Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Pentagon Continues to Argue Iraqi Defiance of U.N. Resolutions; Torricelli Announces Withdrawal from New Jersey Senators Race
Aired September 30, 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, ANCHOR, WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: Dramatic pictures of Iraqi defiance.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It bothers the dickens out of me that American and British air crews are getting fired day after day after day.
BLITZER: Do the pictures tell the whole story? And what of the effort to check weapons on the ground?
A day 25 years in the making. The long arm of the law puts a hippie guru in court.
QUESTION: Did your brother kill Holly Maddox, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely not. He loved her.
BLITZER: Will the murder charges stick?
Deja vu in the tropics. Another hurricane eyes the United States.
Governor Jeb Bush's daughter behind closed doors; will Florida drug treatment workers be forced to tell all? The ruling is in.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: It's Monday, September 30, 2002. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
We begin with a developing story -- the fate of the New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli. He's about getting -- he's about ready to answer questions whether or not he will stay in this race.
Our Senior Analyst Jeff Greenfield is covering the story. He's checking in from New York. He's got some thoughts, what we're likely to hear from Senator Torricelli. Jeff, tell us.
JEFF GREENFIELD, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, startling as it would be to anyone who has followed the career of Senator Robert Torricelli, whose nickname is "The Torch," if the advance word is right, in a few moments from Trenton, New Jersey, the state capitol, we will hear Senator Torricelli announce that he will not be a candidate, that he is pulling the plug on his campaign for reelection and quite possibly, and this could be significant, resigning from the Senate as well.
Robert Torricelli was considered a shoe-in for reelection a few months ago. He had a double digit lead over businessman Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate but over the last couple of weeks and then over the last week he has been hammered by more stories about his ethical problems.
A few months ago, the Senate Ethics Committee severely admonished him. Last week, the U.S. Attorney's Office released a letter that was written during the sentencing phase of David Chang, Robert Torricelli's accuser, who has said he gave Torricelli gifts and Torricelli did favors for him.
That letter described David Chang's testimony as credible, a key because Robert Torricelli has continually accused David Chang of lying. That and the news that new polls had come out showing Torricelli anywhere from 13 points down to apparently in his own polls 20 points down apparently persuaded Torricelli that he had to get out of the race and not risk losing control of the Senate for the Democrats because of that one vote margin they have in the Senate, and it is absolutely one of those amazing thing that happens every so often in politics that nobody could have predicted a few months ago -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jeff, you know politics as well as anyone. A month, four or five weeks before an election is still a long time, especially if the Democrats get a candidate with name recognition, someone who has some money. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that Forrester the Republican is going to win.
GREENFIELD: Oh, quite the contrary. In fact, the Republican Senate campaign committee is at great pains to keep Torricelli on the ballot. They've already released a copy of a legal opinion their general counsel sent to Senator Bill Frist who chairs that committee saying that it's too late, that New Jersey state law says that you can get off the ballot 51 days before an election. There's only about 35, 36 days left, and they don't want to see Torricelli removed. They want him on the ballot because they believe quite strongly they can take him, and it's not entirely clear what the law is.
The New Jersey Democrats say there is precedent for this and we should remember, Wolf, we remember from back in 2000 how important it is when one party or another controls the state's machinery. In Florida, it was the Republicans that had a great deal to do with George W. Bush winning that state. In this case, the governor and the attorney general are both Democrats, and I think to be blunt about it, that could well have an effect on whether it is ruled that the Democrats can replace Torricelli.
There are all kinds of complications. The military ballots, you remember those from the Florida campaign, Wolf, they've already gone out from New Jersey with Torricelli's name on the ballot. Who gets counted in that case? If Torricelli's name actually remains on the ballot physically on Election Day, is that going to confuse voters, and you're quite right.
If a well-known New Jersey figure like former Senator Lautenberg, Congressmen Menendez, Congressmen Andrews, Congressman Pallone, even former Senator Bradley is on the ballot, I think the Republicans are afraid that the seat that they thought was theirs may go Democratic again.
BLITZER: All right, Jeff Greenfield, stand by. We're going to continue to wait for Senator Torricelli to come out in Trenton and make those remarks.
But let's bring in our Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl. He's been covering this story for us all day. Let's talk about some of those other Democratic potential candidates out there. You've been speaking to sources in New Jersey and elsewhere, who's atop the list?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the very top of the wish list for the Democrats is former Senator Bill Bradley and senior Democrats have tried to reach out to Senator Bradley today. As of just a short while ago, Wolf, Senator Bradley, or former Senator Bradley, had not responded to their calls.
They're also reaching out to his closest political ally from New Jersey the current leader in the State Senate down there, Dick Codey. They've reached out to him to try to make the case to Senator Bradley that this is the chance. He's the one person Democrats believe that could win this in a cakewalk because they consider him the most popular former or current political figure, Democrat or Republican from the State of New Jersey.
But those closest to Senator Bradley that I've spoken to say they would doubt that he would do this. Senator Bradley is somebody who left the political area. He obviously ran for president in 2000. It's not considered likely that he would come back to a Senate which he voluntarily left back in 1996.
There are a number of other wishful candidates. One top candidate on the list is former Senator Frank Lautenberg. One advantage for Senator Frank Lautenberg is that he is a millionaire. He is somebody that could finance his own campaign and do what he needs to do in the next 30 days to try to win this seat.
Another possibility is current Congressman Bob Menendez. You heard Jeff Greenfield mention, he's an attractive candidate, a leading Hispanic figure, a moderate Democrat, and also somebody who has a lot of money in his bank account because he's somebody who is trying to run for the leadership in the House of Representatives. He's got $2.4 million in his bank right now. That's not a lot of money when you're running for Senate in a place like New Jersey, but it's a lot more than some of the other potential candidates being mentioned.
BLITZER: Jon, it's not just important for New Jersey. It is, obviously, very important for New Jersey voters but it's also important nationally because the Senate is so close, a one-vote margin. A Republican or a Democrat in New Jersey could hold the ballots as far as the majority in the U.S. Senate. As a result, a lot of national figures are looking at this very, very closely and nervously.
KARL: Oh, absolutely and this is the situation. I mean Senator Torricelli's ethical problems have really caused problems for the Democrats here because New Jersey was considered a relatively safe seat. Just a couple of months ago, Torricelli had double digit leads in the polls.
This is a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972, so this was not something that was supposed to be a problem for the Democrats. They thought they would rather easily keep this seat, and now with the latest polls showing that Torricelli was headed towards virtual certain defeat in the minds of national Democrats, this really complicates those efforts.
But one silver lining for Democrats they say is that now they really felt that Torricelli was not going to win in light of the most recent polls. Now that he is not running, they have a chance anew to try to take that seat back.
BLITZER: Jonathan Karl, stand by as well. We're going to continue to follow this story. We're still standing by. We're awaiting the speech, the announcement from Senator Torricelli. As soon as he delivers that statement, we'll be going to Trenton, New Jersey live and bring that to you our viewers.
Meanwhile in the showdown with Iraq, the Pentagon today pulled out all the stops to illustrate what it calls Iraqi contempt for U.N. resolutions.
Here's our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The just de-classified video from a U.S. F-16 is two years old but it shows what it looks like from the cockpit when Iraqi antiaircraft gunners fire artillery at planes patrolling the no-fly zones.
Here, a year old video taken from an unmanned Predator spy plane shows an SA-3 surface-to-air missile being fired at U.S. or British planes. The videos are the latest salvo in a Pentagon PR offensive designed to undercut Iraq's argument that it can be trusted to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.
RUMSFELD: Within hours of promising to fulfill the relevant Security Council resolutions and to do so -- quote -- without conditions -- unquote, Iraq was trying to shoot down and kill coalition pilots.
MCINTYRE: The Pentagon says since Iraq's letter arrived two weeks ago, Iraqi air defenses have fired at coalition aircraft 67 times, including 14 times over the past weekend.
RUMSFELD: With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the U.N. resolutions, a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated. MCINTYRE: Recently, the U.S. and its British allies have been returning fire more often and targeting more critical air defenses.
GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: We've also gone after their command and control, their command and control headquarters, and their communications buildings to try to degrade this and we've had some success there.
MCINTYRE: The stepped up response is most obvious in the southern no-fly zone. According to the Pentagon, last year Iraq fired on coalition planes 430 times provoking 32 allied strikes, a response rate of about 7.5 percent. So far this year there had been 206 provocations in the south and 34 strikes in response, a rate of over 12 percent.
Russia, a key member of the U.N. Security Council called the recent no-fly zone strikes a surge of activity and said they cause regret. Anglo-American bombing raids, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement said, create obstacles in the search for a political diplomatic settlement.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (on camera): Now the Pentagon is rejecting any idea that it's creating obstacles when it says Iraq is firing first at U.S. and British planes. Donald Rumsfeld also brushed aside a suggestion that this is just a tactic for softening up Iraq's air defenses before a war. He said what it's really all about is he's just darn mad that Iraq continues to fire at American pilots with what he called impunity -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And you don't want to stand in the way of Don Rumsfeld when he's darn mad. Jamie McIntyre thanks for that report.
And while the United States steps up its war of words, a United Nations team has been meeting with Iraqi officials to see if Baghdad is true to its word on the renewal of weapons inspections.
Let's go live to Vienna, Austria. That's where our CNN Reporter Christiane Amanpour is standing by. What happened today -- Christiane.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to the U.N. chief weapons inspector here and the head of the nuclear watchdog body the IAEA, today was as good as they expected it to get. In other words, they said that by the end of today, the first day of these two day talks, they felt that they were making significant progress on the practical arrangements needed before any of these weapons inspectors can go back. Now you know Hans Blix has had several rounds of talks with the Iraqis over the summer. All of those failed but this day was different.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said he had come to Vienna not to negotiate but to lay out the practical arrangements that are crucial for weapons inspectors to operate smoothly in Iraq.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: You'd rather go through these things outside in advance and we have even said that we will not deploy inspectors to Iraq until we have had talks about these things.
AMANPOUR: In the past, there have been standoffs and confrontations, so with the Iraqi delegation, led by General Amr al- Sadi, scientific and technical adviser to the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the two sides hammered out arrangements on everything from hotel accommodations to access, satellite communications, and removing suspect samples.
These talks will be the first sign of Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors and by the end of the day, Mohamed ElBaradei head of the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, told reporters the Iraqi delegation was positive and businesslike and that they had come with the desire to reach an agreement.
Diplomats close to the talks say there are still issues to be resolved, such as the over flights weapons inspectors want for aerial reconnaissance of suspect sites in Iraq, also access to certain sensitive areas such as the ministries of defense and intelligence, which Iraq has restricted.
Significantly off the agenda were the eight so-called presidential sites. Since access there is governed by restrictions agreed to by the U.N. Secretary General four years ago, diplomats here say it's up to the Security Council to resolve.
An important development, the Iraqi delegation plans Tuesday to deliver what it says are all the documents about what's been happening at dual-use facilities since weapons inspectors were last there four years ago. This refers to places, material, and equipment used for civilian purposes but which can also be used for military purposes including the production of weapons of mass destruction.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Christian Amanpour reporting from Vienna, Austria where U.N. officials are meeting with Iraqi officials regarding weapons inspections. We'll have more on that story as it becomes available.
But right now, I want to go to Trenton, New Jersey where Senator Robert Torricelli is getting ready to speak. He's getting ready to address people in New Jersey and explain why he's decided apparently to not run for reelection. You see him standing in the background with the yellow tie. He's being introduced by an aide right now.
While we await Senator Torricelli's speech, let's bring in our Jeff Greenfield once again. He's watching all of this getting ready to give us some analysis.
But, Jeff, remind our viewers and frankly I'm not sure I remember myself, why do they call Senator Torricelli "The Torch?"
GREENFIELD: Robert Torricelli has always had a reputation as being one of the more combative people in politics. His race for the Senate six years ago was characterized - I think actually it would be much better to listen to Senator Torricelli right now, but that's why they call him "The Torch."
BLITZER: All right, let's listen in to Senator Torricelli who's going to wait for the applause to die down.
(INTERRUPTED BY COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)
BLITZER: And there he is, the senator from New Jersey, hugging Jon Corzine, the junior senator from New Jersey. Governor Jim McGreevey, standing in for front of the right of that screen. Senator Torricelli asking, When did we become such an unforgiving people?
Jeff Greenfield, our political analyst -- our senior analyst -- has been watching along with all of us.
Remind our viewers, Jeff, the mistakes that Senator Torricelli made that resulted in this decision today.
GREENFIELD: Well, quite simply, he had taken gifts from an entrepreneur named David Chang -- there's no disputer about that. David Chang, who is now in prison for illegal campaign contributions and I believe perjury, charged that Senator Torricelli had used his office to try to get David Chang various government contracts, dealings with South Korea in return for these gifts. And there was a big dispute about just how much he had taken.
Senator Torricelli called David Chang a liar, said there were no illegal gifts. But earlier this summer, the Senate Ethics Committee severely admonished Torricelli and also, strongly suggested he had not been candid.
And on top of that, the U.S. attorneys who had put David Chang in prison had done a letter that came out last week saying they found Chang's testimony credible and that the reason they did not prosecute Torricelli was that David Chang had other credibility problems. So it seemed -- what became clear or seemed to become clear that -- was that Senator Torricelli's original explanations for his conduct, they came under very severe attack not from the Republicans but from the U.S. Attorney's Office and from the media.
BLITZER: Jeff, thanks very much. Jon Karl, our congressional correspondent, has been covering this story, covers the U.S. Senate.
Jon, when you heard Senator Torricelli say, I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate -- that raises the question, did he really make this decision by himself or did the polls suggest that he was pushed to a certain degree by other Democrats who were desperately afraid that New Jersey could go Republican and in effect, the Senate becomes a Republican majority.
KARL: Well, he may have made this decision himself and those close to him say it was he that suggested this, first, last night to Governor Jim McGreevey, but he was clearly pushed in that decision by those polls. Democratic operatives here -- and Torricelli is a shrewd Democratic operative himself -- said that he was simply going to lose this election. He had lost 27 points over the last couple of months in the polls. He was looking at a situation where his negatives were sky high in New Jersey.
This race was all about Robert Torricelli. The Republicans made a decision going into this that they were campaigning against Robert Torricelli. This was all about removing him because of his ethics problems. So he knew that his own ethics problems were becoming the biggest obstacle to the Democrats maintaining control of the U.S. Senate.
But what's interesting here is that the Republicans are not, you know, popping the champagne corks here. They really wanted to run against Bob Torricelli. They really thought that they're best chance was to run against somebody who had such high negatives because of those ethics problems.
BLITZER: Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill, thanks very much. Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, thanks very much to you as well. Senator Robert Torricelli only moments ago announcing he will not seek reelection for the U.S. Senate this November, only a month or so away from the elections, hoping that another Democrat will now step forward and beat the Republican challenger, Doug Forrester. We, of course, here at CNN, will be covering not only this Senate race but all the close Senate races around the United States. Stay with us over the next several weeks.
When we come back, he's eluded justice for 25 years, now a former hippie accused of killing his girlfriend faces a jury. Plus, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cargo sitting idol at West Coast ports. Find out how this labor dispute will impact on your wallet.
Also, a governor's daughter and a president's niece -- should rehab workers be forced to testify against Noelle Bush on drugs charges? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: United Nations officials are meeting with Iraqi diplomats in Vienna, Austria to try to come to -- come up with agreement on the return of weapons inspectors. Whatever the result though in Vienna, the United States has no intention of letting up on Iraq. And the debate over how to proceed is heating up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): This week is crunch time for the fate of two resolutions that could authorize the use of force against Iraq. President Bush and his top aides are pushing for strongly worded resolutions at both the United Nations and on Capitol Hill designed to put tough deadline pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspections and to give Mr. Bush more latitude to use force if Saddam does not comply. Despite some opposition, mostly from Democrats, the president's almost certainly going to get his way in Congress. Mr. Bush will have more of a struggle at the U.N., but in the end, he's also likely to get much of what he wants.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I expect them to get together. I expect them to work this out and come up with an acceptable resolution.
BLITZER: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, meeting in Moscow with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, says the goal is clear.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): We believe that the priority is to return as soon as possible, the international observers to Iraq.
BLITZER: U.S. officials also expect France eventually to come around as well. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on Iraq, but is deeply concerned about mounting anger toward the United States throughout Europe.
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I really dislike some of the anti-Americanism there is. And I think it's very dangerous. I'll tell you that. That's my view, having done this job for five years.
BLITZER: In the meantime, there's also increasing bad blood between President Bush's supporters in Congress and his most outspoken critics who have shown up Baghdad.
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Congressman McDermott, once again, has shown just how irresponsible he is. For him to be in Baghdad, the center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, to be questioning the veracity of our own American president is the height of irresponsible. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.
REP. TIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: If Senator Lott thinks that, that's fine. But what I would suggest he do is get on a world Jordanian airplane and fly over here and take a look. He's talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on on the ground. And I think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a country where we value free speech.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: So will Iraq really open the door to free and unrestricted weapons inspections? Will the United States take yes for an answer? Joining us now from Albany, New York, the former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter.
What's the answer to the first question? Will there really be these unrestricted inspections going without any advance notice, for example, to sensitive sites like presidential palaces?
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, I don't know. I mean that has yet to be seen. I think what's important is that Iraq has committed to such inspections. They say they'll allow them to come back without conditions, to give them unfettered access. So I think it's imperative that we test this, that we send the inspectors in and we demand from Iraq full accountability to the full extent of the law.
But we also have ensure that the inspectors themselves operate within the framework of law. And this is very difficult with the kind of resolutions the United States are -- is pushing right now. These are inspection-killing resolutions. It seems as though the Bush Administration really doesn't want to give Iraq a chance to, you know, come clean.
BLITZER: Do unrestricted inspections, Scott, mean changing the terms of the agreement that was reached between Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, in 1998 and Saddam Hussein in which they have to allow diplomats to accompany weapons inspectors and give advance notice, for example, when they want to go to a presidential palace?
RITTER: I would hope so. I was against that memorandum of understanding in February 1998 when it was passed. And you know, I thought that it deluded the, you know, efficacy of the inspection regime or the integrity of it.
But we also have to understand that, you know, the whole presidential palace inspection regime was something fabricated by the United States to begin with. If the weapons inspectors themselves had no reason to go there and this brings up the big issue of yes, unconditional return of inspectors and unfettered access, but for the purpose of arms control, for disarmament. These cannot be used to collect intelligence against Saddam Hussein and so, there's going to have to be some sort of mechanism to provide competence not only to the Iraqis, but the Security Council, indeed the rest of the world, that the inspectors themselves would adhere to the law while holding Iraq fully accountable to the law.
BLITZER: Don't you assume that over these past four years, almost four years, with no inspections, the Iraqis already have moved their most sensitive equipment or whatever they might have to some remote locations outside of presidential palaces, outside of other know sites so that they -- assuming that someday there would be a return of weapons inspectors?
RITTER: Well, that question presumes that such equipment exists. Keep in mind that when the inspectors left in 1998, although there were tremendous concerns and I shared these concerns vocally that there much unaccounted for. We had no evidence that anything was in fact retained by Iraq or that they had reconstituted anything. So you know, I think there's grave concern. There's a need to get the inspectors back in and complete the task.
But we have to understand that there is no evidence and none has been presented by either the United States or Great Britain that this material actually exists today or that Iraq is seeking to reconstitute. There's concern. There's a lot of circumstantial information and I think it would be incumbent upon the United States and Great Britain to provide the totality of all the intelligence holdings they have regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the inspectors so the inspectors can thoroughly investigate this and come to closure on this issue.
BLITZER: OK, Scott Ritter, thanks as usual for joining us from Albany, New York.
RITTER: Thank you.
BLITZER: And now, from "Showdown: Iraq" to a showdown at home. A union official involved in a bitter dispute that shut down 29 major West Coast ports bluntly warns the American public it's going to pay come the holiday season. Workers were barred indefinitely from the docks after a fragile peace between shipping lines and longshoreman collapsed yesterday. Experts say the dispute could cost the nation $1 billion a day. Federal officials say President Bush isn't going to get involved, at least, not right now.
The Pacific Maritime Association ordered the lockout until the longshoreman's union agrees to extend a contract that expired on July 1. Issues include benefits; pension packages and technology the union says will wipe out jobs. Economists warn a long-term -- a long fight will have ripple effects on an already battered economy.
Over the weekend, about 30 ships had to sit outside ports in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Oakland, California. CNN's Rusty Dornin is joining us now from Oakland. She has the latest on what's going on.
It looks pretty sad and depressing behind you over there, Rusty.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's very depressing, Wolf. This is one of the gates that's locked up tight as a drum here at the Port of Oakland. You can see a couple of the dockworkers here. They say they're ready and willing to go back to work if they'd just open the gates. But not far away, you can see all the containers stacked on the dock.
Now, $1 billion a day is the figure of the goods that are transported in and out of the ports along the West Coast. Retailers in the U.S. now are getting very nervous that these goods are going nowhere.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DORNIN (voice-over): You are looking at what could soon be a nightmare for countless businesses here and around the world. These huge cargo containers are going nowhere, stuck on ships with no place to unload. Even here in downtown Berkeley, California, U.C. dean of public policy, Michael Nacht, says businesses have reason to worry.
How about a store like this? You know here you've got a shoe store.
MICHAEL NACHT, DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY: Yes, I mean, there are tons of sneakers and shoes. Women's and men's, footwear is manufactured abroad, very high -- very high amounts and it's mostly in the area that's being impacted. DORNIN: Here at the Port of Oakland, the big five imports are shoes, clothes, furniture, toys, and auto parts. To the south, this auto manufacturing firm usually gets 30 to 40 of those huge containers of engines and parts every day. The company has an inventory for five days. If a shutdown continues, this assembly line could grind to a halt.
But that's only for imports. What about exports? Sitting on the docks here is produce, fruits and vegetables that will rot if they don't get shipped to Asia in the next few days, costing the farmers millions.
People like you and me may not see a hike at the cash register right away. Analysts say retailers can't afford to turn off consumers in this economy. But what if it continues?
Retailers may absorb some of the costs. But if they're forced to go to airfreight or the East Coast ports, then what happens?
NACHT: Well, then they have to, you know -- the major, new transportation costs are incurred that they didn't budget for and they're going to have to pass a chunk of those costs, maybe all of those costs onto the consumer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DORNIN: Now, retailers are really putting the pressure on to get this thing resolved. They have -- now both sides have been invited back to Washington for federal mediation. It looks like the Pacific Maritime Association wants to do it. The union still has agreed to it, yet. The talks are scheduled to begin in just about 10 or 15 minutes. And hopefully, this will be resolved maybe this afternoon -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Rusty Dornin, let's hope for the best. Thanks very much.
And crack cocaine and the president's niece allegedly caught with drugs again. Noelle Bush could face hard time but only if rehab workers are forced to testify against her. A look at the case that could impact addicts everywhere. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A Florida judge ruled today that staff members at a drug rehab center won't have to answer police questions about crack cocaine allegedly found in the shoe of Noelle Bush. The ruling is another twist in the drug case involving the daughter of the Florida governor, Jeb Bush. And it's a case having serious ramifications on the governor's reelection bid. It also has ramifications on addicts everywhere.
Joining us now to talk more about Noelle Bush's drug case in Miami, the former U.S. attorney, Kendall Coffey and in Harrisburg, we have Ron Hunsicker of the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers. Kendall Coffey, tell us what this means for legally speaking, for people who are in drug rehab centers.
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I do want to quarrel one thing you said. I don't think is going to be an issue at all in the governor's reelection race. Everyone is treating it as a private matter. But I do think the ruling is of concern from a prosecution standpoint because while it's been portrayed as prosecutors versus drug patients, the real issue is somebody got crack cocaine apparently inside a drug rehabilitation facility. Perhaps in the possession of someone who needs treatment. That somebody is a bad person and whoever...
BLITZER: All right.
COFFEY: ... got it there may never be prosecuted or identified as a result of the judge's ruling.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker, what do you say about that?
RONALD HUNSICKER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ADDICTION TREATMENT PROVIDERS: Well, I think that the judge took a look at the federal confidentiality regulation in reviewing the criteria. I understand that there are ways in which persons -- this can be pursued but not through a court order in this case. It didn't meet the criteria that was established.
BLITZER: That's what the judge ruled, Kendall Coffey.
COFFEY: But here's the problem. I mean first of all, I think the regulation has a specific carvel that allows cooperation when crimes are committed on the premises. But let's not talk about the patients because this ruling does affect millions of families, all of whom deserve our sympathy around the country. What about the pusher, the dealer who somehow got that crack cocaine to somebody who needs treatment.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker...
COFFEY: That's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I don't think it was intended that a regulation was going to create a no-fly zone where, in effect, people who need protection the most can be victimized by dealers. And there's going to be no way that prosecutors or police can ever get to the bottom of it.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker, go ahead.
HUNSICKER: Well, I think that again rather than generalizing this particular case, I think it was viewed that it did not meet the criteria and so that, in each and every case, I think that the issues need to be looked at in terms of their merit and the decision made as to whether or not it meets the criteria. I think that addiction treatment providers have historically cooperated with law enforcement individuals, but within the context of the law that's currently framed.
BLITZER: If they want to be successful in those rehab centers, Kendall Coffey, don't they need a certain degree of confidentiality?
COFFEY: Well, of course they do. But what the prosecutor is seeking here is not examination of the minutes of treatment. They're not trying to interfere with the course of rehabilitation for patients. What they've said they want and what I think they really need to have to have is to find out how it got there and who's the one that was the source of the drugs. This is crack cocaine. It's a pretty serious thing in this country.
BLITZER: It certainly is. Unfortunately, we have to leave our abbreviated segment right there because of breaking news earlier in the program. Kendall Coffey, always good to have you on the program. Ronald Hunsicker, thanks for joining us from Harrisburg as well.
That's all the time, unfortunately, we have today. Please join me tomorrow twice a day, 5:00 Eastern, also for our new program, "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ" every day noon Eastern. Until then, thanks for watching. "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
Resolutions; Torricelli Announces Withdrawal from New Jersey Senators Race>
Aired September 30, 2002 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: Dramatic pictures of Iraqi defiance.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It bothers the dickens out of me that American and British air crews are getting fired day after day after day.
BLITZER: Do the pictures tell the whole story? And what of the effort to check weapons on the ground?
A day 25 years in the making. The long arm of the law puts a hippie guru in court.
QUESTION: Did your brother kill Holly Maddox, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely not. He loved her.
BLITZER: Will the murder charges stick?
Deja vu in the tropics. Another hurricane eyes the United States.
Governor Jeb Bush's daughter behind closed doors; will Florida drug treatment workers be forced to tell all? The ruling is in.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: It's Monday, September 30, 2002. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
We begin with a developing story -- the fate of the New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli. He's about getting -- he's about ready to answer questions whether or not he will stay in this race.
Our Senior Analyst Jeff Greenfield is covering the story. He's checking in from New York. He's got some thoughts, what we're likely to hear from Senator Torricelli. Jeff, tell us.
JEFF GREENFIELD, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, startling as it would be to anyone who has followed the career of Senator Robert Torricelli, whose nickname is "The Torch," if the advance word is right, in a few moments from Trenton, New Jersey, the state capitol, we will hear Senator Torricelli announce that he will not be a candidate, that he is pulling the plug on his campaign for reelection and quite possibly, and this could be significant, resigning from the Senate as well.
Robert Torricelli was considered a shoe-in for reelection a few months ago. He had a double digit lead over businessman Doug Forrester, the Republican candidate but over the last couple of weeks and then over the last week he has been hammered by more stories about his ethical problems.
A few months ago, the Senate Ethics Committee severely admonished him. Last week, the U.S. Attorney's Office released a letter that was written during the sentencing phase of David Chang, Robert Torricelli's accuser, who has said he gave Torricelli gifts and Torricelli did favors for him.
That letter described David Chang's testimony as credible, a key because Robert Torricelli has continually accused David Chang of lying. That and the news that new polls had come out showing Torricelli anywhere from 13 points down to apparently in his own polls 20 points down apparently persuaded Torricelli that he had to get out of the race and not risk losing control of the Senate for the Democrats because of that one vote margin they have in the Senate, and it is absolutely one of those amazing thing that happens every so often in politics that nobody could have predicted a few months ago -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jeff, you know politics as well as anyone. A month, four or five weeks before an election is still a long time, especially if the Democrats get a candidate with name recognition, someone who has some money. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that Forrester the Republican is going to win.
GREENFIELD: Oh, quite the contrary. In fact, the Republican Senate campaign committee is at great pains to keep Torricelli on the ballot. They've already released a copy of a legal opinion their general counsel sent to Senator Bill Frist who chairs that committee saying that it's too late, that New Jersey state law says that you can get off the ballot 51 days before an election. There's only about 35, 36 days left, and they don't want to see Torricelli removed. They want him on the ballot because they believe quite strongly they can take him, and it's not entirely clear what the law is.
The New Jersey Democrats say there is precedent for this and we should remember, Wolf, we remember from back in 2000 how important it is when one party or another controls the state's machinery. In Florida, it was the Republicans that had a great deal to do with George W. Bush winning that state. In this case, the governor and the attorney general are both Democrats, and I think to be blunt about it, that could well have an effect on whether it is ruled that the Democrats can replace Torricelli.
There are all kinds of complications. The military ballots, you remember those from the Florida campaign, Wolf, they've already gone out from New Jersey with Torricelli's name on the ballot. Who gets counted in that case? If Torricelli's name actually remains on the ballot physically on Election Day, is that going to confuse voters, and you're quite right.
If a well-known New Jersey figure like former Senator Lautenberg, Congressmen Menendez, Congressmen Andrews, Congressman Pallone, even former Senator Bradley is on the ballot, I think the Republicans are afraid that the seat that they thought was theirs may go Democratic again.
BLITZER: All right, Jeff Greenfield, stand by. We're going to continue to wait for Senator Torricelli to come out in Trenton and make those remarks.
But let's bring in our Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl. He's been covering this story for us all day. Let's talk about some of those other Democratic potential candidates out there. You've been speaking to sources in New Jersey and elsewhere, who's atop the list?
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the very top of the wish list for the Democrats is former Senator Bill Bradley and senior Democrats have tried to reach out to Senator Bradley today. As of just a short while ago, Wolf, Senator Bradley, or former Senator Bradley, had not responded to their calls.
They're also reaching out to his closest political ally from New Jersey the current leader in the State Senate down there, Dick Codey. They've reached out to him to try to make the case to Senator Bradley that this is the chance. He's the one person Democrats believe that could win this in a cakewalk because they consider him the most popular former or current political figure, Democrat or Republican from the State of New Jersey.
But those closest to Senator Bradley that I've spoken to say they would doubt that he would do this. Senator Bradley is somebody who left the political area. He obviously ran for president in 2000. It's not considered likely that he would come back to a Senate which he voluntarily left back in 1996.
There are a number of other wishful candidates. One top candidate on the list is former Senator Frank Lautenberg. One advantage for Senator Frank Lautenberg is that he is a millionaire. He is somebody that could finance his own campaign and do what he needs to do in the next 30 days to try to win this seat.
Another possibility is current Congressman Bob Menendez. You heard Jeff Greenfield mention, he's an attractive candidate, a leading Hispanic figure, a moderate Democrat, and also somebody who has a lot of money in his bank account because he's somebody who is trying to run for the leadership in the House of Representatives. He's got $2.4 million in his bank right now. That's not a lot of money when you're running for Senate in a place like New Jersey, but it's a lot more than some of the other potential candidates being mentioned.
BLITZER: Jon, it's not just important for New Jersey. It is, obviously, very important for New Jersey voters but it's also important nationally because the Senate is so close, a one-vote margin. A Republican or a Democrat in New Jersey could hold the ballots as far as the majority in the U.S. Senate. As a result, a lot of national figures are looking at this very, very closely and nervously.
KARL: Oh, absolutely and this is the situation. I mean Senator Torricelli's ethical problems have really caused problems for the Democrats here because New Jersey was considered a relatively safe seat. Just a couple of months ago, Torricelli had double digit leads in the polls.
This is a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972, so this was not something that was supposed to be a problem for the Democrats. They thought they would rather easily keep this seat, and now with the latest polls showing that Torricelli was headed towards virtual certain defeat in the minds of national Democrats, this really complicates those efforts.
But one silver lining for Democrats they say is that now they really felt that Torricelli was not going to win in light of the most recent polls. Now that he is not running, they have a chance anew to try to take that seat back.
BLITZER: Jonathan Karl, stand by as well. We're going to continue to follow this story. We're still standing by. We're awaiting the speech, the announcement from Senator Torricelli. As soon as he delivers that statement, we'll be going to Trenton, New Jersey live and bring that to you our viewers.
Meanwhile in the showdown with Iraq, the Pentagon today pulled out all the stops to illustrate what it calls Iraqi contempt for U.N. resolutions.
Here's our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The just de-classified video from a U.S. F-16 is two years old but it shows what it looks like from the cockpit when Iraqi antiaircraft gunners fire artillery at planes patrolling the no-fly zones.
Here, a year old video taken from an unmanned Predator spy plane shows an SA-3 surface-to-air missile being fired at U.S. or British planes. The videos are the latest salvo in a Pentagon PR offensive designed to undercut Iraq's argument that it can be trusted to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.
RUMSFELD: Within hours of promising to fulfill the relevant Security Council resolutions and to do so -- quote -- without conditions -- unquote, Iraq was trying to shoot down and kill coalition pilots.
MCINTYRE: The Pentagon says since Iraq's letter arrived two weeks ago, Iraqi air defenses have fired at coalition aircraft 67 times, including 14 times over the past weekend.
RUMSFELD: With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the U.N. resolutions, a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated. MCINTYRE: Recently, the U.S. and its British allies have been returning fire more often and targeting more critical air defenses.
GEN. RICHARD MYERS, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: We've also gone after their command and control, their command and control headquarters, and their communications buildings to try to degrade this and we've had some success there.
MCINTYRE: The stepped up response is most obvious in the southern no-fly zone. According to the Pentagon, last year Iraq fired on coalition planes 430 times provoking 32 allied strikes, a response rate of about 7.5 percent. So far this year there had been 206 provocations in the south and 34 strikes in response, a rate of over 12 percent.
Russia, a key member of the U.N. Security Council called the recent no-fly zone strikes a surge of activity and said they cause regret. Anglo-American bombing raids, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement said, create obstacles in the search for a political diplomatic settlement.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (on camera): Now the Pentagon is rejecting any idea that it's creating obstacles when it says Iraq is firing first at U.S. and British planes. Donald Rumsfeld also brushed aside a suggestion that this is just a tactic for softening up Iraq's air defenses before a war. He said what it's really all about is he's just darn mad that Iraq continues to fire at American pilots with what he called impunity -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And you don't want to stand in the way of Don Rumsfeld when he's darn mad. Jamie McIntyre thanks for that report.
And while the United States steps up its war of words, a United Nations team has been meeting with Iraqi officials to see if Baghdad is true to its word on the renewal of weapons inspections.
Let's go live to Vienna, Austria. That's where our CNN Reporter Christiane Amanpour is standing by. What happened today -- Christiane.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to the U.N. chief weapons inspector here and the head of the nuclear watchdog body the IAEA, today was as good as they expected it to get. In other words, they said that by the end of today, the first day of these two day talks, they felt that they were making significant progress on the practical arrangements needed before any of these weapons inspectors can go back. Now you know Hans Blix has had several rounds of talks with the Iraqis over the summer. All of those failed but this day was different.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said he had come to Vienna not to negotiate but to lay out the practical arrangements that are crucial for weapons inspectors to operate smoothly in Iraq.
HANS BLIX, CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: You'd rather go through these things outside in advance and we have even said that we will not deploy inspectors to Iraq until we have had talks about these things.
AMANPOUR: In the past, there have been standoffs and confrontations, so with the Iraqi delegation, led by General Amr al- Sadi, scientific and technical adviser to the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the two sides hammered out arrangements on everything from hotel accommodations to access, satellite communications, and removing suspect samples.
These talks will be the first sign of Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors and by the end of the day, Mohamed ElBaradei head of the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, told reporters the Iraqi delegation was positive and businesslike and that they had come with the desire to reach an agreement.
Diplomats close to the talks say there are still issues to be resolved, such as the over flights weapons inspectors want for aerial reconnaissance of suspect sites in Iraq, also access to certain sensitive areas such as the ministries of defense and intelligence, which Iraq has restricted.
Significantly off the agenda were the eight so-called presidential sites. Since access there is governed by restrictions agreed to by the U.N. Secretary General four years ago, diplomats here say it's up to the Security Council to resolve.
An important development, the Iraqi delegation plans Tuesday to deliver what it says are all the documents about what's been happening at dual-use facilities since weapons inspectors were last there four years ago. This refers to places, material, and equipment used for civilian purposes but which can also be used for military purposes including the production of weapons of mass destruction.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Christian Amanpour reporting from Vienna, Austria where U.N. officials are meeting with Iraqi officials regarding weapons inspections. We'll have more on that story as it becomes available.
But right now, I want to go to Trenton, New Jersey where Senator Robert Torricelli is getting ready to speak. He's getting ready to address people in New Jersey and explain why he's decided apparently to not run for reelection. You see him standing in the background with the yellow tie. He's being introduced by an aide right now.
While we await Senator Torricelli's speech, let's bring in our Jeff Greenfield once again. He's watching all of this getting ready to give us some analysis.
But, Jeff, remind our viewers and frankly I'm not sure I remember myself, why do they call Senator Torricelli "The Torch?"
GREENFIELD: Robert Torricelli has always had a reputation as being one of the more combative people in politics. His race for the Senate six years ago was characterized - I think actually it would be much better to listen to Senator Torricelli right now, but that's why they call him "The Torch."
BLITZER: All right, let's listen in to Senator Torricelli who's going to wait for the applause to die down.
(INTERRUPTED BY COVERAGE OF BREAKING NEWS)
BLITZER: And there he is, the senator from New Jersey, hugging Jon Corzine, the junior senator from New Jersey. Governor Jim McGreevey, standing in for front of the right of that screen. Senator Torricelli asking, When did we become such an unforgiving people?
Jeff Greenfield, our political analyst -- our senior analyst -- has been watching along with all of us.
Remind our viewers, Jeff, the mistakes that Senator Torricelli made that resulted in this decision today.
GREENFIELD: Well, quite simply, he had taken gifts from an entrepreneur named David Chang -- there's no disputer about that. David Chang, who is now in prison for illegal campaign contributions and I believe perjury, charged that Senator Torricelli had used his office to try to get David Chang various government contracts, dealings with South Korea in return for these gifts. And there was a big dispute about just how much he had taken.
Senator Torricelli called David Chang a liar, said there were no illegal gifts. But earlier this summer, the Senate Ethics Committee severely admonished Torricelli and also, strongly suggested he had not been candid.
And on top of that, the U.S. attorneys who had put David Chang in prison had done a letter that came out last week saying they found Chang's testimony credible and that the reason they did not prosecute Torricelli was that David Chang had other credibility problems. So it seemed -- what became clear or seemed to become clear that -- was that Senator Torricelli's original explanations for his conduct, they came under very severe attack not from the Republicans but from the U.S. Attorney's Office and from the media.
BLITZER: Jeff, thanks very much. Jon Karl, our congressional correspondent, has been covering this story, covers the U.S. Senate.
Jon, when you heard Senator Torricelli say, I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate -- that raises the question, did he really make this decision by himself or did the polls suggest that he was pushed to a certain degree by other Democrats who were desperately afraid that New Jersey could go Republican and in effect, the Senate becomes a Republican majority.
KARL: Well, he may have made this decision himself and those close to him say it was he that suggested this, first, last night to Governor Jim McGreevey, but he was clearly pushed in that decision by those polls. Democratic operatives here -- and Torricelli is a shrewd Democratic operative himself -- said that he was simply going to lose this election. He had lost 27 points over the last couple of months in the polls. He was looking at a situation where his negatives were sky high in New Jersey.
This race was all about Robert Torricelli. The Republicans made a decision going into this that they were campaigning against Robert Torricelli. This was all about removing him because of his ethics problems. So he knew that his own ethics problems were becoming the biggest obstacle to the Democrats maintaining control of the U.S. Senate.
But what's interesting here is that the Republicans are not, you know, popping the champagne corks here. They really wanted to run against Bob Torricelli. They really thought that they're best chance was to run against somebody who had such high negatives because of those ethics problems.
BLITZER: Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill, thanks very much. Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, thanks very much to you as well. Senator Robert Torricelli only moments ago announcing he will not seek reelection for the U.S. Senate this November, only a month or so away from the elections, hoping that another Democrat will now step forward and beat the Republican challenger, Doug Forrester. We, of course, here at CNN, will be covering not only this Senate race but all the close Senate races around the United States. Stay with us over the next several weeks.
When we come back, he's eluded justice for 25 years, now a former hippie accused of killing his girlfriend faces a jury. Plus, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cargo sitting idol at West Coast ports. Find out how this labor dispute will impact on your wallet.
Also, a governor's daughter and a president's niece -- should rehab workers be forced to testify against Noelle Bush on drugs charges? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: United Nations officials are meeting with Iraqi diplomats in Vienna, Austria to try to come to -- come up with agreement on the return of weapons inspectors. Whatever the result though in Vienna, the United States has no intention of letting up on Iraq. And the debate over how to proceed is heating up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): This week is crunch time for the fate of two resolutions that could authorize the use of force against Iraq. President Bush and his top aides are pushing for strongly worded resolutions at both the United Nations and on Capitol Hill designed to put tough deadline pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspections and to give Mr. Bush more latitude to use force if Saddam does not comply. Despite some opposition, mostly from Democrats, the president's almost certainly going to get his way in Congress. Mr. Bush will have more of a struggle at the U.N., but in the end, he's also likely to get much of what he wants.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I expect them to get together. I expect them to work this out and come up with an acceptable resolution.
BLITZER: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, meeting in Moscow with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, says the goal is clear.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): We believe that the priority is to return as soon as possible, the international observers to Iraq.
BLITZER: U.S. officials also expect France eventually to come around as well. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on Iraq, but is deeply concerned about mounting anger toward the United States throughout Europe.
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I really dislike some of the anti-Americanism there is. And I think it's very dangerous. I'll tell you that. That's my view, having done this job for five years.
BLITZER: In the meantime, there's also increasing bad blood between President Bush's supporters in Congress and his most outspoken critics who have shown up Baghdad.
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Congressman McDermott, once again, has shown just how irresponsible he is. For him to be in Baghdad, the center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, to be questioning the veracity of our own American president is the height of irresponsible. He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut.
REP. TIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: If Senator Lott thinks that, that's fine. But what I would suggest he do is get on a world Jordanian airplane and fly over here and take a look. He's talking from absolute ignorance of what's going on on the ground. And I think he ought to be a little more careful about what he says in a country where we value free speech.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: So will Iraq really open the door to free and unrestricted weapons inspections? Will the United States take yes for an answer? Joining us now from Albany, New York, the former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter.
What's the answer to the first question? Will there really be these unrestricted inspections going without any advance notice, for example, to sensitive sites like presidential palaces?
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, I don't know. I mean that has yet to be seen. I think what's important is that Iraq has committed to such inspections. They say they'll allow them to come back without conditions, to give them unfettered access. So I think it's imperative that we test this, that we send the inspectors in and we demand from Iraq full accountability to the full extent of the law.
But we also have ensure that the inspectors themselves operate within the framework of law. And this is very difficult with the kind of resolutions the United States are -- is pushing right now. These are inspection-killing resolutions. It seems as though the Bush Administration really doesn't want to give Iraq a chance to, you know, come clean.
BLITZER: Do unrestricted inspections, Scott, mean changing the terms of the agreement that was reached between Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, in 1998 and Saddam Hussein in which they have to allow diplomats to accompany weapons inspectors and give advance notice, for example, when they want to go to a presidential palace?
RITTER: I would hope so. I was against that memorandum of understanding in February 1998 when it was passed. And you know, I thought that it deluded the, you know, efficacy of the inspection regime or the integrity of it.
But we also have to understand that, you know, the whole presidential palace inspection regime was something fabricated by the United States to begin with. If the weapons inspectors themselves had no reason to go there and this brings up the big issue of yes, unconditional return of inspectors and unfettered access, but for the purpose of arms control, for disarmament. These cannot be used to collect intelligence against Saddam Hussein and so, there's going to have to be some sort of mechanism to provide competence not only to the Iraqis, but the Security Council, indeed the rest of the world, that the inspectors themselves would adhere to the law while holding Iraq fully accountable to the law.
BLITZER: Don't you assume that over these past four years, almost four years, with no inspections, the Iraqis already have moved their most sensitive equipment or whatever they might have to some remote locations outside of presidential palaces, outside of other know sites so that they -- assuming that someday there would be a return of weapons inspectors?
RITTER: Well, that question presumes that such equipment exists. Keep in mind that when the inspectors left in 1998, although there were tremendous concerns and I shared these concerns vocally that there much unaccounted for. We had no evidence that anything was in fact retained by Iraq or that they had reconstituted anything. So you know, I think there's grave concern. There's a need to get the inspectors back in and complete the task.
But we have to understand that there is no evidence and none has been presented by either the United States or Great Britain that this material actually exists today or that Iraq is seeking to reconstitute. There's concern. There's a lot of circumstantial information and I think it would be incumbent upon the United States and Great Britain to provide the totality of all the intelligence holdings they have regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the inspectors so the inspectors can thoroughly investigate this and come to closure on this issue.
BLITZER: OK, Scott Ritter, thanks as usual for joining us from Albany, New York.
RITTER: Thank you.
BLITZER: And now, from "Showdown: Iraq" to a showdown at home. A union official involved in a bitter dispute that shut down 29 major West Coast ports bluntly warns the American public it's going to pay come the holiday season. Workers were barred indefinitely from the docks after a fragile peace between shipping lines and longshoreman collapsed yesterday. Experts say the dispute could cost the nation $1 billion a day. Federal officials say President Bush isn't going to get involved, at least, not right now.
The Pacific Maritime Association ordered the lockout until the longshoreman's union agrees to extend a contract that expired on July 1. Issues include benefits; pension packages and technology the union says will wipe out jobs. Economists warn a long-term -- a long fight will have ripple effects on an already battered economy.
Over the weekend, about 30 ships had to sit outside ports in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Oakland, California. CNN's Rusty Dornin is joining us now from Oakland. She has the latest on what's going on.
It looks pretty sad and depressing behind you over there, Rusty.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's very depressing, Wolf. This is one of the gates that's locked up tight as a drum here at the Port of Oakland. You can see a couple of the dockworkers here. They say they're ready and willing to go back to work if they'd just open the gates. But not far away, you can see all the containers stacked on the dock.
Now, $1 billion a day is the figure of the goods that are transported in and out of the ports along the West Coast. Retailers in the U.S. now are getting very nervous that these goods are going nowhere.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DORNIN (voice-over): You are looking at what could soon be a nightmare for countless businesses here and around the world. These huge cargo containers are going nowhere, stuck on ships with no place to unload. Even here in downtown Berkeley, California, U.C. dean of public policy, Michael Nacht, says businesses have reason to worry.
How about a store like this? You know here you've got a shoe store.
MICHAEL NACHT, DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY: Yes, I mean, there are tons of sneakers and shoes. Women's and men's, footwear is manufactured abroad, very high -- very high amounts and it's mostly in the area that's being impacted. DORNIN: Here at the Port of Oakland, the big five imports are shoes, clothes, furniture, toys, and auto parts. To the south, this auto manufacturing firm usually gets 30 to 40 of those huge containers of engines and parts every day. The company has an inventory for five days. If a shutdown continues, this assembly line could grind to a halt.
But that's only for imports. What about exports? Sitting on the docks here is produce, fruits and vegetables that will rot if they don't get shipped to Asia in the next few days, costing the farmers millions.
People like you and me may not see a hike at the cash register right away. Analysts say retailers can't afford to turn off consumers in this economy. But what if it continues?
Retailers may absorb some of the costs. But if they're forced to go to airfreight or the East Coast ports, then what happens?
NACHT: Well, then they have to, you know -- the major, new transportation costs are incurred that they didn't budget for and they're going to have to pass a chunk of those costs, maybe all of those costs onto the consumer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DORNIN: Now, retailers are really putting the pressure on to get this thing resolved. They have -- now both sides have been invited back to Washington for federal mediation. It looks like the Pacific Maritime Association wants to do it. The union still has agreed to it, yet. The talks are scheduled to begin in just about 10 or 15 minutes. And hopefully, this will be resolved maybe this afternoon -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Rusty Dornin, let's hope for the best. Thanks very much.
And crack cocaine and the president's niece allegedly caught with drugs again. Noelle Bush could face hard time but only if rehab workers are forced to testify against her. A look at the case that could impact addicts everywhere. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A Florida judge ruled today that staff members at a drug rehab center won't have to answer police questions about crack cocaine allegedly found in the shoe of Noelle Bush. The ruling is another twist in the drug case involving the daughter of the Florida governor, Jeb Bush. And it's a case having serious ramifications on the governor's reelection bid. It also has ramifications on addicts everywhere.
Joining us now to talk more about Noelle Bush's drug case in Miami, the former U.S. attorney, Kendall Coffey and in Harrisburg, we have Ron Hunsicker of the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers. Kendall Coffey, tell us what this means for legally speaking, for people who are in drug rehab centers.
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I do want to quarrel one thing you said. I don't think is going to be an issue at all in the governor's reelection race. Everyone is treating it as a private matter. But I do think the ruling is of concern from a prosecution standpoint because while it's been portrayed as prosecutors versus drug patients, the real issue is somebody got crack cocaine apparently inside a drug rehabilitation facility. Perhaps in the possession of someone who needs treatment. That somebody is a bad person and whoever...
BLITZER: All right.
COFFEY: ... got it there may never be prosecuted or identified as a result of the judge's ruling.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker, what do you say about that?
RONALD HUNSICKER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ADDICTION TREATMENT PROVIDERS: Well, I think that the judge took a look at the federal confidentiality regulation in reviewing the criteria. I understand that there are ways in which persons -- this can be pursued but not through a court order in this case. It didn't meet the criteria that was established.
BLITZER: That's what the judge ruled, Kendall Coffey.
COFFEY: But here's the problem. I mean first of all, I think the regulation has a specific carvel that allows cooperation when crimes are committed on the premises. But let's not talk about the patients because this ruling does affect millions of families, all of whom deserve our sympathy around the country. What about the pusher, the dealer who somehow got that crack cocaine to somebody who needs treatment.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker...
COFFEY: That's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I don't think it was intended that a regulation was going to create a no-fly zone where, in effect, people who need protection the most can be victimized by dealers. And there's going to be no way that prosecutors or police can ever get to the bottom of it.
BLITZER: Mr. Hunsicker, go ahead.
HUNSICKER: Well, I think that again rather than generalizing this particular case, I think it was viewed that it did not meet the criteria and so that, in each and every case, I think that the issues need to be looked at in terms of their merit and the decision made as to whether or not it meets the criteria. I think that addiction treatment providers have historically cooperated with law enforcement individuals, but within the context of the law that's currently framed.
BLITZER: If they want to be successful in those rehab centers, Kendall Coffey, don't they need a certain degree of confidentiality?
COFFEY: Well, of course they do. But what the prosecutor is seeking here is not examination of the minutes of treatment. They're not trying to interfere with the course of rehabilitation for patients. What they've said they want and what I think they really need to have to have is to find out how it got there and who's the one that was the source of the drugs. This is crack cocaine. It's a pretty serious thing in this country.
BLITZER: It certainly is. Unfortunately, we have to leave our abbreviated segment right there because of breaking news earlier in the program. Kendall Coffey, always good to have you on the program. Ronald Hunsicker, thanks for joining us from Harrisburg as well.
That's all the time, unfortunately, we have today. Please join me tomorrow twice a day, 5:00 Eastern, also for our new program, "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ" every day noon Eastern. Until then, thanks for watching. "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
Resolutions; Torricelli Announces Withdrawal from New Jersey Senators Race>
