News from CNN - Transcript

CNN

SHOW: NEWS FROM CNN 12:00

HEADLINE: Bush Defends war to Defeat Saddam Hussein; Hassoun's Story; Race for the White House

GUESTS: Michael Meehan, Terry Holt, Evan Bayh, John Cornyn

BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer, Kathleen Koch, Barbara Starr, Alessio Vinci

HIGHLIGHT:
President Bush defends the Iraq campaign and says the United States will continue to fight terrorists overseas.; Another twist in the case of Wassef Ali Hassoun.; Ariel Sharon is now reaching out to the opposition Labor Party that's headed by Shimon Perez.; Interview with Michael Meehan, Terry Holt.; Interview with Senator Evan Bayh, Senator John Cornyn.

BODY:
BLITZER: Welcome back.

A constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, that's just one of many issues that are front and center on Capitol Hill in Washington. Some U.S. senators are also urging the president to quickly appoint a new CIA director, saying America can't afford to wait in these times of trouble and terror.

Here to talk about those issues and more, two United States senators. Evan Bayh is a Democrat from Indiana. John Cornyn is a Republican from Texas.

So quickly to both of you-first, Senator Bayh, to you first, do you think the president should name a new CIA director even at this late moment in his first term?

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Wolf, I do. John McLaughlin, the acting director, is a good man. I have confidence in him. But we need leadership, strong leadership at this critical time for our country, particularly with the ominous signs that there may be another attack in the offing. And I think the president would be well-advised to fill that vacancy, but do it, Wolf-and this is critically important-with someone who is objective, nonpartisan, and would enjoy the trust and confidence of all Americans, not just one political party.

BLITZER: When you say objective and nonpartisan, Senator Bayh, does that mean someone like Porter Goss, the Republican House member, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from Florida? Is he too partisan to be the CIA director?

BAYH: I've always had good interactions with Porter. I like him and trust him. But I can tell you that, among many Democrats, he does elicit some reservations because of his zealous defense of the president and some other circumstances. So we just have to see whether Porter would be a consensus choice or not. There might be other names that would be more-or would be less divisive.

BLITZER: Senator Cornyn, where do you stand on whether or not the president should name a new CIA director at this moment?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN ®, TEXAS: Well, Wolf, it's obviously an election year. And what I would be concerned about is the important reforms that have be highlighted, the need for those reforms that have been highlighted by the Senate Intelligence Committee report would somehow be lost in election year politics.

We've seen the confirmation battles, for example, on the Senate Judiciary Committee involving judges get to be very partisan, very acrimonious. And that's not what we need. I agree with Senator Bayh, we need a consensus nominee, if we can find one, someone that will undertake the very real needed reform on the intelligence-in the intelligence community.

BLITZER: Some of the-some of the speculation out there, Senator Cornyn, a consensus nominee might be the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, someone who could be confirmed, supported by Republicans, well liked by Democrats. Do you like him?

CORNYN: I like him. The question is whether he will get the support of 99 other senators. And, of course, ultimately it's the president's choice. And I guess he's the guy that we would need to ask.

BLITZER: What about that, Senator Bayh? You like Richard Armitage?

BAYH: I do, Wolf. I think Richard Armitage would be a very strong choice. And I've not heard the kind of reservations expressed about him that have been expressed about some other potential candidates. So I think he would have an excellent opportunity to be the kind of consensus pick we would need.

BLITZER: I assume both of you think that John McLaughlin, who was at George Tenet's side throughout all of these problems that developed at the CIA, John McLaughlin might not necessarily be the top choice right now. Very quickly, Senator Cornyn, first to you.

CORNYN: Well, I think we need somebody that would come in with a fresh look, somebody certainly with the background and qualifications and the credibility necessary to rebuild our intelligence gathering, our intelligence analysis capability. But I really think it probably needs to be somebody from the outside, somebody who will give it a fresh look.

BLITZER: Senator Bayh?

BAYH: I agree with that, Wolf, and for the reason that we're going to have some important structural changes, reforms to make. And as you well know, there's going to be a lot of bureaucratic resistance up here on the Hill among different committees, but particularly within the intelligence community, and particularly within the Pentagon.

So we need a leader who will have the gravitas and the stature to try and begin the process of making some of these important reforms. John McLaughlin is a good man, but I'm not sure he has that level of gravitas that would enable him to be the kind of leader we need right now.

BLITZER: The president earlier today, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, came out and made a very important speech, not backing away at all from his stance going to war against Saddam Hussein, defending his policy of preemptive strikes. Senators, listen to this excerpt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: ... to overcome the dangers of our time. America's also taking a new approach in the world. We're determined to challenge new threat, not ignore them or simply wait for future tragedy. We're helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting democratic peace in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Bayh, you supported the president. You voted for that resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein before the war.

Looking back now, knowing what you know now-you're a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee-knowing the intelligence was-was faulty, to put it mildly, do you think that vote was a mistake?

BAYH: Wolf, I still think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone, although it would be a much closer case knowing what we know now about the lack of weapons of mass destruction. I think he was still a problem waiting to happen, and you can argue, Wolf, that what we know now about the degrading capabilities of his regular military in the future may have led him to go to irregular activities, like terror and those sorts of things, more than he had in the past.

So a closer case, but still the right thing to do. Proactive action to defend America, I think, following 9/11, is appropriate. Spreading democracy in the long run is our surest defense, but you can't do it everywhere. My particular criticism right now is the way in which the aftermath was handled.

I think that there was clearly inadequate planning. And many of the problems that we're experiencing today are the result of that. So it's possible, Wolf, that something that's still on balance as the right thing to do has been mishandled in the implementation.

BLITZER: Senator Cornyn, we're going to take a break, but I want you to respond to the same question. You're, of course, a strong supporter of the president, a strong supporter of the decision to go to war. But a lot of people are now questioning the rationale.

There's been no weapons of mass destruction that have been found, a limited connection to-between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And now the Senate Intelligence Committee report suggesting that militarily Saddam Hussein posed marginal, limited threat to his neighbors in the region. Do you have any regrets about what has happened since the war, the 850 Americans who have died and the tens of billions of dollars that have been spent?

CORNYN: Well, I'm glad that Saddam is no longer in power. I'm glad that the Taliban and al Qaeda are essentially-been run out of Afghanistan. I think I agree with Senator Bayh that the correct decision was made by the Congress, including Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, in giving the president the power to use all necessary means to remove Saddam from the head of that regime. That had been the policy, of course, of the United States government for a long time, at least as far back as 1998 under the Clinton administration, when the policy of this Congress, then under Democratic control, was regime change in Iraq.

Obviously, Wolf, the-if we knew then what we knew now, perhaps we-well, we can speculate as to how that might have changed the debate. But I believe, as Senator Bayh stated, that it is a good thing. The world is a safer place and the Iraqi people are much better off with Saddam out of power.

BLITZER: Well, let me just pin you down on this point. If you knew then what you know now, Senator Cornyn, would you have voted to go to warm, or would you have let the inspection process, the containment process of Saddam Hussein continue?

CORNYN: Well, Wolf, I'll remind you, I wasn't here when that vote was taken. But I will tell you that we tried containment since the time of the Gulf War onward. We had 17 U.N. resolutions that Saddam thumbed his nose at and defied.

We know he had WMD at one time. We didn't know what he did with it in the interim since he chased U.N. weapons inspectors out in 1998. But I think a logical, reasonable person knowing even what we know now would have concluded that regime change was the proper policy.

BLITZER: I'm going to take a break. I'll just correct you on one point, Senator Cornyn. In 1998, the inspectors left after the U.S., the Clinton administration at that point made it clear it was about to launch air strikes against targets in Iraq. But we'll continue this conversation.

Much more to talk about with two United States senators, Evan Bayh, John Cornyn. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

We're talking about several subjects: the future of the CIA, the war in Iraq, the war on terror. We'll talk a little bit about same- sex marriage, those issues with my guests, Senator Evan Bayh, he's a Democrat from Indiana, Senator John Cornyn, he's a Republican from Texas.

The Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, is now saying he's got to postpone these elections that have been scheduled for September, given all of the problems still in Afghanistan. I recently interviewed him on CNN's "LATE EDITION." I want you to listen to this exchange we had, because this is not the first time these elections have been postponed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAMID KARZAI, AFGHAN PRESIDENT: They see election as a better future for them. They see election as a more legitimate and more empowered government for them. So we-so should have it.

BLITZER: So you can see flatly on this program, seen around the world, the elections will for 100 percent take place in September?

KARZAI: As far as I'm concerned, the president of Afghanistan, as far as the Afghan people are concerned, the desire, the intention is to have elections in September, particularly when (ph) preparations are taking place.

Now, there are-we have partners, the United Nations, the Afghan Election Commission, the Afghan U.N. Joint Election Commission, they're preparing the elections. The intention in Afghanistan, the people, the government is to have elections in September, and we are working for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Bayh, are you disappointed that they've had to postpone these elections again for another six months?

BAYH: Well, it is a disappointment, Wolf. Obviously, a freely- elected government that is legitimate in the eyes of Afghani people is what we hope to establish there. But I'd have to differ to his judgment about whether it's, you know, technically possible to hold that election, particularly outside of the capital. The security situation there is-is very chaotic.

So, again, I'd have to defer to his judgment. But sometimes, you know, we're going to reach the point here, Wolf, where we have to go forward at some point. And perhaps an imperfect election is better than no election at all. So we'll just have to evaluate this as we go forward. But it is a disappointment.

BLITZER: Senator Cornyn, a lot of people have been looking at the prospects of democracy taking shape in Afghanistan, wondering if that could be a model for Iraq. Elections scheduled in January for Iraq, as you well know. How disappointed are you, if at all?

CORNYN: Well, I'm disappointed, but obviously security is the first order of business. And I would think that that is the thing that Iraq and Afghanistan share in common. And so we need to work harder, as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, to provide the security that will allow the democratic process to go forward. That, obviously, is the goal.

BLITZER: Senator Bayh, a lot of people are nervous, as you well know, going into the Democratic convention at the end of this month in Boston, the Republican convention at the end of next month here in New York City. They're getting these statements from the Homeland Security Department, from the Justice Department, the FBI, that al Qaeda might be threatening a major attack and try to disrupt the U.S. presidential elections in November. How concerned should the American public be?

BAYH: Well, it's a significant concern, Wolf. We are getting reports, more credible than some we've had in the past, that they are doing everything they can to perpetrate a major attack. But in the past with we've got warnings like this, they've been unsuccessful, and god willing that will be the case in the future.

So we are bending every effort in the law enforcement community and homeland security community, intelligence community to try and thwart these attacks. It is unlikely, going forward, that we'll be successful every time.

So I think the watch words, Wolf, are vigilance and concern, but not panic. You know, we need to get on with our daily lives.

BLITZER: I asked the question, Senator Bayh, because, as you know, a lot of people out there, Democrats in particular, think that Republicans are raising this threat issue right now as a way to try to generate support for the president and the Republicans in the election. I wonder if you'd want to comment on that.

BAYH: I personally don't think that's the case. You know, I can't speak to the specific timing of why last week in the immediate aftermath of John Edward's selection, but we've been looking at this for the last two or three months, Wolf. And I know enough about it to say that I think there are real reasons to be concerned, but not to panic.

So we need to go forward and exercise every level of vigilance. But in this particular case, I think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned and to be vigilant. With regard to the particular timing last week, it was curious, let's say, but I would be disinclined to think that it was purely motivated by politics.

BLITZER: Senator Cornyn, let's switch gears, talk about the Senate right now taking up the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. You're a good head counter, as are all members of the Senate. Do you believe there are 67 United States senators out there, two-thirds, that's needed to pass a constitutional amendment that would vote in favor of this proposal?

CORNYN: I don't think there's 67 votes as I speak. But, of course, the debate has just begun, and I think a lot of senators are hearing, as I am, from their constituents and telling them about how important they believe the institution of marriage is and how concerned they are about a handful of activist judges who are radically redefining our society's most famous institution. So I think the number will grow.

BLITZER: What do you think the number is right now based on what you've heard, Senator Cornyn?

CORNYN: I don't think anybody's really been able to get a good, hard count, but I would say it's probably in the range of 50 votes, would be my guess.

BLITZER: And just to be precise, you're among those Republicans who supports a constitutional amendment, right?

CORNYN: I am, because the only way that the people of this country can respond when a handful of judges rewrite the Constitution, basically to prevent the people from being heard, is through a constitutional amendment process. And that's what we're debating right now.

BLITZER: Where do you stand, Senator-Senator Bayh, on this very sensitive issue?

CORNYN: Wolf, I don't support same-sex marriage. I think marriage should be between one man and one woman. That currently is the law in Indiana, as it is currently the law nationally.

I happen to have supported, although I wasn't in the Senate-I was governor at the time-I supported the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton at that time to make that the law of the land. But I also find myself in a position of believing that we should reserve amending the Constitution as a last resort. And not for things that might be problems or hypothetically might come up five, six years ago, if the Supreme Court of the United States happens to rule that way. So it's currently the law and I support that law.

BLITZER: All right. We'll have to leave it right there. Senator Bayh, thanks very much for joining us.

Senator Cornyn, thanks to you as well. And we'll continue these discussions down the road.