|
Russert gave Warner a free pass on
non-answer to Iraq question -- and grilled Biden instead
Media Matters
November 29, 2005
On the November 27 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked
Sen. John Warner (R-VA) if he "believe[d], in all honesty, that the
administration took the very best spin they could get in order to help buttress
or support the case for war." Citing the Bush family's "integrity and public
service," Warner responded: "Our president would not intentionally take any
facts and try to mislead the American public, in my judgment." But rather than
challenge Warner's non-answer by pointing to mounting evidence indicating the
Bush administration did intentionally withhold or distort intelligence, Russert
instead grilled Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) on his vote to authorize the
use of force against Iraq.
From the November 27 Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Senator Warner, take the aluminum tubes that the administration
talked about in terms of --
WARNER: Right.
RUSSERT: -- being used for nuclear weapon development. The State Department
was very, very clear about that; the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the
Department of Energy. And in the National Intelligence Estimate, there was a
caveat which said, "We don't believe these tubes could be used for anything
like that." Do you believe, in all honesty, that the administration took the
very best spin on intelligence they could get in order to help buttress or
support the case for war?
WARNER: You know, I've known the president quite well. I knew his father
well. I actually knew his grandfather, met him. You remember, he served on the
--
BIDEN: I only know the father and the --
WARNER: Well, anyway, the grandfather served on the Armed Services Committee
as a senator. That's a family that's been known for its integrity and public
service for generations. Our president would not intentionally take any facts
and try and mislead the American public, in my judgment. What was before all
leaders of the world at that time were facts that gave rise to the -- Saddam
Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and some potential for nuclear
weapons. When we went in, in '91, we underestimated how far he had proceeded in
his programs. Now, we recognize he didn't have them, but he certainly had the
infrastructure to which he was going to direct moneys, if he ever got it, to go
back into the business of weapons of mass destruction, had not this invasion
taken place.
Russert, however, failed to press Warner on the aluminum tube issue, in
spite of evidence indicating President Bush may have intentionally distorted or
withheld intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee and the Iraq Survey
Group both concluded that aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein were likely
intended for use in a conventional rocket program and not in uranium
centrifuges, as Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed in 2003.
Specifically, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that "the information
available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were
intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear
program." In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush touted Saddam's pursuit
of aluminum tubes, along with since-discredited reports of Iraqi attempts to
procure uranium from Niger, as evidence of an emerging Iraqi nuclear weapons
program.
Also, in a November 22 National Journal article, journalist Murray Waas
revealed that 10 days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush
"was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community
had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and
that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant
collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." A recently declassified 2002 Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) document, released by the office of Sen. Carl Levin
(D-MI), indicates that the White House and the National Security Council were
likely aware that DIA questioned the reliability of claims made by Ibn
Al-Shaykh al-Libi -- an Al Qaeda operative captured in November 2001 -- that Al
Qaeda had received chemical and biological weapons training from Iraq. In 2003,
Bush and Powell touted al-Libi's claims as evidence of a supposed link between
Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush often asserted a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda as
justification for the invasion of Iraq, reportedly referencing al-Libi's claims
in making that connection.
Russert might also have noted other evidence that Bush administration
officials may have deliberately twisted or withheld intelligence and might also
have asked Warner to comment on whether he believed Bush had access to the
intelligence his subordinates were touting. Vice President Dick Cheney often
referred to a supposed meeting between 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi
intelligence official in Prague, Czech Republic, as evidence of a link between
Iraq and Al Qaeda, even though, as The New York Times reported on October 21,
2002, Czech president Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has
concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed
Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence
officer in Prague." The 9-11 Commission concluded in 2004 that the Prague
meeting never occurred. According to an October 3, 2004, New York Times
article, experts at the Energy Department believed the disputed aluminum tubes
"were likely intended for small artillery rockets." They had conveyed their
assessment to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice almost a year
before she appeared on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer and said the tubes
were ''only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." Also, the
administration's declassified version of the October 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate omitted a number of crucial dissenting views and caveats that undercut
the certainty with which administration officials were presenting disputed
pieces of intelligence.
Biden responded to Warner's answer by explaining how the administration may
have "misled" regarding the aluminum tubes and referred specifically to Rice's
CNN appearance:
BIDEN: Tim, I'm not talking about the president. Let's get that straight.
We're talking about Cheney when I said they lied. Let's -- let --
RUSSERT: You said the president misled.
BIDEN: Yeah, misled. Now, here, let me be precise. Aluminum tubes --
remember that whole issue? Casey [sic: Cheney] said the tubes were "irrefutable
evidence" of their nuclear policy. Rice said they were "really only suited for
nuclear weapons programs." And Bush said there was "no doubt" about this. In
fact, the Energy Department expert said, as you pointed out, the tube -- they
were not for nuclear. The Intelligence Research Bureau agreed and said, "no
compelling case that Iraq's currently pursuing an integrated, comprehensive
approach to acquire nuclear weapons." This is in 10/02. Now, this is evidence
they had at the time. Yet they used words like "The weapons program is
irrefutable."
Instead of pressing Warner using the mounting evidence, or even asking
Warner to respond to Biden's explanation of how the administration may have
taken "the very best spin" on the aluminum tubes to further the cause for war,
Russert shifted his focus to Biden, whom he pressured to explain why he voted
to authorize the use of force against Iraq:
RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you read the National Intelligence Estimate, at
least the summary of it, it had a caveat in there from the State Department and
the Department of Energy saying they did not believe the --
BIDEN: After the fact, Tim. Look, look --
RUSSERT: This was made available to senators before the vote. Only six read
it.
BIDEN: No, no, no, no, no, no. That's true, that was before the vote.
RUSSERT: But you saw --
BIDEN: That was before the vote.
RUSSERT: You saw that information and you still voted for the war.
BIDEN: But remember -- no, remember what I voted for was for the president
to be able to go to war, if, if -- I've got the resolution here -- if, in fact,
it was to enforce the existing breaches that existed in the U.N. [United
Nations] resolution, and if he could show there were weapons of mass
destruction.
RUSSERT: Do you believe the Democrats and you were diligent enough in
reading that National Intelligence Estimate and all the caveats and calling the
president to task as to whether or not he was being candid about the
intelligence and his interpretation?
BIDEN: Yes. And if I -- I'll leave with you because there's no time here all
the statements I made at the time laying out my doubts about their assertions.
But remember what the resolution said, Tim, it didn't say "go to war." It said,
"Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force."
|
|