NBC "Meet the Press" Host: Tim Russert

Interview

NBC "MEET THE PRESS"
HOST: TIM RUSSERT

MR. RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday -- bloody battles in Iraq, rising tensions with Iran, a soaring federal debt, and a wide-open race for the White House in 2008. With us -- former POW and one-time presidential candidate, the senior senator from Arizona, Republican John McCain.

Then, in June an author identified only as "Anonymous" published this book -- "Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror." On Friday, November 12th, Mr. Anonymous resigned from the CIA, and this morning you meet him -- our guest, the former senior U.S. intelligence analyst, Michael Scheuer.

And in our "Meet the Press" minute, exactly 50 years ago this Sunday morning, the premier of France appeared on "Meet the Press" and addressed a very unusual subject.

But first, joining us now is Senator John McCain. Senator, welcome back to "Meet the Press."

MR. RUSSERT: Iran -- the president said they are developing components which could be used for nuclear bombs. Secretary of State Paul said they are designing the missiles that deliver those bombs. Are we close to potential military action against Iran?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't believe we're "close," but we certainly should be very concerned, disturbed and even alarmed, but there has been information about this for a long period of time. The IAEA had given us a lot of that information. The next step, obviously, is to try to get the Security Council to act in some meaningful fashion.

But, you know, Tim, this is a harsh comment, but, at the end of the day, it's the United States of America that may have to act if we act. But I hope that we can dissuade them through other means. Of course, the first attempt would be to get the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions. So we'll see, but it's a very great challenge.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be disappointed if the Israelis did to Iran what they did to Iraq in 1981 and have a preemptive strike on the nuclear reactor?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, first of all, it isn't so easy because the Iranians have these facilities spread all over Tehran. You couldn't do it in one strike. So, from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult. Second of all, I don't see how it would do anything but provoke a -- probably a conflict between Israel and Iran, and we want to avoid that at all costs, and I think the Israelis recognize that. I don't think the Israelis are at a point where they would feel that they have to do that. It's one thing to attack a reactor in Iraq 20- some years ago. It's something entirely different to take on that challenge now.

MR. RUSSERT: What's our timetable? How much time do we have for Iran to stand down?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't know. I would think we are talking about a matter of months rather than years.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. Here are the headlines -- "Baghdad Suffers a Day of Attacks, Assassinations; Residents Fear in Insurgent Offensive." We went into Fallujah, and a successful military operation, but the insurgency seems to pop up all across the country -- like one of those games, if you hit it --

SEN. McCAIN: -- Whackamo --

MR. RUSSERT: -- at the arcade -- it pops up someplace else.

SEN. McCAIN: Whackamo -- first of all, the operation in Fallujah was very successful. We killed over 1,000 of these people and captured almost an equal number. It is a significant setback. We know that this was a base of operations, which we never should have allowed to form to start with. But to go in and do that was an absolute necessity. Now we've got to follow it up in two other places, such as Ramadi and others, because we've got to keep them on the run. We all know, but we have to always mention the incredible performance of these Marines and Army guys. It's just not believable. They are so magnificent, and the loss of life is so tragic, and we mourn for them.

But, having said that, they did a very efficient operation. Does that mean everything is fine? No, you've got to follow them up, you've got to go these other places. You cannot allow them to have sanctuary. The American people have got to know this is a very tough struggle. But I don't see how you could have had elections the end of this coming January if the enemy had a sanctuary, particularly in a city the size of Fallujah. So this is a right step in the right direction, but it's very tough, and we still need more troops, we still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines who said, "Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they're going to filter back in."

MR. RUSSERT: More American troops?

SEN. McCAIN: I've said that since a year ago last August.

MR. RUSSERT: How many more do you think we need, Senator, in all honesty?

SEN. McCAIN: I would say at least 40,000 or 50,000 more.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are we going to find them?

SEN. McCAIN: I think you can find them, but it's an enormous strain. We also have to plan on increasing the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. Among others, General McCaffrey is a guy I admire. He says we need to increase the Army by about 80,000 and the Marines by 20,000 to 30,000. I don't dispute that. He and others tell me that's about the right number.

MR. RUSSERT: Not only putting down the insurgency, but the number of Iraqi children who are starving has doubled since the war began. We need troops and those support systems for a whole lot of reasons.

SEN. McCAIN: Yes. Look, we made mistakes at the beginning of this conflict. We made mistakes at the beginning of World War II. Anybody who reads about the landings in North Africa -- every war, there are terrible mistakes made. The key is to fix them, and we can fix them, and I believe that we've done a lot of things better. We need to continue to do them better.

MR. RUSSERT: You saw combat. You've seen the video of the Marine going into the mosque. Let me show it to you -- just a portion of it -- and tell you the background of this. This young man visited this mosque the day before he had been wounded in the face. He went in and saw someone on the ground moving.

He shot him. At the exact same time, a soldier and five other American soldiers -- one soldier was killed, five others injured when the insurgents had booby-trapped a body. How should America -- how should the world -- look at that footage of an American Marine shooting someone on the ground in that context?

SEN. McCAIN: People of the world should interpret that film as an American Marine under the most difficult and trying circumstances, having seen his friends killed in the worst way and tactics that are used by these insurgents, waving a white flag, and our people come up, and they start shooting; the booby-trapping of bodies; the beheading of captives. These are the worst scum of the earth that we are facing. Having said that, of course, we don't want anyone who is wounded to be shot and killed. But you cannot understand this situation without the context of the environment in which these Marines were fighting where every time they turned around somebody, who may be lying there faking being wounded, is trying to kill them, and some Americans were killed that way.

So, of course, there should be an investigation; of course, we don't sanction the killing of any wounded individual. But I would argue everything I know about that situation, that nine out of 10 of us probably would have reacted the same way. I'm not with the investigation, but this is the most difficult kind of warfare.

And let me just add one other point -- here we have Al Jazeera showing that shot over and over again without a mention of the shooting in the head of this brave woman who spent her life trying to help Iraqi people -- shame on Al Jazeera, shame on that organization. We now know that they're just a propaganda organ. They can no longer call themselves a -- news or any kind of purveyor of anything but propaganda, and if I'm angry about it -- I think all Americans are angry about it.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to what's been going on at Capitol Hill the last couple of days. After the September 11th Commission put forward their report with their reforms of the intelligence agency, the president submitted legislation. It was negotiated all day yesterday. They thought they had reached an agreement with the Senate and House leadership and the White House. Two Republican leaders stood up in the Republican conference on the House side and pleaded with their colleagues to block it. Congressman Duncan Hunter had a letter from the chairman of the joints chiefs of staff saying, "This would affect real-time military intelligence on the ground."

Is the Pentagon blocking the president's own reforms of the intelligence agency?

SEN. McCAIN: This is one of the more Byzantine kind of scenarios that I have observed in the years that I've been in Congress. It's hard for me to imagine the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sending that letter without at least consulting with the secretary of defense. It's well known that the secretary of defense wasn't enthusiastic about this loss of budget authority.

Remember, most of our fiercest debates in Washington comes down to who controls the money. The President of the United States felt very strongly that we needed this reform. I believe that it's a fairly good chance, since the majority of both houses of Congress and the President of the United States are in favor of this legislation, that it will probably succeed, over time, and I'd like to say that Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, many others who have worked on this legislation for untold hours -- they did a very good job on it, and they deserve great credit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you think this legislation will pass this year?

SEN. McCAIN: I think so, but I never believed that we wouldn't pass it once we had the conference report signed and everybody signed up. But I do believe that we have to have reform, and one other aspect of this that's very dispiriting is that the Senate failed to act on any meaningful oversight by the Congress. Everyone recognizes that the failure of congressional oversight was one of the reasons why we have some of the problems in the intelligence community today. Bob Kerrey said that the Senate was more interested -- the old bulls were more interested in turf than national security. That's a very harsh assessment, but we really don't have -- still don't have meaningful congressional oversight.

MR. RUSSERT: Should the president call up the secretary of defense and say, "Don, get on board?"

SEN. McCAIN: I would imagine he has done that already. I think this is going to work out, but -- and I do believe that Duncan Hunter and others have very deep concerns about our ability to continue to fight and win successfully in the right intelligence. I don't question their motives.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the CIA -- this is a Robert Novak column from Thursday in the "Chicago Sun Times." "John McCain told director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss, the CIA is quoted, 'a dysfunctional organization. It has to be cleaned out.' Moreover, McCain told me last week 'With CIA leaks intended to harm the reelection campaign of the President of the United States it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.'"

SEN. McCAIN: What I meant by that -- first of all, I think it's important to say that mid-level men and women that work in the CIA are amongst America's finest, and they do a dedicated job. The reality is that the Select Committee of Intelligence in the Senate said, and their chairman, Senator Roberts, told me yesterday, said they were dysfunctional. The report of the Select Committee on Intelligence in the House said the same thing. The 9/11 commission said the same thing -- that they are -- they just -- look, the President of the United States was told by the director of intelligence that weapons of mass destruction information was a "slam dunk." The secretary of state of the United States of America testified before the Security Council that weapons of mass destruction were there in Iraq. So there were great failures, and we all know that the intelligence -- CIA -- has to be reformed. So Porter Goss comes over there, who has great knowledge and experience, a former CIA employee himself, and I didn't tell him what he had to do. He came to see me as a courtesy call. We're not good friends or anything else, and my advice was the obvious -- that you've got to go over there, and you're going to have to make significant changes. But I didn't order him or in any way say -- as much as I like Bob Novak, it was more of an agreement on my part that there has to be changes.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Goss has now written a memo, which says, "These are the rules of the road. You have to support this administration." Is that "salute and shut up?"

SEN. McCAIN: No. I read Porter Goss's statement in its entirety. It's unfortunate that there was one phrase in there about we support the administration. The thrust of and the words in that statement are we are nonpolitical. Our job is to collect, analyze, and make recommendations to the President of the United States concerning intelligence, not to get in the political arena. Why did he say that? Because prior to the election, there were leaks, which were clearly designed to affect the presidential election in favor of John Kerry, and I would be angry if there were leaks in any way. They just shouldn't be involved in a political campaign.

So they need to fix the system. I think they will and, again, they are wonderful young men and women who are serving in the CIA. We thank them, but there has to be a real change there so that it never happens again what happened. One of the problems in Iran right now -- what happened right after Colin Powell said what he said? Woop, is this correct information? We've got to restore the credibility.

MR. RUSSERT: In July, this book came out, "Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" by Anonymous. We now know Anonymous is Michael Scheuer, who was then a CIA employee -- intelligence officer. Should CIA agents, currently working at the agency, be allowed to publish their opinions?

SEN. McCAIN: In my view, they should, as long as it's cleared, and as long as it's not classified information. That's my view.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to John Kerry. He told people, reportedly, at the Bill Clinton Library dedication, that this video from Osama bin Laden released on October 29th, the weekend before the campaign, was the reason that he lost the election -- that that influenced the voting behavior of the American public. Do you agree with that?

SEN. McCAIN: No, I believe that the Democrats, at their convention, failed to give a coherent message.

I think at the Republican Convention, we were able to frame the major issue of the campaign as being the war on terror, and I think there were a very large number of Americans who decided their vote on the presidential election on the basis of who was best equipped and who they could trust most to win the war on terror as the overriding issue of the campaign, and I think that was it.

Some could argue that the film of Osama bin Laden reminded people that we hadn't caught him, and so I don't think it was that. I may be wrong, but I think that what was uppermost and should be uppermost in Americans' minds is the war on terror because we are still vulnerable to attack, and we are in a long, hard, twilight struggle, and this president, certainly in my view, was best qualified to carry out that mission.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Kerry returned to the Senate, went to the floor, and talked about the debt, how the government has run up more debt from George Washington to Ronald Reagan over the last couple of years, and that the extraordinary thing is that the last three presidents had the highest debt, as he says, in the 228-year history of the Republicans. Congress voted for a $388 billion spending bill. They passed it 65-30 in the Senate. You said it's a big fat turkey.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, it's loaded with pork barrel projects. Since 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks. This year there were 14,000 earmarks. This is these special deal projects ranging from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to studying the DNA of bears in Montana. It's outrageous. The system is broken. We need to fix it. We've got to have some kind of way of challenging these earmarks. We've got to have the president perhaps have the line item veto. We've got to exercise not only overall budgetary control but stop these earmarks. We are harming agencies like NASA and their ability to carry out their mission because we're diverting so much of the funds to other projects that are unnecessary and wasteful.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, Republicans control the Senate, Republicans control the House, Republicans control the White House.

SEN. McCAIN: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: It's a Republican problem.

SEN. McCAIN: It certainly is, and we're going to have to fix it, and I believe that part of our base, of the Republican base, is fiscal conservatives, and they're very unhappy. I hear from them all the time.

MR. RUSSERT: In the House version of this spending bill, there was a provision which said that the Appropriations Committee should have access to taxpayers' tax returns. How did that happen?

SEN. McCAIN: What happens here is that they slap these omnibus bills together. You mentioned this one is nine bills that we should have passed separately. Nobody sees them or reads them. There was a 1,630-page document yesterday that was presented to us sometime in the morning, and we voted on it in the evening. The system is broken. And everybody, of course, wanted to get out of town, understandably.

MR. RUSSERT: Why should Congress have access to citizens' tax returns?

SEN. McCAIN: According to Senator Stevens' explanation on the floor last night was that two staffers, two staffers, put in this provision, and no one knew about it until another, Senator Conrad's staffer, discovered it.

MR. RUSSERT: What was their motive?

SEN. McCAIN: You know, I don't know, I can't imagine. But the fact that our system is such that that could ever be inserted and passed by the House of Representatives, if there is ever a graphic example of a broken system that we now have, that certainly has to be it. How many other provisions didn't we find in that 1,600-page document?

MR. RUSSERT: That provision won't become law, ever.

SEN. McCAIN: No, no, no. We worked out a procedure where it -- the House -- we -- it doesn't matter, but it will be fixed. But the fact that it got in there in the first place is chilling.

MR. RUSSERT: House Republicans voted last week to change their rules to say if their leader, Tom DeLay is indicted, he should be able to hold onto his position as majority leader of the House. Is that right?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't think so. I saw Newt Gingrich the other night on a program. He disagreed with that as well. There was a Congressman McDade that was indicted some years ago. He stepped down; he was found innocent, and he regained his position. I would think that would be the proper way to go. At the same time, I'm a little hesitant to tell the House how they should do their business. I'll let the American people judge that.

MR. RUSSERT: Evangelical Christians played a big role in President Bush's reelection. They are now claiming they have a seat at the table. Bob Jones III, of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, a place you know well, wrote the president a letter -- "Dear Mr. President, in your reelection God has graciously granted America, though she doesn't deserve it, a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. Don't equivocate, put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them."

Do you believe that America has a reprieve from paganism and do you believe that liberals despise Christ?

SEN. McCAIN: No, I don't. I have had a number of disagreements with Bob Jones University over the years, but I do think it's important to point out something, Tim. I think a lot of Americans are very uneasy. They're not in favor of censorship, but I think they are very uneasy with some of the things they see on television; some of the fare that their children are exposed to. As I say, there are people that worry about raising their families in the environment in which they grow up and the things that they are exposed to. I heard that all the time from people, and I'm not sure I know what the answer is. But I do know that there is great discomfort out there amongst many people who want to raise their children and what they view as a healthy environment, and they don't think that's the case now with a lot of the stuff that's in the -- (inaudible) --

MR. RUSSERT: And yet "Desperate Housewives" is a mega-hit all across America -- red states and blue states.

SEN. McCAIN: It got all the publicity that anybody could ever want, and I'm not saying it doesn't appeal to the salacious side of all of us. What I am saying that there is a great discomfort out there, and it's not that so much expressed in the statement you just read, but people say, "Hey, you know, what is this all about?" And I have never, ever tried to make judgments of this kind, but I do sense this unease.

MR. RUSSERT: In 2000, you did take on some of the leaders of the evangelical Christian community. Let me bring you back to February 28, 2000, two separate appearances but a single message. Let's watch.

(Begin sound bites.)

SEN. McCAIN: I am the pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. We embrace the fine members of the religious conservative community, but that does not mean that we will pander to their self-appointed leaders.

SEN. McCAIN: We are the party of Ronald Reagan not Pat Robertson; we are the party of Abraham Lincoln not Bob Jones.

(End sound bites.)

MR. RUSSERT: Can someone be nominated in the Republican Party for president and still take on Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Bob Jones?

SEN. McCAIN: Yes, I believe so. But I also believe that we have to, of course, recognize that there is a very strong influence in America and in our party. But I hope that we can return to the principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and be an inclusive party.

MR. RUSSERT: After a hard-fought presidential campaign this November, many people went to Florida and the Caribbean to recoup. John McCain went to New Hampshire. Let me show you -- here he is in New Hampshire -- Manchester, New Hampshire, to be exact. This was the headline in the next day's "Manchester Union Leader" -- "McCain Leaves Door Open; Republican Senator Says He Won't Rule Out Run in 2008."

SEN. McCAIN: Well, my friend John Sununu, somebody asked him why was it two weeks before McCain was in New Hampshire, and he said, "He was a week late." Look, I'm not running for president. I do not foreclose the option. The best thing I can do is help the president with this agenda, including immigration reform, which, in my view, is a compelling number-one issue; getting this fiscal situation under control; helping to win our war on terror and Iraq. I have a full agenda, and I want to pursue that. There will be plenty of time to consider whether to run for president again but, certainly, I don't think it's in any way appropriate for me to speculate on that at this time.

I was asked by Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the "Manchester Union Leader" six months ago to come up there and give that speech. I was glad to do so, and I do love New Hampshire. Every politician says that, but I think that it's a wonderful place, and I love the people there.

MR. RUSSERT: And yet the Gallup Poll is out. These are Republican voters -- who would you prefer as your nominee? McCain 10, Giuliani 10, Colin Powell 7, Jeb Bush 3, Condoleezza Rice 2, Bill Frist 2, Arnold Schwarzenegger 2. Fox News went as far as to put John McCain versus Hillary Clinton in the General Election 53-37. When would you have to make up your mind if you wanted to run in 2008?

SEN. McCAIN: I would think at least not for a couple of years. And to just -- the president hasn't even been inaugurated yet. Isn't it a little unseemly for any of us to start on that path again? But it would also reduce my effectiveness in the Senate if people would believe that all of these efforts are designed to enhance a presidential candidacy. The best thing I can do is to work very hard for the next couple of years on a lot of the issues and help this president succeed.

MR. RUSSERT: C-Span will show your speech tonight, and it's called "C-Span's Road to the White House 2008."

SEN. McCAIN: You know the theme of my speech is that we are not as much red and blue as is portrayed here in Washington and is the case here in Washington. There really are not that many fundamental disagreements between Americans.

MR. RUSSERT: Would age be a factor in your decision? You would be 71, 72 years old in 2008?

SEN. McCAIN: I think that would have to be a consideration. I have a wonderful mother who is 92. Maybe I could use her as an example.

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, you're chairman of the Commerce Committee. You oversee sports. The fight between the Indianapolis Pacers and the Detroit Pistons -- will your committee look into that?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't think so. I think that the NBA would probably handle it as well as possible. I don't know, really, what you'd gain. I do believe it's this issue of steroids has to continue to be examined, particularly where major league baseball is concerned, but I don't know what we would do besides look at it.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you opposed to legislation on steroids?

SEN. McCAIN: I think that unless major league baseball and the players come to some agreement that is very stringent and is very enforceable and credible with the American people, we would have no choice, and that's the last thing I would want.

MR. RUSSERT: John McCain, as always, we thank you for joining us and sharing your views. Happy Thanksgiving.

SEN. McCAIN: Thank you very much, Tim.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source