Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Is War With Iraq Still Avoidable? Where is Laci Peterson?

Aired February 19, 2003 - 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, HOST: It's Wednesday, February 19, 2003. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Some of the top stories we're following right now: pilots learn of the likely conditions they'll have to meet in order to bring guns with them into the cockpit. We'll tell you what those conditions are.

And searching for clues in Modesto, California. Find out why police returned to the house of the missing pregnant woman, Laci Peterson. We're standing by, awaiting a news conference momentarily.

All that's coming up, but first, our top story, the showdown with Iraq.

As anti-war activists flocked to Baghdad as would-be human shields, the Bush administration is issuing a tough warning.

President Bush meets, also, this hour with the leader of NATO. And as the U.S. gets ready for a possible war, is it ready to give diplomacy one more chance?

We'll go live to the White House and to the United Nations.

But let's begin with our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, a lot of concern here at the Pentagon today that Saddam Hussein may be up to one of his old tricks.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld returned to a previous administration theme, that Saddam Hussein's threatened use of human shields is a war crime and a violation of Islamic law.

Peace activists from Britain plan to put themselves next to critical sites in Baghdad in hopes of preventing a U.S. attack. Iraq, of course, used hundreds of human shields in late 1990, including children.

Secretary Rumsfeld was adamant in his criticism of Saddam Hussein using civilians.

DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: He deliberately constructs mosques near military facilities, uses schools, hospitals, orphanages and cultural treasures to shield military forces, thereby exposing helpless men, women and children to danger.

STARR: There is a more immediate concern for the Pentagon, an advanced party of 3,500 U.S. troops and equipment unloaded in Turkey on Wednesday. But Ankara has yet to approve the full plan to allow 40,000 troops, mainly from the 4th Infantry Division, to be based in Turkey for a possible thrust into northern Iraq.

Rumsfeld refused to comment on any deadline, but Pentagon officials say they need a decision in the next 48 hours.

RUMSFELD: I suspect that in one way or another, a variety of ways, probably, they'll end up cooperating in the event that force has to be used in Iraq.

STARR: If Turkey does not agree, ships now in the Mediterranean, carrying the 4th Infantry Division tanks and heavy equipment, will be diverted to another staging location in the Persian Gulf.

Then the division may be forced to drive overland to northern Iraq or be flown in, neither very efficient options, but Pentagon officials say they can make do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Now, Wolf, make no mistake, the U.S. does want access to Turkish bases for a possible war against Iraq. The only question on the table now is whether Washington will meet Ankara's price of billions of dollars in economic aid.

BLITZER: Very important issue. Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thanks for that good report.

And it's a crucial day on the diplomatic front, as well. In just minutes the president will be meeting with the NATO Secretary-General George Robertson over at the White House. You're looking at live pictures of the White House right now.

With more on that and the U.S. plan to seek one more U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, let's go live to CNN's Chris Burns. He's over at White House -- Chris.

CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, a vitally important picture coming up here the White House. This picture of NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson standing next to President Bush, trying to show, at least, that NATO stands together despite these divisions that have cropped up over the last few weeks.

They're going to try to stress the positive sides, that NATO is working together. They have agreed to deploy defensive elements including AWACs and Patriot missile batteries to Turkey in the event there is a war, in the event that Iraq would attack Turkey.

Also, stressing other areas of agreement and activity in Afghanistan.

Also, the NATO enlargement that is going to be planned in the coming couple of years.

All very, very important issues to stress, trying to show that NATO is holding the end together. However, those divisions, as we know, remain with the NATO over whether there should be a war in Iraq over Turkey, over whether they want to accept U.S. troops. So they will be discussing the divisions, but obviously trying to highlight the points of agreement.

The second NATO-Security Council resolution that the U.S. wants to push for, they are confirming today that they will go ahead with that despite the fact that President Bush, as late as yesterday, said that he didn't think that it was necessary, that he could live without it.

He obviously needs it though, from a diplomatic angle, especially to save his key partner among the coalition of the willing. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, he needs that at least as diplomatic cover to show that his country, which is deeply divided over the issue of war in Iraq, to show that they have gone the nine yards and done what they could on a diplomatic level, to try to show that they've done everything they could before waging war against Iraq, if they do -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The White House. And a reminder, our cameras will be in the Oval Office when the president and the NATO secretary-general speak to reporters.

Chris, thanks very much for that report.

Let's continue the diplomatic front over at the United Nations. More countries are voicing their opposition to a U.S.-led war with Iraq.

Our senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth is joining us now live with that -- Richard.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, more than 50 countries have addressed the U.N. Security Council in public, but soon it will be hardball negotiations behind closed doors that will dominate the Iraq story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over) It is the opening act before the real diplomatic drama, a final chance for U.N. member countries to tell the Security Council how they feel about a war with Iraq. Most stated the U.N. is not at that point yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The government and people of Canada are fully prepared to accept the judgments of the inspectors and the decisions of this council.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): War is a serious issue. If it solves one problem it may bring many others with destructive consequences. ROTH: When this debate fades, it will be the turn of the Council to focus a second resolution proposed by the U.S. and Britain. The British ambassador said it might come with a deadline for Iraq to comply on disarmament.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Explicitly or implicitly, yes, I do expect that, because time will, I'm afraid, run out, as time always does.

ROTH: The resolution is not ready for prime time, since the wording will have to be artfully drafted to get the necessary support in the Security Council.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: It's a safe assumption that any resolution that we will work with and support would do what the president said it needed to do, and that's make clear that the Security Council was standing by its demands in his previous resolution.

ROTH: The U.S. will need to use all its diplomatic skills to get the required nine votes in favor of the resolution without any vetoes from permanent members such as France, Russia and China.

Those nations like the threat of more inspections, instead of the threat of war.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE, FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: They should continue inspections and making some pressure -- more pressure on Iraq and more research.

ROTH: Iraq insists the inspectors shouldn't worry.

MOHAMED AL-DOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We are confident that no one will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because there are none.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: And late word, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, according to diplomats and U.N. sources, is expected soon to send a letter to Iraq, demanding that Iraq destroy those Al-Samoud II missiles that have been test fired beyond the allowed range of 93 miles.

Also, the Security Council soon after it wrapped on the Iraq debate, took on North Korea, but as expected, a very brief session. The Council ambassadors were referring the issue to so-called experts, legal experts, to start studying the issue. No rush to judgment on North Korea -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Richard Roth at the United Nations.

The secretary of state, meanwhile, Colin Powell, will tackle the North Korean nuclear crisis in a trip to Japan, China and North Korea. He leaves Friday and will attend next week's presidential inauguration in South Korea. The United States has been trying convince regional powers to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. A very important trip by the secretary of state.

Let's look at some other developments now in the showdown with Iraq.

Britain's foreign office is out with a new advisory on Iraq. It's warning British nationals to leave the country immediately. And in separate advisories, the foreign office is warning against nonessential travel to Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Kuwait because of growing tensions in the region and the threat of terrorism.

Most American troops are packing up and heading overseas. Today families and friends bid farewell to some troops in Fort Carson, Colorado. Almost 5,000 soldiers with a third brigade combat team are scheduled to depart from Fort Carson in the coming days.

By the end of this month, 11,000 of the post's 15,000 troops are expected to be deployed.

Acting ahead of a possible war, the United Nations Children's Fund is launching a campaign to immunize four million Iraqi children against polio. UNICEF is also backing a program to speed up vaccinations against measles.

One out of every eight Iraqi children dies before the age of 5, and officials say war would put them at even greater risk.

Meanwhile Iraqi officials were on the diplomatic offensive today, quoting a Russian lawmaker and blasting British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

CNN's senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, has details from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Saddam Hussein meeting with Russian Duma member, Gennady Zyuganov. Mr. Zyuganov gave the Iraqi leader a watch and a book.

President Saddam Hussein was reported as saying that he thanked the members of the Duma for all their efforts to head off aggression at this time against Iraq.

He said that Iraqis were peace-loving people, that they only wanted peace. However they were not willing to compromise or lose their independence.

Also, Iraq's trade minister today speaking out against British Prime Minister Tony Blair, coming only about two days after the British prime minister had said that when the Iraqi leader came to power that Iraq's economy had essentially gone downhill. That was in 1978. Now, the trade minister saying that President Saddam Hussein was very much a leading figure as part of the revolution in July 1968. As a leading member of the Ba'ath Party, then, had figured heavily in the economic revival of Iraq at that time and including the nationalization of the oil industry. And therefore, what Tony Blair has said was completely inaccurate.

This is very interesting that an Iraqi official should come out so quickly at a time when many officials in Iraq see the United States and Great Britain as being very isolated on the international stage. Also...

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I want to interrupt Nic Robertson's report to go to Modesto, California, where we're standing by. A news conference is now underway involving Laci Peterson, the missing pregnant woman.

DET. DOUG RIDENOUR, MODESTO, CALIF. POLICE: ... methodically stood in order that they've chosen. So we'll leave it as that.

Regarding the items that were -- that are going to be taken out, we're not going to be commenting on anything on the investigation or any of the evidence that was collected, nor will I talk about anything else regarding the collection of items that was taken out yesterday, either.

I know you got a ton of question probably. So let's start there. If we can be as some way reasonable about it. I'll take a few questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) crime scene?

RIDENOUR: No. We're police officers. We're conducting a search warrant, a search warrant by -- that's been authorized by the court.

It's our job to come out here and collect the papers and whatever that we've requested in the search warrant. And in order to do that we need to do it in a way that's appropriate.

Yesterday we were able to keep most of you into some sense of reasonableness on the other side of the road as we asked yesterday. Today, that has not been the case. And so the crime scene tape was established for that.

Let me make it clear, we are serving a search warrant. So anything we take out of here, potentially could be connected to some type of crime later on.

So we have to be considerate of that, as well, and methodical and do it in a way that's authorized by investigative techniques.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you expecting to wrap up the search?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I didn't hear your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the backyard? What was going on in the backyard?

RIDENOUR: When?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today.

RIDENOUR: I'm not aware. I just got here, as you know, just a bit ago and there wasn't anything going on back there, while I was back there, besides having a bite to eat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Are you digging or do you have plans to do some digging on the property?

RIDENOUR: Again, I don't know, to answer your question and if I did know that information I would not be discussing it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you be wrapping up the search today?

RIDENOUR: Rusty, Rusty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you be wrapping up your search today, or do you plan again to seal the house?

RIDENOUR: The lead detective, again, said he hopes that this will be resolved today. That they'll finish today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you comment on what they were doing with the tape measures, when they were measuring the yard and measuring the circumference of the house?

RIDENOUR: A part of any search warrant and the collection of search warrants is also identifying things that you take from a residence or a location as to be able to identify with measurement, where you took the item from. So it's a very common process.

It's a demand for police agencies to make sure that they can put things back in the same place if they need to during a court trial or some other process where they may have to, you know, put that particular item back in that location.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I would make that same statement today. We continue to make progress in this case and, obviously, in the search warrant, as well. It just takes time.

And it's difficult for you all to understand that because you're not in the business of serving search warrants, but for us, it's a very logical process and it's timely.

Ted?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yesterday, you said (UNINTELLIGIBLE) RIDENOUR: Again, I'm not going to discuss what we found or why. All's I can tell you is that the detectives felt that it's necessary to slow down, do things right.

There wasn't any one thing that they come up and said, wow! This is going to take another day. It just says that they determined that they couldn't do it in one day, so they were back today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I explained that yesterday. Detectives requested Amy to come over and assist them and that's all we're going to release regarding Amy's appearance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said that Scott Peterson has been cooperating yesterday. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and is he being cooperative today?

RIDENOUR: The truck that was returned last night? The truck last night was brought back from our custody. It was part of the search warrant.

Today detectives talked to Scott and agreed to take that truck to a location so Scott could pick it up and he doesn't have to come back over here and...

UNINTELLIGIBLE FEMALE: Is he being cooperative?

RIDENOUR: Yes, he is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Where?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His house.

RIDENOUR: As far as the search warrant goes? No. Even as I knew that, again, as I mentioned here, there's no one thing that we found that says this is the break in the case or anything like that.

Again, the reason why it's taken us longer is because that's what the decision was made by the lead detective. Let's slow down, let's do this right. Let's make sure we do things the appropriate way and not be pressured, because we've got 400 media folks out here waiting for us.

We're not going to do that and we need to constantly be reminded. We're conducting a disappearance investigation and we're going to do that in a professional way and that's part of why we have to do what we have to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: One of the things I haven't been doing is repeating the question. So I'll try to do that now, since I -- The question, I believe, was that have we expanded the search warrant beyond what we originally requested and was obtained from the courts?

My understanding, I don't have any information that it's been expanded nor is there any plans to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What value -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some people are wondering what possible value it could have?

RIDENOUR: Those are just areas that's difficult to explain to everybody, but it's a process. Again, it's a process, logically, that we understand as law enforcement officers but we just can't talk about it out in the public.

Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does Scott have an attorney yet?

RIDENOUR: You know, you'll have to ask Scott. I'm not aware of Scott's arrangements with anybody regarding his situation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why was the search warrant sealed? Not all of them are.

RIDENOUR: Not all of our search warrants are sealed?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why was this one sealed?

RIDENOUR: I believe everything that we do in this case has been sealed as far as the search warrants is concerned. You'll have to check with the county clerk regarding the sealing of the search warrants.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Today is still the same thing as we have not been able to eliminate Scott from this their investigation. We'd like to and we're hoping that we're going to be able to do that at some point.

Ted? Ted?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Ted, the question was is Ted cooperating with the search warrant?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scott.

RIDENOUR: Scott. Ted asked the question about Scott.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ted's been very cooperative.

RIDENOUR: Ted has been way more cooperative. The question was whether Scott was, yes, he has been and he continues to be cooperative regarding this. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) why so many bags...

RIDENOUR: Again, even if I knew everything that was collected, I would not be able to talk about it as they're collecting items and things from this residence that they've requested through an affidavit. And we're just not going to talk or discuss items, specific items that were taken, whether they were items that they wanted or not. We're just not going to go there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: It goes to our Modesto Police Department lab and it will be decided at that point whether it needs any further processing outside of our department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Well, it depends. It depends on what they're trying to analyze.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Anybody from the D.A.'s office. I'm not doing a good job of repeating the questions. But anybody from the D.A.'s office, I don't believe so. I did not see anyone in there from the D.A.'s office when I was in the back yard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I think the majority of them is the Modesto police officers.

Well, as I said yesterday, I'm not sure the detectives want us to talk about everybody involved in the case or who's in there, so the majority of the folks I saw when they were connected with the police department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Detective, to the best of your knowledge, at this point in the investigation, when was the last time Laci Peterson (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

RIDENOUR: The only thing I can tell you, the last time that we were aware -- this is on record, this is nothing new -- was Laci talked to her mother and it was -- her mother said it was, I believe the night before her missing, she had talked to her over the telephone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since then you have found no evidence to actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

RIDENOUR: We have not found any evidence? Is that what you're asking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To (UNINTELLIGIBLE) his contention that she was actually still here.

RIDENOUR: Again, those are just things that we're not going to get into in the investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Yes, you know, I'll tell you what, even if I turned around and saw them, I wouldn't want to talk about them. So it's just part of the investigation we're just not going to go into.

Any other questions? Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there anything from the first search warrant that was sent to a crime lab that prompted the second or third?

RIDENOUR: I don't know if there was or not. The detectives, as the statement indicated yesterday, they said the reason they came back here was based on things they had learned and things that they had investigated to this point and they needed to revisit the residence.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BLITZER: Doug Ridenour. He's the public information officer from the Modesto Police Department in California, speaking about this very sad story. Laci Peterson, the pregnant woman missing since Christmas Eve, still missing.

The search warrant that was served yesterday, search warrant on the house, continuing today. They're looking methodically, going through pieces of potential evidence in this kind of case. They've taped -- issued this crime scene tape around the house.

Let's get some analysis now on what all this means in this tragic, yet important case.

Court-TV's Lisa Bloom is joining us now live from New York. She's an attorney and the co-anchor of Court-TV's "Closing Arguments."

Lisa, thanks very much for joining us.

What do you make of this latest development yesterday and today? This very methodical search, the second such search since Christmas Eve at the Peterson home.

LISA BLOOM, COURT-TV: Well, it's very interesting Wolf, and the question is why now? Why almost two months after Laci's disappearance are the police doing this methodical search?

Perhaps they got some lab results from the first search on December 26 recently that's leading them to want more evidence. There may be new detectives on the case, they may have recently gotten a tip. The police aren't telling and so we're left to speculate.

BLITZER: And the whole notion, though, is that Scott Peterson, the husband, without being named a suspect or targeted, if you will, it seems like they're looking precisely at him. That's the impression we're getting. BLOOM: Well, when you have a missing wife, a husband who admits to an extramarital affair, of course, that husband is going to be the prime suspect.

It doesn't surprise me that the police are dragging out dozens and dozens of bags.

It could go one of two ways, Wolf. It could be like the David Westerfield case, where we saw the news cameras showing the police dragging out bags of evidence that ultimately led to a speck of blood that was enough to convict him for the murder of Danielle Van Dam.

Or it could be like Gary Condit, the police again dragging out boxes and bags of evidence from his home, but he was never charged. There simply was no evidence.

The police are just looking at evidence at this point and they're not telling us what they're finding.

BLITZER: In fairness to Scott Peterson, we just heard Doug Ridenour, the public information officer of the Modesto Police Department, say he is cooperating with this search and he pinpointed it with this search.

I guess that's good news for Scott Peterson and his reputation.

BLOOM: Well, what choice does he have, Wolf? There's a search warrant that's been issued. It's really not up to him to cooperate or not cooperate. The police have a legal right to go in there. They could enforce that if necessary.

So for Scott Peterson to be quote, unquote, "cooperating" doesn't mean a whole heck of a let at this point.

BLITZER: There was a question whether, in fact, Scott Peterson has an attorney right now. You heard that question being asked of the PIO, of Doug Ridenour.

I would assume he would need an attorney even if he's totally innocent and this is just simply one big misunderstanding. If you were a friend of his wouldn't you recommend that he have an attorney?

BLOOM: Wolf, if the police are dragging dozens of boxes and bags out of your home, that is a clear sign that you need an attorney. I don't know whether Scott Peterson has one or not, but certainly, he should have one at this point.

It doesn't matter whether he's guilty or innocent. The police are looking at him very carefully. They're being very careful not to say that he is a suspect, but they're not ruling him out as a suspect either. He needs representation.

BLITZER: This whole notion -- and I've heard it repeatedly from commentators out there -- he's not behaving, Scott Peterson, as a husband would behave, a loving husband whose wife disappeared Christmas Eve eight months pregnant? Is that enough, though, to go after him as the police presumably seem to be doing?

BLOOM: Well, the police only need probable cause to search his home.

Most of the time, when a wife is missing and, God forbid, if Laci was killed, murdered, it's usually the husband that did it. Not always, of course. Many husbands are innocent, but it certainly makes sense for the police to take a long, hard look at Scott Peterson.

He has no alibi on the day that Laci went missing. He claims that she knew an extramarital affair. Her friends and family say they never heard that from her mouth. So it is suspicious, and it makes sense for the police to look at Scott Peterson.

BLITZER: Lisa Bloom of Court TV, always good to speak with you. Thanks very much for joining us.

And remember, we're standing by to hear directly from President Bush and the NATO leader, Lord Robertson. They're meeting this hour in the Oval Office. We'll bring you their remarks on the showdown with Iraq. That's coming up momentarily.

Also, will television advertising protect you from terrorism?

TOM RIDGE, U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Yes, I have to say, stash away the duct tape, don't use it! Stash it away!

BLITZER: The Homeland Security Department launches a new public relations campaign. A closer look at what it really means for you and your family.

And tragedy in the desert. A pickup truck with four children inside plunges into an aqueduct. We'll have a report.

And we'll also help you find out if you're a victim of the credit card hacker. Millions of you may be tampered with, with your credit card.

But first, our "News Quiz": "Which company issued the first credit card in history? American Express, Mastercard, Diners Club, Sears?"

The answer coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're looking at the White House where President Bush and NATO leader, Lord Robertson, are about to meet. They're plotting their next moves when it comes to the showdown with Iraq. They'll be speaking to reporters inside the Oval Office. We'll bring you their remarks.

In the meantime, let's check some other major stories we're covering right now. After months of study, the Transportation Security Administration has drawn up plans for letting airline pilots carry guns.

CNN's Patty Davis has details now. She's in Reagan International Airport here in Washington -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, your airline pilot could be packing heat soon. The Transportation Security Administrations is going to be training pilots to carry guns in the cockpit next month. The TSA has been working on just how to do it and what guns those pilots would carry. And here's what a force is recommending -- No. 1, five days of training, 48 hours for those pilots, psychological testing and background checks for those pilots. They'll carry 40 caliber semi-automatic pistols.

Now, five days of training, certainly, a lot less than what air marshals get. Air marshals now get 12 weeks of training. You won't see pilots stepping out of the cockpit into the cabin as air marshals do. And air marshals training, we have some video for you there. Pilots are only allowed to use the guns inside the cockpit and that is to protect it against intruders who are not supposed to be there.

Now, you could see those pilots with guns as early as May, according to the TSA --Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a very important, but controversial story. Thanks, Patty, very much. Patty Davis at Reagan National Airport.

The German trial of an accused 9/11 conspirator ended today with a conviction. A 28-year-old Moroccan man was sentenced to 15 years in jail for being part of the al Qaeda cell that planned the attacks in New York and Washington and that killed more than 3,000 people. That's the maximum sentence allowed under German law.

Mounir el Motassadeq was the first person to be tried anywhere in the world in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The judge rejected his claim he was unaware of the plot.

The homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, traveled to the nation's heartland today to offer families important advice on how they could protect themselves from a possible terror attack.

Our Jeanne Meserve has the story. She's joining us now from here in Washington -- Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, there are predictions that this campaign is going to be bigger than Smokey the Bear and McGruff the Crime Dog. It's about getting prepared for a possible terrorist attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's irrelevant where you live or how many people live in your community. It's America. America's the target, not just New York. It's everywhere and we all have to pitch in. It's time to get serious about preparation. The threat is very real. We know that. And there are some positive things that you can do to better prepare yourself and your family to deal with these problems. Learn to protect yourself at Ready.gov or call for a free brochure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Television spots are just one small part of this campaign, which will also involve radio, billboards, inserts and half a billion copies of the yellow pages and as you heard in that ad, a web site. The web site tries to bring together in one place, information about preparedness that has been available on a number of different sites. Officials expect a Spanish version to be up in a week or so ask eventually this will be Chinese and interestingly enough, Arabic versions.

The basic advice -- become informed, prepare a communications plan for your family and put together an emergency kit, which, yes, should include duct tape and plastic sheeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: Yes, I have to say stash away the duct tape. Don't use it! Stash it away and that premeasured plastic sheeting for future -- and I emphasize, future use. Experts tell us that a safe room inside your house or inside your apartment can help protect you from airborne contaminants for several hours and that could be just enough time for that chemical agent to be blown away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Homeland security officials say this campaign was scheduled to be rolled out long before the hullabaloo over duct tape and plastic sheeting and they claim there's no connection. Some experts say the government should have rolled out this kind of campaign a long time ago, but they're happy to see it. They believe public preparedness is the best anecdote for panic.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Jeanne Meserve. Jeanne traveled with the secretary today in Cincinnati and back safe in Washington as is he.

Thanks very much, Jeanne, for that report.

The president has been meeting in the Oval Office with Lord Robertson, the NATO leader. Let's go to the tape and hear what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, we'll have a statement. I'm going to make a statement. George will make a statement. No questions.

George, welcome. I'm honored to have you here. I -- you represent our nation's most important alliance, NATO. Today, this alliance is providing equipment to Turkey to help protect our Turkish ally from a potential attack from Iraq. I want to thank you for your leadership. You've done a fantastic job of keeping this alliance together, moving it forward, and not only addressing the current threats that we face, but preparing NATO to address threats into the future and I congratulate you on a great leadership and welcome you back to the Oval Office.

LORD GEORGE ROBERTSON, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Thanks, Mr. President. On the 12th of September, NATO passed a declaration of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. We came to the aid of an ally, the United States, under threat, under attack. And today, we've sent AWACs aircraft and patriot missiles and chem.-bio defensive equipment to Turkey and another allies in trouble, underfed, asking for help. That's what the alliance of free nations is all about.

Sometimes we, you know, we can take a better time to do it. It reminded me of Winston Churchill, whose bust is over there, who once famously said of the United States of America "the United States can always be counted on to do the right thing after it's exhausted every other alternative." Well, you can see exactly the same thing about NATO. But when we get there, we're strong and we stand for the values that unite a great alliance.

BUSH: Thanks. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Only a few moments ago in the Oval Office, President Bush meeting with Lord Robertson, the secretary-general of NATO, trying to show a united front, a unified front in the aftermath of huge debates under way in recent days and weeks inside NATO, the 19- member alliance, whether or not to send defensive equipment to NATO member Turkey. That issue resolved only in the past couple of days. President Bush clearly grateful for that decision and warmly welcoming Lord Robertson to the White House.

We'll continue to monitor that story and bring you more of that of course, as it becomes available. More showdown Iraq throughout this program, including this, Iraq, voices of dissent. We'll have a debate, a debate that's dividing so much of the world.

Should we or shouldn't we? Should the United States go to war? We'll hear from both sides. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Joining me now to talk about a potential war with Iraq, the founder of the group Win Without War, the former Democratic congressman, Tom Andrews, and Danielle Pletka. She is the vice president and foreign defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington.

Thanks to both of you for joining us. TOM ANDREWS, WIN WITHOUT WAR: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let me begin with you, Congressman. First of all, you had a news conference today. You unleashed a massive new ad campaign with a lot of Hollywood stars. What's the point?

ANDREWS: We want people to pick up their phones and call Congress, call the president, fax them, e-mail them and tell them that they're opposed to this war and think twice before you move forward.

BLITZER: Do you think the president will listen to this argument?

ANDREWS: Well, I think if he is open to his political future in terms of his base in Congress, in terms of the direction of the country, the fact that 59 percent of the American people believe that we should be giving the U.N. inspectors more time, he will listen.

BLITZER: What do you think? Do you think he will listen to them, Danielle?

DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Oh, I think he's been listening. I think think once, think twice, think three or four times. I can't disagree with that. The question really is -- at what time do we decide that the process has to end and that military action is our only option.

BLITZER: When is that, in your opinion?

PLETKA: I think that's very, very soon. The president said weeks not months and I think he's right. It's important to remember, we didn't start in November, we started in 1991 and that we've had 17 resolutions, not just one and that really the time for inspections is coming to an end.

BLITZER: This is, Congressman, 12 years that the U.S. says he has not fulfilled the cease-fire obligations he accepted at the end of first Gulf War in 1991.

ANDREWS: You know the weapons inspection is more than inspections, first of all. It's going in and finding the weapons and destroying them and taking them out. The inspection process destroyed more weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein than the entire Gulf War in 1991. They're working. They're making progress. Mr. Blix says that we're moving forward.

People I talk to have a question. Look, how does this all affect me and my family in terms of terrorism, in terms of weapons of mass destruction? What we know from the CIA is that those weapons of mass destruction, if he has them, will most likely be used with an invasion. We also know from them that it would be a recruiting bonanza for Osama bin Laden, forging a whole new generation of terrorists that we'd have to deal with, plus destabilize the region.

BLITZER: He said the downsides clearly outweigh the positives. PLETKA: Well, sticking your head in the sand, as we learned throughout the 1990s, isn't to go forward. It only encourages people to believe terrorists, like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, to believe that we can be defeated. If in fact, there is some threat that he may use weapons of mass destruction -- and we can't say that he won't -- then, who is to say that one month, two months, three months, down the road when the inspections are still not working that we are faced with an option and that he won't use them then when he has more, better developed, better delivery system, possible nuclear weapons. We can't take the risk.

BLITZER: What about...

ANDREWS: Well, Wolf, we say that destroying weapons of mass destruction is not burying your head in the sand. They're working. He is unable, all of the experts say, all of the experts say that even if he wanted to use them right now with all of the inspectors crawling all over his palaces and every nook and granny with U-2s overhead, he can't use weapons of mass destruction.

He will use them if he has them at the point of attack. So why take that risk? Why put us at risk? Why destabilize the region when these weapons inspections...

BLITZER: That's a fair question, Danielle.

PLETKA: I don't think it's actually very fair. First of all, a hundred inspectors should not make us feel safe from Saddam Hussein.

BLITZER: I think there are 200.

PLETKA: No, there are 100. But there are...

BLITZER: Well, 200 people.

PLETKA: But that's not the point here. The point here is that throughout the time that the inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, developed -- Iraq continued to develop weapons of mass destruction. All of the inspectors say so. The U.N., UNSCOM said so, UNMOVIC said so, and the IAEA said so.

The real question is not -- not are the inspectors there to protect us, but are they doing the job they were meant to do, which is to verify Iraq's full, final, complete disarmament and the answer is no.

BLITZER: You get the last word and we only have a few seconds left.

ANDREWS: Weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of terrorists if we attack. Why put us at risk? Why destabilize the region? Let's let these inspection -- this inspection process work.

BLITZER: Tom Andrews and Danielle Pletka, thanks very much. We'll continue this debate on another occasion.

ANDREWS: Thank you, Wolf.

PLETKA: Thank you.

BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.

Here's your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our "Web Question of The Day" is this -- should the United States strike Iraq even if it doesn't have a second United Nations resolution? We'll have the results later in this broadcast. Vote at CNN.com/Wolf.

Like their fellow Americans at home, tense of thousands of American troops on duty in Kuwait are watching and waiting for President Bush's next move in the showdown with Iraq. That's part of our continuing series, "The Military Buildup: A Day in The Life." CNN's Juan Carlos Lopez shows us what the daily routine is look for troops at the big military base in Kuwait.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Long days, hard work, waiting, that's a routine at Camp Arifjan, the sprawling military complex in southern Kuwait. To many of the thousands of American and coalition troops stationed here like Second Lieutenant Ester Villa from Tucson, Arizona, having access to amenities taken for granted in civilian life makes all of the difference.

2ND LT. ESTER VILLA, U.S. ARMY: The conditions here are much better than I expected. I get a cot to sleep on. There's enough showers and bathrooms. And we have to stand in line for everything, but it's still better than I expected.

LOPEZ: Tanks, trucks and all types of heavy equipment are prepared for service. It's a 24/7 high tech shop.

(on camera): But there's more than hard work at Camp Arifjan. The U.S. military has tried to create a home away from home in the middle of the desert.

(voice-over): They are called morale, welfare and recreation facilities. Opinions are divided.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kuwait, we love it. We love it out here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Not me!

LOPEZ: This is the crown jewel for soldiers at Arifjan, gravel instead of sand, palm trees, although small, and chairs and tables to get away from it all, burgers, pizza and ice cream and the possibility of playing ping-pong and board games.

SPEC. TYRONE SCHWARTZ, U.S. ARMY: It does pay us time. It helps remind me kind of of home, you know what I'm saying. I thought when I was coming out here it was going to be a lot worse than this. But now that we're here, it's it kind of reminding me like I'm at home a little bit.

LOPEZ: A cyber cafe is in the works and movies are also an option, but many here just want to focus on the job ahead.

SPEC. ERICK LOPEZ, U.S. ARMY: I like having all these amenities. It builds the morale, but just want to -- just start -- get -- do our job and get back home to our families.

LOPEZ: For now this, is home and family, a place to wait and wait and wait.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Juan Carlos Lopez, CNN correspondent, thanks very much.

An exclusive look, a killer's future in the hands of a parole board. What did they decide? You're watching CNN, the most trusted source in news. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The final chapter is being written in a landmark murder case that began more than a quarter century ago. Among the things that made it so unusual, the trial was among the first to be televised, the defense strategy was very controversial and the defendant only 15 years old. Our national correspondent, Susan Candiotti has the story.

Unfortunately, we're having some technical troubles with getting Susan Candiotti's story. We're going to try to fix that. And actually, I think we have that fixed right now. Here's Susan Candiotti's report.

BLITZER: You get our report ready and our server. Susan, if you can hear me, give us background, first of all, about this incredible story.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this involves a young man, who at the time of a murder was only 14 years old. He went to trial at age 15. This was back in 1977 and he was accused -- and was convicted, actually, of fatally shooting his next-door neighbor, then taking the money to go off for a trip to Disney World. This was the first trial televised in Florida and was indeed very controversial for the reasons you mentioned. Here is a look, an exclusive look at Ronnie Zamora.

BLITZER: Unfortunately, we don't have that package ready. We're going to take a quick break. We're going to fix these little technical gremlins. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get the results of our "Web Question of The Day." Should the United States strike even if it doesn't have a second resolution? Look at these results, 39 percent of you so far say yes, 61 percent of you say no.

Let's get to some of your e-mails. Jonathan is writing this: "If Iraq is really such a threat to its neighbors and Turkey is one of those threatened neighbors as evidenced by its request for NATO protection, then it should welcome a U.S. military presence with open arms. Why should the U.S. have to pay Turkey to use their bases for the attack? It seems to me that if Iraq was such a danger to them, they should pay us to help keep them safe."

This from Ross: "President Bush states that the anti-war protectors will have no effect on his decision to attack Iraq. He may not listen to protesters, but perhaps, he will listen to the voters and the returns from the next election."

In our "Picture of The Day," it's a tough choice for some television news decision-makers. Earlier today, the nation's homeland security chief had to share his time in the spotlight, get ready, with a dog. The story from CNN's Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the story of a dog marooned on the ice and how he managed to put the homeland security secretary on ice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've got to share with you what's happening to this dog.

MOOS: It began Wednesday morning when folks started calling in to report a dog adrift on an ice flow in the Passaic River. To the rescue, the Carney, New Jersey Fire Department and the Humane Society. Now, granted this wasn't the biggest news on the planet. Simultaneously, Dick Gephardt was announcing his run for president. Then, Gephardt was bumped by the all news networks to make way for secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge...

RIDGE: We will not be afraid.

MOOS: ... who in turn got bumped by the doggie rescue. As the boat struggled to reach the dog, the networks struggled to decide which story to go with? First, they split the screen, but as the rescue came to a climax, the dog won.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right that was Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

MOOS: Temporarily upstaged by a Rottweiler mix. After being lassoed, he was eventually pulled into the boat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doggy in the boat!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I scooped him. He was so happy. Once he got on the boat, he just sit right there like, I was safe.

MOOS: And the networks were safe to return to homeland security. For now, the dog's home is the Humane Society in Newark where he'll remain until his owner shows up or he's put up for adoption. The fireman who rowed the boat says he'd take him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a good dog. Yes, it was a nice dog. MOOS: But it was nice to dump the homeland security secretary for a dog? Tom Ridge didn't seem to mind.

RIDGE: Did they save the dog?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

RIDGE: All's well that ends well!

MOOS: But a few viewers were irate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the program went to the dog, I was so horrified. I mean that's a local story.

MOOS: But it's a local story with legs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come here. Come here. Are you all right?

MOOS: Not to mention his tail between his legs.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Well, only Jeanne Moos can do those kinds of stories, Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security, being a very good sport about all of this. Hard to compete, I guess, with a dog.

I want to apologize to our viewers. Unfortunately, we couldn't bring you Susan Candiotti's excellent report. We'll try to get that problem fixed. Hopefully, we'll get it on the air very, very soon, an important story and we'll fix it and we'll get it on the air.

Unfortunately, that's all of the time we have right now. Please join me again tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Eastern for a CNN exclusive, "The Gangs of L.A." Our Charles Feldman, he got inside the dangerous gang scene, risking his own life in the process, interviewing rival gang members. We'll have the compelling story you won't want to miss. That's at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.

And don't forget, "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ" weekdays, every day noon Eastern, an in-depth look inside the showdown with Iraq.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" is coming up after this short break.

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





Peterson?>


Aired February 19, 2003 - 17:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: It's Wednesday, February 19, 2003. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Some of the top stories we're following right now: pilots learn of the likely conditions they'll have to meet in order to bring guns with them into the cockpit. We'll tell you what those conditions are.

And searching for clues in Modesto, California. Find out why police returned to the house of the missing pregnant woman, Laci Peterson. We're standing by, awaiting a news conference momentarily.

All that's coming up, but first, our top story, the showdown with Iraq.

As anti-war activists flocked to Baghdad as would-be human shields, the Bush administration is issuing a tough warning.

President Bush meets, also, this hour with the leader of NATO. And as the U.S. gets ready for a possible war, is it ready to give diplomacy one more chance?

We'll go live to the White House and to the United Nations.

But let's begin with our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, a lot of concern here at the Pentagon today that Saddam Hussein may be up to one of his old tricks.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld returned to a previous administration theme, that Saddam Hussein's threatened use of human shields is a war crime and a violation of Islamic law.

Peace activists from Britain plan to put themselves next to critical sites in Baghdad in hopes of preventing a U.S. attack. Iraq, of course, used hundreds of human shields in late 1990, including children.

Secretary Rumsfeld was adamant in his criticism of Saddam Hussein using civilians.

DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: He deliberately constructs mosques near military facilities, uses schools, hospitals, orphanages and cultural treasures to shield military forces, thereby exposing helpless men, women and children to danger.

STARR: There is a more immediate concern for the Pentagon, an advanced party of 3,500 U.S. troops and equipment unloaded in Turkey on Wednesday. But Ankara has yet to approve the full plan to allow 40,000 troops, mainly from the 4th Infantry Division, to be based in Turkey for a possible thrust into northern Iraq.

Rumsfeld refused to comment on any deadline, but Pentagon officials say they need a decision in the next 48 hours.

RUMSFELD: I suspect that in one way or another, a variety of ways, probably, they'll end up cooperating in the event that force has to be used in Iraq.

STARR: If Turkey does not agree, ships now in the Mediterranean, carrying the 4th Infantry Division tanks and heavy equipment, will be diverted to another staging location in the Persian Gulf.

Then the division may be forced to drive overland to northern Iraq or be flown in, neither very efficient options, but Pentagon officials say they can make do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Now, Wolf, make no mistake, the U.S. does want access to Turkish bases for a possible war against Iraq. The only question on the table now is whether Washington will meet Ankara's price of billions of dollars in economic aid.

BLITZER: Very important issue. Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thanks for that good report.

And it's a crucial day on the diplomatic front, as well. In just minutes the president will be meeting with the NATO Secretary-General George Robertson over at the White House. You're looking at live pictures of the White House right now.

With more on that and the U.S. plan to seek one more U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, let's go live to CNN's Chris Burns. He's over at White House -- Chris.

CHRIS BURNS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, a vitally important picture coming up here the White House. This picture of NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson standing next to President Bush, trying to show, at least, that NATO stands together despite these divisions that have cropped up over the last few weeks.

They're going to try to stress the positive sides, that NATO is working together. They have agreed to deploy defensive elements including AWACs and Patriot missile batteries to Turkey in the event there is a war, in the event that Iraq would attack Turkey.

Also, stressing other areas of agreement and activity in Afghanistan.

Also, the NATO enlargement that is going to be planned in the coming couple of years.

All very, very important issues to stress, trying to show that NATO is holding the end together. However, those divisions, as we know, remain with the NATO over whether there should be a war in Iraq over Turkey, over whether they want to accept U.S. troops. So they will be discussing the divisions, but obviously trying to highlight the points of agreement.

The second NATO-Security Council resolution that the U.S. wants to push for, they are confirming today that they will go ahead with that despite the fact that President Bush, as late as yesterday, said that he didn't think that it was necessary, that he could live without it.

He obviously needs it though, from a diplomatic angle, especially to save his key partner among the coalition of the willing. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, he needs that at least as diplomatic cover to show that his country, which is deeply divided over the issue of war in Iraq, to show that they have gone the nine yards and done what they could on a diplomatic level, to try to show that they've done everything they could before waging war against Iraq, if they do -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The White House. And a reminder, our cameras will be in the Oval Office when the president and the NATO secretary-general speak to reporters.

Chris, thanks very much for that report.

Let's continue the diplomatic front over at the United Nations. More countries are voicing their opposition to a U.S.-led war with Iraq.

Our senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth is joining us now live with that -- Richard.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, more than 50 countries have addressed the U.N. Security Council in public, but soon it will be hardball negotiations behind closed doors that will dominate the Iraq story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over) It is the opening act before the real diplomatic drama, a final chance for U.N. member countries to tell the Security Council how they feel about a war with Iraq. Most stated the U.N. is not at that point yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The government and people of Canada are fully prepared to accept the judgments of the inspectors and the decisions of this council.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): War is a serious issue. If it solves one problem it may bring many others with destructive consequences. ROTH: When this debate fades, it will be the turn of the Council to focus a second resolution proposed by the U.S. and Britain. The British ambassador said it might come with a deadline for Iraq to comply on disarmament.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Explicitly or implicitly, yes, I do expect that, because time will, I'm afraid, run out, as time always does.

ROTH: The resolution is not ready for prime time, since the wording will have to be artfully drafted to get the necessary support in the Security Council.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: It's a safe assumption that any resolution that we will work with and support would do what the president said it needed to do, and that's make clear that the Security Council was standing by its demands in his previous resolution.

ROTH: The U.S. will need to use all its diplomatic skills to get the required nine votes in favor of the resolution without any vetoes from permanent members such as France, Russia and China.

Those nations like the threat of more inspections, instead of the threat of war.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE, FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: They should continue inspections and making some pressure -- more pressure on Iraq and more research.

ROTH: Iraq insists the inspectors shouldn't worry.

MOHAMED AL-DOURI, IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We are confident that no one will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because there are none.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: And late word, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, according to diplomats and U.N. sources, is expected soon to send a letter to Iraq, demanding that Iraq destroy those Al-Samoud II missiles that have been test fired beyond the allowed range of 93 miles.

Also, the Security Council soon after it wrapped on the Iraq debate, took on North Korea, but as expected, a very brief session. The Council ambassadors were referring the issue to so-called experts, legal experts, to start studying the issue. No rush to judgment on North Korea -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Richard Roth at the United Nations.

The secretary of state, meanwhile, Colin Powell, will tackle the North Korean nuclear crisis in a trip to Japan, China and North Korea. He leaves Friday and will attend next week's presidential inauguration in South Korea. The United States has been trying convince regional powers to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. A very important trip by the secretary of state.

Let's look at some other developments now in the showdown with Iraq.

Britain's foreign office is out with a new advisory on Iraq. It's warning British nationals to leave the country immediately. And in separate advisories, the foreign office is warning against nonessential travel to Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Kuwait because of growing tensions in the region and the threat of terrorism.

Most American troops are packing up and heading overseas. Today families and friends bid farewell to some troops in Fort Carson, Colorado. Almost 5,000 soldiers with a third brigade combat team are scheduled to depart from Fort Carson in the coming days.

By the end of this month, 11,000 of the post's 15,000 troops are expected to be deployed.

Acting ahead of a possible war, the United Nations Children's Fund is launching a campaign to immunize four million Iraqi children against polio. UNICEF is also backing a program to speed up vaccinations against measles.

One out of every eight Iraqi children dies before the age of 5, and officials say war would put them at even greater risk.

Meanwhile Iraqi officials were on the diplomatic offensive today, quoting a Russian lawmaker and blasting British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

CNN's senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, has details from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Saddam Hussein meeting with Russian Duma member, Gennady Zyuganov. Mr. Zyuganov gave the Iraqi leader a watch and a book.

President Saddam Hussein was reported as saying that he thanked the members of the Duma for all their efforts to head off aggression at this time against Iraq.

He said that Iraqis were peace-loving people, that they only wanted peace. However they were not willing to compromise or lose their independence.

Also, Iraq's trade minister today speaking out against British Prime Minister Tony Blair, coming only about two days after the British prime minister had said that when the Iraqi leader came to power that Iraq's economy had essentially gone downhill. That was in 1978. Now, the trade minister saying that President Saddam Hussein was very much a leading figure as part of the revolution in July 1968. As a leading member of the Ba'ath Party, then, had figured heavily in the economic revival of Iraq at that time and including the nationalization of the oil industry. And therefore, what Tony Blair has said was completely inaccurate.

This is very interesting that an Iraqi official should come out so quickly at a time when many officials in Iraq see the United States and Great Britain as being very isolated on the international stage. Also...

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: I want to interrupt Nic Robertson's report to go to Modesto, California, where we're standing by. A news conference is now underway involving Laci Peterson, the missing pregnant woman.

DET. DOUG RIDENOUR, MODESTO, CALIF. POLICE: ... methodically stood in order that they've chosen. So we'll leave it as that.

Regarding the items that were -- that are going to be taken out, we're not going to be commenting on anything on the investigation or any of the evidence that was collected, nor will I talk about anything else regarding the collection of items that was taken out yesterday, either.

I know you got a ton of question probably. So let's start there. If we can be as some way reasonable about it. I'll take a few questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) crime scene?

RIDENOUR: No. We're police officers. We're conducting a search warrant, a search warrant by -- that's been authorized by the court.

It's our job to come out here and collect the papers and whatever that we've requested in the search warrant. And in order to do that we need to do it in a way that's appropriate.

Yesterday we were able to keep most of you into some sense of reasonableness on the other side of the road as we asked yesterday. Today, that has not been the case. And so the crime scene tape was established for that.

Let me make it clear, we are serving a search warrant. So anything we take out of here, potentially could be connected to some type of crime later on.

So we have to be considerate of that, as well, and methodical and do it in a way that's authorized by investigative techniques.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you expecting to wrap up the search?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I didn't hear your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the backyard? What was going on in the backyard?

RIDENOUR: When?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today.

RIDENOUR: I'm not aware. I just got here, as you know, just a bit ago and there wasn't anything going on back there, while I was back there, besides having a bite to eat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Are you digging or do you have plans to do some digging on the property?

RIDENOUR: Again, I don't know, to answer your question and if I did know that information I would not be discussing it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you be wrapping up the search today?

RIDENOUR: Rusty, Rusty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you be wrapping up your search today, or do you plan again to seal the house?

RIDENOUR: The lead detective, again, said he hopes that this will be resolved today. That they'll finish today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you comment on what they were doing with the tape measures, when they were measuring the yard and measuring the circumference of the house?

RIDENOUR: A part of any search warrant and the collection of search warrants is also identifying things that you take from a residence or a location as to be able to identify with measurement, where you took the item from. So it's a very common process.

It's a demand for police agencies to make sure that they can put things back in the same place if they need to during a court trial or some other process where they may have to, you know, put that particular item back in that location.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I would make that same statement today. We continue to make progress in this case and, obviously, in the search warrant, as well. It just takes time.

And it's difficult for you all to understand that because you're not in the business of serving search warrants, but for us, it's a very logical process and it's timely.

Ted?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yesterday, you said (UNINTELLIGIBLE) RIDENOUR: Again, I'm not going to discuss what we found or why. All's I can tell you is that the detectives felt that it's necessary to slow down, do things right.

There wasn't any one thing that they come up and said, wow! This is going to take another day. It just says that they determined that they couldn't do it in one day, so they were back today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I explained that yesterday. Detectives requested Amy to come over and assist them and that's all we're going to release regarding Amy's appearance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said that Scott Peterson has been cooperating yesterday. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and is he being cooperative today?

RIDENOUR: The truck that was returned last night? The truck last night was brought back from our custody. It was part of the search warrant.

Today detectives talked to Scott and agreed to take that truck to a location so Scott could pick it up and he doesn't have to come back over here and...

UNINTELLIGIBLE FEMALE: Is he being cooperative?

RIDENOUR: Yes, he is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Where?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His house.

RIDENOUR: As far as the search warrant goes? No. Even as I knew that, again, as I mentioned here, there's no one thing that we found that says this is the break in the case or anything like that.

Again, the reason why it's taken us longer is because that's what the decision was made by the lead detective. Let's slow down, let's do this right. Let's make sure we do things the appropriate way and not be pressured, because we've got 400 media folks out here waiting for us.

We're not going to do that and we need to constantly be reminded. We're conducting a disappearance investigation and we're going to do that in a professional way and that's part of why we have to do what we have to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: One of the things I haven't been doing is repeating the question. So I'll try to do that now, since I -- The question, I believe, was that have we expanded the search warrant beyond what we originally requested and was obtained from the courts?

My understanding, I don't have any information that it's been expanded nor is there any plans to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What value -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) some people are wondering what possible value it could have?

RIDENOUR: Those are just areas that's difficult to explain to everybody, but it's a process. Again, it's a process, logically, that we understand as law enforcement officers but we just can't talk about it out in the public.

Yes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does Scott have an attorney yet?

RIDENOUR: You know, you'll have to ask Scott. I'm not aware of Scott's arrangements with anybody regarding his situation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why was the search warrant sealed? Not all of them are.

RIDENOUR: Not all of our search warrants are sealed?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why was this one sealed?

RIDENOUR: I believe everything that we do in this case has been sealed as far as the search warrants is concerned. You'll have to check with the county clerk regarding the sealing of the search warrants.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Today is still the same thing as we have not been able to eliminate Scott from this their investigation. We'd like to and we're hoping that we're going to be able to do that at some point.

Ted? Ted?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Ted, the question was is Ted cooperating with the search warrant?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scott.

RIDENOUR: Scott. Ted asked the question about Scott.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ted's been very cooperative.

RIDENOUR: Ted has been way more cooperative. The question was whether Scott was, yes, he has been and he continues to be cooperative regarding this. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) why so many bags...

RIDENOUR: Again, even if I knew everything that was collected, I would not be able to talk about it as they're collecting items and things from this residence that they've requested through an affidavit. And we're just not going to talk or discuss items, specific items that were taken, whether they were items that they wanted or not. We're just not going to go there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: It goes to our Modesto Police Department lab and it will be decided at that point whether it needs any further processing outside of our department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Well, it depends. It depends on what they're trying to analyze.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Anybody from the D.A.'s office. I'm not doing a good job of repeating the questions. But anybody from the D.A.'s office, I don't believe so. I did not see anyone in there from the D.A.'s office when I was in the back yard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: I think the majority of them is the Modesto police officers.

Well, as I said yesterday, I'm not sure the detectives want us to talk about everybody involved in the case or who's in there, so the majority of the folks I saw when they were connected with the police department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Detective, to the best of your knowledge, at this point in the investigation, when was the last time Laci Peterson (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

RIDENOUR: The only thing I can tell you, the last time that we were aware -- this is on record, this is nothing new -- was Laci talked to her mother and it was -- her mother said it was, I believe the night before her missing, she had talked to her over the telephone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since then you have found no evidence to actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

RIDENOUR: We have not found any evidence? Is that what you're asking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To (UNINTELLIGIBLE) his contention that she was actually still here.

RIDENOUR: Again, those are just things that we're not going to get into in the investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

RIDENOUR: Yes, you know, I'll tell you what, even if I turned around and saw them, I wouldn't want to talk about them. So it's just part of the investigation we're just not going to go into.

Any other questions? Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there anything from the first search warrant that was sent to a crime lab that prompted the second or third?

RIDENOUR: I don't know if there was or not. The detectives, as the statement indicated yesterday, they said the reason they came back here was based on things they had learned and things that they had investigated to this point and they needed to revisit the residence.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BLITZER: Doug Ridenour. He's the public information officer from the Modesto Police Department in California, speaking about this very sad story. Laci Peterson, the pregnant woman missing since Christmas Eve, still missing.

The search warrant that was served yesterday, search warrant on the house, continuing today. They're looking methodically, going through pieces of potential evidence in this kind of case. They've taped -- issued this crime scene tape around the house.

Let's get some analysis now on what all this means in this tragic, yet important case.

Court-TV's Lisa Bloom is joining us now live from New York. She's an attorney and the co-anchor of Court-TV's "Closing Arguments."

Lisa, thanks very much for joining us.

What do you make of this latest development yesterday and today? This very methodical search, the second such search since Christmas Eve at the Peterson home.

LISA BLOOM, COURT-TV: Well, it's very interesting Wolf, and the question is why now? Why almost two months after Laci's disappearance are the police doing this methodical search?

Perhaps they got some lab results from the first search on December 26 recently that's leading them to want more evidence. There may be new detectives on the case, they may have recently gotten a tip. The police aren't telling and so we're left to speculate.

BLITZER: And the whole notion, though, is that Scott Peterson, the husband, without being named a suspect or targeted, if you will, it seems like they're looking precisely at him. That's the impression we're getting. BLOOM: Well, when you have a missing wife, a husband who admits to an extramarital affair, of course, that husband is going to be the prime suspect.

It doesn't surprise me that the police are dragging out dozens and dozens of bags.

It could go one of two ways, Wolf. It could be like the David Westerfield case, where we saw the news cameras showing the police dragging out bags of evidence that ultimately led to a speck of blood that was enough to convict him for the murder of Danielle Van Dam.

Or it could be like Gary Condit, the police again dragging out boxes and bags of evidence from his home, but he was never charged. There simply was no evidence.

The police are just looking at evidence at this point and they're not telling us what they're finding.

BLITZER: In fairness to Scott Peterson, we just heard Doug Ridenour, the public information officer of the Modesto Police Department, say he is cooperating with this search and he pinpointed it with this search.

I guess that's good news for Scott Peterson and his reputation.

BLOOM: Well, what choice does he have, Wolf? There's a search warrant that's been issued. It's really not up to him to cooperate or not cooperate. The police have a legal right to go in there. They could enforce that if necessary.

So for Scott Peterson to be quote, unquote, "cooperating" doesn't mean a whole heck of a let at this point.

BLITZER: There was a question whether, in fact, Scott Peterson has an attorney right now. You heard that question being asked of the PIO, of Doug Ridenour.

I would assume he would need an attorney even if he's totally innocent and this is just simply one big misunderstanding. If you were a friend of his wouldn't you recommend that he have an attorney?

BLOOM: Wolf, if the police are dragging dozens of boxes and bags out of your home, that is a clear sign that you need an attorney. I don't know whether Scott Peterson has one or not, but certainly, he should have one at this point.

It doesn't matter whether he's guilty or innocent. The police are looking at him very carefully. They're being very careful not to say that he is a suspect, but they're not ruling him out as a suspect either. He needs representation.

BLITZER: This whole notion -- and I've heard it repeatedly from commentators out there -- he's not behaving, Scott Peterson, as a husband would behave, a loving husband whose wife disappeared Christmas Eve eight months pregnant? Is that enough, though, to go after him as the police presumably seem to be doing?

BLOOM: Well, the police only need probable cause to search his home.

Most of the time, when a wife is missing and, God forbid, if Laci was killed, murdered, it's usually the husband that did it. Not always, of course. Many husbands are innocent, but it certainly makes sense for the police to take a long, hard look at Scott Peterson.

He has no alibi on the day that Laci went missing. He claims that she knew an extramarital affair. Her friends and family say they never heard that from her mouth. So it is suspicious, and it makes sense for the police to look at Scott Peterson.

BLITZER: Lisa Bloom of Court TV, always good to speak with you. Thanks very much for joining us.

And remember, we're standing by to hear directly from President Bush and the NATO leader, Lord Robertson. They're meeting this hour in the Oval Office. We'll bring you their remarks on the showdown with Iraq. That's coming up momentarily.

Also, will television advertising protect you from terrorism?

TOM RIDGE, U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Yes, I have to say, stash away the duct tape, don't use it! Stash it away!

BLITZER: The Homeland Security Department launches a new public relations campaign. A closer look at what it really means for you and your family.

And tragedy in the desert. A pickup truck with four children inside plunges into an aqueduct. We'll have a report.

And we'll also help you find out if you're a victim of the credit card hacker. Millions of you may be tampered with, with your credit card.

But first, our "News Quiz": "Which company issued the first credit card in history? American Express, Mastercard, Diners Club, Sears?"

The answer coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: You're looking at the White House where President Bush and NATO leader, Lord Robertson, are about to meet. They're plotting their next moves when it comes to the showdown with Iraq. They'll be speaking to reporters inside the Oval Office. We'll bring you their remarks.

In the meantime, let's check some other major stories we're covering right now. After months of study, the Transportation Security Administration has drawn up plans for letting airline pilots carry guns.

CNN's Patty Davis has details now. She's in Reagan International Airport here in Washington -- Patty.

PATTY DAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, your airline pilot could be packing heat soon. The Transportation Security Administrations is going to be training pilots to carry guns in the cockpit next month. The TSA has been working on just how to do it and what guns those pilots would carry. And here's what a force is recommending -- No. 1, five days of training, 48 hours for those pilots, psychological testing and background checks for those pilots. They'll carry 40 caliber semi-automatic pistols.

Now, five days of training, certainly, a lot less than what air marshals get. Air marshals now get 12 weeks of training. You won't see pilots stepping out of the cockpit into the cabin as air marshals do. And air marshals training, we have some video for you there. Pilots are only allowed to use the guns inside the cockpit and that is to protect it against intruders who are not supposed to be there.

Now, you could see those pilots with guns as early as May, according to the TSA --Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a very important, but controversial story. Thanks, Patty, very much. Patty Davis at Reagan National Airport.

The German trial of an accused 9/11 conspirator ended today with a conviction. A 28-year-old Moroccan man was sentenced to 15 years in jail for being part of the al Qaeda cell that planned the attacks in New York and Washington and that killed more than 3,000 people. That's the maximum sentence allowed under German law.

Mounir el Motassadeq was the first person to be tried anywhere in the world in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The judge rejected his claim he was unaware of the plot.

The homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, traveled to the nation's heartland today to offer families important advice on how they could protect themselves from a possible terror attack.

Our Jeanne Meserve has the story. She's joining us now from here in Washington -- Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, there are predictions that this campaign is going to be bigger than Smokey the Bear and McGruff the Crime Dog. It's about getting prepared for a possible terrorist attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's irrelevant where you live or how many people live in your community. It's America. America's the target, not just New York. It's everywhere and we all have to pitch in. It's time to get serious about preparation. The threat is very real. We know that. And there are some positive things that you can do to better prepare yourself and your family to deal with these problems. Learn to protect yourself at Ready.gov or call for a free brochure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Television spots are just one small part of this campaign, which will also involve radio, billboards, inserts and half a billion copies of the yellow pages and as you heard in that ad, a web site. The web site tries to bring together in one place, information about preparedness that has been available on a number of different sites. Officials expect a Spanish version to be up in a week or so ask eventually this will be Chinese and interestingly enough, Arabic versions.

The basic advice -- become informed, prepare a communications plan for your family and put together an emergency kit, which, yes, should include duct tape and plastic sheeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: Yes, I have to say stash away the duct tape. Don't use it! Stash it away and that premeasured plastic sheeting for future -- and I emphasize, future use. Experts tell us that a safe room inside your house or inside your apartment can help protect you from airborne contaminants for several hours and that could be just enough time for that chemical agent to be blown away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MESERVE: Homeland security officials say this campaign was scheduled to be rolled out long before the hullabaloo over duct tape and plastic sheeting and they claim there's no connection. Some experts say the government should have rolled out this kind of campaign a long time ago, but they're happy to see it. They believe public preparedness is the best anecdote for panic.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: Jeanne Meserve. Jeanne traveled with the secretary today in Cincinnati and back safe in Washington as is he.

Thanks very much, Jeanne, for that report.

The president has been meeting in the Oval Office with Lord Robertson, the NATO leader. Let's go to the tape and hear what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, we'll have a statement. I'm going to make a statement. George will make a statement. No questions.

George, welcome. I'm honored to have you here. I -- you represent our nation's most important alliance, NATO. Today, this alliance is providing equipment to Turkey to help protect our Turkish ally from a potential attack from Iraq. I want to thank you for your leadership. You've done a fantastic job of keeping this alliance together, moving it forward, and not only addressing the current threats that we face, but preparing NATO to address threats into the future and I congratulate you on a great leadership and welcome you back to the Oval Office.

LORD GEORGE ROBERTSON, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Thanks, Mr. President. On the 12th of September, NATO passed a declaration of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. We came to the aid of an ally, the United States, under threat, under attack. And today, we've sent AWACs aircraft and patriot missiles and chem.-bio defensive equipment to Turkey and another allies in trouble, underfed, asking for help. That's what the alliance of free nations is all about.

Sometimes we, you know, we can take a better time to do it. It reminded me of Winston Churchill, whose bust is over there, who once famously said of the United States of America "the United States can always be counted on to do the right thing after it's exhausted every other alternative." Well, you can see exactly the same thing about NATO. But when we get there, we're strong and we stand for the values that unite a great alliance.

BUSH: Thanks. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Only a few moments ago in the Oval Office, President Bush meeting with Lord Robertson, the secretary-general of NATO, trying to show a united front, a unified front in the aftermath of huge debates under way in recent days and weeks inside NATO, the 19- member alliance, whether or not to send defensive equipment to NATO member Turkey. That issue resolved only in the past couple of days. President Bush clearly grateful for that decision and warmly welcoming Lord Robertson to the White House.

We'll continue to monitor that story and bring you more of that of course, as it becomes available. More showdown Iraq throughout this program, including this, Iraq, voices of dissent. We'll have a debate, a debate that's dividing so much of the world.

Should we or shouldn't we? Should the United States go to war? We'll hear from both sides. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Joining me now to talk about a potential war with Iraq, the founder of the group Win Without War, the former Democratic congressman, Tom Andrews, and Danielle Pletka. She is the vice president and foreign defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington.

Thanks to both of you for joining us. TOM ANDREWS, WIN WITHOUT WAR: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let me begin with you, Congressman. First of all, you had a news conference today. You unleashed a massive new ad campaign with a lot of Hollywood stars. What's the point?

ANDREWS: We want people to pick up their phones and call Congress, call the president, fax them, e-mail them and tell them that they're opposed to this war and think twice before you move forward.

BLITZER: Do you think the president will listen to this argument?

ANDREWS: Well, I think if he is open to his political future in terms of his base in Congress, in terms of the direction of the country, the fact that 59 percent of the American people believe that we should be giving the U.N. inspectors more time, he will listen.

BLITZER: What do you think? Do you think he will listen to them, Danielle?

DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Oh, I think he's been listening. I think think once, think twice, think three or four times. I can't disagree with that. The question really is -- at what time do we decide that the process has to end and that military action is our only option.

BLITZER: When is that, in your opinion?

PLETKA: I think that's very, very soon. The president said weeks not months and I think he's right. It's important to remember, we didn't start in November, we started in 1991 and that we've had 17 resolutions, not just one and that really the time for inspections is coming to an end.

BLITZER: This is, Congressman, 12 years that the U.S. says he has not fulfilled the cease-fire obligations he accepted at the end of first Gulf War in 1991.

ANDREWS: You know the weapons inspection is more than inspections, first of all. It's going in and finding the weapons and destroying them and taking them out. The inspection process destroyed more weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein than the entire Gulf War in 1991. They're working. They're making progress. Mr. Blix says that we're moving forward.

People I talk to have a question. Look, how does this all affect me and my family in terms of terrorism, in terms of weapons of mass destruction? What we know from the CIA is that those weapons of mass destruction, if he has them, will most likely be used with an invasion. We also know from them that it would be a recruiting bonanza for Osama bin Laden, forging a whole new generation of terrorists that we'd have to deal with, plus destabilize the region.

BLITZER: He said the downsides clearly outweigh the positives. PLETKA: Well, sticking your head in the sand, as we learned throughout the 1990s, isn't to go forward. It only encourages people to believe terrorists, like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, to believe that we can be defeated. If in fact, there is some threat that he may use weapons of mass destruction -- and we can't say that he won't -- then, who is to say that one month, two months, three months, down the road when the inspections are still not working that we are faced with an option and that he won't use them then when he has more, better developed, better delivery system, possible nuclear weapons. We can't take the risk.

BLITZER: What about...

ANDREWS: Well, Wolf, we say that destroying weapons of mass destruction is not burying your head in the sand. They're working. He is unable, all of the experts say, all of the experts say that even if he wanted to use them right now with all of the inspectors crawling all over his palaces and every nook and granny with U-2s overhead, he can't use weapons of mass destruction.

He will use them if he has them at the point of attack. So why take that risk? Why put us at risk? Why destabilize the region when these weapons inspections...

BLITZER: That's a fair question, Danielle.

PLETKA: I don't think it's actually very fair. First of all, a hundred inspectors should not make us feel safe from Saddam Hussein.

BLITZER: I think there are 200.

PLETKA: No, there are 100. But there are...

BLITZER: Well, 200 people.

PLETKA: But that's not the point here. The point here is that throughout the time that the inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, developed -- Iraq continued to develop weapons of mass destruction. All of the inspectors say so. The U.N., UNSCOM said so, UNMOVIC said so, and the IAEA said so.

The real question is not -- not are the inspectors there to protect us, but are they doing the job they were meant to do, which is to verify Iraq's full, final, complete disarmament and the answer is no.

BLITZER: You get the last word and we only have a few seconds left.

ANDREWS: Weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of terrorists if we attack. Why put us at risk? Why destabilize the region? Let's let these inspection -- this inspection process work.

BLITZER: Tom Andrews and Danielle Pletka, thanks very much. We'll continue this debate on another occasion.

ANDREWS: Thank you, Wolf.

PLETKA: Thank you.

BLITZER: Appreciate it very much.

Here's your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our "Web Question of The Day" is this -- should the United States strike Iraq even if it doesn't have a second United Nations resolution? We'll have the results later in this broadcast. Vote at CNN.com/Wolf.

Like their fellow Americans at home, tense of thousands of American troops on duty in Kuwait are watching and waiting for President Bush's next move in the showdown with Iraq. That's part of our continuing series, "The Military Buildup: A Day in The Life." CNN's Juan Carlos Lopez shows us what the daily routine is look for troops at the big military base in Kuwait.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Long days, hard work, waiting, that's a routine at Camp Arifjan, the sprawling military complex in southern Kuwait. To many of the thousands of American and coalition troops stationed here like Second Lieutenant Ester Villa from Tucson, Arizona, having access to amenities taken for granted in civilian life makes all of the difference.

2ND LT. ESTER VILLA, U.S. ARMY: The conditions here are much better than I expected. I get a cot to sleep on. There's enough showers and bathrooms. And we have to stand in line for everything, but it's still better than I expected.

LOPEZ: Tanks, trucks and all types of heavy equipment are prepared for service. It's a 24/7 high tech shop.

(on camera): But there's more than hard work at Camp Arifjan. The U.S. military has tried to create a home away from home in the middle of the desert.

(voice-over): They are called morale, welfare and recreation facilities. Opinions are divided.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kuwait, we love it. We love it out here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Not me!

LOPEZ: This is the crown jewel for soldiers at Arifjan, gravel instead of sand, palm trees, although small, and chairs and tables to get away from it all, burgers, pizza and ice cream and the possibility of playing ping-pong and board games.

SPEC. TYRONE SCHWARTZ, U.S. ARMY: It does pay us time. It helps remind me kind of of home, you know what I'm saying. I thought when I was coming out here it was going to be a lot worse than this. But now that we're here, it's it kind of reminding me like I'm at home a little bit.

LOPEZ: A cyber cafe is in the works and movies are also an option, but many here just want to focus on the job ahead.

SPEC. ERICK LOPEZ, U.S. ARMY: I like having all these amenities. It builds the morale, but just want to -- just start -- get -- do our job and get back home to our families.

LOPEZ: For now this, is home and family, a place to wait and wait and wait.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Juan Carlos Lopez, CNN correspondent, thanks very much.

An exclusive look, a killer's future in the hands of a parole board. What did they decide? You're watching CNN, the most trusted source in news. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The final chapter is being written in a landmark murder case that began more than a quarter century ago. Among the things that made it so unusual, the trial was among the first to be televised, the defense strategy was very controversial and the defendant only 15 years old. Our national correspondent, Susan Candiotti has the story.

Unfortunately, we're having some technical troubles with getting Susan Candiotti's story. We're going to try to fix that. And actually, I think we have that fixed right now. Here's Susan Candiotti's report.

BLITZER: You get our report ready and our server. Susan, if you can hear me, give us background, first of all, about this incredible story.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this involves a young man, who at the time of a murder was only 14 years old. He went to trial at age 15. This was back in 1977 and he was accused -- and was convicted, actually, of fatally shooting his next-door neighbor, then taking the money to go off for a trip to Disney World. This was the first trial televised in Florida and was indeed very controversial for the reasons you mentioned. Here is a look, an exclusive look at Ronnie Zamora.

BLITZER: Unfortunately, we don't have that package ready. We're going to take a quick break. We're going to fix these little technical gremlins. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get the results of our "Web Question of The Day." Should the United States strike even if it doesn't have a second resolution? Look at these results, 39 percent of you so far say yes, 61 percent of you say no.

Let's get to some of your e-mails. Jonathan is writing this: "If Iraq is really such a threat to its neighbors and Turkey is one of those threatened neighbors as evidenced by its request for NATO protection, then it should welcome a U.S. military presence with open arms. Why should the U.S. have to pay Turkey to use their bases for the attack? It seems to me that if Iraq was such a danger to them, they should pay us to help keep them safe."

This from Ross: "President Bush states that the anti-war protectors will have no effect on his decision to attack Iraq. He may not listen to protesters, but perhaps, he will listen to the voters and the returns from the next election."

In our "Picture of The Day," it's a tough choice for some television news decision-makers. Earlier today, the nation's homeland security chief had to share his time in the spotlight, get ready, with a dog. The story from CNN's Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the story of a dog marooned on the ice and how he managed to put the homeland security secretary on ice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've got to share with you what's happening to this dog.

MOOS: It began Wednesday morning when folks started calling in to report a dog adrift on an ice flow in the Passaic River. To the rescue, the Carney, New Jersey Fire Department and the Humane Society. Now, granted this wasn't the biggest news on the planet. Simultaneously, Dick Gephardt was announcing his run for president. Then, Gephardt was bumped by the all news networks to make way for secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge...

RIDGE: We will not be afraid.

MOOS: ... who in turn got bumped by the doggie rescue. As the boat struggled to reach the dog, the networks struggled to decide which story to go with? First, they split the screen, but as the rescue came to a climax, the dog won.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right that was Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

MOOS: Temporarily upstaged by a Rottweiler mix. After being lassoed, he was eventually pulled into the boat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doggy in the boat!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I scooped him. He was so happy. Once he got on the boat, he just sit right there like, I was safe.

MOOS: And the networks were safe to return to homeland security. For now, the dog's home is the Humane Society in Newark where he'll remain until his owner shows up or he's put up for adoption. The fireman who rowed the boat says he'd take him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a good dog. Yes, it was a nice dog. MOOS: But it was nice to dump the homeland security secretary for a dog? Tom Ridge didn't seem to mind.

RIDGE: Did they save the dog?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

RIDGE: All's well that ends well!

MOOS: But a few viewers were irate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the program went to the dog, I was so horrified. I mean that's a local story.

MOOS: But it's a local story with legs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come here. Come here. Are you all right?

MOOS: Not to mention his tail between his legs.

Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Well, only Jeanne Moos can do those kinds of stories, Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security, being a very good sport about all of this. Hard to compete, I guess, with a dog.

I want to apologize to our viewers. Unfortunately, we couldn't bring you Susan Candiotti's excellent report. We'll try to get that problem fixed. Hopefully, we'll get it on the air very, very soon, an important story and we'll fix it and we'll get it on the air.

Unfortunately, that's all of the time we have right now. Please join me again tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Eastern for a CNN exclusive, "The Gangs of L.A." Our Charles Feldman, he got inside the dangerous gang scene, risking his own life in the process, interviewing rival gang members. We'll have the compelling story you won't want to miss. That's at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.

And don't forget, "SHOWDOWN: IRAQ" weekdays, every day noon Eastern, an in-depth look inside the showdown with Iraq.

Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" is coming up after this short break.

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





Peterson?>