‘Meet the Press’ transcript for July 22, 2007

Admiral McCONNELL:  I, I would, I would just report what was—what came out of the WMD Commission, and, and even the 9/11 Commission to some, some extent. The assessment that was concluded, I think it was October 2002, determined or made an assessment that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  I believed it at the time, and, and I mostly believed it because of my experience as the intelligence officer for General Powell during the—in the first Gulf war.  I knew they had them.  I knew they had—Saddam had killed 300,000 of his own countrymen.  He had engaged in two wars.  He had those weapons.  So I believed it.

What I believe happened is that the community allowed itself to be lulled into making the call on information, in some cases, from people who thought they had them.  Even Saddam’s generals thought they had weapons of mass destruction.  So those threads took us to a place that turned out to be not valid.

MR. RUSSERT:  But did the policy makers hype the intelligence?

Admiral McCONNELL:  I—that’s a judgment that I think the American people will have to make.  I have paid very close attention to hyping of intelligence, and what I can tell you in personal experience is the decision makers are making every attempt to call it straightforward based on the information that we provide to them, and we are not being asked to cherry-pick or to go down one path or another path, but to give them complete information or the best assessments we can.

MR. RUSSERT:  Admiral Mike McConnell, we thank you very much for coming here and sharing your views this morning.

Admiral McCONNELL:  Thank you so much.

MR. RUSSERT:  Coming next, the Democrats.  They do not have the votes in the U.S. Senate to stop the war in Iraq.  What now?  We’ll ask Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin.

And in our political roundtable, David Brooks of The New York Times, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard and author of a new book on Vice President Cheney.  The debate over the war in Iraq right here, coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin on the war in Iraq, then our political roundtable—David Brooks, Steve Hayes and Bob Woodward—after a very brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT:  And we’re back.

Senator Russ Feingold, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI):  Good morning.

MR. RUSSERT:  Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in November of 2006, many of them running, pledging to end the war in Iraq.  Is there any sense that Congress will be capable of ending the war?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Well, I think we will.  This has been a slow, very painful process.  Sometimes I’ve been very pleased with the progress we’ve made, sometimes I’m not.  But I’ll tell you, what happened this week, a majority of the United States Senate, including four Republicans, voted for a binding deadline to end the war by the early part of next year.  And, you know, this is a proposal that I made a long time ago which, at the time, people thought was sort of extreme.  Now it is a mainstream view.  We need to do more, but the unity that the Democrats are showing is causing more Republicans to come on board, which I think will lead to our being able to pass something in the, in the not-too-distant future.

MR. RUSSERT:  This fall?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  I believe so.  I’m hoping that can happen, either in the Department of Defense authorization bill.  I also think we have to look, as Senator Reid and I have talked about, at using the power of the purse, our ability to cut off the funding after the troops are safely redeployed, as a way to actually enforce this kind of a binding deadline.

MR. RUSSERT:  You were—used the word redeployed.  John Burns, the bureau chief in Baghdad for The New York Times, who’s lived there for some time, offered these words this week:  “It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence.  And I find that to be widely agreed” among “Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion.” Is—are you concerned that we leave behind violence, catastrophe, genocide?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Let’s be clear what we have now.  We now have cataclysmic violence.  That’s the status quo.  It is possible that things would get worse if we left; it is possible that things would get better.  But this is what I believe:  Right now we’re holding the bag in Iraq.  The other countries in the region—Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait—they have an interest in stability in Iraq because, if what you say will happen, it will cause great instability in their countries and danger for them.  The only way we get them engaged, the only way they put up the money and the resources to stabilize this situation is if we stop what they consider to be an occupation of Iraq.  So I think the only way to avoid the situation getting worse is for us to orderly redeploy our troops and get these other countries engaged in what is in their own interest, which is a stable Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT:  So, if the country explodes, you think you get the attention of people in the region?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  I’m, I’m saying it would not necessarily get worse if we, if we took the step of redeploying.  I’ve heard a number of experts on the Foreign Relations Committee come in and say, in fact, it’s just the opposite. It is our occupation, as it’s perceived, that leads to so much of this free- floating violence throughout the country, not through any fault of ours, but it creates an environment that leads to more and more violence, more and more possible genocide, more and more tribal tension.  Our getting out in an orderly way at least gives the opportunity for a new start in Iraq, and that’s what it’s time for us to do.

MR. RUSSERT:  President Bush is determined to continue the war in Iraq, he’s made that very, very clear.  Is there anything that Democrats can do to get him to pay attention or to hold him accountable, in their minds?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Well, I’m shocked by the administration, in particular the president’s response to the November election.  Usually, when presidents are repudiated in elections, they say, “Well, maybe I ought to reassess.” Instead, he did just the opposite.  He did this surge, which went contrary to the will of the American people.  I think we need to do something serious in terms of accountability.  And that’s why I will be shortly introducing a censure resolution of the president and the administration.  One, on their getting us into the war of Iraq—in Iraq and their failure to adequately prepare our military and the misleading statements that have continued throughout the war in Iraq.  And the second, on this administration’s outrageous attack on the rule of law, all the way from the illegal terrorist surveillance program to their attitude about torture, which we heard a little bit about today on this show.  This administration has assaulted the Constitution.  We need to have on the historical record some kind of indication that what has happened here is, in the words of Director McConnell, as you just quoted him, disastrous. Somehow we have to address that.  And I think it’s a good time to begin that process.

MR. RUSSERT:  A censure resolution against the president?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Correct.

MR. RUSSERT:  Anybody else?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Potentially yes.  I think when it comes to Iraq, obviously the vice president.  Vice President Cheney has been one of the worst actors in American history in this situation.  There may be others.  On the rule of law issue, on the attack on the Constitution, the current attorney general has had one of the worst records of not being honest with the Judiciary Committee, of being intentionally misleading, and of not taking responsibility for everything from the disastrous consequences of the Patriot Act to the U.S. attorneys debacle.  So, yes, potentially others.  But, of course, the president.  Since the buck stops with the president, that is the number one.

MR. RUSSERT:  Last year you introduced a resolution to censure the president regarding the wiretapping of Americans within the U.S. under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  You got three other Democrats to join with you.  Just four Democrats.  Isn’t this the futile effort that will be described simply as politics?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Well, let’s see what actually happened, Tim.  What happened was, after I introduced the censure resolution, there was a lot of talk that didn’t mean anything.  But what did the administration do?  They stopped this TSP program.  They brought it within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  When they saw that there was sentiment in this country and almost every legal scholar saying that their idea that they could just make up their own laws was wrong, they brought it within the program.  So I think it had a very positive impact.  And it sets the stage for setting the historical record here, which is that this administration has done the greatest assault on our Constitution perhaps in American history.

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you think the American people will look on this saying, “Here go the Democrats just trying to create something sensational by censuring the president rather than trying to solve the problem of Iraq”?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  Well, there’s a lot of sentiment in the country, even the polls show it, for actually impeaching the president and the vice president. I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program.  What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial, but simply passing resolutions that make sure that the historical record shows the way they have weakened our country, weakened our country militarily and against al-Qaeda, and weakened our country’s fundamental document, the Constitution.  I think that’s a reasonable course and does not get in the way of our normal work.  But the American people are outraged at the way they’ve been treated.  They are outraged at the dishonesty that they have been subjected to.  The American people—we deserve better than the way we’ve been treated, and somehow this has to be reflected.

MR. RUSSERT:  Have you talked to the Senate Democratic leadership about this?

SEN. FEINGOLD:  I have.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Remembering Tim Russert July 13: Carly Fiorina, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), politcal roundtable June 29: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D-WY), Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO), Chuck Todd June 22: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), political roundtable June 15 transcript, video NBC's Tom Brokaw to moderate 'Meet the Press' through election   Images: The life of the political journalist   Slideshow: A look back at 60 years of 'Meet the Press' Find ‘Meet the Press’ in your area Sign up for our e-mail newsletter Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: