Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
9-11 Warnings: Who Knew What, When?
Aired May 16, 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 this special edition of WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: 9-11 warnings. Who knew what, and when?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The administration received heightened reporting on threats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Did the White House drop the ball? Congress wants answers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it should have been acted upon, but it wasn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: It looked like 9-11 all over again in skies over Sydney: Why some Australians went into a panic.
Israeli forces may have foiled a double-suicide bombing. I'll take you to places where the bombers have succeeded.
Waist-deep in the Big Muddy, the Midwest braces for more rain. And recognizing the Reagans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY REAGAN, FORMER FIRST LADY: This is a very -- obviously, very special occasion for me, and very memorable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem. We are going to begin back home and back in time.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Just before September 11th, it was the summer of 2001. And now we know the warnings started trickling in, warnings about possible al Qaeda attacks on America, warnings about Middle Eastern men at American flight schools, warnings about an Arab man in Minnesota who might be thinking of flying a plane into the World Trade Center.
Some of the warnings reached the FBI. Some of the warnings reached the CIA. At least one of the warnings reached the president. Nobody put the warnings together. Nobody connected the dots until it was too late.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Let's begin our coverage now of these warnings, these 9-11 warnings. Our White House correspondent Kelly Wallace is standing by with the latest -- Kelly.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, just finishing up a briefing a short time ago trying to put to rest any questions about what this administration knew and what it did with that information. Condoleezza Rice saying there was an increase in activity, a lot of chatter as she called it, saying that something was up, that terrorists were planning attacks against U.S. interests either abroad or in the United States.
She said much of the concern really focusing overseas. She did say there was general, very general, concern about hijackings in the traditional sense. She did say that the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, notifying the commercial airlines at the end of June of a general concern for -- to protect U.S. Interests, including airlines.
And she also talked about the FAA sending out another alert to the airlines at the end of July, again, not based on anything specific or anything credible, just that there are groups that were out there that were, in particular, potentially training and could participate in hijackings.
So, President Bush was given what she called an analytical briefing August 6th when the president was at his Crawford, Texas ranch. Again, she said there was nothing specific, very vague, very general information. And she was asked why this information, very general information, was not released to the American flying public. She said again it was very general, so this administration felt it did not need to go forward with releasing that to the American people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There was no time. There was no place. There was no method of attack. It simply said these are people who train and seem to talk possibly about hijackings. That you would have risked shutting down the American civil aviation system with such generalized information, I think you would have had to think five, six, seven times about that very, very hard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Again, Dr. Rice saying this administration was never given anything specific, anything specific, to know that the September 11th attacks would take place, that these hijackers would use commercial airlines as missiles and in suicide bombing missions against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and of course the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Now, at the same time you have members of Congress demanding some answers. You have Democrats saying that they were not given this information, that this general information still about the possibility, possibility, of bin Laden's al Qaeda network getting involved in the hijacking of a U.S. commercial airliner should have been released to the Congress. Here's House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: We had not received this information. And I think the Congress should have known this information, should know this information. And, again, I think that's what we need to find out in the days ahead. We need to get all the information on the table, again, for the purpose of doing better in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: At the same time, some Republican members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate were saying they were given that general information about the possibility of hijackings, members of Congress calling for hearings and investigation, and Wolf, U.S. officials saying they fully intend to cooperate with the Congress, Wolf.
BLITZER: Kelly Wallace at the White House with the latest information. Thank you very much.
So let's get some more information now on the nature of these warnings and when they arrived. Our national security correspondent David Ensor is looking into that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In 1994, French authorities foiled an attempt by some Algerians who had hijacked a plane to use it to knock down the Eiffel Tower in Paris. In 1996, the Philippine authorities notified the U.S. a suspect had told them Ramzi Yousef, the man behind the first World Trade Center bombing, was plotting to hijack an aircraft and use it to hit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
In February of last year, CIA director George Tenet warned Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was the most immediate and serious threat to the United States.
GEORGE TENET, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: As we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out softer targets that provide opportunities for mass causalities. ENSOR: Starting in last May through the summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence officials say they warned the White House al Qaeda was planning a major attack against the U.S. In late July, the Phoenix office of the FBI sent a memo urging headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men who were students in U.S. flight schools. The memo said Osama bin Laden followers could be planning to use the training for some sort of terrorism.
Then, in the first week of August, in Crawford, Texas, at the president's ranch, the CIA briefer warned Mr. Bush that, among other possibilities, al Qaeda might hijack aircraft. CIA did not suggest a suicide plane attack, as it had no intelligence suggesting such a tactic.
RICE: There was no time. There was no place. There was no method of attack. It simply said these are people who train and seem to talk possibly about hijackings.
ENSOR: U.S. officials say in that intelligence briefing more than one hijacking plot was mentioned, including British information about a 1998 plot to hijack a plane and then demand freedom for the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, in jail for involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing.
Finally, in mid-August, a Minnesota flight school told the FBI that Zacarias Moussaoui was seeking training to fly, but not to land, a 747. Moussaoui was arrested. The Minneapolis FBI sought and was refused permission to search Moussaoui's laptop computer for clues.
In his own handwriting, the agent wrote a theory of his in the margin.
ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: In one of the notes, the agent in Minneapolis mentioned the possibility of Moussaoui being that type of person that could fly something into the World Trade Center.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: With the advantage of hindsight then, it is possible now to select key signals from the huge mass of intelligence the U.S. gathered in the months and years before September 11th, signals which could have helped the U.S. prevent the attacks. But, U.S. officials strongly argue it is not fair to blame them or the president for being unable to do so before the fact, Wolf.
BLITZER: David Ensor, our national security correspondent, thanks so much for that timeline.
Let's get some additional perspective from two informed members of the U.S. Congress. Democratic Senator John Edwards. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And Republican Congressman Saxby Chambliss, he's a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Gentlemen, thanks for joining us. I know both of you have been well briefed on this subject. First to you, Senator Edwards. Were you satisfied by what you heard from Condoleezza Rice?
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I think she was being open and honest about the information that they had. I think, by the way, Wolf, this should not be a focus on what the president did or didn't do. It certainly shouldn't be a political question.
We have a very serious issue to resolve here. It's an issue of national security to the country, not a political question.
We've got the director of the CIA saying this bin Laden and al Qaeda is the most serious threat to the United States, followed by a memo out of Phoenix in July saying that bin Laden, al Qaeda operatives are here trying to get involved in flight training. Then we have got Moussaoui.
So, there's a whole pattern of information here that should have put up red flags. And I think from our perspective we need to find out the facts -- what happened, when that information was available, and whether any action or any responsible and appropriate action was taken as a result.
BLITZER: But, Senator Edwards, let me play devil's advocate. If the president learned of something, some credible information, specific information, and didn't take appropriate action, why question what he did or perhaps didn't do?
EDWARDS: Well, here's my concern about this, Wolf. I think that's a perfectly appropriate. But I, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, Congressman Chambliss and I both have a responsibility here. Our responsibility is to not engage in politicizing this, but to get to the facts. What actually happened? What information was known? Did that information get to the people to take the action that should have been taken?
And so, we ought to have a full and open investigation. That information to the extent it doesn't compromise national security or is not classified or sensitive ought to be made available to the American people. They ought to know what's going on. This is obviously a very important issue to them.
But I just think it's a fairly straightforward thing. We need to get to the bottom of this, find out whether what should have been done was done, for the purpose of making sure it never happens again.
BLITZER: Congressman Chambliss, is politics becoming a factor in this post-mortem? You heard what the Democratic leader Richard Gephardt said earlier today.
REP. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Politics is always about everything that happens up here, Wolf. But I don't think you're seeing politics played so much at this level right now.
Senator Edwards is right. This is a very, very serious issue. We have got to get to the bottom of it. We've got to see what the facts are.
But I think there are a couple things that are pretty obvious. This report that came out of Phoenix in July should have gotten into the right hands. And it didn't get in the right hands.
Now, who is to blame for that? I don't know. That's part of the fact-finding mission that we in the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees are going to be looking at.
But it is pretty obvious that had you gotten that information, had you gotten certain other information, there may have been reason to think something may be coming in the near future. But we don't know that. Certainly, there was no way the president could know that. There was nothing in the information that any of us have seen at this point, which is exactly what the president saw, that indicated an attack was going to occur on September 11th, that there would be a hijacking of one or more airplanes, and they would be used as missiles.
But we have to look at what all the facts were, see who knew what, find out what black hole it fell into, and who is responsible for that.
BLITZER: Congressman Chambliss, why is all of this coming out right now the way it is?
CHAMBLISS: Well, that's a good question. And I don't know that anybody has the answer to that right now. I do know that there are individuals who are trying to find out how this information got out at this point.
I'll be honest with you. I'm pretty upset Senator Edwards and I as members of the Intelligence Committee didn't have the benefit of this information before today or yesterday.
I think that information should have been given to members of the Intelligence Committee to let us -- if we're going through the fact- finding of what happened on September 11th and what our intelligence deficiencies were, that information should have been given to us. And it wasn't. And I don't mind telling you I'm upset about it.
BLITZER: And, Senator Edwards, I'm sure you're upset about it too. It wasn't only not given to both of you, it wasn't apparently given to the chairmen of the respective committees or the vice chairmen of the respective committees. What's the issue here? Why wasn't that information shared?
EDWARDS: I don't know. But we're going to find out. I think our responsibility is to find out, number one, why we weren't given the information. We have to find out, Wolf, what was given to us and what wasn't given to us. As members of the Intelligence Committee, we're responsible for looking at this information, engaging an oversight. And I think we have responsibility to find out now what we weren't given that information.
I do want to mention one thing. You asked me about Condoleezza Rice earlier. I do think we have to be careful -- and this is not in any way directed at the president because I'm talking about this whole body of information that the government had available to them, from the Phoenix memo to what was happening with Moussaoui. I do think that if we had been able to identify that a hijacking might occur, an appropriate action would have been taken, and that hijacking had not occurred, then the attack on the World Trade Center would not have occurred.
So, I think we should not get too focused on the fact that I don't think anybody knew that they may use an airplane as a weapon. I think that's completely fair.
But the truth is, if there was information available, which should have been acted on, should have gotten to a central source, should have been acted on, and if -- and this is a big if -- but if that would have prevented the hijackings that occurred on September 11th, then, of course, that would have stopped the attack.
CHAMBLISS: Wolf, let me make sure that the American public understands that the briefing that the president got on August 7th relative to a potential hijacking attack or potential hijacking by Osama bin Laden was not an isolated situation. Those types of warnings had been given not just to this President Bush, but probably to several presidents all the way back for a couple decades.
We know Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. We know that airplane hijacking is in his repertoire. And we know that there's always the potential for that. And that's why the heightened level was issued, why the information was given to the FAA and the DOT. So, this was not an isolated incident by any means.
BLITZER: All right, Congressmen Chambliss and Senator Edwards, always good to have you on the program. Thanks for joining us today on this very, very important issue.
And no one is watching this whole investigation closer than the people who lost loved ones on September 11th. Our Richard Roth has been talking to some of those people. He joins us now live from New York -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, there's a lot of outrage among family members throughout the New York area, the loved ones of those who died at ground zero. One of the widows was married to Neil Levin, who was the executive director of New York's Port Authority, which ran the World Trade Center. She was here at an event at city hall where I am in New York. And she was one of those who was willing to give some slack to the Bush administration regarding the warning that President Bush was given about hijacked jets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTINE FERER, WIDOW OF SEPTEMBER 11 VICTIM: A lot of the victims and myself always feel could-have-should-have-would-have. But the fact of the matter is, you can't look back so much that you can't go forward and think about how to do better the next time around.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Now, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki were here. And they were announcing the formal end of recovery efforts on May 30. There will be a ceremony down at ground zero, a flag-draped stretcher will take the long march out of the ground zero pit.
Mayor Bloomberg was asked by me about the reports that President Bush was briefed regarding the threat of hijackings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I was with the vice president earlier today. And he did address that issue. It is preposterous to think that the president knew.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The other family members not here, though, outraged. People like Stuart (ph) Zucker in Long Island, New York, in Woodbury, charges a cover-up, accuses the Bush administration of knowing a lot more than they told at the time and are still telling.
Also, in the Bronx, relatives of those who died at the World Trade Center outraged, angry, furious, saying they have not been given enough information and that it's been the style of the government in Washington and New York political leaders, whether it is regarding loved ones or the investigation into what happened at the World Trade Center, Wolf.
BLITZER: Richard Roth in New York, thanks so much for that report. And our web question of the day is this: should the federal government inform the public of every terror threat, regardless of how specific or general? You can vote, go to my web page cnn.com/wolf.
While you are there, let me know what you are thinking. Send your comments. I'll read some of them on the air each day. That's also, by the way, where you can read my daily on-line column, cnn.com/wolf.
And this important note. CNN will have more on the 9-11 warnings and who knew what on "Live From the White House with John King." That's tonight, 8:00 Eastern, 5:00 Pacific.
Meanwhile, there's other important news breaking half a world away. This time, in Pakistan, where police suspect they may -- repeat, may -- have found the body of the slain "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl. Our Islamabad bureau chief Ash-har Quraishi is standing by, and he joins us now live. He has late-breaking developments -- Ash-har.
ASH-HAR QURAISHI, CNN ISLAMABAD BUREAU CHIEF: That's right, Wolf. They're coming out of Karachi late this evening, police saying that they have arrested three men they believe are involved in the kidnapping and murder of "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl, police saying that these men indicated to them the location of where they said that the body of Pearl was buried. Police went to that location. They said that they did recover a body. Government sources as well as police sources telling us that they do believe there may, in fact, be the remains of Daniel Pearl, although they have not confirmed this, and they have not officially made any statements as to whether or not they know for a fact that this is Daniel Pearl's body. But they say this may be his body, and that they are conducting tests at this point to positively identify whether or not this is Daniel Pearl's remains, Wolf.
BLITZER: Ash-har Quraishi in Islamabad via videophone, thanks so much for that report.
And when we come back, a low-flying plane over the Sydney skyline. We have the pictures, but what does it really show?
Holding their breath, when it appears the Midwest might escape the mighty Mississippi, it's raining again. And a golden day for the Gipper and his wife, why the Reagans are being honored.
But first, our news quiz. Nancy and Ronald Reagan were more than just husband and wife. In what movie did Ronald Reagan and then Nancy Davis costar -- "Shadow on the Wall," "The Next Voice You Hear," "East Side, West Side," "Hell Cats of the Navy"? The answer coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Roads and farmland underwater, and there's more rain in the Midwest. Let's get an update with CNN's Fredricka Whitfield. She's standing by at the CNN Center in Atlanta -- Fredricka.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Wolf. The rain is falling again in Missouri, and that makes some people there quite nervous. Up to three inches of rain is predicted in areas where rivers already are overflowing.
Our Jeff Flock is right in the middle of it in St. Louis.
JEFF FLOCK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are standing here right on the steps of what is called the St. Louis Arch. And perhaps you can see the water is lapping up behind me here. Perhaps you can see from another perspective what the arch looks like in its grand state out here along the river.
And I don't think there's any better way for you to kind of see what this river water looks like as it laps up and take a look under the water. If you think this is nice, clean floodwater out there, perhaps you are wrong because you can see it is not called the Big Muddy for nothing. And, of course, when the flood really kicks in, that is when you really begin to see some nasty looking floodwater, river water.
Now, the crest today is expected at 37-and-a-half feet. Currently, if you look at the river gauge that they've got out there, it is about 37 right now. So, perhaps another half a foot. And if the rains hold off or if the rains are not too bad, it should go no higher than 37-and-a-half. But, of course, if they do come with any intensity, then we might have more problems.
Just to put it all, though, in some perspective for you, I'm standing now on the spot that there's a plaque marked August 1, 1993. This is where the water got in 1993. So to put it in some perspective, we have got another 10 feet or 12 feet to go before we reach that point. I don't think we're going to get there.
We'll keep watching it, though, as that rain comes in. That's the latest here from St. Louis. Back to you.
WHITFIELD: All right, thank you Jeff. Wolf, from the water line to the fire line, crews say they are making progress against a massive wildfire just three miles from Prescott, Arizona. The blaze has already destroyed six homes. More are threatened. Hundreds of families have evacuated to Red Cross shelters.
In Sydney, Australia, folks jammed phone lines in fear of yet another 9-11 attack as they watched two planes fly close to city skyscrapers. One plane was a combat aircraft, chasing what first looked like a passenger jet, but it turned out to be a U.S. surveillance plane. Australian defense officials apologized, saying it was only an exercise to train troops to recognize aircraft.
And that's our news wire. Now back to Wolf in Jerusalem.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Fredricka. We'll be back to you with more news later this hour.
When we come back, returning to the scene of the crimes. I will take you out to the spots where suicide bombers have struck for a look at life here in Jerusalem today in the wake of the past terror.
Officials in both Mexico and the United States breathe a sigh of relief after an extremely wanted truck is found. And later, what do you get when you mix a Wolf and a camel? I can attest the results are pure comedy, the pictures ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Checking our top stories at the half-hour: The White House is on the defense over the way it responded to terror warnings last August. The White House says the classified briefings were vague, yet still resulted in precautions behind the scenes. The Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, is calling for public hearings into who knew what before September 11.
Remember that hijacked truck loaded with cyanide that we told you about yesterday? Well, Mexican police now say they found it, abandoned, near the place where it was stolen. The only problem, some of the drums of sodium cyanide seem to be missing.
The shape of the Palestinian Authority soon could change dramatically. Its legislative council has approved setting up elections early next year, guaranteeing rights of Palestinian citizens, and revising the way the authority handles money and security matters. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has yet to sign off on the reform.
Israeli military sources say two suicide bombings were planned for today, the start of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. But Israeli forces uncovered the plot and moved in. They say one Palestinian was killed, three others arrested in Ramallah. Israel Radio reports the four were planning a double suicide bombing here in Jerusalem.
Back across the Atlantic, the U.S. Coast Guard picked up more than two dozen Cuban migrants near Key Largo, Florida today. Some were standing in waist deep water when they were found. Authorities say all 26 are being taken to the mainland and turned over to border patrol agents.
In Cuba, former president Jimmy Carter is winding up his historic trip. Today he met with an anti-Castro group that has been pressing for government reform. Carter heads back to the United States tomorrow.
And why would parents put revealing pictures of their kids on the Internet? That's a good question. Coming up, a face-off on this specific issue. Meet the congressman who wants it stopped and the man who says Congress should keep its nose out of this entire matter.
And could we see him in Congress any time soon? We are talking about Bruce Springsteen. He lets it be known about his interest, perhaps, in a career in politics.
Plus the first couple of the '80s add more gold to their golden years.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
I'm here in Jerusalem, a city that is all too familiar with terror. But on a tour today, I walked around the city and discovered that people who live here try not to dwell about the subject.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): This was the scene on April 12 at Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda (ph) open-air marketplace only moments after a female suicide bomber struck at a nearby bus station. Six people were killed and 86 were injured, many critically. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a part of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement claimed responsibility.
And this is the very same location today.
(on camera): As you can see, this marketplace is really bustling right now. A lot of people coming in. Nobody seems to be deterred by the bombing that occurred here only a month or so ago. People are going about buying their little bagels and their oranges and their cucumbers and their bananas. Life goes on here in Jerusalem.
(voice-over): There does appear to be one difference. More security guards are visibly present, but the place is packed.
(on camera): These people are doing something very normal, something people do all over the world. They are just waiting in line to board a bus. Here that is -- that takes on a little bit different atmosphere given what's happened on so many of the these buses in Israel over these past few years.
(voice-over): Not far down the street from the marketplace is another place people come to look at and remember.
(on camera): We are at the corner now of King George and Jaffa Road here in central Jerusalem. Just before the start of the holiday, regularly it would be pretty crowded.
It is not that crowded right now. Only a few months ago, this Sbarro's pizzeria looked a lot differently than it does right now.
(voice-over): This is what the Sbarro's pizzeria looked like on August 9 of last year, shortly after a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked during a crowded lunch time, killing 15 people, wounding almost 90 others.
The militant groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas both claimed responsibility.
A short walk from the pizzeria and you get to my third stop.
(on camera): This is an area that's now being rebuilt. You can probably take a look -- it was, until recently, a very, very popular cafe here in Jerusalem, probably the most popular cafe, very trendy spot called Cafe Moment. Moment Cafe. And it was the scene of a suicide bombing on a Saturday night.
It was packed with a lot of young Israelis and there was devastation, there was destruction, and there was death.
(voice-over): It was March 9 of this year. The suicide bomber killed 11 Israelis when he walked in. Another 54 people were injured. Hamas claimed responsibility.
(on camera): Take a look now. It is being rebuilt. It is going to be bigger and better and nicer than it was before. It is part of the effort to not let terrorism slow down this country. Israelis are defiant. They are working around this problem. They are wanting to make sure, in their words, that the terrorists do not win.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Those memorial candles will remain. There will also be a plaque at that new Cafe Moment, a plaque containing the names of the 15 people who died during the course of that bombing.
I'll be back with more news from Jerusalem shortly. Let's go back it Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta for a check of other major developments.
WHITFIELD: Thank you, Wolf.
Concern today about the growing number of so-called pre-teen model Web sites on the Internet.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD (voice-over): So-called pre-teen model Web sites feature children, some as young as 6, wearing revealing clothes and striking suggestive poses.
Many of these sites are operated or sponsored by the children's parents, who use the vehicles to sell pictures and videos of their kids. Some of these parents say they are simply trying to promote their kids as models, boost their self-esteem and earn money for college. But the mainstream modeling agencies who spoke to CNN say they do not tap into these sites.
GIAMPIERO PAOLETTI, JOHN ROBERT POWERS MODELING-ACTING AGENCY: We don't really use such a Web site. We normally have people come in to us and we have never really had any need to go and browse on the Internet looking for new faces or new kids.
WHITFIELD: Still, one Web site operator says many of the sites are profitable and popular. But popular with whom?
JEANINE PIRRO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY: Clearly this is level one, this is entry level for pedophiles who find this very erotic and very enticing, and then move on to the next level.
WHITFIELD: Law enforcement officials and children's advocates believe these Web sites cater mostly to adults, and they believe many customers are pedophiles.
A bill introduced this month in the House of Representatives would ban Web sites featuring images of children 17 and under which do not sell a specific product or service other than the child's image.
But that may be difficult. These Web sites show no nudity or any obvious sexual behavior and are therefore not currently illegal. The Web site operators make other arguments.
Contacted by CNN, one operator said, "Why single sites like ours out, when parents put their children in films, television commercials, and print ads? Why should photos of children be banned just because a few people might view them with less than pure motives?"
A parent of one child featured on a Web site told CNN, "There are children being shown nude on the Internet engaging in sexual intercourse with adults, and yet you think we are the story? Break away from the pack and get to the heart of the real child porn on the Internet."
Others argue it is not the government's place to decide the age at which is child can create and market a product. But lawmakers and law enforcement officials say those points fall short of what they believe the moral standard should be for independent marketing on the Web.
PIRRO: It is sending a message that by using your body in a suggestive way you will be able to make money.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: Should parents be allowed to set up modeling sites for their children?
Representative Mark Foley of Florida has introduced a bill in Congress that would outlaw what Foley called exploitive child modeling. He is in Washington.
Bill Lyon is executive director of the free speech coalition. He joins us from Los Angeles. For this story we contacted five Web site operators. Two of them e-mailed us back and were quoted in the piece you just saw, but none of them agreed to go live on camera with us today. Thanks, gentlemen, for joining me.
REP. MARK FOLEY (R), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: Representative Foley, I would like it begin with you. Why don't you respond to the one Web site operator, we showed that quote that you are picking on these modeling sites when some of these very images that don't show nudity are very similar to some of the television ads and some of the print ads that you see some of these children depicted in?
Are you barking up the wrong tree? What kind of proof do you have these Web sites are being misused by pedophiles, as you put it?
FOLEY: If you look at the Web sites themselves, I think, clearly the only interest somebody would have was to titillate their sexual interest and urges for children. Nothing good can come of this. I will take them up on their challenge, though, to pursue these sexually exploitive Web sites.
WHITFIELD: Aren't the operators saying that these very images you already see in the television or in prints ads or advertisements for bathing suites, et cetera, so what is different?
FOLEY: Well, they are selling a good or services. They are trying to market products. They are doing it directly. You cannot interact with the child.
The difference on the Internet with these sites is these people are being encouraged to not only pay a monthly fee but then send gifts and ask the girls to model specific clothing. If any person was to look at these sites and then say they could justify it as modeling, I beg to differ.
They are pedophiles' best opportunity to engage directly with a child, they interact directly with the child, and ultimately they will probably lure that child away to do dangerous some activities.
WHITFIELD: Is there any proof that you have that it is being misused by pedophiles?
FOLEY: We are seeing frequently -- in fact, when there was a piece done from Miami, a TV station down there, they actually interviewed the person who had the Web site. He acknowledged that the pedophiles were probably his most likely customers. He also is a major porn promoter of adult pornography.
So he is one step away, if you will, grooming these children for the next life they will lead, which is probably adult pornography. No question, I believe the people viewing these sites are pedophiles.
Mr. Lyon, let me bring you in here. Some law enforcement officials that we contacted also agree with Representative Foley that some pedophiles are using these Web sites in their search for children and looking at these images. So at what point do you try to police this or enforce this as freedom of speech?
BILL LYON, DIRECTOR, FREE SPEECH COALITION: Well, I suspect that it is true that there are some pedophiles that are looking at these sites. And I could agree with Representative Foley, I think many of them are in bad taste, and I certainly would not have ever put my children on the Internet in a situation like that.
However, I think we need to consider some very specific things. I would like to take three quotes from Representative Foley. To me it borders on pornography and indentured servitude. I assume he means child pornography. Both of those things are already against the law.
Secondly he says, this is an unacceptable way for a child to earn lunch money, performing like a circus animal. There are laws against child exploitation.
Thirdly, this is reckless endangerment if ever I have seen it, because you are basically introducing your child to some really sick people. There certainly are laws against reckless endangerment. The point is, do we need a specific law directed in this area?
And since no one has committed a crime here, I don't think that we need this specific law and I think we have to be very careful in treading on the individual's free speech rights.
WHITFIELD: And so, Mr. Lyon, who polices these Web sites, since anyone virtually can get a Web site, and these agencies have done that and make whatever claims as to its use. Who polices it? You know, why should the operator be to blame if someone in the public is misusing these Web sites?
LYON: Well, I do not think he should to be blame if someone in the public is misusing it. We certainly need to spend more of our time going after real pedophiles and real child pornography sites.
In the last four years, an organization we are closely associated with, adult sites against child pornography, have submitted over 7,000 files, urls, of child porn sites on the Internet, mainly in clubs and various private chat groups, and we don't see anybody taking any action. WHITFIELD: Mr. Foley, we only have a few seconds left. I am going to let it be your last word that we hear. Why not go after the pedophiles instead of these Web sites and how much support do you have if Congress?
FOLEY: We are going after those pedophiles as well. But he has made my case for it. Bill just suggested we have the laws in the books. What we are trying to do is use the new form, if you will, of marketing, the Internet, and include those provisions within the bills to cover child labor, child endangerment. I think we are on the right track. I think this will in fact be a strong law. We will get after pedophiles but it will also protect children.
LYON: Far too broad.
WHITFIELD: Representative Mark Foley, thank you very much, as well as Bill Lyon, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition of Los Angeles. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.
Now back to Wolf in Jerusalem.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Fredricka. Good debate. We have much more coming up. For former president Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy, these indeed are trying times, but today the former first lady is getting a taste of the good old days.
And later, the boss may be born to run, but does he want to? Bruce Springsteen's answer to those who want him to become a United States senator.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Earlier we asked in what movie did Ronald Reagan and then-Nancy Davis co-star? Nancy played opposite her future husband in "Hellcats of the Navy." The couple married in Los Angeles in 1952.
Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan today received the Congressional Gold Medal. Mrs. Reagan accepted the award on her behalf and her husband's behalf at a formal ceremony. Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, author of"Role of a Lifetime" and "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio," to excellent books about Ronald Reagan, joins me now live.
Lou, thanks so much for joining us. What does the ceremony mean for the Reagans.
LOU CANNON, REAGAN BIOGRAPHER: I think it means, particularly for Nancy Reagan, a ratification of the Reagan legacy, a legacy not only of contributing to the end of the Cold War but also of renewing the nation's spirits. And I think it was also some overdue recognition for Nancy for her fight against alcohol and drug abuse.
BLITZER: If you look back on the Reagan legacy, historians taking a closer look now, does his reputation seem to improve with time or deteriorate?
CANNON: Well, when he left office, he stood second in the polls with the people only to Franklin Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945, but he ranked very low with the academic historians, about 20th.
I've been looking at the rankings. Over the last year he's risen from third to ninth. McGregor Burns (ph), who won a Pulitzer for his work in FDR, says that Reagan will be remembered as great or near great president. His standing has improved. Wolf, that's not unusual, as you know. That happened with Harry Truman. It happened with Dwight Eisenhower as well.
BLITZER: Is it in part because the Cold War ended? He said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," and obviously all that did happen, and he got the ball rolling to a certain degree.
CANNON: I think that is the single most important part of the legacy. It is important to remember that long before he stood in front of that gate, which I still think was the most stirring speech he gave, that Ronald Reagan had predicted in 1980 when he came to the Washington Post he said, if we build our military defenses the Soviet Union will come to the bargaining table, because they can't afford to compete.
Now we all know that is true now. But that wasn't conventional wisdom on either the left or the right in 1980. He certainly does deserve some of the credit. I think that he and Gorbachev together -- Condoleezza Rice once said that the liberals give Reagan too little credit and the conservatives give Gorbachev too little credit. Obviously they did it together. There was a very nice letter from Gorbachev that was read today at that ceremony by the speaker, Dennis Hastert.
BLITZER: What are you hearing now about how the former president is doing? Obviously we all know he is 90 and has Alzheimer's, but what is the latest?
CANNON: I do not think he's doing very well. I resist inquiring on the clinical details, but he's had Alzheimer's for a very long time now, and he's still physically sound, but -- the disease is a mind destroying disease.
Wolf, I think one of the things that was interesting today was that people talked about Alzheimer's and Nancy's contribution as caregiver, and I think one of the contributions that Reagan has made and it's, I'm sure it's a very hard way to make it, is he has increased awareness of a national health problem, an international health problem.
There are over 12 million people who have Alzheimer's, the numbers increasing every year as the population gets older. There was a real awareness of that today, and it was talked about. It used to be something people didn't talk about.
BLITZER: We are talking about it now. Lou Cannon, he was a great reporter for the Washington Post and great author as well. Thanks so much for joining us.
And we've got some other little nuggets of news. It gives born to run, for example, a whole new potential meaning. A petition drive has been started to get rock legend Bruce Springsteen elected as New Jersey's next U.S. senator. But a spokesman for the Boss has told a New Jersey newspaper Springsteen has no desire to run for office. The political consultant behind the petition helped make ex-wrestler Jesse Ventura the governor of Minnesota.
Let's go to New York now and get a preview of "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE," which begins at the top of the hour. Jan Hopkins is filling in for Lou -- Jan.
JAN HOPKINS, HOST OF MONEYLINE: Thanks, Wolf. Coming up on MONEYLINE the White House fires back, denying it was specifically warned of potential hijacking linked to Osama bin Laden prior to September 11.
We'll have live reports from the White House and Capitol Hill. Plus, former defense secretary William Cohen will be among my guests. The majority of states face massive deficits. The governor of Colorado joins us next to talk about a country-wide problem. All of that and a lot more at the top of the hour. Please join us. Back to you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you very much, Jan. We'll be watching.
And you have two minutes left to vote on our Web question of the day. Should the federal government inform the public of every terror threat, regardless of how specific or general? The results coming up, but first some camel comic relief.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
We are here on this lovely camel on the top of the Mount of Olives, overlooking the holy city of Jerusalem. Spectacular view we have. This camel is a little gross. There are flies all over the place, but it has got a great name, this camel. Let me tell you what its name is. And I will tell you the camel's name when we come back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Hi, We are back, and I promised before the commercial break I would tell you what this lovely camel's name is. You know what it is? Kojak. Is it spelled k-o-j-a-k-?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: K is Kojak. Yes.
BLITZER: It is Kojak. It is a lovely name. Kojak the camel and Wolf.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
And by the way, Kojak isn't the only animal with a famous name. Look at this animal. You know what his name is? Michael Jackson. I am not making that up. Now time for our question of the day. Earlier we asked, should the federal government inform the public of every terror threat, regardless of how specific our general? Thirty-seven percent of you said yes, 63 percent say no. Remember, this is not a scientific poll.
That is all the time we have today. I will be back tomorrow with much more, including a walking tour around the holy sites in Jerusalem. We'll take you to the Christian, the Jewish and the Muslim holy sites.
Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Jerusalem. 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
