Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Ventura Fires Burn Close To Homes; Robert Blake Liable For Death Of Wife; Verbal Assaults On Iraq War;

Aired November 18, 2005 - 16:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Ali. You are in THE SITUATION ROOM where new pictures and information from around the world are arriving all the time.
Happening now -- a verdict in the civil trial of Robert Blake. It's 1:00 p.m. in Burbank, California, where the jury's decision is about to be read. Will Blake be held responsible for the death of his wife after being acquitted of murder charges?

Also this hour, in Southern California, western wildfires pushed by winds, threatening homes, charring acre after acre. We're live in the hot zone.

Plus, new attacks in Iraq and new attacks right here on Capitol Hill. It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington, where the name-calling is even more intense after a Democrat's stunning stand against the war. Wait until you hear what the Republicans are planning to do in the next few hours.

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You are in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Right now we are waiting for the verdict in that wrongful death suit against the actor, Robert Blake. We will bring it to you as soon as it's read. The former "Baretta" star was sued by the children of his late wife Bonny Lee Bakley. They say he should be held responsible for her death in 2001 and pay damages, even though he was found not guilty of murder back in March. That verdict only minutes away.

In the meantime, red hot flames are snaking near hillside homes in Southern California. Scores of firefighters are struggling to keep the blaze in check, but the winds are working against them and residents are on standby for a possible evacuation.

Let's go to the front lines. CNN's Ted Rowlands, our man on the scene. He's joining us now live. Ted, give our viewers an update. What is happening right now?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The fire here started about 3:30 a.m., and since then firefighters have been working to try to protect homes. We are in an area of the city of Ventura, in California, and they have been successful to this point in protecting these homes. There was an out building that was lost, but otherwise no major structures have been lost.

You can see that firefighters are actually in each one of these driveways, trying to protect these homes. About an hour and a half ago, the fire ripped through this area and came within feet of a number of these homes. People had been gathering their stuff throughout the day, getting ready to possibly evacuate, and then sure enough word came in for them to leave.

Firefighters have been using resources in the air and on the ground, as you might imagine, a lot of air drops, and that has made the difference here. For the most part, these people breathing a sigh of relief in this specific neighborhood. This is sort of scattered around in this general area.

If you look across the canyon, there are more homes over there that are potentially in danger. But at this point, the good news to report is that these folks who had to leave here two hours ago, not knowing if they would come back to find their homes, they should be alright. Most of the fuel has been burned up here and it is unlikely their homes are going to be in danger.

BLITZER: Ted Rowlands reporting for us from Ventura in California. J.T. Alpaugh is a helicopter pilot; he's a reporter; he is on the scene for us as well.

J.T., how bad is this situation, given some perspective. You have covered a lot of these wildfires.

J.T. ALPAUGH, HELICOPTER REPORTER: Good afternoon, Wolf. We just landed here within the last hour, and have been covering this all morning. The fire is extremely large, nearly 2,000 acres. We've covered this fire from the beginning this evening.

What you are seeing right now is we have a heavy Santa Ana wind condition about 35 to 40 miles per hour out of the northeast blowing these flames. L.A. County, Ventura County and multiple agencies fighting this fire and doing an excellent job to get these flames knocked down and protect these homes and structure protection. They are doing a really good job here and we are going to keep an eye on the fire throughout the afternoon.

BLITZER: J.T., the winds apparently quite intense-- fanning the flames, if you will. How bad are the winds?

ALPAUGH: The winds right now, Wolf, are about 35-40 miles per hour, and they're out of the northeast. They are starting to let up a little bit this afternoon, but when the sun rises out here and the sun sets, that's when the Santa Ana's are the worst. So, we are going to sit and watch these winds and see how they work out through the day. Hopefully closer to sunset they won't flair up like they normally do.

BLITZER: As these fires get closer and closer to these homes, some of the million-dollar-plus homes, what is the general way to try to prevent these fires from getting too close and damaging the homes? Because some of the flames, and certainly a lot of the smoke, getting close.

ALPAUGH: Absolutely. What they do here in these hillside home areas, they do what's called brush clearance, keeping a buffer zone between the homes and these flames. That helps out a lot. You can see a lot of these homes have tile roofs, which protect them from the flames and the sparks catching those homes on fire.

The fire department then comes in when these flames get close upon these homes. They force structure protection, setting up engines like you see right here in this driveway to protect the fire and protect the homes and bring in the aircraft and the bombers, and dropping the water right on the flames before they threaten and destroy these homes. They are doing an excellent job of protecting these homes so far, only a couple of structures lost, out structures that Ted Rowlands told you about earlier. So far they are putting up a good stand here in protecting these homes.

BLITZER: J.T., stand by for a moment. I want to go to our producer Chuck Condor in Burbank, California. We have a verdict in that civil suit against the actor, Robert Blake. Chuck, what is it?

CHUCK CONDOR, CNN PRODUCER: Hello, Wolf. A jury in this case has found that Robert Blake was liable, deliberately caused the death of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. Further, they have found damages in the amount of $30 million in favor of the estate of Bakley for her family members.

BLITZER: So he's guilty -- not necessarily guilty but liable, this is a civil lawsuit, the wrongful death civil lawsuit against him, even though he was acquitted in the murder case in 2002. Like O.J. Simpson, he's found liable now in this wrongful death civil case, is that right, Chuck?

CONDOR: Exactly, Wolf. The finding is that he is liable is the equivalent of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. Of course, the standard of proof is much different in a civil trial. You don't have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In these civil trials, the preponderance of the evidence is the level that the attorneys have to prove. And in this case, the 12-person jury of five women and seven men decided that the preponderance, or the majority, of the evidence pointed to Robert Blake's guilt.

BLITZER: From everything I've read -- correct me if I'm wrong, Chuck -- he doesn't have a whole lot of money left over. Supposedly he's broke. But you probably know a lot more about this than I do. What is the story with that?

CONDOR: That's what Mr. Blake says, he is virtually broke -- that the cost of defending himself in these lengthy civil, as well as criminal, trials has basically bankrupted him. So it remains to be seen what kind of monetary damages the Bakley family might be able to eventually collect. But at the very least, this is certainly a huge moral victory for the family members of Bonny Lee Bakley, who had hinted all along that Robert Blake had either killed Bonny Lee Bakley himself or hired someone to do the job for him.

BLITZER: Stand by Chuck Condor, our procedure on the scene in Burbank, California. Our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is joining us right now, as well. Jeff, give our viewers some perspective on what has just happened.

JEFF TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Legally, this is precisely analogous to what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial, but then the heirs of the people who died, Ron Goldman and his wife Nicole Brown Simpson, sued him in civil court and then won. And then as Chuck said, the standards and the rules are very different.

The plaintiff in a civil case is only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, not like the government has to prove proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Interestingly in both cases, the defendant had to testify because he no longer has a Fifth Amendment privilege. There's no way he can be prosecuted again.

So O.J. Simpson testified in his civil case and the jury didn't believe him. Robert Blake testified, in this trial, the jury didn't believe his denial. So they came up with a big verdict against him. Interesting to see if the same parallel holds, because the families, the Goldman and Brown families have recovered virtually nothing. And Bonny Bakley's family may have a tough time recovering any money, as well.

BLITZER: If Robert Blake were to write a book or do some movies, would the family now be able to collect those wages, any royalties, the earning he would make, as part of this victory in this civil lawsuit?

TOOBIN: They may well. What is somewhat different in the Simpson case, is that Simpson moved to Florida, which has very generous laws for debtors. As far as I know, Blake still lives in California, and has less protective laws. So they really might be able to attach any kind of earning that he makes. Remember, this civil verdict will also have to be appealed. The legal proceedings will certainly drag on for some time. Obviously this is a very big victory for the Bakley family.

BLITZER: And that door that we're seeing in the lower part of our screen, we'll put it back up over there, that's the courthouse itself. We assume that Robert Blake, his attorneys, others, will be walking out and probably making some statements. We'll stand by for that as well.

Jeff, was this a surprise?

TOOBIN: I don't think it was a terrifically big surprise. I think his acquittal in the criminal trial was somewhat of a surprise.

This was a case where motive was never an issue. Blake and his wife had a horrible relationship. He believed that she tricked him into this pregnancy. He believed she was an unfit mother for the child that they shared. And there was a lot of evidence that he really couldn't stand her.

The problem for the prosecution was there was never a murder weapon found and there was no eyewitness to the crime, although he was the last person seen in her presence after they went out to dinner in the San Fernando Valley.

So, I think the bigger surprise was his acquittal in the criminal case, than his being found liable in the civil case. BLITZER: Talk a little bit about the different standards in the criminal case, where he was acquitted of murder, and this civil lawsuit, where he's liable now for the wrongful death of his wife.

TOOBIN: Well, it's easy to define what preponderance of the evidence means. Preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not, 51 percent more likely that an event -- it is 51 percent more likely that it happened, than it didn't. That's the lowest standard of proof allowed in any trial in the legal system.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a much, much tougher standard. Interestingly, judges have never allowed a numerical percentage to be attached. Some people think it's 95, 98 percent sure, although no appeals court has ever said precisely what number. But, it's much higher than preponderance of the evidence. It's higher than clear and convincing proof. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the highest standard in the legal system, and it's a lot tougher to me than preponderance of the evidence, as this case illustrates.

BLITZER: How likely is it that this decision could be overturned upon appeal?

TOOBIN: Well, I don't know for sure. But I think you have to start with the assumption that 90 percent of verdicts in criminal cases -- on any kind of cases, criminal or civil -- are not disturbed on appeal. So the odds are always against someone who is appealing, and that would certainly apply here as well.

BLITZER: And the terminology is, he's liable for the wrongful death in this civil lawsuit. He's not guilty -- he's innocent -- he's liable.

TOOBIN: Correct. Guilty, not guilty, innocent, those are terms entirely associated with the criminal process. This was entirely a civil case. There was no chance that Blake could go to prison, could get the death penalty, could get any sort of criminal sanction as a result of this case. This was only about money, and it turns out it was about a lot of money. And it turns out it was about a lot of money.

BLITZER: In fairness -- I just want to make sure we leave this, not hanging. It's a very, very similar situation, if not almost identical to what happened to O.J. Simpson?

TOOBIN: Almost identical. In fact, it was an enormous verdict in the Simpson case. It was $12.5 million, as I recall. This is $30 million. Neither one has been -- the $12.5 million was never paid by Simpson. I wouldn't get the Bakley's family's hopes up for getting anywhere near $30 million.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff, we're going to have you stand by. We're going to continue to monitor the courthouse in Burbank, California. If Robert Blake comes to the microphones, makes a statement, we'll go back their live.

Just to recap, a jury has reached a verdict in the civil lawsuit, the wrongful death lawsuit, and Robert Blake found liable for the death of his wife. And $30 million fine, imposed $30 million supposedly going to go to his children, who filed this wrongful death lawsuit, involving Bonny Lee Bakley, his late wife, who was murdered in 2001. We will continue to watch to see if he shows up at the microphone.

We are watching other stories, as well. We're tracking that growing wildfire in Southern California on the ground, in the air and on the Internet, as well. And we'll keep you updated. Tom Foreman's here in THE SITUATION ROOM. He'll show us what's going on.

Also ahead, the escalating political warfare over Iraq. House Republicans are getting ready to launch a surprise maneuver. How will the Democrats react? We're watching that story on Capitol Hill.

And an explosive charge against the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney and his stand on torture. The former CIA director Stansfield Turner will be here to make his case against Cheney. And we'll get the other side as well, from a former Army green beret.

All that coming up. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're expecting to go back to Burbank, California, soon if Robert Blake shows up at these microphones and makes a statement. The actor has just been found liable in the wrongful death lawsuit for the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley; $30 million granted to the children of Bonny Lee Bakley.

But we'll see what he says. The wrongful death lawsuit, he loses, and he's found liable. We'll go there if Robert Blake comes out to make a statement. Three years ago, he was acquitted on murder charges for the murder of his wife. But he's found liable now in the wrongful death lawsuit. Very similar to what happened involving O.J. Simpson -- acquitted on murder charges, found liable for the wrongful death lawsuit. We'll watch that story. We'll go out there live.

But, let's stay out in California right now. Fires continuing to rage and presumably going to get worse in the next few hours, because of the winds, which are rather intense in Southern California.

Helicopter reporter J.T. Alpaugh is joining us once again, on the phone from Ventura County. We interrupted you for that breaking news, on the decision on Robert Blake, J.T. But update our viewers, what's going on right now?

ALPAUGH: Well, those winds you spoke about, Wolf, those Santa Ana winds, coming very heavy out of the Northeast, between 35 to 40 miles per hour, fanning these flames of this Ventura fire.

Right now it's up to about 2,000 acres. And they've been fighting this fire since about 3:30 this morning. Several agencies, Ventura County fire-fighting, L.A. County fire, multiple agencies helping to try to stop this fire. But until we see what these winds are going to do, and hopefully die down within the next few hours. Sometimes, right before sunset, these Santa Ana winds get extremely heavy and will continue to burn through.

But, they're doing an excellent job to protect these homes that you see down in these canyons. About the heavily wooded canyons filled with brush, right up against these homes, you see on these cliffs and these edges. And doing a spectacular job to stop these flames from damaging or destroying any of these homes.

BLITZER: All right, J.T., is there any weather forecast, as far as rain is concerned, which certainly would be welcome right now?

ALPAUGH: Well, there's nothing in the immediate forecast for any rain. But the forecast for these Santa Ana's, to die down within the next 24 hours or so, has been in effect. Right now, we're in what's called a red flag warning. We did get some precipitation and some rain within the past two weeks, but these Santa Ana winds out of the Northeast, dry hot winds, come through here and they dry out that brush very quickly and make everything dry and very kindered (ph) to catch flames very easily.

So, right now we don't see any precipitation in the near future, and we're hoping that the winds, the red flag, conditions of the Santa Ana's dies down.

BLITZER: All right, J.T. J.T. Alpaugh, we're going to check back with you. Thanks very much for helping us cover this story.

Tom Foreman is here in THE SITUATION ROOM helping us with the story as well. You've been looking at where these fires and what's going on, Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You live out West, and when this sort of thing starts happening, it drives you nuts because you see the smoke in the air. And I want to go to the map and give you a sense of what we are talking about. The fire zone is huge in this case. We are moving down here to Southern California, Los Angeles, San Diego. Look at the size of the warning area. That's what we are talking about. This is gargantuan. This is all this area where people have to worry about these things, a big giant area.

Now I want to show you exactly where the real fires are in this case. There you see where they have had fires burning, there, there, there and there.

Why does that matter? Well, if you look at this question of the Santa Ana winds and what they might do, why is the zone, by comparison, I'll show you again -- why is the zone so big compared to where the fires are? Because if we move in here, you see all these canyons that characterize this area. You're talking about a drive of several hours down through here that is all in the zone.

All these canyons focus the wind and funnel the wind. Some of the gusts in the canyons have been measured at 60 miles an hour, 60 miles an hour. So in one minute a spark that could live long enough, could travel a full mile down that way, a full mile further down. The further down you go, you get right into the heart of Los Angeles headed down toward San Diego. You are passing up here Burbank, which is where the verdict just came in, the Robert Blake case.

That's why people are so worried about this. If the winds keep blowing -- hopefully they will die down, get a little more rain -- but if they keep blowing, you know, one of these sparks takes off it will spread faster than a bad movie review.

BLITZER: We'll keep watching that. Tom, thanks very much. Tom Foreman helping us understand these wildfires in Southern California.

Let's get some more information on the situation. Our Internet reporter Abbi Tatton is checking the "Situation Online". What are you picking up, Abbi?

ABBI TATTON, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, residents of Ventura County following this canyon fire very closely. One of them, Patrick Talen (ph) has been sharing his photos of what's going on the Web site, flickr.com.

Patrick says that he was woken up at 4:00 a.m. this morning to sirens, looked out of his window, and saw the smoke and the fire less than a quarter of a mile away. The photo here showing them threatening hillside homes.

That smoke has been looming over the city of Ventura all day. Patrick records the heavy presence of fire engines protecting these homes right now, but as his photos also show, residents are keeping a watchful eye out themselves.

Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Abbi, thank you very much. Abbi Tatton with the "Situation Online".

Up next here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the debate over Iraq has gone to new extremes this week. With all the maneuvers, who took the strongest shot?

Also ahead, tough questions and strong accusations about the treatment of detainees. We will hear from the former CIA director, who is charging the vice president with condoning torture.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: On Capitol Hill, new verbal assaults over Iraq along with angry echoes of the 2004 presidential campaign.

Senator John Kerry today accused Republicans of -- quote -- "Swift boating" fellow Democrat John Murtha, after the Congressman's surprise call for a quick troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Now, Republicans are preparing to fire a shot of their own.

Let's go up to Capitol Hill. Our Congressional correspondent, Ed Henry joining us live. What's going on, Ed? ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, at about 7:00 tonight, Speaker Dennis Hastert will hold a vote on a resolution very similar to what John Murtha drafted today -- basically, a straight up or down vote on whether or not U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.

A spokesman for Hastert telling CNN that basically Republicans want to try to smoke out the Democrats. They believe the resolution will be voted down by a wide margin, a few hundred votes against it. They think that will provide a shot in the arm to a Republican Party that needs it, and they will also show that there's very little support among Democratic leaders for this effort.

Democrats fire back that they believe this is just a PR stunt over a very serious proposal by a serious defense expert, and deserves more than this side show.

This dispute capping off a day where there was even more hot rhetoric. As you mentioned, Senator John Kerry entering the fray, as Republicans today circulate press releases saying that John Murtha's remarks are being carried heavily by al-Jazeera Television, suggesting this is helping the terrorists.

The White House putting out a statement comparing John Murtha to Michael Moore, the liberal filmmaker. John Kerry fired back on the Senate floor. Republican Senator John Kyl also fired back that Democrats then should stop calling the president a liar.

Take a listen to the flavor of this debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I don't intend to stand for, nor should any of us in the United States Congress stand for, another Swift boat attack on the character of Jack Murtha. Frankly, it disgusts me that a bunch of guys who never chose to put on the uniform of their country now choose in the most personal way...

SEN. JOHN KYL (R), ARIZONA: It is a fact that when the president of the United States is accused of deliberate manipulation of intelligence to bring us into war, some have even said lied in order to bring us into war, that deserves a response, that's part of a healthy debate.

And when the president spoke in response...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: I just got off the phone a short while ago with a moderate Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Ellen Tauscher. She's been in some of the Democratic strategy meetings in anticipation of this 7:00 vote. She said many Democrats will probably end up voting present instead of yes or no. It might be a way potentially for them to duck it, Republicans will say. But she says it's because this is not exactly the Murtha resolution. So, they will just vote present, and she says that the Republicans want to have a debate on Iraq, bring it on.

Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Ed Henry. We will check back with you. This is a developing story on Capitol Hill.

Let's head overseas, specifically to Korea. That's where the president of the United States is watching all of this unfold.

Our White House correspondent, Suzanne Malveaux is covering the trip. It's very early Saturday morning there in Korea. What are they saying where you are, Suzanne?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you know, of course, President Bush and the 20 leaders of APEC are wrapping up their summit today.

They are going to be issuing statements when it comes to global free trade, opening markets, tackling bird flu and, of course, terrorism. But already the Bush administration really getting a setback when it comes to the Iraq policy.

It was just yesterday when South Korea's Defense Ministry issued a proposal essentially to cut a third of South Korean troops that are in Iraq.

Now, it was just a day before that President Bush appeared with South Korea's president, Roh Moo-Hyun, praising him for having the third largest contingency in Iraq.

Now White House officials say they did not get a heads up on this. But they are also downplaying the significance of this, saying there are discussions within the South Korean government, no official decisions or word yet.

They are essentially trying to portray this, in the sense that South Korea is still committed to supporting the U.S. mission in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: South Korea remains committed to the mission of trying to support to the Iraqi people as they fight terror and build their democracy that they are seeking an extension from the national assembly, so that their forces can remain in Iraq to support that mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley saying they still have this process to go through, to vote, to take it before the national assembly, but, Wolf, very clear here, it could not come at a worse time for the Bush administration as there continues to be that increased cry for U.S. troops to come home from Iraq.

Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Suzanne Malveaux, half a world away in Korea.

Have a good journey over there. We'll see you back in Washington soon. Suzanne, thank you very much.

Up next, its a stinging charge. A former CIA director calls Vice President Cheney, and I'm quoting now, "the vice president for torture." I'll ask military veteran Admiral Stansfield Turner what he means by this as he debates a former U.S. Army green beret just after the break.

And over 1,000 firefighters with nearly 2,000 acres burned. Those California wildfires, we'll have the latest on the battle to contain them.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to THE SITUATION ROOM. A former CIA chief is leveling a very powerful charge at the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, in response to Cheney's lobbying against the proposed to ban any torture of prisoners. Listen to what Admiral Stansfield Turner said in an interview with Britain's ITV Network.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER (RET.), FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I'm embarrassed, I'm embarrassed, that the United States has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Vice President Cheney's office flatly rejects that charge and repeats the president's statement that the United States does not torture. Joining us now is Admiral Stansfield Turner, the former CIA director in the Carter administration. He's the author of a new book on the relationship between the president and the CIA. Also with us, Bob Belavacqua. He's a former U.S. Army green beret. Gentlemen, thanks very much for joining us.

All right, what do you mean that the vice is the vice president of torture?

TURNER: The president says we do not torture. Senator McCain has proposed a law that would prohibit our doing torture. The vice president opposes that law. The vice president must be in favor of torture.

BLITZER: The law that McCain has introduced, Bob, was passed 90 to 9 in the U.S. Senate. And it basically said CIA personnel should be bound by the same restrictions, the same guidelines, as military personnel. What's wrong with that?

MAJ. BOB BELAVACQUA (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Absolutely nothing, Wolf. I actually agree with it. My point is that we're currently not torturing people within the Department of Defense. BLITZER: Within the Department of Defense. What about the CIA? What about civilians?

BELAVACQUA: If the vice president is going to be the advocate for torture, the apparatus he will use will not be the Department of Defense. The CIA, due to the nature of the way they operate, very clandestine in different locations, it's very hard to do quality assurance quality control.

BLITZER: You ran the CIA. Does the CIA engage in torture?

TURNER: It did not in my time, it did before my time. One of the problems that I inherited was a Soviet defector named Nosenko whom the CIA had tortured for three and a half years, in effect, by locking him up in a small cell and giving psychological torture. So it's a problem. If the CIA gets involved in this again, it will tarnish the CIA's reputation, as it did with Nosenko many years ago.

BLITZER: The allegation, Bob, is that there's one set of rules for the U.S. military -- and the Army has these guidelines in the field manual -- there's another set of rules for civilian government personnel like those in the CIA, and perhaps a third set of rule for civilian defense contractors, not military, sort of in this shady. Is that a fair argument, that there should be three separate sets rules?

BELAVACQUA: Absolutely not. And I don't know how much of a debate you're going to get between the two of us, but torture is torture. And it's not so much what it does to the agency. The admiral referred to the bad reflection on the CIA. It kills us public relations-wide across the globe. Abu Ghraib, we're still trying to recover from that. I don't care who's conducting it, what contract vehicle they're on, it's torture, and it should be not be allowed.

BLITZER: The vice president, the president says the United States does not torture. What evidence, Admiral, do you have to the contrary?

TURNER: I don't have evidence that we are torturing.

BLITZER: But you accused the vice president of being the vice president of torture.

TURNER: He's an advocate for torturing.

BLITZER: He says he doesn't torture.

TURNER: Well, he says he won't support the McCain bill, which would outlaw this. Why would he do that unless he wanted to torture?

BLITZER: Well, because the McCain, I suppose -- and this is only what the administration has been saying, I interviewed the president's national security advisor the other day, is that the Congress should not be in a position to rule out certain measures that, in case of extreme circumstances, the president might have to sign off on.

TURNER: All those big words say that they want the CIA to be able to torture, as far as I interpret them. BLITZER: Do you see no occasion whatsoever, even very remote, that torture might be applicable?

TURNER: I see none that we should considering torturing, yes.

BLITZER: What about you? Is there ever a time when it might be in the national interest to use torture?

BELAVACQUA: Wolf, if somebody was headed to Washington, D.C., and had a nuclear weapon or a nuclear device in their control and we had an individual that had information that could stop the attack, I would do everything physically humanly possible to get information out of him to stop that attack. That is an extreme situation.

BLITZER: It's an extreme situation, but Stephen Hadley, the president's national security advisor, last Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition" said to me, "What if we had captured one of those hijackers on September 7th, and we got indication that something big was about to happen?" What would you do in a situation like that if you were running the CIA?

TURNER: You would interrogate him in all reasonable ways that you could. And if you slipped over into torture, that's one thing. But to advertise that we torture, to make that a policy of the United States government, has far more problems than it does benefits.

BLITZER: So under that remote circumstance, there would be an opportunity to use these extreme measures, water boarding, or sleep deprivation, all these other thing that some are saying would be cruel and unusual punishment?

TURNER: It would certainly be there. And if the individual had this real sense that doing that would make a tremendous difference, like no 9/11, then the individual would do it.

BLITZER: In other words, I'm hearing you, correct me if I'm wrong, Admiral, that under that rare circumstance, you are, in effect, justifying torture?

TURNER: I think that rare circumstance is so hypothetical that I'm not concerned about that. But I do say that we cannot endorse, as a nation, a policy of we will torture. I'm a military man. Senator McCain was a military man. He was a man who was tortured. He's now proposing this bill to outlaw our torturing. I certainly agree with him because all other military people are vulnerable to being tortured if we advocate it.

BLITZER: You think that legislation should be passed?

BELAVACQUA: I do, Wolf. First, I would like to see a universal definition of torture. What does it look like, and where are we going to set the parameters up? You have got to do a stiff interrogation on an individual. Otherwise it's a job interview. And that's what we are doing right now, we're doing job interviews.

BLITZER: Bob Belavacqua, thanks very much joining us. Stansfield Turner, thanks to you as well. Appreciate it.

Coming up, in those California wildfires, hundreds of homes are being threatened. Right now, many residents are on standby for a possible evacuation. We'll have the latest on what's happening.

And in today's "Strategy Session", just when you thought the war of words over Iraq couldn't get rougher, it has. We'll talk about the charges, the countercharges.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: With each passing day this week, politicians seem to take their arguments over Iraq to a new, more explosive level. But one shot stood out above all the others.

Let's bring in our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider. Bill?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, In 1968, Walter Cronkite returned from Vietnam and told Americans that, in his opinion, the Vietnam War had become a stalemate. That was a turning point.

Now, it's too early to tell whether what happened this week was a turning point in Iraq, but it certainly was the "Political Play of the Week".

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Congressman John Murtha was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress. He's a staunch defender of the military. He rarely speaks to the press. When he does, Washington listens. This week, Murtha spoke.

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home.

SCHNEIDER: Murtha went to Iraq and found...

MURTHA: Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, that Iraq cannot be won militarily.

SCHNEIDER: He concluded...

MURTHA: This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.

SCHNEIDER: The White House accused Murtha of wanting to surrender to the terrorists. Republican members of Congress went on the attack, saying U.S. troops...

REP. JOHN CARTER (R), TEXAS: They do not deserve to have people bail out on them and take the cowardly way out. SCHNEIDER: Jack Murtha, who earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, has his own vision of cowardly.

MURTHA: I like guys who got deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need to be done.

SCHNEIDER: Murtha described a father stroking the hand of his comatose son who couldn't get a purple heart because he was wounded by friendly fire.

MURTHA: I said, if you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.

SCHNEIDER: We'll give Mr. Murtha our "Political Play of the Week.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER: Speaker Dennis Hastert said Representative Murtha favors a policy of cut and run. In 1966, Senator George Aiken of Vermont offered this recommendation for what the U.S. should do in Vietnam -- quote -- "Declare victory and go home".

Wolf.

BLITZER: And Bill, you remember what President Johnson said when he heard what Walter Cronkite had said at that point after coming back from Vietnam. He said if he's lost Walter Cronkite, he's probably lost the country. And I suppose that some Republicans are saying now, if they've lost John Murtha, a very moderate conservative Democrat, a strong supporter of the military, they probably realize they've got some problems.

SCHNEIDER: I think they do.

BLITZER: Bill Schneider with the "Play of the Week". Thank you very much.

Up next, in the debate over Iraq, the white-hot rhetoric has gotten even more colorful. We'll talk about those competing criticisms in our "Strategy Session".

And so far, it's the most effective drug to treat bird flu. It's called Tamiflu. So why are there unconfirmed, yet serious, questions about how the antiviral drug works? We'll tell you what's going on.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It would seem like a soap opera squabble, if the subject of the argument were not so serious, the back and forth over the war in Iraq. Here to talk about the latest charges, the countercharges, CNN contributor Donna Brazile, she's a Democratic strategist. Terry Jeffrey, he's the editor of the conservative weekly "Human Events." Thanks very much for joining us.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, speaking of John Murtha's call for a six-month withdrawal from Iraq, said this: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and a politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." Statement from Scott McClellan.

Is that smart politics, to compare John Murtha, a man you know as the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, ranking Democrat, a former chairman, strong supporter of the military, to Michael Moore?

TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMAN EVENTS": No. I think it's a big mistake, Wolf, actually. As you mentioned earlier in the show, this is a guy who, at 34 years of age in 1966, re-enlisted in the Marines, went to Vietnam, was wounded twice, won two Purple Hearts, won a Bronze Star. This clearly is a patriot American hero.

No, I haven't been able to read the Q&A that he had with reporters yesterday, but I did read his whole speech posted on his Web site. While I don't agree with his exact prescription, I thought he made some very intelligent observations about the war in Iraq.

I don't think he -- he didn't call for an immediate withdrawal. He called for a Marine presence over the horizon. I think the key point he made that Republicans ought to engage him on said, this war needs to be won politically, not militarily. I think he's right.

The famous Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz said, "War is politics by other means." The point is, all war achieves a political aim. We need to achieve our political aim, and we need to make sure that the people in Iraq achieve their political aim, which is stability and an environment that doesn't threaten us.

BLITZER: Listen to the former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry earlier today. He came out swinging in defense of John Murtha. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House who never chose to put on the uniform of this country and serve, called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Let me tell you, Mr. President.

On its face, if you look at the record, you just look at his life, Jack Murtha has never cut and run from anything. Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam, and he earned two Purple Hearts. He was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The problem that Murtha, though, has is that he has very few Democrats, at least in the House or the Senate, who are yet ready to say what he has said, and certainly not to vote the way he would like to vote, calling for a withdrawal over the next six months. A lot of Democrats, including leaders like Biden and others, John Kerry, I interviewed him yesterday, they're not ready to endorse that position.

DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: They may not be ready right now to come up with a specific timetable when the troops will come out, but when Jack Murtha stands up and says, you know what? Here's what we need to do right now, there are many Democrats having taken a second look at it, and say, you know what? Perhaps he's right.

Jack Murtha has laid out a strategy, he's laid out a resolution. It's a shame that the Republicans tonight are going to put a political ploy on the floor to try to get some votes. Democrats should vote no and stick with Jack Murtha and follow his lead on this.

BLITZER: They're expecting a vote around 7:00 p.m. Eastern tonight in the House of Representatives, Terry, on this proposal to have a six-month withdrawal. And what the Republicans want to do is clearly embarrass Congressman Murtha.

JEFFREY: Well, yes, I wish the whole level of debate about the Iraq war was a lot higher, Wolf. We have huge questions at stake, here. Americans are dying there, significant national interests, namely, our national security is at risk.

I think that what I understood Murtha's argument to be was a lot more nuanced than it was explained in the papers this morning. It's more nuanced than the Republicans are going to have in the Congress today. How do we get to a point in Iraq where we can withdraw troops and our security interests are preserved, and we're not going to have chaos there? That's the question.

BLITZER: There are some conservative Republicans who are basically saying the same thing, let the Iraqis get the job done. The United States liberated Iraq. Now it's time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate.

JEFFREY: Well, you're right. I think we should agree on the goal. The question is, what's the wisest way to get there? Now, I draw a distinction between Jack Murtha, who's not, as I understand it, saying the president lied us into war, and some of the Senate Democrats, who know very well the president didn't lie us into war that are making that claim. I think that's destructive, I think it's mendacious. I think Murtha has put some intelligent points on the table. They need to be debated intelligently by patriotic and statesman-like people.

BRAZILE: Well, that's the point. And I think that the point is that Jack Murtha would like to have a debate inside the House, first, in the committee. He's calling for hearings, he's calling for legislative oversight. But instead what we'll have tonight is another political grenade show where both sides lob bombs at each other, but no true discussion.

I agree on one point, and that is we need to increase the Iraqis' presence in this war. The Iraqi people, by and large, want us out, that's what the polls say. But it's time that they step up and solve the problem themselves. BLITZER: Donna and Terry, thanks very much. Good discussion.

Still to come, Ted Rowlands, he's keeping track of those fires blazing out in California. Just ahead, we'll go live to Ventura for the latest on the number of acres burned and the progress in beating back the fires.

And he's a normally hawkish House Democrat calling for U.S. troops to come home immediately. That would be Congressman John Murtha. We've been speaking a lot about him over the past 24 hours. He's raising the ire of a lot of Republicans, but are the personal attacks against him the way to disagree with his stance? CNN's Carlos Watson, our contributor, standing by for that.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: It's been a tough week for Republicans, particularly on the subject of Iraq.

Let's bring in our political analyst, Carlos Watson. How bad of a week has it been for the Republicans, Carlos?

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's been a tough week, Wolf. They seem to be fighting battles all around, not only within Congress, not only overseas hearing the news they got from South Korea, but certainly what Jack Murtha had to say.

I would say, Wolf, though, the toughest news of all may have come from Bob Woodward's admission, that he knows more and that there's a source. And so there's the chance that the Republicans will not only get tainted, if you will, with the stench of incompetence in Iraq, but scandal, frankly. And if that happens, running political ads, as they're talking about doing right now, beginning this weekend nationally on cable stations, may not be enough. Instead, they may need to do what President Clinton once did, the David Gergen move, meaning reaching into the other party's camp to bring in a senior official as part of the president's administration to offer an olive branch.

BLITZER: What about the Democrats? They seem to have an opportunity, but they've had many opportunities, as you know Carlos, over these years. Many of those opportunities missed. What's their opportunity right now?

WATSON: Two interesting things, Wolf. They've obviously got to do more than criticize the president. They've also got to offer a forward-looking agenda. I think one way in which that ultimately could come is you may some ads as soon as next week either from some of the Democratic-oriented unions, or potentially from a group like MoveOn.org. So I'd watch very closely for a multi-million dollar group of ads which happen not only nationally, but in key target states.

The second thing they could do in putting forth an agenda may be using a Web site. There's a new Web site out there called SinceSlicedBread.com in which the Democratic Unions, the SEIU, is saying, it's now time for us to put forward new economic ideas, economic ideas, at the moment. And that we're going to offer a reward. If you come forward with a new idea, you may win as much as $100,000. They've already got 10,000 submissions.

Wolf, this is kind of like blogs meet reality shows, and it could be the way the Democrats insert themselves into the forward-looking agenda.

BLITZER: You mentioned the Bob Woodward revelation, that he had a source in the White House or someplace in the administration, either a current or former official. He is now telling our sister publication "TIME" magazine, Carlos, that the reason that that official, that source, went to the prosecutor on November 3, is because he made a phone call to that source that may have spooked that source one way or another. The source said, I better go talk to the prosecutor.

What do you make of that? Because it does answer the question -- maybe it answers the question why this source of all a sudden went before the prosecutor and spoke out publicly, at least to the prosecutor, about a conversation he had with Bob Woodward?

WATSON: There are clearly more dominos that are going to fall here, Wolf. And I think what's extraordinarily dangerous for Republicans is not only do you now have the potential expansion, if you will, of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, but it comes at almost the very same time we're going to start to hear more about Jack Abramoff, another scandal. It could be a very bad first six months of the year.

BLITZER: Carlos Watson, our political analyst. Carlos, thanks as usual.

WATSON: Good to see you.

BLITZER: It's 5:00 p.m. here in Washington, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where we're just getting word of a tropical storm that may, and the important world is this, may, hit Florida by Monday. Our Chad Myers standing by with the latest.

Also happening now, it's 2:00 p.m. in Ventura, California, under threat from a fast-growing wildfire. Thousands of acres burned, some residents are fighting to save their homes. Others have fled all together. We'll take you there live.

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