The Web     
Powered by
Return to Transcripts main page


Rohrabacher, Brown Discuss California Recall Vote; Interview With Dennis Kucinich; Interview With Henry Kissinger

Aired August 10, 2003 - 12:00   ET


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's noon in Washington, 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles, 11:00 a.m. in Crawford, Texas, and 8:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us for LATE EDITION.
We begin with a story that has major political implications here in the United States, the California recall election. It's potentially a political earthquake with enormous ramifications for the rest of the country. That's because trends that often start in California have a way of eventually spreading to other states.

More than 150 candidates have now qualified for the race, but in order for any of them to win, Governor Gray Davis must first be voted out of office. That recall election will take place October 7th.

A new CNN-Time magazine poll finds 54 percent of likely California voters support the governor's recall, while 34 percent would vote to keep him in office.

If Governor Davis is voted out, among the candidates to replace him, the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the field, getting support right now from some 25 percent of likely voters. The movie-star- turned-political-candidate is on the cover, by the way, of both the new issues of Time and Newsweek magazines that are coming out tomorrow.

Joining us now to talk about all of these dramatic developments are two veterans of California politics: Jerry Brown served as the state's Democratic governor from 1975 to 1983. He is now the mayor of Oakland. And in Los Angeles, the Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher. He's serving his eighth term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.

And, Congressman, let me begin with you. Have you endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the next governor of California?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: I have endorsed Arnold, and I've known him for about 20 years. You know, I worked for another actor who decided he was going to get involved in politics at about Arnold's same age. His name was Ronald Reagan, and he saved California, and he saved the world eventually.

BLITZER: What makes you think, Congressman, that Arnold Schwarzenegger has the qualifications, the experience to lead California, not during any ordinary time but during this time of crisis in California?

ROHRABACHER: Well, let me put it this way, the political hacks, the guys who had all the experience, were the ones who caused this crisis in California, and the people here know that.

What we need is someone with some creative ideas. And Arnold isn't going to be just like Ronald Reagan. He's certainly not as conservative as Ronald Reagan was, but he's like Reagan in the sense that he's got some creative ideas. He's bringing some people in from the outside rather than relying on the old political crowd to try to solve the problems -- that they created, I might add.

BLITZER: Mayor Brown, let me show you some poll numbers in our new CNN-Time magazine poll. Is Schwarzenegger capable of governing California? Look at this: 45 percent of likely voters say yes; 39 percent say no; unsure, 16 percent.

And if Governor Gray Davis is forced out of office in this recall election, Schwarzenegger certainly the front-runner right now, getting, what, 25 percent -- let's put those poll numbers up on the screen -- 25 percent. The Democrat, Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor, coming in second with 15 percent. Everybody else way back.

What do you make of this?

JERRY BROWN, FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: Well, first of all, it's obvious Schwarzenegger is qualified. I mean, what does it take to become a governor? I've been there, I've known all the governors since Earl Warren's time. And basically, if you have above-average intelligence, you have common sense, and you can speak in front of a camera and to a crowd, you can govern the state. I mean, after all, the governing process includes the legislature, a very competent civil service, and all sorts of rules and regulations that guide the state on its way.

So, the whole thing about experience is a canard. The real issue is, in the next 59 days, how do the voters see the various candidates in the context of the recall?

And I think Davis right now, obviously, is the underdog. Schwarzenegger is basically the incumbent. He is on Time and Newsweek. He is the popular man. And with all this flurry, you know, he is on top. It's his to lose.

But there's a long way to go. People are going to want to know, what do you do about the fact that hundreds of felons are being dumped out of the prisons every day on the streets of Oakland and Los Angeles? What are we going to do about that? These people are going back -- 80 percent recidivism. What are we going to do about the mess in Sacramento?

BLITZER: All right.

BROWN: Can we really solve those problems? And during this recall period, who will convince the voters that they have the commitment and, I guess, the feel that people look for in these elections?

BLITZER: And just to be on the record, Mr. Mayor, you want Gray Davis to remain in office? You hope that this recall won't succeed?

BROWN: Yes, I'm a loyal Democrat. I'm supporting the effort of our incumbent governor. That's good.

But I'm also glad that there is a Democrat on the ballot because, obviously, recall is a significant possibility, if not a probability.

So the thing is a horse race. You know, the candidates are out of the gate. It's going to be very interesting and very important.

I very much support the recall process. This is the right of the people, and we've got enough problems in California that this recall is an appropriate instrument to get the attention of those folks in Sacramento. And one way or the other, it's going to add the kind of thrust that a rather stagnant state government actually needs.

BLITZER: Congressman, we got a little flavor of what Governor Gray Davis plans on doing in his attack against Arnold Schwarzenegger when he spoke to our Kelly Wallace last night. Listen to what he said about the movie-star-turned-politician.


GRAY DAVIS (D), GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: He clearly doesn't have very much experience in public life. And I can tell you that recycling old lines from movies only gets you so far.

I believe leadership is more than talk. It is action. We have taken tough stands on education, which is improving, getting a million children with health insurance and protecting the environment. That is leadership. That is action.


BLITZER: He's a tough campaigner, Gray Davis. What do you make of that assault that he's obviously foreshadowing?

ROHRABACHER: Well, nobody in California is going to buy that. Look at what Gray Davis has experienced in all of his expertise, and, you know, he is the ultimate political hack over the years. And Jerry knows Gray for many years. And so, all that experience just destroyed our economy in California. So nobody is going to buy that.

BROWN: But wait, wait...

ROHRABACHER: Plus, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a really bright person. He's going to come up with so many creative ideas and bring in a whole new batch of people rather than these political hacks who got such great experience they've destroyed our economy.

BLITZER: Mr. Mayor, you want to weigh in? Go ahead. BROWN: Yes, well -- I mean, listening to this talk about political hacks, I think -- well, I'm not going to comment. But, you know, after you've been around for a while, I guess you fit into the hack category.

Nevertheless, if Arnold Schwarzenegger has all these great ideas and -- well, fine, he's going to win, he's going to get to be governor, and we'll all be better off for it.

But we're not there yet. There is a lot of talk, there is a lot of interaction before the cameras and in the face of the other candidates. There will be debates.

This is going to be a very powerful, important process. I think it's healthy for the state.

I think Davis is definitely in trouble. But he's focused. He's disciplined. He's able to campaign. And Schwarzenegger is now in the defending position, and Davis will be able to be a good counterputzer (ph). How it will turn out, I don't know.

ROHRABACHER: The biggest problem is, is that they are going to attack Arnold Schwarzenegger personally. This is their strategy. They're going to try to attack him as a human being and try to hurt him and try to...

BROWN: Well, I think that would be very stupid.

ROHRABACHER: ... throw mud at him, and we know that that's already started. And this is Gray Davis's strategy.

BROWN: Well, wait a minute. We don't know they're going to throw mud. I assume...

ROHRABACHER: We've already seen that.

BROWN: Well, that would be very ill-advised, and I would recommend to the governor that he not go down that road or the head of the Democratic Party or anyone else.

This is -- there is really a crisis going on in California.

ROHRABACHER: Yes, sir, there is.

BROWN: I'm not going to say it's the governor's. You know, you got a president there who is screwing up the economy as well.

BROWN: So, we've got some issues. This is a great opportunity to get the attention of the voters, that often isn't focused on politics. So, I'm looking forward to it.

If Schwarzenegger has an answer to the revenue crisis, and he can get the damn criminals off the streets of Oakland, hell, I may vote for him.

BLITZER: So far... ROHRABACHER: Well, we know one thing. He didn't cause the crisis.

BLITZER: So far it looks like -- the poll numbers, at least, right now, and it's still less than 60 days away from the election, they don't bode well for Governor Davis.

Look at these numbers on how he would do right now among likely voters. If the election were tomorrow to replace Governor Davis, 54 percent say they would vote to replace him, in favor of the recall. 35 percent say they would keep him in office. Those numbers, obviously, could change very quickly.

But, Congressman Rohrabacher, if you take a look at what Arnold Schwarzenegger has said so far in his various comments since he made his initial appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno announcing his candidacy, they've been very vague. For example, he said this. Listen to this.


ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: It is a message that is from California all the way to the East Coast, to all the politicians...


SCHWARZENEGGER: ... Republicans and Democrats alike, to say to them: Do your job for the people, and do it well, or otherwise you're out. Hasta la vista, baby!



BLITZER: There's a limit as to how far all the cliches from the movies are going to go. You know the California news media, the national press, they're going to press him on specifics.

ROHRABACHER: Of course they will, and...

BLITZER: Does he have the wherewithal, for example, to come up with a plan right now to share with the voters in California, how he's going to resolve the economic crisis there, the budget deficit?

ROHRABACHER: OK. Well, first of all, I've known Arnold Schwarzenegger for about 20 years. He's extraordinarily bright, and he's a creative thinker, and so I have total confidence in that.

But let me say, he did not know he was going to run for governor. So he does not have his program ready to just lay out for everybody right now. I think he made up his mind at -- you know, he was thinking about it, and made up his mind in the last few days.

So he's not going to have the detailed, you know, program right now. But I'm sure that, as time goes on, you're going to find that he is coming up with some creative approaches like that after-school program that he came up with, using California's schools to provide kids a place to go after school hours. That was very creative.

BROWN: You know, Wolf...


BROWN: Wolf, there's one -- Wolf, the recall does give us one decided advantage, assuming there is a recall: You can win with less than 50 percent, so you don't have to pander to all these constituencies that block a lot of very good ideas.

So, any of these candidates -- and don't underestimate Peter Ueberroth or Simon or even the lieutenant governor, Bustamante. Whoever can really speak from the heart honestly and come up with some controversial, possibly, but some real down-to-earth solutions, hey, they're all in contention, because the top-tier candidates are going to get a level of exposure that has never existed in a California election before.

ROHRABACHER: I agree with that.

BLITZER: Congressman, it sounds -- it seems like Arnold Schwarzenegger does have some perhaps liberal views, when it comes to abortion rights for women, gay rights. What do you make of that, because you're an ardent conservative?

ROHRABACHER: Well, I obviously disagree with him on some of those issues, but what we're going to find is that Arnold, instead of focusing on those contentious issues that have polarized us, he's going to try to go to the middle, try to reach both sides halfway, but focus on the economy and those things that, again, are going to bring growth and opportunity back to California.

So, yes, he's going to have to find middle ground, but, unlike those of us -- and I'm very conservative on those issues -- or some of the other people on the Democratic side who are very liberal on those issues, I think Arnold's going to try to find the middle ground but focus on the economy.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to take a quick break. We're going to ask Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Mayor Jerry Brown to stand by. When we return, they'll start taking your phone calls. Get your questions. Start calling us right now.

You can also weigh in on our LATE EDITION Web question of the week: Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be California's next governor? You can cast your vote by logging on to our Web site at We'll have the results of that poll later in this program.

Meanwhile, Californians are speaking out about the enormous political drama unfolding in their state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He seems to be such a strong and sincere person. Maybe yes. I think we could do a whole lot worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think it's a good idea.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't think he'd do a good job?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I think he's a screen (ph) actor. Film actor, yes. He should stick to movies.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You should vote for me because I love California, and if you love California, you'll vote for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You should vote for me because I want to reform health care.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a candidate for governor of the state of California. I want to bring jobs, jobs and jobs.


BLITZER: Just some of the more than 100 candidates for California governor making their pitch to potential voters.

Welcome back to LATE EDITION. We're continuing our conversation with former California Democratic governor, now the mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown, and California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

Mr. Mayor, let me play for you an excerpt of what Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Friday when he was asked to discuss his qualifications to becoming the next governor of California.


SCHWARZENEGGER: People have said that many times to me, this can't be done, you don't have the qualifications, and all those kind of things. I've been the chairman of the president's Council on Fitness, I've been the chairman of the After-School Programs of the Inner-City Games, and I led the initiative, Proposition 49, where people said, "You have no experience about that, don't do it," and we won by 57 percent of the votes.


BLITZER: Is Arnold Schwarzenegger, as far as you can tell right now, potentially another Ronald Reagan?

BROWN: You know, I wouldn't go that far. I would say, though -- and I have a very, small "D," democratic idea of who can be governor -- he certainly has the qualifications, as do thousands, tens of thousands, maybe millions of people in the state of California.

So I don't think the issue is qualification. I think the issue is character, it's vision, and where does he stand relative to the problems, and what do the people want?

I think that's the essence of what is going to be decided in this recall. Have they had it with the incumbent, and if they want to change, which change are the people of California going to embrace?

BLITZER: Congressman, you know California politics. They can get ugly. There can be allegations made against Arnold Schwarzenegger, womanizing, that allegation has already surfaced.

We did hear from his wife, Maria Shriver, who's taken a leave of absence from NBC News -- she's, of course, well known from the Kennedy family -- speak out, go to the event yesterday with her husband. Listen to what she had to say in strongly endorsing him.


MARIA SHRIVER, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER'S WIFE: I think he is a serious, compassionate, smart, calm, compassionate man. And I think that he will represent Democrats, independents and Republicans, men and women all across this state.


BLITZER: Congressman, a lot of people are already suggesting Maria Shriver is going to be one of his big secret weapons, is going to go out there and help him enormously. How important is she in this campaign?

ROHRABACHER: Well, there is no doubt about it. She knows him better than anyone else, and she knows him to be a man who is very intelligent and has a good heart and is so energetic, everybody knows that. So she will be a major asset, no doubt.

And, look, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and as I say, I've known him for about 20 years, I don't agree with him on everything, but he is going to be a breath of fresh air.

All of these people are talking about experience, they're the ones who caused the problem.

And the one sad thing about this is, a good guy like this and a wonderful lady like his wife are going to have to suffer through these personal attacks, because you know that's the strategy they'll use against him.

BLITZER: She is a good potential political asset for him, isn't she, Mayor Brown? BROWN: Oh, yes, she's quite an asset. In fact, just the fact that he had her do the talking when he filed his papers and, therefore, gave something new and fresh to the media, just shows how sophisticated he is in these things.

Look, this is -- this presents a real challenge to Gray Davis, because you can't get in the slash-and-burn kind of mode here if you're running against a nice guy.

As a matter of fact, if you look at all those other candidates, they're all nice guys. The big question is, you know, is this recall -- can Gray Davis stigmatize this process as being inappropriate? Can he come from behind and project himself as the underdog, slowly, each day, as the media buzz perhaps quiets down, getting stronger and stronger, a down-to-earth kind of guy that cares about the people, that wants to go back and finish the job they elected him to do?

That's not clear that that's not in the cards. This is an open, it's an open campaign, it's by no means the fact you take your first poll. It's going to be very visible. Nobody is going to hide. You can't run and hide. You've got to speak to the issues.

ROHRABACHER: Jerry's right, but every day the problem the governor's going to have, and Bustamante is going to have as well as part of Democratic establishment which runs this state, every day we're going to hear more horror stories of what their incompetence in running the state has created for the people of California, whether it's higher taxes or higher fees in going to junior college or this massive deficit which they hid during the last election.

These things are all going to come out on a daily basis, so you'll see personal attacks on Arnold, but then you'll also see these horror stories coming out about what direction our state is going.

BROWN: You know, you'll also get a chance to hear about -- you'll get the horror stories about the Republican obstructionism in the statehouse.

I mean, there is many tales of what's going on in California. We don't write anybody off right now.

BLITZER: Let me interrupt, gentlemen, and go to the White House a little bit. President Bush was asked about the race in California. His remarks sort of suggest a little tepid support for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Listen carefully to what the president said in Crawford.


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm interested in the process. It is fascinating to see who's in and who's out. And yeah, I think he would be a good governor.


BLITZER: He's going to be coming out there in a few days to campaign for himself, Congressman. You think he should go out this and start campaigning for Arnold Schwarzenegger?

ROHRABACHER: Oh, I think the president -- let me put it this way, there is a lot of -- there are several Republicans in the race. We don't expect the president to endorse any one of those candidates.

But obviously, he knows that Arnold is the strongest candidate and that he will reinvigorate the Republican Party here in California. And that's good for him, good for the president.

BLITZER: I want you -- I want to read what Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota, himself a former actor and professional wrestler, writes in the new issue that's just coming out, some advice for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

He writes this: "So be yourself. Be Arnold. Be the guy who can sit and have a cigar with the crew. Be honest. Don't worry if you don't know the answer to every question asked. Just say, `I don't know' if you don't know. When I did this during my campaign in Minnesota, people were amazed. How revolutionary, a politician who stands in front of people and doesn't feed them pre-canned answers."

Is that good advice from Jesse Ventura, Mr. Mayor?

BROWN: Oh, yes. Well, what he's saying is, be human. Be honest. There's nothing more powerful than just speaking from your heart and speaking intelligently. I mean, that's all you should do.

And it's true, the longer you're in this business, the more artificial your language gets, the more polls you've read, the more focus groups you've gone through, the more you shape your language to fit some preconceived idea. And then you become wooden and artificial, and people don't believe you.


BROWN: So Jesse has good advice.

But remember, when Jesse got in there, he couldn't work with the Republicans and the Democrats. And that may be one of the weak points in the Schwarzenegger candidacy. Will people begin to say this is a little too much of a risk, I'm going to stick with what I know and I feel secure about?

BLITZER: I'll give you the last word, Congressman.

ROHRABACHER: Well, Arnold has a powerful persona that he is going to now -- you know, he's been part of our lives as a movie star, and now he's going to be part of the political life. He's going to use that power to communicate and to come up with creative approaches to change the state of California, to save it from all those pros that destroyed it. So we have something to look forward to.

BLITZER: We're going to have to leave it right there. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, thanks for joining us, and Mayor Jerry Brown, as usual, thanks to both of you. All of us are going to be watching, not only here in the United States but people around the world, to see what happens in California.

Up next, we'll go to CNN headquarters in Atlanta for a quick check of the hour's headlines.

Then, he's considered one of the dark horses in the race for the White House, but Dennis Kucinich insists he has a winning formula. We'll talk with the Ohio congressman about his quest for the U.S.'s highest office.

And later, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, one of two major international crises detailed in a powerful new book by Henry Kissinger. We'll get a preview from the former secretary of state.

That, much more, it's all coming up on LATE EDITION.



AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The real problem may be the president himself...


... and that next year, we ought to fire him and get a new one.


BLITZER: Blunt words about President Bush from the former vice president, Al Gore. He spoke in New York City this past week to a gathering sponsored by the liberal group, But Al Gore insists he's not reconsidering entering the 2004 presidential race.

One declared Democratic candidate who is generating a lot of interest among liberals is the Ohio congressman, Dennis Kucinich. He is joining us now from the campaign trail in Austin, Texas, of all places.

Congressman Kucinich, welcome to LATE EDITION.

Are you in enemy territory right now?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not at all. I consider Texas very friendly territory, and Austin in particular. I expect to have a well-organized campaign in Texas, as well as 34 other states that we're now organizing in.

BLITZER: I want to talk about your campaign, but briefly, I'd like to get your assessment of what's happening in California, because, as you know, political trends that often start in California spread around the country, including Ohio, among other places.

What is your read on this recall? Do you hope that Governor Davis is going to be recalled?

KUCINICH: Well, I do not support the recall. I think the recall is destructive. It is going to cost California heavily. It is going to cost them not only in their bond rating but in the distraction from the major concerns which Californians have.

I mean, look at it this way. California got into economic trouble, among other reasons, because of the Bush-Enron corruption, which resulted in energy prices going through the roof. So Gray Davis, in effect, is paying for George Bush's sins.

We need to have some stability in all governments, and I think that we also need to know what the truth is about how California got into this situation in which it is. And I don't think that anyone can lay that squarely in Gray Davis's lap.

BLITZER: Well, when you say corruption, Bush-Cheney corruption, are you accusing the president and the vice president of the United States of being corrupt, in terms of the problems that Enron had?

KUCINICH: Absolutely I am. There's no question that this administration was in bed with Ken Lay. They've covered up all the meetings that deal with energy policy.

They allowed Enron, to in effect, run the energy policy of this country, to be able to grow and grow, to capture wholesale markets, to put the country in a position -- and California particularly -- where the cost of electricity went up by a factor of four and five. California hard to borrow money to pay the electric bill. California still remains in trouble because of Enron.

You know what? We never had a chance to talk about Enron in the last election because the administration knew it was in trouble, they shifted the discussion to war. And now we find out there was no basis to go to war.

BLITZER: Why is your campaign having such a struggle trying to get off the ground? I'll tell you -- I'll show you these numbers that we've had in one of our most recent polls, the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll. If you look at all the nine declared Democratic presidential candidates, you are basically at the bottom right now, 2 percent, even below Al Sharpton.

It doesn't look like your campaign has generated any excitement, at least nationwide among registered Democrats.

KUCINICH: Well, let's start with Iowa, for example. I mean, I'm running ahead of Bob Graham in Iowa. I'm statistically tied with John Edwards in Iowa. So we're starting to move up.

The poll, I think, reflects national name recognition. I have some work to do, it's very clear. But with a 6-percent plus-or-minus margin of error, that means I'm either 8 percent nationally, or 4 percent of the people deny that I even exist.

So, at any rate, I think that our campaign, which is grassroots- oriented, is starting to percolate. We're gaining some excitement.

And the fact that I come from Ohio with 19 electoral votes and have shown a real ability to win votes in Republican areas in Ohio, I think is going to become increasingly attractive to people who want a real choice in this election.

BLITZER: But look at Howard Dean. He comes from Vermont, a much smaller state than Ohio. Virtually no name recognition. He has raised $10 million. You've raised but a fraction of that. Why has he managed to get himself on the cover of Newsweek and Time magazine, for example, and you're still struggling to break out from obscurity?

KUCINICH: Well, I think we have to, first of all, congratulate him for the success that he's had.

However, he's been out there more than a year ahead of my campaign. And I think that as my campaign begins to develop, we're going to be able to attract some of the people who now, currently, feel that Howard Dean is the only alternative.

I mean, my campaign offers a true progressive alternative on trade. I'm the only candidate willing to come forward and say I'll cancel NAFTA and the WTO. On health care, the only candidate who is willing to say, look, the private sector has failed, the market has failed, we've got to go to universal single-payer health care, Medicare for all.

The candidate who's ready to challenge the bloated Pentagon budget, which, as you may know, Wolf, there's a trillion dollars in accounts they can't reconcile in the Pentagon. I'll save the taxpayers money, cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent. That's $60 billion we can put into education and other programs.

So, as I define the differences, it will be very clear to the American people that I'm offering a true alternative, a progressive alternative. And frankly, it's only that kind of alternative which will motivate people to come to vote not only in Democratic primaries, but to give the American people a real choice versus this administration in November of 2004.

BLITZER: You were one of the early opponents of a war against Iraq, going way back, many, many months. But even in the most recent CNN poll, CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll, look at this, 63 percent of the American public still think it was worth going to war in Iraq. You're still way in the minority position, presumably not only nationwide, but even among Democrats.

Are you rethinking your stance, as far as getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, we can't measure truth by polls, because the American people didn't have all the information back then when -- and still today, as they're giving their opinion.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that ever linked Iraq to 9/11, to al Qaeda's role in 9/11, to the anthrax attack on this country. Iraq did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, and it didn't have the intention or the capability of attacking this country.

Now what we're finding out is that the administration took steps to make the American people believe that Iraq constituted an imminent threat, and the administration hyped a nuclear threat, and there was no proof of it.

I think as the American people learn that, the spell of fear which is on this country will be broken, and it's that truth that will help break the fear.

And when that happens, my candidacy, which comes from not only the heartland in Ohio, but comes from the heart of this country, my candidacy will begin to emerge powerfully, because I've told the truth, because I've been able to let the American people know what's really going on. And they want a president who is not only going to be candid and direct, but a president who is going to lead away from unnecessary wars toward peace, toward prosperity.

That's what I represent, Wolf, and I'm confident people are going to respond to that kind of a campaign.

BLITZER: But don't you think the region is better off right now without Saddam Hussein in charge of Baghdad and Iraq than it was before the war?

KUCINICH: Well, no one's ever made a case for Saddam Hussein's staying, but the problem is, you know, does the end justify the means? I mean, this administration did not tell the American...

BLITZER: Well, that's the question. Does the end, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, his Baath Party, the Saddam Fedayeen, all the elements that tyrannized Iraq for so many decades, doesn't that justify the means?

KUCINICH: Is it worth 259 American lives? No. As a matter of fact, we have to recognize that this administration took this country to war saying that there was an imminent threat and that Iraq had nuclear capability. That has proven to be a lie.

They didn't take us into war in order to create regime change, because if that's the policy of this country, we're going to be very busy looking at regime change in North Korea, in Iran, in Syria and any place this administration feels it ought to.

We have to work with the world community in order to achieve international security, and that's where the mistake was made. We should have worked with the United Nations, we should have continued the weapons inspections.

And it's unfortunate, the administration took us into war, and now they're changing the reason why we went to war. They didn't take us into war so that we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, they took us in to get rid of nuclear weapons.

BLITZER: Let me ask you about a novel proposal you came up with the other day, a creation of a Department of Peace here in Washington. Among other things, you write this, you said, "Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group or national level, toward creating understanding, compassion and love."

What are you proposing, actually, by calling for the creation of a department, a federal bureaucracy of peace?

KUCINICH: Well, the same thing that Martin Luther King was talking about years ago when he talked about making nonviolence an organizing principle in our society, to create programs where we teach our children peace-giving and peace-sharing and mutuality and identifying the other person as oneself, where we learn that violence isn't inevitable.

We look at the challenges of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs in the schools, the problems that exist in racial violence, violence against gays.

I mean, our society has potential to evolve, and I think people want a leader who recognizes the power the American people have to continue this challenge we were given by our founders to create a more perfect union.

On an international level, the Department of Peace aspires to work with the world community to get away from war, to make war archaic. We have to believe in our capacity to create a world which has the ability to survive. And I'll tell you, Wolf, policies of unilateralism, preemption, of nuclear first-strike, building new nuclear weapons, putting weapons in space, building missile shields that contemplate World War III, take us away from the kind of peace which the American people are ready for.

We can achieve peace working with the world community, cooperating internationally. The Department of Peace built on a vision of people who for the longest time have believed that America has this great capacity to be able to not only improve itself, but to take us in a direction that's sustainable.

BLITZER: Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to be president of the United States. We'll continue to cover your campaign.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

KUCINICH: Thank you very much, Wolf.

BLITZER: Still ahead, terrorists launch a deadly strike on a U.S.-based hotel in Indonesia. Is al Qaeda targeting American businesses? We'll get analysis from three experts.

Also, crisis control, the former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, previews his new book about the U.S. war in Vietnam and the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. He'll be my next guest.


BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION.

The Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab-Israeli war were two major international crises that confronted the Ford and Nixon administrations. The former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, was of course a key player in trying to resolve both of those conflicts.

He details his experiences in an important new book, "Crisis: The Anatomy of Two Major Foreign Policy Crises." It includes numerous previously classified transcripts of key conversations he had with world leaders during those crises.

Dr. Kissinger is joining us now live from Kent, Connecticut.

Mr. Secretary, welcome back to LATE EDITION. Congratulations on this new book which is indeed very powerful, very important for all of us who covered those stories way back almost 30 years ago.

But why did you pick these two crises to focus on?

HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I wanted to write about two crises that could be followed almost hour by hour and almost minute by minute, and to cover every aspect of them in detail, so that the reader could see what the pressures are and what the considerations are that go into making of decisions under pressure.

And the two crises -- one of the crises was the Middle East war, in which we faced a great power confrontation, conflict in the Middle East, and the other was the liquidation of the Vietnam War, the last months of a tragic period. So, I wanted to include a big success and a great tragedy.

BLITZER: And there were both enormous political crises unfolding at the same time here in the United States: the resignation of the vice president, Spiro Agnew, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and of course Watergate was hovering throughout all of this. We'll get to that in a moment, but let's get to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

I was fascinated when you reveal in this book that, on the eve of the war, within 24 hours before the Syrians and the Egyptians coordinated their surprise attack on the Israelis, on the Golan Heights and across the Suez Canal, the Central Intelligence Agency offered President Nixon this bottom-line assessment. I'll put it up on the screen. "It appears that both sides are becoming increasingly concerned about the activities of the other. Rumors and agent reports may be feeding the uneasiness that appears to be developing. The military preparations that have occurred do not indicate that any party intends to initiate hostilities."

How was it possible that the CIA was so wrong with only a few hours of the start of this war?

KISSINGER: Well, the CIA -- not only was the CIA wrong, Israeli intelligence was wrong. And in a way, they were taking in each other's washing.

There had been previously a number of threats from -- primarily from Egypt, and they had never led to war, and nobody believed that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Suez Canal, and nobody thought that there was any prospect of a victory, or even of a success on the Arab side.

And so it was a huge underestimation by both Israeli and American intelligence of the intentions of -- we actually, when I became secretary of state, I started reading some reports from the State Department intelligence unit, which talked about concentration of forces on both the Golan Heights and along the Suez Canal. And I asked for a report every other day, in order to reassure me that it was not leading to conflict. And every other day we were told essentially what we were told on the eve of the war.

BLITZER: At the same time, the Israelis did come to you a few hours before the start of the war, the prime minister then, Mrs. Golda Meir, Israeli diplomats in Washington, saying they did get indications that there was about to be a Syrian and Egyptian attack against Israel, perhaps within hours.

You say this to the Israeli charge in Washington, the late Mordechai Shaleb (ph). You say this, "We would like to urge you not to take any preemptive action, because the situation will get very serious if you move."

Was that smart, looking back, telling the Israelis don't preempt, even though they suspected they were about to be attacked?

KISSINGER: This was Yom Kippur, the holiest holiday for the Jewish religion. Israel was not mobilized, and the general judgment was that they were not in a condition to launch a major attack.

And we, therefore, thought it was best to make clear who had been the attacker under these circumstances. And we were talking about -- there were only about two or three hours left. I don't think that any significant attack could have been launched, nor did the Israelis request that they be given authority.

On the contrary, what Golda Meir asked me to convey to the Arab side was that they did not intend to go to war and that they would not launch an attack. And this she did on her own, without any advice from the United States.

BLITZER: I guess, if they would have mobilized their reserve forces earlier, presumably they would have done better militarily at the outset. They were taking a beating. About 2,500 Israeli soldiers wound up getting killed during those first days of the war. Obviously, that is a subject that we could get into on another occasion.

Let me also get to one fascinating point, that you said even before the war started, you said in a conversation with President Nixon, you said this: "My view is that the primarily problem is to get the fighting stopped and then use the opportunity to see whether a settlement could be enforced." You were already looking down the road to see if there could be some breakthroughs, diplomatic breakthroughs, between the Israelis and the Syrians and the Egyptians, even while the fighting was continuing.

What made you think that there could be some diplomatic achievements at that gloomy moment?

KISSINGER: Well, my view was that we should use the conflict, if at all possible, to get negotiations started between Israel and the Arabs and, secondly, to reduce, if not eliminate, the Soviet role in the Middle East, which had been, in effect, supporting, at least, the armament of Egypt and Syria.

The reason I thought that there was an opportunity for peace negotiations is that the Arabs -- Egypt and Syria -- had restored some of what they considered their lost dignity by proving that they would go to war.

I thought Israel would almost certainly win the war, but that it would be in the same position it had been before, that it could win victories but not acceptance and peace.

So, I thought that at the end of the war there might be one of the rare occasions to bring the two sides together and begin a process that would enable them to coexist, which, with respect to Egypt and Syria, has, in fact, happened.

The Syrian disengagement agreement has lasted since 1974, and the Egyptian two agreements were that were made at the end of the war and then the peace agreement that was made in the Carter administration have at least prevented war on those fronts.

BLITZER: They've survived.

How close -- and if you could give me a brief answer on this, I'd be grateful. How close was the United States and the Soviet Union in 1973, during the Israeli-Arab war, to having a war of their own, potentially involving nuclear weapons?

KISSINGER: Well, there was the Soviet threat to intervene unilaterally, and we alerted our forces. I did not believe then that it would have come to war, but it certainly heightened the tension.

BLITZER: And let's move on and talk about Vietnam, because you write about this other crisis unfolding in 1975 when the U.S. finally had to abandon Saigon, an enormously painful moment for you, especially having won a Nobel Peace Prize only a few years earlier. How big of a crisis was that for you and for the United States?

KISSINGER: Well, this was not an international crisis at that moment. This was a sad event for the United States and a sad event for me personally. And it was sort of heartbreaking to see that the people who had worked with us and had relied on us, had stood with us, being exposed to the mortal danger in which they found themselves. And we tried our utmost to save as many as we could. BLITZER: One of the most fascinating parts of that section, as well as other sections, some of the transcripts of your conversations, Mr. Secretary, with journalists here in Washington, including: James Restin (ph) of the New York Times; Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post; Ted Koppel of ABC News; Marvin Kalb, then of NBC News.

You were speaking to a lot of reporters in Washington, I must say. You weren't speaking to me, at that time, but you were speaking to a lot of other reporters. Does that go with the territory, or was that extraordinary, the fact that you were working the press as you were?

KISSINGER: In almost every case, the reporters were calling me, and I took their calls. This goes with the territory, and I suspect a lot more is being done since and today.

But it goes with the territory. It's necessary to explain the administration's thinking, which is generally what I did. I wasn't giving them any information -- any new information. I was trying to give them our reasoning.

BLITZER: Senior administration official, you propagated that term. It's become staple ever since.

Dr. Henry Kissinger, thanks so much for joining us.

An important new book entitled "Crisis." Everybody who likes history, wants to know the inside, what was going on, will learn from this book.

Appreciate it very much.

KISSINGER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Still ahead, a deadly attack on Jordan's embassy in Baghdad. Are the United States and its allies easy targets for terror? We'll get perspective from three experts.

Plus, is Arnold Schwarzenegger ready for his political closeup? An inside look at the movie star in his new role, political campaigner.

And don't forget to vote on our LATE EDITION Web question of the week: Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be California's next governor? Go to our Web site,

And much more LATE EDITION is coming up right at the top of the hour after the headlines.


BLITZER: Welcome back to the second hour of LATE EDITION. We begin once again in California where a crowded field of candidates are jostling for position to replace Governor Gray Davis in a closely watched recall race. More than 150 people filed papers and paid their fees before yesterday's deadline. CNN's Bob Franken is joining us now from our Los Angeles bureau with all the late developments -- Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the question might be is the Arnold Schwarzenegger candidacy a way of promoting his latest movie, or is his latest movie a way of promoting the political candidacy?

Well, it appears right now as if the candidacy is winning out. Arnold Schwarzenegger is in this race for governor, in this very unusual, to say the least, recall election, where Gray Davis is running against himself, and if he loses, then about 150-plus candidates will be running against each other.

That's right, more than 150. They're still deciding who is qualified among all of those who put in their applications. It's going to be something like that. So in California, much like in New Hampshire, it's going to be one of those things where you can vote for the person who you know.

And, of course, most people know Arnold Schwarzenegger because of his years in the movies. The governor, Gray Davis, in fact says that that's not a reason to vote him out of office.


DAVIS: He clearly doesn't have very much experience in public life. And I can tell you that recycling old lines from movies only gets you so far. I believe leadership is more than talk. It is action.

We have taken tough stands on education, which is improving, getting a million children with health insurance, and protecting the environment. That is leadership. That is action.


FRANKEN: The fact is that Arnold Schwarzenegger is leading in the polls over Gray Davis. It's not exactly a match, but allow me that. And he has been able to do so in the last several days without really taking a solid position on anything going beyond much more than the usual election cliches.


SCHWARZENEGGER: The outpour that I have witnessed these last few days was absolutely extraordinary, the outpour of support for my candidacy. So I want to thank all the people and all the supporters so much for your great enthusiasm.

I don't want to say any more. I just want to say to you that I'm running for governor, and I promise you that I will be the people's governor, the people's governor.

(END VIDEO CLIP) FRANKEN: And about 59 days from now, Wolf, there's going to be an election, 59 days and probably an expenditure of $50 million to $60 million, to determine who is going to be the next governor of California -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And we've learned now also, Bob, that Governor Gray Davis is going to Bill Clinton's old play book, seeking some advice from the former president on how he should deal with this issue to try to avoid that recall.

FRANKEN: In fact, he's welcoming the advice, very publicly welcoming the advice that he would get from Bill Clinton. Remember that Bill Clinton is quite popular among the Democrats of California, so the association with any sort of Clinton association is going to be a good thing for Gray Davis.

Gray Davis is one of these people who will do whatever it takes to win, and many people believe that the wisdom of Bill Clinton is something that could be very useful to somebody who's got a tough campaign ahead.

BLITZER: CNN's Bob Franken covering the story for us in Los Angeles.

Thanks, Bob, very much.

This week's Time magazine, the new issue about to come out, is reporting that Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to run for governor of California was literally last-minute.

Joining us now with the inside story, Time magazine's national political correspondent Karen Tumulty.

Karen, welcome back to LATE EDITION.

Last-minute, how much of a last-minute was it?

KAREN TUMULTY, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, it was -- one thing we found out last week is that the critics for all these years have been wrong about Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting abilities.

TUMULTY: Right as he was walking onto the set for the Jay Leno show, Leno said, "So, how are you going to break the news that you're not running for governor?" And at that point Schwarzenegger said, "I'll just say I'm bowing out."

His own top political adviser was standing there with a statement that said, "I am not running for governor."

It now appears that he made that decision in the last few hours, that, in fact, one of the things that may have triggered him was Dianne Feinstein's decision, the senator from California, most popular politician in the state, her decision not to run.

BLITZER: So if she would have announced that she was going to run, to put her name on the ballot, assuming that Gray Davis would be recalled, would go down in defeat, you think he might not have run?

TUMULTY: Well, that was one of the last pieces to fall into place for him.

There were a number of things that had been going on over the previous few days. One is that Arnold Schwarzenegger was beginning to have some misgivings about Richard Riordan, the former mayor of Los Angeles...

BLITZER: Also a Republican.

TUMULTY: ... and who was also thinking about running, was in fact planning his own race. He had been given guarantees by Schwarzenegger that, if he ran, Schwarzenegger would endorse him.

Another thing that seemed to have happened fairly late in the process is that Schwarzenegger's wife, Maria Shriver, who had had some reluctance about this race, as, you know, anyone who was born into the Kennedy family would know what the costs of going into politics are, her reluctance had softened. She had fully come on board this race.

So once all the pieces were in place, at that eleventh hour, he was ready to go.

BLITZER: And then we were watching the Tonight show with Jay Leno, and here's how the actor-turned-politician finally declared his candidacy. Listen to this.


SCHWARZENEGGER: The man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis.



SCHWARZENEGGER: He is failing them terribly, and this is why he needs to be recalled.

LENO: Yes...

SCHWARZENEGGER: And this is why I'm going to run for governor of the state of California.



BLITZER: So, basically, what you're saying is that it was -- it could have gone either way, but only within a few hours of making that announcement did he make up his final mind to go ahead and run.

TUMULTY: In fact, his top political adviser, George Gorton (ph), standing there backstage with a statement that says he's not running, himself thought that Schwarzenegger was joking. BLITZER: But what does this say about Arnold Schwarzenegger, that he doesn't presumably even trust his top political adviser to tell him, to consult with him, you know what, guys, I have made up my mind, I am going to run, and I'm going to make the official announcement on the Tonight show with Jay Leno?

TUMULTY: He does have a team around him, of primarily people who had advised former Governor Pete Wilson, but this is obviously a political candidate who is not going to be what we say, "handled." He not only does not confide in his advisers, it's far from clear whether he's going to listen to them.

BLITZER: It sounds a lot more like he's going to be then like Jesse Ventura, who can't be handled as a governor of Minnesota, as opposed to a Ronald Reagan, who everyone seems to suggest was totally handled, at least during the early stages of his political career.

TUMULTY: And of course the bigger question is, you know, what we're seeing of him as a candidate, what would we see of him as a governor? Because, don't forget that the prize for the winner of this election is a gigantic budget mess and a state that is almost ungovernable.

BLITZER: The prize is a disaster, by anyone's account.

Let's take a quick caller from Georgia.

Go ahead with your question, please.

CALLER: Thank you, Wolf.

Karen, I'd like to ask you, what will be the impact of the Schwarzenegger candidacy on the 2004 presidential election, in your opinion?

BLITZER: Assuming he's elected, that is.

TUMULTY: That is something the White House is interested in, too. President Bush is making a point to stay as far away from this race as he possibly can, beyond saying on Friday that he thought Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a good governor.

It's a really close call for the White House. Do they want to have a crippled Democratic incumbent there in the governor's mansion in Sacramento, or do they want to have a fresh, new, green Republican governor who has a big mess on his hands?

BLITZER: He's on the cover of the new issue of Time magazine, also on the cover of Newsweek magazine. If we have it, we'll show our viewers. There he is, Arnold right now, on the cover of Time magazine.

Was this a difficult decision for your editors, to go ahead and put him on the cover on a week when we saw so many other major developments, terrorism in Baghdad, in Indonesia, all sorts of other big stories unfolding? TUMULTY: Well, certainly, though the big stories that were unfolding elsewhere in the world were continuations of stories that we have written quite a bit about, and just this bombshell announcement was just too compelling to miss.

And don't forget, too, that an eighth of the country lives in California. What happens to the California economy affects the rest of us, too.

BLITZER: One final question, on Maria Shriver. A lot of us were watching her body language yesterday, when she emerged with her husband. Clearly she's totally in support, at least right now, of what he's doing.

How difficult do you sense this was for her and for him to make this decision, which people have been talking about for years and years and years?

TUMULTY: Well, as I said, no one knows better than a Kennedy what it means to go into politics. And this opens up their private lives to all kinds of questions, and a different kind of scrutiny, even of them, as public officials, than they have been opened up to in the past. So, it has to have been a very complicated decision.

BLITZER: For her, it meant having to take a leave of absence from her job at NBC News, which certainly, I'm sure, was not easy. She's been there for more than 15 years, at least.

TUMULTY: And, of course, there are four children to think about, as well.

BLITZER: But he's going ahead. And, at least at this point, you have to assume, if at this point -- there's still 60 days or so to go, 59 days -- that if Gray Davis goes down to defeat in the recall, simultaneously in the vote, he's got to be the front-runner right now.

TUMULTY: Absolutely. And certainty in our Time-CNN poll, he walloped the rest of the field.

BLITZER: The fact that there are other Republicans on the ballot -- there's only one Democrat, really significant Democrat, Cruz Bustamante, the lieutenant governor -- the Republicans could split their vote, whereas the Democrats, presumably, will, by and large, go for their one solid lieutenant governor.

TUMULTY: To the degree there is any life at all in the Republican Party in California, it's from the conservative base, and it could be a difficult decision for them.

Another question is, who exactly shows up? Has the Schwarzenegger candidacy put enough excitement on the ballot that a lot of people are voting who don't normally vote?

BLITZER: Karen Tumulty and her team at Time magazine, our sister publication, has done a terrific job writing about the Schwarzenegger phenomenon, and we'll be reading it, and we'll be watching it. Thanks very much.

TUMULTY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Turning now to the latest in Iraq, there are reports that Islamic militant groups are reorganizing for some major terrorist attacks.

In addition, the brutal summer heat has killed at least one U.S. soldier and has prompted Iraqi protests over power outages and high fuel prices.

CNN's Harris Whitbeck is joining us now live from Baghdad with all these late-breaking developments -- Harris.


More protests and more attacks on coalition forces in Iraq in the southern city of Basra. Crowds of Iraqis burned tires and mobbed gasoline stations to protest a lack of fuel and electricity.

British troops who are charged with supervising Basra took fire from within the crowd and responded. Three British soldiers were injured when the crowds threw stones at them. And at least one protester was apparently hit by gunfire, but it is not clear whether he was hit by British fire or whether he was hit by gunfire shot from within the crowd.

This is the second day of protests in Basra, a city that has been generally peaceful in comparison to other cities in Iraq. Meanwhile, here in Baghdad, FBI agents are working with the Iraqi police in the investigation of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy, which last Thursday left at least 16 people dead.

Coalition officials said Friday they suspect terrorists linked to al Qaeda are behind the attack, and they are specifically focusing on Ansar al-Islam, a militant organization that had a training camp in northern Iraq. That camp was bombed by the U.S. shortly after the beginning of the war.

U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer says that Ansar al-Islam, which is believed to have ties to al Qaeda, might be planning large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Harris, there are also a number of U.S. soldiers who have been wounded over the past few hours. What can you tell us about that?

WHITBECK: That's correct. During the last 24 hours, there have been several soldiers wounded. In one attack here in Baghdad, a grenade was thrown at a Humvee at Baghdad University. Three soldiers wounded there.

So far, 262 U.S. soldiers have died since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. Since May 1st, which was the declared end of major combat operations, 124 soldiers have died. Fifty-six of those soldiers have died in combat-related incidents -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Harris Whitbeck, joining us from Baghdad.

Thanks, Harris, very much.

Just ahead, a pair of deadly bomb attacks this past week in Iraq and Indonesia. Are they the mark of al Qaeda? We'll get some insight into the terror threat from our panel of experts.

And later, no shortage of media for basketball superstar Kobe Bryant's appearance in a Colorado court this past week. We'll discuss the impact of the massive publicity on the case with two courtroom veterans.

LATE EDITION will continue right after this.


BLITZER: Turning now to two deadly bombings this past week, one at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Indonesia and another at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad. These attacks are raising fresh concern that the United States and its allies are still easy targets for terrorism. There's also questions about whether al Qaeda is behind both of these attacks.

Joining us now to discuss these issues, three special guests: Skip Brandon is a former deputy assistant director of counterintelligence for the FBI. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Pat Lang is a former top Middle East analyst with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. And Peter Bergen is a terrorism analyst here at CNN.

Gentlemen, welcome to LATE EDITION.

Let me begin with you, Pat, and talk about the Jordanian embassy, a soft target, presumably, in Baghdad. When you heard about that, and since then, what have you concluded? Who is responsible for this?

PAT LANG, FORMER MIDDLE EAST ANALYST, U.S. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Actually, it isn't all that soft a target. It is in the middle of town, and it was under guard, so if you were the people planning the operation, in fact, you'd have to figure you'd have to get through all the traffic, all the U.S. Army forces in the city, and then deal with, you know, whatever guard force there was.

So my conclusion is that what you see is you see part of the gathering assembly of forces that want to fight us in Iraq. These particular people probably have an Islamic terrorist connection and probably are linked in some way to al Qaeda overseas.

BLITZER: Skip Brandon, it looks like, based on the eyewitness accounts, that someone drove a car, parked it on the boulevard in front of the embassy, and then these two guys inside the car ran away and it was remotely triggered to blow up, and it caused this huge devastation.

There are FBI agents now either on the way or already on the scene to investigate. What are they going to be looking for?

SKIP BRANDON, FORMER FBI'S DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE: Well, the first thing they're going to looking for is physical evidence. There's no question about that. But they're also going to be working very closely with the authorities in Jordan to try to do the shoe-leather kind of investigation, to be doing interviews, trying to find sources of information, trying to track it back to whoever is responsible for it. It's going to be a hard, long haul.

BLITZER: When you saw this, Peter, does this have the markings of al Qaeda, the fingerprints, if you will, of al Qaeda, or one of the splinter groups, the associated groups of al Qaeda, all over it?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: One thing is, Wolf, which I haven't really seen people identify, but on August 7th of 1998 was the embassy bombing attacks in Africa, so five years later to the day we have this attack on the Jordanian embassy.

It's also the anniversary of the introduction of American troops into Saudi Arabia 12 years ago for Operation Desert Shield, which, of course, is an al Qaeda obsession.

So to me it's a very high level of coincidence. You also have a bombing against an embassy in a place where we know al Qaeda is now coming back into, in Iraq. So to me it seems that, you know, al Qaeda, or a group like it, as you say, a splinter group makes a lot of sense.

BLITZER: But do al Qaeda bombings, terrorist actions, normally have some sort of symbolic anniversary date attached to them?

BERGEN: In the case of August, in the case of the '98 embassy bombings attacks, very much so, because it was the anniversary of the introduction of American troops into Saudi Arabia. So, again, this happened on, again, on an August 7th. So I think that's something to take into account.

The other thing also, I think, is that we have seen jihadists coming into Iraq over the northern border from Syria. You know, whether they're al Qaeda or something like it, that's something that remains an open question.

BLITZER: So if you're Ambassador Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, or the generals, the U.S. military generals, the coalition generals who are there, what do you draw from this, the conclusion you draw from this attack on the Jordanian embassy?

LANG: Well, if I was one of the intelligence analysts set up in Iraq right now, I would say that what you have here is yet a further expansion of the kind of attacks you can expect to see, and that the alliance of Jordan with the United States contributed to this very markedly. It's a clear message there to the Jordanians and other Arab countries in the region.

And that, you know, when you add this all together with all the other activity over the last week or so, what you see is an escalating pattern of violence. It doesn't seem it's going away anytime soon, and I think we ought to be prepared for the long haul.

BLITZER: Seventeen people were killed at the embassy, at least 17 people at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad. Another 14 were killed at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, Skip Brandon, in Jakarta, Indonesia.

That seems to also have fingerprints of an al Qaeda- associated group all over it. I assume that FBI personnel are going to be investigating that, as well.

BRANDON: Oh, absolutely. And I think you're absolutely correct. al Qaeda is not monolithic, but there are ties throughout Indonesia. We know that.

J.W. Marriott is a relatively soft target, and there are a lot of them around the world, where they can really hit and hit rather easily. It's something to be concerned about.

BLITZER: When I covered President Clinton on his trip to Indonesia a few years back, I stayed at that J.W. Marriott. And all these hotels, American-managed hotels, if you will, around the world, Peter, are very soft targets. What do you do about this kind of business?

BERGEN: Well, that's not so much my area of expertise, but I do think that -- I mean, we saw in Karachi, Pakistan, last May, an attack that killed French defense contractors.

So, any significant American hotel chain that is, you know, in a country where al Qaeda has a presence, I think, has to be very, very worried at this point.

BLITZER: And this notion that one of these Islamic groups in Indonesia, Gamal Islamia, may have been responsible, what kind of relationship do they have with al Qaeda?

BERGEN: I'd say they're a franchise of al Qaeda in the sense that some of their people went to Afghanistan, trained with al Qaeda. Their sort of philosophy is similar, but they are not al Qaeda itself. I mean, they are based in Indonesia, although they also have offshoots in Malaysia, Singapore. So, I think a franchise group is the best way of naming it.

BLITZER: And Ansar al-Islam, this other group that may be pouring terrorists back into Iraq right now from Iran -- there is some suggestion along those lines -- what connection does it have to al Qaeda?

LANG: You have to remember, you know, in the West, we think in terms of these kind of Christmas-tree-shaped structures of organization. Islamic organizations are not set up like that. In fact, they are network groups of semi-independent modules of various kinds of groups that have ties involving training and financing and similar ideology, things like this. So they're not subordinated to al Qaeda any more than Gamal Islamia is in Indonesia, but they're allies of theirs in the same cause.

BLITZER: Is it your sense, Pat Lang, and you studied this for a long time, that Osama bin Laden himself is at least partially coordinating these strikes?

LANG: His organization was originally created as a kind of a computer list of personnel assets for the world of Islamic, Wahhabi, you know, Deobandi (ph) kind of terrorists, and he's provided -- used a lot of money for supplies and training, all that kind of stuff.

But my own sense is that he is not in any real sense the commander of this network of more or less independent Islamic terrorist groups. I don't think that's true.

BLITZER: If you were still in the FBI right now -- you're retired from the FBI -- what would you draw as far as the conclusions, the security threats out there to Americans in the United States and around the world, based on these most recent incidents this past week?

BRANDON: Obviously I don't want to sound foolish, but I think the threat level is probably, to Americans, is still higher abroad, and I think we'll start to see an escalation of it.

In some ways, the war in Iraq, right or wrong, no matter what you think, drew down on resources across the board: law enforcement, intelligence, everything. It's drawn down and has allowed the -- as Pat has described very, very well -- the rather loose confederation, the franchises, to become revitalized. And I think we're going to likely to see a lot more of this until we can return and push hard on it.

BLITZER: Well, let me press you a little bit. What do you mean, it's drawn down the law enforcement capabilities in dealing with these kinds of threats, the war in Iraq? It's undermined that capability?

BRANDON: We can only do so many things at a time. Resources are not without limit. There's no question about that.

So when you go to war like we did, you have to look at certain things: law enforcement, protecting U.S. interests in the United States against terrorist threats coming out of Iraq. Certainly the military and military intelligence special forces operation which were so critical in Afghanistan, as we saw, had to be brought into Iraq.

The intelligence community has to be stretched thin. You can't do it all a thousand percent.

BLITZER: On that point, though, Peter, the administration insists they can do it all, they are doing it all.

BERGEN: Well, I mean, I was in Afghanistan relatively recently, and obviously, the Taliban is somewhat resurgent in, at least, the south and east of Afghanistan. We've only got 8,500 American troops there. You can't -- it's a country the size of France.

So, obviously, you can't do it all. I mean, that's just impossible.

BLITZER: You wanted to weigh in, Pat.

LANG: Well, things are coming together, interestingly, you know. I hear people in Washington saying that if the Jihadis and the Arab nationalists and everybody wants to come to Iraq to fight us, you know, let them come. We will fight them here.

Actually, they feel the same way. It's my impression that if there is a battlefield on which they can fight us and to prove that we are willing to back away, they will accept that. So I think that's why you see this continuing growth in Iraq.

BLITZER: The suggestion that I think you're making, Skip, is that, since security levels have been beefed up here in the United States, it's much harder for them to do another 9/11 or something similar in the United States, but there are a lot more soft targets, including U.S. targets, outside of the United States.

BRANDON: Yes, I don't discount the fact that there's certainly a threat in the United States. They would like to bring home another 9/11. But it is harder for them. It's always been hard. It's much harder now.

Our soft targets, American targets, are abroad. There's no question in my mind.

BLITZER: When you saw that Bali bomber who was convicted, sentenced this past week in that courtroom in Indonesia, stand up and smile and look at the families of the victims -- and I want to show our viewers that once again -- what does that say about these kinds of terrorists?

BERGEN: Well, there's the picture. I mean, he's delighted. He's delighted that he's being sentenced to death. I mean, so you're dealing with something with a rather different kind of world view than most other people.

BRANDON: It's an otherworldly view.


LANG: He thinks he's going home...

BERGEN: Right.

LANG: ... so he's celebrating to his friends the fact that they're going to let me go home. That's his...

BLITZER: He doesn't fear death, in other words?

LANG: He does not fear death.

BLITZER: Is it fair to say he's looking forward to death?

LANG: Probably.

BLITZER: How has he been brainwashed to believe that? LANG: Well, there's a long process involved in getting yourself hooked up with the right kind of mosques, the right kind of ulema, who tell you over and over again that, when you die in the cause of Islam, you will not really die, this is shihadah (ph), you will go directly to your reward. And it is a worthy thing to expect, and he believes that.

BLITZER: The African embassy bombings, fifth anniversary this past week, as Peter pointed out, the U.S. embassies. A lot of people were killed, obviously, including many Americans, in those bombings.

Are you confident right now, Skip, that the FBI and others have taken the kind of measures, have learned the lessons from what happened five years ago, to protect U.S. installations around the world, diplomatic installations around the world since then?

BRANDON: They know the lessons. The question is whether our installations are fully protected, and I think that we find that some of them remain relatively vulnerable. That's pretty sad.

BLITZER: It's in part a result of money that...


BRANDON: Absolutely, resources.

BLITZER: ... the State Department budget has not come up with the kind of resources to build new embassies, to move them off of main thoroughfares, where they might be easily targeted.

BRANDON: It's easy to talk the talk.

BLITZER: And more difficult to walk the walk?

LANG: Oh yes. And hotels, in particular, are very vulnerable overseas, because they have to receive guests, and they have to have a lobby. I remember the incident in which -- in the Semiramis Hotel in Cairo, 30-some tourists killed, lined up to register in the hotel.

BLITZER: This past week, we also got word that there -- the U.S. law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security is getting indications that terrorists are learning to use like cell phones, cameras, even remotely controlled keychains, to weaponize them, if you will, and get them on planes and can cause enormous damage.

It sounds like this is a serious problem.

BRANDON: It does. That's been there for a long time. The real experts have known for a long time that, just with a really small amount of explosives, you can bring down a plane. All you need is a bit of electric current and a detonator of some kind, and you can do it. I think this is a preemptive sort of thing that we're doing right now, is we're saying to the other side, we know you're out there, we're going to stop it.

BLITZER: We're going to take a look at all the stuff that you hand-carry on top of a plane.

Let's take a caller from Florida.

Go ahead, Florida.

CALLER: Yes. Here in the United States, are safeguards being taken to prevent privately owned planes from being used by terrorists to carry explosives or even biological weapons?

BLITZER: That's an excellent -- that's a good question. We know about the commercial, but the private jets, you can get on one of those pretty easily without going through much security.

BRANDON: That's been a tremendous area of vulnerability. The private jets, or the nonpassenger-carrying, even the commercial freight haulers, large jets that could be hijacked...

BLITZER: Why don't they bolster them? Why don't they beef that up?

BRANDON: It's a matter of resources and money. It's a matter of will, Wolf, it's a matter of will. I think we've gone halfway in some of these areas.

BLITZER: The whole notion of these color-coded charts, there's a report now from the Congressional Research Service that it's become so vague, the various colors, yellow and orange and red, that there's a question whether they even have any credibility, any authenticity.

What do you make of that?

LANG: I don't think the general public ought to pay any attention to it at all, to tell you the truth. It's an internal device in the government, for the federal government to make some indication to the states and people what, generally, they think the situation is like.

A lot of these things get attention in the press that don't deserve it, like the deck of cards in Iraq. I mean, this is a mnemonic device to give to soldiers, so they might recognize these pictures, in the belief that soldiers won't throw a deck of cards away, which they likely do with almost anything else.

And so, you know, this has gotten a big play, and it probably doesn't deserve it, I would...

BLITZER: All right. Unfortunately, we're out of time, but we're going to leave it right there.

Pat Lang, thanks very much. LANG: Sure.

BLITZER: Skip Brandon and Peter Bergen, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.

BERGEN: Thank you.

BLITZER: Up next, we'll get a quick check of the hour's top stories, including an address from a Liberian president, namely Charles Taylor, a day before his scheduled departure from office. We'll see if he'll actually leave.

Then, Kobe Bryant's day in court. We'll get perspective from both sides on this case from two prominent attorneys.

And there's still time to weigh in on our LATE EDITION Web question of the week: Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be California's next governor? Cast your vote right now at our Web site,\lateedition. We'll have the results shortly.

LATE EDITION will be right back.



JUDGE FREDERICK GANNETT: Mr. Bryant, you're entitled to a hearing, and you've requested a hearing. The rule requires that if you request, that hearing be held within 30 days. Any objection to that being waived?



BLITZER: Kobe Bryant in court this past week, where he appeared on a felony sexual assault charge.

Welcome back to LATE EDITION.

Joining us now to offer some legal insight into the developments of the past week are two guests: in Los Angeles, the famed criminal defense attorney, Roy Black; and in San Francisco, the assistant district attorney, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom.

It's good to have both of you on LATE EDITION.

And, Roy, let me begin with you. We saw the appearance -- all of us were, of course, watching -- in Eagle, Colorado, this past week.

What did you learn about this case based on those brief eight or 10 minutes in which we saw this court appearance unfold?

ROY BLACK, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I learned that it was a total waste of time, not only of ourselves who were watching, but all the news that were there. And it was amazing that the judge would not allow Kobe to waive his appearance, because the hearing was about two things: one, to advise him of the charges, and two, to advise him of his rights, both of which he well knew. And, of course, his lawyers waived it, so there was absolutely no reason for this hearing whatsoever.

BLITZER: And, indeed, Kimberly, even the prosecutors didn't demand that Kobe Bryant actually show up. It was the judge who insisted that he make that kind of appearance. Was the judge right?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE NEWSOM, SAN FRANSCISO ASSISTANT D.A.: I actually do agree with Judge Gannett in this case. I think it was important for Kobe Bryant to make that personal appearance, albeit it was a short appearance. I think it's important that he show up in court, that he's not treated differently than anyone else.

And Roy does make the point that the judge could have waived the appearance. I think, though, that it was important for the public for Kobe to be there to face the charges.

He certainly has had no problem making all sorts of other public appearances, except for the one that he should be at, which is in court to have these charges read to him.

BLACK: Wolf, to follow up on that, I would say I checked with friends of mine who practice criminal law in Colorado. They say in virtually every case where the defendant is from out of state, the judge allows a waiver and does not have to appear in person.

So what happened is they're leaning over backward and forcing him to show up because he's a celebrity, whereas nobody else would have to show up. And my analysis is that the circus can't go on without its star performer, and that's why they had him there.

NEWSOM: Well, it definitely wasn't...

BLITZER: That's a pretty serious charge, Kimberly, the fact that they're treating him differently because he's a celebrity.

NEWSOM: Well, I have to tell you, again, we are talking about felony sexual assault, a forcible rape crime here, which is amongst the most serious of criminal charges that he could be facing.

And particular in this case, I don't think -- I mean, yes, it was a circus atmosphere, but I don't think it was inappropriate for him to have appear given the nature of this charge. I think you would agree, Roy, it's a very serious charge.

BLACK: Sure, but he's out on bail. There was no reason to show up for a worthless hearing to advise him of his rights and the charges that he already knows of. That's the whole purpose of that hearing.

So at the end result, we learn nothing. There was nothing gained from it. All they did was to get more photo-ops of Kobe Bryant.

BLITZER: Were you surprised, Kimberly, when he showed up at that hearing without his wife Vanessa at his side? NEWSOM: I really was surprised, because we've seen from the beginning of this case her pledge of support, her personal statement that she issued professing her belief in her husband's innocence.

I think it is important, given the nature of the charge, that his wife stand by his side. I think it would have been good if she had appeared next to him.

Everybody there, we were all shocked when we were outside the courtroom and we saw that she did not arrive with him.

Although I know, on his behalf, he probably wants to spare his wife that kind of public spectacle and humiliation and distress, I think, that she would have felt appearing in that particular situation, so I can understand it.

BLITZER: We saw him walk into the courthouse with his attorney there, not his wife. Was that a surprise to you, Roy?

BLACK: Well, I was a little bit surprised, but it doesn't make any difference. If his wife came with him, people would be criticizing and saying, "Look, he's dragging his wife to court, and she's patting his hand and sitting next to him, and all that." If she doesn't show up, then, "Oh, he's been abandoned." It makes no difference what he does, someone's going to deconstruct it and criticize what happens.

It was perfectly normal what happened in that courtroom. We gained nothing from it, and I don't think we should put any great insight into this.

BLITZER: We did learn, Kimberly, that October 9th would be the day for a preliminary hearing for the prosecution to show they have evidence to continue to go forward to a full-scale trial, 60 days or so from now.

What do we expect to happen at that hearing? How long will it take? What will we learn then?

NEWSOM: Well, it's interesting because the Judge Gannett has indicated this hearing will start at 1:00, and he believes that it's only going to take half a day, with both sides, the prosecution and defense, agreeing that they can put their cases in in that amount of time.

So what that tells me is I wouldn't expect the victim to take the stand in this particular case, which I think is a disadvantage for the defense, because it would be great for them to be able to nail down her story so that they could impeach her with any inconsistencies when she testifies at trial, should her story differ in any major part.

But it sounds like this case is going to be under a tight rein by Judge Gannett, that he's not going to be very indulgent to continuances or delaying this particular case, especially given the nature of the charge. They take these cases very seriously in Colorado. BLITZER: And what did it say to you, the fact that October 9th is going this one day, Roy?

BLACK: Well, I'm somewhat surprised over that. But I'm guessing that all we're really going to do is hear from the police, and we're going to hear about the police investigation. It'll be mainly one- sided. It will really be the prosecution's case that you hear. And then the court will decide, is there enough evidence to send it to trial.

So I think there will be some very interesting facts that come out, but we will only really see the prosecution's side of the case.

BLITZER: And what can the defense do about that, if anything, Roy?

BLACK: Well, they can question the police officers, but it's going to be very difficult at this stage. The defense is not going to want to show its hand very much.

So what you really are going to see is a testing of what the police say occurred. And I don't think that we're really going to see the full scope of everything, either, from either side.

NEWSOM: Yes...

BLITZER: Why shouldn't the alleged victim, the accuser in this particular case, be forced to make an appearance on that one day, October 9th, Kimberly?

NEWSOM: Well, I mean, that's the state's right, to decide whether to call her or not. And in this particular case, if this case is going to proceed forward quickly, if she is going to continue to be cooperative and decide to push forward with these charges, I think it's better for the prosecution to keep her off the stand. I don't think she should have to be forced to give testimony in this particular case. The law does not provide that she is supposed to do that.

So, it's a smart move by the prosecution, again, if they can get this case moving forward and there isn't a delay and they actually proceed on October 9th.

BLITZER: Is there any way, Roy, that the defense attorneys can force her to make an appearance that day?

BLACK: I sort of doubt it. I don't think the judge will probably allow it. And the prosecution is going to want to save, as in most cases, their star witness for the trial. They're not going to get -- let the defense get a free shot at her and cross-examine her to bring out any details at all.

So, I'm not surprised that we will not see her at the preliminary hearing.

BLITZER: The rule of thumb in these kinds of matters, Roy, is that if the defendant is out of jail, out on bail, it's always in his or her best interest to delay, to stretch out any actual trial for as long as possible, to collect evidence or whatever, as opposed to if he were actually in jail.

Do you think Kobe Bryant's attorneys are going to try to delay and delay and delay?

BLACK: Well, you know, that's a very interesting question. At one time, that was the presumption. Today, not quite so much. And in this case, remember that the defense and the prosecution started their investigation about the same time, so it's not like the defense is way behind the prosecution.

However, I would tend to think time will help Kobe Bryant because it gives his defense more time to investigate this young lady, whereas we probably know virtually everything we need to know about Kobe Bryant.

So, I would guess that time is on the side of the defense.

BLITZER: What about that, Kimberly?

NEWSOM: Oh, I would definitely agree with it. And what we do see in these cases is age the case, that is what the defense will want to do. Because, think about it, this is a very tough situation for this young 19-year-old woman who's had all kinds of issues brought up under this intense media scrutiny suggesting she's emotionally unstable, et cetera.

And as the time goes on, I think it's going to become more difficult for her to sort of stay the course. And what you see in sexual assault and domestic violence cases is victims who recant, victims that then do not want to cooperate, and victims who -- you know, their memory witnesses, et cetera, are not as sharp as it gets closer to the event.

So, I definitely think it would be an advantage for them. But it will be interesting to see how they proceed in this case.

BLITZER: OK, let's take a caller from Texas.

Go ahead with your question.

CALLER: Yes, the question is, if Kobe is found innocent, what is his option against the alleged victim?

BLITZER: What about that, Roy?

BLACK: None. It is virtually impossible, when you're a defendant in a criminal case, to sue anybody, whether it's the state, the prosecutors, the police, the alleged victim. I mean, all he can do is, if he's found acquitted to try to go back and live his life. He's not going to have a prayer about suing anybody.

BLITZER: Kimberly, there was a new poll, a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, that showed a racial divide between African-Americans and white Americans, as far as the charges against Kobe Bryant are concerned. Among whites, 40 percent thought they were true; 24 percent among African-Americans. And as far as not true, 51 percent versus 68 percent.

Clearly this is a split here. Is this going to be a legal factor, the race issue, a black man accused by a white woman in this particular case?

NEWSOM: Well, that's an excellent question. I'm glad you brought it up, because, in fact, many have suggested, is this a basis that the defense can put into a motion for a change of venue, given the demographics and makeup of Eagle County?

It is not a basis for a change of venue. It is not appropriate for that, legally speaking. However it is something that will come up in this courtroom. There has been allegations of racial profiling by the Eagle County -- previous lawsuit that was in this particular county against people that were driving into town and drug trafficking, et cetera. And so, that's going to come up.

And I think there is kind of this feeling in the public that this does split along racial lines. You have an African-American, NBA superstar. You have a white female victim in this case. You have a county that does not have a large African-American population -- 0.3 percent.

So it's something that will definitely be a present in the courtroom, but it won't find its way into a legal motion for a change of venue.

BLITZER: All right, what about that, Roy?

BLACK: Oh, I agree with Kim's analysis of that. The problem is here that if there is an all-white jury, which there probably will be in a small town in Colorado, trying one of America's most famous black athlete celebrities, and if he's convicted by an all-white jury, you're going to see a real lack of acceptance of that verdict by the African-American population.

So, I think if the judge is smart here, he's going to try to do everything he can to get African-Americans on that jury, if possible.

BLITZER: Or to move it to, let's say, Denver, where there's a much bigger African-American population, Kimberly.

NEWSOM: Yes, and that's a good point again. He can bring in jurors. Just so you know, this case could be tried in Eagle County and they could bring jurors in from another county to just increase the veneer and the jury population, so they have a better chance of getting a fair cross-section, et cetera.

And, in particular, because this is such a small area -- I was there, I mean, it's a really small town. So, the fact that they may have trouble getting jurors that haven't been inundated with press reports -- and that is something that's important, that is proper for a change of venue -- is polling in that area to see if people have predispositions about Kobe's innocence or guilt in this case or relationships with the victim.

And if they can't find impartial, fair jurors in that area, they're going to have to move the case or pull jurors from outside in.

BLITZER: Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom, thanks very much for joining us.

Roy Black, as usual, appreciate your analysis.

BLACK: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: We hope to have both of you back.

NEWSOM: Thank you.

BLITZER: Up next, the results are in on our Web question of the week: Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be California's next governor? We'll tell you how you, our viewers, voted, when LATE EDITION continues.


BLITZER: And in our LATE EDITION Web question of the week, do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be California's next governor? We're getting the results. Look at this. 51 percent of you say yes, 49 percent of you say no. A reminder, this is not a scientific poll.

Just ahead, we'll take a look at what's on the cover of this week's major news magazines in the United States, plus Bruce Morton's essay.


BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's easy to win. Get enough people on the ballot -- and they're doing that -- and somebody could win with 10 percent of the vote.


BLITZER: The California recall, is it American democracy at its best?


BLITZER: And now Bruce Morton has the last word on the California recall and the lesson it sends around the world.


MORTON (voice-over): America is a democracy, of course, but usually the voters are a step away from the action. They elect representatives, and then, if they don't like what the representatives do, they throw them out and get new ones.

In California, though, they like direct democracy. So, the people voted one year to say it took a two-thirds majority of the legislature to raise property taxes. And they limited the number of terms you could serve so you wouldn't get too good at the job. And now, they're deciding whether to recall the governor they elected last year.

Well, why not? It is a two-part ballot. First, you vote yes or no on him; then you vote on who should replace him. And boy, do a lot of folks want to do that.

There's Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Terminator. There's Arianna Huffington, a columnist who used to hang out with Newt Gingrich but is now a progressive, whatever that is.

There's Angelyne, who appears on billboards in the Hollywood area, and Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine. He may have the best slogan: Vote for the smut peddler with a heart. Gary Coleman is running. Mickey Mouse is not running. I think he moved to Florida.

There's a guy who wants to persuade a thousand people to run. It only takes $3,500 and 65 signatures to qualify. He thinks that that many names would overload the ballot and make them call the whole thing off.

But maybe they wouldn't. And it's easy to win. Get enough people on the ballot -- and they're doing that -- and somebody could win with 10 percent of the vote.

And that's it; there's no run-off. They guy with the 10 percent is the new gov.

They're having the recall because people are mad at the governor because the state's in such a financial mess, but the recall will involve spending another $60 million or so. Nevermind, it's the California way.

I keep reading and hearing that we Americans are going to teach people in Iraq and Afghanistan about democracy because they don't have any experience with it and they need to learn how it works. I don't know who the teachers are, but I do have one suggestion about the course: Whatever you do, guys, don't tell them about California.

I'm Bruce Morton.


BLITZER: Thanks very much, Bruce.

Let's take a look at what's on the cover of this week's major news magazines here in the United States.

Time magazine features, you guessed it, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The actor-turned-gubernatorial-candidate is also on the cover of Newsweek.

U.S. News & World Report has this special double issue, "The Ultimate Consumer Survivor Guide." And that's your LATE EDITION for Sunday, August 10.

For our international viewers, stay tuned for world news.

Up next, for our North American audience, it's "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS," with profiles of Kobe Bryant and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Pretty good profiles, indeed.

That's followed at 3:00 p.m. Eastern by "IN THE MONEY," and at 4:00 p.m. Eastern the very latest news on "CNN LIVE SUNDAY."

Please be sure to join me again next Sunday, and every Sunday, at noon Eastern for the last word in Sunday talk.

I'm here Monday through Friday at both noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

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


Interview With Dennis Kucinich; Interview With Henry Kissinger>

On CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNN AvantGo CNNtext Ad info Preferences
   The Web     
Powered by
© 2005 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.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.