Pressnbc2008 Videos

On the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert noted that, during a recent MSNBC-sponsored debate at Dartmouth College, the three leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (NC), would not commit "by January of 2013, to have all American troops out of Iraq." NBC White House correspondent David Gregory described this as "a really measured position" and asserted, "Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party s view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding." He added, "I think it s a realization ... that they re going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, We ve got to be pragmatic about this. " But Gregory s suggestion that Clinton s and Obama s current positions are inconsistent with their having "even vot[ed] for cutting off funding" -- an assertion that is itself misleading -- is false. And Gregory offered no evidence that Edwards has shifted position either. In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) mandating that funding for the U.S. mission in Iraq be terminated and combat forces be redeployed by June 30, 2008, but providing, as Media Matters for America noted, continued funding for "limited" military operations there indefinitely. Additionally, earlier this year, the Senate, with Clinton and Obama s support, passed an emergency supplemental funding bill that would have required the "Secretary [of Defense] ... [to] commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days," but that also included a provision stipulating that a residual U.S. troop presence remain in Iraq: Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces. Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Clinton and Obama have both introduced legislation providing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but also a continuing military presence there. Edwards has also previously stated that he would not withdraw all troops from Iraq as president. In a May 23 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards asserted that he would preserve "some presence in Baghdad" in order to "protect the American Embassy and other personnel." From the speech: EDWARDS: My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year. [...] EDWARDS: I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq s future -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe. During the debate, Edwards said that "in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops" would be needed to remain in Iraq because the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and humanitarian workers in Iraq would "have to be protected": RUSSERT (debate moderator): Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq? EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what I would do as president. When I m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General [David] Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq. I think the problem is -- and it s what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. In response to the same question, Obama said, "What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... I will drastically reduce our presence [in Iraq] to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we re carrying out counterterrorism activities there." Clinton said, "I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated," and later added, "[T]here may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out." From the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: Let me ask you about Iraq, because it was interesting, I thought in this debate. The first question I asked of the three front-runners, and all the candidates, will you pledge, by the end of your first term, January of 2013, all American troops will be out of Iraq? Clinton, Obama, Edwards all said, "I won t make that commitment." GREGORY: Right, they said you never know what we re going to find, a really measured position for three candidates. Edwards, Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party s view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding. I think it s a realization, though, that they re going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, "We ve got to be pragmatic about this. We can t lose a general election because of your feelings about the war."

On the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan said of the September 26 Democratic presidential candidate debate: "I think the Democratic Party doesn t know how far to the left they are moving. I mean, they said there that smoking is going to be a federal crime in public places." In fact, two of the candidates in that debate -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) -- said they oppose a federal law banning smoking in public places at this time and instead voiced their support for letting local communities develop anti-smoking laws. Host Tim Russert did not correct Buchanan s false generalization about the Democratic candidates position, despite the fact that he moderated the September 26 debate. During the debate, Russert asked Clinton if she was "in favor of a national law to ban smoking in public places." Clinton responded: "Not at this point. I think we re making progress at the local level." Answering the same question, Obama said, "I think that local communities are making enormous strides, and I think they re doing the right thing on this." Obama added: "As I said, if we can t provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law." At the debate, before moving to a different topic, Russert asked if there was "anybody here who s in favor of a national law to ban smoking," and based on a show of hands noted that Sens. Joseph P. Biden (DE), Christopher Dodd (CT), former Sen. John Edwards (NC), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Sen. Mike Gravel (AK), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) are all "in favor of a national law." As Media Matters for America noted, an August 28 New York Post article used the misleading headline, "Hill Eyes National Cig Curb," to which Internet gossip Matt Drudge later posted a link with the headline: "Hillary Supports National Smoking Ban." In fact, when asked during the August 27 Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum whether she would support the federal government "outlaw[ing] smoking in public places nationally," Clinton asserted: "I think the way that we re proceeding is probably the smarter way right now, which is locality, community, state." Indeed, the Post article noted in its final paragraph that, "[a]sked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments." From the September 26 Democratic presidential candidate debate: RUSSERT: One second -- one second here. I want to turn to another health issue because this is important before I bring [co-moderator] Alison [King] in. Over 400,000 Americans have premature deaths due to smoking or secondhand smoke. Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places? CLINTON: Well, we banned it in New York City. And people thought it would be a terrible idea, and everyone was really upset about it. And actually, business at a lot of establishments, like restaurants and other places, increased because many people felt more comfortable going when there was no smoking. I think that we should be moving toward a bill that I have supported to regulate tobacco through the FDA. And once it has those health warnings and once the FDA can regulate it, I think that will give a lot of support to local communities to make these, what are essentially zoning decisions. And I d fully support that. RUSSERT: But you re not in favor of a national law to ban smoking in public places? CLINTON: Not at this point. I think we re making progress at the local level. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, a national law to ban smoking in all public places? OBAMA: I think that local communities are making enormous strides, and I think they re doing the right thing on this. If it turns out that we re not seeing enough progress at the local level, then I would favor a national law. I don t think we ve seen the local laws play themselves out entirely, because I think you re seeing an enormous amount of progress in Chicago, in New York, in other major cities around the country. And because I think we have been treating this as a public health problem and educating the public on the dangers of secondhand smoke, that that pressure will continue. As I said, if we can t provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law. RUSSERT: Have you been successful in stopping smoking? OBAMA: I have. The -- you know, the best cure is my wife. RUSSERT: Is there anybody here who s in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places? [crosstalk] BIDEN: I would ban -- yes. I would ban -- and all publicly, nationally. And one other point I want to make on this -- DODD: Three thousand kids start smoking every day in this country. RUSSERT: OK. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson -- RICHARDSON: I did it in New Mexico -- RUSSERT: -- national law. Kucinich and Gravel. KUCINICH: Wait a minute. I ve been breathing in a lot of secondhand smoke here tonight. You bet I ll go for a national law. RUSSERT: All right. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel and Kucinich in favor of a national law. Alison, you re up. EDWARDS: Wait, wait, wait, and Edwards. RUSSERT: And Edwards. From the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: BUCHANAN: I think Obama s got a real problem here. I don t think you can defend yourself against the charge of lack of experience by talking about it. What he has to do is -- his problem is he s got Edwards, who is energizing the left wing of the Democratic Party and taking left-wing positions. And Obama, the more he moves out there, the more he moves out of the center -- and he can t go after Hillary the way Edwards does because he ll ruin this really good national image he s got of being above politics -- RUSSERT: Politics of hope. BUCHANAN: Yeah, exactly. And so, at the same time, he s got to beat Edwards. So he s got a very rough position. But let me say this, Tim. At that debate that you hosted -- and it was quite a debate -- I think the Democratic Party doesn t know how far to the left they are moving. I mean, they said there that it s gonna be -- smoking is going to be a federal crime in public places; 18-year-old Marines can t drink beer; and 6-year-olds are going to be taught about gay marriage. You know, they can t learn about Adam and Eve, but they can take an elective on Adam and Steve. You know, I can see the Republicans just beating them to death with this, and the "sanctuary city" stuff. Rudy s being killed with "sanctuary city."

During the August 19 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, discussing his opinion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is a "fatally flawed" presidential candidate, White House senior adviser Karl Rove asserted that Clinton "enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll," and added: "The only person who comes close is -- she -- hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe." Similarly, during the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday, in response to host Chris Wallace s remark that "George W. Bush had high negatives going into the 2004 campaign -- didn t beat him," Rove stated: "Yeah, but look. First of all, they were nowhere near as high as hers. In fact, I think the next-highest is Al Gore going into the 2000 campaign." In fact, Gallup s polling results show that President Bush s unfavorability ratings as he entered the 2004 general election campaign were consistently above what Rove claimed to be "close[st]" to Clinton s unfavorability rating -- "Al Gore with 34" percent. Between October 2003 and March 2004, polling data collected by Gallup shows that Bush received unfavorability ratings that ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high of 47 percent. In five Gallup polls conducted during this period, Bush received unfavorable ratings above 40 percent three times. From the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: And we re back now with White House strategist Karl Rove. Looking ahead to the 2008 campaign, you said this week that the Democrats are likely to name a, quote, "tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate, Hillary Clinton." As you said in the first segment -- that no front-runner has ever gone into the primary season with such high negatives. Here was Clinton s response this week. CLINTON [video clip]: Today, Karl Rove attacked me again. I feel so lucky that I now am giving them such heartburn. WALLACE: Her campaign says the more you attack her, the more the Democrats love her. So, why are you helping Hillary Clinton? ROVE: Didn t know that I was. Don t think that I am. WALLACE: What does that mean? ROVE: Exactly that. WALLACE: In fact, I mean, is there a certain amount of -- don t throw me into the briar patch here -- that you d actually like to see her as the Democratic candidate? ROVE: Look, it is going to be what it s going to be. I mean, you know, the Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it s going to be her. That s their business. That s -- maybe I made the mistake of trying to be -- audition for a member of the Fox panel by opining about what might happen, but I think she s going to be the nominee. WALLACE: Well, but what makes her fatally flawed? I understand she has high negatives. George W. Bush had high negatives going into the 2004 campaign -- didn t beat him. ROVE: Yeah, but look. First of all, they were nowhere near as high as hers. In fact, I think the next highest is Al Gore going into the 2000 campaign. But look, the fact is she s known. People know her. She s been around for 16 years. It s really hard, once you jump up onto the stage and have been on the stage that long, to do much to change people s attitudes about you, and she s going in with more people having an unfavorable opinion than having a favorable opinion. WALLACE: And from your experience in politics, can you turn that around? ROVE: It s difficult. It can be done, but it s difficult. From the August 19 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: DAVID GREGORY (guest host): In our remaining moments, I want to talk about the 2008 campaign. Now, you ve said -- you haven t ruled anything out -- but you said you re not going to go work for another candidate. But you also said that you re an opinionated guy, and some of those opinions came flowing out this week, including your conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week about Senator Hillary Clinton. Watch. ROVE [audio clip]: I think she s likely to be the nominee, and I think she s fatally flawed. GREGORY: "Fatally flawed" how? ROVE: She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll. GREGORY: The president has much higher negatives than she, however. ROVE: She enters the presidential contest with higher negatives. The only person who comes close is -- she -- hers are at 49. The only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe. GREGORY: And how does that hurt her? ROVE: Well, it just says people have made an opinion about her. It s hard to change opinions once you ve been a high profile person in the public eye, as she has, for 16 or 17 years.

On the July 29 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood declared his intent to "defend" Robin Givhan s July 20 Washington Post Style section article which referred to the "cleavage on display" during Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) July 18 speech on the Senate floor. Harwood then asserted: "When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil." As Media Matters for America has documented media figures frequently portray Clinton as "calculating" or overly ambitious, while rarely offering actual examples or support. In the article, Givhan called Clinton s appearance "unnerving" and wrote: "[I]t was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Since the column, Post employees such as columnists Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank have distanced themselves from Givhan s remarks, as Media Matters noted. From the July 29 edition of NBC News Meet the Press: RUSSERT: I want to give Gene Robinson equal time for barber shops. EUGUNE ROBINSON (Washington Post columnist): Well, I ll take equal time for barber shops. I think [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] needs to find some barbershops in New Hampshire to visit. And, you know, you won t have a lot of hair left if he gets it cut there many, many times. It s pretty short right now. I also -- let me jump in and offer a word in defense of Robin Givhan, the Washington Post columnist who wrote the cleavage column. As her former boss, you know, you either cover fashion or you don t. And I think it s legitmate to argue that you shouldn t worry about fashion, but, you know, it s the way we present ourselves to the world, to others. We make decisions every morning on what we put on and how -- what sort of image we want to project. And unfortunately in our society, women are scrutinized in a way that men aren t. I mean, what did John Edwards wear at the YouTube debate? What did Barack Obama wear? MITCHELL: Eugene, arguably, if you look at the Senate floor any day of the week, if you look at the floor of the House of Commons when a new cabinet minister was speaking, who had a far more low-cut neckline, this was so marginal. This was like microscopic evidence -- HARWOOD: I m going to defend that column too. MITCHELL: --of inappropriate attire. HARWOOD: I m going to defend that column too. When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK? MITCHELL: Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse. [crosstalk] RUSSERT: I m going to move on to South Carolina because this is important. Here s the polls from South Carolina.

During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before. And it gives the Republicans hope." Neither host Tim Russert nor any of Novak s fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum -- all of whom are, like Novak, white men -- commented on or challenged Novak s assertion. As Media Matters for America documented, the four Sunday-morning talk programs on the broadcast networks, Meet the Press, ABC s This Week, CBS Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co. s Fox News Sunday, feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. A breakdown of the guests on Meet the Press from 2005 to 2006 shows that 76 percent of the guests on the program were white men. From the July 15 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: Bob Novak, there also seems to be a rather subtle message -- subliminal, nonetheless real, in the [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] message, and that is, it s time to turn the page. Twenty-eight years of two families controlling the presidency. NOVAK: Absolutely. And that is something that everybody talks about. And, you know, talk about nostalgia -- it s hard for a lot of these people to believe this, but there s not that much nostalgia for Bill Clinton. I just find people who aren t Democratic professional politicians, who are -- you know, are sorry that they ve had eight years of Republicans, they don t really yearn for Bill Clinton. But the thing -- RUSSERT: But he does -- he s very popular in all the polls. NOVAK: A lot of people don t want him back, though, for a third term. And I think it s very dangerous to call this a third term of Bill Clinton. There s one other thing: the morale of the Republicans -- RUSSERT: Who s done that? Who s called it the third term? NOVAK: Me. [laughter] SHRUM: It s dangerous, and that s why he s doing it. RUSSERT: Nice try, Novak. NOVAK: There s a -- RUSSERT: Consider the source. NOVAK: Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, "OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before." And it gives the Republicans hope. HUNT: You know, I have a different take. I don t think the Bill Clinton thing is that big a deal at this time. I think if you look at these two front-runners, and you look at over the last six months, and they both have probably exceeded expectations. Go back to January 15. If you said, "Six months from now, Hillary Clinton will have minimized her Iraq problem, she will have raised over 50 million dollars, she would have done better than probably anyone in the joint forums, she would be cleaning up with political endorsements," you would say, "It s all over. She s won."

On the June 10 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown s allegation regarding the updated "plan" -- historian Taylor Branch -- had labeled the authors claim "preposterous." In his response, Gerth first cited Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who he said relayed to him a conversation the two said they had with Branch in 1993 in which Branch purportedly disclosed the alleged plan for both Clintons to become president. Gerth then invoked former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, the authors source for the Clintons original "plan": "I think, more interestingly and more surprisingly, the ambition of the Clintons going back to when they were in their 20s and the 20-year project that Leon Panetta remembers Bill Clinton describing to him." But when Russert challenged Gerth by noting that the "project" Panetta purportedly described to the authors "was never about Hillary," Gerth answered: "No, but Bill Clinton, of course, at that point in the 1970s, even before they married, was talking about that Hillary Clinton, that she could be president but she had to subordinate her plans, of course, to his coming to Arkansas." However, this anecdote -- a similar version of which appears in Bill Clinton s autobiography, My Life (Knopf, 2004) -- in no way supports Gerth and Van Natta s disputed claim that, after Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Clintons revised their "20-year project" to include eight years as president for Hillary. In My Life, Bill Clinton wrote that "I thought coming to Arkansas with me would end the prospect of a political career for her": I was happy to be going home to the prospect of interesting work, but I still didn t know what to do about Hillary, or what was best for her. I had always believed she had as much (or more) potential to succeed in politics as I did, and I wanted her to have the chance. Back then, I wanted it for her more than she did, and I thought coming to Arkansas with me would end the prospect of a political career for her. I didn t want to do that, but I didn t want to give her up, either. [Page 201] As Media Matters noted, in a June 4 appearance on ABC s Good Morning America, Gerth and Van Natta dodged questions about Branch s reported dismissal of their claim in the book of an updated "20-year project,", with Gerth simply responding that the first allegation -- that the Clintons devised a "plan" in the 1970s that included a Bill Clinton presidency -- "has not been refuted." Additionally, while Van Natta defended the first claim in a June 4 post on the Huffington Post weblog, he ignored the dispute surrounding the second allegation (that the purported "20-year project" had been expanded to include a two-term presidency for Hillary Clinton). In the prologue of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write: More than three decades ago, in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home.14 Once their "twenty-year project" was realized, with Bill s victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her.15 Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now. While their plan was hatched together, Hillary had her own ideas about what it would take to achieve victory. She concluded that if she had any chance of winning the ultimate prize of her life, she would need to pursue it her way. That meant, among other things, carefully crafting a persona and a narrative to present to the American public that knew both so much and so little about her. [Page 9] Associated endnotes: 14. Interviews with Leon Panetta and former Clinton administration official in 2006. 15. Author interviews with Ann Crittenden and John Henry in 2007. Later in the book, Gerth and Van Natta write: By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary. Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer.71 The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions"72 as part of an oral-history project. Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry s breath away. "I was shocked," he said. 73 [Pages 128-129] Associated endnotes: 71. Author interviews with John Henry and Ann Crittenden in 2007. Branch, in an interview with one of the authors in 2007, said, "I don t remember" the conversation but "I m not denying it." He acknowledged that he knows Henry and Crittenden and that he has been to Aspen many times. But Branch declined to discuss Hillary or Bill, saying it was "stupid" to do so in light of the fact that he was writing his own book on Bill s presidency. 72. Julie Bosman, "Historian Plans Book from Chats with Clinton," New York Times, March 22, 2007, El; author interview with Taylor Branch in 2007. Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, says the oral history project began in late 1993. (Clinton, My Life, ii.) 73. Author interview with John Henry in 2007. From the June 10 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: And we re back with the authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Welcome both. Let s go right to it. One of the important parts of this book is this notion of a grand design by Bill and Hillary Clinton to each serve two terms in the White House. This is the way you write about it: "By the summer of 1993 the ways of Washington ... had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." You know what s happened now. This is The Washington Post reporting on this: "The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when bill left office. They cite two people," former Times reporter "Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons still planned two terms in the White House for Bill, later two for Hillary. Contacted last night Branch said that the story is preposterous, [and that] I never heard either Clinton talk about a "plan" for them both to become President. " What do you say? GERTH: Well, Tim, I interviewed Ann Crittenden and John Henry, and they both separately recalled a barbecue dinner in Aspen, Colorado, in 1993 at a rodeo with Taylor Branch, and they were remembering him saying that he had just come from the White House -- he s a historian and had begun talking with President Clinton -- and he told them about -- that Bill Clinton was going to serve eight years and then, at some point, Hillary was going to do eight years in the White House. I later contacted Taylor Branch, asked him if he remembered the dinner in aspen. He said he didn t, but he said he wouldn t deny it. Then he later, when the book came out, he said it was preposterous. I think I would add Taylor is a respected historian, but he himself has admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can t be objective. So, there are two people, you know -- Ann Crittenden is an award winning journalist -- two people who say yea, and Taylor Branch says nay. I think, more interestingly and more surprisingly, the ambition of the Clintons going back to when they were in their 20s and the 20-year project that Leon Panetta remembers Bill Clinton describing to him. RUSSERT: Well, Panetta said Bill Clinton running for president, but it was never about Hillary. GERTH: No, but Bill Clinton, of course, at that point in the 1970s, even before they married, was talking about that Hillary Clinton, that she could be president but she had to subordinate her plans, of course, to his coming to Arkansas.

On the May 13 "Meet the Candidates" edition of NBC s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ), "In hindsight, was it a good idea to go into Iraq?" but did not challenge McCain s reply that the invasion of Iraq "was certainly justified" because "[e]very intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Yet on two separate "Meet the Candidates" editions of Meet the Press, Russert did challenge former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) for their 2002 votes giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, citing the "caveats" in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concerning the purported existence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The NIE was made available to all members of Congress before the vote, according to The Washington Post. Russert did not challenge McCain with either a general question about the contrary evidence in the NIE or a question about the basis for his explicit assertion one day before the war resolution vote that "[t]o wait for Saddam Hussein to threaten imminent attack against America would be to acquiesce to his development of nuclear weapons." In addition, during the interview, McCain made the much-disputed assertion that if the United States withdraws from Iraq, "these people will try to follow us home," which Russert also did not challenge. Russert later cited a report about the current National Intelligence Estimate: " It couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests, fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption. " McCain replied, "Yes, and these same intelligence agencies gave us some very bad intelligence about four years ago, as well, as you might -- as you might recall." On October 10, 2002, McCain gave a speech on the Senate floor arguing in favor of voting to authorize military action against Iraq. McCain stated: The President has spoken clearly of the threat Saddam Hussein s regime poses to America and the world today -- even though Iraq today clearly does not meet the Byrd amendment s standard of threatening imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States of our Armed Forces. To wait for Saddam Hussein to threaten imminent attack against America would be to acquiesce to his development of nuclear weapons, to ignore his record of aggression against his neighbors, and to disregard his continuing threats to destroy Israel. Failure now to make the choice to remove Saddam Hussein from power will leave us with choices later, when Saddam s inevitable acquisition of nuclear weapons will make it much more dangerous to defend our friends and interests in the region. It will permit Saddam to control much of the region, and to wield its resources in ways that can only weaken America s position. It will put Israel s very survival at risk, with moral consequences no American can welcome. Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein s Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we believe to have occurred between members of al-Qaida and Saddam s regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States. McCain had made similar remarks in another floor speech the day before. He claimed that Saddam "continues to attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon," which he called a "well-known fact[]." McCain added: "[E]ach day that goes by he becomes more dangerous, his capabilities become better, and, in the case of nuclear weapons, it is not a question of whether, it is a question of when." Yet Russert did not challenge any of McCain s comments on prewar intelligence on Iraq, in stark contrast with his discussion of the same topic with Edwards and Biden. In those interviews, Russert mentioned the "caveats" in the October 2002 NIE in which the State Department s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) dissented from the intelligence community s majority judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. On the February 4 edition of Meet the Press, Russert challenged Edwards on his vote to authorize military force against Iraq, noting that "the [October 2002] National Intelligence Estimate that was given to you, and now made public, had some real caveats." Russert then quoted from a conclusion reached by the INR in the 2002 NIE: "The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [the INR] would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." The INR added that it "[l]ack[ed] persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program." Similarly, on the April 29 edition of Meet the Press, Russert asked Biden regarding the prewar intelligence: "How could you, as a U.S. senator, be so wrong?" Russert said that "there are a lot of caveats put on the level of intelligence about the aluminum tubes and everything. General Zinni ... said when he heard the discussion about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, he said, I ve never heard that in any of the briefings he had as head of the Central Command." Russert also allowed McCain to claim that withdrawing troops from Iraq would be different from the United States exit from Vietnam because "these people will try to follow us home": McCAIN: This is a very, very difficult situation, but the consequences of failure, in my view, are unlike the Vietnam War, where we could leave and come home when it was over, that these people will try to follow us home. And the region will erupt to a point where we may have to come back, or we will be combating what is now, to a large degree, Al Qaeda, although certainly other -- many other factors of sectarian violence, in the region. Russert did not mention that according to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim Bush has repeatedly made about the Iraq war -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." The article continued: "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush s own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." Additionally, according to a March 18 Washington Post article, "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland." Moreover, a recent report from National Public Radio s All Things Considered cited a number of experts challenging the Bush administration s claim. From the May 13 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: McCAIN: The consequences of failure, Tim, are that there would be chaos in the region. There s 3 -- 2 million Sunni in Baghdad. The Iranians would continue to increase their influence, the Saudis would have to help the Sunni, the Kurds would want independence; the Turks will never stand for it. Some people say partition. You d have to partition bedrooms in Baghdad because Sunni and Shia are married. This is a very, very difficult situation, but the consequences of failure, in my view, are unlike the Vietnam War, where we could leave and come home when it was over, that these people will try to follow us home. And the region will erupt to a point where we may have to come back, or we will be combating what is now, to a large degree, Al Qaeda, although certainly other -- many other factors of sectarian violence, in the region. RUSSERT: In hindsight, was it a good idea to go into Iraq? McCAIN: You know, in hindsight, if we had exploited the initial success, which was shock and awe, and we succeeded, and we had done the right things after that, all of us would be applauding what we did. We didn t. It was terribly mismanaged. It was -- I went over there very shortly after the initial victory and came back convinced that we didn t have enough troops on the ground, we were making the wrong decisions, and that [then-Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld was badly mismanaging the conflict. And I spoke about it and complained for years. So, if we had succeeded and done the right thing after the initial military success, then all of us would be very happy that one of the most terrible, cruel dictators in history was removed from power. Now, because of our failures, obviously, we have paid a very heavy price in American blood and treasure and great sacrifice. RUSSERT: So it was a good idea to go in? McCAIN: I think at the time, given the information we had. Every intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He had acquired and used them before. There s no doubt that he was going to acquire and use them if he could. The sanctions were breaking down. The Oil for Food scandal was in the billions of dollars. And, of course, at the time, given the information we had -- hindsight is 20/20. If we d have known we were going to experience the failures we experienced, obviously, it would give us all pause. At the information and the knowledge and the situation at the time, I think that it was certainly justified. RUSSERT: The Pentagon s quarterly report, the director of the CIA, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, all have said that sectarian violence is the problem. In fact, the -- General [Michael] Maples said that Al Qaeda accounts for only a small fraction of the insurgent violence. [...] RUSSERT: And the American people are saying, "Why are we shedding our blood and they re taking vacations as a parliament?" They don t have independent soldiers and battalions up and running. Our National Intelligence Estimate "outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control, strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document. "It couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests, fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption." That s our own intelligence agency -- McCAIN: Yes. RUSSERT: -- four years out. McCAIN: Yes, and these same intelligence agencies gave us some very bad intelligence about four years ago, as well, as you might -- as you might recall. But the fact is, this is long, hard difficult. And we talk about these present challenges that we face. We don t talk a lot about what happens if we fail, and I think that that s got to be part of any national discussion that we have. And the consequences of failure are chaos, genocide, and when you -- when -- and I m sure you will ask this at some point, "What s plan B?" My question to those who say, "Let s set a date for withdrawal" -- "What s your plan B?" And the fact is, if we spent time on plan A, we -- and give it a chance to succeed, I think would be a useful way of spending our time. RUSSERT: But under your plan, you re strongly suggesting we re going to be there for the next 10 years at least in order to secure and stabilize that country. From the April 29 edition of Meet the Press: RUSSERT: But when you read the National Intelligence Estimate, which has now been released, there are a lot of caveats put on the level of intelligence about the aluminum tubes and everything. BIDEN: Absolutely. RUSSERT: General [Anthony] Zinni, who s been on this program a few weeks ago, said when he heard the discussion about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had, he said, "I ve never heard that" in any of the briefings he had as head of the Central Command. How could you, as a U.S. senator, be so wrong? BIDEN: I wasn t wrong. I was on your show when you asked me about aluminum tubes, and I said, "They re for artillery. I don t believe they re for cascading." RUSSERT: But you said Saddam was a threat, that he had to be -- BIDEN: He was a threat. From the February 4 edition of Meet the Press: RUSSERT: At that time, however, that Senator [Edward] Kennedy [D-MA] is saying, "This is not an imminent threat." General Zinni, who led the military in that region, said, "This is the wrong war." EDWARDS: Uh-huh. RUSSERT: General [Brent] Scowcroft, former President Bush s national security adviser, and the National Intelligence Estimate that was given to you, and now made public, had some real caveats, and this is one of them: "The activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what the State Department s Bureau of Intelligence and Research would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." Do you remember seeing that? EDWARDS: I did see it. I mean, I think it was -- there were serious questions about whether -- again, we re looking back. Now, we know none of this was true. But, at the time, there were serious questions about any effort to obtain nuclear weapons, which is what that statement just was. All of us believed there was no question that he had chemical and biological weapons, and there was at least some scattered evidence that he was making an effort to get nuclear weapons. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, you just got it dead wrong and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.