MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the now-famous Downing Street memo. This was a memo, July 23, 2002, from the head of British intelligence to Prime Minister Blair; in effect, notes taken from a briefing that was given to Prime Minister Blair after the head of British intelligence came back from a trip to Washington. It says this: "[The head of British Intelligence] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This is July of 2002. We didn't invade until March of 2003. And the prime minister of Great Britain is being told by the head of his intelligence that he went to Washington and believes that a decision had already been made and that the administration was fixing or manipulating the intelligence to support the policy.
msnbc.msn.com
MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 911 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all. The fact is that the intelligence of this country, the intelligence of Britain, the intelligence of the United Nations, the intelligence all over the world said that there were weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq. We knew that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction before. We still know that there was a weapons of mass destruction program. He was evading the sanctions, and he had plans to reconstitute the program. We also knew that Saddam Hussein had uniquely invaded his neighbors, had uniquely supported terrorists and we all know today that we are safer because he's been removed from power.
So I believe that that individual report not only has been discredited but that the overall reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were broader than that, they were correct, and we're now safer and certainly the people of Iraq are safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.
MR. RUSSERT: I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited.
MR. MEHLMAN: I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it.
MR. RUSSERT: There--let me go back to another sentence from that report. "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, now head of the World Bank, said the other day, "The war never ended," and the concern many Americans have, Mr. Mehlman, is that we now have 1,669 Americans who've died bravely in Iraq, 1,532 of those after the president said major combat operations were over. We have 12,762 Americans wounded or injured, 12,000 of those after the president said major combat was over. This memo seems to suggest that the head of British Intelligence told Prime Minister Blair that there was little discussion in Washington to plan for the aftermath of military action.
MR. MEHLMAN: I would respectfully disagree with that finding. I think that there was clearly planning that occurred, planning that occurred to deal with the results of the war. If you remember after the first Gulf War, whether it was the breaching of the dams that we saw all over Iraq, that didn't happen. Whether it was the fires that we saw, that didn't happen this past time. Plans were made for after the war. There's no question that there has been an insurgency. The insurgents understand the stakes of the situation in Iraq. They understand that if we're successful, their efforts to promote terrorism around the world, their efforts to defeat democracy and freedom will be hurt. And there's no question-- therefore, we need to deal with these insurgents.
But the president has mentioned repeatedly that he thinks every day about it and meets with the families of the men and women who have given their lives in Iraq. They've given their lives for an incredibly noble cause. We did plan for the future. There are some things you can plan for. There are some things that are harder to plan for, but I believe we're doing a very important mission in Iraq, which is defeating the terrorists, promoting democracy and you've seen throughout this spring what the effects of that democracy have been in other Arab nations.
MR. RUSSERT: The primary rationale given for the war, however, was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. And again I refer you to the memo of the prime minister's meeting. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than half that of Libya, North Korea and Iran."
MR. MEHLMAN: Well, the president, I think, was responsible in saying we need to simultaneously prepare for war and also try to avoid that war. There were simultaneous efforts at the diplomatic stages that were made and yet at the same time it would have been irresponsible for us to say we're going to wait and then plan for war later because we wouldn't have had as effective an effort as we did to remove Saddam Hussein from power, so we needed to do both at the same time. I would also, though, disagree, as I said a moment ago, with the notion that Iraq was somehow less of a threat. Iran and North Korea hadn't invaded their neighbors. Iran and North Korea hadn't used weapons of mass destruction. Iran and North Korea hadn't, in the same way that Saddam Hussein had, been paying off suicide bombers in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. Iran and North Korea are serious challenges. So was Saddam Hussein, and removing him makes the world safer, makes America safer.
MR. RUSSERT: There's a front-page story in The Washington Post today that talks about the Rose Garden optimism vs. the Baghdad pessimism when it comes to Iraq. Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat, Congressman Curt Weldon, a Republican, say that when they go to Iraq and what they witness and observe is an insurgency that is alive and well and being assisted by surrounding companies--countries. Vice President Cheney said the other day that we are seeing the last throes of the insurgency. Is that a false optimism or an accurate presentation?
MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, I think it's an accurate presentation, and here's why. You may remember we saw an increase in violence right before the Iraqi elections. And at the time there were a lot of voices that said we need to put these elections off. The Iraqis aren't going to show up to vote because of the rising insurgency. The reason there was that insurgency then was because the terrorists understood the stakes and they understood that when 60 percent of the Iraqi people showed up and voted, which they did, that it was a very serious blow to their efforts. I believe today, as the Iraqi Cabinet meets, as the Iraqi legislature is constituted, as the Iraqi government operates, as newspapers open, as troops are trained, as the police force goes forward, the terrorists understand they face similar threats to their continued viability. And that's why, like before the elections, we see this unfortunate violence.
Now, it doesn't make it easier for the families of soldiers or sailors of airmen or Marines who were killed. We pray for them and we think about them constantly. And it doesn't make it easier for the Iraqi people to have to deal with that. But we also need to remember the big picture, which is we must prevail here and we must continue to move forward, just as we did before the elections.
MR. RUSSERT: One family that is particularly upset that is that of Pat Tillman, the former NFL football player. This is what his mom, Mary Tillman, said: "`The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. ...he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him, [it] is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.'"
And what she's referring to is that her son was killed by friendly fire, but the Pentagon tried to cast it in a much different light, and the suggestion being they were trying to make Pat Tillman a poster boy for the war in Iraq. And his family is devastated and very angry about that.
MR. MEHLMAN: Well, Tim, I would agree with his mom that it is heartbreaking and tragic. Friendly fire--anytime anybody is killed in friendly fire, it's the ultimate tragedy. It's something that when you think about it, the person that was responsible for that was on his side and must feel terrible about it and will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. And I think that certainly the Pentagon has admitted it was handled wrong.
I do think that to try to question the intent of the Pentagon with respect to the war in Iraq isn't fair either. The men and women at the Pentagon are serving their country as well. They're working hard for their country. They should have informed the family earlier. They should have let them know what happened earlier. They've admitted that. They've taken steps to make sure it wouldn't happen in the future. But I think it is wrong to that say this was somehow an attempt to make him a poster boy for the Iraq War. I don't think this was what they were trying to do.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, many people close to Pat Tillman have said just that.
MR. MEHLMAN: Well, again, I would respectfully disagree, at the same time recognizing the tragedy, and how hard it must be for his mom and his whole family.
MR. RUSSERT: We're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more questions for Ken Mehlman. He's the chairman of the Republican Party. We'll come back and talk to him about what's going on in the Senate with judicial nominations and a whole lot more, right after this. |
