Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Supreme Court Pick Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination; Interview With Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy; Prosecutor Wraps Up CIA Leak Investigation; President Bush Visits Florida
Aired October 27, 2005 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer. And you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Standing by, CNN reporters across the U.S. and around the world to bring you the day's top stories.
Happening now, it's 3:00 here in Washington, where the White House suffers a stunning setback. Under fire from conservatives, Harriet Miers withdraws as nominee to the Supreme Court. President Bush says he's reluctantly accepting and vowing to fill the vacancy in a timely manner. Is the next showdown already shaping up?
Another White House crisis reaches a crescendo, as the special prosecutor wraps up the CIA leak investigation. A key focus: did a top presidential adviser commit perjury?
For now, the president is in Florida focusing on damage from Hurricane Wilma. But he may have found another hornet's nest, as residents struggle to find food, fuel and water.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
It was a struggle from the start. Just three-and-a-half weeks after she was picked by the president, and before her confirmation hearings ever got under way, Harriet Miers today announced her withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court. The president says he reluctantly accepts her decision, as the vacancy sign is definitely back on at the Supreme Court.
Let's begin our coverage this hour over at the White House. CNN's Elaine Quijano standing by. Elaine?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Wolf. This is a stunning blow for this White House. President Bush had, emphatically, recently expressed his confidence, in the face of that intense criticism, that his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, would be confirmed. Instead, less than a month after selecting her, President Bush has accepted her withdrawal.
Now, what happened? In recent weeks, Harriet Miers faced a torrent of criticism not from Democrats, but from people within the president's own party -- namely, conservatives, who said they were concerned about her credentials, some also expressing concern, saying that they felt she lacked the intellectual force to -- that was needed to get to the Supreme Court. Now publicly, the White House, though, is saying -- and, privately, as well -- officials are saying that this really boiled down to a battle over paperwork and the issue of executive privilege.
In fact, we hear about that in the letter that Harriet Miers gave to President Bush, in which she said -- quote -- "Well, I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain executive-branch materials and information will continue".
Now, President Bush echoing that in a statement today, saying -- quote -- "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her. I am grateful for Harriet Miers' friendship and devotion to our country. And I am honored that she will continue to serve our nation as White House counsel" -- now, that of course, talking about the White House not wanting to reveal confidential adviser documents from Harriet Miers' service as White House counsel.
But privately, at the same time, White House officials are also acknowledging some missteps in the rollout of Harriet Miers' nomination. Also, one senior aide expressing concern over what would have happened had Harriet Miers made it to those hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- one senior aide saying that it could have been a -- quote -- "intractable scenario" on live TV.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Elaine Quijano at the White House. Thank you very much, Elaine.
A new poll out today shows that most Americans thought Harriet Miers was qualified for the high court, but nearly half thought others were better qualified.
Let's get to those numbers. Our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is standing by. Bill?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, here was the White House's problem: The nomination was moving in the wrong direction.
In mid-October, when Americans were asked, should the Senate vote to confirm Harriet Miers, a narrow plurality said, yes, they thought the Senate should. But, then, just a few days ago, when Americans were asked that question again, the public was split. Notice that opposition to Miers' confirmation increased seven points in seven days. That's not the way the White House wanted this to go.
When Americans were asked, are you pleased or disappointed with the nomination of Harriet Miers, 50 percent said, they were disappointed, 40 percent said pleased -- again, not good.
And finally, as you just mentioned, do Americans think Harriet Miers was qualified? Well, yes, they did. Only 22 percent said she was not qualified. But they did not think she was among the most qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The prevailing view among almost half of Americans was she was qualified, but there are others out there more qualified.
Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Bill Schneider reporting for us. Thank you, Bill, very much.
Democrats say they had nothing to do with the Miers withdrawal, arguing the nomination failed because of opposition from conservatives in the Republican Party.
Senator Patrick Leahy, he is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's joining us now live from Capitol Hill. Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Glad to be with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: I want you to listen to this very short sound bite from your leader, Harry Reid, the minority leader, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and I want you to tell me if you agree with him.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Mr. President, I believe without any question, when the history books are written about all of this, that it will show that the radical right wing of the Republican Party drove this woman's nomination right out of town.
Apparently, Ms. Miers didn't satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologies.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you agree with him?
LEAHY: Well, not only do I agree with him, but an awful lot of Republicans privately will say they agree with him, too. This was not -- this is a pretty sorry sight to -- all the way through.
I -- you know, I have been here long enough to know the letters go back and forth -- I'm doing this for the good of the country, protect the privacy of the White House, blah, blah, blah -- is just that. The fact of the matter is, the papers they wanted to hold back, they would have held back just as they did with John Roberts' case. In John Roberts' case, the White House held back a lot of papers for his work at the White House. He still got confirmed by an overwhelming majority for Supreme Court.
In -- in this case, there wasn't a single Democrat who attacked her. There wasn't a single Democrat who said anything other than, let's have the hearings. We'll make up our mind after that. All attacks came from the ultra-right in the -- in the president's own party.
You know, at some point, everybody has got to realize the Supreme Court is not for the ultra-right or the ultra-left. The Supreme Court is for all Americans. And what I would hope the president do -- would do now is nominate somebody who would unite us, not divide us. There are many, many women, many Hispanics, many African-Americans, among others, who would get probably 90 to 95 votes in the U.S. Senate. That's what the president should do.
BLITZER: You had told the president going into this nomination, it was good idea to find somebody outside what you called the judicial monastery.
LEAHY: That's right.
BLITZER: And she fit that bill. You still think he should stick by that?
LEAHY: Oh, I -- you know, I made that same recommendation to President Reagan, former President Bush, President Clinton, now this president:
Look, outside the judicial monastery, maybe for -- some people would have felt better if I said, outside the judicial monastery and outside the White House complex. But the -- the fact of the matter -- yes, there are a number of very well-qualified people who are not judges who would also get virtually unanimous vote from the Senate where you would hear a sigh of relief from both Republicans and Democrats.
Now, some of these people -- the ultra-left or the ultra-right -- will not like them. But instead of looking for a special interest, we ought to look at America's interests. And I think there are a number of people who would fit that.
I hope the president will listen. I hope the president will nominate somebody who could have strong support from both the Republicans and Democrats.
BLITZER: I assume you want somebody like John Roberts, whom you voted for.
One final question. Is there someone out there, a name you want to throw out -- or a few names...
LEAHY: You know...
BLITZER: ... someone you would like to see him consider?
LEAHY: Wolf, if I were to pass out some names about this point, it's become so politicized here in Washington, that might be the kiss of death. I will, however, suggest some names privately to the president. I've already suggested some in the past. I will do so again.
BLITZER: Senator Leahy, thanks very much for joining us. Coming up next, the other big story that has Washington buzzing, the CIA leak case. Will there be indictments tomorrow that reach into the White House? We will have the very latest.
Also, gas lines and power out. We will take you live to South Florida, where they're still reeling from the hurricane.
And, a little bit later, the White House under pressure. Conservative -- conservatives have their way, but will it end up hurting the president? We're covering this -- covering this story from all sides.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: President Bush got a firsthand look at the damage left over after Hurricane Wilma today. The president toured parts of South Florida, stopping for a visit in Pompano Beach. Some two million homes and businesses are still without power.
Meanwhile, the president's brother, the Florida governor, Jeb Bush, says the state does have water, ice and food, but he's appealing to the nation for more.
CNN's Rusty Dornin is joining us now live. You're in Boca Raton; is that right, Rusty?
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf. And you know, everybody thinks of Florida as a retirement community. Well of course, there are several areas in Florida, in some of these hardest-hit counties, of retirement communities of the elderly, very vulnerable people, who are completely without power and are in -- some, in very critical situations.
We're at Century Village, where nearly 20,000 people live. And for the last three days, they have been having difficulty getting food, getting water, getting ice. Right here, you have last of what was 20,000 bags of ice that has been given out over today to folks who are trying to keep medicine cold, things like that.
We're here with the local state representative, Irv Slosberg, to just talk about the difficulties that these people are having. What kind of situation do you have here?
IRVING SLOSBERG, FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: We got buried. I -- my average voter is 80 years old. And we all live in these condominiums here. And they don't even know where their next meal is coming from, where -- they don't have any ice. So, Phil Wasserman (ph) from Sarasota donated us some ice. And I did the ice tour. We passed it around to the communities.
DORNIN: I mean, I saw people who were coming in, trying to get food, and the Red Cross was bringing food. But you ran out of food. When is the next truckload of food -- food coming? SLOSBERG: Hopefully, at 5:00 today. But the information isn't good. And a lot of the times, the information isn't good because the cell phones aren't working. And then the next thing is the gas problem, is that you can't get the trucks over here, because there's no gas for the trucks.
DORNIN: What happens to these people, though, who are in very often vulnerable situations, if this power does not come on within the next few days?
SLOSBERG: They're counting on their local elected official to make sure I deliver food and I deliver ice and I deliver power and I deliver everything. And so, I'm just trying my best.
DORNIN: But the reality is, it could be weeks.
SLOSBERG: I don't own FP&L. It's -- it's up to the power gods. It's all up to the power gods.
DORNIN: Thanks a lot, State Representative Irv Slosberg here.
But it's really a very critical situation. People here are pleading with us, if there's something we can do to help them. We went with a few of the folks while they delivered food to people who were homebound, who are on the fourth floor. The elevators don't work. I mean, it just goes on and on, Wolf.
But the problems -- and this is just a microcosm of what's going on, of course, across these three counties.
BLITZER: Rusty Dornin reporting for us. Our heart goes out to those people . Thank you, Rusty, very much.
Our Internet reporter, Jacki Schechner, is joining us now with more on the hurricane aftermath. What are you picking up, Jacki?
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Rusty was talking about how it wasn't isolated in Boca.
Here, we have some pictures coming in from Miami, from the group photo blog flickr.com -- and ice distribution, this guy saying this is one of many failed attempts to get ice in West Kendall, Miami-Dade. You can see Publix. This is the big supermarket chain in South Florida. They're working off of a generator. And it's still packed with people trying to get fresh food. Outside of Walgreens, again, a long line.
You can take a look at the FEMA supply lines. These are insane, insane lines. Look at the National Guard, making sure that everything runs smoothly.
But you can see how people are packing what little areas do have electricity at this point, food courts, things like that. And if you finally do get food home to your house, Wolf, what you can do is, clearly, dine by candlelight.
We will send it back to you.
BLITZER: Thanks, Jacki. We will get back to you soon.
Still to come here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the other big story that has Washington buzzing. We will get the latest situation on the CIA leak investigation.
Plus, kickbacks to Saddam Hussein -- a United Nations investigation accuses companies from the United States, France, Germany and Russia of paying off the former dictator. We have the story.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Our top story right now: the Harriet Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court withdrawn. She made that request to the president earlier today. He accepted.
We're getting some more information from our congressional correspondent, Ed Henry. He's joining us now live from Capitol Hill. What are you picking up, Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we're getting a clearer idea of just how this transpired over last the 24 hours, culminating in Harriet Miers deciding she wanted to pull the plug on this nomination in consultation with the president.
We have already reported that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night called White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and said that it was not looking good -- an increasing number of Republican senators could not support her nomination.
Just a few moments ago, Senator Frist told me that, actually, it started a few hours before that, in fact. In a face-to-face meeting yesterday morning with the president himself, Senator Frist says he passed along the message that it did not look good. He would not characterize the president's reaction. But we do know that, later in the afternoon, White House adviser Ed Gillespie was here in the Capitol meeting with some senators, meeting with some other advisers, trying to get a handle. And we know that those meetings did not go well, that they were getting a lot of bad feedback.
Senator Frist tells me as well that he was giving the White House updates -- quote -- "over the course of the day yesterday," culminating in that phone call to White House Chief of Staff Andy Card.
Coincidentally, Andy Card is in the Capitol right now, meeting with Senator Ted Stevens. I asked him on the way in how quickly they're going to get a new nominee up here. He did not answer.
Wolf.
BLITZER: Reporting for us, thank you, Ed, very much. I want to show our viewers some live pictures we are getting in right now from the National Hurricane Center in Florida -- the president of the United States touring South Florida right now in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma. He's at -- at the National Hurricane Center.
You see a familiar face, his back to the -- to the camera right now, to -- to your left. You will see him right there. That's Max Mayfield, the director of the National Hurricane Center -- all too familiar when hurricanes are on the way. Any -- any time they're coming toward the United States, he's updating all of us on what's going on. He's giving the president a -- a personal tour now of the National Hurricane Center. They have done an outstanding job over the years in giving all of us advance warning on what is going on.
Unfortunately, not everyone always pays as close attention to Max Mayfield's reports as they should be paying attention to. He repeatedly said, Ed Rappaport, his deputy, over the past several days, before Wilma hit South Florida, get ready. This hurricane is going to hit on west coast of Florida, the Gulf Coast. But then it's going to zip right through South Florida like a rocket. And it's going to hit the east coast of Florida almost as powerfully as it -- as it hit when it made landfall in the west.
A lot of people tended to disregard those warnings and didn't take the necessary precautions, putting up shutters, supplying their homes with food and water for at least three days, getting gasoline for generators.
And a lot of people in the -- Broward County, Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach County, have been stunned, have been shocked by the extent of the devastation from Hurricane Wilma. We see those long lines continuing even today, a few days after Hurricane Wilma unfolded, despite all the help from the state, from local authorities -- FEMA involved after Katrina, FEMA having been battered itself, its reputation by Katrina.
But there are still some serious problems. More than two million homes and businesses remain without power in South Florida. We will continue to monitor the president's activities in South Florida on this day.
We already have been reporting about the Harriet Miers nomination withdrawn, but there's another huge story unfolding in Washington as well. That would be the special prosecutor who is looking into the leaking of a CIA operative's identity. The prosecutor has apparently wrapped up his investigation, getting ready to share the results. That could mean some trouble for top White House aides.
Let's get some details. Our Justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, standing by -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Patrick Fitzgerald has been holed up in his Washington office most of the day.
But one lawyer involved in the case tells us that he will announce the results of his investigation tomorrow. Now, that is when the grand jury is set to expire. And we have no indication yet that Fitzgerald has asked for any extension of that grand jury.
Is it expected that Fitzgerald will seek at least one indictment, maybe more. And we're told by several lawyers close to the case that the special prosecutor may bring charges such as obstruction of justice or making false statements or perjury.
We are told by two lawyers that Fitzgerald is specifically looking at a perjury charge as he scrutinizes testimony offered by the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Now, as you know, Wolf, Rove and the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby Scooter -- Lewis Scooter Libby -- have been a major focus of the investigation. That doesn't mean that other mid-level officials, though, have escaped scrutiny or possible legal jeopardy, Wolf.
So, tomorrow it is.
BLITZER: And the -- the possibility of him seeking an extension of this grand jury...
ARENA: Not likely.
BLITZER: ... to continue?
ARENA: Not likely, Wolf. We have gotten no indication that he plans to do that. The expectation is that -- that he has already made his final presentation before the grand jury and that, if he's going to seek indictments, he's going to do that tomorrow.
BLITZER: Thanks, Kelli Arena, very much.
And, to our viewers, stay with CNN. Tomorrow, we will be on this story all day, waiting for word from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor.
Another big story we're watching all the time, bird flu -- bird flu fears reaching a fever pitch right now -- the leading drug maker licensed to produce an antiviral drug announcing a major decision.
Let's turn to our Ali Velshi in New York. He has the "Bottom Line."
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: I have got to be honest with you. I don't even get flu shots most years. And I -- I didn't know Tamiflu. I didn't know the name Tamiflu before this whole thing started.
I know a lot of people who have had Tamiflu prescriptions filled. And in fact, apparently that makes sense, because they have had 10 times the number of prescriptions filled in the United States for Tamiflu in recent weeks. So, the company that makes it, Roche Pharmaceuticals, announcing today it is halting shipments of Tamiflu to U.S. wholesalers and pharmacies. It's not halting shipments to the U.S. government. The government doesn't have enough Tamiflu, if everybody needed it anyway. So, Tamiflu is one of a couple of drugs that treat the symptoms of bird flu. It's not a cure. It's not a vaccine. But Tamiflu has now halted shipments to the United States and Canada. It stopped shipment to Canada a few days ago. They're saying that companies are stockpiling Tamiflu for their employees. It says that people are -- are filling these prescriptions and that Tamiflu exists as a treatment for the kind of flu that's already out there. So, if everybody stockpiles this ahead of -- of a bird flu pandemic which doesn't exist, there won't be enough of this for regular flu treatments.
So, what Tamiflu -- what Roche is saying is that they will release more Tamiflu to the market in Canada and the U.S. as the flu cases are reported. They don't anticipate a shortage of it, but if -- if people keep stockpiling it, they say they will.
Separately, Chiron, the company that does make flu vaccine, has received a $62.5 million contract from the U.S. government to create a pre- -- what they call a pre-pandemic avian flu drug. What this means is, again, not a vaccine for that. It's kind of -- they call it a priming dose. You -- apparently, if you -- you -- you administer this drug to people, it helps your body jump-start the immune system.
They're going to be developing that. And that is the -- that's what's happening in the drug side of the avian flu story that we're following -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Ali, thank you very much. We will see you in a little while with the markets, when they close.
Just ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM, Supreme Court shuffle -- the nominee nixes her own nomination. What's next after the Harriet Miers mishap? I will speak with former White House speechwriter David Frum.
And the CIA leak -- how much damage could the outing of a secret agent do to U.S. national security? We will hear from the experts in our CNN "Security Council".
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. Let's return to our top story, Harriet Miers withdrawing her name from consideration to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Joining us now is David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, former speechwriter for the current President Bush. I take it, since you were so critical of her, you are not exactly loved at the White House anymore.
DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I -- I don't expect an invitation to the Hanukkah party this year. But look, this is a -- this is a good day. It's a good day for the president. It's a good day for the court. The president has done the right thing. Harriet Miers did the right thing. Now, I think he's just given himself an enormous transfusion of political strength, because he's going to have a united party behind him for the battles ahead.
BLITZER: Listen to what Senator Arlen Specter, Republican, Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in reacting to her decision to withdraw her name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Instead of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee and a debate on the Senate floor, Ms. Miers' qualifications were subjected to a one-sided debate in news releases, press conferences, radio and TV talk shows, and the editorial pages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What would have been so bad if she would have gotten an opportunity to make her case in formal hearings? And, if they would have rejected her, they rejected her. They have rejected other nominees in the past.
FRUM: Right. Senator Specter himself said the nominee was unconfirmable. He simply -- what happens simply ratified his own prediction.
BLITZER: But didn't he say it was unconfirmable right now, but that if she did a really good job during the hearings and convinced the members that she knew what she was up to, that it would be confirmable?
FRUM: Right. But at the same time, he then said that the level of performance he had seen was not going to do the job. Here -- I can understand why a Democrat would say let's go to hearings, because given the president had made a mistake, given this was not the right nomination I can imagine a Democrat would say nothing better than a big bloodbath on not national television.
From a Republican point of view, when a -- when this president makes a mistake, you want him to fix it as fast as possible before it's on television, not waste a lot of time. I mean, he's got a lot of business to do. Fix it fast. And fix it before you have to suffer on TV.
BLITZER: On what basis did you so quickly come out against this nominee? You worked at the White House. I assume you knew her when you were there.
FRUM: I was acquainted with her. She was a fine person and a very capable lawyer. But like everybody who had dealings with her, not just myself, but all of the people who had -- the senators who had meetings with her, like the former members of the counsel's office who had given her private briefings, everyone who had had direct contact with her said this not somebody for the Supreme Court.
BLITZER: Everyone except one person -- that would be the president of the United States who has known her for, what, 10 years.
FRUM: Right. But the president of the United States gives her very specific tasks. And I'm sure she did those tasks very well. No one's questioned that she was a fine lawyer. But the president did not have to think about her in this -- what would she be like long after he's gone on the Supreme Court. And the verdict was almost unanimous among senators, among former associates of hers, people who briefed her for the counsel's office job, this is not the right person.
And that's why this such a happy outcome. The president made a mistake. He can fix it now and do it without the bloodbath on television.
BLITZER: How does he fix it? Who should he put forward? You've been looking at various names.
FRUM: There are probably at least 12 and maybe 15 people whom the president could name who would delight conservative supporters and win overwhelming confirmation in the Senate. I mean...
BLITZER: Including Democrats...
FRUM: Including -- well the John Roberts -- consider two nominations, John Roberts, Steven Brier, the two most recent. Steven Brier, very liberal, John Roberts, quite conservative. With both of them, people of outstanding intellect. And both of them won votes from across the aisle. They showed that the system can work.
Americans understand, senators understand. President Bush won the election, The Republicans have a majority. It's to be expected that there will be a Republican and conservative nominee. You pick the right person, the person with the right credentials and that person will do as well as John Roberts.
BLITZER: Any name, is there one name that stands out?
FRUM: Look, if you're asking me to predict I can make a prediction.
BLITZER: Make a prediction.
FRUM: But I'd rather -- I think first of all, my endorsement may not help that person.
BLITZER: It's probably a kiss of death.
FRUM: But I think the conservative world would be happy with any one of a dozen people -- men, women, white, black, Hispanic, there are a lot of choices.
BLITZER: John Cornyn, the senator from Texas, his name is being put out there. He's going to be on the program very soon. What do you think about him?
FRUM: I think he would be one of the people conservatives would be happy with. And there are others, too. BLITZER: Let me read to you briefly what one White House official, Nicole Wallace, said about you in your criticism, because you were way out right from the beginning in criticizing Harriet Miers. She said, Harriet Miers is someone who sets the pace and who is frankly way out of the league of some of the people like Daniel, David Frum, that have been criticizing her. He should keep his fights with hacks and flaks like me.
FRUM: Well, I'm not going fight with Nicole. She does her job, and that's the job she has to do. And now the president has done the job he had to do. He's gotten rid of a mistake and he's ready to put a truly superior justice on the Supreme Court. And this is a great day of great relief and happiness.
BLITZER: David Frum, not Daniel Frum, thanks very much for joining us.
FRUM: Thank you. Bye-bye.
BLITZER: Up next, we may not know who did it, but in the CIA leak probe we know that an undercover officer's cover was blown. But what's the real damage done by something like that? We'll talk about that in our SITUATION ROOM "Security Council".
A big number for big oil, Exxon reports revenues topping $100 billion. It's the first time any company has reached that mark in a single quarter.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Turning now to our "Security Council". Tomorrow the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to make an announcement on whether or not there will be indictments in the CIA leak case. But how much damage was actually done to U.S. intelligence by the outing of the CIA operative Valerie Plame?
Joining us now, retired U.S. Army Colonel Pat Lange, a former chief analyst for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, and our own national security correspondent David Ensor -- two guys who know this subject well.
How much damage do you believe was actually done as a result of her name being released?
COL. WALTER "PAT" LANG, U.S. ARMY (RET): I think quite a lot. I mean, she actually was functioning in kind of a covered status in which she remained covered so that when she went overseas to meet people in conjunction, she -- the operation would be secure. And the things she was running in particular were blown away obviously by these -- this disclosure.
But I think the larger issue is that the very fact that the U.S. government seems to have in fact disclosed the identity of one of its covert officers would cause people around the world to think that we have no credibility and that we could not be trusted to protect their identities if they cooperated with us.
BLITZER: We're seeing some pictures, by the way, as we speak, of the president down in South Florida. He's touring some of the areas damaged and devastated, if you will, some of the people suffering as a result of Hurricane Wilma. We'll show those pictures from time to time as they are available. Some members of the staff there with the president.
As far as you know, David, there was no postmortem official that was document submitted to the Senate or House Intelligence Committee outlining what they believe was the damage?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, that's right. There will be once all of the judicial matters -- all the trials or plea bargains or whatever we're going have next are over with. There will be a complete damage assessment done.
But there was a quick, first, sort of operations check. And as Pat said, there clearly was damage. Her past career, any sources she may have drawn, the current career, those people who were in real trouble. Any future work she might have been able to do as a 20-year veteran, very experienced, is lost. Plus -- and most importantly -- all around the world anybody who is thinking of working for U.S. intelligence as a spy now sees that from time to time, at least, the U.S. hurts the home team and that's not good.
BLITZER: Her husband is the former U.S. ambassador, Joe Wilson, who wrote about his trip on behalf of the CIA to Niger to check out these reports whether or not enriched uranium -- Iraqis under Saddam Hussein are trying to buy enriched uranium. There are his critics -- and you know Pat, there are a lot of critics of Joe Wilson out there who support the president and his stance on the war who say you know what? He's really responsible for outing his wife, because he wrote this article saying he made a trip on behalf of the CIA.
And if you go to his who's who biographical file, it'll say he's married to Valerie Plame. And if he were working for the CIA, that that could have compromised her identity right there.
LANG: That's true, but it's a fairly extended set of circumstances in that case. It's not like a specific and destructive, I think, as it would be true if, in fact, officials of the United States government used their facilities and the power of the state to, in fact, disclose the identity of this person.
This is something which would not be understood anywhere. As David said, people would look at that and say, well, my God if they did that to one of their own people, why should I entrust my safety to these people? Will they be able to protect my identity?
BLITZER: We might know tomorrow whether any of the individuals who talked about her to reporters -- whether Bob Novak, or anyone else -- actually knew she was under cover, that she was what they call a NOC, a non-official cover and clandestine operative.
LANG: Actually, it wouldn't make any difference if she were a NOC or if she were simply undercover in a fairly shallow cover. In either case, she would be a covered person in the meaning of the law. You don't have to be a NOC to be that. In fact, any undercover person's has to be protected.
ENSOR: I would like to say, in defense of those who are saying this is not such a bad thing -- it is fair to argue, I think, that by marrying Joe Wilson, a fairly public figure, a former ambassador, she probably made herself a bit less useful to the CIA. She put herself -- at least married to a very public figure and probably could not have gone, for example, undercover with a false name and so forth.
So, her usefulness was still very much there and a law appears to have been broken. But it isn't quite the same loss to U.S. intelligence as it if would have been if she had no connection with anybody as public as Joe Wilson.
BLITZER: Her usefulness as an analyst in the CIA, of course remains. She still works at the CIA. But, her usefulness as an uncover officer was completely destroyed when she decided to pose publicly for a picture for Vanity Fair. Then all of the sudden, not just the name Valerie Plame is known around the world, but the face is known as well.
LANG: The chain of circumstances that led to that is an unfortunate thing. It in fact ruined the possibility of ever using her as a field operative again, that's absolutely true.
I think the particulars of this have to be established by the special prosecutor in this case. We're going to find out tomorrow.
BLITZER: One of the things that's very worrisome that we heard from Larry Johnson, who is a former CIA officer, a state department counterterrorism official as well -- he said that he had heard that there had been death threats to her as result of all of this from al- Qaeda. Have you ever heard that?
ENSOR: I have not.
BLITZER: Pat, have you heard that?
LANG: No, I have not heard that.
BLITZER: Because if there were death threats, I assume she'd want protection from the government. She still is employed by the CIA at this point. Pat, button this up. What do you suspect will happen tomorrow?
LANG: I think Mr. Fitzgerald is the kind of person who does not see things in relative terms in any way. He sees things that either things are correct or they're not correct. And all his past seems to indicate that he will press the cases, I think, very hard. In fact, his use of some laws seem -- may seem to be quite creative to many people.
BLITZER: The president now back on the ground touring South Florida. Just got off Marine One over there. We're going to continue to watch what he's up to.
Pat Lang, as usual, thanks very much for joining us. David Ensor, thanks to you as well.
And please stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security and stay tuned to CNN tomorrow.
Starting early tomorrow morning, we'll be standing by to see what announcement the special prosecutor makes on this CIA leak investigation. We'll be right here in THE SITUATION ROOM watching all of this unfold.
Still ahead -- now that Harriet Miers is out, will senators embrace the president's next choice for the high court? We're tracking the pre-nomination positioning.
Plus, Florida Governor Jeb Bush says he's willing to take the heat after Hurricane Wilma. Do people expect too much of their politicians or do politicians promise too much?
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's a look at some of the "Hot Shots" coming in from our friends over at The Associated Press. Pictures like -- they'll be in your hometown newspaper's tomorrow.
In Pakistan, villagers struggle to get on an army helicopter to be evacuated from an earthquake-devastated area. The U.N. warning that thousands more could die if food, water and shelter aren't brought in immediately.
To Israel now, a young man cries for his grandfather, who was killed by a suicide bomber in Hadera yesterday.
In South Africa, trains collide. These two passenger trains hit head-on. Amazingly, no one was killed, but 10 people remain hospitalized.
Over in England, beavers set free. They've been extinct there since the 12th century. Six beavers were let go today in hopes of repopulating the country.
That's the day's "Hot Shots" -- pictures worth a thousand words.
Back now to our top story, the withdrawal of the embattled Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Earlier, we heard from the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.
Now, let's get a key Republican on that panel and get his perspectives. Senator John Cornyn of Texas joining us. Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: You were one of her big advocates, you strongly supported her nomination. How disappointed are you?
CORNYN: Well, I'm disappointed, not in the nominee in Harriet Miers, but I'm disappointed in the unfairness of the process.
There's some who said they didn't know enough about her. My response to that is, well I hope you'll get to know her and one of most important parts of that process is the hearing itself. Of course, because of the, really the nastiness of this process, the nominee decided to withdraw even before she had a chance to be heard.
BLITZER: The Democrats are all blaming what they call extremists in the Republican Party. Listen to what Senator Dick Durbin, your Democratic colleague from Illinois, told us earlier here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL), MINORITY WHIP: The good reason given by the White House for the Miers withdrawal was the document issue. The real reason of course was the opposition from the radical right wing of the Republican Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Was the nastiness all coming from your own party?
CORNYN: I think more than party people, it was some of the pundits here in Washington that a lot of people pay attention to -- who, as you know, called for her to -- called it a bad nomination and called for her withdrawal early on.
I know Senator Durbin and others are trying to sell this idea that this is somehow a response to hard right wing groups.
But the fact is, this president has a consistent record of nominating judicial conservatives or what I would call someone with a traditional judicial philosophy who believes you shouldn't legislate from the bench. I thought she was cut from that same cloth. But unfortunately she didn't have the chance to really get to be known by the American people, or really by the Senate.
BLITZER: The president, as you know, has a reputation for being fiercely loyal to his friends, his supporters. Do you feel let down they didn't fight, perhaps, as hard for her in the face of this onslaught from conservative pundits as you call them?
CORNYN: Well, Wolf, I got the sense from talking to Harriet Miers this morning that this was a personal decision of hers. The president didn't go to her and say, will you allow me to withdraw your nomination? She went to him, saying she didn't want to be a distraction. This was never about Harriet Miers or seeking high office. Really, she just wanted to serve. And he reluctantly accepted that resignation.
So I think, you know -- here again I think it's part of this unnecessarily nasty and too often mean process, chewing up good people and perhaps discouraging good people from wanting to serve in the future.
BLITZER: One of those conservative pundits who led the fight against Harriet Miers was just on this program. David Frum, the president's former speechwriter. He says, though, he would welcome your name as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. You're smiling, but a lot of people are mentioning your name.
CORNYN: Well, of course, I'm flattered. Who wouldn't be? But the president's got a long list of highly qualified people and I'm loving my job here in the United States Senate. But I'm confident that the president, the White House, will name a new nominee, perhaps in just a matter of days. So we can get on with our business and the Supreme Court can get back in business as well.
BLITZER: Well, if they came to you, would you be open to it?
CORNYN: Well, Wolf, you know, if the president calls, I'll certainly answer the phone. Or if he asks me to come see him, I'll be glad to go see him at White House. But the truth is, I love doing what I'm doing. And I'm really -- I really think he can do better than me.
BLITZER: Well, a lot of people like you. When you say, though -- my ears as a reporter perk up -- when you say you suspect that maybe within a matter of days, he'll come up with a new name, do you have any sense that he's already got a name in mind?
CORNYN: Well, I don't know how reliable it is, but I have been told from sources I consider to be reliable that it will be a matter of days and not week or months. And of course, the Supreme Court is currently in session and Sandra Day O'Connor has -- indicated she doesn't intend to stay there forever, but until a successor is confirmed.
And there are problems if, in fact, there is a new nominee confirmed, let's say in the middle of the term. In close cases, they won't be able to decide those cases and we'll have to re-argument and put them off to the next year. So I think we need to get to work.
BLITZER: Anyone spoken to you about it yet from -- on behalf of the president?
CORNYN: No. Just -- we've been talking among my Senate colleagues, but not -- nothing from the president directly.
BLITZER: One final question about the importance of naming a woman. There are two on the Supreme Court out of nine right now, but Sandra Day O'Connor is leaving. Is it important, as the first lady keeps saying, that a woman should be on the Supreme Court to fill that Sandra Day O'Connor seat?
CORNYN: Well the first -- the matter of first importance to me is that it be quality nominee and somebody who's well-qualified, and secondly, somebody who believes in a traditional judicial philosophy that judges don't legislate or aren't the primarily policy-makers in our form of government. But I think it would be a real plus if it were a woman. And, fortunately there's a number of them that I think would be qualified to do this job.
BLITZER: Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Thanks, Senator, for joining us.
CORNYN: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Still ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM, are some conservatives gloating now that Harriet Miers is a former Supreme Court nominee? You might be surprised at what some activists on the right are saying.
And while you've been paying more at the pump, get this. Big oil companies have been cashing in -- the "Bottom Line," Ali Velshi.
All that coming up in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: The markets are about to close, but first we want to tell you about another important story we're following here in THE SITUATION ROOM. It's coming from the United Nations in New York.
A report from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker details more than $1.8 billion -- that's with B -- billion in illicit kickbacks, paid to Saddam Hussein's regime under the U.N. oil-for-food program. The payments came from more than 2,000 companies from some 66 countries, including the United States. Some of the most prominent corporate names in the report -- Volvo, DaimlerChrysler and Siemens. The oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, started a war, was one of the largest U.N. so-called humanitarian programs ever.
Meanwhile, oil companies are turning record gas prices for you into record revenues for them. Ali Velshi is joining us now from New York. He has more of the "Bottom Line." Ali, those numbers are huge.
VELSHI: Unbelievable numbers. Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest of the publicly traded oil and gas companies, came in with a quarterly profit. Three months -- three months -- $9.9 billion. In three months. But you know what they did? They made that off of revenues of $100 billion. Nobody's ever made $100 billion in three months.
And I can't -- I mean, there's just no way to explain this. It's more than most companies you can name, combined. I mean, it's unbelievable -- revenue of $100 billion. And here's the rub. Because of the hurricanes, they produced less oil and gas. So oil and gas production, what they sell, was actually down almost 5 percent. And they made all this money.
On Thursday, Royal/Dutch Shell, as we all know from the Shell gas stations, reported a profit of $9 billion net profit. And, of course, that was -- a lot of people thought that was pretty high, $9.9 billion.
We're looking at $100 billion in profits this quarter for the oil companies. But, of course, we know, Wolf, that that's --- a lot of people are now calling for ways to contain that through a windfall tax. That when things get so outrageously big, that they try to limit that. The oil companies are saying, don't do that, that's -- this is what we do.
BLITZER: Well, what are they saying? I'm sure they must be having some public relations effort to try to say, you know what, we work hard, we deserve it?
VELSHI: Right. And they do actually sell a product that we all like to buy. One of the things that the Energy secretary said was that these oil companies, when there are profits like this, should invest a little bit more in the refining. Because if you break down where they made their money, the biggest jump in their margins was, of course, in the refining, where you make that oil into gasoline.
And one company, Marathon Oil, has announced a $2.2 billion expansion of one of its Louisiana refineries. Refineries have not typically been the most profitable part of the business, and we haven't had a new one in 30 years. So big, big, big profits. If you're an investor in oil companies, you've done well.
(STOCK MARKET REPORT)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
