Meet the Press
MSNBC
MR. RUSSERT: In hindsight, knowing that we did not find weapons of mass destruction, do you believe that the war in Iraq was a war of necessity or a war of choice?
UNITED STATES SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SEN. FRIST: Oh, I think it was a war of necessity. And it we — if we look at the Middle East today, if we look at the importance of that to our global security, which reflects on homeland security, it was absolutely, to me, an absolute necessity that we remove this tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, who had attacked sovereign nations, who killed on the outside inside, and had the enemy of the United States. So it’s clear to me that the war was conducted for the right reasons, and that we will be successful there.
MR. RUSSERT: But there are lots of countries that do not treat their people properly: North Korea, Iran, Cuba. Why not military action for those countries?
SEN. FRIST: Well, you mentioned weapons of mass destruction, and we didn’t find them there. But as you know, our intelligence, the intelligence of major countries in Europe and indeed around the world, all raised the question, all thought that weapons of mass destruction were there. And that required action at the time, and that’s why Iraq and Iraq first.
MR. RUSSERT: But they weren’t there.
SEN. FRIST: But they weren’t.
MR. RUSSERT: But knowing that now, do you still say the war was a war of necessity?
SEN. FRIST: I think, it’s a war of necessity. Again, if we project ahead and we start looking back, you can always say, “Well, that is the outcome that occurred and we could've taken another choice.” The problem is, the reality is is that we have to make decisions today based on intelligence, based on the facts that are delivered to us. And, therefore, at that time, it was absolutely a war of necessity.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Domestic surveillance. Here is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 1809, and very clear. “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally — engages in electronic surveillance… except as authorized by statute.” Has the president, in fact, engaged in electronic surveillance and not authorized by statute?
MR. RUSSERT: No. The president has engaged in an act — in a highly classified program that I have been fully briefed on. I’m one of the eight people in our Congress briefed on this program. And the program itself is terrorist surveillance. It is international al-Qaeda-linked communication around the world. It might be to Baghdad, it might be to Berlin, it might be to London, or it might be to Nashville, Tennessee. But it’s coming from al-Qaeda-related surveillance. So the statute itself, at least my interpretation is and I believe this program is lawful, it is constitutional. I strongly support it. I know, I know it is vital to our security.
…
MR. RUSSERT: There has been a lot of discussion … about this whole notion of domestic eavesdropping and how the White House has been extremely aggressive trying to seize that as an issue, move it from being a civil rights and liberty issue to an anti-terrorism issue. Again, some polling data was quite constructive. The American people, would you give up some civil liberties to prevent terrorism? Yes, 51; no, 40. What about monitoring U.S. phone calls and e-mails without a warrant? Forty-nine say acceptable, 45 say unacceptable. Would you mind if your own calls were being monitored? Fifty-three say yes, 46 percent say no. Who do you trust to protect the country against terrorism? President Bush 45, the Democrats in Congress, 32. Has the president’s policies made us more secure, 52 yes. Less secure, 21, no. No different, 25.
…
MR. SIMON, BLOOMBERG NEWS: One more point on that. Unlike past administrations, notably the Nixon administration, there’s no evidence that the Bush administration has used this warrantless surveillance for political purposes. When the president says, ‘I’m doing this to protect the United States of America, there’s no evidence that he is in any way prevaricating. And that is why, I think, so many people are saying, as Kelly pointed out, ‘Well, I don’t talk to al-Qaeda every night, so let them tap my phones all they want to.’
…
MR. YORK, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, the administration has made the — first of all, the — FISA was passed in 1978, and critics have pointed out it was passed at a time when homes and offices had one telephone and there was a wire going in and out of them. It’s a very old time now. But they also point out that the FISA system was backed up. In 2004, the September 11th commission, which everybody pretty much respects their findings, said that “The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance.” And that’s the kind of thing the Bush administration says they were having to deal with. And there is one more issue on the actual legal justification — I don’t think Senator Frist made this really very clear just citing the Constitution. But the White House is not just making it up, there was a case in 2002 by the FISA court of review, In Re Sealed Case. It referred to an earlier case called Truong, and it said, “That court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the president does have that authority.” So they have a legal basis for what they’re doing.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the race for the White House. You heard Senator Frist suggest that he’s considering running for president. The Gallup poll went out this week about Hillary Clinton — and drew a lot of comment around the country — “Would you vote for Hillary Clinton for president? Definitely, 16 percent. Maybe, 32 percent. Definitely not, 51 percent.”
MR. RUSSERT: In hindsight, knowing that we did not find weapons of mass destruction, do you believe that the war in Iraq was a war of necessity or a war of choice?
UNITED STATES SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SEN. FRIST: Oh, I think it was a war of necessity. And it we — if we look at the Middle East today, if we look at the importance of that to our global security, which reflects on homeland security, it was absolutely, to me, an absolute necessity that we remove this tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, who had attacked sovereign nations, who killed on the outside inside, and had the enemy of the United States. So it’s clear to me that the war was conducted for the right reasons, and that we will be successful there.
MR. RUSSERT: But there are lots of countries that do not treat their people properly: North Korea, Iran, Cuba. Why not military action for those countries?
SEN. FRIST: Well, you mentioned weapons of mass destruction, and we didn’t find them there. But as you know, our intelligence, the intelligence of major countries in Europe and indeed around the world, all raised the question, all thought that weapons of mass destruction were there. And that required action at the time, and that’s why Iraq and Iraq first.
MR. RUSSERT: But they weren’t there.
SEN. FRIST: But they weren’t.
MR. RUSSERT: But knowing that now, do you still say the war was a war of necessity?
SEN. FRIST: I think, it’s a war of necessity. Again, if we project ahead and we start looking back, you can always say, “Well, that is the outcome that occurred and we could've taken another choice.” The problem is, the reality is is that we have to make decisions today based on intelligence, based on the facts that are delivered to us. And, therefore, at that time, it was absolutely a war of necessity.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Domestic surveillance. Here is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 1809, and very clear. “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally — engages in electronic surveillance… except as authorized by statute.” Has the president, in fact, engaged in electronic surveillance and not authorized by statute?
MR. RUSSERT: No. The president has engaged in an act — in a highly classified program that I have been fully briefed on. I’m one of the eight people in our Congress briefed on this program. And the program itself is terrorist surveillance. It is international al-Qaeda-linked communication around the world. It might be to Baghdad, it might be to Berlin, it might be to London, or it might be to Nashville, Tennessee. But it’s coming from al-Qaeda-related surveillance. So the statute itself, at least my interpretation is and I believe this program is lawful, it is constitutional. I strongly support it. I know, I know it is vital to our security.
…
MR. RUSSERT: There has been a lot of discussion … about this whole notion of domestic eavesdropping and how the White House has been extremely aggressive trying to seize that as an issue, move it from being a civil rights and liberty issue to an anti-terrorism issue. Again, some polling data was quite constructive. The American people, would you give up some civil liberties to prevent terrorism? Yes, 51; no, 40. What about monitoring U.S. phone calls and e-mails without a warrant? Forty-nine say acceptable, 45 say unacceptable. Would you mind if your own calls were being monitored? Fifty-three say yes, 46 percent say no. Who do you trust to protect the country against terrorism? President Bush 45, the Democrats in Congress, 32. Has the president’s policies made us more secure, 52 yes. Less secure, 21, no. No different, 25.
…
MR. SIMON, BLOOMBERG NEWS: One more point on that. Unlike past administrations, notably the Nixon administration, there’s no evidence that the Bush administration has used this warrantless surveillance for political purposes. When the president says, ‘I’m doing this to protect the United States of America, there’s no evidence that he is in any way prevaricating. And that is why, I think, so many people are saying, as Kelly pointed out, ‘Well, I don’t talk to al-Qaeda every night, so let them tap my phones all they want to.’
…
MR. YORK, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, the administration has made the — first of all, the — FISA was passed in 1978, and critics have pointed out it was passed at a time when homes and offices had one telephone and there was a wire going in and out of them. It’s a very old time now. But they also point out that the FISA system was backed up. In 2004, the September 11th commission, which everybody pretty much respects their findings, said that “The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance.” And that’s the kind of thing the Bush administration says they were having to deal with. And there is one more issue on the actual legal justification — I don’t think Senator Frist made this really very clear just citing the Constitution. But the White House is not just making it up, there was a case in 2002 by the FISA court of review, In Re Sealed Case. It referred to an earlier case called Truong, and it said, “That court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the president does have that authority.” So they have a legal basis for what they’re doing.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the race for the White House. You heard Senator Frist suggest that he’s considering running for president. The Gallup poll went out this week about Hillary Clinton — and drew a lot of comment around the country — “Would you vote for Hillary Clinton for president? Definitely, 16 percent. Maybe, 32 percent. Definitely not, 51 percent.”
Labels: None
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home