On the December 5 broadcast of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer discussed the general reactions of “GOP [presidential] candidates” to the December 3 release of the key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran with Kenneth Walsh, chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. Brewer also mentioned the specific reactions of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) to the NIE. However, neither Brewer nor Walsh noted that, during a December 4 reportedly on-the-record discussion with reporters, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee reportedly stated that he was not familiar with the NIE, having not read it, not been briefed on it, and not even heard of it.

The NIE stated: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.”

On December 4, the Politico's Jonathan Martin reported on his “Republicans '08 Blog” that the Politico's David Paul Kuhn “attended an on-the-record dinner with Mike Huckabee and a group of reporters” in Des Moines, Iowa on the night of December 4. Martin wrote that Huckabee said he had not “been briefed or been able to take a look at” the NIE.

From the December 4 Politico blog post:

The transcript speaks for itself:

Kuhn: I don't know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...

Huckabee: I'm sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it --

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn then summarized the NIE finding that Iran had stopped work on a clandestine nuclear program four years ago and asked if it “adjusts your view on Iran in any sense.”

Kuhn: What is your concern on Iran as of now?

Huckabee: I've a serious concern if they were to be able to weaponize nuclear material, and I think we all should, mainly because the statements of Ahmadinejad are certainly not conducive to a peaceful purpose for his having it and the fear that he would in fact weaponize it and use it. (He pauses and thinks) I don't know where the intelligence is coming from that says they have suspended the program or how credible that is versus the view that they actually are expanding it. ... And I've heard, the last two weeks, supposed reports that they are accelerating it and it could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally been thought.

Similarly, the Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson reported in an article posted December 4 on the newspaper's website that “Mike Huckabee said Tuesday he was unfamiliar with the National Intelligence Estimate that reported that Iran had not had a program to develop nuclear weapons since 2003” but still “questioned the intelligence work behind it.” Pearson continued that “Huckabee's unfamiliarity with the NIE summary and his questioning of the conclusions reached by the 16 government agencies that prepared it could add to questions about whether the new GOP frontrunner in Iowa has the foreign affairs experience needed to serve as president -- particular during a time of heightened Middle East tensions.”

From the December 5 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: In the past hour, President Bush restated his tough talk on Iran, saying that that country must come clean about the scope of its nuclear activities or face further isolation by the international community. On the campaign trail today, John McCain is following the president's lead, saying he doesn't think there's a need for significant change in policy. And Fred Thompson is skeptical of the new national intelligence report, saying, “One thing that crosses my mind is that this information that the Iranians have put out, that they want us to kind of relax a little bit.”

Ken Walsh is chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. Hey, Ken.

WALSH: Hi, Contessa, nice to see you again.

BREWER: Are the GOP candidates here afraid to soften up their language on Iran? I mean, are they worrying that it could alienate those very conservative voters who show up to the primaries and caucuses?

WALSH: Yeah, that's exactly what's happening. I think that the Republican pattern is pretty well set, and that's supporting the administration's tough policy really across the board, particularly, in this case, on Iran and on Iraq too. But -- and I think there's a concern that if they depart from that, they'll get into this flip-flopping area and so on. But really, the Republican electorate has been very consistently in support of President Bush on the hard line he has taken in the Middle East, particularly on Iran.

BREWER: Do the Republican candidates, by maintaining this tough stance, run the risk of living out in real life the “boy who cried wolf” strategy? I mean, you cry wolf on Iraq, you cry wolf on Iran. What's next?

WALSH: Exactly. That's exactly the phrase that's floating around the -- Washington and a lot of the political community now, that “cried wolf” idea. President Bush was asked about this in his press conference yesterday in exactly those terms whether he's cried wolf too often. And I think that's a concern for the general election, that people might feel that this administration and the Republicans rattled the saber, say things are worse than they turn out to be, and it just comes across as being too bellicose. And I think that's a real concern for the general electorate, particularly for independent voters.

BREWER: Let's talk about a Democrat here, Hillary Clinton, who's been rather hawkish on national defense. She voted in favor of the Iraq war. She voted in favor of declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard proliferators of mass destruction. After all that, the aides put out a statement here saying the Revolutionary Guard is involved in Iran's nuclear program, a nuclear program that, according to our own intelligence, didn't exist after 2003.

WALSH: Right. Well, I think what Hillary Clinton is doing here is trying to separate herself from the other Democrats. But it's a risky thing to do because, while it might make sense in the general election context, where she's trying to seem more centrist, she still has to get past these very liberal constituencies in the Democratic Party, particularly in Iowa. And you see what's happening in the campaign now, that her opponents are very much criticizing her for really being too centrist, for going along too much with the Bush policy and at least giving him the benefit of the doubt, more than they're willing to do. So the question is whether that's -- her position is going to satisfy the very liberal anti-war activists, particularly in Iowa. And I think that's part of the reason some of her support has been fading there recently.

BREWER: Ken, great to see you on this Wednesday.

WALSH: Nice to see you.