2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

December 10, 2006

James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Sam Brownback, Chris Dodd, Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace.

In his final days as defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld makes a surprise trip to Iraq, next on "Fox News Sunday."

The Iraq Study Group offers a new plan for the war, but draws immediate fire. We'll examine the proposals and the pushbacks with the co- chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. And we'll get reaction from two senators who are thinking about running for president, Democrat Chris Dodd and Republican Sam Brownback.

Plus, the president plans to announce his new approach to Iraq within days. What will he do? We'll ask our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our "Power Player of the Week" puts on a Christmas show. 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.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Rumsfeld made a secret visit to Iraq this weekend to thank U.S. forces fighting the war on terror. Rumsfeld urged the troops not to quit until the enemy is defeated.

The Space Shuttle Discovery lit up the skies over Florida Saturday night. It's heading to a rendezvous with the International Space Station on Monday.

And in Louisiana, Democratic Congressman William Jefferson easily won a runoff election Saturday. Jefferson has been in the news since FBI agents discovered $90,000 in alleged bribe money in his freezer. A federal investigation continues.

To discuss the report that's dominating the debate over Iraq, we're joined now by the two co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group. From Houston, former Secretary of State James Baker. And here in studio, former Congressman Lee Hamilton.

Well, gentlemen, as you know, the president is reviewing your report and several internal studies, and plans to announce a new approach to Iraq before Christmas.

Secretary Baker, what are you going to be listening for? What does he need to say when he addresses the nation?

JAMES BAKER, IRAQ STUDY GROUP CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm going to be listening, as I'm sure are a lot of other people, to see exactly what it is that the president thinks we should do to effect a new approach. He was, I thought, positive when we presented our report to him. He said, I like the idea of a new approach. I think we need a new approach. And so we'll be watching to see exactly what that new approach is. Hopefully, it will be a comprehensive one, such as we laid out in this report.

WALLACE: Congressman Hamilton, there's a report in The New York Times today that some administration officials believe that your recommendations are, as they put it, unrealistic, and they specifically take issue with the fact that in your report, you never set as an objective victory or democracy in Iraq. How do you respond?

LEE HAMILTON, IRAQ STUDY GROUP VICE CHAIRMAN: We accepted the goal that the president has articulated -- a government that can govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself. We think that's a reasonable goal. It's an achievable goal. And we support it. And the whole strategy of our report is to try to seek to achieve that goal.

WALLACE: Is -- because of the news conference the very next day with Prime Minister Blair, he talked about victory, he talked about democracy. Congressman Hamilton, are those realistic and achievable?

HAMILTON: It all depends on what you mean by victory. You have today an elected government in Iraq. We have all kinds of proposals in the report to strengthen that government and sustain it. In that sense, then it is achievable.

It all depends on how you define these words, "victory." As the president himself has set out the goal, we think it's an achievable goal. And if we achieve our goal, then I would think that would be satisfactory.

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, in your report, you talk about a goal of 2008 for getting most combat forces out, clearly conditioned on what the situation is on the ground. How important is it to put out a specific date, both for the American people and for the Iraqis?

BAKER: Well, we didn't put out a specific date that was not the administration's own date, Chris. This is the date by which General George Casey said the training and equipping mission would be completed. And as your question points out, there's a lot of flexibility built into -- in there for the commander in chief and for the military commanders on the ground.

And so I think it is important if you're going to change the primary mission of the -- of our forces there, from one of trying to referee sectarian violence, if you will, to one of training, equipping, supporting and advising the Iraqi army, that you at least refer to the date that the administration itself has set out as the date by which that could be completed.

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, do you think it's important for the president in his speech to set out a date, even if it's conditioned with all these caveats, again, to say to the American people and to the Iraqis, this is not an open-ended commitment?

BAKER: Well, we say in -- we don't say it's critical to set out a date, Chris. We do say that there should be no open-ended commitment. And by the way, with reference to your earlier question to Lee, we don't negate the goal of democracy. The goal of democracy has always been a goal and foundation and basis for American foreign policy, and it will always remain that. We adopted the president's own definition of what success is in this case.

WALLACE: Congressman Hamilton, given this goal of early 2008, how soon could the first troops start to come home?

HAMILTON: We don't get into that kind of a tactical decision in the report. That's really a judgment for the commanders on the ground to make.

What we're saying in this report is we want to conclude this war. We want to conclude it in a responsible way. We want to handle it deliberately and carefully. We want to protect the American interests involved. And we certainly want to do it in a way that is consistent with the values of this country.

But make no mistake about it, this report calls us for beginning to conclude this war by transferring authority, combat authority, from the U.S. forces to the Iraqi forces. That's the best way to go forward that we can see.

Some people want to put in a lot more troops. Some people want to pull out troops immediately. We think the best way to go forward and still achieve the goals that you have is to begin to train very vigorously, very robustly the Iraqi forces to take over the fighting.

We do not want American forces involved in sectarian clashes and violence. That's not our business.

We do have some business there. And that's to get rid of Al Qaida and the terrorists and, of course, to protect our own forces.

WALLACE: Gentlemen...

BAKER: And along those lines, Chris...

WALLACE: Go ahead, sir.

BAKER: Along those lines, Chris, we point out that there will be a robust American combat force in Iraq for quite some time to come. And we take note of the fact that there will have to be combat forces there for the training, equipping and supporting mission, as well as for force protection and Special Ops and rapid reaction forces and so forth.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, you predicted when you issued the report this week that you were going to take fire from both the right and the left, and you were not disappointed.

Let's talk first of all about this military side and the idea of getting most combat forces out within 15 months. Here's the reaction this week from Senator John McCain. Let's look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): There's only one thing worse than an overstressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps. And I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to sooner or later our defeat in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, given the fact that we have been trying to train up the Iraqi forces for the last three years and have been unable to do so adequately, what makes you think that we can get them to take the lead combat role in the next year? And wouldn't the U.S. trainers who were embedded in the Iraqi units, according to your plan, wouldn't they end up as being extremely high value targets?

BAKER: Well, we don't think so, Chris. And the reason I think it will work along the lines -- in the way that we've laid out is that we are -- we are suggesting changing the primary mission of U.S. forces there. It has -- the training of Iraqi forces has been a secondary or tertiary objective. We've only had about 4,000 troops committed to that process. We suggest a five-fold increase, up to 20,000. We suggest changing significantly the way it's done, using our very best people, incentivizing them to a greater extent, and embedding them all the way down to the company level.

Now, there's a lot -- there is a Pentagon study going on, as you point out, and there's a lot of support, I think, in the Pentagon for something similar to this. I don't know whether that's where the Defense Department will come out, but it's certainly not an unreasonable approach.

WALLACE: Let's turn if we can, gentlemen, to the diplomatic side of this. You call for a new diplomatic offensive, specifically including trying to engage Iran and Syria.

Now, the day after you released your report, President Bush talked about this in his press conference with Prime Minister Blair, and he said he would be willing to see those countries come to the table if they understand their responsibilities to stop funding terrorism and to support a new democracy.

Let's take a look at what the president says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy. Just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Congressman Hamilton, is that the kind of unconditional engagement that you call for?

HAMILTON: Well, as the president was quoted there as saying, that is, they have to come seeking peace, that seems to me reasonable.

WALLACE: How about the idea of stopping the funding of terrorists?

HAMILTON: Well, if you set a lot of pre-conditions, then I think you just don't have the talks between ourselves and Syria now -- and Iran.

We are suggesting within the framework of the international support group, which is a lot of different countries, that we sit down and talk with Iran and Syria and other neighbors.

We say that because both of these countries have a very large influence in Iraq, and you're not going to be able to get the kind of support you need in the neighborhood for the steps towards peace in Iraq that is necessary.

We understand that the road to peace in Iraq begins and ends in Baghdad. That's the central action. Has to take place there. We also believe, however, that a lot of these countries in the region can stop doing things that they're now doing and can do things that they are not doing, which will greatly contribute to the atmosphere and the environment to achieve peace.

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, I want to ask you, and I have to tell you, I read your report in full this week.

In recommendation 15 of your report -- let's put it up on the screen - - you call for the -- Syria's full cooperation with investigations into the assassinations of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel, assassinations which most people think that they ordered, and you also call for Syria to stop undermining the government of Lebanon.

A number of critics this week have said that that is naive and better suited to the Mideast back of 1991 when you were secretary of state.

BAKER: Well, I understand that, Chris, and back in 1991, a number of people said, hey, you'll never be able to change Syrian behavior and get them to come to the table to negotiate peace with Israel. And after 15 trips to Damascus, we were able to do that.

So it's no answer, to my way of thinking, to say that because it's tough, we don't do it.

We laid all those requirements out there because we wanted everyone to know we're not naive enough to think that we're just going to go sit down and talk with the Syrians just to be talking to them.

If they were to do all of those things we list there, it would cure Israel's Hezbollah problem. It would give Israel a negotiating partner with the Palestinians by getting Hamas to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

So let me say one thing generally about the -- those two issues, that is, talking to Iran and talking to Syria, Chris. These are very limited proposals. With respect to Iran, all we suggest doing is what we did with Iran, this very administration did with Iran in Afghanistan, where they came in and they helped us. And we even go so far as to say that based on our limited contacts with the government of Iran, authorized by the president, we don't think that they will come and sit down, but we ought to hold them up to global public scrutiny, if you will, for their rejectionist attitude if they refuse.

With respect to Syria, that whole long list of things that evidently you put up on your screen there, are the things that we would expect to get from Syria. If we got those, that would be a major step forward toward peace between Arabs and Israelis.

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, we have got less than a minute left. If the president were to ask you to undertake this new diplomatic offensive, would you?

BAKER: He won't, and that's a hypothetical, and I don't answer hypothetical questions.

WALLACE: But if he did?

BAKER: That's hypothetical. And he won't.

WALLACE: I mean, that's a non-denial denial...

BAKER: And I don't answer hypothetical questions.

WALLACE: ... Secretary Baker.

BAKER: Hey, hey, nice try, Chris. Nice try.

WALLACE: Well, listen, we worked together for about 25 years...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I was covering you in the Reagan administration, and you know, old habits die hard.

BAKER: That's right.

WALLACE: Secretary Baker, Congressman Hamilton, we want to thank you both so much for coming in today and discussing your report.

Up next -- how much attention should the president pay to the Iraq Study Group as he comes up with his new plan for the war? We'll hear from two key senators. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss where we go next in Iraq, two senators who are both thinking about a run for the White House in 2008. Democrat Chris Dodd here in Washington, and from his home state of Kansas, Republican Sam Brownback.

Well, as we've said, the president is expected to announce a new strategy about Iraq before Christmas. Senator Dodd, what does he need to say?

U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, I think he'd be wise to listen very carefully to what the Baker-Hamilton report suggested. This is a bipartisan group of individuals, Americans with strong records over many, many years of serving our country. They spent eight or nine months listening to a lot of different people about how to approach all of this. And I think they've made some very sound recommendations.

You don't have to buy into all 79 of them, but the major thrust here, that we move from a combat mission, a military mission of achieving success, to more of a political-diplomatic one, makes a lot of sense to me. It's what other people have suggested over the years, but now you have this bipartisan group of Americans who have come forward after this much time and recommended a move in that direction.

Chris, I will tell you, my own sense of this is these recommendations aren't going to be around forever, in the sense that we have an unlimited amount of time to take them. Events make overtake us. There's a sense of urgency in this report that hasn't been talked about that I think ought to be listened to very carefully. That if we don't move more quickly in changing this direction here, we may not have the choices of deciding a new direction in Iraq.

So I'm hopeful the people in the administration, particularly the president, it's in his -- the ball is in his court now. He's really got to be the one to move. The 535 members of Congress are not going to change policy in Iraq. The president has to lead us.

WALLACE: Senator Brownback, you say that the -- we will not face the American public in 2008 with U.S. forces still in a lead combat role. What does the president need to do?

U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R), KANSAS: Well, I think he really should look at these recommendations very seriously as well. And it seems to me that what Baker-Hamilton provides us is a chance to kind of reset the table and get a bipartisan buy-in -- and not just a bipartisan buy-in, a global buy-in to what we can do to move forward in Iraq and get our troops out of harm's way and out of the sectarian violence.

I think this is an important moment, like Chris Dodd, Senator Dodd identifies as well, and time is not unlimited here. Time is of the essence. And I think we've got a real chance to reset the dynamic, to get a bipartisan buy-in, to get a regional buy-in.

And one of the things I like about the report is it talks about a very aggressive regional political diplomatic effort, which I think is key for us now to really get engaged with.

WALLACE: Senator Brownback, I want to get to some of the specifics in a moment, but one of your fellow Republicans this week, Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, broke sharply with the president's policy, calling it "absurd, even criminal." Is there, Senator Brownback, growing impatience among your GOP colleagues?

BROWNBACK: Well, I think there's growing impatience across the country with what's taking place in Iraq, as it seems to break down more on sectarian lines. And it's not been just what Gordon Smith is saying. It's everybody. And the country has been pretty patient on Iraq.

But now, it's time to move things forward. It's time to get things -- the security environment handed over to the Iraqis. It's time to get the regional political atmosphere such that we can engage people in the region. Instead of them poking at us all the time inside of Iraq, us going to them and really trying to engage.

I think it is really time for us to engage a new strategy. I hope the president is going to lay that out. And I think he's got somewhat of a blueprint here in this Baker-Hamilton report.

WALLACE: Let me ask you both about some of the key recommendations. Senator Dodd, first of all, putting a date out there, whether it's a goal, whether it's a timetable, whatever you call it, putting a date out there. They put out early 2008. By which you're going to get a significant portion of U.S. combat troops home, and basically say both to the American people and to the Iraqis that this commitment is not open-ended. Good idea?

DODD: Absolutely. And long overdue here. This is costing us $8 billion a month. The costs will probably run to $2 trillion by the time you're through with all of this, the so-called tail in Iraq policy here.

Without saying that, then I think there's less likelihood the Iraqi political, religious leaders are going to take charge of their own politics in the coming weeks and months.

We've tried every other means of getting them to do so here. They need to understand that we're going on now to the fourth year of all of this, at loss of significant number of lives and injuries, at great cost to our treasury. They have to assume the responsibility here, taking this responsibility on.

I know of no other way you're going to get them to probably move them in that direction than by doing what the Baker-Hamilton report suggested.

WALLACE: And let me ask you about that, Senator Brownback. The idea of putting out a date there. Maybe with caveats, dependent on conditions on the ground, but a specific statement that says this commitment is not open-ended.

BROWNBACK: I think that's a good thing as well, to force action in the region. I also think you're going to need to force a couple of other things, and one is we need to force the Iraqis to start dealing with their sectarian divisions that have taken place within that society. I don't think they've effectively done that. And you may have to see that place move more to where you have a Sunni-dominated area, a Shia-dominated area - - you certainly have a Kurdish dominated area -- to get to some form of political equilibrium. Because we're not willing to sit on top of the place militarily. I don't think the Iraqis are going to be capable of doing that. And they've got to start getting it toward some sort of political equilibrium. WALLACE: Some of the reaction, though, out of the White House that's been reported over the weekend, Senator Brownback, is that -- a fear that if you put too much pressure on Maliki, that the government could fall.

BROWNBACK: Well, it may happen that way. I don't know that that's necessarily the case, but we've got to put more pressure than we have thus far. And if we don't, it's going to be too easy for him to put the hard decisions off and say, well, we don't have the strength to do that, when we don't have unlimited amounts of time. And we've invested nearly 3,000 American lives, precious lives to each and every one of us in this country. I -- I think the American public has been pretty patient. And I think we've been quite patient. It's time to move forward.

WALLACE: But let me -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, Senator Brownback, and I'm sure I won't, but I get the sense that you're getting a little close to jumping ship on the president's policy.

BROWNBACK: I'm not -- I'm not jumping ship. I just think it's time that we really put pressure on the situation. And we've been very patient with this, and we've invested a lot.

I do think as well it's time for us to put diplomatic pressure to the point where you just park the vice president and the secretary of state in the region. It's shuttle diplomacy, going back and forth between the countries that will receive us, really pushing on them to stop funding things into Iraq and start working with us, because they don't need a civil war in that region either, and to really have them start coming to the table instead of just sitting back and even hurting the situation inside of Iraq.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Senator Dodd, this idea, which is certainly put forward in the Iraq Study Group, a new diplomatic offensive, and particularly this idea of engaging Iran and Syria. Do you really think that's going to accomplish anything?

DODD: Well, it could. What's remarkable to me is we're debating that at all. When I think back, the past history, the 20th century, had American presidents and administrations embraced this administration's view on diplomacy, I'd hate to think what the world might have looked like. The idea that we're not going to talk to anybody in the region, understanding - - as Sam has just said here -- this needs to be regionalized. Iraq is not going to be solved merely by what happens inside Iraq, but what happens in that neighborhood.

Now, I don't believe in talking to people for just the sake of talking to them, but we've got a very large agenda in that region, and I think you ought to engage and explore whether or not you can get cooperation on some critical issues. Don't make it conditioned on a bunch of things that aren't going to happen anyway. Seems to be that's the way to do this.

Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness. Negotiation or discussion are not a favor that you provide for your enemies here, and you don't negotiate with people who are your friends. So you've got to engage in this process if you have any chance of success here.

WALLACE: I want to switch subjects with both of you. You both are seriously considering running for president in 2008. Senator Brownback, you say that you are the true conservative in this potential Republican field. It turns out that one of your potential rivals for that mantle up there on the screen right now, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, has apparently changed his positions on abortion, and now it turns out on gay rights, since the 1990s.

How concerned should social Democrats be -- social conservatives, rather, be about that?

BROWNBACK: I'll let Chris take care of the social Democrats. I think between the two of us on the show, I probably get the conservative mantle between the two of us.

DODD: I'll give you that, Sam.

BROWNBACK: These things come out -- thank you, Chris. These things come out during lengthy campaigns, and Mitt Romney is a wonderful American with great accomplishments. I'm just looking forward to get out there in the competition of ideas.

And I think that's important in a primary. I think it's important for the country to discuss those.

I consider myself conservative on economic and fiscal and moral and social and compassionate conservative issues. I think those are the right way forward for us as a country, and I'll carry that message on forward.

WALLACE: Should people be concerned, though, if someone in the course of the last decade has changed their position on abortion and gay rights?

BROWNBACK: I think they should examine track records. Examine mine, examine other people's, to make decisions about where they think that person is on the topics.

But that's why we have campaigns and debates, is to talk about those issues. And I look forward to putting them out there and having mine tested as others are tested as well.

WALLACE: Senator Dodd, I want to ask you about the Democratic flavor of the month, Senator Barack Obama. Do you have any problem with someone two years out of the Illinois State Senate in charge of national security in the post-9/11 world? And, specifically, during the two years you've served with him, how has he impressed you on the issue of national security?

DODD: Very well. I tell you, he's a very, very competent political figure. And the brevity of his service is certainly a matter for people to talk about, but the quality of that service I think has been first-rate.

I call his questioning of Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings. He was the last person to ask questions, as the most junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and asked some of the best questions of her. So he's a very competent, qualified individual.

And I agree with Sam here on this point here. There's an opportunity for the Americans to listen to a variety of ideas and discussions and debates on which direction we ought to be going at home and abroad. These are very critical times.

I happen to think this is a defining election we're about to enter for the 21st century. And if we don't come up with some better ideas at home and abroad, I think this could be a very difficult century for America. So it's an important debate.

WALLACE: Senator Dodd, Senator Brownback, we thank you both so much for talking with us. Please come back, both of you.

DODD: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Appreciate it.

BROWNBACK: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Coming up, we'll hear from our Sunday regulars, what they think of the Iraq Study Group. And what President Bush needs to do to win the war. You won't want to miss this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The American people expect us to come up with a new strategy to achieve the objectives...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was President Bush this week announcing he intends to make a course correction in the way the U.S. fights the war in Iraq.

And it's time now for our Sunday regulars, 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.

Well, the president has set himself quite a deadline. He's got the Iraq study group report right here. He's going to hear from the Pentagon and the State Department this week. He plans to address the nation some time next week and announce his new strategy for Iraq.

Brit, from your reporting, what do you expect him to say?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS WASHINGTON MANAGING EDITOR: Well, it's not clear what he will say, but let's just pause for a moment to reflect on what the Iraq study group said and did not say.

For one thing, contrary to some pretty wild misreporting this week, it did not reject the president's policy on Iraq. And in fact, it accepted, with no change, his goals there.

And these recommendations taken as a whole and looked at in any context -- this is a stay-the-course document. These recommendations are at the margins -- acceleration of the training. Well, everybody's been trying to do that for two years. This recommends one way possibly to do that.

Everyone in this whole administration has said for the longest time that as the Iraqis stand up, we stand down. The problem has been to get them to stand up and to take on a role that some, like Senator McCain, believe at this point can only be served by U.S. troops.

That's the real debate here, and they have left that debate alone. They really didn't engage in it. They didn't take seriously really, in any way, the recommendation that there be a bigger American force to suppress the insurgency and perhaps then set the terms for all these other objectives that we're trying to achieve there.

WALLACE: You're also saying that they didn't take seriously the idea of pulling troops out.

HUME: Well, that's true, they didn't -- immediately. But the document is all about how to get troops out. Now, it is not inconsistent with what the administration has said, but there's a real debate to be had here. They simply didn't take part in it.

WALLACE: Mara, was this a stay-the-course document?

MARA LIASSON, NPR: No, I don't think this was a stay-the-course document. It was a stay-with-the-goal document that it would be -- they said it would be disastrous if the United States fails in the Middle East and doesn't get a stable Iraq that can defend itself.

Look, the president just said in that clip you played the American people expect us to come up with something new. The reason his party was defeated at the polls was because Americans were unhappy with the lack of success in Iraq, and I think right now we're watching this mad scramble to come up with some ideas that will actually work in Iraq.

I think what the president will say is going to sound a little bit like some of the recommendations in the ISG report. I think he'll talk about maybe putting more emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, some kind of an international conference.

What's unclear is whether he's going to recommend some kind of a surge of troops into Baghdad. That's an idea that's been batted about not just by the -- in the Pentagon and other...

WALLACE: And we should point out the Iraq study group does not reject that.

LIASSON: No, no.

WALLACE: They say that...

LIASSON: They don't recommend it.

HUME: They don't recommend it, though.

LIASSON: Yes, they don't recommend it. But I do think that, interestingly enough, the president has been much less negative about this report than a lot of conservatives, who called it this recipe for surrender. He's certainly not saying that.

WALLACE: Well, speaking of which, here's Mr. Kristol.

Ever since this report came out on Wednesday, you have blistered it. Why?

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: Because it is a recipe for surrender. I mean, beneath -- Brit is absolutely right. A lot of it on the surface is a stay- the-course document. But since the course is leading us downhill, the fact is we can't simply stay the course.

Either, as the president has said, we need to adopt a new strategy for victory or we're going to get out. And I thought Lee Hamilton made that pretty clear, actually, in your interview with him just now. We've got to find a way to conclude the war, he said.

What does conclude the war mean? It means get Americans out of there. Is there a serious person who thinks that we can get Americans out of there in the next year or two without the place degenerating into civil war?

Is there a serious person who thinks that as we withdraw Americans from combat that we're going to embed a few Americans with an Iraqi army that's going to become increasingly sectarian and engage in civil war? No. So the alternative remains victory or retreat.

WALLACE: But, Bill, since late -- or since the middle of the summer, we've had this idea, Operation Together Forward, which was going to be this new push to take control of Baghdad. We surged 15,000 troops into there. It didn't work.

What makes you think if we put 20,000 more or 50,000 more that that's going to work?

KRISTOL: Well, the military planners are looking at that, serious military planners, from General Kean, the former vice chief of the Army, down through colonels.

There's a group of retired colonels meeting this weekend looking at it, and they believe that an addition of troops would help create a decent security environment, so then -- which would allow us to continue training the Iraqi army and allow us to achieve, ultimately, our objectives in Iraq.

We will have to stay a while. The president's going to have to make this decision, and it's a tough decision, but he has to really decide, victory or withdrawal. And I don't think he should kid himself -- and I don't think he is, incidentally -- that this Iraq study group gives him any cover.

It's as if Neville Chamberlain had had a Czechoslovak study group in 1938 -- bipartisan, conservatives, liberals and labor advising him. He was still blamed for the disgraceful failure to assist Britain's Czech. allies at that time.

And if we lose in Iraq, it will be a national -- I mean, it's so depressing, I don't even want to think about it. But it will be a disgrace. It will be a disgrace. It will be our failure. It won't be the failure of Maliki. It will be our failure to have the patience and the ability to do what it takes to win this war.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: Well, it seems to me you've got a bipartisan commission. You've got 79 unanimous -- let me underline that word, unanimous -- recommendations coming forward, and yet the whole notion that somehow, you know, you want to argue about whether or not there will be a civil war -- I think there is a civil war, Bill.

I think the civil war is going on now, and it's not a matter of whether we pull out or don't pull out. There's a civil war going on. And it's Iraqis who are killing Iraqis.

I think our goal in there should be to stop terrorists from fomenting any kind of base that could lead them to attack us in the future. Our goal should be to somehow promote Middle East peace.

And so I think what it comes to, Chris, is what the president's going to say when he gives that speech is a lot of what Mara was talking about. He sent -- Blair is going over -- already been over to the Middle East, and I think that's a first step. I think you're going to get more international cooperation emphasis there.

In terms of benchmarks for the Iraqis, they're going to sort of shy away from that, but they're going to talk about a way in which you can share the oil revenue, a way that you can promote investments, you know, laws that will protect investments in Iraq. Those are the kind of steps that he wants to take.

The ultimate question then becomes when do U.S. troops get out. And I don't think there's any debate about this in the American mind. There was a poll this week, A.P. poll -- you know, something like 80 percent of the American people want all troops out of there in two years. In fact, 60 percent would like the troops out in six months.

KRISTOL: Would like?

WILLIAMS: That's the political will.

KRISTOL: Would like? Would like? Everyone would like it, but that's not a serious way to make policy.

WILLIAMS: Why not, bill?

KRISTOL: I'd like there to be, you know, peace in the world. I'd like there not to be genocide in Sudan. I'd like Syria to stop assassinating Lebanese politicians. What are we going to do about it?

WILLIAMS: Bill, we made a terrible mistake. The government of the United States -- this administration made a terrible mistake in going into Iraq. We are not trying to fix this problem.

We cannot -- how are you going to say oh, you know what, it wasn't a mistake, it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq at this point?

KRISTOL: Absolutely, that's what I'm going to say, and I'm going to say it would be a dishonorable mistake to retreat and to be defeated in Iraq.

WILLIAMS: It's not a matter of retreat and defeat. It's a matter of acknowledging that we have gone in there and made a mess...

HUME: Juan, let me just ask you this question.

WILLIAMS: ... and that we have got to now take some steps to try to correct the situation.

HUME: Juan, do you accept, as Carl Levin, for example, does, as Lee Hamilton does, as all the Democratic members of that commission do, the goal of the administration policy? Do you accept that?

WILLIAMS: Yes, which is...

HUME: Well, if you accept that...

WILLIAMS: ... that Iraq can govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself.

HUME: Correct. Do you then believe, then, that what must happen next is whatever it takes to bring that about?

WILLIAMS: Whatever it takes, Brit, I don't think is America's business. You're saying...

HUME: In other words...

WILLIAMS: ... unlimited, interminable commitment. You're talking 10 years, 20 years, doesn't matter what it takes, Brit?

HUME: Well, what I'm asking you is whether -- if you think the goal is the goal, then is it the goal as long as it's easy, or if it's the goal as long as you can do it while leaving, or is it the goal?

WILLIAMS: Brit, you are suggesting that we make an unlimited commitment...

HUME: No, I'm not suggesting anything.

WILLIAMS: ... to Iraq.

HUME: I'm asking you a question.

WILLIAMS: And I'm saying that we do as much as we -- look, without a doubt, we broke it. We broke it. You know, the old Pottery Barn thing. We broke it. OK.

But here's the thing. We have gone in there and we have tried to establish a democracy. We have gone through -- tried to go through the political process, the writing of the constitution, the elections, and all the rest.

HUME: All of which succeeded, by the way.

WILLIAMS: But all of which have led to the kind of sectarian violence that has put American and women and men at tremendous risk. We keep pumping...

HUME: That's what happens in wars.

WILLIAMS: ... money into it. Well, you know, it's time for us to say unless there's some real change, we're not in this forever. LIASSON: The real question for Democrats is do they think things are so irretrievable that it's time to cut our losses and get out no matter what shape Iraq is after we leave, or is there some plan, some strategy that could actually turn Iraq into that stable country that everyone says that they want.

WALLACE: Well, listen, that's not only a question for Democrats. It's also, as we see, an increasing question for Republicans. We're going to take a break here.

But coming up, we're going to discuss how the debate over Iraq affects the political landscape here at home. Some answers when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day, two Americans won Nobel peace prizes. In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt became the first American to be honored. In 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King won for his work promoting non-violence.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: And I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets, in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon this week breaking ranks with the president's Iraq policy.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

WALLACE: Well, I have felt for some time that the big story over the next few months will be how long congressional Republicans, not Democrats, but Republicans stand by the president's policy. From what we heard from Sam Brownback today and what we saw from Senator Smith, Bill Kristol, not long.

KRISTOL: I guess not. I mean, I think the president can hold if he articulates a strategy for victory, and I think the key for that probably would be more troops and especially saying -- acknowledging that we haven't -- we put other things first, or let's get out of Iraq as soon as possible instead of putting victory first.

But I agree. Some of the Republicans are going wet or squishy, or whatever one wants -- that was a shock. Sam Brownback said to you just a few minutes ago he has growing impatience with the war in Iraq. Senator Smith said he's at the end of his rope.

But this is a war, you know? There's a terrific e-mail from a 24- year-old sergeant in the Army Reserve, T.F. Boggs (ph), who wrote, "I feel like all my efforts, 30 months of deployment in Iraq and the efforts of all my brothers in arms are for naught. I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24-year-old."

But he says he and his fellow soldiers understand that this will take time. He also wishes there were more troops, then they could clear and hold and build, but that it will take time.

It's pathetic. It's pathetic for adults to be impatient. The soldiers know it takes time and it's worth fighting. And Senator Smith and Senator Brownback -- gee, you know, it doesn't accord with their wishes of how the world would work.

WALLACE: Mara, I was going to ask you, you have a pretty good sense of what goes on on Capitol Hill. How restless do you think congressional Republicans are getting with the president's policy?

LIASSON: I think they are restless. I think they need to hear something from him that sounds like it's going to work. They just got drubbed, or thumped, as the president said, and I think there is a lot of restlessness.

You don't see this -- even John Cornyn, one of the most staunchest supporters of the president, has sounded impatient and frustrated. You have Brownback, you have Snowe, Gordon Smith.

I don't think this is a wholesale breaking with the president, but I think that he is not up for reelection again. They are. That's a truism. But the interests of the congressional Republicans and the White House are going to increasingly diverge unless, I think, Iraq can be gotten in hand.

HUME: The president may have been given a gift by the Iraq study group in the sense that it is generally in line with his purposes. Whatever he presents, if it seems to adopt a lot of what they say and represent what people seem willing, for reasons not clear to me, to call a new approach, may buy him some time politically.

Now, you know, he can be -- he can sustain this by virtue of the fact that he'll be commander in chief for the next couple of years. But if the political support ebbs away at the rate that it's going, it will be very difficult indeed.

And it will also leave the insurgents with the idea that all they've got to do is wait for this guy to leave office and they're going to be in the land of milk and honey in Iraq and will run the place.

So this is a tight spot militarily, where the options seem so few, and politically, where the ground is sliding away from the president.

WALLACE: Juan, let me...

WILLIAMS: Let me just say this. Squishy, impatient, you know, they'll be in the land of milk and honey -- the insurgents will be? What do you imagine, that somehow there's -- an American administration is coming in, Republican or Democrat, after President Bush that's just going to lay down and run away like scared little...

HUME: It will not be phrased that way, but if you listen to the -- listen. Listen, Juan, it's very simple.

WILLIAMS: But you know what? This is really -- I'll tell you something. Sometimes I just want to scream. You guys have been going on since this thing began. I mean, you don't give credit to people -- Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Lee, people who said from the start this is a mistake. You put them down.

Now it's everybody's a surrender monkey, or impatient, or squeamish or weak. Why can't you say hey, there's a real problem in Iraq?

HUME: I know, Juan, but there is a real problem in Iraq. Everyone recognizes that. I asked Nancy Pelosi the very simple question, do you think it's more important to end this war or win it, and her answer was this is not a war to be won, this is a problem to be fixed, to be solved...

WILLIAMS: Right.

HUME: ... an issue to be resolved.

What she wants, and what a great many Democrats want and, I fear, an increasing number of Republicans want is to get the war over with one way or another and make it look as good as possible.

That is not a formula for success, and it is certainly not a formula for victory.

WILLIAMS: All I'm saying to you is let's define what you mean by victory. And I know the president keeps using that word and, in fact, there was criticism coming from the right for the Iraq study group not using the word victory and not talking about democracy.

HUME: No, but they did use the word success, and they did adopt the president's goals.

WILLIAMS: OK. All right.

HUME: I do not believe...

WILLIAMS: Let's just talk for a second about what we mean by victory. And my suggestion is to you is the reason Nancy Pelosi says to you it's a problem to be fixed is we're not fighting against Iraq. We're trying to develop stability in Iraq.

We're trying to find a way to get these sectarian groups to live together, and to protect Israel and to stabilize the Middle East. That's what we're trying to do. You shake your head. Am I wrong?

KRISTOL: How did Israel come into that?

WILLIAMS: Because I think Israel and the fact that so many of the -- so many of the Al Qaida types want to pick on Israel and say Israel is the source of their problems. We want to get that out of the way.

KRISTOL: And that's why the Shia are killing the Sunni...

WILLIAMS: No, I didn't say that.

KRISTOL: ... and the Sunni are killing the Shia.

WILLIAMS: I said that's what -- that's a convenient example for the extreme people, the Islamic extremists, to say that that's the reason for them to engage in terrorism. And we want to do away with that cause.

KRISTOL: I missed that excuse. Is that why the Shia are killing the Sunni in Iraq, because of Israel?

WALLACE: Bill, let me ask you a question. I mean, our main interest is to make sure we don't get attacked by terrorists. If the Shia and the Sunnis are determined, bound and determined, to kill each other, why not let them kill each other and keep a military force that will attack Al Qaida in Iraq, that will attack any terrorist group that we feel is a threat to the U.S. homeland?

KRISTOL: We are fighting a war in Iraq. We intervened in Iraq to remove a dictator. We didn't establish security, unfortunately. We've now allowed the Sunni insurgents, the Al Qaida in Iraq group and the Saddamists to finally -- after two years of restraint by the Shia, to finally start a real process of sectarian violence that is very close to getting out of hand.

In my view, it would be utterly dishonorable at this point, having failed ourselves to establish security when we went in to remove a dictator, to say oops, your problem, we're going to set up Fortress America here in the U.S.

It would be dishonorable and foolish. What would the jihadis throughout the world -- what would the message be if we withdraw from Iraq? It would be disastrous.

WALLACE: Well, I'm not suggesting a withdrawal from Iraq. I'm saying let's worry about our interests. If these guys are determined to kill each other...

KRISTOL: Our interests are to win the war.

HUME: And if our interests are in a secure and stable Iraq, that surrenders the goal.

WALLACE: Maybe it isn't possible.

LIASSON: I mean, the argument is that if they're fighting each other, there's a Sunni mini-state that's harboring terrorists there. And that's what...

WALLACE: We've got to go. I have a feeling we'll be discussing this next week. Thank you all, panel. See you next week.

---

Sponsored Links

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