Karl mentioned our attacks in Iran, after the deaths of two service members, and wondered if there was more retaliation planned.
Yes, look, the president’s mission is essential for peace in the Middle East and peace in the world. And that is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons and to degrade their ability to terrorize their neighbors and the world and global commerce. So, yes, this mission will go on until the mission is done.
Karl repeated that he's asking specifically about retaliation for the deaths of two Americans, and Wright, again, answered a different question.
It’s tragic to lose American lives, but this is a mission that will save countless lives going forward. His focus is on degrading the Iranian ability to terrorize the world, to hold world commerce hostage, as they are doing right now, and to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is unchanged.
The conversation switched to oil. Wright says we are now "assuring that -- that oil and gas and other products can flow through the Strait of Hormuz, with or without Iranian cooperation" while we continue to "degrade" their military and, at the same time, look for a diplomatic solution.
President Trump wants to end it with a peaceful agreement with Iran, but it takes two parties to do that. If they’re -- if they’re -- if they’re ready to do that, that’s the way it will end. If not, we will continue to assure flow of traffic through the Strait without Iran’s cooperation.
Wright strongly disagreed with Karl's contention that traffic through the Strait was effectively stopped, and tossed out some numbers, saying around 7,000,000 barrels are moving through the waterway and slightly less than that through "bypass pipelines," which he said was 2/3 of what moved through before the war and "dramatically up from where we were" the last time he was on the show back in March. And he said that "almost all the public data" he's seen is wrong, adding that
... we count the volume of oil that goes through. The ship numbers are down more dramatically. But, of course, we’re flowing larger tankers now to keep the world markets as well supplied as we can.
Switching gears, Karl noted the president's stated focus on election security as a "top domestic priority," but questioned why his budget cuts $700M from CISA, the cybersecurity agency. Wright said he "wouldn’t look at the inputs, the money spent. I’d look at the outputs, the quality of United States cybersecurity. That’s never been higher than where it is right now under President Trump."
And then, I guess because it's mandatory to do so, Karl asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Wright said, "He was president for four years. Clearly so," and then, when pressed, said, "Look, I'm not an election evaluator, but it sure seems to me like he did."
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the second interview. Karl opened by asking how the president should respond to the killing of our two service members.
Well, first of all, I join with all Americans in condolences to these soldiers. Remember, as we think about this five-month war, this is a war of choice. As a member of the Gang of Eight, there was no imminent threat from Iran against America. So, Donald Trump chose to go to war. It took him two weeks to lay out what he thought his goals were going to be.
And then, he ticked through those goals. I'll condense his response:
- Regime change: We got a worse crowd than before.
- Getting the enriched uranium: It's still there...
- Getting rid of Iran’s missile and drone capability. Obviously, we’ve not been successful there.
- The Strait of Hormuz: he sees " no path in the short term how the Strait is going to be settled."
In the end, here's where Warner landed:
This war of choice has been a disaster. It has been a disaster militarily. It has been a disaster in terms of how we’re viewed around the world. It has been a disaster to our friends and allies who have questioned whether we will keep our promises. I’m anxious if it takes a classic Donald Trump move, declare victory tomorrow and be done. But the continuation of this war at this pace will be a continuing disaster.
Karl wondered what happens if we do leave; the Iranians are firing at ships in the Strait, and at our bases throughout the region, and asked how we end it. Warner mentioned "diplomacy negotiated by diplomats who actually know what they're doing," an obvious shot at Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, a couple of real estate developers who I think don't even officially work for the government. He pointed to the JCPOA, the Obama deal that Trump ditched, as an example of what worked.
But we're not going to - I don't believe anyone thinks we're going to bomb Iran into submission. And I sure as heck do not believe that - short of troops on the ground- that there's any meaningful way forward to get out that enriched uranium.
Last question on this topic: does Warner agree with cutting off all funding for the war? He says the Department of Defense will ask for more money, and that we're depleting some of our stockpiles, but he also notes
there is $89B...that DOD is sitting on that has not been allocated to specific programs. There are shortages in the region. DOD, use that money first to replenish our supplies. And if the president wants to continue this war, come to Congress, make his case to the American people and to Congress rather than continuing what I think now is, frankly, an illegal action, because he never went through that process.
Turning to the election and the president's pitch the other night, Karl wondered if "there was anything new" in what the president released. Warner said that, over the last decade as chair or vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee, "there's probably no issue I've been more obsessed about..." In that time, his main concern has been Russia, "far and away" the most prominent foreign country in the game, "usually on behalf of Trump." And,
Iran has been very active as well, usually against Trump. North Korea has been active. China’s got the capabilities, but they’ve been more -- less about which candidate and more like, 'can we just make Americans lose confidence?'
And what about the Chinese getting those 220 million voter records?
Well, listen, I'm much more concerned about the fact that the Chinese hacked into the OPM data a number of years back and got personal information about anybody working in the federal government. I'm more concerned about the fact that they tapped into many insurance companies and have got personal information about all of us.
They have incredible data capabilities. And again, the secretary, respectfully, our cybersecurity activity is CISA. It has worked with the private sector. He's cut it like mad. We have another part of election security, and remarkably, Jon, a lot of this election security apparatus was set up, done under President Trump's first term. They did a good job.
The "another part" of election security he's referring to is the Elections Assistance Commission, from which Trump fired all the Democrats and forced out the Republican commissioners.
... it works with local registrars, state registrars, making sure we vet voting machines... You know, this guy is not looking for a secure election because if we have a free and fair election, he and his allies are going to get beat historically this fall.
Karl then asked about "this so-called SAVE America Act" and how Dems are opposed to it, and he asked Warner if "requiring photo ID to register to vote" is something they should get behind, based on polling that around 80% of all Americans and 71% of Dems say they favor it. That led to a discussion about what Virginia, where they both live, requires. Ultimately, you show ID to register, you don't need to show ID to vote, and they allow 'affidavit' attestations, which can be challenged. Warner says that constitutes voter ID of one form or another.
Karl asked again if we should have a national standard requiring ID to be shown. Warner pointed out the irony of what happens now.
If you can show any photo that (w)as government-stamped, it would be fine. Certain states will say, we're going to let you show your NRA gun license, but you can't show your student ID. If you're going to have a set of IDs, let's have it across the board as long as it comes from some official point. But this is not about voter ID. The SAVE Act is about voter disenfranchisement...
Lisa Murkowski, a host of Republicans, don't want the SAVE Act because they know it's anti-voter... the folks who have mail-in voting, Utah is as Republican a state as anyone. They've done mail-in voting for decades. Donald Trump wants to decrease voter participation and undermine confidence in our system.
I know one thing that would improve people's confidence: if the folks who come into the classrooms actually answered the questions they were asked, and if the people asking the questions focused on what's important.
Jon Karl did a reasonable job from the host's seat, except for the attempted 'gotcha' he asked Chris Wright about the 2020 election. But neither Wright nor Warner addressed the question of how America should respond to the deaths of Americans in the past few days (and it's not four, not two). In response, an "if it were me, I'd..." would provide information and possibly lead to an interesting follow-up or two.
What would you like to have heard from Wright and/or Warner? Drop a comment! And if you're interested, you can find my thoughts on Trump's remarks here.
