Senator Hagel was questioned about recent reports of Kurdish militias receiving U.S. support and operating out of Iraq to launch attacks into Iran. The Senator said he had no knowledge of these reports. Sam Husseini also questioned Hagel about his vote to give the President the authorization to use force and the lead-up to the Iraq war. When Husseini pressed that some public information existed at the time that could cause one to doubt the President’s claims before the war, Hagel insisted that “the entire intelligence community of this government, all 16 agencies,” and our allies were all convinced of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, although Hagel also admitted regretting his vote.
Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.
On Sunday, March 18, Sam Husseini spoke with Senatory John Cornyn (R-TX), outside of the studios of ABC News. Cornyn, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee among his other assignments, expressed the opinion that Iran represents “a very real threat” but that he did not anticipate the US to attack Iran unless something “no one of us expects happens.” On whether Bush should seek another authorization of force, Cornyn said “I think that would be the proper order of things.” When later asked about Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in the region and how that might play into the dynamic that may fuel Iran alleged pursuit of the same, Cornyn refused to acknowledge Israel’s weapons and stated that “no comparison” could be drawn between Israel and Iran in part because Israel is a US ally.
Sam Husseini also inquired about the Republicans threat of a filibuster on legislation regulating the funding of the Iraq war in contrast to the Republicans decrying the possibility of Democrats filibustering Bush administration nominees. The Senator said he saw a difference between filibustering legislation and, as he saw it, unconstitutionally hindering a President’s nominations.
Outside the Capitol Hill studios of Fox News, Sam Husseini asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about claims she made — as National Security Advisor with then Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2001 — that Saddam Hussein’s “military forces have not been rebuilt.” Claims made not too long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States in part on the asserted premise of Iraq being a military threat.
In February of 2001, Colin Powell said: “He has not developed any significant capabilities with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” In July of 2001, Condoleeza Rice is on the record as saying, “…we are able to keep arms from him [Saddam Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
With no response to that line of questioning, Husseini queried Rice on a widely accepted fact that has not been officially acknowledged by the United States — Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons.
However, the Secretary of State stopped for no-one, and drove off into the morning snowstorm.
Leaving the studios of CBS, presidential candidate Senator John Edwards repeated his position that he was for direct engagement with Iran. That position is qualified by Edwards also insisting that “all options are on the table.”
Sam Husseini wondered if the region wasn’t already further destabilized by Israel’s own first possession of nuclear arms in the Middle East (excluding the United States’ own projection of force).
Husseini asked the senator if he would acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons and wondered if the lack of such acknowledgment also aggravated the situation. Edwards spoke around the question. Presumably an Edwards presidency would continue the US tradition of not openly acknowledging Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Coming out of the studios of Meet The Press today, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said he expected President Bush to “describe a different Iraq than … most Americans understand and recognize” in Tuesday’s upcoming State of the Union address. He also said “the American people are entitled to require the President to come to Congress to get an authorization….”
Kennedy noted that the previous authorization of force was predicated on allegations of Hussein’s government violating UN resolutions, the alleged Iraqi possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and alleged links with Al Qaeda. The latter points being conditions now widely acknowledged not to have existed (although the Senator did not acknowledge that directly).
The Senator’s view that the lack of these conditions requires more congressional oversight of the war partly echoes the opinion of legal scholar Francis Boyle, who believes that the addition of inexcess of 20,000 troops to the approximately 140,000 alrady in Iraq constitutes substantially enlarging the force.
Boyle says this triggers the War Powers Act and quotes it: “In the absence of a declaration of war [which we do not have for Iraq], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced … (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation….”
Boyle goes further to assert that continuing the escalation beyond a 60 day limit without an authorization from Congress would be an impeachable offense. Kennedy’s view does not seem to go this far, as the Senator has not spoken of impeachment and introduced a new bill to require authorization, which the War Powers Act already seems to do.
After his comments, Senator Kennedy was asked by Sam Husseini (video of just this) on the latest developments of proposed Iraqi oil legislation, which seems to nominally keep control in the hands of the US-supported Iraqi government, but makes large profitable concessions to U.S. oil companies. In response, Kennedy asserted that “the objective for the oil distribution is … to be fair to different regions of the country,” and did not speak to the point about the role of US corporations.
The Washington Stakeout is a project in new journalism and accountability. Week-in, week-out, day-in, day-out, public figures responsible for and able to influence policy make themselves available in Washington, DC.
The Washington Stakeout strives to take advantage of these opportunities and ask direct questions — we think the answers and non-answers, confirmations, denials and non-denials will be telling.
For fair use or re-use with the extra privileges allowed under the non-commercial Creative Commons license, please credit "The Washington Stakeout" and link to the appropriate article or the main page of this site. For other usage, please contact us — we want to share.
