---

May 21, 2006

Condoleezza Rice, Sen. John McCain, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. Iraq's new leaders on how they plan to end the violence, next on "Fox News Sunday".

In Iraq, leaders form a new government. From Iran, new concerns about a nuclear threat. We'll discuss these diplomatic challenges and more with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Immigration reform in Congress. Will lawmakers cut a deal? We'll ask one of the point men in the debate, Senator John McCain. Rice and McCain, only on "Fox News Sunday".

Plus, will the president's new media blitz lift his poll numbers? We'll find out from our Sunday regulars, Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams. And our Power Player of the Week, how she saved the day for some young Katrina victims, all right now on "Fox News Sunday".

And good morning again from Fox News in Washington. Here's a quick check of the latest headlines. Leaders of Iraq's new government pledged today to end sectarian violence and restore stability, but terror attacks continued this weekend. At least 70 people have been killed or wounded.

This morning, returning from church, President Bush talked about Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The formation of a unity government in Iraq is a new day for the millions of Iraqis who want to live in freedom. And the formation of the unity government in Iraq begins a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And in New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin won another four- year term Saturday when he picked up 52 percent of the vote in a runoff election.

Joining us now to discuss Iraq, Iran and more is the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Secretary Rice, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday".

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: President Bush praised the formation of a new Iraqi government, but they failed to agree on three of the most critical posts, the ministers of interior and defense and national security. Fifteen members, Sunni members, of the parliament walked out. Given these continued deep divisions, can they really end the violence?

RICE: I see this quite the other way, Chris. In fact, what you have is an Iraqi government that is now formed. Yes, they're going to take a few days longer to get right the ministry of interior, the ministry of defense and the national security adviser.

The prime minister has made very clear to us and to the people in the other parties that he wants to have people in whom he has supreme confidence because of the importance of this. I know, for instance, they were going through extensive interviews with people, extensive background checks with people because they want to make sure that they have it right.

I think it's quite obvious that when you take this kind of time, it shows a kind of determination and maturity.

Secondly, I was just talking with our people in the embassy, and some 90 percent of the parliament is going to support this government. Now, yes, there's a lot of politics going on here. People are dramatizing the fact that they didn't get certain posts that they'd hoped to get.

But we really need to give this government a chance, and we need to recognize that with the very difficult things that they're trying to do, they are making extraordinary progress politically.

WALLACE: I want to show you a report that appeared in the Los Angeles Times this week. Take a look, if you will. More Iraqi civilians were killed in Baghdad during the first three months of this year than at any time since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, at least 3,800, many of them found hogtied and shot execution style. Masked gunmen storm into homes and the victims, the majority of them Sunnis, are never again seen alive.

Secretary Rice, isn't the sectarian violence getting worse, not better?

RICE: The sectarian violence is clearly now a major problem for Iraq. There's no doubt about that. And in talking with Prime Minister Maliki, when Don Rumsfeld and I were there, he focused on the need to reestablish confidence in the police, to reestablish confidence in the ability of the government to deal with this.

It's going to be a very important step to begin to disband some of the militias and unauthorized armed groups that are operating.

WALLACE: Which is why I raised the question. Isn't it very troubling that they couldn't come up with an interior minister?

RICE: Chris, let's give them three or four days, or five or six days to come up with the best possible interior ministry. You know, the five days that they will take to vet people more thoroughly, to make sure that they have the right person, will be well worth it. And I note, too, that Prime Minister Maliki said in comments even today that he is determined to use maximum force to stop the terrorism and the violence against the Iraqi people. This is a strong leader.

I've met him. I've looked into his eyes. This is somebody who is determined to do what is right for the Iraqi people. He said to us, to Don and to me, the Iraqi people have had enough, we've now really got to govern effectively.

He is demonstrating a kind of focus. He's demonstrating a kind of resolve, because he's now a permanently elected leader, not an interim leader whose job it is to get a constitution or to set up elections, but whose job it is to govern permanently.

And I think we need to give him a little breathing space and a little chance here, and I think you're going to see very good things from this government.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says he can't promise that there will be a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq before the end of the year. I want you to take a look at this exchange before a senate panel this week. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Can you tell us that before the end of this calendar year a significant number of American troops will be redeployed out of harm's way in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: No. No one can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Secretary Rice, after more than three years, why can't U.S. troops start coming home and let Iraqis defend Iraq?

RICE: Well, this is very much in line with what the president has been saying. Of course you can't say that with determination there will be a draw down, because this draw down has to be conditions-based. So obviously if it's conditions-based...

WALLACE: But why, by May of this year...

RICE: Well, obviously...

WALLACE: ... aren't the conditions proper for us to be able to announce...

RICE: Obviously, Chris, if it's conditions-based, then we are going to work with the new government. Again, we have a new government. How would it be for the United States to say we're going to do this with our forces without ever even consulting with the new government about their plans?

Prime Minister Maliki has made clear that he actually wants to accelerate the pace not just of training of Iraqi security forces, but the pace by which Iraqi security forces take more responsibility.

So over the next few weeks, General Casey will sit with the Iraqi government. They will come up with plans that include what remains to be done, what role Iraqi forces can play in that, what role coalition forces still need to play.

But we need to keep our focus on what needs to be done to ultimately leave a foundation for democracy and peace in Iraq. That's why we went there after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That is what the American people and the Iraqi people expect us to do.

And I think it is premature before we've even had this discussion with the Iraqi government to start giving firm commitments on what the draw down will look like.

WALLACE: The United Nations Committee Against Torture this week criticized the U.S. handling of U.S. terrorism detainees and called for shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Last week, the attorney general of Britain, perhaps our strongest ally in the war on terror, also called for shutting down Guantanamo, saying that it is, quote, unacceptable. Will the U.S. close down Guantanamo?

RICE: Well, first of all, it would have been helpful if the rapporteur for that report had actually gone to Guantanamo. It's a little difficult to do this by remote control. And we did have a sense that this report, as John Bellinger, who is our legal counsel, said, might have been written before we even were given a real opportunity to respond.

So yes...

WALLACE: But this was 10 independent human rights experts.

RICE: Yes, but it would have been helpful if there had been full assessment, because people who go to Guantanamo see quite a different picture.

But let's leave that aside and talk about what Guantanamo is there for. Obviously, we don't want to be the world's jailer. We will be delighted when we can close down Guantanamo. Everybody wants to close down Guantanamo.

But I would ask this. If we do close down Guantanamo, what becomes of the hundreds of dangerous people who were picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan, who were picked up because of their associations with Al Qaida? We do have an obligation, the president has an obligation, to also keep America and, by the way, many of our allies safe by making certain that people don't return to the battlefield.

Obviously, a lot has changed at Guantanamo over the last years. Hundreds of people have been released from Guantanamo. We work almost daily with governments to try to get people returned to their native lands if their governments will take them and give assurances that they are both not going to be mistreated and that they're going to be watched and monitored so that they can't commit crimes again.

This is a different kind of war. We cannot be in a situation in which we're just turning loose on hapless populations or unprotected populations people who have vowed to kill more Americans if they're released.

So I would just ask people to be cognizant of the dilemma here. Absolutely, we want to see the day when Guantanamo can close. Absolutely, we want to see the day when we don't have to play this role. But somebody had better play the role of making certain that dangerous people don't get released back into the population.

WALLACE: I have a series of questions I want to ask you about Iran, and let's almost do it as a lightning round, if we can, here.

There's a report that the U.S. and Europe are now having a disagreement because the Europeans want to offer Iran some kind of security guarantee that the government there will not be overthrown by subversion or outside intervention.

RICE: Chris, I have had multiple meetings with my colleagues, my foreign minister colleagues, including a 3.5-hour session just 10 days ago or so. They don't ask us for security guarantees for Iran. I don't know who...

WALLACE: Would we ever consider such a thing?

RICE: You know, first of all, let me just set the record straight. We haven't been asked to provide security assurances to Iran. What we're talking about is a package that will make clear to Iran that there are choices to be made, either that there will be sanctions and actions taken against Iran by the international community, or there's a way for them to meet their civil nuclear concerns.

But it's obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we have other issues with Iran. We have a state in Iran that is devoted to the destruction of Israel. We have a state in Iran that meddles in the peace process...

WALLACE: So directly, because I want to get to this point before...

RICE: ... supporting organizations like that.

WALLACE: Would we ever agree to a security guarantee for the...

RICE: Chris, you can't take this question out of the context of what Iran is doing in the international system. Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table.

WALLACE: You talk about offering Iran a menu of carrots and sticks. Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, made a speech this week in which he dismissed the idea of accepting incentives to halt its uranium enrichment program, saying do you think you're dealing with a child that you can give chocolate and get gold in return.

Secretary Rice, given his repeated statements, why are you wasting time coming up with packages for this man?

RICE: Well, we would like to show Iran's government and its people that it is possible to have a way out of this crisis, a way out that preserves Iran's ability to have civil nuclear power -- Iran has said that that's what they want, by the way -- and to show them a path into the international community of states and back into good standing.

If they won't take it, then we'll have to take the other course.

WALLACE: And you had said that you would not allow direct talks between the U.S. ambassador in Iraq and Iran about Iraqi security until a government was formed. Now a government has been formed. Are you going to allow Ambassador Khalilzad to talk to the Iranians about Iraqi security?

RICE: We will assess the situation and see when such talks might be useful. But we've had those talks in Afghanistan. In fact, the current ambassador, Ron Newman, has had talks about the counternarcotics problem in Afghanistan. Zal Khalilzad had these talks when he was in Afghanistan.

If it makes sense in Iraq, we'll do it. But we'll assess it based on what makes sense.

WALLACE: One immigration question I want to ask you briefly, and then I want to move on to one other thing here.

Can you understand -- the Mexican foreign minister said if National Guard troops arrest any of the immigrants coming over the border, they're going to sue in U.S. courts.

RICE: Well, the president of the United States...

WALLACE: I know he says they're not going to...

RICE: Yes, the president has said this isn't for law enforcement.

WALLACE: But can you understand why a lot of Americans would be fed up with the idea that Mexico is upset that we would dare to enforce our borders?

RICE: Well, when I talk to my Mexican counterparts as well as to other counterparts, I say start your comments with the United States has the right to defend its borders, the United States has the right to defend its laws.

You're not going to find a president who has achieved better balance in his immigration policy than this president, who talks about the need for a comprehensive program that both recognizes our tradition as a country of immigrants and our humanitarian concerns about that and protects our laws. And I think this is the very best that immigrants are going to do and the very best that those who wish to defend the border are going to do.

WALLACE: Finally, a real lightning round. You know the rules. Quick answers...

RICE: Yes.

WALLACE: ... quick questions.

RICE: Gotcha.

WALLACE: And we have an audio clue for you. Listen.

(AUDIO CLIP IS PLAYED)

RICE: I'm going to play it. One day.

WALLACE: Well, that is me, as a matter of fact, playing Brahms' Piano Concerto...

RICE: Oh, sure, Chris. Yes.

WALLACE: ... Number 2.

RICE: Absolutely.

WALLACE: You gave a list of the 10 best pieces of music to a British newspaper.

RICE: Right.

WALLACE: And you said that you were determined to play that piece of music before you leave this earth.

RICE: Right. It may take me that long to learn it.

WALLACE: It's that hard?

RICE: It's that hard. It's one of the most difficult pieces in the repertoire, but it is a magnificent piece. I listen to it -- ultimately, I listen to that and Cream, In the Sunshine of Your Love.

WALLACE: Well, now you've blown it. Here we go. That was only number five on the Rice hit parade. Here's number two. Take a listen.

(AUDIO CLIP IS PLAYED)

WALLACE: I love you getting into your groove here.

RICE: It's a great piece. I also exercise to that. Some mornings it's Brahms. Some mornings it's Cream.

WALLACE: And for bonus points, can you name the members of Cream?

RICE: Well, Ginger Baker and Eric Clapton, and I'm blanking on the last important member.

WALLACE: Jack Bruce.

RICE: Jack Bruce, of course. Of course.

WALLACE: Well, you know, I'm sorry, you're going to have to get the home game of "Fox News Sunday" and play along with us at home.

Secretary Rice, we want to thank you again so much for being with us.

RICE: Thank you.

WALLACE: Ginger Baker and Brahms.

RICE: Showing either my age or my taste, I'm not sure which.

WALLACE: Well, it's certainly eclectic. Always a pleasure to have you here.

RICE: Pleasure.

WALLACE: Up next, Senator John McCain on immigration reform, politics and more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And joining us now, Senator John McCain, who, as usual, is at the center of a number of key issues on Capitol Hill.

Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday".

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you, Chris. Nice to be back.

WALLACE: Thank you. Let's start with immigration reform and the complaints from conservatives about the comprehensive package that you're trying to get through the Senate. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Some say well, it's not really amnesty, it's earned legalization. Well, whatever it is, it looks very similar, if not its identical twin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: I know you call it earned legalization, but isn't it amnesty in the sense that the penalty for illegally coming into this country is deportation, and under your plan the vast majority of illegals would not be deported?

MCCAIN: No, Chris. In fact, I think what we have today is de facto amnesty because people are living here illegally without any penalty whatsoever, around 11 million people. The word amnesty in the dictionary means forgiveness. What we are talking about and what the overwhelming majority of American people support is an earned amnesty, criminal background check, paying back taxes, $2,000 fine, learn English, work for six years before getting in line behind everybody else. It's very tough. It's called earned citizenship.

Now, we all know that in the '80s we did amnesty. We did an amnesty, and it didn't work. And so we're not going to make that mistake again.

And just finally, again, I respect the views of my colleagues. I think we've had very good and productive debate on the floor of the Senate. And we've had a lot of good votes. I think the Senate, for the first time in a while, is sort of functioning the way the Senate should. I think we're going to have an outcome probably the middle of this coming week.

WALLACE: This week, this past week, you were one of the leaders in a 50-49 vote -- you were one of the 50 -- that will allow illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits even if they got their job illegally by forging documents. Forty-four Republicans voted against this. You were one of only 11 Republicans who voted for it.

At a time when Social Security is running out of money, should we allow illegals to benefit from committing a felony?

MCCAIN: Well, they paid the taxes. Do you want to refund -- at least shouldn't you then, if you don't want them to get benefits -- they paid the taxes. They came out of their salaries, and so they contributed.

Should they at least not -- should they be deprived of the taxes that they paid? I don't think that's fair.

WALLACE: But I don't have to tell you conservatives are saying they broke the law and they're going to benefit from that.

MCCAIN: Chris, many conservatives -- that's the same argument that we made throughout this debate, that we are giving them amnesty. Look, the taxes were taken out of their paychecks. They were put into a fund that is a legitimate fund.

Of course, they were illegal because they were here illegally. But what we'd like to do over time, and I think we could do this over time, is establish some of these funds back in the country that they came from, so that there would be incentives for them to return home.

But if you just said I'm sorry, you came here illegally, even though you paid into the trust fund, we're just taking your money, I don't think that's really fair, either.

WALLACE: You say you think that there's going to be a bill passed by the Senate this coming week.

MCCAIN: I believe so. I'm guarded. You never try to predict the Senate, but I think so.

WALLACE: And prospects for making a deal with the House, which is still standing by an enforcement-only package?

MCCAIN: I think they're better. I think the president's speech was very well received by the American people. I think many of my colleagues in the House recognize that this is something we need to do from a standpoint of resolving this issue one way or the other.

And my colleagues also understand that Republicans in the House recognize that this is an issue that could hurt us with Hispanics unless we get it resolved, and with the American people. They want us to lead and resolve this issue. One thing we're in agreement on: The status quo is unacceptable.

WALLACE: Befitting your role as the presumed frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination, you are taking it in the neck these days from...

MCCAIN: Sure.

WALLACE: ... critics on both the right and the left...

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: ... who seem to agree that you are pandering to conservatives but that really -- well, some of them say you're a moderate, some of them say you're a conservative, but that you're not what you claim to be.

Last weekend you gave a speech, a commencement address, at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. He's the man you once called an evil influence on the GOP, an agent of intolerance. Is appearing with Falwell, as you put it, moving on, or is selling out?

MCCAIN: Well, I hope that it's viewed by most Americans as moving on. But also, the fact is that I'm honored every year to speak at various institutions at a significant point in young people's lives. In the case of Reverend Falwell, he came and said he wanted to put our differences behind us. I was glad to do that.

I think one of the stupidest things you can do in politics is hold grudges. It's a waste of time and it doesn't do anything for you or for your constituents. The people I represent in the state of Arizona don't expect me to spend my time looking back in anger.

I was honored to be there. I was well received, I'm happy to say, there by the students, and I look forward to speaking at Ohio State University very soon where I've been invited also.

WALLACE: Meanwhile, the Senate is going to vote in a couple of weeks on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. I want you to take a look at what Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention had to say about you recently.

Here it is. If he doesn't change his mind and support this amendment, he will have a virtually impossible task to win the Republican nomination.

Question, Senator McCain, will you vote for or against the federal marriage amendment when it comes up before the Senate in June?

MCCAIN: I will vote against it because I believe very strongly that in a -- first of all, on the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions.

The states regulate the conditions of marriage, and unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide.

We in Arizona should make our decisions about the status of marriage in our state just as the people in Massachusetts and other states should make their decisions.

WALLACE: Aren't you trying to pull off a pretty tough political challenge here, some would say it's even threading the needle, to be, whether you want it or not, the frontrunner for the nomination, but at the same time to be the straight-talking political maverick?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, I haven't decided whether to run or not, but more importantly...

WALLACE: We don't care whether you've decided, Senator.

MCCAIN: ... more importantly, I've found in my life that when I do what I think is right -- for example, on the marriage amendment -- it always turns out in the end OK.

When I do things for political expediency, which I have from time to time, it's always turned out poorly. For better or worse, I have a pretty good compass as to what my political philosophy and base and beliefs are, and I have to stick with them.

WALLACE: Give me an example, since you bring it up. What have you done? What would you admit you did for political expediency?

MCCAIN: I went down to South Carolina and said that the flag that was flying over the state capitol, which was a confederate flag, was -- that I shouldn't be involved in it, it was a state issue. It was an act of cowardice.

WALLACE: Act of cowardice on your part.

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: And you did it because you thought this will help me in the South Carolina primary in 2000.

MCCAIN: Yes, sure, this won't alienate a certain voting block. But I lost anyway.

WALLACE: And how did you -- I mean, did you sit there -- because I know you're a man of strong opinions. How did you sit there and say you know, I don't believe this, but I'm going to say it anyway? MCCAIN: Oh, we're all gifted, no matter how principled we are, with the gift of rationalization. But I knew it was wrong at the time, but I rationalized it: Well, you know, I can use this as a way to avoid a political, you know, downside. And it was wrong.

WALLACE: How do you know that if you were to run and become president that you wouldn't do that again?

MCCAIN: Well, I've learned a lot of lessons in my life. I'm older than dirt. I've got more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a lot of things along the way. And that was a very strong lesson for me. And there have been other times in my life. But I can tell you that I know the difference between right and wrong.

WALLACE: Finally, I want to talk to you about the war on terror, which, as you saw, we just discussed with Secretary Rice.

The U.N. Committee Against Torture, an issue that you're very concerned about, says that we should shut down Guantanamo. Last week the attorney general of Britain, our staunch ally, said that Guantanamo is unacceptable. Should we shut it down?

MCCAIN: It's not so much Guantanamo as it is the adjudication of these cases. You know, we seem to focus on the location rather than the situation. The situation is we've got hundreds of people down there, and there's no completion of their case.

I don't think they deserve a fair jury trial, don't get me wrong. But there's got to be some kind of adjudication so that we can decide to keep them for life, or execute them, depending on their crimes, or, if we don't have sufficient evidence, to send them back to whatever country they came from.

And so I think if we could move forward with the process of adjudicating these cases and...

WALLACE: So you, in effect, agree with the Committee Against Torture -- hear we out -- that the idea of this indefinite detention is not right.

MCCAIN: No, I don't think that's right. But I also believe that this administration is working very hard, and it's frustrating, to try to get some type of process so we can make these -- the administration recognizes and we recognize that this is symbolically harmful to America's image in the world, and I'm hoping that we can come up with a methodology and a process to resolve this situation.

WALLACE: Two other questions, and we're beginning to run out of time.

MCCAIN: Sure. Sure.

WALLACE: The military is investigating what seems to have been a very ugly incident at Haditha last November where as many as two dozen civilians, including women and children, may have been killed by Marines who then allegedly covered it up. As a soldier, how potentially damaging to our efforts in that part of the world?

MCCAIN: Of course it could be damaging. I hope that the million acts of kindness and sacrifice that American soldiers and Marines and men and women have made for the people of Iraq will be taken in consideration.

We all grieve and are alarmed when something like this happens, but I hope we can keep it in perspective. But it's very sad if it's true.

WALLACE: And finally, we have about a minute left.

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: What do you make of the formation of the new Iraqi government on the one hand, but on the other hand the failure to name an interior minister, a defense minister?

MCCAIN: I'm glad they've named the government. I'm sorry because those are two of the key positions. I hope they can name them soon. This is long and hard and tough, long and hard and tough, and we should not get too optimistic, but we should not think that we're going to fail, because we can't afford to fail.

WALLACE: Senator McCain, we want to thank you, as always.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Always a pleasure to have you here, especially in studio.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

WALLACE: Please come back, sir.

Up next, our panel of Sunday regulars on the president's effort to shake up the debate over immigration. Is he changing any minds? Some answers after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): Unconditional forgiveness. That, my friends, is amnesty. This is not amnesty. So let's get the terms right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

U.S. SENATOR DAVID VITTER (R-LA): The extreme reaction that erupted from some of the senators at my suggestion that this is amnesty sort of reminds me of the famous line, thou dost protest too much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was two Republican senators, Hagel and Vitter, arguing over whether the bill making its way through the Senate now amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

And it's time for our Sunday gang, Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

So let's start with this highly charged, politically charged question of whether the bill making its way through the Senate amounts to amnesty or not.

And, Brit, I mean, beyond just the semantics of it, I mean, the real issue is is this comprehensive bill giving illegal immigrants too much.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS WASHINGTON MANAGING EDITOR: Well, arguably it is, if you are of the view that any illegal behavior is intolerable and should not be countenanced in any way.

The problem is that people who believe that have to choose between the circumstance that we now face, which, as Senator McCain pointed out, really is a kind of de facto amnesty. And you've got, what, 11 million people running around in this country here illegally and nothing's happening to them.

My thought about this is that if this is coupled, as it is increasingly becoming coupled, to very tough border enforcement procedures, very much tougher at least than they are now, that you might have something that even the people who are waving around the word amnesty would feel that they don't want to vote against in the end.

MARA LIASSON, NPR: Yes, I used to think in the beginning of this debate that it was important for each -- that the debate over the meaning of the word amnesty was important. I no longer think that. I agree with Brit.

This is now a practical matter. What are you going to do with the 12 million people who are here in this country now? If you think it is actually practical and do-able to deport all of them, as some of the people who believe that this bill is amnesty think, well, that's one thing.

But if you don't, you've got a problem on your hands about what to do with them. And I think that what we've seen this week in the Senate -- a pretty interesting phenomenon that we haven't seen for a while -- is that you do have a bipartisan center. It is holding.

One amendment after the other that would have broken apart the bipartisan support for the bill, which it needs if it's going to survive, has been defeated. And it's on its way to a very contentious conference with the House, and we'll see what happens.

But I do think the test is are there just enough Republicans in the House who will eventually swallow hard and vote for this even though it includes a path to earn legalization. You're never going to convince the Tom Tancredos of the world. You're never going to convince some of the die-hard amnesty folks, but you might just get enough votes.

WALLACE: Bill, you know, it is fascinating, and Senator McCain said it. I mean, it's sort of the old-fashioned Senate where they're actually legislating, and there are amendments and votes on amendments, and each day we're following how the bill is being affected, amendments this week to make English not the official language but the national language, and then the Democrats said no, it should be the common unifying language.

As I mentioned with Senator McCain, this amendment that was defeated that basically allows illegal immigrants to keep their Social Security benefits even if they got their jobs illegally -- what do you make of the to and fro on the floor of the Senate?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: No, I agree. I mean, you know, democracy is a good thing, and a real legislative process is a good thing. You know, I was in Europe this week. We are actually addressing our immigration problem and having a serious debate, and there are demonstrations in the streets on both sides, and there are legislative proposals on both sides and the two bodies of Congress disagree.

In Europe they can't even discuss it. You know, it's such a difficult problem, they just stick their heads in the sand. And they're sort of amazed, actually. I mean, at first they thought this was just demagoguery in the United States, a bunch of yahoos, you know, and nothing's going to happen.

And then you tell them look, they're having real debates and real votes. And the people who want to be a little more restrictive are winning some of those votes, but on the whole, it looks like legislation is moving ahead, and there will be a tough negotiation between the two bodies of Congress. I think it's a healthy thing for the country.

It's amazing also. I mean, everyone keeps saying such polarization, you can never pass major legislation, especially not in an election year, and we're going to pass, I think -- I think -- this year and maybe even before election day -- you know, there's talk about pushing it back into the lame duck session.

I think actually if they put pressure on, if the president puts the pressure on, you could end up with serious consequential legislation passed by this Congress on a bipartisan basis dealing with a major issue.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, I hope that's true. You know, I just think it's going to be very difficult as you approach election day to get things done, because the conference will take place over the summer, but I'm speaking hopefully in terms of the Senate passing a bill before Memorial Day, and then you go into the conference.

And Karl Rove, the president's political advisor, was up there this week trying to do some business with the House. I don't think he persuaded anybody. But what the White House official said was at least people were willing to engage the issue, to talk about well, you know, can we have real I.D. cards that would be effective, can we have an effective enforcement system.

But what I see in terms of the politics -- it's just really interesting to me that all of the debate in the Senate this week is about putting the National Guard on the border, about fences, English only. It's all to appease, and I think appease is the right word, a white, Southern, somewhat Western, rural and suburban base in the Republican Party, on the right wing of the party, that seems to me fearful of this new wave of people coming into the country.

So it seems to me like these people in the Senate and especially in the House are sort of reacting to nativists or people who are afraid they're losing their America, worried about people speaking English at the 7-Eleven as opposed to thinking about the future, not only the future of the country, but the future of the Republican Party.

I think you're alienating future Latino voters, who are -- you know, 40 percent voted for Bush last time. I don't think you're ever going to see that again for a Republican president.

WALLACE: Is it appeasement, Brit?

HUME: Well, obviously, you're trying to win over some of the immigration hard-liners, but as Mara was suggesting earlier, you're not going to win over the hardest of the hard-liners. And I'd like to introduce you some day, Juan, to Peter King of New York, who is one of the leading Republican hawks on the immigration issue. I don't think he quite meets your test of being a Southern cracker who is opposed...

WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said suburban. Peter King is very suburban.

HUME: I see. All right.

WILLIAMS: And you know, Peter King is in an interesting place because he's Irish, you know, and there seems to be a lot of Irish illegal immigrants in Europe. We don't talk about them in the way that we talk about the illegal immigrants...

LIASSON: He's just the kind of person...

WILLIAMS: ... coming from the Southern...

LIASSON: ... that might, in the end, vote for -- he's just the kind of person that might, in the end, feel that the bill has been beefed up enough on the security side to make him feel comfortable.

HUME: See, that's the choice you're going to come down to, because there's going to -- I suspect that in the conference what will happen is additional pieces of the House bill on the enforcement side will be added into the conference reports, so you'll come back to both bodies with as much of the president's idea of a guest worker program intact as possible, with the possible path to citizenship in place, together with this whole range of border enforcement procedures, and the national I.D. card, all of that, for immigrants.

And that confronts the hard-liners with a choice. Do they want no bill in the end? Are they going to want to vote to see these border enforcement procedures not happen? That's a tough call.

LIASSON: You know, and the politics of this are complicated. I think that the politics of this for November are a complete wash. The people who feel they have to vote against this -- they know their constituency.

We're not having a national election on immigration in November. We're having bunch of hard-fought competitive House and Senate races. Over time, I think the politics of this are pretty clear. I think President Bush and Karl Rove clearly know where they want the Republican Party to be.

WALLACE: All right. Let me just ask you about that, too -- we've got about a minute left -- because I don't think we can ignore the role that the president played this week.

He really seized center stage in the immigration debate, speech to the nation in which he called for sending the National Guard down there, 6,000 Guard.

He went down to the border -- you see him there in that very cool dune buggy -- in support of the idea of building hundreds of miles of fence. How much has he changed this debate?

KRISTOL: I think he weighed in appropriately, at the key time. Well, he is a Southern governor, you know, and he seems to be doing quite a responsible job on immigration.

Sam Brownback represents the rural state of Kansas and is one of the most conservative Senators and courageously has voted his conscience, which is for a reasonably liberal immigration bill. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska -- I mean, this is really a slander -- I want to defend suburban America and conservative America against this notion that they're just pandering.

There are people who have different honest opinions. David Vitter from Louisiana, who we saw the clip of, is a serious guy who is doing his best as he sees it, but it's not a matter of racism or nativism. It's a matter of dealing with this problem. And I think Bush deserves credit. McCain deserves credit. Brownback deserves credit.

WALLACE: You've got 20 seconds to respond.

WILLIAMS: Well, very quickly, I think there's a lot of fear in the country. We have so many immigrants coming in, and about 11 million to 12 million illegals. And people are struggling for a way to deal with it.

But I think there's some people who feel like they're just being washed over by this sea of immigrants, and they're having an emotional response. And all the debate in Congress is about that emotional response as opposed to the people who have been rallying and marching and saying let's have a reasonable, logical system for handling immigration.

WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. But coming up, Iraq finally has its government. What does that mean for our troops over there and the political landscape here at home? Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1927, American aviator Charles Lindbergh touched down in at Le Bourget Field in Paris after 33 hours, completing history's first non-stop flight across the Atlantic Ocean.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: A free Iraq will be an important ally in the war on terror, will serve as a devastating defeat for the terrorists in Al Qaida, and will serve as an example for others in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Bush talking this morning about Iraq's new government.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan. Well, as we say, Iraq yesterday formed a new government. The parliament has approved a full cabinet except that two of the key positions, the minister of defense, minister of interior, they still have not been able to agree on.

Brit, where does this put us?

HUME: This puts us another major step down the road. I think it's important to keep in mind here that the Iraqis sooner or later have met every single one of these tests that many of the pessimists said could never be met. And now we have yet another one.

Yes, now you're going to read all the -- but, but you haven't got those two key posts filled, and the hand-wringing will begin anew. However, I suspect that over time those posts will be filled. It's very important that they get this right. These are very sensitive posts.

There's a reason why it's difficult to fill them and get people agreed upon, but I suspect it will happen. And this march, the terrorism notwithstanding, the bloodshed and mayhem notwithstanding, toward a stable, democratic country will continue. And in time, it looks to me now that there's a better chance than ever that it will happen.

LIASSON: Yes. I mean, this was an important step forward. Now, you know, as Brit said, those posts have to not only get filled, but the people in those posts have to execute their duties in a way that is not sectarian.

In other words, Sunnis have to feel that when there's a knock on the door and there's somebody with a uniform on the other side that they're coming to maybe help them as opposed to take away the male members of their family and assassinate them. So that's important.

And if this government can do that, I think that's going to help a lot, and it will also allow the U.S. to draw down its troops which this week we also heard Secretary Rumsfeld say that he couldn't guarantee that that would happen because this is all dependent on what the Iraqis are able to do.

WALLACE: I want to get to Rumsfeld in a moment, but I want to pick up first on this question of sectarian violence, Bill, because as Secretary Rice acknowledged, the sectarian violence is getting worse, not better.

How confident are you, when they finally get an interior minister, particularly, that it's going to be -- they are going to be able to stop the death squads, the militias and end that violence?

KRISTOL: They won't be able to do it by themselves. They'll need our efforts to defeat both the insurgency and some of the sectarian militias, or at least -- unless there is more security, it's going to be impossible to tell people there not to join sectarian militias.

Why has there been a rise in sectarian violence? Because we failed, unfortunately, to provide enough security. There won't be a free Iraq until there is a secure Iraq or a more secure Iraq. And the new government helps in that process, but that's still in large part a military effort.

Secretary Rice announced about six months ago -- remember, this new U.S. military strategy, clear, hold and build. And we have a good article in the current Weekly Standard saying, you know, we haven't done that as much as we should have, working with the Iraqi security forces.

And we need now -- I think this is a great opportunity for the president to reiterate our commitment to win the war, to increase troops, if necessary, which it probably would be, a few more brigades and really pursue...

WALLACE: Increase troops.

KRISTOL: Absolutely. This is the moment to do it. Look, this is the moment. This is the last chance, in a sense, to win the war. You've got to put everything at stake.

The idea that you have a new Iraqi government elected courageously by the Iraqi people and the first thing we're talking about here is well, how fast can we get out -- that's pathetic, really. I mean, this is the moment to say we'll do what it takes.

HUME: Who's saying that?

KRISTOL: what?

HUME: Who's saying? Not the administration. KRISTOL: The administration is not. They're not saying the opposite either. No, but the entire American political class, including Republicans in Congress, is just looking for that -- you know, itching to get to the exit door.

And that's dangerous, and I think it will undercut the ability of the new Iraqi government to stop the sectarian violence. They need to have confidence that the central government will be strong and the army will be strong, and as a practical matter the central government and army will only be strong -- the Iraqi army will only be strong -- if the U.S. Army remains fully committed and really takes the lead in a lot of these counterinsurgency operations.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you, Juan, about that, because as we played for Secretary Rice that very interesting moment in the Senate Armed Services Committee this week where Senator Durbin said can you promise us or can you guarantee that there will be a significant draw down of troops before the end of the year, and Rumsfeld very flatly, very evenly, said no, I can't.

And I guess the question is how big a deal is that, and what do you think of General Kristol's idea of, in fact, increasing the number of troops?

WILLIAMS: I don't understand General Kristol. I mean, maybe you're replacing Rahm Emanuel as head of the Democratic House Committee, because I think you're going to just get more Democrats elected if you think that the American people are in a mood to put more troops in Iraq and put more of our blood and wealth there. I don't think that's right.

KRISTOL: You know, this is really the test of American foreign policy. And the idea that the president would make the decision based on the off-year congressional elections...

WILLIAMS: No, I'm just saying...

KRISTOL: ... I mean, that's ridiculous. That's totally wrong.

HUME: Bill, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Go ahead, Brit.

HUME: I just want to -- the point here is this is not going to be made based on that basis. I don't think anybody at this table really believes that. This is going to -- this is a test of the idea that Bill expressed, which is that you can't really have a successful formation of a government and move forward while this threat of violence and the actual violence is going forward.

I don't think that's true. I think everything we've seen so far has shown that the Iraqis continue marching on politically down the road toward democracy in spite of the violence and perhaps to some extent...

WILLIAMS: Well... HUME: ... excuse me -- perhaps to some extent because of it. And you listen to people like General Abizaid and the others who are over there. The last thing they want to do now is introduce more troops.

And they have been very sensitive on this point all along because of this terrible dilemma between having enough troops and having so many that the weight of the American footprint there alienates the people further and creates an atmosphere in which you not only have an insurgency, but something you don't have now, which is a popular insurgency.

WILLIAMS: Correct. But I think that the insurgency is the barrier to full political participation. Yesterday's vote had to take place inside the Green Zone under heavy security.

And I think the key here is whether or not this new government is going to be able to provide security, able to negotiate about oil revenue and oil rights...

HUME: All of that is...

WILLIAMS: ... all going forward. And that's why the Ambassador (inaudible) said yesterday, you know, we're moving in the right direction. It's not Bill's direction. It's not more troops. It's the direction of allowing the Iraqis to stand up on their own.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you, panel. I suspect we'll be talking about this subject again. That's it for today. See you next week.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006