CNN Europe CNN Asia
On CNN TV Transcripts Headline News CNN International About Preferences
powered by Yahoo!
Return to Transcripts main page


Showdown: Iraq

Aired October 13, 2002 - 12:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, HOST: It's noon in Washington, 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles, 7:00 p.m. in Baghdad and 8:00 p.m. Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us for our special LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.
We'll talk about what's next in the showdown with Iraq shortly with the first lady of the United States, Laura Bush, and with three key U.S. senators. But first, we're going to bring you the very latest on the sniper attacks terrorizing the Washington D.C. area.

Since those attacks began October 2, eight people have been shot to death, two others have been seriously injured. To make matters worse, the killer or killers remain at large.

A short while ago, I got the latest on the investigation.


BLITZER: Joining me now, four men who've been intimately involved in this investigation: the Montgomery County police chief, Charles Moose; the FBI special agent in charge, Gary Bald; the special agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in charge of his department's investigation, Michael Bouchard; and the Montgomery County executive, Doug Duncan.

Thanks so much for taking a few moments out of your busy schedule to join us.

Chief Moose, let me begin with you and maybe you can update our viewers here in the United States, indeed around the world, on the latest in this investigation. Where do you stand right now?

CHIEF CHARLES MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE: Sir, we are continuing to make progress. We're very satisfied with the number of tips, the number of people in the community that are participating. People that are responding to information that we put out. We were able to provide a graphic of the box truck that we talked about for several days.

I want to remind people that what that means is not so much do they see someone perhaps driving it today, where we remain interested in that, has someone brought one into your shop to have a bumper repaired? Has someone brought a truck of this type in to have it painted since these events have started to unfold? So we want to use that graphic to provoke thoughts, memories from people.

And again, the investigation continues to evolve, but we are making progress, but the puzzle has yet to come together.

BLITZER: Chief Moose, there seems to be some confusion about this box truck, this graphic composite picture that you've released, versus the Astro van, the Chevy Astro van that supposedly was seen leaving the scene of the most recent shooting in Spotsylvania County, just south of Washington in Virginia.

Are there two separate vehicles you're looking for, or is it just the box truck?

MOOSE: No, we want it to be real clear that the two vehicles are separate. And again, the box truck, the graphic is designed to spur people's memories. And the Astro van is something that we've gotten from witnesses. We're looking for that vehicle. We hope to again put a composite out of it at some point in the future.

But we want to be real clear. There are two separate vehicles, and we want to talk to people that may have some information about either vehicle.

BLITZER: As you know, some of your colleagues in the District of Columbia, Police Chief Ramsey, have suggested that there may be a Chevy Caprice that was seen, a burgundy color, older model that was seen leaving the scene of the shooting in Northwest Washington.

What can you tell us, if anything, about that?

MOOSE: Well, that is also a lookout that has been put out there, and I think there's been more law enforcement focus on that, not a big push for public feedback about that.

But again, there are many pieces, many nuances to a complex investigation like this. And we want to continue to tell people that we want to hear with regards to each and every thing that is out there.

To call our tip line, the 1-888-324-9800. We want to talk to people there. We have FBI agents answering that call. They can -- they've been well trained in how to ask questions, how to provoke memory on how to create that dialogue and determine whether or not you indeed are a witness that we need to follow up with.

BLITZER: The new issue, Chief Moose, of Newsweek magazine is suggesting, is reporting that you may have been trying to communicate with the sniper or snipers in some sort of way and your references to God in some of your public statements may have been your way to communicate, send a message to that sniper. Is that true?

MOOSE: Well, sir, it has been my practice and remains inappropriate to talk about anything involving nuances of the investigation.

BLITZER: So you don't want to get into that.

Let me bring in the county executive of Montgomery County, Doug Duncan. We do have some composite descriptions of the vehicle or vehicles now that may have been involved.

What about the actual suspects or suspect, the killer in this particular case? Is there anything that eyewitnesses have shared with you that you could share or you want to share with the public out there that might help you in the investigation?

DOUG DUNCAN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXECUTIVE: We can't comment on the specifics of the investigation. We'll let the investigators tell us when it's appropriate to release information to the public.

But I do want to say, the public has been extraordinary in their response here. We've asked them to participate in the investigation by calling us with information, what they saw, what they heard, who they know, anything they think that might help us, call us and let us know. We're asking for information about the box truck, the Astro van. People are calling in. We're getting lots of calls in, giving our investigators lots of leads.

I want to thank them very much for that, because that is working, and the public's playing its role here as well.

BLITZER: There seems to be a pattern, to a certain degree, in terms of the shooting. Last weekend, I think, was relatively quiet. Tomorrow morning, Monday morning, another busy week.

What are you telling people in Montgomery County, Maryland, a huge county just outside of Washington, D.C., what they should be doing as they prepare for work and school tomorrow morning?

DUNCAN: Well, we're a county of 900,000 people. I mean, it's a large community here. And as I get out and about our county, I've been doing quite a bit of that, talking to people.

You know, what they say to me is, first, thank you, thank you for the work your police are doing, thank you for the work the FBI, the ATF, all of the agencies involved in this unprecedented teamwork of people that's been pulled together to solve this case. So they're thankful for that.

And the next thing they say is, catch 'em, catch 'em as fast as you can you. And I assure them that we're making progress.

But what I'm getting from the public is a real sense of determination, resolve and strength. People are turning to their family, they're turning to their friends, they're turning to their faith. And they understand that we've got to get through this together. We are going to get through it, but we're only going to do that if we bond together as a community. And I see that happening.

So people are going about their normal routines as best they can. They're going to work, they're going to school, they're going shopping. They're doing those kinds of things in their normal routine that they usually do, except they're a little more cautious, a little more vigilant, a little more observant than they have been before.

BLITZER: But is there any practical advice you want to share with our viewers out there, not only in Montgomery County -- there are 5 million people who live in the greater Washington D.C. area -- about when they go buy gas, when they go into a shopping center, when they go to school, is there anything that they shouldn't be doing, that perhaps they still are doing?

DUNCAN: People need to make decisions for themselves, for their families, for the groups they're associated with, based on the safety and security that they feel is appropriate.

So we're asking people, as best they can, go about your normal routine, make sure you go to work, make sure you end your kids to school. We want people to do that for the long-term health of our community. We need to engage others as we go through these series of shootings.

BLITZER: Michael Bouchard, the eight...


MOOSE: Wolf, I would like to just add to that and remind us that people in our past have tried to intimidate Americans, people have tried to put fear into Americans. We need to remember that we all find that unacceptable.

So this is another one of those opportunities that we all have to join together and send a real clear message that this is a strong nation, this is a democratic nation, and we will not be intimidated by someone that is trying to put fear into us and to change our way of living.

So, it has been very positive, the way people have come together, and I would want us to be encouraged that this is a chance for us to again show how resilient we are.

BLITZER: All right. Well said.

Let me bring in Michael Bouchard. He's the agent in charge from the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

We've now been told there have been 11 shots fired, 10 casualties -- that first shot missed, fortunately. Have you confirmed conclusively that all of these bullets came from the same weapon?

MICHAEL BOUCHARD, ATF: Wolf, I think we've concluded that eight of the shootings are linked through ballistics evidence. The other ones are inconclusive right now. And like anything else, unless we're 100 percent sure, we're not going to reach any conclusions.

BLITZER: Before this series of shootings began, there was a shooting on September 14th, as you well know, in Montgomery County, at a liquor store. Have you done any research, any work to determine if that may have been the work of this same sniper?

BOUCHARD: Wolf, we've been working with Chief Moose's people closely on that. We looked at all the circumstances surrounding that shooting, and we've looked at some of the ballistics evidence from that shooting. Again, it's inconclusive right now. And if we make a determination, we certainly will release that.

BLITZER: Without the ballistic evidence, though, were there other similarities in that September 14th shooting and this more recent series of deadly shootings?

BOUCHARD: I really can't discuss the similarities or lack thereof on that case, Wolf.

BLITZER: Is it your trained judgment, Mr. Bouchard, that this is the work of a trained sniper, a skilled marksman or an amateur?

BOUCHARD: I really don't know, Wolf. Obviously the person is a good shot. They've obviously practiced. Where they've been trained or their skill level, I really don't know. But we're certainly looking at that. Obviously they've been able to hit the targets each time they've been shooting.

BLITZER: I've heard some trained snipers say that they always aim at the head, and this particular sniper has been going for the torso, the body, and that might indicate something. In your experience, what does that say, if anything?

BOUCHARD: That would be pure speculation on my part. I really can't comment or really go into that.

BLITZER: What kind of gun do you believe, or what kind of weapon, rifle or high-powered weapon was used in this particular case?

BOUCHARD: Wolf, as we said before, the type of round we're looking at, a .221, .222, .223, it's a very close family of rounds of ammunition. It's chambered in a variety of guns, 30-plus types of guns shoot this type of round. So it's a very common round of ammunition. So I'm really not going to discuss exactly what type of weapon or the specific weapons on this.

BLITZER: Well, without saying what kind of weapon it was, have you narrowed it down to one or two or three?

BOUCHARD: All I'll say, Wolf, is that the ballistics evidence in this case has linked the shootings we've discussed in the past.

BLITZER: Gary Bald of the FBI, is it your best sense that this is the work of a lone individual, one person, or is it two or three or a group of people based on what you know right now?

GARY BALD, FBI: Wolf, I don't want to speculate on the number of people involved. We're not closing out any options. We're interested in the public's assistance. We've gotten tremendous help so far. We have a direction that we're going in that we feel is a very positive direction. We've made some good progress in the case. We'd like to ask the public to continue to help us. We're going to narrow this thing down and resolve it as quickly as we can.

BLITZER: Some eyewitnesses, though, have said they've seen two people at the scene of these shootings as opposed to one. Is that basically the working assumption, there maybe a couple of these individuals involved in these killings?

BALD: I don't want to narrow it down one way or the other, Wolf. All I'll say on that is we've got witness accounts from many of the locations. We're trying to take that information and have it direct and drive our investigation.

BLITZER: I've been getting swamped with e-mail from our viewers in the United States, around the world, with people suggesting this could be the work of terrorists, formal terrorists, like al Qaeda-type terrorists. Is that a possibility?

BALD: Well, when we're doing a case like this, you don't really deal with possibilities. You follow the evidence that you've got, you let the investigators drive the investigation. We haven't ruled anything in, and we're not ruling anything out.

BLITZER: Is it the work, though -- we've been hearing a lot of these technical terms "spree killer" versus "serial killer." First of all, explain to our viewers what the difference is.

BALD: I'd rather not get into discussing the difference between them. We're considering -- we've had profilers' assistance in this investigation. They've provided us their thoughts on the person or people responsible. We're taking that information and factoring in other information we've received from the public and through other investigative leads and interviews. I really don't want to get into discussing any characterization of the people responsible.

BLITZER: And before I let you go, Agent Bald, this video game, there's a popular video game out there called One Shot, One Kill. Some have suggested that this killer in this particular case may be motivated or may be using -- may have used that video game himself. Is that something you've been looking into?

BALD: Wolf, I understand the information that you're talking about. It's not something that I want to discuss. The investigation is going in all the logical direction that the leads lead us to.

BLITZER: Let me bring back Chief Moose of the Montgomery County Police Department. He's been on top of this from the very beginning, leading this investigation.

I know you've said publicly on several occasions, Chief Moose, that people should be looking for individuals that may be acting irrationally or in a suspicious manner, they're not shown up at work or they've changed their behavior. Specifically, what should our viewers be looking for in the kind of person that may be involved in this horrendous killing?

MOOSE: Well, sir, what we try to do is encourage people to keep an open mind, to not focus on any age group or any race or any economic group, but to say of the people that you know, the things that you've observed, certainly if you know someone that's expressed a certain comment, if they have, you know, not been present during periods of times when these events have occurred, again, if they've altered their schedule, if that's triggered some concern on your part, we want to talk to you. We'd like to reach out, have our investigators determine whether or not that is a lead that they want to follow up.

We're not closing our minds to anything. So it's really asking people to take a big-picture approach, much like the box truck. Has someone brought one in to be repaired, has someone brought one in to be painted at your shop since this occurred? Maybe you weren't near any of the shootings, but now that the shootings have occurred, someone's wanted that box truck changed from white to gray, then we would probably would like to talk to that person at our hotline.

So, again, I think in a big picture, don't get narrow-focused on what you may have heard on TV, someone saying they think this is what it is and therefore your neighbor now has been excluded. We want to talk to people about things that just seem to feel wrong, feel awkward, maybe things that they've observed.

Let our investigators determine if it's good information or bad information. Don't make that decision yourself.

BLITZER: Chief, any idea what these suspects look like that you might want to share with our viewers?

MOOSE: Sir, you know, I wish that we could give you a name, a mug shot and an address. But we're not at that point today, and any other information about the investigation would be inappropriate.

BLITZER: And finally, before I let all of you go, media, the media coverage of all of this, we're all trying to do obviously the best that we can under very difficult, trying circumstances.

What advice do you have for us, Chief Moose, that might help us do a better, more responsible job in making sure that we don't do anything that could compromise the investigation?

MOOSE: Well, sir, if we could figure out a way to where on this story, on this situation, where people are still being harmed, where you could potentially put people in harm's way, put our investigators in harm's way, if we could somehow not have this be competitive, because as people compete, I know it's a very competitive business, but with this tragedy, with people still being in harm's way, let's not compete, let's all work together to bring this very horrible event to closure.

And I think if we could do that, and I've seen a lot of that, but if we could continue that tone, I would be very appreciative, and I think that all of law enforcement would appreciate that.

BLITZER: OK, Chief Moose, thanks so much for joining us, Gary Bald, Michael Bouchard, Doug Duncan. All of you, good luck in this investigation that has gripped not only our area here in greater Washington but around the country, indeed around the world.

Thanks to all of you. Good luck to all of you.

(END VIDEOTAPE) BLITZER: And just ahead, an exclusive interview with America's first lady, Laura Bush. She shares her thoughts about the sniper attacks, Saddam Hussein and more.

This special LATE EDITION, SHOWDOWN: IRAQ, will be right back.


BLITZER: You're looking at pictures of the National Book Festival under way this weekend here in Washington. The event is designed to highlight the power of books and generate more interest in reading. It's being hosted by the first lady, Laura Bush.

Welcome back to this special LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.

Before she opened this weekend's festival, I had the chance to talk with the first lady not only about her love of books, but also about the sniper attacks here in the Washington area, the possibility of a new war with Iraq, the pressures faced by her husband and how life has changed since the September 11th terrorist attacks.


BLITZER: I want to get to the whole work that you're doing with the authors and the books, but the sniper that's on the loose as we speak right now, terrorizing an entire community...


BLITZER: ... and the whole area. How are you dealing with this?

BUSH: First, I'm thinking about the families who've lost somebody, and I know I can speak for all Americans when I send them our condolences and our love and our sympathy.

And also, I think we really should support the law enforcement, the local law enforcement, who are working so hard to try to catch whoever this perpetrator is. And that's, of course, what we all hope for, is that we can catch whoever it is and stop this.

But it's a very, very difficult time. Since September 11 anyway, people have had to be vigilant, and they've had to be careful. And now with this, I think it really does unnerve people, and it gives a great feeling of anxiety and uncertainty, and for children particularly. So, I hope parents will be very careful with their children and very reassuring with their children.

BLITZER: What should parents tell their children?

BUSH: Yes.

BLITZER: Because it reminds me of -- and maybe I'm exaggerating -- the aftermath of 9/11...

BUSH: That's right. BLITZER: ... the aftermath of the anthrax attacks here in Washington, and now this. You've lived through these areas here. And -- but how does a parent deal with this when a child asks, what's going on?

BUSH: Well, I think you talk to your children in ways that are appropriate for their age. Obviously, very little children, you might not say that much about it and try to not have them watch television. But of course, you have to watch your children very carefully and be careful with them. But parents should always do that, especially with little children.

But with older children, I know older children are frightened as well, and it's just a good time to talk about safety precautions with children anyway, and then to just reassure them -- reassure them that they're safe, that you're going to keep them safe, that you're the adult, you're the parent, and you're going to do your very best to keep your children safe.

BLITZER: Do you remember in your life ever living through periods like this?

BUSH: No, no. Not at all. I mean, certainly, we had -- in my childhood, we had the bomb drills, I guess you'd call them, like the tornado drills...

BLITZER: When we used to hide -- when we used to hide underneath the desk.

BUSH: ... that we had in west Texas. But, of course, I grew up in a very remote part of the United States, far west Texas, and we felt pretty safe out there.

But it's a very, very difficult and uncertain time for all Americans, and it's a really good time for us to pull together as Americans. I've seen it all over our country, people who are so willing to help, who really want our country to remain the land of opportunity that it always has been, and it's just a good time for us to be together.

BLITZER: Your husband, the president, has been under enormous pressure, especially since 9/11. And right now, he's got this added burden of possibly making a life-and-death decision of sending young men and women off to war, in harm's way. How is he coping with that?

BUSH: Well, that's the most difficult decision any president ever faces, and certainly, when you're elected, you know that that's a possibility. But then, when you're really faced with it, it becomes so difficult.

He handles the stress by being very disciplined. He's very disciplined. He's very deliberate. He is a very disciplined athlete. He works out. He finds that running is a way to help alleviate the stress.

And we are very careful with our health. We go to bed early. We get up early. And that's also something that's important for all people to do when they're anxious. If you can take care of yourself physically, it helps emotionally.

So, that's just something we've always done. That's how we've always lived.

But, you know, no one wants war. We want to be very, very careful, and I have every confidence in my husband, in his administration, that they will be very careful and very deliberate over this.

BLITZER: When he has to make these decisions, have you seen a change in him since 9/11? Because, as you know, to the average American, that a lot of Americans think that he has changed, which would be understandable, because of the enormity of...


BUSH: Well, I think that's right. And all of us have changed in a lot of ways. Our whole country has changed in a lot of ways. We are a more serious country.

We're a more grateful country. We're more grateful for our many freedoms that all of us I think took for granted before September 11. When we see the contrast between schools in Afghanistan, where little girls are getting to go back to school for the first time in their lives, and what we have and what we've enjoyed for generations in our country with free public education for every child. All of those things, I think, make us more grateful.

But in a lot of ways, we're anxious and we're uncertain.

BLITZER: How have you changed?

BUSH: Well, I think I'm more serious, too, as well. But all of the way my husband is now, he's always been very steady. And those characteristics that he has -- the discipline, the steadiness -- are the characteristics that have served him really well now, and I think serve the American people well. Those are the characteristics I have, too.

BLITZER: We know he's consulting with the vice president, the secretary of state...

BUSH: Sure.

BLITZER: ... the secretary of defense...

BUSH: Sure.

BLITZER: ... his national security advisor -- his official advisors. But who are his unofficial advisors?

BUSH: Well, I don't know if I can think of any that are out of the administration, but...

BLITZER: I mean, you're one.

BUSH: I am, certainly, but I'm not an advisor on any of those issues. That's not where...

BLITZER: But he talks about all of that with you.

BUSH: He talks about those issues. He talks about that with -- he has a group of very close friends that he talks about that with, but not as advisors; really more as people who are loving, who are supportive, who are friends that he's had his whole life that give him the emotional support.

BLITZER: So, he sort of just bounces off ideas from them?

BUSH: That's right. That's right.



BUSH: Not really, he has all of those people in his administration that he talks about those issues with. But I think he gets a lot of strength from the large group of close friends that we've had for our whole married life and a lot of them for our whole life.

BLITZER: And his mom and dad?

BUSH: We visited his parents last weekend in Maine. His sister and brother were there with us. Our girls were there.

We also get a lot of support from our family, a lot of emotional support, and from our faith. I think Americans, after September 11, realized again how important our family members are to us, and how precious they are, after we looked at story after story of people who said goodbye that morning on September 11 to the person they loved best in the world.

BLITZER: You remember a few -- not -- a few days ago, basically, the president said -- he seemed to get a little personal with Saddam Hussein, recalling that Saddam Hussein tried to kill his dad, and he used those words more or less to that effect. Is it getting personal?

BUSH: No, I don't think it's getting personal at all. This is -- my husband has laid out a very strong case at the U.N. for a resolution. He laid a strong case out to the American people on Monday night.

This -- Saddam Hussein has literally thumbed his nose at the world community and has harmed his own people. He has a chance to disarm right now, and to let the world know that his intentions are good.

BLITZER: Have you at all thought about the notion of becoming a one-term first lady? BUSH: No, I haven't, even after September 11, I -- you know, I don't see it that way. I'm still working on the same issues. And certainly, in uncertain times, it's very, very important for us to continue reading. It's a good way for parents to reassure their children at night, to read stories to them. Children feel very safe and secure, when their parents can put their arms around them and read to them. And I've always said that. That's what I worked on when I was first lady of Texas, and that's where I was on September 11. I was on Capitol Hill to brief the Senate Education Committee on early childhood education.

BLITZER: When all is said and done, you were a librarian.

BUSH: That's right.

BLITZER: You were a teacher.

BUSH: That's right.

BLITZER: But to a certain degree, you still are a librarian and a teacher. You probably saw -- I know you saw the editorial in The New York Times praising you and your efforts, among other things, saying that what you have done instead is take the role that good teachers and good librarians have always taken, recommending books that will interest or entertain readers and reinforce their commitment to reading (inaudible). They were praising you, The New York Times, for inviting authors here who disagree with your husband, for example.

BUSH: Well, I don't think there is anything political. You don't have to be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent to love American literature or to read to your children. And there is -- Americans have always loved really good stories.

BLITZER: Before I let you go, one of my favorite authors is Mark Twain. I know he's one of yours, too.

BUSH: That's right.

BLITZER: Do you really think he was the first great American novelist?

BUSH: Well, in the sense that he was really an American; that he dealt with in his books what is really the crux of American history. He talked about waste, he talked about money, he talked about a lot of issues that Americans have talked about and been concerned with since the day our country was founded.

Earlier writers, and there are a lot of great ones, Hawthorne, a lot of other writers, Melville, that wrote before Mark Twain. But I really feel like he was the one who really dealt with all of the issues that Americans even still today are talking about.

BLITZER: He was pretty controversial in his time.

BUSH: He was very controversial, and he's still controversial. There are some libraries that still get protests about Mark Twain. BLITZER: Yes, I know that.

Mrs. Bush, thanks. Good luck to you.

BUSH: Thanks. Thanks a lot.

BLITZER: Good luck to all of us.

BUSH: Thanks. Thank you very much, Wolf.


BLITZER: When we return, now that the U.S. Congress has armed President Bush with an attack-Iraq-if-necessary resolution, what's the next step for the United States? We'll get three different perspectives from some key senators: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

LATE EDITION will continue right after this.



GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.


BLITZER: President Bush this past Monday laying out his case against Iraq to the American public. Later in the week, both the U.S. House and the Senate gave the president what he wanted -- resolutions authorizing the use of military force if necessary against Iraq.

Welcome back to this special hour of LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.

We're joined now by three members of the United States Senate with different views on how to proceed with Saddam Hussein: Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, he's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee; Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina, he's a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee; and Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, he's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he's the only member of his party in the U.S. Senate to vote against the resolution authorizing military force.

Senators, thanks so much for joining us, and I want to get to all of those issues, Iraq, in just a moment.

But on this issue of the sniper that has terrorized the greater Washington area, Senator Hagel, has this changed your views on the very sensitive issue of gun control?

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: No, because this is a case, we think, of an individual. It's an individual's behavior here. And I have said, and it has been my position, that the responsible use of firearms, training and all that goes with it, is, in fact, not just protected by the Constitution but it's something that society expects. And it is the individual's conduct and behavior that we have to deal with.

And I think in this case that's what we're dealing with, probably a madman. I don't know of anyone in their right mind that would be doing something like this. But to shut down the vast, vast majority of Americans who use firearms for legal purposes, hunting, target practice, I don't think is the answer here.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, do you agree?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, I think we need to find out what happened. I think at this point we're all just frightened, frightened for our families, frightened for the people in this area of the country. And I think we need to find out what, in fact, who this person is, what kind of weapon he's using, whether, in fact, laws would have any effect on this at all.

So I think this is still -- I think right now the main issue is the safety of the folks in this area.

BLITZER: In none of the briefings you've had, you're a member of the Intelligence Committee, has anyone suggested this could be al Qaeda or terrorists? As you know, we're getting swamped with e- mails, people expressing those kinds of fears.

EDWARDS: I've not heard any suggestion of that. I think most people just think it's just a criminal.

BLITZER: What about you, Senator Chafee, where do you come down on this whole issue of guns and in the aftermath, if you've changed you views of if this has reinforced any of your views on this issue?

SEN. LINCOLN CHAFEE (R), RHODE ISLAND: You did use the right word, we are terrorized. And with all the subject of terrorism, here it is right in our neighborhood.

And as far as -- most of the legislation that we've been addressing here in Congress has to do with gun safety, closing the gun show loophole. So, I don't know if that addressed the weapon that seems to be just a hunting rifle that's being used.

BLITZER: A high-powered rifle of some sort.

Have you been advised by anyone in the U.S. Congress to change your activities, to take certain precautions as a result of what's been going on now for nearly two weeks?

CHAFEE: I do live out there, and, yes I decided yesterday to drive out to Skyline Drive and out to the mountains, just because I didn't want to be around the area. So it has changed my habits.

BLITZER: But has anybody said to you, maybe as members of the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, that, you know, you should avoid certain areas, or anybody offered any advice like that to you?

CHAFEE: No, Wolf, not yet at this stage.

BLITZER: What about you, Senator Hagel?


BLITZER: None of the kind of restrictions or recommendations, cautionary advisories that were released after 9/11, for example?

HAGEL: No. I think we're like all citizens, just use common sense here. All of us around this table have young children, and like every parent, that's your first concern. But I'm not aware of any special instructions that United States senators have been given on this issue.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: No, we haven't had any instructions, but I'm sure, like my colleagues, I mean, I've got a 4-year-old, Emma Claire, who's on a soccer team, and her soccer team has not practiced since this began. We've been scared to death and just in the process of taking her to and from day care. I mean, this is a frightening thing.

BLITZER: All of us who live in this area have been scared as a result of what's been going on.

Let's talk about Iraq right now. Senator Chafee, you're the only Republican member of the Senate who opposed the president of the United States on this resolution. Tell our viewers,here in the United States, indeed around the world, why you made that decision.

CHAFEE: When the president first started talking about Iraq last spring and he mentioned the axis of evil in the State of the Union address in January and then the rhetoric started building, there was a lot of questions, why now? It seemed like we had our hands full in Afghanistan.

And then the world leaders around the country all came out saying, "I think it's a bad idea." Even those surrounding Iraq, whether it's Turks, or the Turkish president or the Jordanian King or the Saudis, of course, even the Kuwaitis were saying, "I don't think it's a good idea."

And so, as we came into the summer, we have all the issues here in Congress, when our recess in August came back and expected, "OK, now we're going to have a vote. It seems coming down the tracks. We're going to hear some really good justification."

I know two senators, we went to all the briefings and, some of them, they'd say, "Well we're not here to talk about Iraq." And even Republican Senator Don Nickles, staunch ally of the president, saying, "I want to be on your side, but we need more information."

I don't think we ever got it. Shifting justifications...

BLITZER: So the president's case never convinced you that there was an imminent threat to the United States which would justify voting for this resolution, is that what you're saying?

CHAFEE: Yes, that's true. And I kept looking, but never got it.

BLITZER: Senator Hagel, you were on the fence for a long time, one of those Republicans like Senator Lugar, Senator Chafee, not many, who were raising the most serious questions, much more so that a lot of the Democrats were raising. Yet in the end, you decided to vote for this resolution.

HAGEL: I did, because I felt in the end the president had understood, does understand, the implications if, in fact, we would invade Iraq. That will not end in Iraq, if that invasion comes. It will be just the beginning of a long-term effort in the Middle East.

The questions that were put forward by many of us for three months, at least, in the hearings that Senator Chafee refers to and other questioning forums, were appropriate and, in fact, changed the language of the resolution we ultimately voted on.

The first resolution, in my opinion, was irresponsible. And, in fact, I would have voted against it. But because there were enough members, Democrats and Republicans, who forced the issue, number one, acknowledging that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the president on foreign policy and all matters, this was a responsible, accountable resolution.

In the end, then, I think the point made by Secretary Powell and the president was persuasive, that, in fact, maybe to avoid this conflict, to giving the strength you need before the United Nations, because in the end, our allies and the United Nations is critical here, because it gives us credibility and our allies the legitimacy they need to deal with Saddam. And we must deal with Saddam.

BLITZER: So what I hear you saying is there may not be an imminent threat, but from an effectiveness way to get the U.N. Security Council to put pressure on the Iraqis, it was important to give the president that kind of support.

HAGEL: It was, if the president understands, and I think he does, how critically important it is to have the United Nations and allies with us, especially allies in the Middle East.

Because this job is massive, what lies ahead. The American people must understand the kind of commitment in blood and treasure that would go into this for the long time. And that, in the end, is what persuaded me that this is the right thing to do, plus the new tightening of the resolution.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, you're the Democrat at this table and you're the hawk. You early on came in and said there is a clear and present danger from Saddam Hussein and it's time for the United States to take military action if necessary. But then, later in the week, you seemed to be critical of the president on some other foreign policy issues, the entire approach that he was taking.

EDWADS: Well, first, with respect to Iraq, Wolf, my feeling has been as a member of the Intelligence Committee and sitting for month after month listening to briefings about Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, making every effort he could make to get nuclear capability.

I think Chuck is right about this strong vote in the Senate and the House sending a clear signal to the world and strengthening our hand at the U.N. That's important.

But a second issue, an enormously important issue for me, is, I don't believe we can allow Saddam Hussein to have nuclear weapons. I think that has an extraordinary impact not only on America's security, Israel's security, but in fact the stability of that entire region of the world.

So, Chuck and I agree completely about the need -- and this is what you've just made reference to -- about the need to go to the U.N., the need to work with our allies, the need to send a clear signal to the world that we're not just interested in America's interest, but in fact, we care about the safety, the stability and the security and having a peaceful world.

BLITZER: A lot of commentators, and you've seen this, have pointed out that those Democratic senators who were looking, thinking about running for president, all of them voted for the resolution. Those who aren't necessarily thinking about it, 22 other Democratic senators, voted opposed to it.

Frank Rich, writing in Saturday's New York Times writes this: "Though the party's leaders finally stepped up, starting with Mr. Gore, most of them seemed less concerned with the direction of the nation in 2002 than with positioning themselves for the White House in 2004 or 2008. They challenged the administration's arrogant and factually disingenuous way of pursing its goal, then beat a hasty retreat to sign on to whatever fig leaf language they could get into the final resolution."

Strong words from Frank Rich.

EDWARDS: They are. I would say two things about that. First, my view about this had nothing to do with the president. My view about this came from month after month of hearing briefings in the Intelligence Committee about what this man -- who started a war in 1991, lost, and has completely ignored the agreements he reached as a result -- what he has done to develop weapons of mass destruction and his willingness to use them.

And secondly, I guess I have a higher view of people who serve in public office. I think that everybody around this table did what they thought was in the best interest of the American people and the best interest of the world. You know, I respect Lincoln. He's a friend of mine. He and I honestly disagree about this, but I think that all of us did what we thought was best for this country.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue this conversation. A lot more to talk about, the situation involving Iraq, but we're going to take a quick break.

Much more with Senators Hagel, Edwards and Chafee. They'll also be taking your phone calls when LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq, continues.



SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: There's no such think as a Democrat or Republican war. We vote on this resolution in the same way the brave young men and women in uniform will fight and die as a result of our vote, as Americans.


BLITZER: The Arizona Republican, Senator John McCain, addressing his colleagues this past week.

Welcome back to LATE EDITION, Showdown: Iraq.

We're continuing our conversation with Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards and Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee.

Senator Chafee, how much pressure were you under from your fellow Republicans, and from the White House and maybe even from the president himself? Did he ever personally ask you to change your mind?

CHAFEE: Not on this one, Wolf. He had so mnay votes, I think, lined up and knew the vote was going to be overwhelming. I didn't get much pressure on this. I was just involved in the homeland security bill, so a little more pressure on that. But on this one, I think they knew the vote was going to be 80-20, somewhere around there, 70- 30.

BLITZER: How is your vote playing, your decision playing in Rhode Island among your constituents, based on what you can tell, the e-mail, the phone calls, the letters you're getting?

EDWARDS: Everybody's got a lot of questions on this one. They're looking for the right direction. And by and large, they want to have questions asked and they want to have some hesitancy about this initiative. And so I think, overall, positively.

BLITZER: Senator Hagel, you said you hope this vote, the strong support for the president, will send a powerful message to the U.N. Security Council, to the Iraqi leadership. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, met with Tony Blair in recent days, and I want you to listen to what he says, because he doesn't seem to be convinced there's really much of a threat of anything from the Iraqis. Listen to this.


VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And we have not received from our partners such information as yet.


BLITZER: Looks like the Bush administration has a lot of work to do if they're going to convince the Russians that the Iraqis do represent a threat.

HAGEL: Well, Wolf, diplomacy is never quick or easy. We have known for some time that the interests of Russia are different from the United States interests. But in the end, I think there are enough common-denominator interests here where we can work through some process to get to a resolution.

And it may well be we'll go back to the French suggestion a couple of months ago. It would be a two-step resolution, which President Chirac endorsed. In fact, I'm not so sure that's a bad way to do this.

It seems to me the United States must keep the high ground here, work through the United Nations and our partners, and then in the end if the military option is the only option, it's the only option.

But I think we continue to work it, and I think you will find a way to bring the Russians on here. It will be in the best interests of all of us, rather than start a war over there where you've got the possibility of half of the U.N. Security Council opposed here to this.

We surely do not want to go in that way, because, as I said earlier, this is just the beginning. And what comes after an invasion is going to be the very difficult part of this.

BLITZER: You're a member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Edwards. The CIA director, George Tenet, wrote a letter to your chairman, Bob Graham, this week outlining some contingencies, the assessment, the estimate of the intelligence community.

Among other things, Tenet wrote this: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, attack against the United States would be his last chance to eaxct vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Obviously raising the threat that if the U.S. goes to war, that could unleash weapons of mass destruction.

EDWARDS: Well, there's no question, there's no question there's enormous risk associated with this war. And it would be dishonest to say to the American people that that's not true.

The second thing that we know is, we can't predict with any certainty how this is going to go. But I'll just add to what's been said already. We know that he has biological, we know that he has chemical. And I was listening to Putin talk just a minute ago. We also know that every single day that goes by he's increasing the likelihood of having nuclear capability.

And I think, at the end of the day, I agree with Chuck completely. I think we need to work hard at the U.N. I think there's actually a terrific chance that we will get a strong weapons- inspection resolution out of the U.N., which is a very good thing. And we need to continue to work with our allies and potential allies.

And I might add, I think it is very important to send a clear signal to the Russians that we're willing to continue to help them with programs, dismantling their nuclear weapons, helping with their nuclear scientists; send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and to the Middle East that we're going to stay for the long haul, to rebuild Iraq, to create an environment where at least a pluralistic government can be successful, and possibly a democratic regime.

So I think all those things are important. But at the end of the day, we have to be willing to do what's necessary to keep this man from getting nuclear weapons.

BLITZER: You disagree, though. You think that that threat is still not there. You're not convinced.

CHAFEE: Why, if it was so grave, would the presidents of Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia...

BLITZER: The people in the immediate vicinity, you mean?

CHAFEE: They're right on his border. They share a border. If anybody's going to be affected -- he only has short-range missiles -- they are. And they're saying the timing's not good, and the threat isn't real, the no-fly zones are working, the containment's working.

The timing is bad, and I believe that's...


BLITZER: Very briefly, what's the answer to that? Why are his neighbors not as concerned as you are?

EDWARDS: Because I think we know this man is an enormous threat to us, to the people in that region. And we know that every single day -- we can't certain about what our intelligence tells us. I mean, we don't have accurate information about where he is in the development of nuclear weapons, but we know he's doing everything in his power to get them. And if, Wolf, he's able to buy this fissile material, the raw material on the black market, he could be six to nine months from having nuclear weapons.

BLITZER: All right, gentlemen, stand by. We're going to continue this conversation.

Coming up in the next hour of LATE EDITION, Senators Chafee, Hagel and Edwards will be taking your phone calls about where the war on terrorism stands. We'll also get some expert analysis on the sniper attacks affecting the Washington area and the efforts to track down the killer or killers.

That and much more coming up in the next hour of LATE EDITION.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We'll pick up our discussion about the war on terrorism, Iraq and other issues with Senators Hagel, Edwards and Chafee in just a moment, but first here's CNN's Fredricka Whitfeld in Atlanta with a news alert.


BLITZER: And in just a few minutes, here on LATE EDITION, I'll be talking with three criminal experts about this sniper case that has terrorized the entire area.

But let's return to Showdown: Iraq now. Right now, we continue our discussion with three prominent members of the U.S. Senate: Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina, and Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

We have a caller from Florida. Go ahead, Florida, with your question.

CALLER: I would like to know how the president can possibly make a case going against -- going to Iraq to go to war when none of the neighbors want to go, yet our economy is tanking. I think that he's deflecting that to go to war.

BLITZER: All right, let me ask Senator Edwards. He says basically how can the U.S. go to war when the economy is tanking?

EDWARDS: Well, we have -- the president's responsibility and the Congress' responsibility is to be able to do two things at once. I mean, the president has focused abroad, and he's not done anything about a very serious problem that's affecting the lives of the American people, which is the economy.

We've lost 2 million jobs, over 2 million jobs. Over $400 billion lost in pension funds in this country, biggest stock market drop since Herbert Hoover. I mean, we need to do some very specific things.

In my judgment, the president should call the Congress and the Congress should respond, both now and be willing to come back after the election, to do something about this economy.

For example, my idea is to that we give a $500 energy refund to families.

BLITZER: What about making these tax cuts permanent, which is what the president says, a top priority should be get more money in the hands of the American taxpayers?

EDWARDS: I think, Wolf, two things. First, we need a short-term shot in the arm. I would give a $500 refund to each family for these increased energy costs they're going to see this winter. We can extend unemployment insurance. We can have bonus depreciation for businesses to cause them to buy more capital goods than they might otherwise. Help for the states. Those are short-term things we can do.

But over the long term, we have to get back on the path to fiscal responsibility. And the only way to do that, the only way to do that, in my judgment, is to roll back the top layer of the president's tax cut and not let it go into effect in 2004 for the richest 1 percent of Americans.

BLITZER: Senator Hagel, is that a good idea? HAGEL: I don't agree with that. I think, in fact, we should play out those tax cuts for the reason that those of us who voted for those cuts...

BLITZER: Make them permanent, you mean?

HAGEL: ... make them permanent, because I do think it is the private sector that is the productive arm of our society. It's the private sector that generates productivity and jobs and wealth. It's not government.

I think the president is going to have to focus on the economy. I think this thing is starting to tilt very much the wrong way, at least the perception of Americans, that the president is not paying attention. He is going to have to pay attention.

Obviously, as Senator Edwards said, the Congress, the president will need, does need, do need to address many different priorities at the same time. But I fear that we are so hell bent on the Iraqi war invasion that this is going to hurt the president for the long term as well.

BLITZER: Politically speaking?

HAGEL: Politically speaking, in every way.

And I would say one other thing that we could do in the Congress, and that is get an energy bill out of the conference committee and vote on that this week. That would help us, because it is productivity, and all the pieces that go into driving productivity like energy that would make the difference.

BLITZER: Senator Chafee, Senator Edwards says roll back the tax cuts for the richest that were passed last year. Senator Hagel says that's not a good idea. What do you say?

CHAFEE: Well, I think I'm the only one here that voted against them, the tax cuts. I knew at the time we can't afford this...

EDWARDS: No, you're not the only one.

CHAFEE: Is that right?

EDWARDS: I did, too.

CHAFEE: OK, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I'm sorry.

But at the time, I thought we can't afford these. Let's see how we go with the economy. $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion whatever it ended up, it's just too deep. And we've so worked so hard over the years to create surpluses, let's be very careful about them.

And I do think Wall Street pays attention to what we do in Washington and reacts whether we're handling our finances, and it has a confidence level of how we're dealing with our financial issues, and it relates to Wall Street. And if we're irresponsible, they lose confidence in what we're doing and the market's affected.

We haven't been good at our spending. If we're going to have the tax cuts, the theory was let's strangle the spending, but we haven't. It's out of control.

BLITZER: Senator Chafee, you know, there's been a lot of speculation, I'm sure you've seen it certainly in Rhode Island, that since you vote very often like a Democrat, maybe it's time for you to leave the Republican Party and become a Democrat, or an independent for that matter.

CHAFEE: Well, I think the president was elected running as a moderate. He ran as a uniter, and that's where his popularity came from. And so I think I'm representing the true moderate, mainstream of the Republican Party.

BLITZER: Are you staying...

CHAFEE: I'm planning to stay there. Happy here.

BLITZER: When you say you're planning to stay there, that doesn't sound like a Shermannesque kind of statement.

CHAFEE: How strong can I say it? I'm a Republican, I'm a staying Republican.

BLITZER: Well, that sounds pretty strong.

Senator Daschle -- and I want to play this sound bite for you, Senator Hagel -- he's jumping aboard this economic bandwagon, too, saying the Republicans, the president is not doing enough. I want you to listen to what he had to say.


SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Show the American people that you have an economic plan. You've indicated a concern for regime change in Iraq. I think you ought to consider a regime change in your economic counsels in the administration.


BLITZER: As you know, a lot of people are hurting out there, economically speaking. I'm sure a lot of people in Nebraska are as well. Is it time for a regime change in the economic counsels of his administration?

HAGEL: Well, I have touched upon this over the last few months, that maybe we should have a new team over there regarding his economic policies. I think it's something he's going to have to take a hard look at here, right after the election.

BLITZER: Paul O'Neill, for example, the treasury secretary?

HAGEL: Well, I'm not going to get into names. But let me go back to something my two colleagues said here about tax cuts and about all the issues of spending and accountability.

I think both my colleagues are right in this sense, that into the next two years, the Congress and the president is going to have to come forward and be very honest with the American people on prioritizing what it is that's most important. We cannot afford to continue to spend at the rate we're spending at over the last two years in this conservative -- beg your pardon, moderate Republican president's first two years.

And yes, I think it's been required, homeland security, defense buildup, all focusing on our homeland security.

We've got major Medicare, Social Security, prescription drug problems out there that we're going to have to address. That's going to take money.

And we're going to have to be honest to the American people, the president and the Congress over the next two years, where our priorities are going to be. That is going to affect the tax issue and the spending issue. So, we've got a lot of work ahead of us.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, when you said roll back some of those tax cuts, let's get into specifics right now. Because, you know, a lot of Democrats, especially some of the Democrats who are thinking of running for the presidency -- I know you're thinking about it as well -- have been reluctant to say roll back those tax cuts.

So why have you decided now to come out in favor?

EDWARDS: Well, I've already come out in favor of doing something about this, Wolf. I think it is impossible just on the spending side, as Chuck as just suggested.

He's right, we need to have real spending caps. Lincoln mentioned it too. And we need to enforce those spending caps. And we ought to make the middle class, the middle part of the tax cut permanent for all Americans.

BLITZER: So make that permanent, keep all those...

EDWARDS: Make that permanent.

BLITZER: At what level specifically would you cut it off?

EDWARDS: The part of the top layer of the tax cut, the top two rates which apply to the top 1 percent of Americans. We cannot...

BLITZER: Immediately roll those back?

EDWARDS: They're scheduled to go into effect in 2004, not have them go into effect.

Unless we step to the plate and do something about that, it is impossible to get us off this deficit tract, back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

And as Senator Chafee just suggested, send a clear signal to the American people and to the markets both domestic and international that we have control of our fiscal agenda.

BLITZER: When do you formally make the announcement?

EDWARDS: Oh, I'll decide about that later in the year. I don't have any idea yet.

BLITZER: All right, I know you're thinking about it, though.

EDWARDS: Oh, I am thinking about it, but I haven't decided about -- about specific times.

BLITZER: You thinking about any higher office, Senator Hagel?

HAGEL: I'm up for reelection this year. I know that's the standard answer.


I'm just going to try to limp toward the finish line and see if the good people of Nebraska will renew my contract.

BLITZER: Senator Chafee, all senators eventually start thinking about running for president, you know that (ph).

CHAFEE: Wet behind the ears, a rookie senator.


BLITZER: All right, you're staying where you are right now.

Senator Chafee, thanks for joining us. Senator Hagel, thanks. Senator Edwards, good luck to all of you. Thank you very much.

Just ahead, catching a killer. What clues can lead investigators to whoever is behind the sniper attacks? We'll get some insight from a former FBI agent, a former Washington homicide investigator, and a criminologist.

LATE EDITION will be right back.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION.

A killer or killers remains on the loose. The Washington area has been terrorized by a series of deadly snipings. Eight people are dead, two have been seriously injured.

Joining us now with perspective on the challenges facing investigators in this case are three guests who've worked extensively on solving deadly crimes. Gregg McCrary is a former FBI profiler. Louis Hennessy is a former commander of the Washington D.C. Homicide Unit. And in our New York bureau, Casey Jordan, she's a CNN criminologist.

Thanks to all of you for joining us.

Lou, let me begin with you. Give us your assessment right now of where this investigation stands.

LOUIS HENNESSY, FORMER COMMANDER, WASHINGTON D.C. HOMICIDE UNIT: Well, obviously, the police are encouraging the public to come forward with any information and all information that they have.

And that's a key thing here, because they've elicited the public's cooperation, and it's very difficult for them to sort out the information and prioritize the leads as they come in, because some of the confidential information that Chief Moose complained about getting out earlier in fact did get out.

BLITZER: But if that information gets out, can't that help jog some people's memories in the public and help this investigation?

HENNESSY: That's one of the most difficult things that police are faced with in dealing with these types of investigations, is what to release and what not to release.

Information that can help identify the individual or help protect the public they want to get out. But the information that is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and to the police officers investigating a case is crucial, because when they get a tip and someone's able to mention something that's not known to the general public they can immediately prioritize that tip, send a team of detectives out to investigate it, and delve right into it. They know that that tip is something that has information that other people don't know about it.

BLITZER: Gregg, as you know, the police chief, Charles Moose, was very upset when the information about that tarot card was released. On the other hand, you could make the case that if there was a connection, if this killer had gone to psychics or whatever, people who give out these fortune teller kinds of cards, that might have provided a real genuine tip of an individual who might be involved in this.

GREG MCCRARY, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Right. It could have, but if the rest of that is true, which has been out in the news, that the killer, whoever left the card, said, "Don't let this out to the media," and then it got out, that could be seen as a breach of trust if they were trying to establish some sort of dialogue with the killer.

The other thing that it's used for, also, is to screen out false confessions. You have a lot of people that come forward that want the fame and the infamy of the notoriety. And so when you have this information that is unique and exclusive, that can be very helpful. And when it gets out, then it's compromised and it loses that value.

BLITZER: Where do you come down on this case? Looking at the pros and cons of releasing information to the public that could help the investigation or yet on the other hand could undermine the investigation.

CASEY JORDAN, CNN CRIMINOLOGIST: Well, I agree with Gregg, it's an extremely difficult balancing act. Because the police have to have hold-backs, they do need to have information known exclusively to them so that they can discern a true confession from a copycat or a wannabe.

But at the same time we need to give Chief Moose a little credit. For all we know, there are plenty of hold-backs that the media has not found out about that they are counting on to discern genuine tips from those which are irrelevant.

The problem is the more that they let out, the more tips that do come in. And this is a tremendous amount of work for the team of investigators to sludge through all the things which are material and filter out those that are irrelevant.

BLITZER: Because a lot of those tips, Casey, that do come in turn out to be a waste of time and just causing unnecessary work for these investigators.

JORDAN: Right. But you don't want to be the investigator who left a stone unturned and didn't follow up a tip that may actually be very material.

So this is a formidable task for law enforcement. I don't think we should underestimate how big a task that is.

BLITZER: When I interviewed, Lou, the police chief, Charles Moose, earlier today, they did release this composite sketch of this box type of truck they say was spotted by some eyewitnesses.

But he says that Astro van, the smaller Astro van with a ladder on top, that's something they're looking for.

And he also said what Charles Ramsey, the D.C. police chief, said, they're also looking for this cranberry- or this burgundy- colored Chevy Caprice that was seen driving away from the shooting in Northwest Washington, here in Washington, D.C.

So I'm confused by all these vehicles. What does that say to you?

HENNESSY: Well, it tells you a couple of things. It could tell you that either these vehicles just happened to be in the area when they occurred, have nothing to do with it, or the individual -- if they all were involved in it, then maybe the individual's changing his vehicles in an attempt not to draw attention to himself and not to get caught and aid in his escape.

BLITZER: What do you say, Gregg?

MCCRARY: That's exactly right.

Eyewitness testimonies, you can't ignore, but you have to go with that. I had a case, a serial-murder case a while ago, where witnesses described two males in a beige Camaro. Police went crazy looking for the beige Camaro. When we finally solved the case, it's a male and a female with a gold Nissan. Close, no cigar.

But you just have to run those things down, and these things have to be resolved one way or the other.

BLITZER: So eyewitness testimony is not necessarily perfect?

MCCRARY: Well, it never is, never is, no. But it's all you have, and you can't ignore it. So you've got to resolve this thing one way or the other. And they haven't been able to resolve this white truck, and they need to do it.

BLITZER: And, Casey, it's a good idea for the police to release those pictures of these various vehicles that may or may not have anything to do with these series of killings?

JORDAN: Well, Wolf, visuals absolutely do help jog people's memories. Whether or not the eyewitness accounts are credible or not, I don't believe the police would be releasing this information if it wasn't important. And maybe it really is all that we have to go on right now. So it certainly is worth following up.

And nothing is to say that the killer or killers have not switched vehicles. The fact that the reports are inconsistent doesn't mean that they're wrong. I don't think that really anything is beyond this particular perpetrator at this point.

BLITZER: Lou, some of the reports have suggested that there were eyewitnesses who did see individuals during the immediate aftermath of these killings, and there are certain descriptions. But the police have been reluctant to release any descriptions that might help find this killer or killers.

Is that a good idea, just to avoid saying he was tall, dark, whatever, you know, the suspect might have been?

HENNESSY: Well, I don't think they want to wrongly identify somebody. I think that's key in this case.

This is a unique case, in that most homicides that we deal with are from very close distances, the individual that perpetrates the offense is right on top of the individual who's the victim of a case.

This one, there are hundreds of yards or -- you know, in between these people, and when you hear a shot go off, you're not even sure where it comes from in many instances.

So there are going to be a lot of people around, and people are observing different things. All of it's important, because at least we know that those people may be potential witnesses, so we want to have them identified. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the individual that actually perpetrated the offense.

BLITZER: All right. I want to ask my guests to stand by. We're going to take a quick break. Much more coming up. Our guests will also be taking your phone calls on this very, very deadly case, the sniper investigation, a sniper on the loose.

LATE EDITION will continue right after this.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We're getting some insight into the sniper investigation from the former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary, the former Washington D.C. Homicide commander Lou Hennessy, and Casey Jordan, she's our CNN criminologist.

Lou, let me begin with you. You've profiled these kinds of killers in the past. What kind of person are we looking...


BLITZER: Gregg. I'm sorry.


BLITZER: What kind of person are we looking at?

MCCRARY: Well, I'm going to try and artfully dodge that because the police have said they don't want a lot of speculation. They've got a profile they haven't released, so I'm going to honor that.

Because what they're doing, which is the correct thing, is they're using that profile they have, along with a geographic profile, to filter out the information that comes from the public. They don't want the public getting tunnel vision about age or race or gender or anything like that. So people need to call in with their leads.

Now, the one thing I will say, and I think where the media can be helpful or hurtful in this thing is being careful. We have an extraordinarily angry guy who's following the media carefully and seems to be reacting to that. I've seen reports this last week that have upset me when people in the media have called this guy names. Some news... BLITZER: The governor of Maryland called him a coward.

MCCRARY: Yes, not a good thing.

BLITZER: And tell our viewers why that's not a good thing.

MCCRARY: Because this can incite the violence we're trying to prevent. In other words, if he thinks he's being spoken about disparagingly, he might do what he did Friday, which is shoot a victim within 50 yards of a uniformed state trooper. That proves to him in his mind he's not a coward. This takes courage. This is bravery in his mind.

So we don't want to do anything to provoke him or to incite the violence we're trying to prevent. So we have to be very careful about what we say.

And sometimes people, news media put people on who call him names and say bad things about the guy. We shouldn't do that. Sometimes news media itself, I've seen crawlers across the bottom of the screens speaking and characterizing this guy very disparagingly. That's a very dangerous thing, very irresponsible, and that we need to stay away from.

BLITZER: And the last thing we want to do is anything that's going to hurt this investigation or cause this killer to go out and kill some more.

MCCRARY: Absolutely.

BLITZER: Casey, as a result of that concern, would it be unproductive to speculate about perhaps a motive, a psychological motive involved in this kind of case?

JORDAN: Wolf, this wouldn't be news if it weren't a truly unusual type of spree or serial killing. We can draw inferences from what we know about similar cases, but so far we don't have any case that truly parallels this one.

You know, we know something about the psycho of the pseudo commando mass murderer. But this guy is not a mass murderer. He didn't have one violent outburst. He is stretching it out.

We can draw inferences about power control killing. But again, his power control seems to be with the police and the public and the media, not with the victims themselves.

So really, I would argue that he's simply a very organized, asocial person. And beyond that, I think we would really -- it would be dangerous to get more narrow.

BLITZER: What's the difference, Casey, between a spree killer and a serial killer? I asked the FBI agent in charge of this case earlier. They didn't even want to talk about that. But to our viewers who are hearing all these words bandied about, they're reading it in newspapers, hearing it on television, what's the difference? JORDAN: Well, it is important not to cater to very rigid definitions here, but serial killing has traditionally been the perpetrator kills three or more people over time -- over time being the key -- with usually an emerging pattern. Some of them are geographically transient, they travel around, those become the most famous ones, but some of them are geographically stable. This particular shooter lies somewhere in between.

The initial spurt of shootings I would have classified as a spree killing, which happens in a very short amount of time, usually a matter of hours, maybe up to a few days, but usually not more than a few days.

The initial spurt 10 days ago would have been a spree, but now that we're seeing a methodical killing of an average of a person a day, we should reclassify this person as a serial killer.

BLITZER: Five deaths early on in those 16 hours. That certainly was a definition of a spree killer.

Let's take a caller from Florida. Please go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Yes, I believe these could be terrorist attacks for three reasons. They don't fit past FBI profiles. Three, they have military experience, and the "I am God" on the tarot card could be a holy war reference.

BLITZER: Gregg, you want to handle that one?

MCCRARY: Yes. We can't close out any possibility because we don't know who's doing this. With that said, I personally am less inclined to go down that road for a couple of reasons, as far as organized terrorism.

It's terrorism in the broadest sense, and we've got isolated acts of violence that are scaring large -- a large number of population. But usually if there's a religious, political or social objective, someone's come forward to claim credit for it or to show the cause and that sort of thing.

I think it's different than what we've typically seen with al Qaeda and this group, which we've just seen in Indonesia apparently this week, one big massive coordinated event with multiple targets and a high body count.

MCCRARY: This is different.

And it is more in line, even though it's different, than this spree or serial killer, it's more in line with this one or two individuals.

BLITZER: And, Lou, in all the years I've been covering terrorist incidents, for three decades, this is not the M.O. of most of the terrorist groups that we're all familiar with. HENNESSY: Well, I'm not a expert on terrorism, but I can say this. The police don't want to dismiss any potential theory prematurely. What they want to do is, they want to get the facts, and let the facts rule out potential suspects, potential theories.

And I think they've done an excellent job of that up to this point. They've had a very, very difficult period here of the last two weeks, and I think they've really done a great job.

BLITZER: Casey, if we take a look at the victims, eight people killed, two people seriously injured, and you look at them, you look at their background, you look at the pictures we have, some of them -- we'll put them up on the screen -- it seems that there's no pattern that anyone could certain discern. There's not a racial issue. There's not a men or women, age, young or old. A little 13-year-old boy was shot.

Do you see any pattern whatsoever, as far as the victims are concerned?

JORDAN: The pattern is that there is no pattern. It's the randomness which concerns me tremendously. As I just explained, most serial killers, the victimology reveals a very specific pattern of victimology pretty quickly.

We have almost a perfect cross-section of our society. We have people of different races and ages. Maybe we have a few more males than females, but it's entirely possible that the shooter can't even tell the gender when he shoots the victim if he's that far away. You have young, you have old.

I don't know whether this is intentional, as a means to try to actually represent that no one is safe in our society, or whether it's completely accidental. I think that, if we do see further shootings -- and of course we hope not -- the pattern might be more realizable, in terms of convenience or specific targets. BLITZER: Let's take another caller from New York. Go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Yes, hi. I have a question about the white vehicle, the white truck or van. Is it possible that the shooter is using this as a decoy, like, you know, when the actual -- he actually shoots?

BLITZER: Gregg, what do you think?

MCCRARY: Well, again, we don't know the significance of the white vehicle. We've had different types of white vehicles described at different scenes, and we mentioned earlier a red vehicle at yet a third scene.

So we don't really know the significance, whether it's artifact unrelated to the crime or definitely related. And all the police can do, and what they're doing, is the right thing, is they've got to resolve this one way or the other.

BLITZER: Lou, there's been a -- the Montgomery County Police brought in what they call a geographic profiler. This is a relatively new science in criminology. Tell our viewers what this is, and whether it's of any use.

HENNESSY: Well, all of these things, psychological profilers, geographic profilers, these were all investigative tools. They're not definitive. They will not identify with any degree of reasonable certainty who the individual is.

But what they'll do is give you some ideas and some leads when otherwise they may not be available, to hopefully hone in on specific areas and specific, you know, personalities.

BLITZER: We have a map of the region, showing where these -- and maybe we can put it up on the screen. Here it is right now.

Casey, if you take a look at this map and you see the geography, where these shootings occurred, what, if anything, can we learn about where the next one, God forbid, might occur?

JORDAN: I have a great deal of respect for geographic profiling, and what it usually has been used for is not these sorts of cases. So, we're applying it, as he says, as a tool in the tool box.

The thing that stands out to me is that they're moving southward. And I would not -- and they seem to be almost crisscrossing across the map, from one extreme to another corner of the map, and then back down again. It would not surprise me if the perpetrator is intentionally trying to scramble the pattern, so that there is no predictability next.

But the one consistency is that they have been moving southward. So I think that, if we do see future shootings, they will be moving southward.

BLITZER: One of the most depressing things I saw over this weekend, Gregg -- and I want to put it up on the screen -- in the new issue of U.S. News & World Report, it showed some of the serial killers that so many of us are familiar with, from the time of the first killing until the time they were caught, till the time they were captured, look at Andrew Cunanan, it took four months.


BLITZER: But then it goes down. David Berkowitz, the so-called Son of Sam, took 14 months. If you take a look at the next graphic, you see Ted Bundy, it took about four years to find him. Jeffery Dahmer took 13 years.


BLITZER: Is that, God forbid, what we're looking at right now in this kind of a situation?

MCCRARY: No, I don't think so. I think that we've got a more frequent acting out. And this is a conflicted issue with law enforcement. You don't want anyone -- any other victims, but you'd sure like this guy to pop his head up one more time, because each time he does, there's more information, there's more evidence. And this guy seems to be recycling in a pretty quick manner, about every other day right now.

So, the more active he is, the greater the chance that he'll be apprehended, and of course it can't be soon enough.

BLITZER: Lou, I'll give you the last word, if you -- you know this area -- you've lived in this area -- quite well. If this takes weeks or months, or, God forbid, years, that's not going to be a pretty sight.

HENNESSY: No, it's not, and unfortunately, more people are going to be hurt.

But I think the police want to make sure that they apprehend the right person, because after they make an arrest in this, they stop looking. And they don't want to go out here and apprehend the wrong person, and think -- have the public be at ease, and then have these cases reemerge again, and they have, you know, some type of explaining to do to the public because they maybe jumped too quick.

They're going to have to proceed cautiously, yet aggressively.

BLITZER: Lou Hennessy, thanks for joining us.

Gregg McCrary, good to have you on the program as well.

Casey Jordan, thanks for joining us from New York.

When we return, with the possibility of a new military conflict with Iraq looming larger, what lessons from history could President Bush take about being an effective wartime leader?

We'll talk with Democratic Congressman David Bonior, he recently visited Baghdad, and Elliot Cohen, author of the new book about leadership during wartime.

LATE EDITION will continue right after this.


BLITZER: CNN has now confirmed that one U.S. citizen is confirmed dead among the 183 people who died in a terrorist explosion in Bali in Indonesia yesterday. One U.S. citizen dead. We don't have a name. We're still getting additional information. More information on that, of course, as it becomes available.

Much more ahead here on LATE EDITION, including a possible showdown with Iraq. What does history tell us about what to expect? We'll talk with a so-called hawk and a dove, next on LATE EDITION.



BUSH: There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait. And that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become.


BLITZER: President Bush outlining his case against Iraq for the American public earlier in the week.

Welcome back to LATE EDITION.

The possibility of a new military campaign against Iraq raises many questions about leadership during times of crisis. Joining us now to talk about that are two special guests. In San Francisco, Democratic Congressman, former House minority whip David Bonior. He recently returned from a trip to Iraq and is completing his final term in Congress. And Professor Elliot Cohen, he's a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He's here in Washington. He's also the author of the new book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime."

Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.

Let me begin with you, Congressman Bonior. Tell us why you so strongly disagree with President Bush, who says that time is not on the side of waiting.

REP. DAVID BONIOR (D), MICHIGAN: Because while we're not quite sure of the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein, I think it is much more clear that the threat of war is much more of a threat to the United States and to its people.

And I say that because I think if in fact we engage in war -- and I have no doubt that we will be initially successful in the war itself, but at what cost? We may win the war, but we may lose the peace. We will have unleashed in my estimation perhaps a new wave of terrorism throughout the world, not only in the Arab world but in the Islamic world as well.

And I'm not just talking about in the Middle East. In Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Nigeria, in Indonesia. We live in a very brittle time. And the unleashing of events could have deep repercussions not only for the people who are going to fight this war in Iraq on our behalf, but the many civilian casualties that undoubtedly will happen, as well, of course, the personnel that we have in embassies around the world and perhaps even a wave of terrorism here right on our own soil.

BLITZER: Professor Cohen, risks all around no matter what the United States does. But why do you disagree, and I assume you disagree, with Congressman Bonior on the risks of delaying action?

ELLIOT COHEN, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, I do disagree because all the evidence is that Saddam Hussein is pushing very hard on developing weapons of mass destruction. It's important to remember it's now been four years since that regime was under inspections. And we know that they've been pushing very hard.

And I think it's also very important for us to remember that inspections are dead, sanctions are dead. And one thing that's happened which people haven't really noticed is, the Iraqis are pumping and selling more and more oil. They're pumping just about as much oil as they were before the first Gulf War. That gives Saddam Hussein a lot more resources to put into these kinds of programs, which are clearly his highest priority.

BLITZER: But the risks of taking action, you heard what David Bonior said, that that could unleash, you know, who knows what it could unleash? What about that? And the CIA offered a similar kind of assessment, that if the U.S. were to push Saddam Hussein against the wall, he could use weapons of mass destruction or give some of them to terrorists.

COHEN: Well, there are really two responses to that. Of course, the terrible news today from Indonesia tells us that people are not waiting to unleash terror. In fact, there's going to be a constant struggle. I don't think that refraining from acting against Iraq is going to stop it.

But I think the other thing that we do have to think about is, what are the consequences of waiting, what are the consequences if Saddam is willing to, either give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or to use them on his own? And he's perfectly capable of doing that.

BLITZER: But there's no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with what happened in Bali in Indonesia.

COHEN: Well, of course not, but there's plenty of a track record here. And I think one thing that's important to recall is Saddam Hussein is really a very different character than your run-of-the-mill dictator. This is a man who's unleashed two aggressive wars, this is a man who's used chemical weapons on his own people, he's used it on other people, and he tried to kill a former president of the United States.

BLITZER: Congressman Bonior, what about those arguments? Those are arguments that the president of the United States has repeatedly made.

BONIOR: Well, first of all, if I could counter the argument of Mr. Cohen, Professor Cohen, with regard to inspections being dead, I don't believe inspections are dead. Inspections went on, I think it's important to recall, for seven years. We had thousands of inspections. Hundreds of inspectors. It went on for seven years. And we disarmed Saddam Hussein more with inspections than we did with the Gulf War itself, especially in the area of chemical and biological.

BLITZER: Do you believe that these -- do you think that they can work if Saddam Hussein lets these inspectors back in, they could get the kind of unrestricted access that the U.S. has been demanding?

BONIOR: He has to allow unrestricted access. He has no option here other than having the United States and a few allies go to war with him. So I believe it's in our best interest to focus in on the inspections to try to make them work. They worked for seven years. They hit, obviously, bumps in the road at the end, but there's no reason we cannot contain Saddam Hussein. People like General Zinni, who led our command, was a commander of U.S. forces in the Gulf, and Wesley Clark and General Hoar, and people of great military stature have said, basically, that we have to be very cautious and careful here.

General Zinni this week, in fact, you probably know, Wolf, mentioned that this would be his fourth or fifth priority, in terms of where we go in terms of dealing with al Qaeda, Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan.

This is not a timely endeavor on the part of this country or the president.

BLITZER: Why not give, Elliot Cohen, why not give these inspections a chance right now to see if they'll go back in and see what they can do?

COHEN: Well, first, just to correct the record, there have been no inspections since 1998. The inspections regime is gone. In fact, the original set of inspections didn't have hundreds of inspectors. At any given time, you had about 80. So that's just a tiny number.

And in fact, the inspectors themselves said they could not get at the biological and the chemical programs.

BLITZER: But they did destroy a lot of weaponry. I remember when I used to cover the White House hearing Bill Clinton himself say the same thing that David Bonior just said, that the inspectors during those years they were on the job wound up destroying more hardware, more ballistic missiles, more potential weapons of mass destruction than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

COHEN: Well, I think it was in everybody's interest to assume that the inspections could take care of it.

Look, the inspectors themselves will tell you the Iraqis got to be extraordinarily good at barring access to all kinds of programs. And we know that they've gotten even better at that, particularly the biological programs. To have a biological research facility, all you need is a truck that you can move from place to place, and we know the Iraqis have put tremendous effort into that.

And we know that even UNSCOM was unable to pin down the biological and chemical program. It was unable to get rid of all the missiles. It wasn't even able to completely eliminate the nuclear program. Those threats are still there. And the new inspection authority is a lot weaker than the old inspection authority.

BLITZER: Where do you see this situation, David Bonior, you're a long-time Washington observer, where do you see it unfolding in the next few weeks? And obviously, from the perspective, almost unique perspective, of an American member of Congress who's just back from Baghdad? BONIOR: Well, I see the French position prevailing in the United Nations. I think that's the only alternative we have, the two-step approach, going in, doing the inspections, if there's problems then in fact coming back to take a vote in the Security Council on whether or not we'll use force.

Now, I may -- let me just say this, I believe that we have a chance to go forward with inspections. I believe in that process there will undoubtedly be bumps in the roads.

I hope that we will have distinguished people like Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter to make the call, in terms of whether these inspections are going forward in an honest way.

And we need to engage the world community and leaders in the world community in this process in the next month or so. If we don't, I see war. And with war, I see the problems I outlined earlier, and I see a diminution in the authority and the work of the United Nations for the future.

BLITZER: On that gloomy note, we're going to have to leave it. David Bonior, thanks for joining us. Elliot Cohen, thank you as well. Good luck with you and your new book. We know that one person, at least, has been reading it, and that happens to be the president of the United States. Appreciate it very much.

COHEN: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: It's time now to say goodbye to our international viewers. Thanks very much for watching.

Coming up for our North American audience, the next hour of LATE EDITION. We'll have the latest developments in the sniper attacks in the Washington area. We'll also have a special conversation with the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani. All that plus Bruce Morton's essay and our Final Round.

LATE EDITION continues right after this.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We'll get to our interview with the former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, in just a few minutes, but first, here's CNN's Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta with a news alert.


BLITZER: The former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, will always be remembered for the leadership he showed in the hours and days immediately after the September 11th terror attacks. But even before that tragedy, Giuliani had already begun writing a new book about leadership.

I spoke with him just a little while ago.


BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, thanks for joining us.

As usual, I want to get to the book, I want to get to other issues, including the war on terror and Iraq, but right now the big story that is affecting a lot of us who live in the greater Washington area is this sniper that's still on the loose. Or could be snipers, we don't really know.

What's going through your mind as you hear about this sniper terrorizing the Washington area?

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Well, I was in Washington D.C. last Monday, and it was, you know, just on that day that he struck the youngster, the child. And I was going to a bookstore, and a number of the people with me that were working with me and that had come there were so concerned about their children. They were worried about taking their children out of school, leaving their children in school.

I can see the impact that it's having on people. And it really has the impact of a terrorist act. I'm not saying that it's a terrorist. And we don't know what or who it is. But in many ways, it has that same impact, where you start thinking about, can I go out, should I go out, what do I do with my children?

I lived through something like that when I was mayor, when we had an attack in Central Park. A young woman was beaten very, very badly. And then the same guy committed a murder, and then he did another attack. And we caught him, but we went through some pretty difficult days where, you know, you stay up all night and you try to go through every clue you can find.

In that particular case, we caught him because the guy had been arrested for fare beating on the subway, and we had his fingerprints. It turned out to be a side benefit of the broken windows theory.

But, I mean, there's no magic to these investigations. These people that do this do it in order not to get detected and in order to create the maximum amount of fear. And, you know, it's going to take a break to catch him. I'm sure they're doing everything they can to do that.

BLITZER: To a certain degree, it reminds me, as someone who's lived through the Washington D.C. area and the aftermath of 9/11 and the aftermath a year ago almost exactly, of the anthrax letter attacks that killed people in this area. Once again, a lot of people are terrorized right now. And, as you say, whether or not it's terrorists or not terrorists, that formal sense may be irrelevant.

What advice do you have, though, for people who are terrified to simply go pump gas or take their kids to school?

GIULIANI: Got to go forward with your life. You have to. You have to go forward with your life. You have to think of courage in the following way: You have to think of courage as the management of fear.

Life is not without risk. That doesn't mean you take irrational risk. But it also doesn't means that, you know, you're going to be promised that you're going to get through life without having to take risk.

And whether it's a sniper that's frightening people now or the thought that terrorists may strike us when the government announces that there's, you know, every possibility there'll be another terrorist attack -- and I agree with that -- that doesn't mean people should stay at home. It means they should go about their business, do the things they're going to do.

Maybe, you know, it's obviously, look around a little more, be a little more cautious. It'd be unnatural if you weren't.

In the aftermath of September 11, on that day and in many, many days after that, I'd spend a good deal of my day with the police commissioner trying to anticipate what they were going to do next and trying to be ready for it. And every time we'd finish one of those sessions, I'd come away from it thinking, there's something that we probably forgot, and it's the something that we forgot that they're probably going to do.

And I empathize greatly with all of the families and with the law enforcement officials, because this is a very difficult period. And I hope and pray that, you know, they'll get a break and get this guy, or guys.

BLITZER: As you know, there've now been killings in Maryland, in the District of Columbia, and in Virginia, and a lot of jurisdictions, local, state, federal, are involved, law enforcement agencies, personnel.

Is this being run the right way? Should one agency, for example the FBI, now take charge?

GIULIANI: It's very, very hard to say that from the outside. I mean, the last thing I ever wanted when I was a U.S. attorney and investigated major crimes, or mayor, where I used to get myself involved in investigating major crimes, was outside advice from people who didn't know the internals of the investigation.

You have a lot of police departments involved. The real art here is to get the best out of all of them, because they're going to know their areas better than the FBI is going to know it. The FBI coordinating, the FBI overseeing, that's a really good idea.

The local police departments actually doing the work is also critical, because the local police departments will know their areas better than the FBI.

When I was U.S. attorney, the racketeering murder cases I did, I always would bring in New York City detectives to do the murder investigation. I'd have the FBI do the national and international stuff. But nobody knows homicide investigations better than the local detectives and the local police. So you got to get them engaged.

And if you're going to get it a break it's probably going to come from them. It's probably going to come from them seeing something suspicious, hearing something suspicious, having an informant that talks to them.

So I can't emphasize more, you can't push them aside. You've got to keep the local police departments involved and create a structure in which the FBI or some other authority, probably the FBI, coordinates it.

BLITZER: As you know, many of us in the national news media are being hammered, local news media, by some who say we're just being irresponsible in the way we're reporting about this sniper spree killing or serial killing, whatever you want to call it.

You've never been shy about criticizing the news media. Are we being irresponsible?

GIULIANI: I don't know. I know that I got to the point as United States attorney in investigating cases where you just understand that you're in a free country and you're in a country in which the press reports, and you got to work with that. You got to work with the information you get out there.

And I've been very critical of the press over political matters at different times based on ideology and coverage and that sort of thing. But on crime reporting, I always found the press useful if you know how to use them.

We had an attack, the first two months I was in office in which a young man named Ari Halbastam (ph) was killed by a sniper. And he also -- this sniper shot at a group of synagogue students. And it was at a time of turmoil in the Middle East, much like we have right now. And we used the press to help catch this guy, and we caught him, I think, within 24 hours. That was at the beginning of my time as major and Bill Bratten as police commissioner. And the strategy we utilized was to use the news coverage to turn the city into 7 million witnesses looking for him, you know, 7 million people looking for him.

Probably, you know, if we could have all done it in secret, maybe we would have preferred it. But we understood, the media is there. They are going to do coverage. Now it's my job as the mayor or police commissioner to take advantage of that coverage, turn it to an advantage.


BLITZER: When we return, why Rudy Giuliani says he's personally ready to execute Osama bin Laden. More of my conversation with the New York mayor, the former New York mayor that is, when we come back.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We return now to my interview with the former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, the United States may be on the verge once again of going to war, expanding the war on terrorism, if you will, this time involving Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

I want you to listen to what you said right after 9/11, October 1st, when you addressed the United Nations.


GIULIANI: The United Nations must hold accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism. Otherwise you will fail in your primary mission as peacekeeper.


BLITZER: Had you been a member of the U.S. Congress this past week, would you have supported this resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war against Iraq if necessary?

GIULIANI: Yes, I would have supported it. I did support it. And I see in it total consistency with the president's speech way back, you know, last September when he said that we were going to have to end, or do the best we could to end, global terrorism.

And if you think about the role of the United Nations, as theoretically being a peacekeeper, if people are supporting terrorists, defending terrorists, developing weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, chemical weapons, the only way you're going to keep the peace is by removing them, interdicting them, stopping them.

And the reality is, this is absolutely necessary in light of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and what he is absolutely likely to do in the future.

BLITZER: But do you see a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

GIULIANI: I don't know that you have to see a direct connection between the two. I think what you can see is that terrorist networks train together, work together, support each other.

Whether it's al Qaeda, Iraq and other places, I mean, there's a real connection between them in terms of the people they draw on, the places in which they train.

So, and in addition to that, independently Saddam Hussein is a very, very serious threat to us of significant terrorist activity -- and not only us, but to Europe.

BLITZER: In your new book, "Leadership," one of the things you write that struck me, a lot of things struck me, was right after that first meeting you had with President Bush after 9/11, you write this, a conversation you had with President Bush. You said this, "I told him, if you catch this guy, bin Laden, I would like to be the one to execute him. I am sure he thought I was just speaking rhetorically, but I was serious. Bin Laden had attacked my city, and as its mayor I had the strong feeling that I was the most appropriate person to do it."

Elaborate a little bit. Do you really mean that if the United States captures Osama bin Laden alive, you want to be the one that executes him?

GIULIANI: Well, I did mean it then, I do mean it now. Probably symbolically more than anything else. But if that happened, I still think I would be the most appropriate person to do it. I guess there are a lot of other appropriate people as well. Since I was the mayor of the city that lost so many people, so many of them people that were in my fire department, my police department, my emergency services.

And I said that on September 14th, when Governor Pataki and I greeted the president at an Air Force base and brought him into New York City when he visited, that first visit that he made. And, you know, it did come out of emotion and anger and a sense of justice. It was an emotional statement, but it's one that I think people could understand why you would feel that way.

Every time I went to the World Trade Center or took a world leader there, I always had this sense of anger about what they did. And I would be able to resolve it, I'd be able to use it for constructive purposes. But, I mean, part of my book describes how you have to acknowledge the feelings you have and you can't bury them. If you're angry, you have to acknowledge it. If you're fearful, you have to acknowledge it and overcome it.

And in this particular case, I have an undying sense of tremendous anger at the loss of innocent life. And also realize that you have to stand -- there's another chapter in the book called "Stand Up to Bullies." The sooner you stand up to a bully, the more lives you save, the longer you wait -- and we only need to look at Hitler as an example of that -- the longer you wait and the more you go along the path of accommodate, accommodate, give up, give more, give more territory, as we've done with Arafat, the worse the problem becomes.

BLITZER: In all your years, though, in law enforcement and the various jobs that you've had, have you ever killed anyone?


BLITZER: So this...

GIULIANI: I mean, I've handled cases that involved capital punishment. But this isn't that. I mean, this is a very, very strong emotional feeling that I feel every time I'm there, every time I go to the site and look up in the sky and think about the two buildings and all of the other buildings that were there and all of the people that were inside those buildings and all of them totally innocent people. This wasn't a military target. Innocent people just going about their business every day. Or I go to a memorial service, like I did yesterday, of the fire department and see hundreds of families still affected by it, I have anger and I have a sense that justice has to be done.

And so if it fell on me to do it, I was just saying to the president, that's something that I would consider to be an obligation.

BLITZER: And so you basically think you would be capable of, for example, taking a gun, pointing it at Osama bin Laden and killing him?

GIULIANI: If that were legal and authorized and they needed somebody to do it, I would feel that that would be a justifiable thing for me to do and something that would be appropriate. I imagine that there are thousands of people that would be willing to also do it and probably have just as good an argument that it's appropriate for them.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the leadership skills, the leadership recommendations you have in your new book. Among other things, you write this. I'll read some of them.

"Surround yourself with great people. Have beliefs and communicate them. See things for yourself. Set an example." As you've just pointed out, "Stand up to bullies. Deal with first things first. Loyalty is a virtue. Prepare relentlessly. Under- promise and over-deliver. Don't assume a damn thing."

Those are strong recommendations. Did you always succeed in following all those recommendations?


GIULIANI: No. No, you never do. No, I didn't always succeed in following them. I probably, you know, a number of times wasn't able to do it, didn't think of it at the right time, didn't apply it in the right way.

So, you know, a book like this is advice on how to do things right. So those are goals and principles, not necessarily things you're always able to accomplish.

And the book was enormously helpful to me, and it's much more for me than just a book, because I wrote most of it before September 11th, had to put it aside between September and January of last year, couldn't do anything on it.

So then I went back to it with most of it written, having to take a look at, how did I apply those lessons that you just mentioned to this horrific attack and crisis? And I could see that a lot of the things I did just came out of things that I had done before as a United States attorney, as mayor, as an assistant U.S. attorney, somebody who took a business out of bankruptcy way back in the 1970s, early 1980s.

So it gave me a chance to pull together the threads in my life about crisis management and leadership. And even about how to deal with prostate cancer, which, you know, I used the same principles to deal with prostate cancer -- a personal crisis and a health crisis.

BLITZER: How are you feeling, by the way, right now?

GIULIANI: I feel good. I feel good. My treatment's been over for two years, and I'm free of cancer. And I get the chance now to help a lot of other people and talk to them and give them advice. The book contains some advice about that, too, for anyone who's in that situation. But I do a lot of that on the phone and a lot of that personally.

BLITZER: There was some talk in recent days that you might be the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Jimmy Carter, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002. Were you disappointed when you didn't get that 4:30 a.m. phone call?

GIULIANI: No, no. I didn't expect it, and I was very, very proud that Jimmy Carter, an American, received the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Jimmy Carter has been exemplary in his years out of office.

I was with him last year when he built a home in New York. I know him. I have great respect for him, and I think it elevates America to have a man like Jimmy Carter selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. And it's for a lifetime of service.

And even in situations where you may have a different political approach or a different set of political theories, as I do sometimes with President Carter when I look at his presidency and other things, I can step back from it, and I have tremendous respect for him as a man. I mean, this is an honest man, a man of religion, a man who reaches out to people. And this is a man who legitimate cares about people.

So when you think about that and you compare yourself to him, you say this man is entitled to have that recognized for his lifetime of work.

BLITZER: You have some political advice also in the book. Let me read another brief passage from the book. You say this: "Elective politics, on the other hand, is a popularity contest. That doesn't mean the leader of a company or a government or any organization should lead with his finger in the wind. In fact, the opposite is true. A leader is chosen because whoever put him there trusts his judgment, character and intelligence, not his poll-taking skills. It's a leader's duty to act on these attributes."

What is your political future, if there is a political future out there for Rudy Giuliani?

GIULIANI: I don't know, Wolf. The future will take care of itself, that's a philosophy I developed after dealing with prostate cancer and September 11th. You don't over-plan or over-manage the future.

One of the examples I used in the book as, for me, the best model of a political leader is Ronald Reagan, who, when he ran for governor of California, was pretty much the same Ronald Reagan as the one who ran for president and the one who left the White House. He's core political beliefs remained the same. And in 1980, when he got elected president, it wasn't a new Ronald Reagan that was elected, it was Ronald Reagan. The country changed to select him.

And I think you see a lot of that in President Bush today. I mean, a lot of that sense that he has a direction, he has a clear purpose -- ending global terrorism. There was a lot of debate and a lot of discussion about what to do in Iraq. I think he's gotten that resolved, and he's -- he set the direction. And I think that's what a leader has to do. Even at times when it may, you know, for a period of time be unpopular.


BLITZER: Rudy Giuliani, always speaking out, always sharing his opinions boldly. He does so in his new book, "Leadership," as well.

Up now, Bruce Morton. He's sharing some thoughts on men, women and sports.


BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One of those weeks again. There was Andy Rooney, an old CBS friend, objecting to women reporters on the sidelines at football games on the grounds that they don't know anything about the game.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it often looks to this non- expert viewer as if the coaches don't know that much either.

I don't guess there are any women coaches, but there probably will be one day. And then they'll win a bowl game or something, and where will all illusions of masculine football omniscience go then?

Of course they still won't be big enough to play front four, we can take comfort in that.

And then what about that woman golfer who qualified to play on the men's tour. Not on the Master's, of course. That would be against the rules because -- well, you've read about that.

But amidst all the usual volume of sports silliness, this has been a truly swell week. Baseball isn't our national pastime anymore, of course. NASCAR racing probably is, with baseball back into (ph) fifth place.

But it remains a wonderful game in which wonderful things sometimes happen, and this week wonderful things did. The smiting of the rich. The Yankees ousted (ph) in the first round. The Arizona Diamondbacks, last year's World Series champions, bounced in the first round. Swept, in fact, three-zip.

Oakland, which had the second-best record in the American league bumped. And striding into the American league championship series, the lowly Minnesota Twins, a team baseball had wanted to get rid of before the season started. How, as they say, about that.

Commissioner Bud Selig, who lead the drive to abolish the Twins, must have at least a little sense of humor to claim, as he did, that he was the teams Knute Rockne, after the old Notre Dame coach who used to fire up his teams. In reverse, of course, this time, it's sort of true. Selig may have motivated the Twins the way a fire motivates a bucket brigade, and he did get doused.

No one really begrudges the Yankees their success. They spend good money to win, and they mostly do. But isn't the occasional underdog's week a lot more fun?

I've been trying to figure out how to apply all this to the upcoming congressional election. Trouble is, things are such a muddle just now it's hard to tell who the underdogs are.

I'm Bruce Morton.


BLITZER: Up next, LATE EDITION's Final Round. Our panel is ready to debate the big stories of the week. The Final Round, right after a news alert.


BLITZER: Welcome back.

Time now for our "Final Round." Joining me, Donna Brazile, the Democratic political strategist, Peter Beinart of the "New Republic," Jonah Goldberg of the "National Review" Online, and Robert George of the "New York Post."

It's been a tense couple of weeks, to say the least, here in the Washington area. Concern and fear about a sniper who remains on the loose, could be more than one.

Earlier today, I spoke with the Montgomery County police chief, Charles Moose, and the county executive, Douglas Duncan, about how the community is coping with this threat.


DUNCAN: We're asking people as best they can, go about your normal routine. Make sure you go to work, make sure you send your kids to school. We want people to do that for the long-term health of our community. We need to engage others as we go through these series of shootings.

MOOSE: People have tried to put fear into Americans. We need to remember that we all find that unacceptable. So this is another one of those opportunities that we all have to join together.


BLITZER: Jonah, what do you make of all of this?

JONAH GOLDBERG, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: Well, I mean, two things. One, I think there have been way too many news conferences without any information, and that should be cut back.

But I also think one news angle that hasn't been played up or given enough attention is, I actually think there's a strong possibility that this is al Qaeda-related. There have been a string of events, including radio and phone intercepts saying there's going to be a new fall offensive. There has been a new fall offensive: attacks in Kuwait, attacks off Yemen, now this morning attack in Indonesia. There have been several bomb plots in several countries that have been foiled. There was a bomb that went off in the Philippines. All seemingly coordinated.

And it seems to me that this stuff happened -- this sniper began almost at the exact same moment. There's a good indication that it's a sniper team, which makes it seem as if it's a professionally trained situation, rather than a lone gunman.

It seems to me there's a lot of evidence saying that al Qaeda link needs to be explored more.

BLITZER: Peter, do you agree with him on that?

PETER BEINART, NEW REPUBLIC: I really don't know. I don't think any of us do. And while I think it's provocative, I also think there is a danger about speculating about this, because it can really whip up, as we saw before in Oklahoma City, a kind of anti-Muslim furor.

The thing that strikes me about this, actually, is, if you compare it to Columbine, in the wake of Columbine there was this huge debate -- the left talking about gun control, the right talking about cultural decline. What strikes me about this is how little of that there has been. And it really suggests to me how much 9/11 has changed America. The culture of war (ph) has really receded. We are a more unified country. And I think that at least is a kind of silver lining.

BLITZER: Robert?

ROBERT GEORGE, NEW YORK POST: Yes, I think it's too premature to make any kinds of guesses about what's going on. I mean, you know, if the leak that we heard is accurate, that there was a card left that says "I am God," that actually doesn't sound like al Qaeda. I mean, maybe "God is great" might suggest that, but "I am God" doesn't sound like that.

The other thing is gun control has actually entered into the debate a little bit, because there's a gubernatorial race going on in Maryland, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is sort of making a point about Bob Ehrlich, her opponent's views on gun control. However, it really is premature, because we don't know if this guy has illegal guns or what the situation is.

BLITZER: Donna, what's your take on all of this? DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I'm still following my normal routines as a District resident. And I would hope that the American people out there understand that the police and the proper authorities are working very hard around the clock to find this gunman, this sniper, whoever this person is.

But I would hope that, in the next coming days, that the news media can turn down the volume a little bit so that the authorities can get their job done.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on and talk about another pressing matter here in Washington, D.C., that of course is Iraq. President Bush having gotten those resolutions from both the House and the Senate that he wanted authorizing war if necessary.

The administration is looking beyond military action, perhaps to a post-Saddam era. The New York Times earlier this week reported that the White House is considering a plan that would have a temporary American-led military government put in place in Iraq. This would be modeled, supposedly, after the post-World War II occupation of Japan.

Robert, does that sound like a good idea?

GEORGE: I think it sounds like a very bad idea, and I think that's one of the reasons why the president really now has to work actually to get United Nations Security Council to work with the United States. Because I think it's really in the post-invasion phase that we are going to really need the support of that.

We saw al Qaeda rise, Osama bin Laden rise, because of the presence of the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. And if we actually basically took over Iraq, unilaterally running it, I think we would see even more.

BLITZER: But, Peter, you studied history, you know that it worked in Germany after World War II, it worked in Japan after World War II. Those are thriving, robust democracies right now. Why wouldn't it work in Iraq?

BEINART: Well, I think the problem would be that you don't have a history of democracy in Iraq as you do in those two countries. My suspicion about this leak is that it was actually put out there to delegitimize it by people who really don't want this. And you saw the administration actually back-pedaling.

But I think it does point out a larger problem, which is that there a real questions that Americans haven't really gotten into very much about the quality of the Iraqi opposition. The Iraqi opposition wants a government in exile, but there are a lot of people in the administration who don't think there's a Karzai out there, and that's why you need to get to these kind of ideas. And I think that's the real debate that we have to join now.

BLITZER: I remember the same kind of sniping of the Afghan opposition that we're hearing now about the Iraqi opposition, that the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are a bunch of rag-tag guys who really had no credibility.

GOLDBERG: Yes, and it remains to be seen whether or not. I mean, one of the reasons why there isn't a good armed opposition to Saddam is that by encouraging them to rise up in the past and then ignoring them, Saddam had the time to kill lots of them. And so, you know, it's less organized and less in good shape.

And I do think that there are a lot of debates going out there. One model to find a Karzai is actually to restore the Hashemite throne and make it basically Iraq, attach it to Jordan with a Kurdish zone and a Shi'a zone and that sort of thing. I don't think that will work because there's a history of the Hashemites not getting along there.

But I do think that there's going to have to be at least a short- term military occupation. I don't think you can get around that. Whether it's a 10-year occupation is entirely a different question. But I think it would be foolish to think we can't do it.

BLITZER: The Americans aren't comfortable with military occupations to begin with.

BRAZILE: Not only are the American people uncomfortable with military occupation, but they're also uncomfortable in terms of who's going to pay for it. It's back to "It's the economy, stupid," and how are we going to pay for it?

I think it's a terrible mistake to impose an American general, an American figure right in the center of a Muslim country in the Muslim world right after -- if we disarm and remove Saddam.

GEORGE: I mean, we saw what happened to our troops in Lebanon, and there was just military bases there. I just think, I think it's a really bad idea to basically set us up as sitting ducks.

GOLDBERG: Well, it's also a bad idea to topple Saddam and then say, "I don't want anything to do with it," and let them have a civil war for 20 years.

GEORGE: No, which is why I said we really need the world on this...

BRAZILE: We need allies.

GEORGE: ... so, in a sense, it's a global occupation.

BRAZILE: And why we need allies in the Muslim world.

BLITZER: All right, we're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about. The eighth time is the charm for the former president, Jimmy Carter. That, much more, when our Final Round continues.


BLITZER: Welcome back to our "Final Round." With the congressional debate on Iraq settled, Democrats are wasting no time trying to change the subject. The Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, this week criticized President Bush for a string of political fund-raising trips and questioned his commitment to improving the economy.


DASCHLE: I would urge the president to cancel his political trip today. Cancel the trip. Show the American people you're more concerned about their jobs than you are about Republican ones. Show the American people that you have an economic plan.


BLITZER: Donna, it sounds, though, like some Democrats think it might be too little too late for the Democrats to really score on the economy at this time.

BRAZILE: Oh, absolutely not. Democrats have remained on message. Twenty-three days is a long time in politics.


But let me just say, if I had a dollar for every time someone said the Democratic Party was in disarray or down, I would break George W. Bush's fund-raising record.

I think Democrats are in great shape, not only in the Senate. Two Republican senators right now in deep trouble. Democratic senators have been able to get their groove back. They're doing very well.

And look, when it comes to picking up gubernatorial seats, Democrats will pick up at least five to seven seats that are currently held by Republicans. I can go state by state, but we don't have enough time.

BLITZER: All right.

BRAZILE: And I also think that we're very competitive in House races as well.

BLITZER: You know, Jonah, the fundamental fact is, a lot of voters really don't focus in on any of this. It's sort of just background music to the last few days before they have to actually go to polls.

GOLDBERG: I think Donna is brilliant about looking at the steaming pile of manure that is the Democratic situation and saying there are all these ponies in the corner.

The reality is that the Democrats are in trouble. This is a "Hail Mary" play by Daschle, trying to change the subject to the economy.

I actually think he's right, that Bush could talk about the economy more and it would be good for him. But the idea that somehow this is going to -- Democrats are all of a sudden going to whip up this issue now that everyone's forgotten about corporate scandals and all that, I think, is a "Hail Mary" at best.

GEORGE: I don't think it's completely a "Hail Mary," because, I mean, the economy -- there are some serious problems in the economy, notwithstanding the bounce in the stock market the last couple of days.

However, what's interesting is that the Democrats are in as much disarray on the economy as they were on Iraq. They are complaining that Bush has no plan. They have no plan of their own except for extending unemployment benefits. At least the Republicans in the House have put forward some ideas, such as expanding tax deductions on stock market losses and so forth.

So, I mean Republicans, and I think Bush, will actually be focusing on that a little bit more. But I think the Democrats really are in trouble because they don't have any answers.

BLITZER: Peter, you and your magazine, The New Republic, have been pretty harsh on the Democrats on the Iraq issue for no leadership. Are they showing leadership, or are they all over the place on the economic issues?

BEINART: Yes, I'm afraid they haven't shown enough leadership on that, as well. I think they've assumed that the weak economy alone would make the case for them, but they haven't really connected that to a really kind of compelling set of proposals themselves.

And the Republicans, to their credit, at least politically, have basically sold out their principles...


... on things like Social Security and prescription drugs. They're running headlong away from what everyone thought they believed. And it's actually made them much less vulnerable. So if I had to bet now, I'd say Republicans take the Senate.

BLITZER: Let's move on and talk about this, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the former President Jimmy Carter. This is the eighth time that he had been nominated for the prestigious award.

In a thinly-veiled jab at the Bush administration, the Nobel Committee said this: "In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must, as far as possible, be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development."

Peter, does President Jimmy Carter deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

BEINART: I don't think so. I mean, I think Carter is a very honorable man, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for spending his time since being president going to obscure places to monitor elections as opposed to making money like, say, former President Bush.

On the other hand...

GEORGE: Or former President Bill Clinton.

BEINART: Or former President Bill Clinton, absolutely.

The Nobel Prize is best when it's given to obscure people fighting for freedom in obscure countries where it shines the world's light on their plight. That's where the Nobel Prize really has value. That's what it should have done this year, I think particularly in the Muslim world.

BLITZER: Do you agree?

GOLDBERG: I think Peter's analysis is spot on about where the prizes should go. I mean, look, one of my favorite scenes from any Simpsons is when they pulled the curtain off the statue of Jimmy Carter...


... and someone in the crowd screams, "Jimmy Carter, he's history's greatest monster."

And I don't think he's necessarily history's greatest monster. But this was not an award of the Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter. This was a shot of giving an un-peace prize to George Bush. And this was the only way they could editorialize -- the Norwegians could editorialize against George Bush, was by trying to embarrass him by giving it to Jimmy Carter.


BRAZILE: Former President Carter deserved the honor, and he should have received the honor 10, 12 years ago.

BLITZER: He should have received it in 1978 after the Camp David Accords.

BRAZILE: Absolutely.

BLITZER: When Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin received the honor, he should have received it with them.

BRAZILE: Absolutely. He's been a champion of peace, as well as peace-keeping and peace-seeking and human rights and democracy across the world and in our country, and he deserves the honor.

GEORGE: As Peter's magazine pointed out a few years ago, Jimmy Carter also has a tendency to suck up to some of the world's worst dictators, including the head of North Korea. He was practically giving blessings to Fidel Castro earlier this year.

As Jonah said, this was given as a -- it was a political slap against George W. Bush. And I guess the only thing that's worse than Jimmy Carter getting it is that he got it a full eight years after Yasser Arafat did.


BLITZER: Let's take another quick break. Our lightning round is just ahead. Stay with us.


BLITZER: Time now for our "Lightning Round."

Some curious remarks made about the secretary of state, Colin Powell. In an interview with a San Diego radio station, the entertainer Harry Belafonte suggested that Powell decided to get in line with the Bush administration's position on Iraq -- said that was like that of a relationship between a slave and his master.


HARRY BELAFONTE, ENTERTAINER: There's an old saying in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master.


BLITZER: Robert, I know Colin Powell, and this is a cheap shot, you've got to admit.

GEORGE: Of course, it's disgraceful.

And what's amazing is that Harry Belafonte is basically able to use this slavery image in a way that if a white person was saying it about a black person he would be screaming bloody murder. It's basically the same way you've got a modern-day gangster rapper feeling he can bandy around the n-word but get appalled when white people use it.

I think it's ridiculous.

BRAZILE: You know, Harry Belafonte is a gifted artist and humanitarian. I'm very sorry to see that he's disappointed in Colin Powell. Colin Powell has been an honorable servant, public servant. And often if he's in any house, he's in the outhouse with the Bush administration on condom use, on a balanced approach in the Middle East, and also on getting our allies to help us with Iraq.

GEORGE: Affirmative action, abortion...

BLITZER: Yes, a lot of those issues.

GOLDBERG: Yes, look, it's an idiotic and embarrassing thing to say. And it's a sign that whatever his great accomplishments in the past, the guy is behind the times. He lives in the past like a lot of Hollywood liberals, and it shows that he's irrelevant.

BEINART: Yes, I think one of the civil rights movement's great accomplishments has been to create a public space where African- Americans can exist and not be identified by race. And that's Colin Powell's, I think, great achievement. More than anyone else, he actually transcends race, and that is an accomplishment we should celebrate.

BLITZER: We agree, all of us agree on that particular point.

But let's move on. Maybe there's something we don't agree on. This question, for example. Do women and football mix? Not according to 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney. Listen to what he had to say earlier this week.


ANDY ROONEY, CBS' "60 MINUTES": The only thing that really bugs me about television's coverage is those damn women they have down on the sideline who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I mean, I'm not a sexist person, but a woman has no business being down there trying to make some comment about a football game.


BLITZER: Do you agree that a woman...

BRAZILE: Oh, please.

BLITZER: ... has no business being on the sidelines, like Melissa Stark and...

BRAZILE: First of all, I think women can be referees, they could coach, and do a better job, by the way.

And I think they should get a job with the Redskins because they're losing to the Saints, I just had to say that.


I'm a New Orleans girl.

And also someone should tackle him.

BLITZER: If a woman could be a secretary of state, couldn't a woman be a commentator on the sidelines?

GEORGE: I have no problem with women being on the sidelines. But...


... no, it's ridiculous. I mean, think it's ridiculous. I don't want to say I'm an agist. But when I think this 83-year-old commentator who was obsolete 20 years ago is still spouting off, you know, it's ridiculous. BLITZER: He's gone too far this time, right?

BEINART: Yes, I totally agree. No women on the sidelines. Get rid of cheerleaders.


BRAZILE: That's the feminist position.

BEINART: That's right.

GOLDBERG: Look, Andy Rooney has the one job in television I would leave this show for. I've wanted that job for a very long time. So, if Don Hewitt's listening, I'm available.

But, that said, it's absurd. And the idea, look, these women who are on the sidelines reporting on this stuff know far more about football than I do. And somehow he'd be more comfortable listening to me make stuff up, it's ridiculous.

BLITZER: And as someone who knows...


GEORGE: And the thing is, obviously some of the reporters...

BLITZER: I know football, and they're good.

That's your LATE EDITION for Sunday, October 13. Please be sure to join us again next Sunday, every Sunday, at noon Eastern for the last word in Sunday talk.

I'll be here Monday through Friday, both at noon Eastern, for Showdown: Iraq. Later in the day, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Until then, thanks very much for watching. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.


© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser. does not endorse external sites.