MTP Transcript for Feb. 18, 2007

So you end up having the fact that, the General Pace agrees that the Iranian government is involved in the sense that they...

MR. RUSSERT: At the highest levels?

MR. SNOW: In that—well, he—what he said is that he didn’t know if the top two or three people were involved. And the president said it and I’ve said it. You have a—what you have is an operational structure. It either goes to the highest levels, in which case they know about it, or they’re operating as a random force independently of the government. That’s pretty worrisome, too, and those are the ways we’ve laid it out. So I think, on this one, it’s really much less than meets the eye.

But let me also address what Senator Dodd was saying. When they had this briefing, they were showing pictures of these EFPs, these new kinds of IEDs. They were showing pictures of 81 millimeter mortars. They were showing pictures of weaponry that clearly came from Iraq—I mean, from Iran into Iraq and are being used to kill Americans. And what the president has said is, “No, we’re not going to invade Iran.” A lot of people keep trying to whip this up. But what he has said is that we’re going to do everything we can to intercept weapons that are making their way into the country. We’re going to intercept them on the roads, we’re going to try to intercept them in Baghdad. We’re going to try—we will do everything we can to defend our people.

MR. RUSSERT: Will we go into Iran to intercept them?

MR. SNOW: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s the question people...

MR. SNOW: But let me also...

MR. RUSSERT: But let me ask this, because it...

MR. SNOW: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s the emphasis. People were aware of these weapons as early as 2003, that’s documented.

MR. SNOW: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something from The Boston Globe and get your response.

MR. SNOW: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: “Another reason that analysts are skeptical about the new U.S. emphasis on Iran as a key enemy of U.S. troops in Iraq is that the vast majority of U.S. casualties have taken place in areas controlled by the Sunni insurgency, not by the Shiite militias who are closely linked to Iran.

“According to data compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a nonprofit group that tracks U.S. deaths, a staggering 60 percent or more of U.S. deaths have occurred in areas where Sunni insurgents are active. Those insurgents are believed to receive much of their funding and weapons from private donors in Sunni Arab countries, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, not Iran.

“Only 4 percent of U.S. casualties have taken place in Shiite controlled areas ... while about a quarter ... have taken place in Baghdad, where both Shiite and Sunni fighters operate.

“That data goes against the assertion by a U.S. official that ‘Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces.’

“‘It seems to be a relatively small segment of anti-U.S. activity,’ said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst with the Congressional Research Service. ... ‘Even if this activity were to completely stop, that would not materially affect the threat to U.S. troops.’”

MR. SNOW: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Why doesn’t the president say to Saudi Arabia and to Jordan, our allies, “Stop allowing anyone in your country from sending these kinds of, the similar devices to hurt American troops”?

MR. SNOW: OK, couple of things, and I’m going to, if you—if you—I’ll beg your indulgence to knit up a couple of things, because first, going back to my Iran answer before, we’re not planning on going across the border. But the president also is not going to rule out any alternatives. But for those who think we’re beating the war drums, no.

Secondly, you looked at the presumption of that, I think, The Boston Globe editorial, it says that we’ve said that this is a “major factor.” No, but it is a significant factor. What has happened is that in recent months, these EFPs have become an increasing source of deaths of U.S. forces, 170 in recent months. On the other hand, we’re deeply aware of the problem of foreign fighters. It’s one of the reason he’s asked for 4,000 Marines going into Anbar province, which is where al-Qaeda’s trying to make its stand. And the president is very honest with people with whom he does diplomacy; but on the other hand, while it might make for sort of good PR, you don’t always call your allies out in public. Sometimes, you’re much more effective dealing privately with them. And the Saudis and the Jordanians and others have a—have been and continue to be and we assume will continue to be, very helpful in trying to fight against these forces of terror.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to North Korea. Here’s how USA Today chronicled the latest agreement. “U.S. officials defend nuke accord with North Korea. The Bush administration defended a new agreement with North Korea against criticism it rewards nuclear brinkmanship and offers an incentive to other nations to seek nuclear weapons...

“The deal does not set a deadline for dismantling weapons or disposing of its plutonium stockpile. Nor does it address missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads. KCNA, North Korea’s state news agency, referred only to a ‘temporary suspension’ of nuclear facilities in return for one million tons of oil and other aid.”

When the president came into office, North Korea had the capacity to either have or build one or two nuclear weapons. They now have the capacity for at least six.

MR. SNOW: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: And under this agreement, they’ll be able to retain that capacity. Why?

MR. SNOW: Wrong. Wrong. Actually, if you take a look at the agreement, what it says is first thing they’re going to have to do is to shut down, to seal the Yongbyon nuclear facility, and also anything that’s used for enrichment. That is a very first step in a long series that include the complete renunciation of nuclear weaponry and facilities within North Korea. The difference between this...

MR. RUSSERT: But, but they get the oil and the food now before...

MR. SNOW: No.

MR. RUSSERT: ...before they turn...

MR. SNOW: No.

MR. RUSSERT: ...before they give up their new current capacity.

MR. SNOW: No. What they do is, over the next 60 days, they have to shut down Yongbyon and within the next 60 days they get access to 5 percent of the oil. That’s it. See, the president understands that what you have to do is you have to put together a series of agreements that not only build trust between the North Koreans and everybody else, but they got to perform. So if they are going to get the benefits down the road, including ultimately as much as a million tons in heavy oil, they’ve got to perform. They, they—they’ve got to do things on human rights, they have bilateral negotiations with the United States and the Japanese. They have got to work on regional security. There are energy and economic cooperation measures. There are five different working groups that are up...

MR. RUSSERT: They will have to give up their entire nuclear capability?

MR. SNOW: Yeah, they got to give—that’s the whole point of it.

MR. RUSSERT: It seems as if the conservative community has reacted in a very hostile way to this agreement. Here’s the National Review. It says, “If this sounds eerily familiar, there’s good reason. In 1994, Bill Clinton ... struck a bargain with North Korea known as the Agreed Framework. The terms back then were largely the same. ...

“When exactly did Kim Jong Il” [the leader of North Korea] become trustworthy?”

The Wall Street Journal: “Faith-Based Nonproliferation. We’ll believe it when Kim Jong Il hands over his plutonium.”

And John Bolton, the former ambassador to the U.N. for President Bush: “I’m afraid North Korea has won. Once again, they’ve made a hollow promise, and they’re going to get tangible economic benefits as a consequence of it.” Bolton went on, “It is really regrettable that we have reverted to a policy that has failed in the past. This sends such a message of weakness to countries like Iran that so long as you hold out, this is the sort of reward you can expect.”

Many conservatives, Tony Snow, saying the president just wanted a deal and he accepted something that wasn’t even what Bill Clinton was demanding.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, he’s demanding—he’s asking for a lot more. There’s very little resemblance when it comes down to performance standards between what Bill Clinton offered and what George W. Bush has insisted upon.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list July 12: McCain, Schumer, roundtable June 28: Axelrod, Romney, Graham, roundtable June 21: Netanyahu, Nunn, Thompson, Easton, Todd June 14: Biden, Murphy, Scarborough May 31: Leahy, Sessions, Owens, Schmidt, Mulcahy, roundtable May 24: Durbin, Gingrich, political roundtable May 17: Kaine, Steele, Haass, Noonan, Brownstein   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: