Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With Senator Carl Levin

Aired August 03, 2002 - 17:30   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak. Al Hunt and I will question the leading Democrat in Congress on national defense policy.

AL HUNT, CO-HOST: He is Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT (voice-over): As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee launched hearings on what to do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the party leaders in the Senate debated whether military action should be debated.

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: It would be a big mistake for the administration to act without Congress and without its involvement. I think there has to be a debate.

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: What do they want us to say? ``Oh, Mr. Saddam Hussein, we're coming, we're coming, get ready. You can expect us, you know, two weeks after election day. And by the way, here's the way we're coming. But before we do that, we'll have a huge debate.''

HUNT: Meanwhile, Jordan's King Abdullah met with President Bush to counsel no military action against Saddam.

KING ABDULLAH OF JORDAN: We have always felt that dialogue is the best way of dealing with Iraq, trying to bring Iraq back into the international community.

HUNT: Carl Levin, president of the Detroit City Council, 24 years ago won an upset election to unseat Senator Robert Griffin, then the Republican whip of the Senate. In addition to heading the Armed Services Committee, he also is chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Senator, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, over the next year do you expect the United States will, if necessary, invade Iraq? And what size force would it take?

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, if necessary, yes. It would take probably, if it were a full attack rather than something clandestine, it would take at least a quarter of a million troops.

HUNT: Do you think it should require congressional authorization? And would you support such authorization from what you know now?

LEVIN: The president should clearly get congressional support for this. This is too massive an operation to proceed without it. There's too much at stake. There's too much of a potential for significant casualties. The resources involved are huge. And the impact on the region and on our security is so large that the president, it seems to me, would not proceed without congressional authority.

No president is going to acknowledge that they need it, probably.

HUNT: Would you support it?

LEVIN: Depends on the circumstances at the time. It depends whether or not there's been a showing, for instance, that Saddam has been involved in 9/11. In that case, I would support it. If there was a showing that he was on the verge of using a weapon of mass destruction, I would support it.

HUNT: Have you seen any evidence yet that indicates that he was involved in 9/11?

LEVIN: No, not yet. I mean, there's--we, of course, hear there is evidence that there was some meeting of the Iraqi intelligence with Al Qaeda people, but there's no knowledge as to what occurred there. And I don't think the intelligence community has reached the conclusion that he was involved, as far as I know. So I would say I don't see any real, solid evidence of any involvement yet.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, Kenneth Adelman, a former high administration official in national security, has said that the U.S. operation against Iraq would be a cakewalk. Anthony Cordesman, also a former Defense Department official, testified this past week that only a fool would call it a cakewalk.

Where do you come down on that disagreement?

LEVIN: I think it's a mistake to even think it might be a cakewalk. And our top military people, our senior military leaders, know it would not be one. They advise caution. And it's something that I think the president will seriously consider, which are the concerns of our senior military leadership about an attack on Iraq.

The big issue here is whether or not Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction unless he were attacked. In other words, would he initiate the use of weapons of mass destruction? If he did that, if he initiated their use, it would lead to his own destruction.

NOVAK: But you can't imagine him doing that just...

LEVIN: Oh, I can't. I can (ph) imagine him...

NOVAK: ... just without provocation?

LEVIN: I think it's unlikely, but I can imagine anything relative to Saddam. But I do think it's unlikely.

But that's the key calculus here, because if the conclusion is that he would not initiate their use--because if he did, it would lead to his own destruction. And if he loves himself more than he hates us and hates Israel, then he would probably--probably not initiate their use. But there's no doubt that, if we attacked him, that he would use every weapon of mass destruction that he has.

NOVAK: In connection with the cakewalk argument, there's been a lot of reported stories that the military--uniformed military wants a set-piece operation. You mentioned a quarter of a million; that's the figure I hear. Whereas the civilian leadership at the Pentagon believes it could be done with much less investment of troops-- surprise attack.

Do you see that debate going on between the uniformed and the civilian people?

LEVIN: I think there is a real difference going on there, and I'm just hoping that the president will consider the views of his top military leaders, because they're much more cautious than some of the civilians in the Pentagon.

And while all operations have got to be looked at if there were going to be an attack, it seems to me that the experience of the senior uniformed people has got to carry real weight with the president, at least I hope it will.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, you said a moment ago that, if attacked, there was no doubt that Saddam would use his weapons of mass destruction, his chemical and biological agents. How would you anticipate he would use them, and what could we do in that terrible situation?

LEVIN: Well, there's a lot of ways he could use them. He could use them with missiles. He could use them with an airplane carrying anthrax that perhaps could get through over Israel. He could use them with trucks that had been pre-located or that agents would drive. He could use them with ships. There's many ways of delivery of a weapon of mass destruction.

But that is the real dilemma that, it seems to me, people have got to resolve. You've got to look at what the casualties would be, what would happen after he were removed, for instance, what would take his place, how long would we be tied down there. This is not at all a cakewalk. This is a very complex issue.

But the biggest issue, which I don't think has been addressed satisfactorily, is that question that I raise, is, is it likely that he would initiate its use when he is a survivalist? This is not like a suicide bomber. In my judgment, he is a survivalist. He's like a North Korean leader. His first and foremost goal in life is survival. And if that is true, if he initiated the use of a weapon of mass destruction, he knows that would lead to his destruction, which certainly we would respond massively if he initiated that use.

HUNT: King Abdullah told the president this week, don't do anything in Iraq until there's more progress in the Israeli- Palestinian issue. Terrible bloodshed again this week. Do you anticipate the possibility of any progress there, as long as Sharon and Arafat are in power?

LEVIN: Well, I want to be hopeful that progress is possible, but I think it's--I wouldn't predict it as being likely, but I think it's possible.

The question is whether or not Palestinian leadership will emerge that will not only condemn but end suicide bombing. These are acts of murder against a country and against its people that no country would tolerate, and Israel is not going to tolerate.

As long as those suicide bombers continue, there's not going to be a negotiated settlement. Even if they stop, the risks--I mean, the chances are still difficult but possible. But they've got to stop before there's any negotiations.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, Iraq asked for technical talks in Baghdad with the U.N. inspection team. Do you see a real possibility of resumption of U.N. inspections to avert a military operation in Iraq?

LEVIN: Well, I think Saddam would do anything to change the subject, basically. He'll delay, he'll slow-walk. So it's possible he would invite inspectors and then remove them, or find some excuse. Anything's possible with him.

I don't think we should be naive about either him or what his intentions are or what kind of an evil person he is. I think we should not be naive about that at all. So he could manipulate inspections. I just don't think he's likely to open up his country to full inspections.

NOVAK: Isn't it very difficult for the United States to launch an attack at a moment when Saddam Hussein is telling the world, ``I want to negotiate on inspections''? Doesn't that make the U.S. decision more difficult?

LEVIN: Not really. I think the U.S. decision has got to be based on whether or not the pluses outweigh the minuses, whether we can contain Saddam, which is our present policy, enforcing a no-fly zone, keeping his troops away from the north and the south, protecting the Kurds and the Shi'a against him, having sanctions against him in terms of military equipment. I think that's the real calculus.

But if the time came where the pluses of moving militarily outweighed the minuses--and that's a very complex calculus--it would seem to me that his particular position at the moment on inspections would not be a major weight on that scale because nobody believes him. NOVAK: OK, we have to take a break. But when we come back, we'll ask Senator Carl Levin about Enron and corporate scandal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Senator, you have probed deeply into the Enron scandal and Enron's ties to certain financial institutions like Merrill Lynch, suggesting that maybe Merrill Lynch mislead investors because of its own deals with Enron.

From what you know, was Enron a criminal enterprise, and were Merrill Lynch and Citibank and Chase facilitators?

LEVIN: Enron was a deceptive enterprise. Whether or not it's criminal or not is going to be left to a prosecutor or a Justice Department investigation and prosecution.

But were they deceptive? Highly deceptive, and financial institutions contributed to that deception. The directors failed in their responsibility. The auditors obviously failed; they've already been found guilty.

But I believe that there was a huge, huge deception here that is deep, it's not limited to Enron, and that we need not only do what we've already done, with the Sarbanes bill having been passed and signed into law, but there's some additional things that need to be done if we're going to reverse the massive kind of accounting deceptions which have occurred and the losses to average Americans and their pension funds.

HUNT: Well, would you anticipate, in that vein, legislation this session that seeks to address those special-purpose entities that you have investigated, the Enrons, and then guarantee that security analysts act independently?

LEVIN: I hope so. It's still possible in September. But the deceptive practices involve the use of these special-purpose entities, offshore entities.

Stock option accounting has got to be addressed. It's one of the real motivators here for the greed which drove executives to drive up the stock prices through these phony accounting methods that made their companies look a lot better than they really were. Then they had sometimes millions of options which were cashed in and then stock that was sold.

And that has got to end. We've got to remove that kind of an incentive for executives, who get most of these stock options, to be doing what they did to drive up, in a very artificial way, the stock prices of their companies so that they could make millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, put that money in their pocket, leaving average shareholders and pension funds holding the bag.

NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, who's a pretty independent Republican and very tough on corporate corruption, has demanded that your subcommittee call Robert Rubin, the former secretary of the treasury, to explain his calls made as a Citibank executive, made to the Treasury on behalf of Enron.

The Wall Street Journal on Friday said you are resisting that. Is that accurate? And if so, why?

LEVIN: There's just no evidence that Rubin was involved in any of the activities that my subcommittee's investigating.

NOVAK: Let me read to you something that the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, said. He said, ``It's outrageous that they go around beating up all these corporate fat cats and one of the biggest fat cats, Robert Rubin, is now clearly implicated, or Citibank is clearly implicated, in some of the corporate accounting scandals when he was there. Not to have him come and account, as they made other folks come and account, is purely political. If this was a former Republican secretary of the treasury, I guarantee you that he would have been called up there a long time ago.''

How do you respond to that, sir?

LEVIN: Well, that the Republican ranking member of my subcommittee, Susan Collins, that the chairman of the full committee, Senator Thompson, have called our investigation a thorough investigation and a solid investigation. We're going to keep this out of politics. We're not going to call people up because of who they are. We're going to call people up if there's evidence that they participated in some kind of deception or wrongdoing. And we're looking at certain aspects of the Enron matter, and there's no evidence whatsoever that Bob Rubin was involved.

Some people wanted us to call up Senator Phil Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm. They said, ``Wow, here's a great opportunity to put Senator Gramm on the spot.'' But we decided that that was not the purpose of our investigation, to put anyone on the spot. We decided to call up those directors that we thought had the primary responsibility here, which were the chairs of the committees at Enron. So we decided to call them up.

We're not going to call people up because of who they are, and we're going to stick to that premise. We've, I think, gotten good grades from the Republicans, my ranking member, who particularly called this a solid investigation and a bipartisan--nonpartisan investigation, and we're going to keep it that way.

NOVAK: As you know, a great deal of controversy over President Bush and his previous dealings with Harken Energy Company. The White House says this has all been thrashed about for years, nothing new has come out.

But one thing that has not been revealed is the identity of the person that bought that large block of stock from the president years ago which enabled him to make a handsome profit off of Harken. Is that relevant, and should the identity of that purchaser be revealed?

LEVIN: I think if the president were wise, he would authorize the SEC to just turn over whatever records they have, get it over with.

NOVAK: Would that be in the SEC records?

LEVIN: Well, I don't know, but he hasn't authorized the SEC to do that, and the head of the SEC says that when he has that authority, he'll do it. I don't know what's in the SEC records at all.

But I think the president would be wise to do that. I think the vice president would be wise to do the same thing, by the way, on Halliburton. And I just think disclosure is a good thing. Get the materials out there, let the public judge.

But that's my advice to the president. He hasn't sought it, but he just got it.

NOVAK: Is your subcommittee going to go into the Harken and Halliburton matters?

LEVIN: We have no plans at this time to go into that. We're fully occupied with where we're at, but I don't want to foreclose where we're going next.

We're looking at a number of possibilities. We're looking at the offshores, we're looking at tax havens very, very seriously. I think it is disgraceful the way in which too many individuals and companies in this country use tax havens, offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

We're going to look also at the special-purpose entities, which Al mentioned before. We're going to also possibly look at lawyers, some of the lawyers who gave advice, and to see whether or not there's any justification for some of the opinions which were given to Enron.

NOVAK: OK. We're going to have to take another break, and when we come back we'll have the Big Question for Carl Levin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: The Big Question for Senator Carl Levin:

Mr. Chairman, you've been watching secretaries of defense for 24 years. How do you rate Don Rumsfeld?

LEVIN: I think he's done very well, particularly since 9/11. He's been a very effective communicator, very direct. Prior to that, I think he was having some difficulties inside of the building, in terms of relationships with people, but he's done very well since then.

My one hope would be that he would pay some real heed to his senior military people. I think he made a mistake when he came to canceling an artillery system called the Crusader, and the way he did it. It was so much the conclusion that he reached, but I didn't think he gave sufficient heed to what the Army's thoughts were on the subject before he reached his own decision.

But I give him basically good grades.

HUNT: Senator, let me switch the subject. You have made an impassioned plea for disclosure today, in talking about the president and the vice president.

Let me ask you about a Senate Democrat. Senator Torricelli was severely admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee this past week. Should all of those findings and the relevant material that went into that decision, should that be publicly disclosed?

LEVIN: Whatever the rules are of the Ethics Committee in those kind of cases should be followed. I'm not...

HUNT: Well, the rule is that it not be disclosed, but the rules of the SEC are for that not to be disclosed unless the president requests it. You say the president should request. Should Senator Torricelli request that all that stuff be made public?

LEVIN: That would be up to Torricelli. I just do not know enough about the facts of that incident to know that. The president's in a different situation, it seems to me, with the SEC, where this has become such a public matter with the president that he would be wise to do it. Torricelli might be wise to do it, too. If I knew more about it, I might be willing to give him that same advice.

HUNT: Senator Levin, thank you for being with us.

Bob Novak and I will be back in just a moment with a comment or two.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Bob, Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, really, I think, is a skeptic about authorizing an invasion of Iraq, because he says the central question is, can a case be made that Saddam, not that he possesses the weapons of mass destruction, but will he use them?

NOVAK: And I think he indicated something that has occurred to me. I haven't heard it very often, but he stressed it, that if we attack--the U.S. attacks Iraq, it would be more likely then for Saddam Hussein, out of self-preservation, to use the weapons of mass destruction, not initiate their use without our attack.

HUNT: Nobody is more involved in the central issues of the Senate today, I think, than Carl Levin. In his other hat, I think that the Enron investigation is a tough investigation. I think you probably will see legislation this September. And there's not much time, but the Sarbanes legislation moved through awful quickly.

NOVAK: You know, Al, I think the senator might want to reconsider whether he shouldn't bring up Robert Rubin, Democratic secretary of the treasury. An awful lot of people have been brought up to testify before his committee who don't have a direct connection, and I think that might fail the smell test if Robert Rubin is given a pass. I'm Robert Novak.

HUNT: And I'm Al Hunt.

Coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on "CAPITAL GANG," Capitol Hill holds hearings on taking out Saddam Hussein, the Senate defeats a prescription drug plan, and our "Newsmaker of the Week," Judge Robert Bork, on conservatism today.

NOVAK: That's all for now. Thanks for joining us.

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