Usamah “Sam” Husseini

Sam Husseini: Senator, townspeople all over your state of Vermont have recently voted for impeachment. Do you think that the facts and the constitution, not the politics, but the facts on the Constitution merit at least investigating Bush and Cheney for impeachment?

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): We have a great deal of investigation going on and you’ll see Kyle Samp son, the Assistant to the Attorney General appear before my committee under oath on Thursday this week and I’ve already go the authority for subpoenas for many others. There’s not going to be a lack of asking questions. Thank you.

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: Senator, you’re of course on both on the Foreign Relations and the Intelligence Committee. Reese Erlich, long-time Iraq specialist, and others are reporting that the U.S. is already using Iraq as a staging ground to conduct attacks on Iran. Is that true, to your knowledge, and doesn’t that further escalate tensions in the region?

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE): Well, I am not aware of any pre-planning in Iraq to attack Iran.

SH: Ongoing low-level attacks are supposed to be happening.

CH: I’m not aware of any of that. A concern I have had, and I’ve said that it’s of concern, that anytime you are at war, like we are at war in Iraq, and the President’s comments a couple of months ago about pursuing the Iranians across the border, just as we recall from our experience in Vietnam, when the government said we were not in Cambodia and we were not in Laos, in fact we were. These things happen. And we need to pay attention to this. We don’t need to escalate an already big situation and a troubling situation. The one that we are going to have to unwind and that is the war in Iraq — and find an exit strategy — we don’t need to escalate that into Iran. We are far wiser in pursuing, as we are, with the United Nations, a course of action in dealing with Iran.

SH: If Congress exercised its right to cut off funding to the—to really end the war in Iraq, do you think the President would leave the troops in a lurch or would he withdrawal in a responsible fashion?

CH: Well, the President, depending on what the Congress would say would have to abide by a law. Now, he could veto a law, a bill, as he said he would veto the bill the House passed and I don’t know what the Senate is going to do this week. Certainly, the President has that Constitutional authority, but we are not there yet. But the bigger issue here is the President should reach out to the Congress and cooperate. We have a very dangerous situation in Iraq. Its not getting better. Its getting worse. If its getting better, than why are we escalating our involvement? If things are getting better, than why are we putting more troops in and all or our allies are leaving? Of course its not getting better. Its getting worse. I’m opposed to that escalation and I think a number of members of Congress are, reflected by what the House did on Friday so we’re going to continue to affect our Constitutional abilities to change the course of action of our involvement in Iraq.

SH: Do you regret your war vote? And do you think the administration believed that intelligence or did they work to rig it?

CH: Well, if you’re referring to the resolution, the Iraq War Resolution of 2002, that was not a resolution to go to war, that was resolution that would empower the President of the United States to take military action if it was the last course of action he could take, the last resort, after exhausting all the diplomatic efforts. So, I think we need to be clear around that. It wasn’t a resolution to go to war or not go to war.

Second, your question, about do I regret it? Yes. If I could vote again, I would vote against it. The fact is that the war in Iraq was a war of choice. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States or anyone else. The fact is containment was working. The fact is he didn’t control 60% of his country. We had overflights in the north and the south. Those where F-16s that would fly our to Saudi Arabia. The fact is he was slowly strangling in the 40% of his country. That was a needless commitment of American blood and treasure. And if that vote was held again today, I’d vote against it.

SH: Do you think that they rigged the intelligence?

[...]

SH: Everything you said about Iraq a moment ago was known at the time. How do you explain—In your speak you said, “The risk of inaction is too high” and so on. You voted for and seemed to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Was there a propaganda effort? Were you fooled by it? If so why?

CH: What you just said is not true? You just said that everything that we know today, we knew at the time.

SH: We certainly knew that Saddam Hussein did not control his entire region. We knew we had overflights and all that.

CH: I’m not going to debate you, but what you said is not true. That fact is,the entire intelligence community of this government, all 16 agencies, told the President as well as the intelligence agencies from other countries to all our allies, did believe and did say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: Senator, if Congress—

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Now that was a long answer and its not a sound byte, but it’s an important answer.

SH: If Congress exercised its right to cut off funding to really end the Iraq war, do you think that the President would leave the troops in a lurch or wouldn’t he withdrawal them in a responsible fashion?

OH: Well, Congress has the right to cut off funding. The Democrats don’t have the guts to do that and the reason they don’t is because they don’t have the votes either.

In fact, its amazing to me that they continue to push this awful resolution that the House has pushed knowing that the President will veto it and knowing that his veto will be upheld. Its all an exercise in politics that undermines our troops and I don’t think anybody could look at it fairly and say, “This is beneficial to our troops in the field.” And frankly, it undermines the free-seeking, the freedom-seeking, Iraqi peoples and so I get so tired of the politics.

But if the Democrats really believe that we should end that war and we should get out of there, then they could if they want to try to cut off the funds. I don’t think they have the guts to try that. I think the American people would really be offended by that, cause that would really be leaving our troops high and dry and leaving the Iraqi people high and dry In a way that could lead not only to civil war but to death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people and I think in a wrongful fashion.

SH: People are raising concerns about two aspects of Iraq policy that they see as infringing upon Iraqi sovereignty. Specifically, the oil law which some people think sectors of the Administration are sort of forcing down Iraq’s throat that might end up leading to privatization and the establishment of long-term US bases.

OH: The only thing the United States is trying to do in the oil law is, as I see it, is to make sure its distributed, that the benefits are distributed fairly among the three major factions.

SH: There are also aspects of it that deal with possible privatization. You’re not aware of that?

OH: I’m aware of ideas. I don’t think anybody is pushing that that hard.

SH: The filibuster, the way that the filibuster—some people have argued that there’s a discrepancy in how the filibuster is applied to—Its on the table on general matters, and its off the table when Bush wants to get a judicial nomination through, that there’s a double standard as to when the filibuster is on the table in the Senate.

OH: Both sides use filibusters to stop legislation that they don’t agree with or stop nominations that they don’t agree with. That a right of either side to do that. Its not—you know—I might disagree with the use of filibusters against judges which, of course, has never been done before. At least in my view, and I study and research it pretty carefully. But I have no problem with either side filibustering if they feel strongly about various issues. But on judges, I don’t believe there should be filibusters.

SH: Do—

OH: We have an obligation to confirm or not confirm. That’s our obligation.

SH: Do you regret your Iraq vote for the authorization of the President to
initiate the invasion?

OH: Not at all.

SH: And it terms of statements that were made about Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. Other people didn’t buy it. Kucinich didn’t buy it. Ron Paul
didn’t buy it. Do you regret having bought some of that.

OH: If you’re going to cite Ron Paul as an expert of some of these things I
think that’s a mistake. He’s a member of Congress and deserves credibility but
he’s certainly not an expert on these areas.

With regard to the war resolution, I believe I voted properly. At that time, virtually every free nation that had an intelligence capability agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, agreed that Iraq had the capacity of fostering terrorism, agreed that they had used chemical weapons against their own people, the Kurds in the north, and that they actually had people in place who could have developed a nuclear device. So we all voted on the basis of that faulty intelligence, it was faulty in the sense that they had all of these weapons in place, it was not faulty in the sense that they had the capacity to develop those weapons. We moved in on truthful—what we thought were truthful reasons. And of course, as you know we have bottled up a lot of terrorism in the process. So, would we have gone in had we known that there were no weapons of mass destruction, you know, that’s another question.

SH: The administration cut short the inspectors. The inspectors were still saying. “We wanted more time” in early 2002.

OH: They cut short the inspectors, Saddam Hussein did. The fact of the matter is the UN inspectors left Iraq because they did not feel that they could continue because they did not have the support of the government at the time. So, no. We, and I personally talked to the UN inspector and he indicated that they weren’t able to go any farther than what they did.

SH: Which inspector?

OH: What?

SH: Which inspector did you talk to?

OH: Well, the head of the EA is who I talked to.

SH: Mohamed ElBaradei

OH: Uh-huh.

SH: There are some reports in US press as well as in the Turkish press that the US is using, with the PKK, Iraq as a staging ground for launching attacks on Iran. Are you aware of this?

OH: That’s totally false.

SH: How do you know that?

OH: That’s totally false. I’m aware of the accusations. I’m also aware of how totally false they are. Now, lets face it. We are concerned about Iranian influence and weapons being sent into Iraq to undermine the freedom that we hope Iraqis can have. And there’s some indication that Iranian weapons and other military devices have been seen into Iraq and are causing a lot of problems. We’re also concerned about Iran stirring up conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shiites. And frankly, I think could even go farther and say the Kurds as well. So, yes, we’re concerned about that, but we’re not concerned about going to war or doing anything overtly against the Iranians other than within Iraq.

SH: What happens if the administration launches an attack on Iran?

OH: They’re not gonna do that.

SH: They’re not gonna do that?

OH: No. Nobody’s even thinking of that. Nobody’s even had the slightest thought
along those lines. And that’s just a phony—

SH: Bush says everything is on the table.

OH: Well, lets put it this way, everything is on the table but nobody’s going to do that. It
would take some really serious thing for that to occur. And I don’t know anybody who wants to do that in the
administration or out of it.

SH: How exactly do you know that those things are false, that the allegations that the US is using the PKK or other forces to attack Iran, how do you know that that’s false? Who are trusting with that?

OH: I’m on the Intelligence Committee.

SH: Yes?

OH: That’s all I’m gonna say about that.

SH: But couldn’t you—

OH: That’s all I’m gonna say about that.

SH: You also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

OH: I don’t believe that they have weapons of mass destruction.

SH: But you believed—

OH: Everybody believed that. All of the intelligence agencies: Britain, France, Germany, the United States believed they had weapons of mass destruction at the time that we decided to enter into this conflict.

SH: But people like Scott Ritter were saying that they didn’t. Dingell—

OH: He said that afterwards and he is not the authority on these matters. Lets be honest about it. Our intelligence was faulty. I’m right in the middle of all of that and it was faulty. But everybody who was anybody believed it at the time that there were weapons of mass destruction and that’s why we went in there. That’s one of the reasons we went in there. There were others as well. We believed that Al Qaeda had influence in Iraq that could have transcended. Today, we know they do. We know that Zarqawi and others were affiliated with Al Qaeda, we also know that they are a constant menacing force in Anbar Province.

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.

Appended is a transcript of the exchange.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: Senator, on other issues, does the administration have the authority to attack Iran? And if it does, what will Congress do?

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): Well the administration has made it clear that they are not going to attack Iran unless they — Iran — unless, something happens that no one of us expects to happen. Obviously, when there was a request to use force, the President has come to Congress and sought that authorization and I think that would be the proper order of things. But I think we should be, should recognize that Iran does represent a very real threat to stability in the Middle East. They’re defying the civilized world by seeking a nuclear weapon and the last thing we need is a state-sponsored international terrorism get a nuclear weapon that could be used to kill an awful lot of innocent people. So I think the matter is very serious.

SH: On the filibusters, there seems to be a discrepancy as to when the filibuster is used, its used when — its off the table when Bush wants to get a judicial nominee through but its on the table on other matters. So isn’t there a total double standard as to when the filibuster is used in the Senate?

JC: That’s a great question. And actually, there is a difference between legislation which is totally within the purview and authority of Congress to make rules in establishing how we pass legislation. I think the sixty vote rule is entirely appropriate there. There is a bipartisan support for that sixty vote requirement. Now on nominations, it implicates the power and authority of the separate branch of government, the Executive Branch, and I do think its sets an unconstitutionally high burden to require 60 votes to confirm a President’s nominees. So, I do think there is an important distinction to be made.

SH: Back to Iran, doesn’t Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons destabilize the region, especially since the U.S. government has never acknowledged its existence?

JC: I think there is no comparison between Israel and Iran and those who would draw a comparison ignore the fact that Israel is our ally and one of the most important points of democracy, and one of the most democratic nations in the entire Middle East. Iran is a state-sponsored international terrorism, sponsors Hezbollah and others that kill innocent civilians in pursuit of their agenda. To me, there is no comparison whatsoever.

SH: But, the U.S. government –

JC: I think that rather than allow a filibuster over here, perhaps another question –

SH: [laughs].

Barry Electric was the videographer for this stakeout.

[originally published on Washington Stakeout on March 19, 2007; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]

Also outside the studios, activists with the group Code Pink gathered in opposition to funding of the war. They chanted under the banner of “Don’t buy Bush’s war.”

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: Why do you think your legislation, your proposal, on cluster bombs has not gotten a great deal of support from your colleagues, at this point?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): There is a lot of misunderstanding about the legislation and cluster bombs. And its been interesting to me as to why it is so difficult. Cluster bombs have a forty percent, what’s called a dud rate, which means they don’t explode on first impact, but they rest in the field or in the school yard or the park or wherever the bomblet is, and then when some innocent civilian picks it up, child or adult, it explodes and generally blows off an arm or a leg. I think they are bad things in general, but in particular, I believe that they should have dud rate ratios of one percent. Internationally, this is the belief and this is our legislation. We’ve had a very difficult time with it. But we will be doing more in the future to move that along. You can be sure of that.

SH: Are you concerned about the Iraq oil law? The Iraq oil law that the Administration’s pushing through to privatize Iraqi oil?

[Feinstein shrugs]

Barry Electric was the videographer for this stakeout. This post was edited on March 20, 2006 for clarity.

[originally published on Washington Stakeout on March 19, 2007; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]

Just About Now.

[originally published at husseini.org on March 8, 2007]

Stephen Colbert is an alleged Catholic and a funny comedian who says nothing he believes. Mara Vanderslice is a political consultant and presumed pacifist who invokes God and says nothing that would seriously scrutinize the Democratic party. So they talk about religion and politics -- without mentioning war or abortion. Unintentionally very funny. Video, prefixed by obnoxious ad is here.

[originally published at husseini.org on March 6, 2007]

Frank Luntz, the famous pollster, was at the National Press Club this evening, where I work. He opened up the floor for comments toward the beginning of his talk, so I chimed up. He called on me saying that I look like Allen Ginsberg, so I recited the beginning ofHowl. I'd never been told by anyone that I look like Ginsberg -- what was eerie is that I'd been talking to a friend about the poet just a few hours before, more on that in short order. I thanked Luntz for the compliment and gave him my crit of polling:

Pollsters as far as I can tell never actually ask people who they want to be president among the candidates. They ask people some variation of "if the election were held today, which of the following would you vote for". They don't ask "who among the candidates to you agree with the most?" or "who among the candidates to you most want to be president?"

And so they are not really opinion polls, they simply purported to try to predict the outcome of an election. The current method turns citizens into pundits. It marginalizes candidates in the primaries that seem to have little chance of winning in a general election and totally undermines third party candidates in the general election.

I outlined this in a piece in 2004: "Why Public Opinion Polls Aren't".

After a bit of back and forth, Luntz seemed to really get the point far more than any other pollster I've talked to. He said he'd consider incorporating it into his work. We'll see.

The funniest part of the evening came when Luntz asked people about what they'd "imagine" their life to be like -- what their "American dream" was. The first person's response was to leave the U.S. and go to Catalonia. More on the "American dream" down the line as well.

[originally published at husseini.org on Feb. 26, 2007]

As he left for his car, The Washington Stakeout’s Sam Husseini asked the governor if he believed there was “such a thing as a business bureaucracy,” to which Schwarzenegger responded “oh yeah” — but there was no opportunity to further explore the governor’s thoughts, or see what he knew about the examples and lessons learned in Canada.

Transcript

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Any questions you have?

Sam Husseini: How about single-payer? Have you considered single-payer health care in California to really get the insurance companies out of the business to get a Canadian-style model?

AS: We have considered everything. When you get into the subject of fixing a broken health care system you think about everything. And its something that people have proposed, but we have put a good proposal together we believe very strongly that we want to do it through he private sector and not have government run bureaucracy in creating another big bureaucracy. I think the important thing in health care is that everyone is insured, number one. That everyone participates and is responsible. And that the insurance companies cover everyone and don’t pick and choose. …

SH: Is their such a thing as a business bureaucracy, governor?

AS: Oh yea.

SH: Ok. So have you met with Canadian officials?

In January, in a satellite broadcast to the Herzliya Conference in Israel Senator Edwards asserted a domino theory-like prediction, “once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.”

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.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: Follow-up on Iran: You’ve said that they should be negotiating, but you’ve also said at the [Herzliya] Security Conference in Israel that all options should be on the table. Isn’t that an implied threat that violates international law? That’s part one.

John Edwards: Oh no, far from it. I think that this is a situation with Iran where the use of diplomacy and the smart use of diplomacy has a significant chance of success. There is no way to know, ultimately, whether it will be successful without doing it. But we need to do it in a very thoughtful and smart way. We need to engage our European allies and the European banking institutions so that we can put maximum economic pressure on the Iranians. And we need to do everything in our power to get the Russians and the Chinese to participate. That will be more difficult than the Europeans.

SH: You also said at that same conference: “once Iran goes nuclear other nations in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.” Senator, doesn’t Israel have nuclear weapons? And doesn’t that create volatility and doesn’t it cause resentment, that’s part one. Doesn’t Israel’s possession cause volatility? And part two: doesn’t the U.S. cause resentment by not acknowledging it? The U.S. government has never acknowledged that Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal — which it does?

JE: What I believe, and what I believe most thoughtful people believe, is that Iran having a nuclear weapon and having a proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East, because the odds are high that if Iran goes nuclear that the Saudis, will go nuclear, the Egyptians will go nuclear, the Jordanians may go nuclear, is not a good thing in the most volatile region of the world which is way we need to use a thoughtful diplomatic process to deal with this issue in Iran.

SH: But you are not acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons! Senator, you’re not acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons!

JE: Excuse me, I can’t hear him. I’m sorry. …

SH: Senator, in your answer You didn’t acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons, doesn’t that cause more resentment? Senator, its an empirical question, Senator.