Mr. Hanna, it strikes me in your response to some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, comments with your role about Vice President cheney and the agreement or the decision to invade iraq is it was a mistake and you apologize for that in your own way. But we should just move on from that. Is that a misrepresentation of how you view your actions . Its senate more complicated than that. Of course. And too long to explain. That, yes, if the case depended on weapons of mass destruction in iraq, that was false. And the American People didnt understand the grounds on which we were going to war to take out a guy who is a horrible dictator and a major strategic threat to american interests that the American Congress in 1998 passed a law almost unanimously saying the iraq liberation act saying weve got to doing . To get rid of this guy. Didnt say war necessarily but it says weve got a big problem with iraq, we need to doing . About it. But it was based, wouldnt you say, on the assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction and the mobile biological labs . No. In 1998 it was the Clinton Administration, you had secretary of defense cohen standing up and holding up a bag of sugar and saying if saddam had this much biological weapons he would kill thousands upon thousands of people that he represents a major threat to the United States. That was the basis that wasnt the part of the discussion we were having as a nation in order to commit ourselves to send Young Americans to war in iraq. It was the weapons of mass destruction which you admit now was a mistake. Yes. That intelligence clearly was false, Bipartisan Commission looked at it and said most of that was wrong. So, on balance comparing these two processes whether you think its spin or not, the consequences strike me as being much more significant obviously than the decision to tell people we were going to invade iraq not because we didnt like saddam hussein, although that was the case as well, but that were biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction versus what we see with the Iran Nuclear Deal. You can assume as experts that this is not going to turn out well, but to this point theyre not equal in terms of negative consequences to this country and the stability of the peace in the middle east, would you say . I mean, how could you possibly say at this point . I would say that youre right, that war and the death of and injury of american soldiers is a terrible, terrible price to pay. We havent seen a lot of americans dying, but just take a look at the middle east right now after eight years of this administration, its hard to say its better because of americans arent dying but half a million syrians have died, chemical weapons are being used, rushen and iranian influence but that was all because of a decision you were very much a part of to get the country to go to war in iraq. Its much more complicated than that. No, it isnt. Ive gone to funerals of constituents who are dead in their 20s and their teens because you and Vice President cheney encouraged an invasion of iraq. It was because iranian ieds iranian efps that killed americans not a narrative. And that is why its not understandable how did our invading iraq stop those other actions . You sat here and testified that continued to support terrorists in the region. We didnt invade the gaza strip, we didnt invade syria and yet we see iran on the warpath all over and what this agreement did was take was take the budget of Islamic Revolutionary guard corps the hard currency available to it and increase it by an order of magnitude. Doing that before thats why we went into iraq is what youre saying. Yes . No . It seems like revisionist history. We are trying to blame according to the u. S. Department of state since 1984 and to try to somehow distract from that and distract from a false mod a narrative of false moderation is counterproductive i would argue. I have to tell you i feel like a replay of dr. Strangelove here. And it would be nice to have a balanced discussion. I agree. Thats why we invited mr. Rhodes and we invited the participation of senator cotton who is the other end of the spectrum, but when the white house refuses to make them available and democrats call no witnesses, we cant have that discussion. Thats whats a shame about todays hearing. Now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Russell, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In dealing with the iran nuclear issue, im saddened that rather than look forward to how to best secure the United States from a real Nuclear Threat, we see a progressive attack on our entry into iraq to cloud the issue. It is almost like the classic page from the communist playbook that advises admit nothing, deny everything and make counteraccusation. I take exception to the twisted narrative that our entry into iraq was based upon bad faith and false pretense. If an abusive neighbor attacks everyone in his neighborhood and then threatens them with total destruction, are we to believe as progressives seem to that we should sit idly by and not take action to secure ourselves from such threat . The truth of the matter is that saddam had technical capacity to develop a bomb. In the summer of 2003 i have firsthand knowledge that the 1st battalion 36th infantry along with special Operations Forces they secured a zippy centrifuge which is of the highest order for refinement of Nuclear Material and it was smuggled out of europe, they obtained technical hardware from saddams nuclear physicist. His account of saddams threat is well documented in his book the bomb in my garden an account the cia describes as largely accurate and balanced. I remember as i served in iraq during that time as we were hunting for saddam that this would be major news as the zippy centrifuge and technical drawings would come to light. Instead it is largely hidden to this day. It is also interesting to note that Senior Leaders and one in particular who relayed to me that during a major syrian flood he was directed by saddam to move material to an eastern syrian site. This was material of both a nuclear and a chemical nature. It is interesting that that very site was attacked during operation orchard by the Israeli Air Force and that site was completely destroyed because they were making a nuclear reactor. Again, the silence on these issues is deafening. As one of the commanders that helped track down and capture saddam hussein, it is very emotional for me to hear members of this congress condemn our efforts, but it is not surprising. From day one as we sacrificed in the field, progressives in this congress condemned our efforts with progressive leaders even going so far as to declare that the war was lost while we buried our friends in the field. That steady drumbeat forced us to bury friends not only there but ship them home and put them in section 60 of arlington and then we come home to watch politicians, many still in office, destroy what we fought for. They persist even today, mr. Chairman. I will never regret bringing a dictator to justice. And i am proud to have played a part in it. History should we even allow it will judge our efforts in iraq kindly. Im not sure the same can be said of congress. Now, we turn to yet another Nuclear Threat with iran. Dr. Obidi in reflecting on our security stated that to succeed, quote, Illicit Nuclear programs share a common weak spot. They need international complicity, end quote. And mr. Rhodes and this administration it appears they provided all of it to iran. Mr. Rubin, how and how early did the administration Start Talking about minimizing congressional oversight of the iran deal . I am not privy to the internal discussions within the administration. But it appears from second hand sources almost from the beginning. I have passed the iran terror financier act, the only real effort to oppose the nuclear deal, which now sits in the senate, and with mr. Rhodes exposure the need for congressional oversight there are key provisions in my measure and it sits in the senate. That language even today could be acted upon by the senate that would provide us key oversight on on any decisions. The president acted unconstitutionally while he is free to make agreements and have negotiation, he is not free to bind us with treatylike obligation. Do you think that if we passed the key provisions out of the measure that currently sits in senate that would increase that oversight as was noted last week by politico, do ul think it would make what we do have better . Yes. And very briefly, the strongest, most effective actions that have been taken by iran both under the Clinton Administration with executive orders and under the bush and Obama Administrations have been the unilateral american sanctions rather than the watereddown United NationsSecurity Council resolutions even though the Bush Administration achieved a number of those as well. Thank you, sir. And thank you, gentlemen, for your service, and thank you for being here today. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Russell, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice and your time serving this country. And were better for you. Thank you. Now recognize the gentle woman from new mexico, ms. Grisham for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thanks for the opportunity to talk about what i thinks really important in this agreement and issue, which is making sure that were holding iran accountable, that were clear about what those accountability issues and measures are and not just how thats being communicated but how thats being verified. And my only disappointment in the hearing today, mr. Chairman, is that we are having conversations about whatifs but were not talking to the folks, with no disrespect to the panel members, about really whos enforcing, whos accountable and certainly for my constituents and a number of individuals that i spoke with expertise in this area, either as concerned citizens or organizations and the administration and people outside of the administration, thats my core focus. And, in fact, as part of the hearing of this nature, i was more concerned and more i would like information about the reductions in the uranium stockpile, the status of the centrifuges in iran, the monitoring and detection measures that the u. S. Has and that are allies have also been doing. Does anyone on the panel have any specific authority or expertise on any of these issues . Because youre directly involved in that accountability. Are we serving in government right now or in the iaea, the answer to that is no, however, weve dedicated years to the study of these issues and so could give suggestions if you would like. Well, and i appreciate that. For example, ive spent 30 years in the Health Care Industry and i have a variety i think of very credible opinions but at the end of the day im not your physician. So, i cant talk to you about your specific health. What i really think is important with, again, no disrespect, gentlemen, and i one of the things i appreciate about this hearing is that we tackle tough subjects. I expect that of this committee. I expect that of the chairman, particularly on this issue, keeping america safe, being clear that we will that we will make sure that everyone is accountable, that were clear about what the risks are. I think those are all incredibly valuable things for us to be paying attention to, and i can tell you that my constituents back home in addition to the country expect that from me. But to know exactly where we are, more than opining based on, again no disrespect to your credentials far better than mine on these specific issues directly. But, again, i think, mr. Chairman, we ought to be talking to the individuals who are absolutely responsible for assuring, verifying these issues so that we know exactly what were dealing with because theyre actually doing it. What could we be doing better to make sure were getting that our information and that our accountability enforcement efforts are what they ought to be and that we have a way, bipartisan, to weigh in to reshape them productively if need be . Anyone . I totally agree with you. I agree with everything youve said. And i think that i would like to have a discussion with those people, but the administration has worked to obfuscate the entire agreement and all of the processes around it. And i think thats one of my main messages here is not that im the expert on centrifuges or that im the expert on sanctions and so on. Its that those of us who would like to understand what is happening are not being given the information we need. We cant have an open and honest debate because we dont have the key facts. I think if you read my prepared statement youll see that ive made i think a pretty cogent argument to that fact. Anyone else . Well, what i would say is when surgery goes awry, oftentimes the doctors will conduct an afteraction study about what went wrong. Likewise in the private sector. Businessmen will practice negotiations and look at what they might have done better. In the u. S. Military, sergeants, major and chiefs will berate soldiers for making mistakes not for a political ax to grind but to make them better soldiers and sailors. What the state department has not done in the last 60 years is conduct an afteraction report about high profile diplomacy. This goes across administrations. Yes, we can say that this is what the iaea needs to be looking for, that they need to not only be looking at declared Nuclear Facilities but undelairld Nuclear Facilities, that there has to be geindependt testing of work being done on Iranian Nuclear military sites and that there has to be extraterritoriality in the inspections in case iran takes some of its lab work to north korea. Those are all specific things that could be done but we have to go broader and look at why diplomacy hasnt worked. Lets have the state department be introspective if theyre not going to do the due diligence, the congress should. I appreciate those points and my time is up. But in response, again, without having that expertise in this hearing, we dont have a debate based on facts and i might disagree with you about our efforts in what im going to call complex and highlevel diplomacy and maybe on some points im not. But without having those individuals before this committee, were ill equipped to do that. I yield back. I concur with the gentle woman thats when mr. Rhodes as of monday was going to appear and suddenly executive privilege is claimed and all of a sudden they decide not to have him. Congress is kept in the dark. The chairman is very patient with me and this is not a place to debate that and i appreciate the chairman more than he knows and i mean that earnestly. But, again, im not sure that mr. Rhodes is the right person but we do, we need to continue to have an effort to get facts so that were not speculating about where we are in enforcing this agreement. And thats all of our responsibilities. So, thank you, mr. Chairman, for, again, giving me maybe the last word and thank you for being patient with me today, sir. Now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes. Microphone, please. Microphone. Could we have slide three. Okay. Better read it over here. The easiest way for the okay. This is a quote from the New York Times article. The easiest way for the white house to shape the news is from the briefing podiums each of which has its own dedicated press corps, but then there are sort of these force multipliemu, adding that we have our compadres. I will reach out to a couple of people and, you know, i wouldnt want to name them, ill say, hey, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of american weakness. Well, since he wont name them, mr. Doran, you want to take a shot at who hes speaking of when they talk about the administrations compadres in the press spin the white house narrative and who in the press hes kind of referring to there. I wouldnt want to speculate on individuals. I would just note that in general the major the major newspapers and the Major Networks have supported the line coming out of the white house and one of the things that mr. Rhodes drew our attention to, and i think its important to focus on, is the blurring as a result of the fact that newspapers and networks are reporting foreign news from washington, we have this blurring now of opinion and news. So that the line that mr. Rhodes is putting out finds its way into news articles and then it also finds its way into opinion columns at the same time, and mutually reinforcing effect. But we also find at the same time that only about 13 of americans actually believe what theyre hearing anymore and i think we can draw our own conclusions about that. Well, having been here for 14 months i dont believe anything i read in the paper around here. But major papers, do you believe, like, the New York Times, the Washington Post, would you consider those the major papers youre talking about . Yes. You can see ill give you an example, you know, recently the saudis put together put to death this cleric, a shiite, the line that you got universally in the newspapers, in the newspapers, in the news articles and in the Opinion Pieces and then on the networks was that theres a huge saudi sectarian escalation which is destroying relations with iran. All of the things that iran is doing around the region, flexing muscles like dr. Rubin described, were not hearing about. And i believe that that was news reported out of the reported out of the white house. Ill just say one more thing about this, too, because of the rise of the internet we have all these we have all these nontraditional news sources now that people go to. And it puts enormous pressure on the serious reporters that are out there. I mean, im thinking of people like david sanger and Michael Gordon<