CNN Late Edition-Transcript

Interview

BLITZER: Hala Gorani will be anchoring our coverage for CNN International. Jim Bittermann is on the scene with her, Robin Oakley is there as well. Our CNN International coverage begins 1:45 Eastern. Stay with CNN for complete coverage of these historic elections.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday President Bush vetoed the bill that would have funded the war in Iraq and mandated a troop withdrawal deadline, and almost immediately Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill began to work toward a compromise. But what will it look like? Will it be passed in time for those actually fighting in Iraq?

Joining us now to discuss this and much more, two guests. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, he's a key member of the Judiciary Committee. He's joining us from New York City. And with us here in Washington, Republican Senator Richard Lugar. He's the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senators, to both of you, thanks very much for coming in.

Senator Lugar, a quick question on this French election. What's at stake, from your vantage point, for the U.S.?

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R), INDIANA: I believe, as you had stated on the program, that Sarkozy would be favorable to the United States. Clearly his views are more in line with ours. He's given an outreach idea. I don't want to overstate it but, nevertheless, it would be important to us.

BLITZER: And it looks like he's the frontrunner going into this election only a couple hours away.

I guess, Senator Schumer, you have the same assessment?

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well, I do. I do. I mean, it would be nice to have someone who is head of France who doesn't almost have a knee-jerk reaction against the United States.

BLITZER: And Sarkozy may be that candidate. We'll see.

SCHUMER: Let's hope.

BLITZER: We'll be standing by and we're watching for complete coverage.

Let's talk about Secretary Rice, Senator Lugar, her decision to go ahead and have this meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt this week with the Syrian foreign minister. Here is what she said. Now, I want to you listen to this little clip from Secretary Rice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It's one thing to go to Damascus and to have those pictures that suggests a relationship that doesn't exist with Syria, a relationship that would have to be built differently, to have broad scale talks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: She was trying to differentiate between her meeting with a high-ranking Syrian official, the Syrian foreign minister, and the decision by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, to go to Damascus and speak with President Bashar al- Assad.

Is that a significant difference? What do you say about the criticism that the Bush White House leveled at Nancy Pelosi and only a month later, the secretary of state is meeting with the Syrians as well?

LUGAR: Well, I'm pleased the Secretary of State did meet with the Syrians. I think it was timely. Obviously, the administration is critical of any such meetings by Secretary Rice or anybody else prior to this time.

I'm not so critical of the speaker of the House. My own feeling is probably talks with Syrians have been useful all along. I mean, I'm delighted at least the format has been provided in which the secretary sees the Syrians. It was too bad the Iranian foreign minister who came to dinner early and left, almost tried to evade our secretary of state.

BLITZER: So you'd like to see direct high-level talks between the U.S. as well?

LUGAR: Of course. I think this is tremendously important for any solution in Iraq. Those talks have to occur with everybody around the table.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Schumer, what do you think?

SCHUMER: Well, you know, they didn't criticize Congressman Wolf, a Republican, when he went a week before Nancy Pelosi. Then they criticized Nancy Pelosi, and now, of course, it's OK for Condoleezza Rice to do it. It's clearly political. A Democrat goes and talks to some of the leaders of Syria and they criticize it, but it's OK both before and after for a Republican.

Having said that, look, talking to people, even people you vehemently disagree with, is a good thing. And who knows? Maybe you can come to some agreement. We didn't talk to North Korea for four years. They became nuclear. We began talking to them, and maybe now there's a real possibility that they will step -- they will abandon this nuclear process.

So talking never hurts and the idea that, "Oh, we shouldn't talk to anybody unless we completely agree with them" is bad diplomacy, bad foreign policy.

BLITZER: So I assume you agree with Senator Lugar, Senator Schumer, that the U.S. -- the Bush administration should be engaged in high-level talks with Iran as well?

SCHUMER: Look, you don't have to give up your principle or values to sit down and talk with someone. And I would say it can't hurt provided you stick to your guns and keep your values, definitely.

BLITZER: Do you want to add on that point about the discussions with Iran because, as you know, there were some low-level -- the ambassador -- the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, had a low-level, very brief little encounter with some other lower level Iranian officials at Sharm el-Sheikh, but the high-level talk between the secretary of state and the foreign minister never materialized. You want to see that go on a fast track.

LUGAR: Yes, I do. I hope, in fact, that the Egyptian meeting will be replicated about every month. I think the need for all of the countries surrounding Iraq, including Iran, obviously, and Syria is very important, offers great opportunities for our diplomacy.

SCHUMER: And the 9/11 Commission, Wolf -- not the 9/11 Commission...

BLITZER: The Iraq Study Group.

SCHUMER: The Baker-Hamilton, the Iraq Study Group recommended this very strongly and it has some very conservative Republicans on that commission.

BLITZER: All right. Let's talk about Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two Al Qaida leader, Senator Schumer. He issued a lengthy videotape this weekend, more than an hour on tape. And, among other things, he ridicules the U.S. in Iraq.

He says this: "This bill" -- referring to the Democrat-sponsored bill -- "reflects American failure and frustration. However, this bill will deprive of us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in an historic trap."

What do you make of this ability by this Al Qaida leader, the number two Al Qaida leader, to go forward and continue to release these propaganda videotapes?

SCHUMER: Well, look, Al Qaida is our enemy. They're sworn against us and I think they're best ignored when they make kind of ridiculous propaganda statements like this. What we have to do is continue to focus on trying to eliminate Al Qaida. That's mainly in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area, but all around the world.

But the more attention paid to statements like this, that's what they want, and I think they're best ignored.

BLITZER: What do you think? Because there are some analysts, Senator Lugar, and you're privy to this kind of information, who are suggesting that al-Qaida effectively has reconstituted itself, and is in better shape now than it was a year ago, certainly two years ago.

LUGAR: I think that's very doubtful they're in better shape, but certainly they are broadcasting frequently. An al-Qaida leader condemned Hashemi, the vice president of Iraq, a Sunni, for continuing to serve in the government, suggesting that that's totally out of line, and they ought to gang up on him. Sunnis ought to come in. In other words, there's going to be intervention of this sort. I would agree with Senator Schumer. We obviously observe it, but we give it what it's due.

BLITZER: Because the argument is now that al Qaida effectively has reconstituted a base for itself in some of the sort of tribal areas in western Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan, that they have control of that territory from which they can operate.

LUGAR: And that could be, and there could be such operations there. But they're under fire. Hopefully we'll get more cooperation with the Pakistanis to rout them out. At least we have them pinned down out there.

BLITZER: Senator Schumer, the foreign minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, was here on "Late Edition" last Sunday, and we was very critical of your effort, the effort of Democrats and a few Republicans to get this troop timeline, this withdrawal deadline imposed as part of the troop funding bill. I want to you listen to what the Iraqi foreign minister said a week ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOSHYAR ZEBARI, FOREIGN MINISTER OF IRAQ: I believe it was extremely unhelpful linking the funding of the troops to a specific timetable. This was most unhelpful, in my view, because it adversely affects our plans and the military plans here, and it emboldens our enemies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, what do you have to say, Senator Schumer, to the Iraqi government and the foreign minister?

SCHUMER: Well, I say the answer to the foreign minister and the Iraqi government is, step up to the plate yourselves. And they're not doing that, and that's why so many of us, and it's a large amount of people in this country, not just Democrats but large -- the vast majority of independents and even a good number of Republicans feel we have to set deadlines.

Because when we don't, the Iraqis evade their responsibilities, and this government in particular evades its responsibilities. So, I don't put much credence in what he said. The bottom line is, if we felt the government was strong, if we felt that the government was taking the role and dealing with the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in a much more effective and more committed way, there might not be a need to do this.

But we don't. We have very little faith in the Iraqi government. And one of the great weaknesses, in my judgment, of the president's plan and of his so-called surge is, it's a surge militarily without a political solution, and part of the political solution is a much stronger Iraqi government.

BLITZER: You're not satisfied, Senator Lugar, with the performance of the Iraqi government on meeting these so-called benchmarks, disbanding the militias, the Shiite militias, for example, finding some sort of fair way to deal with oil, wealth, distributing the oil wealth, the de-Baathification laws. You're not happy with their performance to date, are you?

LUGAR: Well, no one is happy, including the Iraqi government itself. This is going to be a very difficult job for Prime Minister Maliki or anyone else to bring people, some of whom want to fight civil conflict, into a government that makes tough decisions. Now the point presently is, the United States is trying to provide more opportunities for that to occur.

But we have to apply every bit of pressure, and that's the reason why calling together the surrounding nations was so important. Not just the United States, it's the Saudis and the Syrians and the Iranians and the rest who have to be interested in this or they will face an ongoing problem inside Iraq that will influence all of them very adversely. So, it's not just the United States at this point. It is the entirety of the area.

BLITZER: Senators, stand by, because we have a lot more to talk about, including efforts to try to find some sort of compromise on that troop funding bill. How close are the Democrats and the White House on this issue?

Also coming up, this week it was the Republicans' turn to face off in a presidential debate. How did they do? We'll dig into everything political with CNN's Bill Schneider, Andrea Koppel, Joe Johns. They're standing by live. Much more of our coverage right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're joined by two senior U.S. senators. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, he's chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana. He's the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

We're continuing our conversation. Senator Schumer, how close do you think you are right now to working out some sort of compromise with President Bush that would allow funding for U.S. troops in Iraq to go forward?

SCHUMER: Well, I don't think we're that close yet. There are some encouraging signs. The president in his radio address yesterday in previous statements has said that he does want to sit down and talk and negotiate. Six months ago, he said that he would not be for any kinds of benchmarks, and now they're willing to discuss benchmarks.

Obviously, we would want benchmarks with teeth. Wolf, we have two goals. We have them in the original resolution we vetoed, and we're not abandoning either one. One is to fully support the troops. We don't want to leave them in the field hanging out there.

But the other is to dramatically change the direction, the mission in Iraq. We think it's fundamentally flawed. We think it's devolved into fighting a civil war, basically policing a civil war as Sunnis and Shiites shoot at one another. And we think we need a dramatic change in direction with many fewer troops in Iraq.

BLITZER: Senator Lugar, are you ready to accept these benchmarks that so many others are calling for right now?

LUGAR: Well, it depends if, in fact, the benchmark means withdrawal. In other words, if it's not met.

BLITZER: Benchmarks on the oil distribution, for example, disbanding the militias, the de-Baathification, and some of those areas where the Iraqis have not fulfilled earlier commitments.

LUGAR: They're all critical for the future of Iraq. Iraqis certainly (ph) understand that.

BLITZER: Will you accept binding benchmarks or sort of goals that would be non-binding?

LUGAR: I think they'll have to be goals because, in fact, I don't believe the Iraqis, any group of them, are going to be able to arrive at all the benchmarks that are essential for them in a short space of time.

Now, if, in fact, there is desire on the part of both parties to recognize that we are likely to have some troops in Iraq for some period of time -- not all of the ones we have there now, but a good number -- then that's a different story.

But I think for the moment right now in both parties, there's great difficulty for the leadership trying to get some persons who, in fact, might be more malleable to bring about compromise.

BLITZER: Do you accept these benchmarks as binding or non- binding, simply goals, Senator Schumer, or would they have to have some legal teeth to them?

SCHUMER: Oh, I think we have to have some teeth. We've had goals and goals and goals and they haven't been met. We're in Iraq now as long as we've been in World War II. We've seen no progress with the Iraqi government and I know as Dick Lugar says, it's hard for them to do.

But if they're not -- if they can't even get a formula for distributing the oil, if they can't even begin to take over Iraqization, how much longer are we supposed to stay there with these goals? We want to limit the focus as soon as we can to simply counterterrorism and protecting the troops that are there, dealing with al Qaida and other organizations that might hurt us but not spending most of our time, effort and casualties on policing a civil war.

No one bargained for that. The president never mentioned it when he asked us to go to war in Iraq, and that's what this has devolved into. And We're going to need strong language. This is a long-term fight. It's not just on this resolution.

We have the Department of Defense spending bill which occurs next month. And we are going to continue this fight until we get the president to change.

One final point. Congressman Boehner mentioned today that Republicans by the fall may get tired of this as well, and we've heard that from others, Congressman LaHood. We believe that the taste for continuing with the present course among Republicans in the Senate and the house is going to fade very quickly and we will get the change in mission.

BLITZER: All right. Let's play that clip from the House minority leader, Congressman Boehner, and I want Senator Lugar to respond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, R-OHIO: By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working. And if it isn't, what's Plan B?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you think? Do you agree with him?

LUGAR: It could very well be. But even if we get to Plan B, my point is we're going to have troops in Iraq for quite a while, and we've told all of the surrounding countries it's not just the United States, but each of them.

The forces, the al Qaida people in Iraq are going to go after them as well as us. It is not a question of simply abandoning it because the Iraqis were not very adept politicians. Now, hopefully, we can help them a whole lot. I think that we will.

But by September, I think the Congressman is correct. General Petraeus will be back. He'll make a report. Some things will go well. Some things will not go so well, but we'll still have an obligation.

BLITZER: Senator Schumer, your former Democratic colleague, John Edwards of North Carolina, who is now running for president, says he doesn't want his fellow Democrats in the Senate to blink on the issue of a withdrawal timeline, a deadline for getting U.S. combat forces out of Iraq.

Listen to what he told me earlier in the week in "The Situation Room."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN EDWARDS, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What they should do is send the president another bill that funds the troops and has a timetable for withdrawal. And if he vetoes that, they should send him another bill that has funding for the troops and a timetable for withdrawal.

It's very important that they stand their ground on this. This is not a time for political calculation. It's a time to show some courage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: There are a lot of people who are suggesting already as a result of this first presidential veto, Senator Schumer, that you and the Democrats have already blinked and have given up on this troop deadline withdrawal, this troop withdrawal deadline. What do you say to Senator Edwards?

SCHUMER: Well, we say to Senator Edwards, we agree with the goal. We have to force a change in direction in Iraq. What Congressman Boehner said, I believe, shows that we're going to get that change in direction, that change in mission in Iraq quite soon.

It may not be exactly on this resolution, but it will happen very, very soon. That's a dramatic change when a very conservative Republican leader says that by September or October, the Republicans are not going to give the president the votes he needs to continue in his course of direction. That's going to indicate real, real change. And so, we are going to keep at it. We're going to keep at it on this bill. We're going to keep at it on the next two bills, the DOD, the Department of Defense, both appropriation and authorization, until we get the change.

Now, as Congress -- as Senator Edwards knows, he served here, the president can veto, and then you have to come back and come back again. We can't just wave a magic wand and make it happen, but we're going to keep at it until we get some real, real change in mission.

BLITZER: Senator Schumer, thanks for coming in. Senator Lugar, thanks to you as well. Coming up, who won, who lost this week when the GOP candidates had their first face-off? Our political panel, the best on television, standing by.

Source