, we know the jury's out on one. And you were at Malvo's opening statements. How is that young man reacting to what's being said so far?

DAVIS: Well, he's pretty I'd say placid in the whole thing. And sitting in this trial -- and I was sitting in the opening arguments for Malvo -- it just kind of brought back the feeling of panic and terror here in the Washington, D.C. area.

Just a year ago, this was a huge national story. Opening arguments. What they're basically doing in both of these cases, the Muhammad trial and the Malvo trial, is blaming the other guy. Muhammad says -- his defense attorneys -- you never saw Muhammad at any of these incidents.

It's all-circumstantial. He didn't pull the trigger. So he should be found not guilty. At least not get the death penalty.

And Malvo, they say that Muhammad, an older man, indoctrinated this younger boy, made him his child soldier. He was temporarily insane. They're using an insanity defense here.

And they're saying he was an abandoned child. He was taken advantage of. He did not know right from wrong at this point. Now, the prosecutors interestingly say, in Virginia law, the insanity defense simply is knowing the difference between right and wrong. And, in fact, Lee Boyd Malvo did know that at the time. So he should be held responsible for his actions.

MALVEAUX: And the fact that we don't have a verdict in the Muhammad case, what does that mean? I mean, you're reading tea leaves, but what do you think that means?

DAVIS: Well, it's been going on for four hours at this point, four hours. They've requested to listen to some tapes. So they couldn't find a tape recorder right away to get to the jury. So they're going to bring that in on Monday. But only four hours, so probably not enough time.

One little interesting thing. A side note on the Malvo trial is what he's wearing. "The New York Times" had some legal experts that they quoted talking about he's dressing down. Not -- very casual, not wearing a suit, maybe meant to look very youthful and influence the jury in that way.

Well, the defense attorney's wife apparently was kind of upset about this because she helped purchase those clothes and told him about this. He came to the press, kind of in a very lighthearted moment the day after that and said, listen, I have a lot of work to do. But I need to go shopping again tonight, and we need to get him some different clothes.

Everybody expected him to say, yes, we're going to dress him in a suit tomorrow. Instead, since this had been in "The New York Times," he said, well, he's going to be in a Florida Marlins shirt, kind of a World Series kind of joke there. So some lighthearted moments.

HAYS: In the midst of all the drama. From the sniper trials to Rush Limbaugh, out of rehab, back on the radio. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYS: Well, from one strong, tough Rosie, to another strong, tough Rosie. Rosie O'Donnell, comedian, talk show host and producer of a new Broadway musical fought to a draw in a New York courtroom with the publisher of her failed magazine.

And you know, I think for people in the business world, and even for many people across the country, this was like a very kind of sideshow kind of thing, something you just couldn't take your eyes off. Here you have Rosie O'Donnell, she was brought in to revive "McCall's" magazine, a long-standing kind of icon in the publishing world, but maybe needed some freshening up.

So they chose Rosie O'Donnell, Gruner + Jahr, this German publishing company. They clash, Rosie comes out of the closet. She decides to leave the magazine because they've taken editorial control away from her.

They sue her for abandoning the magazine, she sues back. They end up in court. At the end of the week, the judge basically says just stop bickering and go back to your room, kids. They never should have come to court. He just questions whether the magazine would have gotten any money anyway and awarded damages to neither side.

DAVIS: So what does this mean for Rosie now?

HAYS: First of all, he hasn't written his legal decision. And in the written decision, people say maybe she will get some money, some legal costs covers. The queen of nice we know, surprise, surprise, is a tough, pushy woman, who could sometimes apparently be abusive to her employees.

It turns out her publisher, the wounded publisher, maybe fiddled with the books to make them look like they weren't good enough for Rosie to take this exit that she wanted to take. So obviously shenanigans on both sides. But I think many people figure, hey, she's Rosie O'Donnell. She's obviously involved in the public's eye, and that this something that's not going to hurt her career or hurt her long term.

CANDIOTTI: Yes, I wonder. You know, she had such a popular talk show. I wonder if there's any regret in her giving that up, maybe because of everything that's happened since then.

Of course, she does have this Broadway show coming along. Do you think ultimately there's a long-term damage to her career?

HAYS: Don't you think that -- I think that remains to be seen. It depends on what Rosie's next project is.

It was interesting, too. In the courtroom, her sense of humor never abandons her. She said she compares all these big scandals out there right now and she says, what am I guilty of? I'm a lesbian, I'm fat, and I use the "F" word.

I mean, she just is always kind of combating back. The play that's opening on Broadway has gotten a lot of bad reviews so far. Boy George in this role of an older man, performance artist. A young man plays the Boy George of the London club scene.

Rosie, a very hands-on producer, again being accused of pushy, making decisions she shouldn't have. We'll see how the play does and we'll see how Rosie does over time.

MALVEAUX: And Susan, there was another celebrity in the news. Rush Limbaugh, I understand, is going to be coming back to work? Is that right?

CANDIOTTI: Oh, yes. He's been off the air for five weeks now. You'll remember, he publicly admitted that he is addicted to pain pills. Did that on the air.

This was after "The National Enquirer" broke the news of a woman's claims, his former housekeeper, that she sold him, she said, 30,000 OxyContin pills. Meantime, so he's going back on the air. His brother says he's chomping at the bit to get back, but he's going to go full tilt ahead to his regular schedule. That, nevertheless, he will be continuing with his drug treatment, according to his brother.

But the question is, what's happened to the ongoing criminal investigations? And I spoke with some of my sources about this. Well, have been for most every day now. And the latest I hear is they're still talking about it.

My sources tell me that no decision has been made as yet as to whether anyone will be charged. Possibly him, with either misdemeanor or felony, possibly the housekeeper, or nobody at all. So that remains to be seen what's going to happen with the outcome of that investigation. Probably we'll hear something about that, one way or the other, by next month.

HAYS: Well, it also remains to be seen how this sits with his fans. Rush Limbaugh another one, like Rosie O'Donnell, had some hard- core, die-hard people just love him. They seem that they will be his followers no matter what.

The question of Rush, of course, on the record. Let's be tough on drug users. In this one instance -- not to offend his fans -- he looks like he was a hypocrite. I wonder, does his standing change in any of his fan's eyes?

CANDIOTTI: Many people have been saying he's hypocritical because of what he's said in the past. But then again, those fans who are very loyal to him say they're going to stick by him through thick and thin.

DAVIS: Coming up at the top of the hour, a check of the top stories. But first, the president's weekly radio address.

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




Changes Midcourse About How Iraq Will Governing itself>


Aired November 15, 2003 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of President Bush and his midcourse change about when and how Iraq will govern itself.
DIANA MURIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Diana Muriel in London, on the story of how President Bush will face big anti-war protests when he arrives here next week.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Susan Candiotti in Miami, on the story of a Canadian citizen claiming the U.S. shipped him to Syria for interrogation and torture as a possible terrorist.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Patty Davis, on the story of a mother of seven, an Army medic in Iraq, and her choice of going AWOL or child abandonment.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of a break for consumers who wanted to keep their number and dump their phone company. We'll also be talking about the scandal reporters can't report in Britain.

We'll talk about Rush, out of rehab and back on the air next week. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.

E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com. Straight ahead now to Suzanne Malveaux and the U.S. in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States will complete our work in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Democracy in those two countries will succeed, and that success will be a great milestone in the history of liberty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: President Bush, speaking Tuesday, hitting the note of the week, that the U.S. won't cut and run. Changes, yes, speed up, yes, but no quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This was an incredible week. Some people say it was the breaking point of the administration. Others say it was the turning point. Here's what happened. Almost every single day you have these U.S. soldiers being killed in Iraq. The Italians were hit, 18 killed all at once on Wednesday. Then you have this Iraqi Governing Council.

The members aren't showing up to their meetings. And then you've got Ambassador Bremer, on his way back to Baghdad. Summoned back to Washington, emergency meetings with the president in the Oval Office. And somewhere along the line, they realized this is broken, we have to fix it, we have do something else.

So what did they do? They abandon their strategy. Before, it was going to be, let's wait for the Iraqis to get a constitution. Let's wait to elections. Then they'll be ready to take power and then we can actually move this thing forward.

Not happening anymore. They said we're abandoning that plan. Now we want the Iraqis to get power as quickly as possible.

MURIEL: Suzanne, just tell us, why is the timetable being speeded up, this timetable for handing over?

MALVEAUX: Well, there are a number of things. I mean, first of all, just -- the situation on the ground is just so dire when it comes to the military. And you know that there's Iron Hammer that they announced this week where they actually have -- going after these terrorists more aggressively.

And then, secondly, the political reality was this Iraqi Governing Council didn't really have the power to do very much. So these guys weren't showing up to the meetings, they were out of the country. And they said, look, we want more power to actually change things.

So today, this morning, we actually heard from Chalabi, who is head of this Governing Council who said, yes, we have a plan with the United States. It's a new plan. We're going to have a transitional government. This is going to be in place. We don't have to wait for the constitution; we don't have to wait for the national elections.

This is the body that's going to go ahead, take over the political aspects of this, the financial aspects, and even the security inside of the country. We're going to have this in place by June of next year. And then later, a couple of years down the road, we'll have something more permanent that's in place.

CANDIOTTI: Of course, the significance of the timing of this, Suzanne, is not lost on most people. If this is supposed to be in place by May, we know the election is coming up in November. So what does this mean politically?

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. I mean, you bring up a very good point. And the bottom line is, let's fast forward, let's take a look at next November.

If you have the Iraqis in place, they're governing their country, or at least on the surface they have more power governing their country, the Iraqis are in charge of security. So if things go wrong, the Iraqis are in charge of that aspect. And you have this -- this stand-down of U.S. troops. This is the best position for the Bush administration going into this re-election bid.

That is exactly what they would like to see. I mean, you're talking about, at this time, the Japanese, who said, look, we're not ready to hand over troops. We were going to hand over troops. This is too dangerous on the ground.

You have the South Koreans saying just 3,000. I mean, you've got a lot of people who are nervous about what is happening inside of that country. They don't want people to be nervous, either here or abroad next November.

HAYS: But that, I think, is what's going to get the skeptics going, Suzanne. They're going to say this is all just too neat. Because there are forces in Iraq who are also very skeptical of having a Governing Council make itself now the ruler, without elections, without really having that kind of authority.

And this plays so well into Bush's plan. Many people, including some high-profile conservatives, saying you cannot get out too quick, you cannot reduce the troops too quickly. And I think some people are going to say, this just smells too much of politics. It's too convenient for the Bush administration.

MALVEAUX: And you bring up a very good point. I mean, they are very much aware of that reality. And what they say is, well, we're above politics, but, you know, on the other hand, it's quite obvious that everybody is trying make this work in whatever way. And of course politics does play a part of that.

The other thing that's really interesting about this is Saddam Hussein. What is the role of Saddam Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction? They have found neither. And part of this deal that they have with the Iraqis is that, there is going to be a U.S. presence inside of Iraq for as long as the Bush administration would like a U.S. presence inside Iraq.

DAVIS: Well, and how important is it, still, the finding of Saddam Hussein in all of this?

MALVEAUX: I think the voters are really going to determine that, to tell you the truth. Because if you look at Afghanistan, and you look at the argument that the administration made, no Osama bin Laden. And eventually, they said, well, it's not about Osama bin Laden, it's not about one man. It depends on what the voters say.

If they say, well, this is really important to, us where is Saddam, I think you're going to see them stepping up and saying, look, we're trying to find him. Or, hey, it's not that important. But one thing that you do know is that it certainly emboldens these terrorists and these militants to have him out there.

HAYS: And certainly, some stability in this region is very important to Bush. He'd rather have the troops home, but he does not want this thing blowing up in his face right before the election.

MALVEAUX: And the troops are going to be there. I mean, the key to this is the numbers. I mean, they really don't want large numbers of troops in there around November. So that's -- that's the main concern.

MURIEL: President Bush will be treated to a state visit this coming week in Britain. And also to what are expected to be huge protests against his Iraq policy. I'm back ON THE STORY after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we all get very frustrated and we get very angry. And we want to march to Downing Street because we know that's where George Bush and Tony Blair will be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURIEL: One of the people getting ready to demonstrate against President Bush when he arrives in London next week. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Mr. Bush has said he doesn't expect everyone in the world to agree with his policies. And many Britains are preparing to make their disagreement very vocal and very visible. Perhaps the most visible element will be a 20-foot effigy that's being built, an effigy of President Bush, which will be taken to try Trafalgar Square at the end of the a huge rally that's expected to take place in the capital on Thursday. And he'll be ceremoniously toppled over, a sort of rather cynical echo of the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

That's what's planned by the protesters. But, of course, there's an awful lot of security planned by the British police as well.

CANDIOTTI: Diana, given the unpopularity of the war in Iraq there in Great Britain, as you talk to people, is there more a feeling of anti-Americanism because of it, or is it more anti-Bush?

MURIEL: Well, it seems that it is more anti-Bush. But there has been a growing sense -- and this is something that's been talked about in the British press, papers, and on television and radio, about a growing sense of anti-Americanism. That the longer this continues, the more these policies are pursued in places like Iraq, the more Americans themselves become identified with the president's policies, rather than being separated from them.

I've been speaking to various expatriates here in London. There are about 200,000 expatriate Americans living in the U.K. They say they've noticed a significant shift since the war in Iraq. They sense they have to defend themselves as much as their country and, indeed, their president when they discuss politics with ordinary Britains. This hasn't spilled over into any overt hostility. They're not being yelled at in the street, as one described to me. But they are seeing more anti-American graffiti in and around the capital and other cities in London, and they think that will only get worse when the president himself arrives here next Tuesday night.

HAYS: Well, Diana, just switching gears. Some news just in that I'm sure you and all of our viewers are going to find important here.

An accident aboard the Queen Mary, the world's largest passenger ship, the Queen Mary II. Apparently under construction in France. The gangway collapsed, killing 11 people, injuring as many as 20. This is from The Associated Press. That's what we have so far.

Diana, you know, certainly a symbol -- one kind of symbol of Britain to the rest of the world. I wonder how this plays into the scene there at a time when there is such a sense of turmoil.

MURIEL: Well, indeed. I mean this is believed to be, at this stage at least, a simple accident. A tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless. Although, I should say, also this morning we understand from the intelligence services in Britain that they have changed their threat alert level. They say that this is due to information they've received, that an attack is imminent in the U.K. with al Qaeda working out of North Africa.

They aren't giving any details about a specific threat or a specific attack that might be planned. They do say it that is has nothing to do directly with President Bush's visit to this country. But nonetheless, they've gone to an internal threat alert state of severe general, which is one up from where they were yesterday.

So this, of course, all comes together. There's going to be enormous security for the president's visit. Five thousand policemen are going to be on the streets of the capital. All police leave has been canceled.

Bush will also be bringing, of course, his own security personnel. And even Buckingham Palace is not immune to this. We understand that there have been teams sweeping the palace, checking interior walls, possible explosive devices that may be hidden there, et cetera, et cetera. This is -- no chances are being taken with the president's visit here to Britain.

MALVEAUX: Diana, how do you think it will play for those there? I mean, how will this actually impact British Prime Minister Tony Blair's standing? I know that he has had a number of difficulties. And really, is it going to help to have this kind of one-on-one, this presence where you actually have President Bush there on the ground involved in these talks?

MURIEL: Well, the timing couldn't be worse really. These things of course are planned months, if not years, in advance. But Tony Blair and his relationship with Bush is not particularly healthy in terms of the perceptions of the British electorate. He's perceived by many in Britain, not exclusively, but by many in Britain as being far too close to the president, as being his poodle, if you like. And, in fact, there have been many cartoons in European newspapers, particularly in French newspapers, about Blair being President Bush's poodle.

Blair has a very close relationship with President Bush, and he means to honor that. Although, I think he is keeping one eye on this -- how it may play out in the electorate here in the U.K. But having said that, Blair has planned to take the president to his own home constituency. And they'll be paying a visit up north to the prime minister's home constituency during the course of the visit.

So he seems to be quite relaxed about showing the president off to his direct voters. But there are many who say that he's looking uncomfortably close to very unpopular policies that the president, of course, is pursuing in Iraq and elsewhere.

DAVIS: Diana, turning the corner to an alleged sexual incident in Britain involving Prince Charles, now the British press has been very good about not saying much about it. I can tell you, if this was the U.S., the press would be all over it. Now, why is that?

MURIEL: Well, we have to be very careful about this. If I were to tell you exactly what happened according to the rumor and the scandal that's out there on the Internet and in European newspapers and in American newspapers and all over the rest of the world, I'd have to pack my toothbrush and be sent to her majesty's prison because I would be in contempt of court.

There is an injunction in London and Wales by a U.K. court, which means that I can't tell you what the alleged incident is all about. All I can tell you is that Prince Charles has come out, rather oddly, and said that he is the senior royal at the heart of these allegations and that they are untrue.

Now, no one had ever done that before in the royal family. Whether that policy was an intelligent one remains to be seen. It seems to be working. And I can tell you that there is this former valet called George Smith (ph) who alleges that he witnessed a sexual instance between a member of the prince's household and a senior royal.

And so I'm going to leave it to you to put two and two together and do your own research on the Internet. I, speaking as I am from London, cannot tell you what happened. These are part of the arcane liable laws that exist here in the U.K. And I think part of the reason why Prince Charles came out and said, look, I'm the senior royal at the heart of this it's not true, is that he lives in the real world.

He knew that it was all -- it was going to be all over the Internet and all over other press. And he wanted them to be able to publish his denial, along with the story, so that he covered that base, if you like, before it -- before it became -- in Britain. No one here is prepared to put their head above the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- that includes me -- and tell you what the story is. But of course it's out there elsewhere in the world.

HAYS: Well, we wouldn't expect you to put your head (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Diana, certainly not for that story. And of course, by now, in the United States, you probably have a reality TV show being built around a story like this. What a difference.

But before we thank you and let you go, tell us, what's ON THE STORY for you coming up this week?

MURIEL: Well, I will be of course covering the president's arrival here and the various demonstrations and protests that will be taking place in the capital and elsewhere, and seeing whether or not any of them turn violent. That's one of the big concerns of the British police here while the president is with us.

HAYS: That's certainly a story we're following very closely from here in the United States. Thanks to Diana Muriel.

From across the Atlantic, closer to home, the pocketbook, the nest egg, and even holding on to your cell phone number. We're on those stories when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I will stay focused on our economy until the American people are able to put food on the table and take care of their family responsibilities by finding a job.

HAYS: Cheerleader and chief for the U.S. economy, President Bush, at a political fund-raiser in Arkansas at the start of the week. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Well, he can cheer lead all he wants. And it does look like the economy's turning around. You know, in the past couple of weeks, we've had a huge growth in the economy in the third quarter, more than seven percent. Jobs growing, three months in a row.

But something that is really dogging people right now, the mutual fund scandal is just getting bigger and bigger, bringing in more and more companies. We're finding all kinds of instances where big companies, big investors, got to trade at our expense. Ninety-five million Americans own mutual funds. It's something, again, that I think is really going to eat more and more at people's sense of security, even if the economy's picking up.

DAVIS: It does seem to be growing, more firms upon more firms being added every day. How can the small investor have any confidence where to put their money nowadays?

HAYS: Well, you know -- and right now, of course, there's legislation being introduced in Congress to have more oversight, more enforcement to kind of clamp down on these thing. The attorney generals of New York and Massachusetts complaining that the SEC settled too quickly and too easily with Putnam Investments, the fifth largest mutual fund in the country. It had $174 billion under management, $14 billion have been withdrawn.

An anecdote this week. On the flip side, on CNNFN, we had a caller call in and said, "I'm 49 years old, I'm retired. All my money is in Putnam Investments. What do I do?"

Two separate guests. One says the worst is probably behind us, hold on. Another one says sell, because you know the management is bad. You know, look for a more secure fund. And some of the names people say still look good are Vanguard, Fidelity, names like that.

But it's interesting to me -- I think the American people have to stop and think about something. We were told, from now on, you won't get a guaranteed pension. We're going to give you a 401k. You can manage it yourself.

Well, now we find out that the brokers, even the mutual funds have more information. They're trading at our expense. It is an unleveled playing field. I think, sooner or later, policymakers are going to have to look at this.

CANDIOTTI: You know, Kathleen, another issue for consumers out there is what's happening with cell phones now. Now it turns out that we may be able to -- if we want to switch services, we can hold on to our cell phone number, but that wasn't always the case?

HAYS: Oh, it hasn't been. And that's one reason -- you get a great number, and you give it to your friends and your business associates, you don't want to give up your number. So many are not so thrilled with this service, but you'll stick with it just to hold on to that great phone number.

Well, so many people, so many consumer groups complained about this. As of November 24, not only will you be able to change your cell phone service and take your great phone number with you, or maybe just because you've had it in business so long you want to hold on to it. Now, also, it looks like we can take our home phone, the land line that all our kids are saying, who wants to use a land line, and put that on to a cell phone, which would be very handy.

The problem is, the cell phone companies are saying, this is great, we're on board, we spent $1.7 billion getting the technology ready to do this, but there's going to be such a Rush. We're not sure how the technology works. There could be a lot of snafus along the way.

There could be some delays. There could be some very disgruntled consumers, even though in the long run this looks like a boon to most of us.

MALVEAUX: Tell us what happened this week when it comes to trade. Because I know that the World Trade Organization said, look, this is illegal, the kind of tariffs that the Bush administration is putting on the steel industry. And he really faces -- the Bush administration faces billions of dollars in sanctions if they don't lift that tariff. What does this mean for our economy? HAYS: Well, this is such an interesting battle, because, on the one hand, you have the beleaguered steel industry. They say that the rest of the world dumped their steel unfairly on the U.S.. That's why Bush put on the tariffs of 30 percent in March 2002.

Most everybody thought who knows that the rules of the World Trade Organization, of which we are a part, and of which we're always asking the rest of the world to please join and please play by the rules, we knew this would be found illegal. So this week they ruled as expected.

Now, the EU, if we don't lift the tariffs off of steel, has the right to come in and slap $2.2 billion worth of tariffs on us. The irony is everyone says this was a political move by President Bush when he did it. He's supposed to be a free trader; he is a free trader. He's pushing free trade on many fronts now.

He wanted the vote of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. But the irony is that now these sanctions could hurt voters in states like Florida, the citrus growers. That was a key state.

Wisconsin they lost. Harley Davidson could get hit with tariffs. Apples in Washington and Oregon, two more close states. The Carolinas, textiles, apparel will be targeted.

So it's a really tough choice for Mr. Bush. What does he do? Does he back off on the tariffs? Does he hold his ground to keep his steelworker votes, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) votes, or does he find maybe another little technicality, a little window he can wiggle through? And some people think that will happen.

DAVIS: And is there a deadline here by which he has to make that decision?

HAYS: The WTO has to rule, I believe, by December 15. And the Bush administration, again, is still hoping they can find some kind of an arrangement with the EU, that they can find some sort of technicality.

There may be a way where they can slightly change the U.S. anti- dumping laws. There may be some kind of technicality they can kind of shift this around on. But there's also $4 billion in a whole other area tied up with U.S. corporate taxes that the EU stands ready to slap us with.

So the trade picture gets murkier and murkier. And ironically, again, this is a free trade president who is caught up in a protectionist battle.

CANDIOTTI: Well, Kathleen, from pocketbook issues to the war on terrorism, and the story of a Canadian citizen who says the United States sent him to Syria to be tortured and interrogated. We're on that story after this and a check of what's making headlines at this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER ARAR, DETAINED: To find (ph) someone as a terrorist, especially after 9/11, basically is to destroy this person's life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: Maher Arar detained by the United States and then, he says, sent to Syria for torture and interrogation. Welcome back. I'm on the story of a Syrian man. He's got dual citizenship. Born in Syria, but a naturalized Canadian citizen.

And he says he's a living example of how the war on terrorism can go a bit too far. He blames both the United States and Canada. And just last week, I flew to Ottawa, Canada, from here in Florida, to speak to Maher Arar.

This was his first American television interview, an exclusive interview, since he was released by the Syrians. And remember, he wasn't charged with anything. It's a scary story about a man who was on vacation in Tunisia with his family, came back to the United States, and was detained here and questioned. And, he says he is an innocent man.

MALVEAUX: Now what is the U.S. administration saying about this, Susan?

CANDIOTTI: Well, it's very hard to pry anything out of them. They're saying very little, other than the fact that the reason the United States sent him to Syria, even though he was traveling on a Canadian passport, was based on information the United States received from Canada. And other than that, they're not saying much more.

Although, I can tell you that, just today, someone from the Bush administration is being quoted in "The New York Times" as saying that what happened to Maher Arar is shorthand, they're saying, for an excess of what can happen in the name of national security.

KAYS: Susan, this -- I think one of the things that was most chilling to me, following your work, reading some stories this week, was this was called an act of rendition, where the United states government allows someone to basically be taken and sent to a country where they know this person will be tortured. Is that accurate? How did that play in?

CANDIOTTI: It's unclear if that's what's happened here. That is an allegation being made by lawyers who are representing Maher Arar in Canada. The Center for Constitutional Rights here in the United States helping to represent him. Rendition, a it's very murky matter.

Of course, the United States said it would never send anyone to another country to be tortured. And what's important to remember here is that the United States is party to a worldwide treaty against sending anyone to any country where torture is known to be taking place. And Syria is well known to be one of those countries. DAVIS: Well, who do the U.S. authorities believe he was connected to? And is there any realistic thought he might be associated with terrorism in any way?

CANDIOTTI: Well, that's what the United States isn't letting on right now about exactly and precisely what information they had. They maintain that it's all classified.

What we do know is this, according to Mr. Arar. He says it is his belief that the United States was questioning him about a six- year-old rental lease that he had signed for an apartment and someone who witnessed that lease they say, he says, is who they seem to be most interested in. And that person also is still being held in Syria. And there are efforts under way by the Canadian government, because also he is Canadian, to get him released and back home to Canada.

HAYS: So what is his legal standing now? You said there's the Center for Constitutional Rights here in the United States looking into this. We know we're having a change of government coming up here in Canada. Jacques Chretien is giving way to Mr. Martin as the next prime minister.

I guess what I'm wondering if this could get lost in the shuffle. And meanwhile, what happens to the victim of something that nobody wants to take credit for, or blame for, making me think that maybe this was a mistake on somebody's part. They just don't want to admit it yet.

CANDIOTTI: It may very well be the case. There has been a call for a public inquiry in Canada. Also, his lawyers are calling on U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to conduct a criminal investigation about how something like this can happen.

In the meantime, no one really knows for sure whether the truth will ever come out. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that he will share the names of the people in -- with the Canadian government who gave the United States government this information about him. But in the meantime, of course, you have Mr. Arar, who says that no matter what anybody says about this, and despite his claims that he hasn't done anything wrong, there will still be -- and no charges being filed against him -- there will still be people out there on the street who will still look for him and always wonder if there was something to this. He says his life's been ruined.

DAVIS: Well, thank you, Susan. From the terrorism war, to the war in Iraq, and how one woman found herself in a public fight over her responsibilities as a soldier and a mother. We're back ON THE STORY in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMONE HOLCOMB, U.S. ARMY MEDIC: Staying strong for the kids is my number one priority. My children have always been first. (END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS: "My children have always come first," says U.S. Army medic Simone Holcomb. She has been at the center of a storm over how to do her duty to her family and the Army. Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

This woman had seven children along with her husband. She and her husband were sent to Iraq, as many families are experiencing, both the mom and dad going. But the problem came up in that his ex-wife wanted to regain custody of two of those seven children, which were her biological children.

The Army flew them both back to the United States. And then a Colorado judge ordered one of them to stay, if they were to retain custody. She said, "I will." Then the Army said, "No, you must go back to Iraq." And she said, "No, I can't do it."

HAYS: And everybody knows what a decision for a mother or a father to have to make. Go back to Iraq and lose custody of your kids, have your kids that are your husband's biological kids. Your other kid goes to foster homes.

What mother wouldn't say, I'm staying with my kids? Because that supersedes everything. What happens next though? How is this resolved?

DAVIS: Well, her attorney was arguing for compassionate reassignment, which means, keep her back in the United States so that she doesn't have to put her kids into foster care and lose custody of those two children to the ex-wife. And she ended up getting that.

What happened was -- I was at the Pentagon actually on Monday when that decision came down from the Army. And they said, all right, this is a really messy situation. This is best for both of us. We're going to give you compassionate reassignment.

She goes back to her National Guard unit in Colorado so she can stay in the U.S. Here husband will stay over in Iraq. And then, in the meantime, though, she was strapped with an Article 15, a punishment by her commander who said, listen, you didn't obey my order. So, in other words, I'm punishing you for this.

And she's fighting that, because her lawyer says she can still be court marshaled over that. And she could lose veterans' benefits. She doesn't want either of those things to happen.

CANDIOTTI: Patty, with this being an all-volunteer Army, I mean, what kind of an impact could this have on people signing up?

DAVIS: Yes. You have to think that other people in the National Guard are looking at this. And people who may be potentially going into the military. What are we going to do about our families?

And so everybody has to have a family plan. And, in fact, this couple did have a family plan. The grandmother was going to come in. And she did take care of the kids for about seven or eight months but she had a problem and had to leave. And it just didn't work out.

And I think this shows the military, in some ways, that it really has to have some compassion. You just can't follow orders to the exclusion of everything else in your family.

MALVEAUX: Now, was there a consideration of the husband coming back and taking care of the children, or was there any discussion about that at all?

DAVIS: Yes. That's the decision that they made, the two of them. One them was going to have to stay, either she or her husband. And as a couple, they made the decision that she would stay.

HAYS: It does seem to me like -- following on Susan's point, though, that the Army at some point is going to have to address this question of maybe -- to me, maybe they're being a little too politically correct saying, OK, you can both go to war. It seems to me there will be some consideration for the children. That in the event you have two people in Iraq, both parents, god forbid, could be killed. You would orphan a whole family.

I wonder if there's any thought on that, if this is going to spur some thinking, some rethinking about the policy, you know, 10 years after the Gulf War, so many more women in the service.

DAVIS: Good question. And I think you're going to have to ask the Pentagon for the answer to that, are they going to change their policy on that. But certainly, a very difficult situation for members of the military, especially as the U.S. relies more and more on Reservists and National Guard.

CANDIOTTI: Patty, you've also been covering the Beltway sniper trials. Of course, we know the jury's out on one. And you were at Malvo's opening statements. How is that young man reacting to what's being said so far?

DAVIS: Well, he's pretty I'd say placid in the whole thing. And sitting in this trial -- and I was sitting in the opening arguments for Malvo -- it just kind of brought back the feeling of panic and terror here in the Washington, D.C. area.

Just a year ago, this was a huge national story. Opening arguments. What they're basically doing in both of these cases, the Muhammad trial and the Malvo trial, is blaming the other guy. Muhammad says -- his defense attorneys -- you never saw Muhammad at any of these incidents.

It's all-circumstantial. He didn't pull the trigger. So he should be found not guilty. At least not get the death penalty.

And Malvo, they say that Muhammad, an older man, indoctrinated this younger boy, made him his child soldier. He was temporarily insane. They're using an insanity defense here.

And they're saying he was an abandoned child. He was taken advantage of. He did not know right from wrong at this point. Now, the prosecutors interestingly say, in Virginia law, the insanity defense simply is knowing the difference between right and wrong. And, in fact, Lee Boyd Malvo did know that at the time. So he should be held responsible for his actions.

MALVEAUX: And the fact that we don't have a verdict in the Muhammad case, what does that mean? I mean, you're reading tea leaves, but what do you think that means?

DAVIS: Well, it's been going on for four hours at this point, four hours. They've requested to listen to some tapes. So they couldn't find a tape recorder right away to get to the jury. So they're going to bring that in on Monday. But only four hours, so probably not enough time.

One little interesting thing. A side note on the Malvo trial is what he's wearing. "The New York Times" had some legal experts that they quoted talking about he's dressing down. Not -- very casual, not wearing a suit, maybe meant to look very youthful and influence the jury in that way.

Well, the defense attorney's wife apparently was kind of upset about this because she helped purchase those clothes and told him about this. He came to the press, kind of in a very lighthearted moment the day after that and said, listen, I have a lot of work to do. But I need to go shopping again tonight, and we need to get him some different clothes.

Everybody expected him to say, yes, we're going to dress him in a suit tomorrow. Instead, since this had been in "The New York Times," he said, well, he's going to be in a Florida Marlins shirt, kind of a World Series kind of joke there. So some lighthearted moments.

HAYS: In the midst of all the drama. From the sniper trials to Rush Limbaugh, out of rehab, back on the radio. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYS: Well, from one strong, tough Rosie, to another strong, tough Rosie. Rosie O'Donnell, comedian, talk show host and producer of a new Broadway musical fought to a draw in a New York courtroom with the publisher of her failed magazine.

And you know, I think for people in the business world, and even for many people across the country, this was like a very kind of sideshow kind of thing, something you just couldn't take your eyes off. Here you have Rosie O'Donnell, she was brought in to revive "McCall's" magazine, a long-standing kind of icon in the publishing world, but maybe needed some freshening up.

So they chose Rosie O'Donnell, Gruner + Jahr, this German publishing company. They clash, Rosie comes out of the closet. She decides to leave the magazine because they've taken editorial control away from her.

They sue her for abandoning the magazine, she sues back. They end up in court. At the end of the week, the judge basically says just stop bickering and go back to your room, kids. They never should have come to court. He just questions whether the magazine would have gotten any money anyway and awarded damages to neither side.

DAVIS: So what does this mean for Rosie now?

HAYS: First of all, he hasn't written his legal decision. And in the written decision, people say maybe she will get some money, some legal costs covers. The queen of nice we know, surprise, surprise, is a tough, pushy woman, who could sometimes apparently be abusive to her employees.

It turns out her publisher, the wounded publisher, maybe fiddled with the books to make them look like they weren't good enough for Rosie to take this exit that she wanted to take. So obviously shenanigans on both sides. But I think many people figure, hey, she's Rosie O'Donnell. She's obviously involved in the public's eye, and that this something that's not going to hurt her career or hurt her long term.

CANDIOTTI: Yes, I wonder. You know, she had such a popular talk show. I wonder if there's any regret in her giving that up, maybe because of everything that's happened since then.

Of course, she does have this Broadway show coming along. Do you think ultimately there's a long-term damage to her career?

HAYS: Don't you think that -- I think that remains to be seen. It depends on what Rosie's next project is.

It was interesting, too. In the courtroom, her sense of humor never abandons her. She said she compares all these big scandals out there right now and she says, what am I guilty of? I'm a lesbian, I'm fat, and I use the "F" word.

I mean, she just is always kind of combating back. The play that's opening on Broadway has gotten a lot of bad reviews so far. Boy George in this role of an older man, performance artist. A young man plays the Boy George of the London club scene.

Rosie, a very hands-on producer, again being accused of pushy, making decisions she shouldn't have. We'll see how the play does and we'll see how Rosie does over time.

MALVEAUX: And Susan, there was another celebrity in the news. Rush Limbaugh, I understand, is going to be coming back to work? Is that right?

CANDIOTTI: Oh, yes. He's been off the air for five weeks now. You'll remember, he publicly admitted that he is addicted to pain pills. Did that on the air.

This was after "The National Enquirer" broke the news of a woman's claims, his former housekeeper, that she sold him, she said, 30,000 OxyContin pills. Meantime, so he's going back on the air. His brother says he's chomping at the bit to get back, but he's going to go full tilt ahead to his regular schedule. That, nevertheless, he will be continuing with his drug treatment, according to his brother.

But the question is, what's happened to the ongoing criminal investigations? And I spoke with some of my sources about this. Well, have been for most every day now. And the latest I hear is they're still talking about it.

My sources tell me that no decision has been made as yet as to whether anyone will be charged. Possibly him, with either misdemeanor or felony, possibly the housekeeper, or nobody at all. So that remains to be seen what's going to happen with the outcome of that investigation. Probably we'll hear something about that, one way or the other, by next month.

HAYS: Well, it also remains to be seen how this sits with his fans. Rush Limbaugh another one, like Rosie O'Donnell, had some hard- core, die-hard people just love him. They seem that they will be his followers no matter what.

The question of Rush, of course, on the record. Let's be tough on drug users. In this one instance -- not to offend his fans -- he looks like he was a hypocrite. I wonder, does his standing change in any of his fan's eyes?

CANDIOTTI: Many people have been saying he's hypocritical because of what he's said in the past. But then again, those fans who are very loyal to him say they're going to stick by him through thick and thin.

DAVIS: Coming up at the top of the hour, a check of the top stories. But first, the president's weekly radio address.

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




Changes Midcourse About How Iraq Will Governing itself>