CNN The Situation Room - Transcript

CNN The Situation Room - Transcript
Wednesday, November 2, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Mandy Gaither reporting for us from out CNN affiliate, WCSC. Thank you very much, Mandy, for that.

Here in Washington, a day after U.S. senators went into meltdown over a surprise maneuver by Democrats, hard feelings remain on Capitol Hill. Tough questions are being asked all around. Have Republicans thwarted investigations into prewar intelligence in Iraq as Democrats allege? Did Democrats pull a stunt that hijacked the Senate as Republicans allege?

Joining us, the Senate's number two Republican, the majority whip, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Senator McConnell, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (RKY), SENATE MAJORITY WHIP: Good afternoon.

BLITZER: Listen to what Senator Barbara Boxer said about what happened yesterday on the floor of the Senate. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: The American people have a right to know what happened. We went to war on false pretenses. What went wrong? And they need to see results of this investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Want to know what happened. Was intelligence deliberately manipulated by the Bush administration going into the war as the Democrats allege, or was there simply bad intelligence and the administration did the best they could do? The Intelligence Committee promised answers a long time ago. Democrats are complaining they still don't have them.

MCCONNELL: Well, first of all, with regard to yesterday's secret session, it was a cheap, political stunt. I concluded that some of my colleagues must have eaten too much chocolate the night before, on Halloween, and were hyper. That was unnecessary, of course.

Everybody knows that the intelligence was flawed leading up to the Iraq war. Everybody in America knows that. The investigation that's go on in the Intelligence Committee is proceeding apace. Everybody knows that it will be completed. It was really much ado about nothing, and the Senate is back to its normal business today.

BLITZER: The Democrats say, Senator McConnell, that it worked. They're finally going to get some action from the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Republican chairman, they say -- Pat Roberts -- was simply trying to protect the White House from some of the bad news out there. MCCONNELL: It worked if their goal was to get a lot of attention to the cheap political stunt that they played, because you and I are still talking about it here 24 hours later.

BLITZER: No. What they're saying -- it worked...

MCCONNELL: It did not work...

BLITZER: It worked because they now have three Republican members, three Democratic members and they've promised to get some answers by the middle of the month, which the Democrats say would not have been the case if they have not pulled what you call that stunt.

MCCONNELL: Yes, I understand. I was going to finish my answer, if I could. What they got with the committee was what they were going to get anyway, which was that the Intelligence Committee chairman was going to continue the investigation and complete it as soon as possible. So they got absolutely nothing out of this that they weren't going to get in any event, except to get on the front page of the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times" and to have you and I still talking about it 24 hours later.

BLITZER: Well, how much bad blood is there right now? The Senate Intelligence Committee, historically, traditionally, was supposed to have been above politics. The members are supposed to work together on these issues of national security. Can they work together? Can Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat, work together with Pat Roberts, the chairman, now?

MCCONNELL: Look, the security of the nation is much too important for this kind of childishness. And I think that Rockefeller and Roberts can work together. They've worked together in the past. They're working together today. I think it's all been blown out of proportion. We're going to move forward here and do the people's business.

BLITZER: Let's talk about Samuel Alito briefly, the president's choice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Tom Harkin is a Democrat from Iowa. He's quoted in today's "Baltimore Sun" as saying, "I believe Democrats will filibuster this nominee on the basis that he's way too ideologically to the right. We need a moderate on the court, not an avowed right-winger like him that would upset the balance."

Why are you smiling?

MCCONNELL: I'm smiling because Harkin was one of only 22 out of 100 that even voted against Chief Justice John Roberts, who was approved overwhelmingly.

Look, this nominee is brilliant, modest, restrained, not a zealot in any way. And the Democrats to watch are not Tom Harkins, but the Ben Nelsons and others who are in the center of the political spectrum on the Democratic side. And so far, the responses of the centrist Democrats who have met with Judge Alito have been quite positive. So I don't think there's any chance in the world that this brilliant judge is going to be filibustered.

BLITZER: But you remember, Senator, when we spoke about Harriet Miers, you predicted, in an interview with me, that all 55 Republicans would vote to confirm her. She didn't even get an up and down vote.

MCCONNELL: Well, had she stayed in -- you know, she withdrew. Had she stayed in, she certainly would have gotten an up or down vote, and in my opinion, would have gotten all 55 Republicans. She withdrew, thereby making it impossible to know for sure. But that would be my prediction again today, as it was when I talked to you last time about it.

BLITZER: Senator McConnell, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.

MCCONNELL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/02/sitroom.01.html