CNN Late Edition - Transcript

CNN Late Edition - Transcript
Sunday, May 8, 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: A beautiful Mothers' Day here in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. Welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

It's been a week of both success and setbacks in the war on terror.

Joining us now to talk about that and much more, two guests, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas; and in San Francisco, one of the committee's key Democrats, Dianne Feinstein of California.

Senators, welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

Senator Roberts, I'll begin with you. We have a lot of material we want to get through.

Let's start off with the nomination of John Bolton, the president's nominee to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. You're going to support this nomination. I'm sure almost all the Republicans are. But with hindsight, should the president have come up with somebody who is less divisive?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS ®, KANSAS: Well, it's the president's call. I don't know whether you say someone is decisive or bold or candid or not candid.

It's the president's call. He nominated John. He's been confirmed by the Senate twice.

Obviously it has become a controversy. I hope we can get past that.

We are assisting the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Lugar in taking a look at some intelligence matters. We hope to do that at the first of this next week, so I hope we can get a vote and I hope we can get past it.

BLITZER: You're chairman of the Intelligence Committee. You've heard intelligence, career professionals say they've never seen an official try to get someone, an analyst, fired because they disagreed with what Bolton wanted...

ROBERTS: I think there is a quarrel as to whether or not he wanted to get him fired or not. And I think there's been goodness knows how much talk about all of the issues.

I think it's time to vote. I think we ought to get past this.

But as I've indicated, you have the U.N. with 183 nations. We have just seen Zimbabwe appointed to the human rights committee. We have a Security Council that basically is almost incapable of making a major decision.

I'm not saying someone like John Bolton can fix all that. And then you have the scandals. And so you need strong U.S. leadership at the U.N., so I would agree with the president's decision, and I hope we can vote on it and I hope we can get past it. BLITZER: Senator Feinstein, you agree. You've been a critic of the U.N. from time to time, that it needs some shaking up. Maybe this is the man, as the president wants, to shake things up at the U.N.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't share that point of view, Wolf.

When we received a letter signed by 60 former ambassadors-that's 6-0; 60 -- I began to pause and think about it. And they made the contention in their letter that here's a man you're appointing to an international organization who is essentially opposed to virtually every international treaty and institution.

Now, if you want to appoint somebody there that's going to have a negative image, to me that's John Bolton.

Then you combine that with the personal characteristics: certainly the abruptness, certainly the bombastic nature, certainly some misuse of authority in terms of how he treats people below him.

And I think it puts together a package of somebody who is the wrong person at the wrong time.

BLITZER: So you'll vote against him if it gets out of committee?

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I will. Yes, I will.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move on to North Korea.

Senator Roberts, the suspicion is that the North Koreans-at least the evidence of the satellite reconnaissance photography-seems to show movement consistent with their going ahead with some sort of nuclear test, which they haven't done yet.

Is that the evidence that you as the chairman of the committee are beginning to get?

ROBERTS: I think you've summed it up very well. And I would not be surprised if in fact they did not conduct a nuclear test.

This is the only card they have to play, Wolf. I mean, you have a devastated country. I've been to Pyongyang. I've spent some time. It's absolutely a surreal experience. I think that basically Kim Jong-Il believes that this is his card to play to stay on the world stage to make demands. We hope with the six-party talks-more especially with China-we can make some in- roads.

BLITZER: But what's the incentive for him, Kim Jong-Il, ever to give up his nuclear card, if you will, assuming he does have at least six nuclear bombs? Is that the assessment the intelligence community has?

ROBERTS: I can't get into specifics, but there is an assumption, of course. There's a range starting from 1998 to the current time.

And again I wouldn't be surprised if had a nuclear test. But what's to be gained by that?

I mean, we just had the director general of the IAEA say that that would be a real strong negative. Now if in fact-I'm getting some interference here. Yes. OK.

BLITZER: Yes. We were showing some video.

ROBERTS: Must be the North Koreans.

BLITZER: If in fact he goes forward with that nuclear test, that would be a severe setback.

But let me bring Senator Feinstein in. What would be the problem if he does go forward with a nuclear test?

FEINSTEIN: Well, the problem I think is two-fold. The first is the kind and type of test and whether in fact it does spew radiation or leak radiation and what damage that does.

And the second part of that is that it is overt defiance to the region and to the world.

Now some think this is a cry for attention. Others think it's simply the ribald of an isolated leader.

I'm one that generally believes it doesn't make a lot of sense to isolate leaders. It makes much more sense to involve them, to sit down with them, to work with them, to push them toward change...

BLITZER: Because the argument has been, Senator Feinstein, that Kim Jong-Il wants a bilateral discussion, dialogue with the Bush administration.

The Bush administration says, "Let's do it within the framework of these six-party talks." What you're saying is you would like to see a U.S. dialogue, a direct bilateral relationship emerge?

FEINSTEIN: Yes, of course. I can't support this idea: We're not going to sit down with this man. I think that's the wrong thing. What one should do is meet with everyone and try to see if we can't change his views and change where he's going. And we ought to do that at the highest levels.

BLITZER: When you say the highest levels, you don't mean a summit between President Bush and Kim Jong-Il?

FEINSTEIN: No, I don't mean. But certainly I think our secretary of state should be involved. I have great faith in her. I think it would be very useful. I think it would give Kim Jong-Il some kind of face. I think it could perhaps move him out of this point of isolation and defiance into a more malleable posture. We're not getting anywhere, and we haven't been for the past three years with the way these things are going in these six-party talks.

BLITZER: You want us... FEINSTEIN: Some have chosen to criticize China and say China isn't doing enough. But I think the big banana, so to speak, in this group is really the United States. I think Kim Jong-Il wants this dialogue. I see no reason, I see no harm in sitting down the table with him and seeing if we can't change his direction.

BLITZER: What do you think, Senator Roberts?

ROBERTS: Well, I've been there. I'm not a high-level ranking person to talk to Kim. We tried to talk to Kim five years ago when the country was going through a famine. And we spent the better part of two days and all we got was rhetoric.

Let's go back to the Clinton administration. We made an arrangement with him and indicated we would help on the light-water reactor to supply a better energy source for his people who, by the way, are absolutely destitute. This is not a regular government. This is not a leader that you would normally expect. It's a theocracy. And it's absolutely surreal. Well, they broke that promise. They went ahead with their covert plans anyway. He's going to continue this.

BLITZER: So you would oppose a bilateral relationship?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't know what can be gained from it. I suppose that there's some kind of entree during the six-party talks. But the reason we are relying on China is that they supply the food and the oil. And obviously, they don't want any more refugees over in their country. And I think that people who are affected in the region, i.e., Japan and South Korea and, yes, even Russia, were trying to do that.

But he's trying to play the nuclear card to get the United States in a position to say we will never invade and we have no intention of invading. So that's a phony. And then on the other side of the fact, some kind of a trade deal that would simply work to his benefit like he did before, and he lied before and he'll lie again.

BLITZER: Well, let's pick up this. We have to take a quick break, though. First, Senators, stand by. We're going to take a quick break. Much more to talk about including the war on terror and the capture of a top Al Qaida leader.

What does it all mean? More with Senators Pat Roberts and Dianne Feinstein right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to "LATE EDITION." We're talking with the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, and the Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Senator Roberts, capture this by the Pakistanis, presumably with U.S. assistance, of someone purported to be the number three man in the Al Qaida movement, Abu Faraj al-Libbi. There's some suggestion that the Pakistanis have been very helpful in this war on terror, but now a former CIA top officer, Gary Schroen, is telling people and writing about this, suggesting that, yes, the Pakistanis will be helpful. But up to a point they won't be helpful when it comes to actually capturing Osama bin Laden. Listen to what he said on "Meet the Press" just a little while ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY SCHROEN: To take on bin Laden there would be an uproar within that country and around the Islamic world that would really cause the foundations of the Pakistani government to be shaken.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is that the assessment you've received as chairman of the Intelligence Committee?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't intend to discuss it, you know, fully in terms of the specifics. I think in regards to al-Libbi, that's a tremendous victory. And the Pakistanis have come a long way. Of course, this is the fella who tried to assassinate President Musharraf twice. I don't know about Osama bin Laden.

I'm not aware of any reverberations all throughout the Arab world. Albeit, you know, his supporters would be upset over that, but I think that would be a good thing, not a bad thing. I think the thing to point out is that the lash-up with the intelligence committee in the U.S. and the partnership we have with the Pakistanis, and now a better situation in regards to, say, Iraq, I think that's good news. And slowly but surely we're taking down the leadership of Al Qaida.

BLITZER: Are you upbeat, Senator Feinstein, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, that things are moving in the right direction, the net is being closed in, if you will?

FEINSTEIN: I don't know that. I don't think there's any more information that I know about Osama bin Laden that I can share. I do think that every time you arrest or take down one of these leaders, it does disrupt command and control. I think that's good.

Secondly, I think it has a big psychological effect. I think this has been a very difficult week in Iraq and this and the filling of the additional cabinet positions are just about the only good news coming out of that country. I think the concern, the deep concern that many of us have about Al Qaida is its metastasis and its merging with other entities and its spread around the world.

Right now it seems to be concentrated on the insurgency in Iraq, but no one knows what they're planning for tomorrow or six months down the pike. So I think every time you can take a leader out, it is good news.

BLITZER: What about that, Senator Roberts? is the U.S. and its allies getting closer to finding Osama bin Laden? ROBERTS: Well, Osama bin Laden is one thing. He's the nominal head. He's the figurehead. And so it would be a tremendous psychological victory. But you got to realize if he were captured, you're going to have others that will take his place. It's like, oh, the recent takedown of the individual that's very close to Abu Zarqawi, who we really need to get in regards to...

BLITZER: The terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

ROBERTS: ... say, Iraq. And it's strangely a paradox of enormous tragedy and irony that in the last nine days we've had 300 people killed and many more wounded, but also seeing people in Iraq-and God bless the heroes who want to take on the responsibility in regards to the ministers and the government there.

And as Dianne has so properly pointed out, we finally saw President Jafari appoint the six ministers he needs to appoint: minister of oil, minister of defense, who's a Sunni, by the way. So that's the good news. And also, I think that most Iraqis are getting more than a little tired-and that's the nicest way I can put it-with jihadists basically coming in, some with Al Qaida, Ansar al- Islam, other jihadists, through Syria, through Iran and they're not even local citizenry.

And so consequently, when you see that happen, we're getting more walk-in intelligence and we're getting more cooperation from people who say: Enough is enough. You know, we had an election. We had this new government. Let's at least simply give it a try.

But the Baathist party is the one that's the real problem. They won in '63, won in '68 and they won in '91. So they think they can do it again and they can regain control. And they're working with the jihadist groups, as Dianne has indicated, who are coming in from other countries, more especially Syria. Syria's a big problem.

BLITZER: Unfortunately we're out of time.

FEINSTEIN: Can I say one other thing?

BLITZER: Senator Feinstein, we are totally out of time, but we'll continue this discussion down the road. So much to talk about. The time just simply zips by, Senator Roberts...

ROBERTS: Happy Mothers' Day, Dianne.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.

BLITZER: And a happy Mothers' Day from me as well. Thanks to both of you joining us.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

BLITZER: Senator Feinstein, Senator Roberts, always good to have you on the program.

ROBERTS: Thank you. BLITZER: We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/08/le.01.html