CNN Larry King Live Transcript

Copyright 2004 Cable News Network
All Rights Reserved

CNN

SHOW: CNN LARRY KING LIVE 21:00

HEADLINE: Interview With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

GUESTS: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Christopher Shays, Jane Harman

BYLINE: Larry King

HIGHLIGHT:
Interview with New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

BODY:
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, her first live prime-time interview since her best seller, "Living History," came out in paperback with a new update. The former first lady will cover it all-Iraq, the November elections, Bob Woodward's explosive new book, "Plan of Attack," her own future and more. Senator Clinton is next on LARRY KING LIVE.

-BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT-

KING: We're back. Two frequent guests. Always good to have them with us here in Washington, Congressman Chris Shays, Republican of Connecticut, chairman of the government reform sub-committee on national security and in Washington as well is Congresswoman Jane Harman, Democrat of California, ranking Democrat on the permanent select committee on intelligence. Congresswoman Harman, what do you make of Senator Clinton?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: She's fabulous. She has started a new career fairly recently, proved herself in New York. I think she's a very popular senator there, her appearance on the show tonight shows the depth and breadth of her knowledge. I think it is really impressive how many lives she's already led and there's more to come. One thing, we were talking about as we were listening to her is what a good job the Clintons did of raising their daughter, Chelsea.

REP. CHRIS SHAYS ®, CONNECTICUT: You know, I think every Republican should take her very seriously. She's a very articulate politician. She represents a huge state, and every time people come up with who do they want as their second choice for president on the Democratic party, she's the one who shows up.

KING: Do you buy her statement that she would turn down John Kerry if he asked her?

HARMAN: I think one would never know that until it happens and I don't know whether he's going ask her, but I certainly think she's qualified, as are many women, to be president, vice president and cabinet secretaries in this administration.

KING: Like you.

HARMAN: Well, I'm flattered to think some people would believe that.

KING: Chris, you think...

SHAYS: Well, it will be tough, Massachusetts and New York, I think there will be some Republicans who would like her to say yes.

KING: Would you like to see her on the ticket, selfishly, do you think you would have it easier?

SHAYS: I really don't know. I want George Bush to win, so whoever they can put on the ticket that George Bush can defeat I'd like.

KING: What do you make of-you're both mentioned in the Woodward book. OK, Shays, you're mentioned in connection with a September 26, 2002 White House meeting between Bush and House members. Bush said he didn't want to put troops in harm's way and he hadn't given up on diplomacy. Remember that meeting?

SHAYS: Yes.

KING: And Jane, you're mentioned in terms of a White House meeting on February 5, 2003, shortly before the Powell presentation to the U.N. You're quoted as calling the case against Saddam strong but you want to know what is the threat to the homeland. That true?

HARMAN: True.

KING: What do you make of the book?

SHAYS: Woodward is someone who seems to get access to whomever he needs to get access. But I think it's interesting that Tenet said it's a slam dunk. People should hear that and say this is what the president was hearing, and believe him when he believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. That's a very important element to be mentioned.

KING: Isn't that a key part of the book? Congresswoman Harman? I mean, the CIA director says slam dunk.

HARMAN: And I was surprised at that statement, assuming it is true. By the way, I've known Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein since they were rookies in Washington. That goes way back. If George Tenet said that, knowing what he knew about the national intelligence estimate, he was exaggerating the case and I was surprised to read that and I'm not sure what he believed at the time or what the president believed at the time. I guess we'd have to ask them more. I assume-I guess I assume he believed what he said but it didn't reflect the underlying intelligence and that's a big problem.

KING: Do you have any doubts now Chris Shays on when you hear $700 million moved from one place to another? Do you question?

SHAYS: No, what I am actually certain of is that we wanted a regime change in Iraq. I mean, that was our goal. It was the goal in the Clinton and under Bush. So there's no surprise there whatsoever. Did I think that we might have to go into Iraq after Afghanistan? Absolutely, and would I want us to have planned for it? Without question. The interesting thing for me, is we planned so well for the war but we didn't plan as well for the aftermath of the war, and that's very regretful.

HARMAN: But that wasn't the issue here. Congress had appropriated money for the war in Afghanistan. That was a war that had international support, we all supported it. Here without telling most of the people in his own administration he instructed Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld to reprogram money to a war he was thinking about that no one else knew about, I think that really violated the deal with Congress and frankly budgeting by supplementals is a very dangerous practice and especially budgeting almost all of our terrorism expenses by supplementals as well.

KING: You were just there, right?

HARMAN: I think Chris just returned yesterday. I've been there several times, I was recently in Afghanistan, Libya, all the garden spots.

SHAYS: A few observations. One, we're going to have a rough few months. I'm more convinced that the transfer of power needs to happen. The Iraqi people are expecting it. And it's kind of like collective bargaining or when is the session going to end. You got to give a deadline and just do it. It's not going to be any easier eight months from now, two months from now, eight months from now, just get it done.

KING: What surprised you?

SHAYS: What surprised me was that some of my previous observations were confirmed. I knew intuitively that allowing the Iraqis to diss (ph) their country under our supervision was a mistake. I now have significant concern that basically saying that we're going to abolish the government, abolish the army, abolish the police and we left such a void and I don't think we got anything from it from the Shias. So I think it was a huge mistake and I think we're paying for it.

HARMAN: I think the post-war planning was extremely poor, a lot of wishful thinking, no real practical thinking, and we're paying for that hugely. I agree with Chris that the deadline which I think we set for political reasons nonetheless should be kept. The Iraqis have bought into it. Frankly, if we could sooner move to transfer some of the governing authority to an international group, especially the U.N./NATO, I think that would be better for the Iraqis.

KING: What do you think of Spain, Honduras and now I understand the Dominican Republic tonight, they only had 300 and they pulled out.

SHAYS: I'm not surprised. I mean, Bremer told me that they haven't been as supportive as we'd hope they would be and not as effective as we'd hoped they would be. The bottom line is the Brits and the Americans are carrying the weight.

HARMAN: No international coalition. We never pulled it off. I think we disrespected the people we wanted to join with us. I think that was a big mistake. We did a much better job in Afghanistan. The good news is that we're doing in Iraq what is being done in Afghanistan. Brahimi is the same guy, he's putting together the same kind of group to transition to elections but we haven't had them in Afghanistan either yet. This is a dicey deal. I hope we get there.

SHAYS: I have a little bit of sympathy for the administration. You come to the Oil for Food program and you realize how involved the French were, the Germans, and the Russians in a $10 billion ripoff. We knew if the French had stuck with us in January like they said they would in December, Saddam would have known that he needed to cooperate. He didn't think we would attack him because the French, the Germans, and the Russians weren't supportive and I think we have an indication of why, part of it is the Oil for Food.

KING: We'll be back in some more moments, maybe get a phone call or two right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Both want to make some points. Let's get one quick call in.

Tampa, hello.

CALLER: My question for your two guests is with the United States focused on the war on terrorism and the situation in Iraq, could this have the United States lose its sight on North Korea or even a sleeping giant such as China?

SHAYS: Absolutely not. As we're fighting the war in Iraq, we dealt with Libya. We got the Chinese pushing the North Koreans and the way we got that to happen, we told the Chinese if North Korea gets nuclear weapons, Japan will get them and China doesn't want that to happen and they stepped right in. We're able to deal with more than one thing at the same time.

KING: I think you disagree.

HARMAN: I'd say yes. While we've been doing this, al Qaeda has been regrouping. Iran is much more dangerous. There's a good story in Libya, but we have to keep on it. And as far as North Korea goes, we don't know exactly how dangerous it is but it's been getting exponentially dangerous. Abdul Qadeer Kahn was proliferating weapons of mass destruction, while we were in Iraq allegedly removing the weapons of mass destruction..

SHAYS: That happened before. And I think the good thing is, Larry, we exposed where Pakistan was doing. We connected them to Iran, Libya, and Iraq. And so I think that's been, you know, some progress.

KING: To Bellvue, Nebraska, hello.

CALLER: My question is for Representative Harman, and Larry I want to say I'm a huge fan of yours. I watch your show all the time. My question is, do you he believe there's weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq?

HARMAN: I think it is highly unlikely. The president has now morphed his statements into program of weapons of mass destruction, program related activities, whatever they may be, but I think David Kay had the answer awhile back and it was we were all wrong. And on that point, a number of us in the house have written to the president urging him to scrub the WMD estimates for every other country if they were wrong in Iraq, they might be wrong in Iran and North Korea and elsewhere.

KING: This new coalition, the State Department is in charge of this?

SHAYS: Right. As soon as there's a transfer of power, you end up with the State Department being our major contact with Iraq. And I think that's good. One of the challenges is, we've had the State Department, the Defense, we've had basically the White House, all kind of involved in these sphere's of influence. And I think it would do good to get the Defense back on the political side and the State coming in on the political side. Ultimately this is a political, not a military effort.

HARMAN: We could have done this at the beginning. A year ago. The State Department wrote a detailed planning document, ambassador Jim Dobbins who had done the nation building exercises in five countries the last 10 years, was helpful and this administration sadly ignored all of that advice, did it wrong for a few months and brought in Jerry Bremer who is truly talented, and working his heart out. And he's a diplomat's instincts. And he's done what he could but it's too little too late, and we're paying for it.

I just wan to make one other comment. As I think what's going on here, I see unfinished business, tax cuts, Iraq finishing the war he daddy started are two of the big priorities here and I think, sadly, the eye is off the ball. The threats of the 21st century are different from the threats of the '80s and the '90s.

KING: What's the election going to be like?

SHAYS: I think it's going to be close. No president has had a majority vote. The first George Bush won by less than a majority. Clinton won both less than a majority. Clearly George W. didn't get a majority or popular vote. I think this will be very close.

KING: Connecticut will go which way.

SHAYS: I don't want to have to say it.

KING: Say close, too?

HARMAN: Very close. The driving issue will be a woman's right to choose. 100,000 or so women and men are going to be marching in Washington this weekend. If Bush gets a second term, we lose the Supreme Court, we lose the right to choose that, will motivate thousands, millions of voters.

KING: Do you think they'd over turn Roe vs. Wade?

HARMAN: With a different composition on the court, I do.

KING: Where do you stand it?

SHAYS: Well, I'm definitely pro choice. I believe in Roe vs. Wade. And a majority of Republican support Roe v. Wad.

KING: So, the administration-you're not in concept with the administration?

SHAYS: No, I don't agree with everything in the administration. I do on the war on terror and the economy and those are two key areas.

KING: Thank you all.

HARMAN: Welcome to Washington.

KING: Thank you, it's good to be back home for awhile.

HARMAN: Good to see new person for once.

KING: Thank you. Our guests, Congresswoman Jane Harman and Chris Shays of California and Connecticut respectively, earlier, Hillary Rodham Clinton. We have an exciting-to-show tomorrow. I'm going to tell you about it in two minutes. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Remember the show the "Apprentice"? Tomorrow night we have the winner, the runner up and four other of the finalist. Six apprentices-apprenticide (ph), plus the man.