NBC's Lauer asked Card if he "question[s] the timing" of NY Times report on Internet posting of nuke information; MSNBC's O'Donnell wondered whether story "helps the administration"
SUMMARY: Matt Lauer asked former White House chief of staff Andrew Card whether he "question[s] the timing" of a New York Times report that documents that weapons experts say "constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb" were posted on a government website functioning as a clearinghouse for documents found in Iraq. Separately, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell asked NBC's Andrea Mitchell if the report "helps the [Bush] administration by reminding people about potential weapons of mass destruction that were developed before the first Gulf War."
On the November 3 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer asked former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. whether he "question[s] the timing" of that day's report in the The New York Times that documents that weapons experts say "constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb" were posted on a government website functioning as a clearinghouse for documents found in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion, and that, following questions about those documents from the Times, the government shut down the site. Despite the fact that the Times report stated that the documents in question were posted "in recent weeks" -- something Lauer did not note -- Lauer nevertheless invited Card to speculate on the "timing" of the story, "four days before, five days before a midterm election." In response to Lauer, Card said, "Well, I think most things that happen just before an election are designed by someone to have an impact on the election. But I actually think it's important that we recognize the government's doing the right thing, they shut the website down; they're not providing information."
Separately, during the November 3 edition of MSNBC News Live, anchor Norah O'Donnell asked NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell whether the report "helps the [Bush] administration by reminding people about potential weapons of mass destruction that were developed before the first Gulf War, perhaps," or whether it will "hurt the administration because it looks like they really bungled an issue of national security and intelligence." In response, Mitchell asserted that "the net effect would likely be that it would hurt the administration because it shows that they once again, you know, were the gang that couldn't shoot straight, and that they were so eager to justify their case for the war that they forced the intelligence community to do something that the experts didn't want to do, and that the president overruled [national intelligence director] John Negroponte on."
From the November 3 broadcast of NBC's Today Show:
LAUER: Let's get some reaction now from Andy Card. He served as President Bush's chief of staff until this past spring. Andy, good to have you here, good morning.
CARD: Good to be with you Matt, thank you.
LAUER: What do you make of this? Who's going to get the blame for this?
CARD: Well, you know, this is one of those things that -- actually, John Negroponte warned us that we don't know what's in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents. We've pulled them down. And I think the government has acted very quickly, and we've pulled them down. I'm a little concerned that The New York Times has advertised them to the world so more people might seek them out.
LAUER: What about the timing of it -- four days before, five days before a midterm election, this report comes out. Do you question the timing of this report?
CARD: Well, I think most things that happen just before an election are designed by someone to have an impact on an election. But I actually think it's important that we recognize the government's doing the right thing. They shut the website down; and they're not providing information.
LAUER: But will it have an impact on the election, because Republicans in large part are going around the country campaigning as the party of national security, and if these types -- this type of information was getting out there, how's it going to impact the election?
CARD: Well they are the party of national security, and they've worked very hard. Their voting records shows that they've got a good track record on trying to protect America, so I think it's a red herring to somehow argue they're not the party of national security -- they are.
From the November 3 edition of MSNBC News Live:
O'DONNELL: So, Andrea, on a political level, do you think it helps the administration by reminding people about potential weapons of mass destruction that were developed before the first Gulf war, perhaps, or does it hurt the administration because it looks like they really bungled an issue of national security and intelligence?
MITCHELL: This is a complicated story to really penetrate and for people to understand this close to an election, but I think the net effect would likely be that it would hurt the administration because it shows that they once again, you know, were the gang that couldn't shoot straight, and that they were so eager to justify their case for the war that they forced the intelligence community to do something that the experts didn't want to do, and that the president himself overruled John Negroponte on.
O'DONNELL: And that's the key point. NBC's Andrea Mitchell, thank you so much.
"So, Andrea, on a political level, do you think it helps the administration by reminding people about potential weapons of mass destruction that were developed before the first Gulf war, perhaps, or does it hurt the administration because it looks like they really bungled an issue of national security and intelligence?"
Let me get this straight. We're supposed to vote Republican when they released instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb (potentially helping others build them), because it reminds us that Saddam might have had potential weapons thirteen years before the war started? "Today Dick Cheney firebombed three family planning clinics, killing twelve people. The question is, will this help the administration by reminding people that they're pro-life?"
Hey, maybe it might give the slight impression that the party of national security isn't doing such a great job on its number one issue. I don't know, it's a real tough question.
Jeebus.
I think you need to work on your analogies.
;-)
I think you need to work on being less of a raging hypocrite.
[link to mediamatters.org]
oh, almost forgot...
;-)
...making arguments that make just a little bit of sense.
[link to mediamatters.org]
;-)
Isn't it interesting how everything on those tv shows is about the most miniscule of details? It's like that story even counts at all. It's nothing, totally ephemeral. This is what the US public is fed...a diet of nits being picked while the grand picture plays out around them.
But they are so focused on the nits, like laser beams.
"We have been transformed from a mad body dancing on hillsides into a pair of staring eyes in the dark."....Jim Morrison on American culture.
Yes of course we know the U.S.A. is internet-publishing the recipe for disaster, but what the heck, leave it out there for several more days. Don't acknowledge and fix what could become the stupidest AND most costly error of all time until *after the election*, because news of Brainless Neocon Blunder #843 may hurt our chances for re-election -- which is absolutely necessary to keep our Nation safe.
Fast forward to a Faux News report in the future, showing the stark remains of a nuked American city. Faux News red-white-and-blue caption reads: "THE PRICE OF DEMOCRACY".
when Hannity was on the air, and that's the first I heard of this. SH was almost climaxing as he screeched about this as a validation of the Repubs claims of WMD's in Iraq.
He (Hannity) and Hugh Hewitt are my favorite righty suckers, biting on every bass-ackwards evidence of Iraq/nuclear claims as a reason for every rational person to start apologizing to BushCo.
Completely ignoring reality, to make things fit their fantasies. I still am not allowed to post on Freerepublic or Newsbusters. Anyone else try to get on Republo-sites?
but he is write.
The Times admitted in paragraph 14 that Iraq was one year from having the bomb.
It is hilarious that Iraq has all this information and the lefties are not worried about that but are whining that Iran might read it. LOL. That makes a hell of alot of sense.
The fact is the NY Times and IAEA tried to hit peice right before the election again and it backfired in their face. The IAEA tried again today with the Arab nations wanting nukes. It's a giant backfire because Republicans own the security issue.
60 percent of the documents were vetted out before they went online. Besides, the CIA gave Iran all they need to build a bomb when Clinton was president.
Here's a little blast from the past.
Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb By Jim Kouri Apr 14, 2006 Last night, radio talk show host and former US Justice Department official Mark Levin shocked many listeners when he reported that President Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the Iranians in a harebrained scheme.
He said that the transfer of classified data to Iran was personally approved by then-President Clinton and that the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.
The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book "State of War" by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive.
But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.
The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and "may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA," according to Risen.
It called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet Union, to offer Iran the blueprint for a "firing set" -- the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion.
The Russian was told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran's nuclear knowledge.
But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, he added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws for money.
Risen states in his book, "It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan [to give Tehran nuclear blueprints] was first approved by Clinton."
This is just another chapter in the Bill Clinton saga of giving weapons technology to enemies of the United States. He's provided missile technology to the Chinese, which increased the accuracy of their ballistic missiles, and he provided nuclear technology to the North Koreans that eventually enabled them to develop nuclear weapons.
Risen said the Clinton-approved plan ended up handing Tehran "one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short."
more if you google. it.
Leatherhelmet + Reluctant Republican= Reluctant Helmet.
I would suggest as long motorcyle ride on a long, winding, cliff side on a cold rainy night before I would consider anything in your postings as they seem so willing to ignore a criminal enterprise that the Republicans have made of our government.
can't see clearly.....
"It is hilarious that Iraq has all this information and the lefties are not worried about that but are whining that Iran might read it. LOL. That makes a hell of alot of sense."
Well, yeah. The issue was never intent with Saddam, it was capacity. Documents from the first Gulf War don't show Saddam was a threat in 2003, with the sanctions in place and weapons inspectors finding nothing. We had him under our thumb. Meanwhile, we don't have any hold on Iran, or any other country that might have viewed this information.
"The fact is the NY Times and IAEA tried to hit peice right before the election again and it backfired in their face. The IAEA tried again today with the Arab nations wanting nukes. It's a giant backfire because Republicans own the security issue."
Right, the IAEA is just out to get Bush. As well as the NYT which only led the cheerleading effort for the war. And is your argument that the Arab nation don't actually want nukes? As for Republicans owning the security issue, have you looked at any polls within the last couple of months? What a bizarre list of contentions you've put together here.
"60 percent of the documents were vetted out before they went online."
And the other 40%...?
As for "Operation Merlin", if it's true (and it seems to be pretty thinly sourced upon googling it), is obviously a major tactical error. But I'm not seeing how information posted online is redundant because Iran has it already. Is it accessible only by some internet "tube" that only right-wing bloggers and Iran have access to?
I am willing to bet Mrs Lincoln thought 90% of that play was good, its just that pesky shooting her husband in the head thing that ruined it.
Write on !
I am not a Hannity fan
but he is write.
The Times admitted in paragraph 14 that Iraq was one year from having the bomb.
From the NY Times
“Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away. “
[link to www.nytimes.com]
The content of the 2002 docs, mentioned in the NY Times article, referred to programs 10 years and older.
“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said yesterday that it shut down a public Web site after complaints from U.N. weapons inspectors that the site included sensitive details about constructing nuclear and chemical weapons. The documents were collected in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion but predate the 1991 Persian Gulf War.”
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Are you to dense to understand? Yes Iraq WAS that close to a nuclear bomb in 1991 then they lost the Gulf War and the IAEA completely eradicated their nuclear program AND monitered the existing stockpile of Yellowcake. There has never been a single iota of evidence ANYTHING was done to restart that nuclear program. As far as this Clinton tinfoil hat conspiricy theory even if true it amounts to nothing. Its all about the Plutonium. Give ME some and two reasonably intelligent Cal-Tech enginerring grads and I can make a nuclear weapon. The concept isnt really that complicated. It does take some seriously sophisticated equipment specifically a sophisticated triggering device but overall its about getting the equpiment, not about the concpetual design.
built during the US support.
Let's not forget this people.
Saddam was a ba$tard but he was also our ba$tard and we are not innocent for what conspired during his reign if we did nothing to stop it.
And it was Saddams unwillingness to share the kuwaiti oil fields with us that tore our support from him.
How can we claim to be better when we are the proverbial big mouthed chicken standing behind each bully? Secretly planing to sacrifice one bully for another? Never having pitty for the bullies victims, save when we can use against them and to remove a rival? All just to rule the playground and steal people's lunchmoney?
How is the saying? 'Who is the greater fool…the fool, or the fool who follows the fool?' One could ask, who is worse? The murderer or the person cheering the murderer?
because they were holding Saddams hand when he had them.
Like other reptiles, you seem to have forgotten that the US was supporting Saddam when he used them! But him using them was NOT enough to break the relationship with him, was it?
To bad Saddam was smart enough to get rid of them.
IIRC would it not be aiding and abetting making the US goverment just as guilty as Saddam?
The Bush gov needed ANY reason to invade iraq and finally get their hands on the oil. Even highly questionably sources or made up information was ok.
Not like the ANYTHING the Bush or Powell or Rumsfeld or Rice or any of the other criminals claimed turned out to be true! No 'extensive bunkers', no underground weapons labs, no mobile labs, nothing. Oh wait they did find 15 year old unusable stuff and chemical suits in a crate marked m1.. a designation used by the US military. Sure there were terrorist camps... in Kurdish controlled areas.
Even the dead civilians the 'colaition' murdered are defined as terrorists. Entire families slaughterd during that attendance of a wedding morph into a terrorist meeting.
Remember, folks: these are the people entrusted to keeping you safe. By the way. they'll be handing out "Stereo With Speaker System" bumper stickers to put on your car tomorrow.
The Bush administration posted a blueprint of an atom bomb online. It doesn't mean the documents are real. They have not been authenticated by any government agency.
Invite your NeoCon friends to your whites-only CC and test your prototype bomb on the putting green.
That seems consistent with the brainlessness of this whole episode, including the news media's questioning of the TIMING of the story, rather than questioning the intelligence of the NeoCons who hatched this brilliant internet publication idea.
By the way, this idea is SO marvelous we really ought to know the names of its inventor(s), and we also need to hear the names of whomever pushed to get the idea approved. Oh yes, one more thing: Does the responsible decisionmaker in Washington still have his job? And will he be getting a generous raise for this achievement?
... the documents were authentic. The text has WordPerfect 5.1 reveal codes, so Dan Rather must have typed it. Proves he must have called a meeting with Osama, Michael J. Fox, Nancy Pelosi and Al Franken to figure out how to transfer the technology to Saddam.
your racist insult is wayyyy behind the times.
Your definition of "racist insult" is an interesting one. Think about it.
And glad to hear there's no discrimination at Neocon-frequented country clubs. That's behind the times, a thing of the past. That no longer exists in Y2006. So I stand corrected. I apologize, and I thank you for setting me straight.
Sens. Hoekstra (R), and Roberts (R). They insisted on all these thousands of documents being put on the web so that sharp-eyed conservatives could help find the "smoking gun" to back up the long debunkedWMD claims.After they put up all these documents (without even knowing what was included) and left them up for months, it was pointed out to the justice department by the New York Times that there were nuclear bomb plans on the "internets". AFTER they were removed, the NYT ran the story reporting that they HAD BEEN there. They did not report anything that would give help to any terrorists, and the plans were from PRE-1991 and do nothing to PROVE Saddam had any so-called nuclear weapons program.
"The Bush administration posted a bluprint of an atom bomb online".
SO much safer.