CNN Late Edition-Transcript

CNN Late Edition-Transcript

BLITZER: All right. Let me bring Senator Graham in, because he's got a very different perspective. It's not just Senator Leahy and a lot of Democrats who have lost confidence in the president. It's some Republicans, some high-profile Republicans, Senator Graham. Listen to your colleague Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-NEB.: Wolf, we've been there almost four years. Thousands of American casualties, tens of thousands wounded, almost half a trillion dollars spent. This is a tribal, sectarian civil war that has now embroiled Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What do you say, Senator Graham, about the criticism of this new strategy from the president?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA: The criticism and frustration is understandable, because we have made mistakes, and the progress we were hoping for hasn't developed, and in many ways we've gotten backwards over the last three years in terms of trying to get a stable, functioning government.

But here's some historical benchmarks. We declared or independence in 1776. We fought the British, and it wasn't until 1789 we wrote our own Constitution. After the fall of Hitler and the fall of the Japanese government in World War II, it took five years before there was any meaningful elections.

What I am trying to say is that Iraq is part of an overall global struggle. We've made mistakes. The worst mistake would be to leave this country as a failed state. It would spread throughout the region.

Throwing in the towel in Iraq doesn't stop the fight. It guarantees the fight will go broader. The president has listened to advice from all corners of the military and the public, and political advisers.

He's come up with a strategy that was recommended by General Petraeus, who will testify Tuesday. This strategy makes economic and political sense to me.

We can't afford to fail. And let's not throw in the towel on a war we can't afford to lose.

BLITZER: Senator Leahy, you're shaking your head, listening to Senator Graham.

LEAHY: Well, you know, we've been there longer than we were in World War II, if you want to use that as an example. And it still has not worked.

BLITZER: Well, what do you say to the basic point that he makes and others make that it takes time for a democracy to develop out of the chaos?

LEAHY: I heard the same type of arguments on Vietnam, that, boy, if we pulled out, the whole thing is going to collapse and we're going to have the Chinese Communists storming ashore in America.

Well, of course, none of that happened. And now the president has finally made it to Vietnam. He's gone over there to talk about trade.

This is -- the biggest mistake made here was when the Congress overwhelmingly voted to send our troops into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the man who hit us on 9/11, and then they decided, when we had them cornered, to go into Iraq.

BLITZER: All right, but that's looking back. We're trying to look ahead now. What do you do now?

LEAHY: The reason I point this out...

BLITZER: Let me press you on this point, Senator.

What do you think will happen if the U.S., as I assume you want it to do, quickly withdraws its forces from Iraq?

What would happen in Iraq and in the region?

LEAHY: I'll tell you what won't happen. If we continue to just pile on mistake after mistake, it gets no better and we lose the respect of the other countries, any chance to do anything.

We should be bringing international attention to this, begin a phased withdrawal so that the government of Iraq has to take over for themselves, actually talk to the Iranians, and the Syrians and the others in the area, bring the Europeans and others in, put pressure for them to make the government work.

It is not going to work as long as the Americans are there being targets for both sides in a civil war.

BLITZER: What about that, Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: I think anybody that uses the Vietnam analogy is dangerously wrong. What's going on in Iraq is part of an overall world struggle, moderates against extremists.

The dictator Saddam Hussein oppressed these people for 30 years. The Maliki government is months old, not years old. We can clear -- we've got enough troops, right now, to clear. We can't hold.

We're going to send 21,500 to do what we couldn't do before, to hold territory cleared so the Maliki government can have political reconciliation, share the oil with the Sunnis, bring the government together to live in peace.

This whole idea that Sadr is coming back into the government, to me, shows that he's responding to the pressure to go after his militia.

BLITZER: Senator Graham...

GRAHAM: I know it's hard. I know it's tough.

BLITZER: Let me interrupt and read to you what Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, said this week.

He said, "I think that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down. That's on the condition that there are real strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping them and arming them."

Do you trust this prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, that he's going to live up to his side of the bargain, that he's going to crack down, not only on Sunni insurgents, but also on Shiite insurgents, Shiite death squads?

GRAHAM: Well, we see some evidence of that, but it's not lost upon me, Wolf, of Maliki's past failures. But I will say this in his defense. If you stand up for the concept of democracy in Iraq or anywhere else in the Mideast, the terrorists come after you in droves.

Al Qaida went into Iraq understanding that, if we were successful in Iraq, it would spread beyond Iraq. Al Qaida understands this is not Vietnam, from their point of view. So I would like to stand by Maliki and give him the resources he needs.

The good news is he's asking to do more. That's what we've been pushing him to do. He's openly saying, if you had given me more, I could have gone further faster.

So let's stand by him. Let's hold him to account but not abandon this young democracy. It's months old. in a worldwide struggle. If we leave these people now, we're really going to pay a heavy price later.

BLITZER: Senator Leahy, go ahead.

LEAHY: The irony is Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq before we went in there. Ironically enough, Saddam Hussein kept him out of there.

The thing is, we were not threatened in Iraq. We were threatened by Osama bin Laden, and the administration failed miserably.

They had a chance to catch him. They pulled our troops out because they were so hell-bent on getting into Iraq. And Osama bin Laden got away.

Just think how much better off we would have been, had they kept their eye on the ball and gotten Osama bin Laden. I think that would have been a devastating blow to Al Qaida, not allowing Al Qaida, now, to go into Iraq and be a training ground for them.

BLITZER: All right, Senators, we're going to take a quick break, but we have a lot more to talk about. I want to look ahead and see what's going on. We want to get the thoughts of these two senators on what's driving their colleagues as well, several of them, into a very crowded presidential campaign trail.

Also, there will be a crowd when I moderate the first two presidential debates in New Hampshire in early April. Mark it down on your calendars, April 4 and April 5. We'll have Democratic and Republican presidential debates, right here on CNN.

And later: Can this marriage last? President Bush tying his future to the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki. We'll ask the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaidaie.

And for our North American viewers, coming up at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, right after "Late Edition," on "This Week at War," you'll hear what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has to say about the Iraqi leader and the war. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It's a chilly Washington Sunday, and we're not just talking about the weather. Welcome back to "Late Edition."

We're continuing our conversation with two skilled Washington insiders, Senators Lindsey Graham and Patrick Leahy.

Senator Leahy, there seems to be three options on the table for you to express your opposition to the president's new initiative.

You can go with what's called the Biden-Hagel symbolic Sense of the Senate Resolution opposing this troop increase.

You can go with a cut in funding for the additional troops that are going in. That's what Senator Kennedy is recommending.

Or you can put a limit, a cap on how many troops should be allowed to serve in Iraq right now, as Senator Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Dodd are recommending, a cap, or a ceiling on troops.

Where do you stand?

LEAHY: I think you're going to see attempts at all three. The symbolic part is somewhat more than symbolic because, at one time, I thought it was going to just Democrats against Republicans.

Now, we find some of the key Republicans are supporting this, to say enough is enough; we can't continue mistake after mistake.

Now, I realize -- and Lindsey Graham's a dear friend of mine. I don't want to offend him. But you have, on the one side, Lindsey and John McCain, saying put more troops...

BLITZER: But what do you think is the best strategy?

Do you support using your power of the purse, your constitutional power of the purse...

LEAHY: Yes, yes.

BLITZER: ... to try to stop this war?

LEAHY: Ultimately, I do. I mean, this is the only way we stopped Vietnam. We had a lot of people who said they were opposed to it, but when we finally had a vote in April 1975, a key vote on the power of the purse, that's what stopped it. I know because I'm the only Vermonter who ever voted against the war in Vietnam.

BLITZER: All right. Let me let Senator Graham weigh in. What do you think, Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: Well, I think this has been a good show. I really do respect Senator Leahy, because he is acting on his convictions. He believes this is another Vietnam. You need to cut funding, get out, cut your losses.

I believe it's a central battlefront in World War III, and that the basic difference is that the people who are trying to destabilize Iraq and end this infant democracy will come after us. So I'm going to be very consistent here.

The biggest mistake we've made is not having enough resources to win this war, not having enough troops, so I'm going to stand with General Petraeus. All of these resolutions basically reject General Petraeus, declare him a failure before he has the chance to do anything.

If you really do believe it's a Vietnam, cut off funding, a resolution to declare defeat hurts the troops, empowers the terrorists, hurts the moderates, doesn't do any good. So I admire Senator Leahy for the courage of his convictions. I've come to a different conclusion.

BLITZER: Senator... LEAHY: Well, you know, there's another aspect to all this, though. In the last six years -- and actually, the president has not been helped by having a rubber-stamped Congress. He had a rubber- stamp House, rubber-stamp Senate.

You never really had any real oversight in either body, because the White House would say, don't do it, and for some reason, with a few notable exceptions, the Congress went along with it. Now you're having real oversight. We're going to be getting it in Judiciary on the illegal spying on Americans...

BLITZER: We're going to get to that in a moment.

LEAHY: (inaudible) the others. That's going to make a difference.

BLITZER: All right. Well, let me just let Senator Graham weigh in. There was this interesting exchange earlier today on "Meet the Press," Senator Graham. Your friend John McCain was pressed on General Casey, George Casey. He's leaving Iraq. He's been recommended to become the Army chief of staff.

General Petraeus going into Iraq to replace General Casey, and Senator McCain suggesting he may not vote to confirm him as a four- star general as the Army chief of staff. Listen to this exchange he had with Tim Russert.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I'm concerned about failed leadership, the message that sends to the rest of the military. I have hard questions to ask him, and I'm very skeptical about it.

TIM RUSSERT, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": As of today, you're leaning no?

MCCAIN: Yes. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What about that, Senator Graham? Have you come to a conclusion on whether General Casey should be the next Army chief of staff?

GRAHAM: I think Senator McCain is right that there will be hard questions asked. General Casey and General Abizaid are two fine, wonderful Americans and who have served with honor, but the strategy they've been telling us about for the last 2 1/2 years has not produced the outcomes we all desire in Iraq.

And General Casey will be held to account for the advice he's given in the past, for the strategy he proposed in the past. And we'll have to make a decision as a Congress what's the best thing for General Petraeus and this new strategy.

Putting ceiling caps on troops undercuts the war effort. Cutting off funding would be devastating. A resolution declaring the war lost before the new strategy's commenced, I'm all against.

So we'll have to see, does General Casey being chief of staff of the Army help or hurt the effort to re-engage and find victory through General Petraeus's strategy? The jury's still out, but there will be hard questions asked.

BLITZER: All right. What do you think, Senator Leahy. It was a surprise to me to hear Senator McCain and now Senator Graham suggest they may not vote to confirm General Casey as the new Army chief of staff.

LEAHY: I'm not on the Armed Services Committee. Let's hear the... BLITZER: But you are a United States senator. It might have to come to you.

LEAHY: Oh, yeah, and I'd want to see what Senator Levin, Carl Levin, who's chairman, what they bring out in the confirmation hearings. I'll make up my mind. My guess today is that General Casey would be confirmed. But let's see what the hearings -- let's see if there's something different in there.

BLITZER: All right. I want to bring out a clip of what Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser to this president and earlier presidents, Senator Graham. He was in the "Situation Room" with me earlier this week, and listen to what he said. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: If you're worried about terrorism, the thing to do is get out of Iraq and go after bin Laden, go after al-Qaida, reduce our vulnerabilities here at home, not to stir up the hornet's nest by being in Iraq. They're not related.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. I just want you to respond quickly to that, because then I want to move on to the Judiciary Committee hearings this week on warrantless wiretaps.

GRAHAM: I fundamentally disagree with his concept. I do think replacing a dictator, Saddam Hussein, with a functioning, stable democracy would be a huge win in the war on terror. Iraq is part of the war on terror.

And finally, I would say al-Qaida came to Iraq after we came to Iraq to create a democracy. Al-Qaida's biggest fear is that a functioning stable government will emerge in Iraq that will spread through the Mideast. I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Clarke.

BLITZER: You had lengthy hearings this week with the attorney general, Mr. Chairman, Alberto Gonzales. You gave him hell on a few points there on the warrantless wiretaps, on several other issues.

But now the administration has come around and said, yes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and these FISA courts do apply. They will be used before these wiretaps are authorized. Are you satisfied now?

LEAHY: No. I'm a strong supporter of what Ronald Reagan used to say: Trust but verify. They have come a long way. You know, you wonder why they suddenly did an about-face. All this time we were saying, you can't do this warrantless wiretapping. You have to go to FISA.

The president and everybody else saying, oh, we can't do that. All of a sudden, the control of the Congress shifts and they say, oh, I guess you're right, we have to go to them. I want to know what the order was that the court gave them, and our committee will get that order.

If they are following the law, if they are doing what they're supposed to, I applaud that. But I don't want to take their word for it. I want to hear from the court.

BLITZER: We've got to unfortunately, senators, leave it right there. A good discussion on several of the issues.

GRAHAM: He's right.

LEAHY: Thanks, Lindsey.

BLITZER: Senator Graham, you agree with him on that?

GRAHAM: You're right. Yes, he and Senator Specter have done a very good job of pushing this issue. I like what I'm hearing, but let's verify.

BLITZER: All right. On that upbeat note, agreement between the two senators, we'll leave it. Senator Graham, Senator Leahy, thanks very much, and we'll hope to have you back here on "Late Edition."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/21/le.01.html