Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Possible Sanctions Against North Korea On Hold; Peter Hoekstra's Concern About Being Kept in the Dark by White House; Evan Bayh's Initiative to Compete with Hillary Clinton; Investigators Believe Gas Explosion Brought Down New York City Building; Interview with Margaret Bennett
Aired July 10, 2006 - 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: Thanks very much, Susan. 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, possible sanctions against North Korea on hold right now. And the Bush administration still is urging some patience. It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington where the North Korea missile standoff has prompted people to ask, has the president put cowboy diplomacy behind him?
Also this hour, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee complains to the White House about being kept in the dark. We're looking into Republican Peter Hoekstra's concerns, the political fallout and broader questions about secret programs in the war on terror.
And there's a race now underway within the Democratic Party to not be like Hillary Clinton. Does Senator Evan Bayh have the right stuff to compete with his party's unofficial presidential front- runner?
I'm Wolf Blitzer, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
New developments and a new delay in the North Korean missile standoff. U.N. Security Council members agree today to postpone a vote on possible sanctions against a rogue regime. They say they want to give China more time to reach out to the North Korean government. The Chinese delegation is in North Korea right now. The White House is calling China's mission promising, but how long will President Bush's patience last? Our White House correspondent Ed Henry is standing by with more on the administration's approach. Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the cover of "Time" magazine today charges that the president's doctrine of preemption, so-called cowboy diplomacy has failed, that basically the president has lost his footing, his standing here at home and abroad, so that's forced a change in policy, a charge that White House spokesman Tony Snow today vehemently denied.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: There is no change. The idea that that -- was the president a cowboy when he put together the six- party talks? Was he a cowboy when he was supporting quietly the efforts of the EU-3? The answer is that this is a president who has always seen diplomacy as the first and most important step to take in trying to prevent people from behaving badly.
HENRY (voice-over): But there's no denying the president is displaying a new, more cautious tone towards Pyongyang.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The problem with diplomacy, it takes awhile to get something done. If you are acting alone, you can move quickly. When you are rallying world opinion and trying to come up with the right language at the United Nations to send a clear signal, it takes a while.
HENRY: A far cry from January 2002, when the president declared North Korea, Iraq and Iran were part of an axis of evil. And patience was the last thing on his mind.
BUSH: We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer.
HENRY: Tony Snow insisted there's a misperception among the president's critics.
SNOW: Preemption is not merely a military doctrine, it's also a diplomatic doctrine. And in this case, we are engaging in preemption at the diplomatic level.
HENRY: Democrats beg to differ, saying the president has no choice but to trim his sales because his credibility has been shot by the war in Iraq.
HOWARD DEAN, DNC CHAIRMAN: Where was the president five or six years ago when North Korea was violating their obligations? He was divided because he wouldn't listen to the people who understood what was going on, like Colin Powell. He was in the grip of these neoconservatives who had this bizarre world view of how things are going to work out.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: And now the president is also taking some flap from conservatives like Bill Kristol, writing in today's "Weekly Standard" magazine that the president's policies is basically Clintonian. In other words, conservatives think it's failing. All of this complicating the president's trip later this week to Germany and Russia for the G8 summit where North Korea will be at the top of the agenda. Wolf?
BLITZER: Bill Kristol slapping the president big time. Doesn't get much more intense than that, calling his diplomacy Clintonian. Ed, thanks very much. Let's get a closer look now at the Bush administration's policy in the North Korean missile standoff and why its efforts to play a modern-day China card are so complicated. Our senior national correspondent John Roberts is here in THE SITUATION ROOM. John?
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN SR. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good afternoon, Wolf and welcome back, by the way.
Nearly everyone and the White House and Congress agrees, that absent face-to-face talks between the U.S. and North Korea -- China is the key to getting North Korea to behave. And there is a growing chorus of criticism over China's refusal to get tough with Kim Jong- il.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS (voice-over): With the Chinese delegation in Pyongyang, the White House and its allies seem content for the moment to let China try to cajole North Korea back to the negotiating table.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Let's see if the North Koreans can be convinced by the Chinese that it is indeed time to resume the six-party talks.
ROBERTS: The U.S. and Japan has wanted the U.N. Security Council to level punitive sanctions against North Korea for last week's missile tests. But China would have no part of that, a position that sparked anger and frustration among lawmakers.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: They are emerging on the world stage as a superpower, they should behave like one. And this will be a defining issue in our relations with China.
ROBERTS: So why won't China, America's biggest trading partner sign onto sanctions? One former U.S. ambassador to China says the Chinese fear what would happen if sanctions were to toppled North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. An implosion of his government could send tens of thousands of refugees flooding into China, while an unfriendly regime could take control of Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons. Or the north and south could reunite with thousands of American troops on the ground, another nightmare scenario for the Chinese. Lawmakers are warning Beijing, make something happen or relations will get pretty frosty.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The Chinese are hanging by a thread politically with the Congress now over trade policy. If they don't really come to the table harder with North Korea, they're going to be hanging by a thread in terms of international diplomatic policy.
ROBERTS: And there's another problem for China. If it doesn't convince North Korea to back down, other nations in the region may start to beef up their militaries, perhaps even seek nuclear weapons themselves.
JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: The way China is going, it's going to produce four new nuclear powers in east Asia. North Korea, South Korea will follow at some point, Japan will follow maybe sooner than that, and Taiwan might follow at some point.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: Some U.S. officials don't expect China to come back from North Korea with much, perhaps a verbal commitment from North Korea to return to the bargaining table. But as one U.S. official told me today, what does that really mean?
BLITZER: The huge Chinese dependence on trade with the West, especially the United States, billions and billions of dollars, you'd think the U.S. would have a card to use to try to force the Chinese government to use its leverage on North Korea.
ROBERTS: Yes, but you see, the problem for the Chinese is that their interests are diametrically opposed to U.S. interests. The U.S. would like to see regime change in North Korea, as well as a change in behavior and China doesn't want to see that because they fear what could happen.
BLITZER: John Roberts, thanks very much for that -- John Roberts with the latest on China's role in all of this.
Meanwhile, Congress is back from its Fourth of July recess and many lawmakers are buzzing about one top Republican's frustration with the Bush White House. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra has gone public with his complaint that the Bush administration initially failed to brief his panel about what he calls significant intelligence activity. Chief national correspondent John King is following this story. John?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, the temperature's turned down a bit on this dispute today, but it's still interesting to watch from both the political and a policy standpoint.
As you noted, it is the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee complaining that the Republican White House is falling short of its obligation to brief Congress on secret operations.
This all began with a letter sent almost two months ago, but just made public in recent days. In that letter, Chairman Peter Hoekstra complained to the president that he believed secrets were being kept from the committee and the chairman went on to say, quote, "they may represent a breech of responsibility by the administration, a violation of law."
Now just yesterday Chairman Hoekstra said that after he sent that letter, the committee was briefed on what he called a significant intelligence program. He would not describe the program in any manner beyond calling it major and significant.
But speaking on "FOX News Sunday," Hoekstra said he wanted to remind the president that notification is, quote, "not optional," as he put it. The president is required by law to keep the congressional intelligence committees informed of any significant intelligence operations.
The ranking Democrat on the committee is California Democrat Jane Harman. In a statement, she said, she was not aware of Chairman Hoekstra's letter to the president, but that she agrees with his complaint. In a statement, Congresswoman Harman said, "No one is above the law and the law requires that the intelligence committees be fully and currently briefed on all intelligence programs of our government."
The White House officials also refused to discuss the substance of the dispute, meaning they refused to characterize exactly what information was kept from the committee. Now the White House says the committee was briefed, so case closed in the view of the White House.
But Wolf, as you know, this is just the latest example of Congress complaining about what lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, view as excessive administration secrecy and disdain for congressional oversight, especially on intelligence matters. We've seen it in the NSA surveillance program, other intelligence programs. So while the White House says case closed for now, Chairman Hoekstra says he is satisfied for now, I don't expect this to be the last complaint.
BLITZER: It sounds like it's going to just maybe start right now. If the Republicans, John, are going after the Bush administration on this issue, I can only imagine what some of the Democratic members of the intelligence committees believe. So this presumably will give them some incentive to go forward with themselves with complaints, especially as the political season gets underway.
John King, thanks and thanks for filling in last week.
KING: My pleasure.
BLITZER: As usual, you did an excellent job. John King, our chief national correspondent. And thanks to Ed Henry, John Roberts, John King. They are all part of the best political team on television. CNN, America's campaign headquarters.
Jack Cafferty is part of that excellent team, as well. Good to see you, Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Nice to see you, Wolf.
I want to read you part of a terrific column that was written by Michael Goodwin in "The New York Daily News." The premise is that World War III has already started.
He writes, quote: "Last week's headlines proved the point: North Korea fires missiles, Iran talks of nukes again, Iraq carnage continues, Israel invades Gaza, England observes one-year anniversary of subway bombing. And oh yes, the Feds stop a plot to blow up tunnels under the Hudson River in New York City. World War III has begun. It's not perfectly clear," he writes, "when it started. What is clear is that this war has a long fuse and while we're not in a full-scale combat phase that marked World Wars I and II, we seem to be heading there."
Goodwin is not optimistic about the future. He says this, quote, "Even worse than the problems is the fact that our political system is failing us. Democratic party leaders wants to pretend we can declare peace and everything will be fine, while President Bush is out of ideas. Witness Bush now consoling patience and diplomacy on North Korea. This from a man who scorned both for five years." Unquote.
Pretty good stuff. Here's the question. Do you think World War III is underway? Has it started? E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.
BLITZER: A good column. I read that column. He's a smart guy. Thanks, Jack, very much. Jack Cafferty in New York.
And if you want a sneak preview of Jack's questions, plus an early read on the day's political news and what's ahead right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM," sign up for our daily e-mail alert. Easy to do that. Just go to CNN.com/situationroom.
Coming up, are political moderates an endangered species in this mid-term election year? Senator Joe Lieberman isn't the only one feeling the heat. We're going to tell you who else is in hot water right now, and why.
Plus in our "Strategy Session," Paul Begala and Torie Clarke, they'll face off on this question: is the president going soft when it comes to diplomacy?
And next, why did a four-story building simply collapse in New York? The dramatic pictures and the unfolding story of what may have led to the fiery explosion.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There she is. Zain Verjee. She's joining us here in Washington for a closer look at some other important stories making news. Hi, Zain.
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. Welcome back.
More lives lost in Iraq today in an endless wave of violence. In the northern city of Kirkuk, at least three people were killed in the detonation of a truck that was packed with explosives. Iraqi police say at least another eight people died when two car bombs exploded, one after the other, in the Shia area of Baghdad. Dozens more people were hurt in a coordinated attack in Sadr City.
The U.S. military says four more soldiers stand accused in the rape and murder of an Iraqi teenager, and with killing three other members of her family in Mahmoudiya. A fifth soldier is charged with failing to report the atrocities. They're all charged with conspiring with former Private Steven Green to commit the crimes. Green, who's out of the army, last week pleaded not guilty in a civilian federal court to charges of rape and murder.
Discovery astronauts Piers Sellers and Michael Fossum are back in the shuttle after a glitchy repair job in space. Their space walk was going quite well, and then at one point, a key device that keeps them from floating off almost came loose. After a lot of wrangling, they managed to finish that task, including the installation of a new pump compartment, on the International Space Station's cooling system.
Investigators believe a gas explosion brought down a building on New York's Upper East Side this morning. Fifteen people were injured in the collapse of the four-story structure on East 62nd Street; among them, a doctor who owned the building. New York's fire commissioner says an e-mail sent by the doctor to a neighbor suggests the collapse may have resulted from a suicide attempt -- Wolf.
BLITZER: That was a really scary moment before we got a better sense of what caused that building to collapse, Zain. If you saw CNN's live coverage this morning, a lot of us were pretty fearful of what was going on. Did you catch Larry King, though? He was an eyewitness. He was right around the corner, did an excellent job reporting the news for us.
VERJEE: Yes, yes, he did an excellent job. He ran around the corner, immediately went to see what had happened. And fortunately, it wasn't as bad as he had anticipated. But he also did told us it was the first time or one of the first times that his cell phone was actually coming in handy for CNN.
BLITZER: He's a late comer to cell phones.
VERJEE: Very.
BLITZER: Thanks, Zain.
Let's get some more on this. Our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton is standing by with more details on what happened in New York -- Abbi.
ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, lot's of details as you said, about this four story building or what's left of it. You can see the picture here after the explosion, but mapping sites and property, real estate web sites giving you an idea of what it was once like. This mapping site, A9.com, doesn't just take you to the location, but street level photos show you there's the building there, what it used to look like, you can also take a tour along the street at some of those neighborhood building. More details at real estate site PropertyShark.com, photos of the building there and the approximate market value there, $5.5 million for that four-story building. Also, at these real estate web sites you can sometimes find if a building has had any problems in the past. We did look at this, just a citing for a minor incident more than ten years ago. That's the building after the explosion today.
BLITZER: Abbi thanks for that, Abbi Tatton.
Still ahead, Connecticut lawmakers in crisis mode right now. We're going to tell you why Republican Congressman Chris Shays is feeling Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman's pain and Senator Evan Bayh is trying to make a name for himself as a possible presidential contender. Could the secret to success be linked to a colleague with a bigger namer right now? That would be Hillary Clinton. Stay with us you are in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to THE SITUATION ROOM. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. In the battle for Congress, we have been hearing a lot about the possibility that Senator Joe Lieberman will not necessarily survive a Democratic primary challenge, but some Republicans in his home state of Connecticut also are in deep trouble right now. Our senior political analyst Bill Schneider has been getting a firsthand look at the fight of moderates in midterms, Bill.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, Connecticut calls itself the land of steady habits. One of those habits is moderation, but moderates here are feeling a little unsteady this year.
(voice-over): Quiet little Connecticut has become ground zero for 2006. Connecticut's three Republican members of Congress are among this year's most endangered incumbents. 2006 looks like the mirror image of 1994 when southern Democrats got demolished. This year it's northern Republicans like Connecticut' Chris Shays who are in trouble. Shays defends himself to his constituents as an independent.
REP. CHRIS SHAYS (D), CONNECTICUT: I want to make sure they know when I agree with the White House and when I disagree.
SCHNEIDER: His opponent's response, Iraq.
DIANE FARREL (D), CONN. CONG. CANDIDATE: I think the war has probably more than any other issue galvanized in people's minds the fact that he is just no longer the independent that represented them in the past.
SCHNEIDER: Moderate Democrats have trouble surviving in the south. The same thing is now true for moderate Republicans in the north.
SHAYS: It's getting harder but it's even more important that people like me win.
SCHNEIDER: Why? To bridge the gap between the parties.
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I'm one of the senators who is able to reach across the partisan divide to get things done.
SCHNEIDER: Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is a moderate Democrat. He's threatened with rejection by his own party. It's hard to make the case for moderation when voters are angry. Shay's opponent is trying to tap into that anger.
FARRELL: People are very frustrated with Chris because he has been remarkably stubborn and loyal to the president when it comes to Iraq. It's the single most talked about issue in the district.
SCHNEIDER: Moderates hope the voters will give them credit for standing on principle, even when it's an unpopular principle.
SHAYS: You just have to believe in what you believe in and make sure the public knows what you believe in and then live with the consequences.
SCHNEIDER (on camera): One Connecticut Republican may not be in serious trouble this year, Governor Jodi Rell. She's very far from Washington and she's not tied to President Bush. Wolf?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Bill Schneider reporting for us, thank you Bill. Another important political contest out there, right now we're following a man from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh has been spending a lot of time in Iowa. He just wrapped up his fifth trip there to test the presidential waters. In the process he's being compared to another Democratic senator, one who has first hand experience in the White House. Our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley is just back from Iowa. She is here in THE SITUATION ROOM with the latest.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi Wolf. Most of those who are thinking about running for the Democratic presidential contest, not to mention the people who watch them run, think the '08 race, as it stands right now, will shake down to this, Hillary Clinton, versus not Hillary Clinton. The latter being a wide- open field.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): The junior senator from Indiana spent the latter part of his congressional break in Eagle Point Park Lodge in Clinton, Iowa. And at the Raccoon Valley Community House in Adel. It is the movement of the '08 Democratic presidential campaign right now it's roughly defined as Hillary Clinton and about a dozen others.
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: Is it a little bit of a David versus Goliath situation? Yes, it probably is, but as I recall, David did okay.
CROWLEY: Call her Goliath or the 500 pound gorilla. Her office would prefer you call her not yet decided on whether to run. She is whatever else, the prism through which the others are viewed. Running to the left of her, think John Kerry, Russ Feingold. Or to the right. Think former Virginia governor Mark Warner, or Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, who is in Iowa or New Hampshire just about every month.
BAYH: This is a critical juncture for our country. This is no ordinary time.
CROWLEY: He talks national security, energy policy and budget. The former Governor of Indiana, Bayh also thinks the next Democratic nominee should have a track record of wining Republican and independent support. BAYH: People deep down, they want less polarization and division. So they're going to look at all of this and say who can help bring that about in a principled way? They will look for someone who can carry a couple of red states because they know that's what it's going to take to get the job done.
CROWLEY: It's not like he said she was un-electable. But that word has come up a lot in this 2008 pregame period, so much that the pro-Hillary camp felt it necessary to write an op-ed outlining why she can win.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think she's polarizing?
BAYH: I like Hillary. I don't, but, you know, that's up to the people to decide.
CROWLEY: Bayh says his plan is to be who he is which he would like you to know is the guy who has five times been elected in the red state of Indiana.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: Governorship is also a selling point being used by Mark Warner, another Democrat who has found success in Republican-held territory. Both hold credentials not un-like another successful Democrat, call it the Clinton template, that would be Bill Clinton.
BLITZER: Evan Bayh likes to stress that he's a Governor, that he has been Governor of Indiana and doesn't really focus so much on being a senator from Indiana.
CROWLEY: Exactly. You found that also on the Republican side with Bill Frist who likes it much better when they call him doctor than when they call him senator. As you know, senator has never been much of a selling point when it comes to presidential credentials. I will tell you, though, of all of those out there, two of them have been quite active, one is John Edwards and the other is Evan Bayh, who today is in New Hampshire.
BLITZER: Thank you Candy Crowley reporting for us. Appreciate it. And thanks to bill Schneider and Candy Crowley. They are part of the best political team on television, CNN America's campaign headquarters. We are standing by to speak live with the new British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett. There she is. She has been meeting with Condoleezza Rice. We will speak to her about North Korea, Iran, Iraq. An interview coming up with the new foreign secretary of Britain.
That's coming up right her. Also, the North Korean missile standoff gives Washington flashbacks. Our Jeff Greenfield remembers when Star Wars was the talk of the town, the missile defense system, not the movie. And Paul Begala and Torie Clarke, they're ready to square off on intelligence in-fighting. Does Congressman Peter Hoekstra have a valid beef with the Bush White House? Our strategy session and Margaret Beckett all coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There's been an important legal decision that is just coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.
Let's bring back our senior national correspondent, John Roberts.
What's happening, John?
ROBERTS: Hey, Wolf.
Just looking through the decision which was signed just moments ago by Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. district court in the matter regarding that search of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana's offices back in -- in May 20 and 21 up there on Capitol Hill.
He has ruled that that search was constitutional. So, this is a big blow to Congress. They were worried that the FBI, the Justice Department could just come in whenever they wanted to and launch a search of an office but there in -- in the Capitol Building. It's the first time that that has ever happened, to anyone's knowledge.
And, now, after a 45-day cooling-off period which was ordered by President Bush on turning over the documents that were collected in that search to the Justice Department, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. district court here in Washington, D.C., has said, in fact, that that search by the FBI was constitutional, and he is going to turn those documents over to the Department of Justice -- the Department of Justice very happy about this.
The lawyers for William Jefferson, Congressman William Jefferson, say that they are going to appeal this decision. And there's a chance, Wolf, that this could -- this could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
So, we are going to keep watching this. This is probably not the final word, though, as I said, Judge Hogan has ordered that, in the interim, those documents be released over to the Justice Department.
So, the Department of Justice, which has been waiting longer than 45 days to -- to take a look at those, is finally going to get their hands on those documents and be able to investigate what they believe is a possible taking of bribes on the part of Congressman Jefferson.
You will remember that the FBI claims that they videotaped him taking a briefcase with a $100,000 in it from an informant who was working with the FBI. They later searched his home in Washington and found $90,000 in what came to be known as cold, hard cash in the freezer of that Washington home -- so, the Department of Justice with a big win on their hands, Representative Jefferson and all of Congress, for that matter, being dealt quite a defeat here at the hands of judge Hogan.
BLITZER: If that decision stands, a huge defeat for the legislative branch of the U.S. government, as opposed to the executive branch. John, we are going to have a lot more on this story coming up -- John Roberts reporting the news. Thank you, John.
Other important news we are following, including North Korea, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, just some of the topics we want to talk about with the British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett. She's visiting Washington. She's joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Thanks so much, Minister, for coming in. Appreciate it very much.
Let's talk about North Korea. You have been speaking with the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Does the United States and Britain right -- right now, both of you agree, I assume, on what to do as far as North Korea is concerned -- have China, Russia, and South Korea on board to impose U.N. Security Council sanctions?
MARGARET BECKETT, BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: Well, where we are on this issue is that everyone is extremely concerned.
There is international pressure on North Korea to abandon this form of testing and to go back to the six-party talks. And it has been agreed -- I believe the Japanese foreign minister announced earlier today that there is agreements that -- to pursue talks with the North Koreans, and see if we can get some common ground. And if, of course, that can't be achieved, then we will have to discuss what action might be taken in the Security Council.
But, at the present time, I think the international community is quite united in what they are asking North Korea to do, and it's a matter of how best to achieve that.
BLITZER: But the -- the division is over imposing sanctions. There's no unity -- there's no unity when it comes to the members of the Security Council and the decision to go forward with sanctions, at least not yet?
BECKETT: Well, if I may say so, that's an assertion on your part.
Where we are at present is that there have been discussions about various forms of -- of resolutions, or other action. It has been agreed that we will put that on hold for the time being, and that people will continue to have talks and negotiations with the North Koreans. And while that is taking place, of course, international pressure will continue.
BLITZER: But you -- so, you -- you believe that China and Russia can be turned around, because, at least in their public declarations so far, they are resisting this call for sanctions?
BECKETT: Well, as I say, we have had discussions in the Security Council. Those discussions will continue.
You will forgive me if I say to you that those are discussions to be had between the representatives of those governments. It's never been my practice to negotiate through the media. I don't suppose it's Secretary Rice's either.
BLITZER: I think you are probably right on that point. Thank you.
Let's talk about whether the United States should get involved in direct talks with North Korea right now.
I want you to listen to what Democratic Congressman Chris Dodd of Connecticut said yesterday. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: We have wasted a lot of time over the last several years by arguing about whether or not it's six-party or two-party. If two-party is necessary, then get about the business of doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: That was Senator Chris Dodd. Is it time for the U.S. and North Korea to start two-party talks?
BECKETT: I think that's a matter for the United States government. It's not one for -- for me to pronounce on.
I think what is, however, essential is that North Korea does come to talks, preferably to the six-party talks, and -- and that they do recognize the concern that the steps they have been taking is causing among the international community and the -- the very real anxiety that people have for the course of action that North Korea is pursuing, and that that is not, in the end, good for North Korea itself.
BLITZER: Do you have reason to believe Kim Jong Il, no matter what deal he makes, can be trusted, given the history? In the '90s, he made deals with the Clinton administration that he quickly abandoned.
BECKETT: In international affairs, sometimes, it's necessary to say, OK, that agreement was made. It fell apart. Let's make a fresh agreement, and move on.
That's something that we have to try and do. We have to try and resolve this by such peaceful means.
BLITZER: There is another potential nuclear standoff with Iran right now, and Britain, France and Germany taking the lead, trying to convince the Iranian government to accept this latest incentive package. The U.S. believes the Iranians are stalling for time, trying to get as much time under way, to try build a nuclear bomb.
How much more time do you believe the Iranians have to give a response to that latest initiative? BECKETT: Well, as you may know, it is the intention -- the -- I mean, you -- you say, it's E.U.-led. It is true this is an initiative that began with three E.U. foreign ministers, our predecessors.
But it's an initiative that has drawn in the Russians, the Chinese, and the United States. We had a very useful, constructive meeting in Vienna a few weeks ago, where we reached agreement on a set of proposals to put before the Iranian government. And we urged the Iranian government then to respond as speedily as they could.
We expressed disappointment in Moscow at the informal meeting of the G-8 foreign ministers a week or so ago that they had not yet given us an official response. We shall meet again in Paris later this week, and we hope very much to have a constructive and sensible response from Iran then, showing that they are, indeed, pursuing the path, as they say, of wanting civil nuclear power, and are prepared to come into negotiations with the international community.
BLITZER: They say they probably need at least until the end of August. Is that acceptable?
BECKETT: Well, we have had no official statement from the government of Iran.
There have been a number of statements from different players, not all saying quite the same thing, making remarks like that there are ambiguities or questions about the offer which need to be resolved.
Well, we are making available officials to help to answer those questions, resolve those ambiguities. And, as I say, we are meeting later this week in Paris. I very much hope we will have a clear answer from Iran by the time we have that meeting.
BLITZER: Do you honestly believe that -- that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, would ever abandon a nuclear weapons program?
BECKETT: Well, the Iranians claim that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, in which case they have nothing to abandon.
If what they want is, as they say, civil nuclear power, then we believe that there is much in the set of proposals put before Iran that gives them what they say they want and need. It is for them now to respond. And I do urge them to do so with some speed.
BLITZER: How steady is your commitment to maintaining troops in Iraq?
BECKETT: As steady as it needs to be. It is as steady and unchanged as it has been from the beginning.
BLITZER: Is it open-ended? You will stay there as long as necessary?
BECKETT: Well, as I am sure you realize, we are now moving into a slightly changed situation in the province of al-Muthanna. The -- the process of judging the condition in the -- conditions in the province has reached the conclusion that greater security can be handed over to Iraqi troops and police.
That process is under way. We hope that a similar process will occur in other Iraqi provinces and cities in the -- in the months ahead. But that will be based on conditions on the ground. Nobody can put a timeline on it.
What we can say, though, is that things are moving in the right direction. And we hope they will continue to do so.
BLITZER: You are the new British foreign secretary.
I want to read some poll numbers that came out in the British media the other day on British attitudes toward the U.S. political leadership. Seventy-seven percent -- according to this one poll, 77 percent see President Bush as a pretty poor or terrible leader. Sixty-seven percent see troops failing to win hearts and minds in Iraq. And 58 percent believe that imperial power is seeking world domination -- that U.S. imperial power is seeking world domination.
For Americans, those are pretty disheartening numbers, given the close alliance between the United States and Britain.
BECKETT: Well, I think it's always possible to find an opinion poll that tells you something that gives you an interesting story. It's not a poll that I have heard of or that I'm familiar with. I don't know where it was taken or by whom.
There is a natural tendency, I find, in opinion polls that people ask the question to which they want a particular answer, and, by some remarkable chemistry, they tend to get the answer they want.
Very many people in the United Kingdom understand and value the strength of our relationship with the United States. We don't always 100 percent see eye to eye. But we have very strong common values. Our belief in peace, and justice, and security, and democracy across the world, that is the basis of the relationships between our governments. It's the basis of our relationships between our peoples. It's a pretty good basis. And it's a good relationship.
BLITZER: On that note, we will leave it.
The British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, welcome to the United States. We -- we hope you will visit often and come into THE SITUATION ROOM here on CNN regularly. Appreciate your joining us.
BECKETT: Thank you very much.
BLITZER: And coming up next: our "Strategy Session," Torie Clarke and Paul Begala on all of the political news of the day.
Plus, missile defense, it's been a topic of fierce debate since long before the current North Korean crisis. Is history repeating itself? And the war on terror, should it be renamed World War III? It's Jack Cafferty's question. He's going to be back.
Stay with us. You are in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
In our "Strategy Session": the House Intelligence Committee chairman Peter Hoekstra's complaints about being kept in the dark by the Bush White House and questions about the president's so-called kindler -- kinder, more gentle diplomatic approach.
Joining us now, our CNN political analyst, Democratic strategist Paul Begala, and former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke.
Before we get to that, this ruling against the legislative branch of the U.S. government -- William Jefferson, the congressman, executive branch authorities for the Justice Department went into his congressional office, took documents. The -- the judge says, that's OK.
This is a major setback for not only Democrats, but Republicans in Congress as well.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, neither -- the party leadership in either party likes this notion.
But I -- I have to tell you, as a Democrat, I think they are wrong. This is a Democratic congressman who is being investigated. But it was not just the executive branch, as is the case with some of these wiretaps that some Democrats are upset with.
This was the executive branch following the rules, going to a judge, getting a search warrant, getting a subpoena. The subpoena was then ignored by the congressman for weeks and weeks and weeks. I think it's perfectly justified.
And I think this was one where the president and Attorney General Gonzales were right.
TORIE CLARKE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
BLITZER: What do you think?
CLARKE: As a Republican, I agree.
And I don't think it's a ruling against Congress. It's a ruling for the American people. It says nobody, including members of Congress, are above the law. It was legitimate. It was done properly. It -- it should have been upheld by the courts.
BLITZER: All right, let's talk a little bit about executive legislative relations right now. The chairman of the House Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra, as we just heard, complaining that his committee was left in the dark on some sensitive information, intelligence information, that they're supposed to be briefed on.
He writes in this letter to the president dated May 19: "Mr. President, I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed. If these allegations are true, they represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee, who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on these enemies" -- and this from a Republican.
BEGALA: I think this is the problem, just like I think the search of Jefferson's office is fine, because they went to a second branch. They went to the judicial branch, followed the rules.
Here -- at least the chairman is claiming -- the White House didn't follow the law. Now, this is a loyal Republican. The problem for the White House here is, it's not a partisan thing. This is not Howard Dean saying it. This is one of the most loyal Republicans on Capitol Hill saying, frankly, he can't trust President Bush to follow the law. And that -- that's a pretty extraordinary thing.
CLARKE: Well, it's...
BLITZER: It was pretty extraordinary, you have to admit.
CLARKE: I think Paul stretched the rhetoric a little bit.
Having said that, you have got to take the Congressman Hoekstra very, very seriously. He is very serious about these matters. He has pushed very, very hard to get information declassified, be more transparent about it, all of which is good.
I do think the administration has to work every single day twice as hard as -- as they normally would to keep the right members of Congress briefed.
Having said that, there are just as many members of Congress who are given information, who are provided briefings of all kinds, secret, non-secret, etcetera, and they don't take advantage of them. But, this one, I think you have to take it very seriously. But I wouldn't stretch it further than it is, which is a serious issue.
BLITZER: I -- I assume both of you saw the cover of "TIME" magazine that is on the newsstands today, "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." There it is. I -- I assume you are happy, even though you are from Texas. You're -- you're -- you're...
BEGALA: Well, I'm a Texan. I have a cowboy hat that looks a lot like that, actually, Wolf.
(LAUGHTER) BLITZER: But you are happy the president is now engaged in what they call multilateralism, dealing with the rest of the world. Is that -- that was the thrust of this article.
BEGALA: It was, but I think they -- they confuse form with results.
I would be happy with something that worked. I -- honestly, I look around the world, I don't see the president or his foreign policy team succeeding anywhere. Iraq is a mess. We all know that. Afghanistan, the Taliban is now resurgent. Parts of that country are sliding back to their control.
Somalia, the bad guy warlords beat our warlord, who we were fighting in the war there. The Chinese thumbed their noses at us. The North Koreans are building a bomb. The Iranians are building a bomb. This is a debacle. It's a disaster. It's -- it's -- it's the failure of Bush diplomacy, not just cowboy diplomacy.
BLITZER: What do you think?
CLARKE: Oversim -- greatly oversimplifying very, very complex matters.
There are plenty of people who would stand here and say, lots of problems in Iraq, but a lot of progress. You have a freely elected government there. They have a constitution, the most liberal constitution in the Middle East. That is a tremendous accomplishment, which we wouldn't have been predicting four or five years ago.
I could go through every one of the countries you cited, almost, and say, there are some positive things as well.
What bothers me about something like that is the oversimplification of it, saying these are black or white issues; it's unilateral or multilateral.
It's not. Every situation is different. Every natural -- national security issue is not a cookie-cutter situation. You have to treat them differently. And that is what they're trying to do.
BLITZER: What do you say to Bill -- Bill Kristol, the editor of "The Weekly Standard," a conservative publication, served as Dan Quayle's chief of staff when he was vice president, who writes this piece suggesting that the new foreign policy of the Bush administration is almost Clintonian?
CLARKE: You know what? I have known Bill Kristol for a long time. And I like Bill Kristol. I would say Bill Kristol is a friend of mine.
He is the poster child for getting mileage out of criticizing your own party. It is so predictable. And we are so predictable in how we embrace something like that. So, I got to tell you, I don't put whole lot of stock in it.
BLITZER: What do you think?
BEGALA: That's -- that's why John McCain Joe Lieberman are also the media's favorites, too. And you can always count on John to criticize the Republicans or Joe to criticize the Democrats. So, that's all fine.
CLARKE: Oh, unfair about Joe Lieberman.
BEGALA: The -- oh, my word.
CLARKE: I won't disagree with you on McCain.
BEGALA: We will get into that -- we will get into that later.
CLARKE: Unfair about Joe Lieberman.
BEGALA: Again, my problem is, it's not at all Clintonian.
Bill Clinton, as you pointed out when you were interviewing the foreign minister from Great Britain, achieved agreements with the North Koreans, which they abided by until the Bush administration, OK? The -- the president of the United States, when -- when Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, had a successful foreign policy. We were the most respected nation in the world. We had a very successful foreign policy around the world.
BLITZER: I -- I think the evidence will -- will suggest at some point that they were cheating even during the Clinton administration, that -- going back to '98, which the Clinton administration was still in power. But that's a significant debate that's still under way right now.
CLARKE: And to say that there was successful foreign policy and national security situation during the Clinton administration, I think the relatives and the loved ones of those who died in Somalia, died in the World Trade tower bombings in 93, the Cole, Khobar Towers, I think they would disagree completely.
BLITZER: All right. We have got to leave it there on that note of agreement or disagreement, whatever.
(LAUGHTER)
BEGALA: I disagree....
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Paul Begala and Torie, thanks very much.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: And they are best -- part of the best political team on television as well -- CNN, America's campaign headquarters.
Up next: two investigations, one question -- did U.S. soldiers murder innocent civilians in Iraq? We're going to have a live report. That's coming up in the next hour.
And Jack Cafferty ponders a global nightmare -- his question: has World War III begun? He's taking your e-mail. We will get to Jack in a moment.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
Politicians about to get a new way to reach out to millions of young voters, all thanks to one of the most popular Web sites to ever hit college campuses.
Our Jacki Schechner is here with more on what the Internet is doing, in terms of changing political campaigns -- Jacki.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, we are talking about more than six million college students who have profiles on Facebook.com.
And they just announced today that, starting in September, they are going to allow politicians to buy ad space on Facebook, the idea that they will be able to get their official campaign message out to this demographic of key young voters.
Now, the only way that they can get online now on to Facebook is if supporters put profiles up for them, like Martin O'Malley, who is the mayor of Baltimore, is running as a Democrat for governor. A supporter put this profile online for him.
There's also Jim Talent, the senator of Missouri, a Republican up for reelection, a group of students put up this group in support for him.
Now, we spoke to O'Malley's campaign today, said, would you pay for the ad space?
And they said, Wolf, they would certainly consider it.
BLITZER: All right, Jacki, thank you.
Just ahead in THE SITUATION ROOM: Jack Cafferty is wondering, is the war on terror the start of World War III? He's standing by.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's go right to Jack in New York -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Wolf, "New York Daily News" columnist Michael Goodwin writes that World War III has already started. He says the war on terror is a world war and the U.S. political system hasn't figured out how to deal with it. We asked the question: Do you think World War III has already begun?
Got a lot of mail.
Ray writes from Lubbock, Texas: "Yes. It began September 11, 2001, and, so far, we are losing."
Abraham in Houston, Texas: "Oh, Jack. Please don't anticipate a third world war, and don't be so pessimistic. There is nothing that shows that such a war is imminent. The North Korean and Iranian controversies are to be resolved diplomatically, I believe."
Tommy writes: "No, World War III has not begun. All of those menacing and fear-generating threats are charades. Does any thinking person believe North Korea could ever send a missile to the West Coast of the United States? Does any thinking person believe all the invented threats, such as the recent New York tunnel scare? We are being lied to more and more every day. The neocons are desperate. They are doing anything -- and I mean anything -- to hold on to their power."
Vinnie writes from New York: "I decided it 20 years ago, the day that Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered and thrown on to the tarmac from a hijacked plane in 1985. Wake up, America. The third world war has been going on for two decades, and we are in it."
And Dennis writes: "Yes. And we won't win this time. In World Wars I and II, we were an industrialized nation. We produced our own weapons and ammunition. The economy was strong, and patriotism was very high. Now we will have to order our weapons and ammo from other countries that don't even like us. And patriotism is pretty much gone. Government greed has finally destroyed what millions have fought for, for 230 years. Watch and see" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: You know, Jack, there are some who suggest that the Cold War was really World War III, and we're now in World War IV. I wonder if you want to weigh in on that.
CAFFERTY: I -- World War -- the Cold War was before my time.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Mine, too.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Jack Cafferty, thanks very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
