Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Pentagon Briefing; Heads Butting?
Aired May 09, 2006 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Live from B Control at CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta, I'm Tony Harris.
The Sunshine State on fire. Florida's governor declares a state of emergency. This video, just in from Broward County. We'll stay on the story.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Betty Nguyen. Kyra Phillips is on assignment today.
Also live this hour, the U.N. Security Council is taking on Iran and the crisis in Darfur. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is there. We're going to keep you posted on all those developments. LIVE FROM starts right now.
HARRIS: In just minutes, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld steps to the podium at the Pentagon for his regular briefing. The big issues, the war overseas, how much longer will U.S. troops have to fight.
Also, a brewing turf battle at home. Rumsfeld and CIA director- nominee Michael Hayden have clashed in the past. Are they heading for a showdown in the future? We will bring you the Pentagon briefing as soon as it happens.
First, a closer look at Rumsfeld and Hayden. It's a relationship that's far from cozy. The Air Force general is making the rounds on Capitol Hill right now, meeting with senators who decide if he'll become the nation's next spy chief.
His nomination comes amid a nagging question, who really controls the nation's intelligence?
Let's bring in our national security correspondent David Ensor.
And, David, let's start with what Michael Hayden is doing today to shore up support for his nomination
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATL. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, the traditional thing, Tony. He's going around Capitol Hill meeting face to face with lawmakers, particularly those on the committees who will vote on the nomination, and he's trying to win friends and influence people, including here you see Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who has said that she thinks he is a highly qualified candidate.
As you know, there are those on the hill who believe that a serving four-star Air Force general is the no the right person to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Hayden is going to have to think through whether or not he wants to retire from the military and become a civilian head of the CIA. That is a possibility, Tony.
HARRIS: That issue was actually raised in one of these meet-and- greet sessions. Here's the question and here's the general's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Are you prepared to resign as general in order to take the position?
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN, CIA DIRECTOR NOMINEE: I'm up here talking to folks, like I said, need to understand their concerns, and I've not made any decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: And, David, it is a question that he is going to have to seriously consider, isn't it?
ENSOR: Yes, and there are those who suggest on the Hill that if he did resign and become a civilian, that would help them vote for him. There are others who say, we don't really care what clothes he's in, we think that a person with a military background's wrong for the job. And others who say, look,. there have been six military leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, some of the best and brightest of the leadership of this country, spend much of their lives in uniform, and why not have a uniformed chief of the CIA?
HARRIS: David, in the past, Hayden and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have not always seen eye to eye. What have they haggled over, disagreed over?
ENSOR: Well, there was a hearing sometime back, where both General Hayden and another former general, who was head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, General Clapper (ph), were asked whether their agencies -- and this was should be put under direct control of the national intelligence, now John Negroponte, or whether they should remain as they are now, basically, certainly in terms of budget, under the control of Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense? Both gentlemen answered that they thought it would make more sense for their agencies to be put directly under the director of intelligence. That did not happen. And it has been made -- my sources tell me that it was made quite clear to both generals that Rumsfeld was not pleased by that testimony.
It's interesting to note that General Clapper is retiring soon, and some have suggested that Mr. Rumsfeld didn't want him around any longer because of that comment. Well, Hayden made the same comment. But he is, of course, very well connected.
HARRIS: OK, national security correspondent David Ensor. We will be interested to see the reaction from the defense secretary to the news that Michael Hayden is the president's choice to be the next director of Central Intelligence. A live picture now of the Pentagon briefing room. We will take you there as soon as the briefing begins -- Betty.
NGUYEN: Well, Tony, you don't need to be an intelligence analyst to know Americans still aren't very happy with President Bush. The latest CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation finds 34 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Bush's job performance. Fifty- eight percent do not.
A "USA Today"/Gallup poll is even bleaker: 31 percent approve, down three points in a week; 65 percent disapprove. We'll touch base with CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider later this hour, when reminds us, no president who's polled this low has ever crawled back above 40 percent.
Among the dissatisfied camp in the CNN poll, a majority, 56 percent, name Iraq as the main reason, 13 percent name gas prices, and about a quarter have other reasons.
All right, take a listen to this: Politics, poker and prostitutes? All part of an ongoing investigation involving the CIA's number-three man. CNN has now learned Kyle Dusty Foggo is resigning. Intelligence sources say that's no surprise since his boss, CIA chief Porter Goss, is also leaving. But is there more to it than that?
Here's our national senior correspondent John Roberts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The first investigation was launched by the CIA's inspector general, looking into whether Dusty Foggo did anything wrong in awarding a contract to his longtime friend, defense contractor Brent Wilkes.
The deal, to provide water and other household items for CIA personnel in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, was worth some $2.4 million. Foggo and Wilkes were also poker buddies, attending games that Wilkes had set up in hospitality suites at the Watergate Hotel and Westin Grand in Washington.
Clark Kent Ervin was an inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security.
CLARK KENT ERVIN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: But, often, where there's smoke, there's fire. And, certainly, I think we have seen, over the course of the last few years, a lot of corruption in Washington, needless to say. And because we're talking about not just any departments, but intelligence communities, particularly important that we take this seriously and investigate it thoroughly.
ROBERTS: Through the CIA's spokeswoman, Foggo insists he did nothing wrong, that government contracts for which he was responsible were properly awarded and administered. Foggo added that, if he attended occasional card games with friends over the years, they were that and nothing more. But Foggo's problems don't end there. The FBI is also interesting in him, as it investigates outstanding issues in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. The feds want to know what Foggo's full relationship was with Wilkes, who is described as an unindicted co- conspirator in the case of the disgraced Congressman.
According to another suspect in the investigation, Mitchell Wade, who is operating with the FBI, Wilkes hired a car service to pick up prostitutes for Cunningham and drive them to the Watergate or Westin hospitality suites.
Foggo says he never witnessed any prostitutes at the poker games he attended and that any suggestion to the contrary would be -- quote -- "false, outrageous and irresponsible."
The car service, Shirlington Limousine, which shows this Virginia townhouse as its address, also denies any involvement with prostitutes. That point is significant, because any wrongdoing could jeopardize a $21.2 million contract Shirlington holds with the Department of Homeland Security to provide employee shuttle buses and executive limousines. It got the contract, despite the fact its CEO, Chris Baker, has a criminal record.
Does that surprise the former inspector general of DHS?
ERVIN: It surprises me, in the sense that this kind of thing shouldn't happen in any department, especially not in the Department of Homeland Security. On the other hand, the record of that department is very lax when it comes to vetting backgrounds, so, in a way, I'm not surprised.
ROBERTS: But DHS officials insist, it's nothing out of the ordinary. They check the backgrounds of drivers, but not company officials. And they praised Shirlington for performing with -- quote -- "utmost professionalism."
(on camera): And this investigation may go beyond the FBI and CIA. There are allegations that other members of Congress attended poker games, and used the hospitality suites and hookers. With ethics a potent election-year issue, House Democrats are pushing their colleagues to open up a wider probe into what they call the, quote, the unparalleled corruption of Duke Cunningham.
John Roberts, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: And we want to take you now to the Pentagon briefing room where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is meeting with reporters.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: ... military services are forced to try to move needed funds around from other parts of their budgets. The Army and Marine Corps have already been forced to defer contract obligations, due to impending budget shortfalls.
In addition, cuts and delays in providing funds for the Iraqi security forces will delay what has been truly significant progress in turning over greater responsibility and territory to Iraq's army and police.
A slowdown in training and equipping the Iraqi security forces will have unacceptable, harmful effects of postponing the day when our men and women in uniform can return home with the honor and appreciation they deserve.
Finally, the addition by Congress of nonrequested, nonemergency- related items in the supplemental legislation would have the effect of forcing tradeoffs in the support for our troops in the field. Our nation's defense should not become a bill-payer for other parts of the budget at time when our country is at war.
Admiral Giambastiani?
EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI JR. (USN), VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: As the secretary mentioned, U.S. and coalition forces are partners and are committed to assisting in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. To date, 254,000 Iraqi army and police personnel have been trained and equipped.
The Iraqis are assuming more and more responsibility for their own security. The amount of the operational area under the control of the Iraqis has increased significantly in the past six months, with 58 Iraqi army battalions overseeing vast areas of Iraq.
On April 24th, we turned over an area in and around Najaf of approximately the size of the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, combined, to the Iraqi 1st Brigade of the 8th Division. In addition, on the 6th of May, the Iraqi army opened a joint operations center to exercise command and control over all of their ground forces, countrywide.
The number of operations planned and executed by the Iraqis continues to grow.
Seventy five Iraqi security force battalions lead in operations, with coalition forces in support.
Nearly a third of those operations are conducted independently by Iraqi security forces. I think you'll agree the progress of the Iraqi security forces has been significant.
Finally, just in the last few days, we lost a CH-47 helicopter with 10 personnel onboard in Afghanistan. Our condolences go out to the families of those crew members, just as it does with any who are wounded or killed in the line of duty.
We'll be happy to take your questions. QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, in your opening comments, you alluded to the prospect of U.S. troops eventually returning from Iraq. And given the positive political developments in Baghdad in recent days and weeks, which you also mentioned, why aren't you moving faster to draw down forces?
RUMSFELD: Well, the answer is, I would have thought, obvious.
The new government is not in place. There's not a new minister of defense or a new minister of interior. And until the new government, constitutional government supported by the Iraqi people, courageously supported by the Iraqi people exists and we have an opportunity to brief them -- these new individuals up, the prime minister and the new ministers, as to what we think the conditions are on the ground and the kinds of conditions that we think will enable us to transfer more and more responsibility to the Iraqi security forces, it strikes me as not timely to begin making announcements unilaterally.
QUESTION: How soon do you think you could actually be in position?
RUMSFELD: I don't like to set deadlines.
I mean, how long is it going to take the new Iraqi government to get their ministers in place? How long is it going to take us to brief them up? How long is it going to take them to have a consultation process among the president and the prime ministers and the deputy prime ministers and the parliament and begin those discussions?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But, clearly, it's something that -- we have been very successful in training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. They have been successful in their work, which is important work.
The people training them and working with them closely and managing the people who are embedded with them, particularly the Ministry of Defense forces, have said that they have not backed away from fights. They have not left wounded or dead out in the battlefield. They have not been anything other than enormously supportive of the American service men and women who are embedded with them and assisting them in their development and progress.
So when that happens, General Casey and Zal will be engaged with a new government. They'll then make recommendations to General Pace and to me, and we'll then make recommendations to the president. And then if we have something to announce, we'll announce it. And then you will have an opportunity to report the news as it actually exists, as opposed to pretend.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Sir, with the resignation of Porter Goss and the appointment of a new director of central intelligence...
RUMSFELD: "Nomination" I think is the correct phrase...
QUESTION: Nomination, I'm sorry.
One of the narratives that's going on in the background is about how Donald Rumsfeld is trying to seize control of more and more of the intelligence operation. One of the examples that's given is the creation of this new office in the Pentagon to have covert ops teams going after high-value targets and collecting intelligence.
Could you talk about the rationale for that and whether or not you are in fact looking for the Pentagon to have greater control over intelligence collection or analysis?
RUMSFELD: The short answer is: No, we're not. The better answer, more complete answer, would be that the quality of the debate on this subject is pedestrian and unimpressive.
QUESTION: Help us elevate it.
RUMSFELD: I will. In fact, I'm eager to.
You know, if you stop and say, "What's the single most important thing about the discussion on intelligence?," one would have thought that rational people, responsible people would have understood that it's trying to find the formula, the way, the structure, the arrangements so that we can provide the very best intelligence for the American people so that they can be protected. That's what's central to this.
And yet if you look at the debate and the articles in the newspaper and the comments that are being made, they are about theoretical conspiracies, they're about theoretical bureaucratic turf fights, they're all off the mark.
You know, there's a saying for people who miss the mark consistently, and they say that person has an instinct for the capillaries as opposed to the more important arteries.
And this debate really reflects that reality. It should be a bit embarrassing for people to see what's going on.
I read John Negroponte's press briefing yesterday, or interview, whatever it was, and I agreed with his every word insofar as his discussion with respect to the Department of Defense. We do not have issues between John Negroponte, we do not have issues between Porter Goss or George Tenet, nor will we have with General Hayden, assuming he's confirmed.
We have good linkages down in the field. We have good linkages in Washington. I'm sure there are people in the middle who bulge out from time to time, but those things get worked out.
You know, I don't know -- we have lunch every week or two, General Hayden and Negroponte and Porter Goss. I have for five years. I feel very good about the relationships. There is no power play taking place in Washington. People can run around and find somebody who will tell them almost anything they want.
But it's interesting how little facts ever get attached to any of these thumbsuckers that get printed in the press.
QUESTION: Can I get a follow-up on this, Mr. Secretary? To set the record straight...
RUMSFELD: No, no, I'm going to decide who gets to -- no, no, no.
(LAUGHTER)
The best behaved.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: We thought someone else was the decider.
Mr. Secretary, one of the leading critics of the Hayden nomination has been Representative Hoekstra of the House Intelligence Committee who says that putting a military man in charge of a civilian agency like the CIA, it's just -- he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time.
RUMSFELD: Well, the congressman is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He's a thoughtful person. He's knowledgeable. And the president obviously came to a different conclusion.
The president knows the history. And the history is we have had military individuals, both in and out of uniform, as director of central intelligence over the decades. I've worked with him in prior incarnations.
And there certainly has never been a stipulation that you should not have someone from the military as director or deputy director.
Second, the background of General Hayden, anyone who looks at it obviously understands he's an intelligence professional, is what he is. He did not come up through the operational chain in the Department of Defense and then at the last minute slide over into the intelligence business. He's a person who has had assignment after assignment after assignment in the intelligence business.
And, clearly, that is what his career has been. And he's been very good at it. He did an excellent job at the National Security Agency.
I -- not as close to it over at DNI, but from everything I can see, he's done an excellent job over there, starting up a new activity, which is not easy, with John Negroponte.
And the president knows him and has confidence in him. And, clearly, I support the nomination.
QUESTION: Now, he was not voicing opposition to General Hayden himself, but the but the fact that it was going to be a military man in charge of a civilian agency. He just thought it was the wrong time for that.
RUMSFELD: Obviously, the president came to a different conclusion.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the Guantanamo prison should be closed and the detainees put on trial as President Bush stated in an interview with German television?
RUMSFELD: What are you trying to do: position me opposite the president on this issue, the way you cast it?
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Perhaps.
RUMSFELD: Perhaps. Yes, that's nice.
(LAUGHTER)
Most certainly I would say would be a more accurate response.
The president and I have talked about this. I don't think there's anybody who wouldn't very much like to see every prison closed and the people repatriated to their countries where they would be dealt with appropriately by those countries. The problem is -- or tried.
And the problem is that we have been working very hard in an interagency environment to live with the rules and regulations as they exist to try to persuade other countries to accept the detainees currently in Guantanamo and take them to their countries and treat them in a humane manner and see that they are tried as appropriate.
We've simultaneously been going down a different track here, and that is to try to get the military commission process going in a way that in fact we would be able to take those individuals, where it would be appropriate -- and this is the president's decision, obviously, and he's the one who make recommendations to the department to try some individual in a military commission.
But regrettably, the court system in the United States has been used very skillfully by defense lawyers to the point where we have not been able to have military commissions try these people.
So it's a catch-22 kind of a situation at the present time, but there's certainly no one in the Department of Defense who wants to get up in the morning and be the manager of detention facilities for people from other countries. And they would like to see the process finally cleared away so that military commissions could go forward.
And I don't recall precisely what the president said, but my guess is that there's no daylight there, notwithstanding your efforts.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, getting back to the question of the CIA, the last time we had an active-duty military officer heading up the CIA was even before you were in government, 1953 I believe. And I'm just wondering...
RUMSFELD: What was Vernon -- didn't Vernon Walters do it? Didn't Studeman do it?
Yes, I think your facts may be wrong. I have not researched it; I should.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: OK. Well, my point remains -- my question remains the same, is: Do you think it's...
RUMSFELD: Even though the premise is fallacious.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: It's been a long time.
Will you at least acknowledge that it's been a long time since we had an active...
RUMSFELD: There's no rule against it.
QUESTION: Flawed, not fallacious -- flawed.
Do you think it's important to have intelligence that is independent of the military, to have an agency which is not military or is there any reason why all intelligence gathering couldn't be done effectively under the Pentagon?
RUMSFELD: Well, let's just take a minute on that.
People have a way of wanting to put things in baskets, so they talk about national intelligence and they talk about tactical or military intelligence. The truth is that a single piece of information, intelligence, can simultaneously be both.
It can be of national intelligence value and, simultaneously, of tactical or military intelligence value.
Intelligence can come from multiple sources. It can come from electronics. It can come from human intelligence. It can come from other techniques.
The user doesn't really care where it came from. And the user doesn't care if, at the same time, it's also being used by somebody else.
The Department of Defense is I think, without question, the largest user of intelligence information. I can't prove that, but I have no doubt that it's correct.
What these folks do, the 1.4 million-plus people who are on active duty, is take active information, intelligence, and then use it to help defend this country. I have statutory responsibilities in the intelligence business of having, within this department, certain entities that are active in providing intelligence information not only to the combatant commanders, who have a military or tactical use for it, but also simultaneously -- in some cases, the same information -- for national intelligence purposes.
Now, what I do is get up and try to fulfill my statutory responsibility and to see that our commanders have the kind of information they need.
If you talk to our combatant commanders, I think probably the thing they mention the most is the fact they wish they had more intelligence, that they wished they had more timely intelligence, that they wish they were able to access information in this new 21st century that's more appropriate to the 21st century.
You know, it's one thing to have an intelligence committee focused on conventional war or nuclear postures, as we did during the Cold War, and worry about big armies, navies, air forces and ballistic missiles.
It's quite another thing when you're moving away from that kind of a world, where you're worried about nation states with big military entities, into an asymmetric world, with irregular warfare, with non- nation states, with people functioning in countries that we're not at war with. That requires a totally different intelligence approach.
And we've got wonderful people in the intelligence business spread throughout our government -- in the agency, in the DNI, in the State Department, in the FBI, and in the Department of Defense -- who are making that transition and doing it.
It isn't, in my view, something that any one entity necessarily ought to be in charge of, to go after your question. It's something that we are trying to figure out what the Congress, the executive branch -- we're trying to figure out what the arrangements ought to be.
So you have a piece of legislation that's new, that is -- how do you characterize it? -- it doesn't tell everyone in the intelligence business what they should do when they get up in the morning. It was an effort to try to, on a macro basis, which is what legislation does, as opposed to a micro basis, try to set up a structure that might be more appropriate.
And the players, the actors in this scene, are busy trying to put the flesh and bones on that new structure in a way that's in the best interest of the country.
And yet all we read about is: Oh, this bureaucratic fight there, and someone's doing a power grab there and, oh, my goodness, gracious there's a conspiracy about this.
There isn't anything we're doing in the Department of Defense on intelligence that has not been worked out with the Department of State, that has not been worked out with the White House, that has not been worked out with the Central Intelligence Agency, that has not been worked out with the director of national intelligence.
It is something that is continuous. It is going on all the time. There's nothing mysterious about it. I'm sorry to say that to some of these folks who want to write these series about -- trying to mystify everything.
It is a collegial and open process, and it is a comfortable process and it is an ongoing process, all of the articles -- hundreds of articles you're reading to the contrary notwithstanding.
QUESTION: I have a question for Admiral G.
RUMSFELD: Oh, thank goodness.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: But in truth, maybe for both of you.
(LAUGHTER)
However, Admiral Giambastiani, were you and General Pace consulted at all about the nomination of Mike Hayden for this job? And was the gentlemen next to you consulted at all about the nomination? And was General Hayden your choice -- is if you both were consulted? (OFF-MIKE)
GIAMBASTIANI: The way I would answer that is, is that -- was I consulted on a nomination for him as the director of the CIA? No. Do I have tremendous respect and support for him? Yes. I've known him for about 17 years, and he is just a superb officer who is a tremendous professional.
I first met him when he was a colonel working in the National Security Council back in 1990. And all I would say to you is is I strongly support his professional credentials.
QUESTION: The gentleman on your left?
RUMSFELD: Same answer.
The president knows Mike Hayden well. He worked with him when Mike was head of the National Security Agency. He's been working with him over a period of five years.
And he obviously made the decision.
And in my view, Mike Hayden is a true professional, and he'll do an excellent job for the country.
QUESTION: One of the things that you've decried: the dearth of facts surround the reporting. And one thing that keeps getting...
RUMSFELD: The obvious dearth of facts.
QUESTION: I know you like to set the record straight...
RUMSFELD: The monumental dearth of facts.
QUESTION: One of the things that published reports have suggested is that you weren't happy with General Hayden back in 2004 when he testified...
RUMSFELD: Oh, let's get right down into the minutiae. Won't that be fun? Let's not talk about how we get good intelligence for the American people. Let's get down on who said what to when five years ago, three years ago, two years ago.
QUESTION: This apparently was the basis...
RUMSFELD: Is this an elevated network question?
QUESTION: I thought you could set the record straight about whether or not you were -- because this is the source of some of the speculation that there's some tension in the relationship.
RUMSFELD: There isn't. I just said that. There is no tension. I've been working with Mike Hayden for five-plus years.
QUESTION: But were you upset with him in 2004, and did you scold him privately, as some published reports have suggested?
RUMSFELD: I don't get "upset," if that's the word you want to use.
Have there been times when Ed Giambastiani or Mike Hayden or, goodness knows, anybody else in this building might have a view different from mine? Sure.
I mean, my recollection is that Mike Hayden favored having the NSA move under the DNI during a time when the legislation was being considered and when the president had not made a decision.
My view was, as someone who was appointed and nominated by the president and serves at the pleasure of the president, that I thought that the Department of Defense ought to wait and see where the president comes down on that issue.
And he eventually came down on the issue that it should stay technically in the Department of Defense, but to have joint responsibilities with the DNI and the secretary of defense with respect to various budget aspects or acquisition aspects.
And Mike was on one side of that issue and I was without -- I was kind of where the president was. And then when the president decided not to move it over, I was in favor of that.
Now, is that a big deal? Not that I know of. Nor was it then.
QUESTION: Specific -- an intelligence question.
Last week, the issue of prewar intelligence came up again in Atlanta. You dealt with that as you did. Looking forward, given the pre-intel (sic) war failures on Iraq, how confident are you on all the assessments you have been getting about Iran's not only nuclear capability, but intent? But why should the American people, given the prewar failures in Iraq, be confident in what they are getting from the intelligence community on Iran?
RUMSFELD: Well, let's just take a minute on that.
The intelligence community had views on Iraq. That information was available to the president, to me. It was the information that was available to Secretary Colin Powell and Condi Rice, when they and George Tenet worked on his presentation for the United Nations over a period of many days.
It was the intelligence information that was available to the Congress of the United States. It was available to other countries that had exactly the same view that we all did.
It turns out it was wrong, that intelligence. Fair enough.
It's a tough business. It's a difficult thing to be right all the time. And the information was not correct.
Does that give one pause? You bet.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Iran's capabilities and intent? That's what I'm asking specifically.
RUMSFELD: You bet.
And you're dealing with a closed society there so clearly one has to be very careful.
QUESTION: What are the policy implications of that? You got Hayden going into the CIA, if he's approved. What improvements have to be made within the agency?
RUMSFELD: That's their business. I'm not going to do a work plan for Mike Hayden over at the CIA or for John Negroponte. I think they're doing fine. They're hard at it. And we're working closely together. And it's a very constructive set of relationships.
QUESTION: You're the consumer. You may be asked to go to plan military strikes based on intelligence that you may have pause about. That's why I'm asking.
RUMSFELD: I'm not going to get into that.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, just the connection between terrorism and nuclear weapons, including of Iran. You have just come from the area where Osama bin Laden was not very far from the area, Irbil, and now A.Q. Khan is a free man. He can travel anywhere, including in Iran, and China still supporting Iran.
And Iran's president is saying that they are not moving as far as their nuclear program is concerned, he will go ahead, and he has even written a letter to president.
So where do we stand as far as Osama bin Laden or this connection of terrorism and nuclear?
RUMSFELD: Well, I suppose the answer would be roughly this: that where we stand is that we have not caught Osama bin Laden. Anyone who reads what he says and what Zawahiri says and what Zarqawi says, it's clear they represent a very vicious strain of terrorism.
They've already killed thousands of human beings. They cut off people's head.
And the thought of their gaining access to weapons of increasing lethality is something that ought to give any thinking person pause.
It is clear that it is giving thinking people pause in that region, in Europe, in the United Nations, and clearly in the United States.
But beyond that, I don't think I'd have anything to add.
And we'll consider that the last question.
Thank you, folks.
HARRIS: You have been listening to the press briefing by the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
One of the things we were listening for is the secretary's reaction to the nomination of General Michael Hayden to be the next director of central intelligence. The secretary calling Michael Hayden a true professional who will do an outstanding and excellent job for this country.
Beyond that, you heard the secretary chastising the analysis of the changes at the CIA, the secretary saying, at one point, the quality of the debate over the nomination of a four-star general for CIA director as pedestrian and unimpressive.
The secretary going on to say that the Defense Department has a good relationship through and through with other intelligence agencies and with the White House.
The secretary dismissing suggestions that a military man is the wrong choice to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. Then defending entities inside the Department of Defense, that develop tactical intel for the military, which might raise the question for some as to who makes the decision as to whether that tactical information is shared, tactical information intelligence developed by the Department of Defense, and who that information is shared with. No one entity should be in charge of all intel. The briefing from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
And just as the defense secretary was talking about progress being made by Iraqi security forces, clearly, those forces are having a difficult time preventing attacks. Within the hour, we've learned of a suicide bombing. A bomber blew up his car and Iraqi police and Army headquarters in the northern city of Tal Afar. CNN has confirmed five people were killed in that attack, 15 were wounded.
Tal Afar is about, oh, 45 miles west of Mosul. And that's close to the Syrian border. You'll remember that Tal Afar is the city that President Bush held up as an example of progress in Iraq.
Again, five dead, 15 wounded in a suicide car bombing in Tal Afar.
We'll take a break. More LIVE FROM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BETTY NGUYEN, CO-HOST: It's a much safer day in Sudan for the United Nations's top aide official. Jan Egeland held talks with government officials in the capitol of Khartoum, urging them to ease travel restrictions and red tape for aid workers in Sudan's Darfur region.
Now, yesterday, Egeland was forced to leave a Darfur refugee camp when angry demonstrators rioted, killing an African Union interpreter. Civil war in Darfur has left some 180,000 people dead and forced two million others from their homes since 2003.
Many Darfur refugees are demanding that a United Nations force replace African Union soldiers assigned to protect civilians in the enormous refugee camps. Secretary of State Rice is at the U.N. pressing for just that.
And CNN's Richard Roth is also at the U.N.
Richard, any progress today on finding a solution to this crisis in Darfur?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, no, not today. The big deal was an agreement signed last week. But here at the U.N., this is where the machinery starts to go to enforce that agreement and to help things along.
The U.S. and others have with been calling for months for more countries to contribute troops, but until there was an agreement it just wasn't going to happen. And still, there could be a potential road block, because the government of Sudan has yet to be really tested. Will they allow U.N. peacekeepers into the country, something they have been upset about for months?
So at the U.N. in a matter of moments inside the Security Council chamber, Secretary Rice and the 14 other nations will gather to probably adopt a statement, calling for contributions on troops, humanitarian aid and calling on the government to allow this force in.
But there are still, Betty, more months needed for planning, getting troops, assembling them, beefing up the African Union forces that are there now and then getting them in. It may be genocide, but it still takes time to try to quell the situation.
NGUYEN: It's not going to happen overnight. Let me shift gears right now. Let's talk about Iran a little bit. What are leaders there saying about the situation with Iran?
ROTH: Still a deadlock. China and Russia worried about what this resolution might mean, whether Iran would be threatened with sanctions or military force. And the U.S., Britain and France on the other side trying to work out compromise language.
No vote today, despite marathon talks last evening. This will go on for several more days, if not weeks, of negotiating.
NGUYEN: A lot of work to be done there today. All right. Richard Roth, we'll be checking in with you throughout the afternoon. Thanks for that.
And we're going to talk more about the Darfur crisis in the next hour of LIVE FROM when Nick Clooney joins me. The former journalist and his celebrity son, George Clooney, just returned from the eye- opening trip to the Sudan, and they'll share what they learned about the people and the place.
HARRIS: Well, it's long, rambling and seems to take delight in blasting President Bush over such key issues as Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. CNN has obtained a copy of the letter to Mr. Bush from Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The 18-page letter was delivered to the U.S. through the Swiss government because Washington broke off ties with Iran over the seizure of American hostages. That was back in 1979.
Mr. Ahmadinejad criticizes President Bush for invading Iraq, even though he calls Saddam Hussein a murderous dictator. He also blasts Mr. Bush over the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying prisoners have not been tried and have no legal representation.
On the 9/11 terror attacks, he implies Mr. Bush is covering up the truth. He asks, why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?
The Bush administration has dismissed the letter, saying it fails to address international concerns over Iran's nuclear programs.
So what's the strategy behind Iran's letter to President Bush? Could it just be a ploy to divert attention from concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions?
CNN's Brian Todd has some possible answers.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He has declared that his country would cut off the hand of any aggressor and has said Israel should be wiped off the map. Now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian leader to write a direct letter to an American president since the hostage crisis more than a quarter century ago.
An Iranian government spokesman gave few details.
GHOLAM-HOSSEIN ELHAM, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN (through translator): In this letter, he has proposed new solutions for getting out of international problems and the current fragile situation in the world.
TODD: U.S. officials at first skeptical.
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Nothing that Iran does surprises me.
TODD: At the White House, officials say the letter does not address the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program. But one top U.S. official says Ahmadinejad could be trying to stall possibility sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, sanctions that could devastate Iran's economy.
Other possible motives: analysts say he could be worried about a U.S. military option, seeing that America didn't bluff in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad, they say, is unpopular at home and needs to shore up support with a population increasingly sympathetic to the United States.
And, there's another possibility.
ROB SOBHANI, IRAN ANALYST: Put the onus back on the United States to demonstrate that the Iranian regime is for dialogue.
TODD: And to make the Bush administration look worse if it doesn't engage. A game of checkmate that, analysts say, few leaders play better than Ahmadinejad.
How should U.S. counter?
SOBHANI: I think you throw the onus back to the Iranian regime and say, OK, if you would like to discuss all the issues, including human rights violations, including the funding of terrorism that the Iranian regime has been doing, than yes, let's do sit down and let's do have a dialogue. But if this is a tactic to slow down the nuclear agenda that you have, this is a nonstart.
TODD (on camera): Even though the White House says the letter doesn't address key concerns over the nuclear issue, analysts say it opens the door for dialogue, but they say there's a limit to what that can accomplish. Nothing, they say, will completely derail Iran's nuclear program. The best hope is to slow it down.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: So what does George W. Bush have in common with Jimmy Carter? Here's a hint. It's the same thing he shares with Richard Nixon and his own father, and it may give Democrats the opportunity of a lifetime. LIVE FROM checks the polls, the prevailing wisdom, and the political calendar after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Well, President Bush is not running for re-election, so if you're in charge of polling for the White House or spinning, that may be the best possible perspective on a new batch of numbers that show the president at or near all-time lows for both himself and his modern predecessors.
Here's CNN's Bill Schneider.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): The latest Bush approval numbers: 34 percent in the CNN poll, 31 percent in the Gallup/"USA Today" poll. Those ratings are statistically comparable since each poll has a three percent margin of error.
Thirty-one percent is the lowest rating ever recorded for this president.
What's the biggest beef with Bush? You might guess gas prices, gas prices, gas prices. But most people who disapprove of the president's performance say the reason is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, 56 percent. Thirteen percent say it's gas prices. Other issues, 26.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems, the better.
SCHNEIDER: Certainly, the better for Republicans like Representative Paul, who have to face the voters this November.
Americans no longer buy the main argument for going to war in Iraq, that it would make the U.S. safer from terrorism. Just after the war ended in 2003, 58 percent of Americans felt safer. A year later, the number was at 50 percent.
Now, just one-third of Americans believe the war in Iraq has made the U.S. safer. Most people now say Iraq has made the U.S. less safe.
Sure, gas prices are causing financial hardship. Nearly two- thirds say so, although that number is down slightly from where it was two weeks ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone in Congress is looking for a solution or for someone to blame.
SCHNEIDER: Ask a business executive why gas prices went up, and you'll hear "supply and demand." But the public doesn't buy it. Look how fast prices went up.
Supply and demand held, the public says. We think somebody's up to no good by 61 percent to 26 percent.
And 70 percent say President Bush could do something about gas prices. After all, going after evildoers is supposed to be his thing. Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: Mr. Bush won't have to face voters again. But a third of the Senate and the whole House of Representatives is up for grabs six short months from now. Or is it six long months from now?
No one is counting unhatched chickens. But Democrats are counting the days. And we're calling on Terry McAuliffe and J.C. Watts for some expert insights.
Gentlemen, good to see you.
TERRY MCAULIFFE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Hi, Tony.
J.C. WATTS, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Hi, Tony.
HARRIS: We'll see who's smiling at the end of these next four minutes.
All right, J.C., Iraq -- Bill said it, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Are the numbers -- there are a number of reasons why the numbers are so bad on Iraq. But are people feeling that if there was something the president could do to change the tide in Iraq, he would have done it by now?
WATTS: Well, I think that's -- that's true, Tony. I think the president is staying on course because we see all the bad things that's coming out of Iraq. We don't hear a whole lot about all the good things, about the schools that's being rebuilt, the hospitals that's being rebuilt, you know, commerce is thriving in Iraq.
We see most of the consternation in about a 30-mile radius of Baghdad where we're getting, capturing a lot of the bad guys. So there are a lot of good things coming out.
But concerning those poll numbers, Tony, I think you know, we have often come on this show and other shows, talking head shows, and we talk about how the president has done really well because he's kept his base intact. It's not Democrats driving those numbers. It's Republicans that are driving those numbers, because Republicans aren't happy.
And, finally, I think the fact that Karl Rove here about three or four weeks ago, they took Karl out of policy and put him back into politics -- I think was a sign that the White House is starting to get it, that they need to start being concerned about these numbers.
HARRIS: All right, Terry, A, we're not reporting the good news out of Iraq, and maybe the president is finally getting it and will do something here to shore up his base. I don't know what that something is.
MCAULIFFE: Yes, I don't think there's much George Bush can do. Over the course of his presidency, he has -- would not listen to other people who were willing to give him substantive advice.
The issue in Iraq we have is a commitment, permanent commitment by George Bush to a failed strategy. Until he changes that strategy, until we tell the Iraqis, "You have got to take control of your own government." We've got to inform the Iraqis that it's their government, we are going to begin to pull troops out and they have to take their responsibility for it.
But this is a failed policy. We're spending $10 billion a month in 2006 is a year of transition -- that's what the Democrats and Republicans -- as you know, in the United States Senate, they voted 77, Democrats/Republican, to say "We've got to change it." George Bush is like an ostrich with his head in the sand. He doesn't understand what's going on.
I just got back. I just spent the last 20 days traveling the Mideast. I went to eight nations. I can tell you, it's not only in Iraq but it's spreading throughout the Middle East. Our closest allies have now given up on George Bush's failed policies, and they're very concerned.
HARRIS: J.C., let me -- let me ask you this, who cares about these numbers, really? The president believes in his policy. He's going to -- he's going to go up or down based on this policy. So who really cares?
I guess Josh Bolten cares. He wants to turn it around. And I guess folks up for re-election care. But does this president look at these numbers? And does he care?
WATTS: Well, Tony, I can't say that -- I don't think the numbers drive the president's decisions, but I can tell you, anybody that's in elected office would pay some attention to these numbers.
And I think what you've seen in the last two or three weeks, the fact that Josh Bolten is chief of staff. He brought over Joel Kaplan with him from the Office of Management and Budget. Rob Portman is the new budget director. You know, Karl is going from policy to politics, strictly to politics.
I think all of those things are signs that they are a little bit concerned about the numbers. Again, I don't think they are driving the president's decisions.
You have to do -- in time of war, Tony, you often have been to make -- you have to do the tough, right thing, as opposed to the easy, wrong thing, and I think pulling out is the easy, wrong thing to do. And I'm delighted that the president is in this and staying the course. And I think history will be kind to what the end result will be here.
HARRIS: Yes. Let me change subjects here. Gas prices. Terry, 70 percent of respondents believe the president could do more to help control gas prices. In the face of folks on a fixed income, pawning things, their belonging, to pay for gas, you know, I've got the FTC to look for price gouging. Is that enough? MCAULIFFE: No, it's not enough. And first, I'd like to remind everybody one of the reasons that I thought we went into Iraq was to stabilize oil prices. Since we've gone into Iraq, the oil prices are going up.
And I can tell you what I learned in the Mideast when I was over there. We could be seeing $5 for a gallon of gas in the very near future.
George Bush is an oil man. He has put oil people all throughout his administration. And at a time when we want to bring prices down, George Bush and the Republicans in the Congress pass an energy bill that has gigantic tax breaks for the oil companies.
Why are we giving tax breaks when ExxonMobil just recorded the two largest quarterly profits in the history of corporate America? At the same time we're getting squeezed at the pumps, the oil companies are making record profits.
HARRIS: Let's let J.C. in here.
WATTS: Well, Tony, now -- Terry, that's a new one on me, that we went into Iraq to stabilize oil prices. Now I've heard you say before that we went into Iraq because there's weapons of mass destruction...
MCAULIFFE: I never said we went in for weapons. He -- George Bush said that. I never said that.
WATTS: That's a new one on me there.
MCAULIFFE: It was weapons, oil, who knows what?
WATTS: Nevertheless, you know, Tony, think about this, OPEC is doing somersaults on what we have done in this country over the last 25 years.
OPEC benefited, because we didn't have more refineries, more capacity. They benefited when we tried a windfall profit tax back in the early '80s. We drove down supply and drove up taxes with the windfall profit tax.
You know, we can't explore right here at home. You know, we can go overseas and buy foreign oil, but we can't explore for American oil right here at home.
So all of those things that benefited OPEC, and the price at the pump has escalated, based on what we've done in the last 25 years.
HARRIS: Policy -- a policy debate on gas and oil that we'll take up at another time. Good to see you both.
MCAULIFFE: Great to see you. Great to be with you, J.C.
WATTS: Thanks. See you tonight.
HARRIS: J.C. Watts, Terry McAuliffe. The next hour of LIVE FROM starts in one minute. The news keeps coming. We'll keep bringing it to you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
