MSNBC - The Situation - 2005-10-07 - 1 of 2

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] with a donation.

[0:01] >> Penn station after a suspicious green

[0:02] liquid was found in a soda bottle during

[0:05] morning rush hour. The NYPD has

[0:07] increased its presence on the streets

[0:09] and began searching commuters bags,

[0:11] briefcases, and even baby strollers for

[0:13] bombs. Officials from the Department of

[0:15] Homeland Security are downplaying the

[0:16] threat, meanwhile, but Mayor Michael

[0:18] Bloomberg is defending his city's

[0:20] response. And President Bush isn't

[0:22] passing any judgment on the mayor's

[0:23] decision whatsoever. It is very

[0:25] different being an analyst in Washington

[0:28] looking at data as opposed to being here

[0:30] in New York where you have to take

[0:32] responsibility to protect people's

[0:34] lives. We believe that there is some

[0:37] credibility to this and if I'm going to

[0:39] make a mistake, you can rest assured it

[0:42] is going to be on the side of being

[0:45] cautious. I I think they took the

[0:47] information that we gave and made the

[0:49] judgments they thought were necessary

[0:51] and uh the American people have got to

[0:54] know that one that we're collecting

[0:55] information and sharing it with local

[0:56] authorities on on a timely basis and

[0:58] that's important.

[1:01] Adding to the jitters this afternoon

[1:02] authorities evacuated the Washington

[1:04] Monument after a bomb threat was called

[1:06] into local police. An initial search

[1:08] found nothing unusual. Joining me to

[1:10] talk about these latest threats is

[1:12] George Freriedman. the CEO of Stratfor,

[1:14] the country's largest private

[1:15] intelligence gathering organization. Mr.

[1:17] Friedman is also the author of America's

[1:19] Secret War inside the hidden worldwide

[1:22] struggle between America's and its

[1:23] enemies. A really interesting book. He

[1:25] joins us now from Austin, Texas. Mr.

[1:26] Friedman, thanks for coming on.

[1:28] >> Thanks for having me.

[1:29] >> Now, what these reports are uh confusing

[1:31] from the federal government and from the

[1:33] city of New York. They seem to

[1:34] contradict each other. The city of New

[1:36] York and Mayor Bloomberg saying this is

[1:37] a real threat. The feds casting some

[1:40] doubt on that. Is this an example of the

[1:41] lack of coordination we heard so much

[1:43] about after 911?

[1:44] >> No, I think it's the nature of

[1:45] intelligence. Intelligence is imperfect.

[1:48] In hindsight, we always know what's

[1:50] going to happen, but beforehand, you

[1:52] have to make a judgment call. And in

[1:54] this case, an imperfect judgment, the

[1:55] mayor, obviously responsible for

[1:57] millions of people, took a very

[1:59] conservative stance where homeland

[2:01] defense took a different stance on the

[2:03] same data. Happens all the time.

[2:04] >> Well, that seems totally fair to me.

[2:06] problem is when both of those uh

[2:08] evaluations become public, doesn't it

[2:10] make people cynical about terror threats

[2:12] in general, they get the impression, or

[2:14] I do anyway, that no one is exactly sure

[2:15] what's going on. And is that a good

[2:16] impression to leave people with? Well,

[2:18] that's exactly the truth. No one is

[2:20] completely sure what's going on. And to

[2:22] give anyone the false sense of security

[2:25] that yeah, we really know what's going

[2:26] on. We've got it all wired uh is going

[2:29] to make the people careless. Uh the fact

[2:31] is that al Qaeda is still out there. We

[2:33] don't have it completely painted. We

[2:35] don't know everything that it's doing

[2:36] and the information that comes in is

[2:38] always going to be ambiguous. You know,

[2:40] we want a country where the government

[2:41] is going to be absolutely right 100% of

[2:44] the time and when intelligence service

[2:45] does that. Uh we don't have that. It

[2:48] doesn't exist. So you see what happens

[2:50] when reasonable people see the same

[2:52] intelligence and draw different

[2:53] conclusions.

[2:54] >> That's a good point. Now uh in your book

[2:56] you you you argue that in fact we're

[2:58] winning the war on terror. What are the

[2:59] measures of success in the war on

[3:01] terror?

[3:02] Well, I mean, it's impossible to prove a

[3:04] negative in the sense that the fact that

[3:06] there has been no attacks in the United

[3:08] States since 9/11 uh doesn't prove there

[3:10] won't be one tomorrow,

[3:11] >> right? But I think there is no question

[3:13] but that the quality of intelligence

[3:15] we've developed has improved

[3:17] dramatically over the recent years and

[3:19] that as the president pointed out I

[3:21] think to some extent reasonably uh many

[3:23] attacks have been batted down and that's

[3:26] happened because the Islamic

[3:27] intelligence agencies in places like

[3:29] Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who know the

[3:31] most about ala's behavior uh began to

[3:34] cooperate intensely with the United

[3:36] States over recent years in part because

[3:38] of the invasion of Iraq. So uh the

[3:41] answer is that we know more than we knew

[3:43] before. Probably less because of the

[3:45] capabilities of the CIA. Uh more because

[3:47] of what I call the coalition of the

[3:49] coerced countries that felt they had no

[3:51] choice but to cooperate. And as a result

[3:53] uh we're ahead on points. Doesn't mean

[3:55] we've won.

[3:56] >> How confident are we in the intelligence

[3:58] that we get from the Saudis and from the

[3:59] ISI and Pakistan and from the from

[4:01] Turkey? Do we think it's good

[4:03] intelligence? Do we trust it?

[4:04] >> Well, some of it has certainly been good

[4:06] intelligence. For example, during the uh

[4:08] summer of 2004, uh there were several

[4:12] attempts to for attacks in the United

[4:14] States that were thwarted by

[4:15] intelligence that came in from the

[4:16] Saudis. Uh whenever you get intelligence

[4:18] out in the field, it has the possibility

[4:20] of being tainted. It has the possibility

[4:22] of being false. Uh if it were science,

[4:25] it'd be easy. That's why intelligence

[4:26] analysts get gray hairs trying to figure

[4:29] out which is true and which is false.

[4:32] But Bush in his press conference the

[4:33] other day said that there were uh I

[4:35] think he said 10 terrorist plots that

[4:37] had been thwarted by the US government

[4:40] over the past couple of years. He didn't

[4:42] name any of them. White House uh

[4:43] spokesman later I think filled in the

[4:45] blanks on two or maybe three of those um

[4:47] that he brought up. But wouldn't it be

[4:49] useful to the rest of us to the American

[4:51] population which really does need to

[4:52] support the war on terror to give us

[4:53] concrete examples of terrorist plots

[4:55] thwarted. Wouldn't that be good for

[4:57] morale?

[4:57] >> Sure. There are two problems. First, how

[4:59] do you define a plot? Uh, two guys

[5:02] drinking coffee in a coffee house start

[5:04] talking about how they'd like to blow up

[5:05] the Empire State Building. Is that a

[5:07] plot? It may be thwarted, but do we take

[5:09] it seriously? Second, the same uh

[5:12] sources and methods that are being used

[5:14] that were used to thwart these plots are

[5:16] still in play. If you lay out the 10

[5:19] we've uh thwarted, uh very quickly an

[5:23] intelligence analyst on the other side

[5:24] can start to identify the leaks and the

[5:26] weaknesses in their own system. You

[5:28] don't give it away. I mean, one of the

[5:29] problems the administration has is apart

[5:32] from the fact that it has a very public

[5:33] clumsy uh public communication scheme is

[5:36] that some of the stuff that is most

[5:39] effective, has succeeded the most,

[5:41] simply can't be revealed because it'll

[5:43] blow that uh capability in the future.

[5:45] >> So, it's just it's just the nature uh of

[5:47] the business. Is it possible that

[5:50] terrorists or people who hate us in any

[5:52] case could just cause a lot of damage

[5:54] without attacking us just by inspiring

[5:56] fear which then causes chaos and

[5:58] disruption to people's lives and to

[6:00] business and to the economy etc. Do they

[6:02] really need to blow things up to hurt

[6:03] us?

[6:04] >> Well, they do because they have to

[6:05] maintain credibility after the 17th uh

[6:09] faint uh where they simply kind of ping

[6:11] the system giving the implication that

[6:14] they're about to attack. uh it starts to

[6:17] wear thin. In order to maintain

[6:19] credibility, they have to do something.

[6:21] It's interesting to note that they've

[6:23] done things outside the United States,

[6:25] both in the Islamic world and in Spain

[6:28] and in London and the attempt in Paris,

[6:31] uh but have not yet mounted an effective

[6:34] attack uh in the United States. You

[6:36] know, if we remember back to September

[6:38] 12th, uh, and the way we felt that day

[6:41] in 2001, I don't think very many of us

[6:44] would have been confidently predicting,

[6:45] and I certainly wasn't, that in 2005, we

[6:48] wouldn't have experienced an other

[6:49] attack.

[6:50] >> That's right.

[6:50] >> The idea that this simply well, they

[6:53] decided not to. Uh, that's not true.

[6:55] They had political reasons for wanting

[6:57] to attack. They tried to attack, they

[6:59] failed, and the positive of attacks

[7:01] matters.

[7:02] >> Yes. Something to be grateful for.

[7:04] Thanks. George Freriedman of Stratfor,

[7:05] author of America's Secret War. Thanks

[7:07] for coming on. Take care. Still to come,

[7:09] former Supreme Court nominee Judge

[7:11] Robert weighs in on the Meyers

[7:13] nomination. Plus, is there a political

[7:15] message in the prize? Of course there

[7:17] is. The Nobel Committee awards the Peace

[7:19] Prize to yet another America hater. See

[7:22] a pattern here? Details when the

[7:24] situation return.

[7:34] Sprint business is reinventing the yes

[7:37] man so you can say yes to business when

[7:39] and where it happens because business

[7:41] today happens everywhere. And now that

[7:43] Sprint and Nexttel have come together,

[7:44] you can work more efficiently from

[7:46] almost anywhere and make your business

[7:48] more competitive. In fact, Sprint is now

[7:50] the number one wireless provider to

[7:52] business. So I guess you can call me a

[7:54] yes man, although I prefer yeswoman.

[7:58] With Sprint Business, you can make just

[8:00] about any place a workplace. Yes, you

[8:02] can.

[8:04] >> Ever wish you had a business coach

[8:06] watching your back and cheering you on?

[8:08] In business, as in golf, being

[8:10] competitive requires trusted support.

[8:12] Administ is like a coach for small

[8:14] businesses. They reduce liabilities and

[8:17] offer a systematic way to improve

[8:19] productivity. They provide your team

[8:21] with big company benefits and handle the

[8:23] burdens of employer related paperwork.

[8:26] Well, almost all the paperwork. Small

[8:28] business is good for America. Administ

[8:32] is good for small business.

[8:34] Coming up, paying priests to quit their

[8:36] vices. Plus, government agents bust a

[8:39] teenager making moonshine near his

[8:41] Maryland home. But the authorities have

[8:42] anything better to do? We'll ask that.

[8:44] It's a brewing situation. Stay tuned.

[8:48] >> My new grandson should always feel safe

[8:50] in my hands. Arthritis pain or not,

[8:52] that's why I trust Advil. Even after 20

[8:55] years, nothing has been proven more

[8:57] effective on tough pain. Not Tylenol,

[9:00] not a leave.

[9:00] >> Advil, fast, strong, trusted.

[9:05] >> Free time to make up for billable time.

[9:09] Hi Gold Passports. Faster free nights.

[9:11] Every two stays earns you a free night

[9:13] at Hyatt Hotels and Resorts Worldwide

[9:15] when you pay through Mastercard now

[9:17] through November 30th.

[9:39] Never plunge again. American Standard's

[9:42] new Champion flushing system with

[9:44] revolutionary flush tower technology.

[9:46] Only from American Standard.

[9:52] Hey, son. So, you're turning 13,

[9:55] becoming a man. Your hormones are

[9:58] surging, starting to notice the girls.

[10:01] You know, maybe your body's doing some

[10:02] funny things.

[10:05] So, you want to talk

[10:08] or we could talk about drugs?

[10:10] >> Yeah, let's talk about drugs.

[10:12] >> There's no wrong way to talk to your

[10:13] kids about drugs. Need help? Get help.

[10:16] Visit our website at drugfree.org.

[10:19] You heard it first on MSNBC.

[10:21] >> Is she the most qualified to person?

[10:23] Clearly, the answer to that is no.

[10:25] >> Now, the backlash over Harriet Meyer's

[10:27] nomination is igniting a political

[10:28] firestorm. Chris shows you why so many

[10:31] Republicans are now readying for a

[10:33] battle within their own party. MSNBC

[10:36] Monday at 7.

[10:43] >> She is going to be on the bench. She'll

[10:46] be confirmed

[10:48] and when she's on the bench, people will

[10:50] see a fantastic woman who is honest,

[10:55] open, humble, and capable of being a

[10:59] great Supreme Court judge. A confident

[11:02] President Bush speaking about Harriet

[11:04] Meyers, the woman he's nominated to

[11:05] replace Justice Sandra Day Oconor. But

[11:08] many conservatives, including several

[11:09] key Republican senators, say Myers is no

[11:12] shoein, mostly because so little is

[11:13] known about where she stands on the

[11:15] issues. Our next guest knows quite a bit

[11:17] about the process of reaching the high

[11:18] court. He was a Supreme Court nominee

[11:19] himself in 1987. Judge Robert Bourke

[11:22] joins us now from Washington. Judge

[11:23] Bourke, thanks for joining us.

[11:24] >> Glad to be here.

[11:25] >> Are you impressed by the president's

[11:27] choice of Harriet Myers?

[11:28] >> Not a bit. I think it's a disaster on

[11:30] every level.

[11:31] >> Why? Explain the levels on which it's a

[11:33] disaster. Well, the first one is that

[11:35] this is a a woman who is undoubtedly uh

[11:38] as wonderful a person as they say she

[11:41] is. But so far as I can tell, as anyone

[11:43] can tell, she has no experience with

[11:45] constitutional law, whatever. Now, it's

[11:47] a little late to develop a

[11:49] constitutional philosophy or begin to

[11:51] work it out when you're on the court

[11:53] already. So that uh I'm afraid she's

[11:56] likely to be influenced by factors such

[12:00] as personal sympathies and so forth that

[12:02] she shouldn't be influenced by. I don't

[12:05] I don't expect that she can be a as as

[12:08] the president says a great justice. But

[12:12] the other level is uh more worrisome in

[12:14] a way. It's kind of a slap in the face

[12:17] to the conservatives who have been

[12:18] building up a conservative legal

[12:20] movement for the last 20 years. There's

[12:23] all kinds of people now on the federal

[12:24] bench and in some in the law schools who

[12:27] have worked out consistent philosophies

[12:31] of sticking with the original principles

[12:32] of the constitution

[12:34] and all of those people have been

[12:36] overlooked and I think one of the

[12:37] messages here is don't write don't say

[12:40] anything controversial before you're

[12:42] nominated.

[12:44] It's odd that uh Justice Roberts, Judge

[12:46] Roberts, who is now the Chief Justice

[12:49] and who was probably be an excellent uh

[12:51] choice in many ways, also had no track

[12:55] record that was easy to follow. And now

[12:57] this woman who has even less of a track

[12:58] record.

[12:59] >> None. None at all it seems like. But her

[13:01] defenders, Flax from the White House,

[13:02] some of whom we've had on the show.

[13:04] >> Flax e flax, right? Yeah. Prof. You

[13:07] know, professional spinners.

[13:08] >> I know the word. I just was interested

[13:10] in it. Go ahead.

[13:10] >> Yeah, that's essentially what they are.

[13:12] some decent people, but repeating a line

[13:14] that's been devised by the PR office at

[13:16] the White House claim that she is a

[13:18] great pick because she brings diversity

[13:20] of experience. Not only is she a woman,

[13:22] and that supposedly for reasons I don't

[13:24] quite understand is very important, but

[13:26] beyond that, she has followed a

[13:28] different path than most Supreme Court

[13:30] nominees. She hasn't been a judge, etc.

[13:32] Is there any truth that that's an

[13:34] important qualification?

[13:35] >> No, I think not having been a judge is

[13:37] all right. That's a lot of justices

[13:40] haven't been judges before. But I think

[13:42] this idea that um it's important to have

[13:45] a woman's perspective or something of

[13:46] that sort begins to treat the Supreme

[13:48] Court like a legislature in which

[13:50] everybody has to be all groups have to

[13:52] be represented in some way. And that's

[13:54] exactly the wrong message to send. The

[13:57] court is not supposed to be a

[13:58] legislature. It's been a legislature for

[14:00] too much of the of our history.

[14:02] Now, I was fascinated to see the

[14:04] president at his news conference the

[14:05] other day uh tell a reporter that in his

[14:08] many conversations with Harriet Meyers

[14:09] going back more than a decade, he'd

[14:11] never discussed the question of

[14:13] abortion. When you were nominated uh for

[14:15] the Supreme Court, did you discuss with

[14:17] President Reagan or anybody in his

[14:19] administration your specific views on

[14:22] Roie Wade or other issues that might

[14:23] come before the court? No, I didn't have

[14:25] to because