Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

U.S. Hostage Killed in Saudi Arabia; 9/11 Panel Finds No Iraq- al Qaeda Link

Aired June 19, 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.


DREW GRIFFIN, CNN ANCHOR: We have news at this hour.
The U.S. ambassador has praised the Saudi response to the beheading of American hostage Paul Johnson Jr. During a shoot-out in Riyadh, security forces killed al Qaeda's leader there in Saudi Arabia and captured his top lieutenant. Ambassador James Oberwetter talked with reporters.

The Saudi government says the al Qaeda leader who allegedly masterminded the kidnapping and death has been killed himself. Abdelaziz al-Moqrin along with three other suspected terrorists were killed in that shoot-out with police in Riyadh. Al-Moqrin's No. 2 man was captured.

And in Iraq, a ministry of health official says a U.S. military air strike on a residential neighborhood in Fallujah has killed at least 16 people, 8 others wounded. There's been no comment from the coalition forces.

And a group of top-ranking U.S. senators made an unannounced visit to Baghdad today. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Lindsey Graham were all among the delegation. They met with the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, expressing optimism about the impending handover of power, just 11 days away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Thank you for the job you've done and the way you've done it. Secondly, how proud we are of that job, how much we want to support your efforts and whatever role it may be. And finally, we want to make sure that you all come home as safely as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: I'm Drew Griffin at the CNN Center. We'll have another check of top stories at the bottom of the half hour. ON THE STORY is coming your way next right here on CNN.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi. Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.

I'm Deborah Feyerick in New York ON THE STORY of American hostage Paul Johnson, beheaded by his captors in Saudi Arabia.

JOSIE BURKE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Josie Burke in Southampton, New York, at golf's U.S. Open. I'm also ON THE STORY of the doping scandal that's casting a cloud over all of the athletes preparing for the Summer Olympics.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen in Atlanta, ON THE STORY of a new publicity campaign to scare women into choosing to breast feed instead of bottle feed their babies.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Suzanne Malveaux, ON THE STORY of President Bush taking heat for the findings of the 9/11 commission, taking credit for accomplishments in Iraq and the economy.

We'll also talk to Jane Arraf in Baghdad about violent days and the final count counsel in the handover to Iraqis.

And we'll talk about how former President Clinton received compliments and even a book plug from President Bush.

E-mail us at ONTHESTORY@cnn.com.

Now straight to Deborah Feyerick and the hostage in Saudi Arabia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL JOHNSON III, SON OF HOSTAGE PAUL JOHNSON JR.: I respect your country. I respect -- I respect everything that everybody's done. And I just want to see my father brought home safely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Deborah Feyerick -- Deborah Feyerick is with us, has been following this story this week.

Debbie, tell us -- you're one of the few reporters who actually spent time with the family. Talk about how it felt to be there, what the atmosphere was like there.

FEYERICK: Well, you know, the family really was holding out hope that, in fact, that they -- that the Saudi government, that the U.S. government would work together to try to find Paul Johnson. And the Saudis said that they had sent out 15,000 security forces, officers going door to door in Islamist hotbeds. And although it was an extraordinary effort, it was not enough to save Paul Johnson.

But being with the family, it was so emotional. When they spoke to us, they really felt that they could reach the kidnappers. They were hoping that the kidnappers might be watching the kind of coverage they were getting internationally, and they thought by appealing to them directly, they would be able to perhaps show Paul Johnson as a human being, as a grandfather, as a father, as somebody who really deserved to live. And Paul Johnson's son said, you know, "Let him go. We promise he will leave Saudi Arabia and never return."

So it was very emotional, very sad.

BURKE: Deb, what's the U.S. government saying to people who -- Americans who are living across the Persian Gulf right now?

FEYERICK: Well, interesting. As a matter of fact, the U.S. State Department just yesterday issued a new warning to U.S. citizens throughout the Persian Gulf. And they said that the attacks would continue. They have information to that effect. And it's not just going to be in Saudi Arabia, but it's going to be throughout the Persian Gulf.

So that is very serious. They were warning people that they really needed to take care. They were saying to the U.S. citizens, you know, it could include additional suicide operations, bombings, hijackings. And they're warning folks to just take care and to be looking over their shoulder. They even say, you know, if you pull up at a traffic light, make sure you know who is to your right, who is to your left and have a plan of escape.

So they're taking it very seriously.

MALVEAUX: You know, Deborah -- I mean, really, you've been doing extraordinary coverage and I know it must be a very difficult story to cover.

It did not take long at all for people to start playing the blame game. We've heard from members of Congress, both Democrats as well as Republicans who have said Saudi Arabia's to blame; they haven't done enough to fight terrorism. White House officials, who I spoke with, however, said, Look, you know, since back, last May, that terrorist attack in Riyadh, the Saudis have really stepped up. And there are many officials in the administration that say they believe that the Saudi government did absolutely everything that it could have done to try to save Paul Johnson.

What is the family saying? Do they blame the Saudis? Do they believe that there was enough of an effort to try to save him in the end?

FEYERICK: They do believe that there was enough of an effort.

As a matter of fact, through the FBI head in New Jersey, they issued a statement basically thanking the Saudi government, thanking the U.S. government. They said that Paul Johnson, you know, loved living there, that he never felt threatened, never felt he was in any danger. And he chose actually not to live in the western compound, which they've got set up, but to live outside with the Muslim people and with the Saudis. But they really did feel the Saudis did as much as they could.

But when they were speaking out, certainly, they kept the heat on addressing the president, saying "Help us bring him home for Father's Day." They thought that maybe that could help.

But they were, in the end, grateful. And they said they knew from the very beginning that the odds were against them. COHEN: Deborah, when the families made -- when the family made their appeal, they really seemed to be appealing to the kidnappers' sense of humanity.

Can you talk a little bit about their strategy, about how they chose to go about their efforts?

FEYERICK: You know, they really did. As a matter of fact, you know, at one point, the son brought on his own son on to his lap. And he said, you know, "This is Paul Johnson IV." It's a little 3-year-old boy. The father -- the father had never met him. Or Paul Johnson Jr., the hostage, had never met his grandson, because he was over in Saudi Arabia.

They wanted to say to the kidnappers, Look, this is a grandfather, this is a father. And as a matter of fact, you know, Johnson's son said, Some of you must be fathers, and take mercy. Please, let him go, let him go. In the end, you know, it just wasn't enough, and a terror hostage negotiator who I spoke with said the demands and the time frame were simply unrealistic, that there was no way these kidnappers ever had any intention of letting Paul Johnson go.

His body's going to be flown to Dover Air Force Base and there will be an autopsy performed. Clearly, one thing that investigators do want to know is exactly when he died. Did he really die at the end of the 72-hour deadline, or did he die earlier than that? So that's one of the things they're going to be looking into.

BURKE: Deborah, do we know where the family is right now, what they're doing, what their plans are?

FEYERICK: The family's in seclusion. They have really asked for their privacy at this moment. They were incredibly graceful during a very difficult time in their lives, speaking with us and making this plea.

But they've asked for privacy. They are receiving some friends. They're receiving some neighbors. They thanked a lot of people for all their support. There was a candlelight vigil, but in the town where they live and where Johnson grew up, the mood there was just so tense. People were so anxious. There was some sense of hope, but in the end, most people knew who they were dealing with. These guys were hard- core. There was no reason to believe that they would back off.

COHEN: Well, here at CNN, we're keeping a close watch on this story and we'll bring you any developments.

And next, we're going to turn to health, to liposuction, and a new attempt to grab your attention about pregnancy risk and bottle- feeding.

Back ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ANNOUNCER: Elizabeth Cohen is a CNN medical correspondent. She joined CNN in 1991. Earlier, she worked as a newspaper reporter in Washington and Albany. She has a master's degree in public health.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SAMUEL KLEIN, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS: It's not just how much fat you lose, but how you lose the fat that's important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: That was Dr. Samuel Klein, from Washington University in St. Louis, warning that liposuction may fail to deliver the health benefits that some people want.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

FEYERICK: I am so curious about this story, about liposuction. Do many people see this as a health remedy? I know a lot of people see it as a cosmetic remedy. But a health benefit? I've never -- I hadn't heard of that before.

COHEN: You know, Deborah, I was surprised, too. I thought, Who gets liposuction for their health? They get it so they look better in a bikini.

But actually, with the woman who we talked to for this story said, "You know what? I was really expecting it would help keep my blood pressure down, that it would help get my (UNINTELLIGIBLE) glucose down, my cholesterol down." Because after all, you are losing, in her case, 20 pounds. I mean, wouldn't you expect to see health benefit from a loss of 20 pounds of fat?

But, in fact, what they found here is that -- is that that just doesn't happen. Indeed, you lose that fat, but you don't get the health benefits.

MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, I'm dying to know about this story about the biological clock ticking. I understand there's a new technology out now that you can actually count you eggs? Because I want to know how many eggs I have left!

COHEN: Seven hundred and twenty-four. I can see from here. No, I'm just kidding. This...

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: No, that wouldn't be good and it's not true.

The technology, Suzanne, actually isn't out yet per se. This is a researcher in Scotland who found that when he looked at women's ovaries and looked at what's called volume in the ovaries, the number of eggs that were left, he could do some mathematical calculations and try to say to the woman, OK, Mrs. Smith, you're 35. At 38, you're fertility's going to be over, you're going to start hitting menopause, or whatever age.

And so he says that he can do the calculations and tell a woman when she's going to hit menopause and when her fertility will, in effect, be over. But it's not something you can go to your neighborhood gynecologist and get right now.

BURKE: Elizabeth, along with liposuction, the other sort of trendy weight loss surgery is this gastric bypass surgery.

Can we draw any conclusions about the health benefits of that from what they found with this study on liposuction?

COHEN: Well, it's interesting, because actually it's a very different procedure. Gastric bypass is where they go in and make your stomach smaller. And, in fact, that surgery does appear to have health benefits, because your stomach is so much smaller, you just can't eat that much. So you actually are eating fewer calories post-gastric bypass, and so many people do see their blood pressure go down or see their cholesterol go down.

With liposuction, you're just getting fat sucked out of you. You can go right back to eating the way you did, and that's an important distinction to make between those two procedures.

FEYERICK: Some of those stomachs that we're watching right now kind of remind me of being pregnant, and I understand there's a new study about breast-feeding, which actually is a little bit frightening.

This is a tactic that seems almost extreme, where they're bullying mothers into breast-feeding their children. And I know a lot of children who definitely did not breast feed for a very long time and they seem to be doing pretty well. What's going on?

COHEN: Exactly. I understand what you're saying, Deborah. As a matter of fact, these ads, when you see them -- they are; they're quite shocking. They show a woman who is nine months pregnant. There she is. She's getting up on the mechanical bull with the help of her friends. I mean, it's ridiculous. No woman that pregnant would do that.

And so the ad tries to make the point, you never took that risk when you were nine months pregnant, why would you give your baby formula? Of course you're going to want to give your baby all the best, and so you would want to breastfeed.

Now, what's happened here is that the Department of Health and Human Services, the government, which put those -- is putting these ads out, is trying to basically scare women into breastfeeding. And of course, breastfeeding is best. Of course formula is a -- second and probably a pretty distant second. But many women who I've talked to say, many moms say, You know, Gosh, I don't like being scared into doing this. They really resented it. MALVEAUX: And Elizabeth, I don't know really how effective that ad is going to be. I was watching, I was just kind of laughing. But I know there's another set of ads out there as well -- again, perhaps using scare tactics -- to make the case that, really, women need to take better care of themselves, that they take certain precautions for outside dangers, but not -- but not protecting themselves from within?

COHEN: Right, scare tactics seems to be the way to go, Suzanne, these days with trying to get people to change their lifestyle.

There's an ad that's coming out from the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Section. It's a PSA. And the PSA shows a woman driving through dark streets. She's obviously kind of scared. She locks her doors, she gets out and she puts keys between her fingers, ready to stab anyone who comes at her, and she locks her apartment.

And then she goes into the apartment and she eats a piece of chocolate cake and she smokes a cigarette. And the points is, If you're scared of everything around you, really you ought to be protecting yourself from yourself. And it will be interesting to see if those work. And I definitely heard some people say, You know, eating a piece of chocolate cake, is that really such a big deal? Smoking is, of course, -- really is such a big deal.

But they're trying to make the greater point that it's not just a piece of cake, that people need to lose weight, that America is in the middle of an obesity epidemic. So another -- another scare tactic there.

BURKE: Elizabeth, we haven't seen ads to this effect yet, but a lot of people might say to promote good health you should walk 18 holes on a golf course at the U.S. Open. But preferably without a beer in hand, I guess.

We're back on that story right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARION JONES, OLYMPIC ATHLETE: I have never, ever used performance-enhancing drugs, and that I have accomplished what I have accomplished because of my God-given abilities and hard work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURKE: Olympian Marion Jones, the most recognizable track and field athlete in this country holding a press conference this week, lashing out at the United States Anti-Doping Agency and what she calls their "kangaroo-court" tactics.

Welcome back. We're on that story.

FEYERICK: Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong both of them sort of at a heart of a scandal. Are these allegations based on anything more than suspicion? Is there real evidence?

BURKE: Well, it's interesting. They're kind of two separate cases at this point, Deborah, because with Marion Jones, the reason she came out and held this press conference is because she's not been charged with anything at this point in time, but she feels like the United States Anti-Doping Agency is leaking all sorts of information about evidence that they might have, that they could have acquired from that BALCO investigation that's been going on for about a year now.

With Lance Armstrong, he's upset because a new book has come out in Europe where there's a personal assistant that he used to have, that used to work with his team, who's made some allegations that he might have used some banned performance-enhancing drugs. And he's actually taken the unprecedented step of saying that he's going to sue for libel because of that book.

MALVEAUX: Josie, help me understand this, because I'm a little confused about this.

The Marion Jones case, there's nothing -- there's no positive drug testing going on here that shows she used any kind of illegal drug. But they point to e-mails and calendars. How are they building their case, and how is it that we've moved from that point, to where you don't need to test positive for drugs and have a case be brought against you, as in the case with those other four Olympians?

BURKE: Right.

It's so interesting, Suzanne. And the reason we're talking about this -- that athletes could be banned from the Olympics, even without a positive drug test -- goes back to that designer steroid that was uncovered last summer, THG. Because at that point in time, leading up to it, nobody could test positive for THG because there was no test for it. That's why they're in this situation, where the United States Anti-Doping Agency is trying to connect the dots and say, Hey, we didn't have a positive drug test because we couldn't have a positive drug test, but we know now based on e-mails, calendars, eyewitness testimony, that this person or that person did use banned substances.

COHEN: Josie, let's talk about Tiger Woods for a minute, because, well, it seems like everyone is talking about Tiger Woods.

He's up, he's down, he's in, he's out. What's going on with him?

BURKE: Well, it was interesting, yesterday there was a very real chance that Tiger Woods would miss the cut here at the U.S. Open. At one point, he was 3 over par, it looked like the cut might come at 4 over par. He still had half his round to go. Well, he came back; he birdied two on the back nine.

And he's seven shots behind the leader right now. But there's not a lot of confidence. You don't sense a lot of people saying, Well, Tiger Woods is going to come back and win this. But that's because he's been so erratic for more than a year now. You never know what you're going to get with him. Can he put together four solid rounds? We haven't seen that in a while.

FEYERICK: What is he saying about his game now? There have been -- there's been talk that he -- he stopped working out with one of his coaches, I guess his swing coach. Also, maybe he's being distracted because now he's engaged.

You know, what does -- what does Tiger Woods attribute to this sort of off-ness of his game?

BURKE: He attributes it to the game of golf, that this is a very humbling sport, that everybody is going to go through struggles like this. And he also says that he set the bar so high, no matter what he does now, it's probably never going to be enough.

There was a point in time that he played 11 majors and he won 7 of them. That's really unheard of. We did hear some talk before about maybe the fiancee being a distraction. But I think most people watching golf now say it's just his swing, that's the thing that doesn't look right with Tiger Woods.

MALVEAUX: And who's in the lead now, Josie?

BURKE: Well, it's interesting. In the lead is Phil Mickelson.

Here's a guy who plays 46 majors could never win one, had to answer all these questions about are you the best player to never to win a major, when are you going to win a major? So he goes out and he wins the Masters. That was two months ago.

And it just looks like that he picked up right where he left off. He's in the lead right now, tied for the lead. And a lot of people picking Phil to go ahead and win the first two legs of the Grand Slam.

COHEN: Josie, we were talking about Marion Jones earlier and talking about doping. Many experts -- many medical exports say, You know what? The dopers are always going to be ahead of the people who are trying to catch them. They're always going to be 10 steps ahead.

So what is sports going to do about this? I mean, as time goes on, there's always going to be more things that they simply can't company.

BURKE: You know, it's interesting. This becomes such a huge story that it looks like the United States Olympic Committee is making unprecedented efforts to try to catch the cheaters. But a lot of experts also say that until the American public shows a complete and total lack of tolerance for cheaters, that they're going to exist.

People point to baseball and say Hey, everyone loves a home run and they don't really care how it's achieved. So people think that until there's a great public outcry, there probably won't be major changes and there will be cheaters.

FEYERICK: Josie, last time I saw you in person, was out in Eagle, Colorado, and that raises the question of, of course, Kobe Bryant. He is opting out of his contract. Stunning to me, because he's about to go into a trial.

First of all -- now, looks like they're not going to win the championship, so that's the first thing. I wonder if the jury may perceive him differently.

But also, isn't that a huge risk, that he would become a free agent or opt out of his contract at a time when perhaps he's seen as a little bit tainted?

BURKE: Well, if you look at the situation, that could tell us a little bit, Deborah, about his mind-set, about how confident he is going into the rest of the summer, that he's going to be vindicated, that he will be found not guilty.

But when it comes down to basketball X's and O's, what people are going to look at is the fact that Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in the game. I think what's very interesting is the fact that because he opted out of his contract with the Lakers, it doesn't mean he won't go back there. In fact, there's a very good chance he will go back there because that's where he can make the most money.

There are only a couple other teams where he can make a lot of money. One of them is the Denver Nuggets. So it would be interesting, if indeed he makes it through the summer, he's not found guilty, and he can play, whether he would end up with a team in the state of Colorado.

MALVEAUX: Josie, thank you very much. Tell us what's ahead for you ON THE STORY.

BURKE: This doping scandal, tainting track and field -- it's going to keep getting bigger and bigger. And we're looking in the next of couple weeks, the United States Anti-Doping Agency is going to have to make some very tough decisions and announcements about athletes. So that's what I'll be covering.

MALVEAUX: Thanks again.

And coming up, we'll go live to Iraq. Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf is ON THE STORY of dangerous times with a week and a half to the handover.

Right now, a check on what's making news at this hour.

GRIFFIN: The U.S. ambassador has praised the Saudi response to the beheading of American hostage Paul Johnson Jr. Security forces say they have killed al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, capturing his top lieutenant during a shoot-out in Riyadh.

Ambassador James Oberwetter talked with reporters just in the last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES OBERWETTER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA: Let me add my condemnation to the Saudi government for removing from their most wanted list several of the worst al Qaeda terrorists on the peninsula. These terrorists' uncivilized act are being met by the civilized world's only remaining option to deal with them: force. And to this point, it is now clear that more action will be needed to give our words and our dialogue and our concerns real meaning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: And despite the Saudi actions, Oberwetter says Saudi Arabia is still a dangerous place for Americans and will be for some time to come.

In Iraq, a ministry of health official says a U.S. military air strike on a residential neighborhood in Fallujah has killed at least 16 people, eight 8 others wounded. There's been no comment from the coalition there.

And a group of top-ranking U.S. senators made an unannounced visit to Baghdad today. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat Joe Biden, and Republican Lindsey Graham were among the delegation. They met with Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, expressing optimism about the impending handover of power about 11 days from now.

ON THE STORY returns right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are barbaric people. There's no justification whatsoever for his murder. And yet they killed him in cold blood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: President Bush, reacting yesterday to the killing of American hostage Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia.

For the latest now ON THE STORY, we go to Caroline Faraj, editor of cnnarabic.com. She joins us on the phone from Dubai.

Caroline, first of all, what is the mood among Westerners there? The State Department issuing a warning saying that the attacks could stretch beyond Saudi Arabia to other areas.

What does that mean for you? What does that mean for other people there?

CAROLINE FARAJ, EDITOR, CNNARABIC.COM: Debbie, The general atmosphere here and the general understanding, that it's not the end of it when they arrest -- or when they kill the so-called head of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. It's not the end of it. They're expecting somebody might take the flag after him, and they're expecting maybe other cells will come up on the surface. So it's not -- it's not really the end of the story. It's not the end of the terror here.

The general atmosphere here, that people are worried that people -- in -- especially in Saudi Arabia, they're really considering leaving the area, or leaving the country itself. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is already sending their families to the neighboring countries like the UAE and Bahrain. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) have started even -- they've started to discuss the possibility of even investing in some other areas outside Saudi Arabia. So it's not really a stable condition at all.

MALVEAUX: And tell us, how do you believe that the Saudi officials are reacting to all of this criticism that perhaps they didn't act quickly enough to fight these terrorists that were posing threats to Americans and other Westerners? And do you think there's going to be a wedge that's really created between you (ph), the United States and Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region?

FARAJ: Of course, the Saudis are refusing all these accusations if you like, and they say that this is not correct. They were expecting from the Americans more understanding to our situation, because they say that the threat and the attacks were not only on the Americans and the Westerners, even our own people were also killed, and they were also threatened. So they are refusing these accusations and -- this is how they put it, in several times we talked to them.

But -- but they -- on the other hand, when you talk to other politicians, they say that we can understand as well, that it is too much for anybody in general, let alone the Westerners, when they see that their own people, they came to Saudi Arabia in order to work and to help and they see them after that beheaded. It's something -- it's a shock for everybody, and -- I think that time will -- in a way, will make it more understanding, if you like, for both sides.

But of course this -- the Saudis -- they know that whatever they've been doing was not enough. But, of course, they won't say it on the record.

MALVEAUX: Well, Caroline, thank you very much. Our thanks to Caroline Faraj.

We're going to go to Baghdad next and our Jane Arraf ON THE STORY of new deadly attacks against U.S. forces in the final countdown to the handover of control.

We're back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Our coalition is standing firm. New Iraq's leaders are not intimidated. I will not yield, and neither will the leaders of Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That was President Bush, standing firm on his Iraq policy despite deadly attacks on the coalition and on Iraqi targets. And now, a flare-up in fighting in Fallujah, where moments ago, the U.S. said that it launched strikes against a -- what it describes as a Zarqawi network safe house.

Welcome back. I'm Jane Arraf ON THE STORY in Baghdad.

MALVEAUX: Jane, the countdown has already begun here in Washington. Certainly, I'm sure it has there as well, to this transfer as power, less than two weeks away.

One of the big tests that came up this week is the fate of Saddam Hussein. But we understand that the Iraqi prime minister is saying we want him as quickly as possible, perhaps before June 30. President bush -- basically poured cold water on that and said, Look, we're worried about security issues. Perhaps Iraq is not yet ready to receive him.

What are the talks that are going on now, the negotiations? Have they made any type of arrangement? And do Iraqis feel like this is somewhat of a challenge to their power, to their sovereignty?

ARRAF: You know, first of all, I think that the prime minister is learning the art of politics really quickly. Because not only did he say he wanted Saddam Hussein handed over before June 30, he's also raised the possibility of martial law, neither of which seem to be really plausible.

Now the deal with Saddam is, he doesn't have to be handed over before June 30. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, he does have to be charged. But he doesn't have to be released. He has to be charged at some point. And as for the rest of the detainees, they also have to fall under these conventions.

Now, as for what Iraqis think, basically, they want him handed back as quickly as possible, to have a trial. But as you mentioned, it's not so simple, even in a country like this. Keeping him safe is not so easy.

Probably what will happen is the U.S. keeping control of him physically, but having him under Iraqi sovereignty.

COHEN: Jane, we all remember those pictures more than a year ago now when the statues of Saddam came down, the Iraqis cheering and so supportive of the American presence there.

What's happened since then? There's been so new information about that.

ARRAF: Gosh, it's a really different picture. That square is actually behind me. All that cheering, it's died down.

Really, this is a very desperate situation in most Iraqi's minds. That doesn't mean it's as terrible and awful and destructive as the explosions that we see and cover. What it does mean is that Iraqis are really fearful of what the next few months are going to bring, and everyone's warning they are going to bring more attacks.

Now, when you talk to people, they're still pretty hopeful that in a few years, it's going to get better. But it's that interim time, in the meantime where it could get a whole lot worse. And that's generally the mood these days.

FEYERICK: You know, I don't know whether you saw them, Jane, but there were a couple of poll out of Iraqi people themselves, and the huge majority said they simply felt less safe with the coalition forces there. They felt that they could handle things better. They're relying on themselves, their own families for security more so than the coalition forces, or even the new Iraqi police.

The people that you're speaking to there, do they just feel that the coalition has to go and they'll take whatever happens afterwards?

ARRAF: That's a really interesting thing, because a lot of people are terrified about what would happen if the coalition left. They want the coalition to leave. The coalition wants to leave. That's clear from the soldiers around here.

But Iraqis, the ones we talked to, almost invariably say yes, they would like the United States to leave as soon as possible, the military presence. But they don't want them to leave them in the lurch, leave a vacuum.

Now, they're a little bit comforted by the fact there are more Iraqi police. Out in the streets last night, for instance, we were driving through the streets and there were checkpoints set up in a lot of places. And people are reassured by that. It's slowly getting better.

But the bottom line is they want U.S. soldiers to leave, but they don't want them to leave without having something in their place.

MALVEAUX: And, Jane, you have been there, before the war, during the war and now after the war. Tell us a little bit about -- what are the Iraqis anticipating coming up before that June 30 turnover? Are they confident that they will be able to really take control, that they'll have power in their own country? What do they think of their new leaders?

ARRAF: That's a really interesting one, too.

It is just so fascinating, watching this political process develop in a country that really has not had a chance to develop a political process. And essentially, what we have is the head of government, is someone who was signed off on by the U.S., Someone who had close ties with the CIA, someone who was a former Baathist. But he is proving himself, to some extent, and he's proving himself largely because he's a get-tough kind of guy, and that seems to be what Iraqis want.

Now there was this proposal, something between a trial balloon and a proposal, saying they could impose more martial law if these attacks continued. Now, Iraqis called into a radio station saying, Yes, what a good idea. Let's impose martial law.

So raising the prospect of hand over to democracy and the first thing they want to do is impose martial law. It's kind of hard to believe. But Iraqis are that desperate, essentially.

COHEN: Jane, earlier, you mentioned Zarqawi. Is there any new information about his whereabouts?

ARRAF: Well, there were rumors he was in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Now, he has to be somewhere where there's pretty fertile ground for him to hide. There's no real new information as to where he might be.

But the coalition has just announced a few minutes ago that what appeared to be an air strike on a house in Fallujah was, indeed, its air strike, and it said it hit a suspected -- not suspected, it said it's sure about this -- it said it had actionable intelligence from multiple sources that this was a Zarqawi network safehouse. Now, other sources say they do not believe that the target was Zarqawi himself, that he was not thought to be there. But that there were some members of the Zarqawi network.

Now, as we know, Zarqawi gets blamed for everything. His fingerprints are -- in a theoretical sense -- apparently on some of the major attacks here. He has taken credit for other major suicide bombs. But it's very difficult to get precise information on what exactly he's responsible for.

FEYERICK: Getting back just once more to one other poll, and that is that a number of Americans do feel that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Everybody knows that this is not true, though that is sort of the prevailing wisdom.

Do the Iraqi people themselves, do they feel like they got blamed for that on some levels? And is that still sort of a sentiment that exists?

FEYERICK: Absolutely. They feel they've been getting blamed for years. They were blamed for having weapons of mass destruction. They were blamed for harboring al Qaeda operatives. They were blamed for all the sins of their government, is how a lot of Iraqis see the situation.

Now that doesn't mean that they wouldn't -- that the majority would not have wanted this war to take place. That doesn't mean that their sorry that it did take place, that Saddam's gone. Because the bottom line is, if it gets better, even in a couple of years or three years or four year it will, for most people here, have been worth it.

If it doesn't get better, that's a whole other story. But they've never really had much faith in those claims that the U.S. made to justify the war. They have always believed that this was a war to justify U.S. interests, particularly the oil. And it's very hard to convince them otherwise.

MALVEAUX: Jane, speaking of oil, I know there have been numerous attacks against some of those oil facilities. Just how damaging has that been to the people there, either psychologically or economically?

ARRAF: Incredibly damaging. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars a day in lost oil revenue. We're talking about huge pipelines that are very hard to keep safe.

Now, a single explosion has caused the shutdown of one of the major pipelines in the south for days now. It was set on fire. And it's very hard to repair, once that gets started.

So essentially, what we're seeing is not just the loss in revenue, but the fact that these attacks keep happening. And in some places, they're on the rise. In the south, in the north -- and in the north, the head of security for the North Oil Company was assassinated. So that shows you how precarious the security is around the infrastructure, and particularly the vital oil industry. It is a terrible problem, and they're really trying to come to grips with it.

MALVEAUX: The big story was Iraq, but of course it was also competing with the 9/11 terror attacks at the White House this week. I'm back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: It was an interesting moment at the White House this week. The usual politicking receded. Long-running tensions between President Bush and President Clinton and their families slipped away. President Bush even gave the former president's new book a plug, saying it would soon be available at fine book stores all over America. Very unusual to see the two sides getting along. No partisanship at all. And it didn't last for long, unfortunately.

FEYERICK: (AUDIO GAP) the amount of praise that President Bush heaped on president Clinton. Really, everybody here was watching in awe, I know that. There's a saying if you're enemy is my enemy, than you're my friend.

Was there sort of a dig? Was this another way to put a knife in Kerry? Clearly, Hillary Clinton's political ambitions, perhaps even towards the White House, very well known. What was going on?

MALVEAUX: You know, it was such an unusual moment, really, because you had President Bush telling Clinton, welcome home. You had Chelsea in the audience. You had these jokes, back and forth, really.

And of course there was a lot of speculation about the politics behind all of it. But it seemed as if at that moment, at least, Clinton, as well as Bush, seemed sincere, in saying -- Clinton brought up a good point. He said, At least this shows that we have a system that works, where we can talk to one another, we can debate. Hopefully, it will get back to that point. I mean, really kind of -- I guess, getting to the issue of that -- the fact that there is such partisanship in Washington.

It is a very ugly, intense atmosphere, has been for some time. Both men seemed like they wanted to kind of, at least for the moment, put that aside and say, We can move forward. The cynics, of course, will disagree.

COHEN: Suzanne, the 9/11 commission this week says no al-Qaeda- Iraq link.

What was the president's reaction to that? That was one of the reasons that he put forth for going to war in the first place.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. This was very controversial because the president and vice president, as of just days ago, came our and said that there were strong links, strong ties between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein as well these terrorist organization. They point to links dating back, they say, to a decade. The fact that Zarqawi this al Qaeda terrorist, is still inside Iraq. And they stand by those statements.

However, the 9/11 commission report -- and what's interesting, the commissioners themselves, including Republican, come out and say, Look, that really wasn't significant. You might have had contacts, there might have been some relationships, but it really didn't amount to much of anything.

I think the more important question here is how was it used and that's where you really get into some analysis. You have Bush critics who are saying it was overplayed, that it was overstated, the case that was made. You have people within the administration saying, Well, we -- you know, it was all kind of murky, but we stuck by our claims that yes, these ties were close enough that we felt Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.

ARRAF: Suzanne, that seems to have been held up as gospel, that there were these ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and 9/11, and now that they're being placed in doubt, is that weakening support in any way for this war, or raising any sort of horror about the fact that the U.S. did go to war?

MALVEAUX: Well, certainly, Jane. I mean those questions have reemerged this week very strongly.

And, of course, it is all a part of a campaign, all a part of the election. Who do you believe? Do you believe the bush administration and what they've said? Do you believe that they overstated or exaggerated this relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, to make their case for war? Or do you believe that they were -- they were sincere, and that they did not cross that line?

There are a lot of CIA analysts who say that -- that they did overstate it, that the evidence does not support it. That is a question that many voters, of course, are going to have to decide for themselves. Another very interesting point that came out of the commission report, however, is this alleged link or perceived link, between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. You had talked about that before, that misperception. Again, there were speeches where you talked to the president, talking about the war on terror, the front in Iraq, the front in Afghanistan. To this day, there are still polls that show that as many as 50 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

President Bush this week, as well as others, said, Hey, we never said that, we never made that direct link. You look back at some of the speeches, and there are broad, sweeping generalizations. Some say, Look, you know, you blurred the lines here. Was it intentional? Was it not intentional? Those are the type of things that voters are looking for and they will decide in this election.

COHEN: We're back ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was in the news this week. What's her story? More after this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Kathleen Sebelius is attracting attention. What's her story? The Kansas governor is on a few, very informal lists of possible Democratic vice presidential candidates. The usual rule is, people who know something about John Kerry's running mate are not talking. Those who don't know, make lists.

Sebelius, daughter of a governor and a Democratic winner in a Republican state, is often the only woman linked to vice presidential talk. Aides say she has not been approached. Kansas observers say even getting mentioned bumps up her political standing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues, and thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

Up next, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," focusing today on Paris Hilton and Janet Jackson.

Coming up right now, a check of the top stories.

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


Aired June 19, 2004 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN ANCHOR: We have news at this hour.
The U.S. ambassador has praised the Saudi response to the beheading of American hostage Paul Johnson Jr. During a shoot-out in Riyadh, security forces killed al Qaeda's leader there in Saudi Arabia and captured his top lieutenant. Ambassador James Oberwetter talked with reporters.

The Saudi government says the al Qaeda leader who allegedly masterminded the kidnapping and death has been killed himself. Abdelaziz al-Moqrin along with three other suspected terrorists were killed in that shoot-out with police in Riyadh. Al-Moqrin's No. 2 man was captured.

And in Iraq, a ministry of health official says a U.S. military air strike on a residential neighborhood in Fallujah has killed at least 16 people, 8 others wounded. There's been no comment from the coalition forces.

And a group of top-ranking U.S. senators made an unannounced visit to Baghdad today. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Lindsey Graham were all among the delegation. They met with the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, expressing optimism about the impending handover of power, just 11 days away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Thank you for the job you've done and the way you've done it. Secondly, how proud we are of that job, how much we want to support your efforts and whatever role it may be. And finally, we want to make sure that you all come home as safely as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: I'm Drew Griffin at the CNN Center. We'll have another check of top stories at the bottom of the half hour. ON THE STORY is coming your way next right here on CNN.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi. Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week.

I'm Deborah Feyerick in New York ON THE STORY of American hostage Paul Johnson, beheaded by his captors in Saudi Arabia.

JOSIE BURKE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: I'm Josie Burke in Southampton, New York, at golf's U.S. Open. I'm also ON THE STORY of the doping scandal that's casting a cloud over all of the athletes preparing for the Summer Olympics.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen in Atlanta, ON THE STORY of a new publicity campaign to scare women into choosing to breast feed instead of bottle feed their babies.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Suzanne Malveaux, ON THE STORY of President Bush taking heat for the findings of the 9/11 commission, taking credit for accomplishments in Iraq and the economy.

We'll also talk to Jane Arraf in Baghdad about violent days and the final count counsel in the handover to Iraqis.

And we'll talk about how former President Clinton received compliments and even a book plug from President Bush.

E-mail us at ONTHESTORY@cnn.com.

Now straight to Deborah Feyerick and the hostage in Saudi Arabia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL JOHNSON III, SON OF HOSTAGE PAUL JOHNSON JR.: I respect your country. I respect -- I respect everything that everybody's done. And I just want to see my father brought home safely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: Deborah Feyerick -- Deborah Feyerick is with us, has been following this story this week.

Debbie, tell us -- you're one of the few reporters who actually spent time with the family. Talk about how it felt to be there, what the atmosphere was like there.

FEYERICK: Well, you know, the family really was holding out hope that, in fact, that they -- that the Saudi government, that the U.S. government would work together to try to find Paul Johnson. And the Saudis said that they had sent out 15,000 security forces, officers going door to door in Islamist hotbeds. And although it was an extraordinary effort, it was not enough to save Paul Johnson.

But being with the family, it was so emotional. When they spoke to us, they really felt that they could reach the kidnappers. They were hoping that the kidnappers might be watching the kind of coverage they were getting internationally, and they thought by appealing to them directly, they would be able to perhaps show Paul Johnson as a human being, as a grandfather, as a father, as somebody who really deserved to live. And Paul Johnson's son said, you know, "Let him go. We promise he will leave Saudi Arabia and never return."

So it was very emotional, very sad.

BURKE: Deb, what's the U.S. government saying to people who -- Americans who are living across the Persian Gulf right now?

FEYERICK: Well, interesting. As a matter of fact, the U.S. State Department just yesterday issued a new warning to U.S. citizens throughout the Persian Gulf. And they said that the attacks would continue. They have information to that effect. And it's not just going to be in Saudi Arabia, but it's going to be throughout the Persian Gulf.

So that is very serious. They were warning people that they really needed to take care. They were saying to the U.S. citizens, you know, it could include additional suicide operations, bombings, hijackings. And they're warning folks to just take care and to be looking over their shoulder. They even say, you know, if you pull up at a traffic light, make sure you know who is to your right, who is to your left and have a plan of escape.

So they're taking it very seriously.

MALVEAUX: You know, Deborah -- I mean, really, you've been doing extraordinary coverage and I know it must be a very difficult story to cover.

It did not take long at all for people to start playing the blame game. We've heard from members of Congress, both Democrats as well as Republicans who have said Saudi Arabia's to blame; they haven't done enough to fight terrorism. White House officials, who I spoke with, however, said, Look, you know, since back, last May, that terrorist attack in Riyadh, the Saudis have really stepped up. And there are many officials in the administration that say they believe that the Saudi government did absolutely everything that it could have done to try to save Paul Johnson.

What is the family saying? Do they blame the Saudis? Do they believe that there was enough of an effort to try to save him in the end?

FEYERICK: They do believe that there was enough of an effort.

As a matter of fact, through the FBI head in New Jersey, they issued a statement basically thanking the Saudi government, thanking the U.S. government. They said that Paul Johnson, you know, loved living there, that he never felt threatened, never felt he was in any danger. And he chose actually not to live in the western compound, which they've got set up, but to live outside with the Muslim people and with the Saudis. But they really did feel the Saudis did as much as they could.

But when they were speaking out, certainly, they kept the heat on addressing the president, saying "Help us bring him home for Father's Day." They thought that maybe that could help.

But they were, in the end, grateful. And they said they knew from the very beginning that the odds were against them. COHEN: Deborah, when the families made -- when the family made their appeal, they really seemed to be appealing to the kidnappers' sense of humanity.

Can you talk a little bit about their strategy, about how they chose to go about their efforts?

FEYERICK: You know, they really did. As a matter of fact, you know, at one point, the son brought on his own son on to his lap. And he said, you know, "This is Paul Johnson IV." It's a little 3-year-old boy. The father -- the father had never met him. Or Paul Johnson Jr., the hostage, had never met his grandson, because he was over in Saudi Arabia.

They wanted to say to the kidnappers, Look, this is a grandfather, this is a father. And as a matter of fact, you know, Johnson's son said, Some of you must be fathers, and take mercy. Please, let him go, let him go. In the end, you know, it just wasn't enough, and a terror hostage negotiator who I spoke with said the demands and the time frame were simply unrealistic, that there was no way these kidnappers ever had any intention of letting Paul Johnson go.

His body's going to be flown to Dover Air Force Base and there will be an autopsy performed. Clearly, one thing that investigators do want to know is exactly when he died. Did he really die at the end of the 72-hour deadline, or did he die earlier than that? So that's one of the things they're going to be looking into.

BURKE: Deborah, do we know where the family is right now, what they're doing, what their plans are?

FEYERICK: The family's in seclusion. They have really asked for their privacy at this moment. They were incredibly graceful during a very difficult time in their lives, speaking with us and making this plea.

But they've asked for privacy. They are receiving some friends. They're receiving some neighbors. They thanked a lot of people for all their support. There was a candlelight vigil, but in the town where they live and where Johnson grew up, the mood there was just so tense. People were so anxious. There was some sense of hope, but in the end, most people knew who they were dealing with. These guys were hard- core. There was no reason to believe that they would back off.

COHEN: Well, here at CNN, we're keeping a close watch on this story and we'll bring you any developments.

And next, we're going to turn to health, to liposuction, and a new attempt to grab your attention about pregnancy risk and bottle- feeding.

Back ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ANNOUNCER: Elizabeth Cohen is a CNN medical correspondent. She joined CNN in 1991. Earlier, she worked as a newspaper reporter in Washington and Albany. She has a master's degree in public health.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SAMUEL KLEIN, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS: It's not just how much fat you lose, but how you lose the fat that's important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: That was Dr. Samuel Klein, from Washington University in St. Louis, warning that liposuction may fail to deliver the health benefits that some people want.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

FEYERICK: I am so curious about this story, about liposuction. Do many people see this as a health remedy? I know a lot of people see it as a cosmetic remedy. But a health benefit? I've never -- I hadn't heard of that before.

COHEN: You know, Deborah, I was surprised, too. I thought, Who gets liposuction for their health? They get it so they look better in a bikini.

But actually, with the woman who we talked to for this story said, "You know what? I was really expecting it would help keep my blood pressure down, that it would help get my (UNINTELLIGIBLE) glucose down, my cholesterol down." Because after all, you are losing, in her case, 20 pounds. I mean, wouldn't you expect to see health benefit from a loss of 20 pounds of fat?

But, in fact, what they found here is that -- is that that just doesn't happen. Indeed, you lose that fat, but you don't get the health benefits.

MALVEAUX: Elizabeth, I'm dying to know about this story about the biological clock ticking. I understand there's a new technology out now that you can actually count you eggs? Because I want to know how many eggs I have left!

COHEN: Seven hundred and twenty-four. I can see from here. No, I'm just kidding. This...

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: No, that wouldn't be good and it's not true.

The technology, Suzanne, actually isn't out yet per se. This is a researcher in Scotland who found that when he looked at women's ovaries and looked at what's called volume in the ovaries, the number of eggs that were left, he could do some mathematical calculations and try to say to the woman, OK, Mrs. Smith, you're 35. At 38, you're fertility's going to be over, you're going to start hitting menopause, or whatever age.

And so he says that he can do the calculations and tell a woman when she's going to hit menopause and when her fertility will, in effect, be over. But it's not something you can go to your neighborhood gynecologist and get right now.

BURKE: Elizabeth, along with liposuction, the other sort of trendy weight loss surgery is this gastric bypass surgery.

Can we draw any conclusions about the health benefits of that from what they found with this study on liposuction?

COHEN: Well, it's interesting, because actually it's a very different procedure. Gastric bypass is where they go in and make your stomach smaller. And, in fact, that surgery does appear to have health benefits, because your stomach is so much smaller, you just can't eat that much. So you actually are eating fewer calories post-gastric bypass, and so many people do see their blood pressure go down or see their cholesterol go down.

With liposuction, you're just getting fat sucked out of you. You can go right back to eating the way you did, and that's an important distinction to make between those two procedures.

FEYERICK: Some of those stomachs that we're watching right now kind of remind me of being pregnant, and I understand there's a new study about breast-feeding, which actually is a little bit frightening.

This is a tactic that seems almost extreme, where they're bullying mothers into breast-feeding their children. And I know a lot of children who definitely did not breast feed for a very long time and they seem to be doing pretty well. What's going on?

COHEN: Exactly. I understand what you're saying, Deborah. As a matter of fact, these ads, when you see them -- they are; they're quite shocking. They show a woman who is nine months pregnant. There she is. She's getting up on the mechanical bull with the help of her friends. I mean, it's ridiculous. No woman that pregnant would do that.

And so the ad tries to make the point, you never took that risk when you were nine months pregnant, why would you give your baby formula? Of course you're going to want to give your baby all the best, and so you would want to breastfeed.

Now, what's happened here is that the Department of Health and Human Services, the government, which put those -- is putting these ads out, is trying to basically scare women into breastfeeding. And of course, breastfeeding is best. Of course formula is a -- second and probably a pretty distant second. But many women who I've talked to say, many moms say, You know, Gosh, I don't like being scared into doing this. They really resented it. MALVEAUX: And Elizabeth, I don't know really how effective that ad is going to be. I was watching, I was just kind of laughing. But I know there's another set of ads out there as well -- again, perhaps using scare tactics -- to make the case that, really, women need to take better care of themselves, that they take certain precautions for outside dangers, but not -- but not protecting themselves from within?

COHEN: Right, scare tactics seems to be the way to go, Suzanne, these days with trying to get people to change their lifestyle.

There's an ad that's coming out from the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Section. It's a PSA. And the PSA shows a woman driving through dark streets. She's obviously kind of scared. She locks her doors, she gets out and she puts keys between her fingers, ready to stab anyone who comes at her, and she locks her apartment.

And then she goes into the apartment and she eats a piece of chocolate cake and she smokes a cigarette. And the points is, If you're scared of everything around you, really you ought to be protecting yourself from yourself. And it will be interesting to see if those work. And I definitely heard some people say, You know, eating a piece of chocolate cake, is that really such a big deal? Smoking is, of course, -- really is such a big deal.

But they're trying to make the greater point that it's not just a piece of cake, that people need to lose weight, that America is in the middle of an obesity epidemic. So another -- another scare tactic there.

BURKE: Elizabeth, we haven't seen ads to this effect yet, but a lot of people might say to promote good health you should walk 18 holes on a golf course at the U.S. Open. But preferably without a beer in hand, I guess.

We're back on that story right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARION JONES, OLYMPIC ATHLETE: I have never, ever used performance-enhancing drugs, and that I have accomplished what I have accomplished because of my God-given abilities and hard work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURKE: Olympian Marion Jones, the most recognizable track and field athlete in this country holding a press conference this week, lashing out at the United States Anti-Doping Agency and what she calls their "kangaroo-court" tactics.

Welcome back. We're on that story.

FEYERICK: Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong both of them sort of at a heart of a scandal. Are these allegations based on anything more than suspicion? Is there real evidence?

BURKE: Well, it's interesting. They're kind of two separate cases at this point, Deborah, because with Marion Jones, the reason she came out and held this press conference is because she's not been charged with anything at this point in time, but she feels like the United States Anti-Doping Agency is leaking all sorts of information about evidence that they might have, that they could have acquired from that BALCO investigation that's been going on for about a year now.

With Lance Armstrong, he's upset because a new book has come out in Europe where there's a personal assistant that he used to have, that used to work with his team, who's made some allegations that he might have used some banned performance-enhancing drugs. And he's actually taken the unprecedented step of saying that he's going to sue for libel because of that book.

MALVEAUX: Josie, help me understand this, because I'm a little confused about this.

The Marion Jones case, there's nothing -- there's no positive drug testing going on here that shows she used any kind of illegal drug. But they point to e-mails and calendars. How are they building their case, and how is it that we've moved from that point, to where you don't need to test positive for drugs and have a case be brought against you, as in the case with those other four Olympians?

BURKE: Right.

It's so interesting, Suzanne. And the reason we're talking about this -- that athletes could be banned from the Olympics, even without a positive drug test -- goes back to that designer steroid that was uncovered last summer, THG. Because at that point in time, leading up to it, nobody could test positive for THG because there was no test for it. That's why they're in this situation, where the United States Anti-Doping Agency is trying to connect the dots and say, Hey, we didn't have a positive drug test because we couldn't have a positive drug test, but we know now based on e-mails, calendars, eyewitness testimony, that this person or that person did use banned substances.

COHEN: Josie, let's talk about Tiger Woods for a minute, because, well, it seems like everyone is talking about Tiger Woods.

He's up, he's down, he's in, he's out. What's going on with him?

BURKE: Well, it was interesting, yesterday there was a very real chance that Tiger Woods would miss the cut here at the U.S. Open. At one point, he was 3 over par, it looked like the cut might come at 4 over par. He still had half his round to go. Well, he came back; he birdied two on the back nine.

And he's seven shots behind the leader right now. But there's not a lot of confidence. You don't sense a lot of people saying, Well, Tiger Woods is going to come back and win this. But that's because he's been so erratic for more than a year now. You never know what you're going to get with him. Can he put together four solid rounds? We haven't seen that in a while.

FEYERICK: What is he saying about his game now? There have been -- there's been talk that he -- he stopped working out with one of his coaches, I guess his swing coach. Also, maybe he's being distracted because now he's engaged.

You know, what does -- what does Tiger Woods attribute to this sort of off-ness of his game?

BURKE: He attributes it to the game of golf, that this is a very humbling sport, that everybody is going to go through struggles like this. And he also says that he set the bar so high, no matter what he does now, it's probably never going to be enough.

There was a point in time that he played 11 majors and he won 7 of them. That's really unheard of. We did hear some talk before about maybe the fiancee being a distraction. But I think most people watching golf now say it's just his swing, that's the thing that doesn't look right with Tiger Woods.

MALVEAUX: And who's in the lead now, Josie?

BURKE: Well, it's interesting. In the lead is Phil Mickelson.

Here's a guy who plays 46 majors could never win one, had to answer all these questions about are you the best player to never to win a major, when are you going to win a major? So he goes out and he wins the Masters. That was two months ago.

And it just looks like that he picked up right where he left off. He's in the lead right now, tied for the lead. And a lot of people picking Phil to go ahead and win the first two legs of the Grand Slam.

COHEN: Josie, we were talking about Marion Jones earlier and talking about doping. Many experts -- many medical exports say, You know what? The dopers are always going to be ahead of the people who are trying to catch them. They're always going to be 10 steps ahead.

So what is sports going to do about this? I mean, as time goes on, there's always going to be more things that they simply can't company.

BURKE: You know, it's interesting. This becomes such a huge story that it looks like the United States Olympic Committee is making unprecedented efforts to try to catch the cheaters. But a lot of experts also say that until the American public shows a complete and total lack of tolerance for cheaters, that they're going to exist.

People point to baseball and say Hey, everyone loves a home run and they don't really care how it's achieved. So people think that until there's a great public outcry, there probably won't be major changes and there will be cheaters.

FEYERICK: Josie, last time I saw you in person, was out in Eagle, Colorado, and that raises the question of, of course, Kobe Bryant. He is opting out of his contract. Stunning to me, because he's about to go into a trial.

First of all -- now, looks like they're not going to win the championship, so that's the first thing. I wonder if the jury may perceive him differently.

But also, isn't that a huge risk, that he would become a free agent or opt out of his contract at a time when perhaps he's seen as a little bit tainted?

BURKE: Well, if you look at the situation, that could tell us a little bit, Deborah, about his mind-set, about how confident he is going into the rest of the summer, that he's going to be vindicated, that he will be found not guilty.

But when it comes down to basketball X's and O's, what people are going to look at is the fact that Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in the game. I think what's very interesting is the fact that because he opted out of his contract with the Lakers, it doesn't mean he won't go back there. In fact, there's a very good chance he will go back there because that's where he can make the most money.

There are only a couple other teams where he can make a lot of money. One of them is the Denver Nuggets. So it would be interesting, if indeed he makes it through the summer, he's not found guilty, and he can play, whether he would end up with a team in the state of Colorado.

MALVEAUX: Josie, thank you very much. Tell us what's ahead for you ON THE STORY.

BURKE: This doping scandal, tainting track and field -- it's going to keep getting bigger and bigger. And we're looking in the next of couple weeks, the United States Anti-Doping Agency is going to have to make some very tough decisions and announcements about athletes. So that's what I'll be covering.

MALVEAUX: Thanks again.

And coming up, we'll go live to Iraq. Baghdad bureau chief Jane Arraf is ON THE STORY of dangerous times with a week and a half to the handover.

Right now, a check on what's making news at this hour.

GRIFFIN: The U.S. ambassador has praised the Saudi response to the beheading of American hostage Paul Johnson Jr. Security forces say they have killed al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, capturing his top lieutenant during a shoot-out in Riyadh.

Ambassador James Oberwetter talked with reporters just in the last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES OBERWETTER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA: Let me add my condemnation to the Saudi government for removing from their most wanted list several of the worst al Qaeda terrorists on the peninsula. These terrorists' uncivilized act are being met by the civilized world's only remaining option to deal with them: force. And to this point, it is now clear that more action will be needed to give our words and our dialogue and our concerns real meaning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: And despite the Saudi actions, Oberwetter says Saudi Arabia is still a dangerous place for Americans and will be for some time to come.

In Iraq, a ministry of health official says a U.S. military air strike on a residential neighborhood in Fallujah has killed at least 16 people, eight 8 others wounded. There's been no comment from the coalition there.

And a group of top-ranking U.S. senators made an unannounced visit to Baghdad today. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democrat Joe Biden, and Republican Lindsey Graham were among the delegation. They met with Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, expressing optimism about the impending handover of power about 11 days from now.

ON THE STORY returns right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are barbaric people. There's no justification whatsoever for his murder. And yet they killed him in cold blood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: President Bush, reacting yesterday to the killing of American hostage Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia.

For the latest now ON THE STORY, we go to Caroline Faraj, editor of cnnarabic.com. She joins us on the phone from Dubai.

Caroline, first of all, what is the mood among Westerners there? The State Department issuing a warning saying that the attacks could stretch beyond Saudi Arabia to other areas.

What does that mean for you? What does that mean for other people there?

CAROLINE FARAJ, EDITOR, CNNARABIC.COM: Debbie, The general atmosphere here and the general understanding, that it's not the end of it when they arrest -- or when they kill the so-called head of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. It's not the end of it. They're expecting somebody might take the flag after him, and they're expecting maybe other cells will come up on the surface. So it's not -- it's not really the end of the story. It's not the end of the terror here.

The general atmosphere here, that people are worried that people -- in -- especially in Saudi Arabia, they're really considering leaving the area, or leaving the country itself. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is already sending their families to the neighboring countries like the UAE and Bahrain. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) have started even -- they've started to discuss the possibility of even investing in some other areas outside Saudi Arabia. So it's not really a stable condition at all.

MALVEAUX: And tell us, how do you believe that the Saudi officials are reacting to all of this criticism that perhaps they didn't act quickly enough to fight these terrorists that were posing threats to Americans and other Westerners? And do you think there's going to be a wedge that's really created between you (ph), the United States and Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region?

FARAJ: Of course, the Saudis are refusing all these accusations if you like, and they say that this is not correct. They were expecting from the Americans more understanding to our situation, because they say that the threat and the attacks were not only on the Americans and the Westerners, even our own people were also killed, and they were also threatened. So they are refusing these accusations and -- this is how they put it, in several times we talked to them.

But -- but they -- on the other hand, when you talk to other politicians, they say that we can understand as well, that it is too much for anybody in general, let alone the Westerners, when they see that their own people, they came to Saudi Arabia in order to work and to help and they see them after that beheaded. It's something -- it's a shock for everybody, and -- I think that time will -- in a way, will make it more understanding, if you like, for both sides.

But of course this -- the Saudis -- they know that whatever they've been doing was not enough. But, of course, they won't say it on the record.

MALVEAUX: Well, Caroline, thank you very much. Our thanks to Caroline Faraj.

We're going to go to Baghdad next and our Jane Arraf ON THE STORY of new deadly attacks against U.S. forces in the final countdown to the handover of control.

We're back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Our coalition is standing firm. New Iraq's leaders are not intimidated. I will not yield, and neither will the leaders of Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That was President Bush, standing firm on his Iraq policy despite deadly attacks on the coalition and on Iraqi targets. And now, a flare-up in fighting in Fallujah, where moments ago, the U.S. said that it launched strikes against a -- what it describes as a Zarqawi network safe house.

Welcome back. I'm Jane Arraf ON THE STORY in Baghdad.

MALVEAUX: Jane, the countdown has already begun here in Washington. Certainly, I'm sure it has there as well, to this transfer as power, less than two weeks away.

One of the big tests that came up this week is the fate of Saddam Hussein. But we understand that the Iraqi prime minister is saying we want him as quickly as possible, perhaps before June 30. President bush -- basically poured cold water on that and said, Look, we're worried about security issues. Perhaps Iraq is not yet ready to receive him.

What are the talks that are going on now, the negotiations? Have they made any type of arrangement? And do Iraqis feel like this is somewhat of a challenge to their power, to their sovereignty?

ARRAF: You know, first of all, I think that the prime minister is learning the art of politics really quickly. Because not only did he say he wanted Saddam Hussein handed over before June 30, he's also raised the possibility of martial law, neither of which seem to be really plausible.

Now the deal with Saddam is, he doesn't have to be handed over before June 30. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, he does have to be charged. But he doesn't have to be released. He has to be charged at some point. And as for the rest of the detainees, they also have to fall under these conventions.

Now, as for what Iraqis think, basically, they want him handed back as quickly as possible, to have a trial. But as you mentioned, it's not so simple, even in a country like this. Keeping him safe is not so easy.

Probably what will happen is the U.S. keeping control of him physically, but having him under Iraqi sovereignty.

COHEN: Jane, we all remember those pictures more than a year ago now when the statues of Saddam came down, the Iraqis cheering and so supportive of the American presence there.

What's happened since then? There's been so new information about that.

ARRAF: Gosh, it's a really different picture. That square is actually behind me. All that cheering, it's died down.

Really, this is a very desperate situation in most Iraqi's minds. That doesn't mean it's as terrible and awful and destructive as the explosions that we see and cover. What it does mean is that Iraqis are really fearful of what the next few months are going to bring, and everyone's warning they are going to bring more attacks.

Now, when you talk to people, they're still pretty hopeful that in a few years, it's going to get better. But it's that interim time, in the meantime where it could get a whole lot worse. And that's generally the mood these days.

FEYERICK: You know, I don't know whether you saw them, Jane, but there were a couple of poll out of Iraqi people themselves, and the huge majority said they simply felt less safe with the coalition forces there. They felt that they could handle things better. They're relying on themselves, their own families for security more so than the coalition forces, or even the new Iraqi police.

The people that you're speaking to there, do they just feel that the coalition has to go and they'll take whatever happens afterwards?

ARRAF: That's a really interesting thing, because a lot of people are terrified about what would happen if the coalition left. They want the coalition to leave. The coalition wants to leave. That's clear from the soldiers around here.

But Iraqis, the ones we talked to, almost invariably say yes, they would like the United States to leave as soon as possible, the military presence. But they don't want them to leave them in the lurch, leave a vacuum.

Now, they're a little bit comforted by the fact there are more Iraqi police. Out in the streets last night, for instance, we were driving through the streets and there were checkpoints set up in a lot of places. And people are reassured by that. It's slowly getting better.

But the bottom line is they want U.S. soldiers to leave, but they don't want them to leave without having something in their place.

MALVEAUX: And, Jane, you have been there, before the war, during the war and now after the war. Tell us a little bit about -- what are the Iraqis anticipating coming up before that June 30 turnover? Are they confident that they will be able to really take control, that they'll have power in their own country? What do they think of their new leaders?

ARRAF: That's a really interesting one, too.

It is just so fascinating, watching this political process develop in a country that really has not had a chance to develop a political process. And essentially, what we have is the head of government, is someone who was signed off on by the U.S., Someone who had close ties with the CIA, someone who was a former Baathist. But he is proving himself, to some extent, and he's proving himself largely because he's a get-tough kind of guy, and that seems to be what Iraqis want.

Now there was this proposal, something between a trial balloon and a proposal, saying they could impose more martial law if these attacks continued. Now, Iraqis called into a radio station saying, Yes, what a good idea. Let's impose martial law.

So raising the prospect of hand over to democracy and the first thing they want to do is impose martial law. It's kind of hard to believe. But Iraqis are that desperate, essentially.

COHEN: Jane, earlier, you mentioned Zarqawi. Is there any new information about his whereabouts?

ARRAF: Well, there were rumors he was in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Now, he has to be somewhere where there's pretty fertile ground for him to hide. There's no real new information as to where he might be.

But the coalition has just announced a few minutes ago that what appeared to be an air strike on a house in Fallujah was, indeed, its air strike, and it said it hit a suspected -- not suspected, it said it's sure about this -- it said it had actionable intelligence from multiple sources that this was a Zarqawi network safehouse. Now, other sources say they do not believe that the target was Zarqawi himself, that he was not thought to be there. But that there were some members of the Zarqawi network.

Now, as we know, Zarqawi gets blamed for everything. His fingerprints are -- in a theoretical sense -- apparently on some of the major attacks here. He has taken credit for other major suicide bombs. But it's very difficult to get precise information on what exactly he's responsible for.

FEYERICK: Getting back just once more to one other poll, and that is that a number of Americans do feel that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Everybody knows that this is not true, though that is sort of the prevailing wisdom.

Do the Iraqi people themselves, do they feel like they got blamed for that on some levels? And is that still sort of a sentiment that exists?

FEYERICK: Absolutely. They feel they've been getting blamed for years. They were blamed for having weapons of mass destruction. They were blamed for harboring al Qaeda operatives. They were blamed for all the sins of their government, is how a lot of Iraqis see the situation.

Now that doesn't mean that they wouldn't -- that the majority would not have wanted this war to take place. That doesn't mean that their sorry that it did take place, that Saddam's gone. Because the bottom line is, if it gets better, even in a couple of years or three years or four year it will, for most people here, have been worth it.

If it doesn't get better, that's a whole other story. But they've never really had much faith in those claims that the U.S. made to justify the war. They have always believed that this was a war to justify U.S. interests, particularly the oil. And it's very hard to convince them otherwise.

MALVEAUX: Jane, speaking of oil, I know there have been numerous attacks against some of those oil facilities. Just how damaging has that been to the people there, either psychologically or economically?

ARRAF: Incredibly damaging. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars a day in lost oil revenue. We're talking about huge pipelines that are very hard to keep safe.

Now, a single explosion has caused the shutdown of one of the major pipelines in the south for days now. It was set on fire. And it's very hard to repair, once that gets started.

So essentially, what we're seeing is not just the loss in revenue, but the fact that these attacks keep happening. And in some places, they're on the rise. In the south, in the north -- and in the north, the head of security for the North Oil Company was assassinated. So that shows you how precarious the security is around the infrastructure, and particularly the vital oil industry. It is a terrible problem, and they're really trying to come to grips with it.

MALVEAUX: The big story was Iraq, but of course it was also competing with the 9/11 terror attacks at the White House this week. I'm back on that story after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: It was an interesting moment at the White House this week. The usual politicking receded. Long-running tensions between President Bush and President Clinton and their families slipped away. President Bush even gave the former president's new book a plug, saying it would soon be available at fine book stores all over America. Very unusual to see the two sides getting along. No partisanship at all. And it didn't last for long, unfortunately.

FEYERICK: (AUDIO GAP) the amount of praise that President Bush heaped on president Clinton. Really, everybody here was watching in awe, I know that. There's a saying if you're enemy is my enemy, than you're my friend.

Was there sort of a dig? Was this another way to put a knife in Kerry? Clearly, Hillary Clinton's political ambitions, perhaps even towards the White House, very well known. What was going on?

MALVEAUX: You know, it was such an unusual moment, really, because you had President Bush telling Clinton, welcome home. You had Chelsea in the audience. You had these jokes, back and forth, really.

And of course there was a lot of speculation about the politics behind all of it. But it seemed as if at that moment, at least, Clinton, as well as Bush, seemed sincere, in saying -- Clinton brought up a good point. He said, At least this shows that we have a system that works, where we can talk to one another, we can debate. Hopefully, it will get back to that point. I mean, really kind of -- I guess, getting to the issue of that -- the fact that there is such partisanship in Washington.

It is a very ugly, intense atmosphere, has been for some time. Both men seemed like they wanted to kind of, at least for the moment, put that aside and say, We can move forward. The cynics, of course, will disagree.

COHEN: Suzanne, the 9/11 commission this week says no al-Qaeda- Iraq link.

What was the president's reaction to that? That was one of the reasons that he put forth for going to war in the first place.

MALVEAUX: Well, absolutely. This was very controversial because the president and vice president, as of just days ago, came our and said that there were strong links, strong ties between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein as well these terrorist organization. They point to links dating back, they say, to a decade. The fact that Zarqawi this al Qaeda terrorist, is still inside Iraq. And they stand by those statements.

However, the 9/11 commission report -- and what's interesting, the commissioners themselves, including Republican, come out and say, Look, that really wasn't significant. You might have had contacts, there might have been some relationships, but it really didn't amount to much of anything.

I think the more important question here is how was it used and that's where you really get into some analysis. You have Bush critics who are saying it was overplayed, that it was overstated, the case that was made. You have people within the administration saying, Well, we -- you know, it was all kind of murky, but we stuck by our claims that yes, these ties were close enough that we felt Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.

ARRAF: Suzanne, that seems to have been held up as gospel, that there were these ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and 9/11, and now that they're being placed in doubt, is that weakening support in any way for this war, or raising any sort of horror about the fact that the U.S. did go to war?

MALVEAUX: Well, certainly, Jane. I mean those questions have reemerged this week very strongly.

And, of course, it is all a part of a campaign, all a part of the election. Who do you believe? Do you believe the bush administration and what they've said? Do you believe that they overstated or exaggerated this relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, to make their case for war? Or do you believe that they were -- they were sincere, and that they did not cross that line?

There are a lot of CIA analysts who say that -- that they did overstate it, that the evidence does not support it. That is a question that many voters, of course, are going to have to decide for themselves. Another very interesting point that came out of the commission report, however, is this alleged link or perceived link, between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. You had talked about that before, that misperception. Again, there were speeches where you talked to the president, talking about the war on terror, the front in Iraq, the front in Afghanistan. To this day, there are still polls that show that as many as 50 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

President Bush this week, as well as others, said, Hey, we never said that, we never made that direct link. You look back at some of the speeches, and there are broad, sweeping generalizations. Some say, Look, you know, you blurred the lines here. Was it intentional? Was it not intentional? Those are the type of things that voters are looking for and they will decide in this election.

COHEN: We're back ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was in the news this week. What's her story? More after this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Kathleen Sebelius is attracting attention. What's her story? The Kansas governor is on a few, very informal lists of possible Democratic vice presidential candidates. The usual rule is, people who know something about John Kerry's running mate are not talking. Those who don't know, make lists.

Sebelius, daughter of a governor and a Democratic winner in a Republican state, is often the only woman linked to vice presidential talk. Aides say she has not been approached. Kansas observers say even getting mentioned bumps up her political standing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Well, thanks to my colleagues, and thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back next week.

Up next, "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," focusing today on Paris Hilton and Janet Jackson.

Coming up right now, a check of the top stories.

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