Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Interview with Condoleezza Rice; Foley Scandal Still Dark Cloud Over Republicans on Capitol Hill; Candidates Somewhat Anxious About Vote Counting; Foley Star Of Campaign Ad War
Aired October 10, 2006 - 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: Ali, thank you very much. And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time. Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, new nuclear threats and possible punishment. The U.N. Security Council may be closer to slapping sanctions on a still defiant North Korea. It's 4:00 p.m. here in Washington where I spoke at length with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about North Korea's provocative claims.
Also this hour, a new vow from the House speaker in the Mark Foley scandal. Dennis Hastert says heads will roll if there is proof of cover-up. One House Republican is putting his allegations on the record today, while others are at risk of losing their jobs.
And could this Election Day be a repeat of 2000? Both parties fear bungled balloting could delay results for days, even weeks. We'll go back to the future in Florida where the presidential candidates and the chads were left hanging six years ago. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
The Bush administration is warning North Korea it won't be intimidated by nuclear threats and bully tactics. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is again rejecting direct talks with the communist regime, a day after it claimed to have tested a nuclear device.
John Bolton also dismissing a reported new threat by North Korea to fire a nuclear missile if the U.S. fails to resolve the diplomatic standoff. U.N. Security Council members now are weighing a U.S. plan for stiff sanctions against Kim Jong-il's government and China is signaling today that it may be willing to support some punishment of its ally, North Korea.
China's ambassador to the U.N. says there has to be punitive actions for North Korea's defiance, but he says those actions must be, in his words, "appropriate." Today Iran is also weighing in on the latest nuclear wrangling. A government spokesman says Tehran is opposed to any country having nuclear weapons, but Iran's top leaders say "the country's own nuclear program will continue without fear and without retreat," a direct quote. Iran contends it's developing nuclear energy, not developing a bomb. Back here in the United States, there's some new partisan finger pointing about the North Korean nuclear threat. Republican Senator John McCain today accused directly the Clinton administration of setting the stage for the current situation by rewarding North Korea's bad behavior.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We had a carrot and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another. Now we are facing the consequences of the failed Clinton administration policies and we must stop at long last reinforcing failure with failure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: North Korean missile threat is posing a new and serious challenge to the Bush White House and to America's top diplomat.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And joining us now at the State Department, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Madam Secretary, thanks very much.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Good to be with you.
BLITZER: You have got your hands full, a crisis with North Korea. You have been in office now for almost six years, six years to do something about Kim Jong-il. It looks like it is a total failure.
RICE: Well, first of all, Wolf, the North Koreans started pursuing nuclear weapons decades ago. And the fact of the matter is that the international community has finally come together in a way that brings China to the table, brings South Korean to the table, brings all of the stakeholders to the table in a way that if we get an agreement with North Koreans to dismantle their nuclear weapons systems, it actually has a chance to last.
We have been through bilateral talks with the North Koreans in the 1994 Agreed Framework, it didn't hold. They cheated.
BLITZER: That was a mistake, the Clinton administration strategy?
RICE: No. I will not blame anyone for trying. I just know that the 1994 agreement, of course, didn't hold. The North Koreans cheated.
BLITZER: Is there any evidence that what the Clinton administration did helped North Korea build these bombs?
RICE: Oh, I think North Korea has been persistent and has been consistent in pursuing this nuclear weapons program for decades. Now, it is going to have to be fought. And the international community is speaking with one voice very loudly, because the North Koreans crossed an important line when they proclaimed that they had conducted a nuclear test.
BLITZER: Did they conduct a nuclear test?
RICE: Well, we are still trying to evaluate what really happened here. And I think it will take a little while to evaluate it. But we have to take the claim seriously because it is a political claim, if nothing else, that tries to get the bargaining position of being a nuclear power.
BLITZER: So let me get it straight. The reason for six years almost that the Bush administration has been unable to reverse North Korea's movement toward a bomb, developing more bombs, the main reason is because all of the parties involved were not on the same page?
RICE: Oh, I think, Wolf, it is very clear that no one has been able to reverse this program over decades. But we have a better chance now with China, which has leverage with North Korea, with South Korea, which has a relationship with North Korea, than doing this with the United States -- I've heard people say, that we should take this on bilaterally.
Well, we did take it on bilaterally once with the North Koreans, and it didn't work. They cheated on that agreement.
BLITZER: Were they cheating all through the Clinton administration, even after they promised that they would go forward and end their weapons program?
RICE: I think it is very obvious that they were pursuing another path to a nuclear weapon, so-called highly enriched uranium path. But the important thing here is that we now have an opportunity with the international community speaking with one voice, to bring real pressure on the North Koreans to make a different choice than they have made over these decades.
BLITZER: Because it looks like, if you are Kim Jong Il, or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for that matter, the leader of Iran, the only real guarantee you have that the United States or other countries are not going to overthrow you or invade you or do to them what the U.S. and its coalition partners did to Saddam Hussein is a nuclear weapon.
RICE: Oh, Wolf, I think we shouldn't even allow them such an excuse.
BLITZER: That is what they believe.
RICE: Now let's be very clear. Iraq was sui generis. Iraq had been under 12 years of sanctions for its weapons program. It was at the conclusion of a war that Iraq had launched against its neighbor. That was a very special situation.
The president has said, and in fact the joint statement which we signed with the other parties, the six parties, on September 19th of last year, tells the North Koreans that there is no intention to invade or attack them.
So they have that guarantee.
BLITZER: They don't believe it though.
RICE: Well, I don't know what more they want. The United States of America doesn't have any intention to attack North Korea or to invade North Korea.
BLITZER: So the military option is not really practical?
RICE: The president never takes any of his options off the table. But the United States somehow in a provocative way trying to invade North Korea, it's just not the case.
BLITZER: Here's what your top negotiator on North Korea, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, said to me yesterday in THE SITUATION ROOM. He said, "Well, Kim Jong-il can feel whatever he wants, and I'm sure he has some advisors who help him feel that he's in charge there. But I'm telling you he is going to really rue the day that he made this decision, the decision to go and test the nuclear bomb."
RICE: Well, he has clearly gotten the attention of everybody in this -- I've never seen universal condemnation of the kind that North Korea is now facing.
And condemnation, by the way, not just from the United States and Europe and Japan, but from its closest supporters, those who are the ones who give...
BLITZER: So what does that mean, he's going to rue the day?
RICE: Well, because this already isolated regime, I think, is going to find itself even more isolated. And ultimately the regime itself has things that it wants from the international system.
BLITZER: Here's a question we put on -- asked our viewers to write in to CNN.com. Bryan Kellogg from Arlington, Virginia, had this question he wanted to ask you. "It seems now is the time to consider launching preemptive strikes against North Korea. Didn't the president say he would not tolerate a nuclear North?"
RICE: Well.
BLITZER: And we did check and back in May 2003 the president said this flatly. Three years ago, plus: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea. We will not give in to blackmail. We will not settle for anything less than the complete verifiable and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program."
Three years later, they've done all that and they're not paying much of a price yet.
RICE: Wolf, we don't have to settle for a nuclear North Korea. Most importantly, the United States is not alone in not settling for that nuclear North Korea. The United States is joined by China -- which has very deep relations with North Korea, and has criticized North Korea very strongly this time -- with Russia, with Japan and with South Korea, on whom North Korea is very much dependent for interchange and for economic assistance.
So, this coalition of states that is determined not to have a nuclear Korean peninsula is going to act in a way that gives the North Koreans every reason to go back to negotiations and to verify the dismantle.
BLITZER: All right. You know that you're on CNN, CNN International. We're seen all over the world. You can make a statement to Kim Jong-il right now, rue the day, whatever you want to say, go ahead and tell Kim Jong-il what he must do right now.
RICE: Well, Kim Jong-il doesn't need to hear from me. He needs to hear from the parties to the six party talks, and we're all saying the same thing.
BLITZER: He wants to hear directly from you.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: He's not interested in the six party talks.
(CROSSTALK)
RICE: I have a feeling...
BLITZER: He wants a bilateral, U.S.-North Korea dialogue.
RICE: He wants -- if he wants a bilateral deal, it's because he doesn't want to face the pressure of other states that have leverage. It's not because he wants a bilateral deal with the United States. He doesn't want to face the leverage of China or South Korea or others.
What Kim Jong-il should understand is that if he verifiably gives up his nuclear weapons program, there is a better path. There's a better path through a negotiation. There's a better path to an opening to the international system. There's a better path for his people, who are oppressed and downtrodden and hungry, for that matter.
BLITZER: One of your predecessors, James Baker III, former secretary of state during the first Bush administration, said this on Sunday. He said, "I don't think you restrict your conversations to your friends. At the same time, it's got to be hard-nosed. It's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies."
What's wrong with that line of thinking?
RICE: Wolf, has anybody noticed that we've actually talked to the North Koreans?
BLITZER: But they want to do it separately, not within the framework of this multi-party negotiation.
RICE: Well, let's ask the question why do they want to do it separately and not within the framework?
BLITZER: They want respect, they say.
RICE: They get respect when they come to the six-party talks. And Chris Hill has had dinner with the North Korean negotiator.
BLITZER: But if it could potentially turn things around and end this nuclear North Korea, what's wrong with a direct dialogue like that?
RICE: Let me just remind you, we tried direct dialogue. The United States tried direct dialogue with the North Koreans in the '90s, and that resulted in the North Koreans signing onto agreements that they didn't -- then didn't keep. And the United States didn't have the force of others like China and South Korea to say to the North Koreans, "That is an agreement that you should have kept."
BLITZER: So Bill Clinton's to blame?
RICE: No. I -- Wolf, you keep saying that. And I told you that, at the time, it might have made perfectly good sense to try direct talks. But having seen what North Korea did in that context, it's important not to go back down that road. It's important to bring the weight of China and South Korea and Japan and Russia to bear on the North Korean...
BLITZER: They're not backing down, these North Koreans. Even today, a North Korean official said this: "We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes. That depends on how the U.S. will act."
RICE: Well, I think the North Koreans know that firing a nuclear missile, shall we say, would not be good for North Korean security.
BLITZER: They've heard that. For years, they've been hearing that, and there's no moving forward.
RICE: Well -- the North Koreans are not confused about what it would mean to launch a nuclear attack against the United States, one of our allies or somebody in the neighborhood. They're not confused about that.
What they're doing is that they are pursuing a nuclear program. They've been doing it for decades. They will face, now, international condemnation and international sanctions unlike anything that they've faced before.
And I just want to be very clear, the diplomatic path is open. The path back to the six-party talks, where we actually had an agreement on September 19 that verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would lead to all kinds of benefits for North Korea. So there's a deal on the table, and if North Korea wishes to change its ways and return to that deal, it's... BLITZER: So, spell out briefly the carrot that you're offering North Korea right now in terms of U.S. assistance, financial assistance, economic assistance, building light water reactors. What is the carrot to them?
RICE: There is a six-party agreement as of September 19, 2005. That agreement says that when there's verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, meaning the North Koreans begin to dismantle their program, you can move all the way, even, to normalization of relations, assistance, help with North Korean energy problems. There is a long list of potential benefits to the North Koreans.
But the North Koreans need to understand that that is going to come in the context of work among the neighbors, work among those states that have enough leverage to make sure that, if the North Koreans sign onto an agreement this time, that they're actually going to live up to it.
BLITZER: I raised the questions about the supposed mistakes that the Clinton administration today because Senator John McCain was very tough today. He came out and blasted the Clinton administration for the missteps in dealing with North Korea in '93 and '94.
Among other things, he said this to his colleague from New York state: "I would remind Senator Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure. The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They diverted millions of dollars of food and assistance to their military."
Do you agree with Senator McCain?
RICE: There is no doubt that the North Koreans used the cover of the framework agreement to pursue a different path to a nuclear weapon through highly enriched uranium. There is no doubt that they did divert assistance. There is now doubt, also, that they got millions of dollars in assistance.
But I don't want to get into the game of whether or not that was a mistake. We did sign the agreed framework. We went forward with it. We went forward with it on a bilateral basis, the United States and North Korea. Yes, there were some multilateral elements to pursuing the fuel through a consortium of states.
But it was essentially bilateral. The United States and North Korea. And when they cheated, we had no one to stand with us and say to the North Koreans, you've cheated. And that's a problem not just for the United States but for China and for Japan and for Russia and South Korea. That's the difference in what President Bush has built.
BLITZER: No one is watching this more closely than the leaders in Iran who are supposedly moving towards their own nuclear weapons program. The Supreme Leader of Iran saying today and reacting to what's going on in North Korea, that Iran will continue its nuclear program without fear and without retreat. What's your message to the leadership of Iran? RICE: Well, the Iranians also said that they condemn the North Korean program, so I assume they don't want to end up in the same position that the North Koreans are about to end up in the Security Council.
The message to the Iranians is that they do have a path to a civil nuclear program. That's not the issue. When they say that the United States and the allies are trying to deny them civil nuclear energy, that is simply not right. This is about whether they can have enrichment and reprocessing capability which is a technology that allows you to make a bomb.
There is a very favorable package on the table for Iran put forward, again, by six countries, six interested and important countries and an offer for the United States to join negotiations to talk about the Iranian nuclear ambitions for a civil nuclear program and anything else that the Iranians want to talk about.
The condition, set not by the United States but by the IAEA board of governance is that they have to suspend their enrichment program. I would hope the Iranians would still take that path, but we're in the Security Council concerning the Iran file and we're going to have a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII, Article 41.
BLITZER: You know a lot of analysts believe the U.S. has been weakened in dealing with North Korea and Iran by its involvement in Iraq.
RICE: I just don't understand this argument. The United States is quite capable of taking care of several problems simultaneously. Iraq was a desire to finally deal with a threat that had been there for too long. Too many Security Council resolutions violated.
Too many unanswered questions about his weapons of mass destruction program, too much ambition to dominate the region. Too many wars launched by this dictator. Too much harshness against his own people, including mass graves. It was time to deal with Saddam Hussein.
BLITZER: I'll leave - we're out of time, but I'll leave you with one e-mail we got from Scott Vanderbausch (ph) in Minnesota. He lost a son in Iraq. He said -- he wrote to us this. He said, "My son Jake died in Iraq on October 3rd, 2005. When will you finally admit that you were wrong going to Iraq and pull out? Why not try to save some American lives?"
RICE: Wolf, nobody can ever make up for the personal sacrifice of a father of his son. And all you can do is to mourn that sacrifice. We also know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And the United States has had to, throughout its history and especially through its post-war history, to sacrifice when peace and security, and indeed freedom, were on the line.
Iraq was a threat. In the post-September 11th environment it was a threat that needed to be dealt with. Yes, it's extremely difficult helping a country come to a democratic future that has never had that experience.
But an Iraq that is secure, an Iraq that is democratic, an Iraq that is able to solve its problems through politics, will be a centerpiece of a different kind of Middle East.
BLITZER: Senator Warner says you have two, three months to get this right, otherwise you've got to rethink the whole strategy.
RICE: Well, I said to the Iraqi leadership when I was there that the Iraqi people are going to run out of patience with them if they don't solve their problems. They need to put their political differences aside. They need to get the national compact in place. They need to build security forces and Iraqis need to stop killing Iraqis.
I found that the Iraqi government fully understood its responsibilities. It's our responsibility to try and help them, because an Iraq that is stable is going to be -- bring greater security to the United States. And an Iraq that remains a place in which terrorists can operate and that is violent is going to be a security problem for the United States.
BLITZER: I know you spoke to the first President Bush, because he was on Larry King, after the Bob Woodward book came out. And he had a conversation with you denying that -- what Woodward quoted him as saying, "Condi is a disappointment, isn't she? She's not up to the job." How did that conversation go?
RICE: You know, I just don't believe it. I know President Bush 41, President George H. W...
BLITZER: You worked for him.
RICE: I worked for him. I've known him for years. I just don't believe it. And sometimes people say things in books, sometimes people report rumor, but I know President George H.W. Bush, and I don't believe it, and he says it isn't true, and I believe him.
BLITZER: You've got your hands full, Madam Secretary.
Thanks very much for spending a few moments with us.
RICE: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And we'll talk about my interview with the Secretary of State, the situation in North Korea, the blame game here in Washington that's only just beginning.
First, though, let's check in with Jack Cafferty. He's got the "Cafferty File" in New York -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Pretty interesting stuff. I was watching that. You tried to get her to blame all of this North Korea stuff on Bill Clinton, didn't you? BLITZER: I was just asking the question. McCain is blaming Bill Clinton.
CAFFERTY: No, I understand.
By the way, vis-a-vis the Iraq policy and how well that's not working. A hundred and ten bodies found in Baghdad in the last two days.
Other things going on. Virginia Senator George Allen and his opponent James Webb faced off in the last of their four debates last night. The voters are grateful that's over. They hammered away at each other on the issues they think will help them win. Well, it's a close race that could decide which party eventually controls the Senate. For the Republican Allen, those issues are taxes, gay marriage and support for President Bush's war in Iraq.
Suddenly for Allen, it's all about the issues. In a recent TV ad, he asked voters to focus on the issues instead of questions about his character. You see Allen doesn't want voters to focus on his character because it's becoming more and more apparent in recent weeks that he may not have much.
There was the time he called an Indian-American volunteer from his opponent's campaign macaca and welcomed him to America. Allen's been accused of using the n word to refer to blacks. He denies ever doing that. He's been in the Senate for six years, but voters just learned a few weeks ago that he's Jewish. He claims his mother never bothered to tell him. Sure.
And the Associated Press reports that for the five years, Allen has not bothered to tell Congress about the stock options that he got for being a director of a high tech company in Virginia. Allen says he didn't report the stock options because he saw them as worthless. When his lawyer was told that Senate ethics require the stock options be reported, regardless of their value, his lawyer said he was unfamiliar with that provision.
You want to know why things are so screwed up in Washington, D.C.? In spite of all the things I just mentioned, Allen is leading in the polls, four weeks before the election. Maybe Allen is on to something. Maybe character doesn't matter to Virginia voters.
Here is the question: Virginia Senator George Allen says voters should choose on the issue instead of his character. Is he right? E- mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com, or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jack, thank you.
And coming up, here in the SITUATION ROOM, we'll get some reaction to my one-on-one interview with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the blame game over North Korea's nuclear weapons. Donna Brazile and J.C. Watts, they're standing by for today's "strategy Session". Plus, brand new developments in the scandal that's rocking Washington. We're going to tell you who's saying what today about Mark Foley. And we'll go to the CNN Election Express live in Tennessee to see how the scandal is playing out on the campaign trail.
Stay with us. You're in the SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL)
BLITZER: Let's check in with Betty Nguyen. She's joining us for a closer look at some other stories making news.
Hi, Betty.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi there, Wolf.
More violence to tell you about out of Iraq today, even as the Iraqi government presses ahead with a new security plan. At least ten people waiting outside a Baghdad bakery were killed when a bomb exploded. Separate attacks killed a dozen people across Iraq. Now, since yesterday, Iraqi police have found 60 bodies in the Iraqi capital. Police say many showed signs of torture and were riddled with bullets.
In other news, President Bush says the nation must find a way to keep its children safe. He spoke at a White House-sponsored conference today on school violence. First Lady Laura Bush said children need to know adults are there to protect them. A survivor of the 1999 Columbine shooting was also at today's conference. Mr. Bush called the meeting after three recent deadly shootings in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado.
Well, you might recall -- or you might call it a victory for little tobacco. Three smaller tobacco companies can go ahead with their lawsuit. Now they are challenging state laws that require them to put money aside to satisfy potential damage awards in future tobacco lawsuits. The states appealed to the Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case today.
And you may already be feeling a little chill in the air, but this winter may not be so severe after all. Oh, no. The National Weather Service says much of the U.S. should see a mild winter with warmer than average temperatures. It says that's because El Nino conditions will keep much of the frigid air to the north in Canada, and that can mean lower heating bills for you.
So Wolf, you may want to put that parka away, might not need it this time around.
BLITZER: I'm not always convinced about these forecasts. I'll take it day-by-day. Thanks, Betty, very much. We'll get back to you soon.
Up next, the House Speaker Dennis Hastert, speaking out on the Mark Foley scandal today. We're going to tell you what the top Republican in the House of Representatives has to say. Plus, how is the scandal actually playing out on the campaign trail? The CNN Election Express is in Tennessee today, where the controversy could impact a crucial Senate race. Much more of our coverage coming up.
You're in the SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back to THE SITUATION ROOM. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Exactly four weeks before Election Day, the Mark Foley scandal remains a big, dark cloud over Republicans on Capitol Hill. There are several new developments today in the investigation of the former congressman's online messages to teenage boys.
Let's go to our congressional correspondent, Andrea Koppel. She's watching this story.
The latest developments today, Andrea.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, for the first time, one of the former pages who allegedly received those sexually explicit instant messages from Congressman Foley appeared today in Oklahoma City today.
Jordan Edmund, who served as a page between 2001 and 2002, exited the U.S. attorney's office. And, while he didn't have anything to say, his attorney did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN JONES, ATTORNEY FOR JORDAN EDMUND: Our client has completed, who stands to my right, approximately a two-and-a-half-hour interview with special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are assigned to investigate this matter. Jordan answered all of their questions, relying upon his memory, as it exists. He was not served with any subpoenas to appear before any grand jury. He was not asked to return.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: Now, attorney Stephen Jones also said that he was contacted today by the House Ethics Committee, which, as you know, Wolf, is conducting its own investigation. He's not clear, though, whether or not his client will be asked to appear before them -- Wolf.
BLITZER: There are some other e-mail exchanges that we're getting wind of now between Foley and another former congressional page. Tell our viewers what we know.
KOPPEL: Wolf, today, Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona, a Republican, sought to clarify his knowledge of e-mails that were received dating back to 2000, or on or about 2000, between yet another former page and Congressman Foley. According to Congressman Kolbe, he was notified -- or his office was notified -- on or about 2000 by this former page, who said -- to say that he had received e-mails from Congressman Foley that made him uncomfortable.
He said, "I was not shown the content of the messages and was not told they were sexually explicit."
And, so, he recommended that this be passed on to Congressman Foley's office and to the House clerk.
Now, CNN has also learned, Wolf, that Kirk Fordham, who is Foley's former chief of staff, he is scheduled to appear before the House Ethics Committee on Thursday. Now, remember, that Fordham claims that he told a senior member of House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office about these concerns about e-mails, or at least contact that was inappropriate between Foley and interns, going back three -- or, I should say, pages going back three years -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And that senior aide to the speaker, Scott Palmer, do we know when he's going to be forced to testify before the House Ethics Committee? Is he still on the job, I assume, though?
KOPPEL: He is absolutely still on the job.
And, in fact, a statement from the speaker's office says that Fordham denies what -- I should say Palmer denies what Kirk Fordham is saying. And, Wolf, we do not know whether or not he will be called to testify. Of course, many people expect that he will be.
BLITZER: Well, thanks very much, Andrea Koppel. We will continue to watch these developments on the Hill.
Meanwhile, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, says, if anyone on his staff hushed up concerns about Mark Foley and the congressional pages, those people, in his words, will be fired. Speaking in his home state of Illinois today, Hastert acknowledged that complaints about Foley's conduct could have been handled better.
He says, if there were a cover-up, it will come out when staffers testify under oath to the FBI or that House panel -- much more on this story coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM this hour, as well as next.
And, also, coming up: the ad wars over the Foley scandal. Candidates from both parties are filling the airwaves with some pretty cutting commercials. We will tune in.
Also, coming up next: Will problems at the polls keep the election going past November 7? That's Election Day.
Our Bill Schneider taking a closer look at a very scary Election Day scenario.
Stick around. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: Candidates are counting the days until election 2006. And they're feeling some anxiety about the vote-counting that lies ahead. Concerns about new balloting procedures are giving some Democrats and Republicans some Florida flashbacks.
Our Bill Schneider is down in West Palm Beach, ground zero, as everyone remembers, from the 2000 election.
Bill, what are you seeing? What are you hearing?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, it is one month to Election Day, and the last day for knew new voters to register here in Florida and in 13 other states.
Let the controversies begin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Remember the Florida recount six years ago? Hanging chads, butterfly ballots, lawsuits; 2006 could be another endless election, where, the day after Election Day, we still won't know who won.
For one thing, this election could be very close, with control of the House and Senate coming down to one or two seats. For another thing, we're already hearing controversy over new voting procedures, like touch-screen voting and paper trails.
BOB BENENSON, POLITICS EDITOR, CQ.COM: Because, if they are close, there are going to be protests. And, if there are protests, they are going to be based on some argument of irregularity. And, in a lot of cases, it's going to be based on these new technique and technologies.
SCHNEIDER: Neither side wants to be outlawyered, as many Democrats feel they were in 2000.
DEB MARKOWITZ, VERMONT SECRETARY OF STATE: In the targeted areas, where there's targeted races, the political parties are getting teams of lawyers ready to go in.
SCHNEIDER: There is concern about the security of the voting equipment.
KAY CLEM, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ELECTIONS SUPERVISOR: Everything is under 24/7 video surveillance, so people can't access the equipment. We have pass codes that only certain people can get into the tabulation room.
SCHNEIDER: The biggest problem may be human error, as we learned in this year's primaries.
BENENSON: Most of our elections are run by volunteers. And training them and making sure they know how the technology works, making sure they know how to instruct people how to use those voting machines, that they know how to download the results or electronically transmit them to the central offices.
SCHNEIDER: Plus issues involving who actually votes.
MARKOWITZ: It's the obligation of every person involved in running our elections to make sure that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat.
SCHNEIDER: A delicate balance and fertile ground for lawsuits.
It's not Halloween yet, but here's another scary scenario. Let's say the Senate ends up with 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans, and Joe Lieberman gets elected in Connecticut as an independent. Lieberman could decide which party controls the Senate, because if he then goes Republican, and you have a 50/50 tie, the tie-breaking vote would be in the hands of Vice President Cheney.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Lieberman has pledged that he will caucus with the Democrats. But the Republicans might make him a very attractive offer, and remind him that the Democrats fired him in the Connecticut primary. This could get very interesting -- Wolf.
BLITZER: I remember those days. We will see what happens on November 7, November 8, November 9, and beyond. We will be all over this story. Bill, thank you very much.
Bill Schneider, as all of our viewers know, is part of the best political team on television.
Up next: the Foley scandal, not just in the news, but also now in the commercials. We're going to tune in to the new attack ads being -- both parties now are running. We will tell you what they're saying.
And, later, we will get some reaction to my one-on-one interview with the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the blame game over North Korea's nuclear weapons. Donna Brazile and J.C. Watts, they are standing by to join us live in today's "Strategy Session."
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back
Mark Foley isn't running for Congress anymore, but he's the new star of a campaign ad war. The scandal surrounding the former congressman is influencing the tone and the context of some candidates TV commercials.
Here's Howard Kurtz of CNN's "Reliable Sources" -- Howie.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Wolf, forget about Iraq. Put aside immigration. Democrats running for the House have a hot new issue in the ad wars.
(voice-over): The Mark Foley scandal, with its tidal wave of publicity about the former congressman sexually graphic messages to one-time House pages, is tailor-made for Minnesota's Patty Wetterling.
She is a child safety advocate whose son disappeared nearly two decades ago, at the age of 11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
NARRATOR: Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: But the ad goes beyond the facts.
While House speaker Dennis Hastert and his lieutenants were slow to respond to warnings about Foley, they haven't admitted any cover- up.
And Wetterling's Republican opponent, Michele Bachmann, can hardly be blamed. She isn't even in Congress.
In Indiana, former Democratic House member Baron Hill is using the Foley issue against Republican Congressman Mike Sodrel, urging him to return $77,000 in -- quote -- "immoral campaign money" he received from Hastert and other Republican leaders who had been told about Foley's interest in teenage male pages.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
NARRATOR: ... who knew about, but did nothing to stop sexual predator Congressman Foley.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Sodrel, who has declined to return the campaign funds, fired back today with a counterattack ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
REP. MIKE SODREL (R), INDIANA: Only a Washington politician would exploit tragedy for political gain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Sodrel has declined to return the campaign funds, but says he barely knew Foley, and immediately urged Hastert to call for an FBI investigation once the scandal erupted.
At least one Republican is playing defense in his advertising.
Tom Reynolds, head of the House GOP Campaign Committee, who received some of the early warnings about Foley's behavior toward pages, is asking his Buffalo area district for forgiveness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
REP. THOMAS REYNOLDS (R), NEW YORK: Nobody is angrier and more disappointed than me that I didn't catch his lies. I trusted that others had investigated. Looking back, more should have been done. And, for that, I am sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ (on camera): After the convictions of Republicans Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney in illegal lobbying schemes, the Foley debacle plays into Democratic efforts to blame the GOP for a culture of corruption. Whether that will move any votes in districts where Republicans have nothing to do with these scandals remains to be seen -- Wolf.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Howie, thanks very much.
Howard Kurtz and "RELIABLE SOURCES" airs Sunday mornings, 10:00 a.m. Eastern, here on CNN. If you don't watch it, you should.
Coming up: Is the Foley scandal hurting President Bush? We will take a closer look at his poll numbers to find out -- that and much more coming up in today's "Political Radar."
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's go to Tennessee right now, where the Foley scandal could come up when two U.S. Senate candidates debate tonight.
CNN's Joe Johns is joining us now live from Chattanooga. He's with the CNN Election Express, which we see behind you there.
Joe, this Foley issue already coming up in this really, really fiercely fought Senate battle.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is, Wolf.
But it's interesting. It's sort of an undercurrent. People aren't talking about it a whole lot, other than questions that go to the candidates. Harold Ford, the Democrat, gets a lot of questions about it. He says he is trying to underplay it. He's not pushing it too hard.
But he also says, at the same time, it opens doors for him here in Tennessee that might not otherwise have been opened. He, of course, is the Democrat running in the state. Any other year, it probably would have gone to the Republican pretty easily. But it has opened doors for him. He has been able to talk to some people, perhaps he might not be able to talk to otherwise, he says. For Bob Corker, the Republican, the folks in Washington have just pulled out the stops. Just last night, at an event not too far from here, in Franklin, Tennessee, the majority leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, was there, Lamar Alexander, of course, he is the junior senator, if you will, from Tennessee -- all there trying to push the way for this man, Corker, to get into the United States Senate.
I asked him about it. He said he's trying to not to pay attention to it. He says, ask Harold Ford about the Foley scandal. The problem, as everybody knows, though, is that Foley is or was a Republican in the House of Representatives, in a Republican-controlled Senate.
So, it continues to be a problem for him. People here say they're worried that it might depress the conservative vote. People might not come out, they say, because this is the kind of thing that doesn't fit well into Tennessee values -- Wolf.
BLITZER: This is the seat that Bill Frist, the majority leader, is vacating, that he is giving up. So, it's a crucial seat. It's one of those eight seats that really are up for play right now, according to all of the polls.
If Harold Ford Jr., who is now a congressman, if he becomes the U.S. senator from Tennessee, he is going to be making history.
JOHNS: Well, he certainly would be making history. He would be the first popularly elected African-American senator from the South since Reconstruction.
So, some say there is a lot of history riding on his shoulders -- a lot of people questioning whether -- you know, here we are in Tennessee. It's the south and so on. He says he doesn't see people in Tennessee as bad people. And he says they know him. And he hopes they look beyond race and vote on his issues. So, we will see on election night -- Wolf.
BLITZER: We will see if an African-American Democrat in the state of Tennessee can be elected senator. Barack Obama, who is an African-American from Illinois, he is going to be watching very closely, trying to assess the mood of the country down in 2008, some presidential aspirations, potentially, as well.
Joe Johns, with the CNN Election Express, thanks very much for that report.
On our "Political Radar" this Tuesday, a new round of presidential polls puts the president's approval rating in the high to mid 30s. When the four most recent surveys are averaged together, Mr. Bush gets a 37 percent approval rating.
In our last so-called poll of polls, in mid-September, an average of 40 percent of Americans approved of the way the president was doing his job.
A source close to Congressman Tom Reynolds' campaign says the New York Republican plans to lay low for most of the week, as he tries to ride out the Mark Foley scandal. Reynolds debuted a new ad this weekend, apologizing for the scandal, and blaming House leaders for failing to investigate Foley's behavior. Reynolds is having increasing trouble in his own race against the Democrat, Jack Davis, and in his job overseeing the Republican battle to keep control of the House.
We are going to have a live report on Reynolds' Foley problem, as it's being called, in our next hour. CNN's Mary Snow is in western New York.
And, remember, for the latest campaign news at any time, check out the CNN political ticker. Easy way to do that, go to CNN.com/ticker.
Still to come: Does character count in the Virginia Senate race, or should issues reign supreme? Jack Cafferty with his thoughts and your e-mail -- he's coming up.
And can North Korea's latest nuclear claim be believed? Our CNN Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, is standing by with new information about the tests and what might have gone wrong.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Some developments in Iraq happening right now.
Let's check in with CNN's Betty Nguyen.
What's going on, Betty?
NGUYEN: Well, what we're learning, Wolf, is that a series of explosions have occurred just to the southeast of Baghdad.
What we know is that this occurred at an ammunition depot. And we understand a fire has broken out. That is what caused these explosions. But, according to the Associated Press, these blasts, again, from that ammunition depot, it's at the Forward Operating Base Falcon. And it went off for at least a half-hour. And it could be felt several miles away.
Now, it's not known exactly what caused this fire, which then set off the ammunition depot. But, at this point, no casualties have been reported. We will keep an eye on it, and bring it to you when it happens.
BLITZER: Thanks, Betty, very much.
Let's go to Jack Cafferty in New York for "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: The question this hour: Virginia Senator George Allen says the voters should vote for him based on his stand on the issues, as opposed to his character. The question we asked is, is he right? Benjie in Texas writes: "In my humble opinion, issues and character go hand in hand. Look at our do-nothing Republican Congress. They're trying to ban every freedom we have under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, while their character in the Foley scandal, the Abramoff scandal, the Tom DeLay scandal, and others too numerous to list, speak volumes. Where is their character when it comes to telling the truth?"
Millie in Tennessee: "Funny how their thinking has evolved since they went after Clinton, when character was everything, and brains and policy were nothing of importance. My, how times have changed. Republicans wear any shoe that fits, no matter what its condition. If it will get them to their objective, it doesn't matter how much it smells."
Kevin in Virginia writes: "He's half right. Maybe that's centrist. He's right we should look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Ninth Ward in New Orleans and the government's supersized spending and debt spree. He's wrong when he says we shouldn't look at the character of the nuts that got us here."
Alyn in Dover, Delaware: "I'm sure Senator Allen would not like to be judged on his character, since it appears that he doesn't have any. This man is totally unfit for public office."
And Harold in Virginia writes: "If Senator Allen runs on the issues, he will lose. If he runs on his character, he will lose" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jack, thank you very much -- Jack Cafferty. We will get back to you very soon.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
