Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
White House Releases Bush's Military Records; Kerry Leads Field of Democrats
Aired February 14, 2004 - 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.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, and welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories that we covered this week.
I'm Kelli Arena ON THE STORY in this election year of a new uproar about abortion and the federal government seeking hospital records.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Las Vegas ON THE STORY of a long way from formal nomination, John Kerry, who is already dueling with President Bush.
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Jane Arraf in Baghdad, ON THE STORY of a shadowy fugitive who has taken responsibility for 25 suicide attacks; and, on the detour on Iraq's road to democracy.
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Lisa Sylvester, ON THE STORY of one hot campaign and economic issue this year, U.S. jobs going overseas and how some U.S. companies sell that "Made in the USA" label.
ADAORA UDOJI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Adaora Udoji in New York ON THE STORY of the high-protein, low-carb and very high volume uproar over the Atkins Diet and why and how the Atkins founder died.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elaine Quijano, ON THE STORY of members of Congress tearing into the TV industry this week over indecency and Janet Jackson.
We'll have the latest terrorism concern and cancellation of airline flights. We'll talk about how Vietnam is still powerful medicine in this campaign year. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.
E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com.
Now to the White House and Kathleen Koch.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Elaine, this is quite a stack of documents, more than 400 pages that reporters were given last night. This is the entire extent, the White House says, of President Bush's record in the National Guard during the five years that he served during the Vietnam War.
There are no bombshells. They give some interesting new details. Basically, these are pretty much standard military files. Things like performance reviews. There's a glowing review when the -- Mr. Bush was promoted to first lieutenant, a commander calling him, quote, "an outstanding young pilot and officer. A credit to his unit."
Most importantly, however, these papers do not provide any concrete evidence Mr. Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard during those years that are in question, 1972 to 1973. That's when Democrats contend that the president was at least temporarily AWOL, or absent without leave.
In here, included in the records, is the fact that Bush was suspended from flying in August 1972 because he failed to undergo a medical exam. White House officials point out Mr. Bush skipped that exam because he made that decision not to fly again.
Democrats, however, are very skeptical of all this. The Democratic National Committee put out a statement yesterday, last night, saying that, quote, "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."
Now, the White House was clearly backed into the corner on this one. If you've been watching any of the White House briefings in recent days, you've seen how combative they've become. And the president himself was watching them.
A White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said he was finding them silly. And when these records arrived, from the National Guard, the president said, put them out.
WALLACE: Kathleen, give us a sense behind the scenes of the timing of the release of the document. Because some Democrats have said the fact they came out Friday night, just a short time before the network news programs, when not a lot of people are watching, Saturday morning newspapers not usually read by the most number of people. Did that have anything to do with it?
KOCH: Well, Kelly, this is frankly a standard tactic, not simply of the Bush administration, but also the Clinton administration, was guilty of it. They used to call these, during the Clinton years, the Friday night follies. It's a standard tactic. It's a document dump, as the Democratic critics are pointing out now.
Just as the network news broadcasts are beginning, giving anyone very short time to respond. You have the holiday on Monday. President Bush traveling both Monday and Tuesday. His spokesman, Scott McClellan, likely will not be before reporters to even answer questions on camera, on these documents, until Wednesday.
ARENA: Kathleen, the White House seems to make a bit of a concession, with going before the 9/11 Commission, as well. I mean this was -- the papers weren't the only concession made this week. Talk to me exactly about how they'll do that.
KOCH: Quite so. Well, Kelli, again this is strategic, sort of a one-two punch, trying to knock out critics who have been implying, on both these issues, that the president had something to hide. Yes, the White House said the president will talk with the 9/11 Commission in private, meet with the Chairman Thomas Keen and the Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton. The White House says they believe that will be enough, that the president will not testify publicly.
It's not clear whether or not he will testify under oath. Everyone who has testified publicly for the commission in these hearings we've seen has testified under oath but not everyone has spoken to them in private.
ARENA: All right. Well, thanks, Kathleen. We'll talk to you later in the day.
Now straight ahead to Kelly Wallace and the Democratic campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Americans are voting for change.
(APPLAUSE)
East and West, North, and now, in the South. And I am grateful for that.
WALLACE: And that was John Kerry, Tuesday night, after two additional victories in Tennessee and Virginia. He is now 12 for 14 in these presidential contests. We have more caucuses today in Washington, D.C., and in Nevada.
Tuesday, you had the Wisconsin primary, but perhaps one of the most interesting things we've been seeing this week is John Kerry has not officially clinched this nomination yet. But he and the White House are talking more and more like we're already in a general election campaign.
ARENA: This is feeling a lot like, you know, September or October, rather than February, for crying out loud. But, really, how important do you think this upcoming debate will be? Do you really think that Edwards or Dean still have a chance?
WALLACE: Well, many people believe, Kelli, that this is probably the last chance for Edwards and Dean to change the dynamics of the race, especially Wisconsin where right now Kerry has a nearly 40-point lead. Many analysts believe right now that John Kerry has so much momentum it is his to lose.
So, if he makes a major, major mistake Sunday night, that could change things. If Howard Dean John Edwards score significant points, going up, head-to-head with John Kerry, that could change things.
But right now, the consensus is, it is pretty tough to stop John Kerry's stride.
ARRAF: I've got to ask, how much of this if any, is focused on Iraq? Is that still a real issue? Is that something that voters, particularly, seem to care about?
WALLACE: It's interesting, Jane, because when you do look at the exit polls, that voters do care about Iraq. But they seem to care more about domestic issues, the economy and health care. John Kerry, as we know, and it has been debated, is one of the candidates who did give approval to the president, authorization, to go to war.
Howard Dean is the candidate who was opposed to the war. But that is not really helping him right now. You get the sense that that issue has been debated, but that domestic issues, the economy, health care, taking center stage.
The main issue, though that you're picking up from Democratic primary voters is electability. Right now, you're hearing from more and more voters that they want to find the candidate who they think has the best chance to defeat president Bush and right now, least based on these primary contests so far, more people think it's John Kerry than anyone else.
UDOJI: And, Kelly, talking about Howard Dean, obviously, he's come a long way in a very different place today than he was even a month ago. But what do we really think? What's sort of the word behind the scenes about what he'll do on Wednesday if he doesn't show well, if the voters don't go to the polls and pick him?
WALLACE: Well, you know, he keeps somewhat changing a little bit about what he's going to do. But that's his prerogative. Here's a candidate who has put a lot of time and money in. He was leading the charge here. And he believes he's done a lot to really energize and fire up the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party base.
He had said -- oh, I don't know, a week and a half ago that Wisconsin on Tuesday was a must win. Now he's saying he still hopes it will be a win but that he'll stay in the race, although his latest word is if he doesn't win on Tuesday, he will go back to Vermont and regroup and have to figure out if he has the money or momentum or energy, really, with his base, to keep going.
SYLVESTER: Kelly, we saw the photo with John Kerry and Jane Fonda. How much is this going to hurt Kerry, or is this, just the issue is over and we move on from this point in time?
WALLACE: Well, it depends who you ask, really. Some people who are very angry with John Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War after he came back from serving in the war, say this shows, really, an example of how he was linked to someone like Jane Fonda.
The Kerry campaign advisers were very, very unhappy with the reporting on this story. Because they say, number one, he's sitting a few rows in the back from Jane Fonda. Number two, this was a few years before Jane Fonda went over to Vietnam and John Kerry criticized that trip by Jane Fonda.
You also have veterans who say look, this shows the guy's character. He went over, he fought in the war, then came back and fought on behalf of veterans. Could be an issue. Again, it depends on how people feel about John Kerry.
ARRAF: We'll be coming back after this to talk more about that, and about Iraq, the fugitive they believe might be responsible for some of the biggest attacks and what's happening with that democratic experiment here.
ANNOUNCER: Jane Arraf is CNN's Baghdad bureau chief. Until the fall of Saddam Hussein, she often was the only Western journalist in Iraq. Her reporting so angered Saddam Hussein, he banned her from the country in December 2002.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a significant priority. Anybody who is attacking the coalition, attacking the Iraqi people, trying to form more terrorism and violence inside of Iraq, is a high priority for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARRAF: Well, that was capping quite a tumultuous week. One thing, of course, was the release of this extraordinary letter. And if you believe it, this was a 17-page letter from a man whom we haven't heard a lot about lately, but who is now the top of the most wanted.
It's Abu Masud Al Zarqawi. Officials here say he is now the man they believe was behind the worst of the suicide bombings. They intercepted a letter in which he appeals to al Qaeda for help.
The other thing, of course, was the U.N. mission here. Particularly interesting, because the last time they were really here was just before their headquarters was bombed in August. It is sort of traumatic for them to come back. And they're trying to figure out whether elections can be held. The short answer is they can be held, but not quite as quickly as some people might want.
On a lighter note, we've spent the day at an Army base here, one of the main military bases, talking to soldiers about Valentine's Day. Because I think it's kind of fascinating to all of us, how in the world do you keep a relationship together when you're away for a year?
And not to get into it too much, but how in the world do you have 130,000 soldiers, most of them men, who presumably go for a year without having sex? So we got to talk to people about that. That was kind of interesting.
SYLVESTER: Jane, going back to Zarqawi for a minute, in term of the U.S. coalition, know that they've upped the award from $5 million to $10 million. Is this going to work, or what is it going to take to capture this guy?
ARRAF: This is fascinating, because here's a guy that they now say is more dangerous to postwar Iraq than Saddam Hussein was, simply because he seems to have been out there doing things. Where Saddam was essentially in hiding, being a symbolic inspiration. Now, Zarqawi, you would think, wouldn't be too hard to find. He has one leg. He was wounded in the Afghan war and came here for treatment and is believed to have had his leg amputated. He has a prosthetic leg. He is not Iraqi. As soon as he opens his mouth, presumably, people would know he's not local.
But he has managed to slip into the landscape somewhere. The same way that Saddam and a lot of other people have. It's going to be hard to find him, is the bottom line. Clearly, they believe, not impossible.
QUIJANO: Jane, wanted to ask you about the topic of elections. Has the mood changed now? It appears that perhaps some people who thought, let's rush to election are maybe having second thoughts?
ARRAF: I think what they're having is -- you're right, second thoughts. And the sense that they're thinking twice about whether it's actually doable. Now, one of the things that Lachdar Bhrahimi (ph), this top U.N. envoy that came here to meet with all these people, including the top Shiite cleric, said to them, was essentially, this is what we need for credible election.
It's not a matter of saying, OK, everybody wants elections so we'll go to the polls tomorrow. It's a matter of having the infrastructure in place, the legal framework, deciding what kind of government, what kind of system of government you want, and making it safe enough. It was certainly proved this week that this country and many places is still far from safe for many Iraqis.
WALLACE: I want to go back to that lighter note. What did you find out on this Valentine's Day as you talked to soldier about -- truly, how they're really holding up and keeping these relationships going, being so far apart from their loved ones?
ARRAF: Essentially, a few things emerged. One is that a lot of them said, look if you have good communications at home, it sort of lasts. But you have to be able to communicate. And it really helps, if you're the kind of soldier who uses e-mail, who is able to express your emotions. Otherwise, it is incredibly difficult. Obviously, there's a lot of strain on relationships, a lot of strain on marriages.
And there are actually marriages of people deployed here as well. But that's another thing. You don't have any privacy; you hardly get to see one another. But those are the lucky ones.
There are an awful lot of relationships that people are going home now, and they're going to find out whether those relationships have survived and how well they've survived.
UDOJI: Jane, another question about the elections. Beyond the politics, as you described a minute ago, but just to the practicalities of actually having an election. I was in Baghdad in April. They don't have street signs. How do they even begin to put together, like say, voter rosters, figure out how many people exactly there are, who are going to be able to vote? Whether women will vote? All those sort of basic questions that need to be answered in order for an election to take place, a credible one, as you said?
ARRAF: I think the philosophical big picture questions have been answered. There's no real debate now that women will not be allow to vote. Women are going to be able to vote and that has been said by top Shiite clerics on down. Women will vote.
But as for the rest of it, you are absolutely right. Now, they do have an indication of how many people are here, how old they are, and that sort of thing, from quite an efficient system under all those years of sanctions. They were the rolls, the census, essentially, that they had for ration cards to decide which families and how many members of the family got food rations. Some people say you can use those. But it's not a real census.
The other thing is a lot of people got transferred from different part of the country under Saddam. There are some who say they have to be allowed back to their original homes before an election takes place.
QUIJANO: Jane Arraf, thank you for joining us. What's ON THE STORY for you in coming days?
ARRAF: Well, we're going to be tracking more of the election debate. Right now it seems clear that elections will be delayed. But the big question is what sort of transitional government will there be?
Also, the transfer, the handover, of the U.S. military. This is the biggest transfer of troops since World War II. And they are coming with, in some cases, a different philosophy. They're going to be less visible in Baghdad, for instance. That's going to be interesting.
Sad thing about covering Baghdad is we have all these plans for coverage and they very often get side tracked by the day's explosions or the day's attack. So we'll expect more of those unfortunately.
QUIJANO: Well, Jane, we know you'll stay on top of it, thank you.
From the battles of Iraq to a political skirmish here in Washington this week, over television and indecency. We're back ON THE STORY after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), NEW MEXICO: It improves your ratings. It improves your market share, and it lines your pockets. It's time for a change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Congresswoman Heather Wilson, Republican from New Mexico, berating TV executive Mel Karmazin at one of two hearings this week on broadcast decency rules. Of course, Janet Jackson's "Super Bowl" exposure took center stage.
Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY. First of all, how many of you are tired of hearing about this story?
UDOJI: Janet who?
ARENA: Right, what happened exactly?
QUIJANO: Right. But it was all the talk on Capitol Hill. Between the House hearings and Senate hearings, people were really looking at this as bipartisan outrage. Of course, everyone was coming out and saying this was offensive. This is horrible.
Now, the real question what do they do about it? That's what they were trying to get to the bottom of. One of the things they're talking about, maybe if things get really bad, they might go ahead and pull peoples' licenses. That remains to be seen, though, whether or not they would go that far.
You're looking at me funny. Very skeptic.
ARENA: I'm skeptical.
QUIJANO: What they say also is, the thing about fines, this is another possibility that was brought up, if we fine the broadcasters $275,000 -- is the bill they're look at right now -- for every indecency incident, maybe that will be enough to get people to stop.
Well, Mel Karmazin, who Congresswoman Wilson was talking to, is head of Viacom. Viacom owns CBS. They own MTV. People say that's a drop in the bucket, $275,000. And they might just attribute it to the cost of doing business.
So in the end, they want to get something that will have some teeth and that's what FCC commissioners were talking about. Chairman Michael Powell went before the Senate and said, we need your help. We need some tougher laws, some tougher penalties, so we can try to prevent this from happening again.
UDOJI: Elaine, do you think that is just show boating? Clearly there was a strong reaction. The FCC says they got more than 200,000 complaints post-Janet Jackson. Are they really serious about trying to rein in the television these days, who are trying to catch up with cable and become edgier maybe? Or are they just giving lip service, you know, trying to let those folks know who complain they are talking about it?
QUIJANO: To a certain extent, their outrage is sincere. At the same time, obviously, you're right, everything in Washington is political. You can't look at a situation like that and not say, of course, there are some political overtones.
At the same time, I should point out these hearings were actually set to take place well before the "Super Bowl" exposure, as you're going to see here, again --
ARENA: And again, again.
QUIJANO: Someone said to me, look, this was on for about two seconds and we have been playing it over and over again. But that's besides the point.
What they say is really this is an issue they've been look at for years and years. One of the senators said, look in that "Super Bowl" there were also commercials. One with a flatulent horse, one with a -- you know, a monkey biting somebody's crotch. These were actual commercials part of the whole "Super Bowl" television experience for viewers at home.
And so their question is, also, sort of a larger question are we as a society kind of just really having a hard time now drawing that line between what is bad taste, what is poor taste, and what is indecent?
ARENA: Well, Powell has also come under fire, sort of for being asleep at the wheel. Some of the critics say, look, this has been a steady decline in values, morals, that you've seen over the airwaves for years now and all of a sudden now this is an issue?
QUIJANO: Right, and what he's said is, look, it can't just be up to the FCC. And it can't just be up to Congress either. And it can't just be up to the public at home, the broadcasters themselves have to have some responsibility, have to have some accountability.
He would like to see them get more involved in the process of policing their own content as well. So, you know, these are all issues. We could be here all day talking about it but it does raise some interesting questions.
ARENA: It is a hot topic, yes.
WALLACE: Elaine, very quickly, though, did you pick up from any of the members, though, that can't the marketplace figure this out? If people don't like what they are seeing, they won't watch?
QUIJANO: Absolutely. That argument has been made. But, of course, this was the opportunity for the lawmakers one-by-one to go up there and express their outrage in a very public way.
But of course that has been said you know, that's the easiest way for the marketplace to take care of situations. People just simply click over and stop watching, and say, look, we're not going to be party to this. If we're not happy with it, you shouldn't be happy with it either, and we're not going to watch you.
UDOJI: Well, from what we see to what we eat, I'll be back ON THE STORY of the Atkins diet, questions about why the founder died, and how low carbs is a mega million-dollar business.
First, to Atlanta and a check on what's making headline at this hour.
(NEWSBREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER LEMPERT, FOOD INDUSTRY ANALYST: According to A.C. Nielson's Homescan's panel, 17 percent of Americans are eating low carb. They're on a low-carb diet. That is a huge number.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UDOJI: That's Phil Lempert, a food industry analyst; he's talking about the influence of Dr. Atkins and his diet. And the latest uproar, that the diet founder, Dr. Robert Atkins may have been obese and suffering from heart disease before he died last year.
Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.
WALLACE: Adaora, give us a sense of how this all came about. How did we learn about Dr. Atkins, his medical condition? It just seems like it's been coming out over the past few week. How was this all uncovered?
UDOJI: Actually, Kelly, it's very interesting. What happened apparently, "The Wall Street Journal," they reported the story at the begin beginning of the week. And they had a look at the medical examiner's report on Dr. Atkins death and apparently they got it from a group of physicians who have been strongly critical of Dr. Atkins' diet. And essentially, that group -- I mean the inference from this, of course, being that perhaps something that Dr. Atkins was eating affected his health.
The family and the Atkins Institute, which puts out all of the doctor's products, they say that, indeed, the doctor did gain weight at death. But that was in part because he was in the hospital being treated after he fell, and slipped, and hit his head. And they also say that his heart condition was the result of a virus, which weakened his heart and had nothing to do with what he ate.
SYLVESTER: Adaora, you see these restaurants, you know, Subway, it seems like so many different restaurants are kind of on the low carb bandwagon. But you know, when I look at these things, it's so hard for me to tell since there are no standards. I mean what exactly is low carb? I pick up a can of corn and it says there are carbs in it; it's like candy corn. I can't eat other things. How do you sort through all of it if you don't have standards?
UDOJI: Lisa, absolutely. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, as you say. I mean the market has just exploded, particularly in the last year, 500 new products on the grocery shelves in just the past couple of month. You go into every restaurant, they have some kind of low carb alternative.
Now, the brands, the food manufacturers who are putting out these products also are concerned about that. They have essentially gone to the FDA, asking the FDA and they are asking the FDA to set out specific guidelines of what low carb, high carb, good carb, bad carb what that means. So that when consumers go into the store, when they go into the restaurant, they know exactly what's going on. That's in the middle of their public comments at the moment. You know, it's a long process with the FDA. But it's certainly something on the agenda. And they -- the companies are pushing, and something consumers would be probably happy to get.
QUIJANO: Well, Adaora, I remember when Atkins was just a fad. I remember people talking about it and kind of what is this all about? But now it really is almost this way of life. I mean it's broadened out in a way I don't think anybody really expected.
UDOJI: Elaine, I don't think there's any question, you're so right. In the sound bite in the beginning, the analyst is talking about 17 percent of households. That is millions and millions of people. In fact, it's turned into a $15 billion business last year, that being people buying low carb-type products, foods and drinks. And analysts expect it will double this year. In part, they say, because of two things. One, it was driven by some scientific studies that came out backing low carbohydrate -- or carbohydrate-controlled diets. And second, the intense studies that have come out of the CDC and National Institutes of Health, talking about obesity that many people getting very concerned, looking at these low carb diets because you get immediate result. I mean you get results very quickly. And of course, all of us know anybody trying to lose a few pounds knows, we like it to happen quickly.
ARENA: Well, I know I do.
But Adaora, the thing is, though, is that what are the preponderance of studies showing? Is this, indeed, healthy? Is it healthy to eat, you know, low carbs and all of this protein? Or are they still split in terms of, you know, what the balance of food intake should be?
UDOJI: Kelli, I think there's a lot of divisiveness. I mean we talked to doctors this week, we talked to nutritionists this week; it all depends on A, who you ask, and B which diet. Because right now, you have things like the South Beach diet, which is a little different than the Atkins diet, in terms of how much fat and how much protein, and what kind of protein, what kind of fat that you eat. And you also have things like the Zone.
And essentially, there's not a whole lot of agreement that, for example, the Atkins diet is a good thing to go on for any long period of time or that the South Beach diet or any of those combination. So it really depends on the individual's medical conditions tell -- these medical folks tell us. And two, exactly what they're eating based on their health needs are.
ARENA: And let's not forget the exercise, duh.
(LAUGHTER)
SYLVESTER: Who wants to do that?
WALLACE: Yes. ARENA: Well, we're moving on. We're going to first, say good- bye to Kelly Wallace. Get back on that political story, Kelly.
WALLACE: I'm going to go exercise.
ARENA: You go do it, girl!
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Yes, right.
ARENA: From diet wars to the war on terrorism, there's a switch for you. And something new in the long, national debate over abortion, a new move to subpoena abortion records from hospitals. I'm back ON THE STORY right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Medical records and medical activities of individuals in the United States should not be the subject of publicity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Thursday, reassuring hospitals and others, that despite government efforts to gain records, some details of abortions would be carefully protected.
Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.
This has to do with what the White House calls the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was signed into law back in November. But this legal wrangling started boom, the minute that bill was signed into law. And it has been going on ever since.
QUIJANO: Yes. So what are they talking about, Kelli? I mean are they talking about actual names of women? Or what information is it they're looking to get?
ARENA: Well, the Justice Department now says no. They said they don't want names, or addresses or dates of birth attached to these medical records. What they want is just the procedure and the reasons why. And this all dates back to the fact there was a lawsuit brought by seven doctors and the National Abortion Federation against this so- called partial birth abortion saying, look, we needed to perform this procedure because it was medically necessary. And then they went on to name some instances in where they said it was medically necessary.
So, the Justice Department lawyers say, well, look if you're going to make those claims, you got to back them up, you know, with some paperwork here. And so that's what this battle is over. But the hospitals balked because the original subpoenas did not allow for redactions, although I'm told in subsequent discussions, justice lawyers backed off and said, no, no, you can redact those names. But hospitals want to see that in writing before they're willing to give any here. UDOJI: Not only the hospitals, Kelli, but I mean what did the civil libertarians and the privacy advocates folks have to say about this? Because I mean medical records have always been a pretty sacred universe, in terms of access, especially from the government.
ARENA: Right, well -- exact -- and Congress has spoken pretty clearly on this issue. Saying, you know, medical records should be kept, you know, as private as they can be kept. And a lot of the privacy advocates are saying, look, if we allow -- this sets a precedent. So if you allow the government in, and you allow medical records to be shared for this, well, then what happens next time around? And then other advocates were saying, look, even if you put out the slightest bit of information about something like this, there is always a way to glean the identity of a person. And it's a very traumatic thing for someone to go through in the first place. And then, you know, to have to have it, you know, drug up again.
And the interesting part of this is that the records of the women -- the women have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The doctors brought the lawsuit and named these instances as examples. And so what the hospitals are saying is that these women are innocent bystanders in this lawsuit and they should not be affected.
SYLVESTER: I can see there being a major concern about a slippery slope with this issue, that once you go down those road and turned over those records, that maybe what they can do is turn it over to like, a third party, or something or other.
But the question I want to ask is actually not on this topic, but about British Airways canceling yet another round of flights, because that's pretty significant. If you're trying -- if you're a businessperson, if you've got plans overseas, you're counting on these flights to go off. And you're stuck. So what's going to happen? I mean what does this mean? Obviously, al Qaeda still is a major concern, even though they lowered the threat level.
ARENA: Right. And when they did lower that threat level, they said, you know, there are still threats that remain. And the bottom line here, and this is what I tell my relatives, my friends, look, the bottom-line here is that aviation remains a target. Al Qaeda has had this peculiar obsession with -- with -- with striking aircraft for years now. That is not going to stop.
And when they do get -- when there is specific intelligence that comes in regarding a flight, you're going to see cancellations. I mean British Air has a policy, if we have any information regarding any single flight, we're not taking off, plain and simple. And so we will see these in the future. But this was not based on new information. This, if you remember, you know, CNN being on top of things...
(LAUGHTER)
QUIJANO: Yes, indeed.
ARENA: We reported this back in early, early February are saying that there were going to be more flight cancellations on British Air, because intelligence they received talked about specific dates, airlines, and flight numbers. Two-twenty-three, which has been grounded what, eight times now, or so. I mean so that seems to be something that repeatedly comes up in the intelligence.
SYLVESTER: Yes. Travelers are going to just have to see this as a way of life; be patient.
All right, thank you very much Kelli.
An additional concern for the Bush administration, and all the rest of us, the economy. One hot issue this election is U.S. jobs shifting to other countries. I'm back ON THE STORY of outsourcing after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY MANKIW, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Also, it's just a new way of doing international trade. We're very used to goods being produced abroad and being shipped here on ships or planes. But what we're not used to is services being produced abroad and being sent here over the Internet or telephone wires.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SYLVESTER: Greg Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, set off a political fire storm by saying outsourcing, sending U.S. job out of the country, is just a new wrinkle in business as usual.
And I think that he's probably wishing he might be able to take back those words, or at least finesse it a little bit. There was some major backpedaling going on at the White House after he made those comments to reporters. Because it's an election year, and people are extremely sensitive about the loss of jobs in this country. So for him to come out and say, you know, basically, outsourcing, the sending of jobs, your jobs, overseas is a good thing for the U.S. economy, had a lot of people scratching their heads.
And in this case, it wasn't just the Democrats. it was Republicans. You had Dennis Hastert, for instance, coming out, almost immediately saying, we need to essentially back off those statements because that is not going to play well in states like Illinois and states like Pennsylvania. In fact, President Bush on Thursday acknowledged that outsourcing is essentially costing jobs. He didn't go so far as to say, OK, outsourcing is something we're not going to encourage any more.
ARENA: They need to say something like "I feel your pain"...
(LAUGHTER)
ARENA: I mean before that...
SYLVESTER: And that's what to hear. And it just came across as flip, and insensitive and uncaring...
ARENA: And especially when you don't have full employment.
SYLVESTER: Especially when you don't have full employment.
ARENA: I mean you have, what is it, 5.6 percent?
SYLVESTER: Yes. I mean that's one of the big things. I mean without getting a little too technical here; but the concept is comparative advantage. That -- and this is what he was talking about, which is a, you know, key tenet of economic theory. Which is if you make shoes cheaper and I make handbags cheaper, you should make the shoes, I should make the handbags. And we trade and everybody wins that way. But as you mentioned, that is based on the premise of full employment, or at least, near full employment, which is what we don't see.
And the other major difference that we're seeing is it's a change of manufacturing jobs to these white-collar jobs.
QUIJANO: I wanted to ask you, because I know you actually went to Florida, because one of the sort of byproducts of this is now this whole made in the USA resurgence again. Tell us about your experience, what you did down there.
SYLVESTER: It was actually a very fun story. What we did is we went to a Jacksonville, Florida company that made swimsuits. Kind of a little bit of context here; the apparel and textile industry has been hammered with the loss of jobs. So to have the fact that you have a company that is still making bathing suits here in the United States, and the way they're able to do it is they say, OK, what we can give is we can give instant delivery.
So If you call up at 2:00 in the afternoon, we're going to have that bathing suit off to you, out the door so you can go on your cruise, you can go on your vacation, you can go on your trip. And they say, you know, you can't do that if these bathing suits are made in China. Also, they have more control over the quality of the product as well.
UDOJI: Well, Lisa, this issue is likely to get a lot of attention this year, obviously an election year, jobs, the economy. And I guess, my question is for those companies that are sending those jobs over seas, is there concern about backlash? Are they doing anything to sort of prepare for that, head it off?
SYLVESTER: Well, one of the things they are doing -- and this is sort of a quiet campaign that you see going on here in Washington, is a lot of lobbying on Capitol Hill. Because there's a movement now among Democrats, it is being pushed largely by the Democrats. And the movement is to try to stop the outsourcing of jobs. For instance, Senator Chuck Schumer, he wants across the board tariffs on goods coming in from China. Senator Daschle has proposed, for instance, a bill that would require companies who outsource to publish how many jobs they're sending overseas. Now, you know, companies have a way of sort of not quite saying they're outsourcing the jobs. They'll say they're sending the work overseas. So there's a lot of play on words here and it depends on how you look at it. But it is definitely going to be a huge campaign issue.
And already, you know, you hear, for instance, Senator Edwards, he was quoted this week as saying, you know, "We need to outsource Bush."
(LAUGHTER)
SYLVESTER: So you have this going on right now.
ARENA: Well, there's also the issue of India. And when this whole issue first came up in the '80s, you were dealing with Mexico and China. But in India you have an enormous workforce that is very cheap, where everyone speaks English. They're educated. I mean this is a serious threat.
SYLVESTER: From the business standpoint -- now if you're a business owner in the United States and you're looking at the numbers, and you say, hmm, can hire somebody here in the United States and pay them $60,000 a year. Or I can hire a programmer in India and hire them for $8,000 a year. You say, OK, well, maybe this is something we ought to do. But in the long term you're hurting the United States. And that's what a lot of people are finally recognizing, because those jobs may never come back. and that's when people are saying, what is my kid going to do for his job? So...
ARENA: Right.
QUIJANO: Lisa, thanks for that.
President Bush gets his say after this in his weekly radio address.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): A famous California girl made headlines this week. What's her story? More after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Barbie is back in the news. What's her story? Barbie shocked the toy industry this week when she announced, through her publicist, that she and Ken, her partner of 43 years have split. The celebrity couple met on a TV commercial set in 1961. The Mattel Toy Company says the internationally, best-selling dolls Barbie and Ken, will remain the best of friend. Rumors spread throughout the International Toy Fair that Barbie may have a new boyfriend, an Australian named Blaine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER) ARENA: Just in time for Valentine's Day.
Well, thanks to my colleague. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY, we'll be back next week.
Right now, 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
Field of Democrats>
Aired February 14, 2004 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, and welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories that we covered this week.
I'm Kelli Arena ON THE STORY in this election year of a new uproar about abortion and the federal government seeking hospital records.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kelly Wallace in Las Vegas ON THE STORY of a long way from formal nomination, John Kerry, who is already dueling with President Bush.
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Jane Arraf in Baghdad, ON THE STORY of a shadowy fugitive who has taken responsibility for 25 suicide attacks; and, on the detour on Iraq's road to democracy.
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Lisa Sylvester, ON THE STORY of one hot campaign and economic issue this year, U.S. jobs going overseas and how some U.S. companies sell that "Made in the USA" label.
ADAORA UDOJI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Adaora Udoji in New York ON THE STORY of the high-protein, low-carb and very high volume uproar over the Atkins Diet and why and how the Atkins founder died.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elaine Quijano, ON THE STORY of members of Congress tearing into the TV industry this week over indecency and Janet Jackson.
We'll have the latest terrorism concern and cancellation of airline flights. We'll talk about how Vietnam is still powerful medicine in this campaign year. And we'll listen to the president's weekly radio address at the end of the hour.
E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com.
Now to the White House and Kathleen Koch.
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Elaine, this is quite a stack of documents, more than 400 pages that reporters were given last night. This is the entire extent, the White House says, of President Bush's record in the National Guard during the five years that he served during the Vietnam War.
There are no bombshells. They give some interesting new details. Basically, these are pretty much standard military files. Things like performance reviews. There's a glowing review when the -- Mr. Bush was promoted to first lieutenant, a commander calling him, quote, "an outstanding young pilot and officer. A credit to his unit."
Most importantly, however, these papers do not provide any concrete evidence Mr. Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard during those years that are in question, 1972 to 1973. That's when Democrats contend that the president was at least temporarily AWOL, or absent without leave.
In here, included in the records, is the fact that Bush was suspended from flying in August 1972 because he failed to undergo a medical exam. White House officials point out Mr. Bush skipped that exam because he made that decision not to fly again.
Democrats, however, are very skeptical of all this. The Democratic National Committee put out a statement yesterday, last night, saying that, quote, "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."
Now, the White House was clearly backed into the corner on this one. If you've been watching any of the White House briefings in recent days, you've seen how combative they've become. And the president himself was watching them.
A White House spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said he was finding them silly. And when these records arrived, from the National Guard, the president said, put them out.
WALLACE: Kathleen, give us a sense behind the scenes of the timing of the release of the document. Because some Democrats have said the fact they came out Friday night, just a short time before the network news programs, when not a lot of people are watching, Saturday morning newspapers not usually read by the most number of people. Did that have anything to do with it?
KOCH: Well, Kelly, this is frankly a standard tactic, not simply of the Bush administration, but also the Clinton administration, was guilty of it. They used to call these, during the Clinton years, the Friday night follies. It's a standard tactic. It's a document dump, as the Democratic critics are pointing out now.
Just as the network news broadcasts are beginning, giving anyone very short time to respond. You have the holiday on Monday. President Bush traveling both Monday and Tuesday. His spokesman, Scott McClellan, likely will not be before reporters to even answer questions on camera, on these documents, until Wednesday.
ARENA: Kathleen, the White House seems to make a bit of a concession, with going before the 9/11 Commission, as well. I mean this was -- the papers weren't the only concession made this week. Talk to me exactly about how they'll do that.
KOCH: Quite so. Well, Kelli, again this is strategic, sort of a one-two punch, trying to knock out critics who have been implying, on both these issues, that the president had something to hide. Yes, the White House said the president will talk with the 9/11 Commission in private, meet with the Chairman Thomas Keen and the Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton. The White House says they believe that will be enough, that the president will not testify publicly.
It's not clear whether or not he will testify under oath. Everyone who has testified publicly for the commission in these hearings we've seen has testified under oath but not everyone has spoken to them in private.
ARENA: All right. Well, thanks, Kathleen. We'll talk to you later in the day.
Now straight ahead to Kelly Wallace and the Democratic campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Americans are voting for change.
(APPLAUSE)
East and West, North, and now, in the South. And I am grateful for that.
WALLACE: And that was John Kerry, Tuesday night, after two additional victories in Tennessee and Virginia. He is now 12 for 14 in these presidential contests. We have more caucuses today in Washington, D.C., and in Nevada.
Tuesday, you had the Wisconsin primary, but perhaps one of the most interesting things we've been seeing this week is John Kerry has not officially clinched this nomination yet. But he and the White House are talking more and more like we're already in a general election campaign.
ARENA: This is feeling a lot like, you know, September or October, rather than February, for crying out loud. But, really, how important do you think this upcoming debate will be? Do you really think that Edwards or Dean still have a chance?
WALLACE: Well, many people believe, Kelli, that this is probably the last chance for Edwards and Dean to change the dynamics of the race, especially Wisconsin where right now Kerry has a nearly 40-point lead. Many analysts believe right now that John Kerry has so much momentum it is his to lose.
So, if he makes a major, major mistake Sunday night, that could change things. If Howard Dean John Edwards score significant points, going up, head-to-head with John Kerry, that could change things.
But right now, the consensus is, it is pretty tough to stop John Kerry's stride.
ARRAF: I've got to ask, how much of this if any, is focused on Iraq? Is that still a real issue? Is that something that voters, particularly, seem to care about?
WALLACE: It's interesting, Jane, because when you do look at the exit polls, that voters do care about Iraq. But they seem to care more about domestic issues, the economy and health care. John Kerry, as we know, and it has been debated, is one of the candidates who did give approval to the president, authorization, to go to war.
Howard Dean is the candidate who was opposed to the war. But that is not really helping him right now. You get the sense that that issue has been debated, but that domestic issues, the economy, health care, taking center stage.
The main issue, though that you're picking up from Democratic primary voters is electability. Right now, you're hearing from more and more voters that they want to find the candidate who they think has the best chance to defeat president Bush and right now, least based on these primary contests so far, more people think it's John Kerry than anyone else.
UDOJI: And, Kelly, talking about Howard Dean, obviously, he's come a long way in a very different place today than he was even a month ago. But what do we really think? What's sort of the word behind the scenes about what he'll do on Wednesday if he doesn't show well, if the voters don't go to the polls and pick him?
WALLACE: Well, you know, he keeps somewhat changing a little bit about what he's going to do. But that's his prerogative. Here's a candidate who has put a lot of time and money in. He was leading the charge here. And he believes he's done a lot to really energize and fire up the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party base.
He had said -- oh, I don't know, a week and a half ago that Wisconsin on Tuesday was a must win. Now he's saying he still hopes it will be a win but that he'll stay in the race, although his latest word is if he doesn't win on Tuesday, he will go back to Vermont and regroup and have to figure out if he has the money or momentum or energy, really, with his base, to keep going.
SYLVESTER: Kelly, we saw the photo with John Kerry and Jane Fonda. How much is this going to hurt Kerry, or is this, just the issue is over and we move on from this point in time?
WALLACE: Well, it depends who you ask, really. Some people who are very angry with John Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War after he came back from serving in the war, say this shows, really, an example of how he was linked to someone like Jane Fonda.
The Kerry campaign advisers were very, very unhappy with the reporting on this story. Because they say, number one, he's sitting a few rows in the back from Jane Fonda. Number two, this was a few years before Jane Fonda went over to Vietnam and John Kerry criticized that trip by Jane Fonda.
You also have veterans who say look, this shows the guy's character. He went over, he fought in the war, then came back and fought on behalf of veterans. Could be an issue. Again, it depends on how people feel about John Kerry.
ARRAF: We'll be coming back after this to talk more about that, and about Iraq, the fugitive they believe might be responsible for some of the biggest attacks and what's happening with that democratic experiment here.
ANNOUNCER: Jane Arraf is CNN's Baghdad bureau chief. Until the fall of Saddam Hussein, she often was the only Western journalist in Iraq. Her reporting so angered Saddam Hussein, he banned her from the country in December 2002.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a significant priority. Anybody who is attacking the coalition, attacking the Iraqi people, trying to form more terrorism and violence inside of Iraq, is a high priority for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARRAF: Well, that was capping quite a tumultuous week. One thing, of course, was the release of this extraordinary letter. And if you believe it, this was a 17-page letter from a man whom we haven't heard a lot about lately, but who is now the top of the most wanted.
It's Abu Masud Al Zarqawi. Officials here say he is now the man they believe was behind the worst of the suicide bombings. They intercepted a letter in which he appeals to al Qaeda for help.
The other thing, of course, was the U.N. mission here. Particularly interesting, because the last time they were really here was just before their headquarters was bombed in August. It is sort of traumatic for them to come back. And they're trying to figure out whether elections can be held. The short answer is they can be held, but not quite as quickly as some people might want.
On a lighter note, we've spent the day at an Army base here, one of the main military bases, talking to soldiers about Valentine's Day. Because I think it's kind of fascinating to all of us, how in the world do you keep a relationship together when you're away for a year?
And not to get into it too much, but how in the world do you have 130,000 soldiers, most of them men, who presumably go for a year without having sex? So we got to talk to people about that. That was kind of interesting.
SYLVESTER: Jane, going back to Zarqawi for a minute, in term of the U.S. coalition, know that they've upped the award from $5 million to $10 million. Is this going to work, or what is it going to take to capture this guy?
ARRAF: This is fascinating, because here's a guy that they now say is more dangerous to postwar Iraq than Saddam Hussein was, simply because he seems to have been out there doing things. Where Saddam was essentially in hiding, being a symbolic inspiration. Now, Zarqawi, you would think, wouldn't be too hard to find. He has one leg. He was wounded in the Afghan war and came here for treatment and is believed to have had his leg amputated. He has a prosthetic leg. He is not Iraqi. As soon as he opens his mouth, presumably, people would know he's not local.
But he has managed to slip into the landscape somewhere. The same way that Saddam and a lot of other people have. It's going to be hard to find him, is the bottom line. Clearly, they believe, not impossible.
QUIJANO: Jane, wanted to ask you about the topic of elections. Has the mood changed now? It appears that perhaps some people who thought, let's rush to election are maybe having second thoughts?
ARRAF: I think what they're having is -- you're right, second thoughts. And the sense that they're thinking twice about whether it's actually doable. Now, one of the things that Lachdar Bhrahimi (ph), this top U.N. envoy that came here to meet with all these people, including the top Shiite cleric, said to them, was essentially, this is what we need for credible election.
It's not a matter of saying, OK, everybody wants elections so we'll go to the polls tomorrow. It's a matter of having the infrastructure in place, the legal framework, deciding what kind of government, what kind of system of government you want, and making it safe enough. It was certainly proved this week that this country and many places is still far from safe for many Iraqis.
WALLACE: I want to go back to that lighter note. What did you find out on this Valentine's Day as you talked to soldier about -- truly, how they're really holding up and keeping these relationships going, being so far apart from their loved ones?
ARRAF: Essentially, a few things emerged. One is that a lot of them said, look if you have good communications at home, it sort of lasts. But you have to be able to communicate. And it really helps, if you're the kind of soldier who uses e-mail, who is able to express your emotions. Otherwise, it is incredibly difficult. Obviously, there's a lot of strain on relationships, a lot of strain on marriages.
And there are actually marriages of people deployed here as well. But that's another thing. You don't have any privacy; you hardly get to see one another. But those are the lucky ones.
There are an awful lot of relationships that people are going home now, and they're going to find out whether those relationships have survived and how well they've survived.
UDOJI: Jane, another question about the elections. Beyond the politics, as you described a minute ago, but just to the practicalities of actually having an election. I was in Baghdad in April. They don't have street signs. How do they even begin to put together, like say, voter rosters, figure out how many people exactly there are, who are going to be able to vote? Whether women will vote? All those sort of basic questions that need to be answered in order for an election to take place, a credible one, as you said?
ARRAF: I think the philosophical big picture questions have been answered. There's no real debate now that women will not be allow to vote. Women are going to be able to vote and that has been said by top Shiite clerics on down. Women will vote.
But as for the rest of it, you are absolutely right. Now, they do have an indication of how many people are here, how old they are, and that sort of thing, from quite an efficient system under all those years of sanctions. They were the rolls, the census, essentially, that they had for ration cards to decide which families and how many members of the family got food rations. Some people say you can use those. But it's not a real census.
The other thing is a lot of people got transferred from different part of the country under Saddam. There are some who say they have to be allowed back to their original homes before an election takes place.
QUIJANO: Jane Arraf, thank you for joining us. What's ON THE STORY for you in coming days?
ARRAF: Well, we're going to be tracking more of the election debate. Right now it seems clear that elections will be delayed. But the big question is what sort of transitional government will there be?
Also, the transfer, the handover, of the U.S. military. This is the biggest transfer of troops since World War II. And they are coming with, in some cases, a different philosophy. They're going to be less visible in Baghdad, for instance. That's going to be interesting.
Sad thing about covering Baghdad is we have all these plans for coverage and they very often get side tracked by the day's explosions or the day's attack. So we'll expect more of those unfortunately.
QUIJANO: Well, Jane, we know you'll stay on top of it, thank you.
From the battles of Iraq to a political skirmish here in Washington this week, over television and indecency. We're back ON THE STORY after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HEATHER WILSON (R), NEW MEXICO: It improves your ratings. It improves your market share, and it lines your pockets. It's time for a change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Congresswoman Heather Wilson, Republican from New Mexico, berating TV executive Mel Karmazin at one of two hearings this week on broadcast decency rules. Of course, Janet Jackson's "Super Bowl" exposure took center stage.
Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY. First of all, how many of you are tired of hearing about this story?
UDOJI: Janet who?
ARENA: Right, what happened exactly?
QUIJANO: Right. But it was all the talk on Capitol Hill. Between the House hearings and Senate hearings, people were really looking at this as bipartisan outrage. Of course, everyone was coming out and saying this was offensive. This is horrible.
Now, the real question what do they do about it? That's what they were trying to get to the bottom of. One of the things they're talking about, maybe if things get really bad, they might go ahead and pull peoples' licenses. That remains to be seen, though, whether or not they would go that far.
You're looking at me funny. Very skeptic.
ARENA: I'm skeptical.
QUIJANO: What they say also is, the thing about fines, this is another possibility that was brought up, if we fine the broadcasters $275,000 -- is the bill they're look at right now -- for every indecency incident, maybe that will be enough to get people to stop.
Well, Mel Karmazin, who Congresswoman Wilson was talking to, is head of Viacom. Viacom owns CBS. They own MTV. People say that's a drop in the bucket, $275,000. And they might just attribute it to the cost of doing business.
So in the end, they want to get something that will have some teeth and that's what FCC commissioners were talking about. Chairman Michael Powell went before the Senate and said, we need your help. We need some tougher laws, some tougher penalties, so we can try to prevent this from happening again.
UDOJI: Elaine, do you think that is just show boating? Clearly there was a strong reaction. The FCC says they got more than 200,000 complaints post-Janet Jackson. Are they really serious about trying to rein in the television these days, who are trying to catch up with cable and become edgier maybe? Or are they just giving lip service, you know, trying to let those folks know who complain they are talking about it?
QUIJANO: To a certain extent, their outrage is sincere. At the same time, obviously, you're right, everything in Washington is political. You can't look at a situation like that and not say, of course, there are some political overtones.
At the same time, I should point out these hearings were actually set to take place well before the "Super Bowl" exposure, as you're going to see here, again --
ARENA: And again, again.
QUIJANO: Someone said to me, look, this was on for about two seconds and we have been playing it over and over again. But that's besides the point.
What they say is really this is an issue they've been look at for years and years. One of the senators said, look in that "Super Bowl" there were also commercials. One with a flatulent horse, one with a -- you know, a monkey biting somebody's crotch. These were actual commercials part of the whole "Super Bowl" television experience for viewers at home.
And so their question is, also, sort of a larger question are we as a society kind of just really having a hard time now drawing that line between what is bad taste, what is poor taste, and what is indecent?
ARENA: Well, Powell has also come under fire, sort of for being asleep at the wheel. Some of the critics say, look, this has been a steady decline in values, morals, that you've seen over the airwaves for years now and all of a sudden now this is an issue?
QUIJANO: Right, and what he's said is, look, it can't just be up to the FCC. And it can't just be up to Congress either. And it can't just be up to the public at home, the broadcasters themselves have to have some responsibility, have to have some accountability.
He would like to see them get more involved in the process of policing their own content as well. So, you know, these are all issues. We could be here all day talking about it but it does raise some interesting questions.
ARENA: It is a hot topic, yes.
WALLACE: Elaine, very quickly, though, did you pick up from any of the members, though, that can't the marketplace figure this out? If people don't like what they are seeing, they won't watch?
QUIJANO: Absolutely. That argument has been made. But, of course, this was the opportunity for the lawmakers one-by-one to go up there and express their outrage in a very public way.
But of course that has been said you know, that's the easiest way for the marketplace to take care of situations. People just simply click over and stop watching, and say, look, we're not going to be party to this. If we're not happy with it, you shouldn't be happy with it either, and we're not going to watch you.
UDOJI: Well, from what we see to what we eat, I'll be back ON THE STORY of the Atkins diet, questions about why the founder died, and how low carbs is a mega million-dollar business.
First, to Atlanta and a check on what's making headline at this hour.
(NEWSBREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER LEMPERT, FOOD INDUSTRY ANALYST: According to A.C. Nielson's Homescan's panel, 17 percent of Americans are eating low carb. They're on a low-carb diet. That is a huge number.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UDOJI: That's Phil Lempert, a food industry analyst; he's talking about the influence of Dr. Atkins and his diet. And the latest uproar, that the diet founder, Dr. Robert Atkins may have been obese and suffering from heart disease before he died last year.
Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.
WALLACE: Adaora, give us a sense of how this all came about. How did we learn about Dr. Atkins, his medical condition? It just seems like it's been coming out over the past few week. How was this all uncovered?
UDOJI: Actually, Kelly, it's very interesting. What happened apparently, "The Wall Street Journal," they reported the story at the begin beginning of the week. And they had a look at the medical examiner's report on Dr. Atkins death and apparently they got it from a group of physicians who have been strongly critical of Dr. Atkins' diet. And essentially, that group -- I mean the inference from this, of course, being that perhaps something that Dr. Atkins was eating affected his health.
The family and the Atkins Institute, which puts out all of the doctor's products, they say that, indeed, the doctor did gain weight at death. But that was in part because he was in the hospital being treated after he fell, and slipped, and hit his head. And they also say that his heart condition was the result of a virus, which weakened his heart and had nothing to do with what he ate.
SYLVESTER: Adaora, you see these restaurants, you know, Subway, it seems like so many different restaurants are kind of on the low carb bandwagon. But you know, when I look at these things, it's so hard for me to tell since there are no standards. I mean what exactly is low carb? I pick up a can of corn and it says there are carbs in it; it's like candy corn. I can't eat other things. How do you sort through all of it if you don't have standards?
UDOJI: Lisa, absolutely. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, as you say. I mean the market has just exploded, particularly in the last year, 500 new products on the grocery shelves in just the past couple of month. You go into every restaurant, they have some kind of low carb alternative.
Now, the brands, the food manufacturers who are putting out these products also are concerned about that. They have essentially gone to the FDA, asking the FDA and they are asking the FDA to set out specific guidelines of what low carb, high carb, good carb, bad carb what that means. So that when consumers go into the store, when they go into the restaurant, they know exactly what's going on. That's in the middle of their public comments at the moment. You know, it's a long process with the FDA. But it's certainly something on the agenda. And they -- the companies are pushing, and something consumers would be probably happy to get.
QUIJANO: Well, Adaora, I remember when Atkins was just a fad. I remember people talking about it and kind of what is this all about? But now it really is almost this way of life. I mean it's broadened out in a way I don't think anybody really expected.
UDOJI: Elaine, I don't think there's any question, you're so right. In the sound bite in the beginning, the analyst is talking about 17 percent of households. That is millions and millions of people. In fact, it's turned into a $15 billion business last year, that being people buying low carb-type products, foods and drinks. And analysts expect it will double this year. In part, they say, because of two things. One, it was driven by some scientific studies that came out backing low carbohydrate -- or carbohydrate-controlled diets. And second, the intense studies that have come out of the CDC and National Institutes of Health, talking about obesity that many people getting very concerned, looking at these low carb diets because you get immediate result. I mean you get results very quickly. And of course, all of us know anybody trying to lose a few pounds knows, we like it to happen quickly.
ARENA: Well, I know I do.
But Adaora, the thing is, though, is that what are the preponderance of studies showing? Is this, indeed, healthy? Is it healthy to eat, you know, low carbs and all of this protein? Or are they still split in terms of, you know, what the balance of food intake should be?
UDOJI: Kelli, I think there's a lot of divisiveness. I mean we talked to doctors this week, we talked to nutritionists this week; it all depends on A, who you ask, and B which diet. Because right now, you have things like the South Beach diet, which is a little different than the Atkins diet, in terms of how much fat and how much protein, and what kind of protein, what kind of fat that you eat. And you also have things like the Zone.
And essentially, there's not a whole lot of agreement that, for example, the Atkins diet is a good thing to go on for any long period of time or that the South Beach diet or any of those combination. So it really depends on the individual's medical conditions tell -- these medical folks tell us. And two, exactly what they're eating based on their health needs are.
ARENA: And let's not forget the exercise, duh.
(LAUGHTER)
SYLVESTER: Who wants to do that?
WALLACE: Yes. ARENA: Well, we're moving on. We're going to first, say good- bye to Kelly Wallace. Get back on that political story, Kelly.
WALLACE: I'm going to go exercise.
ARENA: You go do it, girl!
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Yes, right.
ARENA: From diet wars to the war on terrorism, there's a switch for you. And something new in the long, national debate over abortion, a new move to subpoena abortion records from hospitals. I'm back ON THE STORY right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Medical records and medical activities of individuals in the United States should not be the subject of publicity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Thursday, reassuring hospitals and others, that despite government efforts to gain records, some details of abortions would be carefully protected.
Welcome back. We are ON THE STORY.
This has to do with what the White House calls the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was signed into law back in November. But this legal wrangling started boom, the minute that bill was signed into law. And it has been going on ever since.
QUIJANO: Yes. So what are they talking about, Kelli? I mean are they talking about actual names of women? Or what information is it they're looking to get?
ARENA: Well, the Justice Department now says no. They said they don't want names, or addresses or dates of birth attached to these medical records. What they want is just the procedure and the reasons why. And this all dates back to the fact there was a lawsuit brought by seven doctors and the National Abortion Federation against this so- called partial birth abortion saying, look, we needed to perform this procedure because it was medically necessary. And then they went on to name some instances in where they said it was medically necessary.
So, the Justice Department lawyers say, well, look if you're going to make those claims, you got to back them up, you know, with some paperwork here. And so that's what this battle is over. But the hospitals balked because the original subpoenas did not allow for redactions, although I'm told in subsequent discussions, justice lawyers backed off and said, no, no, you can redact those names. But hospitals want to see that in writing before they're willing to give any here. UDOJI: Not only the hospitals, Kelli, but I mean what did the civil libertarians and the privacy advocates folks have to say about this? Because I mean medical records have always been a pretty sacred universe, in terms of access, especially from the government.
ARENA: Right, well -- exact -- and Congress has spoken pretty clearly on this issue. Saying, you know, medical records should be kept, you know, as private as they can be kept. And a lot of the privacy advocates are saying, look, if we allow -- this sets a precedent. So if you allow the government in, and you allow medical records to be shared for this, well, then what happens next time around? And then other advocates were saying, look, even if you put out the slightest bit of information about something like this, there is always a way to glean the identity of a person. And it's a very traumatic thing for someone to go through in the first place. And then, you know, to have to have it, you know, drug up again.
And the interesting part of this is that the records of the women -- the women have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The doctors brought the lawsuit and named these instances as examples. And so what the hospitals are saying is that these women are innocent bystanders in this lawsuit and they should not be affected.
SYLVESTER: I can see there being a major concern about a slippery slope with this issue, that once you go down those road and turned over those records, that maybe what they can do is turn it over to like, a third party, or something or other.
But the question I want to ask is actually not on this topic, but about British Airways canceling yet another round of flights, because that's pretty significant. If you're trying -- if you're a businessperson, if you've got plans overseas, you're counting on these flights to go off. And you're stuck. So what's going to happen? I mean what does this mean? Obviously, al Qaeda still is a major concern, even though they lowered the threat level.
ARENA: Right. And when they did lower that threat level, they said, you know, there are still threats that remain. And the bottom line here, and this is what I tell my relatives, my friends, look, the bottom-line here is that aviation remains a target. Al Qaeda has had this peculiar obsession with -- with -- with striking aircraft for years now. That is not going to stop.
And when they do get -- when there is specific intelligence that comes in regarding a flight, you're going to see cancellations. I mean British Air has a policy, if we have any information regarding any single flight, we're not taking off, plain and simple. And so we will see these in the future. But this was not based on new information. This, if you remember, you know, CNN being on top of things...
(LAUGHTER)
QUIJANO: Yes, indeed.
ARENA: We reported this back in early, early February are saying that there were going to be more flight cancellations on British Air, because intelligence they received talked about specific dates, airlines, and flight numbers. Two-twenty-three, which has been grounded what, eight times now, or so. I mean so that seems to be something that repeatedly comes up in the intelligence.
SYLVESTER: Yes. Travelers are going to just have to see this as a way of life; be patient.
All right, thank you very much Kelli.
An additional concern for the Bush administration, and all the rest of us, the economy. One hot issue this election is U.S. jobs shifting to other countries. I'm back ON THE STORY of outsourcing after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY MANKIW, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Also, it's just a new way of doing international trade. We're very used to goods being produced abroad and being shipped here on ships or planes. But what we're not used to is services being produced abroad and being sent here over the Internet or telephone wires.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SYLVESTER: Greg Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, set off a political fire storm by saying outsourcing, sending U.S. job out of the country, is just a new wrinkle in business as usual.
And I think that he's probably wishing he might be able to take back those words, or at least finesse it a little bit. There was some major backpedaling going on at the White House after he made those comments to reporters. Because it's an election year, and people are extremely sensitive about the loss of jobs in this country. So for him to come out and say, you know, basically, outsourcing, the sending of jobs, your jobs, overseas is a good thing for the U.S. economy, had a lot of people scratching their heads.
And in this case, it wasn't just the Democrats. it was Republicans. You had Dennis Hastert, for instance, coming out, almost immediately saying, we need to essentially back off those statements because that is not going to play well in states like Illinois and states like Pennsylvania. In fact, President Bush on Thursday acknowledged that outsourcing is essentially costing jobs. He didn't go so far as to say, OK, outsourcing is something we're not going to encourage any more.
ARENA: They need to say something like "I feel your pain"...
(LAUGHTER)
ARENA: I mean before that...
SYLVESTER: And that's what to hear. And it just came across as flip, and insensitive and uncaring...
ARENA: And especially when you don't have full employment.
SYLVESTER: Especially when you don't have full employment.
ARENA: I mean you have, what is it, 5.6 percent?
SYLVESTER: Yes. I mean that's one of the big things. I mean without getting a little too technical here; but the concept is comparative advantage. That -- and this is what he was talking about, which is a, you know, key tenet of economic theory. Which is if you make shoes cheaper and I make handbags cheaper, you should make the shoes, I should make the handbags. And we trade and everybody wins that way. But as you mentioned, that is based on the premise of full employment, or at least, near full employment, which is what we don't see.
And the other major difference that we're seeing is it's a change of manufacturing jobs to these white-collar jobs.
QUIJANO: I wanted to ask you, because I know you actually went to Florida, because one of the sort of byproducts of this is now this whole made in the USA resurgence again. Tell us about your experience, what you did down there.
SYLVESTER: It was actually a very fun story. What we did is we went to a Jacksonville, Florida company that made swimsuits. Kind of a little bit of context here; the apparel and textile industry has been hammered with the loss of jobs. So to have the fact that you have a company that is still making bathing suits here in the United States, and the way they're able to do it is they say, OK, what we can give is we can give instant delivery.
So If you call up at 2:00 in the afternoon, we're going to have that bathing suit off to you, out the door so you can go on your cruise, you can go on your vacation, you can go on your trip. And they say, you know, you can't do that if these bathing suits are made in China. Also, they have more control over the quality of the product as well.
UDOJI: Well, Lisa, this issue is likely to get a lot of attention this year, obviously an election year, jobs, the economy. And I guess, my question is for those companies that are sending those jobs over seas, is there concern about backlash? Are they doing anything to sort of prepare for that, head it off?
SYLVESTER: Well, one of the things they are doing -- and this is sort of a quiet campaign that you see going on here in Washington, is a lot of lobbying on Capitol Hill. Because there's a movement now among Democrats, it is being pushed largely by the Democrats. And the movement is to try to stop the outsourcing of jobs. For instance, Senator Chuck Schumer, he wants across the board tariffs on goods coming in from China. Senator Daschle has proposed, for instance, a bill that would require companies who outsource to publish how many jobs they're sending overseas. Now, you know, companies have a way of sort of not quite saying they're outsourcing the jobs. They'll say they're sending the work overseas. So there's a lot of play on words here and it depends on how you look at it. But it is definitely going to be a huge campaign issue.
And already, you know, you hear, for instance, Senator Edwards, he was quoted this week as saying, you know, "We need to outsource Bush."
(LAUGHTER)
SYLVESTER: So you have this going on right now.
ARENA: Well, there's also the issue of India. And when this whole issue first came up in the '80s, you were dealing with Mexico and China. But in India you have an enormous workforce that is very cheap, where everyone speaks English. They're educated. I mean this is a serious threat.
SYLVESTER: From the business standpoint -- now if you're a business owner in the United States and you're looking at the numbers, and you say, hmm, can hire somebody here in the United States and pay them $60,000 a year. Or I can hire a programmer in India and hire them for $8,000 a year. You say, OK, well, maybe this is something we ought to do. But in the long term you're hurting the United States. And that's what a lot of people are finally recognizing, because those jobs may never come back. and that's when people are saying, what is my kid going to do for his job? So...
ARENA: Right.
QUIJANO: Lisa, thanks for that.
President Bush gets his say after this in his weekly radio address.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): A famous California girl made headlines this week. What's her story? More after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Barbie is back in the news. What's her story? Barbie shocked the toy industry this week when she announced, through her publicist, that she and Ken, her partner of 43 years have split. The celebrity couple met on a TV commercial set in 1961. The Mattel Toy Company says the internationally, best-selling dolls Barbie and Ken, will remain the best of friend. Rumors spread throughout the International Toy Fair that Barbie may have a new boyfriend, an Australian named Blaine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER) ARENA: Just in time for Valentine's Day.
Well, thanks to my colleague. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY, we'll be back next week.
Right now, 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
Field of Democrats>
