Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Interview With Brent Scowcroft; Bush Continues to Urge World Leaders to Get Tough on Hussein; Miami-Dade to Vote on Gay Rights

Aired September 09, 2002 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST: I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington. After famously questioning the current administration's Iraq's policy, does Bush 41's national security adviser think the White House now is on the right track? I'll have an exclusive interview with General Brent Scowcroft.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux at the White House. President Bush continues to urge world leaders to get tough on Saddam Hussein, but is he making any headway?

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington, where political calculations have changed in the year since the September 11 attacks, or have they?

JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm John Zarrella in Miami. When voters here cast their ballots tomorrow, will they push the gay rights movement backwards?

WOODRUFF: Thank you for joining us. Less than a week after President Bush began to more actively press his case against Saddam Hussein, the American people seem to be responding. Our new poll shows 58 percent of the public now say they favor sending U.S. troops to remove the Iraqi leader that. Now that is up from last month when support for such military action slipped to 53 percent amid heated political and international debate about attacking Iraq.

In private talks today, President Bush discussed the Iraqi threat with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. They met in Detroit to tout new boarder security measures, a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We realize, at least in our country, that we have become a battlefield and we've got to confront those threats. We have no choice but to confront the threats head on while we preserve the freedom and the openness of our societies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: Let's bring in our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux. Now, Suzanne, tell us if the president has been making any progress in his efforts to bring more American allies on board in this talk of going after Iraq. MALVEAUX: That's a very good question, Judy, a very good point because earlier today as you mentioned, President Bush met with the Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Really, the focus was homeland security, and of course reviewing some of these border safety initiatives since September 11.

But of course, really what was very important was the issue of Iraq. We have heard Chretien before be very vocal in his opposition, asking for evidence that Saddam Hussein is such a threat that it requires military action to oust him. The president engaged really in courting world leaders in his campaign to oust Saddam Hussein. There is really no indication that the president, after this talk, really swayed his opinion either way.

But the White House is saying the silver lining in all of this is that the focus now with these world leaders is looking at the issue of holding Saddam Hussein accountable to the agreements that he made ending the Gulf war, also holding the United Nations accountable to those agreements as well. The United Nations Security Council, those resolutions, saying that yes, Saddam Hussein must comply with these weapons inspections or face consequences.

What is also interesting as well is French President Jacques Chirac came up with his own idea, kind of a two-tiered resolution, U.N. resolution. The first phase of it saying that let's allow three weeks for Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections. If he does not comply, then we'll go ahead and pass another U.N. resolution calling for military action -- authorizing military action.

The White House was asked about that earlier today. White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer saying while that it is similar to what the administration is looking, at least a Security Council resolution that would hold Saddam Hussein accountable to a deadline and then perhaps he would be faced with some sort of punitive action, the White House also saying that they are going to reserve judgment.

What is good about this, he says is that this is really kind of, this budding movement that's coalescing of different world leaders who at least are calling -- paying attention to this, this -- discussing this very issue.

The president is not going to let up in the days to come. He was already on the phone today with leaders from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, as well as the European Union and of course that big speech on Thursday, before the U.N. General Assembly -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: All right. Suzanne, thanks very much.

MALVEAUX: Sure.

WOODRUFF: And now to another key figure in the administration's sales pitch on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney tells CNN that the U.S. has evidence that Saddam Hussein is working on a nuclear weapons program even as he has improved his biological weapons capability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to worry about the possibility that Saddam Hussein, for his own reasons, can use that growing capability on our friends and allies in the region, on U.S. forces in the region, or on the United States itself. We know he has this capability. We know he is developing it. We know he sits on top of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves.

He's got significant cash flow coming in to finance these acquisitions and procurement projects, and the world has sort of gotten relaxed about him, if you will, and a lot of people are doing business with him now and so we find ourselves in the situation where there is a growing threat. It needs to be addressed. It is not just a U.S. problem. It's also a problem for the United Nations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: In that interview with CNN's John King, Cheney once again questioned the value of sending United Nations weapons inspectors back to Iraq as some U.S. allies have proposed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: Based on the past history, I'm a skeptic. Inspectors were in there for seven years, and worked for seven years and then did a lot of good work. But they didn't get everything. And what we found was oftentimes, that even with a very robust and aggressive inspection regime, he was still able to go forward and hide some of these weapons capabilities that we were never able to account for.

So that's the concern. If you're going to have any kind of an inspection regime, it obviously needs to be better and more effective than the last one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOODRUFF: Cheney also warned of a, quote, "possible marriage between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda." He says President Bush is bound and determined to deal with the emerging threat from Iraq. And he says he hopes to have the support of the international community as he goes forward.

Well, the Bush administration's concerted public relations campaign on Iraq was launched after a number of prominent Republicans publicly questioned the president's approach. Particularly striking was an op-ed piece by Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser and close friend of the first President Bush. On the record today, General Scowcroft joins us now for his first interview since his article was published in the "Wall Street Journal" just about three weeks ago. General Scowcroft, thank you for being here.

BRENT SCOWCROFT, FMR. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Sure, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Have you heard anything in the last three weeks since your article appeared to dissuade you from your original argument that an attack on Iraq should take a back seat to the ongoing broader war on terrorism? SCOWCROFT: What I was trying to say is that we were in danger of getting our priorities mixed up. There is no question Saddam Hussein is an evil man. I have no problem with regime change. But there are other things that we have to do. For example, the president has said that the war on terrorism is our primary national objective. It was my sense that at the time I wrote the piece, that going after Saddam Hussein would severely damage our effectiveness in the war on terrorism.

WOODRUFF: You still feel that way?

SCOWCROFT: I feel much better now because I think the direction the president is taking I think is exactly the right direction, to reach out, to get our friends, to get our allies, to get the U.N. involved. That's exactly what I was trying to get across.

WOODRUFF: Well, I asked you about that because, you know, administration officials, Vice President Cheney is one in particular, have said that they disagree with your premise about Saddam Hussein not being connected to terrorist organizations. You made that point that there was no proof of a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Just yesterday, the vice president said on NBC on "Meet the Press," he said Saddam Hussein is connected to al Qaeda, if only because both of them want to drive the United States out of the Middle East and both of them want to strike the United States.

SCOWCROFT: Vice President Cheney is a very dear friend of mine. Not all my good friends are always right. I'm not even saying he is wrong. What I really am saying is that suppose there had been no 9/11 attack at all. Saddam Hussein would still be doing exactly what he is doing. He is not a problem for us because of terrorism. He is a problem because of his own objectives.

Both he and the terrorists don't like the United States. That may be the one thing they have in common. Saddam Hussein is after domination of either the oil, or the region of the middle east or both. And we're in his way. But if we backed out of his way, won't come after us. Al Qaeda would.

WOODRUFF: So when the administration says that they see Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, either directly or indirectly, you say?

SCOWCROFT: I say he may be a threat. He was a threat -- he was a threat to our interests in 1990 and we did something about it. He is a problem, but what I'm really saying is that the most important problem we face is the war on terrorism and we need friends and allies. We cannot win that war by ourselves.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about something else the vice president said yesterday, again on this "Meet the Press" interview. He said he and the president after 9/11 have to look at the real world, and I'm quoting him now. He said, "I think we probably see things differently than somebody who's sat in these positions and occupied them 10 years ago." That would include you, he said, "and hasn't seen all the intelligence that we've seen and isn't as sensitive as we are to the enormous consequences to the United States if Saddam Hussein or terrorists attack the United States with smallpox or anthrax or a nuclear weapon."

Are you less sensitive to these consequences?

SCOWCROFT: I don't know that I am because I don't know what I don't know. What I have seen and most of it is in the papers, and so on. I see Saddam doing the same thing he was doing in 1990. He was buying aluminum rods. He was buying things. He was trying to build centrifuges. He is still trying.

But in a decade, he hasn't succeeded. So I'm not saying don't go after him. I'm saying let's put it all in perspective and remember that when we go after him, we need to have the support of the world community behind us because we need that support for the war on terrorism.

WOODRUFF: Those are pretty stinging words from somebody who also calls himself a close friend of yours. In his saying, you may not take this as seriously as he and the president.

SCOWCROFT: I take it very seriously but not nearly as serious as what the president has said. Our number one priority is the war on terrorism. For that -- that, the cockpit of the war on terrorism is the Middle East and we've got to have the support of the nations there, if we are to win the war on terrorism.

WOODRUFF: You were the national security adviser for this President Bush's father, the former President George H. W. Bush. Does he agree with you about this?

SCOWCROFT: You will have to ask him. This is my own view, my own individual view...

WOODRUFF: You haven't talked to him about anything...

SCOWCROFT: No, I did not discuss whether or not I should go public with any of this. As a matter of fact, the op-ed got a lot of publicity. But I have been saying this in one form or another for a year. So it just happened to resonate this time. But it has nothing with the former president.

WOODRUFF: Do you know what his views are?

SCOWCROFT: It has nothing to do with the former president, and if I did know, I would not characterize it.

WOODRUFF: Former national security adviser, retired General Brent Scowcroft. It's very good to see you. Thank you for coming by. We appreciate it.

SCOWCROFT: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: With the anniversary of September 11 just two days away, we will turn next to chilling words of praise for the al Qaeda hijackers. Is it the voice of Osama bin Laden? We will look at the political changes since 9/11 and whether the White House really was supposed to have been a target that dreadful day.

Then it's onto election 2002 and a preview of a blockbuster primary day tomorrow. This is INSIDE POLITICS, the place for campaign news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: ... when these tapes were recorded and Al-Jazeera did not specify how the tapes were obtained.

A year ago this week what seemed unimaginable became all too real for every American. With the president on the road, Vice President Cheney and others in the White House were forced to make decisions designed to protect the country and maybe even the White House itself. Here now our senior White House correspondent, John King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The faces look up from the field where United Flight 93 came to a tragic yet heroic ending. Their slogan and story now legend.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They said a prayer. One guy said, "let's roll." They served something greater than themselves in life. I think this is going to be a defining moment in America's cultural history because we vividly got to see what it means to be a true and patriotic American.

KING: A year later, visitors still stream to the crash site and investigators believe, but cannot say for certain, the intended target of flight 93 was Washington, most likely the White House.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL), INTELLIGENCE CMTE VICE CHAIRMAN: Could it have been headed somewhere else? We don't know. Will we ever know might be the question.

KING: Flight 93 left Newark at 8:42 a.m., destination San Francisco. It had nearly reached Cleveland when it made an abrupt U- turn. At 9:56 someone on board transmitted a new destination, DCA, code for Washington's Reagan National Airport. The Pentagon was already in flames.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 108. We have a report of plane crash somewhere in the area of the Pentagon. We are trying to get further...

KING: Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta placed urgent calls to the CEO's of American and United.

NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: I called them to find out, Don, are all of your airplanes accounted for? Jim, are all your airplanes accounted for? They both said, no. We still have planes that are -- that we can't account for. KING: Then an urgent warning of another plane, another target.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the White House, report of a plane in bound to fox law engines (ph), 1, 9, 4 and 21. 3 and 2, battalion 6, rescue squad 1. Rescue squad 2, rescue squad 3, respond to White House, 1600 block of Pennsylvania avenue.

KING: The vice president was in a bunker deep beneath the White House.

JOSH BOLTEN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: A military aid came from the back room next to the bunker, came in and said to -- asked the vice president for authority to engage.

MINETA: And, then he said, do the orders still stand? And the vice president turned around and snapped, of course the order still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary? I was thinking, what's he talking about. Then I thought -- we're going to shoot the plane down.

BOLTEN: And there was a -- sort of a quiet moment around after that, as we are all -- all still in very professional mode, but everybody was aware of the gravity of what the vice president had just ordered.

KING (on camera): This makeshift memorial, an angel representing each of the passengers is a reminder those orders never had to be carried out. Some of the passengers decided to take matters into their own hands and struggled with the hijackers for control of the plane. A year later exactly what happened on board flight 93 remains unclear. But at 10:10 a.m. as the fighter jets closed in, the plane crashed here in the Pennsylvania countryside, killing everyone on board.

(voice-over): In the days immediately after the crash as investigators searched for clues, the FBI sent alerts to several European governments warning it had a quote credible source the terrorists might have been targeting one of three nuclear power plants, in flight 93's final flight path: Three Mile island, Peach Bottom and Oak Creek. But Washington was considered a more likely target. And then Abu Zubaydah, a key al Qaeda operative now in U.S. custody, told investigators flight 93 was supposed to slam the White House.

MINETA: They were after economic icon, military icon and a government icon. So the only thing missing at this point is the government icon.

KING: No survivors mean some questions might never have definitive answers.

SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D-FL), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: We have the wreckage and what you can learn from that. How much more about what took place on that flight that we will learn, I think is a question mark. KING: Their slogan is now a patriotic rallying cry and as America remembers a year later, senior White House officials recall the gnawing uncertainty when first told flight 93 had crashed.

CONDOLEEZAA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: For a few horrible minutes, we really didn't know whether that plane had come down by the hand of an American fighter pilot. It was then, very sad but quite gratifying to learn a little bit later that those passengers had driven it into the ground rather than hit another building in Washington.

KING: John King, CNN, Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: And a reminder, please stay with CNN throughout the day on Wednesday, as America remembers the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. Our coverage begins at 6:00 a.m. Eastern.

We hear a lot about how politics has changed since last September. But is there any way to know for sure? CNN's bill Schneider is with me now. Bill, how does a situation with politics compare now to what it was just before September 11?

SCHNEIDER: Well, go back to September 10, 2001. Democrats thought they had President Bush cornered. They were licking their chops. The economy was slipping and the deficit was climbing. And do you remember what the big debate was about? The lock box. Well, things have changed. Or have they?

The economy was the most important problem then. The economy is the most important problem to the American people now. And people's assessment of the economy has gotten worse. In July 2001, 71 percent of Americans said the nation's economy was in good shape according to a CNN-"TIME" poll. Now, only 48 percent say it's in good shape. Plus, the public now has a more favorable view of government than it did a year ago. For example, more people favored government regulation of business. The economy and the corporate scandals have created an agenda more favorable to Democrats.

WOODRUFF: Does that give Democrats the advantage in the mid terms coming up in November?

SCHNEIDER: Well, not so fast with that. Something else has changed over the past year. On September 10, 2001, President Bush had a job approval rating of 51 percent. Now, he is at 66. He's a lot stronger politically than he was on September 10 of last year, 15 points to be precise.

WOODRUFF: Does that mean anything though for the president's party?

SCHNEIDER: Actually it does. The image of the Republican Party has improved over the past year from 47 percent favorable in early September 2001 to 54 percent favorable in early September 2002. And that's because of the war. When asked which party will do a better job protecting the country from terrorism, the Republicans have a nearly 20-point advantage. Now what about Democrats image? No change at all. Right now, Republicans and Democrats have about equally favorable ratings. So in sum, two things changed over the past year. The agenda has shifted back to the economy and domestic problems, which ought to favor Democrats. But the war has enhanced the Republican's image and made them more competitive.

WOODRUFF: So you're not give me a straight answer. I may have to talk to you again between new and November 5.

SCHNEIDER: We don't know what's going to happen.

WOODRUFF: All right, Bill. Thanks. Stu Rothenberg joins me next to preview tomorrow's hot primary races. Also ahead, Miami voters prepare to consider an emotional issue that first made Florida headlines a quarter century ago.

But first, let's turn to Rhonda Schaffler. She's at the New York Stock Exchange for a market update. Hi, Rhonda.

RHONDA SCHAFFLER, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Judy. Stocks reversed course today around mid-afternoon and ended up logging strong gains for the session. However, trading activity light. Many investors staying on the sidelines amid fears about possible military action against Iraq and of course one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Wednesday. By the closing bell, all three major averages recouped early losses. The Dow up 92 points. The Nasdaq gained 9. Standard & Poor's up 9 as well.

On the Dow, Philip Morris was the big winner, recovering most of Friday's loss. But 3M, IBM, Procter & Gamble and Merck also were behind the Dow's advance. Financials saw a nice turn around despite some negative news out in the morning. JP Morgan cut its losses but still fell 32 cents after Merrill Lynch down graded that stock. American Express downgraded by Deutsche Bank today and Citigroup appointed a new head of its investment banking unit to restore confidence amid several government investigations.

Software and Internet stocks also rebounded from some early losses. And that is the latest from Wall Street. More INSIDE POLITICS after the break, including new poll numbers on the race for New York governor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Although it will likely be overshadowed by commemorations of September 11, tomorrow is essentially the super Tuesday of the 2002 primary season. Voters will cast ballots tomorrow in 12 states, most of them in the eastern United States and the District of Columbia. Stu Rothenberg of the "Rothenberg Political Report" is here to talk about some of these hot races tomorrow.

Stu, let's talk first about a couple of Senate races, starting out with North Carolina. You got an open seat with Jessie Helms' retirement. Most people assume Elizabeth Dole's going to win on the Republican side.

STUART ROTHENBERG, "ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT": Well, most people are right if they assume that she will win.

WOODRUFF: On the Democratic side?

ROTHENBERG: On the Democratic side, there's been a lot of talk about, there's a Dan Blue buzz, that he's the underdog candidate coming on. He certainly has a chance. He's the lone African-American in the race. His problem is this, that for Dan Blue to overtake Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff, White House chief of staff, the front runner in the race, actually Elaine Marshall, the secretary of state, an attractive candidate, has some particular appeal among women voters and in rural areas, she has to do pretty well among white rural voters in order to deny them from Erskine Bowles.

It's not clear that her campaign is strong enough. I think Erskine Bowles is clearly the favorite in the race. Don't lock -- don't put this in the safe and throw away the key for him. But if Dan Blue wins, it's going to be a big surprise.

WOODRUFF: All right, in other words, for Blue to win, he's got to have -- see Elaine Marshall doing well.

ROTHENBERG: Right. Blue must do well among African-American voters and white liberals, but he also needs Elaine Marshall to pull off some white voters from Erskine Bowles.

WOODRUFF: All right. Let's talk about the Senate race in New Hampshire, not an open seat but you got a Republican incumbent in Bob Smith who irritated a number of Republicans and now he finds himself with a serious opponent in John Sununu.

ROTHENBERG: And he is running an ad now to try to salve off that irritation to remind voters that, yes, he's a bit quirky and he's independent and he tells what he thinks. He tells -- he'll tell voters what he thinks regardless of how they take it really, but that he's the true blue conservative Republican in the race.

This has been a bit of a roller coaster, Judy. Sununu with a big lead. The race narrowed dramatically because Smith was attacking Sununu and Sununu was holding his fire, didn't have the money. Sununu started his attack a few weeks ago. It has opened the race. I am told -- I have talked to a number of different people. There are a number of different surveys floating around in New Hampshire. I'm led to believe that Sununu has a lead somewhere from a low of five or six points to as many as nine or 10.

The Smith people say turnout could be the difference. Even Sununu people are worried about turnout, a low turnout. I don't see how there could be a low turnout. There's a governor's primary. There's a Senate primary. There's a House race primary. I think Sununu is the clear favorite.

WOODRUFF: Speaking of Sununu, the House seat that he is giving up to run, what are you hearing about that, just quickly? ROTHENBERG: It's the 1st Congressional District. The Democrats need to win this kind of seat if they are going to take over the House. The question is who is going to be the Republican nominee. There are a couple of conservatives in the race. There's a more moderate Republican, Jeb Bradley, state legislator.

If he's wins, it's a bit after monkey wrench for the Democrats, who are hoping Martha Fuller Clark. The Republican race is up for grabs. It's too many candidates. Nobody is sure who is even in the race.

WOODRUFF: Finally, let's get down Florida, the big governor's race. Jeb Bush is the incumbent, but you've got a hot campaign on the Democratic side: Janet Reno, Bill McBride. What are you hearing?

ROTHENBERG: The conventional wisdom is clear: that Janet Reno has had no money; she's been overcome by McBride's TV commercials. I have heard talk from some Florida insiders that maybe that is not the case.

Again, this is a question of turnout. Reno will do extremely well in the southeastern corner of the state: Dade, Broward County, West Palm. On the other hand, McBride is focusing on Central Florida and Northern Florida. I think right now the conventional wisdom is with McBride. But this race could be interesting.

WOODRUFF: Well, they are all interesting to us. They're all interesting.

ROTHENBERG: We try to make them interesting, don't we?

(LAUGHTER)

WOODRUFF: All right, Stu, thanks very much.

ROTHENBERG: Thanks. Thanks.

WOODRUFF: We'll see you again in a couple of days.

Well, tomorrow's voters in the Miami area will face this question: Should a measure protecting homosexuals from discrimination be repealed?

CNN's John Zarrella reports on the emotional battle leading up to the vote and some of the history behind it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZARRELLA (voice-over): They are taking no chances in a fight against people they call radical religious extremists.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our job here today is to beat the right wing into submission. Who is with me?

ZARRELLA: SAVE Dade, a gay and lesbian political coalition, has put together a well-organized campaign. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On September 10, there is only one way to keep discrimination out of Miami.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Paul. I'm calling from No to Discrimination.

ZARRELLA: At issue: a move to repeal a 4-year-old ordinance in Miami-Dade County that protects gays from discrimination in housing and employment.

DARREL CUMMINGS, NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE: What we are trying to do here is make the argument that the gay and lesbian community is entitled to the same basic civil rights that everybody else is in the country. And I think we are winning with that message.

ZARRELLA: Those who want the ordinance repealed believe the message ought to be that gays and lesbians want and the ordinance gives them unnecessary special treatment.

ELADIO ARNESTO, TAKE BACK MIAMI-DADE: Our position from day one has consistently been that no one, absolutely no one should receive special protection on the basis of their private sexual behavior, preferences or conduct.

ZARRELLA: Aside from a news conference or two since they got the issue on the ballot, conservative religious groups under the umbrella name Take Back Miami-Dade have done very little campaigning. Support from businesses and politicians has been virtually nonexistent.

In an area dependent upon tourism and, in no small part, gay tourists, community leaders don't want any perception of intolerance.

DARIO MORENO, DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN CENTER: I think Miami has gotten so many black eyes in the last five or 10 years that there is a feeling in the business community that Miami has to show itself as a place of diversity and a place of tolerance.

ZARRELLA: It hasn't always been that way: 25 years ago, singer, beauty queen and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant squeezed out a victory that overturned one of the nation's first gay rights ordinances.

ANITA BRYANT: I believe that, more than ever before, that there are evil forces 'round about us.

ZARRELLA: What happens this time is seen as pivotal.

(on camera): The outcome could determine whether conservative groups in other communities are emboldened to challenge anti- discrimination ordinances that are based on sexual preference.

John Zarrella, CNN, Miami. (END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Well, our primary preview continues when we return. Believe it or not, our Bob Novak has found an angle to the New York primary that has slipped below the radar.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Checking the headlines in our "Campaign News Daily" now: California Republican Bill Simon keeps running into unexpected distractions in his race for governor. A recent poll found Simon trails incumbent Gray Davis by seven points. But it also shows Simon's former Republican opponent Richard Riordan would defeat Governor Davis. When asked if he would consider a write-in campaign, Riordan told the San Francisco chronicle -- quote -- "It's in the back of my mind, but I'm not taking it seriously " -- end quote.

Meantime, the online auction site eBay is threatening legal action against the Simon campaign over a parody Web site. The site, called eGray, is based on Simon's frequent complaint that Davis helps out big donors with political favors. The eBay and eGray sites look very similar at first glance. EBay officials says the parody site may violate company trademarks.

In New York, Democrat Carl McCall appears to have made some headway in a matchup with Governor George Pataki. A new Marist College survey finds Pataki still holds a 15-point lead over McCall. Back in May, the polls showed Pataki with a 30-point lead. The survey was taken for three days, beginning last Tuesday, when Democrat Andrew Cuomo dropped out of the race.

McCall also could be reaping the benefits of more than $20 million in negative ads targeting Pataki paid for by potential third- party candidate Tom Golisano.

Speaking of Tom Golisano, Bob Novak is here with some "Inside Buzz."

Is there some angle on this New York race that we haven't been paying enough attention to?

ROBERT NOVAK, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, there's a primary election in New York nobody is paying any attention to, since Andrew Cuomo dropped out the Democratic primary. And that is the nomination for the Independence Party. It has Governor Pataki against Tom Golisano, the self-financed multimillionaire.

A private poll shows it's dead-even. The Democrats are desperate for Golisano to get on the ballot and take some of the conservative vote away from Pataki. Now, there is one other way he can get on the ballot. Cuomo is the liberal party nominee. If he drops out, will Golisano, a conservative, be the liberal nominee? Only in New York.

WOODRUFF: Stranger things have happened.

All right, back here in Washington, what are you hearing about Congress hanging around after the November election?

NOVAK: They call that a lame-duck session, after the people have -- a new election has happened, haven't had one in years. There is no way Congress can finish its work in time to quit before the election. Everybody says it's inevitable that they will have a lame-duck session, even though everybody hates it.

But listen to this. What if Democrats win control of the House in the election and the Republican-controlled House is in the lame- duck session? I am told that session would last about 35 seconds. They would pass a continuing resolution to keep the government going and then go home until January.

WOODRUFF: We would still be covering it.

All right, still with the Congress: Republicans disagreeing among themselves over what to do about spending?

NOVAK: House Republicans have shown a lot of tension on a lot of issues recently. Now it's on this HHS labor appropriations bill. The appropriators say that the president is asking for too little. The conservatives are supporting the president. And there was a quote in "CQ" today, "CQ Daily," where the chairman of Appropriations Committee, Bill Young, said, "What I would do, if I were speaker, I would bring the bill on the floor and just let anybody vote on anything."

You know, Judy, there was a day, if the Appropriations Committee repudiated the speaker -- the Appropriations Committee chairman repudiated the speaker, he was in big trouble. But I guess can you get away with that today.

WOODRUFF: We'll find out.

Finally, you're on the fund-raising hunt. What did you find out about what is going on?

NOVAK: This is the fund-raising season in Washington. All the candidates come in. And looking over the invitations, I only find one fund-raiser that President George W. Bush is going to be at. It's next Thursday at the Willard Hotel for John Thune, congressman of South Dakota, running against Democrat Tim Johnson.

He was talked into running in this race by President Bush. And he is running no better than even. So President Bush is showing up for it. And, Judy, if you want a picture with the president, you go to the Willard Hotel next Thursday, pay $5,000 -- only $5,000 -- for the Thune campaign and you get your picture taken with George W. Bush.

WOODRUFF: A lot of people have had to pay a lot more than that to have their picture taken with the president. Are you going to be standing in line?

NOVAK: It's a bargain.

(LAUGHTER)

WOODRUFF: We want to see if you are out there standing in line at the Willard.

Bob, thanks very much.

All right, now let's revisit the question: Will Vice President Cheney be on the ticket with George Bush in 2004? Well, Cheney recently said he ]would be happy to run again if he got the go-ahead from his wife and, of course, from the president himself. Well, has either of those key figures gotten back to him on the subject of a second term?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Neither one of them has said a word to me since about this issue.

KING: Is that good or bad?

CHENEY: No, it's the president's call, obviously. And I have enjoyed immensely working with him. It has been a real privilege to serve in this administration in this capacity. And, at the appropriate time, I'm sure, leading up to 2004 election, he will decide who he wants to have as his running mate next time around. And that's his call to make. And I will be happy to support whatever he decides.

KING: And you don't read anything into the fact that neither he nor your wife have said anything about it?

CHENEY: No, I don't, not yet.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: Spoken in all modesty. That was, of course, John King's interview with the vice president a little while ago.

America one year later: Jeff Greenfield joins me when we return with a look at what has changed and what remains the same a year after the terror attacks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Jeff Greenfield is with me now. He has some thoughts on how Americans reacted to last year's attacks and how we live our lives now -- Jeff.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Yes, well, we all said it in those first days, Judy, in fact, in the very first hours after that first attack on America soil since 1812, the worse attack ever: "This will change everything. We will wake up in a different country."

Well, how does that prediction look now? Well, one of the striking facts, I think, is that, while September 11 will always be one of the most grimly memorable dates in our history, much of our country looks and feels as if nothing has changed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Yes, of course, there is a lot more security at airports, porous though it may be. And the signs of increased vigilance are apparent elsewhere.

There are new offices and perhaps eventually a big new government agency. And the people in charge of law enforcement and defense are a lot more visible. And the United States waged a swift, effective conquest of faraway Afghanistan, though stability there is far from secure.

But consider what has not changed, especially compared to the last great challenge to America. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, American men were already subject to a peacetime draft. There hasn't been a draft in America for three decades. And there is no real sign of any rush of volunteers signing up.

Even if you weren't one of the millions in the armed forces back in World War II, you felt that war's impact. Women, by the millions, went to work in factories. Senior citizens joined civil defense patrols, enforcing blackouts. Kids collected paper and tin cans for a war drive.

Today, the great majority of women are already in the work force. And there is apparently no home front work for civilians to do. In World War II, gasoline was strictly rationed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, it's an A card. Three gallons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREENFIELD: Most civilians got only a few gallons a week. And just about every food stuff -- milk, meat, even sliced bread -- was rationed.

Today, for all our dependence on Middle East oil, political considerations govern. No drilling in the Alaska preserve, say environmentalists. No new laws to jack up fuel efficiency, say senators and congressmen from auto-producing states. In fact, SUVs are still exempt from existing laws. As for food rationing, well, not exactly. Back in World War II, as with most past wars, taxes went up. The top official rate was more than 90 percent.

Today, the big debate is whether to keep or increase the tax cuts that are set to stretch out over the next decade. And when it comes to this fall's election, today's "Wall Street Journal" reports that homegrown concerns -- the economy and education -- far outstrip concern over terrorism as a voting issue.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, of course, you cannot draw parallels to World War II. There are no nation states to fight, like Japan or Germany. Even a war against Iraq would not involve a huge Army of draftees. And it may well be that today's society, today's economy just demands very different policies.

But that is just another reason why there is this striking contradiction one year later between the massive, overwhelming media commemorations that will define September 11 as a day that changed history and a country that really doesn't feel that much changed at all -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: A lot to think about. My mother was one of those who went to work in a factory in World War II.

GREENFIELD: It changing everything.

WOODRUFF: Nothing like that today.

GREENFIELD: No. It changed everything, World War II. And this is -- we are not there. And maybe we shouldn't be. But the idea that we are all in this together, you can't prove that by what's going on.

WOODRUFF: All right, Jeff, good to see you in Washington.

Portraits of September 11 are coming up next, with a look at a photo exhibit that captures the urgency, the fear and the devastation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: The images of September 11 we know are seared in our memories. But a year later, many of us find some value in looking again at photographs of that day as part of our search for understanding and comfort and closure.

Here now: our national correspondent Bruce Morton.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It started in a SoHo storefront. By now, the pictures, maybe 1,000 of them, have traveled to several cities, been digitally reproduced, sold, nonprofit, have come to Washington's Corcoran Gallery, and will shortly be on the Ellipse.

It's called, "Here is New York: A Democracy of Photographs." And it's just that: black and white and color, amateur and professional, all here.

CHARLES TRAUB, EXHIBIT ORGANIZER: Everybody was approaching these pictures with the same kind of sense of tragedy and sense of horror and sense of togetherness. And that was very powerful and something people needed to be together about.

MORTON: The pictures are well- and badly-shot. And maybe that doesn't matter. Some of them will break your heart.

TRAUB: I think these pictures have become metaphors for horrible things that are happening everywhere. And so, even though these are pictures that clearly are rooted in a specific place and a specific time, they are principally about people and their emotions. And, so, therefore, they can stand for people everywhere.

They're symbolic of all tragedies, of all urban disasters, of one man's inhumanity to man. It's not just New York. It is: Here is the world. Here is what dumb thinking can create in our own and everyone else's involved.

MORTON: For this Washington showing, they have added pictures of the attack on the Pentagon, but New York is the focus. The show's title, "Here is New York," comes from an essay the late E.B. White wrote in 1949.

American atom bombs had struck two Japanese cities, and in World War II. And White wrote that now his "city, for the first time in its history, is destructible. A single flight of planes no bigger than a wedge of geese can quickly end this island fantasy." The intimation of mortality is part of New York now in the sound of jets overhead, especially New York, White wrote, "because, of all targets, it has a certain clear priority in the mind of whatever perverted dreamer might loose the lightning."

White was right, of course. But he also wrote about his city's toughness. New Yorkers, he wrote, "meet confusion and congestion with patience and grit. The city makes up for its hazards by supplying its citizens with massive doses of a supplementary vitamin, the sense of belonging to something unique, cosmopolitan, mighty and unparalleled."

Right again, Mr. White. New York suffered and bled and mourned and lives.

Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOODRUFF: We will always be drawn to those pictures.

I will be back in a moment, but now let's take a look at what's coming up on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" -- hi, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS": Hi, Judy.

Coming up at the top of the hour: Almost a year after September 11, al Qaeda comes up with an anniversary message. What does it mean? Also, target Saddam: Has the buildup begun where the U.S. military stands right now? Plus: an angry sky out West and what has forecasters watching out in the East.

Those stories, much more at the top of the hour, right after INSIDE POLITICS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOODRUFF: Looking ahead to what's in the works for tomorrow's INSIDE POLITICS: Jeff Greenfield takes a look at the decreasing value of name recognition, why some of the best-known candidates have struggled in this year's primaries.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS today. "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" is next.

We thank you for joining us. I'm Judy Woodruff.

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