Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
President Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Hold News Conference; Senate Majority Leader Speaks Out about Raid on Congressman's Office; Bin Laden Claims Moussaoui Unconnected to 9/11; Veterans Affairs Officials Were Warned about Security Vulnerabilities
Aired May 23, 2006 - 16:58 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time.
Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, it's coming up on 5:00 p.m. here in Washington. With the Middle East at a crucial crossroads, President Bush meets for the first time with Israel's new leader, the prime minister, Ehud Olmert. On the agenda, the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and the chaos in Gaza, where Hamas militants control the Palestinian Authority.
Will the U.S. back Israel's move to draw its own borders?
Also, an FBI raid on Capitol Hill, the immigration battle, and the presidential race. Are Republicans on the ropes? I'll speak live with the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
They share very deep concerns about Iran's nuclear program and the situation in Gaza, where the Palestinian government is in the hands of Hamas, labeled a terror group by both the United States, the European Union and Israel. Now President Bush and Israel's new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, are meeting face to face on a day when the House of Representatives has already voted to ban U.S. aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Olmert is seeking President Bush's blessing to go it alone if necessary and define Israel's borders on the West Bank.
We're going to hear from both of them live at the White House. They'll be standing by for a joint news conference.
First, though, let's bring in our Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, who has been watching this story for many, many years.
What are you looking for when these two leaders come into the East Room of the White House? We've got a live picture coming from the East Room. What are you going to be looking for, Jeff?
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I -- you know, I go back to the days when they used to run continuous feature movies and you'd come in, in the middle, and then you'd say, "This is where I came in." I was trying to think of how long people like you and me have been looking at various leaders of the United States and Israel and Europe and the Middle East gathering around a microphone and making sounds about what they want for Middle East peace. And, you know, I started to try to count how many of these initiatives and proposals we have seen just in the last 12 years.
It's an astonishing amount. We may get into that a little later.
And at some point, if we're taking the long view, not just about the occurring crisis -- because there's always a current crisis -- is, you know, how many times have we seen a genuine change of reality? The Sadat visit to Israel, the Camp David Accords, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, Jordan recognizing Israel, those, I think, I would count as genuine shifts of the terrain. But so much else has just been sheer words that leave the fundamentals of the Middle East unchanged.
And I'm waiting to hear whether anybody has got anything to say today that would convince a growingly-skeptical person like myself that anything is going to be different -- Wolf.
BLITZER: The two issues clearly dominating their bilateral agenda right now based on everything I have heard, Jeff, are the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the situation that exists now that Hamas is in charge of the Palestinian government, and what's going on in Iran, Iran's nuclear program. I suspect the latter is going to be high on the -- high -- very high on the agenda, because the Israeli prime minister told me on Sunday he believes, the Israeli intelligence community believes that the Iranians are only, in his words, months away from crossing a technological threshold in which they would have the expertise to build a bomb.
GREENFIELD: Well, you know, it takes me back, I guess, to the last time a hostile neighbor of Israel was getting close to a nuclear capability and what happened. And that, of course, was when Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and Israel took out the reactor in -- what was it Osiraq -- back in 1981. The world officially condemned them, and privately there were a lot of people saying thank goodness you did that.
Everything that I've read about this suggests that this is an infinitely more tricky situation. If you have a notion to take out Iran's nuclear capability, Iran learned from that lesson. And supposedly, they have put their facilities in a dozen different places, deeply underground.
The idea that you could do a military strike, either by the United States or contracting it out to Israel, as was done with Iraq, seems to most people that at least I have read about almost impossible. And once you take that out, then you have asked a rather simple -- or maybe even simplistic question, Wolf, what do you do about this?
Is there a diplomatic initiative that will actually persuade Iran to turn away from a nuclear capability? And I guess I'm waiting to hear whether or not beside the rhetoric, everything is on the table, we hope for a diplomatic solution, whether somewhere publicly or privately people are coming up with a notion that will actually stop this.
BLITZER: Our Suzanne Malveaux, Jeff, is sitting down. She's in the East Room getting ready. Maybe she'll be asking her question to the Israeli prime minister or the president.
Suzanne, we're only seconds away from both of these leaders walking out.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And clearly, what you can describe this event is going to be low expectations. The White House officials have already said that essentially this is a "get to know you" kind of meeting. This is not something where there are going to be any breakthrough announcements or the kinds of shifts that Jeff was talking about.
These are two leaders who are really trying to feel each other out, whether or not they are comfortable with their style, what their message. It's something that's very important to President Bush. As you know, he had a very strong relationship with the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon.
But as you mentioned, there are very important items on the agenda. Of course, Olmert wants to pull out Israeli settlers of the West Bank, essentially setting up -- building a wall to keep out suicide bombers, but also establishing a final border for a Palestinian state without negotiations. Olmert has expressed the belief here that he does not believe Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is a real partner in peace.
And we see the two leaders approaching the podiums now.
BLITZER: They are going to be making opening statements, the president and the prime minister. And then they will be answering questions from the U.S. and Israeli press corps.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Prime Minister, welcome.
I'm particularly pleased to welcome Mrs. Olmert to the White House as well. Thanks for coming.
The prime minister and I have known each other since 1998, when he was the mayor of Jerusalem and I was the governor of Texas. And I remember you greeting me in your office there and you probably thought you were going to be the prime minister. I wasn't sure if I was going to be the president.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: We've just had a really productive meeting. We reaffirmed the deep and abiding ties between Israel and the United States. And those ties include our commitment to democracy and our strong belief that everybody has the right to worship freely. The ties include growing trade and economic relationships. The ties include important educational exchange programs that allow Israeli students to study at American colleges and universities and American students to travel and study in Israel.
In our meeting, the prime minister and I recalled the great contributions to peace made by Ariel Sharon. I asked the prime minister to convey my very best wishes to Ariel Sharon's sons.
Prime Minister Olmert and I discussed peace and security in the Middle East, which the people of Israel seek and the American people support.
In 2002, I outlined my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
And Mr. Olmert told me that he and his government share this vision.
The international community seeks to realize this goal through the road map, which calls for a comprehensive settlement that resolves all outstanding issues between Israelis and Palestinians.
I believe, and Prime Minister Olmert agrees, that a negotiated final status agreement best serves both the Israelis and the Palestinians and the cause of peace.
Palestinian Authority President Abbas favors and speaks out for peace and negotiations, yet the Hamas-led Palestinian government does not. Hamas needs to make a strategic choice for peace.
The United States and the international community have made clear that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, must abandon terror and must accept all previous agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
No country can be expected to make peace with those who deny its right to exist and who use terror to attack its population.
Today, Prime Minister Olmert shared with me some of his ideas. I would call them bold ideas.
These ideas could lead to a two-state solution if a pathway to progress on the road map is not opened in the period ahead.
His ideas include the removal of most Israeli settlements except for the major Israeli population centers in the West Bank. This idea would follow Prime Minister Sharon's decision to remove all settlements in Gaza and several in the West Bank.
I look forward to learning more about the prime minister's ideas.
While any final status agreement will be only achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes, and no party should prejudice the outcome of negotiations on a final status agreement, the prime minister's ideas could be an important step toward the peace we both support.
I'm encouraged by his constructive efforts to find ways to move the peace process forward.
And, finally, the prime minister and I shared our concerns about the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons ambitions. The United States and the international community have made our common position clear: We're determined that the Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons.
I told the prime minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States. And in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid.
The United States is strongly committed and I am strongly committed to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.
I look forward to our continuing discussions after this press conference. I'm not sure the delegations realize this yet, but we're going to shed ourselves of our delegations and the prime minister and I are going to go up to the residence and sit down and have a continued dialogue.
And if we decide to brief our delegations on what we discussed, we will do so. But, if not, they're going to have to guess.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: And then I'm looking forward to dinner. Welcome.
EHUD OLMERT, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank you for your kind invitation to visit Washington and for the opportunity to meet with you in discuss the main issues in our common agenda.
Our meeting was enlightening. And I look forward to working closely with you in the coming years to deepen the friendship, understanding and bilateral ties between the United States and Israel.
I also recall our meeting in the city hall when you and I were strolling around the beautiful building at the terrace of the sixth floor watching the walls of the city of Jerusalem.
At that time, you were the governor; I was the mayor. And I think none of us thought that the day would come that I would have the honor and the privilege of being hosted by you as president of the United States and prime minister of Israel.
I could sense, then, your deep connection to the Holy Land and your friendship and commitment to the state of Israel.
I must say, Mr. President, that my instincts did not fail me.
I and the entire people of Israel appreciate your true friendship and unwavering commitment to Israel's security and its well-being as a vibrant Jewish state.
Your involvement in the Middle East and personal contribution to the effort toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been significant. The vision which you outlined in your historic speech of June 2002 of two democratic states living side by side in peace and security is the basis of any progress toward a solution in this region.
Your unreserved support of the disengagement plan and your letter of April 14th, 2004, to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- and I join you in praying for his recovery -- were the basis for the success of its implementation.
What you immediately recognized to be a historic step was later adopted by all those who were skeptical in the beginning.
I intend to exhaust every possibility to promote peace with the Palestinians according to the road map, and I extend my hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, the elected president of the Palestinian Authority. I hope he will take the necessary steps which he committed to in order to move forward.
Unfortunately, the rise of Hamas, a terrorist organization which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and regards terrorism as a legitimate tool, severely undermines the possibility of promoting a genuine peace process.
As you stated, Mr. President, the Palestinian Authority headed by Hamas government must abandon the path of terrorism, dismantle the terror infrastructure, honor agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist.
By doing so, they will find us a willing partner in peace. However, we will not enter into any kind of partnership with a party which refuses to recognize our right to live in peace and security.
Despite our sincere desire for negotiations, we cannot wait indefinitely for the Palestinians to change. We cannot be held hostage by a terrorist entity which refuses to change or to promote dialogue.
If we come to the conclusion that no progress is possible, we will be compelled to try a different route.
I have presented to the president ideas which I believe could help advance his vision and prevent a political stalemate. According to these ideas, we will remove most of the settlements which are not part of the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria.
The settlements within the population centers would remain under Israeli control and become part of the state of Israel as part of the final status agreement.
This process of realignment would reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians, ensure territorial contiguity for the Palestinians, and guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state with the borders it desires.
The implementation of these ideas would only be possible with the comprehensive support of the United States and the international community. I anticipate working with you to explore ways to advance this.
We discussed the Iranian issue. The Iranian regime, which calls for Israel's destruction, openly denies the Holocaust and views the United States as its enemy, makes every effort to implement its fundamentalist religious ideologies and blatantly disregards the demands of the international community.
The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel; it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world. And it could mark the beginning of a dangerous and irresponsible arms race in the Middle East.
Mr. President, we appreciate your efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, including through the U.N. Security Council.
They are of crucial importance.
The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state.
This is a moment of truth. It is still not too late to prevent it from happening.
I thank you again for your gracious hospitality and for our discussions. I look forward to continue working with you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
BUSH: We'll take two questions a side.
QUESTION: You mentioned that the West Bank plan could be an important step. Doesn't this sweep away the U.S. principle of a negotiated two-state solution? And should the Palestinian side approve any plan that would establish Israel's final borders?
BUSH: You just heard the prime minister say that he's going to exhaust all options to negotiate, that he wants to reach out a hand to President Abbas.
And I agree. As I said in my opening statement, that the best solution is one in which there is a negotiated final status. And we spent ways -- we spent some time discussing about how it's important to get a Palestinian president to the table.
And the prime minister says he looks forward to discussing the issue. And so our preferred option, of course, is there to be a negotiated settlement.
On the other hand, as the prime minister said, that if he is unable to find a partner in peace, if nothing can go forward, he is willing to think about ways to advance the process forward. And in order to solve this problem, there needs to be, you know, willingness to take the lead and creativity and the desire to follow through on the vision. The most important aspect about peace is to have a vision for peace.
And I appreciate the prime minister's vision of two states, side by side, two democratic states side by side in peace. That's possible.
And so, what I come away from the meeting with is that the prime minister, one, has a vision; two, willing to reach out to determine whether or not that vision exists with the Palestinian president, which I think it does; three, is willing to work to see whether or not it is possible for two sides to come together; and, if not, is still willing to consider other ways to move the process forward. That's, to me, a very positive statement.
QUESTION: You said you wanted to hear more. Are you really, then, worried about this plan?
BUSH: I don't know. The only thing that worries me about the plan is that Hamas has said they want to destroy Israel. And the reason that worries me is how can you have two states side by side in peace if one of the partners does not recognize the other state's right to exist?
And it's illogical for somebody to say, "I'm for a state side by side with another state and yet I don't want the state to exist."
And so we spent time talking about Hamas. And I assured the prime minister that our position is steady and strong; that Hamas must change.
Now, we care about the Palestinian people. And I say "we" -- both of us; he can speak for himself on this issue -- but we are trying to set up a mechanism that supports the Palestinian people.
Our beef is not with the Palestinian people; our beef with the government -- that group in the government that says they don't recognize Israel.
And so the United States, we're working with the Europeans -- Condi's people in the State Department are working with the Europeans to come up with a mechanism to get food and medicine and aid to the Palestinians.
You may want to comment on it yourself, Mr. Prime Minister.
OLMERT: Thank you, Mr. President.
Indeed, the government Sunday decided to spend 50 million shekels buying medical equipment -- 50 million shekels; about $11 million -- for the time being, to buy medical equipment and drugs needed for the hospitals in Gaza.
And, as I said during the cabinet meeting, we will spend any amount of money needed in order to safe lives of innocent Palestinians suffering from the indifference of their government. We will not hesitate to do it. We will use the revenues that we have collected, and more if necessary.
We will make arrangements, together with our friends, so that the supplies will arrive directly to those who need them.
This is a humanitarian commitment. We are absolutely committed to help innocent people that suffer from the brutality and the intransigence of their own government. And we will continue to do it at all times.
Thank you, Mr. President. QUESTION: Mr. Prime Minister, are you satisfied from what you have learned out of your meeting with the president with regard of the Iranian issue? And what's your message to the Israeli public about this issue?
QUESTION: And, Mr. President, with your permission, there is a military option from your point of view to solve the threat of the Iranian problem, their work on -- to gain nuclear weapons?
OLMERT: Well, the Iranian issue was discussed indeed between the president and myself, and we will continue to talk about it later.
Obviously, there is a major threat posed, as I've said already and the president said, by the Iranians and their attempt to have nonconventional capabilities and also to build up delivery systems and the ballistic missiles that can hit major centers all across Europe, not just in the Middle East.
This is something that needs to be stopped. We discussed this issue at length and there is a total agreement and understanding between the president and myself that there is a need to stop it. And we reviewed the different ways how to do it and I'm very satisfied with what I heard from the president and -- on what we agree that we will continue to do in order to achieve this goal.
BUSH: Our primary objective is to solve this problem diplomatically.
I've told the American people that I will, on all issues, will try diplomacy first and exhaust diplomacy.
And explain to the prime minister that -- about our diplomatic efforts, the most important thing in diplomacy is that there be a shared goal. In other words, you have to have a common objective, a common goal, in order to get people to come together around you.
And now we have got a common goal throughout most of the world, and that is: Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
And that's important. And we are now working the diplomatic front around that goal. We have a variety of options, one of which, of course, is the United Nations Security Council, if the Iranians aren't willing to show progress toward that goal. We're working very closely with what's called the E.U.-3, that's Germany, England and France. And I've been pleased and Secretary of State Rice has been pleased about their willingness to stay tough on the goal, of achieving the goal. It's -- you know, sometimes when you've got a variety of negotiating parties, it's easier for one -- a nontransparent negotiator -- to pick off a weak link.
And yet, they have been firm. And that's important for Israel to know. It's important for me to praise our partners for that strength of purpose.
Obviously, there's other parties we have to work with, including Russia and China. In other words, you can't get anything out of the U.N. Security Council unless there is an agreement that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith and aren't willing to go forward.
And so we're sending a lot of time working with our Russian friends, in particular to make it clear to them that Iran is showing no good faith.
And one of the interesting issues that the Iranians have tossed out in this debate is that they believe they have the sovereign right for civilian nuclear power.
And my position has been: Fine, you just don't get to enrich the fuel necessary for the plant.
And so we provided, I thought, a very interesting opportunity for them to say, if you want civilian nuclear power, you can have your plant and the international consortium will provide the fuel for the plant and we'll pick up the spent fuel from the plant.
And this very realistic and reasonable approach has been rejected by the Iranians. And so I say to our friends in our consortium. I'm not so sure these people really do want a solution. And, therefore, let us make sure that we're willing to be working together in the U.N. Security Council.
So that's where we are. We're headed -- we're on the cusp of going to the Security Council. And I repeat to your question: Obviously we'd like to solve this issue peacefully and diplomatically.
And the more the Iranians refuse to negotiate in good faith, more countries are beginning to realize that we must continue to work together.
QUESTION: If we can switch to Iraq, sir.
BUSH: Iraq, OK.
QUESTION: Iraq: I know that this is something you're leaving up to your commanders, but from what you've heard from your commanders, how confident are you that you can start drawing down troops by the end of the year?
BUSH: First of all, we are making progress in achieving our objective of training the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy. And the reason I know that is because I talk to our commanders quite frequently.
And we're making good political progress, as the world saw in the formation of a unity government.
The government has yet to get their full cabinet in place, although we think that'll happen relatively quickly. And then this sovereign government is going to assess their security situation and their security forces and their needs and work with our commanders.
We haven't gotten to the point yet with the new government that's sitting down with our commanders to come up with a joint way forward.
However, having said that, this is a new chapter in our relationship. In other words, we're now able to take a new assessment about the needs necessary for the Iraqis.
And when I get that report from our commanders, I'll share it with others and you.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Mr. President, can I just add...
BUSH: Please.
QUESTION: The U.S. has the most powerful military in the world, and they have been unable to bring down the violence in any substantial way in several of the provinces.
So how can you expect the Iraqis to do that?
BUSH: If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it gives -- I think it will -- I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing.
In other words, it's very difficult. You could have the most powerful army in the world. Ask the Israelis what it's like to try to stop suiciders. It is a difficult task to stop suicide bombers. But in the end, that's one of the -- the main weapon of the enemy: the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider.
So I view progress as: Is there a political process going forward that's convincing disaffected Sunnis, for example, to participate?
Is there a unity government that says it's best for all of us to work together to achieve a common objective, which is democracy? Are we able to meet the needs of the 12 million people that defied the car bombers?
Because to me, that's success.
Trying to stop suiciders, which we're doing a pretty good job of, on occasion, is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow. And those who are being inspired by al Qaeda, we're just going to have to stay on the hunt and bring al Qaeda to justice. And our army can do that and is doing that right now.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the prime minister just said that the settlement blocks, the major population centers, will be part of Israel, annexed to Israel in the future. Do you support that? Would the United States sanction that?
And, Mr. Prime Minister, can you give us some assessment of the time that you are willing to wait for the emergence of a Palestinian partner?
BUSH: My answer to your question is: Refer to my April 14th, 2004, letter. I believed it when I wrote it, and I still believe it.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Aware that I wrote the letter or aware that I believe what I wrote?
(LAUGHTER)
OLMERT: First of all, I want to emphasize again what I said before and what I said before the elections and immediately after the elections in Israel and when my government was inaugurated in the Knesset just a couple of weeks ago.
I said that we will make a genuine effort to negotiate with the Palestinian side ion the basis of the road map which is the framework for future negotiations toward, hopefully, a peace agreement between us and the Palestinians.
I meant precisely what I said. I will make every possible effort. And in order to examine it carefully and seriously, I will certainly meet with the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.
We haven't yet decided about the timing. It will be in the near future.
And I will do everything that I can in order to help create the necessary circumstances for such negotiations to take place; providing, of course, that the Palestinian partner will have to, not just to make a public commitment, but being able to deliver on the basic requirements of the road map and the quartet decisions -- namely to recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist as a Jewish state, to unarm the terrorists organizations and to implement all the obligations of the agreement signed between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
So we will make an effort. And I say time and again that we accept the sincerity of Mahmoud Abbas as the elected president of the Palestinian Authority. He's genuine. He's sincere. And we hope that he will have the power to be able to meet the requirements necessary for negotiations between us and the Palestinians.
How soon it will be? The sooner the better. I don't want to prejudge it at this point. I think it's too early. And I didn't come with a timetable to meet with the president of the United States. We shared our observations.
I entirely agree with the vision of the president as it was outlined so brilliantly in the famous speech in June of 2002, which really set the course for all the developments that took place in the Middle East since then and created the possibility for ultimately the disengagement, which was a turning point in the history of the Middle East.
And we are grateful to the president for the courage that he manifested then in presenting this outline and in being the first to support the disengagement and carry on in spite of the difficulties and the skepticism and the question marks posed by different countries at the beginning. Most of them joined in later.
So we are anxious to have negotiations and we will look and find every possible avenue to help establish a process of negotiations on the basis of these conditions. However, as I said, we will not wait indefinitely.
If we will reach the conclusion that in spite of all these efforts it is impossible to implement the principles of the road map, through a negotiating process, we will look for other ways to implement these principles and to ultimately create a situation where there are secured borders for the state of Israel with the population centers in the territories as part of the state of Israel and with a contiguous territory that will allow the Palestinians to establish their own Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. And hopefully this is something that will happen within the next three to four years.
Again, I am grateful to the president for the efforts that he was making and for his willingness to examine, together with me, these new ideas -- as he called them, "bold" ideas -- in the event that all other options will not be possible.
Thank you.
BUSH: Good job.
BLITZER: The president of the United States, the prime minister of Israel wrapping up about a half an hour news conference, answering questions. Two issues topping the agenda: the Palestinian problem with the Israelis, as well as the Iranian problems with not only the Israelis, but the U.S. and the Europeans.
Jeff Greenfield has been watching all of this unfold together with us.
What did you think, Jeff?
GREENFIELD: Two quick points. The words that Prime Minister Olmert directed toward PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas are far kinder than anything the Israelis ever had to say against Yasser Arafat, whom they regarded as neither competent nor honest. It's just the problem is that the governing body, Hamas, is at least of now, committed to the end of Israel.
The second thing that occurs to me, Wolf, in the great tradition of the region, is to answer a question with a question. As the United States confronts Iran and its potential nuclear ambitions, as it has to rally Europe and particularly Russia and China, two Security Council members with veto power, how much stronger or weaker would it have been -- the position it had been in, had the United States not gone into Iraq on the mistaken notion that it did have weapons of mass destruction?
Did Iraq help or hurt as the United States now confronts Iran and its nuclear ambitions? That's a question I think is very much on the table in the days ahead, Wolf.
BLITZER: A fair question. Jeff, stand by.
Suzanne Malveaux is in the East Room. You were there, Suzanne. You were watching all of this unfold.
I heard the president of the United States basically tell the Iranian leadership, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if you attack Israel, you're attacking the United States. The United States will stand with its ally, Israel. Strong words from President Bush.
MALVEAUX: Absolutely, Wolf. I mean, that is something that the president has been very firm about. But at the same time, saying that diplomatic options are the thing the United States is confident and focused on.
I thought what was interesting in this press conference, was truth in advertising, really. No new news out of this. Both of the leaders punted, essentially, giving them enough room to say, "Look, we'll move forward with these final status talks."
I did think it was interesting that Olmert did set somewhat of a timetable, saying that he would allow the process to play out two to three years. Essentially both of them looking to Mahmoud Abbas to see what kind of authority he has and what kind of position he's in the next couple of years to actually work with the Israelis and make this happen -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Suzanne, thanks very much. We'll get back with you.
Jeff Greenfield, thanks to you, as well.
Much more on the story coming up later tonight, here in THE SITUATION ROOM, 7 p.m. Eastern.
Up ahead, bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill over the FBI search of Congressman William Jefferson's office. The raid was the first of its kind in U.S. history. We'll show you why some call it unconstitutional.
Also, the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, is standing by to join us live here in THE SITUATION ROOM. We'll ask him to weigh in on the Jefferson controversy. Also, we'll ask Senator Frist about his White House aspirations.
Plus, there's a new audiotape that has just come out from Osama bin Laden, only within the past hour. We're going to tell you what bin Laden is now saying.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Did the weekend surface of Congressman -- a congressman's office violate the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches of the U.S. government? Members of Congress, especially the Republican leadership, are not happy at all about this.
Joining us now from Capitol Hill is Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee.
Mr. Leader, thanks very much.
The former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich quoted in the "Washington Post" today as saying, "Searching Rep. Jefferson's office was the most blatant violation of the constitutional separation of powers in my lifetime."
This is the first time this has ever happened in U.S. history. What do you think was going on? What do you think of this?
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Wolf, I have cautioned our leadership about getting too far out in front. I think the American people need to know, first and foremost, that no congressmen, no senator is above the law of the land. And the law needs to be enforced and needs to be enforced aggressively.
On the other hand, I think it is very important for us to take the time, not with a knee jerk reaction, but to go back and look at the separation of powers, the so-called speech and debate clause that is in the Constitution itself.
What we've done on the Senate side is to ask our rules committee to go back and look to see whether or not there is any precedent. And so far, they haven't been able to come up with any. And then to ask our legal counsel, both inside and outside, to advise us as to whether there should be protocols, all the time recognizing that no member of the Senate or the House is above the law.
BLITZER: Yesterday, when you issued a statement, you sounded pretty upset about it. Are you changing your mind? FRIST: No. I think my statement yesterday reflected exactly what I am, and that is concerned. When we talk about constitutional issues, when we talk about law enforcement, when we talk about the rule of law, there shouldn't be a knee jerk statement or knee jerk reaction without very careful thought, very deliberate thought, the input of constitutional scholars, especially when there is no precedent in the past.
So yes, I'm concerned, because it does involve the Constitution, it does involve the law. So I pretty much stick with yesterday's statement. We will be spending a lot of time over the next several days and probably the next several weeks seeing whether or not a protocol should be developed consistent with that Constitution, consistent with the separation of powers, and consistent with the law of the land.
BLITZER: When do you think, switching gears to immigration reform, when do you think it will come up for a vote on the Senate floor?
FRIST: Wolf, it's moving very fast. There are amendments are going on now, tonight and, all day tomorrow.
I filed what is called a cloture vote, a procedural vote which will occur tomorrow morning. That vote means that the debate will end within 30 hours. And that means that we will have final vote on passage in the United States Senate after probably more than 30 amendments as of Thursday late afternoon. So we will be finished late Thursday afternoon.
BLITZER: A lot of your Republican colleagues, including Senator Jeff Sessions, are very unhappy with this compromise that's being worked out in the Senate. Senator Sessions says, "The Senate should be ashamed of itself. This legislation should have never, ever, ever become law."
You understand the concern that he has. But where do you stand right now as the Republican leader in the Senate? Will you support this compromise with Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain?
FRIST: Wolf, my goal at the outset was to do what the American people expect. And that is to recognize serious problems. And millions of people crossing this border illegally is a serious issue. National security, economic, humanitarian, you know the reasons.
Thus, I elected in the Senate to take it to the floor, a comprehensive bill, strong on border security, and to have a process where every United States senator, Republican, Democrat, or independent, has the opportunity to offer amendments to improve an underlying bill that did come out of the judiciary committee.
With that, the process has been superb. In a bipartisan way, we will deliver a bill that will reflect the will of the Senate. If we continue in that vein tonight, tomorrow, with amendments voted upon, up or down, I expect that I will be supporting that bill coming out of the Senate. It -- we'll finish with it on Thursday. The House has passed a bill. It will go to conference sometime over the course of the summer. And I'm hopeful that we can again have the will of the House and the Senate reflected in a way that addresses a very real problem out there.
BLITZER: A lot of the Republicans in the House -- they have a very different version they've already passed -- are furious at what's going to come out of the Senate, including your stance.
Tom Tancredo, the Republican congressman from Colorado, said this the other day. He said, "By caving into the Democrats, Bill Frist pushed the Senate towards the biggest illegal alien amnesty in American history. Frist," he went on to say, "has put the Senate on a collision course with the House."
Tough words from a Republican colleague.
FRIST: Yes. You know, a lot of rhetoric. And again, a Republican colleague and somebody whom I respect.
And the good thing about the system, as reflected here in the Senate, is that people like Tancredo or other people throughout my caucus, which has a lot of varied opinions, everybody has had that opportunity to come forward, put their ideas out, not just rhetoric, their substantive ideas out, have it debated among that whole body, deliberated upon and then voted upon.
And that was a huge advance. Three weeks ago, the Democratic leaders said no, we're not going to allow you to bring the amendments up and be voted upon. But by the time we've finished, we will have probably over 23, 24 Republican amendments voted upon, and maybe 10, 15 or maybe more than that Democratic amendments. And that's the way our legislative body is supposed to work.
Not everybody is going to agree with it. Not a perfect bill, but the best of what our legislative body can do, addressing very real issues that are out there.
BLITZER: Senator Frist, thanks very much for joining us.
FRIST: Good to be with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thank you.
And coming up in THE SITUATION ROOM, we'll have much more on the anger on Capitol Hill over the raid involving Congressman Jefferson's office. We'll talk about it with our own Kelli Arena, the bitter battle between the branches. That's coming up.
Also, a new audiotape from Osama bin Laden has just been released in the past hour. We're going to tell you what he's saying now. Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Let's bring in Betty Nguyen. She's joining us from the CNN Center in Atlanta with some -- a look at some other important news happening right now -- Betty.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. This is a developing story, Wolf. It appears Osama bin Laden is coming to the defense of Zacarias Moussaoui.
An intelligence official tells CNN agents that they're trying to verify the authenticity of a new audio message on the Internet said to be from Osama bin Laden. But that counterterrorism official says that there's no reason to doubt that it is not bin Laden.
Now let's get to the tape. In the tape, bin Laden reportedly says the recently convicted 9/11 conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. The message also says terror detainees at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are also innocent.
Now CNN is unable to independently verify that the voice on the tape is bin Laden's. You know, we're working on that, Wolf, but nonetheless, very interesting.
BLITZER: Very interest interesting indeed, Betty. Stand by.
Kelli Arena covered the Moussaoui trial for us, our justice correspondent.
Kelli, what do you make of this statement by Osama bin Laden?
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's a very different message than we've gotten before from bin Laden. There's no threat in the message. It's very simple and direct.
And basically, he's saying, "Look, I heard what Moussaoui said in testimony." This, of course, proves, "Hey, I'm relevant. Look at me. I'm up on what's happening. I'm knowledgeable about news events." Because as you know, Moussaoui went on the stand and said that he was supposed to be part of 9/11, that he was supposed to fly a fifth plane into the White House with Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, as an accomplice.
After the trial was over, you remember, Wolf, that Moussaoui came back and said, "Wait a minute. I lied, actually, when I was on the stand. I really didn't have anything to do with September 11."
And so Bin Laden comes forward and says, "Look, you know, he was under a lot of pressure," he being Moussaoui. "He didn't have anything to do with 9/11. I would know. I hand-picked those people personally."
And officials are saying this is really just a propaganda tape to show that he's still in the game, Wolf.
BLITZER: Well, I think that's a fair game. I think most of our viewers will say you can't believe a word Osama bin Laden says. You can't believe a word that Zacarias Moussaoui says. And let's move on. It's over with as far as their credibility is concerned.
ARENA: You're probably right, Wolf.
BLITZER: Kelli, thanks very much. Kelli watched that trial for us, our justice correspondent.
Coming up, more of the bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill over the FBI's search of Congressman William Jefferson's office. The raid was the first of its kind in U.S. history. We'll show you why some are calling it unconstitutional.
Also, Jack Cafferty standing by.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Members of Congress are furious over a weekend raid by the FBI on Capitol Hill. Did the search of Representative William Jefferson's office cross a red line? Once again, let's turn to our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena -- Kelli.
ARENA: Wolf, there are many congressional leaders that think it did. But over at the Justice Department, there's bewilderment at the congressional response.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice-over): Political leaders from both parties say the search was an unnecessarily aggressive move, one that may have violated the separation of powers between the executive and the congressional branches of government.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), HOUSE SPEAKER: There's ways to do it. And my opinion is that they took the wrong path. They need to back up and we need to go from there.
ARENA: The search was approved by a federal judge after reviewing an affidavit outlining the evidence against Congressman Jefferson. It includes a video of him allegedly accepting $100,000 in marked bills from an FBI informant.
FBI agents say $90,000 of that was found hidden in the congressman's freezer.
Jefferson denies any wrong doing. Still, some legal experts say the search violated protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
CHARLES TIEFER, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW SCHOOL: I'm much concerned that what happened Saturday night was an intimidating act by which the Congress is going to be -- the members of Congress are going to be nervous about doing their job from now on.
ARENA: Justice Department officials argue they are no choice. Prosecutors subpoenaed the documents they were after from Jefferson last August but say they got no cooperation.
ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We worked very hard over a period of time to get the information, the evidence, that we felt was important to a criminal investigation. And at the end of the day, the decision was made that this was absolutely essential to move forward with that investigation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Discussions between the Justice Department and Congress are ongoing, Wolf, but so far, both are taking a pretty hard line.
BLITZER: We're going to have a lot more coming up at 7 p.m. Eastern in THE SITUATION ROOM. Kelli, thank you very much.
We're also learning today that authorities waited almost three weeks before revealing they lost personal data for more than 26 million veterans. But could the security breach have been prevented? Our Internet reporter, Abbi Tatton, says there were some warning signs -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, last year, veteran affairs' own inspector general identified significant information security vulnerabilities at the agency, vulnerabilities that could lead to risk improper disclosure of sensitive data.
All of that's available at the Veterans Affairs' own web site.
On top of that, a report by the Committee on Government Reform, that issues report cards on computer security for all federal agencies, gave Veterans Affairs a failing grade earlier this year. Four out of the last five years, they've received an "F." Overall last year, the government wide average was a D+.
Veterans Affairs responded to our questions in an e-mail today. One of the things they pointed out, all department employees will be not completing FISA (ph) training by the end of June.
All of this is online at CNN.com/SituationReport -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Abbi, thank you very much. Jack Cafferty will be -- Jack Cafferty will be back with us in an hour, 7 p.m. Eastern. Until then, thanks very much for joining us.
Let's go to "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Lou is standing by in New York.
Hi, Lou.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Wolf.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
