Kentucky Governor Ready to Respond to Evidence in Sexual Harassment Suit; Democrats Say Congress Should Not Write Blank Check for Bush on Iraq
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Candy Crowley in Washington. Kentucky's governor appears ready to respond to new evidence in a sexual harassment suit against him. Will he change story?</s>KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Kate Snow on Capitol Hill, where some Senate Democrats are adamant that Congress should not write a blank check for the president authority to go after Iraq.</s>WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm Bill Schneider in Washington. It may seem as though everyone and his brother is talking about Iraq, but only one of them can earn the "Political Play of the Week."</s>CROWLEY: Also ahead: Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, "on the record" about the Orange alert for terror and how long it may last.</s>ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS with Judy Woodruff.</s>CROWLEY: Thanks for joining us. Judy is off today. Kentucky governor Paul Patton abruptly canceled his scheduled public appearances today and instead scheduled a news conference, due to begin an about an hour. He is expected to answer questions about the sexual harassment lawsuit he faces, was filed by a woman who claims they had a two year affair. Tina Conner alleges Patton used his power as governor to help her businesses during their affair and to retaliate against her when she broke off the relationship. According to reports out today, the phone records from early 1997 through last month show more than 400 phone calls were placed from Patton's office to five telephone numbers associated with Conner's business. WHAS TV reporter, Bob Hebert, first reported the allegations against Patton. He is in Frankfurt, Kentucky, where the governor will hold his news conference. Bob thank you again for joining us. What can you tell us about what the governor has to say?</s>MARK HEBERT, WHAS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Candy, first of all, it's Mark Hebert from WHAS TV in Louisville. Sorry you got the wrong information. But what we can tell you is within the hour here Governor Paul Patton of the state of Kentucky, Democratic governor in his second term is expected to come before the TV cameras and the people of Kentucky and essentially acknowledge that he had a sexual relationship with this woman a couple of years ago. The governor is also expected to say and deny to deny that he ever used his office inappropriately. In other words, he did not try and punish her or he didn't try to help her while that sexual relationship was going on. So, that's what we're expecting here at a 5:00 Eastern Time news conference here at the History Center in Frankfurt.</s>CROWLEY: Well, Mark, at this point it seems to me that this only starts the investigation since you have these phone calls. You have him apparently now going to say, OK, there was something. Are people going to take him at his word on this, or do you expect investigation?</s>HEBERT: No, everybody is expecting an investigation, either by the FBI, which could look to see if he traded sex for favorers for this woman or by the Ethics Commission here in Frankfurt, Kentucky, our executive branch Ethics Commission has already said that it is going to look into these allegations. So, you're going to have at least two different investigations ongoing, I suspect, in the coming months, but I think there are two different stories here. One, did Governor Patton have a sexual liaison with this woman? He's going to apparently admit to that here in about an hour. The other question is did he use the power of his office to try and help here, then punish her after the relationship broke off? That will remain to be seen. But again, Governor Patton is expected to deny that he did that.</s>CROWLEY: Mark, we've got about a minute left. How much political trouble is he in? He was a fairly popular governor. Is this something that could force him out of office early? Is this something he can ride out? Do you have a sense of that yet?</s>HEBERT: No, we don't.I think it's way too early to discuss that. I think that Governor Patton surely will not announce his resignation today. Nobody expects that. He was planning to run for the U.S. Senate against Jim Cunning in Northern Kentucky in two years. Certainly that senate rune will be in jeopardy. Does it hurt other candidates, other Democratic candidates here in the state of Kentucky? Paul Patton's been out stumping for them. Does it hurt them? Certainly it'll hurt them in the November election coming up. But as far as Paul Patton, no, we do not expect a resignation. We'll just have to see where this investigation or these investigations go down the road before deciding whether Paul Patton should be forced from office.</s>CROWLEY: Mark Hebert, we thank you very much from WHAS TV. Thanks a lot.</s>HEBERT: Thanks, Candy. Thank you.</s>CROWLEY: Now, the political and international debate over Iraq. President Bush today pressed for Russian support of his tough stance against Saddam Hussein. The White House says Mr. Bush had a productive phone conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin. He also met at the White House with the Russian defense and foreign ministers. President Bush may have a relatively easier selling job on Capitol Hill, but some senate Democrats are determined to change the language of a White House draft resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Here's our Congressional correspondent, Kate Snow.</s>SNOW (voice-over): Senator Russ Feingold wants the world to know there are some Democrats who won't go along with a White House- proposed resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. He couldn't be more direct.</s>SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: It should be scrapped. It's a non-starter. It's really an astonishing document.</s>SNOW: Only a handful of Democrats are expressing such strong views, but many are concerned the language written by the White House gives the president too much leeway, one rewrite being suggested by senator Joe Lieberman, language similar to what passed back in 1991. Before using force, the president has to tell Congress he tried to use, quote, "all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to get Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions." A senior Democratic aide tells CNN a number of Democrats think the 1991 language is a good model. Democrats also point to part of the very last sentence, authorizing the president to use force to, quote, "restore international peace and security in the region." Many say that could mean taking action anywhere in the Persian Gulf, not just Iraq.</s>SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: This proposal coming from the White House makes some vague reference to the region. Does that mean the entire Middle East or what?</s>SNOW: White House officials say the resolution is only meant to deal with Iraq, and they're all but certain the language will be rewritten to make that clear. But those changes may not satisfy Senator Feingold. He's concerned his Democratic colleagues will quickly approve a resolution just because elections are around the corner.</s>FEINGOLD: I'm worried that they're so desperate to just sign off on this thing, to look like they want to get Saddam Hussein, which we all do, that we won't give it the scrutiny that is required of the United States Senate.</s>SNOW: Senator Feingold went on to say this could be one of the most historic mistakes in the history of U.S. Senate if they don't reject this language, Candy. Senator Daschle told the White House, President Bush earlier this week not to expect unanimous support from Senate Democrats. Clearly Mr. Feingold's comments point to just that. But the process has begun up here. Henry Hyde, the House International Relations Chairman, sending some of his suggestions for smaller changes to the language over to the White House. Today, Congressional leaders, Candy, hoping they could have a vote on this resolution as soon as the week after next.</s>CROWLEY: Kate Snow on Capitol Hill, on top of it as always. Thanks, Kate. In a report to Congress today, the Bush administration spelled out its reasons for favoring preemptive strikes against hostile nations and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. Let's bring in our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield. So, Jeff, what are the reasons that are spelled out?</s>JEFF GREENFIELD, SENIOR ANALYST: Well, what I think you see here is the repeated assertion throughout this document that the post-Cold War world and the new threats to the U.S. require a whole new set of presumption. They argue that the deterrents worked to contain the Soviet Union, but now, this is a quote, "deterrents based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states, more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people and their wealth of their nations". I think you can read Iraq clearly there. And, second, as you've just mentioned, the argument for preemption. It tips its cap to the international community. And then the document says -- and this is probably the headline -- "we will not hesitate to act alone if necessary, to exercise our right to self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists." So I think that's the key message that's spelled out in this document.</s>CROWLEY: So, does that last message underscore what many people feel about the president, that he's a unilateralist, a go-it-aloner?</s>GREENFIELD: Well, I think the document tries to make it very clear that that's not what they are saying. It certainly defines United States national interests and it does stake that we will act alone if necessary. But also stakes out a global vision. And, I think, to appeal to the international community it lays great stress on economic as well as military security. It talks over and over about bringing, quote, "free markets and free trade to every corner of the globe." And by the way, Candy, in that sense there is an echo, I think, of domestic politics because that view of growth -- economic freedom, lower tax rates, less regulation, skepticism about big public investments, that tracks with mainstream conservative thinking about how impoverished nations can grow and get wealthier.</s>CROWLEY: So, having read through the whole thing, are there are inconsistencies in policies</s>GREENFIELD: Well, I think in the area of free trade it just jumps out at you, because this document says, as I just mentioned -- first of all, it says that poverty can breed the kinds of discontents that lead to anti-Americanism and to terrorists, and that's why it's important to care about global poverty. But if you look at Pakistan, probably one of the most dangerous places in the world right now. Getting out of poverty depends on growing Pakistan's textile industry. But the United States, out of domestic politics, imposes tariffs and quotas on precisely those kinds of imports. And earlier this week, to give you another example, "The Wall Street Journal" told a story of an impoverished sugarcane grower in South Africa, where poverty comes in large measure from the barriers to international trade. And it's rich nations that keep that kind of sugar out of their countries. So, for my money, it is quite remarkable how the free trade rhetoric, which just shoots through this document contrasts with some of what the United States actually does.</s>CROWLEY: And finally, Jeff -- and maybe we should have asked this at the beginning -- what's the point of this paper? Why do we care about it? What's it trying to do?</s>GREENFIELD: Well, I think one -- when the world's most powerful nation outlines its premises, the world pays attention, But there are actual reasons for this. I mean, in an international world, even more than in presidential politics, words weigh a ton. Fifty-two years ago, Harry Truman's secretary of state, Dean Atchison gave a speech that outlined America's defense perimeter, and he didn't include Korea. And for years, possibly unfairly, critics charged that that omission may have led the Soviets and North Korea to conclude that the U.S. wouldn't act. And historians are going to debate for years whether a dozen years ago the U.S. ambassador to Iraq maybe have unwittingly, through the choice of her words, signal to Saddam Hussein that America wouldn't act if Kuwait was subject of an Iraq invasion. So, in this case, I think no nation and no diplomat can read this without concluding pretty clearly that the U.S. -- this administration thinks it is at a new post-Cold War era, the old rules are gone, and the U.S. will act preemptively under some circumstances, which is a break from at least the rhetoric of the Clinton administration.</s>CROWLEY: Thanks very much. Jeff Greenfield out of New York. We appreciate it. In the war on terror, federal authorities are holding a former Sudanese air force pilot, who may have been planning to hijack a plane and fly it into a target in the United States. Sources say he's being held in Greensboro, North Carolina, after the FBI urged law enforcement agents to be on the lookout for a Sudanese pilot who "may represent a possible threat." Some sources characterize the search for the man as "urgent," but others say there was no information suggesting any specific targets were threatened in the Washington area, or anywhere else in the U.S. Federal authorities also are holding several other Sudanese citizens at undisclosed locations, but it's not clear if they have any connection to the pilot. The members of Congress heard more testimony today about intelligence failures leading up the September 11 terror attacks. A Congressional investigation found U.S. intelligence agencies missed opportunities to pursue two of the 9/11 hijackers for a year-and-a- half before the attacks. The staff director of the joint House-Senate inquiry said the CIA failed to share information with the FBI.</s>ELEANOR HILL, STAFF DIRECTOR: The CIA had obtained information, identifying two of the 19 hijackers, Almihdhar and Alhaszmi as suspected terrorists carrying visas for travel to the United States as long as 18 months prior to the time they were eventually watch listed. There were numerous opportunities during the tracking of these two suspected terrorists when the CIA could have alerted the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement authorities to the probability that these individuals either were or would soon be in the United States.</s>CROWLEY: We have our national security correspondent, David Ensor, here. David, there was some concern on this committee that they shouldn't be holding these hearings at all.</s>DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It got rather lively today. There was some debate about that. There were some members on the committee who were arguing that to have this kind of open hearing, but have FBI and CIA people there, talking about stuff that is most of it classified, there was the danger you go over the line and there was also the danger to the witnesses, at least that was the argument. The counter-argument from the chairman was Americans need to know what went wrong and who's to blame, and we need to figure out how to fix it. But very strong language today from Senator Kyl, if we have that.</s>SEN. JON KYL (D-AZ), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: So, this hearing is for show. This isn't to obtain information. Now, there's a point at which it's important for us to present the information that we've derived to the American people, but it should be when we're all done and it shouldn't be in a setting in which the witnesses are having to be very careful about what they say because they may say something that's classified.</s>ENSOR: Witnesses were very careful, Candy, but nonetheless there were several occasions when they said, We can't go there. We have to stop.</s>CROWLEY: David Ensor, thanks very much. Always a pleasure for me. More on the terror threat. Up next, when I talk to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. Are law enforcement authorities on high alert mostly getting it right or jumping the gun? Also ahead, politically correct coffee? Will voters in Berkeley, California swallow it? Plus...</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quite frankly our mission and vision is to sometime soon become the number one giver to Republican candidates in the country.</s>CROWLEY: We'll check out a controversial group that supports some Republicans and tries to punish others. This is "INSIDE POLITICS", the place for campaign news?