Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With Senator Richard Shelby

Aired May 18, 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.
MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: I'm Mark Shields. Robert Novak and I will question the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK (voice-over): The revelation that the President Bush had received intelligence warnings of possible airliner hijackings by Osama bin Laden generated a political dispute on Capitol Hill.

U.S. REP. RICHARD A. GEPHARDT (D), Missouri: The reports are disturbing that we're finding this out now. I think what we have to do now is to find out what the president, what the White House knew about the events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it and, most importantly, what was done about it at that time.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD ARMEY (R), Texas: I am disappointed in one thing. I am disappointed in the deplorable, unconscionable way the Democrats are trying to make this a political issue.

NOVAK: The national security adviser spent 37 minutes making the government's case.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: And there was nothing that said this is going to happen or this might happen. It said, this is a method that these people might be considering. That was the nature of this. And it was very non-specific.

NOVAK: But Democratic members of the Intelligence Committees demanded a full investigation.

U.S. SENATOR EVAN BAYH (D-IN): For people who claim that they have nothing to hide, and may very well not have anything to hide, they're doing a good job of looking, appearing as if they do.

NOVAK: Senator Richard Shelby is one Republican who long has called for an investigation.

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978 and to the Senate in 1986 as a conservative Democrat, he crossed the aisle after the 1994 election to become a Republican. He has been a member of the Intelligence Committee for eight years, serving as chairman from 1997 until Democrats took control of the Senate last year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOVAK: Senator Shelby, this delayed information was described by you as troubling. You said it might have been acted on. Are you suggesting that if the government had acted more aggressively some lives might have been saved on September 11?

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA: I believe if we include the FBI in this -- and I think we have to talk about apples and oranges here. First, let's talk about what the president's briefing, I believe it was August the 6th or 7th. There was nothing in that briefing that was not general in nature. There was not anything in there that most of us on the committee didn't already know, had been briefed basically on everyone of those things. There were some recapitulation in that briefing.

I haven't seen the briefing, but the briefing that -- the presidential briefing was read to our committee. We have no reason to doubt it. Also, the daily intelligence briefing of August the 6th or August the 7th or whatever it was, that the Intelligence Committee gets, that was incorporated in the presidential briefing.

I believe that this story that the president had strong information to act on, that's a bogus story. I don't know where it came from. It was broken by one of the networks the other night.

But what I have said, and I want to be explicit in this, that if the president -- that is, the government -- had known what was in the FBI memo that came out of Phoenix -- which he didn't, because even the CIA didn't have it and we didn't have it -- but if they had had that, it would (ph) be (ph) explosive in nature.

And if the president had had, prior to September the 11th, which he didn't, the information that the FBI gathered in Minnesota, that would have been a different story. But I think you have two different stories here.

NOVAK: Senator, your chairman, your Democratic chairman on the Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham of Florida, has said, however, that the information that the president got in the August briefing indicated the possibility of a hijacking, and the information that you received, the committee, didn't contain any information about a hijacking.

Is that correct? And if so, does that bother you?

SHELBY: Well, it doesn't bother me, because we had received that information before.

NOVAK: About the hijacking?

SHELBY: That's right. Some of it went back, like Condoleezza Rice said yesterday, to '98, '99 timeframe. We had been told about this in the committee. I've sat in the committee. I know.

NOVAK: But you were told about -- in August of the year 2001 that there was a hijacking warning?

SHELBY: A general one but no specific one.

NOVAK: But the president was told about the hijacking and you were not, though. Is that correct?

SHELBY: No. What the president was told about was things that we were told about before this. The president basically has a recapitulation of the '98, '99 timeframe, is what I'm trying to say.

NOVAK: I see. That was not new information.

SHELBY: That was not new information. And the last thing that he was briefed on, that we've been told, had to do with a warning that came out of that United Arab Emirates last summer, that the terrorists would probably use explosives. We were briefed on that, too.

NOVAK: Just quickly, can you tell me who you think was responsible for, as they say, connecting the dots, for taking the information of a high alert and the possibility of these Middle Eastern people getting flight training and, say, "Hey, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) blow (ph) into buildings." Who is responsible for that?

SHELBY: Well, I believe that it is the FBI that's the responsible party. And I believe that the FBI has failed the American people in that regard. That is, the information they got out on, I believe it's July the 10th memo at the headquarters dealing with the flight schools, basically saying they should act on it. Nothing was done on it. The FBI was either asleep or inept or both.

SHIELDS: Senator Shelby, doesn't the Congress, Capitol Hill, you and your colleagues, have a responsibility, a duty right now to investigate exactly what did happen and what the FBI did and what changes have to be made?

SHELBY: Absolutely, Mark. You're totally right. And that's part and parcel of this inquiry that we have initiated between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. We're just getting started.

And I can tell you, and I believe this totally, that the FBI leaked the document dealing with the information coming out of Phoenix, dated July the 10th, after we made a demand on it. They're now leaking information that came out of the investigation August the 17th or 16th out of Minnesota, because we're making demands on this information.

And this was never disseminated, it was never communicated. And I believe the FBI has some responsibility. That's where they fail.

SHIELDS: Now, why is the FBI doing this, to cover their own rear ends?

SHELBY: Well, that's what I would suspect, but I don't know this. For example, until our investigative team made the demands on the document dealing with the Phoenix deal, there was never furnished to the Intelligence Committee, it was never furnished to the White House, it was never furnished to anybody. It stayed in the FBI. It was never furnished to the CIA.

SHIELDS: Thursday night in New York City at a political dinner, Vice President Cheney had some criticism for those who are raising questions. Let's look at it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHIELDS: Now, is the White House trying to politicize this? Is it being politicized? I mean, it just strikes me that this is a really serious obligation to find out and get to the bottom of this, so that we perhaps can avoid a future tragedy of this dimension.

SHELBY: Well, that's what we are trying to do. We've been assured by Vice President Cheney, speaking on behalf of the administration, that the administration -- that means all the agencies, the CIA, NSA, FBI -- would cooperate with this joint investigation. They're not cooperating fully. We are hoping that they're going to change their mind on some issues.

We've got a meeting next week with the attorney general, and we're going to carry it all the way to the White House if we have to, because this inquiry has to be done, it has to be done right, thorough and credible, to prevent attacks like that in the future.

I believe that we have problems in our intelligence community. I've said that all along. We've had a lot of successes, but we've had too many failures. And we need to get to the bottom of them, and we're going to do it. We owe that to the American people.

NOVAK: Senator Shelby, Senator Torricelli some time ago proposed a broad based investigation by a commission outside of the Congress. Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman have called for a citizens' commission.

Do you think that is necessary?

SHELBY: Well, I don't at the moment. But if the administration doesn't cooperate with us -- you know, that is -- we're asking these agencies -- the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and everybody else, and the Justice Department -- to cooperate with us in an investigation of them. And if they, at the end of the day, don't cooperate with us, then we'll have to move to something else.

But right now, Bob, I believe we're on the right track. We have assembled a good investigative team. We're probing, and that's what you're seeing coming out right now. And this, I fear, is just scratching the surface. NOVAK: Senator, I just want to get back to what Mark was mentioning about the vice president's comments. He's not the only Republican who's talked about the politics being played by the Democrats...

SHELBY: Oh, I agree with that.

NOVAK: You do agree with that?

SHELBY: I agree. I think the Democrats have tried to seize on an issue that is not an issue. And I don't believe this -- I believe it's a bogus charge, that is, what the president knew. He didn't know more than we basically knew. And it was general in nature, let's be honest.

I believe President Bush, if he had had information to act on, he would have acted on it. I believe even President Clinton would have. There would have been high recommendations by the National Security Council and by the CIA to do this, and we would have been notified on the committee.

I believe this story has no legs. And if it has legs, it's a Democrat legs, and I don't think it'll go very far.

SHIELDS: One of the considerations here politically is, as soon as September 11 happened, there was a whole chorus of conservative critics saying, "It was Bill Clinton's fault," after no investigation, no hearings, no witnesses, no testimony. And now even an inquiry or an investigation is immediately branded cheap (ph) politics.

Could you explain that?

SHELBY: Well, I have never said it was Bill Clinton's fault. I believe it goes deeper than this. I think that it goes back to the demise of the Soviet Union, if not farther. The eroding of funds, the eroding of leadership in our intelligence community, it came to bear. And we've seen the results of it.

I believe we have to reform our intelligence agencies, and I believe coming out of that inquiry it's got to come. You have to do this. But I believe it's above politics per se.

Now, I do believe, myself -- and this is my own judgment, Mark -- that if there had been overwhelming response to the '93 World Trade Tower bombing, to Khobar Towers, to the embassy bombings in Africa, by the Clinton administration -- that is, to go after the terrorists -- we would be in better shape. Would we have prevented September 11? I'm not sure. But we would have had a stronger response, which we didn't until the Bush administration came along. I'm trying to be fair.

SHIELDS: We have to take a break. When we come back, we'll ask Senator Richard Shelby about Iraq and about Cuba.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NOVAK: Senator Shelby, this has been a controversy for the past eight months over an intelligence matter, and that is: Did Mohammed Atta, who was one of the alleged ringleaders in the September 11 terrorist attack, did he, before that attack, fly to Prague and meet in Prague with an Iraqi secret service official? Do you know -- have you seen any evidence to indicate that that happened?

SHELBY: Well, that's in dispute. You know, we've heard that he did, and we've been told in intelligence circles that it didn't happen, and it didn't happen that way.

NOVAK: So, have you seen any evidence that it did happen?

SHELBY: No, I have not.

NOVAK: Is it important to connect Iraq with the September 11 attack in order to justify a military assault on Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein?

SHELBY: Well, ultimately that would be a policy decision on a high level by the president. But I do believe, myself, that Saddam Hussein needs to go. And I think if you look at the idea (ph) that he's done a heck of a lot of damage, not only to his own people, but to the world, that we ought to push for a regime change now.

When that happens and how it happens, I'm not sure. But I also believe that the president believes strongly that there's unfinished business there. So do I.

SHIELDS: Senator Shelby, the best estimate from General Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to two Republican presidents, was that, the last time, an invasion of Iraq would have required -- hit American 15,000 casualties and would have required an occupation of 15 years.

If that's true or even remotely true, doesn't the Congress have an obligation to debate this fully before the United States plunges into a war in Iraq?

SHELBY: Well, first of all, I don't believe those figures. I have a lot of respect for General Scowcroft, but, you recall, in 1990, 1991, they had all kinds of figures that we were going to sustain just massive casualties, that the Republican Guards were just going to be better than the SS ever were in the German army and so forth, and none of that panned out. I believe that these numbers are not right.

I believe that, at the end of the day, if it is the policy of the administration to go after Saddam Hussein -- and I hope it is -- that it won't last long, and I don't believe that we'll sustain the casualties that a lot of people would say.

Now, should the Congress be involved? I supported the use of force for the Gulf War. I urged President Bush, "41," as we call him, out of respect, that he go to the Hill and do that, state his case. If he wants to do that, I'm going to support him. But that'll be a decision he'll have to make. SHIELDS: A lot of public debate and a full debate...

SHELBY: We're having the debates every day. We debate and we talk about it all over, and we talk about it all over America.

SHIELDS: And this week we saw former President Jimmy Carter do what no American leader has ever been able to do: Go to Cuba, speak directly to the Cuban people, encourage and rally the dissidents, give them a legitimacy and encouragement, and to really indict Fidel Castro for his human rights abuses there and the lack of political freedom.

Isn't that a major accomplishment?

SHELBY: Well, I had misgivings about the former president going to Cuba under that. I know he means well and I know he does a lot of good things, but I believe we only have one president to speak for the nation and that's President Bush. President Carter is a good man, he means well, and if he accomplishes some good, so be it. But I don't believe he ought to be making (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

NOVAK: I want to get a quick -- we're running short on time and I want a quick answer from you please, Senator. President Carter said he saw no evidence of the Cubans engaging in developing weapons of biological warfare.

You have a lot of intelligence information. Do you think Castro is developing those kind of weapons?

SHELBY: I can't say that, but I can tell you this. I believe Fidel Castro would do anything. I would put nothing past him. And because President Carter was there a few days, he would never know, and neither would I if I were walking on the ground. That's something you can hide so easily.

SHIELDS: We'll take a break, but when we come back with Senator Richard Shelby, we'll have for him the Big Question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Senator Richard Shelby, the Big Question: Without a common intelligence database, with the FAA and Customs being sort of secondary partners, where is the responsibility? And is homeland security even necessary or important to this job of national security?

SHELBY: I think homeland security is very important, but you hit the nail on the head. Without a database, without the sharing of information between NSA, CIA, FBI, Immigration and so forth, we're not going anywhere.

NOVAK: Senator, you said something that's tantalizing. You said you were just scratching the surface. What do you think out of your investigation is going to come out after you scratch the surface?

SHELBY: Well, I'm afraid there's going to be a lot of lost opportunity that we're going to put together, just like the memo that came out of -- the FBI memo out of Phoenix, what happened in the real notes that came out of Minnesota.

I think, at the end of the day, we're going to see a mosaic and missed and lost opportunities by a lot of people in the intelligence agencies. They can do better.

NOVAK: Senator Richard Shelby, thank you very much.

Mark Shields and I will be back with a comment after these messages.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Bob, Senator Richard Shelby didn't race to any conclusions. But boy, I'll tell you, he was tough on the FBI, accusing them of leaking and of being asleep at the switch. It was as tough an indictment of the bureau as I've heard recently.

NOVAK: You know, he usually agrees with his Democratic chairman, Bob Graham, but they disagree. Graham is saying that the president got information from the intelligence people that the committee -- that the Congress didn't get, and Senator Shelby disagrees with that.

SHIELDS: And some White House defendants, Bob, has said that this is all political. But Dick Shelby, Republican from Alabama, was very, very blunt: We're going to get the bottom of this. We owe it to the American people. He endorsed a federal investigation.

NOVAK: He says he was not ready now for the citizens' commission, the McCain-Lieberman idea, but he says he might in the future, because he thinks there's a lot of dirt to come out of this, lost opportunities. This ought to be interesting.

I'm Robert Novak.

SHIELDS: I'm Mark Shields.

NOVAK: Coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on Capital Gang, who knew about the 9/11 warnings? Is the U.S. using the tragedy for political gain, with the president's Air Force One photo? And an arms control deal with the Russians, plus U.S.-Cuba relations with our news maker of the week, former Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aronson.

SHIELDS: Thank you 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