Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Interview With John McLaughlin; Interview With Tom Ridge
Aired July 14, 2004 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Happening now. An exclusive television interview. The nation's top spy goes public about criticism of the Iraq war, sleeper cells in the United States, and the current planning of Osama bin Laden. The Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin joins me to discuss the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the threat of terror strikes this summer and much more. You'll see this only here on CNN.
Stand by for hard news on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Baghdad blast. A day of festivity turns fatal as Iraqi insurgents launch their deadliest attack since the handover.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) aggression against the Iraqi people. We will bring the criminals to justice.
BLITZER: Convention concerns. Is Boston the new bullseye for terrorists? I'll ask Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Glaring oversights. A scathing new report on prewar intelligence. This time, the British take the blame.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any mistakes made as this report finds in good faith, I of course take responsibility.
BLITZER: Last stand. The U.S. Senate essentially says "I don't" to a proposal to ban gay marriage.
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Wednesday, July 14, 2004.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: He's the man you never saw at the CIA. The number two guy always in the shadow of one of the longest-serving directors George Tenet. Now, the number two who has served at the CIA for 30 years is the number one, at least the acting number one for now.
And John McLaughlin has taken the rare step of going public in an exclusive television interview. You'll hear his thoughts on Osama bin Laden, the terrorists who want to launch another attack on U.S. soil, perhaps, this summer, and his answer to a scathing report from the U.S. Senate intelligence committee on his agency's work leading up to the Iraq war. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Director McLaughlin, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome to CNN. Let's get right to the key issue at hand.
Given the track record of the CIA, as documented by the Senate Intelligence Committee's scathing report last week, why should the American public have confidence in your assessments right now?
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, INTERIM CIA DIRECTOR: Wolf, thanks for having me here. The American public can have confidence in this intelligence community. I've talked about the Senate intelligence report. I'm happy to discuss it with you today.
We understood that in that report there were some shortcomings. As Director Tenet said some months ago, it was not all right, but it was not all wrong, our work on Iraq.
The important thing that I would stress about that report, when I tell the American people that they should have confidence in the American intelligence community is this: That report has no context. And the context I would place it in is this. It is merely one small sample of our work on weapons proliferation.
If you were to look at our work on weapons proliferation across the board, you would find numerous successes. President Bush just the other day visited Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and viewed the results of one of those successes, the weapons that Libya turned over.
BLITZER: All right. Well, I want to get to all of that, but I want to specifically refer to the report, because some of the failures were there -- were monumental and in part resulted in the United States going to war.
Let's listen to what the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, said in announcing the conclusions of the report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and, if left unchecked, would probably have a -- a nuclear weapon during this decade.
Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available -- the available intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Now, that doesn't sound like a shortcoming. That sounds like a total failure.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think one of the things that I would point out is that when people talk about this estimate, which the Senate took an entire year to study, a document that we had prepared in about a month, it looked principally at this estimate, but within that estimate there are numerous examples of disagreements within the intelligence community, of dissents taken by various people.
And the idea that somehow the United States went to war because of this one document seems to me an oversimplification of the situation.
BLITZER: But on the critical issue of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which was the major issue going into the war, stockpiles. There was no dissenting. There was no hedging in that NIE, that National Intelligence Estimate report.
And the Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded by saying this. "The committee found significant shortcomings in almost every aspect of the intelligence community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. In particular, that the community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and it will not be solved by additional funding and personnel."
That's -- that's scathing.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think when we talk about stockpiles, one mistake I think we made was to create the image that when we went into Iraq, we would find large quantities of these weapons.
I must tell you, there's very little in the Senate report that we have not discovered on our own. When formal hostilities ended, and we did not encounter some of the weapons in the chemical and biological area that we anticipated finding, we began ourselves at that moment a searching look at our own work. And we put in place a number of steps that respond to our own lessons learned here.
I would also remind everyone that when we talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we never said that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. We were quite clear on that point. We never said that he was enriching uranium. We were quite clear on that point. In fact, on some of those issues, particularly the nuclear issue, I think we were more cautious and less robust in what we projected than many of the outside experts.
I think we have to think about this problem in context. Iraq was a very, very unique intelligence problem. We look at some of the typical problems we work on, for example a problem like North Korea, our job is to penetrate that society and to discover something that people don't understand or know.
In the case of Iraq, this is an important point. What we are now being told, and it's a fair point, is that we would have had to disprove something that the entire world believed.
BLITZER: But is it true that you had not one single human intelligence source in Iraq after '98 that was trying to find information about Iraq's WMD?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we had sources in Iraq, and as the director has pointed out, and as our director of operations has noted, the problem was that our sources were largely on the periphery of the problem. They were not in the inner sanctum of the WMD apparatus.
There are a number of reasons for this.
BLITZER: And on this point, let me read again from the Senate Intelligence Committee report. "The intelligence community" -- that would be you -- "relies too heavily on foreign government sources and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests."
That would seem to be a suggestion that people, Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi, for example, who had a political interest, were feeding false information. That's the accusation. There's this other source called Curveball, which the Senate Intelligence Committee report talks about extensively, that apparently was feeding all sorts of information that was bogus.
What do you do about that? And is it true?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, in the case of the sources, we've acknowledged that our human sources in Iraq were not as good as they should be. We've also acknowledged that at the time, we did turn to a number of foreign governments for source material.
We didn't just routinely accept what they were telling us. In the case of a number of these sources -- Curveball is a good example.
BLITZER: That was the code name?
MCLAUGHLIN: That was the code name. Our analysts took significant steps to try and confirm what Curveball had to say. Bear in mind, now, we didn't have direct, face-to-face access with this source. Sought to get it; did not get it.
But this source was someone who generated over 100 reports that were technically quite sophisticated, and which, when viewed in the context of other intelligence we collected, looked pretty good, looked sound.
Subsequent to Iraqi -- subsequent to Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have obtained direct access to that source.
BLITZER: To Curveball?
MCLAUGHLIN: To Curveball. And we have figured out that, after a certain period, his information is not as reliable as indicated in the pre-war reports. And we have notified the Congress of that. In fact, what you find in the Congress' report there is very much along the lines of what we passed on. I want to make an important point here, because this goes to one of my strong disagreements with the report. It has been presented completely out of context, as I said. The idea that comes across when you just listen to the Senate report is that our human intelligence is broken across the board somehow, when in fact we have officers risking their lives every day around the world, collecting human intelligence. I mean, we haven't taken down two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership at the time of 9/11 by not having human sources.
BLITZER: When they speak about a broken corporate culture and poor management, that seems to be a direct slap at George Tenet, the now former director, and you, the acting director, and you were the deputy director.
MCLAUGHLIN: You know, this is one of the phrases that I do react strongly to and that I reject. To say that we have a broken corporate culture is to misunderstand what we do, and it has no relationship to the world that I've lived in for the last four years as deputy director.
This is a very vibrant culture. This is a culture where people feel free to express dissent, where they talk to each other, where they test ideas, where there's lots of devil's advocacy.
And if we're talking about the intelligence community as a whole, this is not a loosely connected federation of stovepipes. This is a community that works closely together, whose budget is geared to a strategic plan that we have formulated. Our collection agencies share access to all of the collection. I meet with the corporate leaders of the intelligence community once a week, we go over -- we deal with problems consistently.
And every intelligence success I would cite to you, and we haven't talked about those today. This is one of those periods where we talk mainly about the misgivings and the -- the shortcomings of the business. But every intelligence success that I would cite to you is the result of strong corporate cooperation within the CIA, among all of its elements, and across the intelligence community.
BLITZER: The -- the success stories we all acknowledge. Many of them can never be, at least for a long time, can never be released for fear that that would undermine the so-called sources and methods...
MCLAUGHLIN: I'd like to talk to you about some of them sometime.
BLITZER: Let's talk about those, but let's move on and talk about some of the failures. For example, these mobile labs that Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to, based on false information. The aluminum tubes that were supposedly only to be used to build a nuclear bomb turns out to be false information.
But these were some of the major reasons given by the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense for going to war.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we've acknowledged in the case of the mobile production that a number of the sources associated with that, through our own investigation, have not held up. We've notified the Congress of that.
It's interesting, though, one of the other aspects, of context that's missing here, is if you were to read the Senate report, you would think it would be -- that we would be mistaken to have even had any suspicion about Iraq having WMD. It reads almost as though this was a report about Switzerland.
In fact, when we have looked at Iraq post-war, we found plenty of instances in which there was cause for concern and suspicion. On the biological weapons question, for example, we still can't explain these trailers that we found in northern Iraq. You may remember. You may have even done the interview at some point, but when David Kay saw them, he climbed all over them and said no doubt these are for biological weapons.
Now we don't know that for sure to this day, but we don't know what they were. They are unexplained. They match the drawings that we got from the source, and they are one of the mysteries.
The other thing about biological weapons is the underlying idea behind mobile production was that he was moving away from large-scale production to some sort of covert production. And in fact, what we've found, looking at Iraq after the war, is a series of covert labs run by the Iraqi intelligence service, production of stimulants (ph) for anthrax that were all in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441.
In other words, we find that he was probably structuring himself for, if you will, just-in-time delivery. This was not as diagrammed in mobile biological production. But it also suggests that in their thinking, they were moving away from large-scale production to a different kind of way to evade inspections.
BLITZER: I want you to listen to what the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said in releasing the results of this report. A stinging indictment. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation. The fact is that the administration at all levels and to some extent us used bad information to bolster its case for war.
And we in Congress would not have authorized that war. We would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Here's a tough question. What do you say to the families of the more than 850 troops, Americans, who have been killed in Iraq, who have died in Iraq, and the thousands of others who have been injured on the basis of this false intelligence that helped propel the U.S. towards war? MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Wolf, I've been in the U.S. military, and I've been in a combat zone. I know how dangerous it is, and I've lost friends in a combat zone in another war. So any time that happens, any time we lose the brave men and women of the American military, we're all saddened and we all regret it.
I think, though, that it is an oversimplification of the situation to say that this one document that the Senate studied was the pivotal thing that propelled us to war or, for that matter, the pivotal thing that gave justification to those who voted to authorize it.
If it was, if that was the case, and if people read beyond the first four or five pages of this document, where I acknowledge we did not as fulsomely caveat what we had to say. If they'd read beyond the first five pages and if this had been the pivotal thing for war, more would have been made of the fact -- more would have been made of the fact that we did not say he had nuclear weapons.
More would have been made of the fact that there were dissents presented in this war that showed arguments within the intelligence community. More would have been made of the fact that we did not say he was enriching uranium. More would have been made of the fact that the State Department argued in the first page or two of this estimate that they did not agree he was reconstituting nuclear weapons.
More would have been made of the fact, on the aluminum tubes, that in this estimate there were three full, detailed pages from the Department of Energy, laying out in a well-argued dissent their view that this was not for uranium enrichment.
Now my point is this. It's an important point. I think anyone who read this document cover to cover -- and I don't know, frankly, how many senators did. That's a question I don't know the answer to. But anyone who read this document cover to cover would find in it ample material for serious debate.
So if there wasn't a serious debate about these issues, it's not the fault of the people who prepared this estimate.
BLITZER: I want to get to Osama bin Laden in a moment, but there's one statement in this report that I want your response on first. The committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's link to terrorism. In general, was there pressure from the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense to the CIA to go ahead and tailor their conclusions based on what the administration, the political leadership, wanted to hear?
MCLAUGHLIN: I want to say two things on that point. First, I want to say that broadly speaking there is several places in this estimate where -- and in the Senate's report, where the integrity of our analysis is questioned. For example, some of our centrifuge experts are held up as people who for one reason or another distorted or didn't share information. I really reject that point. I want to defend the integrity of the people who did the analysis for this estimate. They were doing what they thought was appropriate and they were sharing the information...
BLITZER: Was there undue pressure?
MCLAUGHLIN: Let me go to that question, I know that's the thing you're interested in. On that point, my perspective is this. On all of these matters, a former DCI once said it's amazing to me that more of the contentiousness of the issues that we deal with doesn't show through in the work. We deal with contentious issues.
And policymakers who read our work and who react to it have every right to ask us tough questions and we welcome it. Lots of people ask us tough questions about what we knew and what we didn't know and we answer them forthrightly.
If you look at this report that deals with terrorism, the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, you will find that the Senate Intelligence Committee gives us a pretty clean bill of health on that point, which is an important finding here.
BLITZER: But on the other issues was there undue pressure? Your 30 years in the CIA. When the vice president came over to Langley, when the secretary of state came over there, when the defense secretary came over there, was that appropriate for them to do that?
MCLAUGHLIN: I view that as appropriate in the following sense, any customer, any consumer of our Intelligence is free to come over and talk to us at any time. In fact, it's exactly what this report is calling for in many ways. A robust dialogue among people who have differing views.
BLITZER: So that was appropriate, in your opinion?
MCLAUGHLIN: I think that was appropriate.
BLITZER: Let's talk...
MCLAUGHLIN: The main thing here, there's an important point.
BLITZER: Yes.
MCLAUGHLIN: The main thing is people can ask us questions, they can push us, they can ask probing questions, they can read the stuff themselves. At the end of the day we have to say what we think. And I'm convinced in this case what we said was what we thought.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: More of my exclusive interview with the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, that's coming up right after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Now, more of my exclusive interview conducted just a short time ago with the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Do you believe Osama bin Laden is right now personally directing terror attacks this summer against the United States?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it depends a lot on what you mean by personally directing. Is he sitting behind some large console pulling wires and switches? I wouldn't say that. But to be sure, he remains the leader of al Qaeda, it's his guidance to his followers that certainly inspires them to proceed with the attacks that we have seen in places like Istanbul and Morocco and Spain and so forth. But increasingly we see elements of al Qaeda operating with more regional independence than in the past. But if you're asking me does he have a role, is he the inspirational leader? Yes.
BLITZER: How worried should the American public be this summer about a terror attack against the conventions in Boston and New York or elsewhere between now and the election?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think, as I've said elsewhere during this week, this is a very serious threat we're facing.
BLITZER: How serious?
MCLAUGHLIN: It's serious in the following sense, that I think the quality of the information we have is very good. We have a lot of experience now in terrorism. You asked before, how trustworthy is our information? Remember, this is the agency that brought to justice, working with others but on the basis of our intelligence, the architect of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief bomber behind the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, Nasiri, the chief terrorist in the Eastern hemisphere, Hambali. So, we have now, particularly since 9/11, a very strong track record and highly reliable information on terrorism.
There's a tension all the time, and I know it's a frustrating one for the American public, that more of the details of what we know doesn't come out. What I would say to people, though, is that it is necessary for us to hold back a lot of the specifics, because those are the things we need to stop this, those are the things we need to fight terrorists.
One of the important things terrorists do, I'll tell you, it's very simple, very simple. They know how to keep a secret. Their work is highly compartmented to a small group of people, probably living in a cave somewhere, and our country doesn't keep secrets very well. So we have to watch what we release about the details. But this is a serious threat period.
BLITZER: We're almost out of time. Are there sleeper cells here in the United States based on what you know right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: I can't talk about the details of that. We have to go on the assumption that they, despite all of the effective defenses we've erected and despite the increasing effectiveness of our homeland security, we have to go on this assumption. We can be excellent one thousand times, all they have to do is be lucky once. So I can't go into details here, but we have to operate on the assumption that we are at risk and we have to operate on the assumption that we have to keep looking for those cells.
BLITZER: One interesting footnote. The whole Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame issue. Did Valerie Plame, a formerly clandestine officer at the CIA, was it her idea that her husband go to Niger to look for this information about enriched uranium?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that's a matter I can't get into. You know there is a Department of Justice inquiry under way looking into the leak of her name. And I'm concerned that anything I would say on that matter would somehow prejudice the case or get involved in the case.
BLITZER: What about you, your future? What are you planning on doing? There's speculation out there the president's about to name a new director of the CIA.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I've been doing this now for three days, Wolf. What I can tell you is this. Being acting director doesn't mean being part-time director. This is a full-time job. I get up every morning with one mission, and that is to be the director of the CIA in an acting capacity. That's what the president has asked me to do.
I'm happy to do this, as I've told him, as long as he needs me to do it. It's his decision whether I continue in this capacity or whether he nominates someone else. Happy to do this. I've done this for a long time. I love the people of the intelligence community. I'm prepared to lead them.
Should he choose to nominate someone else, I'll be happy to work with that person to get them launched and work with them as long as they need me to work with them to -- to help them.
BLITZER: A lot of speculation out there, the morale at the agency is bad right now. Is that true?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, people don't join this business -- as our interview would indicate -- people don't join this business because they expect public praise. People join this business because they want to serve the nation. So, you know, no one likes to be criticized, but there's an ethic in our business.
I've even written notes to our work force in the past, saying, expect to be criticized. Stop and think about it. Just stop and think about it for a minute. The very people who ask us to not be risk-averse are frequently the ones who criticize mistakes that are made in the course of our duties.
If you stop and think about it, to take a risk by definition means there's a high possibility of a mistake. We risk our lives around the world every day, and our analysts here in Washington risk their reputations every day by taking positions on issues on which the evidence is thin and uncertain.
So there's always a possibility of a mistake. That's built into our business. And if you're in this business, you know you're going to take a risk. You're not always going to be right. And you're going to take criticism.
And the only way we can deal with that is to learn from it, as we have been for the last year. We started our own internal look at Iraq one year ago. And then make the appropriate changes and move on. In fact, a colleague said to me today the best way to react to this is to go out and penetrate another proliferation network, or recruit another terrorist to bring down that network.
BLITZER: One final question. Is the CIA being made a scapegoat right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, I don't want to get into that, because that starts to draw me -- let's face it. This is a political year. Everything is hotter than it normally is. And I think the men and women of the intelligence community know that criticism is part of our life.
I would say that it's important to keep our intelligence services out of politics, because ultimately we are the first line of defense for the nation. As I said in the speech that I mentioned to you earlier, there's no perfection in this business. But people in this business are dedicated to doing the best job they can around the world, risking their lives to save the American people from terrorist attacks and other things.
So I would leave it there.
BLITZER: And we will leave it there. Director McLaughlin, you've got an incredibly difficult job. Good luck to you. Good luck to the men and women who are at the CIA. Thanks so much for joining us.
MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, Wolf.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: In Britain, meanwhile, an official report out today criticizes pre-war British intelligence on Iraq, saying it was seriously flawed and open to doubt. But the report spares Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying there was no evidence his government had deliberately distorted intelligence or misled the public in making the case for war. Mr. Blair said the report proved that no one lied or made up intelligence, but he did make an important concession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I've searched my conscience, not in a spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine consideration, in the light of what we know now in answer to that question. And my answer would be this, that the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was indeed less well-founded, less well known than was stated at the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Mr. Blair, however, remains defiant on another key issue. He says getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
Protecting the nation ahead of the political conventions in the coming weeks. The homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, he's here. He'll join me live. Find out if he thinks Boston and New York are ready.
Blocking a ban. The U.S. Senate rejects a move by Republicans to amend the United States Constitution. But is this the last word?
And find out where some missing nuclear material was finally located, an update to a story we brought you several months ago.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
In just a moment, I'll be joined by the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge. We'll talk about terror attacks, possibly terror attacks that could occur in the United States this summer.
We'll get to that. First, though, some stories now making news.
Seven men suspected of plotting terror attacks in Bahrain are under arrest, according to that country's interior ministry. It says police found instructions for making explosives and chemical weapons on computers in the suspects' home. The State Department has warned of possible attacks in Bahrain, home to the United States Navy's 5th Fleet.
U.S. Marines are reporting significant insurgent casualties in Ramadi, scene of a battle this afternoon with what the U.S. military is calling anti-Iraqi forces. The Marines say there were no injuries on their side or among civilians. We'll have a live report from Iraq. That's coming up shortly.
Multiple major wildfires are burning in Southern California right now. This one in the Angeles National Forest is at 4,700 acres and evacuations covered more than 500 homes at one point. Major fires are also burning in Riverside and San Diego County.
And Shaq is moving to Miami. The Los Angeles Lakers have traded the star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Heat in exchange for three players and a first-round draft pick. O'Neill helped lead the Lakers to three championship in his eight seasons with them.
Keeping you informed, CNN, the most trusted name in news.
There are major concerns about security of the upcoming political party conventions.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is here to talk about that. He's just back from Boston, where Democrats will gather in less than two weeks. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Washington.
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Nice to join you again.
BLITZER: Glad you made it. The weather out there is a little choppy right now, as you know.
How concerned should those of us who are going to Boston for this Democratic Convention be?
RIDGE: Get your reservations in early, great restaurants, great historic sites. The community has done everything they can to put people and technology in all the right places.
They have got a comprehensive plan, overseeing a very complicated and a very complex city. But go prepared to have a good time and enjoy the city, as the Democrats nominate their presidential and vice presidential candidates.
BLITZER: But we just heard John McLaughlin, the acting CIA director, say that he's worried. There are serious threats out there right now. You have said as much in recent weeks as well.
I want you to listen to some of the excerpts of statements that you've made, because a lot of us, including myself, are confused right now.
RIDGE: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIDGE: Credible reporting now indicates that al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States.
We know that they have the capability to succeed.
We live in serious times and this is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm.
These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland.
Be on a heightened state of alert.
Terrorist attacks anywhere must remind all of us that the threat of terrorism remains.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right, so, it's obviously a serious subject.
RIDGE: Correct.
And I watched part of the interview with John McLaughlin. And I think he categorized it correctly, credible, trustworthy sources, not terribly specific in terms of who, what, when and where, but targeting an opportunity, targeting an attempt to undermine the democratic process.
(CROSSTALK)
RIDGE: Clearly, part of that are the two conventions. But you have this period of several months upon which we need to heighten our alert and heighten our vigilance.
BLITZER: There have been suggestions out there that people going to Boston or later at the end of August to the Republican Convention in New York, that they bring along -- they take certain precautions because of some concern. Is there any truth to that?
RIDGE: Well, I don't know what those concerns are.
I think the only caution would be, if you choose -- out of the 52 weeks out of the year, you choose the week that the Democrats and the Republicans are having their convention in one of the major historic communities, you are going to have a tough time getting around generally.
But I would also say that both communities have had a planning process involving federal, state, local, the corporate community, everybody else. The process has gone on for more than a year. They have comprehensive security plans. They have run exercises. They have tried to anticipate every possible need to prevent and deter an attack, and, unfortunately, deal with the eventuality, if one should occur, how they would respond.
And from what I saw in Boston today, I can't imagine a community and an effort being better integrated than the people who have been charged with this mission and who have been working on it for well over a year in that community.
BLITZER: So you don't know anything about these suggestions. I remember, before the war in Iraq, when I went to Kuwait, they prepared us with flak jackets and atropine and antidotes and gas masks, all that kind of stuff. Is there anything at all that people who go to the conventions should be doing in advance to prepare, God forbid, for some sort of terror attack?
RIDGE: Nothing to do and prepare in advance.
But one of the things we have tried to generate, with not only my public discussion, but other Cabinet members and members of the administration have talked about this period of heightened alert during the electoral season, is just the general awareness and vigilance of the average citizen or the patrolman on the beat, people to take their common sense, to keep their eyes and ears open.
If they see something suspicious, they report it to a local police officer. And other than that, if you're going to the convention, part of the task for this security effort is to make sure that not only the conventioneers have a safe and secure community, but also to make sure that the people of Boston can continue to enjoy on a day-to-day basis the city which they love.
BLITZER: This is one of the most difficult jobs that you have, to try to balance your legitimate concerns out there based on what they call chatter and vague intelligence sources, sometimes not so vague, sometimes pretty credible, and at the same time not overly panic and concern American public. And you try to balance that. How do you do that?
RIDGE: Well, I think that's absolutely right.
We categorize it in terms of, we have got to manage the risk. You can't eliminate the risk for all time, all places forever. And so you take a very complicated environment like Boston, a great city, great environment. But you have got an international airport that is very close. You've got a perimeter of a harbor that is about eight miles. You've got a convention center that is about 15 or 20 feet from an interstate highway.
So how do you take those potential points of access or vulnerability and how do you regulate access? How do you regulate use in a way that dramatically raises security, but, at the same time, keeps them available generally for the community and regional use? And I think they've struck that balance up there in Boston.
BLITZER: Are you just as confident about New York City?
RIDGE: Yes. From the preliminary briefings we've had there. And I'll be up in New York City in the next week or two myself.
BLITZER: So you say, go to New York, go to Boston, relax, enjoy the conventions.
RIDGE: These are two of the most significant things we do every four years. It's a signal to -- it's not just about our country. It's a signal to the rest of the world. The terrorists have struck us. They try to intimidate. They try to bring anxiety or fear to how we conduct our business in this country. And we're not going to let them intimidate us or create an environment where we do something any differently than we've done for 200-plus years.
BLITZER: One quick final question. Have you asked the Justice Department to look into the contingency, God forbid, of having to delay the elections in November?
RIDGE: Unfortunately, that has been mischaracterized. Absolutely not.
Clearly, there is no specific intelligence relating to an attack on Election Day. There's no planning to postpone the election. And, furthermore, it is a constitutional matter. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says Congress sets the date. They did that back I think in 1845.
Now, we will be working with governors and mayors and chiefs of police all around the country to make sure security is right, given the environment. But there is only one body in this town that can make that decision. And it's the Congress of the United States.
BLITZER: All right, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, thanks very much for joining us.
RIDGE: Good to be with you. Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Welcome back from Boston.
And here to our viewers, your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our Web question of the day is this: Are your concerned about terrorist attacks around the elections? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/Wolf. We'll have the results for you later in this broadcast.
We want to update you on a story we brought you earlier this year on some missing nuclear fuel in Vermont. Alarm bells were sounded when the radioactive fuel rods were reported missing from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant three months ago. Get this. The rods were discovered yesterday right where they belong, in the plant's spent fuel storage pool. Two previous searches in the pool failed to turn up anything. The good news, it was all a false alarm.
It's been a bloody holiday in Iraq, as insurgents deliver their most lethal attack since the handover of power and a high-level Iraqi government official is assassinated. We'll go live to Baghdad.
Plus, the Bush daughters go public. On the trail with mom and dad, Barbara and Jenna speak out about their decision to join the campaign.
And later, a real Beatles bargain. A British man stumbles upon quite a stash from the past.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Iraq's interim government vows justice after a suicide bombing and an ambush today claimed several lives.
For the latest now, let's go to our Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf -- Jane.
JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Wolf, the northern city of Mosul is on alert tonight, a curfew extended after the assassination of the governor of Mosul, Osama Kashmoula, who was assassinated as he was driving between Mosul and Baghdad, gunned down when a car pulled up alongside him, two of his bodyguards also killed.
Now, that was just hours after a suicide bomb; 1,000 pounds of explosives went off early this morning at a checkpoint near the so- called Green Zone. Ten Iraqis were killed, at least three of them, National Guard, dozens more wounded -- Wolf.
BLITZER: CNN's Jane Arraf with the latest from Baghdad -- Jane, thanks very much.
The Marine corporal who disappeared in Iraq a month ago and turned up in Lebanon last week will be returning to the United States. The Pentagon says Corporal Wassef Hassoun will be flown to the Marine Corps base at Quantico. That's here outside Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia. He'll be flown there tomorrow.
Today, he left the U.S. medical center in Germany, which released a statement on Hassoun's behalf. Among other things, it said this: "I am happy to have completed this phase of my repatriation. The people here at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center have treated me very well, but I am excited to be going home. All thanks and praises are due to God for my safety."
It was an effort strongly supported by President Bush, but the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States fell short today. What went wrong for the Republicans?
Later, the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, they are on the campaign trail and in the spotlight. We'll get to that.
First, though, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Torrential rains and landslides in Northern Japan claim at least six lives; 20,000 people are ordered to evacuate.
Several people had to be rescued when their homes were flooded. Floods and landslides from monsoons in parts of southern Asia are blamed for 300 deaths. Millions of people are stranded. The rain began falling last month is and is expected to last several more days.
French President Jacques Chirac takes part in Bastille Day festivities that include a parade and fireworks. The national holiday commemorates the revolution back in 1789 that ultimately rid France of its monarchy.
A British man may have discovered a lost collection of Beatles memorabilia. An old suitcase he bought for $36 in Australia contained photos, concert programs and unreleased song versions. Experts are trying to determine if they're the real thing.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A significant setback for Republican efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage by changing the United States Constitution.
Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry is here with us. He has got details -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Republicans had high hopes of using this debate to embarrass Democrats on the eve of their national convention. But it didn't work out that way.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY (voice-over): Republicans fell 12 votes short of continuing the debate and 19 votes shy of the 67 needed to change the Constitution. Democrats and gay rights groups were ecstatic.
CHERYL JACQUES, PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Today, we saw President Bush and the Republican leadership attempt to divide America, and it backfired, instead, dividing their own party.
HENRY: The Republican sponsor of the amendment insisted the vote was a positive first step.
SEN. WAYNE ALLARD (R), COLORADO: We think getting the number of votes that we did on a first try in the Senate was definitely a success.
HENRY: But Republicans had been hoping for a much better showing, which became impossible when prominent moderates like John McCain peeled off.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.
HENRY: This gave cover to Democrats facing tough reelection fights, like Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: Senator McCain is right. We should oppose this amendment today.
HENRY: But Republicans believe the vote will backfire on Democrats politically and that the GOP will ultimately prevail on the issue.
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: This is a big country and it's a very active one. I think you will see this issue turning and, ultimately, we will win this fight. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Senators John Kerry and John Edwards skipped this vote, saying it was just procedural. Edwards did put out a statement charging that Republicans are trying to use the Constitution as a political tool. A Bush-Cheney campaign aide responded by saying in part, "It takes a special kind of senator to attack others over a vote that they don't show up for" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: An important day in the United States Senate today.
Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry, thanks very much.
Life as the first daughters. From boyfriends meeting their father to their mother's cleaning habits, Jenna and Barbara Bush speak out on life in the White House. That's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: President and Mrs. Bush's twin daughters are now stepping out more and more on the campaign trail. And they are also speaking out about life in the White House.
In an interview in the new issue of "Vogue" magazine, Jenna and Barbara Bush broke their silence about their family, their futures and their decision to join their parents in this campaign.
Jenna is quoted as saying: "It's not like he called me up and asked me. They never wanted to throw us into that world, and I think our decision probably shocked them. But I love my dad and I think I would regret it if I didn't do this."
Jenna appears to have been the more outspoken sister in the "Vogue" interview. There's a picture of both of them. They both praise their parents' marriage, calling her mom cute -- that's Jenna, that is -- with funny quirks, and describing her father's interactions with her boyfriends this way: "He's not the shotgun dad type. He's the 'joking around to the point where he scares the heck of them' type."
With an English degree from the University of Texas, Jenna says she plans to teach. She has applied for a job at an elementary school in Harlem. Barbara graduated from Yale and majored in humanities. She plans to work with AIDS-afflicted children in Eastern Europe and Africa. But their father's final campaign for reelection, all that comes first.
We'll take a quick break. The results of our Web question, that's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in our Web question of the day. Take a look at these numbers, remembering it's not, repeat, not, a scientific poll.
A reminder, we're on weekdays, 5:00 Eastern, also noon Eastern. I'll see you back here tomorrow. Thanks very much for joining us.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired July 14, 2004 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Happening now. An exclusive television interview. The nation's top spy goes public about criticism of the Iraq war, sleeper cells in the United States, and the current planning of Osama bin Laden. The Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin joins me to discuss the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the threat of terror strikes this summer and much more. You'll see this only here on CNN.
Stand by for hard news on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Baghdad blast. A day of festivity turns fatal as Iraqi insurgents launch their deadliest attack since the handover.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) aggression against the Iraqi people. We will bring the criminals to justice.
BLITZER: Convention concerns. Is Boston the new bullseye for terrorists? I'll ask Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Glaring oversights. A scathing new report on prewar intelligence. This time, the British take the blame.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any mistakes made as this report finds in good faith, I of course take responsibility.
BLITZER: Last stand. The U.S. Senate essentially says "I don't" to a proposal to ban gay marriage.
ANNOUNCER: This is WOLF BLITZER REPORTS for Wednesday, July 14, 2004.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: He's the man you never saw at the CIA. The number two guy always in the shadow of one of the longest-serving directors George Tenet. Now, the number two who has served at the CIA for 30 years is the number one, at least the acting number one for now.
And John McLaughlin has taken the rare step of going public in an exclusive television interview. You'll hear his thoughts on Osama bin Laden, the terrorists who want to launch another attack on U.S. soil, perhaps, this summer, and his answer to a scathing report from the U.S. Senate intelligence committee on his agency's work leading up to the Iraq war. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Director McLaughlin, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome to CNN. Let's get right to the key issue at hand.
Given the track record of the CIA, as documented by the Senate Intelligence Committee's scathing report last week, why should the American public have confidence in your assessments right now?
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, INTERIM CIA DIRECTOR: Wolf, thanks for having me here. The American public can have confidence in this intelligence community. I've talked about the Senate intelligence report. I'm happy to discuss it with you today.
We understood that in that report there were some shortcomings. As Director Tenet said some months ago, it was not all right, but it was not all wrong, our work on Iraq.
The important thing that I would stress about that report, when I tell the American people that they should have confidence in the American intelligence community is this: That report has no context. And the context I would place it in is this. It is merely one small sample of our work on weapons proliferation.
If you were to look at our work on weapons proliferation across the board, you would find numerous successes. President Bush just the other day visited Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and viewed the results of one of those successes, the weapons that Libya turned over.
BLITZER: All right. Well, I want to get to all of that, but I want to specifically refer to the report, because some of the failures were there -- were monumental and in part resulted in the United States going to war.
Let's listen to what the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, said in announcing the conclusions of the report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and, if left unchecked, would probably have a -- a nuclear weapon during this decade.
Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available -- the available intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Now, that doesn't sound like a shortcoming. That sounds like a total failure.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think one of the things that I would point out is that when people talk about this estimate, which the Senate took an entire year to study, a document that we had prepared in about a month, it looked principally at this estimate, but within that estimate there are numerous examples of disagreements within the intelligence community, of dissents taken by various people.
And the idea that somehow the United States went to war because of this one document seems to me an oversimplification of the situation.
BLITZER: But on the critical issue of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which was the major issue going into the war, stockpiles. There was no dissenting. There was no hedging in that NIE, that National Intelligence Estimate report.
And the Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded by saying this. "The committee found significant shortcomings in almost every aspect of the intelligence community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. In particular, that the community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and it will not be solved by additional funding and personnel."
That's -- that's scathing.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think when we talk about stockpiles, one mistake I think we made was to create the image that when we went into Iraq, we would find large quantities of these weapons.
I must tell you, there's very little in the Senate report that we have not discovered on our own. When formal hostilities ended, and we did not encounter some of the weapons in the chemical and biological area that we anticipated finding, we began ourselves at that moment a searching look at our own work. And we put in place a number of steps that respond to our own lessons learned here.
I would also remind everyone that when we talked about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we never said that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. We were quite clear on that point. We never said that he was enriching uranium. We were quite clear on that point. In fact, on some of those issues, particularly the nuclear issue, I think we were more cautious and less robust in what we projected than many of the outside experts.
I think we have to think about this problem in context. Iraq was a very, very unique intelligence problem. We look at some of the typical problems we work on, for example a problem like North Korea, our job is to penetrate that society and to discover something that people don't understand or know.
In the case of Iraq, this is an important point. What we are now being told, and it's a fair point, is that we would have had to disprove something that the entire world believed.
BLITZER: But is it true that you had not one single human intelligence source in Iraq after '98 that was trying to find information about Iraq's WMD?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we had sources in Iraq, and as the director has pointed out, and as our director of operations has noted, the problem was that our sources were largely on the periphery of the problem. They were not in the inner sanctum of the WMD apparatus.
There are a number of reasons for this.
BLITZER: And on this point, let me read again from the Senate Intelligence Committee report. "The intelligence community" -- that would be you -- "relies too heavily on foreign government sources and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests."
That would seem to be a suggestion that people, Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi, for example, who had a political interest, were feeding false information. That's the accusation. There's this other source called Curveball, which the Senate Intelligence Committee report talks about extensively, that apparently was feeding all sorts of information that was bogus.
What do you do about that? And is it true?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, in the case of the sources, we've acknowledged that our human sources in Iraq were not as good as they should be. We've also acknowledged that at the time, we did turn to a number of foreign governments for source material.
We didn't just routinely accept what they were telling us. In the case of a number of these sources -- Curveball is a good example.
BLITZER: That was the code name?
MCLAUGHLIN: That was the code name. Our analysts took significant steps to try and confirm what Curveball had to say. Bear in mind, now, we didn't have direct, face-to-face access with this source. Sought to get it; did not get it.
But this source was someone who generated over 100 reports that were technically quite sophisticated, and which, when viewed in the context of other intelligence we collected, looked pretty good, looked sound.
Subsequent to Iraqi -- subsequent to Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have obtained direct access to that source.
BLITZER: To Curveball?
MCLAUGHLIN: To Curveball. And we have figured out that, after a certain period, his information is not as reliable as indicated in the pre-war reports. And we have notified the Congress of that. In fact, what you find in the Congress' report there is very much along the lines of what we passed on. I want to make an important point here, because this goes to one of my strong disagreements with the report. It has been presented completely out of context, as I said. The idea that comes across when you just listen to the Senate report is that our human intelligence is broken across the board somehow, when in fact we have officers risking their lives every day around the world, collecting human intelligence. I mean, we haven't taken down two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership at the time of 9/11 by not having human sources.
BLITZER: When they speak about a broken corporate culture and poor management, that seems to be a direct slap at George Tenet, the now former director, and you, the acting director, and you were the deputy director.
MCLAUGHLIN: You know, this is one of the phrases that I do react strongly to and that I reject. To say that we have a broken corporate culture is to misunderstand what we do, and it has no relationship to the world that I've lived in for the last four years as deputy director.
This is a very vibrant culture. This is a culture where people feel free to express dissent, where they talk to each other, where they test ideas, where there's lots of devil's advocacy.
And if we're talking about the intelligence community as a whole, this is not a loosely connected federation of stovepipes. This is a community that works closely together, whose budget is geared to a strategic plan that we have formulated. Our collection agencies share access to all of the collection. I meet with the corporate leaders of the intelligence community once a week, we go over -- we deal with problems consistently.
And every intelligence success I would cite to you, and we haven't talked about those today. This is one of those periods where we talk mainly about the misgivings and the -- the shortcomings of the business. But every intelligence success that I would cite to you is the result of strong corporate cooperation within the CIA, among all of its elements, and across the intelligence community.
BLITZER: The -- the success stories we all acknowledge. Many of them can never be, at least for a long time, can never be released for fear that that would undermine the so-called sources and methods...
MCLAUGHLIN: I'd like to talk to you about some of them sometime.
BLITZER: Let's talk about those, but let's move on and talk about some of the failures. For example, these mobile labs that Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to, based on false information. The aluminum tubes that were supposedly only to be used to build a nuclear bomb turns out to be false information.
But these were some of the major reasons given by the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense for going to war.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, we've acknowledged in the case of the mobile production that a number of the sources associated with that, through our own investigation, have not held up. We've notified the Congress of that.
It's interesting, though, one of the other aspects, of context that's missing here, is if you were to read the Senate report, you would think it would be -- that we would be mistaken to have even had any suspicion about Iraq having WMD. It reads almost as though this was a report about Switzerland.
In fact, when we have looked at Iraq post-war, we found plenty of instances in which there was cause for concern and suspicion. On the biological weapons question, for example, we still can't explain these trailers that we found in northern Iraq. You may remember. You may have even done the interview at some point, but when David Kay saw them, he climbed all over them and said no doubt these are for biological weapons.
Now we don't know that for sure to this day, but we don't know what they were. They are unexplained. They match the drawings that we got from the source, and they are one of the mysteries.
The other thing about biological weapons is the underlying idea behind mobile production was that he was moving away from large-scale production to some sort of covert production. And in fact, what we've found, looking at Iraq after the war, is a series of covert labs run by the Iraqi intelligence service, production of stimulants (ph) for anthrax that were all in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441.
In other words, we find that he was probably structuring himself for, if you will, just-in-time delivery. This was not as diagrammed in mobile biological production. But it also suggests that in their thinking, they were moving away from large-scale production to a different kind of way to evade inspections.
BLITZER: I want you to listen to what the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said in releasing the results of this report. A stinging indictment. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation. The fact is that the administration at all levels and to some extent us used bad information to bolster its case for war.
And we in Congress would not have authorized that war. We would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Here's a tough question. What do you say to the families of the more than 850 troops, Americans, who have been killed in Iraq, who have died in Iraq, and the thousands of others who have been injured on the basis of this false intelligence that helped propel the U.S. towards war? MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Wolf, I've been in the U.S. military, and I've been in a combat zone. I know how dangerous it is, and I've lost friends in a combat zone in another war. So any time that happens, any time we lose the brave men and women of the American military, we're all saddened and we all regret it.
I think, though, that it is an oversimplification of the situation to say that this one document that the Senate studied was the pivotal thing that propelled us to war or, for that matter, the pivotal thing that gave justification to those who voted to authorize it.
If it was, if that was the case, and if people read beyond the first four or five pages of this document, where I acknowledge we did not as fulsomely caveat what we had to say. If they'd read beyond the first five pages and if this had been the pivotal thing for war, more would have been made of the fact -- more would have been made of the fact that we did not say he had nuclear weapons.
More would have been made of the fact that there were dissents presented in this war that showed arguments within the intelligence community. More would have been made of the fact that we did not say he was enriching uranium. More would have been made of the fact that the State Department argued in the first page or two of this estimate that they did not agree he was reconstituting nuclear weapons.
More would have been made of the fact, on the aluminum tubes, that in this estimate there were three full, detailed pages from the Department of Energy, laying out in a well-argued dissent their view that this was not for uranium enrichment.
Now my point is this. It's an important point. I think anyone who read this document cover to cover -- and I don't know, frankly, how many senators did. That's a question I don't know the answer to. But anyone who read this document cover to cover would find in it ample material for serious debate.
So if there wasn't a serious debate about these issues, it's not the fault of the people who prepared this estimate.
BLITZER: I want to get to Osama bin Laden in a moment, but there's one statement in this report that I want your response on first. The committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's link to terrorism. In general, was there pressure from the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense to the CIA to go ahead and tailor their conclusions based on what the administration, the political leadership, wanted to hear?
MCLAUGHLIN: I want to say two things on that point. First, I want to say that broadly speaking there is several places in this estimate where -- and in the Senate's report, where the integrity of our analysis is questioned. For example, some of our centrifuge experts are held up as people who for one reason or another distorted or didn't share information. I really reject that point. I want to defend the integrity of the people who did the analysis for this estimate. They were doing what they thought was appropriate and they were sharing the information...
BLITZER: Was there undue pressure?
MCLAUGHLIN: Let me go to that question, I know that's the thing you're interested in. On that point, my perspective is this. On all of these matters, a former DCI once said it's amazing to me that more of the contentiousness of the issues that we deal with doesn't show through in the work. We deal with contentious issues.
And policymakers who read our work and who react to it have every right to ask us tough questions and we welcome it. Lots of people ask us tough questions about what we knew and what we didn't know and we answer them forthrightly.
If you look at this report that deals with terrorism, the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, you will find that the Senate Intelligence Committee gives us a pretty clean bill of health on that point, which is an important finding here.
BLITZER: But on the other issues was there undue pressure? Your 30 years in the CIA. When the vice president came over to Langley, when the secretary of state came over there, when the defense secretary came over there, was that appropriate for them to do that?
MCLAUGHLIN: I view that as appropriate in the following sense, any customer, any consumer of our Intelligence is free to come over and talk to us at any time. In fact, it's exactly what this report is calling for in many ways. A robust dialogue among people who have differing views.
BLITZER: So that was appropriate, in your opinion?
MCLAUGHLIN: I think that was appropriate.
BLITZER: Let's talk...
MCLAUGHLIN: The main thing here, there's an important point.
BLITZER: Yes.
MCLAUGHLIN: The main thing is people can ask us questions, they can push us, they can ask probing questions, they can read the stuff themselves. At the end of the day we have to say what we think. And I'm convinced in this case what we said was what we thought.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: More of my exclusive interview with the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, that's coming up right after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Now, more of my exclusive interview conducted just a short time ago with the acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Do you believe Osama bin Laden is right now personally directing terror attacks this summer against the United States?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it depends a lot on what you mean by personally directing. Is he sitting behind some large console pulling wires and switches? I wouldn't say that. But to be sure, he remains the leader of al Qaeda, it's his guidance to his followers that certainly inspires them to proceed with the attacks that we have seen in places like Istanbul and Morocco and Spain and so forth. But increasingly we see elements of al Qaeda operating with more regional independence than in the past. But if you're asking me does he have a role, is he the inspirational leader? Yes.
BLITZER: How worried should the American public be this summer about a terror attack against the conventions in Boston and New York or elsewhere between now and the election?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think, as I've said elsewhere during this week, this is a very serious threat we're facing.
BLITZER: How serious?
MCLAUGHLIN: It's serious in the following sense, that I think the quality of the information we have is very good. We have a lot of experience now in terrorism. You asked before, how trustworthy is our information? Remember, this is the agency that brought to justice, working with others but on the basis of our intelligence, the architect of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief bomber behind the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, Nasiri, the chief terrorist in the Eastern hemisphere, Hambali. So, we have now, particularly since 9/11, a very strong track record and highly reliable information on terrorism.
There's a tension all the time, and I know it's a frustrating one for the American public, that more of the details of what we know doesn't come out. What I would say to people, though, is that it is necessary for us to hold back a lot of the specifics, because those are the things we need to stop this, those are the things we need to fight terrorists.
One of the important things terrorists do, I'll tell you, it's very simple, very simple. They know how to keep a secret. Their work is highly compartmented to a small group of people, probably living in a cave somewhere, and our country doesn't keep secrets very well. So we have to watch what we release about the details. But this is a serious threat period.
BLITZER: We're almost out of time. Are there sleeper cells here in the United States based on what you know right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: I can't talk about the details of that. We have to go on the assumption that they, despite all of the effective defenses we've erected and despite the increasing effectiveness of our homeland security, we have to go on this assumption. We can be excellent one thousand times, all they have to do is be lucky once. So I can't go into details here, but we have to operate on the assumption that we are at risk and we have to operate on the assumption that we have to keep looking for those cells.
BLITZER: One interesting footnote. The whole Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame issue. Did Valerie Plame, a formerly clandestine officer at the CIA, was it her idea that her husband go to Niger to look for this information about enriched uranium?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that's a matter I can't get into. You know there is a Department of Justice inquiry under way looking into the leak of her name. And I'm concerned that anything I would say on that matter would somehow prejudice the case or get involved in the case.
BLITZER: What about you, your future? What are you planning on doing? There's speculation out there the president's about to name a new director of the CIA.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I've been doing this now for three days, Wolf. What I can tell you is this. Being acting director doesn't mean being part-time director. This is a full-time job. I get up every morning with one mission, and that is to be the director of the CIA in an acting capacity. That's what the president has asked me to do.
I'm happy to do this, as I've told him, as long as he needs me to do it. It's his decision whether I continue in this capacity or whether he nominates someone else. Happy to do this. I've done this for a long time. I love the people of the intelligence community. I'm prepared to lead them.
Should he choose to nominate someone else, I'll be happy to work with that person to get them launched and work with them as long as they need me to work with them to -- to help them.
BLITZER: A lot of speculation out there, the morale at the agency is bad right now. Is that true?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, people don't join this business -- as our interview would indicate -- people don't join this business because they expect public praise. People join this business because they want to serve the nation. So, you know, no one likes to be criticized, but there's an ethic in our business.
I've even written notes to our work force in the past, saying, expect to be criticized. Stop and think about it. Just stop and think about it for a minute. The very people who ask us to not be risk-averse are frequently the ones who criticize mistakes that are made in the course of our duties.
If you stop and think about it, to take a risk by definition means there's a high possibility of a mistake. We risk our lives around the world every day, and our analysts here in Washington risk their reputations every day by taking positions on issues on which the evidence is thin and uncertain.
So there's always a possibility of a mistake. That's built into our business. And if you're in this business, you know you're going to take a risk. You're not always going to be right. And you're going to take criticism.
And the only way we can deal with that is to learn from it, as we have been for the last year. We started our own internal look at Iraq one year ago. And then make the appropriate changes and move on. In fact, a colleague said to me today the best way to react to this is to go out and penetrate another proliferation network, or recruit another terrorist to bring down that network.
BLITZER: One final question. Is the CIA being made a scapegoat right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, I don't want to get into that, because that starts to draw me -- let's face it. This is a political year. Everything is hotter than it normally is. And I think the men and women of the intelligence community know that criticism is part of our life.
I would say that it's important to keep our intelligence services out of politics, because ultimately we are the first line of defense for the nation. As I said in the speech that I mentioned to you earlier, there's no perfection in this business. But people in this business are dedicated to doing the best job they can around the world, risking their lives to save the American people from terrorist attacks and other things.
So I would leave it there.
BLITZER: And we will leave it there. Director McLaughlin, you've got an incredibly difficult job. Good luck to you. Good luck to the men and women who are at the CIA. Thanks so much for joining us.
MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, Wolf.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: In Britain, meanwhile, an official report out today criticizes pre-war British intelligence on Iraq, saying it was seriously flawed and open to doubt. But the report spares Prime Minister Tony Blair, saying there was no evidence his government had deliberately distorted intelligence or misled the public in making the case for war. Mr. Blair said the report proved that no one lied or made up intelligence, but he did make an important concession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I've searched my conscience, not in a spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine consideration, in the light of what we know now in answer to that question. And my answer would be this, that the evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was indeed less well-founded, less well known than was stated at the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Mr. Blair, however, remains defiant on another key issue. He says getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
Protecting the nation ahead of the political conventions in the coming weeks. The homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, he's here. He'll join me live. Find out if he thinks Boston and New York are ready.
Blocking a ban. The U.S. Senate rejects a move by Republicans to amend the United States Constitution. But is this the last word?
And find out where some missing nuclear material was finally located, an update to a story we brought you several months ago.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
In just a moment, I'll be joined by the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge. We'll talk about terror attacks, possibly terror attacks that could occur in the United States this summer.
We'll get to that. First, though, some stories now making news.
Seven men suspected of plotting terror attacks in Bahrain are under arrest, according to that country's interior ministry. It says police found instructions for making explosives and chemical weapons on computers in the suspects' home. The State Department has warned of possible attacks in Bahrain, home to the United States Navy's 5th Fleet.
U.S. Marines are reporting significant insurgent casualties in Ramadi, scene of a battle this afternoon with what the U.S. military is calling anti-Iraqi forces. The Marines say there were no injuries on their side or among civilians. We'll have a live report from Iraq. That's coming up shortly.
Multiple major wildfires are burning in Southern California right now. This one in the Angeles National Forest is at 4,700 acres and evacuations covered more than 500 homes at one point. Major fires are also burning in Riverside and San Diego County.
And Shaq is moving to Miami. The Los Angeles Lakers have traded the star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Heat in exchange for three players and a first-round draft pick. O'Neill helped lead the Lakers to three championship in his eight seasons with them.
Keeping you informed, CNN, the most trusted name in news.
There are major concerns about security of the upcoming political party conventions.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is here to talk about that. He's just back from Boston, where Democrats will gather in less than two weeks. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Washington.
TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Nice to join you again.
BLITZER: Glad you made it. The weather out there is a little choppy right now, as you know.
How concerned should those of us who are going to Boston for this Democratic Convention be?
RIDGE: Get your reservations in early, great restaurants, great historic sites. The community has done everything they can to put people and technology in all the right places.
They have got a comprehensive plan, overseeing a very complicated and a very complex city. But go prepared to have a good time and enjoy the city, as the Democrats nominate their presidential and vice presidential candidates.
BLITZER: But we just heard John McLaughlin, the acting CIA director, say that he's worried. There are serious threats out there right now. You have said as much in recent weeks as well.
I want you to listen to some of the excerpts of statements that you've made, because a lot of us, including myself, are confused right now.
RIDGE: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIDGE: Credible reporting now indicates that al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States.
We know that they have the capability to succeed.
We live in serious times and this is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm.
These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland.
Be on a heightened state of alert.
Terrorist attacks anywhere must remind all of us that the threat of terrorism remains.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right, so, it's obviously a serious subject.
RIDGE: Correct.
And I watched part of the interview with John McLaughlin. And I think he categorized it correctly, credible, trustworthy sources, not terribly specific in terms of who, what, when and where, but targeting an opportunity, targeting an attempt to undermine the democratic process.
(CROSSTALK)
RIDGE: Clearly, part of that are the two conventions. But you have this period of several months upon which we need to heighten our alert and heighten our vigilance.
BLITZER: There have been suggestions out there that people going to Boston or later at the end of August to the Republican Convention in New York, that they bring along -- they take certain precautions because of some concern. Is there any truth to that?
RIDGE: Well, I don't know what those concerns are.
I think the only caution would be, if you choose -- out of the 52 weeks out of the year, you choose the week that the Democrats and the Republicans are having their convention in one of the major historic communities, you are going to have a tough time getting around generally.
But I would also say that both communities have had a planning process involving federal, state, local, the corporate community, everybody else. The process has gone on for more than a year. They have comprehensive security plans. They have run exercises. They have tried to anticipate every possible need to prevent and deter an attack, and, unfortunately, deal with the eventuality, if one should occur, how they would respond.
And from what I saw in Boston today, I can't imagine a community and an effort being better integrated than the people who have been charged with this mission and who have been working on it for well over a year in that community.
BLITZER: So you don't know anything about these suggestions. I remember, before the war in Iraq, when I went to Kuwait, they prepared us with flak jackets and atropine and antidotes and gas masks, all that kind of stuff. Is there anything at all that people who go to the conventions should be doing in advance to prepare, God forbid, for some sort of terror attack?
RIDGE: Nothing to do and prepare in advance.
But one of the things we have tried to generate, with not only my public discussion, but other Cabinet members and members of the administration have talked about this period of heightened alert during the electoral season, is just the general awareness and vigilance of the average citizen or the patrolman on the beat, people to take their common sense, to keep their eyes and ears open.
If they see something suspicious, they report it to a local police officer. And other than that, if you're going to the convention, part of the task for this security effort is to make sure that not only the conventioneers have a safe and secure community, but also to make sure that the people of Boston can continue to enjoy on a day-to-day basis the city which they love.
BLITZER: This is one of the most difficult jobs that you have, to try to balance your legitimate concerns out there based on what they call chatter and vague intelligence sources, sometimes not so vague, sometimes pretty credible, and at the same time not overly panic and concern American public. And you try to balance that. How do you do that?
RIDGE: Well, I think that's absolutely right.
We categorize it in terms of, we have got to manage the risk. You can't eliminate the risk for all time, all places forever. And so you take a very complicated environment like Boston, a great city, great environment. But you have got an international airport that is very close. You've got a perimeter of a harbor that is about eight miles. You've got a convention center that is about 15 or 20 feet from an interstate highway.
So how do you take those potential points of access or vulnerability and how do you regulate access? How do you regulate use in a way that dramatically raises security, but, at the same time, keeps them available generally for the community and regional use? And I think they've struck that balance up there in Boston.
BLITZER: Are you just as confident about New York City?
RIDGE: Yes. From the preliminary briefings we've had there. And I'll be up in New York City in the next week or two myself.
BLITZER: So you say, go to New York, go to Boston, relax, enjoy the conventions.
RIDGE: These are two of the most significant things we do every four years. It's a signal to -- it's not just about our country. It's a signal to the rest of the world. The terrorists have struck us. They try to intimidate. They try to bring anxiety or fear to how we conduct our business in this country. And we're not going to let them intimidate us or create an environment where we do something any differently than we've done for 200-plus years.
BLITZER: One quick final question. Have you asked the Justice Department to look into the contingency, God forbid, of having to delay the elections in November?
RIDGE: Unfortunately, that has been mischaracterized. Absolutely not.
Clearly, there is no specific intelligence relating to an attack on Election Day. There's no planning to postpone the election. And, furthermore, it is a constitutional matter. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says Congress sets the date. They did that back I think in 1845.
Now, we will be working with governors and mayors and chiefs of police all around the country to make sure security is right, given the environment. But there is only one body in this town that can make that decision. And it's the Congress of the United States.
BLITZER: All right, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, thanks very much for joining us.
RIDGE: Good to be with you. Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Welcome back from Boston.
And here to our viewers, your chance to weigh in on this important story. Our Web question of the day is this: Are your concerned about terrorist attacks around the elections? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/Wolf. We'll have the results for you later in this broadcast.
We want to update you on a story we brought you earlier this year on some missing nuclear fuel in Vermont. Alarm bells were sounded when the radioactive fuel rods were reported missing from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant three months ago. Get this. The rods were discovered yesterday right where they belong, in the plant's spent fuel storage pool. Two previous searches in the pool failed to turn up anything. The good news, it was all a false alarm.
It's been a bloody holiday in Iraq, as insurgents deliver their most lethal attack since the handover of power and a high-level Iraqi government official is assassinated. We'll go live to Baghdad.
Plus, the Bush daughters go public. On the trail with mom and dad, Barbara and Jenna speak out about their decision to join the campaign.
And later, a real Beatles bargain. A British man stumbles upon quite a stash from the past.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Iraq's interim government vows justice after a suicide bombing and an ambush today claimed several lives.
For the latest now, let's go to our Baghdad bureau chief, Jane Arraf -- Jane.
JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: Wolf, the northern city of Mosul is on alert tonight, a curfew extended after the assassination of the governor of Mosul, Osama Kashmoula, who was assassinated as he was driving between Mosul and Baghdad, gunned down when a car pulled up alongside him, two of his bodyguards also killed.
Now, that was just hours after a suicide bomb; 1,000 pounds of explosives went off early this morning at a checkpoint near the so- called Green Zone. Ten Iraqis were killed, at least three of them, National Guard, dozens more wounded -- Wolf.
BLITZER: CNN's Jane Arraf with the latest from Baghdad -- Jane, thanks very much.
The Marine corporal who disappeared in Iraq a month ago and turned up in Lebanon last week will be returning to the United States. The Pentagon says Corporal Wassef Hassoun will be flown to the Marine Corps base at Quantico. That's here outside Washington, D.C., in Northern Virginia. He'll be flown there tomorrow.
Today, he left the U.S. medical center in Germany, which released a statement on Hassoun's behalf. Among other things, it said this: "I am happy to have completed this phase of my repatriation. The people here at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center have treated me very well, but I am excited to be going home. All thanks and praises are due to God for my safety."
It was an effort strongly supported by President Bush, but the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States fell short today. What went wrong for the Republicans?
Later, the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, they are on the campaign trail and in the spotlight. We'll get to that.
First, though, a quick look at some other news making headlines around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice-over): Torrential rains and landslides in Northern Japan claim at least six lives; 20,000 people are ordered to evacuate.
Several people had to be rescued when their homes were flooded. Floods and landslides from monsoons in parts of southern Asia are blamed for 300 deaths. Millions of people are stranded. The rain began falling last month is and is expected to last several more days.
French President Jacques Chirac takes part in Bastille Day festivities that include a parade and fireworks. The national holiday commemorates the revolution back in 1789 that ultimately rid France of its monarchy.
A British man may have discovered a lost collection of Beatles memorabilia. An old suitcase he bought for $36 in Australia contained photos, concert programs and unreleased song versions. Experts are trying to determine if they're the real thing.
And that's our look around the world.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: A significant setback for Republican efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage by changing the United States Constitution.
Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry is here with us. He has got details -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Republicans had high hopes of using this debate to embarrass Democrats on the eve of their national convention. But it didn't work out that way.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY (voice-over): Republicans fell 12 votes short of continuing the debate and 19 votes shy of the 67 needed to change the Constitution. Democrats and gay rights groups were ecstatic.
CHERYL JACQUES, PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: Today, we saw President Bush and the Republican leadership attempt to divide America, and it backfired, instead, dividing their own party.
HENRY: The Republican sponsor of the amendment insisted the vote was a positive first step.
SEN. WAYNE ALLARD (R), COLORADO: We think getting the number of votes that we did on a first try in the Senate was definitely a success.
HENRY: But Republicans had been hoping for a much better showing, which became impossible when prominent moderates like John McCain peeled off.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.
HENRY: This gave cover to Democrats facing tough reelection fights, like Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: Senator McCain is right. We should oppose this amendment today.
HENRY: But Republicans believe the vote will backfire on Democrats politically and that the GOP will ultimately prevail on the issue.
SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: This is a big country and it's a very active one. I think you will see this issue turning and, ultimately, we will win this fight. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Senators John Kerry and John Edwards skipped this vote, saying it was just procedural. Edwards did put out a statement charging that Republicans are trying to use the Constitution as a political tool. A Bush-Cheney campaign aide responded by saying in part, "It takes a special kind of senator to attack others over a vote that they don't show up for" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: An important day in the United States Senate today.
Our congressional correspondent Ed Henry, thanks very much.
Life as the first daughters. From boyfriends meeting their father to their mother's cleaning habits, Jenna and Barbara Bush speak out on life in the White House. That's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: President and Mrs. Bush's twin daughters are now stepping out more and more on the campaign trail. And they are also speaking out about life in the White House.
In an interview in the new issue of "Vogue" magazine, Jenna and Barbara Bush broke their silence about their family, their futures and their decision to join their parents in this campaign.
Jenna is quoted as saying: "It's not like he called me up and asked me. They never wanted to throw us into that world, and I think our decision probably shocked them. But I love my dad and I think I would regret it if I didn't do this."
Jenna appears to have been the more outspoken sister in the "Vogue" interview. There's a picture of both of them. They both praise their parents' marriage, calling her mom cute -- that's Jenna, that is -- with funny quirks, and describing her father's interactions with her boyfriends this way: "He's not the shotgun dad type. He's the 'joking around to the point where he scares the heck of them' type."
With an English degree from the University of Texas, Jenna says she plans to teach. She has applied for a job at an elementary school in Harlem. Barbara graduated from Yale and majored in humanities. She plans to work with AIDS-afflicted children in Eastern Europe and Africa. But their father's final campaign for reelection, all that comes first.
We'll take a quick break. The results of our Web question, that's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in our Web question of the day. Take a look at these numbers, remembering it's not, repeat, not, a scientific poll.
A reminder, we're on weekdays, 5:00 Eastern, also noon Eastern. I'll see you back here tomorrow. Thanks very much for joining us.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
