Transcript for July 23

MR. BOLTEN: I’m telling you what Senator Thune called to tell me, which is that he was, he was chagrinned at, at the way his remarks were characterized and that he is a supporter of the president and his agenda.

But, but let me go to the, let me go to broader point about, about political support for the president and this crisis and the ongoing conflict in Iraq. That is that the president on this issue is not going to be driven, as, as on any other issue, is not going to be driven by polls. He’s going to be, he’s going to be doing what’s right. The conflict in Iraq is, is very hard. It’s been, it’s been involved in enormous sacrifices for our men and women in uniform and their, and their families. But it is an absolutely essential battleground for, for us to fight the war on terror. And, you know, the polls may come and go, but the president is, under all circumstances, the president, I know, is going to be doing the right thing, and I believe he will sustain strong Republican support for, for the policies that he’s pursuing. The, the—I’ve seen a lot of stories about members being interested in, in distancing themselves, like the one you just cited from the president, but the president is out there campaigning, fund-raising at a pace that’s even faster than he did in the last mid-term cycle four years ago.

MR. RUSSERT: If the president determined that we needed more American troops in Iraq in order to stabilize that country, he would do that?

MR. BOLTEN: The determination would come from the commanders on the ground. That’s what the president has always said, that the commanders on the ground will make the judgements about what force levels are needed to sustain our commitment there and, and achieve the victory that’s crucial, not only for the Iraqis, but for us and the entire world.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that we have created a country in Iraq that is much more sympathetic to Iran than we ever imagined?

MR. BOLTEN: No. I think what, what we’re headed for—and, and the reason I use the word “encouraging” when, when I talked about the president’s meeting with Prime Minister Maliki and his cabinet one month ago—is that what—where we are headed, we hope, is toward an Iraq that is a multi-ethnic democracy that will be a strong ally for the United States in the war on terror and not a cooperator in the propagation of terror that, that Iran is responsible for.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have free elections in Iraq, and the head of the parliament calls us butchers. You have free elections in Palestine, and Hamas wins. You have elections in Lebanon, and Hezbollah wins 10--12 seats in the parliament and two Cabinet seats. Free elections are no guarantee of democracy.

MR. BOLTEN: Free elections are a necessary ingredient to democracy, but—democracy in a free society—but you’re right, they are no guarantee, but they are an essential part. And I believe that although the path is, is a difficult one, it’s the right path for the United States and the world to be on.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to domestic politics. The president vetoed a stem research bill, a bill that’s called for the use of embryos that were obtained in vitro clinics that supporters say would have been discarded. And instead, have the government subsidize research to see if they can use those embryos to find some use of the stem cells for cures for Parkinson’s disease and so forth. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary who speaks for the president, went to the podium at the White House and said this to the press corps and to the nation. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, Tuesday):

MR. TONY SNOW: The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it’s inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He’s one of them.

The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Murder. The president believes that using an embryo for stem cell research is murder.

MR. BOLTEN: Let me, let me step back for a second, Tim. Now, I think...

MR. RUSSERT: Because that’s a very important question.

MR. BOLTEN: It is, and, and...

MR. RUSSERT: The president’s spokesman used the word “murder.” Does the president believe the use of an embryo for stem cell research is murder?

MR. BOLTEN: Let me—indulge me here for a moment, and let me, and let me walk through the issue and I, and I will get to your question, because it’s a very complicated, very, very delicate issue, that I think a lot of people misunderstand what the president’s policies were that he first enunciated five years ago.

First, the, the policy announcement that the president made five years ago was not that stem cell research would, would be banned, but rather that federal funding of stem cell research would be banned. Second, it is—and not even all embryonic stem cell research would be banned, just that research that involves the incenting, or the new destruction of fertilized embryos. There’s—this president, in fact, was the first one to permit federal funding to go to any embryonic stem cell research, but only for lines that had been, had already been created where the embryo was already created. The president’s objective in his policy, was to prevent the use of federal funds toward the, the promotion of destroying these fertilized embryos.

Now to your question. It’s a very delicate and difficult balance that the, that the president has tried to strike here between the, the needs and desires of science and the morals and ethics that, that our government leaders are, are charged to, to try to sustain. On the one hand, the president recognizes that embryonic stem cell research has, has promise, unfulfilled as yet, but a, but a great deal of promise. On the other hand, the president believes, as, as do millions and millions of Americans, that that fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection. The president recognizes that there are wide differences of opinion on this, and that’s why his policy has been not to prevent that research from going forward altogether, but to prevent your tax dollars and my tax dollars from going to support the destruction of that, that human embryo, because there’s so many of us who believe that that human embryo is a human life that deserves protection, and has the potential to become, become some of the beautiful kids you saw in, in the original clip you showed at the...

MR. RUSSERT: Then if the president believes it is human life, how can he allow private stem cell research to go forward, go forward, if, in fact, that is murder?

MR. BOLTEN: It’s a very, it’s a very difficult balance. I mean, the president recognizes that there are millions of Americans who don’t recognize that as a human life, and that the promise of that research for the saving of life is so important that they, that they want that to go forward. What the president has said is that as far as the federal policy is concerned, no federal funds, your tax dollars and my tax dollars, will go towards promoting the destruction of that human embryo.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re using federal funds for existing lines, which were of embryos. So were those embryos that the federal government is experimenting on obtained by homicidal means?

MR. BOLTEN: Those, those embryos, those stem cell lines, were already—those embryos were already destroyed, and, and that’s where the president—the president’s policies draw the line. That is that our tax dollars, from the point that the president made his policy statement forward, our tax dollars are not going to go to further incent the destruction of those fertilized embryos. Let me, let me...

MR. RUSSERT: The logic, Mr. Bolten, as people are listening to this, the president is saying no, we can’t use embryos that are going to be discarded by in vitro clinics because, according to a spokesman, that’s murder. But we can use embryos that were existing before I became president, that’s OK. And if you have a private company and you want to use those embryos, that’s OK. Back to the central question: does the president agree with his spokesman, Tony Snow, that the research on the embryo in, in fact, to use that embryo is murder?

MR. BOLTEN: The president thinks that that embryo, that fertilized embryo, is a human life that deserves protection...

MR. RUSSERT: But does he accept or reject the use of the word “murder”?

MR. BOLTEN: I haven’t spoken to him about the use, the use of particular terminology, but the—but let me come back to the fundamental point here, Tim, and that is that there’s, there’s a balance that needs to be struck, and it’s a very difficult balance for, for any president to strike, between, between the needs of allowing science that can be life-saving to go forward, and reflecting the ethics and morals of this society. And as, as far as those, those fertilized human embryos are concerned that are, that are going to be discarded anyway, there was, there was a very moving ceremony, I thought, in the East Room of the White House this week, when the president discussed his stem cell policy. And on stage there with him—you had a clip of it at the top of the show—on stage there with him there were some children who are the products of those fertilized embryos that otherwise would have been, would have been destroyed.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, 128 embryos were adopted. But 400,000 are now not being used, and will be probably discarded. And you’re saying they should not be used for research by the federal government.

MR. BOLTEN: Yes, that is the president’s policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you then move to close down in vitro clinics—if, in fact, those embryos are being created and used by private companies for research and the president’s spokesman says that’s murder, and the president said it’s a human life, why not then close down the in vitro fertility clinics? Because they’re creating embryos that, in the president’s view, will be murdered.

MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life. Look, 400,000...

MR. RUSSERT: But he will—he will allow private cell research companies to “destroy human life.”

MR. BOLTEN: That issue isn’t before him. What’s before him is what—the issue of what will federal funds be used for.

Look, those, those 400,000 fertilized...

MR. RUSSERT: But he could take steps to outlaw that.

MR. BOLTEN: Those 400,000 human—fertilized human embryos, I’m sure the president fervently wishes that, that every single one of them is going to get adopted and turn into one of those beautiful kids we saw at the ceremony.

MR. RUSSERT: All 400,000 are going to be adopted?

MR. BOLTEN: No. They’re not likely to be, and that’s, that’s, that’s very sad for this country. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is—does the president agree with Mr. Rove?

MR. BOLTEN: I’m, I’m no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the—of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists...

MR. RUSSERT: No, he said “far more promise.”

MR. BOLTEN: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: Can you—can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?

MR. BOLTEN: Well I can’t cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there—but there is a legitimate promise there, and that’s why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance...(unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: But is there any ev—is there any evidence that you’re aware of, or the president’s aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?

MR. BOLTEN: Adult stem cells have already demonstrated for—in the amelioration of disease...

MR. RUSSERT: So you agree with Mr. Rove.

MR. BOLTEN: I—like I said I’m not—I’m not a scientist and I don’t...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, I don’t think Karl Rove is, either.

MR. BOLTEN: Well, he knows a lot of stuff, but the—look, the, the point here is that there are alternative ways to get to the, the promise that the embryonic stem cells have, and the president, in his announcement this week on, on stem cell policy, also announced that we were going to put extra effort at, at—within our scientific community at NIH into pursuing stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of those fertilized human embryos.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff. We thank you. I look forward to the time you come back and we talk about the deficit and the debt and all of the other subjects you’re so familiar with.

MR. BOLTEN: All the good stuff.

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you very much.

MR. BOLTEN: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, the White—Washington Post senior Pentagon correspondent Tom Ricks. He unveils his new book, “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.” Then our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE. President Eisenhower’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, the first chief of staff who ever appeared on this program way back, November 4^th, 1956, a half-century ago.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: Tom Ricks. His new book, “The American Military Adventure in Iraq.” “Fiasco” is the title. After this brief station break, we’ll find out why he chose that title and what his research discovered right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back, talking to Tom Ricks, the Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post.

“Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.” That sounds like a very harsh assessment. Who did you talk to? What documents did you see?

MR. THOMAS E. RICKS: I talked to over 100 senior military officers and, and soldiers of all ranks, from private to four-star general for the book. I did five reporting trips in Iraq and also talked to a lot of people back here. I read 37,000 pages of documents. Enormous amounts of information are available. And guys at the end of interviews would say, “Here’s a CD-ROM with every e-mail I sent to Paul Bremer when I was out there.” So there’s an amazing amount of information available.

MR. RUSSERT: Here is the summary, early on in your book. “This book’s subtitle terms the U.S. effort in Iraq an adventure in the critical sense of adventurism—that is, with the view that the U.S.-led invasion was launched recklessly, with a flawed plan for war and a worse approach to occupation. Spooked by its own false conclusions about the threat, the Bush administration hurried its diplomacy, short-circuited its war planning, and assembled an agonizingly incompetent occupation. None of this was inevitable. It was made possible only through the intellectual acrobatics of simultaneously ‘worst-casing’ the threat presented by Iraq while ‘best-casing’ the subsequent cost and difficulty of occupying the country.”

Let’s talk about the intelligence first. And, you write about the national intelligence estimate. And this is how you described it. “In September of ‘02 the U.S. intelligence prepared a comprehensive summary, called the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, of what it knew about ‘Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ ... It was prepared at the request of members of Congress who expected to vote on going to war with Iraq and wanted something on which to base their vote. ... As a political document that made the case for war the NIE of October ‘02 succeeded brilliantly. As a professional intelligence product it was shameful. But it did its job, which wasn’t really to assess Iraqi weapons programs but to sell a war. There was only one way to disprove its assertions: invade Iraq, which is what the Bush administration wanted to do.”

You’re suggesting the intelligence community was an accomplice in providing information to Congress that wasn’t accurate?

MR. RICKS: Yes. That document did not accurately reflect the information available inside the intelligence community. But you had a process of narrowing; as the information moved its way upward, doubts were stripped away. And so what you finally had in that document was something very different from what the experts actually thought. And it kind of just all veered off in one direction. It wasn’t like all the doubts were, were stripped off, it was all the doubts that said, “This may be wrong, they may not have WMD.”

MR. RUSSERT: There were some caveats in the NIE.

MR. RICKS: There were, but they tended to be ignored, especially in the summaries, which is what officials actually had. And you wound up with a situation where Colin Powell basically sacrificed his credibility and gave a speech at the U.N. based on that NIE that was utterly false, as he now admits.

MR. RUSSERT: General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, you write in his book, he was “worried by the possibility of ‘a major influx of Islamic fighters’ from elsewhere to the Middle East ... concluded that it would be necessary ‘to size the postwar force bigger than the wartime force.’ [Shinseki] prepared carefully for the Capitol Hill appearance at which he would unveil that thought and effectively go into public opposition against the war plan being devised under Rumsfeld’s supervision.”

That was the famous testimony where Shinseki said it may take a couple hundred thousand troops in order to success—be successful in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy Pentagon chief said that he was wildly off the mark.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Oct. 12: Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., Rob Portman, economic roundtable Oct. 5: Paul Begala, Mike Murphy, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, Gwen Ifill, Peggy Noonan and David Yepsen Sept. 28: Fmr. President Bill Clinton, Steve Schmidt, David Axelrod, Rep. Mark Udall (D), Fmr. Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) Sept. 21: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, N.Y.C. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Steve Pearlstein, Steve Liesman, Erin Burnett Sept. 14: Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bob Woodward, Chuck Todd Sept. 7: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Tom Friedman Aug. 31: Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), political roundtable Aug. 24: Caroline Kennedy, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), political roundtable Aug. 17: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), political roundtable Remembering Tim Russert Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: