CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer - Transcript

CNN

SHOW: CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER 12:00

HEADLINE: Interview With Lynne Cheney; Interview With Ralph Nader

GUESTS: Olympia Snowe, Dianne Feinstein, Lynne Cheney, Jane Harman, Chris Cox, Ralph Nader, Bill Owens, Tom Vilsack, Robert Gallucci, David Kay

BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer

HIGHLIGHT:
Interview with Lynne Cheney. Then, interview with Ralph Nader.

BODY:
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's noon in Washington, 9 a.m. in Los Angeles, 5 p.m. in London and 8 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us for "LATE EDITION."

In just a few minutes, I'll speak with two key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lynne Cheney.

But first, let's go to CNN headquarters in Atlanta for a quick check of the hour's top stories.

(NEWSBREAK)

BLITZER: Agreement in Washington can be hard to find, especially in this election year here in the United States. But this week, the 17 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, agreed unanimously that the U.S. intelligence assessments leading up to the war in Iraq were virtually a complete failure.

Joining us now, two members of the committee: Senator Olympia Snowe, she's a Republican of Maine, she's joining us from Auburn, Maine; and here in Washington, Senator Dianne Feinstein, she's a Democrat of California.

Welcome, Senators, back to "LATE EDITION."

I'll begin with you, Senator Snowe. Knowing what you know right now, if you had known exactly what you know right now including all of the casualties, all the expenses, all the faulty intelligence, would you have voted to go to war?

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE ®, MAINE: Well, obviously, Wolf, you have to look at the context in which we considered the resolution in October 2002, which was just a year removed from the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

So obviously, knowing what we know today with respect to the weapons of mass destruction, it might have been a closer call to be sure; whether the timing, the specifics of the plan might have been different, the resolution might have been different, the president's authorization might have been different, his actions as well.

I think the question is, though, we have to consider what we knew at the time as well, and that is that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass...

(AUDIO GAP)

BLITZER: I think we just lost...

SNOWE: ... had dual capacity for use. He was able...

BLITZER: Senator, Senator Snowe, let me just interrupt because I think we just had a little technical glitch out there.

But let me just press you once again. Would you have voted for that resolution authorizing the president to go to war if you knew that the intelligence on WMD, weapons of mass destruction, were faulty, that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein potentially to al Qaeda, maybe even to 9/11. simply didn't exist? How would you have voted?

SNOWE: Well, let me just say, Wolf, you mentioned a number of issues that need to be addressed. I think it would have been a closer call, but I think it still could have justified action. But it could have been a different plan. It could have a been different timing.

It wouldn't have been a question of whether. I think it would have been a question of when, because of Saddam's defiance of U.N. resolutions over this last decade, because he did have terrorists coming through his country.

I mean, that is a link or connection that was established in our report, although there was no operational relationship.

And even Dr. Kay said, you know, at what point, given the interest in weapons of mass destruction that a likely buyer and seller would need in the future.

BLITZER: So, Senator Snowe, just finally, before I turn to Senator Feinstein, you have no regrets on your vote?

SNOWE: Well, it's not whether I have any regrets. We had to consider the moment at the time. Obviously, we would liked to have known everything that we know today about the weapons of mass destruction, but the fact is it doesn't take away that potentially, at some point in time, the inevitably of having to deal with Saddam Hussein in light of the 9/11 threat. It's a different paradigm, a different threat and that is the prism through which we now have to meet all the threats and challenges to our national security.

BLITZER: All right. Let me bring Senator Feinstein in.

Let's take a look at these numbers, the casualty count since the war started more than year ago in Iraq. So far 887 U.S. troops have been killed. If you add other coalition forces, more than 1,000 troops have been killed in Iraq, and that's not including Iraqis, obviously. U.S. injured well over 5,000.

You voted for the war, Senator Feinstein. Do you regret that vote?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Yes, I do. I must say I do, and I'll tell you why.

The administration originally brought the cause for war based on regime change. There were no comments that Saddam had a deteriorating military, as we now know is the case. We knew his history. So many of us on the Intelligence Committee asked for the best product of the entire intelligence community. That is put forward in a very special document called a national intelligence estimate.

We got that document about 10 days before the vote. I spent a lot of time on both the classified and the unclassified versions.

At the same time, you had Vice President Cheney on the air, the president on the air, the secretary of defense on the air all buttressing and pushing this weapons of mass destruction argument.

The intelligence was very conclusive: Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons.

BLITZER: There was no doubt about that?

FEINSTEIN: There was no doubt about that.

BLITZER: Well, if-but the intelligence community was sharing that assessment, that bottom-line assessment with the president and the vice president, Dick Cheney, as well, why should they have come to a different conclusion if that's the bottom-line assessment of that national intelligence estimate?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think that's a point, and...

BLITZER: You can't blame the president and the vice president.

FEINSTEIN: ... and I think one of the things-I am not saying that at this stage.

One of the things that we need to look at is how this intelligence was used. You know, the intelligence was certainly not a slam dunk. The intelligence was deeply flawed. Wherever there was a difference in intelligence departments, the CIA's view prevailed.

BLITZER: This is a sensitive issue. Did the president and the vice president and the secretary of defense, the secretary of state-were they simply misinformed by the intelligence community or did they deliberately mislead the American public?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I think this: On the issue of the terrorist connection to al Qaeda-or the Iraqi connection to al Qaeda and hence to 9/11, I think even to this day the administration pursues the fact that there was a connection, there is no formal connection. Our staff...

BLITZER: There was a connection but it wasn't collaborative or substantive.

FEINSTEIN: It wasn't collaborative. It wasn't substantive. It wasn't ongoing. There were relationships with other terrorist groups, but nothing definitive with al Qaeda.

BLITZER: Let me read to you, Senator Snowe-I'll bring you back in-from the final report which your committee unanimously accepted.

"The intelligence community suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing WMD program. This group-think dynamic led intelligence community to interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program."

The question is this, Senator Snowe-it's a sensitive question-did those American troops who were killed in Iraq die in vain?

SNOWE: No, they did not die in vain, Wolf. And I think we all should be expressing our profound gratitude and appreciation each and every day for the heroism of our men and women who are on the front lines in Iraq.

When I talk to families and their loved ones who returned from Iraq and even those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, they say they did it for duty to country, to serve this country and to free the Iraqi people and the changed dynamic that has occurred within Iraq today that has the prospects, albeit difficult, to get a secure, stable Iraq. That's not only good for Iraq and for the Middle East but it's good for America but most importantly it's good for the world community.

BLITZER: All right, Senator, let...

SNOWE: I don't think we need to lose sight of that.

BLITZER: Let me bring Senator Feinstein back in. I'll read again another quote from the report.

"No information has emerged this far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks."

A lot of Americans after 9/11, before the war, during the war, believed there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

I'll ask you the same question: Did those Americans who died in Iraq die in vain?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I don't think they died in vain.

I think the war perhaps could have been delayed. I think it may well have been prevented. I think this is where John Kerry has a very strong point, that, if we had spent more time, if there was more time to vet the NIE, if more time had been spent in developing a coalition, in working through the United Nations, in adding pressure, perhaps military action could have been delayed.

What we did is authorize the president to use force. The timing of that force was his, not ours, and that's not to escape any responsibility.

I will tell you this: I have a very hard time with my vote, knowing what I do today, and contrasting it with what I thought then, based on intelligence.

And what this points out, Wolf, is the enormous need for reform and change in our intelligence community.

BLITZER: All right.

FEINSTEIN: And both Senator Snowe and I are working together for that end, with a bill that would provide some real management and direction to the agency, because one of the findings of our report-and it's Conclusion Number 7 -- is that the way the arrangement is with the DCI as the nominal head of the agency, without the necessary clout, put the CIA in an unusual position,...

BLITZER: All right.

FEINSTEIN: ... where every time there was a difference of opinion, the CIA opinion was taken, not the other.

BLITZER: The DCI is the director of central intelligence.

Senator Snowe, in addition to there being faulty, bad intelligence on WMD, bad intelligence on links, perhaps, between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the New York Times has a front-page report today citing another section of the report, saying that Iraq's military under Saddam Hussein really posed minimal threat, among other things saying, "The body of assessments showed that Iraqi military capabilities had steadily degraded following defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Analysts also believe those capabilities would continue to erode as long as economic sanctions remained in place."

Do you accept the notion that this other fundamental explanation for going to war, that Iraq represented a serious military threat, was faulty?

SNOWE: Well, I think-well, we have to put it all into context here, and I think that we're dismissing that context of 9/11, and looking through the prism of that tragic event and the consequential results of it, and the impact on, I think, policy-makers, both in Congress as well as the president of the United States.

The fact is, we had very faulty intelligence. That is systemic. It is a widespread failure that needs to be addressed, and I hope that we will be able to tackle that reform, because that needs to happen sooner rather than later, because we have a web of failure.

I think, secondly, is to look at the threat that Saddam continued to pose. The question is, at what point in time would we be willing to reconcile us to the fact that he was continuing to defy more than a decade-worth of resolutions? Even the United Nations had agreed to serious consequences through their resolution.

So I think we have to put it, because we can't look at one dynamic, Wolf, as I'm hearing here today. The weapons of mass destruction issue was regrettable, but we did not get the right intelligence for that particular component.

BLITZER: You say he was defying the U.N., but there were still weapons inspectors in Iraq, the sanctions were moving forward, there was the no-fly zone. He was being contained. It was only after the U.S. decided to go to war that those weapons inspectors left.

SNOWE: But I think the point is that you have to realize too, Wolf, that, as Dr. Kay indicated, he had programs that could be restarted, he had dual-use capabilities. We can't overlook that. He did have the development of a missile ballistic weapons system that was beyond the allowable limits of the United Nations agreement, as a result of the cease-fire agreement in 1991 in the Persian Gulf War. So there are clearly some strong indications of potential problems.

He had intent. He did have terrorists going through the country. I don't think we can dismiss it.

Clearly there are uncertainties, but also the president of the United States, he has to act sometimes on uncertainties, because otherwise people will die. And I don't think that we can overlook that consequence and what happened throughout the decade of the '90s, when we failed to act.

BLITZER: We only have a few seconds left, but I want to get both of you on the record.

There's going to be a effort, beginning tomorrow, Senator Feinstein, to get a constitutional amendment passed in the U.S. Senate that would ban same-sex marriage.

I assume you're going to vote against that.

FEINSTEIN: I'm going to vote against it.

I mean, I find it really intolerable that it's coming up now. Everyone knows that it doesn't have the votes to be placed before the American people. It's there only to create, I think, a major conflict.

BLITZER: Do you support same-sex marriage?

FEINSTEIN: I don't support same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The people of my state voted on this on a ballot in the year 2000 and sustained that. Once you have a ballot measure like that, I'm clearly here to carry out the intentions of a majority of the state.

And I also believe, and Supreme Court decisions buttress this belief, family law has always been the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government.

BLITZER: Let me let Senator Snowe weigh in.

How will you vote, Senator Snowe?

SNOWE: Well, I don't support a constitutional amendment at this time. We have the Defense of Marriage Act in place. It hasn't been challenged. No suits have been filed in court. And I oppose same-sex marriage and I believe that marriage should be defined as a marriage between man and woman. But I don't think that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Senator Snowe, thanks very much for joining us.

Senator Feinstein, thanks to you, as well.

FEINSTEIN: You're very welcome.

SNOWE: Thank you.