Just finished watching Jim Webb live on CNN's "Late Edition" with Wolf Blitzer, and he was masterful with his indepth responses to the various issues (Iraq, Gonzales, etc.) posed and discussed.

Surely the guy will hit a single, double or triple eventually, and he may even strike out one of these times but, so far, he has been a consistent home run hitter.

Batter up!

Steve

Courtesy of CNN, here are the parts in which Sen. Webb participated.

BLITZER: It's 11:00 a.m. here in Washington, 8:00 a.m. in Los Angeles, 4:00 p.m. in London and 7:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you are watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us for "Late Edition."

It's a little bit of the calm before the storm, but we are following severe weather expected to hammer the Northeast part of the United States later today. Our meteorologists are following the situation very closely. We're going to bring you a full weather report. That's coming up later this hour, some serious weather down south in the Florida region as well. All that coming up.

But right now, we want to go straight to our discussion with two key United States senators. This week's attack against the Iraqi parliament inside heavily-guarded Green Zone, the bombing of key bridges in Baghdad, and word that the deployment of U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be extended from 12 to 15 months are all adding more fuel to the already heated debate underway here in Washington about the U.S. strategy.

Joining us now, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He's a key member of the Armed Services and the Foreign Relations Committees. And Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, he has the Senate Republican Conference. He recently visited Iraq.

Senators, thanks to both of you for coming in.

Senator Webb, let me start with you and get your immediate reaction to what we just heard from Vice President Dick Cheney. He was on CBS, on "Face the Nation." He says progress is being made right now with this U.S. strategy, and he added this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I do believe we can win in Iraq. I think it is a worthy cause. I think it's absolutely essential that we prevail, and I think the United States of America, at the beginning of the 21st century, is perfectly capable of winning this fight against these people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. You agree or disagree?

WEBB: Well, you know, he also really took off after the Democratic Party saying this is the return of the McGovern era and had a lot of, I think, unfortunate rhetoric that tends to continue to polarize us.

I think the question in Iraq has always been, A, first of all, whether we should have gone in. And there were many of us with long national security experience who still support the Vietnam War, by the way, to counter something that Vice President Cheney was saying yesterday, who believed that this was a huge strategic error to go in.

And then the second question is, how do you define a success in Iraq? And the only way that we are going to have a success in Iraq is to have a regional, diplomatic solution that can provide some sort of an umbrella for us to remove our troops, and we don't see them saying that.

This is a totally one-dimensional approach. The surge is not a strategy. I was saying that the day that the president announced it. It's just another tactical adjustment. It's burning out our troops.

Senator Hagel and I jointly put in a bill. We're the only two ground combat Vietnam veterans in the Senate. We put a bill in to try to stabilize what's happening to the troops on the other end, and I think the administration needs to have some more flexibility here.

BLITZER: All right. You speak not only as a United States senator, but also a former Marine and a former secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration.

You disagree, Senator Kyl?

KYL: I do. I certainly respect Jim's point of view and his past service to our country, but the generals on the ground, the Marine commandant was just over there, and many others have reviewed the situation and concluded that we are beginning to make progress.

Senator Webb is correct. The surge is not the entire part of the strategy. There are other elements to the strategy. There's the political, the economic, the diplomatic.

BLITZER: But he says that you need a regional solution with all the neighbors of Iraq, and I take it you don't see the administration, Senator Webb, moving in that direction?

WEBB: This administration hasn't, and even other people on the Democratic side tend to focus purely on the Maliki government and what they call reconciliation among the factions in Iraq. And that's simply not enough to guarantee long-term stability.

KYL: All of these things are part of the overall strategy. That's one reason you saw an historic meeting in Baghdad of the representatives of all the countries in the region, including Iran and the United States, as a prelude to another meeting that's supposed to occur in the near future.

There are diplomatic efforts underway. There are political efforts underway in the parliament in Baghdad. But until you have security on the ground, it's very difficult to consolidate all of these other efforts and assure the Iraqi people that they have an opportunity for stability in the future.

BLITZER: Do you believe, as the vice president said this morning, that -- this is a direct quote -- "We can win in Iraq"?

WEBB: The question is how do you define a win. And, actually, I don't disagree with what Senator Kyl said about the importance of the diplomatic process that the State Department has attempted to put into place. And I've said many times that I support Secretary Rice in these efforts. In fact, I met with her this week to discuss this.

The difficulty is that you are not going to have the kind of stability that they want if you simply continue to do what we've been doing. The Iraqis themselves have a stake in this. This isn't even a sectarian situation anymore. It's a breakdown among the sects.

For instance, there was an article in The Washington Post yesterday that said that Al Qaida and the Sunni elements have a new division in Al Anbar. That's not true. Al Qaida and the Sunni elements have always had a division. So this thing has fractioned out in so many different directions that you simply cannot do it without more robust diplomacy.

BLITZER: The vice president insisted today that progress slowly but surely, with the new strategy, implemented since February -- the surge as it's called -- is working. But Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he rejects whatever the vice president has to say. Listen to what he said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Vice President Cheney has zero credibility. I don't think anybody more than 5 percent or 10 percent of the hardcore, solid Republican base believes much that Vice President Cheney says. He has no credibility. He's been wrong consistently on Iraq. He has misled the people consistently on Iraq. He has misstated. He has exaggerated. And I don't think he has any credibility left.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Does he have credibility left with you?

KYL: He does, and that's not a very constructive way to engage the administration in dialogue. Look, this is a very complicated situation. People can disagree agreeably about it.

What I think is clear is that after the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, he was sent there to try to execute a new strategy. And the news coming back is that there are areas in which that new strategy appears to be working. Now, nobody is saying it's over, that we can declare victory or anything of the sort, but it is clear that there are positive signs there.

And my only question is, why would you want to pull the rug out from under the troops, deny the funding at the very moment that it looks like we may have been able to turn the corner?

BLITZER: What is the answer, Senator Webb?

WEBB: Well, I think, first of all, in terms of regretting the disagreeability, I mean, if you look at what Vice President Cheney is saying, if you look at the one-dimensional approach that that faction in the Republican Party has been taking, it's not going to solve the problem on the ground.

We want to encourage the activities that have been taken by people like Secretary Rice. We need a diplomatic umbrella. But this whole situation of incremental successes tactically, we could be talking about that 10 years from now.

What we want is a diplomatic agreement in place so that we can begin to withdraw our troops and increase stability in the region, increase our ability to fight international terrorism, increase our ability to look at the strategic issues around the world and increase American prestige around the world.

BLITZER: The president says he needs a bill to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without any strings attached. Listen to what he said this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is he going to get that kind of legislation, that kind of war funding?

WEBB: Well, that's another example of the one-dimensional approach of this administration. He wants only the bill that will fit his one-dimensional strategy.

WEBB: In the Congress -- in the Constitution, the Congress writes the checks. We appropriate. We have sent him a bill. It's got $100 billion in it, in a supplemental, so-called emergency supplemental to fund this war.

Nobody is cutting the money away from the troops unless the president wants to veto the bill that the Congress sent him.

KYL: Well, the Congress hasn't sent the bill yet. We have to work that out in the Congress.

BLITZER: The Senate has passed legislation. The House has passed separate legislation.

KYL: Right. But they're very different.

BLITZER: But there's a lot of agreement. They want a timeline that would force the president's hand -- basically, another year or so to get the job done.

KYL: That's the poison pill that the president says he simply cannot accept.

It says that, in the Senate version, within 120 days, we start the withdrawal of the troops. And the goal is to complete it before the end of another 12 months.

That's not just sending a signal to the president. That's sending a signal to our allies, to our troops, and most especially, to the enemy, all they just have to do is wait us out. It was only a couple of months ago that almost everybody in the House and Senate rejected the idea of deadlines, as simply a very bad...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Go ahead. Go ahead.

WEBB: There is not a deadline in this. There is a 120-day period after this bill is signed to begin a withdrawal. I think that's constructive, when you look at how the numbers have gone up and how we're burning out our troops on the ground. Retention levels are falling -- those sorts of things.

The goal, on the other end, is a goal. It's not a deadline. And it depends on progress.

What we want to see, and where the Democratic party, I think, has been wrongly accused of being irresponsible -- what we want to see is diplomatic efforts to tie in with the military efforts.

And this administration has simply been one-dimensional.

BLITZER: And they want to see the Iraqi government -- we're going to be speaking, shortly, to a spokesman for the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, take the steps they promise to take on oil revenues, on a real ability to end the deBaathification, bring in some of those Iraqi Sunnis.

They want to see the Iraqi government take the tough steps that, so far, they're refusing to take.

KYL: That's not exactly true. I was just there about six weeks ago.

First of all, you are right. They need to take these steps. But secondly, think are beginning to take these steps.

BLITZER: They're talking about it, but they're not doing it.

KYL: Well, the cabinet has already passed a provision for the distribution of the oil revenue.

BLITZER: But they're not doing that yet.

KYL: Well, the parliament still has to approve it.

BLITZER: Right.

KYL: What I think is incorrect here is to say that they are refusing to do anything. They are taking time, and we wish that they would do it faster. But it's not as if they are saying, we refuse to do any of these things.

And here is the irony of it. The best way to bring our troops home is for these steps to be taken. The irony is that the benchmarks should actually be, if they do these things, then we bring our troops home, because that's what will enable us to bring the troops home, not if they don't do these things, we'll bring the troops home.

So it seems to me that we have to put the pressure on diplomatically, the pressure on the Iraqi government politically. But until you have a stable environment there, where the people can live in some degree of peace, it's very difficult for them to get together and make political agreements.

BLITZER: I'm going to take a break, but you want to just wrap that up?

WEBB: 30 seconds, 30 seconds, if I may. I mean, the difficulty is that this is a very weak central government, very similar to when I was in Beirut as a journalist in 1983 when the Marines were there.

It doesn't have the power, in and of itself, to compel a lot of these actions among the factions in Iraq.

That's why we need these other countries in the region to come to the table, as, hopefully, is going to happen with the process that has begun by the State Department, and with the opposition of people like Dick Cheney.

BLITZER: All right, guys, stand by, Senators. We're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about, including Alberto Gonzales.

He's scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Tuesday. Will he survive or will he be forced out?

We'll talk about that and a lot more.

And after this week's attack inside Iraq's parliament, question about whether any place is really safe in Baghdad. We'll talk about that with the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh.

Then we'll get some perspective from a prominent proponent of the war, the former assistant defense secretary, Richard Perle. He's standing by to join us live. What does he think of this current U.S. strategy?

And coming up later for our North American viewers at 1 p.m. Eastern, John Roberts hosts "This Week at War." You're watching "Late Edition." We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. This note: coming up in our second hour, at noon Eastern, my interview -- it's a rare interview -- with the former vice president, Walter Mondale.

You'll want to see what he has to say about the war and the man who is currently, currently the vice president of the United States. That interview with Walter Mondale, coming up.

But right now, we're continuing our conversation with Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia; Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Only moments ago, the Department of Justice released the opening statement of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. He's scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Among other things, he says this. And I'll read it to you from the advance statement they released. "I know that I did not and would not ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain."

I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason." He's under fire for the dismissal, Senator Webb, of those eight federal prosecutors; a lot of allegations being made right now. What do you think?

Should he go or should he stay, Alberto Gonzales?

WEBB: Well, I think we should receive his testimony. And I think that, you know, Senator Kyl is on the appropriate committee. Senator Leahy has done a really good job of trying to bring this issue to the forefront.

The difficulty that people of the Democratic side have with this situation is, A, that they were selective firings; and B, that some of them did appear to have political overtones.

For instance, the woman who prosecuted the case against former Congressman Duke Cunningham...

BLITZER: In California -- Carol Lam?

WEBB: ... in California, and who apparently had other cases that were being considered, was fired.

And that not only impacts on the particular cases, but if those sorts of firings go unanswered by others in the political process, it could create a chilling effect on those sorts of cases.

BLITZER: He suggested earlier, Senator Kyl -- I know you're a member of the Judiciary Committee, so you know all about this. He suggested earlier that he only had a marginal role in all of this.

I want you to hear what he said on March 13. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES: I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That's a serious acknowledgement on his part that he was really not much involved.

He writes, in today's Washington Post, this: "I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statement about my role in this matter.

BLITZER: To be clear, I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process, fully knew that it was occurring and approved the final recommendations."

So what was it? Was he deeply involved in all of this or only marginally involved?

KYL: That matters a lot less than the central question which was, were any of these people removed for an improper purpose, whether he was involved or not involved? And the answer so far is, there is no evidence to that. This is what you asked Senator Webb.

And while Democrats have suspicions because there are political corruption cases going in virtually every U.S. attorney jurisdiction today -- and there always are -- there is no evidence that any of these individuals were removed in order to stop a prosecution or, in fact, that any prosecutions were stopped or investigations were stopped.

The problem is the attorney general here is trying to prove a negative. I didn't do something for a bad purpose. It's really incumbent upon those who are casting aspersions on him and on the administration to show the evidence if there is any, and so far there is not, that any prosecution was stopped because of this or that it was done for that purpose.

BLITZER: Senator Kyl makes a fair point. Suspicion -- Democrats have suspicion that in California, for example, and some of the other U.S. attorneys whose were fired, that they may have been getting too close to some other Republicans and, as a result, they may have been fired, or they weren't being aggressive enough in going after Democrats.

But there is no hard evidence that anyone was fired because they were doing something that the White House didn't want.

WEBB: Well, I mean, that's why we have hearings. And that's why I think these hearings are appropriate. It shouldn't be incumbent on the people who discover an irregularity to have to provide evidence as to why the irregularity was there.

It is incumbent on the administration to explain why, selectively, eight of these people were fired, and coincidentally or otherwise, people like this individual who had prosecuted Congressman Cunningham, who went to jail, are suddenly without a job that. And that can provide a chilling effect on the judicial process. So I think these hearings are appropriate and it will be very interesting to see what happens this week.

BLITZER: Hovering over all of this now is this new scandal involving these missing White House e-mails -- millions of them, potentially. Top White House officials, including Karl Rove, were using Republican Party e-mail systems that -- and a lot of those e- mails were simply discarded, displaced.

And people are wondering, especially Democrats, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, what about those e-mails? Listen to what Leahy said this week because he was irate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT.: I don't believe that. I don't believe that. You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers. They can't say that they've been lost. That's like saying the dog ate my homework.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He says it doesn't work that way. You're shaking your head, but there's deep concern, as you well know.

KYL: But you called it a scandal, Wolf. And there is no scandal here. There will be testimony about what has happened. I asked the attorney general, for example, why some of these new documents came out. And he said the reality was that most of them are duplicates of documents that have already been released to the committee, but they simply hadn't asked all of the people who might have a copy.

They discovered that there were additional people who had copies of pretty much the same documents. Now, there are a few new documents, but by and large, they were all duplicates of what existed already.

Before we get all excited and call it a scandal and suggest that something was deliberately erased, let's hear the testimony and see what actually happened and if there's something wrong, people have plenty of time to get into it.

BLITZER: Senator, you were around during the Clinton administration. If the Clinton White House told you, "You know what? Top officials were using Democratic e-mail systems, laptops, not White House laptops, and you know what? Those documents, there are millions of them now that have been erased, that have been deleted," you would be outraged.

KYL: First of all, there is -- as far as I know, it's actually a good thing to divide the political from the governmental thing.

BLITZER: But if those e-mails, if you wanted them, and the Democratic Party said, "Well, you're not going to get them because we've lost them," would you believe them? KYL: Well, first of all, if the Democratic Party is asking the Republican party For its e- mails, I'm not sure that the Republican Party has an obligation to...

BLITZER: No, no, the Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee wants those e-mails.

KYL: Yes, the Democratic chairman of the committee wants the political e-mails of Karl Rove. Now, do you think that if you wanted to turn the tables that if the Clinton administration had had political e-mails, that it would have been appropriate for the Republicans to say "We want your political e-mails?"

Wolf, I don't know. And that's what this hearing and the investigation will get into. But before we call it a scandal and start pointing fingers and suggest that something is wrong, let's get back to the original question which is, what was wrong to begin with? Was somebody fired improperly? And there is, as yet, no evidence that that occurred.

BLITZER: What's your bottom line because we are out of time?

WEBB: Well, the bottom line is, if these legal proceedings were wrongly interrupted, that is obstruction of justice and then you do you have a situation similar to Watergate when they were asking for political communications. I don't have a legal view myself on that yet, but I'm looking forward to the hearings. That's what they are supposed to be looking at.

BLITZER: We'll have extensive coverage on Tuesday of the hearings with Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Kyl, I know you will be there...

KYL: I'll be there.

BLITZER: ... among the questioners. Thanks to both of you for coming in.

KYL: Thanks, Wolf.

WEBB: Thank you.

Steve