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”

Written by Rob Morlino

Published

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.