( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )

>> Jon: HEY!WELCOME TO THE "THE DAILY SHOW."

THE PROGRAM TONIGHT, YOU HAVEDONE YOURSELF A SERVICE BY

TUNING IN TO TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.

IT IS GONNA BE OFF THE FLEEK.

TONIGHT'S GUEST, JUDITH MILLER,AUTHOR OF "THE STORY:

A REPORTER'S JOURNEY."IT'S LIKE THEY "EAT, PRAY LOVE"

OF GETTING AMERICA INTO THE IRAQWORLD.

IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY LONGINTERVIEW.

( LAUGHTER )BUT FIRST, THE SUPREME COURT,

THE KNOWLEDGEABLE NINE, ELGRANDE JUSTIVO.

ROBES, ROBES, ROBES.

YESTERDAY, AMERICA DROPPED DOWNON ONE KNEE AND PROPOSED ORAL

ARGUMENTS THAT COULD SETTLE THEQUESTION OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY

FOR GAY PEOPLE.

>> THE COURT WILL ANSWER TWOQUESTIONS-- CAN STATES REFUSE TO

ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES TOSAME-SEX COUPLES, AND CAN THEY

DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEXMARRIAGES THAT WERE LEGALLY

GRANTED SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> Jon: AND CAN THE COURT ANSWERTHOSE WHILE TRAVELING THE WORLD.

THAT'S RIGHT, THESUPREME COURT IS HEARING THOSE

CASES WHILE PARTICIPATING INTHIS YEAR'S "AMAZING RACE."

( LAUGHTER )SHE SEEMS-- SHE SEEMS PERFECTLY

COMFORTABLE ON A ZIP LINE.

( LAUGHTER )OF COURSE, AN ISSUE THIS

IMPORTANT WAS BOUND TO DRAW ACROWD, MAKING THEIR FINAL

ARGUMENTS.

THE PROGAY MARRIAGE CAMP WENTWITH HOW CAN A JUST GOD NOT

ALLOW TWO MEN THIS INTO BEARDCARE NOT BE TOGETHER?

WHILE THE ANTIGAY MARRIAGE CROWDWENT WITH WHY DON'T WE SUMMON

THE ANCIENT HEBREWS AND SEE WHATTHEY SAY?

BY THE WAY, YES, THAT IS ASHOFAR, AND YES, THE ANTIGAY MAN

IS BLOWING IT.

( LAUGHTER )( APPLAUSE )

BUT, IT WOULDN'T -- IRONY. ALLRIGHT.

( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )BUT IT WOULDN'T BE UP TO THOSE

OUTSIDE THE COURT.

>> THIS WILL, IN ALL LIKELIHOODCOME DOWN TO JUSTICE KENNEDY.

>> Jon: KENNEDY, KENNEDY,KENNEDY!

THE ONLY JUSTICE ANYONEEVER CARES ABOUT IS KENNEDY.

HE'S THE MARCIA TO THESUPREME COURT'S EIGHT JANS.

BUT TUESDAY'S SESSION WAS MAINLYA FORUM FOR

GAY MARRIAGEOPPONENTS TO AIR THEIR BEST AND

FINAL ARGUMENTS WHICH WE LOOK ATIN TONIGHT'S SEGMENT, YOU GOT

NOTHING, SO-CALLED BECAUSEOPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE GOT

NOTHING.

AND THEY TRIED EVERYTHING,STARTING WITH THE GOOD, OLD,

CLASSIC SLIPPERY SLOPE.

>> SUPPOSE WE RULE IN YOUR FAVORIN THIS CASE, AND AFTER THAT, A

GROUP CONSISTING OF TWO MEN ANDTWO WOMEN APPLY FOR A MARRIAGE

LICENSE.

WOULD THERE BE ANY GROUND FORDENYING THEM A LICENSE?

>> Jon: WHY SHOULD GAYPEOPLE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR

ANYONE WHO IS EVER GOING TO WANTTO GET MARRIED AFTER THEY GET

THE RIGHT TO MARRY?

WHEN WOMEN FOUGHT FOR SUFFRAGENO WAS ONE LIKE WHAT IF ONE DAY

A DOG WANTS TO VOTE.

HOW ABOUT THAT, LADIES?

BECAUSE NEXT THING YOU KNOW THESTATE OF OUR UNION IS...

( BARK )

BY THE WAY, I LIKE THAT THESPEAKER IS A CAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.

SO THAT WAS ONE DUMB ARGUMENTBUT HARDLY THE ONLY ONE.

>> IF YOU PREVAIL HERE, THEREWILL BE NO MORE DEBATE.

I MEAN, CLOSING THE DEBATE CANCLOSE MINDS, AND IT WILL HAVE A

CONSEQUENCE ON HOW THIS NEWINSTITUTION IS ACCEPTED.

PEOPLE FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLYABOUT SOMETHING IF THEY HAVE A

CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT THAN IFIT'S IMPOSED ON THEM BY-- BY THE

COURTS.

>> Jon: SURE, NO, THAT MAKESSENSE.

IF YOU DON'T IMPOSE GAYMARRIAGE

FOLKS LIKE THIS WILL BE MOREOPEN MINDED.

( LAUGHTER )TO EVOLVING THEIR POSITION.

YEAH, THERE YOU GO.

SEE.

( LAUGHTER )( APPLAUSE )

YEAH.

BUT THE POINT WAS CLEAR.

THIS CASE THREATENS NOT JUSTMARRIAGE BUT OUR VERY DEMOCRACY.

>> WHEN YOU ENACT SOCIAL CHANGEOF THIS MAGNITUDE THROUGH THE

FEDERAL COURTS THAT'S NOT THEWAY THAT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, AND THEREARE LONG-TERM HARMS TO OUR

COUNTRY AND TO THAT FUNDAMENTALLIBERTY INTEREST TO GOVERN

OURSELVES.

>> Jon: FIRST OF ALL, LETME JUST SAY I LOVE YOUR LAWYER

COSTUME.

( LAUGHTER )( APPLAUSE )

SECONDLY, IT'S BALLS FOR A YOUNGGUY TO WALK INTO THE SUPREME

COURT AND SAY I KNOW YOU THINKMARBURY VERSUS MADISON GIVES

YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THECONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BUT I

SAY WE'RE A DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

NOW, WHICH ONE OF YOU PRICKS ISGOING TO BUY ME BOOZE, I'M 19?

( LAUGHTER )BUT HERE'S THE THING.

WE HAVE BOTH A FUNDAMENTALLIBERTY TO GOVERN AND A COURT

EMPOWERED TO STOP US FROMABUSING THAT LIBERTY TO TAKE

OTHER PEOPLE'S LIBERTY.

THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.

AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THECOURT'S DECISION, WELL THEN YOU

JUST HAVE TO SUCK IT UP,SOMETIMES FOR YEARS, WITH

HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES.

( LAUGHTER )( APPLAUSE )

SO ENOUGH WITH THE DEMOCRACY!

ENOUGH!

CAN A BROTHER GET A LAME APPEALTO HISTORY ARGUMENT UP IN HERE?

>> EVERY DEFINITION THAT ILOOKED UP PRIOR TO ABOUT A DOZEN

YEARS AGO DEFINED MARRIAGEAS THE UNITY BETWEEN A MAN

AND A WOMAN AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.

OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU SUCCEED, THATCORE DEFINITION WILL NO LONGER

BE OPERABLE.

YOU'RE NOT SEEKING TO JOINTHE INSTITUTION.

YOU'RE SEEKING TO CHANGE WHATTHE INSTITUTION IS.

>> Jon: THE INSTITUTION OFMARRIAGE HAS ALMOST NEVER NOT

BEEN CHANGING.

BEFORE THE LAST CENTURY,MARRIAGE WASN'T ONE MAN AND ONE

WOMAN.

IT WAS ONE MAN AND HIS NEW PIECEOF VAGINA PROPERTY.

( LAUGHTER )CHANGE CAN BE GOOD.

( LAUGHTER )BUT THE ANTIGAY CRAY-CRAY--

( APPLAUSE )PROBABLY PEAKED WITH THIS

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POINT OFMARRIAGE ITSELF.

>> IF YOU'RE CHANGING THEMEANING OF MARRIAGE FROM ONE

WHERE IT'S BASED ON THEBIOLOGICAL BOND TO ONE

WHERE IT'S BASED ON EMOTIONALCOMMITMENT, THEN ADULTS

COULD THINK, RIGHTLY, THAT THISRELATIONSHIP IS MORE ABOUT

ADULTS AND NOT ABOUT THE KIDS.

>> Jon: WHOA!

( LAUGHTER )GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T ABOUT KIDS?

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO PARKSLOPE?

OH, LOOK!

THE ELIZABETHS HAVE THE NEWDYSON UPPA BABY XL HOVER

CARRIAGE.

THAT WON'T BE HARD TO CLIMB OVERTO GET INTO BEANS AND SUCH.

( LAUGHTER )BUT, ALL RIGHT, LET'S PLAY THIS

OUT.

>> SUPPOSE THAT THERE'S A STATEWITH A VERY

PRO-CREATION-CENTERED VIEW OFMARRIAGE OF THE KIND THAT YOU'RE

TALKING ABOUT.

SO WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND ASKFOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE, THEY

JUST ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION, "DOYOU WANT CHILDREN?"

AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THESTATE SAYS, "NO MARRIAGE LICENSE

FOR YOU."

WOULD THAT BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

>> Jon: OH SNAP, THAT WAS VERYRABBINICAL.

SOMEWHAT OBTUSE.

ANYONE WANT TO TAKE A MOREPRACTICAL SWING AT THIS?

>> SUPPOSE A 70-YEAR-OLD COUPLECOMES IN AND THEY WANT--

( LAUGHTER )( APPLAUSE )

( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )>> Jon: AND THIS

70-YEAR-OLD COUPLE, NO MATTERHOW MUCH THEY'RE ( BLEEP ), AND

THEY'RE ( BLEEP ) A LOT -- INTHE SIT-DOWN SHOWER, ON THAT--

ON THAT ELECTRIC STAIR CHAIR,BENT OVER THE MAHJONG TABLE--

THEY'RE NOT HAVING KIDS.

IS THEIRS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLYWORTHY ( BLEEP )-FEST FILLED

LOVE AS WELL?

( LAUGHTER )BUT FAIR QUESTION.

WHAT IF-- WHAT IF A COUPLE OF70-YEAR-OLDS WANT TO GET

MARRIED, COUNSELOR?

IF MARRIAGE IS FOR HAVINGKIDS WHY SHOULD THAT BE ALLOWED?

AND WHEN ANSWERING TRY TO STEPAS HARD AND DEEP INTO A PILE OF

DOG ( BLEEP ) AS POSSIBLE.

>> WELL, A 70-YEAR-OLD MAN,OBVIOUSLY, IS STILL CAPABLE OF

HAVING CHILDREN AND YOU LIKE TOKEEP THAT WITHIN THE MARRIAGE.

>> Jon: YOU KNOW, I THINKHE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF

ANSWERING HAM ANA-HAM ANA-HAMANA.

SPINNING THE BOW TIE, THROWING ASMOKE BOMB AND GETTING THE

( BLEEP ) OUT OF ROOM.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS-- IFORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE ANY IMPACT

ON THE FINAL RESULTS, JUNE ISGOING TO BE A NICE TIME FOR A

GAY WEDDING.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK.

MY GUEST TONIGHT, FORMERINVESTIGATIVE REPORTER FOR THE

"NEW YORK TIMES," CURRENTLY ACOMMENTATOR FOR FOX NEWS.

HER NEW BOOK IS CALLED "THESTORY: A REPORTER'S JOURNEY."

PLEASE WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM,JUDITH MILLER.

COME ON OUT!

( APPLAUSE )HOW'S IT GOING?

>> FINE.

OTHER THAN THE COLD.

>> Jon: I'M SORRY.

YOU HAVE A COLD THERE. THAT'S AREPORTER'S JOURNEY, THE STORY.

SO, SO, OH, BOY.

( LAUGHTER )SO, SO, MY FEELING HAS ALWAYS

BEEN-- AND YOU PROBABLY KNOWTHIS ABOUT ME.

YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THEPROGRAM.

>> I WATCH THE SHOW, YES.

>> Jon: YOU'VE WATCHED THESHOW A COUPLE OF TIMES.

IS THAT I BELIEVED YOU HELPEDTHE ADMINISTRATION TAKE US TO,

LIKE, THE MOST DEVASTATINGMISTAKE IN FOREIGN POLICY THAT

WE'VE MADE IN, LIKE, 100 YEARS.

BUT YOU SEEM LOVELY.

( LAUGHTER )WHY IS THAT WRONG?

>> THAT'S WHY I WROTE THE BOOK.>> Jon: OKAY.

>> I WROTE THE BOOK BECAUSEI'D HOPED THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU

WOULD READ IT -->> Jon: I DID.

>> AND DETERMINE THAT, ONE, ITWAS REALLY, REALLY HARD TO DO

THIS KIND OF REPORTING.

I WASN'T ALONE.

I HAD LOTS AND LOTS OF COMPANY.

AND THAT THE INTELLIGENCESOURCES THAT WE WERE TALKING TO

HAD REALLY NEVER BEEN WRONGBEFORE.

THESE WERE NOT THE PEOPLE THATYOU HAD ON THE SCREEN, YOU KNOW,

DICK CHENEY AND GEORGE BUSH.

THAT'S NOT WHERE THISINFORMATION CAME FROM.

IT CAME FROM THE MEN AND WOMENWHO HAD STEERED ME RIGHT ON

AL QAEDA BEFORE 9/11.

WHO HAD TOLD ME THAT THE SOVIETUNION, AND THE FORMER SOVIET

UNION HAD A HUGE CACHE OFBIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THAT THEY

HAD NEVER ACKNOWLEDGEDAND THEY WERE RIGHT.

AND THEY HAD NEVER LED MEASTRAY.

AND THEN I WENT BACK TO THEM INTHIS BOOK AND SAID, "WHAT

HAPPENED?

HOW DID YOU GET IT WRONG?

HOW DID I GET IT WRONG?">> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE TRIED TODO IN THIS BOOK.

>> Jon:THERE WAS A MOMENTUMTO TAKE US TO WAR.

SOMETHING TOOK US TO WAR INIRAQ.

WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> Jon: WHAT-- WHAT TOOK USTO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN?

>> 9/11.

>> Jon: CORRECT.

WHAT TOOK US TO WAR IN IRAQ?

>>I THINK 9/11.

>> Jon: UH-HUH.

>> IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS IARGUE IN THE BOOK.

>> Jon: I THINK IT WAS ACONCERTED EFFORT TO TAKE TO US

WAR IN IRAQ.

YOU HAD TO SHIFT WITH ENERGY THEFOCUS OF AMERICA FROM

AFGHANISTAN AND AL QAEDA TOIRAQ.

THAT TOOK EFFORT.

WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> IT TOOK PERSUADING, AND THEYPERSUADED A LOT OF DEMOCRATS,

HILLARY CLINTON, JOHN KERRY.

>> Jon: TURNS OUT IDIOCY ISBIPARTISAN.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

( APPLAUSE ) >> Jon: SO, SO, THAT'S NOT--

( APPLAUSE )BUT THAT'S NOT-- THAT'S NOT

EXCULPATORY THAT IT CAPTUREDDEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

>> NO, BUT THE INTELLIGENCE WASWHAT IT WAS.

WE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLELIKE ME COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.

>> Jon: THE INTELLIGENCEWASN'T WHAT IT WAS AND NOT

EVERYBODY GOT IT WRONG.

>> ALMOST EVERYBODY DID, EXCEPTFOR KNIGHT RIDDER.

ALMOST EVERYBODY DID. I WENTBACK AND LOOKED --

>> Jon: "USA TODAY" HAD ANARTICLE WHERE -- BUT LET'S,

LET'S GO BACK TO -- >> WE ALL HAD ARTICLES.

I HAD AN ARTICLE -->> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AN INTERVIEW WITH HANS BLIX,IN WHICH HE SAID I KNOW THEY

ARE STILL NOT, THE IRAQIS ARESTILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH

THE 17 RESOLUTIONS THAT WE'VE--THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED,

BUT I DON'T WANT THEM-- I DON'TTHINK THIS IS GROUNDS TO GO TO

WAR.

AND I PUBLISHED THAT ARTICLE.

>> Jon: BUT SOMEBODY, SOMEBODYPOINTED THE LIGHT AT IRAQ, AND

THAT SOMEBODY IS THE WHITE HOUSEAND THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND

RUMSFELD.

>> ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.

>> Jon: HE SAID RIGHTAFTER 9/11 FIND ME A PRETEXT TO

GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

THAT'S FROM CAMBONE, THAT'S FROMTHE 9/11 PAPERS AND THE STUDY.

>> I THINK THE REPORTERS WHOWERE COVERING W.M.D., DID NOT

KNOW THAT-- AT LEASTI DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

BUT SECONDLY -->> YEAH.

>> SECONDLY, IT WAS BILLCLINTON WHO WAS WORRIED ABOUT

IRAQ, WHO LONG BEFORE GEORGEBUSH BOMBED IRAQ, BILL CLINTON

DID.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> 1998, FOR W.M.D.

>> Jon: RIGHT. RIGHT.

>> I THINK THAT WHAT CHANGED WASTHAT AFTER 9/11, WHAT THE RISK

THAT AMERICA WAS WILLING TOTOLERATE JUST PLUMMETED, AND AS

CHENEY FAMOUSLY SAID,IF THERE'S A 1% CHANCE

OF THIS BEING USED --

>> Jon: I THINK THAT'S,BUT THAT'S AN ABSOLUTELY MYOPIC

ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE ONLY PLACEWE FOCUSED ON WAS IRAQ.

>> I HAD BEEN COVERINGSADDAM SINCE 1978.

I HAD WATCHED HIM USE CHEMICALWEAPONS AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> I HAD COVERED THE MASSGRAVES OF HALABJA.

>> Jon: SURE.

>> I KNEW HE WOULDN'T HESITATEA MINUTE TO DO IT AGAIN IF HE

HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

BUT I STILL THINK IF I GOTINFORMATION THAT HAD LED ME TO

BELIEVE -->> YOU DON'T-- YOU DON'T BELIEVE

THAT YOU WERE MANIPULATED?

OR THAT YOU-->> ALL JOURNALISTS ARE

MANIPULATED.

AND ALL POLITICIANS LIE.

THEY ALL TRY AND SPIN.

>> Jon: WELL, THEN LET'SGO-- LET'S TAKE SPECIFICS OF ONE

SPECIFIC CASE BECAUSE I THINK ITGOES TO THE EFFORTS THAT WE TOOK

TO NOT BE LESSENING THE THREATOF IRAQ, AND THE EFFORTS WE

TOOK TO HEIGHTEN THE THREAT OFIRAQ.

SO THIS IS JUST ONE-- WE'LL GOONE SPECIFIC, AND IT'S THE BIG

NUCLEAR TUBES FIASCO.

AND THAT'S SHOULD WE DO THATNOW?

OR DO WE HAVE TO, OKAY,APPARENTLY BUDWEISER HAS --

WHAT DO THEY HAVE BEER AND THEYWANT PEOPLE TO SELL IT?

ALL RIGHT.

( LAUGHTER )WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK WITH JUDITHMILLER RIGHT AFTER THIS.

( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )

>> Jon: SO, YOU KNOW, YOUWROTE AN ARTICLE-- THIS IS

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011.

RIGHT, THIS WAS THE BIG ARTICLE.

IT SAID, "U.S. SAYS HUSSEININTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB

PARTS."

>> YOU MEAN MICHAEL GORDON AND IWROTE AN ARTICLE.

>> Jon: SURE.

>> YEAH.

>> Jon: FRONT PAGE OF THE"NEW YORK TIMES" NEXT TO A GIANT

PICTURE OF "NEVER FORGET 9/11."

IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THEFIRST -- THERE IT IS.

"IN MEMORY OF 9/11," FRONT PAGE.

THE INFORMATION CAME FROM THEBUSH ADMINISTRATION, YES?

>> BROADLY SPEAKING, YES.

IT CAME FROM INTELLIGENCEANALYSTS, AND PEOPLE IN THE BUSH

ADMINISTRATION, YES.

>> Jon: IT CAME FROM THE BUSHADMINISTRATION.

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

SO YOU WRITE THIS ARTICLE.

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: AND YOU HAVESOMEBODY NAMED DAVID ALBRIGHT,

WHO IS YOUR SOURCE FOR WHETHEROR NOT THIS CLAIM IS WRONG.

>> NO, HE WASN'T A SOURCE.

>> Jon: OH HE'S AN EXPERT.

>> HE'S AN EXPERT.

>> Jon: AND HE'S THE GUYYOU RELY ON AND TRUST TO TELL

YOU IF THIS IS WRONG OR RIGHT.

>> ONE OF, NO, ONE OF SEVERALEXPERTS BECAUSE OPINION IS

DIVIDED AND YOU HAVE TO ASKA LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

>> Jon: HE'S THE EXCERPTTHAT YOU WRITE IN YOUR BOOK THAT

YOU TRUST, THAT YOU'REDESPERATELY TRYING TO REACH.

>> YES, I WAS DESPERATELY TRYINGTO REACH HIM.

>> Jon: YES.

>> COULDN'T REACH HIM.

>> Jon: SO YOU JUST WENTWITH IT.

>> WELL, BECAUSE WE HAD OTHERSOURCES. WE HAD --

>> Jon: WHO WERE THE OTHERSOURCES?

THE GUY IN BUSH'S OFFICE,JOSEPH, WHO YOU DIDN'T NAME.

>> WHOM I NAME IN THE BOOK.

>> Jon: BUT NOT IN THEARTICLE.

>> NO, BUT I NAMES CHARLESDUELFER IN THE ARTICLE.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND I NAMED, WHO WASTHE CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR --

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND WE NAMED AHMEDCHALABI AND SAID THAT HE WAS THE

MAN WHO WANTED TOTAKE US TO WAR SO --

>> Jon: RIGHT. RIGHT.

>> SO THAT YOU COULD EVALUATETHE INFORMATION.

WE HAD MANY, MANY QUALIFIERS-->> Jon: WE WERE PAYING HIM

TO SPREAD THAT INFORMATION.

>> WE HAD REPORTED THAT MANYTIMES IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES."

>> Jon: OKAY, SO WE KNOWWE'RE PAYING THEM.

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: SO WE'RE PAYING--OR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS

PAYING THESE GUYS TO SPREADINFORMATION ABOUT SADDAM

HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF MASSDESTRUCTION.

AT THE SAME TIME THIS ISHAPPENING, DICK CHENEY IS GOING

ON TELEVISION IN AUGUST ANDSAYING THERE'S A NUCLEAR

PROGRAM, THERE'S ALL THESETHINGS.

AND IN SEPTEMBER THEY, BEGINWHAT'S CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE

IRAQ GROUP, YES?

AND THAT'S A GROUP OF KARL ROVE,KAREN HUGHES, AND ALL THESE

PEOPLE-- GERSEN-- AND THEIR JOBIS TO SELL THE WAR TO THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE THEYWEREN'T BUYING IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEYWEREN'T BUYING IT.

>> CAN I JUST TALK ABOUTALUMINUM TUBES?

>> Jon: YES, PLEASE.

>> BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHINGWE KNEW THAT WAS NEW THAT WAS

REALLY SPINNING UP THEINTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS.

>> Jon: SO, YOU REPORT THATTHEY'VE GOT THESE TUBES.

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: THIS ALBRIGHT NEVERCALLS YOU BACK.

>> NO.

>> Jon: SO YOU RUN WITH IT.

NOW THERE'S A PHRASE IN YOURSTORY ON THE 8th THERE WHERE AN

UNNAMED SOURCE SAYS, "WEDON'T WANT THE SMOKING

GUN TO BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD."

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

THAT PHRASE-- DO YOU KNOW WHERETHAT PHRASE COMES FROM?

>> NO, BECAUSE I ONLY KNOW THATCONDI RICE REPEATED IT.

>> Jon: RIGHT. IT COMES FROM THEWHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP--

>> WHICH SHE'S A MEMBER OF.

>> Jon: FIVE DAYS BEFOREYOU WRITE THE ARTICLE.

>> BUT IT'S A VERY POWERFULLINE.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND IT EXPLAINS THEIRTHINKING.

>> Jon: BUT IT COMES FROMGERSEN. IT DOESN'T --

IT'S A POLITICAL LINE DIRECTLYTIED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

YOU SAID THE INFORMATION DOESN'TCOME FROM THEM.

>> JON, WERE WE NOT SUPPOSED TOREPORT WHAT IT WAS THAT HAD THE

COMMUNITY, THE INTELLIGENCECOMMUNITY SO NERVOUS ABOUT

SADDAM.

>> Jon: NO, YOU SHOULD HAVEREPORTED IT THOUGH --

>> WERE WE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THATFROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

>> Jon: IN THE CONTEXT THAT THISADMINISTRATION WAS VERY CLEARLY

PUSHING A NARRATIVE, AND BYLOSING SIGHT OF THAT CONTEXT,

BY NOT REPORTING-->> I THINK WE DID.

THE STORY SAID-->> Jon: I WHOLEHEARTEDLY

DISAGREE WITH YOU.

>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT MAKESJOURNALISM. I MEAN, LOOK --

>> Jon: IT'S ACTUALLY NOTWHAT MAKES JOURNALISM.

>> IT IS.

>> Jon: SO LET'S CONTINUE WITHTHIS.

>> LET'S CONTINUE WITH THIS.

>> Jon: SO YOU DON'T RUN WITH-- YOU RUN WITH THE STORY WHEN

DAVID ALBRIGHT DOESN'TCALL YOU BACK.

HE CALLS YOU BACK ON THATTUESDAY AND SAYS THERE'S

SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS.

>> RIGHT.

>> THESE TUBES ARE NOT USEDFOR THAT.

THEY'RE USED FOR ROCKETS.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT.

>> Jon: IN YOUR ARTICLE ONTHE 18th WHICH RUNS ON PAGE

13, NOT ON PAGE 1. WHERE, AND ISSTILL, AND IS STILL --

>> I DON'T, I DON'T PUT -->> Jon: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> YES.

>> Jon: BUT IT IS STILLENTITLED, "WHITE HOUSE LISTS

IRAQ'S STEPS TO BUILDBANNED WEAPONS."

>> RIGHT.>> Jon: IT'S STILL TITLED

SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE IRAQ'SA THREAT.

>> BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE HAD

JUST LEASED ANOTHER PAPER SAYINGWE HAVE MORE EVIDENCE.

>> Jon: RIGHT. ALBRIGHT CALLSAND YOU SAYS THIS IS WRONG.

>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: OKAY. YOU DON'T PUT THATIN THAT ARTICLE.

WHY?

>> I DID PUT IT IN.>> Jon: NO, YOU --

>> I SAID THAT THE COMMUNITY WASDIVIDED.

I DIDN'T QUOTE DAVID ALBRIGHT.

>> Jon: HE SAID YOU COULDQUOTE HIM BY NAME.

>> YES, HE DID.

>> Jon: WHY DIDN'T YOU?

>> I THINK THE STORY GOT CUT FORSPACE.

BUT I DIDN'T-- YOU KNOW, LOOK,LET'S --

>> Jon: SO IN YOUR ORIGINALARTICLE YOU WROTE IN THERE

DAVID ALBRIGHT ANDTHEY CUT IT BY TAKE OUT--

>> I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I REALLYDON'T REMEMBER BECAUSE ON

THAT STORY --

>> Jon: WHAT YOU SAY IN THE BOOKIS --

>> WAIT A MINUTE --

>> Jon: WHAT YOU SAY IN THE BOOKIS--

>> I COULDN'T REMEMBER.

>> Jon: YOU COULDN'TCORROBORATE IT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE HE SAIDTHESE ARE THE LABS THAT HAVE THE

PEOPLE.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OFTHESE TUBES.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND I CALLED-- I MUST HAVECALLED 10 OR 15 PEOPLE.

AND NOBODY WOULD TALK ABOUT IT.

I WENT OUT TO AN ANALYST'SHOUSE.

I STOOD IN FRONT OF HIS DOOR.

I-- YOU KNOW, I TRACKED-- IWAITED FOR HIM TO COME BACK FROM

WORK.

HE SAID, "I CAN'T TALK TO YOUABOUT THIS."

I CALLED PEOPLE I KNEW HAD GIVENME VERY GOOD INFORMATION IN THE

PAST.

THEY SAID, "NO, NO, THAT'S AMINORITY VIEW."

AND SO I WENT TO DAVID AND ISAID, "LOOK, DAVID, FIND ME ONE

PERSON FROM A LAB.

YOU'RE NOT IN THE MEETINGS.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTHESE MEETINGS.

TELL ME ONE PERSON WHO CANCORROBORATE THIS, AND WE'LL PUT

THIS-- YOU KNOW, WE'LL MAKE THESTORY AS LONG AS WE POSSIBLY

CAN."

AND HE EITHER COULDN'T ORWOULDN'T.

THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

BECAUSE DAVID, EVEN THOUGH HEDISAGREED ABOUT THE TUBES,

BELIEVED THAT SADDAM HAD ANUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

>> Jon: I UNDERSTAND THAT,BUT THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN ALL

THIS SEEMS MUCH HIGHER ON THESIDE OF THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE,

AND THEY'RE NOT A THREAT, ANDMUCH LOWER ON THE SIDE OF YOU'RE

BEING FED-->> BUT THAT'S WHAT THE

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BELIEVED.

>> Jon: THAT'S WHAT THEY WEREFEEDING YOU. THEY CREATED --

>> NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT THEYBELIEVED, JON.

>> Jon: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'REOBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NEVER GOING

TO SEE EYE TO EYE ON IT.

I MEAN, I APPRECIATE YOU COMINGON THE PROGRAM.

THESE DISCUSSION ALWAYSMAKE ME INCREDIBLY SAD BECAUSE I

FEEL LIKE THEY-- THEY POINT TOINSTITUTIONAL FAILURE AT THE

HIGHEST LEVELS, AND NO ONE WILLTAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

>> I THINK THEY POINT TO -->> Jon: AND THEY PASS THE BUCK

TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL, OTHER THANTHEMSELVES, AND IT'S SAD.

>> I THINK THEY POINT TOINTELLIGENCE FAILURES THAT I

STILL WORRY ABOUT EVERY DAY,BECAUSE WE'RE STILL RELYING ON

THE SAME INTELLIGENCECOMMUNITIES TO GIVE US

INFORMATION ABOUT IRAN, NORTHKOREA, PAKISTAN, AND THE OTHER

COUNTRIES THAT WE HAVE TO DEALWITH.

>> Jon: WELL, HOPEFULLY,GIVEN THE SAME EFFORT, WE'LL GET

TO INVADE ALL THEM SOON.

( LAUGHTER ).

>> WE WON'T.

( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ).

>> Jon: "THE STORY" IS ONTHE BOOKSHELVES NOW.

JUDITH MILLER.

>> Jon: THAT'S OUR SHOW.

HERE IT IS YOUR MOMENT OF ZEN.

>> POLICE COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISYSEX.

IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND, THOUGH?

BUT WHAT MAY BE THE MOSTINFAMOUS APARTMENT BUILDING IN

NEW YORK.

SEX IS NOT A QUIET THING, RIGHT?

>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUTSOMETHING ELSE.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE.>> OKAY.