Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Senate Forced into Closed Session; Republicans Cry Foul; Harry Reid Media Availability; Avian Flu Discussed
Aired November 01, 2005 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington and we're in THE SITUATION ROOM where new pictures and new information arriving from around the world all the time.
Happening now, high drama on Capitol Hill -- angry Democrats forcing the United States Senate to shut its doors. They're demanding an investigation after the CIA leak indictment of last Friday. But outraged Republicans are calling the rare move a slap in the face.
Also this hour, the so-called nuclear threat to the Alito nomination. The U.S. Supreme Court showdown could turn into a war over filibusters. Has partisanship in the Senate gone wild?
And the president's plan of attack against bird flu, is it crucial to America's health and to his political health? We have disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci on the case. He will be here. We'll discuss it with some our partisan strategists.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Even many veterans of partisan warfare here in Washington haven't seen anything like this in a long time. Democrats demanding answers after the CIA leak indictment. They pull a surprise move today, a first in a quarter century -- the result, a secret session of the United States Senate right now. Republican leaders are calling it a stunt and they're blowing their stacks.
Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry is covering this still unfolding story. He's joining us from Capitol Hill. Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we're hearing right now as we speak from an aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that they are going to put an end to this secret session. As you know, they can do that with a simple majority vote.
But let me tell you how we got to this point. But what's about to happen, we understand, that they're about to end the secret session. But basically as you mentioned, in the wake of this indictment of Scooter Libby on Friday, Democrats feel emboldened. They feel like it's time to pounce and finally demand some answers about whether Libby, Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, even President Bush, whether they were involved in manipulating intelligence that justified the march to war in Iraq.
So Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid out of the blue marched down to the Senate floor, invoked this rare maneuver, Rule 21 of the Senate rules in order to shut down the chamber. They basically locked the doors and kicked out all staff, the media -- the television cameras are turned off -- all 100 senators called back for a private session that Reid wanted to basically debate why Senate Republicans have not completed an investigation of whether or not intelligence was manipulated.
As you can imagine, the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, in very bold and dramatic terms said this was a political dirty trick.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted and in accordance with Rule 21, I now move that Senate go into closed session.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, I second the motion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Second the motion.
SEN. BILL FRIST (D-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I'll have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader have ever I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution. Every other time -- and again we'll have to go back and look at the history -- there has been at least consideration for the other side of the aisle before a stunt, and this is a pure stunt that is being performed by Senator Reid, Senator Durbin and their leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: You can see the acrimony there, Wolf. And Democrats privately telling me they're sending a message as well that they are serious about the possibility of a filibuster of Judge Alito, President Bush's latest nomination to the Supreme Court.
But we're also being told now by an aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that this, as I mentioned a moment ago, is about to end. They're about to end the secret session. And what the majority leader wants to do is send three members of each party off to go and talk privately about figuring out where phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation is. Where is the progress? That is basically dealing with whether or not intelligence was manipulated. Then they will have to report back to the Senate leadership by November 14.
I can tell you though, Democrats probably not going to be satisfied with that. They're saying they're going to come back to the floor every day until they get the answer that they want and shut down the chamber every day.
Wolf.
BLITZER: And we're standing by, Ed, to hear from the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas. He is going to explain why this delay in coming up with some answers on the intelligence leading up to the war?
HENRY: That's right. We understand from Democrats that there is a draft of some sort of a report about the so-called phase two of the investigation whether or not intelligence was manipulated. Democrats want to know why they have not seen that report, why is it locked behind closed doors.
Again, part of this broader effort, as we were saying on Friday after the Libby indictments, Democrats said it was not just an indictment of one person. They want to indict this administration in whole metaphorically, an indictment for what they believe the administration did. Whether or not they get away with it is another question. But that's what Democrats are trying to do.
BLITZER: All right, Ed. Stand by, thank you very much. Let's bring in our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield. They're joining us now as well.
Candy, what do you think the point the Democrats are trying to make right now is?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Remember yesterday when we were talking about the president changing the subject, moving off Scooter Libby and the indictment and onto a Supreme Court nominee? In Washington, information is power and headlines are power. What a minority has, a minority in the Senate or a minority in the House, have to use are parliamentary techniques.
This was an attempt to keep the light shining on exactly what Ed said, an attempt to indict the entire administration, at least in a political sense, off of the Scooter Libby indictment or legal indictment on Friday.
BLITZER: Jeff, what's going on here?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: I think Candy's got a lot of it. I think if you're the Democrats and you're looking ahead toward the Supreme Court nomination battle over Judge Alito and you're threatening the following, if we try to filibuster and the rule on the filibuster is changed, we may bring the Senate to a grinding halt.
I think there's some concern that that might appear to be obstructionism. I think if the Democrats want to wage an all-out fight to really draw a line in the sand, my belief is that their belief is they're on much stronger ground pointing to what led up to a war that is no longer popular where -- if the polls are right, a majority of Americans have serious doubts about what got us into this war -- and where the indictment of Scooter Libby has pointed more fingers on just what the administration was doing in terms of trying to grapple with this whole argument about intelligence.
And my feeling is they feel that this is the strongest card they have to play in drawing a line in the sand. And we've seen minorities in Congress before, sometimes they go to the mat and they win. Newt Gingrich, when he was in the minority of the House did that a few times. And sometimes when they're a majority they go to the mat and they don't do so well such, as when then-House Speaker Gingrich helped shut down the government in that fight with President Clinton.
My feeling is the Democrats think this is a trump card. They think they've got a real issue here because of public doubts, doubts that Jack Cafferty expressed quite forcefully I think just a few minutes ago, and that's where they're going with this.
BLITZER: Candy, I want you to elaborate a little bit on what Jeff was just saying. There are political dangers here for both the Democrats and the Republicans. Talk a little bit about that.
CROWLEY: Well, for starters, 29 Democrats in 2002, I believe, in October of 2002, voted in favor of the resolution for war. Many of them, if not all of them, had access to the intelligence data, some of the intelligence data. There is a difference of opinion over how much of it.
But nonetheless, the majority of Democrats voted for this war. So there's explaining to do kind of all around Washington, D.C. So there is that, because you then begin to get into a muddle of who saw what, how did they view that. And the other, is what Jeff suggests, which is that Republicans have said, look, the Democrats don't have any ideas. They want to go over old ground. All they are is, again, another no central. And they in fact don't have fresh ideas and all they say is no. And this is just more criticism, not any advancing forward.
So there's really two problems. One that they could get drawn into this whole notion of how we got to war. And two, that they just look negative.
BLITZER: Jeff, you want to follow up?
GREENFIELD: Yes, just that the one thing that I think makes this different from an ordinary political fight is that this really is about life and death. There is nothing more serious, if you can take a step back from the political give and take and the talking points, than why a nation decides to go to war, particularly a war of choice.
And the administration had argued -- and succeed in arguing -- this really isn't a choice because of what we believe Saddam Hussein has -- you know, the grave and gathering threat. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. There is real doubt about how strong that intelligence was. And there is some doubt about whether or not the administration, to quote one of its chief critics, Joe Wilson, whether or not they made an honest mistake here or whether they bent intelligence to what they wanted to do out of policy reasons.
So I think we're going to hear an awful lot of talking and counter talking. And I shudder to think of the talking points that will be exploding over our heads in the next day or two.
But if we can take a step back and remember the point, this country is involved in a war that was not like Pearl Harbor, that was unlike a lot of past wars because we believed that there was a grave and gathering threat. And the country now is saying, we're not sure why we got here in the first place. And I think to have a real debate on that, the same way we had a debate on Vietnam back in 1966 after escalation when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held extensive hearings, that's probably something that might actually benefit this country.
Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jeff, thank you very much. Jeff Greenfield, Candy Crowley, we're going to keep you around, we're going to talk a little bit more about this. Much more on the pandemonium that's unfolding on Capitol Hill right now.
James Carville, Torie Clarke, they will be joining us shortly in our "Strategy Session," as well. We'll look for their assessment of what's going on.
We're watching other news as well, including the battle for the Supreme Court. As if things weren't tense enough in the Senate, the battle lines are hardening over Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Today Alito is meeting with more senators, including moderate Republicans who would be key to any GOP effort to block a possible Democratic filibuster of his nomination. Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio is one of the so-called Gang of 14, that was that bipartisan group of moderates, Democrats and Republicans, that previously prevented an all-out Senate war over judicial filibusters. DeWine calls Alito -- and I'm quoting now -- "a good solid pick."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MIKE DEWINE (R), OHIO: It's hard for me to envision that anyone would think about filibustering this nominee or that anyone would think that this would constitute what our Group of 14 termed extraordinary circumstances that would justify a filibuster. So you know, I can't envision that a filibuster would be tried.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Republicans and their allies increasingly are rallying behind Samuel Alito. The group Progress for America is launching a pro-Alito ad campaign. The group says the spot will run on national cable networks for one week at a cost of nearly half a million dollars.
Let's check back with Jack Cafferty. He is watching all of this unfold from New York. Jack?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Indeed. And there's another story that we don't want to let get under the radar and get away from us. Tom DeLay got what he wanted today. He got a different judge for his criminal trial. Judge Bob Perkins removed from the case today. DeLay's lawyers had said that their client wouldn't get a fair trial because the judge had given money to Democrats and Democratic causes. Earlier today, DeLay's attorney said - quote -- "to protect the integrity of the judicial system, Perkins should not preside over the trial." Make sure I have this right now. The former House leader who's accused of money laundering and conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, he's charged with felonies here, suddenly all concerned about integrity. Yes, right.
Here's the question. Should a criminal defendant like Tom DeLay have been able to have his judge removed? Email us at CaffertyFile@CNN.com.
I guess the precedent here, Wolf, is if you're a criminal defendant and you're a Republican, you should only get a Republican judge. If you're a criminal defendant and you're a Democrat, you should only get a Democratic judge. It makes no sense to me at all. But nevertheless, Tom DeLay, or "Smiley," as they are starting to call him, got what he wanted today, got the judge kicked off his case.
BLITZER: And all the judges in Texas, in these kinds of cases are political. They're either Democrats or Republicans.
CAFFERTY: Well, when has this ever been an issue before in a criminal trial? It's the first I've heard of it that you get the judge removed because he's of the wrong political party? Come on. I mean, that's nonsense.
BLITZER: I'm sure our viewers have some thoughts on this, as well, Jack. Thank you very much. Jack Cafferty standing by with that.
Coming up next, he made a name for himself as a leader in the fight against AIDS. Now Dr. Anthony Fauci takes on the bird flu threat. We'll ask him about the risk and the president's plan to protect Americans.
Also ahead, the partisan explosion unfolding right now on Capitol Hill: is the CIA leak fair game for Democrats? Or are Republicans correct in crying foul? James Carville and Torie Clarke will go head to head. They will be in the "Strategy Session."
And a picture that will sway voters or is it a sign of desperation? We'll have the story behind the controversial ad in New York City a week before Election Day.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A major fight unfolding in the U.S. Senate right now. We're waiting to hear from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts. He's expected to be speaking here at this microphone soon. We're going to go there as soon as he does.
The Democrats crying foul, saying he was supposed to be investigating the justification for going to war in Iraq -- the intelligence, what went right, what went wrong. He says the Democrats are accusing Pat Roberts and other Republicans of stonewalling to protect the Bush White House. We'll go to that microphone as soon as Pat Roberts is there. But we're watching other news as well, including the bird flu. The president is putting new urgency and money into bird flu prevention at a time when many Americans fear the virus eventually will spread to them. Mr. Bush went to the National Institutes Health here in the Washington, D.C. area to unveil his plan earlier today. He's asking the Congress for $7.1 billion to pay for his top priorities -- detecting new bird flu outbreaks worldwide, stockpiling vaccines and other anti-viral drugs, and promoting the production of new vaccines against deadly strains of the virus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is vital that our nation discuss and address the threat of pandemic flu now. There is no pandemic flu in our country or in the world at this time. But if we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare. And one day many lives could be needlessly lost because we failed to act today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Does the American public have confidence in the president and the federal government to handle a bird flu outbreak? Our new poll shows Americans are divided. You see the numbers right there.
What can you do, though, to stay safe at this time? Joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM is Dr. Anthony Fauci. He's the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He is America's point man effectively when it comes to the bird flu threat.
Dr. Fauci, thanks very much for joining us.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NIAID DIRECTOR: It's good to be here, Wolf.
BLITZER: We've been flooded with questions, practical questions about information Americans are interested in right now. Let's go through them quickly and you give our viewers some specific recommendations. Will the regular flu shot I get this year help protect me from the avian flu?
FAUCI: No, it's not. It's an entirely different type of influenza. The flu vaccine that's the seasonal flu is against a certain virus that had been circulating, predictable that it will hit us this winter. The H5N1 is a totally different influenza virus to which we've never been exposed before. So the answer to the question is, no.
BLITZER: But Americans should still go out and get their flu shots this year?
FAUCI: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Seasonal flu is a serious situation. Each year we lose 36,000 people and have 200,000 hospitalizations. We need to take each seasonal flu seriously, which is what we're doing.
BLITZER: Are there groups that are more vulnerable than others when it comes to bird flu?
FAUCI: Well, first of all, bird flu, historically when you there of pandemic flus, it strikes anyone, young, old, individuals who are elderly, individuals who are in the prime of their lives.
In general, influenza has more serious complications in individuals greater than 65 years old, in children from six to 23 months, in people with chronic diseases, heart disease, lung disease, people like that, and pregnant women in their second and third trimester.
BLITZER: Is there any danger for me to continue eating chicken? That's a question that we're getting a lot.
FAUCI: No, there is no bird flu in the United States. So you can eat chickens, you can eat and turkeys. You don't need to worry about that.
The situation in Southeast Asia where there's spreading of bird flu among flocks, people get it actually from handling the birds or the birds' droppings. But when you buy a chicken frozen or fresh or what have you in the supermarket, there's no bird flu in the United States, so we don't need to worry.
BLITZER: The other frequently asked question that we're getting from our viewers, feeding birds at the park, good idea?
FAUCI: Well, if you like to feed birds, there's no problem with feeding birds at the park. We don't have bird flu in the United States. We have to keep underscoring that for the American public. There is no bird flu in the United States.
BLITZER: This most recent incident, the scare in Canada, though, which is very close to the United States, do we suspect that really is the same avian flu?
FAUCI: No. It very likely is not. It seems to be an H5. But we do not think it's the H5N1, which is what we call a highly pathogenic virus for chickens and other birds. The ducks in Canada are well. They isolated a virus from them but they're not sick, making it highly unlikely that you're dealing with the really pathogenic bird flu in Canada.
BLITZER: A frequently asked question we're getting is, should I not travel to any of the countries where cases of bird flu have been detected?
FAUCI: There are no travel alerts there, but if you go to one of the countries where there is bird flu, the recommendation is to stay away from bird and chicken farms and places where there are birds. We went there with Secretary Leavitt just a couple of weeks ago, and in fact did site visits in some of those places. But there are no travel restrictions except the recommendation to stay away from chicken farms.
BLITZER: Should I be asking my doctor about getting some Tamiflu, which is the anti-viral drug believed to be helpful if you come down with avian flu?
FAUCI: Well, Tamiflu is a drug that is used both for seasonal flu and we would hope that it could be useful for the pandemic flu. If you don't have influenza, you don't need to worry about Tamiflu. If you get the flu -- the seasonal flu, you should go to your physician, and the physician will make the determination whether you would benefit from Tamiflu or not. But you shouldn't preemptively go out and buy the Tamiflu.
BLITZER: Here is a fact that we have, companies producing vaccines for the U.S. market, back in the 1970s, there were 25 such drug firms. Right now, there are only five. This is a serious problem.
FAUCI: It is.
BLITZER: Especially as you're preparing, God forbid, for a pandemic.
FAUCI: It certainly is. There's very little incentive for pharmaceutical companies to get involved in making vaccines in general, and certainly influenza vaccine. It's not a high profit item for them. There are many risks in it. The market is uncertain.
So one of the things that the president mentioned today in his speech is that we need to create incentives to get the companies to partner with the federal government in increasing their capacity to make enough vaccine should we need it. That is a problem we need to address.
BLITZER: Bottom line, button this up for us, how worried should our viewers -- watching right now, how worried should they be that a pandemic will explode?
FAUCI: They should not be worried to the sense of being frightening and panicked. What they need to do is to pay attention to what's going on. Right now we're getting involved in preparing in a very aggressive way. What this attention that's being played on the possibility of pandemic flu should be an incentive for preparedness, not an incentive for panic.
BLITZER: Dr. Anthony Fauci, always good to have you on the program.
FAUCI: Good to be here.
BLITZER: Thanks very much for joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Our top story right now, the pandemonium literally that's broken out in the U.S. Senate. Let's listen in to Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York who is speaking out on the battle royale that has been erupting.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: ... they ought to say why it's wrong, not call names or do worse. That's what -- that's the common thread that the Plame investigation, what's happening on the Senate floor right now, and so many other activities within the administration have.
QUESTION: Senator, why did the -- why did your leader decide to take such action?
SCHUMER: We've been trying -- Jay Rockefeller has been trying for a year to get the Intelligence Committee to keep its promise and investigate the misuse of intelligence information. He mentioned it as recently as Friday. The Plame indictment provided greater focus on the misuse of intelligence information.
And we just thought we couldn't wait any longer for them to keep giving excuses. This is very serious. It's about how our government and our country ought to work. It's about making decisions based on the right information, decisions that obviously, whether it's Iraq or anything else, affect people's lives. This is very serious.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) if you don't get what you want out of the...
SCHUMER: No, no. We would much prefer that they had gone forward with this investigation on their own. But it's a year. And there have been repeated promises -- you've seen them over and over again -- to do it, and nothing had been done.
Now, interestingly enough, we tried this procedure, it looks like we're going to have a real investigation. And that's important not to Democrats or Republicans but to the American people. OK.
QUESTION: Senator, are you planning to -- if the negotiations are successful, you will not go into closed session every day from now on as Senator Durbin suggested?
SCHUMER: No, we don't -- no. I mean, the idea of the closed session was to have Pat Roberts finally answer why they hadn't gone -- conducted this investigation for the longest time to the senators. And it couldn't be done in open session because it may involve classified information. It's that simple. The shoe fit.
BLITZER: Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, explaining why the Democrats demanded that the doors of the U.S. Senate be closed and cameras be kicked out. Democrats forcing a Senate showdown over the CIA leak and pre-war intelligence.
We'll get expert opinion from James Carville, Torie Clarke in today's "Strategy Session" on what exactly is going on in the U.S. Senate.
And later, we're one week from Election Day. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not on the ballot, but he's on the line and he's getting some help from Senator John McCain. We'll explain what's going on in California.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Our top story right now, the drama unfolding in the U.S. Senate, angry words being hurled by Democrats and Republicans against each other.
We may not know what's going on behind closed doors in the U.S. Senate right now -- the doors have been shut, a secret session is under way right now -- but our Internet reporter Jacki Schechner is here with the latest online information on when it comes to secret Senate sessions. Jacki?
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: I'm going to give away the secret of where to find it online. All you need to know about secret sessions, available through this Web site, FAS.org.
Now when we mentioned this a little earlier, the site was slow to load so you might want to be careful, be patient when you're checking it out. What's most interesting about the site is that they've got every secret session listed from 1929 on, starting with the 1933 session, the impeachment trial deliberations on Judge Harold Louderback. It goes all the way through a whole list of these, down to the very bottom in 1999, the impeachment trial deliberations on President Clinton.
Now, something else you might be interested in is the intelligence report that Senator Reid would like a follow-up probe to. That's available online through intelligence.senate.gov. That report is right here. Came out on July 7, 2004. Again, they're looking out for a follow-up to the information that was found in that report.
And just wanted to tell you that there is early blog reaction coming in online. The liberal bloggers are very happy with Senator Reid, they say that this is exactly what we need to shift the focus now back onto the war in Iraq, intelligence information and the Libby indictment.
Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Jacki, thanks very much.
Let's check in with Zain Verjee now, she's at the CNN Center in Atlanta with a closer look at other stories making news right now. Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, officials in Pakistan are trying to figure out if a U.S. military relief helicopter was fired on intentionally or by accident. The helicopter was flying over Pakistani-controlled Kashmir during a relief mission for survivors of last month's earthquake. It was not hit. U.S. officials suggest a rocket-propelled grenade was involved, but the Pakistani army says that it was the result of dynamite being used in a road project.
NATO arrives in Pakistan to help survivors of last month's devastating earthquake, now said to have claimed more than 57,000 victims. NATO will staff a hospital in the earthquake zone, clear roads, as well as help build shelters.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is appealing for antibiotics and painkillers for victims. They also say they need more food, more tents, more blankets. The United Nations is also saying it needs more money to help save those isolated in areas that are remote before the brutal winter in the Himalayan mountains sets in.
In London, a memorial today at St. Paul's Cathedral for victims of the July 7 terrorist bombings. Fifty-two people were killed. Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Tony Blair were among 2,000 people who attended. They came to remember the victims who died and the scores who were injured in the suicide attacks on three subway trains and a double-decker bus.
And Prince Charles and his wife Camilla are on a week-long tour of the United States. The royal couple began their visit this morning by visiting the site of the World Trade Center attacks. Charles and Camilla also unveiled a memorial park to the 67 Britons who died in those attacks. This is the couple's first official trip overseas since they married in April.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Welcome to the United States.
Thanks very much, Zain. We'll get back to you soon.
Up next, the crisis right now in the U.S. Senate -- the Democrats forcing a showdown over prewar intelligence in Iraq. Will today's move backfire?
We'll get some expert opinion in today's "Strategy Session." Standing by for that, James Carville, Torie Clarke.
Plus, the Alito nomination -- who benefits from the classic right versus left fight now under way?
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In its long history, it's happened only a few times: a closed session of the full United States Senate.
Today, Democrats invoked what's called Rule 21 to pressure Republicans to talk about the Lewis "Scooter" Libby indictment and the issue of the intelligence used in the run-up to the war.
Right now you're looking at live pictures from the U.S. Senate floor. The secret session is over. The public has been allowed to come back. The cameras are back in.
You're looking at the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist speaking on the floor of the Senate right now.
The secret session, once again, has just been -- is just over.
Joining us now to talk about the fireworks, though, in the Senate, our guests, our political analyst James Carville, a Democratic strategist, Torie Clarke, former Pentagon spokeswoman. Thanks to both of you once again for joining us. This is risky business, James, for the Democrats to be engaging in this kind of behind-the-scenes warfare. The collegiality of the Senate, which is very important to these senators, is at risk right now because of what the Democrats did without consulting with the Republican majority.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I would say that they would probably say extreme circumstances involve extreme measures.
I mean, the United States was irrevocably harmed by this. The investigation had been sitting there, Senator Roberts was sitting on this. And to the extent that they got everybody's attention, I guess they were successful.
We'll see what happens. I mean, the Republicans will, you know, they'll say, well, they had the nuclear option.
It is pretty dramatic. It's a story that will play out, but now we know about this.
BLITZER: All right.
Let's listen to Senator Frist. He's speaking on this subject right now.
SENATOR FRIST (R-TN), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: ... that actually means as we've seen, because we were in that session for a little over two hours. It is very important that people do not talk about the -- what happened during that session.
Again, we'll all have to go back because it is very unusual to go into these closed sessions and, in fact, I think unprecedented the way we went into this session, which probably we'll talk about a little bit more later.
And I was very disappointed the way we entered into the session, which was a total surprise to myself.
Let me just also say I have absolute confidence in our Intelligence Committee and in what they're doing in terms of their very important work, and Chairman Roberts as chairman.
The one thing that is important for us to mention really for the benefit of our colleagues as -- an agreement between the leader and myself to the following three points.
That is that the majority leader and the Democratic leader will appoint three members from their respective parties. This task force of six senators will meet and report back to the leadership no later than the close of business on November 14 the following: the Intelligence Committee's progress on the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democratic leader is recognized.
SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Those representatives of mine will be Senators Rockefeller, Levin and Feinstein.
FRIST: Mr. President, just for the benefit of my colleagues, at this point what we will do is we have 15 minutes set aside, or up to 15 minutes, for Senator Roberts, followed by Senator Rockefeller. And after that, we do -- will recognize Chairman Gregg or his designee, and with mutual discussion between the Democratic and Republican leaders, we very much after the comments by the chairman and the vice chairman want to get back on the deficit reduction bill.
We have a time agreement to complete that discussion on that bill by 6:00 tomorrow night and a lot of people who do want to talk about this very important issue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Under the previous order, the senator from Kansas is recognized for 15 minutes.
SENATOR PAT ROBERTS (R-KS), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the best face I can put on this after this unfortunate situation which was totally unexpected by myself or my staff or the Republican members on the committee, and for that matter the Republican leadership is that we have agreed to do what we already agreed to do -- and that is to complete as best we can phase two of the Intelligence Committee's review of prewar intelligence in reference to Iraq.
Mr. President, I think it's very important to point out that the Intelligence Committee has had an absolutely outstanding record, working with Senator Rockefeller and my colleagues across the aisle, to produce the original review in regards to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate prior to the military -- the military activities into Iraq, and also as to whether or not Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction.
That was a 17-0 vote. We had some differences, but that report came out. It was a good report, it was a seminal report. As a matter of fact, I take pride in saying that it was a bipartisan effort that was agreed to by the 9/11 Commission, by the WMD commission that was later formed up, and made about what, 93, 94 recommendations to the administration, of which probably 93, 94 out of 95 have already been implemented. And so we worked in a bipartisan fashion to do that.
We also, at the same time -- and I am basically quoting from the statement that the vice chairman and I made on February 12 of 2004 -- that we would do something called phase two. Well, there's been a lot of talk about phase two. What is phase two? Why is it that that has been delayed, if in fact it has been delayed? And there was some talk here on the floor that got a little personal. I regret that.
It seems to me it was rather convenient, because it was just yesterday that our staff was working with the staff of the minority indicating that not this week, but next week we would spend as much time as possible, five or six days to complete our work in regards to phase two.
It isn't like it has been delayed. As a matter of fact, it's been on going. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on phase two. It is difficult, as I will indicate in just a minute I'll go through these provisions on what we agreed to do. So it seemed to be a little convenient for all of a sudden go into a closed session of the Senate and call for a full Senate investigation of phase two when the committee is already doing its work. And I think that that basically is an unfortunate stunt. I would call it something else, but I think probably I would just simply leave it at that.
Let me just tell you what phase two is all about. Again, let me point out that we took a look at whether or not Saddam Hussein did reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.
BLITZER: All right, we're going to break away from the Senate floor. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, speaking, explaining why there has been a delay from his perspective in releasing this intelligence information, the justification for going to war in Iraq.
The Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had accused Senator Roberts earlier in calling for this Rule 21 to shut down, to close the doors of the Senate, saying that Senator Roberts effectively says was playing political games by refusing to go forward with this intelligence investigation.
It's getting pretty arcane, it's getting pretty technically, Torie, right now.
But, this is very important. There are a lot Americans, as you well know, who believe that the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, at a minimum, manipulated intelligence, grossly exaggerated intelligence, if not lied to the American people about going to war.
And as a result, the Democrats now are saying, the Senate has a responsibility to look into this and explain what happened.
TORIE CLARKE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I disagree completely with your assertion that a lot of people believe the president or any other senior people in this administration manipulated the information.
BLITZER: Well, the polls show a lot of Americans believe that.
CLARKE: A lot of people are concerned about the information we used that got us into this war. What I think is hugely unfortunate is this stunt -- there is no better word -- this stunt that Senator Reid used.
I don't know why he did that. It has been a very serious process, a very deliberative process, a very bipartisan process. Is everybody thrilled with the way it's going? No.
But it's been working. They've been doing this hard work day in and out. It didn't need to be subjected to this cheap political stunt. It does not do him any good, it doesn't do the process any good.
BLITZER: Go ahead.
CARVILLE: I think that probably the Democratic members on the Intelligence Committee knew full well what Senator Reid was getting done. I hardly think this is a Senator Reid freelance operation. I think it's ridiculous that it's this far after a debacle of this nature that we still don't have the answers.
I got a sense that sometimes there's a saying, to get a mule's attention, you have to hit it over the head with a two-by-four. I think that they took a two-by-four and they hit it over the head and I think there's going to be a lot more talk about phase two, whatever that is.
I think you're going to see this come out. People are like, OK, the damage -- the reputation of the United States has been irreparably harmed by this. What happened in phase one, phase two, they don't care. There's a sense that somebody's sitting on some answers and they want them.
BLITZER: The Senate Intelligence Committee report, which dealt with what they call phase one, explained that the intelligence was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. They got it wrong and they went ahead and explained that and confirmed that.
Phase two was, why? What happened there? How could the intelligence have been so wrong and there has been about a year and a half delay in getting some answers. That's what infuriated Torie, the Democrats and why they decided to pull this maneuver today.
CLARKE: I don't believe it's because of any conscious delay. I believe it's because it is very, very hard work to go back and see what went wrong and when it went wrong. You can't just look at the last few years, you have to look at the last 10, 12 years, in which all the intel, including the intel put forth by the Clinton administration said that he had these weapons of mass destruction.
BLITZER: Let me read to you from what Senator Reid said on the floor in calling for this Rule 21 -- the secrecy of the Senate to be invoked. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep his commitment, this commitment, despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.
That's what provoked the Democrats.
CLARKE: That is a gross oversimplification and exaggeration.
CARVILLE: All I would say is, I'm sure that Senator Reid would not have done this had not the Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee come to him and say there's foot dragging going on.
I think people think a year and a half is enough time. For god sakes, how long are we going to do this? Give us the investigation. Let's dissect it and find out what it is.
I think the mule got hit with a two-by-four today and I think we're going to see some action.
BLITZER: If that was the Democrats' intent, they're probably successful because there probably is going to be action by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Nicholas Kristof, a columnist in the "New York Times", Torie, writes in today's "New York Times" this: We don't need to turn this into Watergate -- referring to the Libby indictment, the CIA leak investigation -- and we don't need gloating from the Democrats. But what we do need is straight talk from you -- referring to the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney. The indictment has left a cloud that impedes governing. And if we're to move on, we need you to clear the air. So, Mr. Cheney, tell us what happened. If you're afraid to say what you knew and when you knew it, then you should resign.
CLARKE: This administration has been absolutely diligent and very, very professional and very respectful of the process, cooperating with the prosecutor every step of the way. I'm sure that will continue going forward because they treat these matters very seriously. But, I think some people are not going to be satisfied unless everyone in that White House packed up their bags and left. And that's not going to happen 'til sometime after the next election.
BLITZER: But should the vice president hold a news conference or grant an interview and answer the tough questions that are being asked out there?
CLARKE: I think the vice president should continue to do what he's doing, which is cooperating with the process and the officials along the way.
CARVILLE: I've got a better idea. Why doesn't the president get out and have one? Harry Truman didn't say the buck stops with the vice president. The buck stops with the president.This is happening. He said if anybody had anything to do with this in the White House, he would be gone. We know now that a lot of people had something to do with it, they're still there.
Look what happened to Scott McClellan, poor guy got hammered by the press. No one believes anything that's said out of this White House anymore.
I think the first step is not the vice president, the president of the United States standing up, answering to the American people, answering people's questions. That would be a great relief. I disagree with Mr. Kristof. The vice nothing. There aren't no vices around here. There's one man in charge of this country and that is George W. Bush. This has happened on his watch. It would be an immeasurable benefit to his administration if he got up and answered these questions.
BLITZER: Do you think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby deliberately lied to Scott McClellan when they told him they had nothing to do with this leak? And he then went out and told the press and the American public, he checked and they had nothing to do with it.
CLARKE: None of us know what those conversations were like. I don't know, you don't, we don't know what those conversations were like. I think Scott McClellan stood up there and acted in the best faith possible. I think he's doing a great job under really, really tough circumstances because some people really don't care about the answers. They're focused on an end game and they don't care about the answers and they don't care about the process along the way. But again, this is serious stuff. We should treat it seriously.
BLITZER: Do you want to wrap it up?
CARVILLE: You know, there's a -- something smells in Denmark and it's not cheese. We've got to clean out the refrigerator and it's got to start with the president.
Scott McClellan, we'll see. He's a spokesperson. He said he went to, he personally went to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby. They told him they had nothing to do with it. Tom DeFrank tells us now that Mr. Rove told the president two years ago, he knew. I don't know what the truth is, but I know one thing. It's time for the president to come out and tell us what happened. And, I think most Americans agree with that. And --
CLARKE: No. Most Americans are not getting up every day even thinking about this. Most are getting up every day saying, what are you going to do about helping me pay my bills, what are you going to about making government work for me, rather than driving me crazy.
BLITZER: Tom DeFrank is a veteran reporter here in Washington, writes for the "New York Daily News." Most of our viewers did not know that.
CARVILLE: Did not know it.
BLITZER: He's a very good guy.
James Carville, Victoria Clarke, thank to both of you for joining us.
Up next, the former House majority leader, Tom DeLay, gets his way and gets a new judge. Should it have played out like that? Our Jack Cafferty getting ready to read your e-mail. Stay with us for that.
And later, the president's new plan to protect the nation from bird flu. Does it do enough?
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's get back to Jack Cafferty in New York. He's been reading your e-mail. Jack, what's going on?
CAFFERTY: Well, I didn't realize I was in the video wall there, and I was looking around at some mike cords and stuff on the floor here. My apologies, Wolf. I know you run a tight ship. I don't like to detract from the beauty of what we're doing in THE SITUATION ROOM.
BLITZER: I like the casual look, though.
CAFFERTY: You do? That's good. I don't wear sport coats or suit coats anymore.
Tom DeLay got what he wanted today. He wanted a different judge for his criminal trial and he got it. Judge Bob Perkins was removed from the case today. DeLay's lawyers had said their client couldn't get a fair trial because the judge had given money to Democrats and Democratic causes.
The question we're asking is, should a criminal defendant like Tom DeLay be able to pick his judge?
Tim, in West Branch, Michigan: "Removing the judge for Tom DeLay sets a very dangerous precedent. All judges have some bias one way or another. Can all nonviolent drug offenders have judges removed if they never tried drugs themselves?"
J.D. in Dallas, Texas: "Looks to me like DeLay wants to be tried in the media and make it look like partisan politics. He'll even claim the judges are against him in this regard. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial appliers of the law. I think this is all theater to try and save his behind."
Jane in Appleton, Wisconsin, writes: "Tom DeLay has every right to question the judge that will be conducting his trial, especially when the judge is as clearly partisan as this one is. When you have a judge who gives --
BLITZER: Jack, hold on a second. I'm going to interrupt you, because Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, is speaking right now.
Let's listen in.
REID: After months and months of begging, cajoling, writing letters, we're finally going to be able to have phase two of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq. There's nothing more important to a Congress or a president than war. We're in a war now -- 2025 American soldiers are dead -- a war costing us more than $2 billion a week. I think the American people are entitled to know how we got there. That's what this is all about.
QUESTION: Senator Reid, Senator Frist called it a slap in the face, an affront to the leadership. How do you respond? Why didn't you notify Senator Frist?
REID: The only way that we've been able to get their attention is to spend three and a half hours in a closed session. We have spoken to all the Republican leaders, asking for this information. Letters have been exchanged. Conversations had. Statements on major news programs, "Meet the Press," all kinds of commitments being made and they simply were not followed through. It's a slap in the face to the American people that this has been -- this investigation has been stymied, stopped, obstructions thrown up every step of the way. That's the real slap in the face. That's the slap in the face, and today the American people are going to see a little bit of light. On November 14, we're going to have a phase by phase idea of how they're going to complete this. Finally, finally.
QUESTION: Do you regret your vote on the Iraq war? Knowing now what you know, would you vote differently?
REID: Listen, we're where we are. Had we had all the information, if the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote. But they didn't. We only had the information we had. And as I stated on the floor prior to our going into closed session, we know that there were no WMDs now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now, but we didn't know at the time, that there was no al Qaeda connection. We know now -- we didn't know then -- there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. But we didn't know that at the time.
QUESTION: But Senator, why didn't you bring this to Senator Frist? He said you never brought it up as a problem to him, the fact that this investigation, as you say, was stymied. There could have been a rational discussion. But now he can't trust you.
REID: Unless someone is deaf, they would have to understand that there has been conversations going on, loud conversations between Senator Rockefeller and Senator Roberts for months. Senator Frist -- if he didn't know, as we say in the law, he should have known. The only way that we could get to this is the way that I did it. I have absolutely no regret, zero regret. The American people had a victory today.
QUESTION: How do you regard this, Senator? Do you regard this as at all connected to the lack of consultation by President Bush on the Supreme Court or other issues?
REID: You know, what we saw Friday afternoon with the indictments is only a small glimpse of what has gone wrong with this administration.
QUESTION: What about --
REID: We -- you know, congressional oversight is something I have grown up with. In the state legislature in Nevada, we did oversight of state agencies. In the House of Representatives, I spent most of my time in committees doing oversight of the agencies over which the committees had jurisdiction.
This Republican Senate does no oversight -- none. None. It's all part of a plan. They obstruct, they take orders from the White House. They do nothing without getting orders from the White House. The Separation of Powers doctrine is something that does not exist in this town with the Republican-controlled House, Senate and, of course, the president. QUESTION: Mr. Leader, what's your relationship with Senator Frist after this episode?
REID: Well, the relationship I have with Senator Frist is up to him. I'm the Democratic leader, he's the Republican leader. We work together. And I'll continue to work with him. I try to get along with everybody.
If Senator Frist is upset about my following Senate procedures, then I'm sorry he's disappointed with my following Senate procedures. The procedure that I used has been used in the last several decades. I only look back to the '40s -- some 40-odd times.
This isn't anything that hasn't been done many times before. It was our way of getting to the bottom of something that was long overdue. That is, an investigation of what went on in Iraq and how the -- what went on prior to Iraq and how the evidence regarding intelligence was manipulated. It's simple as that. They agreed to do it.
QUESTION: Earlier today, Senator Specter said he wished the Judiciary Committee had the jurisdiction to do hearings into prewar intelligence. Have you talked to any Republican colleagues? Is anybody supporting you on that side?
REID: Let me tell you, we have had not in the Armed Services Committee, not in the Intelligence Committee, not in the Judiciary Committee, we have not had oversight hearings. We have not had oversight hearings on any subject. You can go through all the committees, just not those.
QUESTION: Mr. Leader, why not go and consult with the leader and say I have an interest...
REID: Consult with the leader so he stops me from going and moving on this? What do you mean consult with him? What are you talking about?
QUESTION: Well, that's what he had suggested, that you...
REID: Well, he can suggest anything he wants. Consult with him? All he would have done is (INAUDIBLE), and we couldn't have done this. You've got to understand a little bit about procedures around here.
Do my colleagues want to say anything, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said it all.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: Last question, seriously.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) on the floor, saying that his staff have been working on this investigation, that they've been at this...
REID: I'm sure they have, a spec at a time. They've done nothing, nothing substantive. And that's been the problem, nothing substantive.
It's been a charade, and we were able to figure out what they were doing. It's the old stall game. It's pretty easy to figure out what that charade was.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: If you want to see the frustration, just read Senator Rockefeller's press release that he put out.
BLITZER: The Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, a remarkable day today on the floor of the U.S. Congress.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
