Return to Transcripts main page

NEWS FROM CNN

Strike Against Same-Sex Marriage Fizzling; Governor of Mosul Shot; Hassoun's Departure Delayed

Aired July 14, 2004 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: A busy hour ahead here on CNN. We'll get to all of that. First, some headlines "Now in the News."
About to happen here in the nation's capital, a test vote in the United States Senate on the Republican push to ban same-sex marriage by amending the United States Constitution. Facing certain defeat, at least for now, the Republicans say they will not give up. They're vowing to fight this battle down the road. Coming up, though, the politics of marriage in a heated election season.

In Iraq, the first major attack on Baghdad since the transfer of power more than two weeks ago. At least 10 people dead in a suicide bombing. CNN's Jane Arraf will report on how the new regime is reacting to a major assault in the heart of the capital.

And the fight for the White House 2004. The Kerry campaign targets a key voting block, as President Bush hops on a bus in Wisconsin. We're live this hour on the campaign trail.

Keeping you informed, CNN, the most trusted name in news.

It's happening right now. A preemptive strikes against same-sex marriage looks like it's going to fizzle on the floor of the United States Senate. CNN's Ed Henry has been on Capitol Hill. He's covering this story and telling us what's happening right now -- Ed.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Wolf.

The debate is wrapping up. We're expecting a vote in the next hour. This is a long-awaited vote, and in the short term it's going to be a major disappointment for Republicans.

They had high hopes of really pinning this on senators John Kerry, John Edwards, putting them in an awkward position, putting the Democratic ticket in the position of defending gay marriage. At least that's the way Republicans were trying to cast it. They wanted to get Kerry and Edwards on the record voting against a ban on same-sex marriage. In the long term, however, even though that vote is going to fail today, Republicans still believe that they can use it as a weapon in November, and they're vowing, as you mentioned, that they will come back next year again and again until they finally win.

The problem for Republicans is that there was some division within their own ranks. First of all, there was a dispute over which version of the constitutional amendment to use. But also, as you know, there were some very prominent Republicans, like John McCain. Also, Lynn Cheney, on your program Sunday, coming out against this effort on Capitol Hill. That was difficult for Republicans, and Democrats seized on that upon. In fact, Senator Joe Lieberman, who was in that debate, the vice presidential debate in 2000, when Vice President Cheney said that he believes this should be left to the states, Senator Lieberman was on the floor a little earlier using that as a weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I believe that this effort to amend the Constitution is premature, unnecessarily divisive and denies our states rights that they have long had. My opposition to this federal constitutional amendment is, in fact, quite similar to the views stated by Vice President Dick Cheney in our debate during the 2000 campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Republicans also rejecting a tax from Democrats, claiming that this whole effort has basically amounted to gay bashing. Democrats also on the Senate floor this morning, people like Ted Kennedy, saying that they think the Republicans are wasting time on an issue that is going to fail when they should be focusing on homeland security and other issues that Democrats deem more important. But Republicans, like Rick Santorum, are saying there's nothing more important than protecting traditional marriage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: This idea that it's not right, this idea that it's unnecessary, this idea that is divisive -- all but at least one member I'm aware of don't -- only one member disagrees with the substance of the amendment. That's divisive?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Wolf, there's also a very interesting angle here developing with senators Kerry and Edwards. Since it now will be a procedural vote, they're planning to skip it because their vote will really not matter. It will technically fail anyway without them, whether they show up or not. But there's some political risk there for the Democratic ticket.

Republicans are insisting they will make this an issue. They will say that Kerry and Edwards are ducking it, that they didn't want to go on record at a time when Kerry is going around the country saying that he supports conservative values.

In fact, this morning, Senator Edwards was on the Hill meeting with House Democrats privately to talk about the election. CNN producer Ted Barrett shouted a question to him about this, about whether or not he's going to feel some pressure from gay rights groups who think that the Kerry-Edwards ticket should have been up here today, should have been voting whether it counted or not, they should have been here voicing their opposition to a ban on gay marriage. Senator Edwards ducked that question, said he was not here to take any questions from the press.

And so you're going to see not only some heat from Republicans, but maybe in the days to come, heat from the -- from the left, where some of the gay rights groups are saying they wished that Kerry and Edward had been here to -- to be very firm in saying they're against this ban -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Interesting. Our viewers are about to see presumably this hour a vote in the United States Senate. Now, we know the rules of the Senate can be rather arcane, rather complicated. Specifically, what will these United States senators be voting on, and how do we interpret the respective votes?

HENRY: Perhaps the easiest way to put it is that, initially, the Republican had a two-sentence constitutional amendment, where there was a lot of division about that particular amendment. And there were not enough votes to get the super majority of 67, not even enough to maybe get a 51, a simple majority. So Republicans were a little red- faced.

Democrats called their bluff and said, bring up that amendment, we want a roll call vote on that. Republicans then decided to shift to a second version, just a one-sentence constitutional amendment that they thought would get more support.

Democrats then said, no way, we want you to stick with the first version. Democrats blocked that second version. So what they're voting on today is a motion to proceed to that second version of the constitutional amendment.

You now no longer need 67 votes. You need 60 votes to break a filibuster, basically, the Democratic blocking effort. It's widely expected they will not get 60 votes, so it will fail, and thus, the Senate cannot proceed to that second version of the constitutional amendment.

Where does that leave us politically? Republicans are saying this is an up-or-down vote, this is a test on where you -- you stand on same-sex marriage. Democrats insist, no, it's just procedural, it's not directly on either version of the amendment, and so that this basically amounts to nothing. Obviously, the finger pointing, the political maneuvering has begun -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Ed Henry doing an excellent job explaining the arcane world of the United States Senate for us. Ed, thank you very much for that. We'll watch these reports as they come in this hour.

And now to Iraq, where there's deadly evidence that the fight for a secure Iraq far from over. Today, yet another suicide car bombing. And there's late word right now an assassination in the town of Mosul. Both acts of violence taking price on a national holiday. Our Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, joining us now live with the latest.

Jane, what is happening? JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Wolf, wire services are reporting that the governor of Mosul has been assassinated on his way from Mosul, north of Baghdad, to the capital here. We're trying to confirm those reports, and the reason we're being a bit cautious is that first reports of almost anything aren't necessarily entirely true.

But as it is now, wire services quoting interior ministry and other official sources, are saying the governor of Mosul and possibly two other people traveling with him have been killed. According to Reuters, a grenade was thrown at his car as a car pulled by his as he was traveling on the highway, and then gunfire broke out. Again, we are trying to confirm that the governor of Mosul has been assassinated. If true, it is -- he would be one of the highest-level officials to have been killed.

Now, earlier, of course, this morning, a suicide car bomb broke two weeks of quiet here in Baghdad. The car bomb was near the Green Zone, that so-called safe area that used to house the U.S. occupation authorities, now housing the embassy, the U.S. embassy, all sorts of Iraqi government buildings and other things.

This car bomb exploded, killing 10 Iraqis and wounding dozens more. The Iraqi government has pledged to bring the people responsible to justice. And, indeed, they have pledged stronger measures, something close to martial law, which have a lot of support among the Iraqi people -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jane, Mosul is an area we haven't really heard a lot about lately. How violent has it been up there in the northern part? And there's a mix of the community, Shiite, Kurd, Sunni up there. What does this say to you if these reports are true, that the governor of Mosul has been assassinated?

ARRAF: I think what it would have to say, Wolf, is that quite a long time after the end of major combat, a few weeks into the handover to sovereignty, there are still parts of this country that remain extremely problematic, where the insurgency and possibly the insurgency tied to foreign fighters working together, is presenting a constant and persistent danger, particularly to officials.

Now, Mosul, as you mentioned, fascinating. One of the most, probably the most ethnically diverse major city in Iraq. It's a combination of Sunnis, some Shi'as, Christians, all sorts of people. And it had started off as one of the models.

It was peaceful, relatively prosperous. And then all of a sudden, it degenerated into what we have seen lately, which is frequent attacks on U.S. forces, frequent attacks on Iraqi police, and frequent assassination attempts.

If this one is true, it is a very serious thing. This is a very high-level official in a city that is key to Iraq, one of Iraq's major cities -- Wolf.

BLITZER: A very disturbing development, also the car bombing in Baghdad as well. Jane, thanks very much. CNN Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf, reporting for us.

Elsewhere in Iraq, the Philippine's government is scrambling to meet the demands of militants who are holding a Filipino national. The Philippine's government has reduced its number of troops in Iraq -- not many to begin with -- from 51 down to 43, and it's vowing to withdraw all of them a month earlier than planned. They're supposed to leave August 20. The United States has protested the action, saying it's unwise to give in to terrorist demands, insisting that only invites further hostage-taking.

And the police chief of Mosul says that two kidnapped Bulgarians are still alive, despite an Al-Jazeera report yesterday that one of them had been executed. The Arabic news network said it had received a videotape showing the actual killing. It didn't run that videotape, but a Bulgarian government spokesman says it knows of no such confirmation that one of these two Bulgarian truck drivers is dead. We're watching that story for you, our viewers.

Grounded in Germany: a United States Marine has to wait another day before heading back to the United States. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, joining us now with more on Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun.

The mystery, I think keeps -- is still there, isn't it Barbara?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Wolf. Corporal Hassoun, by the way, did leave Landstuhl Hospital this morning in Germany, went to the airport, the military airport at Ramstein, expecting to board a C-5 airplane for Dover Air Force Base to make his way back to the United States today. However, the Marine Corps has just reported that there were mechanical problems, so his flight is delayed at least until tomorrow.

However, it is expected he will board a plane then, make his way to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and then come to the Marine Corps base at Quantico, here in Virginia, just a few miles south of the Pentagon. Corporal Hassoun coming back to Quantico to continue his repatriation process and eventually begin talking to investigators about what happened to him.

But when he left the hospital in Landstuhl earlier, he did issue a written statement of thanks, saying, "I am happy to have completed this phase of my repatriation. The people here at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center have treated me very well, but I am excited to be going home. All thanks and praises are due to god for my safety."

"I am also very thankful for all those kind wishes, support and prayers for me and my family, from my fellow Marines, all of the people in the U.S., Lebanon and around the world. I am in good health and spirits. I look forward to my return home to friends and family," signing off "Semper fidelis," of course the Marine motto, always faithful.

But a long way to go on this story, Wolf, because investigators still want to verify his story of being abducted from his base in Iraq last month, then being held by captors with that blindfold and sword to his head, how he might have made his way to Lebanon. The Marines, of course, having some different assessments along the way, originally listing him as a deserter, then listing him as captured.

The corporal apparently telling people he had been abducted. But still a long way to go in verifying this entire story and finding out what exactly happened. When he does make his way back to the United States, investigators eventually will step in, quite clearly, talk to him at length and try and verify his story -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara, what, if anything, should we make of the fact he's now going to be brought to Quantico, the U.S. Marine base at Quantico? There's also an FBI training facility at Quantico as well. The original expectation was that he was going to go back to Camp Lejeune, the Marine base in North Carolina. What, if anything, should we read into the fact that he's going to Quantico?

STARR: Well, the Marines say, indeed, he is going to Quantico because it is the best location for everyone who needs access to him to be able to speak to him. That includes, we are specifically told, intelligence specialists, investigators, the -- the repatriation team that will continue to work with him, medical and psychological professionals. But by being here in the Washington, D.C. area, everyone will have ready access to him, we are told, rather than the original plan, as you say, which was to take him to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where all of those people would have had to fly down there back and forth, maybe for several weeks to come, while they try and sort all of this out. So it does appear one of the reasons he's being brought to Washington D.C. to this area is so that everyone who needs to can get ready access to him in the weeks ahead -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The Quantico base only about a half an hour drive or 45-minute drive from the Pentagon in northern Virginia. Thanks very much, Barbara Starr, for that report.

Taking their message on the road. President Bush hops on a bus traveling through Wisconsin. That's his latest stop on the campaign trail. We'll have a live report.

Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign unveils a new string of ads this hour targeting African-American voters. We'll find out what effect all of this could have in November.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Bush's campaign express is rolling through the battleground state of Wisconsin today. It's part of a two-day swing through three Midwestern states he narrowly lost in 2000, but is certainly hoping to win this coming November.

Our Elaine Quijano is covering the president. She is joining us now live from the White House.

Elaine, what's -- what's the latest over there?

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon to you, Wolf.

Well, back in 2000, President Bush lost Wisconsin to Al Gore by a razor-thin margin, just 5,700 votes. Now, the Bush campaign saying that the president wants to battle for every single one of those votes that he can in Wisconsin. The president today on a three-city bus tour through Wisconsin at a time when this campaign swing really is focused on reaching out to rural and conservative voters.

Now, the president trying to convince voters in that region that on social issues, like same-sex marriage and abortion, that he stands with middle America and rural America, and that his opponent, John Kerry, Democratic challenger, does not, saying that Kerry is a liberal who is trying to take up the cloak of conservative values, but President Bush trying to impress upon voters, particularly in the upper Midwest, as he is on this campaign swing, that he in fact does represent their values more closely than John Kerry.

But at the same time, in the state of Wisconsin itself, the economy is still front and center, a state that has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Yet, President Bush says that his economic policies, including tax relief, are propelling the economy in the right direction. And he insists that his opponents are simply pessimists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It doesn't matter whether their message is delivered with a frown or a smile. It's the same old pessimism, same old pessimism. And they're going to cheer us up with higher taxes, more federal spending and economic isolationism. The good news is we're not going to let them do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUIJANO: Now, this afternoon, President Bush makes two other stops. He'll be speaking at an aluminum manufacturing company. And then later in the afternoon, wrapping up his bus tour with a campaign rally. This, by the way, is the president's 12th visit to Wisconsin since taking office -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Elaine Quijano reporting for us from the White House. Thanks very much, Elaine.

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, is staying off the campaign trail today, but his running mate, John Edwards, is going solo on a swing through Iowa. That's another battleground state. And in a new advertising buy, the Kerry campaign is targeting minority voters. Here's a sample.

One radio spot says one in five African-American adults has no health insurance. It goes on to say, "Learn about John Kerry and his plan to expand access to health care to nearly all Americans, especially children."

Intelligence revealed following an extensive investigation. A new report details what the British government knew prior to military intervention in Iraq. That story, that's coming up just ahead.

Also, here in the United States, what does the future hold for the CIA? And who's going to be America's next spy chief? We'll talk about that with the former CIA director, Stansfield Turner, and with Congressman Duncan Hunter. He's the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

All of that, that's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The British prime minister, Tony Blair, is strongly defending the war in Iraq despite an official inquiry which finds British prewar intelligence was seriously flawed. Mr. Blair admits it's now apparent Iraq did not have large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction before the war, but he says the world is still a safer place without Saddam Hussein. The so-called Butler report criticized intelligence-gathering but found no evidence the British government deliberately distorted the information.

Here in the United States, the Senate Intelligence Committee report that came out last week also found major missteps in the intelligence-gathering process and analysis before the war on the part of the top spy agency, namely the CIA. George Tenet has since left as the CIA director, and some are calling on the Bush administration to quickly name a replacement.

Joining us now to talk about that and more, two guests. Stansfield Turner was the director of the CIA under President Jimmy Carter. Congressman Duncan Hunter is a California Republican. He's chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Gentlemen, thanks very much for joining us.

Admiral Turner, I'll start -- I'll start with you. Do you think the president should go ahead and name a new CIA director this late in his first term?

STANSFIELD TURNER, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: Absolutely not. It would be irresponsible to do that now because you're putting him in sort of as a lame duck. Nobody in the intelligence world is going to take this person seriously or respond to any great new initiatives between now and the election.

BLITZER: So you think John McLaughlin, the acting director, is adequate, can get the job done?

TURNER: Absolutely. He's a 30-year veteran of the CIA. He's been in the job he's been in as deputy head of it for four years. But in addition, some house cleaning is needed out there after listening to that report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. And it's better for John to do that than to bring in a new person.

BLITZER: All right.

What about that, Mr. Chairman, Duncan Hunter? What do you think? REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, first, I think that -- that this is one area where you have to transcend politics, understanding we're in an election year. If -- it's the president's call. And my -- my nominee for this thing is Porter Goss. I think he'd do a great job.

But beyond what Admiral Turner says in terms of house cleaning, we've got to do some house building. Because in the 1990s, we cut over 20 percent of our operations officers out of the CIA. We lost over 40 percent of our assets. Those are people out there that can tell us if bombs are going to go off. And we lost about half of our intelligence that was coming in.

In this war, in this war against terror, it's not like the Soviet Union. You don't have big meetings in big rooms at national intelligence big satellite features can cover and pull into our apparatus. You've got small meetings with small numbers of people in small rooms. And we have to have people in those rooms, meaning we have to build up our human intelligence.

BLITZER: All right.

HUNTER: And with respect to this election coming up, John Kerry voted, offered a bill in 1996 that would have cut $300 million out of intelligence operations in '97, '98, '99 and 2000, on top of the Clinton cuts. And he said at one time that he would virtually eliminate CIA activity. I think that's not the attitude to take into this election in the war against terrorism.

BLITZER: Let's let Admiral Turner respond to that.

TURNER: I don't want to respond on the Kerry side, because I don't know what he voted for. But Kerry...

BLITZER: But what about -- what about the specific notion that he makes right now, that Duncan Hunter makes, that Porter Goss, who's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, himself a former CIA officer who knows the operation, knows the situation, that he would be well qualified to come in right now at this late date in the first term and be the next director?

TURNER: Porter Goss is well qualified for the job. He would be a terrible appointee right now because, should Kerry win, he certain would not be kept on. He's too much of a partisan Republican.

I was in the situation where George H. W. Bush was my predecessor. And he asked President Carter to stay on in the job. President Carter just couldn't take that partisan a Republican into his inner circle, and he appointed me instead.

BLITZER: So what your basic point is, it shouldn't be a politician, it should be more of a professional. There's been some talk, for example, the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, a former Pentagon official, has worked his whole life, basically, in national security matters. TURNER: It should be nobody until after the election. We should let the incumbent acting director, John McLaughlin, who knows what's gone wrong, can start correcting it, can fire people who need to be fired, and clean the slate, but not churn the leadership of the CIA at this point.

BLITZER: Duncan Hunter, Congressman, what do you say when a lot of people ask who should accept responsibility for the intelligence failures? You may have heard Tony Blair speak out today in Britain on the floor of parliament, saying he accepts responsibility, even though there was no deliberate effort to distort intelligence. I don't hear a lot of people accepting responsibility for the failures leading up to the war in terms of intelligence-gathering here in Washington.

HUNTER: Well, Wolf, I think that when it's on your watch, whether we cut the intelligence operations down by some 40 percent during the '90s or not, when it's on your watch, you're obviously accountable for everything that happens on your watch, and you've got to -- you've got to deal with that. And I think that's -- that is whether you have a Democrat or Republican administration.

But the key is, how do we rebuild this house, meaning you've got to have a lot of intelligence people out there on the street now. And that is pointed out as one of the problems in Iraq, but also other places around the world where we've got lots of satellites, we've got lots of hardware. We don't have people in those rooms when decisions are made to blow up Americans, and you've got to have people in those rooms or people who know the folks that are in those rooms so that we can take action.

BLITZER: Well, let me -- let me bring back Stansfield Turner.

HUNTER: We've got to rebuild intelligence.

BLITZER: As you know, there was a lot of criticism after the Frank Church committee report, abuses by the intelligence committee in the '60s and '70s. When you took over in the late '70s, under Jimmy Carter, that the CIA had been so weakened in terms of human -- or what they call human intelligence, that it was just impossible to go out and infiltrate the kind of terrorist organizations that are -- the information that Duncan Hunter is saying that is so essential right now, especially in the war on terror.

TURNER: Two points. One, we didn't cut one CIA operative overseas. We cut CIA operatives at headquarters, overhead.

BLITZER: When you were director?

TURNER: When I was director. Secondly, people...

HUNTER: And Wolf, I was talking about the '90s, not the '70s.

TURNER: ... people imagine what they...

BLITZER: Right. I'm going to let you come right back. I understand that, but I want to go back to when Stansfield Turner was there, because there have been criticisms of him that he supposedly -- you've heard the word "gutted" the intelligence collection.

TURNER: As I say, didn't cut one operative out in the field.

Secondly, people imagine what operatives can do, can get inside organizations. The CIA didn't even try from 1998 to 2003 to put an operative into Iraq. They said in the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee it was too dangerous to put an operative in there because we didn't have an embassy or a place for him to -- to be based. So it's nice to say it would be wonderful if we had somebody inside, but you can't get inside.

BLITZER: I think that's a fair point.

HUNTER: A lot of these organizations...

BLITZER: Duncan Hunter, you have to admit, when you heard the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, and the vice chairman, Jay Rockefeller, tell everyone last Friday that the United States did not have one, did not even have one spy inside Iraq between '98 and the war in Iraq that started last year, that was pretty shocking, wasn't it?

HUNTER: Well -- well, yes, Wolf, until you look at the -- at the facts and what happened in the mid 1990s, because those operatives that Stansfield Turner had in place -- and he said he didn't cut a single one in the -- in the late '70s -- those operatives were cut by 20 percent in the mid 1990s in the assets.

Those are the people that report to them. Those are the people that have the info about what's going on in the room where they're deciding to bomb Americans. Those people were cut by 40 percent, and John Deutch, who was the -- then the head of the CIA under -- under President Clinton, said, listen, we're not going to deal with unsavory characters anymore.

And so they made it very difficult for the CIA to deal with people who weren't boy scouts. And the problem is, the people that give us information on bad things that are going to happen in this world are not boy scouts. So we not only didn't have operatives that could go into Iraq, we didn't have people who had contact with what you would call unsavory elements, because we injected a massive bureaucracy in there.

BLITZER: Well, let me press you -- Mr. Chairman, let me press you on this.

HUNTER: We need to rebuild.

BLITZER: Do you want killers, thugs, murderers, terrorists to be on the U.S. government's payroll?

HUNTER: Here's what I want, Wolf. A lot of your criminal convictions, where you convict people of murder in this country, come about because another murderer testified against them. So in terms of getting information, you have to get information from wherever you get it. If you eliminated criminals as potential witnesses in criminal cases, we'd never convict anybody, because who do you convict for a drug deal, or who do you go to for a witness for a drug deal? You usually go to another drug dealer. And by the same token, often, the people who have information about people that want to kill Americans just happen to be people who have criminal records and who have terrorist records.

BLITZER: All right.

I suspect, Stansfield Turner, you disagree. I've heard other interviews with you in which you said you were once faced with a dilemma. Do you get someone who's going to go out and kill someone to prove they're bona fide through a terrorist organization in order to get that person penetrated, get that person working inside, and you decided that was not a good idea.

TURNER: I was not going to take a certain life today in order to protect possible lives tomorrow.

HUNTER: I disagree with that -- that same position. I agree with Admiral Turner on that position.

BLITZER: You agree with him or disagree?

TURNER: I agree with Admiral Turner on the position that you don't order somebody to be murdered on the basis that you're going to qualify somebody for a terrorist operation. But the Deutch -- the Deutch initiatives went far beyond that. They said you don't deal with unsavory characters who have bad human rights records unless you go through a fairly lengthy government bureaucratic waiver process.

BLITZER: All right.

TURNER: There's no reason that an operative in the field, when he's dealing with a murderer, can't send back to Washington and say, should I put this person on the United States payroll? This person will then be representing the United States in a sense, so you don't send a second lieutenant out in the field to start a war. I don't think it's wrong to clear with headquarters really unsavory people.

In 1991, the same thing came up after the invasion of Iraq -- in 1990, actually -- by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. And the press was saying it's a lack of human resources, there's a lack of anybody inside Saddam Hussein's regime.

I happened to be having lunch with a retired, highly-respected CIA operative officer. I said, "George, if we had tried to put somebody inside Saddam Hussein's inner circle to find out that he really was going to invade Kuwait, what's the chances we could have achieved that?" And George instantly went like this...

BLITZER: Zero.

TURNER: "Zero." BLITZER: Do you agree with that, Duncan Hunter, that we -- that it's impossible to penetrate these kinds of -- these kinds of regimes, these brutal dictatorships, like Saddam Hussein's regime?

HUNTER: Well, Wolf, in a way, the admiral is making my point. He's making the point, which I agree with, that in many of these regimes and many of the terrorist organizations have made it very difficult for penetration. Some of them require you to have committed brutal acts before you can be in.

That's the reason why you want to have as much in terms of resources and in development of your -- of your assets as you possibly can. A person doesn't have to be a member, for example, of Saddam Hussein's cabinet to know something about Saddam Hussein's military operations. He doesn't have to be a person who's murdered somebody to qualify for -- for membership in a very limited terrorist operation to know something about that terrorist operation.

The point of the intelligence report was we didn't have anybody. And so -- and I think that the -- that Admiral Turner would agree, cutting back on our operatives by 20 percent in the mid-1990s was not very smart.

BLITZER: All right. I'll give you the last word, Admiral.

TURNER: That probably is true, it wasn't smart. On the other hand, the Senate report that came out last Friday says very specifically that more money and more people are not the solution to the problem that we've got today with our intelligence.

BLITZER: What -- quickly, what is the solution?

TURNER: The solution is to reorganize, to give the director of Central Intelligence some authority to get the 15 intelligence organizations in our intelligence community working together.

BLITZER: All right. It sounds like you want a big drug czar who could coordinate all of the intelligence-gathering process, but we'll leave that discussion for another occasion.

Admiral Stansfield Turner, thanks very much for join us.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, thanks for joining us as well. A very good discussion.

Defining marriage in America and trying to reinterpret the United States Constitution, that's happening right now on the floor of the United States Senate. They're voting. Coming up, I'll speak with two influential U.S. senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Frank Lautenberg.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I want to update you on a story we've been following this hour. There were reports that the governor of Mosul, the important city in the northern part of Iraq, was shot earlier. We have now confirmed here on CNN that the governor is critically injured, critically wounded in an assassination attempt, having been rushed to a hospital.

We're watching this important story only two weeks after the end of the U.S. military-led occupation. The Iraqi interim government now facing a serious problem, assassination attempt in Mosul. An influential political leader up there shot, critically wounded in Baghdad.

As you know, there was a car bombing, killing at least 10 people earlier today not far from the so-called Green Zone, which used to occupy the coalition governing authority, the U.S. military-led authority there. We'll continue to watch those stories for our viewers.

There's another important story that's happening on the floor of the United States Senate. A test (ph) has occurred on the Senate floor, the Republican effort to try to ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States with a constitutional amendment. That has -- effort has now failed.

It's a procedural vote. The Republicans needed 60 "yes" votes to continue the debate, to move forward on the amendment issue itself. Not available, at least not on this day, not 60 votes available.

This will end the entire process in the U.S. Senate, at least for now. But Republican leaders, including the majority leader, Bill Frist, vowing to bring up this measure down the road.

Let's get some analysis, some thoughts on what has happened these past few days in the United States Senate. And we are joined by two influential senators. Senator Frank Lautenberg is a Democrat of New Jersey. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Republican of Texas. They disagree on this issue.

And I'll begin with you, Senator Hutchison. Why did your party fail to get the necessary 60 votes that would have allowed further debate, further consideration of this constitutional amendment?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: Well, a number of people just felt that it wasn't time to address this issue. Some people think that the Defense of Marriage Act will pass constitutional muster. A lot of people are afraid that it won't. I would just say, from my standpoint, I would like to act before we have to, before this drags through the courts for five or six years, and speak for the people of America.

BLITZER: Senator Lautenberg, I know you strongly disagree on this matter.

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: I do.

BLITZER: You don't think this is a matter that should be left up to the U.S. Constitution. It should remain in the hands of the states, is that right? LAUTENBERG: Yes, I certainly think so. But I also question why this bill was brought up now, when it was obvious there wouldn't be enough votes to stop the debate. And further, that its timing is more than just a coincidence, I think.

I think it's designed to grab votes to the -- from the extremes. I think it's to shore up the conservative base of the president. And the Congress needs to say, look, these people are against what -- what you all believe in.

On the other hand, I must tell you, to me, I think it's a sinister plot to continue the gay bashing that goes on so regularly here. It robs people of their rights.

BLITZER: All right. Let me bring back Senator Hutchison. And I want to play for you what Senator Ted Kennedy said earlier in this debate. It's a position that we just heard from Senator Lautenberg.

You didn't -- you didn't even have the 60 votes necessary to continue the debate, let alone the 67 votes you would actually need, the two-thirds majority in the United States Senate, Senator Hutchison, to actually pass this. Listen to what Senator Kennedy said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The leadership is engaging in the politics of mass distraction by bringing up a discriminatory marriage amendment to the United States Constitution that a majority of Americans do not support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Hutchison, why shouldn't Americans who are gay or lesbian and are law-abiding citizens have the same rights as heterosexual Americans to go ahead and get married?

HUTCHISON: Well, wolf, first of all, I think it is so important that we protect traditional marriage and traditional families. That's what gives us the fabric of our society. It's the core of our society, it's how we have children and raise them in the best possible circumstances.

But the -- the amendment does exactly what you said Senator Lautenberg wanted. The amendment assures that states can act.

If Massachusetts wants to have gay marriage, the constitutional amendment doesn't keep them from having gay marriage. What it does is keep other states from having to recognize that. Other states should be able to have their marriage laws and decide what is marriage in their states, and not confer the rights of marriage to a same-sex couple if that isn't their state legislative decision.

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Lautenberg respond to that, but I also want you to hear what Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a colleague of Senator Hutchison, had to say in defense of traditional marriage. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: For someone to stand up here and say that preservation of the traditional marriage is not important enough for us to talk about, to me is breathtaking in its audacity and its sense of obliviousness to what the concerns are of moms and dads and families all across this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Lautenberg, do you support same-sex marriage?

LAUTENBERG: No. Same-sex marriage is not a decision that I have to make. That's for the participants. It's for the states, for the legislatures, like my state of New Jersey, that supports a union, supports a relationship. Vermont has one -- has a law similarly -- Massachusetts.

Why isn't it that the states are permitted to make these decisions when the people who are now proposing a gay marriage constitutional amendment are typically the ones who say shrink federal government, don't get involved? And the suggestion that this arises to the importance of the moment, the priorities, when we are still looking for homeland defense funding, when we're still discussing whether or not our troops in Iraq can protect themselves better.

I want everyone to be aware of the fact that since the turnover, June 28, of the government to Iraqis, that the death rate has been the same as it was in the earlier months.

BLITZER: All right.

LAUTENBERG: And we have those priorities that we have to pay attention to. And this is nothing but a mass diversion.

BLITZER: Senator Lautenberg, we're going to take a quick break, but let me just press you on this point, because a lot of Democrats, including John Kerry and John Edwards, say they don't support same-sex marriage, they only oppose a constitutional amendment on this sensitive issue. Specifically, do you agree with Kerry and Edwards, their positions?

LAUTENBERG: No. To me, if a couple wants to marry, and they're of the same sex, I think they should have the right to do that, if that's what they choose. That wouldn't be my preference, it wouldn't be millions -- millions of Americans' preference.

but for gosh sakes, to suddenly decide that this is the matter that it commands our attention, when there is so much more going on in our country, is an outrage. And it shows the deception in bringing this issue up.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to pick up that thought, Senator Hutchison. I'll start with you. But we'll take a little break right now. Much more with Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're continuing our discussion of the same-sex marriage debate, which has just failed on the floor of the United States Senate. Significant failure for the Republican leadership. Senator Frank Lautenberg, the Democrat of New Jersey, is still with us, as is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Republican of Texas.

Senator Hutchison, you heard the argument made by Senator Lautenberg, Senator Kennedy, so many other Democrats, that this is simply designed to try to embarrass John Kerry and John Edwards as a wedge issue, to shore up the conservative base of the Republican Party right now on this very sensitive, important issue. I wonder if you'd want to respond to that.

HUTCHISON: Wolf, the timing was not set by Republicans. It was set by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which said that Massachusetts could have same-sex marriages. So what is happening is people are getting married, and they're moving to other states and challenging those states to recognize those marriages.

The need for a constitutional amendment is to say that the full faith and credit clause that is now in the Constitution that requires states to recognize the laws of other states would not be effective when it comes to marriage. All it says is, if Massachusetts wants to have gay marriage, they can do that, or if New Jersey wants civil unions, but they can't require Texas or Vermont or Illinois to recognize that.

BLITZER: So what you're saying -- what you're saying, Senator Hutchison -- and I want you to be precise on this -- you're saying that the constitutional amendment, which is not coming up at least for the foreseeable future now in the Senate any longer or in the House of Representatives, would simply have allowed Massachusetts or Hawaii or other states to go ahead and have same-sex marriages even though those marriages wouldn't be recognized in other states? Is that what you're saying, that the people who are going to get married in Massachusetts, who are lesbians or gays, would still be able to do that if this constitutional amendment proposal that you would like to see get approved passed?

HUTCHISON: Yes. It just doesn't make other states recognize it.

BLITZER: Let me -- let Senator Lautenberg respond to that.

What's wrong with that? You still leave it in the hands of the Senate. Massachusetts could go ahead, Vermont, New Jersey, Hawaii, other states could go ahead and approve same-sex marriage. It just wouldn't be recognized in those states that didn't like it.

LAUTENBERG: This is interpretation. And I have great respect for Kay Bailey Hutchison, but the fact of the matter is, if it became a -- a -- an amendment of the Constitution, I don't think those marriages could continue to be performed. The federal government would have taken over the rules of conduct, and it would also discriminate against civil unions and partnerships and things like that.

There are two parts to this amendment, and one part kind of snuck in there. They tried to take it out because they thought maybe it would weaken the possibility.

Listen, there are 50 votes. That's a long way from 67, which is the final goal in this. So again, it's a ruse, in my view, to just try and get everybody angered up and to make sure that people know that there are people on the other side who think freedom means freedom to act as one wants.

That's what the Constitution's about. And it's disappointing to me, when I consider the other business that we have pending, not to be able to get to it because we're all tied up with this constitutional amendment.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Lautenberg, we're going to have to leave it right there. Thanks for joining us.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, thanks to you as well.

A good, serious discussion wrapping up this debate that's been going on over the past few days, a debate that's now ended in the United States Senate, at least for now, on this issue of a constitutional amendment that could ban same-sex marriage. It's not going to forward. That battle will have to wait another day.

We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every weekday, 5:00 p.m. Eastern, for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Among other things, later today, I'll speak with the Homeland Security secretary, Tom Ridge. He'll discuss security measures surrounding the Democratic national convention, beginning later this month in Boston. He's there right now.

Until then, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips and Carol Lin coming up next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com