CNN Late Edition - Transcript

CNN Late Edition - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Fred.

And with a clearly deteriorating situation unfolding in Iraq and with polls here in the United States showing widespread voter discontent over the mission there, the Bush administration is under enormous pressure right now to try to change its Iraq strategy. Joining us now to speak about that and more, two guests, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Senators, thanks very much for coming in. Senator Specter, I'll start with you. How much time does the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, have to get tough to deal with the death squads, the militias, before the United States has to reassess its strategy?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I would say, Wolf, that the time has already passed. I was encouraged by a lead story in The New York Times today that the administration is considering some timetables. President Bush said yesterday in his Saturday address that he's going to be flexible and would make adjustments if necessary to be victorious.

There is no doubt that there's a lot of political pressure. You see Senator George Allen of Virginia in a tough campaign, calling for a change in tactics. We have James Baker saying that there are alternatives besides staying the course and cutting and running. I don't believe that a shift in tactics ought to wait until after the election. There are too many casualties there. If we have a better course, we ought to adopt it sooner rather than later.

BLITZER: So, just spell out what you would like to see in the next -- it's only a little bit more than two weeks before the election. Specifically, Senator Specter, what would you like to see the president announce? SPECTER: Well, I like the report in The Times today that the administration is considering timetables to tell the Iraqis that they're going to have to take a larger role in their own security, that they're going to have to show some progress on sectarian violence, and maybe even further consideration of the option of dividing Iraq into three segments, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, so these warring factions will be less likely to kill each other.

BLITZER: Senator Reed, you're just back from Iraq. You've been there several times. A spokesman for the National Security Council is denying the New York Times report, saying that they are now (ph) considering a timetable for certain actions by the Iraqi government in order to demonstrate to the American government and to the American people that this government of Nouri al-Maliki is serious in dealing with the threats over there. What's your assessment right now about the current situation?

SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Well, months ago, Senator Levin and I and other Democrats called for a change in policy to begin redeployment of our forces and put real pressure on the Maliki government to do what they have to do.

BLITZER: When you say redeployment of forces, what specifically, what did you and Senator Levin have in mind?

REED: We would say that the policy of the United States was to begin a redeployment of American forces...

BLITZER: Outside of Iraq?

REED: Outside of Iraq. Initially within Iraq, then outside of Iraq. And also that this redeployment would be coupled with more aggressive action by the Iraqi government to take charge of its own security, continued efforts by the United States to assist in the reconstruction and those efforts.

The strategy of the administration has failed. The strategy of clear, build and hold has not worked. It's been clear, build and wait. And while we've waited, without the resources to rebuild the Iraqi economy, the insurgents have snuck back in. The sectarian militias have snuck back in and established control in many places. What we have is a situation where this government over the last few months is deteriorating. And Maliki has a huge challenge to keep the government running.

BLITZER: Because we saw in Amara this week, a southern city of about a quarter of million people, an extraordinary situation unfold, Senator Reed, whereby you had Shiites going after Shiites, specifically various Shiite militias going after the Iraqi largely Shiite police and military force there. It was a brutal battle, and you have Muqtada al Sadr, this radical Shiite cleric, who at one point was wanted for terrorist actions by the U.S. military in Iraq, who's now an ally of the prime minister.

REED: Well, he's an ally of the prime minister. The prime minister depends upon him for his political support. He's also has close ties to the government in Tehran, the Iranians. And there's a fight within the Shia community for power. This is a civil war. And we are being sucked slowly into a civil war with disastrous consequences.

BLITZER: Is it a civil war already, Senator Specter, as many of the critics are suggesting?

SPECTER: Yes.

BLITZER: That's your flat answer. So on this specific point, Senator Specter, you clearly disagree with the president and vice president.

SPECTER: Well, I think it's a matter of semantics, but when you have the insurgents as violent as they have been, and when you have the three major factions in Iraq killing each other, and you have the level of violence, I don't think there's any point, Wolf, in hiding the facts. I think we have to face the facts.

And I was pleased to see the president in his Saturday address yesterday said that he's prepared to be more flexible if it's necessary to win the war. And he has given tacit approval by all reports to what James Baker is doing on trying to come up with new strategies. So I think the administration understands the nature of the problem and is searching for a better answer.

BLITZER: If it is, Senator Specter, a civil war, what business does the United States and the U.S. military, specifically 140,000 troops, have in getting involved in a civil war?

SPECTER: Because we intervened. Had we known that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, I think we wouldn't have, but once we're there, we ought not to leave the country destabilized if we can possibly avoid it. We ought to try to build up the Iraqi military, the Iraqi police force. And I think this report in The Times this morning has all the earmarks of accuracy when it says that the United States is going to insist on a timetable from Iraq that we're not going to be the guarantors forever.

BLITZER: I want you to listen -- let me read to you what Senator Olympia Snowe, who is a moderate Republican from the state of Maine, what she said on October 10th: "The patience of the Congress and the American people is finite, and our presence there is neither unlimited nor unconditional. The Congress and the administration must be open to considering alternative plans for the future role of the U.S. in Iraq.

Specifically, Senator Reed, and as someone -- how many times have you been to Iraq now?

REED: Nine times.

BLITZER: Nine times. You've probably been there at least as much as anybody else, but maybe more so than any other U.S. senator. You're a former U.S. Army ranger, if I'm correct. You know this military situation. Is it time, as Senator Specter and others are now suggesting, to consider partitioning Iraq into a Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish sector?

REED: Well, that has a certain appeal, but the problem is that the southern part has the oil, the northern part has oil, the center with Baghdad, Sunni populations significantly, doesn't have an economic resource to make them viable. So a partition, I think, would be very difficult. It well may happen because of the internal domestic forces in Iraq.

But I think the issue now is, can we maintain a stable national government, and if there is a progression to regionalization, that progression is modulated; it's not an abrupt rupture which leaves the center in chaos and a virtually free-fire zone.

BLITZER: The White House press secretary, Senator Specter, Tony Snow said this week that the idea of dividing up Iraq into three different sectors is, in his words, a nonstarter.

But listen to Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. She told the Dallas Morning News this week, this.

She said, "Yes it would be hard to do, but it would be worth trying... People say, 'Well, that would Balkanize the country.' Well, things are pretty stable in the Balkans right now. It's looking better than Iraq.'"

Your assessment on this partition plan, potential partition plan, for Iraq?

SPECTER: Well, Tony Snow says it's a nonstarter, but what does Tony have to say as to what is a starter?

When Senator Reed talks about the oil being located so that one side would have an advantage, I think we can work that out. I think, on the partition arrangement, it's the oil which is going to keep that country together, the access to those funds.

I don't know that dividing it up into three parts is the best idea, but it's an idea which ought to be explored, at least until somebody has a better idea.

That's the search, Wolf. I'm not in concrete on what I say should be done. But let's consider the alternatives. Let's see what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton and his group are thinking about, sooner rather than later.

BLITZER: Senator Specter, this is what the vice president, Dick Cheney, said a year and a half ago on "Larry King Live." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He said he thought the insurgency was in the last throes.

This week, in an interview with Time magazine, he says, "I expressed the sentiment some time ago that I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence; I think that was premature. I thought the elections would have created that environment" -- the elections, in Iraq, that is -- "and it hasn't happened yet."

Do you still have confidence, Senator Specter, in the vice president, and more specifically, in the defense secretary, in the way they've been conducting this war?

SPECTER: I have confidence in the vice president. He's not the first person that made an assessment of what was going on in Iraq that proved to be invalid.

As to Secretary Rumsfeld, I'm going to leave that up to the president. The president is the commander in chief, and Rumsfeld serves at his pleasure. And I'm not going to express an opinion on that.

BLITZER: It doesn't sound like a resounding vote of confidence in the defense secretary, Senator Specter.

SPECTER: Well, I don't think that I ought to pick the secretary of defense. The president's very very close to the situation.

Quite a number of people have called for the secretary's ouster: Senator DeWine, Senator Chafee. I think that's a presidential call, not a senator's call.

BLITZER: What about Senator Reed? What do you think of Rumsfeld?

REED: I think he should be fired. We're asking -- the president's asking Prime Minister Maliki to make tough decisions, including rearranging his cabinet, getting rid of people who aren't performing. And I think the least he can show is the same leadership here in the United States.

And I would say, as far as the vice president, no one has been more consistently wrong about Iraq than the vice president. And he continues to be so.

The president has to step up and start -- our president -- leadership. It would start with the Department of Defense, changing leadership. And then it would start by approaching the American people, not on a partisan basis as part of an election campaign, but on a bipartisan basis, asking for the help and support and also committing the resources that we need.

One of the failures of this administration is they talk a good game, but when it comes to providing our troops the necessary equipment, providing the Iraqis with the kind of support they need, it's all talk.

BLITZER: Senators, I want both of you to stand by. We have a lot more to talk about.

Just ahead, is a power shift ahead for Capitol Hill? Senators Specter and Reed weigh in their party's chances in the midterm elections.

At the top of the hour, the next hour, that is, my conversation with the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. We'll get his take on the war in Iraq and the upcoming elections here at home.

Also, has Iraq reached a tipping point for the U.S. to do any good?

We'll get special insight from two former U.S. presidential advisers.

And this reminder for our North American viewers: Right after "Late Edition" at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, it's a special "This Week at War," hosted by our John Roberts. John is in Baghdad. That's coming up at 1:00 p.m. Eastern. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We're speaking with the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and the Senate Armed Services Committee member, Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island.

I'll start with you at this time, Senator Reed. The negotiations right now, the effort to try to ease this crisis with North Korea, clearly at a very, very sensitive moment -- I want you to listen to what the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice said in Beijing on Friday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: What the North wants is to have a negotiation with the United States so that, when they ignore the terms of the agreement, they can say, well, after all, that was with the United States.

What is troubling to the North is that, for the first time, they're having to face the collective will of China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and now, with Resolution 1718, the entire international system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Her point is that the U.S. can negotiate directly with North Korea, but only in the context of these six-party talks, not outside that framework.

The North Koreans say they want bilateral talks with the United States, outside -- without China, South Korea, Japan or Russia participating.

What do you think? REED: Well, this administration, in the last several years, has watched, first, as the North Koreans have taken the plutonium away from international inspectors and fashioned nuclear devices. They've seen a missile launch on the fourth of July. And now they've seen a detonation of a nuclear device.

And all the time, they've been paralyzed about this discussion between whether it should be a multinational or bilateral talks. I think we have to get down to negotiations.

I think you can have a forum which is multinational, but at the heart of that should be, I think, discussions between the United States and the North Koreans.

BLITZER: Even outside the six-party negotiations? Is that what you're saying?

REED: Well, I think that's one way to get the talks, but I think, really, with the pressure that's been building, that the North Koreans, I think, if they understand that these talks will have, at least as an adjunct, discussions with the United States, should undertake these talks.

This notion about the format of the talks is less important to me than actually negotiating, or trying to negotiate -- it might not be successful -- but trying to negotiate with the North Koreans.

BLITZER: What do you think?

Can this crisis with North Korea, Senator Specter, be resolved?

SPECTER: Wolf, I think we ought to be negotiating on both tracks at the same time. I made an extensive floor statement in the Senate last July, where I urged that we talk directly to Iran and talk directly to North Korea.

The multilateral talks are indispensable if we're to have any sanctions that are effective. And I've been encouraged to see that China is now talking tougher about some effective sanctions. So, from my point of view, they have to be multilateral.

Shortly after President Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire, he undertook direct talks. Listen, whether it's deserved or not, there's a big feeling around the world about ugly Americans. I don't think it's deserved, but a lot of people feel that way.

You have Iran, wants to be part of the nuclear club, North Korea wants to pound its chest. Well, let's talk to them. The issue is serious enough with North Korea, with their having nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them, that I think we ought to use every alternative, including direct bilateral talks.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on and talk a little bit about the elections, just a little bit more than two weeks away. The former president of the United States, Senator Reed, Bill Clinton, made this statement this past week. I want you to listen to it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They've won two elections by their skin's teeth, by scaring people at the end and dividing them up again. But you can only run the dog through the same path so many times before it doesn't work anymore. I just think it's kind of a mangy old dog now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Some Republicans, including reportedly the president of the United States and his top political adviser, Karl Rove, think the Republicans can still pull it out, have the majority in the house and the Senate because, in the end, Americans are going to be afraid of terrorism and they're going to believe that Republicans can do a better job protecting them than Democrats.

REED: Well, I think that the veil has fallen from the Republican in terms of the capability of protecting us. The report recently that the operations in Iraq have made us more vulnerable to terrorism I think really crystallized the feelings among the public and the United States that we have to change. And we have to change not only in the international arena, but we also have to change domestic. Because there's a growing concern, particularly with middle-income families, that their future is being constrained by the policies of this administration.

So, I think there's a huge, huge force to change. I think that will be displayed in the elections. And I think we stand a very good chance of doing very well, taking over the House, and it's a long run for us in the Senate, but I think we're in a good position.

BLITZER: Senator Specter, in our most recent CNN poll, we asked about attitudes towards the Republicans out there, Republicans in Congress specifically. Job-approval ratings, only 36 percent approved of the way Republicans are handling the situation in Congress, 61 percent disapprove. Are you worried, Senator Specter, that you're going to be the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee as opposed to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the dust settles?

SPECTER: I'm not worried about that, Wolf, but I don't take anything for granted. When you say that the opinion polls are not good for Republicans, opinion polls are not good for any public officials. And I think perhaps we've earned it.

But I don't agree with former President Clinton and his mangy old dog comment, and I don't agree with former President Clinton when he talks about Republicans scaring the people to death. I think that there was a Republican victor after the Clinton-Gore administration because the people didn't like too well what President Clinton had done. I think that would be a more sound basis for an evaluation.

But look here, we had a terrible attack on 9/11. And if you want to affix blame, I think a fair amount of it can go in all directions, including to President Clinton. We haven't had an attack. Now, have we been just lucky? Is it because we have been more on the alert? Is it because we have changed our national intelligence system to try to correct what happened before 9/11 when the FBI and CIA didn't talk to each other?

There are a lot of problems in Iraq beyond any question, but there's a lot more to the Bush administration than what's happening in Iraq. And I think this election, Wolf, if I can add one more addendum, like most elections, it could be decided by the people who plan not to vote. If we get out to vote, you could be surprised. Senator Santorum, for example, has a really good get-out-the-vote effort. And (inaudible)...

BLITZER: Well, I was going to mention, in your state, Senator Specter, Senator Santorum clearly fighting for his life right now against Bob Casey. This is a very, very close race, although all polls show that Casey is slightly ahead of Santorum. And Senator Reed, in your state of Rhode Island right now, Lincoln Chaffey, the incumbent Republican, a very moderate Republican, fighting for his political life against Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic challenger. The polls showing Whitehouse clearly ahead right now. A very quick thought from you first, Senator Reed, on Rhode Island. What do you think?

REED: Well, I think there's a very strong surge for Democrats. I think there's a very, much concern about the president. And I think that is translating into a positive effort on Rhode Island Democrats to come out and vote. And I think we'll do very well.

BLITZER: So you think Whitehouse will win.

REED: I do.

BLITZER: And I assume you think that Senator Santorum, Senator Specter, your colleague, Republican colleague, can still pull it out, even though he's clearly behind in the polls?

SPECTER: Well, Wolf, when you say Senator Santorum is in a fight for his life, I tell you that I've been in the fight for my life lots of times in many ways, and so far, I've won every time. Don't count Rick Santorum out.

BLITZER: Well, we're glad, we're certainly glad you beat that fight that you had with cancer a few years ago...

SPECTER: I fight to win.

BLITZER: ... Senator Specter. Thank you very much as always. Hope you'll be joining us for many, many years to come on "Late Edition." Senator Reed, thanks very much to you as well.

REED: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Good to have both of you on the program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/22/le.01.html