O'Neill Investigated by Treasury Department; Dean on Offensive; Airline Passengers to Undergo Stricter Security Checks
Aired January 12, 2004 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone.Nothing like a bit of kiss and tell to get the old news cycle wound up and it's wound up pretty good tonight, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account of his time in the Bush cabinet is just about the only thing talked about in those high power Washington lunches we suspect. The president wasn't much engaged. The president was the prisoner of his more experienced aides and on it went.So, here's a question. Does it matter? Is the country so polarized that even if everything the former secretary says is true, and we don't know that, does it matter? Will it change a single mind, a single vote, a single perception? We wonder.We don't wonder about the whip. We know exactly where it starts. Our Senior White House Correspondent John King with us tonight, John a headline.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, some Democrats say that account from former Secretary Paul O'Neill is proof to them the president exaggerated grossly the case for war in Iraq. The White House says it's all sour grapes. And, add this bit of intrigue, the Treasury Department now investigating whether the secretary improperly took any classified materials with him when he left.
BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you at the top today.Next to Iowa, a week away from the caucuses, our Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley is there, Candy a headline.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A rough debate last night capped off a couple of rocky weeks for Howard Dean and today he said he's not going to take it anymore -- Aaron.
BROWN: Candy.On to the controversial and new manifestation of the new normal at the airports, CNN's Brian Cabell has been working the story today, Brian a headline.
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, airline passengers will notice some changes in the months ahead. We'll all be undergoing background checks to ensure airline security. Not everybody is happy about it. Some say it's an invasion of privacy -- Aaron.
BROWN: Brian, thank you.And finally to Phoenix and a former Catholic bishop with lots of trouble, CNN's Frank Buckley with that, Frank a headline.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Bishop Thomas O'Brien had avoided prosecution in the priest abuse scandal last summer by reaching an immunity deal. Just two weeks after that deal was announced he was charged with another crime, leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Today, the trial of Bishop Thomas O'Brien got underway.
BROWN: Frank, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.Also coming up on the program tonight we'll meet the most important man in New Hampshire, the person who makes sure all the candidates can actually be heard.Later, in Segment 7, does anyone really mean it anymore when they say they're retiring? Roger Clemens said he's coming back and that set Jeff Greenfield to thinking.And finally, fresh out of retirement himself, by the way, the rooster stops by with a check of your morning papers for Tuesday, all that and more in the hour ahead.We begin tonight with what the treasury secretary saw, what the White House is saying about it and, now, what the Treasury Department is doing about it. What Paul O'Neill saw in his view was a president detached from the details, unconcerned about the deficit, preparing for war with Iraq long before 9/11, in short, a kind of empty suit and not exactly an honest one at that.His recollections fill a book that comes out tomorrow but they become the hot topic in Washington already. It culminated with an appearance on "60 Minutes" yesterday, which apparently for the administration was the last straw.We begin tonight with our Senior White House Correspondent John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): In Mexico, the president would not say whether he feels betrayed by his former treasury secretary but strongly defended his decision to go to war in Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans and we had to take a threat very seriously.
KING: The White House says it will not engage in a public point- by-point rebuttal of this new book, "The Price of Loyalty" in which Paul O'Neill not only questions the war but says the president leading a cabinet meeting is like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people." Back in Washington, the Treasury Department launched a preliminary investigation into whether O'Neill broke the law in taking classified memos he is now using to help make his case.
PAUL O'NEILL, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY: From the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.
KING: O'Neill discussed the memos with "60 Minutes," including this one ten days into the Bush presidency, designated "secret" that discussed planning for post-Saddam Iraq. Now Treasury officials want to know if O'Neill took classified materials not meant to leave government files.O'Neill's access to such memos came from his seat on the National Security Council. He told "TIME" magazine, "he never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."Countering O'Neill, senior Bush aides say the former secretary did not see the most sensitive intelligence, that regime change in Iraq became government policy in the Clinton administration and that from the beginning Mr. Bush and top aides made no secret they wanted to turn up the heat. Some Democrats say O'Neill's account is proof Mr. Bush exaggerated the case for war.In better days, the president called O'Neill a straight shooter. Now, White House allies are trying to limit the political fallout.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Most people will understand that a big element of this is sour grapes and the desire to get back at the guy that sacked you really.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now the president wouldn't say so today but senior aides and especially political advisers say O'Neill's account is a backstabbing betrayal. And, Aaron, at the Treasury Department tonight they are stressing they are not accusing the former secretary of anything but they say they have an obligation to look into it based on the "60 Minutes" report whether any classified information improperly left the building.
BROWN: Well, I think the reaction is interesting. A backstabbing it may be but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's true does it?
KING: Well, no it doesn't. There's a political aspect of this and a policy debate and what the administration says on the policy, I'll deal specifically with Iraq, you can follow up on any other question, is that of course this president, who inherited a regime change policy from the Clinton administration needed to go through as you check off a list in the early days. Do we keep this? If so, do we refine this? And they say Mr. Bush did very early on in the first days say we will keep this policy. Let's find a way to be more aggressive and let's explore our military options. Now the administration insists that's all the president was doing responsibly exploring. Secretary O'Neill thinks otherwise.
BROWN: John, thank you, our Senior White House Correspondent John King.Paul O'Neill is neither the first cabinet member to dump on his former boss nor even the first treasury secretary to do so. He is part of an inside-the-Beltway tradition that predates the Beltway by a stretch.Here to give us a better idea of how this episode measures up is David Gergen who does not predate the Beltway but who's been around quite a while nevertheless. We're always pleased to see him, hi, David.
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Hi, Aaron.
BROWN: You've known the former secretary a good, long time so let's start with that. Would he make any of this up?
GERGEN: I don't think so, Aaron. One can say, the Bush White House can say that this is a very disaffected man. There is sour grapes here. They can also say he was disloyal. He violated the traditional rules of what one ought to say about a president. But it's difficult to say that Paul O'Neill is dishonest.He's had a long time reputation in Washington stretching back to the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, when I first knew him and, by the way, when Dick Cheney first came to appreciate him as much as he did when Dick Cheney was serving as President Ford's chief of staff and he did have a reputation then and now as a straight shooter.Yes, he's a maverick. Yes, he may even be naive. I can certainly understand why the Bush White House is extraordinarily angry at him. It does violate the traditions that when you leave a president, the man who appointed you.You let a discreet interval pass before you publish your memoirs. You let a discreet interval pass, in particular in an election year. You don't come out and say anything which discredits your boss.So, I think that he has violated the rules and I'm disappointed and I think he made a mistake in doing that but on the question of whether he's speaking the truth or not as he saw it, I would have to tell you that I would give him heavy credence on him telling it as he saw it. Others may have seen it differently, the same episodes.
BROWN: Does it surprise you, it surprised me, does it surprise you at all the paper he walked out with?
GERGEN: I'm astonished by the amount of paper he turned over to Mr. Suskind. People do leave with a lot of paper sometimes, Aaron, and 19,000 pages sounds like a terrific amount but I've seen people leave with box loads and box loads.What really stunned me was that he turned it over at this early stage and I think that the question of whether he also turned over classified documents is relevant. It is important because, of course, that is a violation of federal criminal law.If he did not turn over classified documents it seems to me the Bush administration would be better to let this go, to let it sort of, you know, recede from our midst. If they're going after him through the Treasury Department it will only keep this story alive.I thought the White House was shrewd in the first 24 hours when the press secretary and others came out and said we essentially disagree with him and we're moving on.
BROWN: But now they've at least guaranteed a little bit longer of having to deal with the whole issue.
GERGEN: Yes.
BROWN: Because, at the very least, we have to wait for Treasury to respond as it's going to respond and that will raise questions about boy they sure moved quick on this. They didn't move so quickly on the White House leak on Joe Wilson and it just kind of goes on and on.
GERGEN: I agree with that and you remember the 16 words in the president's speech about the Iranian from Niger in Africa that they turned into a 16 day story by beating up on it every day.In this kind of instance, I thought the White House's first response or first instinct was exactly the right one and that is we totally disagree with Paul O'Neill. We're angry and disappointed that he would do this but we're moving on. We're not going to delve back into ancient history. People have known all along that President Bush didn't like Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Let's -- I want to talk about the politics of this to the extent that it actually has legs.
GERGEN: Sure.
BROWN: Does it matter? Will it change any minds? Does it politically matter in that sense?
GERGEN: Aaron, this is always a hunch but my hunch is that it does not change the dynamics of the race in any fashion heading into the 2004 that President Bush remains in commanding lead in this election. His partisans are certainly going to continue to be for him.Where I think it does matter, it doesn't change a lot of votes but where it does matter is it gives the Democrats much more ammunition as they look ahead to debates with the Republicans, especially the fall debates.The Democratic candidate, whether it's Howard Dean or Wes Clark or someone else, can now stand up and when President Bush goes after him and say -- to say, you know, you said this one day and then you said this another day, they can come right back and say but look at what your treasury secretary, the man who sat across the table from you, the man who held the job that Alexander Hamilton held, look what he has said about you.That's where it gives Democrats ammunition. I don't think it changes the dynamics of the race. President Bush is still heavily favored as we head toward November, 2004.BROWN: Good to see you, David. Thank you, David Gergen.
GERGEN: OK, thank you, Aaron. It's good to talk to you.
BROWN: Thank you. David Gergen on the Paul O'Neill mess and we'll see how long that goes on.On now to the intelligence that went into the terror alert that was partially but just partially lifted on Friday. As CNN's David Ensor reports now, homeland security officials believed they knew something of the who and the how and they were especially concerned about the when.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On December 24, based on intelligence about a terrorist threat, Air France Flight 68 from Paris to Los Angeles was canceled and U.S. officials now tell CNN intelligence pointed to the greatest risk the day after that al Qaeda wanted most of all to mark Christmas Day itself with terrorism.After canceling or delaying more than 20 flights in and out of the U.S. over the holiday period, officials say they still do not know whether they stopped an attack or were duped into disrupting aviation. Either way, though, experts say expect more of the same.
DANIEL BENJAMIN, CSIS: I think it is going to be a fact of life because we know that al Qaeda continues to have a high degree of interest in aviation as a threat.
ENSOR: Knowledgeable officials say the specific tactical intelligence about threatened flights that helped prompt code orange over the holidays was compelling and came from multiple sources. They included informants, chatter, Web sites, top al Qaeda prisoners under interrogation and surveillance of al Qaeda suspects.Officials say security at airports around the world with flights to the U.S. must be further beefed up since al Qaeda clearly still wants to repeat its success of September 11 and with good reason.
BENJAMIN: I did some calculations about the amount of energy that was released when the two planes hit the World Trade Center and it was in the same range as a tactical nuclear weapon.ENSOR (on camera): The good news, U.S. officials say they are getting ever more and better fine grain intelligence on al Qaeda, the bad news cancellations and delays of flights for security reasons are likely to be an ongoing part of modern life.David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: That is perhaps the most visible manifestation of the new normal. Another is hidden away behind a check-in counter. You'll never even know it's there unless you happen to be among the people being searched for a second time at the gate or perhaps turned away entirely.Airlines make those decisions with the help of computer software, the details of which are a carefully kept secret but, in general, it seems to flag travelers who travel at the last minute, who buy one way tickets, who pay in cash. Experts call the system something less than perfect. A sequel rolls out later this year. It's supposed to be smarter and that has some people worried.Here's CNN's Brian Cabell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL (voice-over): The plan, known by the acronym CAPS 2, calls for a computerized background check of all airline passengers. That would include law enforcement and some commercial
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ASA HUTCHINSON, TSA UNDER SECRETARY: We're not going to be retaining information in the government databases on individuals. It's simply a check on commercial databases as to who should have secondary inspection to assure the safety of the passengers.
CABELL: Once checked each passenger would be assigned a numerical score in color. Red would classify the passenger as a security risk and prevent the person from boarding. Yellow would call for further scrutiny. Green, which the government says would apply to the vast majority of passengers, would allow for relatively quick boarding, a bad idea say privacy advocates.
BILL SCANNELL, DONTSPYONUS.COM: Never before in the history of our nation has government permission been required to travel freely in our own country. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional and it's just plain wrong.
CABELL: The government is negotiating with the airlines for their cooperation in CAPS 2. Delta initially volunteered but backed off when a Web site urged a boycott of the airline if it cooperated. JetBlue also ran into controversy last year when it voluntarily turned over passenger data to the military for an aviation security project. The Transportation Safety Administration insists the program will safeguard privacy and speed up security checks at the airport.
MARK HATFIELD, TSA: Right now we run about 14 to 15 percent of passengers are flagged under the current system to go through secondary screening. CAPS 2 should reduce that rate to five or less, five percent or less.
CABELL: A second program known as Registered Traveler is also in the works. It calls for passengers to volunteer information thereby clearing themselves ahead of time and allowing them to board quickly. It's less controversial than CAPS 2 because it's voluntary but critics say terrorists in so-called sleeper cells might figure out how to qualify as registered travelers.The two initiatives come on the heels of another program, US Visit that requires the photographing and fingerprinting of some overseas travelers entering the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL: And a couple of additional points about CAPS 2, which is the most controversial of these programs. When you make a reservation in the future under this program you will have to give your date of birth to help them track you. That has not been done in the past.And secondly, if you're not happy with your classification, say you're a red or a yellow, there will be a means to appeal that classification and perhaps to change it -- Aaron.
BROWN: But probably not on the flight you wanted to take.
CABELL: Probably not. You will probably be delayed at that point.
BROWN: Do we know what any of the sort of triggering components are? What would suggest that you ought to be not a red but to be a yellow?
CABELL: Well, for one thing they tell us if you are a violent felon that may trigger something. That doesn't mean you won't be able to fly but that will certainly entitle you to greater scrutiny. Any -- something along those lines would certainly delay you we think. But something like traffic tickets, no. That would not be a problem. Credit, they will not be checking your credit, anything like that. They assure us it will simply be something that signals to them that you are a possible threat, a possible violent threat on that plane.BROWN: Brian, thank you, Brian Cabell in Atlanta. Welcome to the new normal.Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, legal troubles facing the former bishop of Phoenix, Arizona. He faces charges in a hit-and-run case, serious charges.And later, coming out of retirement is a way of life. Jeff Greenfield on why some folks just cannot stay away.From New York this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We teach our children to own up to their mistakes, to take responsibility when they do wrong. We expect adults to know this too. We would like to believe religious leaders do, which is one reason the sex scandal in the Catholic Church has caused so much damage.Jury selection began in Phoenix today in the trial of the former bishop there, Thomas O'Brien. He's accused of leaving the scene of a fatal accident, of covering up the truth about a hit-and-run. It is not his first brush with the law or the media attention that comes with it. Here's CNN's Frank Buckley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BUCKLEY (voice-over): Thanks to an immunity deal, Bishop Thomas O'Brien had just avoided prosecution on obstruction of justice charges for allegedly protecting priests accused of molestation when he was arrested for what happened here.On a Saturday evening in June, 43-year-old Jim Reed was hit by a car and killed. Police say the person who did it didn't stop.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, you are Thomas J. O'Brien?
THOMAS J. O'BRIEN, FORMER CATHOLIC BISHOP: Yes, sir.BUCKLEY: O'Brien was arrested after they went to his home the following Monday and found his car, the windshield shattered and caved in. O'Brien pled not guilty.
GARY LOWENTHAL, PROFESSOR OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: The issue in this case is whether or not the bishop was aware that he struck a human being.
BUCKLEY: And now jury selection is underway and it will be a challenge, say experts, to find 12 impartial jurors in a community where publicity over the bishop's legal troubles has been intense.
LOWENTHAL: It is very difficult to know what a juror will or will not put out of his or her mind when the juror says, oh, I can be fair. I can be impartial. I can decide this matter just on the facts.
BUCKLEY: By the end of the day, more than half of the original pool of 155 perspective jurors had been excused. Those that remained got a preview of the case to come. Prosecutors said Bishop O'Brien was told the day after the accident that police were looking for his car in connection with a fatal hit-and-run.
ANTHONY NOVITSKY, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY (voice-over): Thomas O'Brien did not contact police. In fact, he went home after that conversation and never attempted to make contact with law enforcement or anyone else.
BUCKLEY: Bishop O'Brien's attorney said the lighting and other conditions the night of the accident helped to explain why the bishop continued on without stopping, why they say O'Brien didn't know he'd hit a person.
PATRICK MCGROWDER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY (voice-over): Mr. Reed would have been very difficult and perhaps impossible to see as he jaywalked and staggered into the street.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BUCKLEY: And the reason that's important is what's at issue here in this trial is whether a reasonable person should have known that he hit a person the night that Jim Reed died. If the defense can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Thomas O'Brien decided to continue driving after hitting Mr. Reed then the jury might return a not guilty verdict.On the other hand if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict Aaron, the sentencing range for Bishop Thomas O'Brien is anywhere from probation to nearly four years in prison -- Aaron.
BROWN: There's a bit of a disconnect. What does he think or what does he say he hit or believe he hit if not a person who crashed into his windshield that night?
BUCKLEY: Well, Bishop O'Brien has said reportedly that he thought he hit either a small animal or that someone threw a rock into his windshield. He's conceding now that he, in fact, did hit Jim Reed and that Jim Reed died as a result of that but he is saying that he didn't know at the time that he hit a person.
BROWN: Thank you, Frank, Frank Buckley in Phoenix tonight.If Jayson Williams were just some guy his trial for aggravated manslaughter wouldn't get a mention on this program, I don't believe, but he's not. He's rich. He's a former NBA star and no one disputes that he shot his limousine driver to death. But what happened before the shot and what happened after is what the jury must sort out and the jury selection begins tomorrow.Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He was a star rebounder for the New Jersey Nets with an $86 million contract. A popular guest on David Letterman's show, Jayson Williams became an NBS studio analyst after a career ending leg injury in 2000.Then, early Valentine's Day, 2002 this 911 call from inside Williams' sprawling New Jersey estate, a call made by his brother.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. We have an emergency. Somebody just got shot.
FEYERICK: Williams and a small group of friends, including four players from the Harlem Globetrotters had been out eating and drinking. They were touring the mansion and were in the master bedroom.According to court papers filed by the prosecutor, Williams was showing off a double-barrel shotgun. It went off killing limo driver Gus Christofi who Williams had hired for the night. Prosecutors say Williams acted with extreme indifference to human life.
STEVEN LEMBER, HUNTINGTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR: The conduct of the defendant given all the circumstances present at the time demonstrated recklessness on his part.
FEYERICK: But Williams' lawyers say the gun went off by itself accidentally firing when Williams snapped the gun shut.
JOSEPH HAYDEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The death of Mr. Christofi was a tragic accident but it was an accident.
FEYERICK: What happened after is also on trial. Sources say prosecution witnesses will testify Williams panicked, wiped his prints from the gun and tried to make the shooting look like suicide.A year ago, Williams settled a wrongful death suit with the victim's family paying close to $3 million. The family accepted his apology saying: "We are sure that he did not intend to hurt Gus."Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Two other stories making news around the country today starting with a victory for the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal challenging the government's refusal to disclose information about hundreds of people detained in the days and weeks after the September 11 attacks. The information will remain secret.In Connecticut, six more Republican State Senators today urged Governor John Rowland, a Republican, who is under federal investigation to resign, this as a new poll shows nearly two-thirds of voters want him to leave office. He's under investigation for corruption.And how many snapshots does it take to capture Mars full circle, 225 to be exact. Today, NASA released the first 360-degree photographic color panorama of Mars beamed back from the rover, pretty cool.Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, the really important person in the New Hampshire primary, the guy who runs the sound system, without him the candidates' proposals might never be heard.On CNN this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: For just another week, Iowa is the center of the political world. After that it goes back to being a lovely Midwestern state that's best known for its corn, pork and strange rules for girls' basketball, at least Iowa used to be known for that. But for the next six days it will be a place where dreams are ended for some, high stakes.Candy Crowley is now almost an official resident.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): Howard Dean is feeling a little black and blue.
HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm going after everybody because I'm tired of being the pin cushion here.
CROWLEY: No withering violet in this jungle when Dean says he's going after everybody he means them.
DEAN: The reason Democrats don't win elections in Washington is because they'd almost rather lose and be cozy than they would have somebody stand up against the interests in Washington.
CROWLEY: It has been weeks of bumps and bruises over issues ranging from Osama's guilt to Iowa's relevance and then Sunday night a body blow.
AL SHARPTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In your administration, did you have a senior member of your Cabinet that was black or brown?
HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had a senior member of my staff on my...
(CROSSTALK)
SHARPTON: No, your Cabinet.
DEAN: No, we did not. I was taken aback by the reverend's attack. And I should have perhaps been a little quicker on my feet.
CROWLEY: Frankly, as Dean pushed through southeastern Iowa Monday, he seemed, well, stressed.
DEAN: Well, when you see again and again all these attacks by all these front-runners against our campaign, it's not me they're trying to stop. It's us.
CROWLEY: All these front-runners? The man with the most money and the best poll numbers has reverted to form.
DEAN: They want to say that they're all against the establishment. They are the establishment.
CROWLEY: After weeks of trying to be the confident, above-the- fray front-runner, Dean, populist, insurgent with the edge of anger, is back on the campaign trail.
DEAN: Remember who stood up to George Bush first. And it wasn't anybody from the city of Washington, D.C.
CROWLEY: Maybe it is debate or maybe the polls are too close for comfort in a campaign that hoped to begin wrapping things up, or maybe Dean, like a classic candidate, days before an election, is reminding voters what they liked to begin with.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Howard Dean does not have to win Iowa to move on. He has plenty of money and support to go to New Hampshire and far beyond that. But what he does lose, should he lose in Iowa, is that air of invincibility -- Aaron.
BROWN: I'm honestly trying to figure out what losing means here, because I think you can make an argument -- and maybe this is what the second, third and fourth place people always do -- is that it is hard for him to win. It is hard for him to match the expectation that he had a month ago.
CROWLEY: Well, you know, look, the Iowa polls have been different from the national polls and the New Hampshire polls. And that is that it is it always has been pretty close between Richard Gephardt, who is from neighboring Missouri, and Dean. So, a win here, five points, four points, is a win here. Everybody knows that it is hard fought and that there is a huge sort of mushy group of voters between undecideds and people who might change their mind that could really shake things up. So I think a win here is a clean win for Howard Dean. But a loss here I think is huge, because we started out saying Richard Gephardt has to win in Iowa. Now, if he wins in Iowa, we say, wow, new strength for Richard Gephardt, because he had such a fight here with Howard Dean. So we're going to have to wait until the day after, sort of look at the numbers, and decide whether this is a surprising second or an amazing third or, you know, a weak win. You're right. It all is the expectations game. And I think that's a little bit of what Howard Dean is doing now.
BROWN: We'll see what those mushy voters do in a week. Thank you, Candy, very much.
CROWLEY: OK. BROWN: After the caucuses, of course, comes the nation's first presidential primary. That's on the 27th of January. In New Hampshire, it looks like Iowa these days, a blizzard of campaigning across the state. For the candidates, the drill is all about the message, getting your message out, staying on message, attack your competitors' messages, which brings us to the proverbial tree falling in the forest. If no one hears it, does it make a sound? For politicians, this is hardly a philosophical question, which is why, in New Hampshire, Bob Molloy is an indispensable ally in every campaign, a power broker whose currency is decibels.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since 1976, no candidate has won the New Hampshire prime without renting a microphone to from Bob Molloy. DEAN: It's true. If you go to a 400-personal gathering and there is no sound, the people in the back of the room don't hear you. And Bob is instrumental in getting the message out.
BOB MOLLOY, MICROPHONE OPERATOR: One, two three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is that kind of on-the-ground expertise and commitment that Bob Molloy is known for. He has an awful lot of stories from an awful lot of campaigns.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would the sound man please turn Mr. Reagan's microphone off?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Is this on? Mr. Green (INAUDIBLE) I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOLLOY: People said, hey, weren't you the guy? Yes. Why wouldn't you turn it off? I wouldn't have turned it off, because, A, I wouldn't have been that rude to a man who was a guest in your auditorium. And, B, Reagan did in fact pay for the microphone. That's that. But the money to me is not the driving force behind this business. My satisfaction comes from the accomplishment of the job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Talk to Howard Dean. The doctor is in.
MOLLOY: I have no political affiliation at all. All my concern is that, when a man steps up to the microphone or the woman steps up to the microphone, something comes out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The New Hampshire Political Library is producing its first New Hampshire political awards dinner. And we're going to recognize Bob Molloy for his role in literally providing the sound and the voice to the candidates.
MOLLOY: OK, I'll take stereo two out. I got to see you last week up at the statehouse when you signed up that you're finally going go through with this thing.
DEAN: I'm finally going go through with it.
MOLLOY: Can't turn back now, right?
DEAN: We've been keeping you employed all summer long.
MOLLOY: I appreciate it very much, Governor. Keep writing those checks for me.
DEAN: Thanks for doing the good work.
MOLLOY: And just about the time you get tired of the primary people, then that's the other big part of it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: New Hampshire, coming up.Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, the Bush administration and the press. We'll talk with media observer Ken Auletta about how the administration views and deals with the media. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A couple of items that made news from around the world.First, the Philippines. At least 22,000 people are homeless after fire ripped through a shantytown in Manila. It burned for most of the day. Officials say it started when someone tipped over a candle or perhaps an oil lamp. Remarkably, nobody died. In Argentina, contender for the Darwin award, we think. The man jumped into the lion's pen at the zoo in Buenos Aires, jumped in and somehow walked away with only minor injuries. According to zookeepers, the lions see humans as the source of food, not the meal in themselves, a good thing, apparently. Finally, Southampton, England where the newest queen of the high seas put to sea for its maiden voyage. The Queen Mary 2 the longest, tallest, heaviest, costliest, you name it, ocean liner ever built. We started the program with an insider's critical view of the White House and how the White House is firing back. Paul O'Neill is biting the hand that once fed him. Not surprising the White House would bite back. We're going to stick with the insider theme, but shift the angle a bit to the way the White House deals with the news media. Ken Auletta is a staff writer and columnist for "The New Yorker," and he has a piece in this week's issue of the magazine, as well as a new book called "Backstory: Inside the Business of News."We talked with Mr. Auletta earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: This White House doesn't much like the press.
KEN AULETTA, "THE NEW YORKER": No, actually, they don't. I don't know whether it's personal with you and me. But, no, they don't much like us.
BROWN: What's new?
AULETTA: What is new are two things about this White House, as I came to conclude.One is that it is more disciplined than any modern White House. So they enforce the discipline to talk about team Bush and not to talk to the press. The second thing that's different -- and it flows from the first -- is that this White House believes that we, the press, is a special interest, that we don't represent the public interest, that we are not a neutral, stand-back, adjudicate-the-facts referee, that we are in fact a special pleader for more access, more gotcha, more headlines. And they treat us accordingly.
BROWN: So it is not that they feel that the press is manipulating the news. It is just not working in their interests?
AULETTA: No. It is actually -- well, it is probably some of that. But every White House feels that.
BROWN: Right.
AULETTA: That we are not serving their interests and they want to get around the press filters, a common phrase in every administration. But I think the other thing that happens is that -- and I was curious about this. I expected the Bush administration would complain, as conservatives tend to, about the liberal bias in the press. And they do believe the press, the Washington press corps, is more liberal than not and that that liberalism infects their coverage. But that's not the heart of their complaint. The heart of their complaint is that the press has a economic bias, a bias for conflict, a bias for jacking up the ratings, a bias for jacking up the circulation, a bias for gotcha and wow kind of news and infotainment. And that bothers them. And, by the way, the interesting thing is, that same complaint, you would hear from Bill Clinton and his people.
BROWN: Yes. Which brings me back to what I said. So, then, what is new? These guys are better at the discipline of managing media.
AULETTA: They are better at the discipline of managing media. And they are not seduced by those of us in the media who feel that they should be talking to us.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Do they reward and punish?
AULETTA: Oh, of course, they do. Oh, absolutely.
BROWN: Differently than any other administration?
AULETTA: No. Every administration -- that's not new. And so much of this is evergreen that happens in every administration. Every administration complains about the press. Every administration tries to go around the filter of the press. Every administration tries to impose a discipline. What is new about this administration is a belief that they have -- I believe -- and I think it was said in interviews with the chief of staff and Karl Rove and all these other Bush team players, is that they believe that we are a special interest and that they refuse to accept that we represent the public interest. And, therefore, where are the -- where do you see that? You see it in press conferences. Bush has held 11 press conferences, which is about four times less than his own father held, and many, many, many less than any other modern president has held.
BROWN: Here is something that confuses me. I think you can make a really good case that, when they were accessible, which was during the campaign -- the president was pretty accessible to reporters -- they got what you often get when you're accessible and you're friendly and, as the president is, congenial -- they got great press. By and large, I thought they got much better press than the Gore side got.
AULETTA: And the press didn't like Gore.
BROWN: And the press didn't like Gore. So, why not follow through on that? Because there seems to be some logic in it. Suck up to reporters and you get good press from it.
AULETTA: Well, there are two things. Andrew Card, the chief of staff, said to me at one point in our interview, he said, our job is not to leak to the press. I said, why don't you talk to -- he said, the press doesn't check and get second and third sources, the way they used to. I said, well, how are they supposed to, Mr. Card, if you don't return their phone calls? That is not my job, to talk to the press, to leak to the press. He equates talking to the press with leaking. And he thinks that's the job of the press officers, not the people in government. They pay a price for the, as you're alluding to, because one of the -- Bush is often portrayed in a stereotypical fashion. He's portrayed as Cheney's puppet. He's portrayed as a guy who is not very swift and not on top of things, not asking a lot of questions. If they opened up the White House process more and showed how the sausage was made and showed the dilemmas of making decisions and showed that it wasn't so simple, yes or no, most decisions -- in fact, most decisions are "yes, but" decisions or "no, but" decisions. If they did that, they might enjoy better press. In fact, one of the things I do in the piece, I quote Michael Deaver, who was the genius behind Ronald Reagan and his media portrayal. As he said, he said, they should open up this process more. And they serve this president ill by doing it that way.
BROWN: Just a quick shift here. Does the -- all the flap over the Paul O'Neill book merely reinforce what the White House fears will be the perception of the president, that he's not particularly curious, that he's not particularly engaged, and that he has been something less than straight-ahead honest?
AULETTA: Yes.
BROWN: Dangerous?
AULETTA: Well, for him, that feeds into one of the great vulnerabilities that Bush has. Bush has a couple of vulnerabilities. Iraq is one. Another vulnerability, obviously, is the economy and whether jobs -- there is job growth. But a fundamental vulnerability is, is this president on top of things? If you look at Iraq, was he asking the questions about weapons of mass destruction? And that -- and O'Neill's point is that he wasn't asking questions of anyone. If that's true, if that perception takes hold -- and it certainly was the perception that he had a battle with in the campaign last time -- then he could be in trouble.
BROWN: It's good to see you. It's always good to see you. Thank you. Good to have you with us tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Ken Auletta in this week's "New Yorker," it's a fascinating article. And the book is called "Backstory: Inside the Business of the News." And that's probably pretty terrific, too, but I haven't looked at it yet. A few items tonight from our "MONEYLINE Roundup," starting with bad news for cast members, as they say over there. The Walt Disney Company is closing its animation studio in Orlando, Florida, consolidating the operation in Burbank, California. As many as 258 animators could lose their jobs. Wal-Mart did slightly better than predicted over the holiday. You may recall the company predicted sales growth would be at the bottom end of a 3 percent to 5 percent range. Instead, it grew by a little more than 4 percent, thanks to the last-minute Christmas rush. And the day on Wall Street was, well, jim-dandy. Our writer clearly angling for the weather job at "The Chicago Sun-Times."Still ahead on the program, unretiring Jeff Greenfield on why it is so hard for so many people to actually stay retired. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A very good friend is considering retirement. He's a lawyer. He's done pretty well and is a bit sick of it all, as best I can tell. So when we meet on Sundays for breakfast, I always ask him if he's decided what he's going to do. An hour or so later, it is clear he has not. Retirement, I guess, is pretty scary, even if you've done pretty well, or maybe especially if you've done pretty well. Here is CNN's Jeff Greenfield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): October 2003, pitching great Roger Clemens walks off the mound at Yankee Stadium for the last time, as 55,000 fans bid him a fond, tearful farewell. We will remember him for years to come.
ROGER CLEMENS, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER: This decision was made possible by my family.
GREENFIELD: Well, it turns out we won't are to stretch our memories all that much. Today, less than three months after that heartwarming scene, Clemens announced he will pitch one more year for his hometown Houston Astros. Meanwhile, half a continent away, 42-year-old Dennis Rodman, once one of the best rebounders and defenders in pro basketball, plays for $850 a week for a minor minor league team, hoping to unretire to the NBA, where he lost played almost four years ago.
DENNIS RODMAN, BASKETBALL PLAYER: I think now is the time for the people and the community to give me the opportunity to finish my career.
GREENFIELD: And, in the nation's capital, 63-year-old Joe Gibbs, who led the Washington Redskins to three Super Bowls, has returned to the coaching ranks 11 years after his retirement. And in Dallas, Bill Parcells, who retired from coaching not once, but three times, guided the Cowboys to the playoffs this year. That's one more retirement, by the way, than basketball's Michael Jordan. (on camera): And it is not just sports. In business, in politics, in entertain, they're rewriting the book, or at least the title of one American classic. You can't go home again? Sure you can. (voice-over): In the world of big business, former CEOs Ted Waitt of Gateway, Henry Schacht of Lucent, and Paul Anderson of Duke Energy all came out of retirement to lead their beleaguered companies. In the U.S. Senate, New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, at age 78, won a Senate seat two years after retiring, while, in Minnesota, former Vice President Walter Mondale lost in his effort to replace the late Paul Wellstone in the Senate, 18 years after Mondale left that body. Donald Rumsfeld is back as secretary of defense, 24 years after he last held that job, while former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney returned to public life as the very powerful vice president. Of course, the gold standard in political unretirement is still held by Richard Nixon, who, in 1962, made his future clear:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As I leave you, I want you to know, just think how much you're going to be missing. You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Only to triumphantly return to public life as president and then really, really retire then. Unretirements, they call them reunions, are a staple of pop music. Simon & Garfunkel, The Who, the Eagles all hit the road after hitting the road. (on camera): Maybe it is the money or the glory or the simple lure of the action, but it seems as if every high-profile enterprise leaves its doors wide open for prodigal sons and daughters to return, every one that is except one. I think that sign up there says goodbye, farewell and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Morning papers after the break.
COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(ROOSTER CROWING)
BROWN: OK. Time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. And we'll start with -- oh, darn, got the lenses dirty there -- "The International Herald Tribune." So, if you're traveling, this is published by "The New York Times" and edited and printed in Paris. Down at the bottom -- this will probably be in tomorrow's "Times." I didn't see it in today's. "Will Her Career Land in the Rough?" It's a story about Michelle Wie, who is 13. Maybe she's turned 14, but I think she is still 13 -- who will tee it up in the men's PGA tournament in Hawaii at 13. She's 6 feet tall. I keep tell my daughter, you got to grow. Work harder at it. It doesn't seem to help.
"The Jerusalem Post," what I thought was interesting here is, everybody has got this problem. "P.M." -- that would be the prime minister -- "Handled Foreign Campaign Finances, Former Aide Says." It's like the Paul O'Neill story, only in Israel. "The Jerusalem Post" today.
"The Washington Times" has a lot of stuff on the front page. "Fox Backs Bush's Alien Proposal." I don't know why that just sort of jumped out at me. "Congress Pressed to OK Work For Illegals." "Israel Invites Assad" -- that's the President of Syria -- "For Talks." That's a pretty good story on the front page. But they seemed to put just about everything on the front page, including this story down at the bottom. "Versatile Cow is Everywhere. Ubiquitous" -- I'll bet it's the only newspaper in the country that used ubiquitous on the front page. "Ubiquitous Animal Used in Hospitals and Battlefields." I haven't seen many cows on the battlefield, but they're probably there.How are we doing on time, David?Oh, my goodness.
"The Oregonian." One of the things I like about this paper is, they put really interesting feature series on the front page. "Road Map to Success: Fixing High Schools," the last of a three-part series. "Creating a top-notch high school isn't easy, but some schools lead the way," according to "The Oregonian," the newspaper of Portland, Oregon. And, by the way, if you're interested, the food today out there is fresh parsley, cilantro and mint.
"The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review" down at the bottom. Again, this was kind of an odd news day. I don't know if you can see this. I don't have my glasses on, so I can't see anything. "More Bedbugs Being Uncovered in the U.S." OK, that's really the headline. "More Bedbugs Being Uncovered in U.S." OK, here's the lead. "Bedbugs are back and your mother was right. They do bite." That's the lead in the bedbugs story by David M. Brown. Perhaps we're related somehow or another.
"The Boston Herald." "Doc on the hot Seat. Ethics Probe Heats Up on M.E.'s Office." They also put Roger Clemens on the front page. And
"Chicago Sun-Times." "Local Gun Shop Told 2,370 Guns Later Linked To Crimes." I'm sure that's a coincidence. That couldn't have been anything other than that. "No long johns," the weather in Chicago tomorrow, which is news for them. We'll take a break and update our top story or -- yes, that's what we'll do. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Before we go, a quick recap of our top story. The Treasury Department has launched an investigation into how classified documents or at least a secret document appeared in an interview of Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. A tell-all book based on Mr. O'Neill's time in the administration comes out tomorrow. In it, he describes the president as planning for war with Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11. Tomorrow on this program, it looks like a revival meeting, but this is a prison, the first in the country to use faith-based rehabilitation programs for every inmate. Does it work? Does it violate the Constitution? We'll look at that tomorrow. And now here's Soledad O'Brien with a look at what's coming up tomorrow morning on "AMERICAN MORNING."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Aaron. Tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING," Senator Tom Harkin on his surprise endorsement of Howard Dean for president. Why does he think Dean is the best? We're going to ask him tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. Eastern -- Aaron.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Thank you. "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" for most of you.Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.comOffensive; Airline Passengers to Undergo Stricter Security Checks>
Aired January 12, 2004 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again everyone.Nothing like a bit of kiss and tell to get the old news cycle wound up and it's wound up pretty good tonight, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account of his time in the Bush cabinet is just about the only thing talked about in those high power Washington lunches we suspect. The president wasn't much engaged. The president was the prisoner of his more experienced aides and on it went.So, here's a question. Does it matter? Is the country so polarized that even if everything the former secretary says is true, and we don't know that, does it matter? Will it change a single mind, a single vote, a single perception? We wonder.We don't wonder about the whip. We know exactly where it starts. Our Senior White House Correspondent John King with us tonight, John a headline.
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, some Democrats say that account from former Secretary Paul O'Neill is proof to them the president exaggerated grossly the case for war in Iraq. The White House says it's all sour grapes. And, add this bit of intrigue, the Treasury Department now investigating whether the secretary improperly took any classified materials with him when he left.
BROWN: John, thank you. We'll get to you at the top today.Next to Iowa, a week away from the caucuses, our Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley is there, Candy a headline.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A rough debate last night capped off a couple of rocky weeks for Howard Dean and today he said he's not going to take it anymore -- Aaron.
BROWN: Candy.On to the controversial and new manifestation of the new normal at the airports, CNN's Brian Cabell has been working the story today, Brian a headline.
BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, airline passengers will notice some changes in the months ahead. We'll all be undergoing background checks to ensure airline security. Not everybody is happy about it. Some say it's an invasion of privacy -- Aaron.
BROWN: Brian, thank you.And finally to Phoenix and a former Catholic bishop with lots of trouble, CNN's Frank Buckley with that, Frank a headline.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, Bishop Thomas O'Brien had avoided prosecution in the priest abuse scandal last summer by reaching an immunity deal. Just two weeks after that deal was announced he was charged with another crime, leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Today, the trial of Bishop Thomas O'Brien got underway.
BROWN: Frank, thank you. We'll get back to you and the rest shortly.Also coming up on the program tonight we'll meet the most important man in New Hampshire, the person who makes sure all the candidates can actually be heard.Later, in Segment 7, does anyone really mean it anymore when they say they're retiring? Roger Clemens said he's coming back and that set Jeff Greenfield to thinking.And finally, fresh out of retirement himself, by the way, the rooster stops by with a check of your morning papers for Tuesday, all that and more in the hour ahead.We begin tonight with what the treasury secretary saw, what the White House is saying about it and, now, what the Treasury Department is doing about it. What Paul O'Neill saw in his view was a president detached from the details, unconcerned about the deficit, preparing for war with Iraq long before 9/11, in short, a kind of empty suit and not exactly an honest one at that.His recollections fill a book that comes out tomorrow but they become the hot topic in Washington already. It culminated with an appearance on "60 Minutes" yesterday, which apparently for the administration was the last straw.We begin tonight with our Senior White House Correspondent John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): In Mexico, the president would not say whether he feels betrayed by his former treasury secretary but strongly defended his decision to go to war in Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans and we had to take a threat very seriously.
KING: The White House says it will not engage in a public point- by-point rebuttal of this new book, "The Price of Loyalty" in which Paul O'Neill not only questions the war but says the president leading a cabinet meeting is like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people." Back in Washington, the Treasury Department launched a preliminary investigation into whether O'Neill broke the law in taking classified memos he is now using to help make his case.
PAUL O'NEILL, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY: From the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.
KING: O'Neill discussed the memos with "60 Minutes," including this one ten days into the Bush presidency, designated "secret" that discussed planning for post-Saddam Iraq. Now Treasury officials want to know if O'Neill took classified materials not meant to leave government files.O'Neill's access to such memos came from his seat on the National Security Council. He told "TIME" magazine, "he never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."Countering O'Neill, senior Bush aides say the former secretary did not see the most sensitive intelligence, that regime change in Iraq became government policy in the Clinton administration and that from the beginning Mr. Bush and top aides made no secret they wanted to turn up the heat. Some Democrats say O'Neill's account is proof Mr. Bush exaggerated the case for war.In better days, the president called O'Neill a straight shooter. Now, White House allies are trying to limit the political fallout.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Most people will understand that a big element of this is sour grapes and the desire to get back at the guy that sacked you really.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now the president wouldn't say so today but senior aides and especially political advisers say O'Neill's account is a backstabbing betrayal. And, Aaron, at the Treasury Department tonight they are stressing they are not accusing the former secretary of anything but they say they have an obligation to look into it based on the "60 Minutes" report whether any classified information improperly left the building.
BROWN: Well, I think the reaction is interesting. A backstabbing it may be but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's true does it?
KING: Well, no it doesn't. There's a political aspect of this and a policy debate and what the administration says on the policy, I'll deal specifically with Iraq, you can follow up on any other question, is that of course this president, who inherited a regime change policy from the Clinton administration needed to go through as you check off a list in the early days. Do we keep this? If so, do we refine this? And they say Mr. Bush did very early on in the first days say we will keep this policy. Let's find a way to be more aggressive and let's explore our military options. Now the administration insists that's all the president was doing responsibly exploring. Secretary O'Neill thinks otherwise.
BROWN: John, thank you, our Senior White House Correspondent John King.Paul O'Neill is neither the first cabinet member to dump on his former boss nor even the first treasury secretary to do so. He is part of an inside-the-Beltway tradition that predates the Beltway by a stretch.Here to give us a better idea of how this episode measures up is David Gergen who does not predate the Beltway but who's been around quite a while nevertheless. We're always pleased to see him, hi, David.
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Hi, Aaron.
BROWN: You've known the former secretary a good, long time so let's start with that. Would he make any of this up?
GERGEN: I don't think so, Aaron. One can say, the Bush White House can say that this is a very disaffected man. There is sour grapes here. They can also say he was disloyal. He violated the traditional rules of what one ought to say about a president. But it's difficult to say that Paul O'Neill is dishonest.He's had a long time reputation in Washington stretching back to the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, when I first knew him and, by the way, when Dick Cheney first came to appreciate him as much as he did when Dick Cheney was serving as President Ford's chief of staff and he did have a reputation then and now as a straight shooter.Yes, he's a maverick. Yes, he may even be naive. I can certainly understand why the Bush White House is extraordinarily angry at him. It does violate the traditions that when you leave a president, the man who appointed you.You let a discreet interval pass before you publish your memoirs. You let a discreet interval pass, in particular in an election year. You don't come out and say anything which discredits your boss.So, I think that he has violated the rules and I'm disappointed and I think he made a mistake in doing that but on the question of whether he's speaking the truth or not as he saw it, I would have to tell you that I would give him heavy credence on him telling it as he saw it. Others may have seen it differently, the same episodes.
BROWN: Does it surprise you, it surprised me, does it surprise you at all the paper he walked out with?
GERGEN: I'm astonished by the amount of paper he turned over to Mr. Suskind. People do leave with a lot of paper sometimes, Aaron, and 19,000 pages sounds like a terrific amount but I've seen people leave with box loads and box loads.What really stunned me was that he turned it over at this early stage and I think that the question of whether he also turned over classified documents is relevant. It is important because, of course, that is a violation of federal criminal law.If he did not turn over classified documents it seems to me the Bush administration would be better to let this go, to let it sort of, you know, recede from our midst. If they're going after him through the Treasury Department it will only keep this story alive.I thought the White House was shrewd in the first 24 hours when the press secretary and others came out and said we essentially disagree with him and we're moving on.
BROWN: But now they've at least guaranteed a little bit longer of having to deal with the whole issue.
GERGEN: Yes.
BROWN: Because, at the very least, we have to wait for Treasury to respond as it's going to respond and that will raise questions about boy they sure moved quick on this. They didn't move so quickly on the White House leak on Joe Wilson and it just kind of goes on and on.
GERGEN: I agree with that and you remember the 16 words in the president's speech about the Iranian from Niger in Africa that they turned into a 16 day story by beating up on it every day.In this kind of instance, I thought the White House's first response or first instinct was exactly the right one and that is we totally disagree with Paul O'Neill. We're angry and disappointed that he would do this but we're moving on. We're not going to delve back into ancient history. People have known all along that President Bush didn't like Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Let's -- I want to talk about the politics of this to the extent that it actually has legs.
GERGEN: Sure.
BROWN: Does it matter? Will it change any minds? Does it politically matter in that sense?
GERGEN: Aaron, this is always a hunch but my hunch is that it does not change the dynamics of the race in any fashion heading into the 2004 that President Bush remains in commanding lead in this election. His partisans are certainly going to continue to be for him.Where I think it does matter, it doesn't change a lot of votes but where it does matter is it gives the Democrats much more ammunition as they look ahead to debates with the Republicans, especially the fall debates.The Democratic candidate, whether it's Howard Dean or Wes Clark or someone else, can now stand up and when President Bush goes after him and say -- to say, you know, you said this one day and then you said this another day, they can come right back and say but look at what your treasury secretary, the man who sat across the table from you, the man who held the job that Alexander Hamilton held, look what he has said about you.That's where it gives Democrats ammunition. I don't think it changes the dynamics of the race. President Bush is still heavily favored as we head toward November, 2004.BROWN: Good to see you, David. Thank you, David Gergen.
GERGEN: OK, thank you, Aaron. It's good to talk to you.
BROWN: Thank you. David Gergen on the Paul O'Neill mess and we'll see how long that goes on.On now to the intelligence that went into the terror alert that was partially but just partially lifted on Friday. As CNN's David Ensor reports now, homeland security officials believed they knew something of the who and the how and they were especially concerned about the when.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On December 24, based on intelligence about a terrorist threat, Air France Flight 68 from Paris to Los Angeles was canceled and U.S. officials now tell CNN intelligence pointed to the greatest risk the day after that al Qaeda wanted most of all to mark Christmas Day itself with terrorism.After canceling or delaying more than 20 flights in and out of the U.S. over the holiday period, officials say they still do not know whether they stopped an attack or were duped into disrupting aviation. Either way, though, experts say expect more of the same.
DANIEL BENJAMIN, CSIS: I think it is going to be a fact of life because we know that al Qaeda continues to have a high degree of interest in aviation as a threat.
ENSOR: Knowledgeable officials say the specific tactical intelligence about threatened flights that helped prompt code orange over the holidays was compelling and came from multiple sources. They included informants, chatter, Web sites, top al Qaeda prisoners under interrogation and surveillance of al Qaeda suspects.Officials say security at airports around the world with flights to the U.S. must be further beefed up since al Qaeda clearly still wants to repeat its success of September 11 and with good reason.
BENJAMIN: I did some calculations about the amount of energy that was released when the two planes hit the World Trade Center and it was in the same range as a tactical nuclear weapon.ENSOR (on camera): The good news, U.S. officials say they are getting ever more and better fine grain intelligence on al Qaeda, the bad news cancellations and delays of flights for security reasons are likely to be an ongoing part of modern life.David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: That is perhaps the most visible manifestation of the new normal. Another is hidden away behind a check-in counter. You'll never even know it's there unless you happen to be among the people being searched for a second time at the gate or perhaps turned away entirely.Airlines make those decisions with the help of computer software, the details of which are a carefully kept secret but, in general, it seems to flag travelers who travel at the last minute, who buy one way tickets, who pay in cash. Experts call the system something less than perfect. A sequel rolls out later this year. It's supposed to be smarter and that has some people worried.Here's CNN's Brian Cabell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL (voice-over): The plan, known by the acronym CAPS 2, calls for a computerized background check of all airline passengers. That would include law enforcement and some commercial
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ASA HUTCHINSON, TSA UNDER SECRETARY: We're not going to be retaining information in the government databases on individuals. It's simply a check on commercial databases as to who should have secondary inspection to assure the safety of the passengers.
CABELL: Once checked each passenger would be assigned a numerical score in color. Red would classify the passenger as a security risk and prevent the person from boarding. Yellow would call for further scrutiny. Green, which the government says would apply to the vast majority of passengers, would allow for relatively quick boarding, a bad idea say privacy advocates.
BILL SCANNELL, DONTSPYONUS.COM: Never before in the history of our nation has government permission been required to travel freely in our own country. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional and it's just plain wrong.
CABELL: The government is negotiating with the airlines for their cooperation in CAPS 2. Delta initially volunteered but backed off when a Web site urged a boycott of the airline if it cooperated. JetBlue also ran into controversy last year when it voluntarily turned over passenger data to the military for an aviation security project. The Transportation Safety Administration insists the program will safeguard privacy and speed up security checks at the airport.
MARK HATFIELD, TSA: Right now we run about 14 to 15 percent of passengers are flagged under the current system to go through secondary screening. CAPS 2 should reduce that rate to five or less, five percent or less.
CABELL: A second program known as Registered Traveler is also in the works. It calls for passengers to volunteer information thereby clearing themselves ahead of time and allowing them to board quickly. It's less controversial than CAPS 2 because it's voluntary but critics say terrorists in so-called sleeper cells might figure out how to qualify as registered travelers.The two initiatives come on the heels of another program, US Visit that requires the photographing and fingerprinting of some overseas travelers entering the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABELL: And a couple of additional points about CAPS 2, which is the most controversial of these programs. When you make a reservation in the future under this program you will have to give your date of birth to help them track you. That has not been done in the past.And secondly, if you're not happy with your classification, say you're a red or a yellow, there will be a means to appeal that classification and perhaps to change it -- Aaron.
BROWN: But probably not on the flight you wanted to take.
CABELL: Probably not. You will probably be delayed at that point.
BROWN: Do we know what any of the sort of triggering components are? What would suggest that you ought to be not a red but to be a yellow?
CABELL: Well, for one thing they tell us if you are a violent felon that may trigger something. That doesn't mean you won't be able to fly but that will certainly entitle you to greater scrutiny. Any -- something along those lines would certainly delay you we think. But something like traffic tickets, no. That would not be a problem. Credit, they will not be checking your credit, anything like that. They assure us it will simply be something that signals to them that you are a possible threat, a possible violent threat on that plane.BROWN: Brian, thank you, Brian Cabell in Atlanta. Welcome to the new normal.Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, legal troubles facing the former bishop of Phoenix, Arizona. He faces charges in a hit-and-run case, serious charges.And later, coming out of retirement is a way of life. Jeff Greenfield on why some folks just cannot stay away.From New York this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We teach our children to own up to their mistakes, to take responsibility when they do wrong. We expect adults to know this too. We would like to believe religious leaders do, which is one reason the sex scandal in the Catholic Church has caused so much damage.Jury selection began in Phoenix today in the trial of the former bishop there, Thomas O'Brien. He's accused of leaving the scene of a fatal accident, of covering up the truth about a hit-and-run. It is not his first brush with the law or the media attention that comes with it. Here's CNN's Frank Buckley.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BUCKLEY (voice-over): Thanks to an immunity deal, Bishop Thomas O'Brien had just avoided prosecution on obstruction of justice charges for allegedly protecting priests accused of molestation when he was arrested for what happened here.On a Saturday evening in June, 43-year-old Jim Reed was hit by a car and killed. Police say the person who did it didn't stop.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, you are Thomas J. O'Brien?
THOMAS J. O'BRIEN, FORMER CATHOLIC BISHOP: Yes, sir.BUCKLEY: O'Brien was arrested after they went to his home the following Monday and found his car, the windshield shattered and caved in. O'Brien pled not guilty.
GARY LOWENTHAL, PROFESSOR OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: The issue in this case is whether or not the bishop was aware that he struck a human being.
BUCKLEY: And now jury selection is underway and it will be a challenge, say experts, to find 12 impartial jurors in a community where publicity over the bishop's legal troubles has been intense.
LOWENTHAL: It is very difficult to know what a juror will or will not put out of his or her mind when the juror says, oh, I can be fair. I can be impartial. I can decide this matter just on the facts.
BUCKLEY: By the end of the day, more than half of the original pool of 155 perspective jurors had been excused. Those that remained got a preview of the case to come. Prosecutors said Bishop O'Brien was told the day after the accident that police were looking for his car in connection with a fatal hit-and-run.
ANTHONY NOVITSKY, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY (voice-over): Thomas O'Brien did not contact police. In fact, he went home after that conversation and never attempted to make contact with law enforcement or anyone else.
BUCKLEY: Bishop O'Brien's attorney said the lighting and other conditions the night of the accident helped to explain why the bishop continued on without stopping, why they say O'Brien didn't know he'd hit a person.
PATRICK MCGROWDER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY (voice-over): Mr. Reed would have been very difficult and perhaps impossible to see as he jaywalked and staggered into the street.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BUCKLEY: And the reason that's important is what's at issue here in this trial is whether a reasonable person should have known that he hit a person the night that Jim Reed died. If the defense can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Thomas O'Brien decided to continue driving after hitting Mr. Reed then the jury might return a not guilty verdict.On the other hand if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict Aaron, the sentencing range for Bishop Thomas O'Brien is anywhere from probation to nearly four years in prison -- Aaron.
BROWN: There's a bit of a disconnect. What does he think or what does he say he hit or believe he hit if not a person who crashed into his windshield that night?
BUCKLEY: Well, Bishop O'Brien has said reportedly that he thought he hit either a small animal or that someone threw a rock into his windshield. He's conceding now that he, in fact, did hit Jim Reed and that Jim Reed died as a result of that but he is saying that he didn't know at the time that he hit a person.
BROWN: Thank you, Frank, Frank Buckley in Phoenix tonight.If Jayson Williams were just some guy his trial for aggravated manslaughter wouldn't get a mention on this program, I don't believe, but he's not. He's rich. He's a former NBA star and no one disputes that he shot his limousine driver to death. But what happened before the shot and what happened after is what the jury must sort out and the jury selection begins tomorrow.Here's CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He was a star rebounder for the New Jersey Nets with an $86 million contract. A popular guest on David Letterman's show, Jayson Williams became an NBS studio analyst after a career ending leg injury in 2000.Then, early Valentine's Day, 2002 this 911 call from inside Williams' sprawling New Jersey estate, a call made by his brother.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. We have an emergency. Somebody just got shot.
FEYERICK: Williams and a small group of friends, including four players from the Harlem Globetrotters had been out eating and drinking. They were touring the mansion and were in the master bedroom.According to court papers filed by the prosecutor, Williams was showing off a double-barrel shotgun. It went off killing limo driver Gus Christofi who Williams had hired for the night. Prosecutors say Williams acted with extreme indifference to human life.
STEVEN LEMBER, HUNTINGTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR: The conduct of the defendant given all the circumstances present at the time demonstrated recklessness on his part.
FEYERICK: But Williams' lawyers say the gun went off by itself accidentally firing when Williams snapped the gun shut.
JOSEPH HAYDEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The death of Mr. Christofi was a tragic accident but it was an accident.
FEYERICK: What happened after is also on trial. Sources say prosecution witnesses will testify Williams panicked, wiped his prints from the gun and tried to make the shooting look like suicide.A year ago, Williams settled a wrongful death suit with the victim's family paying close to $3 million. The family accepted his apology saying: "We are sure that he did not intend to hurt Gus."Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Two other stories making news around the country today starting with a victory for the White House. The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal challenging the government's refusal to disclose information about hundreds of people detained in the days and weeks after the September 11 attacks. The information will remain secret.In Connecticut, six more Republican State Senators today urged Governor John Rowland, a Republican, who is under federal investigation to resign, this as a new poll shows nearly two-thirds of voters want him to leave office. He's under investigation for corruption.And how many snapshots does it take to capture Mars full circle, 225 to be exact. Today, NASA released the first 360-degree photographic color panorama of Mars beamed back from the rover, pretty cool.Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, the really important person in the New Hampshire primary, the guy who runs the sound system, without him the candidates' proposals might never be heard.On CNN this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: For just another week, Iowa is the center of the political world. After that it goes back to being a lovely Midwestern state that's best known for its corn, pork and strange rules for girls' basketball, at least Iowa used to be known for that. But for the next six days it will be a place where dreams are ended for some, high stakes.Candy Crowley is now almost an official resident.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): Howard Dean is feeling a little black and blue.
HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm going after everybody because I'm tired of being the pin cushion here.
CROWLEY: No withering violet in this jungle when Dean says he's going after everybody he means them.
DEAN: The reason Democrats don't win elections in Washington is because they'd almost rather lose and be cozy than they would have somebody stand up against the interests in Washington.
CROWLEY: It has been weeks of bumps and bruises over issues ranging from Osama's guilt to Iowa's relevance and then Sunday night a body blow.
AL SHARPTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In your administration, did you have a senior member of your Cabinet that was black or brown?
HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We had a senior member of my staff on my...
(CROSSTALK)
SHARPTON: No, your Cabinet.
DEAN: No, we did not. I was taken aback by the reverend's attack. And I should have perhaps been a little quicker on my feet.
CROWLEY: Frankly, as Dean pushed through southeastern Iowa Monday, he seemed, well, stressed.
DEAN: Well, when you see again and again all these attacks by all these front-runners against our campaign, it's not me they're trying to stop. It's us.
CROWLEY: All these front-runners? The man with the most money and the best poll numbers has reverted to form.
DEAN: They want to say that they're all against the establishment. They are the establishment.
CROWLEY: After weeks of trying to be the confident, above-the- fray front-runner, Dean, populist, insurgent with the edge of anger, is back on the campaign trail.
DEAN: Remember who stood up to George Bush first. And it wasn't anybody from the city of Washington, D.C.
CROWLEY: Maybe it is debate or maybe the polls are too close for comfort in a campaign that hoped to begin wrapping things up, or maybe Dean, like a classic candidate, days before an election, is reminding voters what they liked to begin with.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Howard Dean does not have to win Iowa to move on. He has plenty of money and support to go to New Hampshire and far beyond that. But what he does lose, should he lose in Iowa, is that air of invincibility -- Aaron.
BROWN: I'm honestly trying to figure out what losing means here, because I think you can make an argument -- and maybe this is what the second, third and fourth place people always do -- is that it is hard for him to win. It is hard for him to match the expectation that he had a month ago.
CROWLEY: Well, you know, look, the Iowa polls have been different from the national polls and the New Hampshire polls. And that is that it is it always has been pretty close between Richard Gephardt, who is from neighboring Missouri, and Dean. So, a win here, five points, four points, is a win here. Everybody knows that it is hard fought and that there is a huge sort of mushy group of voters between undecideds and people who might change their mind that could really shake things up. So I think a win here is a clean win for Howard Dean. But a loss here I think is huge, because we started out saying Richard Gephardt has to win in Iowa. Now, if he wins in Iowa, we say, wow, new strength for Richard Gephardt, because he had such a fight here with Howard Dean. So we're going to have to wait until the day after, sort of look at the numbers, and decide whether this is a surprising second or an amazing third or, you know, a weak win. You're right. It all is the expectations game. And I think that's a little bit of what Howard Dean is doing now.
BROWN: We'll see what those mushy voters do in a week. Thank you, Candy, very much.
CROWLEY: OK. BROWN: After the caucuses, of course, comes the nation's first presidential primary. That's on the 27th of January. In New Hampshire, it looks like Iowa these days, a blizzard of campaigning across the state. For the candidates, the drill is all about the message, getting your message out, staying on message, attack your competitors' messages, which brings us to the proverbial tree falling in the forest. If no one hears it, does it make a sound? For politicians, this is hardly a philosophical question, which is why, in New Hampshire, Bob Molloy is an indispensable ally in every campaign, a power broker whose currency is decibels.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since 1976, no candidate has won the New Hampshire prime without renting a microphone to from Bob Molloy. DEAN: It's true. If you go to a 400-personal gathering and there is no sound, the people in the back of the room don't hear you. And Bob is instrumental in getting the message out.
BOB MOLLOY, MICROPHONE OPERATOR: One, two three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is that kind of on-the-ground expertise and commitment that Bob Molloy is known for. He has an awful lot of stories from an awful lot of campaigns.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would the sound man please turn Mr. Reagan's microphone off?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Is this on? Mr. Green (INAUDIBLE) I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOLLOY: People said, hey, weren't you the guy? Yes. Why wouldn't you turn it off? I wouldn't have turned it off, because, A, I wouldn't have been that rude to a man who was a guest in your auditorium. And, B, Reagan did in fact pay for the microphone. That's that. But the money to me is not the driving force behind this business. My satisfaction comes from the accomplishment of the job.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Talk to Howard Dean. The doctor is in.
MOLLOY: I have no political affiliation at all. All my concern is that, when a man steps up to the microphone or the woman steps up to the microphone, something comes out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The New Hampshire Political Library is producing its first New Hampshire political awards dinner. And we're going to recognize Bob Molloy for his role in literally providing the sound and the voice to the candidates.
MOLLOY: OK, I'll take stereo two out. I got to see you last week up at the statehouse when you signed up that you're finally going go through with this thing.
DEAN: I'm finally going go through with it.
MOLLOY: Can't turn back now, right?
DEAN: We've been keeping you employed all summer long.
MOLLOY: I appreciate it very much, Governor. Keep writing those checks for me.
DEAN: Thanks for doing the good work.
MOLLOY: And just about the time you get tired of the primary people, then that's the other big part of it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: New Hampshire, coming up.Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, the Bush administration and the press. We'll talk with media observer Ken Auletta about how the administration views and deals with the media. Around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A couple of items that made news from around the world.First, the Philippines. At least 22,000 people are homeless after fire ripped through a shantytown in Manila. It burned for most of the day. Officials say it started when someone tipped over a candle or perhaps an oil lamp. Remarkably, nobody died. In Argentina, contender for the Darwin award, we think. The man jumped into the lion's pen at the zoo in Buenos Aires, jumped in and somehow walked away with only minor injuries. According to zookeepers, the lions see humans as the source of food, not the meal in themselves, a good thing, apparently. Finally, Southampton, England where the newest queen of the high seas put to sea for its maiden voyage. The Queen Mary 2 the longest, tallest, heaviest, costliest, you name it, ocean liner ever built. We started the program with an insider's critical view of the White House and how the White House is firing back. Paul O'Neill is biting the hand that once fed him. Not surprising the White House would bite back. We're going to stick with the insider theme, but shift the angle a bit to the way the White House deals with the news media. Ken Auletta is a staff writer and columnist for "The New Yorker," and he has a piece in this week's issue of the magazine, as well as a new book called "Backstory: Inside the Business of News."We talked with Mr. Auletta earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: This White House doesn't much like the press.
KEN AULETTA, "THE NEW YORKER": No, actually, they don't. I don't know whether it's personal with you and me. But, no, they don't much like us.
BROWN: What's new?
AULETTA: What is new are two things about this White House, as I came to conclude.One is that it is more disciplined than any modern White House. So they enforce the discipline to talk about team Bush and not to talk to the press. The second thing that's different -- and it flows from the first -- is that this White House believes that we, the press, is a special interest, that we don't represent the public interest, that we are not a neutral, stand-back, adjudicate-the-facts referee, that we are in fact a special pleader for more access, more gotcha, more headlines. And they treat us accordingly.
BROWN: So it is not that they feel that the press is manipulating the news. It is just not working in their interests?
AULETTA: No. It is actually -- well, it is probably some of that. But every White House feels that.
BROWN: Right.
AULETTA: That we are not serving their interests and they want to get around the press filters, a common phrase in every administration. But I think the other thing that happens is that -- and I was curious about this. I expected the Bush administration would complain, as conservatives tend to, about the liberal bias in the press. And they do believe the press, the Washington press corps, is more liberal than not and that that liberalism infects their coverage. But that's not the heart of their complaint. The heart of their complaint is that the press has a economic bias, a bias for conflict, a bias for jacking up the ratings, a bias for jacking up the circulation, a bias for gotcha and wow kind of news and infotainment. And that bothers them. And, by the way, the interesting thing is, that same complaint, you would hear from Bill Clinton and his people.
BROWN: Yes. Which brings me back to what I said. So, then, what is new? These guys are better at the discipline of managing media.
AULETTA: They are better at the discipline of managing media. And they are not seduced by those of us in the media who feel that they should be talking to us.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Do they reward and punish?
AULETTA: Oh, of course, they do. Oh, absolutely.
BROWN: Differently than any other administration?
AULETTA: No. Every administration -- that's not new. And so much of this is evergreen that happens in every administration. Every administration complains about the press. Every administration tries to go around the filter of the press. Every administration tries to impose a discipline. What is new about this administration is a belief that they have -- I believe -- and I think it was said in interviews with the chief of staff and Karl Rove and all these other Bush team players, is that they believe that we are a special interest and that they refuse to accept that we represent the public interest. And, therefore, where are the -- where do you see that? You see it in press conferences. Bush has held 11 press conferences, which is about four times less than his own father held, and many, many, many less than any other modern president has held.
BROWN: Here is something that confuses me. I think you can make a really good case that, when they were accessible, which was during the campaign -- the president was pretty accessible to reporters -- they got what you often get when you're accessible and you're friendly and, as the president is, congenial -- they got great press. By and large, I thought they got much better press than the Gore side got.
AULETTA: And the press didn't like Gore.
BROWN: And the press didn't like Gore. So, why not follow through on that? Because there seems to be some logic in it. Suck up to reporters and you get good press from it.
AULETTA: Well, there are two things. Andrew Card, the chief of staff, said to me at one point in our interview, he said, our job is not to leak to the press. I said, why don't you talk to -- he said, the press doesn't check and get second and third sources, the way they used to. I said, well, how are they supposed to, Mr. Card, if you don't return their phone calls? That is not my job, to talk to the press, to leak to the press. He equates talking to the press with leaking. And he thinks that's the job of the press officers, not the people in government. They pay a price for the, as you're alluding to, because one of the -- Bush is often portrayed in a stereotypical fashion. He's portrayed as Cheney's puppet. He's portrayed as a guy who is not very swift and not on top of things, not asking a lot of questions. If they opened up the White House process more and showed how the sausage was made and showed the dilemmas of making decisions and showed that it wasn't so simple, yes or no, most decisions -- in fact, most decisions are "yes, but" decisions or "no, but" decisions. If they did that, they might enjoy better press. In fact, one of the things I do in the piece, I quote Michael Deaver, who was the genius behind Ronald Reagan and his media portrayal. As he said, he said, they should open up this process more. And they serve this president ill by doing it that way.
BROWN: Just a quick shift here. Does the -- all the flap over the Paul O'Neill book merely reinforce what the White House fears will be the perception of the president, that he's not particularly curious, that he's not particularly engaged, and that he has been something less than straight-ahead honest?
AULETTA: Yes.
BROWN: Dangerous?
AULETTA: Well, for him, that feeds into one of the great vulnerabilities that Bush has. Bush has a couple of vulnerabilities. Iraq is one. Another vulnerability, obviously, is the economy and whether jobs -- there is job growth. But a fundamental vulnerability is, is this president on top of things? If you look at Iraq, was he asking the questions about weapons of mass destruction? And that -- and O'Neill's point is that he wasn't asking questions of anyone. If that's true, if that perception takes hold -- and it certainly was the perception that he had a battle with in the campaign last time -- then he could be in trouble.
BROWN: It's good to see you. It's always good to see you. Thank you. Good to have you with us tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Ken Auletta in this week's "New Yorker," it's a fascinating article. And the book is called "Backstory: Inside the Business of the News." And that's probably pretty terrific, too, but I haven't looked at it yet. A few items tonight from our "MONEYLINE Roundup," starting with bad news for cast members, as they say over there. The Walt Disney Company is closing its animation studio in Orlando, Florida, consolidating the operation in Burbank, California. As many as 258 animators could lose their jobs. Wal-Mart did slightly better than predicted over the holiday. You may recall the company predicted sales growth would be at the bottom end of a 3 percent to 5 percent range. Instead, it grew by a little more than 4 percent, thanks to the last-minute Christmas rush. And the day on Wall Street was, well, jim-dandy. Our writer clearly angling for the weather job at "The Chicago Sun-Times."Still ahead on the program, unretiring Jeff Greenfield on why it is so hard for so many people to actually stay retired. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: A very good friend is considering retirement. He's a lawyer. He's done pretty well and is a bit sick of it all, as best I can tell. So when we meet on Sundays for breakfast, I always ask him if he's decided what he's going to do. An hour or so later, it is clear he has not. Retirement, I guess, is pretty scary, even if you've done pretty well, or maybe especially if you've done pretty well. Here is CNN's Jeff Greenfield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): October 2003, pitching great Roger Clemens walks off the mound at Yankee Stadium for the last time, as 55,000 fans bid him a fond, tearful farewell. We will remember him for years to come.
ROGER CLEMENS, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER: This decision was made possible by my family.
GREENFIELD: Well, it turns out we won't are to stretch our memories all that much. Today, less than three months after that heartwarming scene, Clemens announced he will pitch one more year for his hometown Houston Astros. Meanwhile, half a continent away, 42-year-old Dennis Rodman, once one of the best rebounders and defenders in pro basketball, plays for $850 a week for a minor minor league team, hoping to unretire to the NBA, where he lost played almost four years ago.
DENNIS RODMAN, BASKETBALL PLAYER: I think now is the time for the people and the community to give me the opportunity to finish my career.
GREENFIELD: And, in the nation's capital, 63-year-old Joe Gibbs, who led the Washington Redskins to three Super Bowls, has returned to the coaching ranks 11 years after his retirement. And in Dallas, Bill Parcells, who retired from coaching not once, but three times, guided the Cowboys to the playoffs this year. That's one more retirement, by the way, than basketball's Michael Jordan. (on camera): And it is not just sports. In business, in politics, in entertain, they're rewriting the book, or at least the title of one American classic. You can't go home again? Sure you can. (voice-over): In the world of big business, former CEOs Ted Waitt of Gateway, Henry Schacht of Lucent, and Paul Anderson of Duke Energy all came out of retirement to lead their beleaguered companies. In the U.S. Senate, New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, at age 78, won a Senate seat two years after retiring, while, in Minnesota, former Vice President Walter Mondale lost in his effort to replace the late Paul Wellstone in the Senate, 18 years after Mondale left that body. Donald Rumsfeld is back as secretary of defense, 24 years after he last held that job, while former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney returned to public life as the very powerful vice president. Of course, the gold standard in political unretirement is still held by Richard Nixon, who, in 1962, made his future clear:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As I leave you, I want you to know, just think how much you're going to be missing. You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GREENFIELD: Only to triumphantly return to public life as president and then really, really retire then. Unretirements, they call them reunions, are a staple of pop music. Simon & Garfunkel, The Who, the Eagles all hit the road after hitting the road. (on camera): Maybe it is the money or the glory or the simple lure of the action, but it seems as if every high-profile enterprise leaves its doors wide open for prodigal sons and daughters to return, every one that is except one. I think that sign up there says goodbye, farewell and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Morning papers after the break.
COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(ROOSTER CROWING)
BROWN: OK. Time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. And we'll start with -- oh, darn, got the lenses dirty there -- "The International Herald Tribune." So, if you're traveling, this is published by "The New York Times" and edited and printed in Paris. Down at the bottom -- this will probably be in tomorrow's "Times." I didn't see it in today's. "Will Her Career Land in the Rough?" It's a story about Michelle Wie, who is 13. Maybe she's turned 14, but I think she is still 13 -- who will tee it up in the men's PGA tournament in Hawaii at 13. She's 6 feet tall. I keep tell my daughter, you got to grow. Work harder at it. It doesn't seem to help.
"The Jerusalem Post," what I thought was interesting here is, everybody has got this problem. "P.M." -- that would be the prime minister -- "Handled Foreign Campaign Finances, Former Aide Says." It's like the Paul O'Neill story, only in Israel. "The Jerusalem Post" today.
"The Washington Times" has a lot of stuff on the front page. "Fox Backs Bush's Alien Proposal." I don't know why that just sort of jumped out at me. "Congress Pressed to OK Work For Illegals." "Israel Invites Assad" -- that's the President of Syria -- "For Talks." That's a pretty good story on the front page. But they seemed to put just about everything on the front page, including this story down at the bottom. "Versatile Cow is Everywhere. Ubiquitous" -- I'll bet it's the only newspaper in the country that used ubiquitous on the front page. "Ubiquitous Animal Used in Hospitals and Battlefields." I haven't seen many cows on the battlefield, but they're probably there.How are we doing on time, David?Oh, my goodness.
"The Oregonian." One of the things I like about this paper is, they put really interesting feature series on the front page. "Road Map to Success: Fixing High Schools," the last of a three-part series. "Creating a top-notch high school isn't easy, but some schools lead the way," according to "The Oregonian," the newspaper of Portland, Oregon. And, by the way, if you're interested, the food today out there is fresh parsley, cilantro and mint.
"The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review" down at the bottom. Again, this was kind of an odd news day. I don't know if you can see this. I don't have my glasses on, so I can't see anything. "More Bedbugs Being Uncovered in the U.S." OK, that's really the headline. "More Bedbugs Being Uncovered in U.S." OK, here's the lead. "Bedbugs are back and your mother was right. They do bite." That's the lead in the bedbugs story by David M. Brown. Perhaps we're related somehow or another.
"The Boston Herald." "Doc on the hot Seat. Ethics Probe Heats Up on M.E.'s Office." They also put Roger Clemens on the front page. And
"Chicago Sun-Times." "Local Gun Shop Told 2,370 Guns Later Linked To Crimes." I'm sure that's a coincidence. That couldn't have been anything other than that. "No long johns," the weather in Chicago tomorrow, which is news for them. We'll take a break and update our top story or -- yes, that's what we'll do. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Before we go, a quick recap of our top story. The Treasury Department has launched an investigation into how classified documents or at least a secret document appeared in an interview of Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. A tell-all book based on Mr. O'Neill's time in the administration comes out tomorrow. In it, he describes the president as planning for war with Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11. Tomorrow on this program, it looks like a revival meeting, but this is a prison, the first in the country to use faith-based rehabilitation programs for every inmate. Does it work? Does it violate the Constitution? We'll look at that tomorrow. And now here's Soledad O'Brien with a look at what's coming up tomorrow morning on "AMERICAN MORNING."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Aaron. Tomorrow on "AMERICAN MORNING," Senator Tom Harkin on his surprise endorsement of Howard Dean for president. Why does he think Dean is the best? We're going to ask him tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. Eastern -- Aaron.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Thank you. "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" for most of you.Good night for all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.comOffensive; Airline Passengers to Undergo Stricter Security Checks>
