Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Is It Too Late for Daniel Pearl?; Did U.S. Forces Make Deadly Mistake in Afghanistan?
Aired February 01, 2002 - 17:00 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.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: is it too late? A chilling message on the fate of kidnapped journalist, Daniel Pearl.
Did U.S. commandos make a deadly mistake in Afghanistan? The military opens an investigation.
Targeting the "axis of evil, or risky rhetoric?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We have to not just look at terrorists. We have to look at those states that provide them aid and support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And, an interview conducted with Osama bin Laden after the September 11th attacks. Why was it kept under wraps for so long?
Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. It's been a day of wrenching emotions in the case of kidnapped "Wall Street Journal" reporter, Daniel Pearl. And that tops our news alert. There are conflicting reports this hour on his fate. An e-mail to news organizations from a Pakistani group claims that Pearl has been killed. Police in Karachi, Pakistan, report a group is demanding $2 million for Pearl's release. We'll have much more on this story in a moment.
The U.S. military is opening an investigation into a raid by American commandos on a suspected terrorist compound in Afghanistan. At issue is whether friendly Afghans were killed in the action last month. The attack took place at a remote area north of Kandahar. Locals say many of the victims were loyal to the new interim Afghan government.
U.S. officials now say there is no specific threat against nuclear facilities in this country. Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent a confidential memo to power plants warning of possible terrorist attacks. Today officials stressed that the plants are safe.
President Bush unveils a plan aimed at protecting the retirement savings of American workers. His remarks today come in the wake of the collapse of the Enron energy company. Many Enron workers lost their life savings when the company filed for bankruptcy in December.
And now back to our top story, the fate of kidnapped "Wall Street Journalist" correspondent, Daniel Pearl. This hour, officials here and in Pakistan are trying to sort out two conflicting reports. One claims Pearl has been killed. The other, from Pakistan police, that a group is demanding $2 million for Pearl's release.
Earlier, Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, appealed to Pearl's kidnappers to release him immediately. CNN's Ben Wedeman is covering the latest developments in Karachi, Pakistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Reports continue to be conflicting. On the one hand, a telephone call reportedly received by the U.S. consulate here the Karachi from a caller demanding $2 million and the release of the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, in return for the release of the "Wall Street Journal" reporter, Daniel Pearl. The other claim coming in the form of this e- mail that I'm showing you right now, claiming from the kidnappers that they have killed Daniel Pearl.
Now, I must stress that neither of these can be confirmed at this point. Pakistani police apparently are in fact following up on this very urgently. The e-mail says that Mr. Bush can find Mr. Pearl's body in the graveyards in Karachi.
Now, we have learned from Pakistani police that they are in fact at this moment beginning a search of those graveyards. However, there are more than 300 graveyards in this city, so this could take a very long time to confirm. And now this follows just a little more than 24 hours after the extension of the deadline from the kidnappers for the United States to meet their demands. They said if those demands were not met within one day, they would kill Mr. Pearl.
Now, Jim, I must stress however, that neither of these can be confirmed. For all we know at this point, they could both be hoaxes. Certainly we hope so, and definitely in the case of this e-mail. However at this point we're going to have to wait for more information from the authorities here in Karachi.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And joining us now to talk more about the fate of Daniel Pearl, our national security correspondent, David Ensor. David, what are you hearing from your sources here in Washington?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, first, one minor correction to what we just heard reported. Since that report was filed I've heard from U.S. officials. In fact, the call about the $2 million ransom was received by the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, not the consulate in Karachi.
But the U.S. officials who are looking at the e-mail and at this call are expressing some hope and some skepticism about both of these two things. On the call they note that the caller didn't even say where the money was supposed to go to, and didn't sort of complete the transaction, in effect, so they're quite skeptical about that.
On the e-mail also, they note that some of the previous messages, some of them in the past, have included photographs of Danny Pearl to show that they, in fact, are coming from the holders of the hostage. This one does not. Of course, there is at least one other that didn't as well.
They also note that the spelling is better this time. It looks as if it's different. So there's at least some skepticism that this note comes from those who are really holding Daniel Pearl. And some hope, at least among U.S. officials, that he may still be alive.
BLITZER: All of us hope he is alive, as well. Thank you very much, David Ensor, for that report.
For several days, we have brought you the latest on the Daniel Pearl, the kidnapped journalist in Pakistan. Now, we want to share with you what we know about Daniel Pearl, the person -- how he got his start in our business, and some people who are very important to him. CNN's Brian Cabell has that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The man behind that now famous, but frightening image, the photograph of a hostage with a gun to his head, was born 38 years ago in Princeton, New Jersey. Daniel Pearl, a bright young man, graduated Stanford University with a degree in communications. Journalism was his calling. He returned to the Northeast to begin his career.
GRIER HORNER, FORMER EDITOR, "BERKSHIRE EAGLE": He was such a sharp kid that you knew he was going places.
CABELL: He joined the "Berkshire Eagle" in Massachusetts in 1988. He won an award for a story the following year.
CLARENCE FANTO, MANAGING EDITOR, "BERKSHIRE EAGLE": The way he interviewed people and the way he wrote stories made it clear that he was destined for the big leagues.
CABELL: And the big leagues it was. "The Wall Street Journal" hired him in 1990, and for the last decade, he has seen the world. He was first headquartered in Atlanta, then Washington, then overseas to London, then to Paris, where he met his wife, Marianne.
MARIANNE PEARL, DANIEL PEARL'S WIFE: We are two people who met and fell in love because we have the same ideal. And all my life, all his life and our life together is just a big effort to try to create dialogue between civilizations.
CABELL: His next stop was the Indian city of Mumbai, better known as Bombay. He arrived there in December of 2000, and his most recent articles for the "Journal" dealt with the increasing tensions between India and Pakistan. He was in Karachi, working on a story on the Islamic militant underground, when he was kidnapped on January 23rd.
Initially, his captors claimed he was an agent for the CIA.
RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Mr. Pearl is a respected journalist. He has no connection with our government.
CABELL: Later, his captors claimed Pearl worked for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. His colleagues at "The Wall Street Journal" called the charges unfounded. Pearl, they said, is a top- flight journalist, nothing more.
PAUL STEIGER, MANAGING EDITOR, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": This is a man who lives for three things. He lives for covering stories accurately, he lives for his wife -- they have a wonderful relationship -- and he lives for his unborn child.
CABELL: His wife is six months pregnant with their first child. Brian Cabell, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And I'll have more on Daniel Pearl's fate during this hour, when I talk to a former member of the National Security Council here in Washington, as well as CNN's chief news executive.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, an investigation into friendly fire is under way. Did U.S. forces mistakenly kill Afghan allies during a commando raid last month in Afghanistan? CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, has been covering that story. She joins us now with more -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Wolf.
Well, this is a story where and every day a little more information appears to be coming out. Now, on Wednesday the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the military was looking into the whole matter. But we were told later that's an investigation with a small eye. It was a bit casual, a bit off-hand.
Today we have found out that General Tommy Franks, the head of Central Command, the man running the war in Afghanistan, has appointed a high-level senior military official to launch a formal investigation into this incident. This is the January 24th raid by U.S. special forces, U.S. commandos, against a suspected enemy compound north of Kandahar.
A senior military official tells us that General Franks ordered the investigation in part based on the feedback he had gotten from the U.S. commandos who staged the raid. Right after the raid, problems began to emerge. Local Afghans said that anti-Taliban, pro-government forces had been killed in this raid. The Pentagon initially said that wasn't so, then they said they were looking into it. And now of course, General Franks has launched this very high-level, very senior military investigation. We're also told that General Franks called Hamid Karzai, the head of the interim government, and said he was doing this, that he had questions, General Franks, about whether the raid went the way the U.S. military intended it to -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you very much.
The collapse of Enron was a sobering wake-up call for many Americans who put money away in their 401(k) accounts. It's also prompting President Bush to propose new ways to protect the retirement savings of American workers. CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace has been looking at the plan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): To show his administration is responding quickly to the Enron collapse, President Bush used a Republican retreat in West Virginia to announce ways to give workers more control over their retirement savings.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My man will strengthen the workers' ability to manage their own retirement funds by giving them more freedom to diversify.
WALLACE: Mr. Bush wants the 42 million workers who participate in 401(k)s and pension plans to be able to diversify their portfolios after three years, and says executives should be barred from selling company's stock during so-called blackout periods, when employees are barred from doing so.
BUSH: It's OK for the sailor, it ought to be OK for the captain.
WALLACE: But would the president's ideas have helped the Enron employees from losing their life savings? Actually, probably not very much. An analysis for CNN has found that Enron employees were free to sell 89 percent of their stock at any time, except the blackout period this fall, when the stock had already fallen from a high around $90 per share, to just over $15.
In addition, the analysis found that no Enron senior officer or director sold a single share of stock during the blackout period. Workers' rights activists say Mr. Bush's plan is more about PR than policy.
KAREN FRIEDMAN, PENSION RIGHTS CENTER: I don't think there's a single provision in the administration's proposal that would have stopped Enron from happening, and prevent future Enrons from happening.
WALLACE: What's needed, Friedman and others say, are new laws preventing employees from holding too much of their company's stock. Analysts say the president's proposals are definitely a political response to the Enron debacle.
AMY WALTER, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: What this does for Republicans and for Bush is to say to the American public, look, we understand that you are hurting, we understand the problems of average Americans who have 401(k)s.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Aides say this is not about politics, but about governing. Still advisers here know the president's ideas can help alter a perception that analysts say has gotten worse with the Enron story, and that is that Republicans are too close to corporations, as opposed to rank and file workers -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Kelly Wallace at the White House, thank you very much. And the country will soon hear from the man at the center of the Enron controversy. Ken Lay, the company's former chairman, is scheduled to testify next week before a Congressional hearing here in Washington. Senator Byron Dorgan will be chairing that hearing. He joins me now live for a preview. Senator, thanks so much for joining us.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Let's set the stage. Ken Lay will testify Monday before your panel?
DORGAN: Yes, he will, at 9:30 Monday. And he will be the only witness, who will be spending a great deal of time in that hearing.
BLITZER: And he's agreed to testify and not take the fifth?
DORGAN: He has. His attorney has indicated that he will be there. They have not asked for immunity. They have not indicated that he will do anything other than present testimony and answer questions.
BLITZER: What we've heard from some of his associates is that he's anxious to win the battle of public opinion. Had he asked though for immunity, do you think your committee would have granted him immunity?
DORGAN: Well, he didn't ask so we didn't confront that question. Look, he needs to tell his story. This is a tragedy for many. Many have lost their life savings. And in this circumstance, there will be corporations going bankrupt today. But this is no garden-variety bankruptcy. The people at the top made millions, and the people at the bottom lost their shirts. So there's a lot to answer for.
And there are a lot of questions about the system by which we accumulate capital here. You know, accountants, can you trust the accounting profession? Can you trust corporations' financial statements? This will be a long and difficult hearing. There's no joy in conducting it, but we have to get to the bottom of it.
BLITZER: We heard from his wife a certain explanation that may or may not eventually ring true -- namely, that he was out of the loop. He didn't really know what was happening underneath him.
DORGAN: I don't know what we will hear from him on Monday. You know, we want to hear from Mr. Lay. We also want to hear from Mr. Skilling, the former CEO, and Mr. Fasto, the chief financial officer, who put all of this together. I mean, this is a case about putting together 3,000 partnerships off the books, it's about booking income that they didn't really receive, creating billions of dollars of debt that didn't show up on the books.
You know, there are just so many questions. The question is, who was running things? Who made decisions about this? And then you get into further questions, who authorized the shredding of documents? There's just a lot to do here, and on behalf of the employees -- last evening, by the way, just before I retired, one of the last letters I read was from a constituent of mine who was also an Enron employee, who said I had savings worth $300,000, a life savings. You know what it's worth now? $1,700. It was all in Enron stock.
BLITZER: Unfortunately we've heard a lot of Enron employees. I interviewed someone a couple weeks ago who said they had a $2 million 401(k) that's worth maybe $3,000 right now. Very heart-wrenching stories, which is going to force you to get to the bottoms. Not only you, but all the investigators, the members of the Senate, the House, who are investigating this, the Justice Department task force, to explain to the American public what happened. How do you do that?
DORGAN: Well, I mean, what we've got are several lines of inquiry. First we have to hear from all these people. And Mr. Lay is the first step.
BLITZER: Are on that point, were you surprised he didn't ask to say that he was going to take the fifth, given the fact that anything he says before your committee Monday can and will be used, presumably, against him, in a whole bunch of civil or criminal proceedings?
DORGAN: Well, I don't know if I was surprised. I kind of expected some conditions that might be requested, but none were requested. I don't think we would have provided any in any event. But you know, we need to hear from the key people. And then we also need to take apart these partnerships. We need the information. Who were the investors in these partnerships? How did they relate to one another?
I mean, there's a great shroud of secrecy here, and you know what? This company, the Enron corporation, still isn't cooperating. We've sent them registered letters. We've said we must have all of this information. And yet we don't have the information about these partnerships. So there's a great curtain of secrecy, and we're going to get to the bottom of this at some point.
And it's not because we love investigating. It's because the investors, the employees, the American people deserve to know what happened. The people at the top made millions, and the people at the bottom lost their life savings.
BLITZER: Senator, you're a Democrat and you're going to be chairing this hearing. A lot of people will be watching on Monday. How do you avoid it becoming a political issue, given the ties that Enron had with both parties, but especially the Republican Party and some associations with people in the White House? DORGAN: Well, you know, I understand there's a barrel full of politics being discussed about this. But it's not political in my judgment. And my questions will have nothing to do with politics. I'm not interested in where this string leads. What I'm interested in is what happened, how it happened, who should be held accountable. I'll let others evaluate the politics, but I'm not going to be involved in that.
This really is at the root of how we accumulate capital in this country. If you can't trust accountants and corporations, people won't buy shares of stock. So we have a lot at stake here. But as I said, this is the largest bankruptcy in American history. And the more -- I've gone through 41 boxes of material -- the more I've seen of this, the more it smells. That's something dreadfully wrong in what happened inside this corporation. The question is, who allowed it to happen, how did it happen and who is going to be held accountable?
BLITZER: All right. Senator, you'll chairing that hearing 9:30 Monday morning. Ken Lay will appear. A lot of people will be watching, including CNN. We'll be having extensive live coverage, I'm sure. Thank you so much.
DORGAN: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Appreciate it.
And President Bush says three countries are the "axis of evil," but is the name-calling a mistake? Could it backfire?
The televised interview with Osama bin Laden: why it's not playing on Arab satellite television.
And what keeps the Super Bowl fans glued? Coming up: a flashback to the football ads.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. President bush is back on the offensive today, firing more tough words at countries he calls the "axis of evil," Iraq, Iran and North Korea. He did not mention them by name, but his message was clear in remarks at a Republican Party retreat in West Virginia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The best way to secure the homeland for the long run is to get them. Get them where they hide, get them where they train, and bring them to justice. And you just need to know something about your president. I'm not going to weary on this subject, like I said in my first speech in September after the war
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All three countries, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, have denounced the president's "axis of evil" comment, which we first heard Tuesday in his State of the Union address. Other critics have also joined in, saying the president went too far, particularly by lumping North Korea and Iran with Iraq.
Joining us now to talk more about this is Anthony Blinken. He's a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, a former staff member of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.
Tony, thanks for joining us. Was it a mistake for the president to lump all these of these countries in the same axis of evil?
ANTHONY BLINKEN, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: He was right to say that each of them poses a real threat to our interests. But the solutions that we need to apply may be different in each case. Iraq, beyond the pail, there's nothing much to do except take a very tough line. There's no negotiation with Saddam Hussein.
Iran, on the other hand, their diplomats were very helpful in Afghanistan and helping to build support for the interim government. And there are two Irans. One that's trying to moderate, and the Iran one of the clerics, which is radical. We have to differentiate between the two.
And as to North Korea, the Clinton administration had some success in using economic engagement, political engagement backed by the threat of force, to get them to freeze their dangerous nuclear program. That kind of engagement could work with North Korea again.
BLITZER: The Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said this earlier today, and I'll put it up on the screen: "I think it was a big mistake to lump those three countries together. They are very different from each other. Clearly with Iraq, we have been trying to contain Saddam Hussein since 1991, and I wish the job had been finished."
But when you say there's nothing left to do with Iraq right now, there's a lot left to do, as far as some of the hawks in the Bush administration are concerned.
BLINKEN: Well, by nothing left to do, I mean, you can't negotiate with Saddam. What we can do is try and ratchet up the pressure on him. Indeed, I think the message of the president's speech was really directed not so much at Iraq or Iran or North Korea, it was directed at Paris, at Moscow, at Beijing and Berlin.
And it was telling those countries, look, you have to get with the program and help us ratchet up the pressure now, or watch us have no recourse but military action later without you. The Bush administration wants to get these friendly countries, allies, partners, to help us build pressure on these rogue regimes.
BLITZER: You say there are two voices coming out of Iran. A lot of experts say there are two voices, President Khatami, as well as the Ayatollah -- two very different kinds of voices. But I was at the White House earlier this week and had a briefing from a senior administration official who's not convinced. Who seems to believe that there may be a good cop, bad cop game going on, as far as Iran is concerned.
BLINKEN: Well, talk to our diplomats who are in Afghanistan. Without the Iranians, it would have been very hard to get a lot of these warlord to support the interim government. And Iran pledged something like half a billion dollars to Afghanistan's reconstruction. So it may be a good cop, bad cop routine, but good cops are kind of useful. The question is, can we find a way to support them at the expense of the radical clerics?
If you look at Iran, the United States is widely popular there. There are demonstrations in support of America. It's probably the only Arab or Islamic country where America is popular, unlike Egypt or Saudi Arabia. We ought to be building on that sentiment, and not marginalizing moderates by ratcheting up the rhetoric.
BLITZER: Charles Krauthammer wrote a column in "The Washington Post," which you probably read this morning. Let me read this brief excerpt. "Bust's three bad guys -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- are ideologically well chosen. All are heirs to the totalitarianism of the 20th century. (Hence "axis of evil." Axis: fascism/Nazism. Evil empire: Soviet Communism.) North Korea is more Stalinish than Stalin. Iran is the Soviet Union in pre-Gorbachevian foment. And Iraq is a Hitlerian Germany, a truly mad police state with external ambitions and a menacing arsenal."
BLINKEN: Look, he's certainly right about Iraq. He's certainly right about part of Iran. And of course, North Korea is also problematic. But the question is, what do you do about it and how can you be effective in advancing America's interests? With Iraq, we've got to be tough. We've got to get our friends and allies to go along.
But with Iran, I really do think that there's an opportunity to try and build up the moderates. And ratcheting up the rhetoric in the way that the president did may not be the most effective way to go. With North Korea, engagement backed by the threat of force has worked in the past. It can work again at probably a lesser cost than confronting them militarily.
BLITZER: Tony Blinken, thanks for joining us.
BLINKEN: Thank you.
BLITZER: Appreciate it.
And this note, the national security adviser to the president, Condoleezza Rice, will be among my guests Sunday on "LATE EDITION." That's at noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific.
And now checking these stories on today's "Newswire": Amtrak is eliminating about 1,000 jobs, or 4 percent of its workforce. The move comes after a government report concluded Amtrak can't become self- sufficient by the December deadline set by Congress. Amtrak says its revenue is lower because of the recession and more security costs since September 11th. A winter storm's double-blast of ice and snow is moving from the Midwest into New England. More ice fell overnight in parts of Michigan, prompting power outages in tens of thousands of homes. The storm is blamed for four deaths in the state.
And snow, sleet and freezing rain are falling throughout Maine today. The bad weather forced early closure of the state's government offices. It also affected flights. Up to a foot of snow is expected.
In a moment: Osama bin Laden's sit-down interview after September 11th. Why didn't it surface earlier?
And later: rushing to the scene of the September attacks. Why Washington fire crews were able to benefit from a previous air tragedy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: And turning now to an extraordinary interview with Osama bin Laden, one that had not been broadcast until CNN aired it last night. The interview was conducted by the Arab television network Al-Jazeera in late October. Al-Jazeera has not shown it, saying it was not newsworthy. CNN obtained a copy and decided to air parts of the one-hour interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Late October, in the only television interview with Osama bin Laden since the September 11 attacks, broadcast here for the first time, he makes clear the war of terror is not finished.
OSAMA BIN LADEN, TERRORIST SUSPECT (through translator): The battle has moved inside America. We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory, or until we meet God.
BLITZER: And he paints a grim picture for life under his terror threat.
BIN LADEN: I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people and the West in general into an unbearable hell and a choking life.
BLITZER: The interview with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Kabul reporter for the Arabic language Al-Jazeera television network. It took place just before the U.S. and its allies began their final rout of the Taliban, before bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership fled for their lives.
The reporter's first question, about bin Laden's role September 11.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America claims it has convincing evidence of your collusion in the events in New York and Washington. What is your answer?
BIN LADEN: America has made many accusations against us and many other Muslims around the world. Its charge that we are carrying out acts of terrorism is unwarranted.
BLITZER: That may sound like a denial, but listen to what he says only moments later.
BIN LADEN: If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.
BLITZER: A slightly different translation was quoted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech to parliament last November.
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Bin Laden himself said on October the 20 in an broadcast videotape that, and I quote, ``If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists.'' Mr. Speaker, they are terrorists and history will judge them as such.
BLITZER: Blair's speech is evidence that copies of this videotape have circulated for some time in intelligence circles on both sides of the Atlantic, though until now it has never been seen in public. Intelligence sources tell CNN the U.S. government independently obtained the interview shortly after it was completed.
CNN obtained this copy of the tape from a non-governmental source.
(on camera): Al-Jazeera says it does not know precisely where the interview was taped. It has not aired the tape. Early on, the network even denied its existence. It says it was offered the chance to do the interview in person after the news organization submitted written questions to bin Laden, including some questions from CNN.
But CNN did not know about the taping until a ``New York Times'' story revealed the interview's existence.
In a December statement to CNN, Al-Jazeera said it did not air the interview because it did not meet its standards and was not newsworthy.
In the interview, bin Laden was asked directly whether he's responsible for the anthrax attacks in the United States and elsewhere, but his answer is vague.
BIN LADEN: These diseases are a punishment from God and a response to oppressed mothers' prayers in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and everywhere.
BLITZER: The reporter seems to have a professional rapport with bin Laden and even interrupts him to ask questions, as in this exchange.
BIN LADEN: We kill the kings of the infidels, kings of the crusaders and civilian infidels in exchange for those of our children they killed. This is permissible in Islamic law, and logically...
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So what you're saying is this is a type of reciprocal treatment -- they kill our innocents, so we kill their innocents?
BIN LADEN: So we kill their innocents. And I say it's permissible in Islamic law and logic.
BLITZER: This tape is different from a series of taped addresses bin Laden delivered to Al-Jazeera. During this one hour interview, bin Laden ridicules White House requests to the U.S. news media to show discretion in broadcasting those addresses.
BIN LADEN: They made hilarious claims. They said that Osama's messages have codes in them to the terrorists. It's as if we were living in the time of mail by carrier pigeon, when there were no phones, no travelers, no Internet, no regular mail, no express mail and no electronic mail. I mean these are very humorous things. They discount people's intellects.
BLITZER: Bin Laden himself discounts the possibility of the defeat of his forces. Remember, this was late October, before the street celebrations that marked the fall of Kabul, well before the new head of Afghanistan's interim government was saluted at President Bush's State of the Union address.
BIN LADEN: We believe that the defeat of America is possible with the help of God and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was.
BLITZER: To back that up, bin Laden cites the 1993 U.S. experience in Somalia, when 18 U.S. special operations forces were killed during a raid against a warlord faction in Mogadishu.
BIN LADEN: Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested the Americans and together with some of the Somali Mujahedeen, God granted them victory. America exited, dragging its tails in failure, defeat and ruin.
BLITZER: These words, evidence of bin Laden's miscalculation. Throughout the tape, bin Laden appears confident of success, confident of victory. He apparently did not foresee that within days he would be running for his life.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And Al-Jazeera issued the following statement: "Al- Jazeera refuses to appear on CNN to discuss its unaired interview with Osama bin Laden. Al-Jazeera denounces the fact that CNN resorts to such illegal ways to obtain this tape. Al-Jazeera would have expected CNN to use its judgment and respect its special relationship with Al- Jazeera by not airing material that Al-Jazeera itself chose not to broadcast. Al-Jazeera does not feel it is obligated to explain its position and its reasoning of why it chose not to air the interview. Al-Jazeera will nonetheless respond to CNN's airing of the interview using its own means and its own ways.
"Furthermore, Al-Jazeera will sever its relationship with CNN and will take the necessary action to punish the organizations and individuals who stole this video and distributed it illegally." And joining us now with more on this is CNN's president for news gathering, chief news executive Eason Jordan.
Eason, any additional follow-up from Al-Jazeera since we first aired this interview last night?
EASON JORDAN, CNN CHIEF NEWS EXECUTIVE: Well, Wolf, there are a couple of things.
First, the editor in chief of Al-Jazeera, my counterpart, is in New York today attending the World Economic Forum. And he addressed this issue at great length with a lot of journalists in the room. He said basically what we have heard before. And that is that the interview was not newsworthy, the correspondent was not ready for the interview and therefore Al-Jazeera decided not to air it.
Now, clearly, you have seen the report. There were very newsworthy comments in that report. And we felt CNN did the right thing in airing those comments. And we felt, once the interview was in our hands, we had to transmit it. There has been some other discussion with Al-Jazeera today about the Al-Jazeera decision to sever the relationship. And if that's the way Al-Jazeera wants to go forward, then so be it.
BLITZER: What about the point they made that this was Al-Jazeera property and that we here at CNN used it illegally?
JORDAN: Well, CNN has a contract with Al-Jazeera. It is very clear. The contract entitles CNN to use all Al-Jazeera material regardless of whether or not it is televised. In this case, we asked for the tape. Al-Jazeera would not give us the tape.
In fact, we were misled on multiple occasions about whether or not the tape even existed, whether the interview ever took place. Finally we did get our hands on the interview -- a source not affiliated with Al-Jazeera, not a government source, not an intelligence agency source. But we did get our hands on that interview. And we felt that once that it was in our hands, we had a journalistic obligation to share it with our viewers.
BLITZER: And any seconds thoughts now that it's been almost 24 hours since we did that?
JORDAN: None whatsoever.
BLITZER: The reaction has been pretty significant. And our decision, as you can tell, that it was newsworthy was underlined by the fact by so many other news organizations have been reporting about this interview or carrying this interview itself. It sort of reinforces the CNN decision, which, of course, you and many others made to go forward and to at least air some of the interview.
Tell our viewers, Eason, since you are very familiar with the whole one-hour interview what we didn't air and why.
JORDAN: Well, it is about 55 minutes long, the entire interview, at least what was shared with us.
There were a number of other questions and answers there. But we feel like we have selected the truly newsworthy elements of the interview. I don't want to go into detail about what else is there, because this -- we don't want to give a platform to Osama bin Laden to go on for an hour about terrorism and his efforts. And we feel like this man is a professed, confessed mass murderer, at least in inciting mass murder on September 11 and perhaps on other occasions.
We don't feel like we want to give him an unfiltered outlet on CNN. And, so, therefore, we chose what we believed was newsworthy. And we are going to leave the rest away from CNN.
BLITZER: Eason, while I have you, let me bring up the case of "The Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl, who has been kidnapped in Karachi, Pakistan. It is your job to dispatch our correspondents -- Ben Wedeman, for example, in Karachi right now.
Take our viewers through your decision-making process, when to send a reporter to a dangerous area.
JORDAN: Well, first, Wolf, let me just express my thoughts and prayers on behalf of everyone at CNN for the family, for the friends, for the colleagues of Danny Pearl. He is a superb journalist. He is absolutely innocent of any alleged wrongdoing. And we hope and pray that he will survive this and escape this captivity.
Every day, news organizations, especially CNN, are deploying people in dangerous places. Every day, a person in my place, other executives at CNN, dread a phone call ringing in the middle of night with some horrific news. We have gone through terrible times at CNN. We lost seven people in Somalia. Afghanistan, already eight journalists have been killed there in 2001.
We go to extremes to make sure that we send the right people to the right places, that we send only volunteers, that we send people, who, in most cases, have gone through training in how to work in war zones, how to work in dangerous situations. But there are no guarantees, Wolf. We have bodyguards now more than ever for our correspondents in hot spots. It is regrettable that it has come to that, but there are just no guarantees in life.
And, unfortunately, I think we saw several dozen journalists killed last year in the field of action. And, you know, we very much hope that that can be reduced, if not eliminated altogether. But clearly, right now Pakistan is a very, very dangerous place.
BLITZER: Eason Jordan, CNN's president for news gathering and a good friend, thanks so much for joining us.
JORDAN: Thank you, Wolf.
And, of course, we echo what he said about Daniel Pearl.
And you can meet a man who has met Osama bin Laden at least five times. Saudi Arabia's chief of intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Saud, joins me at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, 4:00 Pacific.
When tragedy struck the nation's capital on September 11, emergency services used radio communications to coordinate their efforts. But, historically, those radio exchanges weren't always so clean.
And, as CNN's Jeanne Meserve reports, it took another Washington tragedy to clear the air.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Reported an Eastern Airline jet that crashed down on the 14th Street Bridge.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In fact, it was an Air Florida jet that slammed into the bridge 20 years ago. Emergency personnel streamed to the site from surrounding communities, but could not talk to one another.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any communication with any Arlington units on the scene?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, we haven't. And I'll tell you, it's quite a bit of confusion here. We are not able to contact them.
STEVEN SOUDER, AIR FLORIDA CRASH 9TH DISPATCHER: Everybody was operating on a different radio frequency and a different type of radio system, making a situation where nobody could really talk to anybody.
MESERVE: Twenty years later, when another plane rammed into the Pentagon, Souder again played a key role in communications. What a difference.
SOUDER: It was seamless. It was smooth. It was efficient.
MESERVE: The Pentagon and the 14th Street Bridge are only about a half-a-mile apart. But in the 20 years between these two events, regional officials had made plans and purchases to ensure that the communications problems of Air Florida were not repeated. And they weren't among the first responders, according to a report from the Public Safety Wireless Network.
It was only when state and federal agencies arrived on the scene that communication became an issue, because they operated on their own radio frequencies.
SOUDER: What we have learned is that the interoperability that we have achieved at the first-responder level has to be extended to the second wave of responders, whoever that may be, whether it be Red Cross, the FBI, the Secret Service or any military agency.
MESERVE: Good communications can make the difference between life and death for victims and first responders. But it's estimated that communications is a problem in one-third of emergencies. Only two states, Delaware and Michigan, get top marks for the interoperability of their public safety communications networks. Ten get the lowest ranking.
(on camera): The president's new budget includes money localities can spend to improve communications, but funding and planning is also an issue for federal agencies. And one expert estimates it will be 10 years before the entire country has the kind of public safety communications network it needs to avoid the kind of problems encountered with Air Florida 20 years ago.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: It's been the battleground for the war on terror, but could Afghanistan be home to a new war? That story coming up.
And later, Saks Fifth Avenue takes on Winona Ryder.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
One of the most serious threats against Afghanistan's fragile peace eased somewhat today. One of two warlords fighting for the key town of Gardez fled the battlefield. By the time the fighting stopped, at least 60 people were killed.
Joining us now to talk to us about this and similar problems facing the new Afghan interim government is Ross Reid. He's a senior adviser with the National Democratic Institute here in Washington, a former member of the Canadian Parliament and a Cabinet minister.
Ross, thanks for joining us.
You're just back from Afghanistan. It's a mess, I take it, the situation involving the warlords.
ROSS REID, SENIOR ADVISER, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE: Well, the situation involving warlords complicates things in a whole number of ways.
I think one of the biggest issues is that Afghanistan is going through a whole new process. After 23 years of the Soviet civil war, the Taliban, there is a process in place coming from the Bonn agreement. It's going to divvy up power. And one of the issues for the warlords is: Where are they going to fit into this in the future?
BLITZER: You probably saw the editorial in "The Washington Post" today. Let me put it up on our screen: "Unless this anarchy and theft can be contained, the promised aid program will fail. There's no use talking about reconstructing rural irrigation systems when whole villages are emptying out for fear of marauding gunmen," referring to the warlords.
Is that what you saw when you were there: the theft of all this kind of equipment? REID: I didn't see it, but certainly everybody talked us to about it: NGOs talking about the fact they go into a community, try and distribute aid. Warlords want 25 percent off the top. The question is: How do they deal with that? Some of them choose to try and resist it. If you're big enough, you can do it. But if you're a small NGO, it is very difficult.
And they live in physical fear as well as the constant threats and being stopped on tolls, on roads and that sort of thing. It is going to impact in every part of developing life in Afghanistan.
BLITZER: And, Afghanistan, as you know, is a mixed-ethnic country. We will show our viewers the map of the ethnic makeup of Afghanistan. As you well know, between the Pashtun and the Tajiks and the Uzbeks, the Hazaras, so many others, it's not an easy place to put together.
REID: Well, one of the worries is that a lot of the warlords do have an ethnic base or are now calling on an ethnic base.
In the past, certainly pre-Soviet times, people tell us: An Afghan was an Afghan and these divisions weren't there. The Soviets played on them. They are certainly being played on now, not to the point that there is problems in the streets. But the first identification is ethnically.
A second complication is, a lot of the warlords, a lot of the bigger ones, are sponsored by countries outside. So they have received aid and assistance in the past and again. So loyalties are being bought. So neighboring countries are ending up fighting their regional battles, in some cases their domestic battles, inside Afghanistan, using warlords and militias and regional groups, playing off each other.
BLITZER: Is it essential that the United States eventually participate in the peacekeeping force there?
REID: I think the international community generally has to look at the size of the peacekeeping force. I mean, the notion that we are going to a Kosovo obviously is not the case. I don't think you are going to see 50,000 people. The real question is: How can -- or can control be put in place so they are minimized?
Now, it is not only a military response. I think Taliban showed that there was a way to do it by using traditional systems. Don't feed them with money. Loyalties are purchased.
BLITZER: OK, Ross Reid, thanks for your insight. Appreciate it.
REID: Pleasure.
BLITZER: And in a moment, getting ready for the big game in the Big Easy -- and later, the spectator sport between the plays. Coming up: a look back at Super Bowls past and why scenes like these may keep viewers hooked this Sunday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Now checking these stories on today's "Newswire": Actress Winona Ryder faces four felony counts related to her December shoplifting arrest. She allegedly stole $5,000 worth of items from Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills. She was released on $20,000 bond.
New Orleans says it is more than ready for Sunday's Super Bowl. The city is under very tight security, which is being managed by the U.S. Secret Service.
And let's go to New York now and get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE." That, of course, begins right at the top of the hour.
Kitty Pilgrim is sitting in tonight for Lou -- Kitty.
KITTY PILGRIM, "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE": All right, thanks, Wolf.
Coming up tonight, we have a busy show. Deputy Treasury Secretary Ken Dam talks about terrorist financing and the fate of kidnapped reporter Daniel Pearl. Journalist Paul Krugman warns there may be more Enrons out there. The president of the Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, tells us why he is against changing accounting rules, despite Enron -- and Pat Buchanan on Bush plans to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants.
All that and more at the top of the hour -- back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Kitty.
And would you stick around after this next commercial to see more commercials? We think you will when you see these Super Bowl oldies but goodies.
But first: treating workers well. Which company rounds out the top three? Here is "Fortune" magazine's answer.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEON HARRIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Global software giant SAS Institute once again ranks among the top of "Fortune"'s best companies to work for. And who could argue with SAS's plush but affordable on-site child care, lavish gym facilities and free massages? SAS leads the industry in employee retention with its in- house medical care, putting greens and pool tables. And to sweeten the deal, SAS spends thousands of dollars annually just on candy. They have made the list each year. And this year SAS comes in at No. 3.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: CNN is live from the Super Bowl tonight. Join Bob Lorenz. He'll show you the hoopla and heavy security around sports' premier event. That's tonight 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific. The St. Louis Rams are 14-point favorites in Sunday's Super Bowl, which does little to assure TV executives that viewers will stay glued to a compelling game. If it is a blowout early, what's to keep us from watching? There are always those ads.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: When I grow up, I want to file all day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER (voice-over): Internet employment agency Monster.com hit it big with this ad two years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I want to be a yes-man.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Yes-woman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: So much so that the Web site became subject of a big bidding war.
Super Bowl ads first became vogue in 1984 with Apple Computer's smash hit. Since then, the Super Bowl has been the place to debut new ads and create new pop culture icons, from dogs to frogs. Two years ago, Pets.com tried to ply with us a puppet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR (singing): If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me. No, baby, please don't go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: A year later, another dot-com mocked the sun. Will any of Sunday's ads be as moving as running squirrels, dancing bears, or back-flipping Bob Doles?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB DOLE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: I feel like a kid again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Can we see a little bit more of Britney Spears?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(DOG BARKING)
DOLE: Easy, boy. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And they say 10 percent of those watching are watching for the ads.
This note: the Super Bowl star Joe Namath will be among my guests Sunday on "LATE EDITION" at noon Eastern, 9:00 Pacific.
And I will be back in an hour with the former Saudi chief of intelligence.
Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
