Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Hotel Blasts in jordan; U.S. Torture Policy Debate; Bush Administration Popularity Problems

Aired November 12, 2005 - 19:00   ET

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

CAROL LIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jordanian security officials confirmed to CNN that the hotel bombings in Amman were the work of al Qaeda and Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The Jordanians believe there were three suicide bombers and a woman.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stopped today in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Earlier this week, she was in Israel and Iraq, but the conference on democracy she sponsored did not go entirely in her favor.

Israelis by the thousands packed Tel Aviv today, remembering Itzak (ph) Rabin 10 years after his assassination. Bill Clinton urged all sides to work toward peace in Rabin's honor. That's what's happening right now in the news. I'm Carol Lin. Next, ON THE STORY, the debate over torture in the war on terror and the latest on this week's suicide bombings in Jordan.

And later, a special edition of "CNN 25," "Entertainment Weekly's" hit list. We are going to take a look at the 25 most important pop culture moments in the past quarter century. That's coming up at 8:00 Eastern. I'm Carol Lin at the CNN center in Atlanta. Now, ON THE STORY.

VICTORIA CLARKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is CNN and we are on the story. From the campus of the George Washington University in the heart of the nation's capital, CNN correspondents with the stories behind the stories they're covering.

Welcome. I'm CNN analyst Torie Clarke. With me here, Jamie McIntyre, Andrea Koppel and Elaine Quijano. All our correspondents will be taking questions from the studio audience drawn from visitors, college students and people across Washington.

Terrorism exploded back on the map this week. Three deadly blasts in the hotel section of Amman, Jordan killed more than 50 people and injured many more. CNN's Brent Sadler was on that story, rushing in by car from Lebanon through Syria to the Jordanian border. Take a look at his reporter's notebook.

BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All land entries into Jordan were blocked by a heavy security clamp down, so I had to spend a couple of hours trying to talk my way into the country and eventually I was able to cross the border and come in and start reporting immediately and haven't stopped. Even here, a lot of vehicles in this area are blaring with their honkers. This is an outpouring that's just broken out in the past hour or so, very often one of the best places to find information and to report what's going on at hospitals.

You have to make your own luck when it comes to this kind of reporting, talking to the families here, you get a real sense of the tragedy that's felt by everybody inside this hospital. Inside here, four-year old Ama Kalani (ph) being attended by his family and this little boy with a piece of shrapnel inside his head. These people have raw emotions, raw anger and you have to make sure that people want to talk to you about their loss, about their grief and about their anger.

CLARKE: Brent, we've got some questions for you here in the audience. Sir, your question and your name.

QUESTION: My name is (INAUDIBLE) I'm from South Korea and going to school in Kansas. My question is, (INAUDIBLE) of the Jordan bombing, many innocent children and civilians were killed. And is it going to hurt al Qaeda's reputation on Jordanian people and also, how it's going to affect the unity of pan-Arabism (ph).

SADLER: I think as far as we're seeing on the ground so far, the anger and rage that was expressed by many Jordanians the possibility of a shift in the court of public opinion if you like here in Jordan that people have felt terrorism, have tasted terrorism in their own backyard. Jordan's been under attack before, but not on this scale. This may change the way people think about Islamism in this country, about the fanatical aspects of the fundamentalist Muslim behavior. This is a debate that's going on now.

In terms of policy, policy will continue I think very strongly here in support of U.S. policy in the region by the kingdom and in terms of the future, were quite clear, clearly the king of Jordan has said, quote, when we Jordanians get mad, we get even.

CLARKE: Thanks Brent. Sir, your name and your question.

QUESTION: I'm Tyler from Salina, Kansas. And I was wondering, from your experience reporting on the bombings in Jordan, do you feel like though the Jordanians have responded with support for the king's policies or in fear that the terrorists are going to start traveling from Iraq to Jordan?

SADLER: Tyler, I think what we've seen so far has been half of the population (INAUDIBLE) population on the streets of the Jordanian capital expressing outrage and anger at the bomb attacks in the heart of the city, but also support for the monarchy. Let's not forget that King Abdullah II is really between a rock and a hard place here. Why, because the bombers were Iraqis, al Qaeda-style terrorists, Iraqis that came into Jordan or were already here. A million Iraqis have sought refuge inside this desert kingdom since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the continuing insurgency there. He's got a real problem here because he's got Iraqis, extremist Iraqis now inside the country prepared to launch suicide attacks inside the kingdom. That's a very big problem. Not all people in Jordan support the U.S. policy by any means and I'm sure there will be a continuing split in society with regards to that issue.

CLARKE: Thanks Brent, one more question from the audience. Your name and your question.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Elizabeth Kingsley from (INAUDIBLE) New York, also a student at the George Washington University. I was wondering, what is the atmosphere like in Jordan right now and how has it affected the people in their daily routine?

SADLER: Elizabeth, there is a great sense here of outrage. People here see the terror attacks in London, in Madrid, in Casablanca, elsewhere. But here in the heart of the Middle East, they felt the pain of explosions, the loss, the heavy loss of life on their own backyard. And as a result of that, that has urged, forced people to think about the way the country should be conducting not only its policies, but the way the institutions of this state behave, particularly towards Islam. And the king here has launched a recent initiative under which he wants to make sure that Islam is not hijacked by terrorists who are committing these atrocious acts, they say in the name of Islam and damaging Muslims throughout the world.

CLARKE: Brent, I know you travel in and out of Jordan quite frequently, something that struck me that I was really surprised about is knowing how many terror warnings we've seen and how many potential attacks have been, plots have been unraveled by the Jordanians. How could they not have security at these four and five-star hotels?

SADLER: Yes, indeed, over the years I've been coming to all these hotels here and if you go to Saudi Arabia for example, you'll see entries there very much guarded. It's very difficult for suicide vehicles to go to the lobby areas outside those big hotels in many Gulf states. Here in Jordan, it's been a much lower scale of overt security and that is bound to change now. We've seen metal detectors being put up in many of the establishments here and I think we're going to see a complete change in the landscape of security for public places here as a result of these attacks.

JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brent, Jamie McIntyre. What struck me about some of the reporting that you've been doing out there is this spontaneous uprising of protests. It seemed to me almost unprecedented in that region of the world. You've been covering it for a long time. Do you recall anything like this where the people just got together and said, you know, we don't want (ph) to take this any more?

SADLER: I think you have to look at it at a couple of levels Jamie. First of all, many of these people are - that are on the streets are obviously very supportive of the monarchy. But I think also I've seen out here many, many, many others representing the types of people who do not normally wave Jordanian flags and go on the streets and express their rage. And it does remind me of spring this year in Beirut where I'm based, of the beginnings of the (INAUDIBLE) revolution where people in Lebanon really took their events, their lives, into their own hands, went to the streets, reached a million people at the height of that social seed (ph) revolution for independence from Syrian control and that reminded me very much of what was going on here, perhaps the beginnings of a grassroots movement to try and eradicate the kind of brand of Islamic extremism that has really torn into society here.

CLARKE: Brent Sadler, thank you very much. We will see you back on the story.

From terrorism in Jordan to questions on how to wage the war against those responsible for terrorist attacks around the globe. Jamie McIntyre is back on the story of whether the U.S. needs a new law to ban torture.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CLARKE: CNN is on the story. The bombings make Jordan the latest front in the war on terrorism. Debate here in the United States this week about setting the rules for that war, whether to put into law an outright ban on torture. CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre is on that story. Take a look at his reporter's notebook.

McINTYRE: The Pentagon officials are pretty sensitive about the issue of torture and abuse. In fact, they take every opportunity to argue that the U.S. military does not torture people and that when prisoners are abused, it's because people have violated policies and guidelines.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R) ARIZONA: This amendment would establish the army field manual as the standard for interrogation.

McINTYRE: Senator McCain, having been a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and when he gets up on the floor of the Senate and says that U.S. troops need to have clear guidelines about what can and can't be done, it carries a lot of weight. One of the things that the military's really concerned about is that, to the extent that they make clear exactly what interrogators can and can't do in the interrogation, they just give the terrorists basically a textbook on how to avoid answering questions.

What if a terrorist knew the location of say a nuclear bomb that was going to go off in an American city and you're the president of the United States. Would you then authorize torture to save perhaps millions of lives if you really believe that that was the only way?

CLARKE: Jamie, we have an audience question.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Ashley Kimmel (ph) from Wilmore (ph), Kentucky. How will cracking down on U.S. torture policies affect our security in the long run?

McINTYRE: Well, the point that the Pentagon is trying to get to is to create a policy in which they treat everyone humanely, but they're still able to use tactics to try to get important information on the war on terrorism. And one of the things they are concerned about is how the U.S. is seen overseas and if there's one place where the Pentagon's had a problem, it's in the perception that the U.S. is not treating people that it detains humanely and to that extent, that the U.S. looks like it's a violator of human rights instead of a supporter of human rights. The Pentagon thinks it's a perception problem. Senator McCain thinks it's because some of the guidance isn't clear enough and that's really where a lot of the tension is.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I was going to ask Jamie, because is there more of a focus on the perception of people overseas now. I was with the president traveling to Latin America and Central America and this was a question that he was asked. He was asked about the report in the "Washington Post" about these secret CIA black sites they call them, where they allegedly hold these detainees and the president said emphatically, we do not torture. But certainly the perception out there by a lot of countries is that the United States engages in this king of behavior. So how much of that entered into the discussion recently?

McINTYRE: Well, one of the things that they're concerned about is, for instance, Senator McCain's bill adopts language that's very close to the Geneva conventions. It talks about prohibiting cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment. Well, one person's degrading treatment might be an acceptable interrogation technique if you're dealing with a really hardcore terrorist who wants to kill a lot of people. At the same time, the U.S. is worried about how that's going to be perceived, how you ensure that people know that the United States is somebody who's standing for the humane treatment. Meanwhile, you're always going to have people who don't follow the guidelines even when they're there and so, what the Pentagon is arguing is that they need to have some flexibility within a certain guideline and Senator McCain and the people who support him on the Hill are saying, look, we understand why the lawyers might want ambiguity. But we think we ought to be very clear about what we permit and what we don't permit.

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: But isn't - I know that studies have been done about this and probably many in our audience have read about these, that say, some say that torture doesn't work, that you don't actually get more, but what you get is the prisoner telling you what you want to hear.

McINTRYE: They do agree with them. That's why the U.S. says it's one of the reasons it doesn't support torture. The army field manual that McCain, Senator McCain wants to make as the standard, doesn't talk about torture. It talks about various psychological techniques, how to sort of encourage people. Interrogators say they -

KOPPEL: Aren't we splitting hairs? Aren't we splitting hairs in some instances of what is the definition of torture?

McINTYRE: Well, you know, any interrogation technique - let's say you make a prisoner stand up for a long time. Well you can carry anyone to an extreme and it can become abusive. I mean, are prisoners entitled to air conditioned, perfectly comfortable rooms? Well, probably not. Can you turn up the heat to the point where they're almost dying? No, you can't. That would be torture. So a lot of them are - they're sort of gray areas.

CLARKE: Jamie, another question from the audience. Your name and your question please.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Kara from Salisbury, Maryland. Many people in today's country feel that the United States is restricting information. Do you feel that the government should further restrict information about prison abuse and such scandals and what effect do you think that would have on the public's view of today's government?

McINTYRE: Well, the Pentagon would argue that they haven't restricted the information, that all of the - many of the abuses, the reason that people know about them, some of it was because of reporting from independent news organizations, but a lot of it was because the Pentagon itself was investigating those cases. Maybe they wouldn't have released the information as quickly or perhaps as fully and certainly they wouldn't have released some of the photographs that were leaked to the press, but their argument is that they would have released this information. On the other hand, there are restrictions about getting information, for instance about the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo (ph) and of the things that (INAUDIBLE) invite the UN in to take a look at the situation, but they told them they couldn't talk to the detainees. So there's some criticism there that maybe they're not allowing all of the information that you could possibly get in order for people to make a judgment about whether they're treating people humanely.

CLARKE: Thanks Jamie. From the Pentagon to politics, should President Bush get credit or blame for election results, especially after his last-minute campaigning in Virginia? CNN's Elaine Quijano is back on that story right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CLARKE: We are on the story here at the George Washington University. CNN's Elaine Quijano is on the move this week, traveling back with President Bush from Central and South America and to his last-minute and unsuccessful attempt to save Virginia's Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore. Here's Elaine's notebook from Panama to Richmond to Washington.

QUIJANO: The thing that we don't see for that minute and a half, two minute live shot is all the prep time that it takes to logistically get to a place and it's something that hopefully isn't always apparent when I'm actually out there reporting.

We're at the first set of locks here on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal and at one point, the president was actually behind me walking along, taking a tour of one of the locks there.

President Bush decided to make a stop in Richmond, Virginia for the Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore. Now it had been a tight race and the thought was that the president could help push Kilgore to win in Virginia. It didn't happen.

SCOTT McCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't think any thorough analysis of the election results will show that the elections were decided on anything other than local and state issues and the candidates and their agendas.

QUIJANO: Certainly some Republicans are nervous with President Bush's approval rating slipped below 40 percent. They're certainly not wanting his poor standing in the public eye to affect them politically.

CLARKE: Elaine, a question from the audience. Sir, your name and your question please.

QUESTION: Hello. My name is Jerry Bass. I'm from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With congressional elections taking place next year, what tactical moves can the Republican party make to combat Bush's low poll ratings and its effects on Tuesday's election?

QUIJANO: Well, that's a good question. What the White House would say is that for instance with the Jerry Kilgore race as we heard Scott say, there were specific local issues, state issues that basically resulted in that loss for Jerry Kilgore. But at the same time, there are certainly the - they're acutely aware at the White House if you will that there is a nervousness among some lawmakers. Obviously, '06 is right around the corner and at this point, they understand they have to come together. There was the failed Harriet Miers nomination in which people within the president's own party turned on him and really there were a lot of bad feelings about that. Now though, the sense is that they're going to regroup. They're going to come together, move on and they don't necessarily feel that this moment in time is going to last.

CLARKE: Elaine, how is it working with the White House staff? You really do work with the staffs in the various places you cover and sometimes they're in good moods and sometimes they're in bad moods and sometimes they feel embattled and they might speak to you more and they might speak to you less. How do you find working them on a daily basis given these tough times?

QUIJANO: Yeah, it's interesting because you definitely notice a shift, when you check in with these officials. You talk to them about what's going on and what to expect in the next day or week and it's interesting to watch the tone change, because obviously this is a difficult time. The White House has been hit with so many difficult challenges. The president's approval ratings as I mentioned and also that the Harriet Miers nomination. Iraq has been something that the administration struggled to deal with. We just passed the recently as you know Jamie, the 2000 milestone, the grim milestone in casualty numbers. So there have been a lot that they've been contending with. At the same time, they're human beings and they understand that we have a job to do as well. So a lot of times what you'll see in the briefing room might seem a little tense and not quite civilized at times. But behind the scenes really we understand, we all have a role to play and it's important for us to ask the question and they understand and they certainly respect that.

KOPPEL: We heard this week, Dan Bartlett, one of the senior advisors to President Bush saying that they succeeded, the Bush administration succeeded in defeating John Kerry because they had a positive agenda. What we heard President Bush this week really go on the attack against Democrats. Why?

QUIJANO: Well, it's interesting to note because the president, you're right, was taking part really in what they call a campaign style strategy really. They're coming out and hitting these democratic criticisms that the administration somehow manipulated intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. They feel that's really below the belt. I mean that's the bottom line here. They don't think that's a fair criticism at all. They say, look, it's one thing to dissent. That's good for democracy. It's good to have different viewpoints. But it's another thing to as we heard President Bush say, rewrite history and that's what they feel is being done here by the Democrats. That's why they're coming out. You're going to continue to hear officials talk about that.

CLARKE: Elaine, an audience question. Your name and your question please.

QUESTION: Candice (INAUDIBLE) from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

CLARKE: Yes.

QUESTION: What role do you think human rights will and should play in President Bush's upcoming trip to China? Will it be an issue on the table?

QUIJANO: Well, it will and in fact, officials say that that is certainly something he's going to bring up at his meetings. And at the same time though, there's a delicate balance that the U.S. has to play. On the one hand of course, the United States wants to raise issues, difficult issues like human rights. On the other, there's a very complicated relationship that needs to be maintained and the two countries are tied very closely. So it's a difficult kind of balance that the president's going to have to strike. But at the same time, this is an administration that understands full well you can't promote democracy and democratic ideals without at the same time holding other countries to task and so the administration is going to speak up. Officials that I talked to said at the same time though, keeping in mind that there are some delicacies that need to be worked out, but it is an issue Andrea.

KOPPEL: If I could make one prediction here. I was the Beijing bureau chief for a few years in China and just before any big presidential visit or secretary of state, usually one or two dissidents are released.

CLARKE: Both of you cover principals, Rice and Rumsfeld who tried very hard to keep politics from affecting what they do or influencing the discussion of what they do. Do you think they're successful or is it getting harder and harder as we get closer to another election year?

McINTYRE: I think Rumsfeld's been pretty successful in divorcing himself from the bigger debate while sort of focusing on what's going on in Iraq. He continues to just sort of focus laser-like on what it's going to take to succeed in Iraq. He keeps repeating the same message over and over again.

KOPPEL: We saw Secretary Rice making another surprise trip to Iraq this week. I think recognizing full well that we've got elections next month. The United States very much wants to get the Sunni minority vested in those elections, also recognizing that the sooner things calm down in Iraq, the sooner American troops can come home, big issue for next year.

CLARKE: And speaking of elections, coming up in Iraq, President Bush carefully avoided one person this week, Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, touring Washington and denying he had provided bad information about weapons of destruction before the Iraq war. CNN's State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel has more on that story in a moment.

We are on the story from the Jordan terror attacks to here in Washington, but CNN is on the story elsewhere this week from Jakarta to London. Take a look.

MIKE CHINOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The country's U.S.-trained counter terrorist forces finally traced (INAUDIBLE) to a small town east of Jakarta. Al Zahari (ph) was believed to have designed the bombs used in the 2002 bombings in the resort island of Bali, the 2003 bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, last year's attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta and last month's second round of bombings in Bali.

RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Parliamentary elections in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan had brought on a national crisis. The government's ruling party new (ph) Azerbaijan came away with a solid majority. The opposition says those results were falsified and is refusing to recognize them.

ROBIN OAKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was Tony Blair's first defeat in the commons since he came to power. Lawmakers rejected his call for the police to be given powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LIN: Good evening, I'm Carol Lin with the headlines. A new "Newsweek" poll has President Bush at his lowest approval ratings. It finds only 36 percent of Americans now think he is doing a good job.

Hundreds marched to remember American troops killed in Iraq. Veterans for Peace gathered on Santa Monica Beach in California today. They carried symbolic coffins and placed crosses on the beach.

And later, CNN 25 "Entertainment Weekly's" hit list. We are going to take a look at what the magazine is calling the 25 most important pop culture moments in the past quarter century. That's coming up at 8:00 Eastern. That's what's happening right now in the news. I'm Carol Lin. Now back to ON THE STORY.

TORIE CLARKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are ON THE STORY here at the George Washington University. It is a dramatic comeback story that played out here in Washington this week. Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi is blamed by some for misleading the United States before the war about Saddam Hussein and WMD, weapons of mass destruction.

Chalabi denies he served bad intelligence. CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel was ON THE STORY. Check out her reporter's notebook.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A couple years ago Ahmed Chalabi was believed to be Iraq's George Washington. That changed. WMD which Ahmed Chalabi yelled loud and clear were in Iraq were never found and then suddenly things went south.

AHMED CHALABI, IRAQI DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: I respond by saying it is always more important to look to the future than the past.

KOPPEL: As one U.S. official put it, why is Ahmed Chalabi here? Well, because he's the deputy prime minister. The fact of the matter is that he also said that you play the hand that you're dealt.

CHALABI: I am very pleased with the reception and the warmth and the welcome that I've received from everyone.

KOPPEL: After two Iraqi elections, suddenly the man is the deputy prime minister. In Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi has proven himself to be an incredibly effective politician. He was effective in the United States before the war and he's been unbelievably effective working the back rooms of Iraqi politics since the war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CLARKE: Andrea, a question from the audience. Your name and your question, please?

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Katie (ph) from North Carolina. Have you found any substantial evidence in your research that indicates Prime Minister Chalabi (ph) gave false information to the administration which affected the decision to go to war?

KOPPEL: Well, he'd like to be prime minister but that is going to be decided next month. Right now he is deputy prime minister and before the war Ahmed Chalabi was saying on television in front of everybody that he knew that there was evidence of WMD in Iraq. He had passed on a lot of this intelligence through other Iraqi exiles. In fact, he was the conduit. He would introduce defectors to the Bush administration, to the CIA and then they would get the information from him, the intelligence from him.

This is a man who really has reinvented himself more than Madonna and I'm being a little flip there and obviously a lot of you are probably fans of Madonna's, but Ahmed Chalabi is someone who knows as you just heard him say there, he wants to look to the future, the past is the past. I don't know how many of you in the audience agree with that.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You would think that somebody like Ahmed Chalabi who was so closely tied with Washington for a while just would have no future as an Iraqi politician given the sentiment in Iraq now. Is he really for really?

KOPPEL: He is for real and one of the things that has come out. One of the reasons why Ahmed Chalabi was persona non grata in Washington after the U.S. invasion was the fact WMD wasn't found and secondly because there were allegations that he had passed intelligence, code-breaking intelligence to Iran. That hasn't been proven, it's under active investigation but Jamie, what he succeeded in doing was making Ahmed Chalabi no longer America's guy so some analysts say that in fact this ongoing investigation has actually boosted Ahmed Chalabi's credibility within Iraq.

CLARKE: That's fascinating.

Andrea, another question from the audience? Your name and your question, please?

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Whitney. I am from Diller, Arizona. Mr. Chalabi is apparently trying to repair his image this week during his DC visits but his White House reception was decided neutral. Can the Bush administration really risk a closer relationship with Mr. Chalabi, especially in light of lagging poll results.

KOPPEL: Whitney, the fact is and one of the things that had upset Democrats so much this past week is that even though Ahmed Chalabi didn't get an audience with President Bush, he has met or is going to meet just about everybody else in the president's Cabinet. He has met with Secretary of State Rice. He is going to meet with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He is going to meet with the treasury secretary and he is probably going to meet with the vice president.

So one of the things that Democrats have said is this is a man who is under active investigation by the FBI for allegedly passing intelligence to Iran. It is OK for U.S. officials, for American diplomats to meet with him, but why are you rolling out the red carpet to Cabinet members.

CLARKE: Andrea, I've got a quick question. What is he like to cover? And by that I mean you've covered lots of American politicians. He seems very western. What is he like to cover as a subject? Do you find him different, the same.

KOPPEL: Ahmed Chalabi is incredibly charismatic. He is fluent in English. He went to MIT. He is incredibly bright. He is an incredibly savvy politician and he loves the media, Torie, so any time you want an interview pretty much with Ahmed Chalabi you can get it.

I don't know if you saw the video of him walking out of the State Department, he went right for the cameras. Some guys are running away. Ahmed Chalabi was right there. So he is a very interesting person to cover.

CLARKE: Fascinating.

All of the stories of the week rippled across the Internet. Our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton is back in a moment ON THE STORY, online, talking to bloggers about what they're saying this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CLARKE: CNN is ON THE STORY here at the George Washington University in the center of the nation's capital and we are ON THE STORY online with our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton. Abbi, what are you seeing on the Internet?

ABBI TATTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're ON THE STORY of those off year elections. Victories for Democrats in governors' races in New Jersey and in Virginia and how the online community is reacting and also playing a role in those victories.

This is my favorite site of the week. The favorite headline. This from the big liberal blogging community, dailykos.com, who said, "Weird. We won. Onward to 2006!"

And there's a lot of analysis on both sides of what happened this week but a lot of looking ahead to 2006, 2008. How are blogs going to play a role? How are Web sites, Internet communities going to play a role in future elections? How are they going to mobilize and fundraise for different candidates and two bloggers are joining us to talk about that this week.

We have Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush. He is joining us via Web cam from Boston, Massachusetts, and also Matt Stoller, he is from bopnews.com, fresh from the Jon Corzine campaign and victory in New Jersey. He is joining us again via Webcam here in Washington, DC.

And Matt Stahler, I'm going to start with you. You headed up the online effort for Jon Corzine's campaign. How do you feel your blog, that Web site, made a difference to that?

MATT STOLLER, BOPNEWS.COM: Well, first of all, it's great to be here but what we did on the Internet is a tremendous amount of listing (ph). That's the most important thing that we were able to do. See how the Internet was responding to our message, to the ideas that Jon Corzine was putting out and then through our blogs were able to give some transparency on the campaign and give people a sense of what was going on at the events, at the meetings, all the little pieces of a political campaign that you don't see in the newspapers and so that's sort of our strategy is giving people a sense of what it was like inside the campaign and why Jon Corzine was running for governor.

TATTON: Matt Margolis, I'm going to turn to you now. Before I do that I just want to show viewers if this picture doesn't look like usually what you see it's because they're joining us via these Webcams attached to their computers so we can talk to them right their at their computers where they blog from.

Matt Margolis, how do you find campaigns are reaching out to you as a blogger? You're not affiliated with any campaign but do you see politicians and their staff reaching out to you?

MATT MARGOLIS, BLOGSFORBUSH.COM: Absolutely. What we're seeing right now is - certainly with me, I'm starting to be getting put on mailing lists from members of Congress and from people's campaigns and they want to reach out to bloggers. Republicans are, I think they're seeing a little bit of a problem getting their message out to the media and so they've decided the blogs were a real big force in 2004 so we need to reach out to them to get our message out. CLARKE: Abbi, you've got a question from the audience. Your name and your question, please.

QUESTION: My name is Sarah Erickson (ph) from Seattle, Washington and with the new popularity of blogs, do you think that campaign strategies will significantly change and if so how?

TATTON: I'm going to refer that straight to Matt Stoller.

STOLLER: Well, thanks. Great question. I don't think they're going to change that dramatically in 2006 because television and direct mail are still the dominant media and in 2008 I think that's actually going to continue to be the case but after 2008 we're going to see blogs and the Internet communities dominate the political discourse and what that means is money is going to become a lot less important in politics because right now money is primarily used to buy television advertising time, so that's a huge change that we're going to see but we're not quite there yet because the numbers aren't there.

TATTON: And Matt Margolis, is it something that's going to grow and grow.

MARGOLIS: I see it growing but I think I agree with Matt that it's going to take a little more time for it to happen. I think we're going to see blogs definitely become a lot more powerful force. Trust in the media is getting lower and lower and people look into the blogs to sort of filter out what they don't trust in the media.

TATTON: Matt Margolis, both of you but starting with Matt Margolis. We see a lot of commentary on blogs. But what are you doing specifically, concrete to help these candidates along?

MARGOLIS: Well, back in 2004, in presidential campaign through my site we were regularly encouraging our readers to go to the campaign Web site, to donate, to volunteer on the local level, show - I see that continuing a lot and I think it's going - right now we're seeing the campaigns actually saying now we're going to go to the blogs. Before it was us telling everyone else to go back to being real campaigns. But now campaigns are start going toward the blogs.

TATTON: Matt Stoller?

STOLLER: Well, what you're seeing on the left is the creation of new communities online whereas on the right there's a lot more of an attempt to get message out through the blogs, so that's kind of what we're seeing or what I was seeing through the Corzine campaign.

So yeah, that's what I would say.

CLARKE: It's a very different world. Thanks, Abbi. Coming up we turn the table. The journalists get to ask me, the analyst, questions about the week. We're back ON THE STORY after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MCINTYRE: We're ON THE STORY and "On the Spin." CNN analyst Torie Clarke is a regular here on the CNN and the former Pentagon spokeswoman has her opinion about how journalists differ from analysts and how there is a role for both. Here is Torie's ON THE STORY briefing file.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CLARKE: I think a journalist thinks or really should think I'm here to inform, to educate, sometimes to expose, try to present both sides of a story, help readers come to their own conclusions.

An analyst is probably trying to put more of cast on it, trying to put more of person opinion on subjects.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Joining us now, to CNN political analysts, Torie Clarke, a former Pentagon ...

CLARKE: I'm not an overly partisan person. I'm not a -

For me it's more understanding. More understanding, more awareness, more education about an issue or event or a person.

Certainly when I was at the Pentagon, very, very serious issues that required and demanded a level of responsibility, a level of sensitivity beyond almost anything else. So that was always foremost in my mind as something that was important and I pushed that home if I thought it was appropriate.

I love lots of people in the news media but they tend not to be very good at admitting mistakes or broadcasting that they made mistakes, they should do that because it would help them with their credibility and would help them move forward.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: Torie Clarke, what questions do you have for us ON THE STORY?

CLARKE: I'm fascinated by the blogs and the bloggers and the influence of blogs. I would like to ask each of you how have blogs impact the work you do?

QUIJANO: It's easy. On my beat it's like wildfire. The second something appears on a blog, it can drive your day.

Now we have a sense when we see something on a certain blog we don't pay quite as much attention or perhaps we understand where that might be heading or there's a different approach to it but in other times if an item on a blog reaches multiple blogs and it's only 7:00 a.m. then you know it's going to be a long day. So certainly it has shaped the way we do things and the other thing, to is the instantaneous feedback. It's a very odd feeling to know that the minute you get off the air someone can be blogging about the way you phrased a question, a rhetorical question or you raised an eyebrow. It's a different atmosphere.

MCINTYRE: I think for me the blogs are more of a tip service than a news source. That means you might be come aware of something you need to check out from the blog but you certainly don't take your information directly from there.

But on the other hand, some of these people are spending a lot of time looking up stuff and they can definitely point you in the right direction.

CLARKE: Sure. Some are good sources, some are bad. I always thought in the national security and defense matters, people, even the bloggers, try to be a little bit more careful, most of them.

The international community is drawn closer and closer together because of these blogs. How does it affect the diplomatic work that you cover?

KOPPEL: Well, the Syrian ambassador to the United States set up his own blog. He started it last April and it's basically talking about what life is like to be a member of not the official Axis of Evil but certainly a country that's on the U.S. blacklist and he's got pictures of his wife, he's got his family vacation, he's got his daily routine, he's an art lover so he's got picture of ...

CLARKE: The softer side of Syria.

KOPPEL: The softer side of Syria.

MCINTYRE: You certainly know this covering the military beat that this is the first war where you haven't had to rely on official news media to find on what's going on because every soldier - not every soldier, many of them have their own blogs, they're putting their own personal thoughts in and you have to be careful because they do see only a small slice of what's going on but on the other hand that small slice they see has a lot of verisimilitude.

CLARKE: And many organizations, agencies, private sector, are struggling with blog policies. What should their employees be allowed to do on company time, off company time? Do you think in the next few years we'll see standards for blogs where there are standards for journalists?

MCINTYRE: The interesting thing about the blog community is credibility is the coin of the realm there just like in the mainstream media and if you have a blog and it's not reliable and it seems to be very agenda driven it doesn't get as much credibility. There is a sort of self-policing and pride that goes on there about wanting to be taken seriously so they have do serious things.

KOPPEL: I was just going to say I think the beauty of the blog is the fact that you can have one person with their ideas out there, that they have a forum, they feel they have a forum. If you don't like it, don't log on it, don't blog on it, rather, go to another site.

I'm kind of curious, how many of you, by raising your hands, blog? How many of you are regular bloggers and pay attention to what we do. That's pretty good. CLARKE: Coming up a look at what's ON THE STORY for us next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CLARKE: Keep yourself ON THE STORY at cnn.com. Our Web site tells you about the panel, the topics and how to get tickets to join our audience and let's take a quick look ahead ON THE STORY for next week. Jamie?

MCINTYRE: Military commissions in Guantanamo. Terrorist suspects on trial - first since World War II, a federal judge can delay but first I'll be ON THE STORY in Cuba covering that.

CLARKE: Great. Andrea?

KOPPEL: Secretary Rice is in the Middle East and she'll be hooking up with President Bush so while I'm in Washington I'm going to do a story about the man who just won the New York City Marathon. This came in. He used to get food aid from the World Food Program and credits them with where he is today.

CLARKE: Wow.

QUIJANO: President Bush headed to Asia and he'll be talking trade and bird flu, among other things but in the meantime look for administration officials to really kind of continue hitting back hard on the Democrats' criticism about prewar intelligence.

CLARKE: Great. And I will be ON THE STORY with my seven-year- old talking to him about his less than wonderful grades in second grade.

MCINTYRE: Second grade is crucial.

CLARKE: Thanks to my colleagues and our audience here at the George Washington University and thank you for watching ON THE STORY. We'll be back each week Saturday night, Sunday afternoon.

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