Skip to main content


Return to Transcripts main page


What's the Plan?; The Hunt for Bin Laden; Al-Jazeera English; Anchoring al-Jazeera English; The Prosecution doesn't Rest; O.J. Controversy; Happy Genes?

Aired November 15, 2006 - 23:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Trying to find a way out of Iraq, trying not to lose Iraq. Voters said they want change, and today lawmakers were demanding answers from one of the men in charge.
ANNOUNCER: The top U.S. general in Iraq weighs in.


GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are.


ANNOUNCER: He says that's not the same as staying the course. Tell that to him.


SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I am of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition.


ANNOUNCER: The most wanted man in the world.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is Osama bin Laden?


ANNOUNCER: Democrats campaigned on that question. Now the ball is in their court. So what's their plan?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.


ANNOUNCER: That was then, this is now. Why some say a new book by O.J. Simpson is really a confession disguised as fiction. Across the country and around the world, this is ANDERSON COOPER 360. Reporting tonight from the CNN studios in New York, here is Anderson Cooper.

COOPER: We're going to have an exclusive interview with Simpson Prosecutor Christopher Darden, coming up later in this hour.

But we begin, of course, with Iraq. A country just four to six months away from collapsing. That, according to General John Abizaid, the commander of CENCOM. He issued his warning at a Senate hearing today. Members of the Armed Services Committee, including two possible presidential candidates grilled him on what to do about it. A lot of Democrats want a timetable for getting out. Some Republicans want to send more troops. Few in either party seemed pleased with what they heard today.

Here is the general and the Senators in their own words.


GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Do we need more troops? And my answer is yes, we need more troops that are effective, that are Iraqi.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Do we need more American troops at the moment to quell the violence?

ABIZAID: No, I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem.

GRAHAM: Do we need less American troops?

ABIZAID: I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are. We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress that we are making is acceptable. I think that most Americans do not.

ABIZAID: Well, Senator, I agree with you. The status quo is not acceptable. And I don't believe what I am saying here today is the status quo.

I am saying that we must significantly increase our ability to help the Iraqi army by putting more American troops with Iraqi units in military transition teams to speed the amount of training that is done.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: Hope is not a strategy. Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I mean, I have heard over and over again the government must do this. The Iraqi army must do that. Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it is not happening.

ABIZAID: I would also say that despair is not a method. And when I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I am in Iraq, with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: At some point we have to ask ourselves the question, do they have it in them to forge one country in a common destiny, or is that beyond their capabilities?

ABIZAID: Let me answer that. I have been dealing with the Iraqis for a long time. Yes, they have it in them. They can forge one country. They are fighting and dying for their country. They can overcome these problems, but it is not an easy thing to do.


COOPER: Well, that was one some of the testimony today. It is only getting tougher for them and for us.

We learned today of six more American fatalities; 55 more bodies discovered in Baghdad, all of them riddled with bullets. And that bizarre mass kidnapping yesterday.

Earlier tonight, I talked about the chaos and the American options from here on out with Michael Gordon, "New York Times" chief military correspondent, and co-author of "Cobra II," a fascinating book, the inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.


COOPER: Michael, your take on today's developments?

MICHAEL GORDON, CHIEF MILITARY CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think General Abizaid pretty much told it the way it is in Iraq, which is -- I was there last month.

And while politicians in the United States would like to see a withdrawal of forces, particularly on the Democratic side, that's simply not realistic, given how precarious the security situation is at this point in time.

COOPER: So, you're not hearing from anyone on the military side that they think any kind of drawdown or phased withdrawal, or you know, you can call it whatever you want -- John Murtha talks about redeploying troops outside Iraq, keeping them in the region to respond to terror attacks that happen in the country.

On the military side, from the folks you talk to, you're not hearing any support for any of that?

GORDON: Well, I think -- I was in Al-Anbar Province in western Iraq in July. And there, we simply don't have enough forces to really contest al Qaeda.

And in Baghdad, it's the American military that really is the primary guarantor of security. Unfortunately, the Iraqi security forces aren't adequately doing the job. So it's just the American military that stands between Iraq and civil war at this point.

COOPER: Well...

GORDON: And in that context, you can't withdraw a lot of troops.

COOPER: Why aren't the Iraqi military standing up? I know you were embedded with Iraqi troops. I have gone out on patrol with Iraqi troops. Why aren't they doing better?

GORDON: It's not a question of numbers. At the Pentagon, they trot out all these figures. There are 115,000 troops, with all their equipment. But the problem is, a lot of them, these forces, were developed locally. Some of -- a number of battalions refused to deploy to Baghdad when ordered to do so. They have gone AWOL.

COOPER: But, Michael, you know, there are a lot of folks who say, and a lot of Democrats who are saying right now, look, everything we have done so far doesn't seem to be working.

Why not tell the Iraqis, look, we're going to be withdrawing in six months, or phasing down, or you know, redeploying troops, and force them to stand up, force them to do something that they're not doing. In your opinion, from what -- the people you have talked to, is there something the Iraqis politically, the government of Maliki, could be doing that they're not doing?

GORDON: Well, there's a lot they could be doing.

First of all, they have to overhaul their security forces. They could be engaging in reconstruction projects in Baghdad, which they're not adequately doing. They could be engaging in political reconciliation. That's well-known.

But this notion that the United States can pressure the Iraqi government into doing these things by threatening to withdraw or by beginning to withdraw, as Senator Levin has proposed, I think, would not work.

And that's because there are a significant number of players in Baghdad today who don't mind if the Americans withdraw. These are the militia leaders. They would be happy if the United States withdrew, because then they can go and carry out their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunnis.

I think General Abizaid laid out a course. He wants to kind of give it one last real try -- and he didn't put it that way, but that's kind of what it comes down to -- to really improve the Iraqi security forces with a stepped-up training and advising effort.

COOPER: But, you know, to a lot of people -- and I think it was Senator McCain who said it today -- that just sounds like status quo, whether -- whether you call it status quo on steroids, as some have, but it sounds like stay the course.

GORDON: Well, I think General Abizaid is in a little bit of a difficult position. I think what he's trying to do is work with what he has. There are not a lot of American forces to deploy in Iraq. Our military is simply too small for that. And so that's not a big option. Withdrawing is not a good option. What does he have left? Improving the Iraqi security forces, so that's what he's going with.

COOPER: Well, difficult days ahead, no matter what the plan is.

Michael, appreciate it. Appreciate your writing. Thank you very much, Michael Gordon, from "The New York Times."


COOPER: Well, before Iraq can be truly stable, it must be able to protect itself. Here's the raw data. As of November 1, Iraq's police force consisted of about 152,000 trained and equipped personnel. That's separate from the military. The Ministry of Defense lists an operational force of more than 131,000. And according to the U.S. State Department, another 144,000 security personnel are disbursed throughout 27 other Iraqi ministries. Of course, numbers don't really tell the real story.

Iraq may have dominated the campaign for Democrats this time around, but so did the notion that the war is diverting resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The question now, now that they've won control of the legislative branches -- what can they do about that?

A report from CNN's Brian Todd.


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's eluded capture through one U.S. presidential campaign and two midterm elections. During this last cycle, Democrats were all too eager to take political advantage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where's Osama bin Laden?

TODD: Now that they're about to assume power in Congress, that question turns right around. What's the Democrats' plan to get Osama bin Laden?

SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I would want to talk to our commanders about whether or not additional forces, including special ops forces, would be helpful.

TODD: The incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee hits on a key Democratic talking point during the campaign. A call for doubling the size of U.S. Special Forces. Would that pin down bin Laden?

Former CIA Officer Gary Berntsen was at the battle of Tora Bora in 2001. His book, "Jawbreaker," recounts how bin Laden narrowly escaped the grasp of U.S. and Afghan forces. Berntsen says Special Op teams are only one component of a hunt like this.

GARY BERNTSEN, FORMER CIA OFFICER: It's about the intelligence collections, it's about identifying him. And once he's identified, the military operation can take place. But we've got to find him first. And that's not the job of Special Forces.

TODD: That's the job Berntsen says of intelligence agents. From the U.S. and other countries, and local informants. And if as many terrorism experts believe bin Laden is in Pakistan, that presents a different political problem.

The Pakistani government is in a tough spot. Domestically, it can't allow U.S. Special Forces to operate inside its borders. Though sources on the ground say it happens.

Another Democratic talking point, increase America's human intelligence capabilities.

When I asked aides to key Democratic leaders for more specifics on than, they said they couldn't provide them yet. So I asked CNN National Security Advisor John McLaughlin, a former deputy CIA director.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We should be doing more of what the intelligence community is now doing, that is hiring increasing numbers of case officers, the people who do this work, looking for people who have languages and ethnic backgrounds that allow them to blend in overseas in difficult environments.

TODD: McLaughlin says it's too simple to say the U.S. needs more Special Forces and better human intelligence.

(On camera): To find someone like bin Laden, McLaughlin says a lot of things have to come into alignment -- the skill of your case officers, the access of your sources. And frankly, he says, some luck, that one tip that can lead to a big capture.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.


COOPER: Well, straight ahead, we will look at Osama bin Laden and why some are saying capturing him may not be as important as it once, why he might not matter as much in the global Jihadist movement. Coming up, we'll talk with some experts about that.

Also, some the original incarnation fuels Islamic hatred. But what about the new English language version of al-Jazeera? We'll hear from the cable network's top anchor.

And later, O.J. Simpson's new book, "If I Did It." What do you think? We'll be taking your calls and we'll talk to Prosecutor Christopher Darden. All that and more, still to come on 360.


COOPER: Earlier, we looked at what Democrats plan to do about tracking down Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda henchmen. But what if it really isn't as important to get bin Laden anymore? That's the bottom line of a new study out of West Point.

That's not all it says, of course, not by a long shot.

CNN's Tom Foreman, now on terrorism. With fewer commanders, but thanks to the Internet, potentially a whole lot more angry soldiers. Take a look.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): For five years, Osama bin Laden has been on the run from international forces. Yet now, a group of U.S. researchers says his ideological influence also appears to be running out.

A new study from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point suggests bin Laden and his top deputy are growing less and less important to radical Muslims, calling for worldwide jihad, or holy war against non-Muslims. It says bluntly, "They have little or no influence on Jihadi thinkers."

The study says the new philosophers for the Jihadist movement are Islamic clerics in Jordan, Egypt, England and Saudi Arabia, who use the Internet to spread their message of violent struggle against non- believers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They themselves might not be picking up a gun or conducting terrorist attacks, but they do lay out the justification for why you might use violence to achieve these particular...

FOREMAN (on camera): And that really matters to some of these young terrorists?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure. To some of the young terrorists and to some of the older terrorists as well. You're always -- it seems like, at least, there is a sort of internal debate over why are we doing what we're doing and who are we.

FOREMAN (voice-over): It may be a natural progression. As bin Laden's old al Qaeda network, once based in Afghanistan, has been hammered by international military forces, it has been replaced by smaller, like-minded cells around the globe.

Analysts say they operate independently and may be harder to track, but still share a common vision for an Islamic world ruled by strictly Islamic governments. And they look to clerics to validate their plans.

FOREMAN (on camera): The report suggests that could be a weak point. If more influential clerics speak out against violent jihad, as some have, they could undermine the terrorist movement.

(Voice-over): Capturing bin Laden would still be symbolically important. But according to this report, for the next generation of Islamic militants, it probably would have little or no impact on the movement's future.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington. (END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, one of the report's authors, William McCants is with us tonight, along with Gary Berntsen, former CIA officer and recent author of the gripping bestseller, "Jawbreaker: The Attack on bin Laden and al Qaeda." If you haven't read it, you should. It is a great read.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks for being with us.

Let's talk about your study. Bin Laden, not as important as a lot of people think, why?

WILLIAM MCCANTS, COMBATING TERRORISM CENTER AT WEST POINT: Well, al Qaeda is part of a larger religious movement that's been building over several decades since the 1920s.

COOPER: And that's cellivism?

MCCANTS: It is cellivism. It's Sunni Puritanism. It's an effort to get back to the original sources of Islam, and reinterpret it in a very conservative way.

COOPER: So, al Qaeda is just one group in among other groups that are out there?

MCCANTS: In a wider religious movement, yes.

COOPER: And those other groups are important, why? Ideologically?

MCCANTS: They are important. There are significant differences between them as well. And bin Laden has captured the world's attention for a period of time, but there are a number of thinkers who've had much greater impact on the movement intellectually. And their impact and influence will rise with the growing importance of the Internet in disseminating the ideology.

COOPER: And Gary, you kind of disagree in some ways. You say, look, of course bin Laden is important, that all these people who have ended up actually attacking Americans, killing people around the world, have been trained by al Qaeda?

GARY BERNTSEN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: In camps. They haven't been trained by the Internet. The Internet puts the voice out there. It sends the message. And sometimes it can lead people to go to training. But clandestine operations have to be taught. Whether they're taught to intelligence officers or to terrorists. They need -- you know, they'll lead to go to camps, and he's provided the camps. He's provided the format to train and to lead. Leadership is critical. And you don't get that leadership over the Internet.

COOPER: But you say, the power of the Internet is important to focus on. Why?

MCCANTS: Absolutely. Well, I mean, looking at the operational size is important. But that's putting you much more on a reactive footing. If you're focused on the ideologues and what the religious foundations they are laying for this movement, the strategic direction they are giving, you will be able to anticipate where the movement is going to go and then come up with ways to block it.

COOPER: Another book that we were discussing before we came on is, "The Looming Tower," which I think is just a remarkable book. And it's something I urge a lot of readers to pick up in a bookstore.

One of the things it sort of paints a picture of -- and I think your study kind of gets at this as well, is that it does seem in the last couple of years we have painted with a very broad brush the Jihadist movement.

And there are real differences among them that are opportunities for exploitation. Do you think that's true?

BERNTSEN: Look, there is some exploitation that can be achieved when you understand those differences. The best thing we can do is have good policy in the Middle East, have clear policy.

And we've had problems with executing this. If you just look at Iran, we've not had a policy to remove the government, and we won't put diplomats on the ground. We should do one thing or the other. And we haven't had a policy.

So, you know, we need solid diplomacy in the Middle East. This will make a big difference.

COOPER: You do hear that a lot when you travel in the Middle East. People say, look, I don't hate the American people, I hate your policies. Is policy enough? Or is that not what you think?

MCCANTS: It's important. It will help in terms of lowering the recruitment. But, I mean, if you look back in the '90s when the Oslo Accords were in effect, and there was a great deal of movement on the Palestinian issue which is the festering wound in the Middle East, that is when bin Laden and al Qaeda was really getting started up and turning its focus on the United States. So even if you have policy improvements, it's not going to take the wind out of the sails of the Jihadis.

COOPER: What do you want -- what's the bottom line? What do you want people at home to know that you've learned from this study?

MCCANTS: Well, that al Qaeda is part of a larger religious movement. This movement has been growing in strength over several decades. And it's important to understand the different constituencies that Jihadis are seeking to reach, not only their core base, but also the wider Muslims. And to also focus on the leaders who are effective in turning off their influence.

BERNTSEN: We need to look around Iraq. And I agree that this movement is huge. It's a wider threat. And then, whether we win or lose in Iraq, it won't matter in the sense that they'll be going to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, you know, the countries around Iraq. It's going to spread. We need to be thinking about what is the next stage? How do we defend our other allies in the region? We need to start doing that today, not later.

COOPER: Where can more people read about your study? Do you know?

MCCANTS: It's up on the Combating Terrorism Center's Web site.

COOPER: Would you know what that Web site is?


COOPER: All right, cool. We'll try to put that on our Web site as well, a link to it.

William McCants, appreciate it. Thank you very much. It's a fascinating study.

Gary Berntsen, it's always good to talk to you.

The Arab news network, al-Jazeera, was the first to broadcast messages from Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. Now, it has a new sister network, al-Jazeera English. Coming up, did it launch today -- well, it launched today. Did it live up to all the hype leading up to it? We'll take a look. And will the new network be able to step out of its controversial sibling shadow? We'll talk to their lead anchor.

Plus, the new media circus that O.J. Simpson has set off. Christopher Darden, one of the prosecutors in the Simpson murder trial, weighs in. And we're also going to take your calls with Jeff Toobin and Lisa Bloom and Dr. Kobilinsky, for forensic advice. A 360 exclusive. Stay tuned.


COOPER: Well, the controversial Arab news network, al-Jazeera, has been broadcasting for a decade now. And in that time, it has made plenty of enemies in the West.

It was the first network to air messages from Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, and has drawn some pretty fierce criticism for showing footage of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Now, another provocative move today, it launched a sister, 24- hour news channel, called al-Jazeera English. Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome to al-Jazeera.

COOPER (voice-over): From its headquarters in Doha kutter (ph)...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's November the 15th, day one of a new era in television news. COOPER: Al-Jazeera English showed off reporters around the world, trying to establish itself instantly as a global network.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Heidi Matasa (ph) in Darfur.

COOPER: Darfur, Iraq, President Bush's trip to Russia.

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, NPR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: They want to reach out of a variety of different places across the globe. This is a different approach from al-Jazeera, which, you know, we tend to think of as a network with a regional basis and regional aspirations.

COOPER: Al-Jazeera English says it can be seen in 80 million households via cable and satellite TV, but not here in the United States, where the Bush administration has branded its Arab language sister network as pro-terrorist.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If anyone here lived in the Middle East and watched a network like al-Jazeera, day after day after day, even if you were an American, you would begin to believe that America was bad.

COOPER: Americans will only be able to view it on the Internet because no major cable provider in the U.S. is willing to carry it.

FOLKENFLIK: People have to really opt in. They have to go looking for it.

COOPER: Bankrolled by Kutter's (ph) royal family, al-Jazeera English has opened 20 new bureaus around the world, and hired more than 500 people. That includes some big name western journalists from CNN and other news organizations, such as ABC's David Marash, and the BBC's David Frost.

FOLKENFLIK: They're saying, look, we're not radicals. We're not Islamists. We're journalists. And we believe in the notion that this will be a global news service, that we will try to tell stories that have been ignored by some of the other Western agencies.

COOPER: Will any of this help? Can al-Jazeera English step out from the shadow of the Arab language network and attract American viewers?

FOLKENFLIK: That is a steep challenge to surmount. The one thing they do have going for them, of course, are the deep pockets of the amir (ph).

But it's a very difficult challenge to overcome when you have people for both commercial and to some degree, perceived ideological reasons, being very hesitant about carrying it on their own cable systems.


COOPER: Well, David Marash, a longtime reporter at ABC's "Nightline," as you just heard, is one of the Western journalists who signed on to work for al-Jazeera English. He is the U.S. anchor for the new channel. I talked to him earlier today about his new job.


COOPER: How does al-Jazeera English differ than the Arabic al- Jazeera?

DAVID MARASH, ANCHOR, AL-JAZEERA ENGLISH: Well, we're two different channels with two different audiences. And therefore, two different missions.

They're really a regional channel that serves Arabic speakers, mostly in the Middle East and in North Africa. And they serve particularly their interests and report particularly that region.

We'll be more diverse in our viewpoint. We'll be more global in our coverage. And we're going to stick to the same tradition, though, a very American style reporting. No fear, no favor, and no punches pulled.

COOPER: You know, obviously, al-Jazeera, the Arabic station, is viewed as anti-American by many in the U.S. Donald Rumsfeld accused al-Jazeera of vicious lies. And he said, quote, "They have a pattern of playing propaganda over and over and over again. What they do is when there's a bomb that goes down, they grab some children and women and pretend that the bomb hit the women and children.

Obviously, you've heard those accusations before. Does it concern you?

MARASH: Well, it would concern me if there was any evidence that it was true, but there is no evidence to support these really groundless and vicious charges.

Al-Jazeera has gotten quite a name for itself because it became the distribution method of choice of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al- Zawahiri, and the rest of the al Qaeda group.

COOPER: There are those who say, look, al-Jazeera just puts on these tapes, unedited, and allowing these people basically a free voice to spread their messages of hate.

MARASH: Well, first off, they're never put on unedited. They're never put on live. Always, they're treated as news. The most interesting and newsworthy parts of the statement are excerpted. And then they're not just thrown on the screen, but they're almost always surrounded by commentary analysis and varying other points of view.

COOPER: So, al-Jazeera English, will you call terrorists, terrorists? And militants, militants? I mean, is there -- there must be debates going on in that newsroom that you're taking part in, in terms of language, in terms of coverage, all of that. Take us through that process. It's got to be a difficult process, to say the least.

MARASH: Well, clearly, when words travel, their meanings or their resonances are changed. And so we do have to be careful. But what I would say and what I think our newsroom policy is going to be is that context defines everything.

If you are talking about, for example, the motivation of a suicide bomber, you would have to talk about martyrdom as one of the motivations. That's not calling him a martyr, but it's saying that his ambition for martyrdom undoubtedly played a role in his decision to become a suicide bomber.

Again, if the tactic is someone carrying a weapon, blowing himself up with it and taking out groups of people, the proper term for that is suicide bomber.

And when you are talking about it in the context of its political impact, attacking civilians, causing random damage for political effect, is called terrorism. That is the word we will use.

COOPER: So, in the world of al-Jazeera English, there are terrorists?

MARASH: Oh, absolutely.

COOPER: Well, David, as a colleague, I wish you luck. As a competitor, I don't wish you too much luck. But thanks so much.

MARASH: Thanks, Anderson.


COOPER: Well, if you think al-Jazeera English stirs up emotions, remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Coming up, a 360 exclusive. Christopher Darden, a former member of the O.J. prosecution team, talks about Simpson's new book about the murders. The title, "If I Did It."

And our panel of experts will be taking your calls about the book. Call us toll-free at 877-648-3639. Jeff Toobin, Lisa Bloom from "Court TV," and Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, from John Jay College, a forensic expert, all to take your calls. Coming up.



CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, PROSECUTOR IN O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL: It all points to him. I am not afraid to point to him. Nobody's pointed him out and said he did it. I will point to him.


COOPER: Well, in the 12 years since the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, former Trial Prosecutor Christopher Darden has never stopped pointing to O.J. Simpson, even after the former football star was acquitted.

Now, there is another media circus. Simpson's written this new book, titled, "If I Did It." He says it's a look at how he would have committed the murders if in fact he did. Tonight, a 360 exclusive. Christopher Darden joins us from Los Angeles.

COOPER: When you first heard about this, what did you think?

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, PROSECUTOR IN O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL: Well, I was appalled. I couldn't believe that he would write a book, number one. And I was even more surprised at the people who helped him write this book.

COOPER: I am pretty sure he didn't write it himself. I'm sure he had one of those ghostwriters.


COOPER: Does it -- would it surprise you if the Goldmans, if the Browns are not able to recoup any of the money from this? I mean, he reportedly was paid some $3.5 million -- who knows how much FOX is paying him for the TV rights of this.

DARDEN: $3.5 million. I tell you, you know, crime does pay, doesn't it? Crime does pay. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't recover a cent from O.J. Simpson. I'm sure that these issues were all looked at and worked out with Simpson and his lawyers, and the publisher, Harper Collins, and their lawyers. And I got to tell you, this is just a huge fraud on the public. It's a fraud, it's a farce and it's unfair to the Goldmans and the Browns.

COOPER: The book's publisher calls this O.J.'s confession. Do you think he's confessing?

DARDEN: Oh, not at all. If I did, a better title would have been, "When I Did it," or "What I Did After I Did It," or "Why I Did It." But, you know, this is just unbelievable.

COOPER: Do you follow this guy still? I mean, do you, you know, every now and then he pops up in the newspaper. You see him out selling a signature. You know, he does sort of TV projects that don't really pan out. Do you keep track of him?

DARDEN: No. I don't keep track of him. And most often I don't pay any attention to him at all. And I don't pay any attention to anybody that wants to talk about him.

But today, you know, to hear this, to hear that he's writing this book, it just made me want to get out and say something about it and do something about it.

COOPER: What do you want people to do? What do you want people to know?

DARDEN: I want people to boycott this book. And I want people to boycott this television show. No one should be allowed to butcher two people the way he did, and then make millions of dollars off of it. It's outrageous. COOPER: But you know, there are people out there. I've already gotten some e-mails from people that say, look, literally, someone who sent me an e-mail said, look, get over it, this guy was acquitted.

DARDEN: Well, you know, get over it, OK. You know, 10, 12 years is a long time to be dead. You know, tell Nicole and Ron to get over it. You know, this is just wrong. And the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court here in Los Angeles County have found him liable. The Court of Appeal here has called him a murderer in its opinion. O.J. Simpson is the killer of these two people, and that's just the fact. It's a matter of fact.

COOPER: Do you think back to the trial -- or, I mean, you know, it's been so long. Obviously you've moved on. You're doing a lot of other things in your life. But do you think back -- are there things you wish, moments you wish you had done differently or things you wish had been done differently?

DARDEN: Well, there are a lot of things in hindsight that I wish had been done different. You know, by me, by my colleagues. But, you know, I can't live my life worried about what happened back in 1996. I mean, unfortunately, he's free. And I think it's -- that's a travesty. I think it's unfair. It sets a real, real poor example of all the rest of us.

COOPER: Would you read this book? Would you watch this TV show?

DARDEN: I can't think of a reason to watch the TV show or read the book, except to trash it. And I suppose that if I thought -- and I'm going to give it some thought -- that I could somehow help derail any profits Simpson or his publisher might reap from this book, I suppose I would watch.

COOPER: Christopher Darden, we appreciate you coming on and talking about it. Thank you very much.

DARDEN: You're welcome.

COOPER: Well, clearly, the last word on O.J. Simpson is yet to be had. We're guessing you at home have a few things to say about the matter. We're already getting a lot of calls. You can call us at 1- 877-648-3639.

When we come back, our panel. Jeff Toobin wrote a book about this case. Lisa Bloom from "Court TV," and Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, a forensic expert will be joining us to take your calls. Next, on 360.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am mindful of the mood and the stamina of this jury. Jurors, I have confidence -- a lot more it seems than Ms. Clark has of the integrity, that they will find as the record stands now that I did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was O.J. Simpson declaring his innocence. The question is, do you believe him? Will you buy his new book? Will you watch the TV show on FOX that's going to have him on it?

Our panel of experts are here to take your calls. Jeff Toobin, Lisa Bloom, from "Court TV," and Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

We should point out that Lisa Bloom worked for the law firm that represented...

LISA BLOOM: The estate of Nicole Brown-Simpson.

COOPER: The estate of Nicole Brown-Simpson. All right. And Jeff Toobin is the author of "The Run of his Life, the People versus O.J. Simpson." We've got a lot of callers.

Rick, in Florida, what's your comment?

RICK, FLORIDA (on the phone): Hey, good evening, Anderson.

COOPER: Hey, good evening.

RICK: Good evening. First, I just want to say, as a college student, as a communications major at Florida State University, I cannot believe they're giving this murderer air time. What kind of message does that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) broadcast members? Should we be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) become successful? I've been following this case since middle school and up. Knowing that he lived in Miami, Florida, makes me ill. What do you think college students should be doing at this moment to get this from stopping to happen?

COOPER: Well, Lisa, what do you think?

LISA BLOOM: Well, I don't think there's anything that anybody can do anything. He has a first amendment right to write a book. He can write in the subjunctive if he wants to. He can do what he's doing.

I think people can vote by not buying the book, by not watching the program if they think that that's going to make a difference. Other than that, I mean, I think obscurity is the one thing that O.J. hates the most. Just let it all go.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Ignore him, period. I don't think this is something that calls for demonstrations or anything like that. I mean, there are more important subjects in the world. Just ignore it if you don't like it.

DR. LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC EXPERT: One thing they might want to do is to contact the networks. FOX did not have to run the show. NBC decided not to.

COOPER: Well, it's also interesting, I mean, Lisa, you brought this up before the break, is that the notion this is some sort of no holds barred interview is a joke. The interview is being conducted by Judith Regan, who is...

BLOOM: Who is the publisher of the book. So they have the same motivation economically.

And look, you know what -- Nicole Brown-Simpson said, he's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it. But even she never imagined this day was going to come, that he'd be making millions of dollars off of it. This is a different day.

COOPER: Rick, appreciate your call.

Preston, in Indiana -- Preston?

PRESTON, INDIANA (on the phone): Yes?

COOPER: Thanks for calling.

PRESTON: Yes, I've got a comment. I don't believe O.J. did it for the simple fact that if you look at the crime scene, it was an absolutely bloody mess. O.J. Simpson would have been saturated with blood. His Bronco would have been saturated with blood. His home was full of white carpet, there was no blood in there. The only blood was the crime scene, was VanAtter (ph) that had that vial of blood. It was 7 ccs. When Johnny Cochran got a hold of it, it was down to 5 ccs.

I believe O.J. Simpson comes to the crime scene and he seen someone murdering those people, and O.J. got cut on the finger, and that's how his blood got exposed.


TOOBIN: I have spent two years traveling around the country to talk about this case, you know, promoting my book. This case is like religion. People just believe what they are going to believe.

I used to try to argue with people like this and talk about the evidence and yet, you know what? If he believes it, fine.

COOPER: But he raises the point, look, if there were so much blood, that he would have been covered and saturated in blood.

KOBILINSKY: He may very well have been covered in blood. I mean, it really depends how the murder took place. But the fact of the matter is, we don't have the clothing. We really can't answer the question.

But the fact of the matter is, there's blood all over the place.


KOBILINSKY: There's blood in his house. His socks were found next to his bed with Nicole's blood. There's blood all over the Bronco, in and outside. There's blood all over the place. COOPER: Preston, appreciate your call.

Darci, in Georgia, is on the line.


DARCI, GEORGIA (on the phone): Yes, Hi. I have a question. Back when they were showing the struggle, he was really struggling to put the glove on, to prove that his hand would not go in. Did everyone notice it was like a latex glove? Those are really hard -- you know, it's a surgical glove, you know, to hold instruments so that you won't slip anything. You see, now if that had been a, just say thin, plastic glove, like how women do their hair. They're always in those little kids. That, his hand would have slid right in. But with that, it's friction. Do you see what I'm saying?

COOPER: Dr. Kobilinsky:

KOBILINSKY: The caller is absolutely correct. You have a latex glove. And quite frankly, it was in O.J.'s best interest for that glove not to fit.

Did you ever try to put a shoe on a little baby that didn't want to quick get that shoe on? That baby's going to resist. And I think O.J. resisted, putting that...


KOBILINSKY: ... and it may have shrunk as well.

TOOBIN: And the flawed prosecution strategy, to allow O.J. to control this experiment in this way so that he could put on this big performance about how, you know, the glove didn't fit. I mean, that was an example of just miserable prosecutorial...


COOPER: So, they should never allowed that to happen?

TOOBIN: Never allow that. That was not necessary in any way. And if you wanted to do it, measure his hand, measure the glove. But don't allow O.J. to control the experiment and go through this big, you know, song and dance...

BLOOM: And here were photos in the civil case of him wearing the gloves in previous occasions.

KOBILINSKY: We've learned from this. This is not going to happen again. This has been a very valuable lesson for prosecutors.

COOPER: Darci, appreciate your call.

Greg, in Georgia. Greg?

GREG, GEORGIA (on the phone): Hey, Anderson. I love your show. How're you doing? COOPER: I'm doing great, thanks. What's your comment or question?

GREG: Well, I was a big follower of the O.J. case back in 1995.

COOPER: You and about 20 million other people I know.

TOOBIN: Including the three of us...

GREG: I was very shocked, you know, when the verdict was read to learn that he had gotten off from that crime. And now I'm even more shocked to see that he's going to profit from it. And what can be done to stop him from profiting from the book and TV show?

COOPER: Jeffrey?

TOOBIN: Well, I think Goldman's lawyers will try to go after the proceeds. They have a $33 million judgment against him. So if they can find assets that truly belong to Simpson, they can try to attach them.

Lisa and I disagree about how easy this is going to be. I know...


COOPER: It's tough tracking down people...


BLOOM: We know that they are aggressive. And the last thing they tried to do a few months ago was attach his intangible assets, his rights to his name. OK? And the Court said, no you can't have that.

But we know this. The Goldman attorneys are going to be aggressive. They are going to try to get this money. They're not going to rest until they get something out of O.J. for this judgment.

TOOBIN: But you know that this deal was structured for the precise reason of denying their ability to...


BLOOM: Well, debtors try to avoid creditors every day.


BLOOM: The courts are set up to deal with that. This isn't the first time. And we know who the payer is.

COOPER: We have another call. James, Indiana. James?

JAMES, INDIANIA (on the phone): Yes, how you doing?

COOPER: I'm doing well, thanks. Thanks for calling. JAMES: All right. My question is, everybody is talking about how guilty the man is. No one was there. The only somebody that absolutely knows for sure that that man is guilty is God Almighty. Everything else is speculation...

BLOOM: Well, he knows.

JAMES: The only thing the Goldman family I trying to do, simply because that man was important and -- he was a black important man, they put more emphasis on trying to get his money and bringing him back down poor like he's supposed to be, than anything else.

You know, I followed that case all the way through. And they put more emphasis on this. I mean, there was a lot of other people that killed a lot of people that was white, but they did not put no emphasis on it like they did this. This is more important to them than anything in the world, to bring that man back down to where he should be. Because he was too high as a black man to them.

COOPER: James, appreciate your call.

A lot of people, you know, there is a significant number of people out there who do believe that, very strongly.

TOOBIN: Absolutely.

COOPER: And certainly, there is a track record with the L.A.P.D. that is not something to be proud of.

TOOBIN: What made the Simpson case transcend, just a typical celebrity case, is this (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Because it spoke to something deep in the American consciousness about race. And people viewed this case through a lens of race that -- in a way that certainly a lot of us didn't anticipate at the beginning. And that's why this case will be studied 50 years from now. Not because of where the glove was or where the knife was. It's because it tapped into some really deep racial...

BLOOM: But it's also about gender. You know, the L.A.P.D. overlooked the fact that O.J. was beating Nicole Brown-Simpson. He pleaded no contest to it. There are photos of her, black and blue. And she told everybody, he's going to kill me one day and get away with it.

You know, the gender issues are big in this case too. And I think many women felt like, why did the L.A.P.D. let this celebrity get away with beating his wife for as long as they did?

COOPER: We're going to have a lot more coming up. Stay tuned. We'll have more of 360 in a moment. Stay with us.


COOPER: Well, it is one of the greatest mysteries of human nature. What makes some people chronically cheerful and optimistic even when their lives are full of hard knocks, while others who coast through life with every advantage are chronically unhappy?

Science is beginning to uncover some of the answers, as 360 M.D. Sanjay Gupta reports.


DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): We'll begin with two brothers and one remarkable story.

That's Roger Brooks on the left, and Tony Malossi (ph) on the right.

ROGER BROOKS, IDENTICAL TWIN: I am the better looking of the two. It's obvious.

GUPTA: These big-hearted identical twins were split up at birth. Malossi (ph) was adopted at six weeks, and grew up surrounded by close friends and a loving family.

Brooks toughed it out in an orphanage until he was 4 years old. After his adoption, he was raised by a single mom and bounced around 11 different schools. And yet...

BROOKS: I never looked at my life as a tough life. I was always happy.

Look at this. La-da!

I believe Tony is the same way.

GUPTA: When they were 24 years old, there was a chance encounter. A friend of Tony's spotted Roger in a diner in Miami.

BROOKS: And he thought I was Tony Malossi. He approached the table and says, Tony?

GUPTA: A few phone calls later, they were reunited. The story was an international sensation.

TONY MALOSSI, IDENTICAL TWIN: I says, come on, Mom, you called me long distance, what happened? She says they find your brother. I said what? Your brother, they find your brother.

NANCY SEGAL, AUTHOR, "INDIVISIBLE BY TWO": Twins have a lot to teach us about how happy all of us are.

GUPTA: Nancy Segal has spent her professional lifetime studying twins. She is a twin herself, and says that 80 percent of our personality is genetic.


SEGAL: They are just guys who exude this warmth and enthusiasm and optimism, raised apart. Where does this come from? It's their basic human nature.

GUPTA: A nature we all would be fortunate to have.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, Atlanta.


COOPER: Researchers are learning much more about the science of happiness. Sunday at 10:00 p.m., Eastern, Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates the surprising connection between happiness and your health. A special report that could change your life.

This, on the other hand, won't make you live any longer, but it sure scared a few people to death. See what happened in a courtroom with the cameras rolling. Yikes. Next, on 360. Good Lord, what is going on? We will explain ahead.


COOPER: Let's get you quickly updated. Randi Kay joins us with a 360 bulletin -- Randi.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, once again, Anderson.

We begin with a story we've been following on 360. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, long live democracy. Those words from this man, incumbent President Joseph Kabila. Now that he's been declared the winner of a runoff election, beating an ex-rebel leader. It was the country's first democratic election in more than 40 years. But the ex-rebel leader didn't give up without a fight. His forces fought police and troops loyal to Kabila last weekend, leaving four people dead.

To Moscow, where President Bush paid a visit to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders talked about Iran's nuclear program, the Middle East, and other issues. President Bush is now in Singapore, before heading to a summit with Asian leaders in Vietnam.

And check out this video from an Ohio courtroom. A murder suspect, waiting for a hearing to start. When family members of the victim began delivering, well, their own justice, I guess you could call it. Then family members from another murder case linked to the suspect also started throwing punches. The judge postponed the hearing and charged two of the men with assault.

Quite a scene in that courtroom -- Anderson.

COOPER: Yikes, it's terrible.

Randi, appreciate it. Thanks.

Tomorrow, on "AMERICAN MORNING," a look at a storm-ravaged daycare center in Alabama. It is almost impossible to imagine that anyone survived, but everyone did.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They did everything that teachers are supposed to do, and they did it the way they're trained to. But above and beyond, they did it because they love their class and their kids and, you know, it was very clear today, they would have died for them.


COOPER: Find out exactly how those kids survived with those teachers. That, along with the latest in the devastating storms on "AMERICAN MORNING," with Soledad O'Brien and Miles O'Brien, starting at 6 a.m., Eastern.

"LARRY KING" is coming up next. He has more on the O.J. Simpson book controversy. Thanks for watching. I'll see you again tomorrow night.


© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines