DR. BLIX: Well, they aren’t there. I mean, there are people who think that there are still nuclear weapons in Iraq, but they are few. And the U.S. military’s not...

MR. RUSSERT: Not nuclear?

DR. BLIX: No, none. None.

MR. RUSSERT: Biological or chemical?

DR. BLIX: No. No.

MR. RUSSERT: Were they fed to surrounding countries?

DR. BLIX: No. They were destroyed in 1991. This is what the son-in-law of Saddam said. And I think that is the truth. There could be relics somewhere, something that was forgotten, but that’s all.

MR. RUSSERT: As we sit here in June of ‘06, North Korea has the nuclear bomb, Iran is pushing to have it.

DR. BLIX: Maybe.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

MR. RUSSERT: Maybe?

DR. BLIX: Maybe.

MR. RUSSERT: You don’t believe Iran wants a nuclear bomb?

DR. BLIX: Well, I think, after Iraq, we ought to look pretty well at the, at the evidence. And I hear some people saying that, “What could they—why could they go for nuclear? They have oil.” Well, no one says that to Mexico. But I certainly don’t exclude that there will be groups, important groups in Iran that may be going there, but I think it’s a little wild to jump to the conclusion today.

MR. RUSSERT: How fearful are you that a rogue nation would use a nuclear bomb?

DR. BLIX: Well, the risk is there, the risk is that anyone can do so. There is discussion in this country about using nuclear weapons also. And there’s—one of the things that we turned against in the commission is that there, there can be use of nuclear weapons against any threat of, of chemical weapons, for instance. We think that one can have understanding if a country’s attacked by a nuclear weapon there will be retaliation. But the, the fact is that the doctrine hasn’t broadened the scope in—with, within which nuclear weapons can be used.

We think the world should go away from nuclear weapons, and we’ve seen now an arms race coming, in space, for instance. I was told the other day that U.S. is spending about $20 billion dollars a year in, in space. We have some engineers who tie together with microphones, and then we have a lot of other engineers who are spending $20 billion dollars to see how we can shoot down each other’s satellites. This is not talked about. It is as if people are sleepwalking into a new arms race. That’s what Kofi Annan said the other day.

MR. RUSSERT: What’s the most important recommendation you make that is practical and doable immediately?

DR. BLIX: Well, immediately, it would be a—the—that the U.S. would ratify the comprehensive trest ban—test ban treaty. The administration doesn’t want that, and it’s not on the agenda. But I think that would send the signal to the rest of the world that we are interested in disarmament and we are willing to participate in it. We are not simply telling the countries of the world, “You stay away from it and we build up arsenals,” we will also participate in it. So that would be one thing.

The other would be the agreement that, that has now tabled by, by the U.S. about cutting off the production of enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes. If they add to that verification, it would be made more clear. The U.S., I think, is alone at the present time in the world in not wanting to have verification of weapons. Without verification of such an agreement, we will not be credible.

MR. RUSSERT: All right. Dr. Hans Blix, thank you for joining us to talk about your report.

DR. BLIX: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, our political roundtable on Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of the Treasury and what his appointment means, and the continuing whiff of scandal all across Washington and how it will affect the 2006 midterm elections, right here on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we’re back. Mr. Harwood, Ms. Ifill. Welcome, both.

MS. GWEN IFILL: Hi.

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s go right to it. California. Duke Cunningham convicted of a crime, a Republican seat, and now it’s too close to call. Republican Bilbray, Democrat Busby. Gwen, what do you see?

MS. IFILL: Brian Bilbray is a lobbyist. That’s what he’s been doing lately, and that’s what Francine Busby uses in all her ads. “Lobbyist Brian Bilbray has done this for you. Lobbyist”—that’s become the bad words, especially in a district where Duke Cunningham is now in a—serving some time for hanging out with lobbyists. So that’s considered to be a bad thing. At the same time, Bilbray tries to talk about immigration. He tries to change the subject. Talk about immigration, so, you know, this—she’s on the wrong side of immigration, which counts somewhat in the Southern California district. But that’s why it’s come down to this.

MR. RUSSERT: What happens, what’s the fallout, if the Democrats win this seat, or if the Republicans hold it?

MR. JOHN HARWOOD: Well, if the Democrats win the seat, it’s a tremendous propaganda victory for them, and they’ll use it to argue that this is 1994. “They’re going to lose everywhere, and we’re going to rout them.” I talked to senior strategists in both parties this morning; they’re both now expecting a very, very narrow Bilbray win, but we’ll see what happens. It all comes down to turnout. Republicans have outspent the Democrats two-to-one in this seat, and they focused, in particular, on the early voting to try to juice that turnout that might not come naturally on Election Day because conservatives are so dispirited.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the Iraq war. This was Adam Nagourney in The New York Times. “With Iraq looming yet again over an American presidential campaign, senators considering a White House race are...forced to explain their votes - and in some cases, alter their views - on an increasingly unpopular war. Senator John McCain ... and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton ... both prospective 2008 candidates, have encountered hecklers protesting their support for the Iraq war. Both responded with hints of recalibrations in the way they discussed the issue, with Mrs. Clinton telling Democrats who nominated her on Wednesday for a second term to ‘stand with me’ in pressing the White House and Iraqis to develop a plan that would permit American troops to come home.”

And let’s take a look at Senator Clinton accepting the nomination of her party in Buffalo, New York, where else? Here’s Senator Clinton.

(Videotape, Wednesday):

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): Stand with me as we push the Bush administration to take responsibility for the mistakes and misjudgments that they have made around the world, and stand with me as we put pressure on both the administration and the new Iraqi government to get behind a real plan for the Iraqis to assume a growing responsibility for their own security and safety so that we can begin to bring our troops home.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Gwen Ifill, will that message work with rank-and-file Democrats?

MS. IFILL: Think about what the options are, these senators have, who voted for the war. Hillary Clinton can either say, “I was—I made a mistake,” at which point she gets labeled a flip-flopper, something that’s happened in the family before. She doesn’t want to do that. John McCain has to stand by the president because he will also be labeled the same way, plus he actually believes that Iraq war was a good decision. I was interested to hear Senator Biden out here, talking about the miscalculation in trusting the president, rather than that his war vote was a mistake, and his optimism that the war vote would not be a defining question in the Democratic primary.

All that aside, these guys are in a box, so they have got to find some way out. In her case, it’s to say, “Let’s call attention to the miscalculations, let’s call attention to how we were misled,” instead of calling attention to whether we should have been in the war in the first place.

MR. HARWOOD: And Tim, the safe ground Democrats are trying to claim was reflected in that statement, and that is, accountability. “We’re—they’re messing it up.”

MS. IFILL: Right.

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print